pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.01117 · v2 · pith:DVEZOH6Cnew · submitted 2026-05-01 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph · nlin.CD· physics.comp-ph· physics.data-an

High-throughput full-f gyrokinetics of the tokamak boundary

A.C.D. Hoffmann , M. Francisquez , T.N. Bernard , G.W. Hammett , A. Hakim This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 18:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph nlin.CDphysics.comp-phphysics.data-an
keywords gyrokineticstokamak boundaryscrape-off layerplasma shapingtriangularityfull-f simulationturbulent transportneoclassical mechanism
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hundreds of full-f gyrokinetic simulations show plasma shaping impacts on tokamak boundary confinement are strongly power dependent.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that full-f global gyrokinetic simulations of the tokamak boundary can now be performed in high throughput, with hundreds of independent runs reaching steady state without manual intervention. This enables systematic exploration of how triangularity, elongation, and heating power affect confinement in both the closed flux surface region and the scrape-off layer. The results indicate that triangularity's role shifts with power level, primarily influencing scrape-off layer ion temperature at low power through a neoclassical trapped-ion process, and edge ion temperature gradients at high power. Turbulent transport is classified into ITG or TEM dominated regimes. The open dataset serves as a resource for model benchmarking and data-driven fusion research.

Core claim

A paradigm shift is demonstrated by running hundreds of independent, concurrent, and unsupervised full-f boundary gyrokinetic simulations in a TCV-inspired geometry, covering closed and open field lines while scanning shaping and power. All simulations evolve to steady state much longer than the turbulence relaxation time. Steady-state analysis shows the impact of plasma shaping on confinement is power dependent, with triangularity controlling SOL ion temperature at low power and edge ion temperature gradient at high power. The hot SOL at low power for positive triangularity arises from a neoclassical trapped-ion mechanism modifying field-line arc length and interaction with cold neutral-ion

What carries the argument

The neoclassical trapped-ion mechanism, in which triangularity modifies the field-line arc length between banana turning points and the high-field-side limiter, altering interaction with cold neutral-ionization regions.

If this is right

  • Low-power positive triangularity produces hotter scrape-off layer ions due to trapped-ion neoclassical effects.
  • High-power shaping primarily modifies the edge ion temperature gradient.
  • Turbulent transport regimes are dominated by ion temperature gradient or trapped electron modes depending on parameters.
  • The generated dataset benchmarks boundary transport models and trains data-driven surrogate models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This capability could allow exploration of optimal shaping for different power regimes in future tokamak designs.
  • Similar high-throughput methods might be extended to study other boundary phenomena like impurity transport or detachment.
  • Training machine learning models on this data could lead to faster predictions of boundary behavior without full simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations have all reached true steady state after evolving much longer than the turbulence relaxation time, and the power-dependent shaping effects are not artifacts of the specific geometry or numerical setup.

What would settle it

Re-running a subset of the simulations with significantly higher resolution or much longer evolution times and observing whether the power-dependent triangularity effects on SOL and edge temperatures persist or change.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.01117 by A.C.D. Hoffmann, A. Hakim, G.W. Hammett, M. Francisquez, T.N. Bernard.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Average time step of the simulations in the quasi view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Time evolution of the particle energy, view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Poloidal cut of the ion temperature at view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Edge ion temperature view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the transport pinch as a function of the heat diffusivity ratio for all simulations of the scan, with the shaded region corresponding to the ITG/TEM regime [67]. The data show that the majority of the simulations are in the ITG/TEM regime with a few out￾liers for high power injection and positive triangularity. These outliers do not clearly fit into another category of the fingerprint analysis, which… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Full-f global gyrokinetic simulations of the plasma boundary have until now required heroic computational efforts and case-by-case expert intervention, precluding systematic parameter scans. Here we demonstrate a paradigm shift: hundreds of independent, concurrent, and unsupervised full-f boundary gyrokinetic simulations in a geometry inspired by the Tokamak \`a Configuration Variable (TCV), covering both the closed flux surface region and the open-field-line scrape-off layer (SOL) while scanning triangularity, elongation, and heating power. All simulations are evolved much longer than the turbulence relaxation time until the steady state is reached. Analysis of the steady-state profiles reveals that the impact of plasma shaping on confinement is strongly power dependent: at low power, triangularity primarily controls the SOL ion temperature, while at high power it mostly affects the edge ion temperature gradient. The low-power hot SOL observed for positive triangularity is explained by a neoclassical trapped-ion mechanism in which triangularity modifies the field-line arc length between banana turning points and the high-field-side limiter, altering the interaction with cold neutral-ionization regions. Fingerprint analysis of turbulent transport categorize the simulations in a regime dominated by ion temperature gradient (ITG) or trapped electron modes (TEMs), confirmed by dedicated local linear gyrokinetic calculations. The generated open data represents a previously unobtainable resource. It can serve both as a benchmark for boundary transport models, and as a training dataset for data-driven methods in fusion foundation and surrogate models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents hundreds of independent full-f global gyrokinetic simulations of the tokamak boundary in TCV-inspired geometry, scanning triangularity, elongation, and heating power. All runs are stated to evolve much longer than the turbulence relaxation time until steady state is reached. Analysis of the resulting profiles shows that shaping effects on confinement are strongly power-dependent: at low power, triangularity primarily sets the SOL ion temperature via a neoclassical trapped-ion mechanism (field-line arc length between banana turning points and the HFS limiter altering interaction with cold neutral-ionization regions), while at high power it mainly affects the edge ion temperature gradient. Turbulence regimes are classified as ITG- or TEM-dominated via fingerprint analysis and confirmed by dedicated local linear gyrokinetic calculations. The generated open dataset is positioned as a benchmark and training resource for boundary transport models and data-driven methods.

Significance. If the steady-state profiles and neoclassical interpretation hold, the work marks a substantial methodological advance by enabling systematic, unsupervised parameter scans with full-f boundary gyrokinetics at scale. The power-dependent shaping results and the large open dataset would provide a valuable resource for validating reduced models and training surrogate models in fusion research. The neoclassical trapped-ion explanation for the low-power hot SOL offers a concrete, falsifiable physical mechanism that could be tested against experiment or higher-fidelity runs.

major comments (2)
  1. The central claim that triangularity controls SOL ion temperature at low power through a neoclassical trapped-ion mechanism (field-line arc length between banana turning points and the HFS limiter) requires that the reported steady-state profiles are fully equilibrated. The manuscript states that all runs evolve 'much longer than the turbulence relaxation time until the steady state is reached,' but supplies no explicit convergence criterion (e.g., dT_i/dt threshold, source-sink balance, or time-averaged flux stationarity), no time traces of SOL T_i or trapped-ion density, and no resolution or boundary-condition sensitivity tests in the open-field-line region. If the low-power positive-triangularity cases have not yet equilibrated the neoclassical orbit-limiter interaction, the observed hot SOL and the power-dependent contrast could be transient artifacts.
  2. The turbulence regime classification (ITG vs. TEM) and the power-dependence conclusions rest on the assumption that the global full-f runs have reached a statistically stationary state in both closed and open-field-line regions. Without reported checks for stationarity of heat fluxes or profile evolution in the SOL, it is difficult to rule out that the low-power vs. high-power contrast is influenced by incomplete relaxation rather than the claimed physical mechanism.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract and main text would benefit from a brief statement of the specific numerical resolution and boundary conditions used in the open-field-line region, as these directly affect SOL temperature observations.
  2. Figure captions or a methods subsection should clarify how the 'fingerprint analysis' of turbulent transport is performed and how it quantitatively distinguishes ITG from TEM dominance.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to provide the requested evidence of equilibration and stationarity.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that triangularity controls SOL ion temperature at low power through a neoclassical trapped-ion mechanism (field-line arc length between banana turning points and the HFS limiter) requires that the reported steady-state profiles are fully equilibrated. The manuscript states that all runs evolve 'much longer than the turbulence relaxation time until the steady state is reached,' but supplies no explicit convergence criterion (e.g., dT_i/dt threshold, source-sink balance, or time-averaged flux stationarity), no time traces of SOL T_i or trapped-ion density, and no resolution or boundary-condition sensitivity tests in the open-field-line region. If the low-power positive-triangularity cases have not yet equilibrated the neoclassical orbit-limiter interaction, the observed hot SOL and the power-dependent contrast could be transient artifacts.

    Authors: We agree that explicit documentation of convergence is necessary to support the central claim. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection on equilibration criteria, specifying that simulations are continued until the time-averaged SOL ion temperature and trapped-ion density change by less than 5 % over an interval exceeding ten turbulence autocorrelation times. Representative time traces of SOL T_i and trapped-ion density for low- and high-power cases are now shown in a new appendix figure. We have also performed and report open-field-line boundary-condition sensitivity tests (varying sheath boundary parameters and neutral source strength) that confirm the steady-state profiles remain robust. These additions substantiate that the reported low-power hot SOL is an equilibrated feature rather than a transient. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The turbulence regime classification (ITG vs. TEM) and the power-dependence conclusions rest on the assumption that the global full-f runs have reached a statistically stationary state in both closed and open-field-line regions. Without reported checks for stationarity of heat fluxes or profile evolution in the SOL, it is difficult to rule out that the low-power vs. high-power contrast is influenced by incomplete relaxation rather than the claimed physical mechanism.

    Authors: We concur that stationarity checks are essential for the power-dependence conclusions. The revised manuscript now includes time histories of volume-integrated heat fluxes and radial profiles in both closed-flux-surface and SOL regions for representative members of the power scan. These traces show that, following an initial relaxation phase, the quantities exhibit bounded fluctuations around a constant mean with no secular drift over the final 20–30 % of each simulation. This evidence confirms that the ITG/TEM classification and the reported shaping effects reflect statistically stationary states. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results from direct numerical simulation

full rationale

The manuscript presents results from hundreds of full-f global gyrokinetic simulations evolved to steady state in TCV-inspired geometry, followed by post-processing of profiles, turbulent transport fingerprinting, and confirmation via separate local linear gyrokinetic runs. No load-bearing derivation, parameter fit, or prediction is claimed that reduces by construction to the simulation inputs or to a self-citation chain. The neoclassical trapped-ion interpretation is offered as qualitative explanation of observed trends rather than a fitted or self-defined quantity. The work is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard gyrokinetic ordering assumptions, the validity of the chosen collision operator and neutral model, and the numerical convergence of each run to steady state; no new entities are postulated.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Gyrokinetic ordering remains valid across the closed-flux and open-field-line regions in the scanned parameter space
    Invoked implicitly when applying full-f gyrokinetics to the entire boundary domain
  • domain assumption The TCV-inspired geometry and limiter placement are representative of the physical mechanisms under study
    Used to interpret the triangularity effect on field-line arc length and neutral interaction

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5816 in / 1458 out tokens · 49217 ms · 2026-05-19T18:02:13.178512+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    to provide a more robust setup for the large number of simulations of the scan, which is not tweaked case by case. In the following section, we verify that each simulation reaches a statistical steady state and then analyze the resulting confinement properties across the scan, from ion temperatures in the edge and SOL to the normalized gradients at the se...

    work page

  2. [2]

    A. J. Creely, M. J. Greenwald, S. B. Ballinger, D. Brun- ner, J. Canik, J. Doody, T. Fülöp, D. T. Garnier, R. Granetz, T. K. Gray, C. Holland, N. T. Howard, 9 J. W. Hughes, J. H. Irby, V. A. Izzo, G. J. Kramer, A. Q. Kuang, B. LaBombard, Y. Lin, B. Lipschultz, N. C. Logan, J. D. Lore, E. S. Marmar, K. Montes, R. T. Mumgaard, C. Paz-Soldan, C. Rea, M. L. R...

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Hegna, D

    C. Hegna, D. Anderson, E. Andrew, A. Ayilaran, A. Bader, T. Bohm, K. C. Mata, J. Canik, L. Carba- jal, A. Cerfon, and et al., Journal of Plasma Physics91, E76 (2025)

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Lion, J.-C

    J. Lion, J.-C. Anglès, L. Bonauer, A. Bañón Navarro, S. Cadena Ceron, R. Davies, M. Drevlak, N. Foppiani, J. Geiger, A. Goodman, W. Guo, E. Guiraud, F. Hernán- dez, S. Henneberg, R. Herrero, C. Hintze, H. Höchter, J. Jelonnek, F. Jenko, R. Jorge, M. Kaiser, M. Kubie, E. Lascas Neto, H. Laqua, M. Leoni, J. Lobsien, V. Mau- rin, A. Merlo, D. Middleton-Gear,...

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Swanson, S

    C. Swanson, S. Kumar, D. Duda, E. Flom, W. Kalb, T. Kruger, M. Martin, J. Olatunji,et al., Overview of the Helios design: A practical planar coil stellarator fu- sion power plant (n.d.), white paper (not published in a journal). Accessed: 2026-03-07

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    Wagner, G

    F. Wagner, G. Becker, K. Behringer, D. Campbell, A. Eberhagen, W. Engelhardt, G. Fussmann, O. Gehre, J. Gernhardt, G. v. Gierke, G. Haas, M. Huang, F. Karger, M. Keilhacker, O. Klüber, M. Kornherr, K. Lackner, G. Lisitano, G. G. Lister, H. M. Mayer, D. Meisel, E. R. Müller, H. Murmann, H. Niedermeyer, W. Poschenrieder, H. Rapp, H. Röhr, F. Schneider, G. S...

    work page 1982

  7. [7]

    Pochelon, T

    A. Pochelon, T. P. Goodman, M. Henderson, C. Angioni, R. Behn, S. Coda, F. Hofmann, J.-P. Hogge, N. Kirneva, A. A. Martynov, J.-M. Moret, Z. A. Pietrzyk, F. Por- celli, H. Reimerdes, J. Rommers, E. Rossi, O. Sauter, M. Q. Tran, H. Weisen, S. Alberti, S. Barry, P. Blan- chard, P. Bosshard, R. Chavan, B. P. Duval, Y. V. Es- ipchuck, D. Fasel, A. Favre, S. F...

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    Marinoni, M

    A. Marinoni, M. E. Austin, A. W. Hyatt, M. L. Walker, J. Candy, C. Chrystal, C. J. Lasnier, G. R. McKee, T. Odstrčil, C. C. Petty, M. Porkolab, J. C. Rost, O. Sauter, S. P. Smith, G. M. Staebler, C. Sung, K. E. Thome, A. D. Turnbull, and L. Zeng, Physics of Plasmas 26, 042515 (2019)

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    J. C. Adam, W. M. Tang, and P. H. Rutherford, Physics of Fluids19, 561 (1976)

    work page 1976

  10. [10]

    P. C. Liewer, Nuclear Fusion25, 543 (1985)

    work page 1985

  11. [11]

    Romanelli, Physics of Fluids B1, 1018 (1989)

    F. Romanelli, Physics of Fluids B1, 1018 (1989)

    work page 1989

  12. [12]

    Rewoldt, W

    G. Rewoldt, W. M. Tang, and R. J. Hastie, The Physics of Fluids30, 807 (1987)

    work page 1987

  13. [13]

    G. M. Staebler, J. E. Kinsey, and R. E. Waltz, Physics of Plasmas12, 1 (2005)

    work page 2005

  14. [14]

    Bourdelle, X

    C. Bourdelle, X. Garbet, F. Imbeaux, A. Casati, N. Dubuit, R. Guirlet, and T. Parisot, Physics of Plasmas 14, 112501 (2007)

    work page 2007

  15. [15]

    H. Sun, J. Ball, S. Brunner, and A. Volčokas, arXiv 2311.07159 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Avdeeva, K

    G. Avdeeva, K. Thome, S. Smith, D. Battaglia, C. Clauser, W. Guttenfelder, S. Kaye, J. McClenaghan, O. Meneghini, T. Odstrcil, and G. Staebler, Nuclear Fu- sion63, 126020 (2023)

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    P. J. Catto, Plasma Physics20, 719 (1978)

    work page 1978

  18. [18]

    M. A. Beer and G. W. Hammett, Physics of Plasmas3, 4046 (1996)

    work page 1996

  19. [19]

    Jenko, W

    F. Jenko, W. Dorland, and M. Kotschenreuther, Physics of Plasmas7, 1904 (2000)

    work page 1904

  20. [20]

    A. A. Schekochihin, S. C. Cowley, W. Dorland, G. W. Hammett, G. G. Howes, G. G. Plunk, E. Quataert, and T. Tatsuno, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion50, 124024 (2008)

    work page 2008

  21. [21]

    A. J. Brizard and T. S. Hahm, Reviews of Modern Physics79, 421 (2007)

    work page 2007

  22. [22]

    Dorland and G

    W. Dorland and G. W. Hammett, Physics of Fluids B5, 812 (1993)

    work page 1993

  23. [23]

    Hoffmann, B

    A. Hoffmann, B. Frei, and P. Ricci, Journal of Plasma Physics89, 905890214 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Mandell, W

    N. Mandell, W. Dorland, I. Abel, R. Gaur, P. Kim, M. Martin, and T. Qian, Journal of Plasma Physics90, 905900402 (2024)

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    E. G. Highcock, A. A. Schekochihin, S. C. Cowley, M. Barnes, F. I. Parra, C. M. Roach, and W. Dorland, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 265001 (2012)

    work page 2012

  26. [26]

    P. Kim, S. Buller, R. Conlin, W. Dorland, D. W. Dudt, R. Gaur, R. Jorge, E. Kolemen, M. Landreman, N. R. Mandell, and D. Panici, arXiv 2310.18842 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Guttenfelder, N

    W. Guttenfelder, N. Mandell, G. Le Bars, L. Singh, A. Bader, K. Camacho Mata, J. Canik, L. Carbajal, A. Cerfon, N. Davila, and et al., Journal of Plasma Physics91, E83 (2025)

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    E. G. Highcock, N. R. Mandell, M. Barnes, and W. Dor- land, Journal of Plasma Physics84, 905840208 (2018)

    work page 2018

  29. [29]

    P. Ulbl, D. Michels, and F. Jenko, Contributions to Plasma Physics , e202100180 (2021)

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    C. S. Chang, S. Ku, A. Loarte, V. Parail, F. Köchl, M. Romanelli, R. Maingi, J. W. Ahn, T. Gray, J. Hughes, B. LaBombard, T. Leonard, M. Makowski, and J. Terry, Nuclear Fusion57, 116023 (2017)

    work page 2017

  31. [31]

    J. Juno, A. Hakim, J. TenBarge, E. Shi, and W. Dorland, Journal of Computational Physics353, 110 (2018)

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    Hakim, The Gkeyll code: documentation home

    A. Hakim, The Gkeyll code: documentation home. (https://gkeyll.readthedocs.io) (2022)

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    Francisquez, P

    M. Francisquez, P. Cagas, A. Shukla, J. Juno, and G. W. Hammett, Journal of Computational Physics558, 114852 (2026)

    work page 2026

  34. [34]

    B. D. Dudson, M. V. Umansky, X. Q. Xu, P. B. Snyder, and H. R. Wilson, Computer Physics Communications 180, 1467 (2009)

    work page 2009

  35. [35]

    Stegmeir, D

    A. Stegmeir, D. Coster, A. Ross, O. Maj, K. Lackner, and E. Poli, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion60, 035005 (2018)

    work page 2018

  36. [36]

    B. Zhu, M. Francisquez, and B. N. Rogers, Computer Physics Communications232, 46 (2018)

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    Giacomin, P

    M. Giacomin, P. Ricci, A. Coroado, G. Fourestey, D. Galassi, E. Lanti, D. Mancini, N. Richart, L. N. 10 Stenger,andN.Varini,JournalofComputationalPhysics 463, 111294 (2022)

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    A. C. D. Hoffmann, T. N. Bernard, M. Francisquez, G.W.Hammett, A.Hakim, J.Boedo, R.Rizkallah, C.K. Tsui, and the TCV team, Towards fully predictive gy- rokinetic full-f simulations: validation and triangularity studies in tcv (2026), arXiv:2510.11874 [physics.plasm- ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    S. Coda, A. Merle, O. Sauter, L. Porte, F. Bagnato, J. Boedo, T. Bolzonella, O. Février, B. Labit, A. Mari- noni, A. Pau, L. Pigatto, U. Sheikh, C. Tsui, M. Vallar, and T. Vu, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion64, 014004 (2022)

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    M. E. Austin, A. Marinoni, M. L. Walker, M. W. Brook- man, J. S. Degrassie, A. W. Hyatt, G. R. McKee, C. C. Petty, T. L. Rhodes, S. P. Smith, C. Sung, K. E. Thome, and A. D. Turnbull, Physical Review Letters122, 115001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    K. E. Thome, M. E. Austin, A. Hyatt, A. Marinoni, A. O. Nelson, C. Paz-Soldan, F. Scotti, W. Boyes, L. Casali, C. Chrystal, S. Ding, X. D. Du, D. Eldon, D. Ernst, R. Hong, G. R. McKee, S. Mordijck, O. Sauter, L. Schmitz, J. L. Barr, M. G. Burke, S. Coda, T. B. Cote, M. E. Fenstermacher, A. Garofalo, F. O. Khabanov, G. J. Kramer, C. J. Lasnier, N. C. Logan...

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Happel, T

    T. Happel, T. Pütterich, D. Told, M. Dunne, R. Fischer, J. Hobirk, R. McDermott, and U. Plank, Nuclear Fusion 63, 016002 (2023)

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    Marinoni, O

    A. Marinoni, O. Sauter, and S. Coda, A brief history of negative triangularity tokamak plasmas (2021)

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    Marinoni, C

    A. Marinoni, C. Chrystal, S. Coda, R. Coosemans, C. Marini, M. Podesta, O. Sauter, M. Agostini, M. E. Austin, E. Belli, J. Candy, M. Gorelenkova, D. Hamm, A. W. Hyatt, M. Knolker, M. L. Matina, P. Lunia, S. Mordijck, A. O. Nelson, T. H. Osborne, C. Paz-Soldan, L. Porte, U. Sheikh, F. Scotti, K. E. Thome, M. V. Zee- land, the DIII-D, and T. Teams, Non-dime...

    work page arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    T. M. Collaboration, G. Rutherford, H. S. Wilson, A.Saltzman, D.Arnold, J.L.Ball, S.Benjamin, R.Biela- jew, N. de Boucaud, M. Calvo-Carrera, R. Chandra, H. Choudhury, C. Cummings, L. Corsaro, N. DaSilva, R. Diab, A. R. Devitre, S. Ferry, S. J. Frank, C. J. Hansen, J. Jerkins, J. D. Johnson, P. Lunia, J. van de Lindt, S. Mackie, A. D. Maris, N. R. Mandell,...

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Yüksek and T

    N. Yüksek and T. Golfinopoulos, Feasibility of nega- tive triangularity equilibria in the sparc tokamak (2026), arXiv:2603.01208 [physics.plasm-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    Duval, A

    B. Duval, A. Abdolmaleki, M. Agostini, C. Ajay, S. Alberti, E. Alessi, G. Anastasiou, Y. Andrèbe, G. Apruzzese, F. Auriemma, J. Ayllon-Guerola, F. Bag- nato, A. Baillod, F. Bairaktaris, L. Balbinot, A. Balestri, M. Baquero-Ruiz, C. Barcellona, M. Bernert, W. Bin, P. Blanchard, J. Boedo, T. Bolzonella, F. Bombarda, L. Boncagni, M. Bonotto, T. Bosman, D. Br...

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Hakim, 10.5281/zenodo.20146930 (2026)

    A.C.D.Hoffmann, M.Francisquez, T.Bernard, G.Ham- mett, and A. Hakim, 10.5281/zenodo.20146930 (2026)

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20146930 2026

  49. [49]

    Lenard and I

    A. Lenard and I. Bernstein, Physical Review E11, 1456 (1958)

    work page 1958

  50. [50]

    J. P. Dougherty, Physics of Fluids7, 1788 (1964)

    work page 1964

  51. [51]

    Francisquez, J

    M. Francisquez, J. Juno, A. Hakim, G. W. Hammett, and D. R. Ernst, Journal of Plasma Physics88, 905880303 (2022)

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    M. A. Beer, S. C. Cowley, and G. W. Hammett, Physics of Plasmas2, 2687 (1995)

    work page 1995

  53. [53]

    R. L. Miller, M. S. Chu, J. M. Greene, Y. R. Lin-Liu, and R. E. Waltz, Physics of Plasmas5, 973 (1998)

    work page 1998

  54. [54]

    F. Riva, E. Lanti, S. Jolliet, and P. Ricci, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion59, 035001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  55. [55]

    A. C. Hoffmann, A. Balestri, and P. Ricci, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion67, 015031 (2025)

    work page 2025

  56. [56]

    Merlo and F

    G. Merlo and F. Jenko, Journal of Plasma Physics89, 905890104 (2023)

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    Balestri, J

    A. Balestri, J. Ball, and S. Coda, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion67, 105025 (2025)

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    J. Ball, S. Brunner, and C. J. Ajay, Journal of Plasma Physics86, 905860207 (2020)

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

    Francisquez, N

    M. Francisquez, N. R. Mandell, A. Hakim, and G. W. Hammett, Computer Physics Communications298, 109109 (2024)

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    E. L. Shi, G. W. Hammett, T. Stoltzfus-Dueck, and A. Hakim, Journal of Plasma Physics83, 905830304 (2017)

    work page 2017

  61. [61]

    E. L. Shi, G. W. Hammett, T. Stoltzfus-Dueck, and A. Hakim, Physics of Plasmas26, 012307 (2019)

    work page 2019

  62. [62]

    T. N. Bernard, F. D. Halpern, M. Francisquez, J. Juno, N. R. Mandell, G. W. Hammett, A. Hakim, E. Humble, and R. Mukherjee, Physics of Plasmas30, 112501 (2023)

    work page 2023

  63. [63]

    Gohil, K

    P. Gohil, K. H. Burrell, E. J. Doyle, R. J. Groebner, J. Kim, and R. P. Seraydarian, Nuclear Fusion34, 1057 (1994)

    work page 1994

  64. [64]

    Wagner, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion49, B1 (2007)

    F. Wagner, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion49, B1 (2007)

    work page 2007

  65. [65]

    Zholobenko, F

    W. Zholobenko, F. Jenko, K. Zhang, P. Ulbl, K. Eder, A. Stegmeir, C. Angioni, and P. Manz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 075101 (2026)

    work page 2026

  66. [66]

    Merlo, M

    G. Merlo, M. Fontana, S. Coda, D. Hatch, S. Janhunen, L. Porte, and F. Jenko, Physics of Plasmas26, 102302 (2019)

    work page 2019

  67. [67]

    Coroado and P

    A. Coroado and P. Ricci, Nuclear Fusion62, 10.1088/1741-4326/ac47b8 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ac47b8 2022

  68. [68]

    Garbet, P

    X. Garbet, P. Mantica, C. Angioni, E. Asp, Y. Bara- nov, C. Bourdelle, R. Budny, F. Crisanti, G. Cordey, L. Garzotti, N. Kirneva, D. Hogeweij, T. Hoang, F. Im- beaux, E. Joffrin, X. Litaudon, A. Manini, D. C. Mc- Donald, H. Nordman, V. Parail, A. Peeters, F. Ryter, C. Sozzi, M. Valovic, T. Tala, A. Thyagaraja, I. Voit- sekhovitch, J. Weiland, H. Weisen, A...

    work page 2004

  69. [69]

    Kotschenreuther, X

    M. Kotschenreuther, X. Liu, D. Hatch, S. Mahajan, L. Zheng, A. Diallo, R. Groebner, the DIII-D TEAM, J. Hillesheim, C. Maggi, C. Giroud, F. Koechl, V. Parail, S. Saarelma, E. Solano, A. Chankin, and J. Contributors, Nuclear Fusion59, 096001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  70. [70]

    Hoffmann, B

    A. Hoffmann, B. Frei, and P. Ricci, Journal of Plasma Physics89, 905890611 (2023)

    work page 2023

  71. [71]

    Balestri, J

    A. Balestri, J. Ball, S. Coda, D. J. Cruz-Zabala, M. Garcia-Munoz, and E. Viezzer, arXiv2403.14239 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    E. A. Belli, G. W. Hammett, and W. Dorland, Physics of Plasmas15, 092303 (2008)

    work page 2008

  73. [73]

    F. D. Halpern, S. Jolliet, J. Loizu, A. Mosetto, and P. Ricci, Physics of Plasmas20, 10.1063/1.4807333 (2013)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4807333 2013