Inertial Confinement Fusion Forecasting via Large Language Models
AI for Science;Inertial Confinement Fusion
Yes
No ethics review needed.
See weaknesses.
- The integration of LLMs with reservoir computing for scientific applications appears novel both in the nuclear physics domain and across scientific computing more generally. Additionally, the design of the signal-digesting channels is a novel addition.
- Experimental results show that LPI-LLM achieves superior forecasting accuracy relative to the other data-driven approaches presented.
- The introduction of the LPI4AI benchmark dataset provides a valuable resource for the scientific machine learning community.
- The ablation studies provided in table 2C are useful.
This paper presents a method to predict hard X-ray (HXR) energies emitted by the hot electrons in ICF implosions in nuclear physics. The method relies on engineering fusion-specific prompts for LLMs, along with "signal-digesting channels", to predict these time series data. The predictions themselves are then calibrated using a "confidence scanner" to try to characterize the confidence in predictions across the dataset.
- The introduction leans heavily on specialized scientific language, potentially making it less accessible for the broader NeurIPS community unfamiliar with ICF or plasma physics.
- The paper does not incorporate or mention any non-ML models that might be commonly used for these prediction tasks in plasma physics. This would provide a meaningful performance benchmark from within the field.
- The confidence scanner’s accuracy is only demonstrated through select examples. However, there is no quantifiable metric provided. Could the authors perform any expected calibration test on these results? This is particularly valuable in light of the fact that the confidence scanner is not shown to produce a meaningful likelihood analytically.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
Are the authors authorized to release the LPI4AI dataset? Will there be any violation of US DOE guidelines in releasing such data arising out of the research conducted with OMEGA?
The authors introduce a method for predicting electron energy in inertial confinement fusion using a Large Language Model (LLM) approach, supported by data collected from experiments on the OMEGA to validate its effectiveness. The use of LLMs for time-series forecasting in this impactful domain is noted as particularly promising. The newly developed LPI4AI dataset is highlighted for its potential to drive innovative research in machine learning. The paper features a comprehensive evaluation, including ablation studies and comparative analyses, to showcase the model's performance.
This paper presents LPI-LLM, an innovative approach that combines Large Language Models (LLMs) with reservoir computing to predict hot electron dynamics in Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF). The method extends traditional reservoir computing by integrating time-series LLMs, utilizing domain-specific prompts and summary statistics to enhance predictive performance. A pre-trained LLM is used for feature extraction based on fusion-specific prompts, followed by training a prediction head to estimate hot electron energy with confidence scores. The model also incorporates components designed to capture both temporal and spatial information. The approach is evaluated using a newly developed dataset of laser-driven ICF shots.
The paper fails to establish in depth how the usage of LLMs can create enough richness of methodology to solve a complex problem to its finer details. Based on my experience of LLM usage for problems of comparable complexity, the limited disclosure of prompts is far from convincing. For an LLM to function effectively as an agent for solving complex problems that involve quantitative analysis, it needs an agentic design that integrates sophisticated prompt engineering and structured reasoning methodologies, such as chain-of-thought prompting. Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting allows an LLM to break down intricate problems into a series of intermediate reasoning steps, mimicking how a human might approach and solve a multi-layered analytical task. This stepwise decomposition helps the model to systematically tackle each part of the problem, enabling clearer and more accurate reasoning. Prompts could be engineered to guide the LLM in sequentially explaining its calculations, assumptions, and decision-making processes. Without implementing such structured approaches, the application of an LLM to complex, analysis-driven problems remains superficial, as the model may produce outputs that hallucinate and lack precision or logical coherence.

This paper has limited meaningful algorithmic contributions and suffers from a method insufficiency or its articulation to address the core problem. This reduces the impact of this paper. This can be better presented by evaluating the system against a wide range of time-series problems with the required details. 

One major concern with Figure 5 is the surprisingly poor performance of baseline models like the vanilla LSTM and Autoformer, which raises questions about whether these models were adequately optimized. Given the proven effectiveness of transformer-based models and LSTMs in similar predictive tasks, their lackluster results suggest potential shortcomings in hyperparameter tuning and model refinement. Without clear details on the training procedures or any effort to optimize these baselines, the comparison appears unconvincing, undermining the reliability of the reported findings.

Additionally, the paper lacks a critical discussion contrasting these models' inherent strengths and weaknesses relative to the proposed method. Providing such insights is essential for readers to assess whether the reported performance differences are due to fundamental advantages of the proposed approach or simply insufficient effort in tuning the baseline models. This omission suggests that the experimental setup may have been incomplete or lacked rigor. To address this, the authors should ensure proper hyperparameter optimization of baseline models, clearly document the tuning process, and include a robust analysis explaining the performance differences. Such enhancements would lend greater credibility to the results and offer readers a more comprehensive understanding of the proposed method's advantages.

It will also be good to explain how the fixed reservoir dynamics in reservoir computing, along with its sensitivity to hyperparameters and limited scalability, impact the model’s adaptability and performance compared to more flexible and fully trainable architectures like transformers and LSTMs, particularly in complex or evolving data environments. The author can then reflect on how reservoir computing could be more impactful for this specific problem despite these shortcomings. Given its lack of adoption, unlike other well-established methods, it is crucial to expand on the topic in detail and establish how this can solve the problem better.
Yes
No ethics review needed.
* Can the authors elucidate more on the spatial encoder block? Are the projections for the prompts “peak,” “trailing,” etc., derived from the LLM itself, followed by a cross-attention mechanism with the temporal encoder’s features?

* How does the confidence assessment engine (CAE) change when the fusion-specific prompt is constructed using only (i) context, (ii) task, or (iii) input descriptors? If only two out of these three descriptors are used, will there be a significant drop in performance?

* For Figure 6 and its counterpart in the supplementary materials, are the authors normalizing the confidence score (C = -H x S) for the plots? If yes, that needs to be clarified in the paper. If not, can the authors explain why the maximum value of that product is close to 1 while the minimum is around 0.90 in certain cases?

* For the LLM baselines (Time-LLM and GPT4TS), can the confidence scanner be implemented? It would be beneficial to find out how confident or under-confident they are on the predictions?

* Can the authors elaborate on the data curation process for LPI4AI?
The paper is well-written and easy to follow, making it accessible to researchers working with scientific data. The authors have mentioned that the code and LPI4AI benchmark will be released in the future. I believe that this will support reproducibility and further research in this area.
In this paper, the authors introduce LPI-LLM, a novel strategy for utilizing large language models (LLMs) in inertial confinement fusion (ICF) experiments. The paper begins with a comprehensive introduction to ICF, providing essential context for understanding the motivation behind this research. The authors leverage the LLM as a repository for general knowledge, employing a combination of scientific (fusion-specific) prompts along with temporal and spatial signals from a signal digestion block as inputs to the LLM. They train a prediction head on top of the LLM to derive the hot-electron energy profile. Additionally, a confidence estimator for the energy profile is developed, which considers both the last layer token embeddings and saliency to enhance trustworthiness. Notably, the authors present a benchmark dataset, LPI4AI, which could be instrumental for the next generation of AI-based ICF research. Extensive validation and ablation studies are conducted across different models to demonstrate their efficacy.
Refer to Questions
LPI-LLM combines LLMs with reservoir computing to accurately predict laser-plasma instabilities in fusion experiments, outperforming existing methods and offering a cost-effective alternative to traditional simulations.
@inproceedings{
anonymous2024inertial,
title={Inertial Confinement Fusion Forecasting via Large Language Models},
author={Anonymous},
booktitle={Submitted to The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations},
year={2024},
url={https://openreview.net/forum?id=JQrBYfD2gg},
note={under review}
}
Controlled fusion energy is deemed pivotal for the advancement of human civilization. In this study, we introduce $\textbf{LPI-LLM}$, a novel integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) with classical reservoir computing paradigms tailored to address a critical challenge, Laser-Plasma Instabilities ($\texttt{LPI}$), in Inertial Confinement Fusion ($\texttt{ICF}$). Our approach offers several key contributions: Firstly, we propose the $\textit{LLM-anchored Reservoir}$, augmented with a $\textit{Fusion-specific Prompt}$, enabling accurate forecasting of $\texttt{LPI}$-generated-hot electron dynamics during implosion. Secondly, we develop $\textit{Signal-Digesting Channels}$ to temporally and spatially describe the driver laser intensity across time, capturing the unique characteristics of $\texttt{ICF}$ inputs. Lastly, we design the $\textit{Confidence Scanner}$ to quantify the confidence level in forecasting, providing valuable insights for domain experts to design the $\texttt{ICF}$ process. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superior performance of our method, achieving 1.90 CAE, 0.14 $\texttt{top-1}$ MAE, and 0.11 $\texttt{top-5}$ MAE in predicting Hard X-ray ($\texttt{HXR}$) energies emitted by the hot electrons in $\texttt{ICF}$ implosions, which presents state-of-the-art comparisons against concurrent best systems.  Additionally, we present $\textbf{LPI4AI}$, the first $\texttt{LPI}$ benchmark based on physical experiments, aimed at fostering novel ideas in $\texttt{LPI}$ research and enhancing the utility of LLMs in scientific exploration. Overall, our work strives to forge an innovative synergy between AI and $\texttt{ICF}$ for advancing fusion energy.
I certify that there is no URL (e.g., github page) that could be used to find authors’ identity.
I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the ICLR Code of Ethics.
AI for Science Inertial Confinement Fusion
I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.
/pdf/d513655f9c9e079804e9e92ecf2bb357ed4b291f.pdf
applications to physical sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.)
I understand the reciprocal reviewing requirement as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/CallForPapers. If none of the authors are registered as a reviewer, it may result in a desk rejection at the discretion of the program chairs. To request an exception, please complete this form at https://forms.gle/Huojr6VjkFxiQsUp6.
I certify that this submission complies with the submission instructions as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/AuthorGuide.
/attachment/9c3452a6421e52d6d22f5980ea6badbd71b4ea68.zip
Inertial Confinement Fusion Forecasting via Large Language Models
ICLR 2025 Conference Submission
ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission