High-energy-density physics is the field of physics concerned with studying matter at extremely high temperatures and densities. Such conditions produce highly nonlinear plasmas, in which several phenomena that can normally be treated independently of one another become strongly coupled. The study of these plasmas is important for our understanding of astrophysics, nuclear fusion and fundamental physics—however, the nonlinearities and strong couplings present in these extreme physical systems makes them very difficult to understand theoretically or to optimize experimentally. Here we argue that machine learning models and data-driven methods are in the process of reshaping our exploration of these extreme systems that have hitherto proved far too nonlinear for human researchers. From a fundamental perspective, our understanding can be improved by the way in which machine learning models can rapidly discover complex interactions in large datasets. From a practical point of view, the newest generation of extreme physics facilities can perform experiments multiple times a second (as opposed to approximately daily), thus moving away from human-based control towards automatic control based on real-time interpretation of diagnostic data and updates of the physics model. To make the most of these emerging opportunities, we suggest proposals for the community in terms of research design, training, best practice and support for synthetic diagnostics and data analysis.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $3.90 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Rose, S. Set the controls for the heart of the Sun. Contemp. Phys. 45, 109–121 (2004).
Spears, B. K. et al. Deep learning: a guide for practitioners in the physical sciences. Phys. Plasmas 25, 080901 (2018). This tutorial paper gives an introduction to scientific machine learning, with examples taken from ICF research.
Wang, Z., Peterson, J. L., Rea, C. & Humphreys, D. Special issue on machine learning, data science, and artificial intelligence in plasma research. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 48, 1–2 (2020).
Colvin, J. & Larsen, J. Extreme Physics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
Graziani, F., Desjarlais, M. P., Redmer, R. & Trickey, S. B. (eds) Frontiers and Challenges in Warm Dense Matter Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering Vol. 96 (Springer, 2014).
Gould, O., Mangles, S., Rajantie, A., Rose, S. & Xie, C. Observing thermal Schwinger pair production. Phys. Rev. A 99, 052120 (2019).
Millot, M. et al. Experimental evidence for superionic water ice using shock compression. Nat. Phys. 14, 297–302 (2018).
Celliers, P. M. et al. Insulator−metal transition in dense fluid deuterium. Science 361, 677–682 (2018).
Joshi, C. & Malka, V. Focus on laser- and beam-driven plasma accelerators. New J. Phys. 12, 045003 (2010).
Hidding, B., Foster, B., Hogan, M. J., Muggli, P. & Rosenzweig, J. B. Directions in plasma wakefield acceleration. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 377, 20190215 (2019).
Wang, W.-M. et al. Collimated ultrabright gamma rays from electron wiggling along a petawatt laser-irradiated wire in the QED regime. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 9911–9916 (2018).
Badziak, J. Laser-driven ion acceleration: methods, challenges and prospects. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 959, 012001 (2018).
Feng, J. et al. High-efficiency neutron source generation from photonuclear reactions driven by laser plasma accelerator. High Energy Density Phys. 36, 100753 (2020).
Hidding, B. et al. Plasma wakefield accelerator research 2019−2040: a community-driven UK roadmap compiled by the plasma wakefield accelerator steering committee (PWASC). Working Paper (2019); preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09205.
Nuckolls, J., Wood, L., Thiessen, A. & Zimmerman, G. Laser compression of matter to super-high densities: thermonuclear applications. Nature 239, 139–142 (1972).
Hurricane, O. A. & Program, I. Overview of progress and future prospects in indirect drive implosions on the National Ignition Facility. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 717, 012005 (2016).
Fournier, K. NIF Monthly Highlights for July 2019. LLNL Technical Report, LLNL-TR-785259; NIF-1006466629981592, http://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1548376/ (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 2019).
Remington, B. A., Rudd, R. E. & Wark, J. S. From microjoules to megajoules and kilobars to gigabars: probing matter at extreme states of deformation. Phys. Plasmas 22, 090501 (2015).
Trines, R. CLF Annual Report 2017–2018, https://www.clf.stfc.ac.uk/Pages/Annual-Report-2017-18.aspx (Science and Technology Facilities Council, 2019).
Sturm, C. & Stöcker, H. The facility for antiproton and ion research FAIR. Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. 8, 865–868 (2011).
MacDonald, M. J. et al. Measurement of high-dynamic range X-ray Thomson scattering spectra for the characterization of nano-plasmas at LCLS. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 87, 11E709 (2016).
Mitchell, T. Machine Learning (McGraw-Hill, 1997).
Sivia, D. & Skilling, J. Data Analysis: A Bayesian Tutorial (Oxford Univ. Press).
Brunton, S. L. & Kutz, J. N. Data-Driven Science and Engineering (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).
Reichstein, M. et al. Deep learning and process understanding for data-driven Earth system science. Nature 566, 195–204 (2019).
Fleming, S. W. & Gupta, H. V. The physics of river prediction. Phys. Today 73, 46–52 (2020).
Streeter, M. J. V. et al. Temporal feedback control of high-intensity laser pulses to optimize ultrafast heating of atomic clusters. Appl. Phys. Lett. 112, 244101 (2018).
Gopalaswamy, V. et al. Tripled yield in direct-drive laser fusion through statistical modelling. Nature 565, 581–586 (2019). This paper is the first to use data-driven approaches to motivate and carry out new ICF experiments.
Hatfield, P. W., Rose, S. J. & Scott, R. H. H. The blind implosion-maker: automated inertial confinement fusion experiment design. Phys. Plasmas 26, 062706 (2019).
Martin, M., London, R., Goluoglu, S. & Whitley, H. An automated design process for short pulse laser driven opacity experiments. High Energy Density Phys. 26, 26–37 (2018).
Raghu, M. & Schmidt, E. A Survey of Deep Learning for Scientific Discovery (2020); preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/2003.11755.
Thayer, J. et al. Data systems for the Linac Coherent Light Source. Adv. Struct. Chem. Imag. 3, 3 (2017).
Bernal, J. L., Peacock, J. A., Bernal, J. L. & Peacock, J. A. Conservative cosmology: combining data with allowance for unknown systematics. J. Cosmol. Astroparticle Phys. 2018, 002 (2018). This paper considers how to get realistic uncertainty estimates in the presence of unknown systematics.
Osthus, D., Vander Wiel, S. A., Hoffman, N. M. & Wysocki, F. J. Prediction uncertainties beyond the range of experience: a case study in inertial confinement fusion implosion experiments. SIAM/ASA J. Uncertainty Quant. 7, 604–633 (2019).
Lang, M. & Owens, M. J. A variational approach to data assimilation in the solar wind. Space Weather 17, 59–83 (2019).
Gaffney, J. A. et al. Making inertial confinement fusion models more predictive. Phys. Plasmas 26, 082704 (2019).
Kasim, M. F., Galligan, T. P., Topp-Mugglestone, J., Gregori, G. & Vinko, S. M. Inverse problem instabilities in large-scale modeling of matter in extreme conditions. Phys. Plasmas 26, 112706 (2019).
van de Plassche, K. L. et al. Fast modeling of turbulent transport in fusion plasmas using neural networks. Phys. Plasmas 27, 022310 (2020).
Meneghini, O. et al. Self-consistent core-pedestal transport simulations with neural network accelerated models. Nucl. Fusion 57, 086034 (2017).
Anirudh, R., Thiagarajan, J. J., Bremer, P.-T. & Spears, B. K. Improved surrogates in inertial confinement fusion with manifold and cycle consistencies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 9741–9746 (2020).
Kluth, G. et al. Deep learning for NLTE spectral opacities. Phys. Plasmas 27, 052707 (2020). This paper uses machine learning to emulate opacity calculations, in order to speed up ICF simulations.
Humbird, K. D., Peterson, J. L. & McClarren, R. G. Deep neural network initialization with decision trees. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 30, 1286–1295 (2019). This paper presents a data-driven method for selecting deep neural network architecture and hyperparameters
Kasim, M. F. et al. Building high accuracy emulators for scientific simulations with deep neural architecture search. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.08055 (2020).
Kustowski, B. et al. Transfer learning as a tool for reducing simulation bias: application to inertial confinement fusion. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 48, 46–53 (2020). Transfer learning updates a subset of a pre-trained deep neural network using experimental data; this paper explores its application to sparse ICF datasets.
Bambi, C. Astrophysical black holes: a compact pedagogical review. Ann. Phys. 530, 1700430 (2018).
The National Space Weather Program Strategic Plan. Technical Report CM-P30–1995, https://www.icams-portal.gov/publications/spacewx/nswp2.html (ICAMS, 1995).
Eastwood, J. P. et al. The economic impact of space weather: where do we stand? Risk Anal. 37, 206–218 (2017).
Camporeale, E. The challenge of machine learning in space weather: nowcasting and forecasting. Space Weather 17, 1166–1207 (2019).
Camporeale, E., Carè, A. & Borovsky, J. E. Classification of solar wind with machine learning. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 122, 10910–10920 (2017).
Chen, Y. et al. Identifying solar flare precursors using time series of SDO/HMI images and SHARP parameters. Space Weather 17, 1404–1426 (2019).
Campi, C. et al. Feature ranking of active region source properties in solar flare forecasting and the uncompromised stochasticity of flare occurrence. Astrophys. J. 883, 150 (2019).
Inceoglu, F. et al. Using machine learning methods to forecast if solar flares will be associated with CMEs and SEPs. Astrophys. J. 861, 128 (2018).
Bobra, M. G. & Ilonidis, S. Predicting coronal mass ejections using machine learning methods. Astrophys. J. 821, 127 (2016).
Sarma, R. et al. Bayesian inference of quasi-linear radial diffusion parameters using Van Allen probes. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 125, e2019JA027618 (2020).
Camporeale, E. et al. A gray-box model for a probabilistic estimate of regional ground magnetic perturbations: enhancing the NOAA operational geospace model with machine learning. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 125, e27684 (2020).
Lamb, K. et al. Correlation of auroral dynamics and GNSS scintillation with an autoencoder. In Second Workshop on Machine Learning and the Physical Sciences (NeurIPS 2019) (2019); preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.03085.
Rowlinson, A. et al. Identifying transient and variable sources in radio images. Astron. Comput. 27, 111–129 (2019).
Coughlin, M. W., Dietrich, T., Margalit, B. & Metzger, B. D. Multi-messenger Bayesian parameter inference of a binary neutron-star merger. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Lett. 489, L91–L96 (2019). This paper uses both gravitational-wave and multi-wavelength electromagnetic data to simultaneously constrain stellar masses, orbital parameters, and supra-nuclear density equations of state.
Dorn, C. et al. A generalized Bayesian inference method for constraining the interiors of super Earths and sub-Neptunes. Astron. Astrophys. 597, A37 (2017).
Bellinger, E. P. et al. Fundamental parameters of main-sequence stars in an instant with machine learning. Astrophys. J. 830, 31 (2016).
Lochner, M., McEwen, J. D., Peiris, H. V., Lahav, O. & Winter, M. K. Photometric supernova classification with machine learning. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 225, 31 (2016).
Kong, X. et al. Spectral feature extraction for DB white dwarfs through machine learning applied to new discoveries in the SDSS DR12 and DR14. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 130, 084203 (2018).
Huppenkothen, D., Heil, L. M., Hogg, D. W. & Mueller, A. Using machine learning to explore the long-term evolution of GRS 1915+105. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 466, 2364–2377 (2017).
Chardin, J. et al. A deep learning model to emulate simulations of cosmic reionization. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 490, 1055–1065 (2019).
Saumon, D. & Guillot, T. Shock compression of deuterium and the interiors of Jupiter and Saturn. Astrophys. J. 609, 1170–1180 (2004).
Smith, R. F. et al. Ramp compression of diamond to five terapascals. Nature 511, 330–333 (2014).
Tzeferacos, P. et al. Laboratory evidence of dynamo amplification of magnetic fields in a turbulent plasma. Nat. Commun. 9, 591 (2018).
Falcon, R. E. et al. Laboratory measurements of white dwarf photospheric spectral lines: Hβ. Astrophys. J. 806, 214 (2015).
Bailey, J. E. et al. A higher-than-predicted measurement of iron opacity at solar interior temperatures. Nature 517, 56–59 (2015).
Nagayama, T. et al. Systematic study of L-shell opacity at stellar interior temperatures. Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 235001 (2019).
de Souza, R. S., Boston, S. R., Coc, A. & Iliadis, C. Thermonuclear fusion rates for tritium + deuterium using Bayesian methods. Phys. Rev. C 99, 014619 (2019).
Zhelavskaya, I. S., Shprits, Y. Y. & Spasojević, M. Empirical modeling of the plasmasphere dynamics using neural networks. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 122, 11227–11244 (2017).
Zhelavskaya, I. S., Shprits, Y. Y. & Spasojevic, M. in Machine Learning Techniques for Space Weather 301–327 (Elsevier, 2018).
Freidberg, J. Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008).
Atzeni, S., Meyer-ter Vehn, J. & Meyer-ter Vehn, J. The Physics of Inertial Fusion: BeamPlasma Interaction, Hydrodynamics, Hot Dense Matter International Series of Monographs on Physics (Clarendon Press, 2004).
Lindl, J. Inertial Confinement Fusion: The Quest for Ignition and Energy Gain Using Indirect Drive (AIP Press, 1998).
Campbell, E. M. & Hogan, W. J. The National Ignition Facility—applications for inertial fusion energy and high-energy-density science. Plasma Phys. Contr. Fusion 41, B39–B56 (1999).
Moses, E. I. Ignition on the National Ignition Facility. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 112, 012003 (2008).
Boehly, T. et al. Initial performance results of the OMEGA laser system. Opt. Commun. 133, 495–506 (1997).
Slutz, S. A. High-gain magnetized inertial fusion. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 025003 (2012).
Gomez, M. R. et al. Experimental demonstration of fusion-relevant conditions in magnetized liner inertial fusion. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 155003 (2014).
Dimonte, G. Quantitative metrics for evaluating thermonuclear design codes and physics models applied to the National Ignition Campaign. Phys. Plasmas 27, 052709 (2020).
Yang, C. et al. Preparing Dense Net for Automated HYDRA Mesh Management via Reinforcement Learning. Technical Report LLNL-TR-799958, https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1580017 (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 2019). This report details the use of deep neural networks to automatically perform adaptive mesh refinement in radiation-hydrodynamics simulations.
Peterson, J. L. et al. Merlin: enabling machine learning-ready HPC ensembles. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.02892 (2019).
Peterson, J. L. et al. Zonal flow generation in inertial confinement fusion implosions. Phys. Plasmas 24, 032702 (2017). This paper presents the first novel ICF design reached using machine learning.
Amorin, C., Kegelmeyer, L. M. & Kegelmeyer, W. P. A hybrid deep learning architecture for classification of microscopic damage on National Ignition Facility laser optics. Stat. Analysis Data Mining 12, 505–513 (2019). Here, deep neural network-based image classification is used to detect and classify damage in the NIF laser system, allowing more reliable operation at high energy.
Nora, R., Peterson, J. L., Spears, B. K., Field, J. E. & Brandon, S. Ensemble simulations of inertial confinement fusion implosions. Stat. Analysis Data Mining 10, 230–237 (2017).
Gaffney, J. A. et al. The JAG Inertial Confinement Fusion Simulation Dataset For Multi-Modal Scientific Deep Learning https://library.ucsd.edu/dc/object/bb5534097t (2020). This dataset is an example of open data practices in ICF, and is one of the first multi-modal scientific datasets to be released by the HEDP community.
Thiagarajan, J. J. et al. Designing accurate emulators for scientific processes using calibration-driven deep models. Nat. Commun. 11, 5622 (2020).
Hatfield, P. et al. Using sparse Gaussian processes for predicting robust inertial confinement fusion implosion yields. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 48, 14–21 (2020).
Glinsky, M. E. et al. Quantification of MagLIF morphology using the Mallat scattering transformation. Phys. Plasmas 27, 112703 (2019). This paper uses a novel, physics-motivated deep neural network architecture to featurize images of ICF implosions driven on the Z pulsed-power machine.
Palaniyappan, S. et al. Hydro-scaling of direct-drive cylindrical implosions at the OMEGA and the National Ignition Facility. Phys. Plasmas 27, 042708 (2020).
Gaffney, J., Clark, D., Sonnad, V. & Libby, S. Development of a Bayesian method for the analysis of inertial confinement fusion experiments on the NIF. Nucl. Fusion 53, 073032 (2013).
Gaffney, J., Clark, D., Sonnad, V. & Libby, S. Bayesian inference of inaccuracies in radiation transport physics from inertial confinement fusion experiments. High Energy Density Phys. 9, 457–461 (2013).
Knapp, P. A Bayesian Parameter Estimation Framework for Understanding Fusion Experiments on Z. Technical Report SAND2018-1698PE663774, https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1525597 (2018).
Hsu, A., Cheng, B. & Bradley, P. A. Analysis of NIF scaling using physics informed machine learning. Phys. Plasmas 27, 012703 (2020).
Humbird, K. D., Peterson, J. L., Spears, B. K. & McClarren, R. G. Transfer learning to model inertial confinement fusion experiments. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 48, 61–70 (2020).
Götzfried, J. et al. Research towards high-repetition rate laser-driven X-ray sources for imaging applications. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A 909, 286–289 (2018).
He, Z.-H. et al. Coherent control of plasma dynamics. Nat. Commun. 6, 7156 (2015).
Dann, S. J. et al. Laser wakefield acceleration with active feedback at 5 Hz. Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 22, 041303 (2019).
Kirschner, J., Mutny, M. M., Hiller, N., Ischebeck, R. & Krause, A. Adaptive and safe Bayesian optimization in high dimensions via one-dimensional subspaces. In Proc. Machine Learning Res. 97, 3429–3438 (2019). This paper describes a Bayesian optimization method for a free electron laser that prevents the laser from violating any safety constraints.
Shalloo, R. J. et al. Automation and control of laser wakefield accelerators using Bayesian optimization. Nat. Commun. 11, 6355 (2020).
Maier, A. R. et al. Decoding sources of energy variability in a laser-plasma accelerator. Phys. Rev. X 10, 031039 (2020).
Team, J. T. et al. Hybrid neural network for density limit disruption prediction and avoidance on J-TEXT tokamak. Nucl. Fusion 58, 056016 (2018).
Fu, Y. et al. Machine learning control for disruption and tearing mode avoidance. Phys. Plasmas 27, 022501 (2020).
Kates-Harbeck, J., Svyatkovskiy, A. & Tang, W. Predicting disruptive instabilities in controlled fusion plasmas through deep learning. Nature 568, 526–531 (2019).
Wilkinson, M. D. et al. Comment: The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).
Albertsson, K. et al. Machine learning in high energy physics community white paper. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1085, 022008 (2018).
Borne, K. D. et al. The revolution in astronomy education: data science for the masses. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3895 (2009).
Pasian, F. et al. Science ground segment for the ESA Euclid Mission. In Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy II (eds Radziwill, N. M. & Chiozzi, G.) Vol. 8451, 845104 (SPIE, 2012).
Lyons, L. Discovering the significance of 5 sigma. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.1284 (2013). This paper discusses the background, rationale, and advantages and disadvantages of the 5σ criterion commonly used in particle physics.
Roodman, A. Blind analysis in particle physics. In Proc. Conf. on Statistical Problems in Particle Physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology (SLAC, 2003).
Roso, L. High repetition rate petawatt lasers. EPJ Web Conf. 167, 01001 (2018).
Zheng, W. et al. Laser performance of the SG-III laser facility. In High Power Laser Science and Engineering Vol. 4, e21 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2016).
Danson, C. N. et al. Petawatt and exawatt class lasers worldwide. In High Power Laser Science and Engineering Vol. 7, e54 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019). This paper reviews some of the many high-powered lasers in use around the world.
Opportunities in Intense Ultrafast Lasers https://doi.org/10.17226/24939 (National Academies Press, 2018).
Lin, Z. et al. SG-II laser elementary research and precision SG-II program. Fusion Eng. Des. 44, 61–66 (1999).
LULI2000 User Guide. https://gargantua.polytechnique.fr/siatel-web/app/linkto/mICYYYTJIe5S (Laboratoire pour l’Utilisation des Lasers Intenses, 2019).
Kirillov, G. A., Murugov, V. M., Punin, V. T. & Shemyakin, V. I. High power laser system ISKRA V. Laser Part. Beams 8, 827–831 (1990).
Zhao, Z. & Wang, D. XFEL Projects in China. In Proc. LINAC2018 (Beijing) http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/linac2018/html/author.htm (2019).
Zhang, Z. et al. The laser beamline in SULF facility. In High Power Laser Science and Engineering Vol. 8, e4 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020).
Schramm, U. et al. First results with the novel petawatt laser acceleration facility in Dresden. In J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 874, 12028 (2017).
European XFEL. Facts and Figures https://www.xfel.eu/facility/overview/facts_amp_figures/index_eng.html.
Linac Coherent Light Source. LCLS-II Design & Performance https://lcls.slac.stanford.edu/lcls-ii/design-and-performance.
Yabashi, M., Tanaka, H., Tono, K. & Ishikawa, T. Status of the SACLA facility. Appl. Sci. 7, 604 (2017).
CERN. FAQ – LHC the Guide. Technical Report CERN-Brochure-2017–002-Eng, https://cds.cern.ch/record/2255762 (CERN, 2017).
This Perspective is the result of a meeting at the Lorentz Center, University of Leiden, 13−17 January 2020. The Lorentz Centre is funded by the Dutch Research Council (NWO) and the University of Leiden. The meeting also had support from the John Fell Oxford University Press (OUP) Research Fund. The organizers are grateful to T. Uitbeijerse (Lorentz Center) for facilitating the meeting. P.W.H. acknowledges funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. A portion of this work was performed under the auspices of the US Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. J.A.G. and G.J.A. were supported by LLNL Laboratory Directed Research and Development project 18-SI-002. The paper has LLNL tracking number LLNL-JRNL-811857. This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc., for the US Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525. This paper describes objective technical results and analysis. Any subjective views or opinions that might be expressed in the paper do not necessarily represent the views of the US Department of Energy or the United States Government.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature thanks Paul Bradley, Michael Bussmann and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Hatfield, P.W., Gaffney, J.A., Anderson, G.J. et al. The data-driven future of high-energy-density physics. Nature 593, 351–361 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03382-w