pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25213 · v1 · pith:U2MIXCX7new · submitted 2026-06-23 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph

A toroidally spectral field solver in the X-point Gyrokinetic Code for accurate simulation of reduced magneto-hydrodynamic modes

Robert Hager , C. S. Chang , Thomas Gade , Eric Held , Seung-Hoe Ku , Alexey Mishchenko , Aaron Scheinberg , Benjamin Sturdevant This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 21:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph
keywords gyrokinetic particle-in-cellfield solverreduced MHD modestokamak instabilitiesspectral discretizationinternal kinktearing modeXGC
0
0 comments X

The pith

A new field solver in XGC drops the large aspect ratio assumption and uses toroidal spectral discretization to accurately model low-mode-number reduced MHD instabilities.

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

The paper introduces a new field solver for the global electromagnetic total-f gyrokinetic PIC code XGC. It targets large-scale reduced MHD-type modes such as internal kink, tearing, and peeling modes that the code's standard solver cannot treat accurately. The improvement comes from removing the approximation that the poloidal magnetic field is much smaller than the toroidal field, an assumption tied to large aspect ratio devices. Numerical cost is managed by applying spectral discretization only in the toroidal direction. The solvers can run in parallel so that the same simulation can address both MHD scales and ion-Larmor-radius microturbulence.

Core claim

By relaxing the large-aspect-ratio ordering that treats the poloidal magnetic field as negligible compared with the toroidal field and by discretizing the toroidal direction spectrally, the new field solver supplies the accuracy required for low toroidal mode number reduced MHD instabilities while keeping the computational effort tractable; it has been shown to reproduce analytic predictions and results from the gyrokinetic code ORB5 and the MHD code NIMROD.

What carries the argument

Toroidal spectral discretization of the field equations without the poloidal-versus-toroidal field magnitude ordering; this replaces the standard solver's large-aspect-ratio approximation while confining the added cost to a single periodic direction.

If this is right

  • The code can now treat internal kink, tearing, and peeling modes at the accuracy level needed for tokamak stability studies.
  • The regular and new solvers can be combined in one run to span the entire range from large-scale MHD modes to microturbulence.
  • Numerical complexity remains comparable to the original solver because the spectral treatment is limited to the toroidal direction.
  • Verification benchmarks confirm agreement with analytic dispersion relations and with independent codes ORB5 and NIMROD.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The method could allow existing XGC runs that already include kinetic turbulence to add self-consistent large-scale MHD dynamics without switching codes.
  • If the verification cases generalize, the approach reduces the need to couple separate fluid MHD solvers to gyrokinetic turbulence simulations.
  • The same toroidal spectral technique might be tested in other global gyrokinetic codes that currently rely on the large-aspect-ratio ordering for their field solves.

Load-bearing premise

Verification against analytic predictions and the ORB5 and NIMROD codes is sufficient to establish accuracy for the full range of intended XGC use cases involving reduced MHD modes in realistic tokamak geometries.

What would settle it

A side-by-side comparison, in a realistic tokamak geometry, of the new solver's linear growth rate for a specific low-n tearing or kink mode against a converged high-resolution MHD or gyrokinetic reference run that does not invoke the large-aspect-ratio ordering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25213 by Aaron Scheinberg, Alexey Mishchenko, Benjamin Sturdevant, C. S. Chang, Eric Held, Robert Hager, Seung-Hoe Ku, Thomas Gade.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Execution time per time step with the new spectral solver (a), and the approximate solver using the high aspect ratio approximation (b) for the internal kink mode benchmark discussed in Sec. 5.2. The number of poloidal planes Nφ (i.e., toroidal resolution) and particles (100 ptl/cell, 32,000 vertices per plane) scale with the number of compute nodes. thresholds for controlling coarsening rates and aggregat… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Magnetic field coefficients in Eqs. (33) and (34) as functions of the inverse aspect ratio for (a) a Cyclone-like magnetic field geometry and (b) NSTX discharge 132588. the field equation with Mad = 0 because this term (e.g., the adiabatic response in case of the gyrokinetic Poisson equation) can dominate the left hand side of the equation. We evaluate the error measure for two magnetic field geometries, o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Normalized difference E(n, m) from Eq. (42) between the accurate and the large aspect ratio approximated field equations for the test function ρ in Eq. (41): (a) Cyclone-like magnetic geometry at ε = 0.18, (b) NSTX discharge 132588 at ε = 0.41. -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 m -3 -2 -1 0 1 log10[E(n,m)] n=1 n=5 n=10 n=15 mres=nq [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cross sections of the error measure of the approximated field equation at various toroidal mode numbers for NSTX discharge 132588 at ε = 0.41 and q = 3.2. The dotted vertical lines indicate the resonant mode m = nq for each n. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relative difference between the approximated and exact field equation vs. toroidal mode number n and parallel wavenumber k∥ for (a) Cyclone-like geometry at ε = 0.18, and (b) NSTX discharge 132588 at ε = 0.41. 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 ε 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 E(n,n∥=-4) n=1 n=3 n=5 n=7 n=10 n=15 High-n limit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Relative difference between the solutions of the approximated and the accurate field equation for NSTX discharge 132588 and k∥R0 = −4 as function of the normalized poloidal flux ψN for different toroidal mode numbers. The dashed line shows the limit of the error for high toroidal mode numbers, Eq. (24). mode periods along the magnetic field over one toroidal circuit. For XGC, we consider Nφ = 8N (max) ∥ as… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Frequency, and (b) damping rate of the n = 2 shear-Alfv´en wave in a magnetic geometry with concentric circular flux-surfaces, inverse aspect ratio ε = 0.25, and safety factor q = 2. shear-Alfv´en wave propagation in slab geometry [77] 1 − 1 2k 2 ⊥ρ 2 s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Growth rate and frequency of the (n, m) = (1, 1) internal kink mode in XGC, NIMROD (MHD, 2-fluid, and MHD+kinetic closure) compared to GTS [52]. (b) Radial envelope of the Fourier modes m = 1, 2, and 3 of the electrostatic potential (compare to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Mode structure of the (n, m) = (1, 1) component of the radial electric field Er of the kink mode in (a) XGC and (b) NIMROD. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of the growth rate of the collisionless tearing mode between XGC and ORB5. mode structure [Figs. 8 (b) and 9] and βe dependence of the growth rates, the benchmark of the internal kink mode is generally successful. The scatter in the growth rates and frequencies [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Mode structure of the collisionless (n, m) = (1, 2) tearing mode. (a) Electrostatic potential on a radial-poloidal cross section. (b) Normalized amplitude of the (n, m) = (1, 2) Fourier coefficient of the electrostatic potential. The dotted line indicates the q = 2 resonant surface. (150 · 103ωci < t < 220 · 103ωci) normalized radial envelope of the electrostatic potential perturbation shown in [PITH_FUL… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Amplitude of toroidal mode numbers 0 < n < 12 of the electrostatic potential at r/a = 0.45 in a (nonlinear) electromagnetic reduced δf XGC simulation of the Cyclone-like case introduced in Sec. 4 using (a) the approximated field equations, and (b) the accurate field equations. in the core at low safety factors. In this regime, the approximate field solver can incur significant errors. For more accurate si… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A new field solver has been implemented in the global electromagnetic total-$f$ gyrokinetic particle-in-cell code XGC to extend the code's capability to large-scale reduced MHD-type instabilities in tokamak plasma. While XGC's regular field solver is accurate at typical microturbulence scales of the order of the ion Larmor radius in tokamaks with arbitrary aspect ratio, a more accurate field solver is required for large-scale (i.e., low toroidal mode number) MHD-type modes such as internal kink, tearing and peeling modes. The higher accuracy of the new field solver is achieved by dropping the (large aspect ratio) assumption that the poloidal magnetic field is much smaller than the toroidal magnetic field, while its numerical complexity is controlled by using a spectral discretization in the toroidal direction. To cover the entire spectrum from large-scale MHD-type modes to small-scale microturbulence, the regular and the new field solver can be run alongside each other. This work details the derivation of the new field solver, analyzes the differences between the XGC's regular and new field solvers, and verifies the new field solver against analytic predictions and the gyrokinetic code ORB5 and the MHD code NIMROD.

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

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a new toroidally spectral field solver implemented in the global electromagnetic total-f gyrokinetic PIC code XGC. The solver drops the large-aspect-ratio assumption that B_pol ≪ B_tor to improve accuracy for low-n reduced MHD modes (internal kink, tearing, peeling), while spectral discretization in the toroidal direction controls complexity. The regular and new solvers can be run in tandem to span microturbulence to MHD scales. The work covers the derivation, differences from the existing solver, and verification against analytic predictions plus the ORB5 gyrokinetic and NIMROD MHD codes.

Significance. If the accuracy demonstrated in the verification cases carries over to XGC's full particle-in-cell framework on realistic diverted geometries, the solver would meaningfully extend gyrokinetic codes to large-scale MHD instabilities without sacrificing the ability to treat arbitrary aspect ratio. The cross-code comparisons and analytic checks provide concrete support for the core numerical approach.

major comments (1)
  1. [Verification section] Verification section: the reported comparisons are performed against analytic predictions and standalone runs of ORB5 and NIMROD, but the manuscript does not show results of the new solver when embedded in XGC's total-f electromagnetic PIC framework on diverted tokamak geometries with X-points. Because the target application involves self-consistent particle dynamics, field-line following, and X-point handling that differ from the verification setups, it remains unclear whether the claimed accuracy improvement transfers directly to the intended XGC use cases.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of the work's significance and for the detailed comment on the verification section. We address the point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Verification section] Verification section: the reported comparisons are performed against analytic predictions and standalone runs of ORB5 and NIMROD, but the manuscript does not show results of the new solver when embedded in XGC's total-f electromagnetic PIC framework on diverted tokamak geometries with X-points. Because the target application involves self-consistent particle dynamics, field-line following, and X-point handling that differ from the verification setups, it remains unclear whether the claimed accuracy improvement transfers directly to the intended XGC use cases.

    Authors: We agree that the ultimate validation of the new solver requires its use within XGC's full total-f electromagnetic PIC framework on diverted geometries. The present manuscript is deliberately scoped to the derivation of the toroidally spectral solver, the analysis of its differences from the existing solver, and verification of the field solver itself against analytic predictions, ORB5, and NIMROD. These comparisons isolate the accuracy of the field solution for low-n modes without conflating it with particle dynamics or X-point handling. Full self-consistent XGC runs with the new solver are part of ongoing development and will be presented in follow-on work. In revision we will add an explicit statement of the paper's scope in the verification section together with a brief discussion of why the isolated solver tests support transferability to the target applications. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in derivation of toroidally spectral field solver

full rationale

The paper presents a derivation of a new field solver by explicitly dropping the B_pol << B_tor assumption and introducing toroidal spectral discretization to control complexity. This is framed as an extension of standard gyrokinetic field equations for low-n MHD modes, with verification performed against independent analytic predictions and external codes (ORB5, NIMROD). No steps reduce by construction to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations; the derivation chain remains self-contained against external benchmarks and does not rename known results or smuggle ansatzes via prior author work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard gyrokinetic and MHD modeling assumptions plus the decision to apply spectral discretization only toroidally; no new free parameters or invented entities are mentioned in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Large aspect ratio approximation (poloidal B much smaller than toroidal B) is the dominant source of error for low-n modes in XGC
    This is the assumption explicitly dropped to gain accuracy.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5778 in / 1233 out tokens · 24537 ms · 2026-06-25T21:21:16.811404+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ku S H, Hager R, Scheinberg A, Dominski J, Sharma A, Churchill M, Choi J, Sturdevant B, Moll´ en A, Wilkie G, Chang C S, Yoon E, Adams M, Seo J, Koh S, D’Azevedo E, Abbott S, Worley P, Ethier S, Park G, Lang J, MacKie-Mason B, Germaschewski K, Suchyta E, Carey V, Cole M, Trivedi P and Chowdhury J 2018 XGC URL https://www.osti.gov/doecode/biblio/12570

    2018

  2. [2]

    Ku S, Chang C, Hager R, Churchill R, Tynan G, Cziegler I, Greenwald M, Hughes J, Parker S, Adams Met al.2018Physics of Plasmas25056107

  3. [3]

    Hager R, Ku S, Sharma A Y, Chang C S, Churchill R M and Scheinberg A 2022Physics of Plasmas29112308 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/5.0097855

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0097855

  4. [4]

    Plasmas28034501 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0030937

    Cole M, Mishchenko A, Bottino A and Chang C 2021Phys. Plasmas28034501 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0030937

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0030937

  5. [5]

    Sturdevant B J, Ku S, Chac´ on L, Chen Y, Hatch D, Cole M D J, Sharma A Y, Adams M F, Chang C S, Parker S E and Hager R 2021Physics of Plasmas28072505 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0047842

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0047842

  6. [6]

    Leonard A W 2014Physics of Plasmas21090501 ISSN 1089-7674

  7. [7]

    Diallo A, Hughes J W, Greenwald M, LaBombard B, Davis E, Baek S G, Theiler C, Snyder P, Canik J, Walk J and et al 2014Physical Review Letters112ISSN 1079-7114

  8. [8]

    Laggner F M, Wolfrum E, Cavedon M, Mink F, Viezzer E, Dunne M G, Manz P, Doerk H, Birkenmeier G, Fischer R and et al 2016Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion58065005 ISSN 1361-6587

  9. [9]

    Burckhart A, Wolfrum E, Fischer R, Lackner K and Zohm H 2010Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion52105010 ISSN 1361-6587

  10. [10]

    Lee J, Yun G S, Choi M J, Kwon J M, Jeon Y M, Lee W, Luhmann N C and Park H K 2016 Physical Review Letters117075001 ISSN 1079-7114

    2016

  11. [11]

    Diallo A, Dominski J, Barada K, Knolker M, Kramer G J and McKee G 2018Physical Review Letters121ISSN 1079-7114 URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.235001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.235001

  12. [12]

    Dominski J and Diallo A 2020Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion62095011 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ab9c48 20 PreprintSubmitted manuscript

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ab9c48

  13. [13]

    Kim J, Choi M, Nam Y, Jhang H, Bak J, Hahn S, Sung C, Choe W and Ghim Y c 2020 Nuclear Fusion60124002 ISSN 1741-4326 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/abb2d6

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/abb2d6 2020

  14. [14]

    Dominski J and Diallo A 2021Physics of Plasmas28092306 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0050543

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0050543

  15. [15]

    de Vries P, Johnson M, Alper B, Buratti P, Hender T, Koslowski H and Riccardo V 2011 Nuclear Fusion51053018 ISSN 1741-4326 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/51/5/053018

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/51/5/053018 2011

  16. [16]

    Choi M J, Bard¯ oczi L, Kwon J M, Hahm T S, Park H K, Kim J, Woo M, Park B H, Yun G S, Yoon E and McKee G 2021Nature Communications12ISSN 2041-1723 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20652-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20652-9 2041

  17. [17]

    Kwon J M, Ku S, Choi M, Chang C, Hager R, Yoon E, Lee H and Kim H 2018Physics of Plasmas25052506

  18. [18]

    Kwon J M, Ku S, Chang C S, Choi M J, Hager R, Yoon E S, Lee H H and Kim H S 2018 Gyrokinetic XGC1 simulation study of magnetic island effects on neoclassical and turbulence physics in a KSTAR plasmaProceedings of the 27th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, Ahmedabad, Indiapp TH/8–1

    2018

  19. [19]

    Fang K S and Lin Z 2019Physics of Plasmas26ISSN 1089-7674 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.5096962

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5096962

  20. [20]

    Orlov D M, Cote T B, Heo J, Holland C, Howell E C, Kim S K, Lin Z, Nicolau J, Park J K and Yang S M 2023 Validation of plasma response and turbulence simulations across KSTAR core magnetic islandsProceedings of the 29th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, London, UK pp EX–P2/4 URLhttps://conferences.iaea.org/event/316/papers/28017/files/ 11143-Orlov_IAEA_FEC_2...

    2023

  21. [21]

    Wei X, Nicolau J H, Choi G, Lin Z, Yang S M, Kim S K, Lee W C, Zhao C, Cote T, Park J K and Orlov D submittedNuclear Fusion64

  22. [22]

    Evans T, Moyer R A, Burrell K H, Fenstermacher M E, Joseph I, Leonard A W, Osborne T H, Porter G D, Schaffer M J, Snyder P B, Thomas P R, Watkins J G and West W P 2006Nature Physics2419–423

  23. [23]

    Jeon Y M, Park J K, Yoon S W, Ko W H, Lee S G, Lee K D, Yun G S, Nam Y U, Kim W C, Kwak J G and et al 2012Physical Review Letters109ISSN 1079-7114

  24. [24]

    Suttrop W, Kirk A, Bobkov V, Cavedon M, Dunne M, McDermott R, Meyer H, Nazikian R, Paz-Soldan C, Ryan D and et al 2018Nuclear Fusion58096031 ISSN 1741-4326

  25. [25]

    Nazikian R, Paz-Soldan C, Callen J D, deGrassie J S, Eldon D, Evans T E, Ferraro N M, Grierson B A, Groebner R J, Haskey S R, Hegna C C, King J D, Logan N C, McKee G R, Moyer R A, Okabayashi M, Orlov D M, Osborne T H, Park J K, Rhodes T L, Shafer M W, Snyder P B, Solomon W M, Strait E J and Wade M R 2015Phys. Rev. Lett.114(10) 105002

  26. [26]

    Hu Q M, Nazikian R, Grierson B A, Logan N C, Park J K, Paz-Soldan C and Yu Q 2019 Physics of Plasmas26120702

    2019

  27. [27]

    Hu Q, Nazikian R, Grierson B, Logan N, Orlov D, Paz-Soldan C and Yu Q 2020Physical Review Letters125URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.125.045001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.045001

  28. [28]

    Ferraro N M 2012Physics of Plasmas19056105

  29. [29]

    Park G, Cummings J, Chang C S, Podhorszki N, Klasky S, Ku S, Pankin A, Samtaney R, Shoshani A, Snyder P and et al 2007Journal of Physics: Conference Series78012087 ISSN 1742-6596

  30. [30]

    Liu Y, Kirk A, Gribov Y, Gryaznevich M, Hender T and Nardon E 2011Nuclear Fusion51 083002 ISSN 1741-4326

  31. [31]

    Heyn M F, Ivanov I B, Kasilov S V, Kernbichler W, Joseph I, Moyer R A and Runov A M 2008 Nuclear Fusion48024005 URLhttps://stacks.iop.org/0029-5515/48/i=2/a=024005 21 PreprintSubmitted manuscript

    2008

  32. [32]

    Orain F, H¨ olzl M, Viezzer E, Dunne M, B´ ecoulet M, Cahyna P, Huijsmans G, Morales J, Willensdorfer M, Suttrop W, Kirk A, Pamela S, G¨ unter S, Lackner K, Strumberger E and Lessig A 2016Nuclear Fusion57022013 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/57/2/022013

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/57/2/022013

  33. [33]

    Orain F, Hoelzl M, Mink F, Willensdorfer M, B´ ecoulet M, Dunne M, G¨ unter S, Huijsmans G, Lackner K, Pamela S, Suttrop W, Viezzer E and and 2019Physics of Plasmas26042503 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5091843

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5091843

  34. [34]

    Mitterauer V, Hoelzl M, Willensdorfer M, Dunne M, Schwarz N, Artola J, Team J and Team A U 2022Journal of Physics: Conference Series2397012008 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2397/1/012008

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2397/1/012008

  35. [35]

    Sinha P, Ferraro N M and Belli E 2022Nuclear Fusion62126028 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ac948b

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ac948b

  36. [36]

    Liu C, Zhao C, Jardin S C, Ferraro N M, Paz-Soldan C, Liu Y and Lyons B C 2021Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion63125031 ISSN 1361-6587 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ac2af8

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ac2af8

  37. [37]

    Liu C, Jardin S C, Bao J, Gorelenkov N, Brennan D P, Yang J and Podesta M 2022Journal of Plasma Physics88ISSN 1469-7807 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022377822000952

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377822000952

  38. [38]

    Liu C, Jardin S C, Qin H, Xiao J, Ferraro N M and Breslau J 2022Computer Physics Communications275108313 ISSN 0010-4655 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2022.108313

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2022.108313 2022

  39. [39]

    Todo Y and Sato T 1998Physics of Plasmas51321–1327 ISSN 1089-7674 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.872791

    work page doi:10.1063/1.872791

  40. [40]

    Todo Y, Van Zeeland M, Bierwage A and Heidbrink W 2014Nuclear Fusion54104012 ISSN 1741-4326 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0029-5515/54/10/104012

    work page doi:10.1088/0029-5515/54/10/104012

  41. [41]

    Korving S Q, Mitterauer V, Huijsmans G T A, Loarte A and Hoelzl M 2024Physics of Plasmas31ISSN 1089-7674 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1063/5.0198299

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0198299

  42. [42]

    Hager R, Chang C, Ferraro N and Nazikian R 2019Nuclear Fusion59126009

  43. [43]

    Hager R, Chang C S, Ferraro N M and Nazikian R 2020Physics of Plasmas27062301 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5144445

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5144445

  44. [44]

    Taimourzadeh S, Shi L, Lin Z, Nazikian R, Holod I and Spong D 2019Nuclear Fusion59 046005 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088%2F1741-4326%2Faafe3a

  45. [45]

    Holod I, Lin Z, Taimourzadeh S, Nazikian R, Spong D and Wingen A 2017Nuclear Fusion57 016005 URLhttps://stacks.iop.org/0029-5515/57/i=1/a=016005

  46. [46]

    Wei X, Nicolau J H, Choi G, Lin Z, Yang S M, Kim S, Lee W, Zhao C, Cote T, Park J and Orlov D 2025Nuclear Fusion65026026 ISSN 1741-4326 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ada049

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ada049

  47. [47]

    Yoo M G, Wang W X, Startsev E, Ma C H, Ethier S, Chen J and Tang X Z 2022Physics of Plasmas29ISSN 1089-7674 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1063/5.0085304

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0085304

  48. [48]

    Mishchenko A, Bottino A, Hayward-Schneider T, Poli E, Wang X, Kleiber R, Borchardt M, N¨ uhrenberg C, Biancalani A, K¨ onies A, Lanti E, Lauber P, Hatzky R, Vannini F, Villard L and Widmer F 2022Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion64104009 ISSN 1361-6587 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/ac8dbc

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/ac8dbc

  49. [49]

    Navarro A B, Bard´ oczi L, Carter T A, Jenko F and Rhodes T L 2017Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion59034004 ISSN 1361-6587 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/aa557e

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/aa557e

  50. [50]

    Hornsby W A, Peeters A G, Snodin A P, Casson F J, Camenen Y, Szepesi G, Siccinio M and Poli E 2010Physics of Plasmas17ISSN 1089-7674 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3467502 22 PreprintSubmitted manuscript

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3467502

  51. [51]

    Zhang R, Chen Y, Ye L and Xiang N 2022Physics of Plasmas29ISSN 1089-7674 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/5.0067813

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0067813

  52. [52]

    Startsev E A, Wang W, Yoo M G, Chen J and Ethier S 2024Physics of Plasmas31ISSN 1089-7674 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1063/5.0217324

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0217324

  53. [53]

    Held E D, Kruger S E, Ji J Y, Belli E A and Lyons B C 2015Physics of Plasmas22ISSN 1089-7674 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4914165

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4914165

  54. [54]

    Lanti E, Ohana N, Tronko N, Hayward-Schneider T, Bottino A, McMillan B, Mishchenko A, Scheinberg A, Biancalani A, Angelino P, Brunner S, Dominski J, Donnel P, Gheller C, Hatzky R, Jocksch A, Jolliet S, Lu Z, Martin Collar J, Novikau I, Sonnendr¨ ucker E, Vernay T and Villard L 2020Computer Physics Communications251107072 ISSN 0010-4655 URL http://dx.doi.o...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2019.107072 2019

  55. [55]

    Ku S, Hager R, Chang C, Kwon J and Parker S 2016J. Comput. Phys.315467–475

  56. [56]

    Adams M F, Ku S H, Worley P, D’Azevedo E, Cummings J C and Chang C 2009 Scaling to 150k cores: Recent algorithm and performance engineering developments enabling XGC1 to run at scaleJournal of Physics: Conference Seriesvol 180 (IOP Publishing) p 012036

    2009

  57. [57]

    Zhang F, Hager R, Ku S H, Chang C S, Jardin S C, Ferraro N M, Seol E S, Yoon E and Shephard M S 2016Engineering with Computers32285–293 ISSN 1435-5663

  58. [58]

    Riaz U, Seegyoung Seol E, Hager R and Shephard M S 2024Computer Physics Communications295108982 ISSN 0010-4655 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108982

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2023.108982 2023

  59. [59]

    Hager R, Yoon E, Ku S, D’Azevedo E, Worley P and Chang C 2016J. Comput. Phys.315 644–660

  60. [60]

    Plasmas21032503

    Yoon E S and Chang C S 2014Phys. Plasmas21032503

  61. [61]

    Stotler D, Lang J, Chang C, Churchill R and Ku S 2017Nuclear Fusion57086028

  62. [62]

    Dominski J, Chang C S, Hager R, Helander P, Ku S and Yoon E S 2019Journal of Plasma Physics85URLhttps://doi.org/10.1017/s0022377819000722

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377819000722

  63. [63]

    Dominski J, Chang C S, Hager R, Ku S, Yoon E S and Parail V 2024Physics of Plasmas31 ISSN 1089-7674 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1063/5.0144509

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0144509

  64. [64]

    Kleiber R, Hatzky R, K¨ onies A, Mishchenko A and Sonnendr¨ ucker E 2016Physics of Plasmas 23032501 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.4942788

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4942788

  65. [65]

    Hariri F and Ottaviani M 2013Computer Physics Communications1842419–2429 ISSN 0010-4655 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2013.06.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2013.06.005 2013

  66. [66]

    Michels D, Stegmeir A, Ulbl P, Jarema D and Jenko F 2021Computer Physics Communications264107986 ISSN 0010-4655 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2021.107986

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2021.107986 2021

  67. [67]

    Shanahan B, Dudson B and Hill P 2018Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion61025007 ISSN 1361-6587 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/aaed7d

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6587/aaed7d

  68. [68]

    Scott B 2001Physics of Plasmas8447–458 ISSN 1089-7674 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1335832

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1335832

  69. [69]

    Fusion42614–633

    Luxon J 2002Nucl. Fusion42614–633

  70. [70]

    Hariri F, Hill P, Ottaviani M and Sarazin Y 2015Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion57 054001 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/57/5/054001

    work page doi:10.1088/0741-3335/57/5/054001

  71. [71]

    Balay S, Abhyankar S, Adams M F, Benson S, Brown J, Brune P, Buschelman K, Constantinescu E M, Dalcin L, Dener A, Eijkhout V, Faibussowitsch J, Gropp W D, Hapla V, Isaac T, Jolivet P, Karpeev D, Kaushik D, Knepley M G, Kong F, Kruger S, May D A, McInnes L C, Mills R T, Mitchell L, Munson T, Roman J E, Rupp K, Sanan P, Sarich J, Smith B F, Zampini S, Zhang...

    2025

  72. [72]

    Balay S, Abhyankar S, Adams M F, Benson S, Brown J, Brune P, Buschelman K, Constantinescu E, Dalcin L, Dener A, Eijkhout V, Faibussowitsch J, Gropp W D, Hapla V, Isaac T, Jolivet P, Karpeev D, Kaushik D, Knepley M G, Kong F, Kruger S, May D A, McInnes L C, Mills R T, Mitchell L, Munson T, Roman J E, Rupp K, Sanan P, Sarich J, Smith B F, Suh H, Zampini S, ...

    2025

  73. [73]

    Balay S, Gropp W D, McInnes L C and Smith B F 1997 Efficient management of parallelism in object oriented numerical software librariesModern Software Tools in Scientific Computing ed Arge E, Bruaset A M and Langtangen H P (Birkh¨ auser Press) pp 163–202

    1997

  74. [74]

    Chang C, Ku S, Hager R, Choi J, Pugmire D, Klasky S, Loarte A and Pitts R 2024Nuclear Fusion64056041 ISSN 1741-4326 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/ad3b1e

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ad3b1e

  75. [75]

    Dimits A M, Bateman G, Beer M A, Cohen B I, Dorland W, Hammett G W, Kim C, Kinsey J E, Kotschenreuther M, Kritz A H, Lao L L, Mandrekas J, Nevins W M, Parker S E, Redd A J, Shumaker D E, Sydora R and Weiland J 2000Physics of Plasmas7969–983 ISSN 1089-7674 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.873896

    work page doi:10.1063/1.873896

  76. [76]

    Sovinec C, Glasser A, Gianakon T, Barnes D, Nebel R, Kruger S, Schnack D, Plimpton S, Tarditi A and Chu M 2004Journal of Computational Physics195355–386 ISSN 0021-9991 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2003.10.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2003.10.004 2003

  77. [77]

    Sturdevant B J and Chac´ on L 2022Journal of Computational Physics464111330 ISSN 0021-9991 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111330

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2022.111330 2022

  78. [78]

    Fried B D and Conte S D 1961 I - IntroductionThe Plasma Dispersion Functioned Fried B D and Conte S D (Academic Press) pp 1–2 ISBN 978-1-4832-2929-4 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9781483229294500046

    1961

  79. [79]

    Mishchenko, Bottino A, Biancalani A, Hatzky R, Hayward-Schneider T, Ohana N and Lanti E 2019Comput. Phys. Commun.238194 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2018.12.002

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2018.12.002 2018

  80. [80]

    Startsev E A 2025 Private communication

    2025

Showing first 80 references.