Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Cost Reduction of Swapping Bonds Part in Anisotropic Tensor Renormalization Group

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a cheaper swapping-bonds step for anisotropic tensor renormalization group, cutting the step's cost from $O(\chi^{2d+1})$ to $O(\chi^{\max(d+3,7)})$ and the whole algorithm's memory from $O(\chi^{2d})$ to…

desk verdict A useful optimization of ATRG's swapping step with real speedups in 4D, but the equivalence argument in Sec. IV needs a corrected proof before the consistency claim is fully certified. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07295 v1 pith:U2RSML55 submitted 2019-08-20 cond-mat.stat-mech hep-latphysics.comp-ph

Hideaki Oba This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechhep-latphysics.comp-ph PACS 05.10.Cc
keywords anisotropictensorrenormalizationgroupswappingbondspartialsingularvaluedecompositionrandomizedSVDfour-dimensionalIsingmodelfreeenergydensitycomputationalcostmemory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to remove the main bottleneck of anisotropic tensor renormalization group (ATRG): the swapping-bonds step, where two tensors are contracted and the result is partially decomposed by singular value decomposition at a cost of $O(\chi^{2d+1})$. It proposes instead to singular-value-decompose the two tensors first, contract only their reduced factors, and decompose that smaller object, lowering the step to $O(\chi^{\max(d+3,7)})$ and the memory of the whole algorithm from $O(\chi^{2d})$ to $O(\chi^{\max(d+1,6)})$. In the four-dimensional Ising model, the free-energy density matches the original ATRG while the elapsed time drops sharply, and the new algorithm reaches lower free-energy density than HOTRG at the same elapsed time. A sympathetic reader would care because this directly raises the bond dimension and dimensionality reachable by tensor renormalization on fixed hardware.

What carries the argument

The central object is the factorized swap matrix $M_s = B_s C_s$, where $B_s$ and $C_s$ are the singular-value-weighted right factors of the individual SVDs of $B$ and $C$. The partial SVD of $M_s$, rather than of the full contraction $M$, is what changes the bond combinations at reduced cost, and the original tensors $X$ and $Y$ are recovered by contracting back with $U^C$ and $U^B$. This object carries the argument because it converts the $O(\chi^{2d+1})$ bottleneck into the $O(\chi^{\max(d+3,7)})$ step, which is no longer the dominant cost of ATRG.

What would settle it

Take one coarse-graining step of the 4D Ising model at moderate $\chi$, compute the full SVD of $M$ and the full SVD of $M_s$, reconstruct the truncated tensors $X$ and $Y$ by both routes, and compare the resulting coarse-grained tensor entry by entry; if the difference does not go to zero as the kept rank approaches the common rank $\chi^3$, the claimed equivalence fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the swapping-bonds bottleneck of ATRG, namely the contraction of two tensors $B$ and $C$ into a matrix $M$ followed by a partial SVD that recombines the bonds, can be replaced by a factorized procedure. The replacement performs SVDs of $B$ and $C$ separately, keeps the singular values inside reduced factors $B_s$ and $C_s$, contracts those into a smaller matrix $M_s$, performs the partial SVD on $M_s$, and then contracts the resulting factors back with the left singular vectors $U^B$ and $U^C$ to form the tensors $X$ and $Y$. The paper claims this lowers the swapping-bond cost from $O(\chi^{2d+1})$ to $O(\chi^{\max(d+3,7)})$ and the whole-algorithm memory cost from $O(\chi^{2d})$ to $O(\chi^{\max(d+1,6)})$, and it attributes the numerical agreement with the original ATRG to the fact that the rank of $M$ is $\chi^3$, the same as the rank of $M_s$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that truncating the smaller factored matrix $M_s$ throws away exactly the same information as truncating the original matrix $M$—the paper shows their ranks agree, but it does not prove that the two truncations select identical subspaces.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The swapping-bonds part is no longer the dominant cost of ATRG; the $O(\chi^{2d+1})$ contractions in step (e) become the new bottleneck, so further speedups should target those contractions.
  • For the 4D Ising model on a $1024^4$ lattice at $T=6.68$, the proposed algorithm gives free-energy densities consistent with the original ATRG while taking significantly less wall-clock time.
  • In a fixed-elapsed-time comparison, the proposed algorithm reaches lower free-energy densities than HOTRG as the bond dimension increases.
  • The whole-algorithm memory requirement falls to $O(\chi^{\max(d+1,6)})$, enabling larger bond dimensions or higher dimensions on a fixed memory budget.
  • With $\chi$ RSVD iterations and $2\chi$ oversamples, the RSVD error in the free-energy density is small enough in the tested regime for $\chi \ge 10$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same factorized-SVD strategy is not limited to this specific ATRG step: any tensor-network coarse graining that contracts two tensors and then partially decomposes the result could in principle use the same trick, with the relative gain growing with dimensionality because the gap between $\max(d+3,7)$ and $2d+1$ widens as $d$ grows.
  • If the SVD-equivalence is made rigorous, the method should reproduce the original ATRG free energy at every bond dimension, not only the tested range; comparing the full singular-value spectra of $M$ and $M_s$ would settle this more directly than free-energy curves alone.
  • The memory bound $O(\chi^{\max(d+1,6)})$ suggests that, at fixed hardware, the practical ceiling on $\chi$ in ATRG is raised substantially: at $d=4$ storage drops from $\chi^8$ to $\chi^6$, which could permit bond dimensions several times larger than before.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a modification of the swapping-bonds step in anisotropic tensor renormalization group (ATRG). Instead of forming the large tensor M by contracting B and C and then performing a partial SVD of M, the new method performs SVDs of B and C without truncation, contracts their reduced factors to form a smaller matrix Ms, performs the partial SVD on Ms, and reconstructs the tensors X and Y. The claimed cost of the swapping step is reduced from O(χ^{2d+1}) to O(χ^{max(d+3,7)}), and the memory cost of the whole algorithm is reduced from O(χ^{2d}) to O(χ^{max(d+1,6)}). The numerical section studies the four-dimensional Ising model on a 1024^4 lattice and reports that the free energy density of the proposed algorithm is consistent with that of the original ATRG while the elapsed time is reduced, and that the proposed algorithm reaches a lower free energy density than HOTRG at fixed elapsed time.

Significance. If the equivalence between truncating M and truncating Ms is properly established, the paper presents a clean and practical improvement to ATRG: the memory reduction from O(χ^{2d}) to O(χ^{d+1}) for d≥5 is particularly valuable, and the cost reduction of the swapping step is significant for d≥4. The numerical benchmark is performed on an external model, the 4D Ising model, with no parameter fitted to the target free energy; the RSVD hyperparameters are studied in Appendix B rather than tuned to the target quantity. The main weakness is that the consistency argument in Sec. IV is only a terse rank-coincidence statement rather than a proof, and that statement is ambiguous without specifying the matrix flattening used in the SVD.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. IV] The consistency of the proposed algorithm with the original ATRG is attributed to the statement that 'the rank of M in the original ATRG is χ^3 and coincides with the rank of Ms in the proposed algorithm.' As written this is not a proof and is ambiguous. For the flattening with rows Ω1Ω2 and columns αβ, M in Eq. (7) is a sum of χ rank-one terms and has rank at most χ; the rank-χ^3 statement can only refer to the flattening used in Eq. (8), namely rows Ω2α and columns Ω1β. The authors should state that flattening explicitly and prove that the top-χ PSVD of M is equivalent to the top-χ PSVD of Ms. The missing argument is: writing B=U^B Bs and C=U^C Cs gives M=P Ms Q^T with P_{(Ω2α),(να')}=δ_{αα'}U^C_{Ω2ν} and Q_{(Ω1β),(μβ')}=δ_{ββ'}U^B_{Ω1μ}; since P and Q are isometries, the nonzero singular values of M and Ms coincide, and the reconstructed X and Y in Eqs. (30)-(31) are the transformed singular factors. Without this proof, the numerical agreement in Fig. 5 is only evidence for the range χ≤25 and does not certify the equivalence at larger χ.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and text] There are several typos: 'renromalization' in the abstract, 'consistis' in Sec. II, 'algorighm' in the caption of Fig. 7, 'paralell' in Sec. V, and 'enegy' in Appendix B.
  2. [Sec. III] The asymptotic claims should state explicitly that for d=3 the proposed swapping step has the same leading cost O(χ^7) as the original, so the asymptotic improvement applies for d≥4; the numerical speedup in d=4 is a prefactor/bottleneck improvement rather than an improvement of the total ATRG scaling, which remains O(χ^{2d+1}).
  3. [Appendix B] Figure 10 shows the original ATRG only at χ=10 while the proposed algorithm is shown at χ=10 and χ=14; adding the original ATRG at χ=14 would make the convergence comparison symmetric and would better support the statement that n=2χ and χ iterations are sufficiently large at all χ used in Sec. IV.
  4. [Figs. 5-8] The numerical results are presented without error estimates. Since RSVD is randomized, reporting a quantitative tolerance for the agreement between the proposed algorithm and the original ATRG, or repeating the RSVD draws, would make the consistency claim more robust.
  5. [Fig. 8] The comparison with HOTRG relies on identifying a lower free energy density with higher accuracy; this is plausible from the monotonic decrease with χ but is not self-evident for non-variational tensor renormalization algorithms. The caption or text should state this more carefully as an empirical observation rather than an established variational bound.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cost reduction is structural and the consistency check is benchmarked against an external model.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an algorithmic cost reduction in the swapping-bonds part of ATRG plus a numerical consistency check. The cost scalings in Sec. III follow from the constructed tensor index dimensions; for example, Eq. (26) contracts Bs and Cs over x1 with auxiliary indices mu and nu whose maximum bond dimensions are chi^2, giving the stated O(chi^{max(d+3,7)}) scaling. No parameter is fitted to the target free energy density. The agreement with the original ATRG shown in Fig. 5 is an external benchmark on the 4D Ising model, and the RSVD oversampling/iteration parameters are selected in a separate convergence study in Appendix B (Fig. 10) rather than tuned to reproduce the original ATRG value. There is no self-citation chain that forces the result: the original ATRG [25] is cited from other authors and used as a baseline, not as an unexamined premise unique to this work. The paper's stated explanation for consistency, that 'the rank of M in the original ATRG is chi^3 and coincides with the rank of Ms', is mathematically questionable because M is a sum of chi rank-one terms and therefore has matrix rank at most chi; however, this is a rigor or correctness issue in justifying the equivalence, not circularity. The proposed algorithm's output is not defined in terms of the original ATRG's output, and the numerical agreement is not enforced by construction. No circular step is established, so the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central complexity claim rests on standard linear algebra (SVD, RSVD) and on the unproved equivalence between truncating the reduced matrix and truncating the original matrix. The RSVD hyperparameters are chosen from a convergence study, not fitted to the target result.

free parameters (2)
  • RSVD oversampling parameter n = 2chi
    Chosen after Appendix B convergence study; affects numerical agreement but not asymptotic complexity.
  • RSVD iteration count = chi
    Similarly chosen from Appendix B; convergence to full SVD is assumed for chi >= 10.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math SVD and randomized SVD provide valid low-rank approximations with controllable error.
    Used in step (c) and (e); convergence of RSVD studied in Appendix B.
  • ad hoc to paper The truncation of Ms followed by transformation with U^B and U^C is equivalent to the truncation of M.
    Stated via rank coincidence in Sec. IV but not proved; central to matching original ATRG.
  • domain assumption The tensor network representation of the 4D Ising partition function is exact and periodic boundary conditions are maintained through coarse graining.
    Baseline for numerical comparison; standard for TRG algorithms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cost Reduction of Swapping Bonds Part in Anisotropic Tensor Renormalization Group." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U2RSML55

@misc{pith2026190807295,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cost Reduction of Swapping Bonds Part in Anisotropic Tensor Renormalization Group},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U2RSML55}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07295}
}
abstract

The bottleneck part of anisotropic tensor renormalization group (ATRG) is a swapping bonds part which consists of a contraction of two tensors and a partial singular value decomposition of a matrix, and their computational costs are $O(\chi^{2d+1})$, where $\chi$ is the maximum bond dimension and $d$ is the dimensionality of a system. We propose an alternative method for the swapping bonds part and it scales with $O(\chi^{\max(d+3,7)})$, though the total cost of ATRG with the method remains $O(\chi^{2d+1})$. Moreover, the memory cost of the whole algorithm can be reduced from $O(\chi^{2d})$ to $O(\chi^{\max(d+1,6)})$. We examine ATRG with or without the proposed method in the four-dimensional Ising model and find that the free energy density of the proposed algorithm is consistent with that of the original ATRG while the elapsed time is significantly reduced. We also compare the proposed algorithm with higher-order tensor renromalization group (HOTRG) and find that the value of the free energy density of the proposed algorithm is lower than that of HOTRG in the fixed elapsed time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07295 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The initial tensor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The flow of the improved method to make [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. The cost reduction of the swapping bonds part in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The free energy density of the four dimensional Ising [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The detail of the total elapsed time at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The flow of the making [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The relative errors of the free energy densities of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Tensor renormalization group study of cold and dense QCD in the strong coupling limit

    hep-lat 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In strong-coupling lattice QCD at Nτ=8, the chiral and nuclear transition endpoints coincide at m_c≈2.06, and a first-order transition persists at m=2.07 on a 1024^4 zero-temperature lattice.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Then, in step (f), G and H are contracted to obtain a coarse- grained tensor T′, T′ Ω′ 0Ω′ 1x0x2 = ∑ x1 GΩ′ 0x0x1HΩ′ 1x1x2

    and Ω′ 1 = (y′ 1,z′ 1,w′ 1). Then, in step (f), G and H are contracted to obtain a coarse- grained tensor T′, T′ Ω′ 0Ω′ 1x0x2 = ∑ x1 GΩ′ 0x0x1HΩ′ 1x1x2. (13) Finally, in step (g), we reorder the bonds of T′ for the next direction of the coarse graining, y-axis, and redefine T′ as T′ Ψ′ 0Ψ′ 1y′ 0y′ 1 in the same way as the initial tensor, where Ψ′ 0 = (x0,z′ 0,w′

    work page

  2. [2]

    53( B C M X Y(a) (b) <latexit sha1_base64=

    and Ψ′ 1 = (x2,z′ 1,w′ 1). As explained in [25], the step (f), (g) and the step (a) of the next coarse graining can be replaced by the following method which has no truncation errors and reduces the computational cost. The flow of the improved method consistis of four steps which are shown in step (c), (d), (e) and (f) of Fig. 3. In step (c) of Fig. 3, G a...

    work page

  3. [3]

    J. I. Cirac and F. Verstraete, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42, 504004 (2009)

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Orus, Ann

    R. Orus, Ann. Phys., 349, 117, (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    S. R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863, (1992)

    work page 1992

  6. [6]

    S. R. White, Phys. Rev. B 48, 10345 (1993)

    1993

  7. [7]

    Schollw¨ ock, Rev

    U. Schollw¨ ock, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 259, (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Fannes, B

    M. Fannes, B. Nachtergaele, and R. F. Werner, Commun. Math. Phys. 144, 443 (1992)

    1992

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    ¨Ostlund and S

    S. ¨Ostlund and S. Rommer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3537, (1995)

    1995

  2. [10]

    Verstraete and J

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, arXiv (2004), cond- mat/0407066

    2004

  3. [11]

    Verstraete, J.I

    F. Verstraete, J.I. Cirac, and V. Murg, Adv. Phys. 57, 143 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    Jordan, R

    J. Jordan, R. Orus, G. Vidal, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 250602 (2008)

    2008

  5. [13]

    Levin and C

    M. Levin and C. P. Nave, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 120601 (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    Z. Y. Xie, J. Chen, M. P. Qin, J. W. Zhu, L. P. Yang, and T. Xiang, Phys. Rev. B 86, 045139 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    Z. Y. Xie, H. C. Jiang, Q. N. Chen, Z. Y. Weng, and T. Xiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 160601, (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    Z. C. Gu and X. G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 80, 155131, (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    Evenbly and G

    G. Evenbly and G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 180405 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Evenbly, Phys

    G. Evenbly, Phys. Rev. B 95, 045117 (2017). 5 The costs of these SVDs can be reduced to O(χ5) if one uses the PSVDs. 10-16 10-14 10-12 10-10 10-8 10-6 10-4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 δf n Original ATRG (χ=10, t=6.65) Original ATRG (χ=10, t=6.68) Proposed algorithm (χ=10, t=6.65) Propo...

    2017

  11. [19]

    S. Yang, Z. C. Gu, and X. G. Wen Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 110504, (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    M. Bal, M. Marien, J. Haegeman, F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 250602 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Morita, R

    S. Morita, R. Igarashi, H.H. Zhao, and N. Kawashima, Phys. Rev. E. 97, 033310 (2018). 8

    2018

  14. [22]

    Hauru, C

    M. Hauru, C. Delcamp and S. Mizera, Phys. Rev. B 97, 045111 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Harada, Phys

    K. Harada, Phys. Rev. B 97, 045124 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Evenbly, Phys

    G. Evenbly, Phys. Rev. B 98, 085155 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Nakamura, H

    Y. Nakamura, H. Oba, and S. Takeda, Phys. Rev. B 99, 155101 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    S. Iino, S. Morita, and N. Kawashima, Phys. Rev. B 100, 035449 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Adachi, T

    D. Adachi, T. Okubo, and S. Todo, arXiv:1906.02007

    1906 arXiv

  20. [28]

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, K. Cichy, K. Jansen and J. I. Cirac, JHEP 1311, 158 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    K¨ uhn, J

    S. K¨ uhn, J. I. Cirac and M. C. Ba˜ nuls, JHEP1507, 130 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, K. Cichy, J. I. Cirac, K. Jansen and H. Saito, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 3, 034519 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, K. Cichy, K. Jansen and H. Saito, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 9, 094512 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, K. Cichy, J. I. Cirac, K. Jansen and S. K¨ uhn, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, no. 7, 071601 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, K. Cichy, J. I. Cirac, K. Jansen and S. K¨ uhn, Phys. Rev. X7, no. 4, 041046 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Shimizu, Mod

    Y. Shimizu, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 27, 1250035 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    Shimizu and Y

    Y. Shimizu and Y. Kuramashi, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 1, 014508 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Shimizu and Y

    Y. Shimizu and Y. Kuramashi, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 7, 074503 (2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    Shimizu and Y

    Y. Shimizu and Y. Kuramashi, Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 3, 034502 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Denbleyker, Y

    A. Denbleyker, Y. Liu, Y. Meurice, M. P. Qin, T. Xiang, Z. Y. Xie, J. F. Yu and H. Zou, Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 1, 016008 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    J. F. Yu, Z. Y. Xie, Y. Meurice, Y. Liu, A. Denbleyker, H. Zou, M. P. Qin and J. Chen,T. Xiang Phys. Rev. E 89, no. 1, 013308 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    Meurice, A

    Y. Meurice, A. Bazavov, S. W. Tsai, J. Unmuth-Yockey, L. P. Yang and J. Zhang, PoS LATTICE 2016, 325 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Takeda and Y

    S. Takeda and Y. Yoshimura, PTEP 2015, no. 4, 043B01 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    Kawauchi and S

    H. Kawauchi and S. Takeda, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 11, 114503 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    Sakai, S

    R. Sakai, S. Takeda and Y. Yoshimura, PTEP 2017, no. 6, 063B07 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Kadoh, Y

    D. Kadoh, Y. Kuramashi, Y. Nakamura, R. Sakai, S. Takeda and Y. Yoshimura, JHEP 1803, 141 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    W. E. Arnoldi, Quart. Appl. Math. 9, 17 (1951)

    1951

  38. [46]

    Halko, P

    N. Halko, P. Martinsson and J. Tropp, SIAM Review 53, 217 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    P. H. Lundow and K. Markstrm, Phys. Rev. E80, 031104 (2009)

    2009

  40. [48]

    Akiyama, Y

    S. Akiyama, Y. Kuramashi, T. Yamashita, and Y. Yoshimura, arXiv:1906.06060

    1906 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.