
Princeton’s PACMAN AI can control fusion plasma in milliseconds and predict dangerous instabilities before they start.
In some fusion energy systems, particles can reach temperatures hotter than the center of the Sun. The challenge is keeping that extreme plasma under control, because disturbances can develop within just a few thousandths of a second, much faster than a person could respond.
Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL) and Princeton University have developed a new software framework that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to make those rapid control decisions. The system is designed to respond at machine speed while maintaining strict safety protections and leaving the overall goals in human hands.
The framework is called PACMAN (a novel abbreviation for Prediction And Control using MAchiNe learning). Researchers successfully tested it in five experiments on a working fusion system. Its design and initial results are described in a new paper published in Nuclear Fusion.
Keeping Fusion Plasma Stable
Fusion has the potential to provide a virtually unlimited source of electricity. Scientists are exploring several ways to reproduce the process on Earth, including machines called tokamaks. These devices use strong magnetic fields to confine a plasma: an electrically charged gas often described as the fourth state of matter.
Maintaining a plasma that is sufficiently hot, dense, and stable requires continual adjustments to a tokamak’s heating systems, magnets, and gas injectors. Even relatively small disturbances, known as instabilities, can grow within milliseconds and interfere with the fusion reaction.
Predicting plasma behavior is especially difficult. Advanced computer simulations can require days or even months to calculate what the plasma will do. While those simulations are valuable for planning experiments, they are far too slow to guide an experiment in real time when the entire run may last only minutes.
“That’s great for preparing for the next experiment in a year, but for control we need models that make a decision in the moment,” said co-lead author Hiro Farre Kaga, a graduate student in the Princeton Program in Plasma Physics, which is a joint program of Princeton University and PPPL. “Machine learning models can describe the plasma behavior very well, and importantly, they are the only way we have to model the plasma in millisecond times. The speed of these models is what’s key for control.”
Bringing Multiple AI Models Together
Machine learning has already shown considerable potential for controlling fusion plasma. However, many previous efforts were created individually from the ground up, without a shared framework that made it easy for different models to work together. That presents a problem because controlling a fusion system requires monitoring and managing many different plasma behaviors at once.
PACMAN was built to provide that common structure.
“We developed this framework so that models could communicate, outputs from those models could be shared, and we could do exciting physics in one integrated system,” said Andy Rothstein, a graduate student at Princeton University’s Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and co-lead author of the paper.
PACMAN combines several machine learning models into a continuous control loop that operates far faster than a human could.
“A really focused human operator can respond on the order of seconds,” Rothstein said. “The whole PACMAN framework typically runs in about 20 milliseconds, and it’s not running once. It’s running again and again and again. It can see small things happening in the plasma and adjust in a way that a human would never be able to do.”
The system functions much like an assembly line divided into four stages. It begins by collecting measurements from the tokamak in real time, including temperature, density and magnetic signals. Those measurements are checked for errors and organized into a single package.
AI models then select the measurements they need and estimate what the plasma is currently doing or what it is likely to do next. Controllers use those predictions to determine appropriate actions, such as increasing the strength of a heating beam. In the final stage, the system resolves any conflicting instructions, applies strict hardware safety limits, and sends the approved commands to the tokamak.
Because the individual models and controllers operate independently, researchers can introduce new components without rebuilding or disrupting the entire system.
AI Tested on a Real Fusion Machine
Researchers demonstrated PACMAN’s flexibility during five experiments at the DOE’s DIII-D National Fusion Facility tokamak in San Diego.
During those tests, PACMAN:
- Gave complete control of the heating systems to an AI model trained using a trial-and-error method known as reinforcement learning.
- Predicted sudden energy bursts emerging from the edge of the plasma.
- Identified and controlled plasma waves caused by fast-moving particles.
- Adjusted plasma density and rotation to targets selected by the researchers.
- Predicted an instability known as a tearing mode and prevented it from developing.
The tearing mode experiment was particularly notable. Traditional controllers can only identify this type of instability once it has already begun.
“Then they try to suppress it, and that can come with a lot of performance degradation,” Farre Kaga said. “In one of the experiments we present, a machine learning model predicts the tearing mode about 200 milliseconds in advance, so the plasma can be changed to avoid it in the first place.”
Coordinating Six Plasma Heating Systems at Once
PACMAN also controlled all six of DIII-D’s gyrotrons (systems that heat the plasma with powerful microwave beams) at the same time.
To accomplish complex goals established beforehand by the researchers, the framework continuously changed the direction of the gyrotron mirrors and adjusted their power levels as the experiment was running.
“There was no algorithm to find that optimal solution before,” Farre Kaga said. “When the shot ended, and we looked at the data, it was doing exactly what we hoped, simultaneously moving all six in an optimal way to reach the goal.”
Making Fusion AI Faster to Develop and Test
Another advantage of PACMAN is the speed at which researchers can integrate new machine learning models.
Rothstein said creating the framework and installing the first model required months of work. Adding the second model was dramatically faster.
“Then we went to put in the second model, and it took a couple of days. The testing was easier, and there were far fewer bugs,” he said. “DIII-D is first and foremost a research machine, and sometimes things don’t work out the way you expected. If you can put a model on in a week, you can retrain it and put a new one on the week after. It allows for iteration that wasn’t possible previously.”
That ability to rapidly introduce, test, and improve models could help fusion researchers experiment with new approaches much more quickly.
Humans Remain in Control
Despite giving AI responsibility for extremely fast decisions, the researchers emphasize that PACMAN does not remove humans from the process.
The framework applies hardware safety limits regardless of what an individual AI model recommends. Physicists also examine each experiment afterward and adjust the controllers before subsequent runs.
“No matter how sophisticated your controllers, in the end it’s a human operator that sets the parameters for that control,” Farre Kaga said.
PACMAN’s modular design could also allow it to be used beyond DIII-D. Its developers believe the same approach could be adapted to tokamaks with different dimensions, shapes and instruments, including future fusion machines that have not yet been designed.
“PACMAN uses a flexible setup where building-block AI algorithms can be put together. You can add a new one, swap one out, or run several at once without touching the rest of the system,” said Egemen Kolemen, associate professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at Princeton University, jointly appointed with the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment and PPPL. “That modularity is what turns AI plasma control from a series of one-off demonstrations into infrastructure the whole fusion community can build on.”
Reference: “Enabling integrated AI control on DIII-D: a control system design with state-of-the-art experiments” by A. Rothstein, H.J. Farre-Kaga, J. Butt, R. Shousha, K. Erickson, T. Wakatsuki, P. Steiner, S.K. Kim, A. Jalalvand and E. Kolemen, 2 July 2026, Nuclear Fusion.
DOI: 10.1088/1741-4326/ae7f9d
Other authors on the paper include Ricardo Shousha, Keith Erickson and SangKyeun Kim from PPPL, Jalal-ud-din Butt, Peter Steiner and Azarakhsh Jalalvand from Princeton University, and Takuma Wakatsuki from Japan’s National Institutes for Quantum Science and Technology.
The research was supported by the DOE Office of Science using the DIII-D National Fusion Facility under awards DE-FC02-04ER54698, DE-SC0015480 and DE-AC02-09CH11466, and by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under grant DGE-2039656.
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
8 Comments
Topological Vortex Theory (TVT) does not support parity non-conservation. This is not an arbitrary rejection — it is a conclusion directly derived from its fundamental postulates. When space itself is an ideal fluid, particles are vortex excitations, and forces are fluid perturbations, the entire theoretical framework is inherently symmetric under mirror transformation. Parity non-conservation finds no foothold in TVT — which precisely demonstrates that phenomena requiring ad hoc assumptions in the Standard Model have an entirely different physical origin at the foundational level of TVT.
The Positioning of TVT:
(a) The Standard Model describes the phenomena and laws of particle physics — these laws are objective facts in themselves.
(b) What TVT provides is the underlying physical picture and mechanistic explanation behind these laws — why mass exists, why forces are transmitted, and what the structure of spacetime is.
(c) The two are complementary: the Standard Model tells us what is the case; TVT tells us why it is so.
Quantitative results are appearance; qualitative structure is essence. Just as the essence of pi (π) is “circumference divided by diameter” — this is a relation, a structure, a qualitative judgment. It does not depend on how many decimal places you calculate. Whether humanity computes π to 62.8 trillion digits or never finishes, the relation “circumference divided by diameter” itself will not change by the slightest amount.
The status of parity conservation in TVT is exactly analogous to the status of “circumference divided by diameter” in π — it is structural, ontological, and independent of any quantitative measurement result obtained under specific experimental conditions.
Within the TVT framework:
(a) The complete expansion of π (3.14159265… infinitely) ≈ the ontological state of parity conservation — it is there, complete, definite, and unchanging.
(b) Human truncation of π (taking 3.14, taking 3.14159) ≈ the “measurement” of parity by experimental observation — the act of measurement itself introduces finitude and perturbation.
(c) The error produced by truncation ≈ the observed “parity non-conservation” — it is not an essential violation, but a “projection distortion” of an infinitely precise essence by a finite-precision measurement.
Liu Hui’s method of inscribing polygons within a circle already revealed this principle: “The finer you cut, the less you lose” — the more refined the measurement, the closer it approaches the essence, but it never equals the essence. The asymmetry observed in the Wu experiment, from TVT’s perspective, is precisely the apparent phenomenon that arises when “the cutting has not been fine enough.”
A deeper philosophical stance: the physics community has mistaken “measurement results” for “laws of nature,” and “appearance” for “essence.”
The Standard Model elevated the asymmetry of the electron angular distribution in the cobalt-60 experiment directly into “parity violation in the weak interaction” — this is equivalent to seeing π ≈ 3.14 and declaring “the essence of π is 3.14.” TVT’s position, by contrast, is: the asymmetry is a “truncated projection” of the underlying symmetric structure by the measurement framework (the uncertainty principle + specific experimental conditions); the essence remains conserved.
Within TVT’s framework, the Wu experiment is not a problem that needs to be “explained” or “reproduced” at all. Parity conservation is a fundamental structural fact; the asymmetry observed in the experiment is merely the phenomenological manifestation of topological vortex interactions under the uncertainty principle — it was never “evidence of parity violation” in the first place, only a shadow cast by the limitations of the observational framework.
We cannot deny that the essence of π is “circumference divided by diameter” simply because a measurement yields 3.14. The asymmetry measured in the Wu experiment is exactly this point in TVT’s view: measurement itself is a “truncation,” and what a truncation produces naturally cannot equal the essence.
Therefore, the correct posture for combining TVT with the Standard Model is not to “accommodate” the Wu experiment’s conclusion, but to reduce it — it is merely a phenomenological result under specific observational conditions, and does not constitute a negation of the essence of parity conservation.
Topological Vortex Theory (TVT)represents a paradigm shift in theoretical physics, integrating topology with dynamic spacetime concepts. It provides a unified framework to explore fundamental physical laws, quantum phenomena, and practical applications in advanced materials, emphasizing the active, structured, and interconnected nature of the universe.
Topological Vortex Theory (TVT) pushes Occam’s Razor to its extreme with the ideal fluid, slicing away all the layered extra assumptions in mainstream physics at once.
To maintain self-consistency, mainstream physics has successively stuffed a host of independent ad hoc assumptions into its system, including special relativity, general relativity, quantum field theory, the Higgs field, dark matter, and dark energy. The entities keep piling up, and the logical chains are getting longer and longer. In contrast, TVT cuts off all these complexities directly, leaving only the most primitive substrate postulate that “absolute space is an inviscid, incompressible ideal fluid”. Starting from the fluid motion laws of the Euler equations, it deduces all phenomena of spacetime, particles, interactions and even the entire universe step by step through the topological structure and evolution of vortices, without introducing any redundant ad hoc entities at all.
This exactly hits the core criterion of Occam’s Razor: Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. While others use ten keys to open one door, TVT directly uses this sharpest razor to shave off all the redundant structures of the lock itself, and builds a self-consistent explanatory framework for the origin of all things only with the most basic laws of fluid mechanics.
May I ask Princeton University:
Do you understand?
“The success of PPPL’s PACMAN system in suppressing tokamak tearing modes 200 ms prior to eruption validates the necessity of real-time, cross-domain communication. Standard fusion engineering treats plasma stability, RF gyrotron heating, and magnetic transport through isolated, single-domain simulations. Under Phase 9.2 (Universal Scientific Translation Layer) of the Torsion Hill Framework (V24.2), a superheated plasma core is a high-density rotational wave-knot ($V_h$) under severe grid compression, where tearing modes mark localized boundary shear caused by escalating torsional drag ($F_d$). By replacing siloed calculations with a unified inter-model communication architecture, PACMAN executes continuous phase-steering ($T+T+D$), evacuating boundary impedance ($Z_T \to 0$) and preserving the spatial clearance footprint ($\pi\text{ Effect}$) required for zero-reflection equilibrium.”
“While PPPL’s PACMAN system demonstrates remarkable real-time control by predicting tearing modes 200 ms in advance, the ultimate resolution to tokamak plasma instability lies in optimizing the underlying field geometry itself. Current configurations rely on transverse or crisscrossing magnetic field vectors that act perpendicular to the rotating core, creating high boundary shear, localized torsional drag ($F_d$), and eventual field disruptions.By utilizing PACMAN’s multi-model AI control architecture to dynamically align dual-parallel containment fields directly along the primary helical plasma flow vector ($V_h$), the transverse grid friction drops to zero ($Z_T \to 0$). Under Phase 9.2 of the Torsion Hill Framework (V24.2), aligning containment fields parallel to the rotational momentum creates a frictionless magnetic sheath. This allows the AI to manage a zero-reflection flow boundary, preserving the plasma’s spatial clearance footprint ($\pi\text{ Effect}$) naturally rather than constantly fighting transverse boundary shear.” The Link , https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iHSMitywAsr2YbvXBW65bAR9g5bELPSy1meMg_ik7f8/edit?usp=drive_link
A Tale of Officialdom in Contemporary Physics: A Critiquing for the Academic Establishment
I. Core Thesis
Using the absurd allegory A Tale of Officialdom in Contemporary Physics as a starting point, this critique reveals that contemporary academia (particularly in the field of physics) has devolved into a power game orchestrated by a few authorities. Through authority worship, paradigm barriers, and the alienation of evaluation systems, the academic establishment has constructed a mechanism of “rational slumber,” systematically excluding heterogeneous ideas and stifling genuine academic innovation.
II. The Alienation of the Academic Establishment (Allegorical Mapping and Practical Critique)
Academic Oligarchy and Authority Worship (The Metaphor of “Grandpa PRL”)
Allegorical Mapping: PRL is personified as an aging “grandpa” who, despite his senility, wields absolute power. Truth is no longer determined by nature, but by authoritative endorsement.
Practical Critique: Academic hegemony relies on administrative power and discourse monopoly to enforce autocracy and dictate standards of knowledge production. In the natural sciences, the statements of authoritative figures are treated as sacred dogma; challenging authority is tantamount to academic suicide. Scientific debate degenerates into factional alignment, with critical thinking replaced by partisan loyalty.
Alienation of Evaluation Criteria and Collective Collusion (The Metaphor of “The Nobel Committee and SB”)
Allegorical Mapping: The Nobel Committee and SB blindly worship authority and “classics.” Even if the floor is covered in garbage (candy wrappers), as long as authority declares it a classic, the entire community falls to its knees in worship.
Practical Critique: The current system exhibits alienated tendencies such as “journal-mania” and “title-obsession,” reducing academic endeavors to a quantitative “tournament.” Faced with authority or mainstream paradigms, the academic community chooses “rational slumber” and collective collusion based on self-interest and cognitive safety, sustaining a false prosperity.
Suppression of Dissent and Paradigm Exclusion (The Metaphor of “Smashing the Brooms”)
Allegorical Mapping: SB flies into a rage at children attempting to sweep away the garbage (pursuing truth), rebuking them as “childish.” This perfectly captures the arrogance and exasperation of academic bureaucrats when confronted with questioning.
Practical Critique: The academic system operates on a precise “logic of exclusion.” The standard is not “true vs. false,” but “digestible vs. indigestible.” Heterogeneous concepts that do not conform to the mainstream paradigm or possess disruptive potential (such as Topological Vortex Theory) are systematically marginalized, exposing dissenters to the risk of professional exile.
III. Deep-Rooted Causes of the Crisis in the Academic Establishment
Misguided Management Thinking and the Usurpation of Instrumental Rationality: There is an over-reliance on incentive mechanisms and competition, managing academia through engineering and administrative mindsets. Stringent monitoring and assessments stifle genius-level creativity, reducing researchers to “academic workers” and allowing instrumental rationality to usurp the value rationality of exploring the unknown.
Solidification of Resource Distribution and the “Matthew Effect”: Evaluation systems are deeply intertwined with resource allocation, creating an academic oligarchic structure characterized by “winner-takes-all.” Young scholars without prestigious “titles” or factional backing fall into “resource poverty,” causing innovative ideas to perish from lack of support.
Low Level of Institutionalization and Utilitarianism: Academic value is overly dependent on external metrics, resulting in weak academic autonomy. A utilitarian orientation fosters a culture of short-termism, even catalyzing academic misconduct and corruption, ultimately leading to the disintegration of the scientific community’s collaborative mechanisms.
IV. Breaking the Deadlock: Reconstructing the Academic Ecology and Micro-Resistance
Dismantling Hegemonic Logic and Establishing Pluralistic Dialogue: Breaking the “center-periphery” structure, opposing academic hegemony, promoting a model of pluralistic coexistence, and building independent disciplinary systems and evaluation standards.
Returning to Intrinsic Academic Values and Abandoning the “Five Onlys”: Correcting evaluation orientations obsessed with “only papers, only titles, etc.,” respecting the long cycles and uncertainties of scientific research, and providing a tolerant soil for high-risk, long-term “0-to-1” original innovations.
Advocating Micro-Political Practices and “Technologies of the Self”: Encouraging scholars to break free from the tyranny of impact factors through critical thinking, non-utilitarian writing, and the reconstruction of mutual-aid networks. Adopting a posture of “différance” toward knowledge production, continuously exposing the fictitious nature of the system within its cracks, and cultivating genuine academic freedom.
May I ask Princeton University:
Do you understand?