ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Explore membership for yourself or for your organization.
Conference Spotlight
2026 Annual Conference
May 31–June 3, 2026
Denver, CO|Sheraton Denver
Standards Program
The Standards Committee is responsible for the development and maintenance of voluntary consensus standards that address the design, analysis, and operation of components, systems, and facilities related to the application of nuclear science and technology. Find out What’s New, check out the Standards Store, or Get Involved today!
Latest Magazine Issues
Dec 2025
Jul 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
January 2026
Nuclear Technology
December 2025
Fusion Science and Technology
November 2025
Latest News
What’s the most difficult question you’ve been asked as a maintenance instructor?
Blye Widmar
"Where are the prints?!"
This was the final question in an onslaught of verbal feedback, comments, and critiques I received from my students back in 2019. I had two years of instructor experience and was teaching a class that had been meticulously rehearsed in preparation for an accreditation visit. I knew the training material well and transferred that knowledge effectively enough for all the students to pass the class. As we wrapped up, I asked the students how they felt about my first big system-level class, and they did not hold back.
“Why was the exam from memory when we don’t work from memory in the plant?” “Why didn’t we refer to the vendor documents?” “Why didn’t we practice more on the mock-up?” And so on.
Jiancheng Hou, Jiahui Hu, Xiaofeng Han, Jianhua Yang, Jichao Wang, Teng Wang, Jingang Chen
Fusion Science and Technology | Volume 81 | Number 5 | July 2025 | Pages 425-436
Research Article | doi.org/10.1080/15361055.2024.2431783
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Accurately and rapidly obtaining the position of the plasma boundary is a necessary condition for the stable operation of tokamaks. In order to address the various shortcomings of the magnetic measurement methods commonly used in modern tokamak devices and to meet the development trend of diagnostic methods for fusion devices, it is necessary to meet the more stringent operational requirements in the future. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct research on optical diagnostic methods.Traditional optical methods often rely on complex physical models and manual feature extraction. This paper proposes a method based on deep learning algorithms that reconstructs the plasma boundary position solely through image reconstruction. For the plasma image recognition task on the Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST), we utilized a multiband and high-speed visible endoscope diagnostic system to construct the dataset required for building neural network models. We proposed an improved lightweight U-Net network model to identify optical boundaries. Subsequently, we introduced the convolutional block attention module (CBAM) to further extract image information, and we addressed the overfitting issue of the neural network by employing the Dropkey regularizer. Finally, we utilized the skeleton refinement algorithm to extract boundary coordinates and mapped them to the Equilibrium Fitting code (EFIT) reconstruction results using the CatBoost algorithm. The method proposed in this paper can convert the plasma optical boundary coordinates obtained from visible light cameras into tokamak-level plane coordinates, thereby achieving the reconstruction of plasma shapes on EAST. This approach circumvents the issues encountered by magnetic measurement and traditional optical methods. From the experimental results, it can be observed that compared to the original U-Net model, the optical boundary recognition model proposed in this paper has improved the mean accuracy, recall, F1 score, and mean intersection over union metrics by 3.99%, 8.06%, 2.74%, and 3.73%, respectively, on the test set. Additionally, the average error of the boundary reconstruction algorithm compared to the EFIT data is only 6.45 mm.
