MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176100128 · doi:10.1088/1741-4326/ac45f3

Single-stage gradient-based stellarator coil design: stochastic optimization

2021· article· en· W3176100128 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Florian Wechsung, Andrew Giuliani, Matt Landreman, Antoine Cerfon, Georg Stadler

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Fusion · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimons Foundation
KeywordsStellaratorElectromagnetic coilMaxima and minimaDiscretizationMathematical optimizationStochastic optimizationComputer scienceGradient descentOptimization problemPhysicsApplied mathematicsMathematicsPlasmaMathematical analysisNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We extend the single-stage stellarator coil design approach for quasi-symmetry on axis from (Giuliani et al 2020) to additionally take into account coil manufacturing errors. By modeling coil errors independently from the coil discretization, we have the flexibility to consider realistic forms of coil errors. The corresponding stochastic optimization problems are formulated using a risk-neutral approach and risk-averse approaches. We present an efficient, gradient-based descent algorithm which relies on analytical derivatives to solve these problems. In a comprehensive numerical study, we compare the coil designs resulting from deterministic and risk-neutral stochastic optimization and find that the risk-neutral formulation results in more robust configurations and reduces the number of local minima of the optimization problem. We also compare deterministic and risk-neutral approaches in terms of quasi-symmetry on and away from the magnetic axis, and in terms of the confinement of particles released close to the axis. Finally, we show that for the optimization problems we consider, a risk-averse objective using the conditional value-at-risk leads to results which are similar to the risk-neutral objective.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear FusionSame topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207