Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 38 references

AGNI: A differentiable MHD stability solver & optimizer for magnetic confinement fusion devices

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AGNI is a differentiable, GPU-accelerated finite-n ideal MHD stability solver that recovers a stellarator's dominant m=n=4 interchange mode and returns accurate growth-rate gradients.

desk verdict Novel finite-n MHD stability optimizer, but the radial mapping discretization is suspect and the validation is too thin to certify it. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01750 v1 pith:Y6SFYWI4 submitted 2026-08-03 physics.plasm-ph

Rahul Gaur , Sanket Patil , Prateek Gupta , Djin Patch , Tony Qian This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.35.Py52.55.Hc
keywords idealMHDstabilityfinitetoroidalmodenumberstellaratordifferentiableoptimizationgeneralizedeigenvalueproblemspectraldifferentiationautomaticinterchange
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 AGNI, a stability solver built to make finite toroidal-mode-number ideal MHD instabilities directly optimizable. AGNI discretizes the ideal MHD energy principle in real space with spectral differentiation matrices, using geometry from an equilibrium calculation, and turns the stability problem into a Hermitian eigenvalue problem whose largest positive eigenvalue is the squared growth rate. The authors benchmark AGNI on a modified quasi-helically symmetric stellarator, recovering the dominant m=n=4 interchange mode with growth rate and eigenfunction in reasonable agreement with an established initial-value code. They also demonstrate reverse-mode automatic differentiation gradients of the growth rate with respect to equilibrium shape and profile parameters, agreeing with central finite differences. If correct, this closes a gap: previously only infinite-n ballooning stability could be optimized, while finite-n global modes had to be checked afterwards.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the discretized ideal-MHD energy principle δWp = λ δK, expressed as a generalized Hermitian eigenvalue problem Aξ = λBξ. Derivatives are taken by spectral differentiation matrices—Fourier in poloidal and toroidal angles, Legendre-Lobatto in radius with a mapping that clusters nodes where the mode peaks—and all geometry and metric coefficients come from the equilibrium. Two structural facts make the method fast and differentiable: the kinetic energy matrix is block-diagonal after node-major reordering, so its Cholesky factorization is O(N) rather than O(N³), and the shift-invert Lanczos iteration needs only the most unstable eigenpair. Reverse-mode automatic differentia

What would settle it

Select an equilibrium with a documented low-n kink or peeling instability and compute its growth rate with AGNI and with an independent finite-element stability code at matched resolution; if the AGNI eigenvalue converges to a different branch or disagrees beyond the grid-convergence tolerance, the variational discretization is not capturing the physical spectrum.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

AGNI's central claim is that a variational, pollution-free eigenvalue problem for finite-n ideal MHD stability can be assembled directly in real space from spectral differentiation matrices and equilibrium metric coefficients, and that the whole pipeline can be made differentiable. Discretizing δWp = λ δK with Fourier bases in angle and a Legendre-Lobatto radial grid gives a Hermitian problem Aξ = λBξ; a shifted rescaled radial component regularizes the axis, and a shift-invert Lanczos iteration isolates the most unstable mode. On a modified quasi-helically symmetric stellarator, AGNI recovers the dominant m = n = 4 interchange mode with growth rate and eigenfunction in agreement with an ini

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the pseudospectral discretization of the MHD energy integral produces a variational eigenvalue problem whose most unstable eigenvalue is the true physical growth rate; this is supported by only one resolution scan and a single external benchmark.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Finite-n ideal MHD stability becomes a gradient-optimizable objective, closing the gap with the existing infinite-n ballooning optimization capability.
  • Growth-rate gradients with respect to boundary shape and profile parameters are computed without re-solving the equilibrium, which is what makes high-dimensional design optimization tractable.
  • GPU evaluation is roughly an order of magnitude faster than CPU for both eigenvalues and gradients, limited mainly by memory at high resolution.
  • Incompressibility can be imposed inside the differentiable pipeline by raising the adiabatic index Γ, letting an optimizer target incompressible modes without dense projection matrices.
  • The solver extends in principle to tokamaks and mirrors once vacuum (external) mode coupling is added, as the authors state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the same gradient machinery could be combined with quasisymmetry and transport objectives in one multi-objective stellarator design loop; this is a direct next application of the reverse-mode gradients.
  • Because the near-marginal noise floor sits near |λ| ≈ 10⁻¹⁰ in the stated normalization, an optimizer pushing a configuration to marginal stability would need higher precision or a target well above that floor.
  • A natural stress test not reported here is a low-n kink or peeling-like case where the spectrum is not interchange-dominated; that would separate the discretization's capacity from the specific benchmark equilibrium.
  • The scalability of AGNI ultimately hinges on the preconditioned matrix-free solver the authors list as future work; without it, the dense-LU shift-invert path limits resolution to what fits in GPU or CPU memory.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents AGNI, a GPU-accelerated, JAX-based finite-n ideal MHD stability solver and optimizer. The authors discretize the Bernstein energy principle using pseudospectral differentiation matrices in real-space coordinates obtained from DESC equilibria, form a Hermitian generalized eigenvalue problem for the plasma displacement, and solve for the most unstable mode with a shift-invert Lanczos method. They benchmark the growth rate and eigenfunction against the initial-value code NIMSTELL for a modified Landreman–Buller–Drevlak quasi-helically symmetric stellarator, reporting agreement for the dominant m = n = 4 interchange mode. They also verify reverse-mode automatic differentiation gradients against central finite differences, measure CPU/GPU timings for eigenvalue and gradient evaluation, discuss finite-precision limits for near-marginal eigenvalues, and propose two ways of enforcing incompressibility. The stated contribution is a differentiable finite-n MHD stability solver that can be used for gradient-based optimization of stellarators, tokamaks, and mirrors.

Significance. If the discretization is correct, this is a timely and useful contribution: it extends differentiable MHD stability optimization from the infinite-n ballooning limit to finite-n global modes, and it brings GPU acceleration and JAX-based reverse-mode gradients to a class of problems previously handled by non-differentiable finite-element or initial-value codes. The paper contains concrete numerical comparisons with an external code, finite-difference gradient checks, resolution scans, and hardware timing measurements, all of which are valuable for a methods paper. The finite-precision resolution criterion in Section 4.3 is a sensible practical addition. However, the significance is conditional: the central validation rests on a single equilibrium/mode comparison, and the radial-mapping discretization contains an inconsistency that must be resolved before the variational and benchmark claims can be fully accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (26); Appendix A.2, Eq. (51); Appendix B, Eqs. (54)-(55), (59)] The radial mapping Jacobian is applied inconsistently. Equation (26) states that each discretized term carries the quadrature weight W_s W, and Eq. (51) gives D_{ρ_s} = W_s^{-1} D_ρ. For a term with two radial derivatives in the mapped coordinate, substituting (51) into (26) yields factors W_s^{-1} in the radial-derivative blocks, not a single W. However, the explicit discretized field-line bending terms in Eqs. (54)-(55) display D_ρ with only W, omitting the required W_s^{-1} factors, while Eq. (59) uses D_{ρ_s} explicitly and Eq. (61) uses C_{ρ_s} containing D_{ρ_s}. If the code assembles the displayed D_ρ forms, the radial weighting of Q^2 is not the discretization of δW stated in Eq. (26), and the computed eigenvalue is not demonstrably the physical growth rate. Please reconcile the notation, correct the formulas if needed, and add an analytic test case (e.g., a cylindrical equilibri
  2. [Section 5 and Table 3] The external validation is limited to one equilibrium and one mode, and the benchmark is not self-contained: the details of the NIMSTELL setup, reduction to ideal MHD, and convergence criteria are deferred to the under-review paper [31]. Table 3 shows the eigenvalue changing by more than an order of magnitude between the coarsest and finest resolutions (3.97×10^-6 at 8×24×4 versus 5.85×10^-5 at 40×48×16), yet no NIMSTELL value or uncertainty is given in the table, and the 6% growth-rate difference in Fig. 4 is presented without error bars. Because the radial-mapping issue above could represent a systematic discretization error, a single external match is insufficient to establish the variational, pollution-free claim. Please add an analytic test, a resolution study tied quantitatively to NIMSTELL, and a scan over the radial mapping parameters for the benchmark case.
  3. [Section 5.2, Eq. (46)] The gradient formula (46) is the standard expression for the derivative of an eigenvalue of a Hermitian problem at fixed matrix coefficients. The paper claims reverse-mode gradients with respect to boundary-shape and profile parameters 'without re-solving the equilibrium,' but the finite-difference comparison in Fig. 5 varies the boundary coefficient R_{b,10} and states that force balance is enforced for each equilibrium. It is not specified whether the DESC equilibrium solve is included inside the differentiated program and whether Eq. (46) is chained through the equilibrium solve, or whether the computed gradient is only at fixed equilibrium quantities. This distinction is central to the optimizer claim. Please state the chain-rule path explicitly and, where possible, verify the total derivative against finite differences.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1 and 3.2] The symbol ρ is used both for the physical normalized toroidal flux in [0,1] and for the computational Legendre variable in [-1,1] used with the mapping ρ_s=f(ρ). This makes equations such as (22), (25), and (26) hard to parse. Consider using a distinct symbol (e.g., u) for the computational coordinate.
  2. [Section 5, Eq. (45)] The expression for |δV| omits the Alfvén-speed and length normalization factors that appear in the physical growth rate γ = (√λ/a_N)(B_N/√(μ0 n_i M_i)). This is harmless for the normalized eigenfunction plots but should be stated if Eq. (45) is used standalone.
  3. [Section 5] The text says both codes solve for the 'most dominant n = 0 family' and then describes a 'm = n = 4' mode. The relation between the field-periodic n=0 family and the n=4 mode should be clarified for readers unfamiliar with stellarator mode classification.
  4. [Section 4.3 and Figure 2] The claim that without the instability drive all eigenvalues lie below 4×10^-10 is stated verbally; a quantitative axis label or a table entry for the largest stable eigenvalue would make the finite-precision argument easier to verify.
  5. [Data availability] The code is described as 'publicly available as a pull request' in the DESC repository. For a methods paper, a standalone repository with a DOI or versioned release would improve reproducibility and long-term access.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: AGNI's central eigenvalue and gradient claims are benchmarked against an external code (NIMSTELL) and finite differences; the only notable self-citation is the standard adjoint gradient formula, which is not load-bearing.

  1. other [Section 5.2, Eq. (46) and reference [35]]
    "The derivation of (46) is provided in the Appendix B of Gaur et al [35]."

    This is the only direct self-citation in the derivation chain. The reverse-mode gradient formula (46) is not re-derived in the present paper but attributed to the authors' own earlier article [35]. It is not load-bearing: Eq. (46) is the standard Rayleigh-quotient derivative for a Hermitian eigenproblem, and the paper independently validates the resulting gradients against central finite differences across a range of equilibria (Fig. 5). No fitted constant, eigenvalue, or eigenfunction is defined by this citation, so it does not make the central claim circular. Flagged for completeness only.

full rationale

AGNI's central claims are externally checked: the most unstable mode and growth rate are compared with NIMSTELL, an independent nonlinear MHD code reduced to linear ideal MHD, and the reverse-mode gradients are compared with central finite differences. No parameter is fitted to the NIMSTELL output and then reused as a prediction; the energy-principle discretization is derived in the paper from the Bernstein functional, and the benchmark agreement is an external falsification. The only self-citation is the adjoint gradient formula in Eq. (46), attributed to the authors' prior paper [35], but because that formula is the standard derivative and is verified against finite differences, it does not make the derivation circular. I also flag the Appendix B radial-mapping concern identified in review: Eqs. (54)-(55) and (59) appear to use D_rho with a single quadrature weight W rather than including the W_s^{-1} factor that Eqs. (26) and (51) would require for radial derivatives in the mapped coordinate, since (D_rho_s)^T (W_s W)(D_rho_s) = D_rho^T W_s^{-1} W D_rho. This is a potential correctness or verification gap--the paper provides no analytic test case with a known eigenvalue and only one external benchmark--but it is not a circularity: it does not show that any output was fitted from an input or that a cited result is equivalent to the target result. The circularity score therefore remains low.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the numerical convergence of the discretized energy principle and on the validity of the DESC equilibrium inputs. The free parameters are mostly numerical controls (boundary radius, mapping, solver settings), not physics fitted constants. No invented physical entities appear.

free parameters (4)
  • epsilon (inner boundary radius) = [1e-3, 1e-2]
    Dirichlet boundary is applied at rho=epsilon instead of 0 to avoid the axis singularity; the value is user-chosen and claimed not to affect results.
  • radial mapping parameters (m1, m2, x0) = m1=2, m2=3, x0=0.4 in derivative tests; benchmark values not stated
    The mapping f(rho) in Eq. (52) clusters collocation points toward x0; these parameters are hand-chosen and affect resolution near the mode peak.
  • initial shift sigma1 and adaptive factor c = sigma1=1e-3, c=2.5
    Algorithm 1 uses a user-supplied initial shift and fixed adaptive factor, chosen from numerical experimentation rather than physics.
  • Lanczos dimension nmv = 50
    Used in benchmarks to extract the most unstable mode; a solver setting that affects cost and robustness.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The single-fluid ideal MHD model (Eqs. 1-6) and the Bernstein energy principle (Eq. 13) govern the linear stability of the equilibria considered.
    Section 2 sets up the MHD equations and the variational form; all results depend on this physical model.
  • domain assumption The equilibrium from DESC satisfies force balance (F=0) and has nested flux surfaces, so the Clebsch-form magnetic field and geometric coefficients in straight-field-line coordinates are valid.
    Section 3 assumes the equilibrium is precomputed by DESC and used as input.
  • ad hoc to paper The discretized variational eigenproblem (Legendre-Lobatto in rho, Fourier in theta/zeta) converges to the true ideal MHD spectrum without spectral pollution, given the Hermitian structure and the radial rescaling.
    Sections 3-4 state that the symmetry of the energy integral guarantees Hermiticity, but no pollution-free convergence theorem is provided; support is only the resolution scan and the NIMSTELL comparison.
  • standard math The kinetic energy matrix B is Hermitian positive definite, so the Cholesky-based reduction to a standard eigenproblem is valid.
    Section 4.1 relies on the positive definiteness of B from the kinetic energy integral.
  • ad hoc to paper Imposing the Dirichlet condition at rho=epsilon (instead of rho=0) does not change the most unstable eigenvalue for epsilon in [1e-3, 1e-2].
    Section 4.2 avoids the axis singularity by moving the boundary inward; the claim that results are unaffected is asserted but not systematically demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Increasing the adiabatic index Gamma in the energy principle pushes compressible modes to higher stability and leaves the most unstable mode as the incompressible one.
    Section 6.2 uses the speed-of-sound trick to approximate incompressibility; the numerical demonstration supports it but it is not a rigorous limit.
  • standard math The reverse-mode gradient formula (Eq. 46) applies to the transformed eigenproblem and is implemented through automatic differentiation without neglecting the dependence of the Cholesky factor on equilibrium parameters.
    The formula is standard for simple eigenvalues; the derivation is referenced to the authors' prior paper [35], not shown here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AGNI: A differentiable MHD stability solver & optimizer for magnetic confinement fusion devices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y6SFYWI4

@misc{pith2026260801750,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AGNI: A differentiable MHD stability solver & optimizer for magnetic confinement fusion devices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y6SFYWI4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01750}
}
read the original abstract

The existence of an ideal MagnetoHydroDynamic (MHD) equilibrium does not guarantee its stability. Finite toroidal mode number (n) instabilities degrade performance in both tokamaks and stellarators and differentiable stability optimization tools to date have operated only in the infinite-n limit. We present AGNI (Analysis of Global Normal modes in Ideal MHD), a GPU-accelerated, automatically differentiable finite-n ideal MHD stability solver and optimizer. AGNI discretizes the ideal MHD energy principle pseudospectrally in real space using differentiation matrices and geometric coefficients from a DESC equilibrium, giving a variational eigenvalue problem for the plasma displacement, and efficiently finds the most unstable modes. Built on JAX, AGNI yields reverse-mode gradients of the growth rate with respect to boundary-shape and profile parameters without re-solving the equilibrium. We benchmark AGNI against the initial-value code NIMSTELL for a modified Landreman-Buller-Drevlak quasi-helically symmetric equilibrium, recovering the dominant m = n = 4 interchange mode with agreement in both growth rate and eigenfunction structure, and verify the automatic differentiation gradients against central finite differences. We quantify CPU and GPU cost for eigenvalue and gradient evaluation, establish the finite-precision limit on resolving near-marginal eigenvalues, and present a robust scheme to impose incompressibility, one of which is compatible with gradient-based optimization. AGNI will allow us to optimize tokamaks, stellarators, and mirrors against ideal MHD instabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01750 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We present two equivalent ways of representing the kinetic energy matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Full eigenspectrum of a stellarator equilibrium with and without the instability drive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Rotational transform (left), ion density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Benchmark comparing the eigenfunction for the most unstable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: We present the scan of the eigenvalue with respect to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the incompressible and compressible eigenvalues and normalized eigen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Calculation of derivatives of the analytical function in (50) and convergence with radial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Sparsity structure of the potential energy matrix for different choices of the radial basis. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    Verification of the NIMSTELL code via application to linear magne- tohydrodynamic instabilities in stellarators

    Sanket Patil et al. “Verification of the NIMSTELL code via application to linear magne- tohydrodynamic instabilities in stellarators”. In: under review (). url: https://cptc. wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/327/2026/07/UW_CPTC_26-1.pdf

    work page 2026

  2. [1]

    ELMs and constraints on the H-mode pedestal: peeling–ballooning stability calculation and comparison with experiment

    P. B. Snyder et al. “ELMs and constraints on the H-mode pedestal: peeling–ballooning stability calculation and comparison with experiment”. In: Nuclear Fusion 44.2 (2004), pp. 320–328. doi: 10.1088/0029-5515/44/2/014

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/44/2/014 2004

  3. [2]

    Investigating nonlinear magnetohydrodynamics in an op- timized, reactor-scale quasi-axisymmetric stellarator

    A. M. Wright and N. M. Ferraro. “Investigating nonlinear magnetohydrodynamics in an op- timized, reactor-scale quasi-axisymmetric stellarator”. In: Physics of Plasmas 31.8 (2024), p. 082509. doi: 10.1063/5.0215594

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0215594 2024

  4. [3]

    Low edge safety factor operation and passive disruption avoidance in current carrying plasmas by the addition of stellarator rotational transform

    M. D. Pandya et al. “Low edge safety factor operation and passive disruption avoidance in current carrying plasmas by the addition of stellarator rotational transform”. In: Physics of Plasmas 22.11 (2015), p. 110702. doi: 10.1063/1.4935396

    doi:10.1063/1.4935396 2015

  5. [4]

    Significance of MHD effects in stellarator confinement

    A. Weller et al. “Significance of MHD effects in stellarator confinement”. In: Fusion Science and Technology 50.2 (2006), pp. 158–170. doi: 10.13182/FST06-A1231

    doi:10.13182/fst06-a1231 2006

  6. [5]

    An energy principle for hydromagnetic stability problems

    I. B. Bernstein et al. “An energy principle for hydromagnetic stability problems”. In: Proc. R. Soc. A 244 (1958), p. 17

    work page 1958

  7. [6]

    Computation of the magnetohydrody- namic spectrum in axisymmetric toroidal confinement systems

    R. C. Grimm, J. M. Greene, and J. L. Johnson. “Computation of the magnetohydrody- namic spectrum in axisymmetric toroidal confinement systems”. In: Methods in Compu- tational Physics: Advances in Research and Applications . Vol. 16. Academic Press, 1976, pp. 253–280. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-460816-0.50012-9

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-460816-0.50012-9 1976

  8. [7]

    ERATO stability code

    R. Gruber et al. “ERATO stability code”. In: Computer Physics Communications 21.3 (1981), pp. 323–371. doi: 10.1016/0010-4655(81)90013-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0010-4655(81)90013-8 1981

Show all 38 references
  1. [8]

    GATO: An MHD stability code for axisymmetric plasmas with internal separatrices

    L. C. Bernard, F. J. Helton, and R. W. Moore. “GATO: An MHD stability code for axisymmetric plasmas with internal separatrices”. In: Computer Physics Communications 24.3–4 (1981), pp. 377–380. doi: 10.1016/0010-4655(81)90160-0

    1981 doi

  2. [9]

    Gruber and J

    R. Gruber and J. Rappaz. Finite Element Methods in Linear Ideal Magnetohydrodynamics. Springer Series in Computational Physics. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1985. isbn: 978-3-642- 86708-8. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-86708-8

    1985 doi

  3. [10]

    Numerical studies of edge localized instabilities in tokamaks

    H. R. Wilson et al. “Numerical studies of edge localized instabilities in tokamaks”. In: Physics of Plasmas 9.4 (2002), pp. 1277–1286. doi: 10.1063/1.1459058

    2002 doi

  4. [11]

    Resistive toroidal stability of internal kink modes in circular and shaped tokamaks

    A. Bondeson, G. Vlad, and H. L¨ utjens. “Resistive toroidal stability of internal kink modes in circular and shaped tokamaks”. In: Physics of Fluids B: Plasma Physics 4.7 (1992), pp. 1889–1900. doi: 10.1063/1.860041

    1992 doi

  5. [12]

    Computation of three-dimensional tokamak and spherical torus equilibria

    J. Park, Allen H Boozer, and Alan H Glasser. “Computation of three-dimensional tokamak and spherical torus equilibria”. In: Physics of Plasmas 14.5 (2007)

    2007

  6. [13]

    The direct criterion of Newcomb for the ideal MHD stability of an axisym- metric toroidal plasma

    A. H. Glasser. “The direct criterion of Newcomb for the ideal MHD stability of an axisym- metric toroidal plasma”. In: Physics of Plasmas 23 (2016), p. 072505

    2016

  7. [14]

    TERPSICHORE: A Three-Dimensional Ideal Magnetohydrodynamic Stability Program

    D. V. nderson et al. “TERPSICHORE: A Three-Dimensional Ideal Magnetohydrodynamic Stability Program”. In: Scientific Computing on Supercomputers II . Ed. by Jozef T. De- vreese and Piet E. Van Camp. Boston, MA: Springer US, 1990, pp. 159–174. isbn: 978-1- 4613-0659-7. doi: 10.1...

    1990 doi

  8. [15]

    Global ideal magnetohydrodynamic stability analysis for the configura- tional space of Wendelstein 7-X

    C. N¨ uhrenberg. “Global ideal magnetohydrodynamic stability analysis for the configura- tional space of Wendelstein 7-X”. In: Physics of Plasmas 3.6 (1996), pp. 2401–2410. doi: 10.1063/1.871924

    1996 doi

  9. [16]

    Steepest-descent moment method for three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic equilibria

    S. P. Hirshman and J. C. Whitson. “Steepest-descent moment method for three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic equilibria”. In: The Physics of fluids 26 (1983), p. 3553

    1983

  10. [17]

    Methods for the Efficient Calculation of the (Mhd) Magnetohydro- dynamic Stability Properties of Magnetically Confined Fusion Plasmas

    D. V. Anderson et al. “Methods for the Efficient Calculation of the (Mhd) Magnetohydro- dynamic Stability Properties of Magnetically Confined Fusion Plasmas”. In: The Interna- tional Journal of Supercomputing Applications (1990). doi: 10.1177/109434209000400305. 23

    1990 doi

  11. [18]

    Shift-and-invert Lanczos algorithm for ideal MHD stability analysis

    J. Chen, N. Nakajima, and M. Okamoto. “Shift-and-invert Lanczos algorithm for ideal MHD stability analysis”. In: Computer physics communications 113.1 (1998), pp. 1–9

    1998

  12. [19]

    The DCON3D code for the ideal MHD stability of stellarator equilibria with nested flux surfaces

    A. H. Glasser. “The DCON3D code for the ideal MHD stability of stellarator equilibria with nested flux surfaces”. In: Physics of Plasmas 32.8 (Aug. 1, 2025), p. 082504. issn: 1070-664X, 1089-7674. doi: 10.1063/5.0274154 . url: https://pubs.aip.org/pop/ article/32/8/082504/3357...

    2025 doi

  13. [20]

    Hydromagnetic stability of a diffuse linear pinch

    W. A. Newcomb. “Hydromagnetic stability of a diffuse linear pinch”. In: Ann. Phys. 10 (1960), p. 232

    1960

  14. [21]

    DESC: A stellarator equilibrium solver

    DW Dudt and E Kolemen. “DESC: A stellarator equilibrium solver”. In: Physics of Plas- mas 27.10 (2020)

    2020

  15. [22]

    The DESC stellarator code suite. Part 1. Quick and accurate equilibria computations

    D. Panici et al. “The DESC stellarator code suite. Part 1. Quick and accurate equilibria computations”. In: Journal of Plasma Physics 89 (2023), p. 955890303

    2023

  16. [23]

    The DESC stellarator code suite. Part 2. Perturbation and continuation methods

    R. Conlin et al. “The DESC stellarator code suite. Part 2. Perturbation and continuation methods”. In: Journal of Plasma Physics 89 (2023), p. 955890305

    2023

  17. [24]

    JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs

    Bradbury J et al. JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs . Ver- sion 0.3.13. 2018. url: http://github.com/google/jax

    2018

  18. [25]

    C. R. Sovinec, S. A. Patil, and J. V. Cauilan. Semi-Implicit Stellarator Magnetohydrody- namics with Nodal Spectral Elements . June 26, 2026. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.28613. arXiv: 2606.28613. url: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.28613

    2026 doi arXiv

  19. [26]

    W. D. D’haeseleer et al. Flux coordinates and magnetic field structure: a guide to a fun- damental tool of plasma theory . Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  20. [27]

    J. P. Freidberg. Ideal MHD. Cambridge University Press, 2014

    2014

  21. [28]

    Omnigenous stellarators with improved ideal and kinetic ballooning sta- bility

    R. Gaur et al. “Omnigenous stellarators with improved ideal and kinetic ballooning sta- bility”. In: Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 67.12 (2025), p. 125015. doi: 10.1088/ 1361-6587/ae1e9e. arXiv: 2410.04576

    2025 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Optimization of quasi-symmetric stellarators with self-consistent bootstrap current and energetic particle confinement

    M. Landreman, S. Buller, and M. Drevlak. “Optimization of quasi-symmetric stellarators with self-consistent bootstrap current and energetic particle confinement”. In: Physics of Plasmas 29.8 (2022), p. 082501. doi: 10.1063/5.0098166

    2022 doi

  23. [30]

    Gradients of functions of large matrices

    N. Kr¨ amer et al. “Gradients of functions of large matrices”. In: Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems 37 (2024), pp. 49484–49518

    2024

  24. [32]

    An adjoint method for gradient-based optimization of stellarator coil shapes

    E.J. Paul et al. “An adjoint method for gradient-based optimization of stellarator coil shapes”. In: Nuclear Fusion 58.7 (May 2018), p. 076015. doi: 10 . 1088 / 1741 - 4326 / aac1c7. url: https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/aac1c7

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    Adjoint methods for quasi-symmetry of vacuum fields on a surface

    R. Nies et al. “Adjoint methods for quasi-symmetry of vacuum fields on a surface”. In: Journal of Plasma Physics 88.1 (2022), p. 905880106. doi: 10.1017/S0022377821001264

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Spectrally accurate, reverse-mode differentiable bounce-averaging al- gorithm and its applications

    K. Unalmis et al. “Spectrally accurate, reverse-mode differentiable bounce-averaging al- gorithm and its applications”. In: Journal of Plasma Physics 92.3 (June 2026), E72. issn: 0022-3778, 1469-7807. doi: 10.1017/S0022377826101652

    2026 doi

  27. [35]

    An adjoint-based method for optimising MHD equilibria against the infinite-n, ideal ballooning mode

    R. Gaur et al. “An adjoint-based method for optimising MHD equilibria against the infinite-n, ideal ballooning mode”. In:Journal of Plasma Physics 89.5 (2023), p. 905890518. doi: 10.1017/S0022377823000995. 24

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Free-boundary ideal MHD modes in W7- AS

    P. Merkel, C. Nuehrenberg, and W. A. Cooper. “Free-boundary ideal MHD modes in W7- AS”. In: Invited and contributed papers presented by the theory group at the joint Varenna- Lausanne international workshop ’theory of fusion plasmas’ . Number: LRP–555/96. Sept. 1996, pp. 51–58...

    1996

  29. [37]

    Diffraction Theory of the Knife-Edge Test and its Im- proved Form, The Phase-Contrast Method

    F. Zernike and F.J.M. Stratton. “Diffraction Theory of the Knife-Edge Test and its Im- proved Form, The Phase-Contrast Method”. In:Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 94.5 (Mar. 1934), pp. 377–384. issn: 0035-8711. doi: 10.1093/mnras/94.5.377 . url: https://doi.o...

    1934 doi

  30. [38]

    An accurate and efficient scheme for propagating the time dependent Schr¨ odinger equation

    H. Tal-Ezer and R. Kosloff. “An accurate and efficient scheme for propagating the time dependent Schr¨ odinger equation”. In:The Journal of Chemical Physics 81.9 (Nov. 1, 1984), pp. 3967–3971. issn: 0021-9606, 1089-7690. doi: 10.1063/1.448136. 25

    1984 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.