Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 21, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Reliable disruption prediction is essential for the safe operation of future tokamaks. Existing full-distribution survival methods model the complete residual time-to-disruption distribution, whereas operational decisions primarily depend on disruption risk within a finite prediction horizon. This mismatch motivates introducing Early Event Prediction (EEP) objectives into survival-based disruption prediction. We take Deep Survival Machines (DSM) as the full-distribution baseline and propose applying two established EEP methods to tokamak disruption prediction: Temporal Label Smoothing (TLS), which directly predicts disruption probability within a finite horizon, and survTLS, which additionally models the event-time distribution within that horizon. Using a common causal encoder, we compare these methods on DIII-D, Alcator C-Mod, and EAST. We distinguish threshold-free deadline ranking from validation-selected fixed-policy alarm performance and evaluate prediction horizons and encoder architectures. TLS achieves the best mean alarm performance on DIII-D and EAST, whereas all methods perform poorly on Alcator C-Mod. survTLS does not consistently outperform DSM, suggesting that directly learning horizon-level event probability is more effective than modeling detailed within-horizon event-time distributions in the present setting. Finally, the selected prediction horizons and encoder-ablation results vary across devices, reflecting differences in disruption characteristics.