Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Lagrangian features of turbulent transport in tokamak plasmas

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tokamak turbulence keeps Lagrangian statistics nearly stationary despite inhomogeneous drifts

desk verdict A careful, honest numerical study of approximate Lagrangian stationarity in a synthetic-turbulence test-particle model, but the abstract's tokamak extrapolation outruns the evidence because the super-ensemble construction builds in much of the stationarity that is then reported. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04132 v1 pith:742VEMQ4 submitted 2025-09-04 physics.plasm-ph nlin.CDphysics.data-an

D. I. Palade This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phnlin.CDphysics.data-an PACS 52.25.Fi52.35.Ra52.65.-y
keywords LagrangianstatisticsturbulenttransporttokamakgyrocentertestparticlesergodicitystationarityGreen-Kuborelationturbulenceequipartitionpinch
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

This paper asks whether the standard statistical assumptions used to model turbulent transport in tokamaks—stationarity, ergodicity, time-symmetry, and ensemble equivalence—still hold when the underlying drift fields are both compressible and spatially inhomogeneous. Using test-particle simulations with the T3ST code, the author finds that Lagrangian velocity statistics are approximately stationary, with deviations of about 1%, and that transport is nearly unchanged when the initial particle distribution is narrowed. The reason, the paper argues, is not that the drift fields are homogeneous, but that the broad initial phase-space distribution supports ergodic mixing. If true, this would justify the continued use of Green-Kubo-type relations, the Decorrelation Trajectory Method, and Fick-like closures in reduced tokamak transport models, even though the formal conditions for those tools are not exactly met.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Lagrangian velocity autocorrelation function L(t,t') for radial gyrocenter velocities, along with its two-time structure and its use in computing the diffusion coefficient via the Green-Kubo integral DL(t) = ∫₀ᵗ L(τ)dτ, compared against the mean-square-displacement definition Dd(t). The paper also uses the super-ensemble average over both initial phase-space coordinates and independent field realizations, and a linearized form of the E×B drift, B(x)⁻¹ ≈ B(0)⁻¹(1 - X·∇lnB(0)), to derive the turbulence equipartition pinch as V(t) ≈ (2D(t)/R₀) ∇lnB.

What would settle it

Run the same test-particle diagnostics in a global gyrokinetic simulation with a single shared, self-consistently saturated turbulent field (including zonal flows) and compare the two-time Lagrangian autocorrelation L(t0, t0+t) across different t0 values, along with the difference between MSD and Green-Kubo diffusion coefficients; if the deviations exceed the few-percent level in that setting, the paper's stationarity claim would not carry over to realistic turbulence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, despite the Eulerian gyrocenter drifts being compressible and inhomogeneous, the Lagrangian statistics of test-particle transport in tokamak-like turbulence are approximately stationary, ergodic, and time-symmetric. The paper supports this with simulations of 5×10^5 particles in the Cyclone Base Case, showing that the Lagrangian velocity autocorrelation is nearly independent of the initial time, that forward and backward time evolutions produce essentially identical transport coefficients and particle distributions, and that single-realization and ensemble-average diffusion agree to about 5%. It also shows that the long-time diffusion coefficient changes by only 5-

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the statistics of the synthetic turbulence ensemble—independent random-phase Fourier realizations that are by construction Eulerian-stationary, homogeneous, and Gaussian—represent a real tokamak's single self-consistent turbulent field, which includes zonal flows, collisions, and non-Gaussian structures that the model omits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reduced transport models that assume Lagrangian stationarity, such as Green-Kubo relations and the Decorrelation Trajectory Method, can be applied in tokamak-relevant geometries with expected errors of roughly a percent.
  • The asymptotic diffusion coefficient is robust to changes in initial phase-space sampling, so test-particle codes can initialize particles from simpler distributions without materially altering predicted transport.
  • A finite radial pinch, here identified as a turbulence equipartition pinch proportional to the local diffusion coefficient, should be included in local transport closures even when temperature gradients and rotation are absent.
  • The time-integrated Green-Kubo estimator DL tends to underestimate the asymptotic diffusion relative to the MSD-based estimator, because the slight non-stationarity of the velocity amplitude is not captured by L(0,t); DL should be used with caution when stationarity is imperfect.
  • The apparent ergodicity of gyrocenter transport arises from broad initial phase-space sampling, so simulations with narrow or non-representative initial distributions may produce spurious transport statistics even if the field model is accurate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's mechanism suggests a testable extension for real tokamak turbulence: if a self-consistent, single-shared turbulent field (including zonal flows and non-Gaussian structures) is used instead of independent random-phase realizations, the measured Lagrangian stationarity may degrade because the ergodic mixing provided by initial conditions would have to compensate for a field that is no lo
  • The 1%-level stationarity found here is likely tied to the Gaussianity and homogeneity of the synthetic field ensemble; introducing drift-wave packets, streamers, or intermittent bursts could push the deviations beyond the few-percent range, providing a direct stress test of the paper's claim.
  • The TEP pinch expression V ∝ 2D/R₀ could be probed experimentally by comparing measured impurity or main-ion radial convection with independently inferred diffusion coefficients in discharges where turbulence is the dominant drive, isolating the geometric contribution.
  • The distinction between DL and Dd suggests a practical estimator for diagnosing non-stationarity in any test-particle or tracer simulation: the persistent gap between correlation-based and MSD-based diffusion coefficients measures the violation of Lagrangian stationarity directly.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper uses the T3ST test-particle code to construct a random-phase ITG-like turbulent electrostatic field ensemble and asks whether Lagrangian velocity statistics are stationary, ergodic, and time-symmetric despite the inhomogeneous and compressible character of the Eulerian gyrocenter drifts. The central numerical finding is that, in the standard T3ST setup (broad Maxwellian initial distribution plus an independent field realization per particle), the radial velocity autocorrelation L(t0,t0+t) is nearly independent of t0, the velocity variance drifts by about 1%, and forward/backward time simulations agree. The paper additionally reports a turbulent equipartition pinch V≈2D/R0, a ~5%–20% sensitivity of the long-time diffusion coefficient to the initial phase-space sampling, a close but imperfect agreement between MSD- and correlation-based diffusion estimates, and a single-trajectory control showing that stationarity is lost when the initial phase-space sampling is narrow. The conclusion is that the statistical assumptions underlying reduced transport models (Green-Kubo relations, DTM, Fick closures) hold to good approximation in tokamak-relevant geometries.

Significance. If the result holds as stated, it provides valuable numerical support for the use of stationary, ergodic statistical descriptions of turbulent transport in fusion plasmas, and it sharpens the known limitations of such descriptions. The paper has genuine strengths: it includes a control experiment (Section III I), convergence tests (Fig. 20), and an unusually candid self-assessment of the DL estimator (Section III H). The claims are appropriately hedged with 'approximately' and '≈1%'. The main significance is therefore conditional: the evidence is strong for the super-ensemble used in T3ST, but the extrapolation to a single physical turbulent realization is not yet tested at the level of the autocorrelation function, which is the quantity that anchors the paper's central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [III C and III F] The central stationarity result is obtained with the T3ST super-ensemble in which each of the Np particles evolves in its own random-phase field realization (Sec. II C, Eqs. 12–14). Because the field ensemble is stationary and homogeneous by construction, the near-independence of L(t0,t0+t) from t0 in Figs. 7b and 8b is largely an ensemble property. The only single-shared-field comparison, Fig. 14, tests the running D(t), not L(t0,t0+t); D(t) is a time integral of L and is therefore far less sensitive to a time-origin dependence, as the paper itself demonstrates in Sec. III H for DL vs Dd. To support the conclusion that Lagrangian stationarity holds in a tokamak-like single realization, the manuscript should compute L(t0,t0+t) for a broad initial distribution in a single shared field, or should explicitly restrict the claim to the super-ensemble.
  2. [III B, Eq. (5), Fig. 5] The identification of the radial pinch as a turbulent equipartition pinch is presented as confirmed by the agreement with V≈2D/R0. However, starting from the linearization B(x)^-1 ≈ B(0)^-1(1 - X·∇lnB(0)) and the assumption that X is E×B-dominated, Eqs. (3)–(5) make both V(t) and 2D(t)/R0 time integrals of the same velocity autocorrelation ⟨Vr(t)Vr(τ)⟩. The agreement in Fig. 5 is therefore largely a consistency check of the linearization rather than an independent confirmation of the TEP mechanism. Please state this explicitly, or provide a test that does not use the same L(t,τ) on both sides (e.g., a direct measurement of the compressibility contribution).
  3. [III I] The single-trajectory experiment compares one fixed initial phase-space point across independent field realizations with the standard super-ensemble. It demonstrates that narrowing the initial phase-space sampling changes the outcome, but it does not isolate the physical mechanism: in the standard case the initial distribution is broad and each particle also sees an independent field realization, whereas in the single-trajectory case both are collapsed. The claim that 'the extensiveness of the initial kinetic distribution' causes the apparent stationarity still needs a control in which a broad initial distribution is evolved in a single shared field realization. Without that control, the attribution to phase-space sampling rather than to ensemble averaging over fields remains ambiguous.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (11)] The displayed formula for V(t|x) contains typographical errors in the braces and superscript: it should be V(t|x) = d/dt {⟨X(t|x)⟩}, with one closing brace and no stray '⟩}^2'. Please correct.
  2. [III C and III D] The text contains repeated typos: 'ask weather' should be 'ask whether', and 'a more consistent approach would be to initialize particles in either a known equilibrium state ... or a steady-state—like the one reached asymptotically under pure magnetic motion' contains a long dash that should be an em dash. These are minor but should be fixed.
  3. [III B and Conclusions] The abbreviation TEP is introduced as 'Turbulence Equipartition Pinch' in Section III B but as 'Turbulent Equipartition' in the Conclusions. Please use one consistent name and define it at first use.
  4. [III H, Figs. 19–20] The statement that D∞_L provides 'a smaller average value' than D∞_d is made without a quantitative bias estimate. Since this is directly relevant to the '≈1% stationarity' claim, please report the mean bias and its uncertainty, or explain why the bias is not statistically significant.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

TEP confirmation in Sec. III B reduces to the Green-Kubo identity V = D·∇lnB by construction; the central stationarity result is otherwise self-contained.

  1. self definitional [Section III B (TEP derivation), using Eq. (5) and Fig. 5]
    "V(t) = ∫ t 0 dτ ⟨Vr(t)Vr(τ)⟩ ·∂r lnB(0) ∝ 2D(t)/R0. In the final step we have identified the expression of diffusion as time-integral of the velocity auto-correlation. It turns out that the numerical results are very much in line with this approximate dependency (see Fig. 5) thus, the TEP is confirmed."

    Eq. (5) defines D(t)=∫0^t L(τ)dτ, the time integral of the Lagrangian velocity autocorrelation. The TEP derivation expresses V(t) as the same integral multiplied by ∂r lnB(0). Hence V=2D/R0 is an algebraic consequence of the definitions once stationarity is assumed, not an independent numerical prediction. The Fig. 5 agreement therefore verifies the Green-Kubo relation/stationarity, not a distinct TEP mechanism. The paper's wording 'the TEP is confirmed' overstates what is a built-in consistency check.

full rationale

The paper's main quantitative results (e.g., L(t0,t0+t) in Sec. III C, Dd vs DL in Sec. III H, and single-vs-ensemble D in Sec. III F) are self-contained numerical experiments: they are measured from simulated trajectories rather than derived from the assumptions. The stationarity claim has independent support, including the single-trajectory experiment in Sec. III I showing that stationarity is not trivially forced by Eulerian stationarity alone. The super-ensemble/single-field equivalence is tested only for D(t), not for L(t0,t0+t); that is an external-validity limitation, not a circular reduction. The one genuinely circular step is the TEP 'confirmation': both V and D are expressed as time-integrals of the same velocity autocorrelation, so the agreement in Fig. 5 is a consistency check, not an independent confirmation of the TEP mechanism. This partial circularity affects a secondary claim, while the central stationarity result remains self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on a substantial modeling scaffold: the gyrokinetic ordering, the synthetic Gaussian stationary spectrum, the CBC calibration constants, and the TEP linearization. None of these are derived in the paper; they are imported or constructed. The paper's honest hedging and control experiments partially offset this, but the reader pays for the scaffold upfront.

free parameters (7)
  • turbulence amplitude Φ = eAφ/Ti = 0.011
    Chosen to match the Cyclone Base Case saturated ITG amplitude from gyrokinetic simulations [26] (Section II C).
  • radial correlation length λx = 7 (in scaled units, ρi)
    Set from the CBC gyrokinetic result λr ≈ 7ρi [26] (Section II C).
  • poloidal correlation length λy = 5
    Chosen so the spectrum (Eq. 14) peaks at kθρi ≈ 0.15, matching [26]; not derived.
  • characteristic wavenumber k0 = 0.05
    Calibrated to the CBC most-unstable mode scale (Section II C).
  • correlation time τc = 4
    From CBC time decorrelation τc ≈ 10ρi/vph [26]; sets the width of the ω distribution in Eq. 14.
  • safety factor coefficients c1, c2, c3 = 0.85, 0, 2.2
    CBC DIII-D equilibrium parameters (Section II C), giving q(r0)=1.4 and magnetic shear 0.78.
  • mode count Nc and particle count Np = Nc=100, Np=5×10^5
    Numerical resolution choices; convergence is checked in Fig. 20, but Nc=100 is few compared to a full turbulent cascade and affects Lagrangian statistics.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Gyrokinetic ordering and Lie-perturbation theory justify the gyrocenter equations (Eqs. 6-7), with FLR effects via J0(k⊥ρL).
    Standard gyrokinetic framework (Littlejohn [14], Brizard-Hahm [15]) invoked in Section II A; not re-derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The synthetic turbulent potential is statistically Gaussian, zero-mean, stationary, homogeneous, and characterized by spectrum S(k,ω) of Eq. 14.
    The field model is constructed with these properties by design (random phases in Eq. 12); the observed Gaussian velocity distributions are a consequence of the construction (central limit theorem), not an emergent discovery.
  • domain assumption Slab-like ITG dispersion relation ω⋆(k) = k·V⋆s / (1 + ρs²|k⊥|²) (Eq. 9).
    Standard ITG ordering; the synthetic spectrum is built on this form (Section II A).
  • ad hoc to paper TEP linearization: B(x)⁻¹ ≈ B(0)⁻¹(1 - X·∇lnB(0)), with displaced positions driven mainly by the E×B drift.
    Used in Section III B to derive V ∝ 2D/R0; the approximation is uncontrolled because magnetic drifts are not small in general.
  • domain assumption Neglect of collisions, plasma rotation, zonal flows, polarization drifts, and magnetic fluctuations.
    Explicitly stated in Section II A; necessary for the time-reversibility of the dynamics, so the time-symmetry result is conditional on a collisionless, zonal-flow-free model.
  • standard math The gyrocenter dynamics conserve phase-space volume, so the initially broad distribution remains broad.
    Invoked in Section III C to argue that the wide initial distribution supports ergodic mixing.
invented entities (1)
  • super-ensemble (joint average over the initial phase-space distribution and over independent turbulent field realizations)
    purpose: Introduced as the explanation for the emergent ergodicity and stationarity: the properties arise from the breadth of initial sampling, not from the drift field itself.
    This is a statistical framing rather than a physical entity; its only supporting evidence is the in-paper single-trajectory control (Section III I), and no external observable distinguishes the super-ensemble explanation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lagrangian features of turbulent transport in tokamak plasmas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/742VEMQ4

@misc{pith2026250904132,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lagrangian features of turbulent transport in tokamak plasmas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/742VEMQ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04132}
}
read the original abstract

This study investigates the Lagrangian properties of ion turbulent transport driven by drift-type turbulence in tokamak plasmas. Despite the compressible and inhomogeneous nature of Eulerian gyrocenter drifts, numerical simulations with the T3ST code reveal approximate ergodicity, stationarity, and time-symmetry. These characteristics are attributed to broad initial phase-space distributions that support ergodic mixing. Moreover, relatively minor constraints on the initial distributions are found to have negligible effects on transport levels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04132 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Time evolution of radial transport coefficients. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Evolution of test-particle positions in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Asymptotic ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Effective velocity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Lagrangian auto-correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Time evolution of the second moment of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Time evolution of the Lagrangian average of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Running diffusion (a) and velocity (b) coeffi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Running diffusion coefficient for the turbulent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Long-time ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Lagrangian velocity autocorrelation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Comparison of running radial diffusion coeffi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Running diffusion coefficients computed using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: Distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: Running diffusion coefficient computed using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19: Statistical comparison of the diffusion esti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_19.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22: Comparison between running radial diffusions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_22.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21: Distribution of particles at the end of the sim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_21.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24: Lagrangian auto-correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_24.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23: Lagrangian velocity auto-correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_23.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Initial pitch angles are fixed at λ = 0.3

    work page

  2. [2]

    Initial energies are fixed at E =Ti

    work page

  3. [3]

    Particles are placed at a single radial point on the low-field side (LFS)

    work page

  4. [4]

    Turbulence is later, at t = 35R0/vth, after the par- ticles reach a quasi-steady quiescent state

    work page

  5. [5]

    ! ) t0 = #

    thus, the TEP is confirmed. C. Lagrangian stationarity Previously, results shown in Figs. 4a-4b suggested that the distributions P [Vr] of radial Lagrangian velocities of particles are almost identical between the starting point of the simulation t = 0 and the final time t = tmax = 60R0/vth. A closer inspection into Fig. 5 has revealed that this is not enti...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Initial pitch angles are setted to λ = 0.3 and parti- cle placed at the low-field-side (LFS)

    work page

  7. [7]

    Initial pitch angles and energies are concurrently setted to λ = 0.3,E =Ti

    work page

  8. [8]

    Palade and L.M

    D.I. Palade and L.M. Pomˆ arjanschi. T3st code: turbulent transport in tokamaks via stochastic trajectories. Nuclear Fusion, 65(8):086007, jul 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    The first four scenarios constitute a mild degrada- tion (restriction) of the initial filling of the phase space

    Initial energies are setted to E = Ti and particle placed at the low-field-side (LFS). The first four scenarios constitute a mild degrada- tion (restriction) of the initial filling of the phase space. Their associated radial diffusion coefficients are shown in Fig. 15a. Perhaps surp...

  2. [10]

    This is the reason for the consistent underestimation of diffusion. In Figs. 20a and 20b we have investigated the conver- gence of the statistics of asymptotic diffusion coefficients D∞ L andD∞ d with the number of test-particles used Np or partial modes Nc. The purpose was to rul...

  3. [11]

    D.I. Palade. Peaking and hollowness of low-z impurity profiles: an interplay between itg and tem induced turbu- lent transport. Nuclear Fusion, 63(4):046007, mar 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    R. Balescu. V-langevin equations, continuous time ran- dom walks and fractional diffusion. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 34(1):62 – 80, 2007. In Search of a Theory of Complexity

    2007

  5. [13]

    Diffusion by continuous movements

    Geoffrey I Taylor. Diffusion by continuous movements. Proceedings of the london mathematical society, 2(1):196– 212, 1922

    1922

  6. [14]

    It is interesting to note that the latter seem to have similar amplitudes in both cases

    Minor differences ∼ 5% can be observed across the entire time profile and stem from numerical fluctuations. It is interesting to note that the latter seem to have similar amplitudes in both cases. This suggests that the numerical noise is independent of single ensemble 0 10 20 30...

  7. [15]

    A. S. Monin. Statistical fluid mechanics : mechanics of turbulence. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1971

    1971

  8. [16]

    Aspects of anomalous transport in plas- mas

    Radu Balescu. Aspects of anomalous transport in plas- mas. CRC Press, 2005

    2005

  9. [17]

    Statistical theory of turbulence

    SA Orszag. Statistical theory of turbulence. Fluid dy- namics, pages 237–374, 1973

    1973

  10. [18]

    Tokamaks, volume

    John Wesson and David J Campbell. Tokamaks, volume

  11. [19]

    Progress and challenges in understanding core transport in tokamaks in support to iter operations

    P Mantica, C Angioni, N Bonanomi, J Citrin, B A Grierson, F Koechl, A Mariani, G M Staebler, Eurofu- sion JET contributors, Eurofusion MST1 contributors, ASDEX Upgrade team, and ITPA transport & confine- ment group. Progress and challenges in understanding core transport in tok...

    2019

  12. [20]

    D. I. Palade and M. Vlad. Fast generation of gaussian random fields for direct numerical simulations of stochas- tic transport. Statistics and Computing , 31(5):60, Aug 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Neural networks for turbulent trans- port prediction in a simplified model of tokamak plasmas

    LM Pomˆ arjanschi. Neural networks for turbulent trans- port prediction in a simplified model of tokamak plasmas. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion , 66(6):065007, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    This broken stationarity is supported further by plots of the Lagrangian auto-correlation either in 2D such as Fig

    which implies that stationarity is broken for the turbulent dy- namics of a single quiescent trajectory. This broken stationarity is supported further by plots of the Lagrangian auto-correlation either in 2D such as Fig. 23a-23b or in single-time Fig. 24a-24b. These results co...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Scaling laws of two-dimensional incompressible turbulent trans- port

    D I Palade, L M Pomˆ arjanschi, and M Ghit ¸˘ a. Scaling laws of two-dimensional incompressible turbulent trans- port. Physica Scripta , 99(1):015201, dec 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Collisional transport in plasma

    Fred L Hinton. Collisional transport in plasma. Handbook of Plasma Physics , 1(147):331, 1983

    1983

  17. [25]

    Dif-Pradalier, P

    G. Dif-Pradalier, P. H. Diamond, V. Grandgirard, Y. Sarazin, J. Abiteboul, X. Garbet, Ph. Ghendrih, A. Strugarek, S. Ku, and C. S. Chang. On the valid- ity of the local diffusive paradigm in turbulent plasma transport. Phys. Rev. E , 82:025401, Aug 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    Littlejohn

    Robert G. Littlejohn. Hamiltonian perturbation theory in noncanonical coordinates. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 23(5):742–747, 05 1982

    1982

  19. [27]

    A. J. Brizard and T. S. Hahm. Foundations of nonlinear gyrokinetic theory. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 79:421–468, Apr 2007

    2007

  20. [28]

    Sauter and S.Yu

    O. Sauter and S.Yu. Medvedev. Tokamak coordinate con- ventions: Cocos. Computer Physics Communications , 184(2):293–302, 2013

    2013

  21. [29]

    neoclassical transport theory

    Transport processes in plasmas. neoclassical transport theory. vol. 2

  22. [30]

    W. Horton. Drift waves and transport. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 71:735–778, Apr 1999

    1999

  23. [31]

    Jenko, W

    F. Jenko, W. Dorland, M. Kotschenreuther, and B. N. Rogers. Electron temperature gradient driven turbu- lence. Physics of Plasmas , 7(5):1904–1910, 05 2000

    1904

  24. [32]

    Naulin, J

    V. Naulin, J. Nycander, and J. Juul Rasmussen. Equipar- tition and transport in two-dimensional electrostatic tur - bulence. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 81:4148–4151, Nov 1998

    1998

  25. [33]

    M. A. Beer, S. C. Cowley, and G. W. Hammett. Field- aligned coordinates for nonlinear simulations of tokamak turbulence. Physics of Plasmas , 2(7):2687–2700, 07 1995

    1995

  26. [34]

    G. M. Staebler, J. Candy, N. T. Howard, and C. Holland. The role of zonal flows in the saturation of multi-scale gy- rokinetic turbulence. Physics of Plasmas , 23(6):062518, 06 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    Dudding, F.J

    H.G. Dudding, F.J. Casson, D. Dickinson, B.S. Patel, C.M. Roach, E.A. Belli, and G.M. Staebler. A new quasi- linear saturation rule for tokamak turbulence with appli- cation to the isotope scaling of transport. Nuclear Fusion, 62(9):096005, jul 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Dimits, B.I

    A.M. Dimits, B.I. Cohen, N. Mattor, W.M. Nevins, D.E. Shumaker, S.E. Parker, and C. Kim. Simulation of ion temperature gradient turbulence in tokamaks. Nuclear Fusion, 40(3Y):661, mar 2000

    2000

  29. [37]

    The european turbulence code bench- marking effort: turbulence driven by thermal gradients in magnetically confined plasmas

    G L Falchetto, B D Scott, P Angelino, A Bottino, T Dan- nert, V Grandgirard, S Janhunen, F Jenko, S Jolliet, A Kendl, B F McMillan, V Naulin, A H Nielsen, M Otta- viani, A G Peeters, M J Pueschel, D Reiser, T T Ribeiro, and M Romanelli. The european turbulence code bench- mark...

    2008

  30. [38]

    Lin and T

    Z. Lin and T. S. Hahm. Turbulence spreading and trans- port scaling in global gyrokinetic particle simulations. Physics of Plasmas , 11(3):1099–1108, 03 2004

    2004

  31. [39]

    Vernay, S

    T. Vernay, S. Brunner, L. Villard, B. F. McMillan, S. Jol- liet, T. M. Tran, A. Bottino, and J. P. Graves. Neo- 18 classical equilibria as starting point for global gyroki- netic microturbulence simulations. Physics of Plasmas , 17(12):122301, 12 2010

    2010

  32. [40]

    Garbet, G

    X. Garbet, G. Dif-Pradalier, C. Nguyen, Y. Sarazin, V. Grandgirard, and Ph. Ghendrih. Neoclassical equi- librium in gyrokinetic simulations. Physics of Plasmas , 16(6):062503, 06 2009

    2009

  33. [41]

    Angelino, A

    P. Angelino, A. Bottino, R. Hatzky, S. Jolliet, O. Sauter, T. M. Tran, and L. Villard. On the definition of a kinetic equilibrium in global gyrokinetic simulations. Physics of Plasmas, 13(5):052304, 05 2006

    2006

  34. [42]

    Camenen, A

    Y. Camenen, A. G. Peeters, C. Angioni, F. J. Casson, W. A. Hornsby, A. P. Snodin, and D. Strintzi. Impact of the background toroidal rotation on particle and heat turbulent transport in tokamak plasmas. Physics of Plas- mas, 16(1):012503, 01 2009

    2009

  35. [43]

    M. B. Isichenko, A. V. Gruzinov, and P. H. Diamond. In- variant measure and turbulent pinch in tokamaks. Phys. Rev. Lett., 74:4436–4439, May 1995

    1995

  36. [45]

    M. Vlad, F. Spineanu, and S. Benkadda. Impurity pinch from a ratchet process. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 96:085001, Feb 2006

    2006

  37. [46]

    M. Vlad, F. Spineanu, J. H. Misguich, and R. Balescu. Diffusion with intrinsic trapping in two-dimensional in- compressible stochastic velocity fields. Phys. Rev. E , 58:7359–7368, Dec 1998

    1998

  38. [47]

    M. Vlad, F. Spineanu, J. H. Misguich, and R. Balescu. Diffusion in biased turbulence. Phys. Rev. E , 63:066304, May 2001

    2001

  39. [48]

    M. Vlad, F. Spineanu, J. H. Misguich, and R. Balescu. Collisional effects on diffusion scaling laws in electrostat ic turbulence. Phys. Rev. E , 61:3023–3032, Mar 2000

    2000

  40. [49]

    Turbulent transport of the w ions in toka- mak plasmas: properties derived from a test particle ap- proach

    Dragos Iustin Palade, Madalina Vlad, and Florin Spineanu. Turbulent transport of the w ions in toka- mak plasmas: properties derived from a test particle ap- proach. Nuclear Fusion, 61(11):116031, oct 2021

    2021

  41. [50]

    Effects of the parallel acceleration on heavy impurity transport in turbulent tokamak plasmas

    Madalina Vlad, Dragos Iustin Palade, and Florin Spineanu. Effects of the parallel acceleration on heavy impurity transport in turbulent tokamak plasmas. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion , 63(3):035007, jan 2021

    2021

  42. [51]

    Effects of the mean field gradients on magnetic field line random walk

    Madalina Vlad. Effects of the mean field gradients on magnetic field line random walk. The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 867(2):104, 2018

    2018

  43. [52]

    Stochastic field-line wandering in magnetic turbulence with shear

    M Negrea, I Petrisor, and A Shalchi. Stochastic field-line wandering in magnetic turbulence with shear. ii. decor- relation trajectory method. Physics of Plasmas , 24(11), 2017

    2017

  44. [53]

    The fluctuation-dissipation theorem

    R Kubo. The fluctuation-dissipation theorem. Reports on Progress in Physics , 29(1):255, jan 1966

    1966

  45. [54]

    Mixing, ergodicity and the fluctuation-dissipation theo- rem in complex systems

    Mendeli H Vainstein, Ismael VL Costa, and F A Oliveira. Mixing, ergodicity and the fluctuation-dissipation theo- rem in complex systems. In Jamming, Yielding, and Ir- reversible Deformation in Condensed Matter , pages 159–

  46. [149]

    Oxford university press, 2011

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.