arxiv: 2605.11886 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph · physics.app-ph· physics.comp-ph

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Towards Virtual Qualification in Nuclear Fusion: Demonstrating Probabilistic Model Validation on a High Heat Flux Component

A. Harte, A. Tayeb, J. Paterson, J. T. Horne-Jones, L. Fletcher, M. Baxter, S. Biggs-Fox

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 05:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph physics.app-phphysics.comp-ph

keywords probabilistic model validationmodel form errorvirtual qualificationnuclear fusionfinite element modelarea validation metrichigh heat fluxuncertainty quantification

0 comments

The pith

A probabilistic validation framework isolates finite element model form error from experimental uncertainties to support virtual qualification of fusion components.

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

The paper develops a probabilistic model validation framework as the foundation for virtual qualification of components in future fusion power plants where full physical testing is impossible. It demonstrates the approach on a high heat flux heat sink under multi-physics loads by running data-rich experiments that quantify both aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties with high-fidelity diagnostics. Simulations efficiently explore input uncertainties via a statistical surrogate that stands in for the finite element model. A novel implementation of the modified area validation metric then measures only the model form error by comparing probability boxes while holding experimental uncertainties separate. The resulting datasets are released as a public benchmark to aid further validation method development.

Core claim

We present a probabilistic model validation framework that forms the basis for implementation of virtual qualification in fusion. We demonstrate our framework on a representative component; a high heat flux heat sink subject to a tightly coupled multi-physics loading. We perform data-rich, optimised experiments, in which we implement high fidelity diagnostics and rigorously quantify aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty on all measurements. Our simulation approach efficiently samples input uncertainty distributions to predict probability boxes describing component response, using a statistical surrogate to replicate behaviour of the finite element model we wish to validate. We then used anovel

What carries the argument

The novel implementation of the modified area validation metric, which quantifies the discrepancy between experimental and simulated probability boxes to isolate model form error from aleatoric and epistemic experimental uncertainty.

Load-bearing premise

The statistical surrogate model accurately replicates the finite element model's behavior when sampling from input uncertainty distributions.

What would settle it

A direct run of the full finite element model on the same set of input samples produces probability boxes that differ substantially from those generated by the surrogate model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.11886 by A. Harte, A. Tayeb, J. Paterson, J. T. Horne-Jones, L. Fletcher, M. Baxter, S. Biggs-Fox.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: The single material, 316L stainless steel, monoblock used within this work. with valuable insight into the spatial structure of the component response, and facilitates a high fidelity validation. The requirement for data-rich experiments drives our choice of experimental facility and diagnostic methods. 3.1 Experimental setup 3.1.1 Sample preparation The monoblock was machined from a solid block of 316L st… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The experimental setup. The HIVE vessel and induction heating system is shown in (a) along with the locations of ex-vessel diagnostic systems. (b) shows the monoblock and coil in-vessel, both with painted speckle pattern to facilitate DIC measurements. The design and dimensions of the monoblock is shown in (c). Both data streams were captured with a PicoScope 3406D MSO, taking an average of the root mean s… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The optimised thermocouple locations on the monoblock. Two coodinate systems are shown: the DIC image system (x,y,z), and the simulation model system (x’,y’,z’). function is the error between the full 3D simulation data and the reconstructed temperature field from the Gaussian process model summed over the volume. The optimisation was constrained to maintain a 4 mm spacing between thermocouples to allow fo… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Temperature traces for all valid thermocouples through one of the experiments, pre- (a) and post- (b) correction for interference from the induction coil. The raw data show step changes in reported temperature at the start and end of induction coil operation that is removed in the corrected data. presented here. Component qualification experiments in these facilities will be expensive, and it will rarely b… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The derivation of as-tested geometry, demonstrating alignment of the 3D scan (red) and DIC derived point cloud of the surface of the induction coil (blue) (a) and the misalignment of as-designed and as-tested monoblock position used to update the simulation geometry (b). baseline uncertainty on all sensors, is the manufacturer reported accuracy. All thermocouples used are k-type thermocouples, with an accu… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The workflow for construction of a probabilistic simulation. we are developing incorporates uncertainty to facilitate risk-based decision-making. We therefore require that our simulations are probabilistic, accounting for aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties at input and predicting distributions describing system response. We construct our probabilistic implementation as an uncertainty quantification laye… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The finite element model, with boundary conditions annotated. the as-tested geometry, confirming that the accuracy of machined parts was sufficient for direct use in the model, but that the manufacturing process was unable to replicate the intended coil geometry. The geometry construction is parameterised such that the relative position and (Euler angle described) orientation of the monoblock with respect … view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Key features from the finite element model mesh. (a) shows the electromagnetic solve mesh, with the detail of the coil skin depth meshing shown in (b). The mesh for the mechanical solve is shown in (c). with the real part described by J = Js𝑒 − 𝑑 𝛿 , (7) where J is the current density vector at some depth into the material 𝑑, Js is the current density vector at the surface, and 𝛿 is the problem skin depth.… view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Finite element simulation results for nominal input parameter values, plotting the electromagnetic heating, the temperature field, and the solid displacement of the monoblock. 0 2 4 6 ·10−3 𝜖𝑥 𝑥 −4 −2 0 2 4 ·10−4 𝜖𝑥 𝑦 0 2 4 6 8 ·10−3 𝜖𝑦𝑦 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Finite element simulation results for nominal input parameter values, plotting in-plane components of the strain tensor on the camera view face. Input Unit Mean value Aleatoric Epistemic Probabilistic input Coil current A 1550.0 0.46 ±94.2 Yes Coil frequency kHz 123.5 0.038 ±0.5 Yes Misalignment angle, 𝛼 deg 0.70 0.47 ±0.07 Yes Misalignment angle, 𝛽 deg -0.32 0.35 ±0.07 Yes Misalignment angle, 𝛾 deg -3.86… view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Mesh convergence plots for both meshes used in the solve. The electromagnetic-thermal mesh has multiple refinement controls, all of which are varied throughout the convergence study, and hence more datapoints in the convergence study than for the mechanical mesh. the probabilistic simulation. This negates a number of material property variations, unmeasured boundary conditions such as surface emissivity, … view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: The results from the sensitivity study used to down-select inputs for use in the probabilistic simulation, plotting total effect indices. A threshold of 5% was applied to the maximum total effect index of each input for inclusion in the probabilistic simulation. This threshold is shown by the lower limit of the colour scale in the plot. Inputs taken forward for the probabilistic simulation are highlighted… view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: The variation in the error introduced by model reconstruction of strain fields against the number of modes used. The red dot indicates the number of modes used in the surrogate models. This provides a metric describing the importance of the error when compared to the operational range of the surrogate, with RMSE′ << 1 indicating acceptable surrogate prediction. The maximum RMSE′ value over all single valu… view at source ↗

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Standardised root mean square error of strain field surrogate predictions compared with finite element validation data. 450 500 550 600 650 700 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Temperature (◦C) Probability Predicted maximum monoblock temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 17.** Figure 17: An example of the implementation of the modified area validation metric (MAVM) for data with combined aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty. The MAVM derived under- and overprediction of the model is computed for lower (𝑑 ± , 𝐹− ) and upper (𝑑 ± , 𝐹+ ) bounds of the simulation probability box. in the definition of the MAVM. We therefore extend the MAVM implementation to compute the MAVM results separately … view at source ↗

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: When interpreting our validation metric there are two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_19.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 18.** Figure 18: Comparison of point sensor results between experiment and simulation, plotting full probability boxes for both. — Simulation limits · · · 𝑑 + - - 𝑑 − 75 80 85 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 RMS voltage (V) Probability Coil voltage probe 200 220 240 Temperature (◦C) Thermocouple 2 300 350 Temperature (◦C) Thermocouple 3 170 175 180 185 Temperature (◦C) Thermocouple 5 300 350 400 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Temperature (◦C) P… view at source ↗

**Figure 19.** Figure 19: Simulation results with contribution from model form uncertainty, as derived using the validation metric. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_19.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 20.** Figure 20: Comparison of in-plane strain fields between experiment and simulation. Each plot set shows, from left to right, the mean experimental result, the mean simulation results, the mean error, and the validation metric result. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_20.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 21.** Figure 21: The probabilistic maximum temperature result, shown for as reported current sensor epistemic uncertainty, and at 50% and 25% of the uncertainty range simulating improved sensor accuracy. 6.3 Towards virtual qualification We have presented this work in the context of a proposed framework for undertaking virtual qualification in fusion. It is therefore important to consider how the methods and results we ha… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Qualification of components operating in future fusion power plants will be heavily reliant on simulations of component behaviour. The lack of representative test environments for many aspects of the expected operating environment will necessitate full or partial virtual qualification of components. The cornerstone of virtual qualification is credible validation of the simulation models on which it relies. In this work, we present a probabilistic model validation framework that forms the basis for implementation of virtual qualification in fusion. We demonstrate our framework on a representative component; a high heat flux heat sink subject to a tightly coupled multi-physics loading. We perform data-rich, optimised experiments, in which we implement high fidelity diagnostics and rigorously quantify aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty on all measurements. Our simulation approach efficiently samples input uncertainty distributions to predict probability boxes describing component response, using a statistical surrogate to replicate behaviour of the finite element model we wish to validate. We then used a novel implementation of the modified area validation metric to quantify the model form error of the finite element model, isolating it from the aleatoric and epistemic experimental uncertainty. We discuss the contribution of our validation approach towards virtual qualification, and the benefits of the risk-based decision-making it facilitates. The experimental, simulation, and validation datasets are published as a benchmark of a probabilistic validation approach for fusion, and for use in development of new model validation methodologies.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

A solid demonstration of probabilistic validation on a fusion heat sink with released benchmark data, but the surrogate's accuracy under uncertainty sampling is not shown.

read the letter

The main point is that this paper walks through a probabilistic validation workflow for a high-heat-flux fusion component. They run detailed experiments, build probability boxes with a surrogate for the finite element model, apply a modified area validation metric to separate model form error from experimental uncertainties, and publish the full datasets. That last part is useful on its own for anyone working on similar problems. The approach fits the virtual qualification goal where full-scale testing environments do not exist yet. The experiments include high-fidelity diagnostics and explicit handling of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty, which keeps the setup grounded. The metric application is presented as isolating the model discrepancy without folding it into fitted parameters by construction. Releasing the experimental, simulation, and validation data as a benchmark gives others a concrete starting point for testing new methods. The soft spot is the surrogate step. The framework relies on it to sample input uncertainties efficiently and produce the probability boxes, but there is no reported cross-validation error, hold-out comparison against direct finite element runs, or sensitivity check on how surrogate choices affect the final metric value. If the surrogate deviates in nonlinear regions or near decision boundaries, that error would mix into the boxes and could not be cleanly separated by the metric. The paper does not address this directly, so the claim that model form error is isolated remains plausible but not fully verified from the given details. This work is for fusion engineers and model validation researchers who need practical examples in multi-physics settings. Readers focused on uncertainty quantification or risk-based qualification will get the most from the datasets and the workflow description. It deserves a serious referee because the application is timely, the data release is concrete, and the central logic holds up even if the surrogate section needs tightening. I would send it to peer review with a request for surrogate validation metrics.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper presents a probabilistic model validation framework for virtual qualification of fusion components. It demonstrates the approach on a high heat flux heat sink under multi-physics loading by conducting data-rich experiments with rigorous quantification of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties, employing a statistical surrogate to efficiently sample input uncertainties and generate probability boxes from finite element model predictions, and applying a novel implementation of the modified area validation metric to isolate model form error from experimental uncertainties. The associated datasets are released as a community benchmark.

Significance. If the surrogate fidelity and metric isolation hold, the work provides a concrete, uncertainty-aware validation pathway that supports risk-informed virtual qualification for fusion components where full representative testing is infeasible. The open release of experimental, simulation, and validation datasets is a clear strength, enabling reproducible assessment and development of new validation methods by the community.

major comments (1)

[Abstract / simulation approach description] The abstract and framework description state that a statistical surrogate replicates the finite element model when sampling input uncertainty distributions to produce probability boxes, after which the modified area validation metric isolates model form error. No surrogate validation metrics (cross-validation error, hold-out comparison to direct FE runs, or hyperparameter sensitivity) are reported. This is load-bearing: any unquantified surrogate approximation error in nonlinear regions would propagate into the probability boxes and could not be separated from true model discrepancy by the metric.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and positive evaluation of the work's significance for virtual qualification in fusion. We address the major comment below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the documentation of the surrogate approach.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract / simulation approach description] The abstract and framework description state that a statistical surrogate replicates the finite element model when sampling input uncertainty distributions to produce probability boxes, after which the modified area validation metric isolates model form error. No surrogate validation metrics (cross-validation error, hold-out comparison to direct FE runs, or hyperparameter sensitivity) are reported. This is load-bearing: any unquantified surrogate approximation error in nonlinear regions would propagate into the probability boxes and could not be separated from true model discrepancy by the metric.

Authors: We agree that explicit quantification of surrogate approximation error is necessary to ensure it does not confound the isolation of model form error by the modified area validation metric. The original manuscript emphasized the overall probabilistic validation framework and the experimental uncertainty quantification but did not include dedicated surrogate validation results. In the revised version we will add a new subsection describing the surrogate construction (Gaussian process or equivalent), reporting k-fold cross-validation errors, direct hold-out comparisons against additional finite-element runs at selected input points (including nonlinear regions of the response), and hyperparameter sensitivity analysis. These metrics will be used to bound the surrogate error and confirm it remains negligible relative to the aleatoric/epistemic experimental uncertainties and the quantified model discrepancy. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in the probabilistic validation framework

full rationale

The paper's derivation proceeds from quantified experimental uncertainties (aleatoric and epistemic) through surrogate-based sampling of input distributions to generate probability boxes, followed by application of a modified area validation metric to isolate model form error. This chain does not reduce any claimed result to its inputs by construction, nor invoke self-citations for load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes. The surrogate replicates the finite element model for efficiency but is presented as a computational tool rather than a fitted prediction that is then renamed; the metric operates post-simulation to separate quantities rather than equating them definitionally. The framework is self-contained against external benchmarks via published datasets, with no evidence of the central isolation claim collapsing into a tautology or prior self-work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the assumption that experimental uncertainties are fully captured and that the surrogate faithfully represents the finite element model; no new entities are postulated.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The statistical surrogate accurately replicates finite element model behavior across sampled input uncertainties
Invoked to enable efficient probability box predictions without running the full model for every sample.
domain assumption High-fidelity diagnostics and uncertainty quantification in experiments isolate aleatoric and epistemic components completely
Required for the modified area validation metric to attribute discrepancy solely to model form error.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5570 in / 1267 out tokens · 51350 ms · 2026-05-13T05:01:12.359153+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
Our simulation approach efficiently samples input uncertainty distributions to predict probability boxes describing component response, using a statistical surrogate to replicate behaviour of the finite element model we wish to validate. We then used a novel implementation of the modified area validation metric to quantify the model form error

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

M., 2010,Fusion: An introduction to the physics and technology of magnetic confinement fusion, John Wiley & Sons

Stacey, W. M., 2010,Fusion: An introduction to the physics and technology of magnetic confinement fusion, John Wiley & Sons

work page 2010
[2]

Magnetic-confinement fusion,

Ongena, J., Koch, R., Wolf, R., and Zohm, H., 2016, “Magnetic-confinement fusion,” Nature Physics,12(5), pp. 398–410

work page 2016
[3]

Inertial-confinement fusion with lasers,

Betti, R. and Hurricane, O., 2016, “Inertial-confinement fusion with lasers,” Nature Physics,12(5), pp. 435–448

work page 2016
[4]

and Campbell, D

Wesson, J. and Campbell, D. J., 2011,Tokamaks, Vol. 149, Oxford university press

work page 2011
[5]

The spherical tokamak for energy production: theme issue introduction,

Chapman, I., Cowley, S., and Wilson, H., 2024, “The spherical tokamak for energy production: theme issue introduction,”

work page 2024
[6]

Lessons learnt from ITER safety & licensing for DEMO and future nuclear fusion facilities,

Taylor, N. and Cortes, P., 2014, “Lessons learnt from ITER safety & licensing for DEMO and future nuclear fusion facilities,” Fusion Engineering and Design,89(9-10), pp. 1995–2000

work page 2014
[7]

Nuclear power in the 21st century: Challenges and possibilities,

Horvath, A. and Rachlew, E., 2016, “Nuclear power in the 21st century: Challenges and possibilities,” Ambio,45(Suppl 1), pp. 38–49

work page 2016
[8]

The DEMO wall load challenge,

Wenninger, R., Albanese, R., Ambrosino, R., Arbeiter, F., Aubert, J., Bachmann, C., Barbato, L., Barrett, T., Beckers, M., Biel, W., et al., 2017, “The DEMO wall load challenge,” Nuclear Fusion,57(4), p. 046002

work page 2017
[9]

Materials R&D for a timely DEMO: Key findings and recommendations of the EU Roadmap Materials Assessment Group,

Stork, D., Agostini, P., Boutard, J.-L., Buckthorpe, D., Diegele, E., Dudarev, S. L., English, C., Federici, G., Gilbert, M. R., Gonzalez, S., et al., 2014, “Materials R&D for a timely DEMO: Key findings and recommendations of the EU Roadmap Materials Assessment Group,” Fusion Engineering and Design,89(7-8), pp. 1586–1594

work page 2014
[10]

Materials engineering and design for fusion—Towards DEMO design criteria,

Gorley, M., Diegele, E., Dudarev, S., and Pintsuk, G., 2018, “Materials engineering and design for fusion—Towards DEMO design criteria,” Fusion Engineering and Design,136, pp. 298–303

work page 2018
[11]

Development of design criteria for ITER in-vessel components,

Sannazzaro, G., Barabash, V., Kang, S., Fernandez, E., Kalinin, G., Obushev, A., Mart ´ınez, V., V ´azquez, I., Fern´andez, F., and Guirao, J., 2013, “Development of design criteria for ITER in-vessel components,” Fusion Engineering and Design,88(9-10), pp. 2138–2141

work page 2013
[12]

The need for codes and standards in nuclear fusion energy,

Davis, T. P., 2023, “The need for codes and standards in nuclear fusion energy,” Journal of Fusion Energy,42(1), p. 13. 20

work page 2023
[13]

Assessment of design limits and criteria requirements for Eurofer structures in TBM components,

Aiello, G., Aktaa, J., Cismondi, F., Rampal, G., Salavy, J.- F., and Tavassoli, F., 2011, “Assessment of design limits and criteria requirements for Eurofer structures in TBM components,” Journal of Nuclear Materials,414(1), pp. 53– 68

work page 2011
[14]

Structural integrity for DEMO: an opportunity to close the gap from materials science to engineering needs,

Porton, M., Wynne, B., Bamber, R., Hardie, C., and Kalsey, M., 2016, “Structural integrity for DEMO: an opportunity to close the gap from materials science to engineering needs,” Fusion Engineering and Design,109, pp. 1247–1255

work page 2016
[15]

An overview of UKAEA’s integrated fusion technology programmes, emphasising a digital first strategy,

Lawless, R., Baxter, M., Bradnam, S., Connors, J., Fletcher, L., Gandy, A., Gilbert, M., Ghani, C., Haley, J., Hardie, C., et al., “An overview of UKAEA’s integrated fusion technology programmes, emphasising a digital first strategy,”

work page
[16]

Science and statistics,

Box, G. E., 1976, “Science and statistics,” Journal of the American Statistical Association,71(356), pp. 791–799

work page 1976
[17]

Engineering Simulation Quality Management Standard,

NAFEMS, 2020, “Engineering Simulation Quality Management Standard,” NAFEMS

work page 2020
[18]

Standard for Models and Simulations,

Office of the NASA Chief Engineer, 2024, “Standard for Models and Simulations,” NASA

work page 2024
[19]

V&V-10 - Standard for Verification and Validation in Computational Solid Mechanics,

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2019, “V&V-10 - Standard for Verification and Validation in Computational Solid Mechanics,” The American Society of Mechanical Engineers

work page 2019
[20]

V&V-40 - Assessing Credibility of Computational Modeling through Verification and Validation: Application to Medical Devices,

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2019, “V&V-40 - Assessing Credibility of Computational Modeling through Verification and Validation: Application to Medical Devices,” The American Society of Mechanical Engineers

work page 2019
[21]

L., Pilch, M., and Trucano, T

Oberkampf, W. L., Pilch, M., and Trucano, T. G., 2007, Predictive capability maturity model for computational modeling and simulation, 5948, Sandia National Laboratories

work page 2007
[22]

Perspectives on Heart Valve Modelling: Contexts of Use, Risk, Validation, Verification and Uncertainty Quantification and End-to- End Example,

McVeigh, C., Harewood, F., King, P., Driscoll, M., Kulkarni, S., Zhao, T., Goodin, M., and Iles, T. L., 2023, “Perspectives on Heart Valve Modelling: Contexts of Use, Risk, Validation, Verification and Uncertainty Quantification and End-to- End Example,”Heart Valves: From Design to Clinical Implantation, Springer, pp. 457–486

work page 2023
[23]

Managing the heat: in-vessel components,

Cane, J., Barth, A., Farrington, J., Flynn, E., Kirk, S., Lilburne, J., and Vizvary, Z., 2024, “Managing the heat: in-vessel components,” Philosophical Transactions A, 382(2280), p. 20230408

work page 2024
[24]

Progress in the engineering design and assessment of the European DEMO first wall and divertor plasma facing components,

Barrett, T. R., Ellwood, G., P ´erez, G., Kovari, M., Fursdon, M., Domptail, F., Kirk, S., McIntosh, S., Roberts, S., Zheng, S., et al., 2016, “Progress in the engineering design and assessment of the European DEMO first wall and divertor plasma facing components,” Fusion Engineering and Design, 109, pp. 917–924

work page 2016
[25]

Wall protection strategies for DEMO plasma transients,

Maviglia, F., Albanese, R., Ambrosino, R., Arter, W., Bachmann, C., Barrett, T., Federici, G., Firdaous, M., Gerardin, J., Kovari, M., et al., 2018, “Wall protection strategies for DEMO plasma transients,” Fusion Engineering and Design,136, pp. 410–414

work page 2018
[26]

Impact of plasma thermal transients on the design of the EU DEMO first wall protection,

Maviglia, F., Bachmann, C., Federici, G., Franke, T., Siccinio, M., Vorpahl, C., Albanese, R., Ambrosino, R., Fable, E., Firdaouss, M., et al., 2020, “Impact of plasma thermal transients on the design of the EU DEMO first wall protection,” Fusion Engineering and Design,158, p. 111713

work page 2020
[27]

Latest results of Eurofusion plasma-facing components research in the areas of power loading, material erosion and fuel retention,

Reinhart, M., Brezinsek, S., Kirschner, A., Coenen, J., Schwarz-Selinger, T., Schmid, K., Hakola, A., Van Der Meiden, H., Dejarnac, R., Tsitrone, E., et al., 2022, “Latest results of Eurofusion plasma-facing components research in the areas of power loading, material erosion and fuel retention,” Nuclear Fusion,62(4), p. 042013

work page 2022
[28]

Divertor of the European DEMO: Engineering and technologies for power exhaust,

You, J., Mazzone, G., Visca, E., Greuner, H., Fursdon, M., Addab, Y., Bachmann, C., Barrett, T., Bonavolont `a, U., B ¨oswirth, B., et al., 2022, “Divertor of the European DEMO: Engineering and technologies for power exhaust,” Fusion Engineering and Design,175, p. 113010

work page 2022
[29]

Cyclic medium heat flux testing of a WTa lattice structure on the HIVE facility,

Pearl, J., Paterson, J., Flinders, K., Mantel, N., and You, J.-H., 2023, “Cyclic medium heat flux testing of a WTa lattice structure on the HIVE facility,” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2023.113699Fusion Engineering and Design,194, p. 113699

work page doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2023.113699fusion 2023
[30]

CHIMERA fusion technology facility: testing and virtual qualification,

Barrett, T. R., Bamford, M., Bowden, N., Chuilon, B., Deighan, T., Efthymiou, P., Gorley, M., Grant, T., Horsley, D., Kovari, M., et al., 2023, “CHIMERA fusion technology facility: testing and virtual qualification,” Fusion Science and Technology,79(8), pp. 1039–1050

work page 2023
[31]

Status of technology R&D for the ITER tungsten divertor monoblock,

Hirai, T., Escourbiac, F., Barabash, V., Durocher, A., Fedosov, A., Ferrand, L., Jokinen, T., Komarov, V., Merola, M., Carpentier-Chouchana, S., et al., 2015, “Status of technology R&D for the ITER tungsten divertor monoblock,” Journal of Nuclear Materials,463, pp. 1248–1251

work page 2015
[32]

High heat flux testing of mock-ups for a full tungsten ITER divertor,

Gavila, P., Riccardi, B., Constans, S., Jouvelot, J., Vastra, I. B., Missirlian, M., and Richou, M., 2011, “High heat flux testing of mock-ups for a full tungsten ITER divertor,” Fusion Engineering and Design,86(9-11), pp. 1652–1655

work page 2011
[33]

A Good Practices Guide for Digital Image Correlation, Edition 2,

Jones, E. M. C. and Iadicola, M. A., 2025, “A Good Practices Guide for Digital Image Correlation, Edition 2,” International Digital Image Correlation Society

work page 2025
[34]

Demonstration of a sparse sensor placement technique to the limited diagnostic set in a fusion power plant,

Raukema, J., Bosman, T., Classen, I., Wijkamp, T., Perek, A., Derks, G., Koenders, J., Martinelli, L., Jaspers, R., Team, T., et al., 2024, “Demonstration of a sparse sensor placement technique to the limited diagnostic set in a fusion power plant,” Fusion Engineering and Design,201, p. 114271

work page 2024
[35]

Bayesian Optimization: Open source constrained global optimization tool for Python,

Nogueira, F., 2014–, “Bayesian Optimization: Open source constrained global optimization tool for Python,” https://github.com/bayesian-optimization/ BayesianOptimization

work page 2014
[36]

MatchID documentation,

2025, “MatchID documentation,” accessed 2025-10-21, https://www.matchid.eu/Wiki/doku.php

work page 2025
[37]

Assessment of measuring errors in DIC using deformation fields generated by plastic FEA,

Lava, P., Cooreman, S., Coppieters, S., De Strycker, M., and Debruyne, D., 2009, “Assessment of measuring errors in DIC using deformation fields generated by plastic FEA,” Optics and Lasers in Engineering,47(7-8), pp. 747–753

work page 2009
[38]

Image-based deformation measurements of fusion divertor armour under high heat flux loading,

Tayeb, A., Fletcher, L., Gorley, M., Harte, A., and Hamelin, C., 2026, “Image-based deformation measurements of fusion divertor armour under high heat flux loading,” The Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design,61(4), pp. 267–283

work page 2026
[39]

Open3D: A Modern Library for 3D Data Processing

Zhou, Q.-Y., Park, J., and Koltun, V., 2018, “Open3D: A Modern Library for 3D Data Processing,” arXiv:1801.09847

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2018
[40]

SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python,

Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T., Cournapeau, D., Burovski, E., Peterson, P., Weckesser, W., Bright, J., van der Walt, S. J., Brett, M., 21 Wilson, J., Millman, K. J., Mayorov, N., Nelson, A. R. J., Jones, E., Kern, R., Larson, E., Carey, C. J., Polat, ˙I., Feng, Y., Moore, E. W., VanderPlas, J., Laxalde, D., Perktold, ...

work page 2020
[41]

A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,

Ester, M., Kriegel, H.-P., Sander, J., Xu, X., et al., 1996, “A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,”kdd, Vol. 96, Paper No. 34, pp. 226–231

work page 1996
[42]

A good practices guide for digital image correlation,

Jones, E. M., Iadicola, M. A., et al., 2018, “A good practices guide for digital image correlation,” International Digital Image Correlation Society,10, pp. 1–110

work page 2018
[43]

6.3, Stockholm, Sweden,www.comsol.com

COMSOL AB,COMSOL Multiphysics®v. 6.3, Stockholm, Sweden,www.comsol.com

work page
[44]

Heat transfer in automobile radiators of the tubular type,

Dittus, F. and Boelter, L., 1985, “Heat transfer in automobile radiators of the tubular type,” International communications in heat and mass transfer,12(1), pp. 3–22

work page 1985
[45]

H., Buck, J

Hayt, W. H., Buck, J. A., et al., 2006,Engineering electromagnetics, New York

work page 2006
[46]

Oberkampf, W. L. and Roy, C. J., 2010,Verification and validation in scientific computing, Cambridge university press

work page 2010
[47]

High-dimensional data analysis: The curses and blessings of dimensionality,

Donoho, D. L. et al., 2000, “High-dimensional data analysis: The curses and blessings of dimensionality,” AMS math challenges lecture,1(2000), p. 32

work page 2000
[48]

10.1.1, Madison, USA,www

SmartUQ LLC,SmartUQ®v. 10.1.1, Madison, USA,www. smartuq.com

work page
[49]

Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates,

Sobol, I. M., 2001, “Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates,” Mathematics and computers in simulation,55(1-3), pp. 271– 280

work page 2001
[50]

Distribution of points in a cube and approximate evaluation of integrals,

Sobol, I. M., 1967, “Distribution of points in a cube and approximate evaluation of integrals,” USSR Computational mathematics and mathematical physics,7, pp. 86–112

work page 1967
[51]

A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code,

McKay, M. D., Beckman, R. J., and Conover, W. J., 2000, “A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code,” Technometrics,42(1), pp. 55–61

work page 2000
[52]

Williams, C. K. and Rasmussen, C. E., 2006,Gaussian processes for machine learning, Vol. 2, MIT press Cambridge, MA

work page 2006
[53]

Array programming with NumPy,

Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., Van Der Walt, S. J., Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Cournapeau, D., Wieser, E., Taylor, J., Berg, S., Smith, N. J., et al., 2020, “Array programming with NumPy,” nature,585(7825), pp. 357–362

work page 2020
[54]

A generalization of Bayesian inference,

Dempster, A. P., 1968, “A generalization of Bayesian inference,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological),30(2), pp. 205–232

work page 1968
[55]

Shafer, G., 1976,A mathematical theory of evidence, Princeton university press

work page 1976
[56]

Guide for verification and validation in computational solid mechanics,

of Mechanical Engineers, A. S., 2006, “Guide for verification and validation in computational solid mechanics,” ASME

work page 2006
[57]

Model validation and predictive capability for the thermal challenge problem,

Ferson, S., Oberkampf, W. L., and Ginzburg, L., 2008, “Model validation and predictive capability for the thermal challenge problem,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering,197(29-32), pp. 2408–2430

work page 2008
[58]

Validation of imprecise probability models,

Ferson, S. and Oberkampf, W. L., 2009, “Validation of imprecise probability models,” International Journal of Reliability and Safety,3(1-3), pp. 3–22

work page 2009
[59]

Assessment of model validation, calibration, and prediction approaches in the presence of uncertainty,

Whiting, N. W., Roy, C. J., Duque, E., Lawrence, S., and Oberkampf, W. L., 2023, “Assessment of model validation, calibration, and prediction approaches in the presence of uncertainty,” Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification,8(1), p. 011001

work page 2023
[60]

Evaluation of model validation techniques in the presence of uncertainty,

Voyles, I. T. and Roy, C. J., 2014, “Evaluation of model validation techniques in the presence of uncertainty,”16th AIAA Non-Deterministic Approaches Conference, p. 0120

work page 2014
[61]

Evaluation of model validation techniques in the presence of aleatory and epistemic input uncertainties,

Voyles, I. T. and Roy, C. J., 2015, “Evaluation of model validation techniques in the presence of aleatory and epistemic input uncertainties,”17th AIAA Non-Deterministic Approaches Conference, p. 1374

work page 2015
[62]

Fletcher, L., Hirst, J., Sibson, L., Sampson, M., Atkinson, M., Tayel, A., Marsh, A., Spencer, R., and Charlton, J.,pyvale,https://github.com/ Computer-Aided-Validation-Laboratory/pyvale

work page
[63]

Mitchell, M., 1998,An introduction to genetic algorithms, MIT press

work page 1998
[64]

Particle swarm optimization,

Kennedy, J. and Eberhart, R., 1995, “Particle swarm optimization,”Proceedings of ICNN’95-international conference on neural networks, Vol. 4, ieee, pp. 1942–1948

work page 1995
[65]

The role of probabilistic design analysis methods in safety and affordability,

Safie, F. M., 2016, “The role of probabilistic design analysis methods in safety and affordability,”2016 Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS), IEEE, pp. 1–5

work page 2016
[66]

Methodology to evaluate the monetary benefit of Probabilistic Risk Assessment by modeling the net value of Risk-Informed Applications at nuclear power plants,

Pence, J., Abolhelm, M., Mohaghegh, Z., Reihani, S., Ertem, M., and Kee, E., 2018, “Methodology to evaluate the monetary benefit of Probabilistic Risk Assessment by modeling the net value of Risk-Informed Applications at nuclear power plants,” Reliability Engineering & System Safety,175, pp. 171–182

work page 2018
[67]

Safety: a proportionate approach in an uncertain application,

Afify, O., 2024, “Safety: a proportionate approach in an uncertain application,” Philosophical Transactions A, 382(2280), p. 20230405

work page 2024
[68]

Recommendations for the future regulation of fusion power plants,

Elbez-Uzan, J., Williams, L., Forbes, S., Dodaro, A., Stieglitz, R., Airila, M. I., Holden, J., and Rosanvallon, S., 2024, “Recommendations for the future regulation of fusion power plants,” Nuclear Fusion,64(3), p. 037001

work page 2024
[69]

ITER material properties handbook,

Davis, J. W. and Smith, P., 1996, “ITER material properties handbook,” Journal of Nuclear Materials,233, pp. 1593– 1596

work page 1996
[70]

Integrating materials engineering and design for fusion,

Gorley, M., Fursdon, M., and Kalsey, M., 2018, “Integrating materials engineering and design for fusion,” IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science,46(5), pp. 1211–1216

work page 2018
[71]

Exploring complex high heat flux geometries for fusion applications enabled by additive manufacturing,

Hancock, D., Homfray, D., Porton, M., Todd, I., and Wynne, B., 2018, “Exploring complex high heat flux geometries for fusion applications enabled by additive manufacturing,” Fusion Engineering and Design,136, pp. 454–460. 22

work page 2018
[72]

High heat flux test results for a thermal break DEMO divertor target and subsequent design and manufacture development,

Lukenskas, A., Barrett, T., Fursdon, M., Domptail, F., Schoofs, F., Greuner, H., Dose, G., Roccella, S., Visca, E., Gallay, F., Richou, M., and You, J.-H., 2019, “High heat flux test results for a thermal break DEMO divertor target and subsequent design and manufacture development,” Fusion Engineering and Design,146, pp. 1657–1660

work page 2019
[73]

Q., Escobar, L

Meeker, W. Q., Escobar, L. A., and Pascual, F. G., 2021, Statistical methods for reliability data, John Wiley & Sons

work page 2021
[74]

The Rogowski coil principles and applications: A review,

Samimi, M. H., Mahari, A., Farahnakian, M. A., and Mohseni, H., 2014, “The Rogowski coil principles and applications: A review,” IEEE Sensors Journal,15(2), pp. 651–658. A DIC calibration, processing parameters and noise floors Parameter Value 𝐹𝑥 Camera 0 [pixels] 19447 𝐹𝑦 Camera 0 [pixels] 19449 𝐹𝑠 Camera 0 [pixels] 4 𝜅1 Camera 0 -0.1983 𝜅2 Camera 0 -1.1...

work page 2014