Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Stellarator island divertor shape optimization for reduced peak heat fluxes

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An automated two-parameter algorithm designs stellarator island divertors whose peak heat flux lands near 3 MW/m², under the 10 MW/m² material limit.

desk verdict Automated two-parameter island divertor design is a genuine step forward, but the optimization omits wall-strike losses so the headline heat-flux numbers may be flattered. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.24049 v2 pith:IL6OECZA submitted 2026-02-27 physics.plasm-ph

Avigdor Veksler , Aaron Bader , Heinke Frerichs , Elizabeth Paul This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.55.Hc52.55.Rk
keywords stellaratorislanddivertorshapeoptimizationheatfluxfieldlinediffusionBayesianstrikeanglepowerexhaust
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 presents a fully automated way to construct an island divertor for a stellarator from just two starting points on a magnetic island's separatrix. By stepping toroidally and enforcing a maximum magnetic-field strike angle on the plate, the algorithm generates V-shaped curved divertor plates that spread heat flux. Using a field-line diffusion model to estimate heat loads, the authors scan all two-input configurations and find divertors whose peak heat flux is about 3 MW/m², below the 10 MW/m² engineering limit for tungsten, with only about 3.5% of field lines hitting undesirable end-plates. They then show Bayesian optimization finds essentially the same best design after roughly 35 simulations instead of 441, a 95% reduction in cost. A sympathetic reader would care because this gives stellarator power-plant designers a cheap, low-dimensional search tool for divertor geometry in a fixed magnetic equilibrium.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the strike-angle constraint step: at each toroidal step, the algorithm searches on a smooth control surface inside the island for a point where the unit magnetic-field vector at the midpoint satisfies b̂·d̂ = cos(α), so the plate is locally oriented to keep the field incidence at or below a user-set maximum angle. Combined with a spline representation of the island surface and a V-shaped geometry with a rounded junction, this converts divertor design into two scalar inputs and creates curved plates that spread heat flux. The paper evaluates designs with a source-free field-line diffusion model, tracing many particles from the last closed flux surface onto the plate mesh

What would settle it

A direct test would be to run a higher-fidelity plasma and neutral transport simulation on the best optimized divertor in the same equilibrium and check whether the predicted peak heat flux on the actual divertor mesh remains below 10 MW/m² under the same scrape-off-layer power. If the reduced model's roughly 3 MW/m² result rises above the engineering limit by a factor of about three, the central claim that this design satisfies material heat-load limits is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the entire useful shape space of an island divertor in a fixed stellarator equilibrium can be parameterized by two angles on one toroidal plane, and that this low-dimensional map lets optimization find divertors that satisfy engineering heat-load limits. The authors' algorithm builds each plate by following field lines from the two starting points and, at each toroidal step, locating the point on the island surface where the field direction meets a prescribed maximum strike angle of 3°. The best grid-scan divertor has a peak heat flux of 2.915 MW/m² and a 3.487% end-plate hit fraction; Bayesian optimization recovers a nearly identical design (3 MW/m², 3.53%) with ab

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes that a smooth control surface just inside the island can stand in for the real, stochastic island separatrix, and that the quoted heat fluxes come from a source-free field-line diffusion model with assumed scrape-off-layer power and cross-field diffusivity; if either fails, plates shaped by the algorithm may not intercept the heat flux as modeled.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, island-divertor design in a fixed stellarator equilibrium reduces to a two-parameter search, making divertor optimization feasible alongside equilibrium optimization.
  • The modeled peak heat flux of about 3 MW/m² sits below the 10 MW/m² tungsten limit with a factor-of-three margin, leaving room for additional physics not modeled here, such as neutrals and impurities.
  • The 95% reduction in simulations from Bayesian optimization implies that adding more design parameters, such as strike angle, toroidal location, and divertor extent, remains computationally practical.
  • The Pareto-frontier analysis shows that reducing end-plate hits below about 5% costs at least q_peak ≈ 3 MW/m², quantifying the unavoidable trade-off between divertor viability and peak load.
  • The robustness of the optimized design across cross-field diffusivities supports using a single plasma parameter set for initial divertor screening.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: Because the algorithm needs only a control surface and a magnetic-field solve, the same two-input construction likely applies to other resonant islands and to multiple divertor modules per field period, possibly enabling whole-device exhaust optimization rather than single-island designs.
  • Editorial inference: The 95% savings suggest a testable extension: running the same Bayesian optimizer with strike angle, toroidal position, and toroidal extent as free parameters, then checking whether the predicted cost savings persist in higher dimensions.
  • Editorial inference: The robustness scan could be extended to detached-plasma conditions by replacing the assumed 8 MW scrape-off-layer power with a detached profile; a design that keeps q_peak below the limit under those profiles would be considerably stronger evidence for the engineering claim.
  • Editorial inference: Since the strike-angle constraint is enforced only at discrete toroidal steps, a natural convergence test is to repeat the construction with finer toroidal resolution and verify that no local strike-angle violations appear between steps.
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 presents an automated algorithm for constructing stellarator island divertors from two scalar inputs (θ_L, θ_R) by enforcing a maximum magnetic-field strike angle on a control surface inside the island. The resulting divertor geometries are evaluated with the FLARE field-line diffusion model, which returns q_peak and an 'end-plate hit %' metric. The authors perform a 21×21 grid scan and a Bayesian optimization run, finding essentially the same optimal divertor (q_peak ≈ 3 MW/m², end-plate ≈ 3.5%) and claim a 95% reduction in simulations. They also study robustness to the cross-field diffusion coefficient D and report a disagreement with the expected λ_q,t ∼ √D scaling at high D, attributing it to wall strikes. The abstract additionally claims that low-elongation islands are easiest to optimize, but this result does not appear in the body.

Significance. If the claims are fully supported, the paper would offer a genuinely low-dimensional, automated divertor-design workflow for fixed stellarator equilibria, enabling rapid exploration of island-divertor geometry. The use of FLARE for on-the-fly heat-flux evaluation and the demonstration that Bayesian optimization recovers the grid-scan optimum are valuable proof-of-principle contributions. However, the central claim that the optimized divertors 'maintain a high power fraction captured' is not currently substantiated: the cost function omits vessel-wall strikes, and the wall-hit fraction for the reported designs is never given. The abstract-body mismatch and the absence of Monte-Carlo uncertainty quantification further weaken the paper in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.3, Eq. (2); Sec. 3.2; Sec. 3.4] The cost function J = W1 q_peak + W2 end-plate% contains no term for field lines that terminate on the vessel wall. Since q_peak is computed only from particles actually hitting the divertor plate, a design that channels a large fraction of power to the wall can appear artificially good. The paper itself uses wall-hit percentage in Sec. 3.4 as a criterion for when the divertor 'isn't capturing all the heat flux' (≥5%), yet the optimized designs in Sec. 3.2 are reported only via q_peak and end-plate%. The abstract's 'high power fraction captured' is therefore unquantified. Please report the wall-hit fraction for the grid-scan and Bayesian-optimization best designs, and ideally add a wall-strike penalty to Eq. (2) or discuss why it is unnecessary for the explored parameter range.
  2. [Abstract vs. Secs. 2–4] The abstract states: 'Optimization over various islands in the equilibrium shows that low-elongation islands are the easiest to find divertors that satisfy heat flux requirements.' The full text provided contains no such optimization over multiple islands, no elongation analysis, and no comparison of different islands. This is a load-bearing discrepancy: either the result is missing from the body, or the abstract is unsupported. Please either include the multi-island study or revise the abstract to reflect the single-island results actually presented.
  3. [Secs. 3.1–3.2, Figs. 4–6] FLARE's field-line diffusion model is Monte-Carlo (1e6 particles per simulation), and q_peak is an extremal quantity. The paper provides no estimate of statistical uncertainty on q_peak or end-plate%, and the Gaussian-process optimizer is applied as if the observations were deterministic. Noise could affect both the claimed optimum and the BO-vs-grid comparison. Please add error bars (e.g., from repeated simulations or bootstrap) or at least quantify the typical run-to-run variation of the cost-function components.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 3.2] The claimed '95% reduction in computational cost' is inaccurate: 10 initial + 25 Bayesian steps = 35 simulations vs. 441 in the grid scan, which is a 92.1% reduction. Please correct the number.
  2. [Fig. 10] The x-axis label 'field line diffusion coefficient [m]' has unclear units; the coefficient D in Eq. (3) should have units of length²/time (or the plot should specify the normalized quantity).
  3. [Sec. 2.1] There is a typo in the definition of p_L: 'p_L = (r_L0, φ, z_L0)' should be p_L = (r_L0, φ_init, z_L0), and the subsequent 'p_L = (r_R0, ...)' should be p_R. Please proofread the coordinate definitions.
  4. [Sec. 3.4] The statement that the optimized divertor is 'proven to be robust' is stronger than what the single-D-scan supports; the authors themselves note the scaling breaks down at high D. Suggest softening to 'shown to be robust over the tested D range'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: qpeak is a simulated output and the strike-angle constraint is a design mechanism, not a hidden identity.

full rationale

The optimization pipeline is not circular. The reported qpeak values in Secs. 3.1-3.2 are evaluated outputs of the FLARE field-line diffusion model for each (theta_L, theta_R), not parameters fitted to reproduce the 10 MW/m^2 limit; Eq. (2) is an objective function, not an identity. The strike-angle constraint b_hat dot d_hat = cos(alpha) is enforced during construction (Fig. 3) and then verified separately in Fig. 7, while the heat flux pattern in Fig. 8 is computed independently by FLARE. The lambda_q,t ~ sqrt(D) scaling in Eq. (3) is tested against simulation, and Sec. 3.4 explicitly reports deviation at high diffusivities, so the scaling is not assumed as the result. Self-citations to FLARE [20,24], Bader et al. [33], and Hegna et al. [19] are tooling/background references rather than assumptions forcing the optimized qpeak. I do flag a non-circular support gap: Eq. (2) omits the vessel-wall strike fraction, whereas Sec. 3.4 states that 'a significant fraction of particles striking the wall means that the divertor isn't capturing all the heat flux' and uses 5% wall hits as a threshold. The abstract's 'high power fraction captured' is therefore not quantified by the optimization objective. This weakens the support for that specific conclusion, but it is a missing metric, not a circular reduction of an output to an input.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central output is a design tool, not a new physical law; the main 'axioms' are modeling choices for heat-flux prediction. No new physical entities are postulated. Free parameters are user-chosen design and optimization inputs rather than fits to the target qpeak, but they shape the result and limit generality.

free parameters (8)
  • Maximum strike angle α = 3° (ramped from 0.1° over first four Δϕ planes)
    User-chosen construction parameter that directly controls how heat flux spreads; central to qpeak outcome (Sec. 2.1).
  • Cost function weights W1, W2 = W2/W1 = 1 for main run; scanned 10^-2 to 10^2
    Hand-set trade-off between qpeak and end-plate%; shapes the Pareto frontier (Sec. 3.2).
  • BO acquisition exploration parameter ξ = 0.01
    Tuned among 0.005, 0.01, 0.05; affects optimization path (Sec. 3.2).
  • Cross-field diffusion coefficient χ⊥ = 0.1 m²/s
    Estimated from W7-X χe ≈ 0.5 m²/s, B scaling 9 T vs 2.5 T, and χe/χi ≈ 1; input to FLARE heat-flux model (Sec. 3.3).
  • Scrape-off-layer power P_SOL = 8 MW
    Assumed; qpeak scales linearly with this number (Sec. 3.3).
  • Toroidal span (ϕstart, ϕinit, ϕend) and step Δϕ = π/12, π/6, π/4, π/360
    User-chosen; restricts divertor to half a field period and affects geometry and computational cost (Sec. 2.1).
  • GP length-scale bounds and soft penalty = 0.1×–1.5× domain; penalty 200
    Hyperparameters chosen to prevent length-scale collapse in Bayesian optimization; affect optimization path (Sec. 3.2).
  • End-plate extension factor = 0.2 × |pL − pR| and ~1° past ϕstart/end
    Arbitrary extension used to model edge hits; the end-plate% cost term depends on it (Sec. 2.3).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The fixed Hegna et al. Infinity Two equilibrium is a valid background; divertor plates do not modify the equilibrium.
    Sec. 1–2; all optimization is in a fixed background field; equilibrium response is ignored.
  • domain assumption A smooth control surface inside the island can substitute for the stochastic separatrix for plate construction.
    Sec. 2.1: 'as stochasticity of the separatrix would complicate the analysis'; most heat flux assumed to follow flux tubes near the separatrix.
  • domain assumption FLARE's field-line diffusion model Eq. (1) adequately estimates heat fluxes relevant to the 10 MW/m² limit.
    Sec. 2.2; no neutrals, impurities, radiation, or drifts; the paper acknowledges these are future work.
  • domain assumption One million particles initialized on the LCFS with n0 = 10^19 m^-3 and T = 50 eV represent the scrape-off-layer source.
    Sec. 3.3; source specification for the Monte Carlo heat-load estimate.
  • domain assumption Gyro-Bohm scaling and W7-X measurements justify χ⊥ = 0.1 m²/s.
    Sec. 3.3; empirical scaling imported from W7-X, not measured in this equilibrium.
  • domain assumption Feng's scaling λq,t ~ sqrt(D Lc/Cs) is the correct reference for judging divertor robustness.
    Sec. 3.4; used to interpret simulation results; the paper shows the scaling breaks at high D.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stellarator island divertor shape optimization for reduced peak heat fluxes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IL6OECZA

@misc{pith2026260224049,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stellarator island divertor shape optimization for reduced peak heat fluxes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IL6OECZA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.24049}
}
read the original abstract

An automated algorithm to construct island divertors for stellarators is presented and is used to find divertors that meet heat load requirements determined by material limits. The algorithm uses just two initial conditions: two starting coordinates on the island separatrix chosen by the user. We leverage the simplicity of the algorithm to explore the divertor parameter space in a fixed magnetic equilibrium. Heat loads are approximated using the field line diffusion model implemented in the \texttt{FLARE} code. Divertor solutions that satisfy heat load requirements while maintaining a high power fraction captured are found using a parameter scan and a Bayesian optimization routine. The optimization finds divertors that perform the same as the parameter scan, but with a 95\% reduction in computational cost. The resulting divertors satisfy heat load requirements across varying cross-field heat diffusivities. Optimization over various islands in the equilibrium shows that low-elongation islands are the easiest to find divertors that satisfy heat flux requirements. This algorithm presents a simple parameterization for island divertors and facilitates further physics and optimization studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.24049 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A cartoon of a V-shaped island divertor (green) in a stellarator island (blue cylinder, representative of a single stellarator island). Although in this cartoon the plates are shown to be planar, the ones created by the algorithm described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Algorithm that creates a divertor plate geometry from ϕinit to ϕend. The algorithm is run with ±∆ϕ to create a V-shaped divertor. 2.1 Divertor-making algorithm In this section, we present a simple, low-dimensional parametrization of divertor construction. This algorithm creates divertors that aim to minimize the peak heat loads on the divertor by enforcing a maximum strike angle of the magnetic field on the divertor… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A visualization of how the coordinates of the divertor intersections with the control surface at different ϕ planes are chosen. The point p ∗ L is found near the point pL.b such that ˆbL · dˆL = cos(α). The same is repeated for the right points, and the divertor section between ϕi and ϕi+1 is a surface going through pLi, p∗ L , pRi, p∗ R. The algorithm relies on two initial starting points on the control surface at … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cost function landscape for 441 divertors chosen from starting angles between 0 and 2π. The axes are scaled to capture the region of parameter space where the divertor-making algorithm completed successfully. The white area represents (θL, θR) initial conditions that d…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cost function landscape as learned by a Bayesian optimization run. In black are the initial points used in the optimization, and in red the subsequent observations taken by the optimizer. The optimizer finds the large valley around (θL, θR) = (4.5, 1.5). 2.5 5.0 7.5 10…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Pareto frontier represents the best possible divertors when considering the trade off between the two terms in the cost function, qpeak and end-plate hit %. The results from the best divertors from the grid scan and the Bayesian optimization are also shown, and lie…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Strike angles on the divertor plate for a divertor created with (θL, θR) = (4.05, 1.21). The strike angle is fairly uniform across the plate with a mean value of 1.56◦. 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 distance to center [m] 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 [d e g.] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 H e…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Heat flux q pattern on the divertor plate for a divertor created with (θL, θR) = (4.05, 1.21). The black area represents the divertor computational domain. The peak heat flux is far below the 10 MW/m2 limit. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Heat flux q pattern on the divertor plate visualized in 3D. The vessel wall is shown in gray. The computational domain for the divertor is shown in black. The closing of the divertor structure past the domain of the vessel wall to avoid erroneous field line hits on the…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Scaling of λq,t with respect to the cross-field diffusion coefficient. The scaling from Feng and W7-X-team [13] does not hold for high diffusivities as particles instead hit the vessel wall rather than the divertor plate. The disagreement of the λq,t scaling can be ex…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Divertor topology and vacuum vessel design for stellarators

    physics.plasm-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Joint coil–vessel optimization with a stable fixed-point solver yields quasi-axisymmetric stellarators with controlled divertor topologies, including precise snowflake divertors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The global fusion industry in 2024

    Fusion Industry Association. The global fusion industry in 2024. Annual Report 4th Edition, Fusion Industry Association, July 2024. URLhttps://www.fusionindustryassociation. org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2024-annual-global-fusion-industry-report.pdf. Accessed: January 12, 2026

    2024

  2. [2]

    Magnetic fields with precise quasisymmetry for plasma confinement.Phys

    Matt Landreman and Elizabeth Paul. Magnetic fields with precise quasisymmetry for plasma confinement.Phys. Rev. Lett., 128:035001, Jan 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.035001. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.035001

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.035001 2022

  3. [3]

    Goodman, K

    A.G. Goodman, K. Camacho Mata, S.A. Henneberg, R. Jorge, M. Landreman, G.G. Plunk, H.M. Smith, R.J.J. Mackenbach, C.D. Beidler, and P. Helander. Constructing precisely quasi-isodynamic magnetic fields.Journal of Plasma Physics, 89(5):905890504, 2023. doi: 10.1017/S002237782300065X

    doi:10.1017/s002237782300065x 2023

  4. [4]

    J. L. Velasco, I. Calvo, F. J. Escoto, E. S´ anchez, H. Thienpondt, and F. I. Parra. Piecewise omnigenous stellarators.Phys. Rev. Lett., 133:185101, Oct 2024. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.185101. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.185101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.185101 2024

  5. [5]

    First island divertor experiments on the w7-as stellarator.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 43(12A):A175, nov 2001

    P Grigull, K McCormick, J Baldzuhn, R Burhenn, R Brakel, H Ehmler, Y Feng, F Gadelmeier, L Giannone, D Hartmann, D Hildebrandt, M Hirsch, R Jaenicke, J Kisslinger, J Knauer, R K¨ onig, G K¨ uhner, H Laqua, D Naujoks, H Niedermeyer, N Ramasubramanian, N Rust, F Sardei, F Wagner, A Weller, U Wenzel, and the W7-AS Team. First island divertor experiments on t...

    doi:10.1088/0741-3335/43/12a/313 2001

  6. [6]

    Sunn Pedersen, R

    T. Sunn Pedersen, R. K¨ onig, M. Jakubowski, M. Krychowiak, D. Gradic, C. Killer, H. Niemann, T. Szepesi, U. Wenzel, A. Ali, G. Anda, J. Baldzuhn, T. Barbui, C. Biedermann, B.D. Blackwell, H.-S. Bosch, S. Bozhenkov, R. Brakel, S. Brezinsek, J. Cai, B. Cannas, J.W. Coenen, J. Cosfeld, A. Dinklage, T. Dittmar, P. Drewelow, P. Drews, D. Dunai, F. Effenberg, ...

    2019

  7. [7]

    Y. Feng, M. Jakubowski, R. K¨ onig, M. Krychowiak, M. Otte, F. Reimold, D. Reiter, O. Schmitz, D. Zhang, C.D. Beidler, C. Biedermann, S. Bozhenkov, K.J. Brunner, A. Dinklage, P. Drewelow, F. Effenberg, M. Endler, G. Fuchert, Y. Gao, J. Geiger, K.C. Hammond, P. Helander, C. Killer, J. Knauer, T. Kremeyer, E. Pasch, L. Rudischhauser, G. Schlisio, T. Sunn Pe...

    2021

  8. [8]

    Y. Feng, Y. Gao, T. Kremeyer, D. Gradic, L. Rudischhauser, G. Fuchert, S. Bozhenkov, M. Endler, M. Jakubowski, R. Koenig, M. Krychowiak, E. Pasch, K.C. Hammond, and W7-X. Team. First attempt to quantify W7-X island divertor plasma by local experiment-model comparison.Nuclear Fusion, 61(10):106018, September 2021. ISSN 0029-5515. doi: 10.1088/1741-4326/ac2...

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ac2025 2021

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    K C Hammond, Y Gao, M Jakubowski, C Killer, H Niemann, L Rudischhauser, A Ali, T Andreeva, B D Blackwell, K J Brunner, B Cannas, P Drewelow, P Drews, M Endler, Y Feng, J Geiger, O Grulke, J Knauer, S Klose, S Lazerson, M Otte, F Pisano, U Neuner, A Puig Sitjes, K Rahbarnia, J ...

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    Escourbiac, A

    F. Escourbiac, A. Durocher, A. Fedosov, T. Hirai, R.A. Pitts, P. Gavila, B. Riccardi, V. Kuznetcov, A. Volodin, and A. Komarov. Assessment of critical heat flux margins on tungsten monoblocks of the iter divertor vertical targets.Fusion Engineering and Design, 146: 2036–2039, ...

    doi

  3. [11]

    Influence of recrystallization on tungsten divertor monoblock under high heat flux.Tungsten, 4(3):194–202, September 2022

    Yu-Zhong Jin, Xiang Liu, You-Yun Lian, and Jiu-Peng Song. Influence of recrystallization on tungsten divertor monoblock under high heat flux.Tungsten, 4(3):194–202, September 2022. ISSN 2661-8036. doi: 10.1007/s42864-021-00126-1. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s42864-021-00126-1

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Comparison between stellarator and tokamak divertor transport.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 53(2):024009, January 2011

    Y Feng, M Kobayashi, T Lunt, and D Reiter. Comparison between stellarator and tokamak divertor transport.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 53(2):024009, January 2011. ISSN 0741-3335. doi: 10.1088/0741-3335/53/2/024009. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/53/2/024009

    2011 doi

  5. [13]

    Y Feng and W7-X-team. Review of magnetic islands from the divertor perspective and a simplified heat transport model for the island divertor.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 64(12):125012, November 2022. ISSN 0741-3335. doi: 10.1088/1361-6587/ac9ed9. URL https://dx.doi.or...

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    Dekeyser, D

    W. Dekeyser, D. Reiter, and M. Baelmans. Divertor target shape optimization in realistic edge plasma geometry.Nuclear Fusion, 54(7):073022, May 2014. ISSN 0029-5515. doi: 10.1088/0029-5515/54/7/073022. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/54/7/073022. Publisher: IOP Publishing

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    Baelmans, M

    M. Baelmans, M. Blommaert, W. Dekeyser, and T. Van Oevelen. Achievements and challenges in automated parameter, shape and topology optimization for divertor design.Nuclear Fusion, 57(3):036022, January 2017. ISSN 0029-5515. doi: 10.1088/1741-4326/57/3/036022. URL https://doi.o...

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    Frerichs

    H. Frerichs. Particle swarm optimization of divertor targets for heat load control, August

  9. [17]

    Thomas Sunn Pedersen, Ralf K¨ onig, Maciej Krychowiak, Marcin Jakubowski, J¨ urgen Baldzuhn, Sergey Bozhenkov, Golo Fuchert, Andreas Langenberg, Holger Niemann, Daihong Zhang, Kian Rahbarnia, Hans-Stephan Bosch, Yevgen Kazakov, Sebastijan Brezinsek, Yu Gao, Novimir Pablant, an...

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Schmitt, Michael J

    Robert Davies, Yuhe Feng, Dieter Boeyaert, John C. Schmitt, Michael J. Gerard, Kelly A. Garcia, Oliver Schmitz, Benedikt Geiger, and Sophia A. Henneberg. A semi-automated algorithm for designing stellarator divertor and limiter plates and application to HSX.Nuclear Fusion, 64(...

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    Hegna, D.T

    C.C. Hegna, D.T. Anderson, E.C. Andrew, A. Ayilaran, A. Bader, T.D. Bohm, K. Camacho Mata, J.M. Canik, L. Carbajal, A. Cerfon, and et al. The infinity two fusion pilot plant baseline plasma physics design.Journal of Plasma Physics, 91(3):E76, March 2025. doi: 10.1017/S0022377825000364

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    Magnetic mesh generation and field line reconstruction for scrape-off layer and divertor modeling in stellarators.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 67(4):045012, March 2025

    H Frerichs, D Boeyaert, Y Feng, and K A Garcia. Magnetic mesh generation and field line reconstruction for scrape-off layer and divertor modeling in stellarators.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 67(4):045012, March 2025. ISSN 0741-3335. doi: 13 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyy...

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    Gates, A.H

    D.A. Gates, A.H. Boozer, T. Brown, J. Breslau, D. Curreli, M. Landreman, S.A. Lazerson, J. Lore, H. Mynick, G.H. Neilson, N. Pomphrey, P. Xanthopoulos, and A. Zolfaghari. Recent advances in stellarator optimization.Nuclear Fusion, 57(12):126064, October 2017. ISSN 0029-5515. d...

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    Effenberg, H

    F. Effenberg, H. Niemann, Y. Feng, J. Geiger, O. Schmitz, Y. Suzuki, A. Ali, T. Barbui, S. Brezinsek, H. Frerichs, M. Jakubowski, R. K¨ onig, M. Krychowiak, A. Puig Sitjes, J. C. Schmitt, and T. Sunn Pedersen. Investigation of 3D effects on heat fluxes in performance-optimized...

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Wai.Shape and Divertor Control in Tokamaks

    Josiah T. Wai.Shape and Divertor Control in Tokamaks. PhD thesis, Princeton University,

  16. [24]

    Frerichs

    H. Frerichs. FLARE: field line analysis and reconstruction for 3D boundary plasma modeling. Nuclear Fusion, 64(10):106034, September 2024. ISSN 0029-5515. doi: 10.1088/1741-4326/ad7303. URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ad7303. Publisher: IOP Publishing

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Frazier.Bayesian Optimization, chapter 11, pages 255–278

    Peter I. Frazier.Bayesian Optimization, chapter 11, pages 255–278. Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences, 2018. doi: 10.1287/educ.2018.0188. URL https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/educ.2018.0188

    2018

  18. [26]

    Jones, Matthias Schonlau, and William J

    Donald R. Jones, Matthias Schonlau, and William J. Welch. Efficient Global Optimization of Expensive Black-Box Functions.Journal of Global Optimization, 13(4):455–492, December

  19. [27]

    Bayesian optimization: Open source constrained global optimization tool for python, 2014, 2020

    Fernando Nogueira. Bayesian optimization: Open source constrained global optimization tool for python, 2014, 2020

    2014

  20. [28]

    Gaussian processes for machine learning (gpml) toolbox.J

    Carl Edward Rasmussen and Hannes Nickisch. Gaussian processes for machine learning (gpml) toolbox.J. Mach. Learn. Res., 11:3011–3015, December 2010. ISSN 1532-4435

    2010

  21. [29]

    Expected improvement for expensive optimization: a review

    Dawei Zhan and Huanlai Xing. Expected improvement for expensive optimization: a review. Journal of Global Optimization, 78(3):507–544, November 2020. ISSN 1573-2916. doi: 10.1007/s10898-020-00923-x. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10898-020-00923-x

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    Manfredi and M

    G. Manfredi and M. Ottaviani. Gyro-bohm scaling of ion thermal transport from global numerical simulations of ion-temperature-gradient-driven turbulence.Phys. Rev. Lett., 79: 4190–4193, Nov 1997. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.4190. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLet...

    1997 doi

  23. [31]

    G.M. Weir, P. Xanthopoulos, M. Hirsch, U. H¨ ofel, T. Stange, N. Pablant, O. Grulke, S. ¨Ak¨ aslompolo, J. Alcus´ on, S. Bozhenkov, M. Beurskens, A. Dinklage, G. Fuchert, J. Geiger, M. Landreman, A. Langenberg, S. Lazerson, N. Marushchenko, E. Pasch, J. Schilling, E.R. Scott, ...

    2021

  24. [32]

    M Wappl, S A Bozhenkov, T Andreeva, S Bannmann, H M Smith, R C Wolf, and the W7-X. Team. Experimental power balance study on turbulent heat transport at Wendelstein 7-X. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 67(7):075025, July 2025. ISSN 0741-3335. doi: 10.1088/1361-6587/ade82...

    2025 doi

  25. [33]

    Bader, A

    A. Bader, A. Ayilaran, J.M. Canik, A. De, W. Guttenfelder, C.C. Hegna, M. Knilans, A. Malkus, T.S. Pedersen, P. Sinha, J. Talley, D. Velez, K. Willis, and Type One Energy Group. Power and particle exhaust for the Infinity Two fusion pilot plant.Journal of Plasma Physics, 91(2)...

    2025 doi

  26. [34]

    B. J. Peterson, G. Partesotti, F. Reimold, G. A. Wurden, Y. Gao, D. Zhang, V. Winters, M. Kobayashi, Y. Feng, K. Mukai, and J. von Miller. Investigation of island size effect on radiation distribution during attached and detached plasmas in the island divertor of W7-X. Nuclear...

    2025

  27. [35]

    S. Zhou, Y. Liang, A. Knieps, Y. Suzuki, J. Geiger, A. Dinklage, A. Langenberg, E. Pasch, M. Jakubowski, N. Pablant, N.C. Wang, P. Drews, S. Bozhenkov, S. Liu, S. Xu, Y. Gao, Y.H. Ding, Z. Huang, and the W7-X. Team. Equilibrium effects on the structure of island divertor and i...

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    Lore, Tamara Andreeva, Jean Boscary, Sergey Bozhenkov, Joachim Geiger, Jeffrey H

    Jeremy D. Lore, Tamara Andreeva, Jean Boscary, Sergey Bozhenkov, Joachim Geiger, Jeffrey H. Harris, Hauke Hoelbe, Arnold Lumsdaine, Dean McGinnis, Alan Peacock, and Joseph Tipton. Design and analysis of divertor scraper elements for the w7-x stellarator. IEEE Transactions on P...

    2014

  29. [37]

    Y. Feng, H. Frerichs, M. Kobayashi, A. Bader, F. Effenberg, D. Harting, H. Hoelbe, J. Huang, G. Kawamura, J. D. Lore, T. Lunt, D. Reiter, O. Schmitz, and D. Sharma. Recent improvements in the emc3-eirene code.Contributions to Plasma Physics, 54(4-6):426–431,

  30. [1998]

    doi: 10.1023/A:1008306431147

    ISSN 1573-2916. doi: 10.1023/A:1008306431147. URL https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008306431147

    doi

  31. [2014]

    URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ctpp.201410092

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ctpp.201410092. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ctpp.201410092. 15

    doi

  32. [2023]

    Copyright - Database copyright ProQuest LLC; ProQuest does not claim copyright in the individual underlying works; Last updated - 2025-02-03

    2025

  33. [2025]

    arXiv:2509.00206 [physics]

    URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2509.00206. arXiv:2509.00206 [physics]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.