Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Simultaneous kinetic profile and magnetic equilibrium inference with Bayesian integrated data analysis in preparation for ITER

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Neural-network Bayesian analysis joins kinetic profiles and magnetic equilibrium in one fast inference.

desk verdict A solid, honest proof-of-principle for fast simultaneous profile+equilibrium IDA, with a load-bearing but unquantified NN surrogate and closed-loop validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07805 v1 pith:CHQ2POAB submitted 2025-02-06 physics.plasm-ph physics.data-an

S. S. Denk , T. B. Amara , T. Odstrcil , L. Stagner , C. Akcay , T. Slendebroek , S. P. Smith , M. A. Van Zeeland
show 2 more authors
T. Akiyama R. Nazikian
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phphysics.data-an PACS 52.55.Fa52.70.Kz02.50.Tt
keywords BayesianinferenceintegrateddataanalysistokamakequilibriumreconstructionkineticprofileneuralnetworksurrogateGrad-ShafranovequationuncertaintyquantificationITER
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

Fusion reactors will have fewer, noisier diagnostics than today's machines, so plasma-state reconstruction must extract maximum information from limited data and report honest uncertainties. This paper presents a Bayesian integrated data analysis framework that reconstructs the magnetic equilibrium and the kinetic profiles (electron density, temperatures, pressures) simultaneously in a single inference step. In a test on a reactor-scale tokamak scenario with artificial data from magnetics, Thomson scattering, interferometry, and polarimetry, the maximum-a-posteriori (MAP) solution, including uncertainty propagation, took about three minutes on a multicore server and agreed with the known ground truth within reasonable tolerance. The framework replaces the expensive equilibrium solver with a neural-network surrogate, making gradient-based optimization fast enough for routine use between discharges.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is E-Forward-NN, a set of neural networks trained on roughly 376,000 equilibria that maps low-dimensional B-spline coefficients of $p'$ and $f f'$, plus poloidal coil currents, to Chebyshev coefficients of the plasma flux, magnetic axis and x-point positions, synthetic magnetic measurements, and total plasma current. Around it, the framework combines profile parametrizations (B-splines on normalized poloidal flux, exponentials for positive quantities), a Chebyshev parametrization of the flux matrix, analytic derivatives, vectorized and parallelized posterior evaluation, and a gradient-based optimizer (BFGS) for MAP, with the inverse Hessian used to propagate uncertainties. This machinery turns a high-dimensional non-linear inverse problem into one solvable in minutes and verifiable by MCMC.

What would settle it

Take an equilibrium deliberately outside the training ranges, or use measured data from a current tokamak with an independent high-resolution equilibrium constraint, and compare E-Forward-NN outputs to a full Grad–Shafranov solve and to independent diagnostics; if flux surfaces or synthetic magnetics deviate by more than the reported uncertainty bands, the surrogate is biased and the central claim weakens.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the coupled inverse problem of equilibrium and kinetic profile reconstruction can be solved jointly, rather than in the usual sequential waterfall of separate fits, at a speed that makes integrated data analysis practical for reactor operation. The authors demonstrate this by inferring B-spline coefficients for the pressure gradient $p'$ and the function $f f'$, the poloidal field coil currents, the electron density and temperature profiles, and the derived ion and total pressures from a single posterior. A machine-learned surrogate for the Grad–Shafranov equilibrium solver, called E-Forward-NN, predicts the plasma flux response, separatrix positions, magnetic sensor readings, and total plasma current from the profile coefficients and coil currents, which makes the forward model differentiable and fast. Compared with magnetics-only reconstruction, adding the kinetic diagnostics sharply reduces the uncertainty of $p'$, $f f'$, and the flux surfaces. The MAP uncertainties were verified against Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling: agreement is good for well-constrained quantities, while in the magnetics-only case the posterior is markedly non-Gaussian and MAP overestimates uncertainties by more than 50% in some regions.

Load-bearing premise

The approach assumes that the plasma encountered in reality is similar to the database of roughly 376,000 computed equilibria used to train the neural-network stand-in for the equilibrium solver, and that the artificial test data behave like real measurements; if a real scenario falls outside that training distribution, or the stand-in's bias is larger than the single comparison shown, the reconstructed equilibrium and its error bars will be off.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Routine between-discharge reconstruction on a reactor can include all major diagnostics in one self-consistent analysis, because the combined MAP inference runs in about three minutes with uncertainty propagation included.
  • Kinetic measurements tighten the equilibrium: adding Thomson scattering, interferometry, and polarimetry shrinks the uncertainty of $p'$, $f f'$, and the flux surfaces compared to magnetics-only reconstruction.
  • Uncertainties in flux-surface mapping flow into profile uncertainties, closing a gap in conventional waterfall analyses where the equilibrium is treated as fixed.
  • Quantitative uncertainty statements for a burning-plasma device will require high-fidelity synthetic diagnostics that include systematic errors; the framework is modular so new forward models can be added.
  • MCMC remains necessary to audit MAP in data-poor regimes, because the magnetics-only posterior is non-Gaussian and MAP can misstate error bars.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the surrogate's training coverage is broadened and its bias characterized on out-of-sample equilibria, the same architecture could move from between-discharge analysis toward reactor control.
  • The sharp uncertainty reduction from combining kinetic and magnetic data suggests that spending on a few high-quality profile diagnostics may be as valuable for equilibrium knowledge as adding magnetics.
  • A testable next step is comparing inferences against independent equilibrium constraints on existing tokamak discharges, which would expose surrogate bias that a closed-loop artificial-data test cannot.
  • Adding Motional Stark Effect or poloidal polarimetry should make the $f f'$ posterior closer to Gaussian, improving MAP uncertainty accuracy, as the authors note.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a modular Bayesian integrated data analysis (IDA) framework for tokamaks, built around IMAS data exchange, B-spline and Chebyshev parametrizations, empirical priors, and a neural-network surrogate for EFIT called E-Forward-NN. The authors demonstrate three increasingly complete workflows for an ITER-like FUSE scenario with artificial data: electron profile inference from Thomson scattering and interferometry/polarimetry; magnetic equilibrium inference from magnetics alone; and combined kinetic profile and equilibrium reconstruction. The combined MAP reconstruction, including uncertainty propagation, is reported to run in about three minutes on a single multicore node, and the MAP uncertainties are checked against MCMC. Most normalized chi-squared residuals are near unity, and the MCMC comparison shows good agreement for well-constrained quantities, with notable deviations in the magnetics-only case.

Significance. If validated beyond the current closed-loop demonstration, this framework addresses a genuine need: simultaneous, self-consistent kinetic profile and magnetic equilibrium reconstruction with uncertainty quantification fast enough for between-discharge analysis at ITER. The paper's strengths include a clean modular design, vectorized MAP optimization, a quantitative runtime table, and an MCMC verification step that is rarely undertaken at this scale. The main limitation is that the demonstration uses artificial data generated by the same forward-model family used for the neural-network surrogate, with the target case lying inside the training database; the only direct surrogate-versus-EFIT check is a single qualitative comparison. The significance is therefore conditional on additional out-of-sample validation of E-Forward-NN and on a clearer scoping of what the reported 'statistically relevant uncertainties' include.

major comments (5)
  1. [III D 5 and Fig. 3] The only direct comparison of E-Forward-NN with EFIT is a single qualitative flux-surface plot for the reconstructed case, with no quantitative error metric, no held-out test-set statistics, and no error bars on the flux surfaces. Since every inferred quantity and every reported uncertainty flows through this surrogate, please add quantitative test-set metrics such as root-mean-square or percentile errors of the flux matrix, synthetic magnetics, and total plasma current, and discuss the worst-case errors relative to the diagnostic noise levels.
  2. [III C 1, III D 5, and IV A] The validation is closed-loop: the target equilibrium is a FUSE case belonging to the same database used to train E-Forward-NN and to set the parameter transformation ranges covering 98% of that database, and the artificial magnetics data are produced by EFIT, the code the neural network emulates. Consequently, the test cannot detect surrogate bias or systematic deviations that would occur for real ITER conditions outside this distribution. Please add an out-of-distribution test, for example a FUSE/EFIT case excluded from the training set or a deliberately perturbed scenario, and quantify how surrogate error propagates into the inferred equilibrium and kinetic profiles.
  3. [IV A and VI] The authors themselves state in Section IV A that none of the synthetic diagnostics model systematic errors, and in Section VI that the results should not be interpreted as a quantitative study of expected ITER uncertainties. This directly qualifies the abstract's claim of 'statistically relevant uncertainties included.' Please reconcile the abstract and conclusions with these caveats, or add at least one systematic-error model for a representative diagnostic so that the uncertainty claim is demonstrated rather than asserted.
  4. [IV D] The ion pressure reconstruction relies on eight artificial ion-pressure measurements because no synthetic ion diagnostic is implemented, yet the paper does not analyze the information content or sensitivity of this assumption. Since the inferred ion pressure appears as a central result in Fig. 13(h), please show how the solution and its uncertainty change when these constraints are varied in number, location, or uncertainty, or when they are removed entirely.
  5. [V B and Fig. 18] In the magnetics-only case, the MAP uncertainties for p' and f f' overestimate the MCMC uncertainties by more than 50% in some regions, and the corner plot in Fig. 17 shows clear non-Gaussian posterior structure. This means the 3-minute MAP uncertainty propagation is not universally valid. The paper should state explicitly that the fast MAP route is reliable only for the combined, well-constrained case and should give practical criteria for when MCMC verification is required.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1] The figure contains garbled labels such as 'electron pro/f_iles' and 'TNe'; please regenerate the figure or fix the label rendering.
  2. [Table III] The interferometer flat uncertainty is listed as '10 degrees' while the text discusses the vibration-compensated phase; please confirm the units and consistency with the synthetic diagnostic implementation.
  3. [III G 2, Eq. (2)] In Eq. (2), the variables y and alpha are not fully defined in the surrounding text; please state explicitly that y is the profile value or its signed gradient and give the definition of alpha used for the ITER workflow.
  4. [III C] The sentence 'B-spline knot locations are fixed, and their locations were estimated from a training database' is redundant; please rephrase to avoid repeating 'locations'.
  5. [IV D] In the paragraph introducing the new derived parametrizations, 'pion' should be written as 'pi' for the total ion pressure.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Closed-loop validation: the demonstration target lies in the E-Forward-NN training database, so surrogate accuracy is shown only in-sample; the inference framework itself is not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV A (Artificial data generation) and Section III D 5 (EForward-NN)]
    "Artificial data for these tests are generated by the synthetic diagnostics that make up the forward models in the IDA framework. ... a full-field D-T ITER-like discharge predicted by the FUSE code is used as the ground truth for artificial data generation. ... E-Forward-NN was trained from a database of about 50000 possible ITER equilibria generated for this project via the FUSE integrated design tool. ... these cases were all run with EFIT, using the MUSCLE3 adapter described above, to generate magnetic sensor data. Ultimately, this yielded 376166 potential training cases."

    The ground-truth ITER discharge used for the demonstration is a FUSE equilibrium from the same database on which E-Forward-NN was trained, and the magnetic data are produced by EFIT, the code the surrogate emulates. The parameter-transformation ranges (Section III C 1) are also set to cover 98% of that training database, so the target lies inside the surrogate and prior support. Consequently, the agreement shown in Fig. 3 and the 'reasonable agreement with ground truth' of the reconstruction are in-sample checks: E-Forward-NN has already been fitted to this equilibrium, so the flux surfaces and magnetic signals are reproduced by interpolation rather than predicted for an independent case.

full rationale

The paper's core contribution is a software framework for Bayesian integrated data analysis, and the inference pipeline is not circular: Bayes' theorem, the likelihood, the B-spline parametrizations, and the MAP/MCMC machinery are self-contained and the MCMC cross-check independently verifies the Gaussian approximation for the well-constrained quantities. The circularity concern is confined to the validation design. The artificial data are generated by the same synthetic diagnostics used as forward models, the ground truth is a FUSE equilibrium from the database used to train E-Forward-NN, and the magnetics data come from EFIT, which E-Forward-NN emulates. Thus the 'reasonable agreement with ground truth' and the single qualitative surrogate-vs-EFIT comparison are in-sample demonstrations rather than out-of-sample predictions. The authors themselves acknowledge the limits: Section IV A states that no synthetic diagnostic models systematic errors, and Section VI cautions that the results 'should not be interpreted as a quantitative study of the expected uncertainties of plasma profiles and the equilibrium in ITER.' These statements mitigate the concern but do not remove the closed-loop character of the surrogate validation. Because the central framework claim is not logically forced by its inputs and the MCMC verification is independent, a moderate score of 4 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on a large precomputed database of 376166 EFIT cases from FUSE. The central inference is calibrated by this database at three points: the B-spline knot locations, the per-parameter transformation ranges, and the training of E-Forward-NN. The priors add manually tuned weights. The demonstration target is drawn from that same database. There are no new physical entities. The main free parameters are hyperparameters of the representation and priors; the artificial ion-pressure data are an ad hoc constraint.

free parameters (6)
  • B-spline knot locations for p', ff', Te, ne = 12 knots each; locations estimated from FUSE training database
    Fixed knot locations are chosen to best represent the training profiles (Section III C). They are not inferred from the artificial data but are hand-selected hyperparameters that affect reconstruction accuracy.
  • Chebyshev flux matrix basis = 16x34 coefficients
    Chosen for vectorized evaluation speed (Section III C). The resolution of the flux parametrization affects the accuracy of diagnostic mapping and magnetic field reconstruction.
  • Curvature prior radial weight function = Not specified numerically
    A radially resolved weight function allows higher curvature near the edge; its magnitude must be tuned manually (Section III G 1).
  • Positivity and monotonicity prior scale alpha = Defined manually as typical inverse scale length of y
    The smooth-step prior uses alpha set by hand (Eq. 2, Section III G 2).
  • Boundary prior exponent n = n = 6
    Chosen for the results in Section IV; higher even orders reduce prior impact near the center of the database (Section III G 3).
  • Per-parameter transformation ranges = Covering 98% of FUSE training database per parameter
    Parameter ranges derive from the training database and define the bounded physics space (Section III C 1). The target case is inside these ranges, which is favorable to the demonstration.
assumptions (9)
  • standard math Bayes' theorem and posterior sampling via MAP and MCMC are valid statistical inference tools for this inverse problem.
    Used throughout Section II and III A; standard probability and optimization background.
  • standard math B-spline and Chebyshev basis expansions represent the profiles and flux matrix accurately at the chosen knot and coefficient counts.
    Section III C assumes 12 knots per profile and a 16x34 Chebyshev basis are sufficient for ITER-like profiles and equilibria.
  • domain assumption The Grad-Shafranov equation and EFIT solutions describe the ITER magnetic equilibrium, and E-Forward-NN is an accurate surrogate within the training region.
    E-Forward-NN is trained on 376166 EFIT cases from FUSE (Section III D 5); the inference relies on this surrogate instead of solving Grad-Shafranov directly.
  • domain assumption The FUSE-generated training database and ITER machine description files are representative of real ITER plasmas.
    Section III D 5 and IV A: equilibria are generated by FUSE based on DIII-D shapes scaled to ITER, and machine descriptions are from the ITER IMAS database.
  • domain assumption The synthetic diagnostic formulas for interferometry and polarimetry from ref. 36 are accurate for ITER.
    Section III D 6 uses formulas 1-5 from ref. 36 including second-order electron temperature corrections.
  • domain assumption All diagnostic noises are Gaussian, uncorrelated, and free of systematic errors for the artificial test.
    Section IV A explicitly states that only stochastic noise is added and systematic uncertainties are not modeled.
  • ad hoc to paper The target case is drawn from the same FUSE database used to train E-Forward-NN and to set parameter transformation ranges.
    Section IV uses a FUSE full-field D-T ITER-like discharge as ground truth; Section III C 1 sets ranges covering 98% of the training database, so the test is in-distribution.
  • ad hoc to paper Eight artificial ion pressure measurements are sufficient to constrain the ion pressure in the absence of synthetic ion diagnostics.
    Section IV D adds eight artificial pi measurements because no synthetic ion diagnostics are implemented; without them the ion pressure would be completely free.
  • ad hoc to paper The empirical priors with manually tuned weights are adequate for the inference.
    Section III G states priors introduce tuning hyperparameters adjusted manually; the edge pedestal artifact in Fig. 6 shows the priors can impose structure absent from data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Simultaneous kinetic profile and magnetic equilibrium inference with Bayesian integrated data analysis in preparation for ITER." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CHQ2POAB

@misc{pith2026250207805,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Simultaneous kinetic profile and magnetic equilibrium inference with Bayesian integrated data analysis in preparation for ITER},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CHQ2POAB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07805}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate plasma state reconstruction will be crucial for the success of ITER and future fusion plants, but the harsh conditions of a burning plasma will make diagnostic operation more challenging than in current machines. Integrated data analysis (IDA) based on Bayesian inference allows for improved information gain by combining the analysis of many diagnostics into a single step using sophisticated forward models. It also provides a framework to seamlessly combine predictive modeling and data, which can be invaluable in a data-poor environment. As a step towards integrated data analysis at scale, we present a new, fast integrated analysis framework that allows for the simultaneous reconstruction of the kinetic profiles and the magnetic equilibrium with statistically relevant uncertainties included. This analysis framework allows for the systematic evaluation of models using extensive experimental data leveraging DOE supercomputing infrastructure, such as being developed through the DOE-ASCR Integrated Research Infrastructure (Smith, XLOOP). To test the performance and verify the code it was applied to an ITER-like scenario using a realistic machine geometry and diagnostic description. Using artificial data for magnetics, Thomson scattering, interferometry, and polarimetry generated from a known ground truth, the coupled equilibrium and kinetic profile reconstruction problem was solved via the Maximum a posteriori method in approximately three minutes on a multicore CPU including uncertainty quantification. The resulting equilibrium and kinetic profiles were found to be in reasonable agreement with the ground truth.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07805 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Comparison between conventional or waterfall data analysis and IDA. Figure a) shows the data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. This figure illustrates the data flow between the various components in the IDA framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The flux surfaces inferred by E-Forward-NN are in reasonable agreement with EFIT for the case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Illustration of the radially weighted curvature constraint for the d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Illustration of the various components used for the profile-inference. For detailed explanation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Inferred posterior of a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Residuals normalized by uncertainty are plotted as a function of the diagnostic channel number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Illustration of the various components considered in the inference of the equilibrium using external [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Reconstruction of a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Flux contours of the magnetic equilibrium are indicated by blue dashed lines. The cyan dot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Residuals for a) the measured poloidal field current, b) the poloidal field probes and c) the toroidal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Illustration of the various components considered in the combined inference of kinetic profiles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Inferred a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Flux contours of the magnetic equilibrium are indicated by dashed blue lines. The cyan dot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Residuals for the a) measured poloidal field coil currents, b) poloidal field probes, c) toroidal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: shows the comparison of the MAP results (purple) and the MCMC results (red). The median of the samples is used to express the expected value for MCMC. Notably, the log-posterior is larger for the MAP (−70.5) than for the median parameters (−71.1), indicating that MAP …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Corner plot for the spline coefficients of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Reconstruction of the a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Corner plot for the kinetic equilibrium reconstruction. See Fig. 17 for a detailed description. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Inferred profiles similar to Fig. 13 but the MCMC median and propagated percentiles are shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_20.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translat...

    2010

  2. [2]

    merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  3. [3]

    Zvonkov , author M

    author author A. Zvonkov , author M. De Bock , author V. Serov , \ and\ author S. Tugarinov ,\ title title CXRS -edge Diagnostic in the Harsh ITER Environment , \ in\ @noop booktitle FIP/P4-17, 26th Fusion Energy Conference (FEC) \ ( year 2016 )\ pp.\ pages 17--22 NoStop

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Litnovsky , author M

    author author A. Litnovsky , author M. Matveeva , author L. Buzi , author L. Vera , author Y. Krasikov , author V. Kotov , author A. Panin , author P. Wienhold , author V. Philipps , author D. C. \ Bardawil , et al. ,\ title title Studies of protection and recovery techniques of diagnostic mirrors for ITER , \ @noop journal journal Nuclear Fusion \ volume...

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Walsh , author P

    author author M. Walsh , author P. Andrew , author R. Barnsley , author L. Bertalot , author R. Boivin , author D. Bora , author R. Bouhamou , author S. Ciattaglia , author A. Costley , author G. Counsell , et al. ,\ title title ITER diagnostic challenges , \ in\ @noop booktitle 2011 IEEE/NPSS 24th Symposium on Fusion Engineering \ ( organization IEEE ,\ ...

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Costley , author T

    author author A. Costley , author T. Sugie , author G. Vayakis , \ and\ author C. Walker ,\ title title Technological challenges of ITER diagnostics , \ @noop journal journal Fusion Engineering and Design \ volume 74 ,\ pages 109--119 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Fischer , author C

    author author R. Fischer , author C. Fuchs , author B. Kurzan , author W. Suttrop , author E. Wolfrum , \ and\ author ASDEX Upgrade Team ,\ title title Integrated data analysis of profile diagnostics at ASDEX Upgrade , \ @noop journal journal Fusion science and technology \ volume 58 ,\ pages 675--684 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Verdoolaege , author R

    author author G. Verdoolaege , author R. Fischer , author G. Van Oost , author J.-E. \ Contributors , et al. ,\ title title Potential of a Bayesian Integrated Determination of the Ion Effective Charge via Bremsstrahlung and Charge Exchange Spectroscopy in Tokamak Plasmas , \ @noop journal journal IEEE transactions on plasma science \ volume 38 ,\ pages 31...

    work page 2010

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Fischer , author A

    author author R. Fischer , author A. Bock , author S. S. \ Denk , author A. M. M. \ Salewski , author M. Schneider , author D. Stieglitz , \ and\ author ASDEX Upgrade Team ,\ https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.09270 title Integrated Data Analysis and Validation , \ ( year 2024 ),\ htt...

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Pavone , author A

    author author A. Pavone , author A. Merlo , author S. Kwak , \ and\ author J. Svensson ,\ title title Machine learning and Bayesian inference in nuclear fusion research: an overview , \ 10.1088/1361-6587/acc60f journal journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion \ volume 65 ,...

    doi

  3. [11]

    author author L. L. \ Lao , author H. S. \ John , author R. Stambaugh , author A. Kellman , \ and\ author W. Pfeiffer ,\ title title Reconstruction of current profile parameters and plasma shapes in tokamaks , \ 10.1088/0029-5515/25/11/007 journal journal Nuclear Fusion \ volu...

    doi

  4. [12]

    author author L. L. \ Lao , author H. E. S. \ John , author Q. Peng , author J. R. \ Ferron , author E. J. \ Strait , author T. S. \ Taylor , author W. H. \ Meyer , author C. Zhang , \ and\ author K. I. \ You ,\ title title MHD Equilibrium Reconstruction in the DIII-D Tokamak ...

    doi

  5. [13]

    Fischer , author A

    author author R. Fischer , author A. Dinklage , \ and\ author E. Pasch ,\ title title Bayesian modelling of fusion diagnostics , \ @noop journal journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion \ volume 45 ,\ pages 1095 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003

  6. [14]

    Avdeeva , author K

    author author G. Avdeeva , author K. E. \ Thome , author J. W. \ Berkery , author S. M. \ Kaye , author J. McClenaghan , author O. Meneghini , author T. Odstrcil , author S. A. \ Sabbagh , author S. P. \ Smith , \ and\ author A. D. \ Turnbull ,\ title title Accuracy of kinetic...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Svensson , author A

    author author J. Svensson , author A. Dinklage , author J. Geiger , author A. Werner , \ and\ author R. Fischer ,\ title title Integrating diagnostic data analysis for W7-AS using Bayesian graphical models , \ @noop journal journal Review of Scientific Instruments \ volume 75 ...

    2004

  8. [16]

    Svensson \ and\ author A

    author author J. Svensson \ and\ author A. Werner ,\ title title Large scale Bayesian data analysis for nuclear fusion experiments , \ in\ @noop booktitle 2007 IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Signal Processing \ ( organization IEEE ,\ year 2007 )\ pp.\ pages 1--6 NoStop

    2007

  9. [17]

    Kruger , author J

    author author S. Kruger , author J. Leddy , author E. Howell , author S. Madireddy , author C. Akcay , author T. Bechtel Amara , author J. McClenaghan , author L. Lao , author D. Orozco , author S. Smith , et al. ,\ title title Thinking Bayesian for plasma physicists , \ @noop...

    2024

  10. [18]

    o fler , author P. M. \ Cabrera , author T. G \

    author author M. Bergmann , author R. Fischer , author C. Angioni , author K. H \"o fler , author P. M. \ Cabrera , author T. G \"o rler , author T. Luda , author R. Bilato , author G. Tardini , author F. Jenko , et al. ,\ title title Plasma profile reconstruction supported by...

    2024

  11. [19]

    Nishizawa , author R

    author author T. Nishizawa , author R. Dux , author R. McDermott , author F. Sciortino , author M. Cavedon , author C. Schuster , author E. Wolfrum , author U. Von Toussaint , author A. J. \ Van Vuuren , author D. J. \ Cruz-Zabala , et al. ,\ title title Non-parametric inferen...

    2022

  12. [20]

    Fischer , author A

    author author R. Fischer , author A. Bock , author M. Dunne , author J. C. \ Fuchs , author L. Giannone , author K. Lackner , author P. J. \ McCarthy , author E. Poli , author R. Preuss , author M. Rampp , author M. Schubert , author J. Stober , author W. Suttrop , author G. T...

    doi

  13. [21]

    Smith , author Z

    author author S. Smith , author Z. A. \ Xing , author T. B. \ Amara , author S. S. \ Denk , author E. W. \ DeShazer , et al. ,\ title title Expediting Higher Fidelity Plasma State Reconstructions for the DIII-D National Fusion Facility Using Leadership Class Computing Resource...

  14. [22]

    author author C. E. \ Rasmussen ,\ title title Gaussian processes in machine learning , \ in\ @noop booktitle Summer school on machine learning \ ( publisher Springer ,\ year 2003 )\ pp.\ pages 63--71 NoStop

    2003

  15. [23]

    Kwak , author J

    author author S. Kwak , author J. Svensson , author O. Ford , author L. Appel , author Y.-c. \ Ghim , \ and\ author J. Contributors ,\ title title Bayesian inference of axisymmetric plasma equilibrium , \ @noop journal journal Nuclear Fusion \ volume 62 ,\ pages 126069 ( year ...

    2022

  16. [24]

    o ckenhoff , author E. Pasch , author G. Fuchert , author K. J. \ Brunner , author K. Rahbarnia , author J. Schilling , author U. H \

    author author A. Merlo , author A. Pavone , author D. B \"o ckenhoff , author E. Pasch , author G. Fuchert , author K. J. \ Brunner , author K. Rahbarnia , author J. Schilling , author U. H \"o fel , author S. Kwak , et al. ,\ title title Accelerated Bayesian inference of plas...

    2023

  17. [25]

    author author S. G. \ de Vicente , author D. Mazon , author M. Xu , author S. Pinches , author M. Churchill , author A. Dinklage , author R. Fischer , author A. Murari , author P. Rodriguez-Fernandez , author J. Stillerman , author J. Vega , \ and\ author G. Verdoolaege ,\ tit...

    doi

  18. [26]

    Nishizawa , author R

    author author T. Nishizawa , author R. Dux , author R. McDermott , author F. Sciortino , author M. Cavedon , author C. Schuster , author E. Wolfrum , author U. von Toussaint , author A. V. \ Vuuren , author D. Cruz-Zabala , author P. Cano-Megias , author C. Moon , \ and\ autho...

    doi

  19. [27]

    Fletcher ,\ @noop title Practical methods of optimization \ ( publisher John Wiley & Sons ,\ year 2000 ) NoStop

    author author R. Fletcher ,\ @noop title Practical methods of optimization \ ( publisher John Wiley & Sons ,\ year 2000 ) NoStop

    2000

  20. [28]

    Foreman-Mackey , author D

    author author D. Foreman-Mackey , author D. W. \ Hogg , author D. Lang , \ and\ author J. Goodman ,\ title title emcee: The MCMC Hammer , \ 10.1086/670067 journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv:1202.3665 \ volume 125 ,\ pages 306 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Karamanis , author F

    author author M. Karamanis , author F. Beutler , \ and\ author J. A. \ Peacock ,\ title title zeus: A python implementation of Ensemble Slice Sampling for efficient Bayesian parameter inference , \ @noop journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03468 \ ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Karamanis \ and\ author F

    author author M. Karamanis \ and\ author F. Beutler ,\ title title Ensemble slice sampling: Parallel , black-box and gradient-free inference for correlated & multimodal distributions , \ @noop journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv: 2002.06212 \ ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2002 arXiv

  23. [31]

    author author L. E. \ Veen \ and\ author A. G. \ Hoekstra ,\ title title Easing multiscale model design and coupling with MUSCLE 3 , \ in\ @noop booktitle International Conference on Computational Science \ ( organization Springer ,\ year 2020 )\ pp.\ pages 425--438 NoStop

    2020

  24. [32]

    Denk , author R

    author author S. Denk , author R. Fischer , author E. Poli , author O. Maj , author S. Nielsen , author J. Rasmussen , author M. Stejner , \ and\ author M. Willensdorfer ,\ title title ECRad : An electron cyclotron radiation transport solver for advanced data analysis in therm...

  25. [33]

    Farina , author L

    author author D. Farina , author L. Figini , author P. Platania , \ and\ author C. Sozzi ,\ title title SPECE : a code for Electron Cyclotron Emission in tokamaks , \ 10.1063/1.2905053 journal journal AIP Conference Proceedings \ volume 988 ,\ pages 128--131 ( year 2008 ) ,\ h...

    doi

  26. [34]

    Jardin ,\ 10.1201/EBK1439810958 title Computational Methods in Plasma Physics ,\ Vol.\ volume 1st ed

    author author S. Jardin ,\ 10.1201/EBK1439810958 title Computational Methods in Plasma Physics ,\ Vol.\ volume 1st ed. \ ( publisher CRC Press ,\ year 2010 )\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://doi.org/10.1201/EBK1439810958 https://doi.org/10.1201/EBK1439810958 NoStop

    2010 doi

  27. [35]

    Arbon , author J

    author author R. Arbon , author J. Candy , \ and\ author E. A. \ Belli ,\ title title Rapidly-convergent flux-surface shape parameterization , \ @noop journal journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion \ volume 63 ,\ pages 012001 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  28. [36]

    McClenaghan , author C

    author author J. McClenaghan , author C. Akçay , author T. B. \ Amara , author X. Sun , author S. Madireddy , author L. L. \ Lao , author S. E. \ Kruger , \ and\ author O. M. \ Meneghini ,\ title title Augmenting machine learning of Grad–Shafranov equilibrium reconstruction wi...

    doi

  29. [37]

    Meneghini , author T

    author author O. Meneghini , author T. Slendebroek , author B. C. \ Lyons , author K. McLaughlin , author J. McClenaghan , author L. Stagner , author J. Harvey , author T. F. \ Neiser , author A. Ghiozzi , author G. Dose , author J. Guterl , author A. Zalzali , author T. Cote ...

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Van Zeeland , author T

    author author M. Van Zeeland , author T. Carlstrom , author D. Finkenthal , author R. Boivin , author A. Colio , author D. Du , author A. Gattuso , author F. Glass , author C. Muscatello , author R. O’Neill , et al. ,\ title title Tests of a two-color interferometer and polari...

    2017

  31. [39]

    Nelson , author E

    author author B. Nelson , author E. B. \ Ford , \ and\ author M. J. \ Payne ,\ title title Run dmc: an efficient, parallel code for analyzing radial velocity observations using n-body integrations and differential evolution markov chain monte carlo , \ @noop journal journal Th...

    2013

  32. [40]

    author author C. J. \ Ter Braak \ and\ author J. A. \ Vrugt ,\ title title Differential evolution markov chain with snooker updater and fewer chains , \ @noop journal journal Statistics and Computing \ volume 18 ,\ pages 435--446 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008

  33. [41]

    author author D. Foreman-Mackey ,\ title title corner.py: Scatterplot matrices in python , \ 10.21105/joss.00024 journal journal The Journal of Open Source Software \ volume 1 ,\ pages 24 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    Uzun-Kaymak , author M

    author author I. Uzun-Kaymak , author M. Galante , author E. Foley , \ and\ author F. Levinton ,\ title title Designing ITER motional stark effect line shift (mse-ls) spectrometers , \ @noop journal journal Review of Scientific Instruments \ volume 95 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  35. [43]

    Imazawa , author T

    author author R. Imazawa , author T. Ono , \ and\ author T. Hatae ,\ title title Design of optical transmission line of ITER poloidal polarimeter , \ @noop journal journal Fusion Engineering and Design \ volume 192 ,\ pages 113607 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.