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.
Performance Comparison of Machine Learning Disruption Predictors at JET
Aymerich E.; Cannas B.; Pisano F.; Sias G.; Sozzi C.; Stuart C.; Carvalho P.; Fanni A.
Journal:
Applied sciences 13 (3),
pp. 2006-1 - 2006-20
Year:
2023
ISTP Authors: Carlo Sozzi
Keywords: Tokamak, Machine learning, data analysis, plasma diagnostics, disruption prediction, deep learning
Research Activitie: JOURNAL ARTICLES
Related products
-
Fusion engineering and design 166 pp. 112315 - 1 - 112315 - 6 Year: 2021 DOI: 10.1016/j.fusengdes.2021.112315
Cross machine investigation of magnetic tokamak dust: Morphological and elemental analysis
De Angeli M.; Ripamonti D.; Ghezzi F.; Tolias P.; Conti C.; Arnas C.; Jerab M.; Rudakov D.L.; Chrobak C.P.; Irby J.; LaBombard B.; Lipschultz B.; Maddaluno G.
-
Nuclear fusion 61 (2), pp. 023001-1 - 023001-75 Year: 2021 DOI: 10.1088/1741-4326/abc06c
The reversed field pinch
Marrelli L.; Martin P.; Puiatti M.E.; Sarff J.S.; Chapman B.E.; Drake J.R.; Escande D.F.; Masamune S.
-
Plasma physics and controlled fusion (Print) 63 (12), pp. 125009-1 - 125009-11 Year: 2021 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6587/ac2eb2
First results from beam emission spectroscopy in SPIDER negative ion source
Barbisan M.; Zaniol B.; Pasqualotto R.; Serianni G.; Ugoletti M.
-
Nuclear fusion (Online) 61 (11), pp. 116068-1 - 116068-21 Year: 2021 DOI: 10.1088/1741-4326/ac21b9
First principle-based multi-channel integrated modelling in support to the design of the Divertor Tokamak Test facility
Casiraghi I.; Mantica P.; Koechl F.; Ambrosino R.; Baiocchi B.; Castaldo A.; Citrin J.; Dicorato M. ; Frassinetti L.; Mariani A.; Vincenzi P.; Agostinetti P.; Aucone L.; Balbinot L.; Ceccuzzi S.; Figini L.; Granucci G.; Innocente P.; Johnson T.; Nyström H.; Valisa M.
English
Italiano