Agentic Stage-One Stellarator Optimization: Autonomous Multi-Objective Search for Finite-Beta Equilibria

Hongke Lu; Runlai Xu; Tingjia Zhang; Zhuoran Meng

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 13 references

Agentic Stage-One Stellarator Optimization: Autonomous Multi-Objective Search for Finite-Beta Equilibria

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A language-model agent that picks each optimization step — parent, Fourier modes, objective weights, budget — can run stage-one stellarator search, lifting gate-valid finite-beta outputs from 5 to 19 and halving median quasisymmetry error.

desk verdict A well-scoped proof of concept for LLM-driven stellarator route control; the improvements are plausible but the paper under-specifies route selection and defers the baseline that would make the central claim comparative. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01344 v1 pith:YH4UCKVW submitted 2026-08-02 cs.AI

Tingjia Zhang , Hongke Lu , Zhuoran Meng , Runlai Xu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AI PACS 52.55.Hc

keywords agenticoptimizationstellaratordesignfinite-betaMHDequilibriumquasisymmetrymulti-objectivesearchhyperparameterlanguage-modelagenttransitiondata

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 tries to establish that the expert-driven 'outer loop' of stage-one stellarator design — choosing which parent equilibrium to refine, which boundary Fourier modes to activate, how to weigh competing objectives, and how long to let the local solver run — can be delegated to a bounded language-model agent that diagnoses the current equilibrium and proposes the next experiment, while the deterministic DESC solver keeps final authority over the physics. Stellarator design is a multi-objective inverse problem whose target metrics (quasisymmetry, magnetic well, rotational transform, force balance, aspect ratio, curvature) do not give a constructive map to a validated finite-$\beta$ equilibrium, so outcomes hinge on exactly the choices the agent now controls. If the claim is right, the payoff is two-fold: design search becomes an executable, parallel campaign rather than a one-off expert session, and every attempted step is recorded as structured decision data. On a paired common-budget subset of 23 QUASR-derived sources, gate-valid configurations rise from five to nineteen, median Boozer QS RMS falls from $2.39\times10^{-4}$ to $1.07\times10^{-4}$, and median maximum curvature falls from $62.56$ to $33.00\,\mathrm{m}^{-1}$; one 50-epoch route achieves a $9.10\times$ QS reduction while repairing magnetic-well and curvature defects.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the agent–harness split. The language-model planner proposes actions, but the deterministic DESC layer owns the physics contract; this separation means every policy decision becomes a declared, replayable numerical experiment. The action is the typed hyperparameter tuple $h=(K,w,\eta,b)$ — Fourier-mode schedule, objective-weight vector, typed objective parameters, numerical budget — applied to a named parent $p$, with the budget part of the agent's visible state rather than an invisible conversation count. Every attempted solve is stored as transition evidence $e_i$ coupling parent metric state, declared action, child metrics, optimizer response, validity, and conti

What would settle it

Run the same 23 sources with the same eight-epoch budget but replace the agent with a scripted scheduler — random parent choice with fixed objective weights, or a greedy rule that always continues the best gate-valid child — and compare gate-valid counts and median QS RMS. If a scripted controller matches the agent, the claimed agentic advantage is not the cause. Independently, re-run the four short routes that ended outside the terminal gate with longer budgets; if they converge, the 19-of-23 count was a budget effect. Also, publish the rule that selected the 23 'completed' routes: a rule tha

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims a language-model agent can sustain finite-$\beta$, multi-objective stage-one stellarator optimization, framing route control as state-dependent hyperparameter selection: the action $a=(p,h)$ — parent, Fourier-mode schedule, objective weights, budget — behaves differently on different parents. A bounded agent emits these from a grounded route state; deterministic DESC owns the physics. Evidence: a paired eight-epoch campaign over 23 QUASR-derived sources lifts gate-valid outputs from five to nineteen, cuts median Boozer QS RMS from $2.39\times10^{-4}$ to $1.07\times10^{-4}$, and median maximum curvature from $62.56$ to $33.00\,\mathrm{m}^{-1}$. A 50-epoch route reaches $4.157\ti

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes the 23 routes treated as 'completed' are a representative slice of the campaign — specifically, that deciding a route is 'completed' is not correlated with whether it reached a good endpoint; the paper does not state how those 23 routes were chosen, and if unpromising routes were stopped early and set aside, the 5-to-19 gate-valid count and the median improvements would both be overstated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the paired improvements hold, stage-one optimization can run as asynchronous multi-start campaigns: each completed route contributes a refined finite-beta configuration and its full lineage from the same solver budget.
Because rejected children, failed solves, and lost within-epoch comparisons are stored in one transition schema, the corpus can support failure prediction, action-conditioned surrogates, and offline policy evaluation as coverage grows.
The aggregate shift is joint — the gate structure rewards feasibility as much as quasisymmetry — so extending the workflow to other source families, field periods, and acceptance contracts should keep configurations comparable under a single evaluation contract.
The long route's nonmonotone path, including temporary QS regressions that buy curvature or well repairs, implies that a policy maximizing instantaneous quality would stop too early; route-level credit assignment is needed to reach the frontier.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper itself (Sec. 6.3) says matched-budget static, greedy, random, and memory-ablated controllers 'are required to quantify policy efficiency', so the strongest honest reading is that agentic routes beat unoptimized source inputs, not yet that the agent beats other outer-loop policies; a direct comparator run at equal budget would settle it.
The four short routes that remained outside the terminal gate, and the long route's miss of its $10^{-6}$ QS target, mark the current frontier; a plausible extension the paper does not make is that longer budgets or learned proposal priors trained on the transition corpus would close most of that gap — a claim the 734-record corpus is built to test.
The agent–harness split is portable: any staged inverse design with a validated solver and metric gates (coil design, optics, structural shape) admits the same outer-loop pattern, so the contribution is not stellarator-specific.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Read the arXiv:2608.01344 stellarator agent paper. The useful news: this is a genuinely new system in that literature. They put a bounded LLM in an outer loop over DESC, controlling parent choice, Fourier-mode schedule, objective weights, and solver budget, while DESC owns the physics contract and acceptance. That division is sensible. The contribution that matters is the transition corpus — every attempted local solve is recorded with parent, action, outcome, validity, and continuation decision. That is a real step toward making optimization runs reusable, and the authors are appropriately careful to label these observations as behavior-policy priors, not causal demonstrations.

The main results are the paired 23-route subset: gate-valid outputs go from 5 to 19, median QS RMS drops to 1.07e-4, max curvature to 33.00 m^-1. The long route is a nice controlled case: nonmonotone QS, deliberate well/curvature debt, repair, and an eventual 9.1x QS reduction. The figures are consistent with the text. So the proof of concept stands on its own terms: an agent can execute multi-stage finite-beta search and produce improved equilibria.

Soft spots, in proportion. The biggest is that "We select 23 completed routes" is under-specified. We don't learn how many routes the campaign launched, how completion was decided, or whether completion was known before outcomes were inspected. If early-stopping or outcome-based selection happened, the 5→19 number is biased. That said, the paper describes a fixed eight-epoch budget and treats every route as contributing an endpoint, so my read is that all routes run to budget; still, the authors should state this explicitly and ideally report the full campaign count. This is a fixable reporting gap, not a hole in the concept.

The deeper limitation — which the authors themselves flag — is the absence of matched-budget baselines: random, greedy, or memory-ablated controllers. Without those, the paper shows the system can do the job, not that the agentic decisions are what make it work. For a proof of concept that is acceptable, but it should be said plainly in the title or framing.

Other notes: no error bars (medians over 23 routes, some metrics tied to gates); only one long route; no data/prompt release; the R^2=0.31 action-phase regression is weak evidence but honestly reported. The citations look appropriate — DESC, QUASR, ConStellaration, Landreman et al. Self-citation is minimal.

Who this is for: plasma physics / stellarator optimization crowd, and people building LLM agents for scientific control. A serious referee should get this; I'd want the selection rule clarified, baseline experiments sketched or included, and artifacts released before endorsement. But it deserves referee time.

Recommendation: send to peer review as a proof-of-concept, conditional on tightening the evaluation narrative and the route-selection reporting.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a bounded language-model agent that acts as an outer-loop controller for fixed-boundary DESC stellarator optimization. At each epoch the agent selects a parent equilibrium, Fourier-mode schedule, objective weights, and local solver budget, while a deterministic DESC layer owns the physics contract, evaluation, and acceptance. The manuscript reports a multi-start campaign on 23 common-budget routes: gate-valid configurations increase from 5 inputs to 19 outputs, median Boozer QS RMS drops from 2.39e-4 to 1.07e-4, and median max curvature drops from 62.56 to 33.00 m^-1. A separate 50-epoch route achieves a 9.10x QS reduction while repairing magnetic-well and curvature violations. The system also records 734 structured parent-action-outcome transitions. The central claim is that agentic outer-loop control can sustain finite-beta, multi-objective search and produce reusable optimization data.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are reliable, the paper makes a useful proof-of-concept contribution: it cleanly separates agent decisions from deterministic physics execution, explicitly labels transition records as confounded behavior-policy observations, and frames the work as a stepping stone to learned policies rather than as a final comparison. The description of the route graph and persistent provenance schema is a strength, as is the honest acknowledgment that matched-budget static/greedy/random controllers are still needed. The paper also openly reports that four short routes fail the terminal gate and that the long route misses its ambitious QS target. However, the central paired comparison currently rests on an underspecified route-selection protocol and lacks uncertainty quantification, so the headline improvements should be treated as provisional.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 4.1 / Table 1 / Sec. 5.1] The central quantitative evidence is the paired comparison: gate-valid configurations rising from 5 to 19 inputs and median QS/curvature improvements. But Sec. 4.1 only says 'We select 23 completed routes with a common eight-epoch budget for paired evaluation.' It does not state how many routes were launched, what counts as 'completed,' whether routes could be closed early, or whether selection was outcome-blind. If completion correlates with progress or success, the reported improvements are conditional on a favorable subset and do not estimate the agent's average effect. The paper must report the full campaign funnel, define completion a priori, and provide an analysis that includes all started routes or a clearly outcome-blind subsample.
[Sec. 4.2 / Sec. 5.1] The evaluation protocol for the four non-gate-valid routes is underspecified: they contribute 'the endpoint with minimum configured distance to the full gate,' but the distance measure is never defined as an equation or norm. Without this definition, part of the paired evaluation is not reproducible. In addition, Table 1 reports paired medians with no measures of dispersion, confidence intervals, or paired significance tests. The controller uses GPT-5.6-sol with high reasoning effort, and the paper does not state whether sampling is deterministic or whether routes were repeated/seeded. Please define the gate-distance metric and report distributions, paired differences, and bootstrap or repeated-seed uncertainties.
[Abstract / Sec. 6.3 / Conclusion] The abstract and conclusion state that 'agentic outer-loop control can sustain finite-beta, multi-objective search,' yet the experiments include no comparison to a non-agentic baseline. The authors correctly note in Sec. 6.3 that matched-budget static, greedy, random, and memory-ablated controllers are required, but the headline causal attribution goes beyond that scoped claim. The improvement could plausibly arise from the deterministic DESC optimizer plus a simple continuation rule rather than from the agent's sequential reasoning. Please either add a minimal control (e.g., fixed-schedule or random-schedule DESC refinement from the same sources) or soften the causal framing to a capability demonstration.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract / Title] Typo: 'foragentic' should be 'for agentic' in the abstract.
[Sec. 4.2 / Eq. (10)] The expert-score weights alpha_j in Eq. (10) are stated to be fixed, but their values are not given. Provide them or refer to a code/data supplement, since they affect parent ranking.
[Sec. 5.3 / Fig. 5] The long-route selection criterion is not stated; if this route was chosen because it is successful or illustrative, label it as such so readers do not infer typical behavior. The R2_phase and p-value are useful but should be accompanied by a brief explanation of what variance is being explained.
[General / Reproducibility] No data or code availability statement is provided. For a paper whose contribution includes a reusable transition corpus and provenance schema, make the dataset or a representative subset available, or state why it cannot be shared.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported improvements are measured outcomes under a fixed evaluation contract; the main limitations are attribution and route selection, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that an agentic outer-loop controller can improve finite-beta stellarator configurations under a fixed physical contract. The reported quantities—gate-valid counts rising from 5 to 19, median QS RMS falling from 2.39e-4 to 1.07e-4, and median curvature falling from 62.56 to 33.00 m^-1—are empirical before/after measurements on paired input and output equilibria. They are not fitted parameters, nor are they derived from the inputs by construction. The deterministic quality score Q(x) in Eq. (10) is a scalarization of the same physical metrics, but it is used only for ranking within the already gate-valid set; acceptance is governed by metric-wise gates, and the score is not fitted to the reported improvements. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations: its references are to external codes, datasets, and definitions (DESC, QUASR, ConStellaration, etc.), none of which are authored by the present authors. The limitations sections explicitly acknowledge that matched-budget baseline controllers are needed to quantify policy efficiency and that the action analysis is observational; these are attribution/validity concerns, not circularity. The one noteworthy evaluation-design issue is the selection of 23 'completed' routes in Sec. 4.1, which is not fully specified and could bias the paired comparison if completion correlates with outcome. That is a statistical selection-bias risk, not a circular reduction, because the outputs are genuinely computed and the gates are not derived from those outputs. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained: the optimization is real, the metrics are independently defined, and the claims do not reduce to their inputs by definition.

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

The central result depends on author-chosen gate thresholds and an unreported expert-score weight vector, along with domain assumptions about the ideal-MHD model, the sufficiency of the proxies, and the representativeness of the selected completed routes. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

Terminal gate thresholds
Acceptance requires QS RMS < 5e-4, well floor >= 0, well-positive fraction >= 0.9, force RMS < 1e-4, max curvature < 33.2 m^-1, 0.25 <= |iota_edge| <= 1.2, 3 <= A <= 5. These are hand-set design targets, not derived from physics, and directly determine how many routes count as 'gate-valid'.
Expert-score weights alpha_j = not disclosed
The deterministic quality score Q(x) in Eq. (10) uses weights alpha_j over QS, well, transform, geometry, force balance, and solver health. The weights are not reported, so the ranking of outputs is not fully specified. They are chosen by the authors, not fitted to data, but they influence which output is selected.
Route budget = 8 epochs
The common-budget subset uses eight epochs per route. This budget is a hand-set experimental choice; longer budgets could yield different outcomes.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Ideal-MHD equilibrium equations (Eq. 1) accurately describe the plasma
The paper relies on DESC solving the ideal-MHD force balance J x B = grad p. This is standard for stage-one stellarator design but is an assumption about the physics model.
domain assumption Boozer QS RMS and dense magnetic well are valid proxies for confinement and stability
The gates use these metrics as acceptance criteria. They are standard in the field but are proxies, not direct measurements of transport or stability.
domain assumption DESC solutions are converged and accurate for the chosen resolution (L=10, M=N=6)
The paper does not perform convergence studies; it assumes the equilibrium solves are valid.
ad hoc to paper The 23 selected 'completed' routes are a representative sample of the campaign without outcome-dependent selection
The selection criterion is not justified; if route completion correlates with quality, the reported improvement is biased. This is a load-bearing assumption for the aggregate claim.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Agentic Stage-One Stellarator Optimization: Autonomous Multi-Objective Search for Finite-Beta Equilibria." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YH4UCKVW

@misc{pith2026260801344,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Agentic Stage-One Stellarator Optimization: Autonomous Multi-Objective Search for Finite-Beta Equilibria},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YH4UCKVW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01344}
}

abstract

Stage-one stellarator design searches a high-dimensional family of three-dimensional plasma boundaries and fixed-boundary MHD equilibria for configurations that jointly meet requirements on confinement, field-line topology, force balance, stability proxies, and geometry. These specifications do not provide a general constructive map to a validated finite-beta equilibrium. High-quality targets are commonly developed through iterative numerical optimization whose outcome depends on the initial configuration, active Fourier resolution, objective priorities, and local solver budget. Coordinating this process is computationally costly and expert-intensive, limiting both design throughput and the production of consistently evaluated data. We present a proof of concept for \emph{agentic} stage-one optimization. A bounded language-model agent diagnoses the current equilibrium and selects the next local optimization experiment, while deterministic DESC execution owns prescribed profiles and flux, symmetry, metric evaluation, solver validity, and acceptance. On a common-budget subset from an expanding finite-beta campaign, the number of gate-valid configurations increases from five inputs to nineteen outputs; median Boozer QS RMS decreases from $2.39\times10^{-4}$ to $1.07\times10^{-4}$, and median maximum principal curvature decreases from $62.56$ to $33.00\,\mathrm{m}^{-1}$. A complementary long route achieves a $9.10\times$ QS reduction while repairing magnetic-well and curvature defects. The system also records every attempted local action as transition evidence, yielding 734 structured parent--action--outcome records in the reported experiments. These results show that agentic outer-loop control can sustain finite-beta, multi-objective search and turn repeated optimization into a scalable source of improved equilibria and reusable decision data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01344 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Input–output comparisons for the eight accepted configurations with the largest quality-score reductions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Executed search path in QS–well–curvature space. Gray points are successful children with QS RMS below [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Executable action variation over 50 epochs. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: QS frontier and selected continuation route. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[1]

Jorge, A

R. Jorge, A. Goodman, M. Landreman, J. Rodrigues, and F. W ech- sung. Single-Stage Stellarator Optimization: Combining Coils with Fixed Boundary Equilibria, 2023. arXiv:2302.10622

arXiv 2023
[2]

Understanding trade-offs in stellarator design with multi-objective optimization

David Bindel, Matt Landreman, and Misha Padidar. Understanding trade-offs in stellarator design with multi-objective optimization. Journal of Plasma Physics, 89(5):905890503, 2023. doi: 10.1017/ S0022377823000788

work page 2023
[3]

Magnetic well and Mercier stability of stellarators near the magnetic axis

Matt Landreman and Rogerio Jorge. Magnetic well and Mercier sta- bility of stellarators near the magnetic axis, 2020. arXiv:2006.14881

work page Pith review arXiv 2020
[4]

Cadena, Andrea Merlo, Emanuel Laude, Alexander Bauer, Atul Agrawal, Maria Pascu, Marija Savtchouk, Enrico Guiraud, Lukas Bonauer, Stuart Hudson, and Markus Kaiser

Santiago A. Cadena, Andrea Merlo, Emanuel Laude, Alexander Bauer, Atul Agrawal, Maria Pascu, Marija Savtchouk, Enrico Guiraud, Lukas Bonauer, Stuart Hudson, and Markus Kaiser. Con- Stellaration: A dataset of QI-like stellarator plasma boundaries and optimization benchmarks, 2025. arXiv:2506.19583

arXiv 2025
[5]

Deflation Techniques for Stellarator Equilibrium and Optimization, 2026

Dario Panici, Byoungchan Jang, Rory Conlin, Daniel Dudt, Yigit Gunsur Elmacioglu, and Egemen Kolemen. Deflation Techniques for Stellarator Equilibrium and Optimization, 2026. arXiv:2602.09957

work page arXiv 2026
[6]

Exponential spectral scaling: robust and efficient stellarator boundary optimisa- tion via mode-dependent scaling.Journal of Plasma Physics, 92 (1):E15, 2026

Byoungchan Jang, Matt Landreman, and Rory Conlin. Exponential spectral scaling: robust and efficient stellarator boundary optimisa- tion via mode-dependent scaling.Journal of Plasma Physics, 92 (1):E15, 2026. doi: 10.1017/S0022377825101074

work page doi:10.1017/s0022377825101074 2026
[7]

A com- prehensive exploration of quasisymmetric stellarators and their coil sets.Journal of Plasma Physics, 91(5):E128, 2025

Andrew Giuliani, Eduardo Rodr ´ ıguez, and Marina Spivak. A com- prehensive exploration of quasisymmetric stellarators and their coil sets.Journal of Plasma Physics, 91(5):E128, 2025. doi: 10.1017/S0022377825000509

work page doi:10.1017/s0022377825000509 2025
[8]

The DESC Stellarator Code Suite Part I: Quick and accurate equilibria computations

Dario Panici, Rory Conlin, Daniel W. Dudt, Kaya Unalmis, and Egemen Kolemen. The DESC Stellarator Code Suite Part I: Quick and accurate equilibria computations, 2022. arXiv:2203.17173

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

Show all 13 references

[9]

The DESC Stellarator Code Suite Part III: Quasi-symmetry opti- mization, 2022

Daniel Dudt, Rory Conlin, Dario Panici, and Egemen Kolemen. The DESC Stellarator Code Suite Part III: Quasi-symmetry opti- mization, 2022. arXiv:2204.00078

2022 arXiv
[10]

Magnetic fields with precise quasisymmetry for plasma confinement, 2021

Matt Landreman and Elizabeth Paul. Magnetic fields with precise quasisymmetry for plasma confinement, 2021. arXiv:2108.03711

2021 arXiv
[11]

The On-Axis Magnetic Well and Mercier’s Criterion for Arbitrary Stellarator Geometries, 2020

Patrick Kim, Rogerio Jorge, and William Dorland. The On-Axis Magnetic Well and Mercier’s Criterion for Arbitrary Stellarator Geometries, 2020. arXiv:2011.07416

2020 arXiv
[12]

Kaptanoglu, Alexander Wiedman, Jacob Halpern, Siena Hurwitz, Elizabeth J

Alan A. Kaptanoglu, Alexander Wiedman, Jacob Halpern, Siena Hurwitz, Elizabeth J. Paul, and Matt Landreman. Reactor-scale stellarators with force and torque minimized dipole coils, 2024. arXiv:2412.13937

2024 arXiv
[13]

Kaptanoglu, Matt Landreman, and Michael C

Alan A. Kaptanoglu, Matt Landreman, and Michael C. Zarnstorff. Optimization of passive superconductors for shaping stellarator magnetic fields, 2025. arXiv:2501.12468. 9

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Jorge, A

R. Jorge, A. Goodman, M. Landreman, J. Rodrigues, and F. W ech- sung. Single-Stage Stellarator Optimization: Combining Coils with Fixed Boundary Equilibria, 2023. arXiv:2302.10622

arXiv 2023

[2] [2]

Understanding trade-offs in stellarator design with multi-objective optimization

David Bindel, Matt Landreman, and Misha Padidar. Understanding trade-offs in stellarator design with multi-objective optimization. Journal of Plasma Physics, 89(5):905890503, 2023. doi: 10.1017/ S0022377823000788

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Magnetic well and Mercier stability of stellarators near the magnetic axis

Matt Landreman and Rogerio Jorge. Magnetic well and Mercier sta- bility of stellarators near the magnetic axis, 2020. arXiv:2006.14881

work page Pith review arXiv 2020

[4] [4]

Cadena, Andrea Merlo, Emanuel Laude, Alexander Bauer, Atul Agrawal, Maria Pascu, Marija Savtchouk, Enrico Guiraud, Lukas Bonauer, Stuart Hudson, and Markus Kaiser

Santiago A. Cadena, Andrea Merlo, Emanuel Laude, Alexander Bauer, Atul Agrawal, Maria Pascu, Marija Savtchouk, Enrico Guiraud, Lukas Bonauer, Stuart Hudson, and Markus Kaiser. Con- Stellaration: A dataset of QI-like stellarator plasma boundaries and optimization benchmarks, 2025. arXiv:2506.19583

arXiv 2025

[5] [5]

Deflation Techniques for Stellarator Equilibrium and Optimization, 2026

Dario Panici, Byoungchan Jang, Rory Conlin, Daniel Dudt, Yigit Gunsur Elmacioglu, and Egemen Kolemen. Deflation Techniques for Stellarator Equilibrium and Optimization, 2026. arXiv:2602.09957

work page arXiv 2026

[6] [6]

Exponential spectral scaling: robust and efficient stellarator boundary optimisa- tion via mode-dependent scaling.Journal of Plasma Physics, 92 (1):E15, 2026

Byoungchan Jang, Matt Landreman, and Rory Conlin. Exponential spectral scaling: robust and efficient stellarator boundary optimisa- tion via mode-dependent scaling.Journal of Plasma Physics, 92 (1):E15, 2026. doi: 10.1017/S0022377825101074

work page doi:10.1017/s0022377825101074 2026

[7] [7]

A com- prehensive exploration of quasisymmetric stellarators and their coil sets.Journal of Plasma Physics, 91(5):E128, 2025

Andrew Giuliani, Eduardo Rodr ´ ıguez, and Marina Spivak. A com- prehensive exploration of quasisymmetric stellarators and their coil sets.Journal of Plasma Physics, 91(5):E128, 2025. doi: 10.1017/S0022377825000509

work page doi:10.1017/s0022377825000509 2025

[8] [8]

The DESC Stellarator Code Suite Part I: Quick and accurate equilibria computations

Dario Panici, Rory Conlin, Daniel W. Dudt, Kaya Unalmis, and Egemen Kolemen. The DESC Stellarator Code Suite Part I: Quick and accurate equilibria computations, 2022. arXiv:2203.17173

work page Pith review arXiv 2022