Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Hybrid Kinetic-MHD Simulations of Drift-Orbit Effects on the Stability and Non-Linear Dynamics of Runaway Electron Beams

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Higher-energy runaway electrons stabilize the tearing modes of a post-disruption tokamak, because drift-orbit displacement smears out the current sheets that drive the instability.

desk verdict A solid scenario-specific simulation study showing that finite-orbit-width effects stabilize runaway-electron-driven tearing modes with increasing energy; the mechanism is plausible and the diagnostics line up, but reproducibility is limited by no artifacts. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02121 v1 pith:SFHM75FI submitted 2026-08-03 physics.plasm-ph

Shi-Jie Liu (1) , Hao-Wei Zhang (1) , Hannes Bergstroem (1) , Matthias Hoelzl (1 , 2) , the JOREK Team ((1) Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics , Garching , Germany
show 5 more authors
(2) Department of Physics Astronomy Chalmers University of Technology Gothenburg Sweden)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords runawayelectronstearingmodesfinite-orbit-widtheffectshybridkinetic-MHDmodeltokamakdisruptionmodecouplingstochasticmagneticfieldsparticletransport
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

Runaway electrons (REs) created in tokamak disruptions normally make tearing modes more unstable than a purely Ohmic plasma would be, according to earlier fluid-like models. This paper argues that this conclusion changes once the finite width of the particles' drift orbits is included: high-energy REs wander off the magnetic flux surfaces and cannot sustain the narrow current sheets that drive the tearing instability. The orbit deviation also introduces a (1,0) perturbation of the equilibrium current, coupling the dominant (2,1) mode to (3,1) and (1,1) sidebands. For the case studied, the stabilizing effect wins: as RE energy rises from 3 MeV to 30 MeV, islands saturate smaller, stochastic regions shrink, connection lengths grow, and radial particle transport falls. The work thus shows that ignoring drift-orbit width overestimates the threat that RE beams pose to disruption mitigation.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the relativistic guiding-center drift of the REs, dominated by curvature drift, which displaces their orbits from the magnetic flux surfaces by several centimetres at 20 MeV. This displacement produces a strong (1,0) component of the RE current, coupling (m,n) modes to (m±1,n) sidebands, and it broadens the resistive current sheet at the rational surface, which is identified as the stabilizing effect. The model self-consistently couples a full-f Monte-Carlo RE population to an extended-MHD fluid via the RE pressure and by excluding the kinetically evolved RE current from the Ohm's law.

What would settle it

Run a version of the simulation that keeps the ∇B drift and the RE magnetization current separately (breaking the cancellation) and compare the width of the (2,1) current layer and the (1,0) current component as functions of RE energy. If the layer does not broaden or the (1,0) component does not grow with energy, the proposed stabilisation mechanism is not supported. Alternatively, measure the (1,0) current perturbation in an experiment where the RE energy is scanned, and check that the predicted ordering with energy holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that finite-orbit-width (FOW) effects, caused mainly by the curvature drift of relativistic REs, stabilise the resistive tearing modes in a post-disruption tokamak. In the linear regime, the current layer at the (2,1) rational surface broadens with RE energy because orbits deviate from flux surfaces, reducing the growth rate toward the Ohmic value. In the nonlinear regime, the (2,1) island saturation amplitude, the Chirikov overlap parameter, and the radial diffusion coefficient all decrease as the RE energy is increased, meaning the magnetic field becomes less stochastic and RE transport is suppressed. These results are obtained with a hybrid kinetic-fluid model in whic

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes the ∇B drift contribution to the RE current is exactly canceled by the RE magnetization current, so finite-orbit-width effects on the fluid come only from curvature drift; if the cancellation is incomplete, the magnitude or sign of the energy-dependent stabilisation could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The linear growth rate and nonlinear saturation of the (2,1) tearing mode both decrease with RE energy, approaching the pure-Ohmic reference at high energy.
  • A (1,0) equilibrium-current perturbation appears at high RE energies, generating (m±1,n) sidebands such as the (3,1) mode and enriching the mode spectrum.
  • The Chirikov parameter, connection length, and radial diffusion coefficients all show reduced stochasticity and transport at higher RE energy.
  • Fluid RE models that assume zero drift-orbit width overestimate the destabilising effect of REs and would mispredict the nonlinear evolution of a RE beam.
  • RE beam termination strategies that rely on MHD-triggered stochastic losses may be delayed or weakened for high-energy beams, changing the expected heat loads.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the assumed cancellation between the ∇B drift and the RE magnetization current is not exact, the (1,0) perturbation and the current-sheet broadening could change in magnitude or sign, so the stabilisation should be tested against a model that keeps both drift terms.
  • The clean energy dependence found here suggests an experimental probe: comparing MHD activity in RE beams with different mean energies, e.g., by varying the electric field during the current quench, should show weaker modes and less transport at higher energies.
  • In a realistic broad energy distribution, low-energy REs would still destabilise while high-energy ones stabilise; the net effect would depend on the spectral weighting, so transport codes should retain the full energy resolution.
  • The same orbit-width-smoothing principle should apply to other current-driven instabilities and rational surfaces, suggesting that kinetic orbit width is a generic spatial regularisation scale in post-disruption plasmas.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents hybrid kinetic-MHD simulations using the JOREK code to study finite-orbit-width (FOW) effects of runaway electrons (REs) on resistive tearing-mode stability and nonlinear dynamics. REs are treated kinetically via full-f relativistic guiding-center Monte Carlo markers coupled to extended MHD. The authors find that increasing RE energy first narrows then broadens the (2,1) current-sheet width (Fig. 3), reduces the linear growth rate (Fig. 4), lowers nonlinear island saturation amplitudes (Fig. 7), and decreases the Chirikov parameter, connection length, and radial diffusion coefficients (Figs. 8, 10, 11). The central claim is that FOW effects stabilize tearing modes by preventing narrow current sheets on rational surfaces, and that this stabilization dominates over enhanced poloidal mode coupling in the investigated scenario.

Significance. If correct, the result is significant because it shows that kinetic FOW effects can qualitatively reverse the destabilizing role of REs predicted by zero-orbit-width (fluid) models, with direct implications for predicting disruption current-quench evolution and benign termination. The study uses multiple complementary diagnostics (layer width, growth rate, Poincare plots, connection length, diffusion, Chirikov parameter) that are internally consistent. The non-monotonic layer width in Fig. 3 is a falsifiable signature that cannot be explained by pressure alone. However, the absence of numerical convergence information and of a zero-orbit-width control at matched pressure leaves the central attribution only partially demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Eq. (3); §4, Figs. 4, 7, 10] The manuscript does not report the number of markers N, grid resolution, time step, or any convergence tests for the hybrid simulations. Since the central claim is a simulation outcome, the lack of these numerical details prevents the reader from assessing whether the observed trends (growth rate decrease, saturation reduction, diffusion decrease) are robust. Please provide the numerical parameters used and a convergence check (at least in marker number and resolution) for the key quantitative results.
  2. [§4.1, Figs. 3 and 4] The linear growth rate is shown to decrease monotonically with RE energy (Fig. 4), and this is attributed to FOW broadening of the current sheet. However, the RE pressure and the associated Grad-Shafranov shift also increase with energy (Fig. 1(a)), so the stabilizing trend could in part be an equilibrium (pressure/shift) effect rather than a direct FOW current-broadening effect. The 600 keV case in Fig. 3 provides a partial non-monotonic check for the layer width, but the growth rate for this case is not shown. Please provide a fluid-RE (zero orbit width) control at matched pressure, or at least the 600 keV growth rate, to demonstrate that the stabilization is specifically due to FOW broadening.
  3. [§4.3, Eq. (6) and Fig. 9] The radial diffusion coefficients are obtained by Gaussian fitting after excluding particles 'strongly affected by the magnetic island region or boundary transport', but the exclusion criterion is not defined quantitatively. The computed D values and the claimed decreasing trend with energy (Fig. 10f) may depend strongly on which particles are removed. Please specify the selection criterion, report the fraction of excluded particles for each energy, and show that the trend in D is robust to reasonable changes of the criterion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1, after Eq. (5)] The phrase 'enhanced toroidal mode coupling' describing the (2,1)->(3,1) sideband is a misnomer: the (1,0) equilibrium perturbation couples poloidal harmonics m to m±1 for the same toroidal number n. It should read 'poloidal mode coupling'.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] Please clarify what is meant by 'ψ structures' - presumably the perturbed poloidal flux structures of the (2,1) and (3,1) components.
  3. [Eq. (5)] The quantity v_RE is used but not defined. Please define it in the text following the equation (e.g., the parallel RE velocity).
  4. [§4.3, Fig. 10(f)] The axis label and units of the diffusion coefficient D are not described in the text. Please specify the normalization (e.g., m^2/s) and the radial coordinate used.
  5. [General] The manuscript does not include a data availability statement or mention whether input files/scripts are available. Given the simulation-based nature of the work, a statement on data/code availability would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central claim emerges from self-consistent simulations, not from fitted inputs or definitional loops.

full rationale

The central claim that increasing runaway-electron energy stabilizes tearing modes via drift-orbit broadening is an emergent simulation result, not a fitted prediction. The model equations are stated in Section 2, and the stability conclusions are supported by multiple independent diagnostics: current-layer width (Fig. 3), linear growth rates (Fig. 4), mode-structure coupling (Fig. 5), saturation amplitudes (Fig. 7), connection lengths (Fig. 8), diffusion coefficients (Fig. 10), and the Chirikov parameter (Fig. 11). The only fitting in the paper is the Gaussian estimate of the radial diffusion coefficient D in Section 4.3, which is a post-hoc transport diagnostic and is not used as an input to derive the stabilization. The cited prior work [18,19] describes the numerical implementation of the hybrid model, but the paper re-derives the relevant equations and the new physics is obtained from the presented simulations, not imported by citation. The ∇B-cancellation assumption in Section 2 is a standard consistency relation between the particle drift current and the magnetization current, and at pitch=0.999 the ∇B drift is far smaller than the curvature drift, so the qualitative conclusion does not reduce to this assumption. No self-definitional, fitted-input, or renaming loop is present.

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

The study is a parameter scan in a pre-existing hybrid model; no new forces or particles are introduced. The main modeling content is inherited from prior JOREK papers by the same group, with the novel use being the FOW analysis.

free parameters (3)
  • RE beam energy (scan values) = 0.6, 3, 10, 20, 30 MeV
    Chosen by hand to probe FOW effects; the central claim that higher energy stabilizes the mode depends on this range and spacing.
  • Pitch parameter = 0.999
    Fixed modeling choice p_parallel/p; FOW effects scale with energy and pitch, so the chosen value shapes the magnitude of drift-orbit displacement.
  • Plasma resistivity values = multiple (see Fig. 4)
    Input parameter varied to test linear growth rate dependence; affects the comparison with the Ohmic case.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Relativistic guiding-center equations of Ref. [21] with fixed magnetic moment and pitch=0.999
    Adopted as the particle model for REs; the orbit displacement and its scaling with energy follow from this.
  • domain assumption Hybrid kinetic-fluid coupling via RE pressure terms in momentum equation and modified Ohm's law (Eqs. 2-4)
    The interaction between REs and MHD modes is modeled by pressure coupling and by excluding RE current from Ohmic response, following Refs. [18,19].
  • domain assumption Force-free background equilibrium with J x B = P_r,parallel kappa
    The post-disruption plasma is assumed cold and force-free except for RE pressure, which produces the Grad-Shafranov shift.
  • ad hoc to paper Exact cancellation of grad-B drift by RE magnetization current
    States in Section 2 that FOW effects on the fluid are mainly determined by curvature drift; this simplification underpins the equilibrium current perturbation and stabilization mechanism.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hybrid Kinetic-MHD Simulations of Drift-Orbit Effects on the Stability and Non-Linear Dynamics of Runaway Electron Beams." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SFHM75FI

@misc{pith2026260802121,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hybrid Kinetic-MHD Simulations of Drift-Orbit Effects on the Stability and Non-Linear Dynamics of Runaway Electron Beams},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SFHM75FI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02121}
}
abstract

During tokamak disruptions, the Ohmic current may be replaced by a non-inductive runaway electron (RE) current, affecting resistive stability. Previous studies suggest that, in the linear phase, the presence of REs acts destabilizing for tearing modes (TM) compared to a scenario with Ohmic current. In the non-linear regime, this translates to larger saturation amplitudes. These results are based on the assumption of zero drift-orbit deviation from the magnetic flux surfaces corresponding to the low-energy limit. This work investigates the importance of this kinetic effect by studying the linear and non-linear TM dynamics in RE beams with different RE energies, providing a clear picture of finite-orbit-width (FOW) effects. We use a hybrid fluid-kinetic model in the 3D non-linear magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) code JOREK, treating REs kinetically with a full-f Monte Carlo approach in self-consistent interaction with the MHD mode dynamics. The study shows that the presence of REs modifies the characteristics of the instability in several ways. First, we find that the major-radial displacement of drift orbits from flux surfaces induces an $m=1$ perturbation to the equilibrium current, introducing additional mode coupling between $(m,n)$ instabilities and the $(m\pm1,n)$ sidebands. Second, we find that increasing RE energy has a stabilizing effect on the MHD modes because REs cannot support narrow current sheets on rational flux surfaces owing to the drift-orbit displacement. This counteracts the destabilizing effect that REs have on TMs in the low-energy limit. For the scenario investigated, the stabilizing effect dominates over the additional mode coupling, reducing the development of stochastic magnetic regions with increasing RE energy and thereby lowering radial particle transport. Overall, we find that FOW effects can substantially alter the MHD stability and non-linear dynamics of RE beams.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02121 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Equilibrium: (a) the magnetic axis shift as a function of RE energy; (b) radial shift profiles of 20 MeV REs, with the blue line indicating the flux-surface shift and the green dots representing the RE orbit shift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (1, 0) component of RE current in different RE energy beams, with blue line representing 20 MeV and orange line representing 600 keV. 3. Finite-Orbit-Width Effects on the Plasma Equilibrium In the post-disruption phase, the plasma is typically characterized by low temperature and low pressure, and tends toward a force-free equilibrium (J×B ≈ 0). However, when a significant population of high-energy REs is present, t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Width of (2,1) current layer as a function of RE energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Growth rates of (2,1) mode, with different color corresponding to different energies, while the blue line represents the Ohmic current plasma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (2,1) (3,1) ψ structures in (a) 600 keV and (b) 20 MeV RE beams. to a total energy of 600 keV and a velocity of approximately half the speed of light c. In this scenario, the resistive-layer width is larger than that in the near-relativistic case (3 MeV, corresponding …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Magnetic field Poincar´e-plot at ϕ = 0 RZ-plane for different RE beams.(a￾d): 3 MeV, 10 MeV, 20 MeV, 30 MeV. The plots are obtained by tracing field lines. Red points denote confined lines, while blue points represent escaping lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: ψ evolution of (a) (2,1) mode and (b) (3,1) mode, with different color corresponding to different energies, while the blue line represents the Ohmic current plasma. The saturation amplitudes are indicated by text labels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Connection length profiles for different RE beams, (a) field lines; (b) markers corresponding to RE beam energies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) The mean square displacement evolution and (b) the distribution of the radial displacement at several times in the Gaussian fits. reduce current gradients at the rational surfaces. Furthermore, the thermal currents are subject to resistive decay, which happens on r…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Field-line trajectories in (ψn, ϕ) space for different RE beam energies, (a-d) correspond to 3 MeV, 10 MeV, 20 MeV and 30 MeV, respectively, (e) represents the Ohmic current plasma case; (f) the diffusion coefficients D as a function of RE energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fig…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Chirikov parameter as a function of RE energy. greatly and thus also the influence on RE transport. The point density in regions where stochastic field lines eventually reach the computational boundary can provide a first indication regarding the degree of stochastiza…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    During the disruption process, the pre-disruption Ohmic current can be rapidly converted to RE current

    Introduction Tokamak disruptions pose a critical challenge for the safe operation of future fusion devices, such as ITER, primarily due to the generation of runaway electron (RE) beams[2, 3]. During the disruption process, the pre-disruption Ohmic current can be rapidly converted to RE current. The presence of such a non-thermal current[4] fundamentally a...

  2. [2]

    Here, we briefly summarize the aspects relevant to the present study

    Hybrid Kinetic-MHD Model The hybrid kinetic–MHD model used in this work has been developed and implemented in JOREK in[18, 19] where the detailed formulation and numerical implementation are described. Here, we briefly summarize the aspects relevant to the present study. The relativistic GC model follows the formulation described in [21]: ˙X= p∗ ∥ γrm0 B∗...

  3. [3]

    Finite-Orbit-Width Effects on the Plasma Equilibrium In the post-disruption phase, the plasma is typically characterized by low temperature and low pressure, and tends toward a force-free equilibrium (J×B≈0). However, when a significant population of high-energy REs is present, they can provide an effective pressure term, breaking the force-free assumptio...

  4. [4]

    Linear Properties In section 3, we notice that the FOW effects becomes non-negligible when RE energy reaches several MeV

    Finite-Orbit-Width Effects on MHD Instability 4.1. Linear Properties In section 3, we notice that the FOW effects becomes non-negligible when RE energy reaches several MeV. In[13, 14], the differences between RE-driven MHD instability and the Ohmic current case are discussed, but neither of them includes the effect of the FOW effects of REs. In[14], an ex...

  5. [5]

    Conclusion In this work, we investigated the FOW effects of REs on resistive TM dynamics using the hybrid kinetic–MHD model implemented in JOREK. By treating runaway electrons kinetically through relativistic guiding-center equations while evolving the background plasma with reduced MHD equations, we analyzed both equilibrium modifications and instability...

  6. [6]

    Hoelzl M, Huijsmans G, Artola F, Nardon E, Becoulet M, Schwarz N, Cathey A, Pamela S, Aleynikova K, Antlitz F, Bandaru V, Bergstr¨ om H, Bhole A, Bogaarts T, Bonfiglio D, Cipolletta F, Driessen T, Edes L, Futatani S, Hao G, Hindenlang F, Holod I, Hu D, Hu S, Isernia N, Isliker H, Kim S, Kong M, Korving S, Kos L, Krebs I, Lee S, Liang Y, Liang Z, Liu S, Lu...

  7. [7]

    Salewski M, Spong D, Aleynikov P, Bilato R, Breizman B, Briguglio S, Cai H, Chen L, Chen W, Duarte V, Dumont R, Falessi M, Fitzgerald M, Fredrickson E, Garc ´ ıa-Mu˜ noz M, Gorelenkov N, Hayward-Schneider T, Heidbrink W, Hole M, Kazakov Y, Kiptily V, K¨ onies A, Kurki- Suonio T, Lauber P, Lazerson S, Lin Z, Mishchenko A, Moseev D, Muscatello C, Nocente M,...

  8. [8]

    Breizman B N, Aleynikov P, Hollmann E M and Lehnen M 2019Nuclear Fusion59083001 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab1822

    doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ab1822

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Lvovskiy A, Paz-Soldan C, Eidietis N, Aleynikov P, Austin M, Dal Molin A, Liu Y, Moyer R, Nocente M, Shiraki D, Giacomelli L, Heidbrink W, Hollmann E, Rigamonti D, Spong D and Tar- docchi M 2020Nuclear Fusion60056008 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab78c7

    doi

  2. [10]

    Gill R 1993Nuclear Fusion331613 URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/33/11/I03

    doi

  3. [11]

    Bandyopadhyay I, Igochine V, Sauter O, Sabbagh S, Park J K, Nardon E, Villone F, Maraschek M, Pautasso G, Eidietis N, Jardin S, Humphreys D, Dubrov M, Artola F, de Baar M, Bard´ oczi L, Baylor L, Berkery J, Boozer A, Cannas B, Chen Z, Esposito B, Fanni A, Ferraro N, Fitzpatric...

  4. [12]

    Boozer A H 2012Physics of Plasmas19058101 ISSN 1070-664X URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3703327

    doi

  5. [13]

    Rosenbluth M and Putvinski S 1997Nuclear Fusion371355 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/37/10/I03

    doi

  6. [14]

    Reux C, Paz-Soldan C, Aleynikov P, Bandaru V, Ficker O, Silburn S, Hoelzl M, Jachmich S, Eidietis N, Lehnen M, Sridhar S and contributors J 2021Phys. Rev. Lett.126(17) 175001 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.175001

    doi

  7. [15]

    Paz-Soldan C, Reux C, Aleynikova K, Aleynikov P, Bandaru V, Beidler M, Eidietis N, Liu Y, Liu C, Lvovskiy A, Silburn S, Bardoczi L, Baylor L, Bykov I, Carnevale D, Del-Castillo Negrete D, Du X, Ficker O, Gerasimov S, Hoelzl M, Hollmann E, Jachmich S, Jardin S, Joffrin E, Lasni...

  8. [16]

    Bandaru V, Hoelzl M, Reux C, Ficker O, Silburn S, Lehnen M, Eidietis N, Team J and Contributors J 2021Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion63035024 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/abdbcf

    doi

  9. [17]

    Zimmermann C, Paz-Soldan C, Su G, Reux C, Battey A, Ficker O, Gerasimov S, Hansen C, Jachmich S, Lvovskiy A, Puchmayr J, Schoonheere N, Sheikh U, Stewart I, Szepesi G, 18 Contributors J and the EUROfusion Tokamak Exploitation Team 2026Nuclear Fusion66 056004 URLhttps://doi.org...

    doi

  10. [18]

    Helander P, Grasso D, Hastie R J and Perona A 2007 Physics of Plasmas14122102 ISSN 1070-664X (Preprint https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/1.2817016/16108426/122102 1 online.pdf) URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.2817016

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    Liu C, Zhao C, Jardin S C, Bhattacharjee A, Brennan D P and Fer- raro N M 2020Physics of Plasmas27092507 ISSN 1070-664X (Preprint https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0018559/15812756/092507 1 online.pdf) URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/5.0018559

    doi

  12. [20]

    Bandaru V and Hoelzl M 2023Physics of Plasmas30092508 ISSN 1070-664X (Preprint https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0165240/18125667/092508 1 5.0165240.pdf) URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/5.0165240

    doi

  13. [21]

    Hoelzl M, Huijsmans G, Pamela S, B´ ecoulet M, Nardon E, Artola F, Nkonga B, Atanasiu C, Bandaru V, Bhole A, Bonfiglio D, Cathey A, Czarny O, Dvornova A, Feh´ er T, Fil A, Franck E, Futatani S, Gruca M, Guillard H, Haverkort J, Holod I, Hu D, Kim S, Korving S, Kos L, Krebs I, ...

  14. [22]

    Bandaru V, Hoelzl M, Artola F J, Vallhagen O, Lehnen M and Team J 2024Physics of Plasmas31082503 ISSN 1070-664X (Preprint https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0213962/20093805/082503 1 5.0213962.pdf) URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/5.0213962

    doi

  15. [23]

    Bergstr¨ om H, Liu S J, Bandaru V, Hoelzl M, Team J and Contributors J 2025Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion67035004 URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/adaee7

    doi

  16. [24]

    Liu S, Liu T, Bergstr¨ om H, Zhang H and Hoelzl M 2026Journal of Plasma Physics92E3

  17. [25]

    Yu Q, G¨ unter S, Lackner K, Strumberger E and Igochine V 2019Nuclear Fusion59106053 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ab3a6b

    doi

  18. [26]

    Tao X, Chan A A and Brizard A J 2007Physics of Plasmas14092107 ISSN 1070-664X (Preprint https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/1.2773702/13558067/092107 1 online.pdf) URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.2773702

    doi

  19. [27]

    Sommariva C, Pau A, Silburn S, Reux C, Hoppe M, Buratti P, Ficker O, Morales R B, Fontana M, Sun H, Carvalho P, Sheena M, Gerasimov S, Szepesi G, Boboc A, Coffey I, Kiptily V, Sauter O, Pautasso G, Paz-Soldan C, Decker J and Contributors J 2024Nuclear Fusion64106050 URL https:...

    doi

  20. [28]

    S¨ arkim¨ aki K, Embreus O, Nardon E, F¨ ul¨ op T and contributors J 2020Nuclear Fusion60126050 URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/abb9e9

    doi

  21. [29]

    Myra J R and Catto P J 1992Physics of Fluids B: Plasma Physics4176–186 ISSN 0899-8221 (Preprinthttps://pubs.aip.org/aip/pfb/article-pdf/4/1/176/12512264/176 1 online.pdf) URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.860431

    doi

  22. [30]

    Carbajal L, del Castillo-Negrete D and Martinell J J 2020 Physics of Plasmas27032502 ISSN 1070-664X (Preprint https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5135588/13807911/032502 1 online.pdf) URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.5135588

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    Rechester A B and Rosenbluth M N 1978Phys. Rev. Lett.40(1) 38–41 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.38

    doi

  24. [32]

    S¨ arkim¨ aki K, Hirvijoki E, Decker J, Varje J and Kurki-Suonio T 2016Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion58125017 URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/58/12/125017

    doi

  25. [33]

    Papp G, Drevlak M, Pokol G I and F¨ ul¨ op T 2015Journal of Plasma Physics81475810503 19

  26. [34]

    Moges H T, Antonenas Y, Anastassiou G, Skokos C and Kominis Y 2024Physics of Plasmas31 012302 ISSN 1070-664X URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/5.0173642

    doi

  27. [35]

    Abdullaev S S, Jakubowski M, Lehnen M, Schmitz O and Unterberg B 2008Physics of Plasmas 15042508 ISSN 1070-664X URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.2907163

    doi

  28. [36]

    Liu Y, ¨Ak¨ aslompolo S, Cavinato M, Koechl F, Kurki-Suonio T, Li L, Parail V, Saibene G, S¨ arkim¨ aki K, Sipil¨ a S and Varje J 2016Nuclear Fusion56066001 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/56/6/066001

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.