Skip to content
Technology How it works Breeder — Hyperion Burner — Aegis Burner — MetroVolt AI-Native Architecture Magnets Fuel cycle Safety Roadmap
Solutions AI & Data Centers Defense & Government Grid & Baseload Neutron Detection Quantum
Learn Technical Library
Proof Publications Whitepapers Technical Library Open Science & Reproducibility The Honest Gates
Company About / Mission Leadership Environment Health & Safety Investors Careers Press Contact
3D Model
AI Architecture › Quantum for Fusion
Quantum for Fusion

QAOA for Experiment Campaign Ordering

Ordering plasma shots and parameter sweeps to maximize information under machine-time limits is a combinatorial problem we test QAOA against.

STRATEGY / SLOW ▲ ▼ MICROSECOND REAL-TIMEL7Ecosystem & Strategytelemetry ▲ control ▼open ▸L6Experience & Visualizationtelemetry ▲ control ▼open ▸L5Applications & Copilotstelemetry ▲ control ▼open ▸L4Orchestrationtelemetry ▲ control ▼open ▸L3Twin Modeling & AItelemetry ▲ control ▼open ▸L2Data Fabrictelemetry ▲ control ▼open ▸L1Control Planetelemetry ▲ control ▼open ▸L0Foundationtelemetry ▲ control ▼open ▸PHYSICAL S.M.A.R.T. GENERATOR PLANTBREEDER · HYPERION1R0 1.2 m · A 2.5 · 16.84 T · δ −0.30BURNER · TANDEM MIRROR2317 T throat · 26.49 T plug · fₙ 5.44% · DEC1 center stack + plasma · 2 high-field plug · 3 expander → direct converterCOLOR GRAMMAR strategy AI-workflow infra/data models reactor/DECLINE SEMANTICStelemetry (µs)controlKRONOS FUSION ENERGYAI-NATIVE S.M.A.R.T. GENERATORMASTER BLUEPRINTSHEET 01REV. 2026-08L0-L7 · 2 MACHINES
The AI-Native S.M.A.R.T. Generator Master Blueprint — eight layers (L0→L7), one control stack, wired to both machines. Telemetry rises in microseconds; control descends the same path.

Sequencing scarce machine time

Commissioning and characterizing the breeder and burner involves large parameter sweeps: negative-triangularity shape scans on the breeder, breeding-ratio configurations, plug-density operating points on the burner. Machine time is scarce and shots have setup dependencies (a configuration change costs conditioning time). Choosing an order that maximizes information gained per unit machine time is a sequencing optimization.

text
# Sequence pi over shots to maximize info minus transition cost
maximize  sum_i  I(shot_{pi(i)})  -  sum_i  t_setup( pi(i-1) -> pi(i) )
#   I(shot)      expected information gain (from twin/surrogate model)
#   t_setup      reconfiguration time between successive shots
# a prize-collecting sequencing / TSP-like structure -> NP-hard

Ising encoding of an ordering

An ordering is encoded with position-indexed binaries x_{s,p} = 1 if shot s occupies position p, with permutation constraints as penalties, the same recipe as the traveling-salesman Ising map, then handed to QAOA or a quantum annealer.

text
H = -sum_{s,p} I_s x_{s,p}
  + sum_{s,s',p} t_{s,s'} x_{s,p} x_{s',p+1}       # transition cost
  + P*( sum_s( sum_p x_{s,p} -1 )^2 + sum_p( sum_s x_{s,p} -1 )^2 )
#   permutation penalties: each shot once, each slot once

Where this connects and where it stops

This is a clean, safety-isolated place to benchmark quantum optimization: a bad schedule wastes planning, not plasma. It remains research until a quantum method demonstrably outperforms the classical baseline. The active-learning loop that feeds it is described in the L0 surrogate pages; the honest overall stance is in the roadmap.

Content reviewed August 2026 · design-and-simulation stage