Investigating the Physics of Tokamak Global Stability with Interpretable Machine Learning Tools
Source abstract
Abstract
The inadequacies of basic physics models for disruption prediction have induced the community to increasingly rely on data mining tools. In the last decade, it has been shown how machine learning predictors can achieve a much better performance than those obtained with manually identified thresholds or empirical descriptions of the plasma stability limits. The main criticisms of these techniques focus therefore on two different but interrelated issues: poor “physics fidelity” and limited interpretability. Insufficient “physics fidelity” refers to the fact that the mathematical models of most data mining tools do not reflect the physics of the underlying phenomena. Moreover, they implement a black box approach to learning, which results in very poor interpretability of their outputs. To overcome or at least mitigate these limitations, a general methodology has been devised and tested, with the objective of combining the predictive capability of machine learning tools with the expression of the operational boundary in terms of traditional equations more suited to understanding the underlying physics. The proposed approach relies on the application of machine learning classifiers (such as Support Vector Machines or Classification Trees) and Symbolic Regression via Genetic Programming directly to experimental databases. The results are very encouraging. The obtained equations of the boundary between the safe and disruptive regions of the operational space present almost the same performance as the machine learning classifiers, based on completely independent learning techniques. Moreover, these models possess significantly better predictive power than traditional representations, such as the Hugill or the beta limit. More importantly, they are realistic and intuitive mathematical formulas, which are well suited to supporting theoretical understanding and to benchmarking empirical models. They can also be deployed easily and efficiently in real-time feedback systems.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Magnetic confinement fusion research · Network Security and Intrusion Detection · Nuclear Engineering Thermal-Hydraulics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Istituto Gas Ionizzati (IGI), Consorzio RFX (CNR, ENEA, INFN, Università di Padova, Acciaierie Venete SpA), Corso Stati Uniti 4, 35127 Padova, Italy
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, via del Politecnico 1, 00133 Roma RM, Italy
Funding
H2020 Euratom
References (48)
Show source-provided references
1. Hadlock, C.R. (2012). Six Causes of Collapse, Mathematical Association of America.10.5948/UPO9781614445142 ↗
2. Wenninger, R., Fererici, G., and Albanese, R. (2016, January 17–22). Power Handling and Plasma Protection Aspects that affect the Design of the DEMO Divertor and First Wall. Proceedings of the of 26th IAEA Fusion Energy Conference, Kyoto, Japan.
3. Wesson, J. (2011). Tokamaks, Oxford University Press.
4. Determining the prediction limits of models and classifiers with applications for disruption prediction in JET10.1088/0029-5515/57/1/016024 ↗
5. Unbiased and non-supervised learning methods for disruption prediction at JET10.1088/0029-5515/49/5/055028 ↗
6. Prototype of an adaptive disruption predictor for JET based on fuzzy logic and regression trees10.1088/0029-5515/48/3/035010 ↗
7. Rattá, G.A., Vega, J., Murari, A., Vagliasindi, G., Johnson, M., De Vries, P., and Contributors, J.E. (2010). An advanced disruption predictor for JET tested in a simulated real-time environment. Nucl. Fusion, 50.10.1088/0029-5515/50/2/025005 ↗
8. Prediction of disruptions on ASDEX Upgrade using discriminant analysis10.1088/0029-5515/51/6/063039 ↗
9. Results of the JET real-time disruption predictor in the ITER-like wall campaigns10.1016/j.fusengdes.2013.03.003 ↗
10. Vega, J., Moreno, R., Pereira, A., Dormido-Canto, S., Murari, A., and JET Contributors (2015, January 14–17). Advanced disruption predictor based on the locked mode signal: Application to JET. Proceedings of the 1st EPS Conference on Plasma Diagnostics, Frascati, Italy.
11. Vega, J., Murari, A., Dormido-Canto, S., Moreno, R., Pereira, A., Rattá, G.A., and JET Contributors (June, January 31). Disruption Precursor Detection: Combining the Time and Frequency Domains. Proceedings of the 26th Symposium on Fusion Engineering (SOFE 2015), Austin, TX, USA.10.1109/SOFE.2015.7482361 ↗
12. Sabbagh, S.A., Berkery, J.W., Park, Y.S., Jeon, Y., Oh, W.H., Hahn, S., Bell, R.W., Boyer, M., Berkery, J., and Ko, J. (2018, January 25). Disruption Event Characterization and Forecasting in Tokamaks. Proceedings of the IAEA Fusion Energy Conference 2018, Gandhinagar, India.
13. Path-oriented early reaction to approaching disruptions in ASDEX Upgrade and TCV in view of the future needs for ITER and DEMO10.1088/1361-6587/aa8d05 ↗
14. A real-time machine learning-based disruption predictor in DIII-D10.1088/1741-4326/ab28bf ↗
15. Machine learning for disruption warnings on Alcator C-Mod, DIII-D, and EAST10.1088/1741-4326/ab1df4 ↗
16. Automatic disruption classification based on manifold learning for real-time applications on JET10.1088/0029-5515/53/9/093023 ↗
17. Automatic disruption classification in JET with the ITER-like wall10.1088/0741-3335/57/12/125003 ↗
18. Clustering based on the geodesic distance on Gaussian manifolds for the automatic classification of disruptions10.1088/0029-5515/53/3/033006 ↗
19. Adaptive high learning rate probabilistic disruption predictors from scratch for the next generation of tokamaks10.1088/0029-5515/54/12/123001 ↗
20. Development of an efficient real-time disruption predictor from scratch on JET and implications for ITER10.1088/0029-5515/53/11/113001 ↗
21. Robust scaling laws for energy confinement time, including radiated fraction, in Tokamaks10.1088/1741-4326/aa7bb4 ↗
22. Disruption prevention using rotating resonant magnetic perturbation on J-TEXT10.1088/1741-4326/ab77e4 ↗
23. Progress in disruption prevention for ITER10.1088/1741-4326/ab15de ↗
24. Sheikh, U.A., Duval, B., Galperti, C., Sauter, O., Granucci, G., Kong, M., Labit, B., Rispoli, N., Maraschek, M., and Sozzi, C. (2018). Disruption avoidance through the prevention of NTM destabilization in TCV. Nucl. Fusion, 58.10.1088/1741-4326/aad924 ↗
25. Physics-guided machine learning approaches to predict the ideal stability properties of fusion plasmas10.1088/1741-4326/ab7597 ↗
26. Murari, A., Telebzadeh, S., Gaudio, P., Peluso, E., Lungaroni, M., Mikulin, O., Vega, J., and Gelfusa, M. (2017, January 1–3). Deriving Realistic Mathematical Models from Support Vector Machines for Scientific Applications. Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (KDIR 2017), Madeira, Portugal.10.5220/0006517401020113 ↗
27. Adaptive predictors based on probabilistic SVM for real time disruption mitigation on JET10.1088/1741-4326/aaaf9c ↗
28. Adaptive learning for disruption prediction in non-stationary conditions10.1088/1741-4326/ab1ecc ↗
29. Jet Asdex On the transfer of adaptive predictors between different devices for both mitigation and prevention of disruptions10.1088/1741-4326/ab77a6 ↗
30. Steinwart, I., and Christmann, A. (2008). Support Vector Machines, Springer.
31. Platt, J.C. (2000). Probabilistic outputs for support vector machines and comparisons to regularized likelihood methods. Advances in Large Margin Classifiers, MIT Press.
32. A comparison of methods for multiclass support vector machines10.1109/72.991427 ↗
33. Weston, J., and Watkins, C. (1999, January 21–23). Support Vector Machines for Multi-Class Pattern Recognition. In Proceeding of the Seventh European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks, Bruges, Belgium.
34. Breiman, L., Friedman, J.H., Olshen, R.A., and Stone, C.J. (1998). Classification and Regression Trees, Chapman&Hall.
35. Sollich, P., and Krogh, A. (1995, January 27–30). Learning with ensembles: How overfitting can be useful. Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 8, Denver, CO, USA.
36. Distilling Free-Form Natural Laws from Experimental Data10.1126/science.1165893 ↗
37. Koza, J.R. (1992). Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection, MIT Press.
38. Burnham, K.P., and Anderson, D.R. (2002). Model Selection and Multi-Model Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach, Springer. [2nd ed.].
39. Bates, D., and Watts, D. (1988). Nonlinear Regression Analysis and Its Applications, Wiley.10.1002/9780470316757 ↗
40. A new approach to the formulation and validation of scaling expressions for plasma confinement in tokamaks10.1088/0029-5515/55/7/073009 ↗
41. Murari, A., Peluso, E., Lungaroni, M., Gelfusa, M., and Gaudio, P. (2015). Application of symbolic regression to the derivation of scaling laws for tokamak energy confinement time in terms of dimensionless quantities. Nucl. Fusion, 56.10.1088/0029-5515/56/2/026005 ↗
42. Symbolic regression via genetic programming for data driven derivation of confinement scaling laws without any assumption on their mathematical form10.1088/0741-3335/57/1/014008 ↗
43. De Vries, P., Pautasso, G., Nardon, E., Cahyna, P., Gerasimov, S., Havlíček, J., Hender, T., Huijsmans, G., Lehnen, M., and Maraschek, M. (2015). Scaling of the MHD perturbation amplitude required to trigger a disruption and predictions for ITER. Nucl. Fusion, 56.10.1088/0029-5515/56/2/026007 ↗
44. A statistical method for model extraction and model selection applied to the temperature scaling of the L–H transition10.1088/0741-3335/56/11/114001 ↗
45. Development of a mirror-based endoscope for divertor spectroscopy on JET with the new ITER-like wall (invited)10.1063/1.4731759 ↗
46. Investigating the thermal stability of highly radiative discharges on JET with a new tomographic method10.1088/1741-4326/ab7536 ↗
47. Active control of the current density profile in JET10.1088/0741-3335/45/7/102 ↗
48. Analysis of Faraday rotation in JET polarimetric measurements10.1088/0741-3335/53/3/035001 ↗