pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.16243 · v4 · submitted 2025-10-17 · ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph

A flexible and differentiable coil proxy for stellarator equilibrium optimization

Lanke Fu , Dario Panici , Elizabeth Paul , Alan Kaptanoglu , Amitava Bhattacharjee This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 05:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.plasm-ph
keywords stellaratorcoil optimizationquasi-single-stagepermanent magnetsplasma equilibriumdifferentiable proxyfusion reactor design
0
0 comments X

The pith

A differentiable coil complexity proxy enables quasi-single-stage stellarator optimization that produces simpler coils and lower forces.

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

Stellarator design must trade off strong plasma confinement against the cost and complexity of the coils that produce the required magnetic fields. Traditional two-stage methods optimize the plasma first and then seek coils to match it, often yielding configurations that demand impractically intricate or forceful coils. Single-stage methods that optimize plasma and coils together have been limited to simple filament coils and suffer from numerical instability. This work introduces a fast, differentiable proxy based on the QUADCOIL coil solver that can be embedded inside the plasma equilibrium optimization loop. The proxy targets realistic coil metrics such as magnet count and force, allowing the optimizer to find equilibria that already favor easier-to-build coils.

Core claim

Embedding the QUADCOIL coil optimization code as a differentiable proxy inside the plasma equilibrium stage produces quasi-single-stage solutions with substantially reduced coil complexity; the approach yields a permanent-magnet design for MUSE that uses 29 percent fewer magnets and a coil design for ARIES-CS that lowers both peak and root-mean-square forces by 27 percent.

What carries the argument

The QUADCOIL code acting as a fast, differentiable proxy that ranks coil complexity and enforces realistic metrics and constraints during plasma equilibrium optimization.

If this is right

  • Permanent-magnet and dipole-array coil systems can now be optimized together with the plasma in a single framework.
  • Engineering constraints such as force limits can be enforced from the first stage of design rather than corrected afterward.
  • The method reduces the number of costly iterations between plasma and coil stages.
  • Coil metrics unavailable to earlier fast proxies become usable inside equilibrium optimization.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same proxy structure could be extended to include additional cost or manufacturability metrics not yet tested in the paper.
  • If the correlation between proxy and full optimization holds across more devices, the approach may shorten the overall stellarator design cycle.
  • The framework might allow direct inclusion of economic objectives such as total magnet volume alongside plasma performance.

Load-bearing premise

The proxy's ranking of coil complexity accurately forecasts the results that a full subsequent coil optimization would achieve without steering the plasma toward shapes that are unrealistic for coils.

What would settle it

A complete stage-two coil optimization performed on the quasi-single-stage equilibria that shows no reduction in magnet count or coil forces compared with conventional two-stage designs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.16243 by Alan Kaptanoglu, Amitava Bhattacharjee, Dario Panici, Elizabeth Paul, Lanke Fu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The values (left) and partial derivatives (right) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A comparison between the uniform-offset surface with our methods on NCSX, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Limitation of Alg. 2. This figure shows two self-intersecting planar curves produced by uniform offsets. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The values (left) and partial derivatives (right) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Outer flux surface of new vacuum field (A) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the dipole thickness and count among MUSE, MUSE++, and the two new vacuum fields. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The QS quality values (left) and rotational transform (right) of MUSE, MUSE++ and the new vacuum fields. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The augmented Lagrangian method does not accurately track the active constraint set. In this figure, both A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The multiplier µk,i values across all R00. Each column represents the change of one µk component with R00. The colors in this plot is normalized by the maximum value of each component across all R00. the optimum, which makes (19) numerically challenging to evaluate. To confirm this hypothesis, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Balancing plasma performance and coil cost is a significant challenge when designing a stellarator power plant. Most current stellarator designs are produced through two-stage optimization: stage-1 for the equilibrium and stage-2 for a coil design that reproduces its magnetic configuration. Because few proxies connect both stages, two-stage optimization can produce plasmas that have high-quality physical properties but overly complex coils. In recent years, single-stage optimization has increasingly been used to optimize the plasma and coils simultaneously in order to improve the plasma-coil balance. However, all existing single-stage tools are specialized for filament coils, cannot model coil systems containing permanent magnets (PM) or dipole arrays, and continue to be challenged by numerical problems. The quasi-single-stage (QSS) optimization finds a middle-ground by integrating a coil optimization subproblem into stage-1 optimization. We present a flexible, differentiable coil complexity proxy based on the newly developed QUADCOIL coil optimization code. QUADCOIL is fast and can target realistic coil metrics and constraints that are unavailable to codes with comparable speed. We demonstrate the effectiveness and flexibility of the QUADCOIL proxy by presenting two QSS optimization studies. The first study produces a permanent magnet solution for the MUSE stellarator with 29% fewer magnets than previous solutions. The second study produces a coil solution for the ARIES-CS stellarator with 27% reductions in both peak and root-mean-square force.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a flexible and differentiable coil complexity proxy based on the newly developed QUADCOIL code for use in quasi-single-stage (QSS) optimization of stellarator equilibria. This proxy integrates a coil optimization subproblem into the plasma equilibrium stage to better balance performance and coil cost. The authors demonstrate the approach with two QSS studies: a permanent-magnet configuration for the MUSE stellarator requiring 29% fewer magnets than prior solutions, and a coil configuration for ARIES-CS achieving 27% reductions in both peak and root-mean-square force.

Significance. If the proxy accurately ranks coil complexity in a manner that correlates with outcomes from full subsequent coil optimizations, this work could meaningfully advance stellarator design by providing an efficient bridge between two-stage and single-stage methods. The proxy's ability to target realistic metrics, handle permanent magnets and dipole arrays, and remain differentiable represents a practical strength for gradient-based workflows. The demonstrations highlight potential reductions in engineering complexity without sacrificing the core optimization framework.

major comments (1)
  1. [QSS optimization studies / demonstrations] The two QSS optimization studies (described in the abstract and corresponding results) report 29% fewer magnets for MUSE and 27% reductions in peak/RMS force for ARIES-CS based solely on QUADCOIL proxy values. However, the manuscript does not include a post-optimization validation step in which the resulting equilibria are re-optimized with an independent, non-proxy coil solver and the true metrics compared against two-stage baselines. This validation is load-bearing for the claim that the proxy produces genuinely lower coil complexity rather than proxy-specific artifacts.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states concrete percentage improvements without reference to error bars, explicit baseline definitions, or data exclusion criteria. Including these details in the results presentation would clarify the robustness of the reported gains.
  2. [Throughout manuscript] Acronyms such as QSS, PM, and QUADCOIL should be defined on first use and checked for consistent application across the text and figures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review of our manuscript. We address the major comment below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [QSS optimization studies / demonstrations] The two QSS optimization studies (described in the abstract and corresponding results) report 29% fewer magnets for MUSE and 27% reductions in peak/RMS force for ARIES-CS based solely on QUADCOIL proxy values. However, the manuscript does not include a post-optimization validation step in which the resulting equilibria are re-optimized with an independent, non-proxy coil solver and the true metrics compared against two-stage baselines. This validation is load-bearing for the claim that the proxy produces genuinely lower coil complexity rather than proxy-specific artifacts.

    Authors: We agree that the reported percentage improvements are obtained from the QUADCOIL proxy metrics after QSS optimization, and that an explicit post-optimization validation against an independent coil solver would strengthen the claim that these reductions reflect genuine improvements in coil complexity. The manuscript emphasizes the proxy's design to target realistic, engineering-relevant metrics (e.g., magnet count and force measures) in a differentiable and computationally efficient manner, which is the core motivation for the QSS approach. We have previously shown in related work that QUADCOIL outputs correlate well with full coil optimizations, but we acknowledge this correlation is not re-demonstrated here for the specific QSS equilibria. To address the referee's concern directly, we will add a new subsection in the revised manuscript that performs and reports a limited validation: for the ARIES-CS case we will re-optimize the final QSS equilibrium with a standard non-proxy coil solver and compare the resulting peak and RMS forces to the two-stage baseline; for the MUSE permanent-magnet case we will add a discussion of the additional challenges in validating dipole-array solutions and note this as a direction for future work. These additions will be included in the next version of the paper. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; proxy is independent subproblem solver

full rationale

The paper introduces QUADCOIL as a fast, differentiable coil optimization subproblem that is integrated into quasi-single-stage stellarator equilibrium optimization. The reported gains (29% fewer magnets for MUSE; 27% lower peak/RMS force for ARIES-CS) are direct outputs of minimizing the proxy objective during the QSS loop, not quantities that are fitted to the same data or redefined by construction from the final equilibria. No load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation chain, an ansatz smuggled from prior work, or a uniqueness theorem imported from the authors; the central claim that the proxy enables lower-complexity solutions is externally falsifiable by subsequent full coil solves and does not collapse to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based on the abstract alone, the central contribution is a new numerical proxy rather than new physical axioms or entities. No explicit free parameters, background axioms, or invented physical objects are described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5795 in / 1309 out tokens · 34919 ms · 2026-05-18T05:43:22.261667+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Computational boundary specification in 3D fixed-boundary magnetohydrodynamic equilibrium modeling

    physics.plasm-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The authors derive an algorithm for fixed-boundary 3D MHD equilibrium solvers that works with general computational boundaries where magnetic field lines can cross, pressure varies, and currents are not tangent to the...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Gerasimov, P

    S.N. Gerasimov, P. Abreu, G. Artaserse, M. Baruzzo, P. Buratti, I.S. Carvalho, I.H. Coffey, E. De La Luna, T.C. Hender, R.B. Henriques, et al. Overview of disruptions with jet-ilw.Nuclear Fusion, 60(6):066028, June 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Weller, S

    A. Weller, S. Sakakibara, K. Y . Watanabe, K. Toi, J. Geiger, M. C. Zarnstorff, S. R. Hudson, A. Reiman, A. Werner, 16 C. Nührenberg, S. Ohdachi, Y . Suzuki, H. Yamada, , and and. Significance of mhd effects in stellarator confinement. Fusion Science and Technology, 50(2):158–170, 2006

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Menard, L

    J.E. Menard, L. Bromberg, T. Brown, T. Burgess, D. Dix, L. El-Guebaly, T. Gerrity, R.J. Goldston, R.J. Hawryluk, R. Kastner, C. Kessel, S. Malang, J. Minervini, G.H. Neilson, C.L. Neumeyer, S. Prager, M. Sawan, J. Sheffield, A. Sternlieb, L. Waganer, D. Whyte, and M. Zarnstorff. Prospects for pilot plants based on the tokamak, spherical tokamak and stella...

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Strykowsky, T

    R.L. Strykowsky, T. Brown, J. Chrzanowski, M. Cole, P. Heitzenroeder, G.H. Neilson, Donald Rej, and M. Viol. Engineering cost schedule lessons learned on ncsx. In2009 23rd IEEE/NPSS Symposium on Fusion Engineering, pages 1–4, San Diego, CA, USA, June 2009. IEEE

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Fabrication of the superconducting coils for wendelstein 7-X.Fusion Eng

    Konrad Risse, Th Rummel, L Wegener, R Holzthüm, N Jaksic, F Kerl, and J Sapper. Fabrication of the superconducting coils for wendelstein 7-X.Fusion Eng. Des., 66-68:965–969, September 2003

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    The magnetic gradient scale length explains why certain plasmas require close external magnetic coils.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, January 2024

    John Thomas Kappel, M Landreman, and Dhairya Malholtra. The magnetic gradient scale length explains why certain plasmas require close external magnetic coils.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, January 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Direct stellarator coil design using global optimization: application to a comprehensive exploration of quasi-axisymmetric devices.J

    Andrew Giuliani. Direct stellarator coil design using global optimization: application to a comprehensive exploration of quasi-axisymmetric devices.J. Plasma Phys., 90(3), June 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Global stellarator coil optimization with quadratic constraints and objectives.Nucl

    Lanke Fu, Elizabeth J Paul, Alan A Kaptanoglu, and Amitava Bhattacharjee. Global stellarator coil optimization with quadratic constraints and objectives.Nucl. Fusion, 65(2):026045, February 2025

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Single-stage stellarator optimization: combining coils with fixed boundary equilibria.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 65(7):074003, July 2023

    R Jorge, A Goodman, M Landreman, J Rodrigues, and F Wechsung. Single-stage stellarator optimization: combining coils with fixed boundary equilibria.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 65(7):074003, July 2023

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Quasi-single-stage optimization for permanent magnet stellarators.Nucl

    Guodong Yu, Ke Liu, Tianyi Qian, Yidong Xie, Xianyi Nie, and Caoxiang Zhu. Quasi-single-stage optimization for permanent magnet stellarators.Nucl. Fusion, 64(7):076055, July 2024

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Single-stage gradient- based stellarator coil design: Optimization for near-axis quasi-symmetry.J

    Andrew Giuliani, Florian Wechsung, Antoine Cerfon, Georg Stadler, and Matt Landreman. Single-stage gradient- based stellarator coil design: Optimization for near-axis quasi-symmetry.J. Comput. Phys., 459(111147):111147, June 2022

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    S. A. Henneberg, S. R. Hudson, D. Pfefferlé, and P. Helander. Combined plasma–coil optimization algorithms. Journal of Plasma Physics, 87(2):905870226, 2021

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    New method to design stellarator coils without the winding surface.Nuclear Fusion, 58(1):016008, 2017

    Caoxiang Zhu, Stuart R Hudson, Yuntao Song, and Yuanxi Wan. New method to design stellarator coils without the winding surface.Nuclear Fusion, 58(1):016008, 2017

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    Precise stellarator quasi-symmetry can be achieved with electromagnetic coils.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(13):e2202084119, 2022

    Florian Wechsung, Matt Landreman, Andrew Giuliani, Antoine Cerfon, and Georg Stadler. Precise stellarator quasi-symmetry can be achieved with electromagnetic coils.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(13):e2202084119, 2022

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Electromagnetic coil optimization for reduced Lorentz forces.Nuclear Fusion, 65(5):056044, 2025

    Siena Hurwitz, Matt Landreman, Paul Huslage, and Alan Kaptanoglu. Electromagnetic coil optimization for reduced Lorentz forces.Nuclear Fusion, 65(5):056044, 2025

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Reactor-scale stellarators with force and torque minimized dipole coils.Nuclear Fusion, 65(4):046029, 2025

    Alan A Kaptanoglu, Alexander Wiedman, Jacob Halpern, Siena Hurwitz, Elizabeth J Paul, and Matt Landreman. Reactor-scale stellarators with force and torque minimized dipole coils.Nuclear Fusion, 65(4):046029, 2025

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Single-stage stellarator optimization: combining coils with fixed boundary equilibria.Plasma Phys

    R Jorge, A Goodman, M Landreman, J Rodrigues, and F Wechsung. Single-stage stellarator optimization: combining coils with fixed boundary equilibria.Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion, 65(7):074003, July 2023

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Combined plasma–coil optimization algorithms.J

    S A Henneberg, S R Hudson, D Pfefferlé, and P Helander. Combined plasma–coil optimization algorithms.J. Plasma Phys., 87(2), April 2021

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Free-boundary MRxMHD equilibrium calculations using the stepped-pressure equilibrium code.Plasma Phys

    S R Hudson, J Loizu, C Zhu, Z S Qu, C Nührenberg, S Lazerson, C B Smiet, and M J Hole. Free-boundary MRxMHD equilibrium calculations using the stepped-pressure equilibrium code.Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion, 62(8):084002, August 2020

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Conlin, J

    R. Conlin, J. Schiling, D. Dudt, D. Panici, P. Kim, K.E. Unalmis, and E. Kolemen. Free boundary stellarator equilibria and coil optimization in desc, October 2022

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Merkel.Nucl

    P. Merkel.Nucl. Fusion, 27:867–871, 1987

    work page 1987

  22. [22]

    Allen H. Boozer. Optimization of the current potential for stellarator coils.Physics of Plasmas, 7(2):629–634, February 2000

    work page 2000

  23. [23]

    Fusion, 57:046003, 2017

    Matt Landreman.Nucl. Fusion, 57:046003, 2017

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    Elder.Three-dimensional magnetic fields: from coils to reconnection

    Todd M. Elder.Three-dimensional magnetic fields: from coils to reconnection. PhD thesis, Columbia University, 2024

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    V olpe.Nucl

    Rémi Robin and Francesco A. V olpe.Nucl. Fusion, 62:086041, 2022. 17

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    N. M. Strickland and S. C. Wimbush. The magnetic-field dependence of critical current: What we really need to know.IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, 27(4):1–5, 2017

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    High field ic characterizations of commercial HTS conductors

    Y Miyoshi, G Nishijima, H Kitaguchi, and X Chaud. High field ic characterizations of commercial HTS conductors. Physica C Supercond., 516:31–35, September 2015

    work page 2015

  28. [28]

    Version 10.1., 2024

    MOSEK ApS.The MOSEK optimization toolbox for MATLAB manual. Version 10.1., 2024

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    A rewriting system for convex optimization problems.Journal of Control and Decision, 5(1):42–60, 2018

    Akshay Agrawal, Robin Verschueren, Steven Diamond, and Stephen Boyd. A rewriting system for convex optimization problems.Journal of Control and Decision, 5(1):42–60, 2018

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    Cvxpy: A python-embedded modeling language for convex optimization

    Steven Diamond and Stephen Boyd. Cvxpy: A python-embedded modeling language for convex optimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 17(83):1–5, 2016

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    October 2019

    Arkadi Nemirovski.Interior Point Polynomial Time Methods in Convex Programming. October 2019

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    Stellarator optimization with constraints.Journal of Plasma Physics, 90(5):905900501, 2024

    Rory Conlin, Patrick Kim, Daniel W Dudt, Dario Panici, and Egemen Kolemen. Stellarator optimization with constraints.Journal of Plasma Physics, 90(5):905900501, 2024

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Augmented lagrangian methods produce cutting-edge magnetic coils for stellarator fusion reactors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.12681, 2025

    Pedro F Gil, Alan A Kaptanoglu, and Eve V Stenson. Augmented lagrangian methods produce cutting-edge magnetic coils for stellarator fusion reactors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.12681, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    On the limited memory BFGS method for large scale optimization.Math

    Dong C Liu and Jorge Nocedal. On the limited memory BFGS method for large scale optimization.Math. Program., 45(1-3):503–528, August 1989

    work page 1989

  35. [35]

    Differentiable Convex Optimization Layers, October 2019

    Akshay Agrawal, Brandon Amos, Shane Barratt, Stephen Boyd, Steven Diamond, and Zico Kolter. Differentiable Convex Optimization Layers, October 2019. arXiv:1910.12430 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    Optimizing Millions of Hyperparameters by Implicit Differentiation

    Jonathan Lorraine, Paul Vicol, and David Duvenaud. Optimizing Millions of Hyperparameters by Implicit Differentiation

    work page

  37. [37]

    BPQP: A Differentiable Convex Optimization Framework for Efficient End-to-End Learning

    Jianming Pan, Zeqi Ye, Xiao Yang, Xu Yang, Weiqing Liu, Lewen Wang, and Jiang Bian. BPQP: A Differentiable Convex Optimization Framework for Efficient End-to-End Learning

    work page

  38. [38]

    PhD thesis

    Elizabeth J Paul.Adjoint methods for stellarator shape optimization and sensitivity analysis. PhD thesis

    work page

  39. [39]

    Computing the shape gradient of stellarator coil complexity with respect to the plasma boundary.J

    Arthur Carlton-Jones, Elizabeth J Paul, and William Dorland. Computing the shape gradient of stellarator coil complexity with respect to the plasma boundary.J. Plasma Phys., 87(2), April 2021

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Wright.Numerical optimization

    Jorge Nocedal and Stephen J. Wright.Numerical optimization. Springer series in operations research and financial engineering. Springer, New York, NY , second edition edition, 2006

    work page 2006

  41. [41]

    On the Differentiability of the Solution to Convex Optimization Problems, November 2019

    Shane Barratt. On the Differentiability of the Solution to Convex Optimization Problems, November 2019. arXiv:1804.05098 [math]

    work page arXiv 2019

  42. [42]

    Simsopt: A flexible framework for stellarator optimization.Journal of Open Source Software, 6(65):3525, September 2021

    Matt Landreman, Bharat Medasani, Florian Wechsung, Andrew Giuliani, Rogerio Jorge, and Caoxiang Zhu. Simsopt: A flexible framework for stellarator optimization.Journal of Open Source Software, 6(65):3525, September 2021

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    Automated optimization of stellarator coils.Fusion Technology, 33(2):106–117, March 1998

    Michael Drevlak. Automated optimization of stellarator coils.Fusion Technology, 33(2):106–117, March 1998

    work page 1998

  44. [44]

    Drevlak.Coil designs for a quasi-axially symmetric stellarator

    M. Drevlak.Coil designs for a quasi-axially symmetric stellarator. Association Euratom-CEA Cadarache, France, 1998

    work page 1998

  45. [45]

    Fusion, 41:339–347, 2001

    N Pomphrey, L Berry, A Boozer, A Brooks, R.E Hatcher, S.P Hirshman, L.-P Ku, W.H Miner, H.E Mynick, W Reiersen, et al.Nucl. Fusion, 41:339–347, 2001

    work page 2001

  46. [46]

    Representing the boundary of stellarator plasmas.J

    S A Henneberg, P Helander, and M Drevlak. Representing the boundary of stellarator plasmas.J. Plasma Phys., 87(5), October 2021

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    The DESC stellarator code suite

    Dario Panici, Rory Conlin, Daniel W Dudt, Kaya Unalmis, and Egemen Kolemen. The DESC stellarator code suite. Part 1. Quick and accurate equilibria computations.Journal of Plasma Physics, 89(3):955890303, 2023

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Surface current optimization and coil-cutting algorithms for stage-two stellarator optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.09321, 2025

    Dario Panici, Rory Conlin, Rahul Gaur, Daniel W Dudt, Yigit Gunsur Elmacioglu, Matt Landreman, Todd Elder, Nadav Snir, Itay Gissis, Yasha Nikulshin, et al. Surface current optimization and coil-cutting algorithms for stage-two stellarator optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.09321, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    T. M. Qian, X. Chu, C. Pagano, D. Patch, M. C. Zarnstorff, B. Berlinger, D. Bishop, A. Chambliss, M. Haque, D. Seidita, and C. Zhu. Design and construction of the MUSE permanent magnet stellarator.Journal of Plasma Physics, 89(5):955890502, October 2023

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    The DESC stellarator code suite Part 3: Quasi-symmetry optimization.Journal of Plasma Physics, 89(2):955890201, 2023

    Daniel W Dudt, Rory Conlin, Dario Panici, and Egemen Kolemen. The DESC stellarator code suite Part 3: Quasi-symmetry optimization.Journal of Plasma Physics, 89(2):955890201, 2023. 18

    work page 2023