## 4 Application to Data
### Testing on Discharges with Different Plasma Parameters  
The same analyses have been performed on a restricted set of pulses with either high current and high external heating, or standard operational plasma current and external heating power, as reported in Table 1. It has to be stated that the pulses here considered were conducted with pellets having the same injection conditions such as the pellet diameter and length (2 cm) and requested frequency (35 Hz) with the exception of the 96713 pulse for which a slightly higher frequency had been set (45 Hz). Such difference, however, has not influenced the results obtained with reference to the other pulses analysed.  
The last column of the table shows the pellet triggering efficiency, i.e., the number of triggering pellets divided by the total number of pellets. The triggering efficiency reported seems to drop for pulses with higher plasma currents, i.e., with more than \(\sim\)3.5 MA, but this conclusion is slightly deceitful because the values reported are based on the optimal selection of the threshold for the peak detection of the ELMs signals. High plasma current pulses indeed show different typologies of ELMs, including compound ones for which multiple peaks are observed. Consequently, lowering the threshold for the peak detection, the triggering efficiency for such pulses rises to the values obtained for low plasma current, but a proper justification for such choice would require a deeper analysis of the edge physics involved for the different ELM dynamic observed that, while being an interesting subject for further studies, goes far beyond the scope of this contribution.  
Taking into consideration the definition given above of the triggering efficiency, the estimates reported in Table 1 do not change even considering the percentage of pellets not detected by the pellet local monitor, as specified in Section 2.1 (up to a 20%). On the other hand, it should be stressed that the number of triggered ELMs is, however, underestimated  
Figure 11: Reference distances for triggering time analysis (**a**). Edge–peak distance analysis of ELMs using the beryllium line diagnostic (**b**) for all the 114 ELMs of the pulse in the time window considered.  
when such missing pellets are not considered. Getting down into the details, the percentage of underestimation of triggered ELMs (\(n_{ME}\)) would in fact be:  
\[n_{ME}=0.2\cdot\frac{\
u_{PELL}}{\
u_{ELM}}\cdot p_{\%}^{Triggering\ Efficiency} \tag{8}\]  
The triggering times of the pellet-paced ELMs measured by the diamond UV and the beryllium line are reported in Figure 12; also, for the pulses considered in this section, such estimates are in line with JOREK prediction [26]. It can be observed that all the pulses, considering their uncertainties, provide the similar values, suggesting that the average triggering time is not affected by the plasma parameters and that this new method is extremely robust, since it returns the same results in different conditions. However, it has to be stressed how the mean estimates from the diamond UV detector are more in line with the numerical simulations [26] with reference to the beryllium line, highlighting the quality and importance of the measurements of such diagnostics.