pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.01117 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph · nlin.CD· physics.comp-ph· physics.data-an

Recognition: unknown

High-throughput full-f gyrokinetics of the tokamak boundary

A.C.D. Hoffmann, A. Hakim, G.W. Hammett, M. Francisquez, T.N. Bernard

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 17:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph nlin.CDphysics.comp-phphysics.data-an
keywords gyrokineticstokamak boundaryplasma shapingscrape-off layerneoclassical transportITGTEMfull-f simulations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hundreds of unsupervised full-f gyrokinetic simulations show plasma shaping effects on tokamak boundary confinement depend on heating power.

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

The paper demonstrates that a high-throughput approach now allows hundreds of independent, concurrent full-f global gyrokinetic simulations of the tokamak boundary to run unsupervised until they reach steady state. These simulations scan triangularity, elongation, and heating power in a TCV-inspired geometry that includes both closed flux surfaces and the open-field-line scrape-off layer. Analysis of the resulting steady-state profiles establishes that the impact of plasma shaping on confinement is strongly power dependent: triangularity mainly sets the SOL ion temperature at low power, while at high power it primarily influences the edge ion temperature gradient. The low-power behavior is traced to a neoclassical trapped-ion mechanism, and turbulent regimes are classified as ITG- or TEM-dominated via fingerprint analysis.

Core claim

Full-f global gyrokinetic simulations of the plasma boundary have until now required heroic computational efforts and case-by-case expert intervention, precluding systematic parameter scans. Here we demonstrate a paradigm shift by performing hundreds of independent, concurrent, and unsupervised full-f boundary gyrokinetic simulations in a geometry inspired by the Tokamak à Configuration Variable (TCV), covering both the closed flux surface region and the open-field-line scrape-off layer while scanning triangularity, elongation, and heating power. All simulations are evolved much longer than the turbulence relaxation time until the steady state is reached. Analysis of the steady-state profile

What carries the argument

The neoclassical trapped-ion mechanism in which triangularity modifies the field-line arc length between banana turning points and the high-field-side limiter, altering trapped-ion interaction with cold neutral-ionization regions.

If this is right

  • The generated open dataset serves as a benchmark for boundary transport models.
  • The dataset can train data-driven surrogate models for fusion applications.
  • Fingerprint analysis categorizes boundary turbulence into ITG- or TEM-dominated regimes, confirmed by local linear calculations.
  • The power-dependent response to shaping suggests different optimization priorities for low-power versus high-power tokamak operation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same unsupervised high-throughput approach could be extended to scan additional parameters such as aspect ratio or magnetic shear in other device geometries.
  • The neoclassical orbit-length explanation implies that deliberate limiter placement or field-line mapping could be used to control SOL temperatures independently of core shaping.
  • These steady-state profiles offer a concrete testbed for reduced models that aim to predict boundary transport without full gyrokinetic cost.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations reach a genuine steady state without artificial damping or intervention and accurately capture the neoclassical trapped-ion dynamics plus turbulent transport in a geometry representative of real devices.

What would settle it

Steady-state SOL ion temperature and edge gradient measurements in a device like TCV at matched triangularity and power levels that fail to reproduce the simulated power-dependent trends.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.01117 by A.C.D. Hoffmann, A. Hakim, G.W. Hammett, M. Francisquez, T.N. Bernard.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Average time step of the simulations in the quasi view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Time evolution of the particle energy, view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Poloidal cut of the ion temperature at view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Edge ion temperature view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the transport pinch as a function of the heat diffusivity ratio for all simulations of the scan, with the shaded region corresponding to the ITG/TEM regime [67]. The data show that the majority of the simulations are in the ITG/TEM regime with a few out￾liers for high power injection and positive triangularity. These outliers do not clearly fit into another category of the fingerprint analysis, which… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Full-f global gyrokinetic simulations of the plasma boundary have until now required heroic computational efforts and case-by-case expert intervention, precluding systematic parameter scans. Here we demonstrate a paradigm shift: hundreds of independent, concurrent, and unsupervised full-f boundary gyrokinetic simulations in a geometry inspired by the Tokamak \`a Configuration Variable (TCV), covering both the closed flux surface region and the open-field-line scrape-off layer (SOL) while scanning triangularity, elongation, and heating power. All simulations are evolved much longer than the turbulence relaxation time until the steady state is reached. Analysis of the steady-state profiles reveals that the impact of plasma shaping on confinement is strongly power dependent: at low power, triangularity primarily controls the SOL ion temperature, while at high power it mostly affects the edge ion temperature gradient. The low-power hot SOL observed for positive triangularity is explained by a neoclassical trapped-ion mechanism in which triangularity modifies the field-line arc length between banana turning points and the high-field-side limiter, altering the interaction with cold neutral-ionization regions. Fingerprint analysis of turbulent transport categorize the simulations in a regime dominated by ion temperature gradient (ITG) or trapped electron modes (TEMs), confirmed by dedicated local linear gyrokinetic calculations. The generated open data represents a previously unobtainable resource. It can serve both as a benchmark for boundary transport models, and as a training dataset for data-driven methods in fusion foundation and surrogate models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a high-throughput framework for full-f gyrokinetic simulations of the tokamak boundary, enabling hundreds of concurrent, unsupervised runs in TCV-like geometry across scans of triangularity, elongation, and heating power. The central finding is that the effect of plasma shaping on confinement is strongly power-dependent: at low power, triangularity governs the SOL ion temperature via a neoclassical trapped-ion mechanism, whereas at high power it primarily influences the edge ion temperature gradient. Turbulent regimes are identified through fingerprint analysis and confirmed with linear gyrokinetic calculations, with the resulting dataset released openly.

Significance. This work has high significance for the field if the results are robust. It overcomes previous computational barriers to systematic boundary studies, providing mechanistic insight into shaping effects that could guide experimental optimization. The unsupervised steady-state attainment, the open data resource for benchmarking and ML training, and the linear validation are notable strengths that enhance reproducibility and utility.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results section on steady-state profiles] The central claim of power-dependent shaping effects depends on the simulations having reached true steady state without intervention. Explicit evidence, such as time traces of integrated fluxes or profile evolution for representative low- and high-power cases, is needed to confirm the absence of slow secular drifts or residual damping effects.
  2. [Discussion of neoclassical mechanism] The explanation for the low-power hot SOL in positive triangularity cases via modification of field-line arc length between banana turning points and limiter interaction with neutrals is load-bearing for the mechanistic interpretation. Controlled tests, e.g., toggling the neutral model or orbit-averaged diagnostics, should be presented to isolate this from turbulent drive changes.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Clarify the exact criteria and thresholds used in the 'fingerprint analysis' for classifying ITG vs TEM dominated regimes.
  2. [Figures] Ensure that all profile plots include error bars or variability measures from the turbulent fluctuations to support the reported trends.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our work's significance and for the constructive major comments. We address each point below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the evidence and mechanistic interpretation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results section on steady-state profiles] The central claim of power-dependent shaping effects depends on the simulations having reached true steady state without intervention. Explicit evidence, such as time traces of integrated fluxes or profile evolution for representative low- and high-power cases, is needed to confirm the absence of slow secular drifts or residual damping effects.

    Authors: We agree that explicit time traces provide stronger confirmation of steady-state attainment than the textual statement alone. In the revised manuscript we will add plots of integrated heat and particle fluxes versus time, together with profile evolution, for representative low-power and high-power cases. These will demonstrate the absence of secular drifts after the turbulence relaxation time. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion of neoclassical mechanism] The explanation for the low-power hot SOL in positive triangularity cases via modification of field-line arc length between banana turning points and limiter interaction with neutrals is load-bearing for the mechanistic interpretation. Controlled tests, e.g., toggling the neutral model or orbit-averaged diagnostics, should be presented to isolate this from turbulent drive changes.

    Authors: We acknowledge that isolating the neoclassical contribution would strengthen the mechanistic claim. The original interpretation rests on the observed correlation between triangularity, field-line geometry, and SOL temperature at low power, together with the ITG/TEM fingerprint classification. In the revision we will add orbit-averaged diagnostics to quantify the trapped-ion orbit modifications. Full toggling of the neutral model across the entire scan is computationally prohibitive, but we will present results from a limited set of controlled runs with altered neutral sources to separate the effects. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results from direct numerical evolution of gyrokinetic equations

full rationale

The paper reports outcomes from hundreds of independent full-f global gyrokinetic simulations evolved to steady state without intervention. The central claim—that triangularity's effect on confinement is power-dependent, with specific mechanisms for low-power SOL temperature and high-power edge gradients—follows from post-processing the simulated steady-state profiles. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are shown to reduce these findings to the inputs by construction. The neoclassical trapped-ion explanation is presented as an interpretation of the simulation data rather than a prior assumption. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks as a numerical study, with no load-bearing steps that collapse to self-definition or renaming.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on numerical simulation outputs rather than analytical derivation; it inherits standard gyrokinetic assumptions from the plasma-physics literature with no new free parameters or invented entities introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard gyrokinetic ordering and collisionless or weakly collisional assumptions remain valid in the tokamak boundary and scrape-off layer.
    Invoked implicitly by the choice of full-f gyrokinetic model for both closed and open field-line regions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5585 in / 1235 out tokens · 44013 ms · 2026-05-09T17:45:56.741241+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    to provide a more robust setup for the large number of simulations of the scan, which is not tweaked case by case. In the following section, we verify that each simulation reaches a statistical steady state and then analyze the resulting confinement properties across the scan, from ion temperatures in the edge and SOL to the normalized gradients at the se...

  2. [2]

    A. J. Creely, M. J. Greenwald, S. B. Ballinger, D. Brun- ner, J. Canik, J. Doody, T. Fülöp, D. T. Garnier, R. Granetz, T. K. Gray, C. Holland, N. T. Howard, 9 J. W. Hughes, J. H. Irby, V. A. Izzo, G. J. Kramer, A. Q. Kuang, B. LaBombard, Y. Lin, B. Lipschultz, N. C. Logan, J. D. Lore, E. S. Marmar, K. Montes, R. T. Mumgaard, C. Paz-Soldan, C. Rea, M. L. R...

    2020

  3. [3]

    Hegna, D

    C. Hegna, D. Anderson, E. Andrew, A. Ayilaran, A. Bader, T. Bohm, K. C. Mata, J. Canik, L. Carba- jal, A. Cerfon, and et al., Journal of Plasma Physics91, E76 (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    Lion, J.-C

    J. Lion, J.-C. Anglès, L. Bonauer, A. Bañón Navarro, S. Cadena Ceron, R. Davies, M. Drevlak, N. Foppiani, J. Geiger, A. Goodman, W. Guo, E. Guiraud, F. Hernán- dez, S. Henneberg, R. Herrero, C. Hintze, H. Höchter, J. Jelonnek, F. Jenko, R. Jorge, M. Kaiser, M. Kubie, E. Lascas Neto, H. Laqua, M. Leoni, J. Lobsien, V. Mau- rin, A. Merlo, D. Middleton-Gear,...

    2025

  5. [5]

    Swanson, S

    C. Swanson, S. Kumar, D. Duda, E. Flom, W. Kalb, T. Kruger, M. Martin, J. Olatunji,et al., Overview of the Helios design: A practical planar coil stellarator fu- sion power plant (n.d.), white paper (not published in a journal). Accessed: 2026-03-07

    2026

  6. [6]

    Wagner, G

    F. Wagner, G. Becker, K. Behringer, D. Campbell, A. Eberhagen, W. Engelhardt, G. Fussmann, O. Gehre, J. Gernhardt, G. v. Gierke, G. Haas, M. Huang, F. Karger, M. Keilhacker, O. Klüber, M. Kornherr, K. Lackner, G. Lisitano, G. G. Lister, H. M. Mayer, D. Meisel, E. R. Müller, H. Murmann, H. Niedermeyer, W. Poschenrieder, H. Rapp, H. Röhr, F. Schneider, G. S...

    1982

  7. [7]

    Pochelon, T

    A. Pochelon, T. P. Goodman, M. Henderson, C. Angioni, R. Behn, S. Coda, F. Hofmann, J.-P. Hogge, N. Kirneva, A. A. Martynov, J.-M. Moret, Z. A. Pietrzyk, F. Por- celli, H. Reimerdes, J. Rommers, E. Rossi, O. Sauter, M. Q. Tran, H. Weisen, S. Alberti, S. Barry, P. Blan- chard, P. Bosshard, R. Chavan, B. P. Duval, Y. V. Es- ipchuck, D. Fasel, A. Favre, S. F...

    1999

  8. [8]

    Marinoni, M

    A. Marinoni, M. E. Austin, A. W. Hyatt, M. L. Walker, J. Candy, C. Chrystal, C. J. Lasnier, G. R. McKee, T. Odstrčil, C. C. Petty, M. Porkolab, J. C. Rost, O. Sauter, S. P. Smith, G. M. Staebler, C. Sung, K. E. Thome, A. D. Turnbull, and L. Zeng, Physics of Plasmas 26, 042515 (2019)

    2019

  9. [9]

    J. C. Adam, W. M. Tang, and P. H. Rutherford, Physics of Fluids19, 561 (1976)

    1976

  10. [10]

    P. C. Liewer, Nuclear Fusion25, 543 (1985)

    1985

  11. [11]

    Romanelli, Physics of Fluids B1, 1018 (1989)

    F. Romanelli, Physics of Fluids B1, 1018 (1989)

    1989

  12. [12]

    Rewoldt, W

    G. Rewoldt, W. M. Tang, and R. J. Hastie, The Physics of Fluids30, 807 (1987)

    1987

  13. [13]

    G. M. Staebler, J. E. Kinsey, and R. E. Waltz, Physics of Plasmas12, 1 (2005)

    2005

  14. [14]

    Bourdelle, X

    C. Bourdelle, X. Garbet, F. Imbeaux, A. Casati, N. Dubuit, R. Guirlet, and T. Parisot, Physics of Plasmas 14, 112501 (2007)

    2007

  15. [15]

    H. Sun, J. Ball, S. Brunner, and A. Volčokas, arXiv 2311.07159 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    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, Nuclear Fu- sion63, 126020 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    P. J. Catto, Plasma Physics20, 719 (1978)

    1978

  18. [18]

    M. A. Beer and G. W. Hammett, Physics of Plasmas3, 4046 (1996)

    1996

  19. [19]

    Jenko, W

    F. Jenko, W. Dorland, and M. Kotschenreuther, Physics of Plasmas7, 1904 (2000)

    1904

  20. [20]

    A. A. Schekochihin, S. C. Cowley, W. Dorland, G. W. Hammett, G. G. Howes, G. G. Plunk, E. Quataert, and T. Tatsuno, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion50, 124024 (2008)

    2008

  21. [21]

    A. J. Brizard and T. S. Hahm, Reviews of Modern Physics79, 421 (2007)

    2007

  22. [22]

    Dorland and G

    W. Dorland and G. W. Hammett, Physics of Fluids B5, 812 (1993)

    1993

  23. [23]

    Hoffmann, B

    A. Hoffmann, B. Frei, and P. Ricci, Journal of Plasma Physics89, 905890214 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    Mandell, W

    N. Mandell, W. Dorland, I. Abel, R. Gaur, P. Kim, M. Martin, and T. Qian, Journal of Plasma Physics90, 905900402 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    E. G. Highcock, A. A. Schekochihin, S. C. Cowley, M. Barnes, F. I. Parra, C. M. Roach, and W. Dorland, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 265001 (2012)

    2012

  26. [26]

    P. Kim, S. Buller, R. Conlin, W. Dorland, D. W. Dudt, R. Gaur, R. Jorge, E. Kolemen, M. Landreman, N. R. Mandell, and D. Panici, arXiv 2310.18842 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Guttenfelder, N

    W. Guttenfelder, N. Mandell, G. Le Bars, L. Singh, A. Bader, K. Camacho Mata, J. Canik, L. Carbajal, A. Cerfon, N. Davila, and et al., Journal of Plasma Physics91, E83 (2025)

    2025

  28. [28]

    E. G. Highcock, N. R. Mandell, M. Barnes, and W. Dor- land, Journal of Plasma Physics84, 905840208 (2018)

    2018

  29. [29]

    P. Ulbl, D. Michels, and F. Jenko, Contributions to Plasma Physics , e202100180 (2021)

    2021

  30. [30]

    C. S. Chang, S. Ku, A. Loarte, V. Parail, F. Köchl, M. Romanelli, R. Maingi, J. W. Ahn, T. Gray, J. Hughes, B. LaBombard, T. Leonard, M. Makowski, and J. Terry, Nuclear Fusion57, 116023 (2017)

    2017

  31. [31]

    J. Juno, A. Hakim, J. TenBarge, E. Shi, and W. Dorland, Journal of Computational Physics353, 110 (2018)

    2018

  32. [32]

    Hakim, The Gkeyll code: documentation home

    A. Hakim, The Gkeyll code: documentation home. (https://gkeyll.readthedocs.io) (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    Francisquez, P

    M. Francisquez, P. Cagas, A. Shukla, J. Juno, and G. W. Hammett, Journal of Computational Physics558, 114852 (2026)

    2026

  34. [34]

    B. D. Dudson, M. V. Umansky, X. Q. Xu, P. B. Snyder, and H. R. Wilson, Computer Physics Communications 180, 1467 (2009)

    2009

  35. [35]

    Stegmeir, D

    A. Stegmeir, D. Coster, A. Ross, O. Maj, K. Lackner, and E. Poli, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion60, 035005 (2018)

    2018

  36. [36]

    B. Zhu, M. Francisquez, and B. N. Rogers, Computer Physics Communications232, 46 (2018)

    2018

  37. [37]

    Giacomin, P

    M. Giacomin, P. Ricci, A. Coroado, G. Fourestey, D. Galassi, E. Lanti, D. Mancini, N. Richart, L. N. 10 Stenger,andN.Varini,JournalofComputationalPhysics 463, 111294 (2022)

    2022

  38. [38]

    Hoffmann, T

    A. Hoffmann, T. Bernard, M. Francisquez, G. Hammett, A. Hakim, J. Boedo, R. Rizkallah, C. Tsui, and T. T. Team, Nuclear Fusion66, 046022 (2026)

    2026

  39. [39]

    S. Coda, A. Merle, O. Sauter, L. Porte, F. Bagnato, J. Boedo, T. Bolzonella, O. Février, B. Labit, A. Mari- noni, A. Pau, L. Pigatto, U. Sheikh, C. Tsui, M. Vallar, and T. Vu, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion64, 014004 (2022)

    2022

  40. [40]

    M. E. Austin, A. Marinoni, M. L. Walker, M. W. Brook- man, J. S. Degrassie, A. W. Hyatt, G. R. McKee, C. C. Petty, T. L. Rhodes, S. P. Smith, C. Sung, K. E. Thome, and A. D. Turnbull, Physical Review Letters122, 115001 (2019)

    2019

  41. [41]

    K. E. Thome, M. E. Austin, A. Hyatt, A. Marinoni, A. O. Nelson, C. Paz-Soldan, F. Scotti, W. Boyes, L. Casali, C. Chrystal, S. Ding, X. D. Du, D. Eldon, D. Ernst, R. Hong, G. R. McKee, S. Mordijck, O. Sauter, L. Schmitz, J. L. Barr, M. G. Burke, S. Coda, T. B. Cote, M. E. Fenstermacher, A. Garofalo, F. O. Khabanov, G. J. Kramer, C. J. Lasnier, N. C. Logan...

    2024

  42. [42]

    Happel, T

    T. Happel, T. Pütterich, D. Told, M. Dunne, R. Fischer, J. Hobirk, R. McDermott, and U. Plank, Nuclear Fusion 63, 016002 (2023)

    2023

  43. [43]

    Marinoni, O

    A. Marinoni, O. Sauter, and S. Coda, A brief history of negative triangularity tokamak plasmas (2021)

    2021

  44. [44]

    Marinoni, C

    A. Marinoni, C. Chrystal, S. Coda, R. Coosemans, C. Marini, M. Podesta, O. Sauter, M. Agostini, M. E. Austin, E. Belli, J. Candy, M. Gorelenkova, D. Hamm, A. W. Hyatt, M. Knolker, M. L. Matina, P. Lunia, S. Mordijck, A. O. Nelson, T. H. Osborne, C. Paz-Soldan, L. Porte, U. Sheikh, F. Scotti, K. E. Thome, M. V. Zee- land, the DIII-D, and T. Teams, Non-dime...

    work page arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    T. M. Collaboration, G. Rutherford, H. S. Wilson, A.Saltzman, D.Arnold, J.L.Ball, S.Benjamin, R.Biela- jew, N. de Boucaud, M. Calvo-Carrera, R. Chandra, H. Choudhury, C. Cummings, L. Corsaro, N. DaSilva, R. Diab, A. R. Devitre, S. Ferry, S. J. Frank, C. J. Hansen, J. Jerkins, J. D. Johnson, P. Lunia, J. van de Lindt, S. Mackie, A. D. Maris, N. R. Mandell,...

    2024

  46. [46]

    Yüksek and T

    N. Yüksek and T. Golfinopoulos, Feasibility of nega- tive triangularity equilibria in the sparc tokamak (2026), arXiv:2603.01208 [physics.plasm-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    Duval, A

    B. Duval, A. Abdolmaleki, M. Agostini, C. Ajay, S. Alberti, E. Alessi, G. Anastasiou, Y. Andrèbe, G. Apruzzese, F. Auriemma, J. Ayllon-Guerola, F. Bag- nato, A. Baillod, F. Bairaktaris, L. Balbinot, A. Balestri, M. Baquero-Ruiz, C. Barcellona, M. Bernert, W. Bin, P. Blanchard, J. Boedo, T. Bolzonella, F. Bombarda, L. Boncagni, M. Bonotto, T. Bosman, D. Br...

    2024

  48. [48]

    Lenard and I

    A. Lenard and I. Bernstein, Physical Review E11, 1456 (1958)

    1958

  49. [49]

    J. P. Dougherty, Physics of Fluids7, 1788 (1964)

    1964

  50. [50]

    Francisquez, J

    M. Francisquez, J. Juno, A. Hakim, G. W. Hammett, and D. R. Ernst, Journal of Plasma Physics88, 905880303 (2022)

    2022

  51. [51]

    M. A. Beer, S. C. Cowley, and G. W. Hammett, Physics of Plasmas2, 2687 (1995)

    1995

  52. [52]

    R. L. Miller, M. S. Chu, J. M. Greene, Y. R. Lin-Liu, and R. E. Waltz, Physics of Plasmas5, 973 (1998)

    1998

  53. [53]

    F. Riva, E. Lanti, S. Jolliet, and P. Ricci, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion59, 035001 (2017)

    2017

  54. [54]

    A. C. Hoffmann, A. Balestri, and P. Ricci, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion67, 015031 (2025)

    2025

  55. [55]

    Merlo and F

    G. Merlo and F. Jenko, Journal of Plasma Physics89, 905890104 (2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    Balestri, J

    A. Balestri, J. Ball, and S. Coda, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion67, 105025 (2025)

    2025

  57. [57]

    J. Ball, S. Brunner, and C. J. Ajay, Journal of Plasma Physics86, 905860207 (2020)

    2020

  58. [58]

    Francisquez, N

    M. Francisquez, N. R. Mandell, A. Hakim, and G. W. Hammett, Computer Physics Communications298, 109109 (2024)

    2024

  59. [59]

    E. L. Shi, G. W. Hammett, T. Stoltzfus-Dueck, and A. Hakim, Journal of Plasma Physics83, 905830304 (2017)

    2017

  60. [60]

    E. L. Shi, G. W. Hammett, T. Stoltzfus-Dueck, and A. Hakim, Physics of Plasmas26, 012307 (2019)

    2019

  61. [61]

    T. N. Bernard, F. D. Halpern, M. Francisquez, J. Juno, N. R. Mandell, G. W. Hammett, A. Hakim, E. Humble, and R. Mukherjee, Physics of Plasmas30, 112501 (2023)

    2023

  62. [62]

    Gohil, K

    P. Gohil, K. H. Burrell, E. J. Doyle, R. J. Groebner, J. Kim, and R. P. Seraydarian, Nuclear Fusion34, 1057 (1994)

    1994

  63. [63]

    Wagner, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion49, B1 (2007)

    F. Wagner, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion49, B1 (2007)

    2007

  64. [64]

    Zholobenko, F

    W. Zholobenko, F. Jenko, K. Zhang, P. Ulbl, K. Eder, A. Stegmeir, C. Angioni, and P. Manz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 075101 (2026)

    2026

  65. [65]

    Merlo, M

    G. Merlo, M. Fontana, S. Coda, D. Hatch, S. Janhunen, L. Porte, and F. Jenko, Physics of Plasmas26, 102302 (2019)

    2019

  66. [66]

    Coroado and P

    A. Coroado and P. Ricci, Nuclear Fusion62, 10.1088/1741-4326/ac47b8 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ac47b8 2022

  67. [67]

    Garbet, P

    X. Garbet, P. Mantica, C. Angioni, E. Asp, Y. Bara- nov, C. Bourdelle, R. Budny, F. Crisanti, G. Cordey, L. Garzotti, N. Kirneva, D. Hogeweij, T. Hoang, F. Im- beaux, E. Joffrin, X. Litaudon, A. Manini, D. C. Mc- Donald, H. Nordman, V. Parail, A. Peeters, F. Ryter, C. Sozzi, M. Valovic, T. Tala, A. Thyagaraja, I. Voit- sekhovitch, J. Weiland, H. Weisen, A...

    2004

  68. [68]

    Kotschenreuther, X

    M. Kotschenreuther, X. Liu, D. Hatch, S. Mahajan, L. Zheng, A. Diallo, R. Groebner, the DIII-D TEAM, J. Hillesheim, C. Maggi, C. Giroud, F. Koechl, V. Parail, S. Saarelma, E. Solano, A. Chankin, and J. Contributors, Nuclear Fusion59, 096001 (2019)

    2019

  69. [69]

    Hoffmann, B

    A. Hoffmann, B. Frei, and P. Ricci, Journal of Plasma Physics89, 905890611 (2023)

    2023

  70. [70]

    Balestri, J

    A. Balestri, J. Ball, S. Coda, D. J. Cruz-Zabala, M. Garcia-Munoz, and E. Viezzer, arXiv2403.14239 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    E. A. Belli, G. W. Hammett, and W. Dorland, Physics of Plasmas15, 092303 (2008)

    2008

  72. [72]

    F. D. Halpern, S. Jolliet, J. Loizu, A. Mosetto, and P. Ricci, Physics of Plasmas20, 10.1063/1.4807333 (2013)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4807333 2013