Performance Comparison of Machine Learning Disruption Predictors at JET
Source abstract
Abstract
Reliable disruption prediction (DP) and disruption mitigation systems are considered unavoidable during international thermonuclear experimental reactor (ITER) operations and in the view of the next fusion reactors such as the DEMOnstration Power Plant (DEMO) and China Fusion Engineering Test Reactor (CFETR). In the last two decades, a great number of DP systems have been developed using data-driven methods. The performance of the DP models has been improved over the years both for a more appropriate choice of diagnostics and input features and for the availability of increasingly powerful data-driven modelling techniques. However, a direct comparison among the proposals has not yet been conducted. Such a comparison is mandatory, at least for the same device, to learn lessons from all these efforts and finally choose the best set of diagnostic signals and the best modelling approach. A first effort towards this goal is made in this paper, where different DP models will be compared using the same performance indices and the same device. In particular, the performance of a conventional Multilayer Perceptron Neural Network (MLP-NN) model is compared with those of two more sophisticated models, based on Generative Topographic Mapping (GTM) and Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), on the same real time diagnostic signals from several experiments at the JET tokamak. The most common performance indices have been used to compare the different DP models and the results are deeply discussed. The comparison confirms the soundness of all the investigated machine learning approaches and the chosen diagnostics, enables us to highlight the pros and cons of each model, and helps to consciously choose the approach that best matches with the plasma protection needs.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Groundwater flow and contamination studies · Seismology and Earthquake Studies · Nuclear reactor physics and engineering
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Cagliari, 09123 Cagliari, Italy
Istituto per la Scienza e Tecnologia dei Plasmi, Consiglio Nazionale Delle Ricerche, Via R. Cozzi, 53, 20125 Milano, Italy
UK Atomic Energy Authority, Culham Science Centre, Abingdon OX14 3DB, UK
Funding
European Union via the Euratom Research and Training Programme
References (49)
Show source-provided references
1. Theory of Tokamak Disruptions10.1063/1.3703327 ↗
2. The JOREK Non-Linear Extended MHD Code and Applications to Large-Scale Instabilities and Their Control in Magnetically Confined Fusion Plasmas10.1088/1741-4326/abf99f ↗
3. Disruption Forecasting at JET Using Neural Networks10.1088/0029-5515/44/1/008 ↗
4. A Prediction Tool for Real-Time Application in the Disruption Protection System at JET10.1088/0029-5515/47/11/018 ↗
5. Support Vector Machines for Disruption Prediction and Novelty Detection at JET10.1016/j.fusengdes.2007.07.004 ↗
6. Development of an Efficient Real-Time Disruption Predictor from Scratch on JET and Implications for ITER10.1088/0029-5515/53/11/113001 ↗
7. Adaptive Predictors Based on Probabilistic SVM for Real Time Disruption Mitigation on JET10.1088/1741-4326/aaaf9c ↗
8. A Machine Learning Approach Based on Generative Topographic Mapping for Disruption Prevention and Avoidance at JET10.1088/1741-4326/ab2ea9 ↗
9. A Statistical Approach for the Automatic Identification of the Start of the Chain of Events Leading to the Disruptions at JET10.1088/1741-4326/abcb28 ↗
10. An Adaptive Real-Time Disruption Predictor for ASDEX Upgrade10.1088/0029-5515/50/7/075004 ↗
11. Disruption Prediction with Adaptive Neural Networks for ASDEX Upgrade10.1016/j.fusengdes.2011.01.069 ↗
12. Improvements in Disruption Prediction at ASDEX Upgrade10.1016/j.fusengdes.2015.03.045 ↗
13. Disruption Prediction Investigations Using Machine Learning Tools on DIII-D and Alcator C-Mod10.1088/1361-6587/aac7fe ↗
14. Machine Learning for Disruption Warnings on Alcator C-Mod, DIII-D, and EAST10.1088/1741-4326/ab1df4 ↗
15. Hybrid Neural Network for Density Limit Disruption Prediction and Avoidance on J-TEXT Tokamak10.1088/1741-4326/aaad17 ↗
16. Prediction of High-Beta Disruptions in JT-60U Based on Sparse Modeling Using Exhaustive Search10.1016/j.fusengdes.2019.01.128 ↗
17. Deep Sequence to Sequence Learning-Based Prediction of Major Disruptions in ADITYA Tokamak10.1088/1361-6587/ac234c ↗
18. Disruption Prediction with Artificial Intelligence Techniques in Tokamak Plasmas10.1038/s41567-022-01602-2 ↗
19. Multivariate Statistical Models for Disruption Prediction at ASDEX Upgrade10.1016/j.fusengdes.2013.01.103 ↗
20. Prediction of Disruptions on ASDEX Upgrade Using Discriminant Analysis10.1088/0029-5515/51/6/063039 ↗
21. Prototype of an Adaptive Disruption Predictor for JET Based on Fuzzy Logic and Regression Trees10.1088/0029-5515/48/3/035010 ↗
22. Prediction of Density Limit Disruptions on the J-TEXT Tokamak10.1088/0741-3335/58/5/055014 ↗
23. An Advanced Disruption Predictor for JET Tested in a Simulated Real-Time Environment10.1088/0029-5515/50/2/025005 ↗
24. Predicting Disruptive Instabilities in Controlled Fusion Plasmas through Deep Learning10.1038/s41586-019-1116-4 ↗
25. Deep Learning for Plasma Tomography and Disruption Prediction from Bolometer Data10.1109/TPS.2019.2947304 ↗
26. Viability Assessment of a Cross-Tokamak AUG-JET Disruption Predictor10.1080/15361055.2017.1390390 ↗
27. Improved Feature Selection Based on Genetic Algorithms for Real Time Disruption Prediction on JET10.1016/j.fusengdes.2012.07.002 ↗
28. PHAD: A Phase-Oriented Disruption Prediction Strategy for Avoidance, Prevention, and Mitigation in JET10.1088/1741-4326/ac2637 ↗
29. Mapping of the ASDEX Upgrade Operational Space for Disruption Prediction10.1109/TPS.2011.2174385 ↗
30. Automatic Disruption Classification Based on Manifold Learning for Real-Time Applications on JET10.1088/0029-5515/53/9/093023 ↗
31. Real-Time Prediction of High-Density EAST Disruptions Using Random Forest10.1088/1741-4326/abf74d ↗
32. Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Multi-Scale Time-Series Classification and Application to Tokamak Disruption Prediction Using Raw, High Temporal Resolution Diagnostic Data10.1063/1.5144458 ↗
33. Disruption Prediction at JET through Deep Convolutional Neural Networks Using Spatiotemporal Information from Plasma Profiles10.1088/1741-4326/ac525e ↗
34. Hybrid Deep-Learning Architecture for General Disruption Prediction across Multiple Tokamaks10.1088/1741-4326/abc664 ↗
35. Disruption Prediction Using a Full Convolutional Neural Network on EAST10.1088/1361-6587/abcbab ↗
36. A First Analysis of JET Plasma Profile-Based Indicators for Disruption Prediction and Avoidance10.1109/TPS.2018.2841394 ↗
37. Progress Toward Interpretable Machine Learning–Based Disruption Predictors Across Tokamaks10.1080/15361055.2020.1798589 ↗
38. Garcia, J., Casson, F.J., Challis, C., Frigione, D., Van Eester, D., Garzotti, L., Hobirk, J., Kappatou, A., Lerche, E.A., and Mailloux, J. (2021, January 10–15). Integrated Scenario Development at JET for DT Operation and ITER Risk Mitigation. Proceedings of the 28th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference (FEC 2020), Virtual.
39. Learning Representations by Back-Propagating Errors10.1038/323533a0 ↗
40. GTM: The Generative Topographic Mapping10.1162/089976698300017953 ↗
41. O’Shea, K., and Nash, R. (2015). An Introduction to Convolutional Neural Networks. arXiv.
42. Edge Profile Analysis of Joint European Torus (JET) Thomson Scattering Data: Quantifying the Systematic Error Due to Edge Localised Mode Synchronisation10.1063/1.4939855 ↗
43. A Scaled Conjugate Gradient Algorithm for Fast Supervised Learning10.1016/S0893-6080(05)80056-5 ↗
44. Multiobjective Tabu Search Algorithms for Optimal Design of Electromagnetic Devices10.1109/TMAG.2007.916336 ↗
45. Enrico, A., Giuliana, S., Fabio, P., Barbara, C., and Alessandra, F. (2022, January 18–23). CNN Disruption Predictor at JET: Early versus Late Data Fusion Approach. Proceedings of the 32nd Symposium of Fusion Technology (SOFT32), Dubrovnik, Croatia.
46. Explainable Deep Learning for the Analysis of MHD Spectrograms in Nuclear Fusion10.1088/2632-2153/ac44aa ↗
47. A Cross-Tokamak Neural Network Disruption Predictor for the JET and ASDEX Upgrade Tokamaks10.1088/0029-5515/45/5/004 ↗
48. Real-Time Disruption Prediction in the Plasma Control System of HL-2A Based on Deep Learning10.1016/j.fusengdes.2022.113223 ↗
49. A Locked Mode Indicator for Disruption Prediction on JET and ASDEX Upgrade10.1016/j.fusengdes.2018.11.021 ↗