Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 99 references

Sensitivities of time-dependent temperature profile predictions for NSTX with the Multi-Mode Model

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Multi-Mode Model, run time-dependently on 37 NSTX discharges, generally overpredicts electron and ion temperatures, giving overly steep profiles; agreement improves at high beta, long confinement time, and broad profiles, and with Ti kn

desk verdict A solid, unusually honest validation study of MMM on NSTX discharges that maps regime-dependent biases, though unquantified experimental errors keep the main correlations from being fully secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04360 v1 pith:UF5LX5UE submitted 2025-09-04 physics.plasm-ph

J.B. Lestz , G. Avdeeva , S.M. Kaye , M.V. Gorelenkova , F.D. Halpern , J. McClenaghan , A.Y. Pankin , K.E. Thome This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.25.Fi52.55.Fa
keywords Multi-ModeModelNSTXTRANSPturbulenttransportvalidationtemperatureprofilepredictionsphericaltokamakconfinementoverpredictionbetascaling
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

The paper sets out to map where the Multi-Mode Model (MMM), a fast reduced model of turbulent plasma transport, can be trusted to predict temperature profiles in spherical tokamaks. Using time-dependent TRANSP simulations of 37 well-analyzed NSTX discharges, it establishes a consistent tendency: MMM produces too little transport, so it overpredicts electron and ion temperatures and makes the profiles too steep. The error is not uniform—agreement improves for plasmas with higher beta, longer energy confinement times, and spatially broader electron temperature profiles, and it is worse for peaked, low-beta, low-q cases. The most pointed finding is about added value: if the ion temperature is already known experimentally, MMM's electron temperature error (14%) is barely better than simply setting Te = Ti (11%), a computation-free guess. The authors frame the work as a validation map for NSTX-U scenario planning.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is MMM, a reduced multi-mode turbulent transport model whose total diffusivity is the sum of four submodel predictions: an electromagnetic electron-temperature-gradient (ETG) model, a microtearing-mode (MTM) model, the Weiland model (ITG/TEM/KBM), and a drift-resistive-inertial ballooning model that is disabled for NSTX. Within TRANSP's PT-SOLVER the summed diffusivities evolve Te and Ti; the collisional ion-electron exchange term Q_ie couples the two channels, so predicting both profiles makes the result sensitive to the composition of transport. The paper's diagnostics are the relative profile offset/RMSE figures of merit and correlations of those errors with beta, coll

What would settle it

A direct test: take a new set of NSTX or NSTX-U discharges with independently fitted profiles and quantified error bars, run the same MMM/TRANSP workflow, and check whether (i) the Te error still correlates with beta, tau_E, and peaking, and (ii) Te-only MMM still fails to beat the Te=Ti baseline. If the correlations disappear or MMM clearly beats the baseline once Ti is known, the paper's central claims are falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: predictive TRANSP runs with MMM on a large, deliberate NSTX database show that the model systematically overpredicts confinement, reproducing temperature levels only when the plasma already has good confinement, broad profiles, and high beta. Electron transport in MMM shifts from ETG-dominated at low beta and high collisionality to a mix with Weiland-mode (ITG/TEM/KBM) transport at high beta and low collisionality, while microtearing modes matter mainly near the edge; the ion channel is almost purely neoclassical. Because collisional energy exchange couples Te and Ti, fixing Ti to experiment changes not only Ti but reduces Te error by half, to 14%, which is statisti

Load-bearing premise

The experimental temperature profiles used as the standard of comparison are assumed to be unbiased, but the paper does not quantify measurement or profile-fitting errors; if those errors correlate with beta, profile peaking, or confinement time, the reported regime trends could be artifacts rather than properties of MMM.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MMM scenario scans for NSTX-U can be run with confidence in their time dynamics—predictions converge to the same final profiles regardless of start time—but absolute temperatures should be read with an overprediction bias.
  • High-beta, long-tau_E, broad-profile NSTX-U scenarios are the ones MMM is most likely to predict reliably; low-beta, low-q, peaked profiles are the danger zone.
  • For Te-focused transport studies, pinning Ti to measured values and predicting only Te is the cheaper and more accurate workflow—roughly an order of magnitude faster with half the Te error.
  • Validation claims for MMM that predict Te with Ti known should be compared against trivial baselines; a Te=Ti heuristic already achieves comparable agreement in these beam-heated NSTX discharges.
  • Since Te prediction error is uncorrelated with which submodel dominates, no single mode in MMM can be blamed for the bias.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The strong correlation between Te error and experimental tau_E suggests MMM's bias may be a fixed under-prediction of transport that only shows up where tau_E is short; testing MMM on a database spanning conventional tokamaks with the same baseline comparison would show whether this is generic or NSTX-specific.
  • The Te=Ti baseline working so well is a consequence of balanced beam heating in NSTX; in RF-heated or electron-heated regimes the trivial baseline would differ, so MMM's marginal value should be re-measured there rather than assumed.
  • The worst outliers at low beta and low q hint that the missing transport may be from low-n MHD or fast-ion-driven instabilities, both absent from MMM; the paper's proposed ad hoc edge diffusivity enhancement for flat-Te discharges is a directly testable extension.
  • The finite-memory result (predictions forget initial conditions after about an energy confinement time) implies that time-dependent validation windows shorter than tau_E cannot distinguish model memory from input driving.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports time-dependent TRANSP simulations in which the reduced transport model MMM predicts Te and Ti profiles for 37 well-analyzed NSTX discharges, plus a second set of 55 discharges used for dedicated beta/nu* scans. It characterizes the MMM transport channels (ETG, Weiland, MTM), finds ion transport mostly neoclassical, demonstrates insensitivity to start time, and identifies correlations between Te prediction error and profile peaking, beta, tau_E, and nu*. It also compares simultaneous Te+Ti prediction with Te-only prediction and with a Te=Ti baseline. The central claims are that MMM generally overpredicts confinement, that agreement improves at higher beta/longer tau_E/broader profiles, and that knowledge of Ti makes MMM's Te prediction comparable to a trivial baseline.

Significance. If the quantitative sensitivities hold, this is a valuable validation and regime-map for MMM, especially for planning NSTX-U predictive simulations. The paper's strengths include a large, well-documented discharge database; fixed TRANSP/MMM settings with no fitting performed in this work; transparent RMSE/median metrics; Spearman checks; an explicit discussion of confounding correlations; and an honest baseline comparison. The full TRANSP run IDs support reproducibility. The main limitations are that the ETG component was calibrated on NSTX data (so part of the agreement is in-sample in the device dimension), the experimental profile errors are explicitly not quantified, and several key subgroup thresholds and outlier removals are post hoc. The paper is therefore a useful sensitivity study, but the quantitative regime-dependence claims need robustness analysis before they can be taken as definitive.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II, Figs. 12–14, Table I] The paper states that measurement errors and systematic profile-fitting errors are "not quantified here." All central accuracy claims—median Te RMSE 28±13%, the r=-0.53/-0.7 correlations with beta_e and tau_E, and the 14±8% vs 11±6% baseline comparison—are differences between MMM and these same experimental profiles. If fitting errors correlate with beta, peaking, or confinement time, the reported regime dependences could be artifacts. Please supply at least a sensitivity analysis with plausible profile-error envelopes and confidence intervals on the RMSE values and correlation coefficients, or explicitly relabel the quantitative results as relative comparisons subject to unknown systematic error.
  2. [Sec. V A, Fig. 12(b)] The strongest correlation (r=-0.70, rank -0.75) is obtained after "removing two outlier points which TRANSP calculated unphysically large tau_E for even in the fully interpretive runs." No reproducibility criterion is given for this removal, and tau_E is itself correlated with beta_e and profile peaking, as the paper notes. Please report all 37 points, show the effect of the removal on r, define "unphysical," and provide uncertainties (e.g., bootstrap) for the correlations. A partial-correlation or multi-variable analysis is needed to separate tau_E from beta/peaking; without it, the "most robust correlation" claim is not fully supported.
  3. [Sec. II A, Fig. 2] The beta_e=11% and nu*=0.23 thresholds are chosen post hoc because they divide the discharge set into roughly equal groups, and the text states they are "not physically significant." The claim that MMM's electron transport transitions from ETG-dominated to mixed/Weiland-dominated regimes is based on these arbitrary splits. Please show the continuous dependence of transport fractions on beta_e and nu*, or test sensitivity to threshold placement, and quantify the spread within each group. The same issue applies to the beta_p binning in Fig. 3.
  4. [Sec. VI, Table I] The conclusion that Te-only MMM is not better than setting Te=Ti rests on 14±8% vs 11±6% in the text (11±5% in Table I). Without uncertainty estimates or a paired statistical test, these two values may be statistically indistinguishable—which would support the paper's point, but in the opposite direction it also means MMM's improvement over simultaneous prediction is not demonstrated. Please provide per-discharge paired comparisons, confidence intervals on the medians, and a test of whether the Te-only distribution differs from the Te=Ti baseline. This is load-bearing because it tempers the practical value of the Te-only simulations.
  5. [Sec. V B, Fig. 13] The dedicated scans yield r=-0.2 to -0.3 for beta and r=-0.22 for nu*, trends described as weak. The claim that MMM is "more sensitive to beta than nu*" is based on differences between correlations whose uncertainties are not reported; with N~55 these differences may not be statistically significant. Please provide confidence intervals and/or a combined regression with beta and nu*, and state explicitly whether the difference in correlation strengths is significant. Otherwise the conclusion exceeds the evidence.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table I / Sec. VI] The Te=Ti baseline error is 11±5% in Table I but 11±6% in the main text. There is also a typo: "the choice of using Te = Te as a baseline comparison" should be Te = Ti.
  2. [Sec. I] "Inverse aspect ratio of around 1.4" should likely be "aspect ratio of around 1.4" (or inverse aspect ratio ~0.7), given NSTX parameters.
  3. [Acknowledgments] The data repository placeholder "(placeholder)" should be replaced with the actual ARK before publication.
  4. [Fig. 7] The claimed weak correlation between stored-energy coefficient of variation and Te RMSE is not quantified; please add the correlation coefficient and sample size.
  5. [Sec. V B] The parenthetical "duration ∼200 ms versus 20 ms" is confusing; the text elsewhere compares 20 ms time slices against the ~200 ms windows. Please rephrase.
  6. [Various] Minor typographical issues: "veraged" in the Fig. 15 caption, inconsistent formatting of "PT SOLVER," and a missing space in "PT SOL VER."

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

MMM's ETG channel is calibrated on NSTX data, so the headline NSTX-agreement metrics are partially in-sample; the beta/tau_E/peaking sensitivities are emergent, not fitted.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II, MMM model description; Sec. VI, Table I]
    "The ETG model includes a calibration against NSTX data that was implemented during its development and is used to offset simplifying assumptions used in its derivation [43, 47]. This calibration was not modified for this study, as it is not intended to be changed when using MMM to model different NSTX discharges or different tokamaks."

    The ETG submodel, which dominates electron transport in these simulations (Figs. 1-3), contains a coefficient fitted to NSTX data. The paper's headline validation metrics—RMSE of predicted Te/Ti against NSTX profiles (Table I, Figs. 12-14) and the characterization of 'reasonable agreement' with NSTX—are computed on the same device/data family used for that calibration. For the ETG-dominated portion of the transport, the agreement is therefore partly the calibration restated as a prediction, not an independent test. The regime-dependent trends (beta, tau_E, peaking, collisionality) are emergent outputs of the fixed code and are not encoded by the scalar calibration, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

full rationale

The paper is a validation and sensitivity study of a fixed reduced transport model, not a first-principles derivation. Its central correlations (with beta, tau_E, profile peaking, collisionality) are emergent outputs of TRANSP+MMM simulations and are not fitted to the reported RMSE values; therefore they do not reduce to the input data by construction. The Te = Ti baseline comparison in Sec. VI is an explicit, honest null heuristic rather than a disguised fit, and it strengthens the paper's credibility. The principal circularity-adjacent issue is the ETG submodel calibration against NSTX data: the ETG channel dominates electron transport in the examined discharges, so the agreement metrics against NSTX profiles are partially in-sample for that channel. This is disclosed in Sec. II but not quantified or corrected in the reported statistics. The companion paper [1] is cited for motivation and some comparative values, but the central numbers are regenerated by the current simulations, so that self-citation is not load-bearing. The unquantified experimental profile-fitting and systematic errors (also Sec. II) are a correctness/robustness risk, not a circularity. Overall, the core sensitivity claims have independent content, but the in-sample calibration of a dominant submodel warrants a score of 4 rather than 0-2.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The claims rest on accepting MMM's pre-existing component models (with an NSTX-calibrated ETG piece), the TRANSP/NCLASS framework, and the experimental database as ground truth. No new parameters are fitted in this paper, but the binning thresholds are hand-chosen and the ETG calibration is inherited from prior NSTX-specific fitting.

free parameters (3)
  • ETG model calibration factor = not specified (fixed from Ref [43])
    MMM's ETG transport model was calibrated against NSTX data during development (Sec. II). This paper validates the same model on the same device, so the calibration is an inherited fitted parameter on which the central validation depends.
  • beta_e subgroup threshold = 11% on-axis
    Chosen to divide the 37 discharges into roughly equal groups; the paper states it is otherwise not physically significant (Sec. II A). The binning choice shapes the reported regime dependence.
  • nu* subgroup threshold = 0.23 at rho = 0.7
    Same purpose as the beta_e threshold, chosen to split discharges into equal groups (Sec. II A).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption MMM's four submodels (ETG, MTM, Weiland, with DRIBM excluded) plus NCLASS capture the relevant transport in the chosen time windows; low-n MHD, Alfven eigenmodes, and fast-ion transport are negligible.
    Stated in Sec. II and VII: analysis windows avoid low-n MHD; AE and fast-ion transport are not included in MMM. If this fails, the attributed MMM bias is mis-assigned.
  • domain assumption TRANSP's PT SOLVER time evolution (Eq. 1) and the prescribed 2D axisymmetric equilibrium are accurate enough for profile evolution comparisons.
    Sec. II: equilibrium fully prescribed; transport is solved on a 1D radial grid.
  • ad hoc to paper The ETG model's NSTX calibration is fixed and appropriately transferable across the discharge database.
    The calibration is inherited from prior work and explicitly not modified here (Sec. II), making validation on NSTX partially in-sample.
  • domain assumption Experimental density and temperature profiles from interpreted TRANSP runs are reliable in the prediction region (rho < 0.7 or 0.8).
    Used as boundary conditions and ground truth; measurement errors are not quantified (Sec. II).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sensitivities of time-dependent temperature profile predictions for NSTX with the Multi-Mode Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UF5LX5UE

@misc{pith2026250904360,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sensitivities of time-dependent temperature profile predictions for NSTX with the Multi-Mode Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UF5LX5UE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04360}
}
abstract

The Multi-Mode Model (MMM) for turbulent transport was applied to a large set of well-analyzed discharges from the National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) in order to evaluate its sensitivities to a wide range of plasma conditions. MMM calculations were performed for hundreds of milliseconds in each discharge by performing time-dependent predictive simulations with the 1.5D tokamak integrated modeling code TRANSP. A closely related study concluded that MMM predicted electron ($T_e$) and ion ($T_i$) temperature profiles that were in reasonable agreement with NSTX observations, generally outperforming a different reduced transport model, TGLF, motivating a more thorough investigation of the characteristics of the MMM predictions. The simulations with MMM have electron energy transport dominated by electron temperature gradient modes for relatively low plasma $\beta$ and high collisionality, transitioning to a mixture of different modes for higher $\beta$ and lower collisionality. The thermal ion diffusivity predicted by MMM is much smaller than the neoclassical contribution, in line with previous experimental analysis of NSTX. Nonetheless, the $T_e$ and $T_i$ profiles are coupled via collisional energy exchange and thus sensitive to which transport channels are predicted. The simulations with MMM are robust to the simulation start time, converging to remarkably similar temperatures later during the discharge. MMM typically overpredicts confinement relative to NSTX observations, leading to the prediction of overly steep profiles. Plasmas with spatially broader $T_e$ profiles, higher $\beta$, and longer energy confinement times tend to be predicted by MMM with better agreement with the experiment. These findings provide useful context for understanding the regime-dependent tendencies of MMM in anticipation of self-consistent, time-dependent predictive simulations of NSTX-U discharges.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04360 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Collection of well-analyzed NSTX discharges focused [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Median electron energy diffusivity as predicted by MMM in predictive TRANSP simulations for discharges with (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Median electron energy diffusivity fraction from dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Ratio of turbulent ion diffusivity (predicted by MMM) to neoclassical ion diffusivity (calculated by NCLASS) as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Temperature profiles and ion power balance profiles for NSTX discharge 133964. (a) electron temperature profile, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Relative error in the predicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Time dependent predictions of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison of time-dependent rate of change for ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Top row: comparison of experimental versus predicted gradient scale lengths for (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Median relative error of the predicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (a) Comparison of experimental versus predicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Relative error in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. TRANSP simulations using MMM to predict [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. (a) Electron temperature profile predictions, averaged over all discharges. Thick curves show the mean value and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. (a) and (b): median electron energy diffusivity as calculated by MMM in TRANSP simulations which predicted (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. B. Lestz, G. Avdeeva, T. F. Neiser, M. V. Gorelenkova, F. D. Halpern, S. M. Kaye, J. McClenaghan, A. Y. Pankin, and K. E. Thome, Assessing time-dependent temperature profile predictions using reduced transport models for high performing NSTX plasmas, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion (submitted)

  2. [2]

    J. E. Menard, L. Bromberg, T. Brown, T. Burgess, D. Dix, L. El-Guebaly, T. Gerrity, R. J. Goldston, 20 NSTX Discharge Original Interpretive Modernized Interpretive MMM Te & Ti MMM Te Only Category and Reference Analysis Time (ms) 116313 G12 N10 N03 N05 Long pulse [69] 500 - 1050 117707 A04 J11 J03 J04 Max stored energy [69] 650 - 950 120967 A03 J02 J05 J1...

    2011

  3. [3]

    J. E. Menard, T. Brown, L. El-Guebaly, M. Boyer, J. Canik, B. Colling, R. Raman, Z. Wang, Y. Zhai, P. Buxton, B. Covele, C. D’Angelo, A. Davis, S. Ger- hardt, M. Gryaznevich, M. Harb, T. C. Hender, S. Kaye, D. Kingham, M. Kotschenreuther, S. Maha- jan, R. Maingi, E. Marriott, E. T. Meier, L. Myns- berge, C. Neumeyer, M. Ono, J.-K. Park, S. A. Sabbagh, V. ...

    2016

  4. [4]

    J. E. Menard, Compact steady-state tokamak perfor- mance dependence on magnet and core physics limits, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 377, 20170440 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    Menard, B

    J. Menard, B. Grierson, T. Brown, C. Rana, Y. Zhai, F. Poli, R. Maingi, W. Guttenfelder, and P. Snyder, Fu- sion pilot plant performance and the role of a sustained high power density tokamak, Nuclear Fusion 62, 036026 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    M. Ono, S. Kaye, Y.-K. Peng, G. Barnes, W. Blanchard, M. Carter, J. Chrzanowski, L. Dudek, R. Ewig, D. Gates, R. Hatcher, T. Jarboe, S. Jardin, D. Johnson, R. Kaita, M. Kalish, C. Kessel, H. Kugel, R. Maingi, R. Majeski, J. Manickam, B. McCormack, J. Menard, D. Mueller, B. Nelson, B. Nelson, C. Neumeyer, G. Oliaro, F. Pao- letti, R. Parsells, E. Perry, N....

    2000

  7. [7]

    S. A. Sabbagh, J.-W. Ahn, J. Allain, R. Andre, A. Bal- baky, R. Bastasz, D. Battaglia, M. Bell, R. Bell, P. Beiersdorfer, E. Belova, J. Berkery, R. Betti, J. Bialek, 21 NSTX Discharge Interpretive Predictive βth ν∗ Scan Group Analysis Time (ms) 120958 A06 P08 0.061 0.111 ν3 570 120959 A07 P07 0.073 0.045 ν2 530 120964 A03 P06 0.070 0.201 ν2 510 120967 A03...

    2013

  8. [8]

    J. E. Menard, S. Gerhardt, M. Bell, J. Bialek, A. Brooks, J. Canik, J. Chrzanowski, M. Denault, L. Dudek, D. A. Gates, N. Gorelenkov, W. Guttenfelder, R. Hatcher, J. Hosea, R. Kaita, S. Kaye, C. Kessel, E. Kolemen, H. Kugel, R. Maingi, M. Mardenfeld, D. Mueller, B. Nel- son, C. Neumeyer, M. Ono, E. Perry, R. Ramakr- ishnan, R. Raman, Y. Ren, S. Sabbagh, M...

    2012

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    J. E. Menard, J. P. Allain, D. J. Battaglia, F. Bedoya, R. E. Bell, E. Belova, J. W. Berkery, M. D. Boyer, N. Crocker, A. Diallo, F. Ebrahimi, N. Ferraro, E. Fredrickson, H. Frerichs, S. Gerhardt, N. Gore- lenkov, W. Guttenfelder, W. Heidbrink, R. Kaita, S. M. Kaye, D. M. Krie...

    2017

  2. [10]

    Berkery, P

    J. Berkery, P. Adebayo-Ige, H. A. Khawaldeh, G. Avdeeva, S.-G. Baek, S. Banerjee, K. Barada, D. Battaglia, R. Bell, E. Belli, E. Belova, N. Bertelli, N. Bisai, P. Bonoli, M. Boyer, J. Butt, J. Candy, C. Chang, C. Clauser, L. C. Rivera, M. Curie, P. de Vries, R. Diab, A. Diallo...

    2024

  3. [11]

    P. F. Buxton, J. W. Connor, A. E. Costley, M. P. Gryaznevich, and S. McNamara, On the energy confine- ment time in spherical tokamaks: implications for the de- sign of pilot plants and fusion reactors, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 61, 035006 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Wilson, I

    H. Wilson, I. Chapman, T. Denton, W. Morris, B. Patel, G. Voss, C. Waldon, and the STEP Team, STEP—on the pathway to fusion commercialization, inCommercialising Fusion Energy, 2053-2563 (IOP Publishing, 2020) pp. 8– 1 to 8–18

  5. [13]

    Waldon, S

    C. Waldon, S. I. Muldrew, J. Keep, R. Verhoeven, T. Thompson, and M. Kisbey-Ascott, Concept design overview: a question of choices and compromise, Philo- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathemat- ical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 382, 20230414 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Meyer, Plasma burn—mind the gap, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 382, 20230406 (2024)

    H. Meyer, Plasma burn—mind the gap, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 382, 20230406 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Kingham and M

    D. Kingham and M. Gryaznevich, The spherical tokamak path to fusion power: Opportunities and challenges for development via public–private partnerships, Physics of Plasmas 31, 042507 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Ono and R

    M. Ono and R. Kaita, Recent progress on spherical torus research, Physics of Plasmas 22, 040501 (2015). 23

    2015

  9. [17]

    S. M. Kaye, F. M. Levinton, D. Stutman, K. Tritz, H. Yuh, M. G. Bell, R. E. Bell, C. W. Domier, D. Gates, W. Horton, J. Kim, B. P. LeBlanc, N. C. Luhmann, R. Maingi, E. Mazzucato, J. E. Menard, D. Mikkelsen, D. Mueller, H. Park, G. Rewoldt, S. A. Sabbagh, D. R. Smith, and W. W...

    2007

  10. [18]

    Valoviˇ c, R

    M. Valoviˇ c, R. Akers, G. Cunningham, L. Garzotti, B. Lloyd, D. Muir, A. Patel, D. Taylor, M. Turnyanskiy, M. Walsh, and the MAST team, Scaling of H-mode en- ergy confinement with Ip and BT in the MAST spherical tokamak, Nuclear Fusion 49, 075016 (2009)

    2009

  11. [19]

    Valoviˇ c, R

    M. Valoviˇ c, R. Akers, M. de Bock, J. McCone, L. Gar- zotti, C. Michael, G. Naylor, A. Patel, C. M. Roach, R. Scannell, M. Turnyanskiy, M. Wisse, W. Guttenfelder, J. Candy, and the MAST team, Collisionality and safety factor scalings of H-mode energy transport in the MAST sph...

    2011

  12. [20]

    S. Kaye, S. Gerhardt, W. Guttenfelder, R. Maingi, R. Bell, A. Diallo, B. LeBlanc, and M. Podesta, The de- pendence of H-mode energy confinement and transport on collisionality in NSTX, Nuclear Fusion 53, 063005 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    Kurskiev, N

    G. Kurskiev, N. Bakharev, V. Bulanin, F. Cherny- shev, V. Gusev, N. Khromov, E. Kiselev, V. Minaev, I. Miroshnikov, E. Mukhin, M. Patrov, A. Petrov, Y. Petrov, N. Sakharov, P. Shchegolev, A. Sladkomedova, V. Solokha, A. Telnova, S. Tolstyakov, V. Tokarev, and A. Yashin, Therma...

    2019

  14. [22]

    Kurskiev, V

    G. Kurskiev, V. Gusev, N. Sakharov, Y. Petrov, N. Bakharev, I. Balachenkov, A. Bazhenov, F. Cherny- shev, N. Khromov, E. Kiselev, S. Krikunov, V. Mi- naev, I. Miroshnikov, A. Novokhatskii, N. Zhiltsov, E. Mukhin, M. Patrov, K. Shulyatiev, P. Shchegolev, O. Skrekel, A. Telnova,...

    2021

  15. [23]

    S. M. Kaye, J. W. Connor, and C. M. Roach, Thermal confinement and transport in spherical tokamaks: a re- view, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 63, 123001 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Guttenfelder, J

    W. Guttenfelder, J. Candy, S. M. Kaye, W. M. Nevins, R. E. Bell, G. W. Hammett, B. P. LeBlanc, and H. Yuh, Scaling of linear microtearing stability for a high colli- sionality National Spherical Torus Experiment discharge, Physics of Plasmas 19, 022506 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    Guttenfelder, J

    W. Guttenfelder, J. L. Peterson, J. Candy, S. M. Kaye, Y. Ren, R. E. Bell, G. W. Hammett, B. P. LeBlanc, D. R. Mikkelsen, W. M. Nevins, and H. Yuh, Progress in sim- ulating turbulent electron thermal transport in NSTX, Nuclear Fusion 53, 093022 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    S. M. Kaye, W. Guttenfelder, R. E. Bell, S. P. Ger- hardt, B. P. LeBlanc, and R. Maingi, Reduced model pre- diction of electron temperature profiles in microtearing- dominated National Spherical Torus eXperiment plas- mas, Physics of Plasmas 21, 082510 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    C. F. Clauser, W. Guttenfelder, T. Rafiq, and E. Schus- ter, Linear ion-scale microstability analysis of high and low-collisionality NSTX discharges and NSTX-U projec- tions, Physics of Plasmas 29, 102303 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Patel, D

    B. Patel, D. Dickinson, C. Roach, and H. Wilson, Linear gyrokinetic stability of a high β non-inductive spherical tokamak, Nuclear Fusion 62, 016009 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    McClenaghan, T

    J. McClenaghan, T. Slendebroek, G. M. Staebler, S. P. Smith, O. M. Meneghini, B. A. Grierson, K. E. Thome, G. Avdeeva, L. L. Lao, J. Candy, and W. Guttenfelder, Transition from ITG to MTM linear instabilities near pedestals of high density plasmas, Physics of Plasmas 30, 042512 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Kennedy, M

    D. Kennedy, M. Giacomin, F. Casson, D. Dickinson, W. Hornsby, B. Patel, and C. Roach, Electromagnetic gyrokinetic instabilities in STEP, Nuclear Fusion 63, 126061 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Kennedy, C

    D. Kennedy, C. Roach, M. Giacomin, P. Ivanov, T. Ad- kins, F. Sheffield, T. G¨ orler, A. Bokshi, D. Dickinson, H. Dudding, and B. Patel, On the importance of parallel magnetic-field fluctuations for electromagnetic instabili- ties in STEP, Nuclear Fusion 64, 086049 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Giacomin, D

    M. Giacomin, D. Kennedy, F. J. Casson, A. C J, D. Dick- inson, B. S. Patel, and C. M. Roach, On electromagnetic turbulence and transport in STEP, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 66, 055010 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Dominski, W

    J. Dominski, W. Guttenfelder, D. Hatch, T. Goerler, F. Jenko, S. Munaretto, and S. Kaye, Global micro- tearing modes in the wide pedestal of an NSTX plasma, Physics of Plasmas 31, 044501 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    McClenaghan, T

    J. McClenaghan, T. F. Neiser, F. D. Halpern, K. E. Thome, A. D. Turnbull, E. W. DeShazer, O. M. Menegh- ini, G. Avdeeva, J. B. Lestz, and J. Candy, Role of per- turbed parallel magnetic field effects in predicting turbu- lent transport in NSTX, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fu...

    2025

  27. [35]

    Singh, T

    T. Singh, T. Rafiq, E. Schuster, Z. Lin, and A. Kuley, Global gyrokinetic simulations of kinetic ballooning mode in NSTX-U plasmas, Nuclear Fusion (submitted)

  28. [36]

    C. M. Roach, I. G. Abel, R. J. Akers, W. Arter, M. Barnes, Y. Camenen, F. J. Casson, G. Colyer, J. W. Connor, S. C. Cowley, D. Dickinson, W. Dorland, A. R. Field, W. Guttenfelder, G. W. Hammett, R. J. Hastie, E. Highcock, N. F. Loureiro, A. G. Peeters, M. Reshko, S. Saarelma, ...

    2009

  29. [37]

    Patel, M

    B. Patel, M. Hardman, D. Kennedy, M. Giacomin, D. Dickinson, and C. Roach, The impact of E × B shear on microtearing based transport in spherical tokamaks, Nuclear Fusion 65, 026063 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Avdeeva, J

    G. Avdeeva, J. Candy, , K. Thome, E. Belli, S. Kaye, and G. Staebler, Enhanced shear-stabilization of turbulence in NSTX, (submitted to Physics of Plasmas)

  31. [39]

    Rafiq, A

    T. Rafiq, A. H. Kritz, J. Weiland, A. Y. Pankin, and L. Luo, Physics basis of Multi-Mode anomalous transport module, Physics of Plasmas 20, 032506 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    L. Luo, T. Rafiq, and A. Kritz, Improved Multi-Mode anomalous transport module for tokamak plasmas, Com- puter Physics Communications 184, 2267 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    G. M. Staebler, J. E. Kinsey, and R. E. Waltz, A theory- based transport model with comprehensive physics, Physics of Plasmas 14, 055909 (2007)

    2007

  34. [42]

    J. E. Kinsey, G. M. Staebler, and R. E. Waltz, The first transport code simulations using the trapped gyro- Landau-fluid model, Physics of Plasmas 15, 055908 24 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    Rafiq, C

    T. Rafiq, C. Wilson, L. Luo, J. Weiland, E. Schuster, A. Y. Pankin, W. Guttenfelder, and S. Kaye, Electron temperature gradient driven transport model for toka- mak plasmas, Physics of Plasmas 29, 092503 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Rafiq, J

    T. Rafiq, J. Weiland, A. H. Kritz, L. Luo, and A. Y. Pankin, Microtearing modes in tokamak discharges, Physics of Plasmas 23, 062507 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Stability and Transport in Magnetic Confinement Sys- tems (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    Rafiq, G

    T. Rafiq, G. Bateman, A. H. Kritz, and A. Y. Pankin, De- velopment of drift-resistive-inertial ballooning transport model for tokamak edge plasmas, Physics of Plasmas 17, 082511 (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    Rafiq, C

    T. Rafiq, C. Wilson, C. Clauser, E. Schuster, J. Wei- land, J. Anderson, S. Kaye, A. Pankin, B. LeBlanc, and R. Bell, Predictive modeling of NSTX discharges with the updated multi-mode anomalous transport module, Nuclear Fusion 64, 076024 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Weiland, T

    J. Weiland, T. Rafiq, and E. Schuster, Fast particles in drift wave turbulence, Physics of Plasmas 30, 042517 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Rafiq, C

    T. Rafiq, C. Wilson, J. Weiland, L. Whitall, and E. Schuster, Towards efficient and practical models for energetic particle transport in tokamaks, in 63rd APS DPP Meeting (Denver, CO, 2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Rafiq, S

    T. Rafiq, S. Kaye, W. Guttenfelder, J. Weiland, E. Schus- ter, J. Anderson, and L. Luo, Microtearing instabilities and electron thermal transport in low and high collision- ality NSTX discharges, Physics of Plasmas 28, 022504 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    R. J. Hawryluk, An empirical approach to tokamak trans- port, in Physics of Plasmas Close to Thermonuclear Conditions, Vol. 1, edited by B. Coppi, G. G. Leotta, D. Pfirsch, R. Pozzoli, and E. Sindoni (CEC, Brussels,

  44. [52]

    R. J. Goldston, D. C. McCune, H. H. Towner, S. L. Davis, R. J. Hawryluk, and G. L. Schmidt, New techniques for calculating heat and particle source rates due to neu- tral beam injection in axisymmetric tokamaks, Journal of Computational Physics 43, 61 (1981)

    1981

  45. [53]

    F. Poli, J. Sachdev, J. Breslau, M. Gorelenkova, and X. Yuan, TRANSP v18.2, [Computer Software] https: //dx.doi.org/10.11578/dc.20180627.4 (2018)

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    Grierson, X

    B. Grierson, X. Yuan, M. Gorelenkova, S. Kaye, N. Lo- gan, O. Meneghini, S. Haskey, J. Buchanan, M. Fitzger- ald, S. Smith, L. Cui, R. Budny, and F. Poli, Orchestrat- ing TRANSP simulations for interpretative and predic- tive tokamak modeling with OMFIT, Fusion Science and Tec...

    2018

  47. [55]

    Pankin, J

    A. Pankin, J. Breslau, M. Gorelenkova, R. Andre, B. Grierson, J. Sachdev, M. Goliyad, and G. Pe- rumpilly, TRANSP integrated modeling code for inter- pretive and predictive analysis of tokamak plasmas, Com- puter Physics Communications 312, 109611 (2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    S. C. Jardin, G. Bateman, G. W. Hammett, and L. P. Ku, Short note: On 1D diffusion problems with a gradient- dependent diffusion coefficient, J. Comput. Phys. 227, 8769–8775 (2008)

    2008

  49. [57]

    X. Yuan, D. McCune, S. Jardin, R. Budny, and G. Hammett, A modular, parallel, multi-region, predic- tive transport equation solver, installed and available in PTRANSP, in 53rd APS DPP Meeting (Salt Lake City, UT, 2011)

    2011

  50. [58]

    X. Yuan, S. Jardin, R. Budny, G. Staebler, and G. Ham- mett, New predictive capabilities in PTRANSP with PT- SOL VER, in 54th APS DPP Meeting (Providence, RI, 2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    X. Yuan, S. Jardin, G. Hammett, R. Budny, and G. Stae- bler, Parallel computing aspect in TRANSP with PT- SOL VER, in55th APS DPP Meeting (Denver, CO, 2013)

    2013

  52. [60]

    F. Poli, R. Andre, N. Bertelli, S. Gerhardt, D. Mueller, and G. Taylor, Simulations towards the achievement of non-inductive current ramp-up and sustainment in the National Spherical Torus Experiment Upgrade, Nuclear Fusion 55, 123011 (2015)

    2015

  53. [61]

    N. A. Lopez and F. M. Poli, Regarding the optimization of O1-mode ECRH and the feasibility of EBW startup on NSTX-U, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 60, 065007 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    Podest` a, D

    M. Podest` a, D. J. Cruz-Zabala, F. M. Poli, J. Dominguez-Palacios, J. W. Berkery, M. Garcia- Mu˜ noz, E. Viezzer, A. Mancini, J. Segado, L. Velarde, and S. M. Kaye, NBI optimization on SMART and implications for scenario development, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 66, 0...

    2024

  55. [63]

    D. J. Cruz-Zabala, M. Podesta, F. M. Poli, S. M. Kaye, M. Garcia-Munoz, E. Viezzer, and J. W. Berkery, Perfor- mance prediction applying different reduced turbulence models to the SMART tokamak, Nuclear Fusion (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    Rafiq, Z

    T. Rafiq, Z. Wang, S. Morosohk, E. Schuster, J. Wei- land, W. Choi, and H.-T. Kim, Validating the Multi- Mode Model’s ability to reproduce diverse tokamak sce- narios, Plasma 6, 435 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    A. Y. Pankin, A. H. Kritz, T. Rafiq, A. M. Garofalo, I. Holod, and J. Weiland, Extending the validation of multi-mode model for anomalous transport to high beta poloidal tokamak scenario in DIII-D, Physics of Plasmas 25, 052505 (2018)

    2018

  58. [66]

    W. A. Houlberg, K. C. Shaing, S. P. Hirshman, and M. C. Zarnstorff, Bootstrap current and neoclassical transport in tokamaks of arbitrary collisionality and aspect ratio, Physics of Plasmas 4, 3230 (1997)

    1997

  59. [67]

    Avdeeva, K

    G. Avdeeva, K. Thome, S. Smith, D. Battaglia, C. Clauser, W. Guttenfelder, S. Kaye, J. McClenaghan, O. Meneghini, T. Odstrcil, and G. Staebler, Energy transport analysis of NSTX plasmas with the TGLF tur- bulent and NEO neoclassical transport models, Nuclear Fusion 63, 126020 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    Avdeeva, K

    G. Avdeeva, K. E. Thome, J. W. Berkery, S. M. Kaye, J. McClenaghan, O. Meneghini, T. Odstrcil, S. A. Sab- bagh, S. P. Smith, and A. D. Turnbull, Accuracy of ki- netic equilibrium reconstruction of NSTX and NSTX- U plasmas and its impact on the transport and stabil- ity analysi...

    2024

  61. [69]

    Gerhardt, D

    S. Gerhardt, D. Gates, S. Kaye, R. Maingi, J. Menard, S. Sabbagh, V. Soukhanovskii, M. Bell, R. Bell, J. Canik, E. Fredrickson, R. Kaita, E. Kolemen, H. Kugel, B. L. Blanc, D. Mastrovito, D. Mueller, and H. Yuh, Recent progress towards an advanced spherical torus operating poi...

    2011

  62. [70]

    Gerhardt, E

    S. Gerhardt, E. Fredrickson, D. Gates, S. Kaye, J. Menard, M. Bell, R. Bell, B. L. Blanc, H. Kugel, S. Sabbagh, and H. Yuh, Calculation of the non-inductive current profile in high-performance NSTX plasmas, Nu- clear Fusion 51, 033004 (2011). 25

    2011

  63. [71]

    Y. Ren, W. Guttenfelder, S. M. Kaye, E. Mazzucato, R. E. Bell, A. Diallo, C. W. Domier, B. P. LeBlanc, K. C. Lee, D. R. Smith, and H. Yuh, Experimental study of parametric dependence of electron-scale turbulence in a spherical tokamak, Physics of Plasmas19, 056125 (2012)

    2012

  64. [72]

    Y. Ren, W. Guttenfelder, S. Kaye, E. Mazzucato, R. Bell, A. Diallo, C. Domier, B. LeBlanc, K. Lee, M. Podesta, D. Smith, and H. Yuh, Electron-scale turbulence spectra and plasma thermal transport responding to continuous E × B shear ramp-up in a spherical tokamak, Nuclear Fusi...

    2013

  65. [73]

    Gerhardt, J

    S. Gerhardt, J. Canik, R. Maingi, D. Battaglia, R. Bell, W. Guttenfelder, B. LeBlanc, D. Smith, H. Yuh, and S. Sabbagh, Progress in understanding the enhanced pedestal H-mode in NSTX, Nuclear Fusion 54, 083021 (2014)

    2014

  66. [74]

    Ruiz Ruiz, W

    J. Ruiz Ruiz, W. Guttenfelder, A. E. White, N. T. Howard, J. Candy, Y. Ren, D. R. Smith, N. F. Loureiro, C. Holland, and C. W. Domier, Validation of gyrokinetic simulations of a National Spherical Torus eXperiment H- mode plasma and comparisons with a high-k scattering synthet...

    2019

  67. [75]

    Y. Ren, W. Wang, W. Guttenfelder, S. Kaye, J. Ruiz- Ruiz, S. Ethier, R. Bell, B. LeBlanc, E. Mazzucato, D. Smith, C. Domier, and H. Yuh, Exploring the regime of validity of global gyrokinetic simulations with spheri- cal tokamak plasmas, Nuclear Fusion 60, 026005 (2019)

    2019

  68. [76]

    D. J. Battaglia, W. Guttenfelder, R. E. Bell, A. Diallo, N. Ferraro, E. Fredrickson, S. P. Gerhardt, S. M. Kaye, R. Maingi, and D. R. Smith, Enhanced pedestal H-mode at low edge ion collisionality on NSTX, Physics of Plas- mas 27, 072511 (2020)

    2020

  69. [77]

    C. F. Clauser, T. Rafiq, J. Parisi, G. Avdeeva, W. Gut- tenfelder, E. Schuster, and C. Wilson, Electron tempera- ture gradient instability and transport analysis in NSTX and NSTX-U plasmas, Physics of Plasmas 32, 022305 (2025)

    2025

  70. [78]

    ITER Physics Expert Group on Confinement and Trans- port, ITER Physics Expert Group on Confinement Mod- elling and Database, and ITER Physics Basis Editors, Chapter 2: Plasma confinement and transport, Nuclear Fusion 39, 2175 (1999)

    1999

  71. [79]

    Abbate, E

    J. Abbate, E. Fable, B. Grierson, A. Pankin, G. Tardini, and E. Kolemen, Large-database cross-verification and validation of tokamak transport models using baselines for comparison, Physics of Plasmas 31, 042506 (2024)

    2024

  72. [80]

    Spearman, The proof and measurement of association between two things, The American Journal of Psychology 15, 72 (1904)

    C. Spearman, The proof and measurement of association between two things, The American Journal of Psychology 15, 72 (1904)

    1904

  73. [81]

    J. E. Kinsey, R. E. Waltz, and J. Candy, The effect of plasma shaping on turbulent transport and E ×B shear quenching in nonlinear gyrokinetic simulations, Physics of Plasmas 14, 102306 (2007)

    2007

  74. [82]

    Candy, E

    J. Candy, E. Belli, and R. Bravenec, A high-accuracy eu- lerian gyrokinetic solver for collisional plasmas, Journal of Computational Physics 324, 73 (2016)

    2016

  75. [83]

    Meneghini, T

    O. Meneghini, T. Slendebroek, B. C. Lyons, K. McLaugh- lin, J. McClenaghan, L. Stagner, J. Harvey, T. F. Neiser, A. Ghiozzi, G. Dose, J. Guterl, A. Zalzali, T. Cote, N. Shi, D. Weisberg, S. P. Smith, B. A. Grierson, and J. Candy, FUSE (fusion synthesis engine): A next gen- era...

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Neiser, O

    T. Neiser, O. Meneghini, T. Slendebroek, S. Smith, J. McClenaghan, A. Ghiozzi, B. Patel, A. Nelson, G. Avdeeva, C. Roach, F. Casson, H. Dudding, G. Stae- bler, J. Hall, B. Lyons, E. Belli, J. Candy, R. Yu, B. Sam- muli, R. Nazikian, and T. Osborne, Large database val- idation ...

    2024

  77. [85]

    E. A. Belli and J. Candy, Kinetic calculation of neoclas- sical transport including self-consistent electron and im- purity dynamics, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 50, 095010 (2008)

    2008

  78. [86]

    E. A. Belli and J. Candy, Full linearized fokker–planck collisions in neoclassical transport simulations, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 54, 015015 (2011)

    2011

  79. [87]

    Pankin, D

    A. Pankin, D. McCune, R. Andre, G. Bateman, and A. Kritz, The tokamak Monte Carlo fast ion module nubeam in the National Transport Code Collaboration library, Computer Physics Communications 159, 157 (2004)

    2004

  80. [88]

    Coppi, Profile consistency: Global and nonlinear transport, Physics Letters A 128, 193 (1988)

    B. Coppi, Profile consistency: Global and nonlinear transport, Physics Letters A 128, 193 (1988)

    1988

  81. [89]

    Stutman, L

    D. Stutman, L. Delgado-Aparicio, N. Gorelenkov, M. Finkenthal, E. Fredrickson, S. Kaye, E. Mazzucato, and K. Tritz, Correlation between electron transport and shear Alfv´ en activity in the National Spherical Torus Ex- periment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 115002 (2009)

    2009

  82. [90]

    Y. Ren, E. Belova, N. Gorelenkov, W. Guttenfelder, S. M. Kaye, E. Mazzucato, J. L. Peterson, D. R. Smith, D. Stutman, K. Tritz, W. X. Wang, H. Yuh, R. E. Bell, C. W. Domier, and B. P. LeBlanc, Recent progress in understanding electron thermal transport in NSTX, Nu- clear Fusio...

    2017

  83. [91]

    N. N. Gorelenkov, D. Stutman, K. Tritz, A. Boozer, L. Delgado-Aparicio, E. Fredrickson, S. Kaye, and R. White, Anomalous electron transport due to multi- ple high frequency beam ion driven Alfv´ en eigenmodes, Nuclear Fusion 50, 084012 (2010)

    2010

  84. [92]

    Y. I. Kolesnichenko, Y. V. Yakovenko, and V. V. Lut- senko, Channeling of the energy and momentum during energetic-ion-driven instabilities in fusion plasmas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 075001 (2010)

    2010

  85. [93]

    Kolesnichenko, Y

    Y. Kolesnichenko, Y. Yakovenko, V. V. Lutsenko, R. B. White, and A. Weller, Effects of energetic-ion-driven in- stabilities on plasma heating, transport and rotation in toroidal systems, Nuclear Fusion 50, 084011 (2010)

    2010

  86. [94]

    E. V. Belova, N. N. Gorelenkov, E. D. Fredrickson, K. Tritz, and N. A. Crocker, Coupling of neutral- beam-driven compressional Alfv´ en eigenmodes to kinetic Alfv´ en waves in NSTX tokamak and energy channeling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 015001 (2015)

    2015

  87. [95]

    E. V. Belova, N. N. Gorelenkov, N. A. Crocker, J. B. Lestz, E. D. Fredrickson, S. Tang, and K. Tritz, Nonlinear simulations of beam-driven compressional Alfv´ en eigen- modes in NSTX, Physics of Plasmas 24, 042505 (2017)

    2017

  88. [96]

    J. B. Lestz, E. V. Belova, and N. N. Gorelenkov, Hybrid simulations of sub-cyclotron compressional and global Alfv´ en eigenmode stability in spherical tokamaks, Nu- clear Fusion 61, 086016 (2021)

    2021

  89. [97]

    S. C. Jardin, N. M. Ferraro, W. Guttenfelder, S. M. Kaye, and S. Munaretto, Ideal MHD limited electron tempera- ture in spherical tokamaks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 245001 (2022)

    2022

  90. [98]

    S. C. Jardin, N. M. Ferraro, W. Guttenfelder, S. M. Kaye, and S. Munaretto, Ideal MHD induced tempera- 26 ture flattening in spherical tokamaks, Physics of Plasmas 30, 042507 (2023)

    2023

  91. [99]

    Meneghini, S

    O. Meneghini, S. Smith, L. Lao, O. Izacard, Q. Ren, J. Park, J. Candy, Z. Wang, C. Luna, V. Izzo, B. Grier- son, P. Snyder, C. Holland, J. Penna, G. Lu, P. Raum, A. McCubbin, D. Orlov, E. Belli, N. Ferraro, R. Prater, T. Osborne, A. Turnbull, and G. Staebler, Integrated modeli...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.