Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A framework for discrete optimization of stellarator coils

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Sparse stellarator coil designs can be optimized on a fixed wireframe mesh, either by constrained least squares or by adding current loops one at a time.

desk verdict Genuinely new wireframe and greedy algorithm for stellarator coil design, with solid math and public code; the main caveat is that the standard field-error metric can miss resonant errors, as Appendix C shows. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00267 v2 pith:TZ6K3IBO submitted 2024-11-29 physics.plasm-ph

K. C. Hammond This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords stellaratorcoildesignwireframecurrentdistributiongreedyoptimizationconstrainedleastsquaressparsesolutionsmagneticfieldshapingspatialconstraints
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces a way to design stellarator magnets by placing a fixed mesh of straight current-carrying segments around the plasma and optimizing only the current in each segment. The mesh, called a wireframe, makes it trivial to forbid currents in any chosen region, so coils can be routed around ports or confined to assembly-friendly sectors. The paper proposes two optimizers: a fast regularized constrained least-squares solver and a greedy algorithm that adds one small current loop at a time. Example solutions reach surface-averaged relative normal fields below $10^{-3}$, and the greedy solutions are sparse enough to serve as starting points for conventional smooth-coil refinement.

What carries the argument

The central object is the wireframe: a fixed toroidal mesh of interconnected straight segments, each carrying a current $x_j$. Its field at plasma-boundary test points is linear in the segment currents (Biot-Savart, Eqs. 1-3), so the entire problem reduces to choosing a vector $\mathbf{x}$ under linear equality constraints (current continuity, net poloidal/toroidal current, zero-current segments). RCLS solves this as a regularized constrained least-squares problem; GSCO instead adds a unit current loop around individual mesh cells one at a time, with interior shared segments canceling so that adjacent loops merge into a saddle coil or reshape an existing coil. The loop addition is what carries the discrete greedy mechanism, and the linearity of the field in $\mathbf{x}$ is what makes the greedy one-step selection cheap to evaluate.

What would settle it

Re-run the RCLS example of Section III B on the same Precise QA equilibrium with the wireframe nodes moved from the conformal offset surface (~0.3 m away) to a sphere of radius 1.3 m centered on the plasma. If $\langle |B\cdot\hat{n}|/|B| \rangle$ stays below $10^{-3}$, the fixed wireframe geometry is not the limiting assumption; if it rises above $10^{-2}$ or the Poincaré cross-sections show broken flux surfaces, the method's usefulness depends on choosing a good wireframe surface rather than on the optimizer alone.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that a wireframe—a toroidal mesh of straight filamentary segments, with currents as the only decision variables—is a useful solution space for stellarator coil design because it combines the spatial locality of permanent-magnet arrays with the field-shaping power of surface current distributions. The central new result is that a fully discrete greedy procedure (GSCO) can build coil-like current paths by adding single-cell loops one at a time, selecting at each step the loop that most reduces the combined field-error and sparsity objective; because shared segment currents cancel between adjacent loops, the added loops assemble into saddle coils or reshape existing modular coils. With this procedure, and with the linear RCLS solver, the paper demonstrates solutions that achieve field accuracies around $\langle|B\cdot\hat{n}|/|B|\rangle\sim 10^{-3}$ or better while obeying hard spatial constraints such as blocked ports or toroidal sectors.

Load-bearing premise

All optimizations keep the wireframe geometry fixed, and the achievable field quality depends strongly on that preselected mesh; Appendix C shows a small change in poloidal node spacing creates a resonant error that deforms flux surfaces even when the averaged field error is slightly better.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A fixed wireframe can turn coil design into a linear least-squares problem, so highly accurate vacuum fields for a given equilibrium can be produced in about 100 ms on a laptop, enabling fast scans over equilibria or port layouts.
  • The same wireframe can be initialized with planar poloidal loops and reshaped by GSCO into modular coils, saddle coils, or mixtures of both, so the optimizer, not the parameterization, decides the coil topology.
  • Spatial restrictions are enforced by setting selected segment currents to zero, which means designs can reserve space for ports, maintenance access, or toroidal-sector assembly without changing the optimization algorithm.
  • GSCO output paths contain sharp corners and filamentary junctions, but they give a spline- or space-curve optimizer a concrete starting point with the coil count and rough geometry already determined.
  • A multistage variant of GSCO adds coils at successively halved current levels, allowing designs whose coils carry different currents rather than forcing a single current value.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The stop condition for GSCO—the best next loop cancels the previous loop—is a local-minimum signal that resembles matching-pursuit algorithms; one could analyze the gap between GSCO solutions and the unconstrained least-squares optimum using greedy suboptimality bounds, a question the paper leaves open.
  • Because the wireframe is independent of the optimizer, the same mesh could host a combined optimizer that co-optimizes node positions and currents, or one that uses triangular or volumetric cells; the paper notes this as a next step, and the sensitivity result in Appendix C makes node-position co-optimization a natural extension.
  • The resonant-error sensitivity identified in Appendix C suggests an immediate testable improvement: adding a penalty term for resonant Fourier components of the normal field to $f_{\mathrm{GSCO}}$ could restore flux-surface quality without changing the wireframe geometry.
  • A wireframe loop is the current analogue of a permanent-magnet dipole block, so a hybrid design that places permanent magnets in some regions and wireframe currents in others could exploit both local parameterizations; this is not explored in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a 'wireframe' framework for stellarator coil design, in which the design space is a fixed mesh of straight current-carrying segments enclosing the plasma. Two optimization methods are developed: Regularized Constrained Least Squares (RCLS), a linear least-squares method with equality constraints and Tikhonov regularization, and Greedy Stellarator Coil Optimization (GSCO), an iterative greedy method that adds discrete current loops to the wireframe one at a time. The framework is demonstrated on the Precise QA equilibrium of Ref. [34], producing RCLS solutions with surface-averaged relative normal fields around 6e-4 and GSCO solutions that range from dense saddle-coil distributions to sparse modular-coil sets, including cases with spatial constraints for ports or toroidal sectors and a multi-current solution built from a sequence of GSCO runs. The appendices provide a derivation of the Biot-Savart formula for a straight segment and a derivation of the RCLS solution procedure via QR factorization.

Significance. If the results hold, the wireframe framework is a valuable addition to the stellarator coil design toolbox. Its spatially local parametrization makes it straightforward to enforce arbitrary spatial restrictions on the current distribution, which is more difficult with Fourier-based winding-surface or space-curve parameterizations. The GSCO algorithm is a fully discrete alternative to continuous coil optimization, capable of producing sparse and topologically flexible coil sets that could serve as starting points for further refinement. The paper is notable for shipping open-source implementations (in SIMSOPT) and preserving reproducibility via a data DOI. The formal derivations in Appendices A and B are correct and clearly presented. The main weakness is the reliance on the surface-averaged normal-field error as the primary accuracy metric, which Appendix C itself shows can be misleading for flux-surface quality; this affects the strength of the central claim that GSCO solutions are useful starting points for convenient coil designs.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV B, Fig. 9; Appendix C] The GSCO modular coil solutions in Sec. IV B are assessed only through the surface-averaged relative normal field ⟨|B·n|/|B|⟩, with no Poincaré sections or other independent checks of flux-surface integrity for the solutions in Fig. 9b-d. Appendix C demonstrates that this metric is not a reliable proxy for confinement: a solution with ⟨|B·n|/|B|⟩ = 2.18e-3 (modified wireframe) has worse flux surfaces than one with 2.44e-3 (original wireframe) because of a resonant error. Since the paper's central claim is that GSCO yields 'starting points for convenient coil designs,' the absence of independent flux-surface checks for the main GSCO examples is a load-bearing gap. I request that Poincaré sections (or equivalent measures of rotational-transform and island structure) be provided for the solutions in Fig. 9b-d, or that the claims be explicitly limited to the field-error metric.
  2. [Introduction and Section V; Appendix C] The paper's framing that the wireframe framework 'enables the attainment of sparse magnet solutions with arbitrary restrictions on where coils may be located' is stronger than what the evidence supports. Appendix C shows that the quality of GSCO solutions is highly sensitive to the fixed wireframe geometry; a small change in poloidal node spacing yields a solution with a slightly better fB but a resonant error that deforms the flux surfaces. This means the method does not by itself guarantee useful sparse solutions for arbitrary spatial constraints; it only does so for favorable a priori choices of the wireframe geometry. The suggestion to 'repeat optimizations with slight variations in wireframe geometry' is a workaround, not a resolution. I recommend that the abstract and introduction be qualified to state that GSCO can produce sparse solutions for these example cases, with the caveat that the fixed wireframe geometry is an essential constraint that must be chosen carefully.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] In the second paragraph, 'encompasing' is a typo; it should be 'encompassing'.
  2. [Fig. 9] The color-scale labels in the right column of Fig. 9 appear to be cut off in the manuscript (e.g., 'mean: . × 10 4'); please ensure the full numerical values are visible in the final figures.
  3. [Algorithm 2] The input parameter 'Ncells,min' is used in the pseudocode but is never defined in the text; please add a definition, e.g., in the caption or in the surrounding paragraph of Sec. IV D.
  4. [Section IV C and Fig. 12] The text states that the solution in Fig. 12 was run with λS = 10^-7.5 T^2 m^2, but the figure caption does not list the hyperparameters; adding them would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Appendix B, Eq. (B1)] The QR factorization is written for C^T, but in the text R is described as upper triangular; the conventions for the dimensions of R in Eq. (B1) appear inconsistent with the later use of forward substitution on R^T. Please clarify the indexing or state that the factorization is applied to C (not C^T) if that resolves the inconsistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the wireframe optimization claims are supported by external inputs and independent flux-surface checks.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are self-contained rather than circular. The target magnetic field b is taken from an external Precise QA equilibrium (Ref. [34]), and no physical constant or field quantity is fitted and then reused as the claimed result. RCLS and GSCO minimize fB (Eq. 10) and fGSCO (Eq. 17), and the reported field-error averages are normalized residuals of that same objective; this is a mild tautology if presented alone, but the paper independently tests representative solutions with Poincare flux-surface field-line tracing (Figs. 4b, 12d, 13d), which does not reduce to the optimized objective. Appendix C explicitly shows a case where a slightly better field-error metric accompanies degraded flux surfaces due to a resonant error field, thereby acknowledging that the objective is not silently equated with confinement quality. That is a validity and robustness caveat, not a circular derivation. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [21] and [27]) appear only as background for prior greedy permanent-magnet optimizers; no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from them. The Biot-Savart segment formula is derived from first principles in Appendix A, and the RCLS solution procedure in Appendix B is a standard QR-based constrained least-squares reduction. The fixed wireframe geometry is a stated structural limitation, explicitly examined in Appendix C, rather than an assumption smuggled in via citation. Overall, the claimed contribution, a wireframe parametrization enabling sparse and spatially constrained current solutions, is supported by the algorithm construction and the external target equilibrium, with no step whose output is equivalent by definition to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central examples rest on several hand-chosen hyperparameters (sparsity weight, loop current, grid resolution, surface offset) and on domain assumptions standard to stellarator coil design. No new physical entities are postulated. The framework itself is a discretization, not an invented physical object.

free parameters (7)
  • Sparsity weighting factor lambda_S = 10^-9, 10^-6, 10^-5, 10^-7.5, 10^-7 T^2 m^2 across examples
    Hand-selected to trade field accuracy vs. sparsity; central to the appearance and quality of every GSCO solution.
  • GSCO loop current I_loop = 0.208 MA (modular), 0.15 MA (sector), 1 MA starting (multistage)
    Hand-selected; must match initial coil currents to avoid forked paths and determines granularity of coil currents.
  • Wireframe grid resolution = 8x12 and 12x22 (RCLS); 96x100 (GSCO)
    Chosen for each method; GSCO needs fine grids to compensate for discrete loop currents; affects achievable accuracy and runtime.
  • Wireframe surface offset = approximately 0.3 m from plasma boundary
    Hand-chosen; Appendix C shows sensitivity of flux-surface quality to small geometry changes, so this is consequential.
  • RCLS regularization constant W = 10^-10 Tm/A times identity
    Tikhonov parameter chosen to bound currents; not derived from problem data.
  • Number of initial planar poloidal coils per half-period = 6 (modular), 3 (sector)
    Chosen manually; GSCO cannot create net poloidal current, so the initial coil count and placement determine the number of modular coils.
  • Minimum coil size for removal in multistage GSCO = 20 cells
    Hand-selected to eliminate small coils during sequential runs; affects final topology.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Normal field on the plasma boundary is a sufficient objective for confinement.
    Standard in stellarator coil design; the paper also checks Poincare sections to support this. Invoked in Eq. 10.
  • domain assumption Target equilibrium (Precise QA, vacuum, 2 periods) is a valid benchmark.
    Taken from Ref. [34] without re-derivation; the framework's demonstrated accuracy depends on this target.
  • domain assumption A fixed toroidal wireframe surface with straight filamentary segments can adequately represent practical coil distributions.
    All optimizations hold geometry fixed; Appendix C reveals sensitivity to geometry, and the paper notes 3D wireframes are future work. Invoked throughout Secs. II-IV.
  • ad hoc to paper Adding unit current loops greedily, one at a time, leads to useful coil solutions.
    GSCO is a heuristic with no optimality guarantee; its success is empirical. The stopping condition can be a local minimum (Sec. IV A).
  • standard math Stellarator symmetry permits solving one half-period and reflecting.
    Relies on the symmetry of the Precise QA equilibrium and the wireframe; standard reduction in stellarator optimization (Ref. [35]).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A framework for discrete optimization of stellarator coils." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TZ6K3IBO

@misc{pith2026241200267,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A framework for discrete optimization of stellarator coils},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TZ6K3IBO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00267}
}
read the original abstract

Designing magnets for three-dimensional plasma confinement is a key task for advancing the stellarator as a fusion reactor concept. Stellarator magnets must produce an accurate field while leaving adequate room for other components and being reasonably simple to construct and assemble. In this paper, a framework for coil design and optimization is introduced that enables the attainment of sparse magnet solutions with arbitrary restrictions on where coils may be located. The solution space is formulated as a "wireframe" consisting of a mesh of interconnected wire segments enclosing the plasma. Two methods are developed for optimizing the current distribution on a wireframe: Regularized Constrained Least Squares (RCLS), which uses a linear least-squares approach to optimize the currents in each segment, and Greedy Stellarator Coil Optimization (GSCO), a fully discrete procedure in which loops of current are added to the mesh one by one to achieve the desired magnetic field on the plasma boundary. Examples are presented of solutions obtainable with each method, some of which achieve high field accuracy while obeying spatial constraints that permit easy assembly.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00267 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Example of a wireframe with toroidal topology (gray) en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic of one half-period of a wireframe along with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Rendering of a wireframe with currents optimized to pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Normal component of the magnetic field on the plasma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Schematic illustrations of how adding loops of current can [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Illustration showing how the addition of loops of current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Depictions of the different ways in which the addition of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Current distributions (left and center column) and relative normal magnetic fields on the target plasma boundary (right column) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Depiction of a wireframe with sector constraints that pre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Current distribution and magnetic field properties of a wire [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Current distribution and magnetic field properties of a wire [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Setup for the computation of the Biot-Savart integral over a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Comparison of GSCO solutions performed with the same hyperparameters on wireframes with the same grid resolution but slightly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Optimization of passive superconductors for shaping stellarator magnetic fields

    physics.plasm-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    First joint optimization of passive superconducting coil arrays and background fields produces low-error magnetic field solutions for four stellarators.

  2. Reactor-scale stellarators with force and torque minimized dipole coils

    physics.plasm-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Jointly optimizing movable planar dipole arrays with force and torque penalties produces reactor-scale stellarator coil sets with tolerable loads and simple TF coils.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [34]

    D. V . Anderson, J. Breazeal, C. H. Finan, and B. M. Johnston, ABCXYZ: vector potential (A) and magnetic field (B) code (C) for Cartesian (XYZ) geometry using general current elements , Tech. Rep. UCRL-52029 (Lawrence Livermore National Labo- ratory, 1976)

    work page 1976

  2. [1]

    identify the most important locations for saddle coils and/or shape modifications for pre-existing coils,

    work page

  3. [2]

    determine coil shapes within the wireframe solution space that produce a highly accurate field,

    work page

  4. [3]

    obey spatial constraints that would be more difficult to enforce with other optimization methods, and

    work page

  5. [4]

    There are many possibilities for expanding the wireframe framework and associated optimization methods to increase flexibility and access larger solution spaces

    exhibit flexibility in determining the number of coils. There are many possibilities for expanding the wireframe framework and associated optimization methods to increase flexibility and access larger solution spaces. For example, with the GSCO procedure, many solutions can only be found through optimization in multiple stages that use different hy- perpa...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Imbert-G ´erard, E

    L.-M. Imbert-G ´erard, E. J. Paul, and A. M. Wright, An Intro- duction to Stellarators: from magnetic fields to symmetries and optimization (Society for Indistrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [6]

    Landreman, An improved current potential method for fast computation of stellarator coil shapes, Nuclear Fusion 57, 046003 (2017)

    M. Landreman, An improved current potential method for fast computation of stellarator coil shapes, Nuclear Fusion 57, 046003 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [7]

    Helander, M

    P. Helander, M. Drevlak, M. Zarnstorff, and S. C. Cowley, Stel- larators with permanent magnets, Physical Review Letters 124, 095001 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    Bromberg, M

    L. Bromberg, M. Zarnstorff, O. Meneghini, T. Brown, P. Heitzenroeder, G. H. Neilson, J. V . Minervini, and A. Boozer, Stellarator configuration improvement using high temperature superconducting monoliths, Fusion Science and Technology 60, 643 (2011)

    2011

  2. [9]

    Merkel, Solution of stellarator boundary value problems with external currents, Nuclear Fusion 27, 867 (1987)

    P. Merkel, Solution of stellarator boundary value problems with external currents, Nuclear Fusion 27, 867 (1987)

    1987

  3. [10]

    Drevlak, Automated optimization of stellarator coils, Fusion Technology 33, 106 (1998)

    M. Drevlak, Automated optimization of stellarator coils, Fusion Technology 33, 106 (1998)

    1998

  4. [11]

    W. H. Miner, P. M. Valanju, S. P. Hirshman, A. Brooks, and N. Pomphrey, Use of a genetic algorithm for compact stellarator design, Nuclear Fusion 41, 1185 (2000)

    2000

  5. [12]

    E. J. Paul, M. Landreman, A. Bader, and W. Dorland, An ad- joint method for gradient-based optimization of stellarator coil shapes, Nuclear Fusion 58, 076015 (2018)

    2018

  6. [13]

    D. J. Strickler, L. A. Berry, and S. P. Hirshman, Designing coils for compact stellarators, Fusion Science and Technology 41, 107 (2022)

    2022

  7. [14]

    C. Zhu, S. R. Hudson, Y . Song, and Y . Wan, New method to de- sign stellarator coils without the winding surface, Nuclear Fu- sion 58, 016008 (2018)

    2018

  8. [15]

    Brown, J

    T. Brown, J. Breslau, D. Gates, N. Pomphrey, and A. Zolfaghari, Engineering optimization of stellarator coils lead to improvements in device maintenance, in 26th IEEE Sympo- sium on Fusion Engineering (SOFE) (2015)

    2015

  9. [16]

    Yamaguchi, S

    H. Yamaguchi, S. Satake, M. Nakata, A. Shimmizu, Y . Suzuki, and the W7-X team, Optimization of modular and helical coils applying genetic algorithm and fully-three-dimensional B- 20 FIG. 15. Comparison of GSCO solutions performed with the same hyperparameters on wireframes wi...

    2021

  10. [17]

    Lonigro and C

    N. Lonigro and C. Zhu, Stellarator coil design using cubic splines for improved access to the outboard side, Nuclear Fu- sion 62, 066009 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    Singh, T

    L. Singh, T. G. Kruger, A. Bader, C. Zhu, S. R. Hudson, and D. T. Anderson, Optimization of finite-build stellarator coils, Journal of Plasma Physics 86, 905860404 (2020)

    2020

  12. [19]

    McGreivy, S

    N. McGreivy, S. R. Hudson, and C. Zhu, Optimized finite-build stellarator coils using automatic differentiation, Nuclear Fusion 61, 026020 (2021)

    2021

  13. [20]

    C. Zhu, M. Zarnstorff, D. Gates, and A. Brooks, Designing stel- larators using perpendicular permanent magnets, Nuclear Fu- sion 60, 076016 (2020)

    2020

  14. [21]

    Landreman and C

    M. Landreman and C. Zhu, Calculation of permanent magnet arrangements for stellarators: a linear least-squares method, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 63, 035001 (2021)

    2021

  15. [22]

    G. S. Xu, Z. Y . Lu, D. H. Chen, L. Chen, X. Y . Zhang, X. Q. Wu, M. Y . Ye, and B. N. Wan, Design of quasi-axisymmetric stellarators with varying-thickness permanent magnets based on Fourier and surface magnetic charges method, Nuclear Fusion 61, 026025 (2021)

    2021

  16. [23]

    C. Zhu, K. C. Hammond, M. Zarnstorff, T. Brown, D. Gates, K. Corrigan, M. Sibilia, and E. Feibush, Topology optimiza- tion of permanent magnets for stellarators, Nuclear Fusion 60, 106002 (2020)

    2020

  17. [24]

    A. A. Kaptanoglu, T. Qian, F. Wechsung, and M. Landreman, Permanent magnet optimization for stellarators as sparse re- gression, Physical Review Applied 18, 044006 (2022)

    2022

  18. [25]

    K. C. Hammond, C. Zhu, K. Corrigan, D. A. Gates, R. Lown, R. Mercurio, T. M. Qian, and M. C. Zarnstorff, Design of an arrangement of cubic magnets for a quasi-axisymmetric stel- larator experiment, Nuclear Fusion 62, 126065 (2022)

    2022

  19. [26]

    T. M. Qian, X. Chu, C. Pagano, D. Patch, M. C. Zarnstorff, B. Berlinger, D. Bishop, A. Chambliss, M. Haque, D. Seidita, and C. Zhu, Design and construction of the MUSE permanent magnet stellarator, Journal of Plasma Physics 89, 955890502 (2023)

    2023

  20. [27]

    Madeira and R

    M. Madeira and R. Jorge, Tokamak to stellarator conversion us- ing permanent magnets, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 66, 085008 (2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    Z. Y . Lu, G. S. Xu, D. H. Chen, L. Chen, X. Y . Zhang, M. Y . Ye, and B. N. Wan, Design of quasi-axisymmetric stellarators with variable-thickness perpendicular permanent magnets based on a two-step magnet design strategy, Nuclear Fusion 61, 106028 (2021)

    2021

  22. [29]

    Z. Y . Lu, G. S. Xu, D. H. Chen, X. Y . Zhang, L. Chen, M. Y . Ye, H. Y . Guo, and B. N. Wan, Development of advanced stellarator with identical permanent magnet blocks, Cell Reports Physical Science 3, 100709 (2022)

    2022

  23. [30]

    A. A. Kaptanoglu, R. Conlin, and M. Landreman, Greedy permanent magnet optimization, Nuclear Fusion 63, 036016 (2023)

    2023

  24. [31]

    K. C. Hammond and A. A. Kaptanoglu, Improved stellara- tor permanent magnet designs through combined discrete and continuous optimizations, Computer Physics Communications 299, 109127 (2024)

    2024

  25. [32]

    Elder and A

    T. Elder and A. H. Boozer, Current potential patches, Physics of Plasmas 31, 102501 (2024)

    2024

  26. [33]

    A. A. Kaptanoglu, G. P. Langlois, and M. Landreman, Topology optimization for inverse magnetostatics as sparse regression: Application to electromagnetic coils for stellarators, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 418, 116504 21 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    J. D. Hanson and S. P. Hirshman, Compact expressions for the Biot-Savart fields of a filamentary segment, Physics of Plasmas 9, 4410 (2002)

    2002

  28. [36]

    A. N. Tikhonov, The solution of ill-posed problems and the reg- ularization method, Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sci- ences 151, 501 (1963)

    1963

  29. [37]

    A. N. Tikhonov, A. V . Goncharsky, V . V . Stepanov, and A. G. Yagola, Numerical methods for the solution of ill-posed prob- lems (Springer, 1995)

    1995

  30. [38]

    Landreman and E

    M. Landreman and E. Paul, Magnetic fields with precise qua- sisymmetry for plasma confinement, Physical Review Letters 128, 035001 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    R. L. Dewar and S. R. Hudson, Stellarator symmetry, Physica D 112, 275 (1998)

    1998

  32. [40]

    A. V . Aho, J. E. Hopcroft, and J. D. Ullman, Data Structures and Algorithms (Addison-Wesley, 1983)

    1983

  33. [41]

    Y . C. Pati, R. Rezaiifar, and P. S. Krishnaprasad, Orthogonal Matching Pursuit: recursive function approximation with ap- plications to wavelet decomposition, inProceedings of the 27th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers (Pa- cific Grove, CA, USA, 1993) p. 40

    1993

  34. [42]

    Zhang, S

    Z. Zhang, S. Schwartz, L. Wagner, and W. Miller, A greedy al- gorithm for aligning DNA sequences, Journal of Computational Biology 7, 203 (2000)

    2000

  35. [43]

    Ruiz and T

    R. Ruiz and T. St¨utzle, A simple and effective iterated greedy al- gorithm for the permutation flowshop scheduling problem, Eu- ropean Journal of Operational Research 177, 2033 (2007)

    2007

  36. [44]

    D. C. van der Laan, J. D. Weiss, and D. M. McRae, Status of CORC cables and wires for use in high-field magnets and power systems a decade after their introduction, Superconductor Sci- ence and Technology 32, 033001 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    C. Paz-Soldan, Non-planar coil winding angle optimization for compatibility with non-insulated high-temperature supercon- ducting magnets, Journal of Plasma Physics 86, 815860501 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    D. W. Dudt and E. Kolemen, DESC: a stellarator equilibrium solver, Physics of Plasmas 27, 102513 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Wechsung, M

    F. Wechsung, M. Landreman, A. Giuliani, A. Cerfon, and G. Stadler, Precise stellarator quasi-symmetry can be achieved with electromagnetic coils, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, e2202084119 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    D. A. Gates, A. H. Boozer, T. Brown, J. Breslau, D. Curreli, M. Landreman, S. A. Lazerson, J. Lore, H. Mynick, G. H. Neil- son, N. Pomphrey, P. Xanthopoulos, and A. Zolfaghari, Recent advances in stellarator optimization, Nuclear Fusion57, 126064 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Princeton Research Computing, Stellar, https://researchcomputing.princeton.edu/systems/stellar (Accessed 2024-01-16)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Landreman, B

    M. Landreman, B. Medasani, F. Wechsung, A. Giuliani, R. Jorge, and C. Zhu, SIMSOPT: a flexible framework for stel- larator optimization, Journal of Open Source Software 6, 3525 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Ramachandran and G

    P. Ramachandran and G. Varoquaux, Mayavi: 3D visualization of scientific data, Computing in Science & Engineering 13, 40 (2011)

    2011

  44. [52]

    Frerichs, FLARE: field line analysis and reconstruction for 3D boundary plasma modeling (2024)

    H. Frerichs, FLARE: field line analysis and reconstruction for 3D boundary plasma modeling (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    S. A. Lazerson, J. Schmitt, C. Zhu, J. Bres- lau, and STELLOPT Developers, STELLOPT, https://doi.org/10.11578/dc.20180627.6 (2020)

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    Bj¨orck, Numerical Methods for Least Squares Problems, 2nd ed

    ˚A. Bj¨orck, Numerical Methods for Least Squares Problems, 2nd ed. (SIAM, 2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    G. H. Golub, J. Lambers, and L.-H. Lim, Lecture notes for CME 302: Numerical Linear Algebra, University of Chicago (2005)

    2005

  48. [56]

    M. N. Rosenbluth, R. Z. Sagdeev, J. B. Taylor, and G. M. Za- slavski, Destruction of magnetic surfaces by magnetic field ir- regularities, Nuclear Fusion 6, 297 (1966)

    1966

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.