Skip to content

Competitive Analysis — scpn-control

Last updated: 2026-02-20. Community code timings are from published literature (references at end). SCPN timings are CI-verified on GitHub Actions ubuntu-latest unless noted.

1. Real-Time Control Loop

Code Control Freq Step Latency Language Source
scpn-control (Rust) 10--30 kHz 11.9 us P50 / 23.9 us P99 Rust + Python CI Criterion
DIII-D PCS (production) 4--10 kHz (physics loops) 100--250 us per physics cycle C / Fortran Penaflor 2024; Barr 2024
P-EFIT (GPU) N/A (reconstruction) 300--375 us per iter (129x129) Fortran + CUDA Sabbagh 2023
TORAX N/A (offline sim) ~ms per timestep Python / JAX Citrin 2024
ITER PCS (spec) ~100 Hz diagnostics 5--10 ms processing TBD ITER RTF docs
FUSE N/A (design code) N/A Julia Meneghini 2024

Note on DIII-D: The raw data-acquisition cycle runs at ~16.7 kHz (60 us), but the physics-level control algorithms (rtEFIT, shape control, NTM feedback) execute at 4--10 kHz depending on the algorithm. scpn-control's 11.9 us P50 is still faster than any published DIII-D physics control loop and operates without dedicated FPGA or InfiniBand hardware.

2. Transport Simulation Speed

Code Type Runtime Physics Source
GENE / CGYRO Gyrokinetic 10^5--10^6 CPU-hours Nonlinear 5D Vlasov Jenko 2000; Belli 2008
JINTRAC + QuaLiKiz Full integrated ~217 hours (16 cores) First-principles turbulence TU/e 2021
JINTRAC + QLKNN NN surrogate ~2 hours (1 core) ML surrogate van de Plassche 2020
TORAX 1D JAX Faster than real-time (~seconds) QLKNN10D Citrin 2024
FUSE 1D Julia ~25 ms per step (TJLF) TJLF surrogate Meneghini 2024
scpn-control (Rust) 1.5D step 1.5--5.5 us per step Crit-gradient + neoclassical CI Criterion
scpn-control (MLP) Neural surrogate 24 ns single-point Trained surrogate CI Criterion
QLKNN (TensorFlow) NN inference ~100 us (25 outputs) Surrogate van de Plassche 2020

Fidelity caveat: scpn-control uses a critical-gradient transport model, not QLKNN or TGLF trained on gyrokinetic data. The speed advantage is partly because the physics is simpler. This is an intentional trade-off: reactor- grade control latency in exchange for reduced turbulence fidelity.

3. Equilibrium Reconstruction

Code Grid Method Runtime Source
EFIT (Fortran) 65x65 Current-filament Picard ~2 s full recon Lao 1985
P-EFIT (GPU) 65x65 GPU-accelerated Picard <1 ms per iter Sabbagh 2023
CHEASE (Fortran) 257x257 Fixed-boundary cubic Hermite ~5 s Lutjens 1996
HELENA 201 flux Isoparametric ~10 s Huysmans 1991
FreeGS Variable Picard + multigrid ~seconds FreeGS GitHub
FreeGSNKE Variable Newton-Krylov Faster than FreeGS FreeGSNKE 2024
scpn-control (Rust) 65x65 Picard + SOR ~100 ms Measured
scpn-control (Neural) 129x129 PCA + MLP surrogate 0.39 ms mean CI verified
scpn-control (Multigrid) 65x65 V-cycle ~15 ms Projected

The Neural Equilibrium Kernel achieves P-EFIT-class speed (0.39 ms) on CPU only, without requiring CUDA or GPU hardware.

4. Feature Breadth

Feature scpn-control TORAX PROCESS FREEGS FUSE DREAM
GS Equilibrium Yes (multigrid) Yes (spectral) No Yes (Picard) Yes No
Free-boundary solve Yes Partial No Yes Yes No
Transport solver 1.5D coupled 1D flux-driven 0D No 1D 0--1D
Neuro-symbolic SNN Yes No No No No No
Disruption prediction (ML) Yes No No No No N/A
SPI mitigation Yes No No No No Yes
Neutronics / TBR Yes (1-D slab) No Yes No Yes No
Digital twin (real-time) Yes No No No No No
Rust native backend Yes (5 crates) No No No No No
GPU acceleration Planned (wgpu) Yes (JAX) No No JAX No
Autodifferentiation No Yes (JAX) No No Yes (Julia) No

5. Where Competitors Lead

Weakness Detail Who Does It Better
No autodiff Cannot do gradient-based plasma scenario optimisation TORAX (JAX), FUSE (Julia)
No GPU equilibrium P-EFIT achieves <1 ms on GPU; scpn-control is CPU-only P-EFIT
Simpler turbulence Critical-gradient vs QLKNN/TGLF trained on gyrokinetic data TORAX, FUSE
No RL integration No Gym environment for controller training Gym-TORAX
Smaller community Single-team vs DeepMind / General Atomics resources TORAX, FUSE

6. scpn-control Unique Position

  1. Only open-source code with reactor-grade real-time control -- 11.9 us P50 control loop, faster than any published DIII-D physics loop. No other open-source fusion code offers real-time control at this latency.

  2. Neuro-symbolic SNN + formal verification + digital twin -- the Petri Net to SNN compiler with contract-based verification is architecturally unique in the fusion simulation space.

  3. Neural equilibrium at 0.39 ms without GPU -- achieves P-EFIT-class reconstruction speed on CPU only, enabling edge/embedded deployment.

  4. Full-stack control breadth -- equilibrium, transport, control, disruption mitigation, digital twin in one focused 41-file package.

References

  • Lao, L.L. et al. (1985). Nucl. Fusion 25, 1611 (EFIT).
  • Sabbagh, S.A. et al. (2023). GPU-accelerated EFIT (P-EFIT). ACM SC23.
  • Lutjens, H. et al. (1996). Comput. Phys. Commun. 97, 219 (CHEASE).
  • Huysmans, G.T.A. et al. (1991). Proc. CP90 (HELENA).
  • Romanelli, M. et al. (2014). Plasma Fusion Res. 9, 3403023 (JINTRAC).
  • Citrin, J. et al. (2024). arXiv:2406.06718 (TORAX).
  • Meneghini, O. et al. (2024). arXiv:2409.05894 (FUSE).
  • Jenko, F. et al. (2000). Phys. Plasmas 7, 1904 (GENE).
  • Belli, E.A. & Candy, J. (2008). Phys. Plasmas 15, 092510 (CGYRO).
  • Hoppe, M. et al. (2021). Comput. Phys. Commun. 268, 108098 (DREAM).
  • van de Plassche, K.L. et al. (2020). Phys. Plasmas 27, 022310 (QLKNN).
  • Penaflor, B.G. et al. (2024). DIII-D PCS. Fus. Eng. Des.
  • Barr, J.L. et al. (2024). arXiv:2511.11964 (Parallelised RT physics on DIII-D).
  • FreeGS: https://github.com/freegs-plasma/freegs
  • FreeGSNKE: https://docs.freegsnke.com/
  • Gym-TORAX: arXiv:2510.11283