Failure to map sources when loading IMAS core_sources

[theo-brown]

In TORAX 1.4.1, I thought we supported loading from core_sources.
However, when I load I get:

2026-06-22 11:21:20,425 [    INFO] IMAS Source total does not have a corresponding TORAX source model. Skipping this source.
2026-06-22 11:21:20,425 [    INFO] IMAS Source auxiliary does not have a corresponding TORAX source model. Skipping this source.
2026-06-22 11:21:20,425 [    INFO] IMAS Source nbi does not have a corresponding TORAX source model. Skipping this source.
2026-06-22 11:21:20,426 [    INFO] IMAS Source lh does not have a corresponding TORAX source model. Skipping this source.
2026-06-22 11:21:20,428 [    INFO] IMAS Source bootstrap_current does not have a corresponding TORAX source model. Skipping this source.
2026-06-22 11:21:20,428 [    INFO] IMAS Source radiation does not have a corresponding TORAX source model. Skipping this source.
2026-06-22 11:21:20,428 [    INFO] IMAS Source synchrotron_radiation does not have a corresponding TORAX source model. Skipping this source.
2026-06-22 11:21:20,428 [    INFO] IMAS Source cold_neutrals does not have a corresponding TORAX source model. Skipping this source.
2026-06-22 11:21:20,428 [    INFO] IMAS Source charge_exchange does not have a corresponding TORAX source model. Skipping this source.

Most of these are expected, except from charge_exchange and radiation and synchrotron_radiation - we do have those in TORAX, so it should be possible to load them. Or am I misunderstanding the choice made in the mapping?

@MateoBell , @Nush395

[MateoBell]

Hey @theo-brown,
I think for now the mapping maps the IMAS source which match best the TORAX source. We can extend it and i.e. group synchrotron_radiation with cyclotron_radiation, but we should decide what to do in case the combined cyclotron_synchrotron_radiation is filled. Same for the different radiation sources to avoid double counting.
For charge_exchange do we have a matching source in TORAX ?

Either we can make the mapping more flexible or let the user load these kind of sources by hand and combine them, wdyt is the best ? It can already be handled by creating a new core_sources._SourceCollection() and filling them. For example I have a config where I load them separately with

for source in core_sources_ids.source:
    if source.identifier.name == 'radiation' :
        source_profiles = core_sources._extract_source_profiles(
            source, (AffectedCoreProfile.TEMP_EL,)
        )
        additional_sources.add('impurity_radiation', source_profiles)
    if ...

[jcitrin]

synchotron_radiation can be distinct from cyclotron_radiation, for example for runaway electrons, where it would be calculated with a different code from the thermal electrons (which are "cyclotron" even though at higher temps it's more synchotron-like). So both can co-exist. If the combined cyclotron_synchrotron_radiation is filled then we can ignore it (and not raise a warning) since we should have the separate ones too. We can maybe raise a warning if the combined one is filled but the individual ones aren't?

So looking at this case, we can create stub sources for charge_exchange, synchotron_radiation, cold_neutrals, nbi, lower_hybrid (LH) where we'll have no models for them yet but allow prescribed profiles by hand or from IMAS core_sources IDS? In fact, we could do that for all sources that we don't have , from this list

https://github.com/iterorganization/IMAS-Data-Dictionary/blob/develop/schemas/core_sources/core_source_identifier.xml

(ignoring the "combined" sources which we can calculate in post processing, which would then include total, auxiliary, and radiation from the list above in the thread)

Regarding bootstrap: should we allow prescribed bootstrap current in the config, coming from core_sources?

I also looked at IMAS_SOURCE_ID_TO_TORAX_SOURCE_MAPPING and noticed that we are mapping impurity_radiation to impurity_radiation_heat_sink.

Is that correct? According to the XML file that isn't a legal string identifier, so won't be encountered. It should be replaced by line_radiation.

[theo-brown]

I also looked at IMAS_SOURCE_ID_TO_TORAX_SOURCE_MAPPING and noticed that we are mapping impurity_radiation to impurity_radiation_heat_sink.
Is that correct?

It is there in the XML, you just need to scroll down more. If using Marvin, I think it's actually more accurate to do what we're currently doing, as impurity_radiation includes both line and brems.

impurity_radiation | 203 | Line radiation and Bremsstrahlung source; radiation losses are negative sources.

[jcitrin]

It is there in the XML,

Thanks, I missed that!

But I guess IMAS_SOURCE_ID_TO_TORAX_SOURCE_MAPPING can still be extended to also map line_radiation?

There's still the question regarding what to do if multiple sources exist. For example, if there's line_radiation, bremsstrahlung, and impurity_radiation all in an IDS, then it doesn't make sense to load all 3 and just line_radiation, bremsstrahlung should be inputted. But if only impurity_radiation is there, then indeed as you say that can be interpreted as the outcome of a calculation where the entire impurity contribution is pooled and we put that into impurity_radiation_heat_sink. It's a bit tricky trying to handle all the options but I'm not sure how best to handle it.