Machine learning for disruption warnings on Alcator C-Mod, DIII-D, and EAST

This paper reports on disruption prediction using a shallow machine learning method known as a random forest, trained on large databases containing only plasma parameters that are available in real-time on Alcator C-Mod, DIII-D, and EAST. The database for each tokamak contains parameters sampled ~106 times throughout ~104 discharges (disruptive and non-disruptive) over the last four years of operation. It is found that a number of parameters (e.g. , , , ) exhibit changes in aggregate as a disruption is approached on one or more of these tokamaks. However, for each machine, the most useful parameters, as well as the details of their precursor behaviors, are markedly different. When the prediction problem is framed using a binary classification scheme to discriminate between time slices 'close to disruption' and 'far from disruption', it is found that the prediction algorithms differ substantially in performance among the three machines on a time slice-by-time slice basis, but have similar disruption detection rates (~80%–90%) on a shot-by-shot basis after appropriate optimisation. This could have important implications for disruption prediction and avoidance on ITER, for which development of a training database of disruptions may be infeasible. The algorithm's output is interpretable using a method that identifies the most strongly contributing input signals, which may have implications for avoiding disruptive scenarios. To further support its real-time capability, successful applications in inter-shot and real-time environments on EAST and DIII-D are also discussed.

[1]  Andrea Murari,et al.  An advanced disruption predictor for JET tested in a simulated real-time environment , 2010 .

[2]  A. Murari,et al.  A First Analysis of JET Plasma Profile-Based Indicators for Disruption Prediction and Avoidance , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science.

[3]  Cristina Rea,et al.  Exploratory Machine Learning Studies for Disruption Prediction Using Large Databases on DIII-D , 2018 .

[4]  T.K. Fowler,et al.  Nuclear fusion , 1989, IEEE Potentials.

[5]  J. Vega,et al.  Results of the JET real-time disruption predictor in the ITER-like wall campaigns , 2012 .

[6]  K. F. Mast,et al.  On-line prediction and mitigation of disruptions in ASDEX Upgrade , 2002 .

[7]  J. Vega,et al.  Adaptive high learning rate probabilistic disruption predictors from scratch for the next generation of tokamaks , 2014 .

[8]  D. A. Humphreys,et al.  Status of research toward the ITER disruption mitigation system , 2015 .

[9]  A. Murari,et al.  Unbiased and non-supervised learning methods for disruption prediction at JET , 2009 .

[10]  Piergiorgio Sonato,et al.  A prediction tool for real-time application in the disruption protection system at JET , 2007 .

[11]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[12]  Jet Efda Contributors,et al.  Development of an efficient real-time disruption predictor from scratch on JET and implications for ITER , 2013 .

[13]  J. Vega,et al.  Adaptive predictors based on probabilistic SVM for real time disruption mitigation on JET , 2018 .

[14]  A. Murari,et al.  Automatic disruption classification in JET with the ITER-like wall , 2015 .

[15]  J. A. Leuer,et al.  Tokamak disruption alarm based on a neural network model of the high- beta limit , 1997 .

[16]  J. Vega,et al.  Viability Assessment of a Cross-Tokamak AUG-JET Disruption Predictor , 2018 .

[17]  Daniel Neagu,et al.  Interpreting random forest classification models using a feature contribution method , 2013, IRI.

[18]  Jet Efda Contributors,et al.  A cross-tokamak neural network disruption predictor for the JET and ASDEX Upgrade tokamaks , 2005 .

[19]  Barbara Cannas,et al.  Improvements in disruption prediction at ASDEX Upgrade , 2015 .

[20]  A. D. Turnbull,et al.  Integrated modeling applications for tokamak experiments with OMFIT , 2015 .

[21]  Kevin Montes,et al.  A real-time machine learning-based disruption predictor in DIII-D , 2019, Nuclear Fusion.

[22]  M. Parsons,et al.  Interpretation of machine-learning-based disruption models for plasma control , 2017 .

[23]  L. Lao,et al.  Reconstruction of current profile parameters and plasma shapes in tokamaks , 1985 .