Summary report of the 4th IAEA Technical Meeting on Fusion Data Processing, Validation and Analysis (FDPVA)

The objective of the Fourth Technical Meeting on Fusion Data Processing, Validation and Analysis was to provide a platform during which a set of topics relevant to fusion data processing, validation and analysis are discussed with the view of extrapolating needs to next step fusion devices such as ITER. The validation and analysis of experimental data obtained from diagnostics used to characterize fusion plasmas are crucial for a knowledge-based understanding of the physical processes governing the dynamics of these plasmas. This paper presents the recent progress and achievements in the domain of plasma diagnostics and synthetic diagnostics data analysis (including image processing, regression analysis, inverse problems, deep learning, machine learning, big data and physics-based models for control) reported at the meeting. The progress in these areas highlight trends observed in current major fusion confinement devices. A special focus is dedicated on data analysis requirements for ITER and DEMO with a particular attention paid to artificial intelligence for automatization and improving reliability of control processes.

[1]  V. Moncada,et al.  Deep learning and image processing for the automated analysis of thermal events on the first wall and divertor of fusion reactors , 2022, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion.

[2]  M. Endler,et al.  Anisotropic diffusion as a proxy model for the estimation of heat-loads on plasma-facing components , 2022, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion.

[3]  Hao Wu,et al.  Integrated Data Analysis on the Electron Temperature profile of HL-2A with Bayesian probability inference Method , 2022, Plasma Science and Technology.

[4]  S. Murakami,et al.  ASTI: Data assimilation system for particle and heat transport in toroidal plasmas , 2022, Comput. Phys. Commun..

[5]  M. Hron,et al.  Tomotok: python package for tomography of tokamak plasma radiation , 2021, Journal of Instrumentation.

[6]  S. Brunton,et al.  Alfvén eigenmode classification based on ECE diagnostics at DIII-D using deep recurrent neural networks , 2021, Nuclear Fusion.

[7]  A. Polevoi,et al.  Simulation of heating and current drive sources for scenarios of the ITER research plan , 2021, Nuclear Fusion.

[8]  Shuo Wang,et al.  In-depth research on the interpretable disruption predictor in HL-2A , 2021, Nuclear Fusion.

[9]  Jet Contributors,et al.  PHAD: a phase-oriented disruption prediction strategy for avoidance, prevention, and mitigation in JET , 2021, Nuclear Fusion.

[10]  Yuanlai Xie,et al.  Breakdown prediction of ion source at EAST-NBI using neural network , 2021, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion.

[11]  J. Rice,et al.  Experimental inference of neutral and impurity transport in Alcator C-Mod using high-resolution x-ray and ultra-violet spectra , 2021, Nuclear Fusion.

[12]  Riccardo Rossi,et al.  Stacking of predictors for the automatic classification of disruption types to optimize the control logic , 2020 .

[13]  A. Murari,et al.  Investigating the Physics of Tokamak Global Stability with Interpretable Machine Learning Tools , 2020 .

[14]  M. Yokoyama,et al.  Progress of statistical modelling of thermal transport of fusion plasmas , 2020, Nuclear Fusion.

[15]  J. Juul Rasmussen,et al.  ECRad: An electron cyclotron radiation transport solver for advanced data analysis in thermal and non-thermal fusion plasmas , 2020, Comput. Phys. Commun..

[16]  Michela Gelfusa,et al.  Image-Based Methods to Investigate Synchronization between Time Series Relevant for Plasma Fusion Diagnostics , 2020, Entropy.

[17]  Sebastián Dormido-Canto,et al.  Automatic recognition of plasma relevant events: Implications for ITER , 2020, Fusion Engineering and Design.

[18]  Y. Marzouk,et al.  Inference of experimental radial impurity transport on Alcator C-Mod: Bayesian parameter estimation and model selection , 2020, Nuclear Fusion.

[19]  Pasqualino Gaudio,et al.  On the transfer of adaptive predictors between different devices for both mitigation and prevention of disruptions , 2020, Nuclear Fusion.

[20]  Gilles Louppe,et al.  The frontier of simulation-based inference , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  Sebastián Dormido-Canto,et al.  A linear equation based on signal increments to predict disruptive behaviours and the time to disruption on JET , 2019, Nuclear Fusion.

[22]  A. Murari,et al.  Adaptive learning for disruption prediction in non-stationary conditions , 2019, Nuclear Fusion.

[23]  S. Voskoboynikov,et al.  Speed-up of SOLPS-ITER code for tokamak edge modeling , 2018, Nuclear Fusion.

[24]  P. Stangeby.  Basic physical processes and reduced models for plasma detachment , 2018 .

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

[26]  Emmanuele Peluso,et al.  On efficiency and interpretation of sawteeth pacing with on-axis ICRH modulation in JET , 2017 .

[27]  Michela Gelfusa,et al.  Detection of Causal Relations in Time Series Affected by Noise in Tokamaks Using Geodesic Distance on Gaussian Manifolds , 2017, Entropy.

[28]  Michela Gelfusa,et al.  How to assess the efficiency of synchronization experiments in tokamaks , 2016 .

[29]  S. Brunton,et al.  Discovering governing equations from data by sparse identification of nonlinear dynamical systems , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[30]  S. Voskoboynikov,et al.  Presentation of the new SOLPS-ITER code package for tokamak plasma edge modelling , 2016 .

[31]  B. P. Duval,et al.  Design and first applications of the ITER integrated modelling & analysis suite , 2015 .

[32]  Martine Baelmans,et al.  The new SOLPS-ITER code package , 2015 .

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

[34]  G. Corrigan,et al.  JINTRAC: A System of Codes for Integrated Simulation of Tokamak Scenarios , 2014 .

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

[36]  Michela Gelfusa,et al.  Clustering based on the geodesic distance on Gaussian manifolds for the automatic classification of disruptions , 2013 .

[37]  C. Fuchs,et al.  Integrated Data Analysis of Profile Diagnostics at ASDEX Upgrade , 2010 .

[38]  Luigi Fortuna,et al.  Prototype of an adaptive disruption predictor for JET based on fuzzy logic and regression trees , 2008 .

[39]  A. Murari,et al.  The JET programme in support of ITER , 2007 .

[40]  S. Pinches,et al.  Kinetic properties of shear Alfven eigenmodes in tokamak plasmas , 2005 .

[41]  J. P. Goedbloed,et al.  Isoparametric Bicubic Hermite Elements for Solution of the Grad-Shafranov Equation , 1991 .

[42]  H. T. Kim,et al.  An overview of JET results , 1989 .