Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Integrated Data Analysis of Plasma Electron Density Profile Tomography for HL-3 with Gaussian Process Regression

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By mapping Gaussian-process kernel distances onto normalized magnetic flux, the model fuses FIR and FMCW data into HL-3 electron-density reconstructions with average relative error as low as 3.60e-4 in synthetic validation.

desk verdict A clean GPR-based IDA extension for HL-3, but the headline accuracy is an interpolation benchmark with exact synthetic FMCW values, not a real reconstruction test. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08882 v2 pith:CIEHNWVW submitted 2025-02-13 cs.LG

Cong Wang , Jiahong Chen , Renjie Yang , Dong Li , Zhibin Wang , Zongyu Yang , Zhijun Wang , Yixiong Wei
show 3 more authors
Zhaoyang Liu Chenshu Hu Jing Li
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords GaussianprocessregressionintegrateddataanalysisplasmaelectrondensitytomographyHL-3tokamakFIRinterferometryFMCWreflectometrynormalizedmagneticfluxBayesianinference
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

Integrated data analysis (IDA) on HL-3 is usually done on 1D flux-surface profiles; this paper claims that a Gaussian-process regression model can do genuine 2D tomography by combining line-integral data from the far-infrared interferometer with point values from FMCW reflectometry. The key move is to measure the squared-exponential kernel's distance in normalized magnetic flux rather than Cartesian coordinates, so the 2D geometry is preserved while the profile is forced to respect magnetic surfaces. In synthetic validation the reconstructed profile reaches an average relative error of $3.60\times10^{-4}$ and rRMSE $1.32\times10^{-4}$ with a $28\times30$ grid, about an order of magnitude better than the Bayesian data-analysis baseline with the same diagnostics. Sensitivity tests show the model tolerates up to 10% measurement standard deviation, while added random noise raises errors in a predictable way that sets practical reliability limits. If the claim holds on real data, it gives HL-3 a route to 2D density profiles that use both diagnostics without building a forward model for reflectometry.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the flux-mapped squared-exponential kernel $k_{jk}^{SE}(\psi_j,\psi_k)=\sigma^2\exp(-|\psi_j-\psi_k|^2/(2l^2))$, which replaces the Cartesian distance in the covariance with the distance between normalized magnetic flux values. Because every 2D position is mapped to a flux coordinate by equilibrium reconstruction, the kernel encodes the physical assumption that electron density is uniform on each flux surface while still operating on 2D grid nodes. The rest of the machinery is the standard Gaussian-process conditional update: point values $v^*$ from FMCW enter through Eq. (2-5) as $\mu_1=\Sigma_*^T(\Sigma_{**}+\sigma_*^2 I)^{-1}v^*$, giving a prior; FIR line integrals enter through the response matrix $R$ in the likelihood Eq. (2-7); the posterior mean and covariance are the closed forms in Eqs. (2-10) and (2-11). The kernel is the only place the magnetic equilibrium enters the model, and it is also the component whose errors would propagate directly into the reconstruction.

What would settle it

Run the same synthetic validation with the equilibrium flux map deliberately perturbed, for example by shifting flux-surface locations by a few centimeters, and record how the average relative error moves from $3.60\times10^{-4}$. If realistic equilibrium errors push the error up to the level of the Cartesian-kernel reconstruction, the flux-mapping assumption, not the data fusion, is the effect carrying the accuracy claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a Gaussian process prior conditioned on FMCW point measurements, then updated by FIR line integrals through a response-matrix likelihood, yields a 2D electron density reconstruction for HL-3 whose synthetic accuracy is dominated by the choice of kernel distance. With the Cartesian squared-exponential kernel $k_{jk}^{SE}(x_j,x_k)$ the IDA model leaves visible core distortions because FMCW coverage stops around one-third of the minor radius and no line-integral channel passes through the core region. Replacing the distance with $|\psi_j-\psi_k|$, the separation in normalized magnetic flux obtained from equilibrium reconstruction, makes the model treat density as uniform on flux surfaces; the average relative error drops from $5.18\times10^{-3}$ to $3.60\times10^{-4}$ and rRMSE from $1.56\times10^{-3}$ to $1.32\times10^{-4}$. The paper reads this as demonstrating that accurate magnetic-equilibrium information, rather than additional diagnostics, is the main lever for core accuracy in the current HL-3 diagnostic layout.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the magnetic flux mapping from equilibrium reconstruction places every measurement on the correct flux surface and that density is constant along each surface; systematic errors in that mapping are explicitly ignored, so a slightly wrong equilibrium would shift the kernel distances, the point-measurement locations, and the reconstructed profile together.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the flux-coordinate kernel, the IDA model reduces average relative error from $2.25\times10^{-2}$ (BDA) and $5.18\times10^{-3}$ (Cartesian-kernel IDA) to $3.60\times10^{-4}$, and rRMSE to $1.32\times10^{-4}$, on the $28\times30$ synthetic test.
  • Adding FMCW point values to the GPR prior removes the need for a dedicated reflectometry forward model while constraining edge reconstruction, as seen in the small errors at 1.2-1.4 m and 2.2-2.4 m.
  • The $28\times30$ grid is the best tested configuration; coarser grids lose detail and finer grids introduce core perturbations attributed to numerical instability.
  • Under 10% measurement standard deviation the mean relative error stays near $6.50\times10^{-4}$, while 5% added random noise raises mean average relative error to $1.56\times10^{-2}$, giving a quantitative reliability boundary for real applications.
  • Without magnetic equilibrium information, FIR plus FMCW data alone cannot reconstruct the core accurately; the paper concludes core coverage must be added or equilibrium information retained.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the accuracy carries to real data, the agreement between Cartesian-kernel and flux-kernel reconstructions in the core becomes a consistency check on the magnetic equilibrium itself.
  • Editorial inference: the same GPR prior can absorb other point diagnostics, such as Thomson scattering or electron-cyclotron-emission measurements, with no change to the forward-model machinery.
  • Editorial inference: because the synthetic test sets the FMCW point-value standard deviation to zero, the headline error is best treated as a lower bound; real calibration and localization errors are likely to dominate.
  • Editorial inference: a direct stress test is to put a non-flux-aligned density perturbation (localized in Cartesian space) into the synthetic profile and see whether the flux-coordinate kernel smooths it away, since the kernel assumes flux-surface uniformity.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes an integrated data analysis (IDA) model for two-dimensional electron density profile tomography on the HL-3 tokamak. The model combines line-integrated signals d from the 13-channel FIR interferometer with point density values v* from FMCW reflectometry within a Bayesian Gaussian process regression framework. A zero-mean GP prior with a squared-exponential kernel is defined either on Cartesian coordinates or on normalized magnetic flux coordinates obtained from EFIT; the FIR data are entered through a linear response-matrix likelihood, and the posterior is computed by the standard Gaussian conditioning formulas of Eqs. (2-10)-(2-11). The model is validated in a synthetic test: a known 2D density profile, built as a modified tanh function of normalized flux (Appendix C), generates synthetic FIR chord integrals and exact FMCW point values, and the reconstruction is scored against that profile. The headline accuracy is an average relative error xi_bar = 3.60e-4 and rRMSE = 1.32e-4 for the flux-coordinate kernel (Tables 1-2). Sensitivity studies cover grid resolution (14x15 to 56x60, with 28x30 selected as best), the assumed standard deviation of the error model, and 1000 runs with 1-5% random Gaussian noise. The authors conclude that the model provides a robust foundation for application to real HL-3 experimental data.

Significance. The contribution is primarily an application-level synthesis: combining FIR line integrals and FMCW point values through a GP prior in flux coordinates and validating it for the HL-3 diagnostic layout. The derivation is standard GPR with a linear Gaussian likelihood, and Eqs. (2-5), (2-10) and (2-11) are internally consistent; the paper is transparent about its synthetic setup and explicitly acknowledges that EFIT systematic errors are ignored. The BDA-versus-IDA comparison (Tables 1-2) is a useful ablation showing the value of point constraints, and the noise study (Tables 5-7, Figure 8) honestly documents pronounced noise sensitivity. If the reported accuracy were representative of real-data performance, the method would be a practical tool for HL-3. However, the headline accuracy is a self-consistency and interpolation figure obtained under idealized conditions (exact FMCW values, zero measurement noise, same flux mapping used to generate the truth and to define the kernel, and a grid chosen ex post), so the significance of the paper depends on the validation claims being reframed and strengthened.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3 and Table 2] The headline errors (xi_bar = 3.60e-4, rRMSE = 1.32e-4) are interpolation/self-consistency metrics, not reconstruction accuracies from real FMCW data. The text states that 'The synthetic values from the virtual diagnostic of FMCW on the electron density profile are obtained as the input v*' and that 'The standard deviations of d and v* are set to 0,' so v* contains the exact values of the known profile at the FMCW locations, with no representation of the FMCW measurement chain (frequency/group-delay trace to density inversion, Appendix B and refs. 32, 44). Conditioning Eq. (2-5) on exact point values interpolates the known edge profile, and the zero-noise FIR likelihood (2-7) fixes the remaining degrees of freedom; the experiment therefore measures how well the SE kernel and the 13-chord geometry reproduce a smooth function, not how accurately the method would invert actual HL-3 reflectometer data. To support the 'robust foundation for real application' claim in Section 5, the validation needs a structured-error test in which v* is produced by a model of the reflectometer inversion (including bias and correlated errors) and a test with perturbed EFIT flux mapping.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Appendix C] The flux-coordinate test is circular in a way that guarantees the improvement shown in Table 2. The synthetic profile is constructed as n_e_bar(rho) = A * MTANH(alpha, z) + B, a function of normalized toroidal flux only (Eqs. (5-3)-(5-4)), and the same EFIT equilibrium (Figure 11) is used both to generate that profile and, through the mapping in Section 2.3, to define the kernel distances |psi_j - psi_k| in Eq. (2-13). The model's key assumption, that the electron density is uniform on each flux surface, is therefore exactly true in the test, so Table 2 measures the benefit of injecting that prior when it holds, not its validity for real HL-3 plasmas, where flux-surface asymmetries, MHD activity, and EFIT mapping errors will break F(x) = F(psi). The manuscript acknowledges this in one sentence ('Systematic errors of v* introduced by EFIT equilibrium reconstruction, are ignored in this work'), but the conclusion (Section 5) reports the 87.5%/93.1%/91.5% error reductions without this caveat. It is also unclear whether the kernel coordinates in the synthetic test come from the same EFIT solution used in Appendix C or from the EFITNN mapping cited in Section 2.3; if they differ, an unquantified mapping error is hidden in the test, and if they are identical, the test is fully circular.
  3. [Sections 2.3, 4.1 and 4.3] The kernel hyperparameters sigma and l are never reported, and the grid resolution was selected using the same metric that is then presented as the headline result. Appendix A says the optimal hyperparameters are determined by evidence maximization, and Section 4.3 states that they 'are fixed,' yet no numerical values for sigma or l appear anywhere in the text or tables, making Tables 1-5 irreproducible. Independent reimplementation is impossible without these numbers. Likewise, Section 4.1 compares four grids and reports that the 840-point (28x30) grid achieves the best xi_max, xi_bar, and rRMSE; choosing the grid that minimizes the reported error and then quoting that minimum as the model's accuracy is a selection-on-the-test-set bias. The authors should report the optimized hyperparameter values and treat the grid choice as part of a declared procedure (for example, selected on a separate validation configuration), or present all four grid resolutions in the main accuracy claims.
  4. [Sections 4.2, 4.3 and 5] The robustness claim in the conclusion is not supported by the noise experiments it refers to. Table 5 shows that adding 1% random Gaussian noise raises the mean xi_bar from 5.24e-4 to 3.23e-3 and the mean xi_max from 1.30e-2 to 1.42e-1, and at 5% noise the mean xi_max reaches 6.55e-1, a maximum local error above 65% of the peak density; the text in Section 4.3 itself acknowledges 'pronounced noise sensitivity.' Section 5 nevertheless concludes that 'the model maintains robust inversion capability even when subjected to 10% measurement uncertainty.' This conflates the Section 4.2 experiment, which changes the assumed standard deviations in the error model, with the Section 4.3 experiment, which adds actual random noise; 10% actual noise was never tested. In addition, it is unclear whether Section 4.2 perturbs the data or only inflates Sigma_epsilon and sigma*^2: Figure 7(b) shows back-projections that agree with the synthetic FIR data at all stated standard-deviation levels, which suggests the data were not actually noised. The authors should clarify the design of Section 4.2 and qualify the 'robust' claim accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3] Table 3 lists the finest grid as '3660 (56x60)'; this should read '3360 (56x60)' to agree with the count given in the text of Section 4.1.
  2. [Section 1 and Section 3] There are several typos: 'In precious research' should be 'In previous research', 'time-cconsuming' should be 'time-consuming', and the sentence introducing xi_max says 'donates' where 'denotes' is meant.
  3. [Appendix A] The appendix equations are labeled (5-1) and (5-2), which is inconsistent with the (2-x)/(3-x) labeling used in the body; they should be relabeled (A-1) and (A-2).
  4. [Section 2.1] The zero-mean GP prior is a strong assumption for a strictly nonnegative quantity such as electron density; because extrapolation in the core is weakly constrained (Figure 3(b)), the authors should justify the zero-mean choice or discuss a nonzero mean function based on typical HL-3 profiles.
  5. [Section 4.1] The 'instabilities arising from the numerical calculations' observed at 1890 and 3360 grid points are presented as a preliminary attribution; since Eqs. (2-10)-(2-11) require inverting covariance matrices of size g x g, reporting condition numbers or a Cholesky-based stability check would substantiate the discussion.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Synthetic validation is partly self-consistent by construction: exact FMCW point values and a flux-constructed truth make the headline 3.60e-4 accuracy an interpolation/consistency check rather than an independent test.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3 (Model validation), paragraph 2; Eqs. (2-1), (2-5)]
    "Here, the synthetic diagnostic data from the virtual diagnostic of FIR serves as the input d. The synthetic values from the virtual diagnostic of FMCW on the electron density profile are obtained as the input v*, represented by the colored points shown in Figure 2(b). Systematic errors of v* introduced by EFIT equilibrium reconstruction, are ignored in this work. The standard deviations of d and v* are set to 0."

    The virtual FMCW values are not generated by a forward model of the FMCW reflectometer: the real HL-3/HL-2A diagnostic yields a frequency/group-delay trace from which v* must be obtained by a separate inversion (Appendix B and ref. 44). With zero assigned noise, Eq. (2-5) turns v* into exact noiseless observations of the target profile, so the GP interpolates them; the reported xi_bar = 3.60e-4 and rRMSE = 1.32e-4 therefore measure interpolation of exact edge truth plus FIR-constrained reconstruction, not accuracy from actual FMCW measurements. The paper is transparent that EFIT systematic errors are ignored, but the headline number is presented as model validation.

  2. self definitional [Section 2.3 (Eq. 2-13) and Appendix C (Eqs. 5-3, 5-4)]
    "Generally, some profiles are considered functions of the normalized magnetic flux (psi). For instance, the electron density profile on the same magnetic surface is uniform. Based on this assumption, solving the 2D profile (F(x)) can be reduced to inverting a 1D profile (F(psi)). ... The electron density profile is subsequently modeled using a modified tanhfit function45 as shown in Eq.(5-3). rho represents the normalized toroidal magnetic flux."

    The synthetic truth is built as n_e(rho), a function of normalized toroidal flux, while the kernel in Eq. (2-13) uses exactly the same flux-coordinate distance |psi_j - psi_k|. The validation profile therefore lies inside the model's assumed function class by construction; the improvement from Table 1 to Table 2 and the 93.1%/91.5% error reductions quoted in Section 5 are a consistency check of the flux-mapping assumption, not independent evidence that the EFIT/EFITNN mapping is accurate on HL-3. This makes part of the 3.60e-4 accuracy built into the test design rather than demonstrated against an external benchmark.

full rationale

The Bayesian/GPR derivation itself (Eqs. 2-1 to 2-11, 2-12 to 2-13) is internally coherent: the posterior mean and covariance follow from standard Gaussian conditioning and a linear FIR forward model, and no uniqueness theorem or load-bearing self-citation forces the result. However, the validation section is not an external benchmark. First, v* are exact values read from the known synthetic profile rather than outputs of an FMCW measurement model, so with zero noise the GP regression in Eq. (2-5) interpolates the target values at the detection zone. Second, the synthetic profile is generated as a function of normalized toroidal flux (Appendix C), exactly the coordinate used by the kernel in Eq. (2-13); hence the flux-mapped reconstruction is partly validating its own prior. The paper openly states that EFIT systematic errors are ignored and deferred to future work, which is a proper limitation, but the headline 3.60e-4 and 1.32e-4 numbers are therefore self-consistency results rather than independent predictions. No significant circularity is found in the method's mathematical derivation; the partial circularity is confined to how the synthetic validation is constructed and interpreted.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model depends on a small number of fitted hyperparameters and a synthetic benchmark built from the same flux-function assumption the model enforces. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • SE kernel scale sigma = Not reported
    Optimal value fixed by maximizing the Bayesian evidence over synthetic data (Appendix A); the reconstruction error depends on it.
  • SE kernel length scale l = Not reported
    Same as sigma, fixed by evidence maximization in Section 4.3, with no value given in the text.
  • Grid resolution (28x30) = 840 nodes
    Selected because it produced the best metrics among four resolutions in Table 3; this is a model selection choice on the evaluation benchmark.
  • Synthetic profile shape parameters = Not reported
    A, B, XSYM, HWID and alpha in Eq. (5-3) define the ground truth profile in Appendix C; the reported error rates depend on this choice and the values are not listed.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Plasma electron density is uniform on each magnetic flux surface.
    Stated in Section 2.3 and used to justify mapping 2D Cartesian coordinates to normalized flux psi, which is central to the improved kernel in Eq. (2-13).
  • domain assumption EFIT equilibrium reconstruction provides an accurate psi mapping and contributes zero systematic error to v*.
    Section 3 states systematic errors introduced by EFIT are ignored; the headline accuracy depends on this.
  • domain assumption Measurement noise for both diagnostics is i.i.d. Gaussian with zero mean and known variance.
    Used in Eq. (2-5), Eq. (2-7), and throughout the likelihood and posterior formulas.
  • domain assumption A zero-mean Gaussian process with squared exponential kernel is an appropriate prior for density profiles.
    Eq. (2-12) and (2-13) adopt the SE kernel because profiles are expected to be smooth; no empirical validation of this prior on HL-3 data is given.
  • domain assumption The synthetic profile generated by the modified tanhfit function represents a realistic HL-3 density profile.
    Appendix C constructs the benchmark from EFIT equilibrium and a modified tanhfit; the numerical claims are only for this synthetic profile.
  • standard math Bayesian probability theory and Gaussian process conditioning formulas are standard and assumed correct.
    The paper follows Rasmussen and Williams; these are background results, not derived in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integrated Data Analysis of Plasma Electron Density Profile Tomography for HL-3 with Gaussian Process Regression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CIEHNWVW

@misc{pith2026250208882,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integrated Data Analysis of Plasma Electron Density Profile Tomography for HL-3 with Gaussian Process Regression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CIEHNWVW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08882}
}
read the original abstract

An integrated data analysis model based on Gaussian Process Regression is proposed for plasma electron density profile tomography in the HL-3 tokamak. The model combines line-integral measurements from the far-infrared laser interferometer with point measurements obtained via the frequency-modulated continuous wave reflectometry. By employing Gaussian Process Regression, the model effectively incorporates point measurements into 2D profile reconstructions, while coordinate mapping integrates magnetic equilibrium information. The average relative error of the reconstructed profile obtained by the integrated data analysis model with normalized magnetic flux is as low as 3.60*10^(-4). Additionally, sensitivity tests were conducted on the grid resolution, the standard deviation of diagnostic data, and noise levels, providing a robust foundation for the real application to experimental data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Fujita, J

    Kadota, K., Otsuka, M. & Fujita, J. Space - and time-resolved study of impurities by visible spectroscopy in the high -density regime of JIPP T-II tokamak plasma. Nucl. Fusion 20, 209–212 (1980)

    work page 1980

  2. [2]

    E., Marmar, E

    Foord, M. E., Marmar, E. S. & Terry, J. L. Multichannel light detector system for visible continuum measurements on Alcator C. Review of Scientific Instruments 53, 1407–1409 (1982)

    work page 1982

  3. [3]

    Fischer, R. et al. Integrated Data Analysis of Prof ile Diagnostics at ASDEX Upgrade. Fusion Science and Technology 58, 675–684 (2010)

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    & Svensson, J

    Pavone, A., Merlo, A., Kwak, S. & Svensson, J. Machine learning and Bayesian inference in nuclear fusion research: an overview. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 65, 053001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Denk, S. S. et al. Simultaneous kinetic profile and magnetic equilibrium inference with Bayesian integrated data analysis in preparation for ITER. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 67, 055014 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Greenhouse, D. et al. Two-dimensional inference of divertor plasma characteristics: advancements to a multi -instrument Bayesian analysis system. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 67, 035006 (2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Kwak, S. et al. Bayesian equilibria of axisymmetric plasmas. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/2103.07581 (2022)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    & Geman, D

    Geman, S. & Geman, D. Stochastic Relaxation, Gibbs Distributions, and the Bayesian Restoration of Images. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. PAMI-6, 721–741 (1984)

    work page 1984

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Rathgeber, S. K. et al. Estimation of profiles of the effective ion charge at ASDEX Upgrade with Integrated Data Analysis. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 52, 095008 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Hole, M. J. et al. The use of Bayesian inversion to resolve plasma equilibrium. Review of Scientific Instruments 81, 10E127 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    T., Hole, M

    von Nessi, G. T., Hole, M. J. & null, null. Recent developments in Bayesian inference of tokamak plasma equilibria and high-dimensional stochastic quadratures. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion (2014) doi:10.1088/0741-3335/56/11/114011

    2014 doi

  4. [12]

    PAN, W. et al. Integrated data analysis on the electron temperature profile of HL -2A with the Bayesian probability inference method. Plasm. Sci. tech. (2022) doi:10.1088/2058-6272/ac5c25

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Langenberg, A. et al. Forward Modeling of X -Ray Imaging Crystal Spectrometers Withi n the Minerva Bayesian Analysis Framework. Fusion Sci. Technol. 69, 560–567 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Krychowiak, M. et al. Bayesian modelling of a thermal helium beam for measurement of electron density and temperature in the W7 -X divertor plasma. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 53, 035019 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    Li, D. et al. Application of Bayesian tomography method to the visible spectroscopic diagnostic on HL -2A tokamak. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion (2021) doi:10.1088/1361-6587/abd0a3

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Chen, J. et al. Integrated data analysis on the electron density profile of HL-2A with the Bayesian probability inference method. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 65, 055027 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Moser, K. et al. Gaussian Process Tomography at ASDEX Upgrade with Magnetic Equilibrium Information and Non stationary Kernels. Fusion Science and Technology 78, 607–616 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Liu, Z. et al. Plasma profile tomography for EAST based on integrated data analysis. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 64, 094001 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Chaudhary, N. et al. Electron temperature pro file from optically grey X3-mode of electron cyclotron emission at Wendelstein 7 -X using Bayesian analysis. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 64, 055016 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    & Svensson, J

    Schilling, J., Thomsen, H., Brandt, C., Kwak, S. & Svensson, J. Soft x- ray tomograms are consist ent with the magneto -hydrodynamic equilibrium in the Wendelstein 7-X stellarator. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion (2021) doi:10.1088/1361-6587/abe0fa

    2021 doi

  13. [21]

    Liu, Z. et al. Plasma current profile reconstruction for EAST based on Bayesian inference. Fusion Eng. D es. (2021) doi:10.1016/j.fusengdes.2021.112722

    2021

  14. [22]

    Kwak, S. et al. Bayesian inference of spatially resolved Zeff profiles from line integrated bremsstrahlung spectra. Rev. Sci. Instrum. (2021) doi:10.1063/5.0043777

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Kwak, S. et al. Bayesian modelling of Thomson scattering and multichannel interferometer diagnostics using Gaussian processes. Nucl. Fusion 60, 046009 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Wang, T. et al. Gaussian process tomography for soft x -ray spectroscopy at WEST without equilibrium information. Review of Scientific Instruments 89, 063505 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    & Morales, R

    Schmuck, S., Svensson, J., Figini, L., Micheletti, D. & Morales, R. B. Bayesian inference using JET ’s microwave diagnostic system. Nucl. Fusion 60, 066009 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Chilenski, M. A. et al. Improved profile fitting and quantification of uncertainty in experimental measurements of impurity transport coefficients using Gaussian process regression. Nucl. Fusion 55, 023012 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    Nishizawa, T. et al. Estimation of plasma parameter profiles and their derivatives fro m linear observations by using Gaussian processes. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 65, 125006 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Zheng, G. et al. Real-time equilibrium reconstruction by neural network based on HL -3 tokamak. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.11221 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Meneghini, O. et al. Integrated modeling applications for tokamak experiments with OMFIT. Nucl. Fusion 55, 083008 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Huang, Y . et al. GPU-optimized fast plasma equilibrium reconstruction in fine grids for real -time control and data analysis. Nucl. Fusion 60, 076023 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Li, D. et al. Bayesian soft x-ray tomography and MHD mode analysis on HL -2A. Nuclear Fusion (2016) doi:10.1088/0029 - 5515/56/3/036012

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    Li, D. et al. Combined analysis of laser interferometer and microwave reflectometer for a consistent electron density profile on HL -2A. Fusion Engineering and Design 194, 113903 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Gaussian process tomography based on Bayesian data analysis for soft x-ray and AXUV diagnostics on EAST

    Yan Chao et al. Gaussian process tomography based on Bayesian data analysis for soft x-ray and AXUV diagnostics on EAST. Chin. Phys. B 29, 095201 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Rasmussen, C. E. & Williams, C. K. I. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 2006)

    2006

  27. [35]

    An Intuitive Tutorial to Gaussian Processes Regression

    Wang, J. An Intuitive Tutorial to Gaussian Processes Regression. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/2009.10862 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    & Ta rtakovsky, A

    Li, J. & Ta rtakovsky, A. M. Gaussian process regression and conditional polynomial chaos for parameter estimation. Journal of Computational Physics 416, 109520 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Wang, T. et al. Incorporating magnetic equilibrium information in Gaussian process tomography f or soft X -ray spectroscopy at WEST. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 89, 10F103 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Reconstruction of soft X-ray and tungsten concentration profiles in Tokamaks using Bayesian method

    Tianbo Wang. Reconstruction of soft X-ray and tungsten concentration profiles in Tokamaks using Bayesian method. (Ghent University, 2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Automatic model construction with Gaussian processes

    Duvenaud, D. Automatic model construction with Gaussian processes. (Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository, 2014). doi:10.17863/CAM.14087

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    Gaussian Processes for Emission Tomography at ASDEX Upgrade

    Korbinian Moser. Gaussian Processes for Emission Tomography at ASDEX Upgrade. (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    & J enko, F

    Matos, F., Svensson, J., Pavone, A., Odstrčil, T. & J enko, F. Deep learning for Gaussian process soft x-ray tomography model selection in the ASDEX Upgrade tokamak. Review of Scientific Instruments 91, 103501 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Gaussian process tomography for the analysis of line-integrated measurements in fusion plasmas

    Li, D. Gaussian process tomography for the analysis of line-integrated measurements in fusion plasmas. (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    Wang, A. et al. Magnetic pickup coil systems on the HL -3 tokamak. AIP Advances 13, 105125 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Zhong, W. L. et al. Development of frequency modulated continuous wave reflectometer for electron density profile measurement on the HL- 2A tokamak. Review of Scientific Instruments 85, 013507 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    Groebner, R. J. et al. Progress in quantifying the edge physics of the H mode regime in DIII-D. Nucl. Fusion 41, 1789–1802 (2001). Appendix A. Bayesian probability theory In the context of the fusion diagnostic inversion problem, the principles of Bayes' rule can be expressed ...

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.