Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Integrated Modeling of SPARC H-mode Scenarios: Exploration of the Impact of Modeling Assumptions on Predicted Performance

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Modeling finds SPARC 12.2 T H-modes sustain Q>5 when tungsten stays low.

desk verdict Honest and useful sensitivity study, but the Q>5 claim is only as good as the unpublished EPED-NN pedestal, which the paper itself flags as an upper limit. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00187 v1 pith:KKSM4UMJ submitted 2025-01-31 physics.plasm-ph

Marco Muraca , Pablo Rodriguez-Fernandez , Nathaniel T. Howard , Joe Hall , Emiliano Fable , Giovanni Tardini This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords SPARCH-modefusiongainpedestalmodeltungstenconcentrationtransportmodelingsensitivitystudybreakeven
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper builds a large database of integrated transport simulations for two SPARC H-mode scenarios and asks how much the predicted fusion gain varies when four uncertain inputs are moved within realistic ranges. It finds that, for the 12.2 T primary reference discharge at 11 MW of auxiliary heating, essentially every converged low-tungsten case reaches Q>5, and all converged cases exceed Q=2; increasing heating power to 25 MW keeps the plasma in H-mode and preserves Q>2 even under pessimistic radiation assumptions. For the 8 T scenario, a low-tungsten window with Q>1 exists, with a chosen operational point at fG=0.46 and 25 MW giving Q about 1.4, making it a candidate for early breakeven operation. The two strongest performance drivers are the pedestal top pressure relative to the EPED prediction and the ratio of ion to electron temperature at the pedestal top; tungsten concentration mainly decides whether the plasma radiates away too much power and collapses. The practical point is that SPARC's predicted performance is sensitive enough to modeling assumptions that sensitivity studies should accompany any single-point prediction.

What carries the argument

The arguments are carried by an integrated modeling chain: ASTRA evolves the stationary flat-top profiles; TGLF with the SAT2 saturation rule and electromagnetic effects supplies core turbulent fluxes; a neural network trained on EPED peeling-ballooning simulations sets the pedestal height and width self-consistently; and Kadomtsev sawtooth mixing plus precomputed ICRH deposition profiles fix the remaining profile physics. The database is produced by randomly and uniformly permuting four uncertain inputs—tungsten fraction f_W, DT fraction f_DT, ion-to-electron temperature ratio at the pedestal top T_i,top/T_e,top, and pedestal pressure ratio p_top/p_EPED—and then scanning auxiliary power and pedestal density around the reference points. The key diagnostic quantities are Q=P_fus/(P_aux+P_Ohm) and the H-mode sustainment ratio f_LH=P_sep/P_LH.

What would settle it

Measure the fusion gain and pedestal top pressure in a SPARC H-mode pulse at 12.2 T, 11 MW of ICRH, fG≈0.37, and low tungsten concentration. If the measured Q falls below 5, or if the achieved pedestal top pressure is more than about 20% below the EPED-NN prediction, the paper's consistency claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that SPARC's nominal 12.2 T H-mode has a robust burning-plasma operating window: with 11 MW of ICRH, fG=0.37, and tungsten fraction below the radiative-collapse threshold, the converged database gives Q=P_fus/(P_aux+P_Ohm)>5 consistently, and every converged point in the initial 284-simulation database lies above Q=2. Raising the auxiliary power to 25 MW does not change the fusion power, because the core profiles are stiff, but it restores P_sep above the empirical L-H thresholds, and the converged points then all satisfy Q>3. The paper also claims that the 8 T H-mode, with H-minority heating, 25 MW, and fG=0.46, reaches Q about 1.4 in the overlap region where Q>1 and sustained H-mode both hold, giving a plausible early-operation breakeven scenario. The database shows Q increases roughly linearly with p_top/p_EPED and with T_i,top/T_e,top, while f_W acts mainly as a kill switch through radiation and H-mode loss rather than as a continuous performance scaler.

Load-bearing premise

The entire prediction hangs on the EPED-trained neural network giving the correct pedestal height, and because the paper itself cautions that EPED is likely an upper limit for safe operation, a real SPARC pedestal noticeably below the prediction would erase the Q>5 margin even with low tungsten.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 12.2 T, 11 MW of ICRH, and fG=0.37, all converged low-tungsten simulations exceed Q=2 and almost all exceed Q=5, implying a substantial burning-plasma window for the nominal SPARC discharge.
  • Raising ICRH power to 25 MW does not increase fusion power, because the core profiles are stiff, but it moves P_sep/P_LH upward so H-mode is sustained even at high tungsten; all converged cases stay above Q=3.
  • Increasing pedestal density raises fusion power and Q at fixed auxiliary power, because the whole profile shifts upward, but it also raises the L-H threshold, so H-mode sustainment becomes less certain.
  • For the 8 T scenario, Q>1 and sustained H-mode overlap only in a narrow region; the selected point at fG=0.46 and 25 MW gives Q about 1.4, identifying a candidate early-operation breakeven scenario.
  • The turbulence is consistently ITG-dominated with marginal high-k electron-scale activity; increased density raises the high-k growth rate but not the electron heat flux, so the core transport picture is stable across the database.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because Q scales roughly linearly with p_top/p_EPED, the real margin for the 8 T breakeven point is thin: if the achieved pedestal is even about 10% below the EPED value, Q=1.4 could drop below 1.
  • The paper's consistency statement covers converged simulations only; high-tungsten cases radiatively collapse and never reach a steady solution, so the Q>5 window is conditional on keeping tungsten below the collapse threshold, not just on the four varied parameters.
  • The same sensitivity method could become an operational planning tool: given real-time estimates of tungsten concentration and pedestal pressure, database maps could predict whether SPARC stays above Q=5 or Q=1 without launching new transport simulations.
  • The disagreement between the two L-H scalings on the 8 T scenario suggests that the ion-electron heat partition and radiation set the effective L-H threshold; a dedicated measurement of the ion power at the separatrix in early 8 T pulses would constrain which scaling applies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an integrated modeling study of two SPARC H-mode scenarios: the 12.2 T Primary Reference Discharge and a reduced-field 8 T H-mode. Using ASTRA with TGLF-SAT2 core transport and a neural-network surrogate of EPED for the pedestal, the authors build databases by randomly permuting four input assumptions (W concentration, DT fuel fraction, ion-to-electron temperature ratio at the pedestal top, and pedestal pressure relative to the EPED prediction). They then perform scans in ICRH power and pedestal density. The central claims are that, for the 12.2 T PRD, Q>5 is consistently achieved at 11 MW auxiliary power once W concentration is below a threshold, and Q>2 is assured at higher input power; for the 8 T scenario, a Q>1 breakeven-relevant window exists at low W concentration, with Q=1.4 at fG=0.46 and 25 MW. The paper also presents statistical turbulence-spectrum analyses showing ITG dominance and marginal ETG activity.

Significance. If the underlying pedestal model is unbiased, this is a valuable result for SPARC planning: it provides a quantitative mapping of the performance variability induced by realistic input uncertainties, and it identifies pedestal pressure and Ti/Te at the pedestal top as the dominant sensitivities. The work is also a useful methodological demonstration of medium-fidelity integrated modeling with random input sampling and statistical output analysis, including explicit treatment of radiative collapse and L-H power balance. The strengths are the large database (284 PRD and 192 8T simulations), the self-consistent coupling of core transport, pedestal, and radiation, and the honest reporting of convergence statistics and model limitations. However, the headline performance claims rest on an unpublished EPED-trained neural network, on simulation convergence that is systematically biased toward low-W and high-pedestal cases, and on L-H power scalings with acknowledged wide error bars. These issues do not invalidate the sensitivity study, but they do affect the strength of the absolute Q conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2 and Sec. 4 (Fig. 3)]
  2. [Sec. 4 (Fig. 1) and Sec. 5 (Fig. 15)]
  3. [Sec. 4.2 and Abstract]
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3]
  2. [Table 3]
  3. [Sec. 4.2]
  4. [Sec. 5.1]
  5. [Sec. 6]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Q>5 statements are forward-model outputs from ASTRA/TGLF/EPED-NN with independently scanned inputs, not fits or renamed inputs.

full rationale

This paper's performance database is produced by a forward chain: ASTRA evolves profiles with TGLF SAT2 core transport, an EPED-trained neural network supplies pedestal height, and TRANSP/TORIC-derived ICRH deposition is imported; the four scanned quantities (fW, fDT, Ti,top/Te,top, ptop/pEPED) are assigned uniformly before each run, while Q, Pfus, and Psep/PLH are outputs of the converged flux balance. There is no step in which Q or the headline Q>5/Q>2 statements are imposed as constraints, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the linear Q-vs-ptop/pEPED trend is a consequence of higher pedestal pressure raising core profiles, not a definition. The EPED-NN is a surrogate for an external pedestal model ('a NN trained on EPED [13] results for SPARC, following a methodology similar to [29]'), and the paper varies ptop/pEPED over [0.8,1.2] and explicitly cautions that 'the ELMy H-mode pedestal predicted by EPED is likely to be an upper limit for safe operation,' so the EPED value is treated as an uncertain input, not as the result being demonstrated. The low-W conditioning of the headline is an honest subset selection: high-fW runs radiatively collapse and are shown at Q=0, and the text states 'Below a certain W concentration, the 12T database shows that Q >5 is consistently achieved' as a conditional finding. Prior SPARC modeling by partly overlapping authors [11,43,58] supplies reference assumptions and comparisons, but the database Q values are computed here rather than imported, and no load-bearing result rests on a self-citation chain or a uniqueness theorem. The main unresolved issues—unpublished EPED training set, TGLF/EPED extrapolation uncertainty, and H-mode access scalings—are validation and evidence concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on modeling choices for transport, pedestal stability, impurities, and L-H threshold behavior rather than on new data or derivation. The four permuted input parameters are hand-assigned ranges, and the fixed Zeff and sawtooth period are additional chosen inputs. No new physical entities are introduced; the lumped impurity is a numerical aggregation of known light impurities.

free parameters (6)
  • fW (tungsten concentration) = PRD and 8T range [1.5e-5, 1.35e-4]
    Randomly sampled input; high fW drives radiative collapse and non-convergence, shaping the converged database and the Q distributions.
  • fDT (DT fuel fraction) = PRD [0.8, 0.875]; 8T [0.85, 0.925]
    Randomly sampled input; changes fusion power and dilution, and can alter turbulent transport.
  • Ti_top/Te_top (temperature ratio at pedestal top) = [0.8, 1.2]
    Randomly sampled input; one of the two strongest drivers of Q in the database.
  • ptop/pEPED (pedestal pressure deviation) = [0.8, 1.2]
    Randomly sampled input; the other strongest driver of Q; range is intended to cover EPED uncertainty.
  • Zeff = 1.5
    Chosen to represent reduced core impurity penetration; lumped impurity concentration is adjusted to maintain quasi-neutrality.
  • Sawtooth period = 1 s
    Computed with the Porcelli model in TRANSP, then fixed in ASTRA; a limited sensitivity study found weak correlation with fusion power.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption TGLF SAT2 with electromagnetic effects predicts core transport fluxes in SPARC H-mode conditions.
    Used for all core transport in Section 2; no nonlinear gyrokinetic verification is performed across the database.
  • domain assumption EPED-NN pedestal height and width are credible for SPARC despite being trained on unpublished EPED simulations.
    Self-consistent pedestal update in Section 2; the paper acknowledges EPED is likely an upper limit for safe operation.
  • domain assumption Martin and Schmidtmayr L-H power threshold scalings remain valid for SPARC extrapolation.
    Used to define fLH and H-mode sustainment in Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 5; the paper notes broad error bars and uncertain extrapolation.
  • domain assumption No core particle source; pedestal top density is an imposed boundary condition.
    Section 2 assumes the density profile comes from pinch and diffusion with a boundary condition at the pedestal top, ignoring neutral source penetration.
  • domain assumption Kadomtsev sawtooth relaxation with a fixed 1 s period is adequate for safety factor and profile flattening.
    Section 2 fixes the sawtooth period from a Porcelli/TRANSP calculation; only a weak sensitivity check is reported.
  • domain assumption Fixed ICRH deposition profiles from TRANSP/TORIC/FPPMOD are representative across all permuted conditions.
    Section 2 imports fixed ICRH absorption profiles into ASTRA rather than updating them self-consistently.
  • domain assumption Uniform W and lumped impurity concentrations with quasi-neutrality and Zeff = 1.5 represent core impurity content.
    Section 3 uses a lumped impurity with atomic number 8 and adjusts its concentration for quasi-neutrality across the database.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integrated Modeling of SPARC H-mode Scenarios: Exploration of the Impact of Modeling Assumptions on Predicted Performance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KKSM4UMJ

@misc{pith2026250200187,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integrated Modeling of SPARC H-mode Scenarios: Exploration of the Impact of Modeling Assumptions on Predicted Performance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KKSM4UMJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00187}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper an extensive database of SPARC H-modes confinement predictions has been provided, to assess its variability with respect to few input assumptions. The simulations have been performed within the ASTRA framework, using the quasi-linear model TGLF SAT2, including electromagnetic effects, for the core transport, and a neural network trained on EPED simulations to predict the pedestal height and width self-consistently. The database has been developed starting from two SPARC H-mode discharges (12.2 T, i.e. Primary Reference Discharge or PRD, and 8 T, i.e. reduced field) and permuting 4 input parameters (W concentration, DT mixture concentration, temperature ratio at top of pedestal and deviation of pedestal pressure from the EPED prediction), to perform a sensitivity study. For the PRD a scan of auxiliary input power (ion cyclotron heating) has been performed up to 25MW, to keep highly radiative plasmas above the LH power threshold as predicted by Martin and Schmidtmayr power scalings. A scan of pedestal density has then been performed for both PRD and 8T databases. ptop/pEPED and Ti/Te at top of pedestal showed the biggest impact on the fusion gain. Significant variation is observed across the database, highlighting the importance of sensitivity studies. Below a certain W concentration, the 12T database shows that Q > 5 is consistently achieved for full-field H-modes with 11 MW of auxiliary power, and values of Q > 2 are assured when increasing the input power to keep the plasma in H-mode. The 8T database demonstrates that SPARC can access a Q > 1 operational window with low W concentration, making it a potentially interesting scenario for obtaining breakeven conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00187 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. PDF of the 4 input parameters changed within the initial database of 284 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Kinetic profiles of the PRD simulations varying the input assumptions, at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Q vs ptop/pEP ED and Ti,top/Te,top for an initial database of PRD performance with PICRH = 11MW and fG = 0.37. The 2 input parameters shown in these plots are the ones which mainly affect the performance. The solid black line indicates the linear trend which fits the scattering of data (ignoring the collapsed points, which are on the horizontal Q=0 line). The black (green) dashed line indicates Q=2 (Q=5). Almost eve… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Q vs fW on the left, Psep/PLH vs fW (where PLH is calculated with the Martin scaling) on the right, for an initial database of PRD performance with PICRH = 11MW and fG = 0.37. In red it is shown the region where the W concentration becomes not tolerable due to the high…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Probability distribution function of different parameters for an input ICRH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: On the left (right) is shown the mean value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Probability distribution function of different parameters for a scan in density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top left: the ratio between W radiation and fusion+auxiliary+ohmic power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: On the left (right) is shown the mean value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: From top to bottom on the left (right) the average TGLF growth rates, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: From top left, clockwise: ETG factor (i.e. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: On the left (right) the ratio of the low-k to total electron heat flux vs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: From top to bottom on the left (right) the mean values and standard [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: At the top left (right) Q (fLH) as function of fG and PICRH for the SPARC 8T H-mode. The red lines show transition to Q > 1 and fLH > 1. At the bottom, in red is the overlapping region of Q > 1 and fLH > 1, where Q values between 1 and 1.6 are found. Here, an operatio…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: PDFs of the random input assumptions for the 8T H-mode. An asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: SPARC 8T-Hmode converged kinetic profiles with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: From the top left, clockwise: PDF of the fusion gain, fusion power, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: From top left, clockwise: Qrad/Qinput and Psep vs W concentration, pEP ED vs βN , density peaking and the expected value by Angioni scaling [57] vs effective collisionality. The upper plots show that at higher density the radiation fraction increases and the power at …
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: On the left (right) the mean values and standard deviations of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: At the top left (right) the mean and standard deviation of TGLF growth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: From the top left, clockwise: the average value and standard deviation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_21.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Impact of model uncertainty on SPARC operating scenario predictions with empirical modeling

    physics.plasm-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Accounting for uncertainties in empirical scaling laws, plasma profiles, and impurities shifts the predicted optimal SPARC operating point away from the deterministic POPCON optimum.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Beyond revealing fascinating physics, it provides a key benchmark for assessing research progress and validating the reliability of modeling approaches

    Introduction The prediction of plasma fusion performance is crucial for both current experiments and future devices. Beyond revealing fascinating physics, it provides a key benchmark for assessing research progress and validating the reliability of modeling approaches. arXiv:2502.00187v1 [physics.plasm-ph] 31 Jan 2025 2 Fusion performance is predominantly...

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    This process requires the simultaneous evolution of power/particle target fluxes (i.e

    Simulation Setup In order to evaluate the confinement and performance of a discharge, a collection of models needs to be integrated in a framework capable of predicting plasma kinetic profiles. This process requires the simultaneous evolution of power/particle target fluxes (i.e. sum of local sources and sinks of power and particles) and transport fluxes,...

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    These quantities are typically selected and controlled to guide the pulse evolution and handle the behaviour of the plasma

    Methodology for the Performance Database Generation Transport simulations always require input variables such as plasma geometry, auxiliary power, control system settings and other engineering parameters. These quantities are typically selected and controlled to guide the pulse evolution and handle the behaviour of the plasma. In an ideal model that accou...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Its main global parameters are listed in table 3 and their definition can be found in [11]

    SPARC Primary Reference Discharge The SPARC PRD scenario has been already explored with low and high fidelity simulations [11], [43]. Its main global parameters are listed in table 3 and their definition can be found in [11]. Table 3: List of the main global and engineering parameters of the SPARC Primary Reference Discharge. Their definition is in [11] P...

    work page

  5. [5]

    The 8T H-mode employs a different heating scheme with respect to PRD for ICRH power, using H minority species

    SPARC 8T H-mode scenario While the PRD has been widely analyzed and the prediction of its performance has been quantified with low and high-fidelity models [11], [43], the reduced field (8T) scenario is still quite unexplored. The 8T H-mode employs a different heating scheme with respect to PRD for ICRH power, using H minority species. This scenario is ve...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Summary and conclusions Two SPARC scenarios have been studied in this article: the full field (PRD, 12.2T) and the reduced field (8T) H-modes, employing TGLF for the core transport and a NN trained on EPED for the pedestal stability. To assess the variability of fusion performance 4 input parameters, fW , fDT , Ti,top/Te,top and ptop/pEP ED, were assigned...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Barnes M, Abel I G, Dorland W, G¨ orler T, Hammett G W and Jenko F 2010Physics of Plasmas 17 056109 ISSN 1070-664X, 1089-7674 URL https://pubs.aip.org/pop/article/17/5/056109/ 922000/Direct-multiscale-coupling-of-a-transport-code-to

    work page

  8. [8]

    Rodriguez-Fernandez P, Howard N T, Saltzman A, Kantamneni S, Candy J, Holland C, Balandat M, Ament S and White A E 2024 Nuclear Fusion 64 076034 ISSN 0029-5515 publisher: IOP Publishing URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ad4b3d

    doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ad4b3d 2024

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Jenko F 2000 Computer Physics Communications 125 196–209 ISSN 00104655 URL https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010465599004890

    2000

  2. [10]

    Peeters A G and Strintzi D 2004 Physics of Plasmas 11 3748–3751 ISSN 1070- 664X, 1089-7674 URL https://pubs.aip.org/pop/article/11/8/3748/261917/ The-effect-of-a-uniform-radial-electric-field-on

    2004

  3. [11]

    Kotschenreuther M, Rewoldt G and Tang W 1995 Computer Physics Communications 88 128–140 ISSN 00104655 URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/001046559500035E

    1995

  4. [12]

    The weak linear relationship with both the variables suggests that Qe,low−k is impacted by TEM activity

    This ratio increases with the normalized density gradient and Ti/Te, which are Figure 12: On the left (right) the ratio of the low-k to total electron heat flux vs the normalized density gradient ( Ti/Te). The weak linear relationship with both the variables suggests that Qe,l...

  5. [13]

    Candy J and Waltz R 2003 Journal of Computational Physics 186 545–581 ISSN 00219991 URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0021999103000792

    2003

  6. [14]

    Grandgirard V, Brunetti M, Bertrand P, Besse N, Garbet X, Ghendrih P, Manfredi G, Sarazin Y, Sauter O, Sonnendr¨ ucker E, Vaclavik J and Villard L 2006 Journal of Computational Physics 217 395–423 ISSN 00219991 URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/S0021999106000155

    2006

  7. [15]

    Candy J, Holland C, Waltz R E, Fahey M R and Belli E 2009 Physics of Plasmas 16 32 060704 ISSN 1070-664X, 1089-7674 URL https://pubs.aip.org/pop/article/16/6/060704/ 262603/Tokamak-profile-prediction-using-direct

    2009

  8. [16]

    Pankin A Y, Breslau J, Gorelenkova M, Andre R, Grierson B, Sachdev J, Goliyad M and Perumpilly G 2024 TRANSP integrated modeling code for interpretive and predictive analysis of tokamak plasmas URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07781

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Houlberg W, Attenberger S and Hively L 1982 Nuclear Fusion 22 935–945 ISSN 0029-5515, 1741- 4326 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0029-5515/22/7/006

    1982 doi

  10. [18]

    Slendebroek T, McClenaghan J, Meneghini O M, Lyons B C, Smith S P, Neiser T F, Shi N and Candy J 2023 Physics of Plasmas 30 072511 ISSN 1070- 664X, 1089-7674 URL https://pubs.aip.org/pop/article/30/7/072511/2904885/ Elevating-zero-dimensional-global-scaling

    2023

  11. [19]

    Creely A J, Greenwald M J, Ballinger S B, Brunner D, Canik J, Doody J, F¨ ul¨ op T, Garnier D T, Granetz R, Gray T K, Holland C, Howard N T, Hughes J W, Irby J H, Izzo V A, Kramer G J, Kuang A Q, LaBombard B, Lin Y, Lipschultz B, Logan N C, Lore J D, Marmar E S, Montes K, Mumg...

    2020

  12. [20]

    The spectrum of γ and Qi is very similar for the different densities, showing ITG dominance at low-k. This dominance is confirmed by linear proportional trends of Qi and Qe with a/LTi and by the fIT Gvalue at different radial locations, which is shown in the upper right plot o...

  13. [21]

    Staebler G, Belli E A, Candy J, Kinsey J, Dudding H and Patel B 2021 Nuclear Fusion 61 116007 ISSN 0029-5515, 1741-4326 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/ 1741-4326/ac243a

    2021

  14. [22]

    1088/0029-5515/51/10/103016

    Snyder P B, Groebner R J, Hughes J W, Osborne T H, Beurskens M, Leonard A W, Wilson H R and Xu X Q 2011 Nuclear Fusion 51 103016 ISSN 0029-5515 URL https://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/0029-5515/51/10/103016

    2011

  15. [23]

    Bourdelle C, Citrin J, Baiocchi B, Casati A, Cottier P, Garbet X and Imbeaux F 2016 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 58 014036 publisher: IOP Publishing

    2016

  16. [24]

    Pereverzev G, Yushmanov P, Dnestrovskii A, Polevoi A, Tarasjan K and Zakharov L 1991 ASTRA - an automatic system for transport analysis in a tokamak Tech. rep. Germany iPP–5/42 INIS Reference Number: 23024293

    1991

  17. [25]

    Romanelli M, Corrigan G, Parail V, Wiesen S, Ambrosino R, Da Silva Aresta Belo P, Garzotti L, Harting D, K¨ ochl F, Koskela T, Lauro-Taroni L, Marchetto C, Mattei M, Militello-Asp E, Nave M F F, Pamela S, Salmi A, Strand P, Szepesi G and EFDA-JET Contributors 2014 Plasma and F...

    2014

  18. [26]

    org/article/10.1088/1361-6587/acb011

    Luda T, Angioni C, Dunne M G, Fable E, Kallenbach A, Bonanomi N, Schneider P A, Siccinio M, Tardini G, Rodriguez-Fernandez P, Hughes J W, Howard N, Frassinetti L, Saarelma S, Upgrade Team T A, Mst1 Team T E, C-Mod Team T A and Contributors J 2023Plasma Physics and Controlled F...

    doi

  19. [27]

    29C, ISBN 2-914771-24-X

    Ivanov A 2005 New adaptive grid plasma evolution code SPIDER in Europhysics Conference Abstracts Vol. 29C, ISBN 2-914771-24-X

    2005

  20. [28]

    2024 freegs-plasma/freegs original-date: 2016-11-15T11:28:29Z URL https://github.com/ freegs-plasma/freegs 33

    2024

  21. [29]

    of Physics Publ) ISBN 9780750305891

    Weiland J 2000 Collective modes in inhomogeneous plasma: kinetic and advanced fluid theory Plasma physics series (Bristol: Inst. of Physics Publ) ISBN 9780750305891

    2000

  22. [30]

    Dimits A M, Bateman G, Beer M A, Cohen B I, Dorland W, Hammett G W, Kim C, Kinsey J E, Kotschenreuther M, Kritz A H, Lao L L, Mandrekas J, Nevins W M, Parker S E, Redd A J, Shumaker D E, Sydora R and Weiland J 2000 Physics of Plasmas 7 969–983 ISSN 1070-664X, 1089-7674 URL htt...

    2000

  23. [31]

    Physique 7 573–583 ISSN 1878-1535 URL https: //comptes-rendus.academie-sciences.fr/physique/articles/10.1016/j.crhy.2006

    Garbet X 2006 Comptes Rendus. Physique 7 573–583 ISSN 1878-1535 URL https: //comptes-rendus.academie-sciences.fr/physique/articles/10.1016/j.crhy.2006. 06.002/

    2006 doi

  24. [32]

    Rodriguez-Fernandez P, White A E, Howard N T, Grierson B A, Zeng L, Yuan X, Staebler G M, Austin M E, Odstrcil T, Rhodes T L, Sciortino F, Rice J E, Thome K E, Angioni C, Fable E and Meneghini O 2019 Physics of Plasmas 26 062503 ISSN 1070-664X, 1089-7674 URL https://pubs.aip.o...

    2019

  25. [33]

    org/article/10.1088/1741-4326/ab1575

    Rodriguez-Fernandez P, White A, Howard N, Grierson B, Yuan X, Staebler G, Rice J, Angioni C, Cao N, Creely A, Fable E, Greenwald M, Hubbard A, Hughes J, Irby J and Sciortino F 2019 Nuclear Fusion 59 066017 ISSN 0029-5515, 1741-4326 URL https://iopscience.iop. org/article/10.10...

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    Angioni C, Gamot T, Tardini G, Fable E, Luda T, Bonanomi N, Kiefer C, Staebler G, The Asdex Upgrade Team and The EUROfusion Mst1 Team 2022 Nuclear Fusion 62 066015 ISSN 0029- 5515, 1741-4326 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-4326/ac592b

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    Baiocchi B, Garcia J, Beurskens M, Bourdelle C, Crisanti F, Giroud C, Hobirk J, Imbeaux F, Nunes I, Contributors J and EU-ITM ITER Scenario Modelling group 2015 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 57 035003 ISSN 0741-3335, 1361-6587 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/ article/10....

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    Stacey W M and Bae C 2009 Physics of Plasmas 16 082501 ISSN 1070- 664X, 1089-7674 URL https://pubs.aip.org/pop/article/16/8/082501/316133/ Representation-of-the-plasma-fluid-equations-in

    2009

  29. [37]

    Meneghini O, Smith S, Snyder P, Staebler G, Candy J, Belli E, Lao L, Kostuk M, Luce T, Luda T, Park J and Poli F 2017 Nuclear Fusion 57 086034 ISSN 0029-5515, 1741-4326 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-4326/aa7776

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Lin Y, Wright J C and Wukitch S J 2020 Journal of Plasma Physics 86 865860506 ISSN 0022-3778, 1469-7807 URL https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ S0022377820001269/type/journal_article

    2020

  31. [39]

    Brambilla M 1999 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 41 1–34 ISSN 0741-3335, 1361-6587 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0741-3335/41/1/002

    1999 doi

  32. [40]

    thesis Princeton Univ.,Princeton, NJ United States URL https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5079411

    Hammett G W 1986 Fast ion studies of ion cyclotron heating in the PLT tokamak Ph.D. thesis Princeton Univ.,Princeton, NJ United States URL https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5079411

    1986

  33. [41]

    2 (Burlington: Elsevier Science) ISBN 9780124788022

    Barnett C F and Harrison M F A 2013 Plasmas: Applied Atomic Collision Physics, Vol. 2 (Burlington: Elsevier Science) ISBN 9780124788022

    2013

  34. [42]

    P¨ utterich T, Neu R, Dux R, Whiteford A, O’Mullane M and Summers H 2010 Nuclear Fusion 50 025012 ISSN 0029-5515, 1741-4326 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/ 0029-5515/50/2/025012

    2010

  35. [43]

    Van Eester D, Lerche E, Johnson T J, Hellsten T, Ongena J, Mayoral M L, Frigione D, Sozzi C, Calabro G, Lennholm M, Beaumont P, Blackman T, Brennan D, Brett A, Cecconello M, Coffey I, Coyne A, Crombe K, Czarnecka A, Felton R, Gatu Johnson M, Giroud C, Gorini G, Hellesen C, Jac...

    2012

  36. [44]

    Rodriguez-Fernandez P, Howard N T, Greenwald M J, Creely A J, Hughes J W, Wright J C, Holland C, Lin Y, Sciortino F and the SPARC team 2020 Journal of Plasma Physics 86 865860503 ISSN 0022-3778, 1469-7807 URL https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/ identifier/S0022377820001075...

    2020

  37. [45]

    Kadomtsev B B 1975 Fizika Plazmy 1 710–715 aDS Bibcode: 1975FizPl...1..710K URL https: //ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975FizPl...1..710K

    1975

  38. [46]

    Porcelli F, Boucher D and Rosenbluth M N 1996 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 38 2163 ISSN 0741-3335 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/38/12/010

    1996 doi

  39. [47]

    Ennever P, Porkolab M, Candy J, Staebler G, Reinke M L, Rice J E, Rost J C, Ernst D, Fiore C, Hughes J, Terry J and Alcator C-Mod Team 2015 Physics of Plasmas 22 072507 ISSN 1070-664X, 1089-7674 URL https://pubs.aip.org/pop/article/22/7/072507/ 264325/The-effects-of-dilution-o...

    2015

  40. [48]

    Kim K, Kwon J M, Chang C S, Seo J, Ku S and Choe W 2017 Physics of Plasmas 24 062302 ISSN 1070-664X, 1089-7674 URL https://pubs.aip.org/pop/article/24/6/062302/ 108560/Full-f-XGC1-gyrokinetic-study-of-improved-ion

    2017

  41. [49]

    1063/5.0209752

    Rodriguez-Fernandez P, Howard N T, Saltzman A, Shoji L, Body T, Battaglia D J, Hughes J W, Candy J, Staebler G M and Creely A J 2024 Physics of Plasmas 31 062501 ISSN 1070-664X eprint: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0209752/19973552/062501 1 5.0209752....

    2024 doi

  42. [50]

    Jenko F, Dorland W and Hammett G W 2001 Physics of Plasmas 8 4096–4104 ISSN 1070-664X, 1089-7674 URL https://pubs.aip.org/pop/article/8/9/4096/265245/ Critical-gradient-formula-for-toroidal-electron

    2001

  43. [51]

    Rodriguez-Fernandez P, Creely A J, Greenwald M J, Brunner D, Ballinger S B, Chrobak C P, Garnier D T, Granetz R, Hartwig Z S, Howard N T, Hughes J W, Irby J H, Izzo V A, Kuang A Q, Lin Y, Marmar E S, Mumgaard R T, Rea C, Reinke M L, Riccardo V, Rice J E, Scott S D, Sorbom B N,...

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    Ho A, Citrin J, Bourdelle C, Camenen Y, Casson F J, Van De Plassche K L, Weisen H and JET Contributors 2021 Physics of Plasmas 28 032305 ISSN 1070- 664X, 1089-7674 URL https://pubs.aip.org/pop/article/28/3/032305/835156/ Neural-network-surrogate-of-QuaLiKiz-using-JET

    2021

  45. [53]

    Fajardo D, Angioni C, Fable E, Tardini G, Bilato R, Luda T, McDermott R, Samoylov O and the ASDEX Upgrade Team 2024 Nuclear Fusion 64 104001 ISSN 0029-5515, 1741-4326 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-4326/ad6f26

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    Martin Y R, Takizuka T and Group t I C H m T D 2008Journal of Physics: Conference Series 123 012033 ISSN 1742-6596 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/ 123/1/012033

    doi

  47. [55]

    iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-4326/aaaed0

    Schmidtmayr M, Hughes J, Ryter F, Wolfrum E, Cao N, Creely A, Howard N, Hubbard A, Lin Y, Reinke M, Rice J, Tolman E, Wukitch S, Ma Y, ASDEX Upgrade Team and Alcator C-Mod Team 2018 Nuclear Fusion 58 056003 ISSN 0029-5515, 1741-4326 URL https://iopscience. iop.org/article/10.1...

    2018 doi

  48. [56]

    Imbeaux F, Ryter F and Garbet X 2001 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 43 1503–1524 ISSN 0741-3335, 1361-6587 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0741-3335/43/ 11/306

    2001 doi

  49. [57]

    Ryter F, Tardini G, Luca F D, Fahrbach H U, Imbeaux F, Jacchia A, Kirov K, Leuterer F, Mantica P, Peeters A, Pereverzev G, Suttrop W and Team A U 2003 Nuclear Fusion 43 1396–1404 ISSN 0029-5515, 1741-4326 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0029-5515/43/ 11/011 35

    2003 doi

  50. [58]

    Fable E, Wenninger R and Kemp R 2017 Nuclear Fusion 57 022015 ISSN 0029-5515, 1741-4326 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0029-5515/57/2/022015

    2017 doi

  51. [59]

    Yan Z, McKee G R, Groebner R J, Snyder P B, Osborne T H, Beurskens M N and Burrell K H 2011 Physics of Plasmas 18 056117 ISSN 1070-664X, 1089-7674 URL https://pubs.aip.org/pop/ article/18/5/056117/814440/Pedestal-density-fluctuation-dynamics-during-the

    2011

  52. [60]

    Smith D R, Fonck R J, McKee G R, Thompson D S, Bell R E, Diallo A, Gutten- felder W, Kaye S M, LeBlanc B P and Podesta M 2013 Physics of Plasmas 20 055903 ISSN 1070-664X, 1089-7674 URL https://pubs.aip.org/pop/article/20/5/055903/ 108936/Characterization-and-parametric-dependencies-of

    2013

  53. [61]

    Manz P, Boom J E, Wolfrum E, Birkenmeier G, Classen I G J, Luhmann N C, Stroth U and the ASDEX Upgrade Team 2014 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 56 035010 ISSN 0741-3335, 1361-6587 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0741-3335/56/3/035010

    2014 doi

  54. [62]

    Diallo A, Hughes J, Greenwald M, LaBombard B, Davis E, Baek S G, Theiler C, Snyder P, Canik J, Walk J, Golfinopoulos T, Terry J, Churchill M, Hubbard A, Porkolab M, Delgado-Aparicio L, Reinke M, White A and Alcator C-Mod Team 2014 Physical Review Letters 112 115001 ISSN 0031-9...

    2014 doi

  55. [63]

    Connor J W, Hastie R J, Wilson H R and Miller R L 1998 Physics of Plasmas 5 2687–2700 ISSN 1070-664X, 1089-7674 URL https://pubs.aip.org/pop/article/5/7/2687/444431/ Magnetohydrodynamic-stability-of-tokamak-edge

    1998

  56. [64]

    Snyder P B, Wilson H R, Ferron J R, Lao L L, Leonard A W, Osborne T H, Turnbull A D, Mossessian D, Murakami M and Xu X Q 2002 Physics of Plasmas 9 2037–2043 ISSN 1070-664X, 1089-7674 URL https://pubs.aip.org/pop/article/9/5/2037/1070288/ Edge-localized-modes-and-the-pedestal-A-model

    2002

  57. [65]

    Angioni C, Weisen H, Kardaun O J W F, Maslov M, Zabolotsky A, Fuchs C, Garzotti L, Giroud C, Kurzan B, Mantica P, Peeters A G, Stober J, Team t A U and Workprogramme c t t E J 2007 Nuclear Fusion 47 1326 ISSN 0029-5515 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/47/ 9/033

    2007 doi

  58. [66]

    Rodriguez-Fernandez P, Howard N T and Candy J 2022 Nuclear Fusion 62 076036 ISSN 0029-5515 publisher: IOP Publishing URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ac64b2

    2022 doi

  59. [67]

    Howard N T, Holland C, White A E, Greenwald M, Candy J and Creely A J 2016 Physics of Plasmas 23 056109 ISSN 1070-664X, 1089-7674 URL https://pubs.aip.org/pop/article/ 23/5/056109/966093/Multi-scale-gyrokinetic-simulations-Comparison

    2016

  60. [68]

    Waltz R E, Candy J and Fahey M 2007 Physics of Plasmas 14 056116 ISSN 1070-664X, 1089-7674 URL https://pubs.aip.org/pop/article/14/5/056116/929702/ Coupled-ion-temperature-gradient-and-trapped

    2007

  61. [69]

    Angioni C, Bonanomi N, Fable E, Schneider P, Tardini G, Luda T and Staebler G 2023 Nuclear Fusion 63 056005 ISSN 0029-5515, 1741-4326 URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1088/1741-4326/acc193

    2023 doi

  62. [70]

    Hughes J, Howard N, Rodriguez-Fernandez P, Creely A, Kuang A, Snyder P, Wilks T, Sweeney R and Greenwald M 2020 Journal of Plasma Physics 86

    2020

Pith tools

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