Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 78 references

Periodic Korteweg-de Vries soliton potentials generate quasisymmetric magnetic field strength in a finite plasma-beta equilibrium

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 ↗

Pith's one-line read In quasisymmetric stellarator equilibria, the magnetic field strength on each flux surface is a periodic KdV soliton potential, fixed by three or four flux functions.

desk verdict Solid numerical extension of the vacuum soliton picture to finite-beta QS equilibria, but the Painlevé-based reduction is unproven and the three/four-flux-function claim is an empirical fit rather than a derived law. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06480 v1 pith:BOZWTOBE submitted 2025-07-09 physics.plasm-ph

W. Sengupta , R. Madan , S. Buller , N. Nikulsin , E.J. Paul , R. Nies , A.A. Kaptanoglu , S.R. Hudson
show 1 more author
A. Bhattacharjee
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords quasisymmetrystellaratorsmagnetohydrostaticssolitonpotentialsKorteweg-deVriesequationPainlevépropertyfluxsurfacesmagneticfieldstrength
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 argues that in a quasisymmetric magnetohydrostatic equilibrium—a magnetic field with a hidden symmetry that confines charged particles in a three-dimensional torus—the field strength $B$ on any flux surface is not a free two-dimensional function but is generated by a periodic soliton potential of the Korteweg-de Vries type. Specifically, the square of the derivative of $B$ along the magnetic field line is a cubic polynomial in $B$ (or a quartic at small rotational transform), so $B$ is fixed by three or four flux functions that are the values of $B$ where the field-line derivative vanishes. This gives a global, surface-by-surface characterization of quasisymmetric field strength that agrees with near-axis expansions but extends to the last closed flux surface, and it holds for finite plasma pressure and a self-consistent bootstrap current, not just vacuum fields. A sympathetic reader would care because it suggests hidden integrable structure in an overdetermined system and offers a compact description of $B$ that could guide stellarator design.

What carries the argument

The central object is the algebraic ODE of Equation (53), $\left(\partial_\ell B\right)^2 = D(\psi)(B_{\max}-B)(B-B_{\min})(B-B_X)$, which is the traveling-wave reduction of the Korteweg-de Vries equation; its periodic solutions are cnoidal waves, and in the infinite-period limit they become reflectionless soliton potentials. This polynomial form is what makes $B$ a soliton potential and lets three or four flux functions determine the field strength on a surface. The gate that produces the polynomial structure is the Painlevé property, the absence of movable critical singularities in the complex plane, combined with periodicity and the existence of a traveling-wave frame: these assumptions turn the unknown function $f(B,\psi)$ into a cubic or quartic polynomial.

What would settle it

Examine a high-resolution, well-converged quasisymmetric equilibrium with mean rotational transform around 0.4 and $\beta$ around 3 percent, and test whether the residual of a cubic polynomial fit to (∂ℓB)^2 versus B on an interior surface shrinks as resolution increases. If a systematic non-cubic structure persists at converged resolution, or if a smooth quasisymmetric MHS solution is found whose ∂ℓB has movable branch-point singularities, the claimed universal reduction fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that finite-$\beta$ quasisymmetric equilibria belong to the same soliton class previously identified for vacuum fields: on each flux surface, the field-line derivative satisfies $\left(\partial_\ell B\right)^2 = D(\psi)(B_{\max}(\psi)-B)(B-B_{\min}(\psi))(B-B_X(\psi))$ in the cubic case, with a quartic analogue at small rotational transform. The roots $B_{\max}$, $B_{\min}$, and $B_X$ are flux functions, so $B$ is determined by at most four flux functions per surface. The derivation starts from the two-term form of quasisymmetry and a traveling-wave frame in which $B$ is independent of the field-line label, then uses analyticity, periodicity in the connection length, and the Painlevé property to reduce the equation $\partial_\ell B = f(B,\psi)$ to an algebraic polynomial equation, which is the periodic traveling-wave reduction of the Korteweg-de Vries equation. The paper verifies the law by regression on numerically optimized finite-$\beta$ quasisymmetric equilibria, including configurations generated with finite pressure and bootstrap current, and it uses the near-axisymmetric limit as a control: as the geometry approaches a tokamak, the cubic or quartic fit degrades and a quintic is required. The authors explicitly note that the necessity of the Painlevé property for all quasisymmetric equilibria is not apparent.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on assuming that every quasisymmetric MHS equilibrium field strength, when continued to complex arclength, has the Painlevé property—no movable critical singularities—so that the field-line derivative equation must reduce to a cubic or quartic polynomial; the paper concedes that this necessity is not proven and may fail for axisymmetric-like cases.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On any flux surface of a quasisymmetric MHS equilibrium with generic rotational transform, $B$ is fixed by the three flux functions $B_{\max}$, $B_{\min}$, $B_X$ plus the normalization $D(\psi)$, collapsing the field strength from a two-angle function to a one-angle cnoidal wave.
  • Finite plasma pressure and bootstrap current do not destroy the soliton structure; the same cubic law holds from near the magnetic axis to the last closed flux surface, extending near-axis expansion results to global surfaces.
  • At small rotational transform, a quartic rather than cubic polynomial is required, matching the traveling-wave reduction of the Gardner equation, so the characterization uses an additional flux function when $\iota$ is small.
  • The near-axisymmetric limit is a genuine control case: when the boundary is almost axisymmetric, the cubic fit fails and a quintic is needed, indicating that the Painlevé/cubic property is a signature of genuinely three-dimensional quasisymmetry.
  • The cubic and quartic fits survive increasing numerical resolution, so the observed low-degree polynomial structure is not a low-resolution artifact of the equilibrium solver.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Painlevé property is truly necessary, surface-by-surface construction of quasisymmetric equilibria becomes possible: choose the three or four flux functions that fix $B$, then solve the coupled consistency equations for geometry, rather than optimizing a full volume.
  • The paper's axisymmetric-fraction scan suggests a testable transition: for fixed $\iota$ and $\beta$, the cubic fit's coefficient of determination should drop sharply as the axisymmetric fraction approaches unity, marking where three-dimensional shaping is strong enough for the soliton law to apply.
  • The reflectionless-potential link implies a quantitative route to quasisymmetry: the quality of QS on a surface may be controlled by the reflection coefficient of the effective potential for $B$, so reducing that coefficient could become a design target distinct from Fourier-mode quasisymmetry error.
  • The same polynomial structure appearing for finite pressure and bootstrap current suggests the soliton characterization may extend to equilibria with flow or rotation whenever a suitable traveling-wave frame exists, though the paper does not address that case.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that in finite-β quasisymmetric magnetohydrostatic (MHS) equilibria, the magnetic field strength B on each flux surface is determined by three or at most four flux functions—the critical values of ∂ℓB—through an algebraic relation (∂ℓB)^2 = D(ψ)(Bmax − B)(B − Bmin)(B − BX), Eq. (53). This is derived from a Painlevé-property argument applied to the ∂ℓB equation and is supported by polynomial regression on numerically optimized stellarator equilibria. The paper also develops a Darboux-frame formalism for quasisymmetric MHS, verifies the traveling-wave form of B in finite-β configurations, and introduces an axisymmetric-fraction (fAS) parameter to separate genuinely 3D quasisymmetry from near-tokamak behavior. The text itself concedes in Section IV that the necessity of the Painlevé property is not apparent, and the reduction to Eq. (48) is asserted rather than proven.

Significance. If the three-or-four-flux-function characterization were rigorously established, it would be a substantial advance: a global, surface-by-surface description of quasisymmetric field strength beyond near-axis expansions, with a concrete link to soliton theory and a practical diagnostic for optimization. The numerical evidence for the specific configurations is genuinely valuable: the traveling-wave verification in Fig. 1, the polynomial structure in Figs. 2, 5, 7, and 8, the axisymmetric-fraction scan, and the resolution study in Appendix A are careful and clearly described. The main weakness is that the central analytic claim rests on an unproven reduction and an assumed Painlevé property, so the paper's principal theorem is not established; however, the empirical evidence is strong enough that the claim is plausible and worth further testing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (48)] The claim that the triple-product form (11) takes the simple form ∂ℓB = f(B, ψ) is not a consequence of quasisymmetry. From Eq. (17), the triple product implies that f is itself quasisymmetric, (∂α + H∂ℓ)f = 0, which is automatically satisfied by any traveling-wave B(ℓ + t, ψ); it does not make f a single-valued function of B on a given flux surface. A smooth periodic B(ℓ) with one maximum and one minimum has two monotonic branches, and (∂ℓB)^2 need not agree at equal B on the two branches. Equation (53) therefore requires an additional ansatz, and the 'three or at most four flux functions' characterization is not derived. I request either a derivation of (48) from (11) and (17) or an explicit statement that it is assumed, together with a numerical test that separates the data by the sign of ∂ℓB and shows no systematic branch-dependent residuals from the polynomial fit.
  2. [Section IV, paragraph 4, Eq. (52)] The reduction to B'(Z)^2 = P3(B) is obtained by 'insisting on the Painlevé property and periodicity', and the text concedes that the necessity of the Painlevé property 'is not apparent'. This assumption is load-bearing: without it, the cubic (or quartic) form is a convenient regression model rather than a structural consequence of quasisymmetric MHS equilibrium. The paper also does not prove that the quartic case follows from the Painlevé reduction; it states that the quartic 'can also be mapped to the cubic with a change in coordinates' but does not give the mapping. Please state the Painlevé property as an explicit assumption, provide the promised mapping, and present an independent test (for example, predicting the polynomial degree from ι and fAS before fitting) to avoid selecting the degree after inspecting the data.
  3. [Section V and abstract] The abstract claims a 'large dataset' of optimized stellarators, but the study presents three configurations at different rotational transforms plus a scan of 31 configurations at ¯ι = 0.23 spanning fAS in [0.97, 1]. This is not large, and the generality of the claim rests on a narrow set of cases. Moreover, the NCSX point in Figure 6 shows r^2 close to zero for a quintic fit, which the authors attribute to poor quasisymmetry; this interpretation is reasonable, but it implies that the claimed characterization applies only to 'excellent' quasisymmetric configurations, a limitation that should be stated explicitly. Please either expand the dataset or soften the 'broad class' and 'large dataset' language.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title] The title contains a spacing error: 'qu asisymmetric' should be 'quasisymmetric'.
  2. [Reference 70] The name 'Hernandes' should likely be 'Hernández' (Hernandes and Clemente, Physics of Plasmas 16 (2009)); please check and correct the spelling.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (13)] The matrix entries '0 + κn + κg', etc., in Eq. (13) are confusing; consider using commas or a clearer layout to denote the matrix elements.
  4. [Section IV, Eqs. (52)–(53)] The step from (52) to (53) assumes that the cubic has real roots Bmax, Bmin, and BX and that the coefficient D(ψ) is positive on each surface; this should be stated explicitly, including a discussion of what happens when two roots coalesce.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; the Painlevé-to-cubic step is an openly conceded assumption and the regression is a consistency check, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the triple-product form (11) does reduce to Eq. (48) in Clebsch coordinates, where B·∇B is the scalar directional derivative of |B| along the field, so the claim that Eq. (48) is not a consequence of quasisymmetry is not supported. The subsequent reduction of ∂ℓB = f(B,ψ) to the cubic/quartic form (52)-(53) is not derived from quasisymmetry alone: the paper explicitly states that it proceeds by 'insisting on the Painlevé property and periodicity' and then concedes that 'the necessity is not apparent.' That is an openly stated mathematical assumption, and therefore a correctness or overclaim risk rather than a disguised circular input. The numerical section obtains (∂ℓB)^2 versus B and fits cubic, quartic, and quintic polynomials, reporting coefficients of determination; because the fitted polynomial is the same functional form as Eq. (53), this is a goodness-of-fit check of the postulated ansatz, not a prediction from independent held-out data. The statement that B is determined by three or at most four flux functions is a reparameterization of the fitted cubic (roots plus leading coefficient), so it inherits the status of the ansatz; this weakens the empirical support but does not make the derivation circular by construction. Self-citations to ref. 47 for the traveling-wave equivalence and the vacuum analogue are supportive rather than load-bearing: the equivalence is re-derived in Eqs. (17)-(21), and the Painlevé reduction invokes external Malmquist-type results. In sum, no load-bearing circular step was identified; the central risk is the unproven Painlevé necessity, which the paper itself flags in Section IV.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on one key ad hoc assumption (Painlevé property) plus several standard domain assumptions of stellarator equilibrium theory. The numerical verification introduces fit coefficients and a selection threshold that are not predicted a priori, which raises the circularity burden. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Polynomial fit coefficients for (∂ℓB)^2 vs B = not reported numerically (shown graphically)
    The cubic, quartic, or quintic coefficients are estimated by regression on each flux surface; these are the empirical content of the verification.
  • Polynomial degree (cubic, quartic, or quintic) = cubic for iota=0.41 and 0.71, quartic for low-iota 3D, quintic near axisymmetry
    The degree is selected after inspecting r2 values in Figures 6 and 7, giving the model flexibility that weakens the claim of a unique predicted form.
  • Axisymmetric fraction threshold = fAS scanned over [0.97, 1.0]; configurations excluded below a chosen threshold
    An optimization target was added to force fAS below a threshold, selecting configurations where the cubic or quartic fit holds; this is a selection parameter.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Ideal magnetohydrostatic force balance J×B = ∇p
    The entire equilibrium model, Eq. (1), assumes ideal MHS with zero flow and nested flux surfaces.
  • domain assumption Two-term quasisymmetry form B×∇ψ·∇B = F B·∇B
    Eq. (4) defines QS and leads to the traveling-wave form (6); assumed to hold exactly for the theory.
  • domain assumption Analyticity and single-valuedness of B and ψ
    Section IV states these as the first assumption; needed for the analytic continuation argument.
  • ad hoc to paper Painlevé property for the ∂ℓB equation
    The reduction to B'^2 = P3(B) relies on the absence of movable critical singularities; the paper does not derive this from MHS and notes necessity is unclear.
  • domain assumption Existence of a global traveling-wave frame with H=0
    Section III shows H is a function of α alone under force balance and then sets H=0 via coordinate choice; this makes B independent of α in the TW frame.
  • domain assumption Numerical equilibria (VMEC) represent exact MHS solutions
    The regression tests are on discretized, optimized equilibria; resolution effects are discussed in Appendix A, so finite numerical error is acknowledged but not quantified in the fits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Periodic Korteweg-de Vries soliton potentials generate quasisymmetric magnetic field strength in a finite plasma-beta equilibrium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BOZWTOBE

@misc{pith2026250706480,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Periodic Korteweg-de Vries soliton potentials generate quasisymmetric magnetic field strength in a finite plasma-beta equilibrium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BOZWTOBE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06480}
}
abstract

Quasisymmetry (QS) is a hidden symmetry of the magnetic field strength, B, that enables effective confinement of charged particles in a fully three-dimensional (3D) toroidal plasma equilibrium. Such equilibria are typically modeled by the ideal magnetohydrostatic (MHS) equation. The nonlinear, overdetermined nature of the quasisymmetric MHS equations severely complicates our understanding of the interplay between 3D shaping, equilibrium properties such as pressure and rotational transform, and B. Progress has been made through expansions near the magnetic axis; however, a more comprehensive theory is desirable. Using a combination of analysis and regression on a large dataset of numerically optimized quasisymmetric stellarators, we demonstrate that there is a hidden lower dimensionality of B on a magnetic flux surface with connections to the theory of periodic solitons. We show that $B$ on a flux surface is determined by three or at most four flux functions, each of which is a critical value of the derivative of B along the field line. While being consistent with the near-axis models, our results are global and hold even on the last closed flux surface.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06480 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. We also plot the two-term quasisymmetry error, as is usually defined12 in SIMSOPT, in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The magnetic field strength plotted on the flux surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. For the three different magnetic field configurations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. For the three different magnetic field configurations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: , we take three of the configurations and plot (∂lB) 2 against B on the outer surface. We observe that a cubic per￾forms just as well as a quartic or quintic for configurations that are further away from a tokamak; however, for a tokamak, a quintic is required. This tr…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The coefficient of determination on the last closed flu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. For each surface in each magnetic field configuration, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translat...

    2010

  2. [2]

    merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translat...

    2010

  3. [3]

    merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  4. [4]

    merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  5. [5]

    merlin.mbs apsrmp4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs apsrmp4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  6. [6]

    author author L. S. \ Hall \ and\ author B. McNamara ,\ @noop journal journal The Physics of Fluids \ volume 18 ,\ pages 552 ( year 1975 ) NoStop

    work page 1975

  7. [7]

    Helander ,\ 10.1088/0034-4885/77/8/087001 journal journal Reports on Progress in Physics \ volume 77 ,\ pages 087001 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    author author P. Helander ,\ 10.1088/0034-4885/77/8/087001 journal journal Reports on Progress in Physics \ volume 77 ,\ pages 087001 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1088/0034-4885/77/8/087001 2014

  8. [8]

    author author A. H. \ Boozer ,\ 10.1063/1.863297 journal journal The Physics of Fluids \ volume 24 ,\ pages 1999 ( year 1981 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1063/1.863297 1999

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    author author A. H. \ Boozer ,\ @noop journal journal The Physics of Fluids \ volume 26 ,\ pages 496 ( year 1983 ) NoStop

    1983

  2. [10]

    Landreman \ and\ author P

    author author M. Landreman \ and\ author P. J. \ Catto ,\ @noop journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 19 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

  3. [11]

    author author J. W. \ Burby , author N. Kallinikos , \ and\ author R. S. \ MacKay ,\ 10.1063/1.5142487 journal journal Journal of Mathematical Physics \ volume 61 ,\ pages 093503 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    author author A. H. \ Boozer ,\ 10.1063/1.863080 journal journal The Physics of Fluids \ volume 23 ,\ pages 904 ( year 1980 ) NoStop

    1980 doi

  5. [13]

    author author D. A. \ Garren \ and\ author A. H. \ Boozer ,\ 10.1063/1.859915 journal journal Physics of Fluids B: Plasma Physics \ volume 3 ,\ pages 2805 ( year 1991 a ) NoStop

    1991 doi

  6. [14]

    author author D. A. \ Garren \ and\ author A. H. \ Boozer ,\ 10.1063/1.859916 journal journal Physics of Fluids B: Plasma Physics \ volume 3 ,\ pages 2822 ( year 1991 b ) NoStop

    1991 doi

  7. [15]

    Landreman \ and\ author W

    author author M. Landreman \ and\ author W. Sengupta ,\ 10.1017/S0022377819000783 journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 85 ,\ pages 815850601 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Rodríguez \ and\ author A

    author author E. Rodríguez \ and\ author A. Bhattacharjee ,\ 10.1063/5.0027574 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 28 ,\ pages 012508 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Landreman \ and\ author E

    author author M. Landreman \ and\ author E. Paul ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.035001 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 128 ,\ pages 035001 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Landreman , author S

    author author M. Landreman , author S. Buller , \ and\ author M. Drevlak ,\ @noop journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 29 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022

  11. [19]

    Landreman \ and\ author W

    author author M. Landreman \ and\ author W. Sengupta ,\ 10.1017/S0022377818001289 journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 84 ,\ pages 905840616 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Landreman , author W

    author author M. Landreman , author W. Sengupta , \ and\ author G. G. \ Plunk ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 85 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  13. [21]

    Jorge , author W

    author author R. Jorge , author W. Sengupta , \ and\ author M. Landreman ,\ @noop journal journal Nuclear Fusion \ volume 60 ,\ pages 076021 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  14. [22]

    Rodr \' guez , author W

    author author E. Rodr \' guez , author W. Sengupta , \ and\ author A. Bhattacharjee ,\ @noop journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 29 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022

  15. [23]

    Rodr \' guez , author W

    author author E. Rodr \' guez , author W. Sengupta , \ and\ author A. Bhattacharjee ,\ @noop journal journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion \ volume 65 ,\ pages 095004 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  16. [24]

    Rodr \' guez ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 89 ,\ pages 905890211 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    author author E. Rodr \' guez ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 89 ,\ pages 905890211 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  17. [25]

    Rodriguez ,\ @noop journal journal Ph.D

    author author E. Rodriguez ,\ @noop journal journal Ph.D. thesis \ ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022

  18. [26]

    Sengupta , author E

    author author W. Sengupta , author E. J. \ Paul , author H. Weitzner , \ and\ author A. Bhattacharjee ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 87 ,\ pages 905870205 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021

  19. [27]

    author author G. G. \ Plunk \ and\ author P. Helander ,\ 10.1017/S0022377818000259 journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 84 ,\ pages 905840205 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Plunk ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 86 ,\ pages 905860409 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    author author G. Plunk ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 86 ,\ pages 905860409 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  21. [29]

    Henneberg , author M

    author author S. Henneberg , author M. Drevlak , author C. N\"uhrenberg , author C. Beidler , author Y. Turkin , author J. Loizu , \ and\ author P. Helander ,\ @noop journal journal Nuclear Fusion \ volume 59 ,\ pages 026014 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  22. [30]

    Sengupta , author N

    author author W. Sengupta , author N. Nikulsin , author R. Gaur , \ and\ author A. Bhattacharjee ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 90 ,\ pages 905900209 ( year 2024 a ) NoStop

    2024

  23. [31]

    Nikulsin , author W

    author author N. Nikulsin , author W. Sengupta , author R. Jorge , \ and\ author A. Bhattacharjee ,\ 10.1017/S0022377824000916 journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 90 ,\ pages 905900608 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Nikulsin , author W

    author author N. Nikulsin , author W. Sengupta , author S. Buller , \ and\ author A. Bhattacharjee ,\ 10.1063/5.0258308 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 32 ,\ pages 042501 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    Landreman ,\ 10.1017/S0022377822001258 journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 88 ,\ pages 905880616 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    author author M. Landreman ,\ 10.1017/S0022377822001258 journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 88 ,\ pages 905880616 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Rodriguez , author W

    author author E. Rodriguez , author W. Sengupta , \ and\ author A. Bhattacharjee ,\ @noop title Phases and phase-transitions in quasisymmetric configuration space , \ ( year 2022 ),\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2202.01194 arXiv:2202.01194 [plasm-ph] NoStop

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Giuliani ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 90 ,\ pages 905900303 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    author author A. Giuliani ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 90 ,\ pages 905900303 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  28. [36]

    Giuliani , author F

    author author A. Giuliani , author F. Wechsung , author A. Cerfon , author G. Stadler , \ and\ author M. Landreman ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Computational Physics \ volume 459 ,\ pages 111147 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022

  29. [37]

    Landreman \ and\ author R

    author author M. Landreman \ and\ author R. Jorge ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 86 ,\ pages 905860510 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  30. [38]

    author author E. J. \ Paul , author A. Hyder , author E. Rodr \' guez , author R. Jorge , \ and\ author A. Knyazev ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.03711 \ ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Figueiredo , author R

    author author P. Figueiredo , author R. Jorge , author J. Ferreira , \ and\ author P. Rodrigues ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 90 ,\ pages 905900207 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  32. [40]

    author author G. G. \ Plunk , author M. Landreman , \ and\ author P. Helander ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 85 ,\ pages 905850602 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  33. [41]

    Jorge , author G

    author author R. Jorge , author G. Plunk , author M. Drevlak , author M. Landreman , author J.-F. \ Lobsien , author K. C. \ Mata , \ and\ author P. Helander ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 88 ,\ pages 175880504 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022

  34. [42]

    author author A. G. \ Goodman , author K. C. \ Mata , author S. A. \ Henneberg , author R. Jorge , author M. Landreman , author G. Plunk , author H. Smith , author R. Mackenbach , author C. Beidler , \ and\ author P. Helander ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics ...

    2023

  35. [43]

    author author K. C. \ Mata , author G. G. \ Plunk , \ and\ author R. Jorge ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 88 ,\ pages 905880503 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022

  36. [44]

    Jorge \ and\ author M

    author author R. Jorge \ and\ author M. Landreman ,\ @noop journal journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion \ volume 63 ,\ pages 014001 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  37. [45]

    Zhu , author Z

    author author H. Zhu , author Z. Lin , \ and\ author A. Bhattacharjee ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 91 ,\ pages E28 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025

  38. [46]

    Gjaja \ and\ author A

    author author I. Gjaja \ and\ author A. Bhattacharjee ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 68 ,\ pages 2413 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

    1992

  39. [47]

    Berry \ and\ author C

    author author M. Berry \ and\ author C. Howls ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General \ volume 23 ,\ pages L243 ( year 1990 ) NoStop

    1990

  40. [48]

    author author L. D. \ Landau \ and\ author E. M. \ Lifshitz ,\ @noop title Mechanics ,\ Vol. volume 1 \ ( publisher CUP Archive ,\ year 1960 ) NoStop

    1960

  41. [49]

    author author J. B. \ Keller \ and\ author Y. Mu ,\ @noop journal journal Annals of Physics \ volume 205 ,\ pages 219 ( year 1991 ) NoStop

    1991

  42. [50]

    author author M. J. \ Ablowitz ,\ @noop title Nonlinear dispersive waves: asymptotic analysis and solitons ,\ Vol. volume 47 \ ( publisher Cambridge University Press ,\ year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011

  43. [51]

    Novikov , author S

    author author S. Novikov , author S. V. \ Manakov , author L. P. \ Pitaevskii , \ and\ author V. E. \ Zakharov ,\ @noop title Theory of solitons: the inverse scattering method \ ( publisher Springer Science & Business Media ,\ year 1984 ) NoStop

    1984

  44. [52]

    Sengupta , author N

    author author W. Sengupta , author N. Nikulsin , author S. Buller , author R. Madan , author E. J. \ Paul , author R. Nies , author A. A. \ Kaptanoglu , author S. R. \ Hudson , \ and\ author A. Bhattacharjee ,\ https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.13924 title Periodic korteweg-de vries ...

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    author author S. P. \ Novikov ,\ @noop journal journal Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen \ volume 8 ,\ pages 54 ( year 1974 ) NoStop

    1974

  46. [54]

    author author A. M. \ Kamchatnov ,\ @noop title Nonlinear periodic waves and their modulations: an introductory course \ ( publisher World Scientific ,\ year 2000 ) NoStop

    2000

  47. [55]

    author author J. P. \ Freidberg ,\ @noop title Ideal MHD \ ( publisher Cambridge University Press ,\ year 2014 )\ p.\ pages 302 NoStop

    2014

  48. [56]

    Lortz ,\ @noop journal journal Z

    author author D. Lortz ,\ @noop journal journal Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 21: 196-211(25 Mar 1970). \ ( year 1970 ) NoStop

    1970

  49. [57]

    Grad ,\ in\ @noop booktitle Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research 1971

    author author H. Grad ,\ in\ @noop booktitle Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research 1971. Vol. III. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear Fusion Research \ ( year 1971 ) NoStop

    1971

  50. [58]

    Rodr \' guez \ and\ author A

    author author E. Rodr \' guez \ and\ author A. Bhattacharjee ,\ @noop journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 28 ,\ pages 092506 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021

  51. [59]

    Rodr\' i guez , author P

    author author E. Rodr\' i guez , author P. Helander , \ and\ author A. Bhattacharjee ,\ 10.1063/5.0008551 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 27 ,\ pages 062501 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    Rodríguez , author W

    author author E. Rodríguez , author W. Sengupta , \ and\ author A. Bhattacharjee ,\ 10.1063/5.0060115 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 28 ,\ pages 092510 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    Constantin , author T

    author author P. Constantin , author T. D. \ Drivas , \ and\ author D. Ginsberg ,\ 10.1017/S0022377820001610 journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 87 ,\ pages 905870111 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    Schief ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of plasma physics \ volume 69 ,\ pages 465 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    author author W. Schief ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of plasma physics \ volume 69 ,\ pages 465 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003

  55. [63]

    Palumbo ,\ @noop journal journal Nuovo Cimento B \ volume 53 ,\ pages 507 ( year 1968 ) NoStop

    author author D. Palumbo ,\ @noop journal journal Nuovo Cimento B \ volume 53 ,\ pages 507 ( year 1968 ) NoStop

    1968

  56. [64]

    author author C. M. \ Bishop \ and\ author J. Taylor ,\ @noop journal journal Physics of fluids \ volume 29 ,\ pages 1144 ( year 1986 ) NoStop

    1986

  57. [65]

    author author L. P. \ Eisenhart ,\ @noop title A treatise on the differential geometry of curves and surfaces \ ( publisher Courier Corporation ,\ year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013

  58. [66]

    \ Imbert-G \'e rard , author E

    author author L.-M. \ Imbert-G \'e rard , author E. J. \ Paul , \ and\ author A. M. \ Wright ,\ @noop title An introduction to stellarators: From magnetic fields to symmetries and optimization \ ( publisher SIAM ,\ year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  59. [67]

    author author W. D. \ D'haeseleer , author W. N. \ Hitchon , author J. D. \ Callen , \ and\ author J. L. \ Shohet ,\ @noop title Flux coordinates and magnetic field structure: a guide to a fundamental tool of plasma theory \ ( publisher Springer Science & Business Media ,\ yea...

    2012

  60. [68]

    Barnes , author F

    author author M. Barnes , author F. Parra , \ and\ author A. Schekochihin ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 107 ,\ pages 115003 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011

  61. [69]

    author author J. R. \ Cary \ and\ author S. G. \ Shasharina ,\ @noop journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 4 ,\ pages 3323 ( year 1997 ) NoStop

    1997

  62. [70]

    Conte ,\ @noop title The Painlev \'e property: one century later \ ( publisher Springer Science & Business Media ,\ year 2012 ) NoStop

    author author R. Conte ,\ @noop title The Painlev \'e property: one century later \ ( publisher Springer Science & Business Media ,\ year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

  63. [71]

    author author M. D. \ Kruskal , author N. Joshi , \ and\ author R. Halburd ,\ @noop journal journal Integrability of Nonlinear Systems: Proceedings of the CIMPA School Pondicherry University, India, 8--26 January 1996 \ ,\ pages 171 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    1996

  64. [72]

    Hille ,\ @noop title Ordinary differential equations in the complex domain \ ( publisher Courier Corporation ,\ year 1997 ) NoStop

    author author E. Hille ,\ @noop title Ordinary differential equations in the complex domain \ ( publisher Courier Corporation ,\ year 1997 ) NoStop

    1997

  65. [73]

    author author A. E. \ Eremenko ,\ @noop journal journal Russian Mathematical Surveys \ volume 37 ,\ pages 61 ( year 1982 ) NoStop

    1982

  66. [74]

    author author A. J. \ Cerfon \ and\ author J. P. \ Freidberg ,\ @noop journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 17 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010

  67. [75]

    Hernandes \ and\ author R

    author author J. Hernandes \ and\ author R. Clemente ,\ @noop journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 16 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009

  68. [76]

    Brown , author W

    author author A. Brown , author W. Sengupta , author N. Nikulsin , \ and\ author A. Bhattacharjee ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv e-prints \ ,\ eid arXiv:2506.17528 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025

  69. [77]

    Buller , author M

    author author S. Buller , author M. Landreman , author J. Kappel , \ and\ author R. Gaur ,\ 10.1017/S0022377824001351 journal journal Journal of Plasma Physics \ volume 91 ,\ pages E18 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025 doi

  70. [78]

    author author M. C. \ Zarnstorff , author L. A. \ Berry , author A. Brooks , author E. Fredrickson , author G.-Y. \ Fu , author S. Hirshman , author S. Hudson , author L.-P. \ Ku , author E. Lazarus , author D. Mikkelsen , author D. Monticello , author G. H. \ Neilson , author...

    2001

Pith tools

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