2023
DOI: 10.3390/app13032006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Performance Comparison of Machine Learning Disruption Predictors at JET

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… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The cluster labels for B found with DBSCAN and those predicted with the linear classifier are then compared to verify whether a similar result is obtained. The classification performance is calculated using two different F1 scores [30,31], using the Scikit-learn functions: F1 macro , which calculate the average of the F1 score for every label and F1 weighted , in which the label F1 scores are weighted, to account for the different size of the groups.…”
Section: Data Analysis Toolsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The cluster labels for B found with DBSCAN and those predicted with the linear classifier are then compared to verify whether a similar result is obtained. The classification performance is calculated using two different F1 scores [30,31], using the Scikit-learn functions: F1 macro , which calculate the average of the F1 score for every label and F1 weighted , in which the label F1 scores are weighted, to account for the different size of the groups.…”
Section: Data Analysis Toolsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If disruptive discharges trigger the alarm, it is true positive (TP); otherwise, it is false negative (FN). If non-disruptive discharges do not trigger an alarm, it is true negative; otherwise, it is false positive [28]. It is worth noting recall rate is 95.3%; among the 801 non-disruptive shots, 737 do not trigger any warning, and the false alarm rate is only 8%.…”
Section: Performance Of the Predictormentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The best results achieved on disruptions have been obtained by following the nowadays well established and quite popular approach based on machine learning (ML) techniques [13]. In Aymerich et al [15] a systematic comparison of the most widespread and used algorithms is performed. A Multilayer Perceptron Neural Network (MLP-NN), a Generative Topographic Mapping (GTM) and a Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) algorithm have been considered.…”
Section: Overview Of the Issuementioning
confidence: 99%