Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Numerical asymptotics of near-axis expansions of quasisymmetric magnetohydrostatic equilibria with anisotropic pressure

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pressure anisotropy removes the third-order overdetermination that blocks near-axis quasisymmetric equilibria, and this paper's new code, pyAQSC, carries the anisotropic expansion to arbitrary order, demonstrated at sixth order.

desk verdict First working arbitrary-order anisotropic-pressure NAE code, with a solid sixth-order demonstration; the n=4 DESC outlier and hand-picked filter cutoffs are real concerns but fixable. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20475 v2 pith:LZXZM2LC submitted 2025-05-26 physics.plasm-ph

Lanke Fu , Eduardo Rodriguez , Rory Conlin , Amitava Bhattacharjee This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords quasisymmetrynear-axisexpansionanisotropicpressurestellaratordesignmagnetohydrostaticequilibriumoverdeterminationproblemhigh-orderasymptoticautomaticdifferentiation
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

Quasisymmetry is a property of a magnetic field in which the field strength, though not the full field vector, has a direction of symmetry; quasisymmetric plasma configurations lose much less energy through particle collisions. This paper argues that the long-standing obstruction to constructing globally quasisymmetric magnetohydrostatic equilibria—the overdetermination of the near-axis expansion at third order—disappears when the plasma pressure is allowed to be anisotropic. On that basis it presents pyAQSC, the first code that solves the near-axis expansion of anisotropic-pressure quasisymmetric equilibria to arbitrary order. The paper demonstrates the claim with a sixth-order quasi-axisymmetric equilibrium with anisotropic pressure, showing that residuals of the ordered governing equations are small and that the error between the near-axis solution and a global equilibrium solver scales as expected. If correct, the code opens a route to exact global quasisymmetry and supplies a fast, auto-differentiable tool for stellarator design and optimization.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the ordered set of recursion relations obtained by substituting power-Fourier series in $\epsilon$ into inverse-coordinate forms of the governing equations. At each order the iteration solves a small linear system: an ODE for the covariant component $B_{\psi n-2}$, algebraic expressions for $Z_n$ and $X_n$, a linear first-order ODE for $Y_n$, and—for the force-balanced problem—a coupled linear system called the looped equations that determines $\{B_{\theta n}, B_{\psi n-2,0}, Y_n^{\mathrm{free}}\}$ together with the average anisotropy $\bar{\Delta}_{n,0}$ two orders at a time. The recursion is evaluated pseudo-spectrally, storing the toroidal-angle dependence on a grid, and repeated derivatives are controlled by an empirical Fourier low-pass filter applied after each order.

What would settle it

Recompute the sixth-order equilibrium with the low-pass filter cutoffs increased or removed entirely, and check whether the ordered-equation residuals remain small and whether the apparent growth rate $\bar{\alpha} \approx 320 \pm 110$ and radius of convergence $\psi_{\mathrm{conv}} \approx (9.76 \pm 6.65)\times 10^{-6}\,\mathrm{T\,m^2}$ persist; if the residuals inflate or the measured divergence rate changes sharply with the cutoff, the convergence claim is filter-induced.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that pressure anisotropy removes the third-order overdetermination that has been interpreted as forbidding non-axisymmetric globally quasisymmetric magnetohydrostatic equilibria. The near-axis expansion, written in a quasisymmetry-adapted magnetic coordinate system with effective minor radius $\epsilon = \sqrt{\psi}$, is no longer forced to stop; at each order the magnetic equations $\{J, C_b, C_\kappa, C_\tau\}$ and the force-balance projections $\{I, II, III\}$ yield linear recursion relations that determine the flux-surface shape coefficients $X_n, Y_n, Z_n$, the covariant field components $B_{\theta n}, B_{\psi n-2}$, and the pressure coefficients $p_{\perp n}, \Delta_n$ from lower-order data. The paper validates this with a sixth-order quasi-axisymmetric equilibrium: the residuals of the ordered equations stay at the iteration-error level at every order, and the difference from a global anisotropic equilibrium solver follows the expected $O(A^{-(n+1)})$ truncation scaling for orders $n=1,2,3,5,6$. The measured radius of convergence is $\psi_{\mathrm{conv}} \approx (9.76 \pm 6.65)\times 10^{-6}\,\mathrm{T\,m^2}$, and the critical flux-surface radius where surfaces self-intersect appears to approach this value as the order increases.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the manually selected low-pass filter cutoffs—chosen by scanning candidate frequencies for low iteration error—do not hide genuine divergence or suppress physical modes; if the filters are too aggressive, the claimed convergence and validation residuals would be artifacts of the filtering rather than properties of the expansion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quasisymmetric equilibria with exact global QS and finite anisotropy can be constructed to arbitrarily high order, making high-order properties such as magnetic shear and detailed flux-surface geometry accessible for the first time in the anisotropic setting.
  • A sixth-order near-axis solution is convergent only within a small volume around the axis, but the radius of convergence can in principle be enlarged by optimizing the axis shape and profiles.
  • Truncated near-axis solutions can be extended to global equilibria by fitting boundary shapes and profiles, reaching quasisymmetry quality comparable to several existing optimized configurations without direct QS optimization.
  • Because the code is auto-differentiable and can be vectorized on GPUs, it can scan thousands of configurations per second and supply initial states that make global stellarator optimization markedly faster.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the observed approach of $\psi_{\mathrm{crit},n}$ to $\psi_{\mathrm{conv}}$ is real, flux-surface self-intersection is the mechanism that ends the series; a test is whether one more order narrows the gap further, and whether suppressing self-intersection by axis shaping enlarges the convergent volume.
  • Optimizing in the anisotropic solution space for low pressure anisotropy could locate equilibria that are nearly isotropic yet globally quasisymmetric, effectively sidestepping the isotropic overdetermination obstruction in the limit relevant to fusion plasmas.
  • The same recursion machinery is likely portable to other near-axis objectives—quasi-isodynamic or other omnigenous designs—where overdetermination also truncates isotropic expansions.
  • The code's auto-differentiability makes the radius of convergence itself a differentiable design objective, so enlarging the usable volume could be formulated as a gradient-based optimization problem.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents pyAQSC, a numerical implementation of the Rodriguez-Bhattacharjee near-axis expansion (NAE) for quasisymmetric magnetohydrostatic equilibria with anisotropic pressure. The authors claim that pyAQSC is the first code to solve this expansion to arbitrary order, and they demonstrate a sixth-order quasi-axisymmetric (QA) equilibrium with anisotropic pressure. The paper describes the recursion relations, the numerical methods (pseudo-spectral in the toroidal angle, finite Fourier series in the poloidal angle, JAX-based automatic differentiation), and the empirical low-pass filtering used to control high-frequency noise. Validation is attempted in two ways: internal residuals of the ordered governing equations (Fig. 1) and comparison against global DESC equilibria whose boundaries are constructed from the near-axis solution (Fig. 3). The paper also reports a measured radius of convergence, a study of flux-surface self-intersection, and a proof-of-principle DESC fit showing good quasisymmetry quality. The central claims are that pyAQSC correctly evaluates the recursion relations to sixth order and that it can serve as an initial-state tool for anisotropic-pressure quasisymmetric stellarator design.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a valuable contribution. The near-axis expansion with anisotropic pressure is a promising route around the Garren-Boozer overdetermination problem, and a robust, efficient, arbitrary-order numerical implementation would open new possibilities for stellarator optimization and for studying high-order properties of quasisymmetric equilibria. The paper's strengths include: (i) a detailed, self-contained presentation of the recursion relations and numerical implementation; (ii) internal residual checks at every order; (iii) an external comparison with the independent global solver DESC for five of six orders; (iv) the use of auto-differentiation and GPU vectorization, which are practically important for optimization; and (v) an open validation dataset. However, the validation is not yet fully convincing: the residual diagnostics are not independent of the manual Fourier truncation, and the n=4 DESC comparison visibly departs from the expected scaling. Because orders n=5 and n=6 consume n=4 data, the sixth-order validation currently rests on an unverified order.

major comments (3)
  1. [§7.3, Fig. 3] The n=4 data in Fig. 3 do not follow the expected O(A^-(n+1)) scaling, while n=1,2,3,5,6 do. The authors attribute this to 'numerical errors in the global equilibrium solver' but provide no resolution study, error bars, or convergence test to support that attribution. Since the n=5 and n=6 coefficients depend on n=4 data, the claim that pyAQSC is validated to sixth order cannot be fully sustained until the n=4 outlier is explained. I recommend recomputing the n=4 case with varied DESC resolution and varied Mmax,4, and either showing that the outlier disappears or identifying the source of the discrepancy. Without this, the 'sufficiently validated' conclusion in §7.3 is premature.
  2. [§6 and App. B.3] The manual selection of the low-pass filter cutoff Mmax,n at the 'elbow' of the iteration-error curve introduces a circularity in the validation logic. As described in App. B.1, every unknown is low-pass filtered before its residual is evaluated; therefore, the small residuals in Fig. 1 and the apparent exponential coefficient growth cannot, by themselves, distinguish a correct recursion from a truncation that removes the offending high-frequency modes. The authors should quantify the sensitivity of the results to the cutoff choice, for example by reporting coefficient magnitudes, residual errors, and the radius-of-convergence estimate over a range of Mmax,n values, or by adopting a regularization criterion that is independent of the residual being measured. This would address the concern that the convergence properties in Fig. 1 are artifacts of the filter.
  3. [§7.4 and Table 3] The DESC fitting procedure used in §7.4 is explicitly noted by the authors as designed for isotropic-pressure NAE ([31]), while the paper's novel capability is anisotropic pressure. The reported normalized force-balance error (6.058×10^-6) is computed with this isotropic-fitting method, so the demonstration that pyAQSC can serve as an initial-state tool for anisotropic-pressure equilibria is not yet fully supported. The authors should either implement and use a proper anisotropic-pressure fitting procedure or, failing that, temper the abstract and conclusion claims of 'comparing the RB method with DESC equilibria with anisotropic pressure' and present the §7.4 result as a proof-of-concept with a clear statement of this limitation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2] There is a typo: 'piAQSC' should be 'pyAQSC'.
  2. [§5.2, §A.5, §A.6] The manuscript refers to '3.2' in several places where a section number is meant (e.g., 'as discussed in 3.2' in §5.2 and §A.6, and 'see App. A.6' in §5.2). These should be updated to consistent cross-references.
  3. [§7.3] The notation in the sentence 'the aspect ratio An ∝ αn' is confusing: An is used both for the asymptotic coefficient magnitude and for the aspect ratio A in the DESC comparison. Please use distinct symbols and define them.
  4. [Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 captions] The captions are difficult to parse; for example, Fig. 2(b) and Fig. 3 contain 'crit, n' and 'crit, 1 = ...' without clear units or a definition of the plotted quantity. Please improve the captions so that the reader can understand the curves without referring to the text.
  5. [§9 and Introduction] The data availability statement cites a Zenodo dataset, but no repository or availability statement is given for the pyAQSC source code itself. Since the paper's central contribution is a code, please provide a code availability link or state clearly where the code can be obtained.
  6. [§7.2, Table 2] The table contains entries like '10 3×' and '10 2 ∼ 103×' that appear to be missing superscript formatting; these should be rendered as 10^3× and 10^2–10^3× for readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The low-pass filter cutoff is chosen from the same iteration-error curves that are later reported as internal validation, making the in-code residual check partly non-independent; the DESC comparison keeps the central claim substantially independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6 (Implementation) and Appendix B.3 (Empirical identification of filter frequency)]
    "The truncation mode number, Mmax,n, is manually identified by scanning a list of candidate frequencies and choosing a small number with low iteration errors. ... We choose the truncation mode number Mmax,n at the 'elbow' point of each plot, where the error becomes flat. The iterations are measured with the same method as in Fig. 1."

    Mmax,n is selected by plotting the iteration error versus the number of retained FFT modes, and the same type of error (maximum residual of the governing equations over the chi-phi grid) is then reported in Fig. 1 as evidence that the recursion relations are correct. Because every unknown is low-pass filtered before its residual is evaluated, a cutoff chosen at the flat 'elbow' ensures that the reported residual is small for the smooth, retained part of the solution; the diagnostic cannot by itself distinguish a correct recursion relation from one whose offending high-frequency modes were removed. Thus the internal residual validation is partly forced by the filter-selection procedure, even though the DESC scaling comparison remains an independent external check.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is a numerical implementation of the Rodriguez-Bhattacharjee near-axis expansion: pyAQSC evaluates explicit recursion relations order by order, and the main validation is against DESC, an independent global equilibrium solver. The DESC boundaries and profiles are generated from pyAQSC, but DESC solves a different set of global equilibrium equations, so agreement is not forced by construction. The self-cited RB theory is load-bearing for the paper's premise, but it is externally tested by the DESC comparison and by the observed O(A^-(n+1)) scaling of the boundary-field error for n = 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6; this prevents the self-citation from being circular in the sense of an unverified premise that is merely assumed. The measured radius of convergence is a property of the generated power series, not a fitted parameter, and the DESC fitting constants Cn are only used to draw the expected scaling lines, not to infer the exponents. The one genuinely circular piece is the internal residual check: the manual low-pass cutoff Mmax,n is chosen from iteration-error-versus-cutoff curves, and the same residual metric is then reported as proof that the symbolic order-matching and filtering are accurate. Since all unknowns are low-pass filtered before residual evaluation, the small residuals in Fig. 1 are partly a consequence of the filter choice rather than an independent test. This does not invalidate the central claim, because the DESC comparison is independent, but it means the in-code convergence diagnostic is not fully self-contained. The unexplained n = 4 DESC outlier is a correctness risk rather than a circularity: the order-5 and order-6 points use order-4 data, but the paper offers no resolution study to confirm that the deviation is a DESC artifact. Overall, the paper's main result retains substantial independent content, so the circularity score is moderate rather than high.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is the numerical implementation; the physical model and expansion scheme are inherited from Rodriguez and Bhattacharjee. The demonstration equilibrium depends on many user-chosen inputs. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • Axis shape R(Φ), Z(Φ) = R=1+0.1cos(2Φ), Z=0.1sin(2Φ)
    Input chosen for the demonstration QA equilibrium (Eq. 7).
  • On-axis pressure p0(ϕ) = p0 = 1/20 [1 + 0.1 cos(2ϕ)]
    Input chosen for the demonstration (Eq. 8).
  • Magnetic field strength coefficients B−0, B−1,1c, B−n (n≥2) = B−0=1, B−1,1c=-1.8, B−n=0
    Inputs defining the QS field strength expansion (Eq. 9).
  • Average anisotropy and toroidal current constraints ¯∆0, ¯Bθn,0 = ¯∆0, ¯Bθn,0 = 0 for n ≥ 2
    Chosen to reduce anisotropy and toroidal current (Eq. 10).
  • Low-pass filter cutoff Mmax,n = 45, 50, 45, 40, 35, 30 for n=1..6
    Manually selected to minimize iteration errors (Table 1, App B.3).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The magnetic field is weakly quasisymmetric in generalized Boozer coordinates.
    The magnetic equations (C) and (J) define the field as weakly QS in GBC, taken from [5,6,10].
  • domain assumption The pressure tensor has the anisotropic form Π = p∥bb + p⊥(I−bb).
    Force balance (F) uses this tensor form, from Rodriguez and Bhattacharjee.
  • domain assumption Nested flux surfaces and analyticity near the magnetic axis permit a power-Fourier expansion in ϵ = sqrt(ψ).
    Expansions (1)-(5) assume analyticity and even/odd Fourier series in χ, from [12,26].
  • standard math The ordered equations can be solved order-by-order, with the looped equations treated as linear systems under periodic boundary conditions.
    Linear algebra and ODE solving under periodic boundary conditions, as detailed in Appendix A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Numerical asymptotics of near-axis expansions of quasisymmetric magnetohydrostatic equilibria with anisotropic pressure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LZXZM2LC

@misc{pith2026250520475,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Numerical asymptotics of near-axis expansions of quasisymmetric magnetohydrostatic equilibria with anisotropic pressure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LZXZM2LC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20475}
}
read the original abstract

Quasisymmetry (QS) is a property of special magnetic configurations, where the magnetic field strength, but not necessarily the full vector field, has a direction of symmetry. QS leads to reduced neoclassical transport and thus can be a desirable property in stellarator design. The Garren-Boozer (GB) conundrum has been interpreted to mean that globally quasisymmetric magnetohydrostatic (MHS) equilibria, other than axisymmetric solutions, with isotropic pressure do not exist. When expanded as power series of an effective minor radius, the governing equations become overdetermined at the 3rd order. Despite this, recent optimization efforts have found numerical isotropic-pressure equilibria with nearly exact global QS. To reconcile these two perspectives, Rodriguez and Bhattacharjee (RB) showed that by introducing pressure anisotropy into the problem, one can overcome the GB conundrum. This formally enables the study of equilibria with exact, global QS. Building on RB's work, we present pyAQSC, the first code for solving the near-axis expansion (NAE) of anisotropic-pressure quasisymmetric equilibria to any order. As a demonstration, we present a 6th order, QA near-axis equilibrium with anisotropic pressure, and a convergence analysis. PyAQSC opens the door to the study of higher-order properties of equilibria with exact global QS. Like existing isotropic-pressure NAE codes, PyAQSC can accelerate stellarator optimization as an initial state tool. However, by optimizing for low pressure anisotropy in a space that allows anisotropy, pyAQSC may discover practical QS stellarator designs previously hard to access. We give results comparing the RB method with DESC equilibria with anisotropic pressure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20475 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Exponential divergence of the NAE at higher orders. The y axis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The left shows the last well-behaved flux surface at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The scaling behavior of pyAQSC. The dots represents DESC equilibria solved using pyAQSC boundary and profiles with varying n and A. The dashed lines traces y = CnA−(n+1). The value of the constant coefficient Cn in each line is chosen so that the line passes through the leftmost dot on each scatter plot, where ψboundary = ψcrit,n. 7.4 Initial states using pyAQSC To demonstrate the effectiveness of pyAQSC as a tool f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The boundary of the DESC equilibrium, and the magnetic field strength on the boundary. where R0 and a are the effective major and minor radii. Note that the procedure in [31] is designed for isotropic-pressure NAE. The purpose of this section is to demonstrate the effe…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A comparison between the triple product QS error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The magnetic field strength contour in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A 3-row by 2-column grid of plots. 37 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    Extending near-axis equilibria in DESC

    Dario Panici, Eduardo Rodriguez, Rory Conlin, Daniel Dudt, and Egemen Kolemen. Extending near-axis equilibria in DESC. arXiv:2506.05170. June

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    Existence of quasihelically symmetric stellarators

    D. A. Garren and A. H. Boozer. “Existence of quasihelically symmetric stellarators”. en. In: Physics of Fluids B: Plasma Physics3.10 (Oct. 1991), pp. 2822–2834. issn: 0899-8221. doi: 10 . 1063 / 1 . 859916. url: http : //aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.859916 (visited on 02/14/2023)

    doi:10.1063/1.859916 1991

  3. [2]

    Magnetic fields with precise qua- sisymmetry for plasma confinement

    Matt Landreman and Elizabeth Paul. “Magnetic fields with precise qua- sisymmetry for plasma confinement”. en. In:Physical Review Letters128.3 (Jan. 2022), p. 035001.issn: 0031-9007, 1079-7114. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 128.035001. url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 128.035001 (visited on 03/07/2023)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2022

  4. [3]

    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 (Aug. 2022), p. 082501. issn: 1070-664X. doi: 10.1063/5.0098166 . eprint: https://pubs.aip.org/ aip/pop/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0098166/19814696/082501\ _1\_online...

    doi:10.1063/5.0098166 2022

  5. [4]

    Precise stellarator quasi-symmetry can be achieved with electromagnetic coils

    Florian Wechsung, Matt Landreman, Andrew Giuliani, Antoine Cerfon, and Georg Stadler. “Precise stellarator quasi-symmetry can be achieved with electromagnetic coils”. en. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119.13 (Mar. 2022), e2202084119. issn: 0027-8424, 1091-6490. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2202084119 . url: https://pnas.org/doi/full/ 10.1073/pn...

    doi:10.1073/pnas.2202084119 2022

  6. [5]

    Generalized Boozer coordinates: A natural coordinate system for quasisymmetry

    E. Rodr ´ ıguez, W. Sengupta, and A. Bhattacharjee. “Generalized Boozer coordinates: A natural coordinate system for quasisymmetry”. en. In: Physics of Plasmas 28.9 (Sept. 2021), p. 092510. issn: 1070-664X, 1089-

    work page 2021

  7. [6]

    Solving the problem of overdetermi- nation of quasisymmetric equilibrium solutions by near-axis expansions. I. Generalized force balance

    E. Rodr ´ ıguez and A. Bhattacharjee. “Solving the problem of overdetermi- nation of quasisymmetric equilibrium solutions by near-axis expansions. I. Generalized force balance”. en. In: Physics of Plasmas28.1 (Jan. 2021), p. 012508. issn: 1070-664X, 1089-7674. doi: 10.1063/5.0027574 . url: http : / / aip . scitation . org / doi / 10 . 1063 / 5 . 0027574(v...

    doi:10.1063/5.0027574 2021

  8. [7]

    DESC: A stellarator equilibrium solver

    D. W. Dudt and E. Kolemen. “DESC: A stellarator equilibrium solver”. en. In: Physics of Plasmas27.10 (Oct. 2020), p. 102513. issn: 1070-664X, 1089-7674. doi: 10.1063/5.0020743. url: http://aip.scitation.org/ doi/10.1063/5.0020743 (visited on 04/09/2023)

    doi:10.1063/5.0020743 2020

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    Quasi-helically symmetric toroidal stellara- tors

    J. N¨ uhrenberg and R. Zille. “Quasi-helically symmetric toroidal stellara- tors”. In: Physics Letters A129.2 (1988), pp. 113–117

    1988

  2. [9]

    Transport and isomorphic equilibria

    Allen H. Boozer. “Transport and isomorphic equilibria”. In: The Physics of Fluids 26.2 (1983), pp. 496–499

    1983

  3. [10]

    Necessary and suffi- cient conditions for quasisymmetry

    E. Rodr ´ ıguez, P. Helander, and A. Bhattacharjee. “Necessary and suffi- cient conditions for quasisymmetry”. In: Physics of Plasmas 27.6 (June 2020), p. 062501. issn: 1070-664X, 1089-7674. doi: 10.1063/5.0008551. url: https : / / pubs . aip . org / aip / pop / article / 1535...

    2020 doi

  4. [11]

    Theory of plasma confinement in non-axisymmetric mag- netic fields

    Per Helander. “Theory of plasma confinement in non-axisymmetric mag- netic fields”. en. In: Reports on Progress in Physics77.8 (Aug. 2014), p. 087001. issn: 0034-4885, 1361-6633. doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/77/8/ 087001. url: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0034- 4885/77...

    2014 doi

  5. [12]

    Magnetic field strength of toroidal plasma equilibria

    D. A. Garren and A. H. Boozer. “Magnetic field strength of toroidal plasma equilibria”. In: Physics of Fluids B: Plasma Physics3.10 (Oct. 1991), pp. 2805–2821. issn: 0899-8221. doi: 10.1063/1.859915 . eprint: https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pfb/article-pdf/3/10/2805/12765372/ 2805\_1...

    1991 doi

  6. [13]

    Constructing stellarators with quasisymmetry to high order

    Matt Landreman and Wrick Sengupta. “Constructing stellarators with quasisymmetry to high order”. en. In: Journal of Plasma Physics 85.6 (Dec. 2019), p. 815850601. issn: 0022-3778, 1469-7807. doi: 10 . 1017 / S0022377819000783. url: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/ ident...

    2019

  7. [14]

    Direct construction of optimized stellarator shapes. Part 1. Theory in cylindrical coordinates

    Matt Landreman and Wrick Sengupta. “Direct construction of optimized stellarator shapes. Part 1. Theory in cylindrical coordinates”. en. In: Journal of Plasma Physics 84.6 (Dec. 2018), p. 905840616. issn: 0022- 3778, 1469-7807. doi: 10 . 1017 / S0022377818001289. url: https : ...

    2018

  8. [15]

    Direct con- struction of optimized stellarator shapes. Part 2. Numerical quasisym- metric solutions

    Matt Landreman, Wrick Sengupta, and Gabriel G. Plunk. “Direct con- struction of optimized stellarator shapes. Part 2. Numerical quasisym- metric solutions”. en. In: Journal of Plasma Physics 85.1 (Feb. 2019), p. 905850103. issn: 0022-3778, 1469-7807. doi: 10.1017/S002237781800...

    2019 doi

  9. [16]

    Direct construc- tion of optimized stellarator shapes. Part 3. Omnigenity near the magnetic axis

    Gabriel G. Plunk, Matt Landreman, and Per Helander. “Direct construc- tion of optimized stellarator shapes. Part 3. Omnigenity near the magnetic axis”. en. In: Journal of Plasma Physics85.6 (Dec. 2019), p. 905850602. issn: 0022-3778, 1469-7807. doi: 10 . 1017 / S00223778190006...

    2019

  10. [17]

    Direct construction of stellarator-symmetric quasi-isodynamic magnetic configurations

    K. Camacho Mata, G. G. Plunk, and R. Jorge. “Direct construction of stellarator-symmetric quasi-isodynamic magnetic configurations”. In: Journal of Plasma Physics 88.5 (2022), p. 905880503. doi: 10 . 1017 / S0022377822000812

    2022

  11. [18]

    Near-axis description of stellarator- symmetric quasi-isodynamic stellarators to second order

    E Rodr ´ ıguez, G G Plunk, and R Jorge. “Near-axis description of stellarator- symmetric quasi-isodynamic stellarators to second order”. en. In: (2024)

    2024

  12. [19]

    A single-field-period quasi-isodynamic stellarator

    R. Jorge, G.G. Plunk, M. Drevlak, M. Landreman, J.-F. Lobsien, K. Ca- macho Mata, and P. Helander. “A single-field-period quasi-isodynamic stellarator”. In: Journal of Plasma Physics 88.5 (2022), p. 175880504. doi: 10.1017/S0022377822000873

    2022 doi

  13. [20]

    Optimized quasisymmetric stellarators are consistent with the Garren–Boozer construction

    Matt Landreman. “Optimized quasisymmetric stellarators are consistent with the Garren–Boozer construction”. In: Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 61.7 (July 1, 2019), p. 075001. issn: 0741-3335, 1361-6587. doi: 40 10 . 1088 / 1361 - 6587 / ab19f6. url: https : / / iopscienc...

    2019 doi

  14. [21]

    Quasisymmetry

    E. Rodr ´ ıguez. “Quasisymmetry”. PhD thesis. 2022

    2022

  15. [22]

    Direct stellarator coil optimization for nested mag- netic surfaces with precise quasi-symmetry

    Andrew Giuliani, Florian Wechsung, Antoine Cerfon, Matt Landreman, and Georg Stadler. “Direct stellarator coil optimization for nested mag- netic surfaces with precise quasi-symmetry”. en. In: Physics of Plasmas 30.4 (Apr. 2023), p. 042511. issn: 1070-664X, 1089-7674. doi: 10....

    2023

  16. [24]

    Phases and phase- transitions in quasisymmetric configuration space

    E Rodr ´ ıguez, W Sengupta, and A Bhattacharjee. “Phases and phase- transitions in quasisymmetric configuration space”. In: Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion64.10 (Aug. 2022), p. 105006. doi: 10.1088/1361- 6587/ac89af. url: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ac89af

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Mapping the space of quasisymmetric stellarators us- ing optimized near-axis expansion

    Matt Landreman. “Mapping the space of quasisymmetric stellarators us- ing optimized near-axis expansion”. en. In: Journal of Plasma Physics 88.6 (Dec. 2022), p. 905880616. issn: 0022-3778, 1469-7807. doi: 10 . 1017/S0022377822001258 . url: https://www.cambridge.org/core/ produ...

    2022

  18. [26]

    Numerical determination of the mag- netic field line hamiltonian

    G Kuo-Petravic and AH Boozer. “Numerical determination of the mag- netic field line hamiltonian”. In: Journal of Computational Physics73.1 (1987), pp. 107–124

    1987

  19. [27]

    The high-order mag- netic near-axis expansion: ill-posedness and regularization

    Maximilian Ruth, Rogerio Jorge, and David Bindel. The high-order mag- netic near-axis expansion: ill-posedness and regularization. arXiv:2411.04352. Nov. 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.04352. url: http://arxiv.org/ abs/2411.04352 (visited on 03/18/2025)

    2024 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    Weakly quasisymmet- ric near-axis solutions to all orders

    E. Rodr ´ ıguez, W. Sengupta, and A. Bhattacharjee. “Weakly quasisymmet- ric near-axis solutions to all orders”. en. In: Physics of Plasmas29.1 (Jan. 2022), p. 012507. issn: 1070-664X, 1089-7674. doi: 10.1063/5.0076583. url: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0076583 (vis...

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Solving the problem of overdetermi- nation of quasisymmetric equilibrium solutions by near-axis expansions. II. Circular axis stellarator solutions

    E. Rodr ´ ıguez and A. Bhattacharjee. “Solving the problem of overdetermi- nation of quasisymmetric equilibrium solutions by near-axis expansions. II. Circular axis stellarator solutions”. en. In: Physics of Plasmas 28.1 (Jan. 2021), p. 012509. issn: 1070-664X, 1089-7674. doi:...

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    SIMSOPT: A flexible framework for stellarator optimization

    Matt Landreman, Bharat Medasani, Florian Wechsung, Andrew Giuliani, Rogerio Jorge, and Caoxiang Zhu. “SIMSOPT: A flexible framework for stellarator optimization”. In: Journal of Open Source Software6.65 (2021), p. 3525. doi: 10.21105/joss.03525. url: https://doi.org/10.21105/ ...

    2021 doi

  23. [32]

    JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs

    James Bradbury, Roy Frostig, Peter Hawkins, Matthew James Johnson, Chris Leary, Dougal Maclaurin, George Necula, Adam Paszke, Jake Van- derPlas, Skye Wanderman-Milne, et al. JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs. Version 0.3.13. 2018. url: http://github. com...

    2018

  24. [33]

    Figures of merit for stellarators near the magnetic axis

    Matt Landreman. “Figures of merit for stellarators near the magnetic axis”. en. In: Journal of Plasma Physics87.1 (Feb. 2021), p. 905870112. issn: 0022-3778, 1469-7807. doi: 10 . 1017 / S0022377820001658. url: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0022377820001658...

    2021

  25. [34]

    Measures of quasisymmetry for stellarators

    Eduardo Rodriguez, EJ Paul, and Amitava Bhattacharjee. “Measures of quasisymmetry for stellarators”. In:Journal of Plasma Physics88.1 (2022), p. 905880109

    2022

  26. [35]

    Design of the national compact stellarator experiment (NCSX)

    B. E. Nelson, L. A. Berry, A. B. Brooks, M. J. Cole, J. C. Chrzanowski, H. - M. Fan, P. J. Fogarty, P. L. Goranson, P. J. Heitzenroeder, S. P. Hirshman, et al. “Design of the national compact stellarator experiment (NCSX)”. In: Fusion Engineering and Design. 22nd Symposium on ...

    2003 doi

  27. [36]

    Advancing the physics basis for quasi-helically symmetric stellarators

    A. Bader, B. J. Faber, J. C. Schmitt, D. T. Anderson, M. Drevlak, J. M. Duff, H. Frerichs, C. C. Hegna, T. G. Kruger, M. Landreman, et al. “Advancing the physics basis for quasi-helically symmetric stellarators”. en. In: Journal of Plasma Physics86.5 (Oct. 2020), p. 905860506....

    2020 doi

  28. [37]

    ESTELL: A Quasi-Toroidally Symmetric Stellarator

    M. Drevlak, F. Brochard, P. Helander, J. Kisslinger, M. Mikhailov, C. N¨ uhrenberg, J. N¨ uhrenberg, and Y. Turkin. “ESTELL: A Quasi-Toroidally Symmetric Stellarator”. en. In: Contributions to Plasma Physics 53.6 (June 2013), pp. 459–468. issn: 0863-1042, 1521-3986. doi: 10 . ...

    2013

  29. [38]

    PyAQSC Validation Dataset

    Fu Lanke. PyAQSC Validation Dataset. May 2025. doi: 10.5281/zenodo. 15513872. url: https : / / zenodo . org / records / 15513872(visited on 05/25/2025)

    2025 doi

  30. [39]

    Array programming with NumPy

    Charles R. Harris, K. Jarrod Millman, St´ efan J. van der Walt, Ralf Gom- mers, Pauli Virtanen, David Cournapeau, Eric Wieser, Julian Taylor, Sebastian Berg, Nathaniel J. Smith, et al. “Array programming with NumPy”. In: Nature 585.7825 (Sept. 2020), pp. 357–362. doi: 10.1038/...

    2020 doi

  31. [2025]

    url: http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2506.05170 (visited on 06/06/2025)

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.05170. url: http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2506.05170 (visited on 06/06/2025)

    2025 doi arXiv

  32. [7674]

    url: https://aip.scitation.org/ doi/10.1063/5.0060115 (visited on 02/14/2023)

    doi: 10.1063/5.0060115 . url: https://aip.scitation.org/ doi/10.1063/5.0060115 (visited on 02/14/2023)

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.