Differentiable Programming for Computational Plasma Physics

TL;DR

This paper explores how differentiable programming and machine learning can enhance stellarator coil design and PDE solving in plasma physics, demonstrating both potential benefits and current limitations.

Contribution

It introduces a gradient-based stellarator coil design code using AD and evaluates ML-based PDE solvers, highlighting challenges and limitations in current research.

Findings

FOCUSADD efficiently designs stellarator coils with gradient optimization.

ML-based PDE solvers can preserve physical invariants.

Systematic review reveals issues with reproducibility and reporting biases.

Abstract

Differentiable programming allows for derivatives of functions implemented via computer code to be calculated automatically. These derivatives are calculated using automatic differentiation (AD). This thesis explores two applications of differentiable programming to computational plasma physics. First, we consider how differentiable programming can be used to simplify and improve stellarator optimization. We introduce a stellarator coil design code (FOCUSADD) that uses gradient-based optimization to produce stellarator coils with finite build. Because we use reverse mode AD, which can compute gradients of scalar functions with the same computational complexity as the function, FOCUSADD is simple, flexible, and efficient. We then discuss two additional applications of AD in stellarator optimization. Second, we explore how machine learning (ML) can be used to improve or replace the numerical methods used to solve partial differential equations (PDEs), focusing on time-dependent PDEs in fluid mechanics relevant to plasma physics. Differentiable programming allows neural networks and other techniques from ML to be embedded within numerical methods. This is a promising, but relatively new, research area. We focus on two basic questions. First, can we design ML-based PDE solvers that have the same guarantees of conservation, stability, and positivity that standard numerical methods do? The answer is yes; we introduce error-correcting algorithms that preserve invariants of time-dependent PDEs. Second, which types of ML-based solvers work best at solving PDEs? We perform a systematic review of the scientific literature on solving PDEs with ML. Unfortunately we discover two issues, weak baselines and reporting biases, that affect the interpretation reproducibility of a significant majority of published research. We conclude that using ML to solve PDEs is not as promising as we initially believed.