Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Community detection by simulated bifurcation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simulated Bifurcation, a GPU-accelerated quantum-inspired Ising solver, matches the best digital-annealer modularity scores on two community-detection benchmarks and exceeds the scores reported for two quantum machines and a classical…

desk verdict A clean but thin SB demo on two tiny community-detection benchmarks; the Gurobi comparison does not survive scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00075 v1 pith:GA5M4UVX submitted 2024-12-30 math.OC cond-mat.stat-mechq-fin.RMquant-ph

Wei Li , Yi-Lun Du , Nan Su , Konrad Tywoniuk , Kyle Godbey , Horst Stöcker This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OCcond-mat.stat-mechq-fin.RMquant-ph MSC 90C2790C20
keywords communitydetectiongraphpartitioningmodularitymaximizationQUBOIsingmodelsimulatedbifurcationGPUaccelerationpowerdistributionnetworks
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

Simulated Bifurcation (SB) is a GPU-accelerated, quantum-inspired algorithm that solves Ising-type optimization problems, and this paper asks whether it can find high-quality community partitions when modularity maximization is encoded as a QUBO, a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem. On two benchmarks—a 34-node karate club social network and a 33-bus power-distribution network—SB returns modularity values of $Q_e=0.445$ and $Q_e=0.743$, respectively. Those values match the best digital-annealer results reported in the paper's comparison and exceed the values reported for two quantum machines and a classical optimizer. The paper's intended conclusion is that a classical GPU algorithm can match specialized annealing hardware for this NP-hard problem, which matters because community detection is used in social-network analysis and power-grid planning.

What carries the argument

The driving mechanism is the Simulated Bifurcation algorithm family, specifically the discrete variant dSB, which evolves nonlinear-oscillator positions and momenta under a time-dependent Hamiltonian; at the end the sign of each position is read out as an Ising spin $s_i\in\{-1,1\}$, giving a binary solution to a QUBO. The paper maps modularity maximization into that QUBO by flattening the node-to-community assignment variables $x_{ik}$ and adding two penalty terms in Eq. (9): one enforcing $\sum_k x_{ik}=1$ (each node in exactly one community) and one, with binary slack variables, enforcing $\sum_i x_{ik}\geq 1$ (no empty community). The composite matrix $Q'_e$ is the input to dSB, and scanning the community count $K$ produces the modularity-versus-$K$ curves that identify $K_{\mathrm{opt}}$.

What would settle it

Re-run dSB on the karate club network with the penalty configuration the authors used and test every returned partition: if any node is assigned to zero or multiple communities, or any community is empty, the claimed $Q_e=0.445$ is not a valid modularity. A second check is to solve the $K=4$ modularity maximization exactly on the same 34-node graph and compare the global optimum to $0.445$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that discrete Simulated Bifurcation (dSB), run on a single GPU, solves modularity-based community detection at least as well as the strongest annealer baseline and better than the compared quantum and classical solvers. On the karate club network it reports the best modularity at $K=4$ communities, $Q_e=0.445$, and on the 33-bus distribution network at $K=7$ communities, $Q_e=0.743$, using impedance-derived edge weights. The paper states that these results match the digital-annealer partition exactly and exceed the quantum-machine and classical-optimizer values cited from earlier studies. The intended upshot is that quantum-inspired GPU algorithms offer a practical, cheaper alternative to quantum hardware for community detection.

Load-bearing premise

The whole comparison rests on the unstated premise that the QUBO penalty weights are strong enough that every returned partition satisfies 'one community per node and no empty community'; the paper calls them carefully configured but never reports the values or checks feasibility.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same mapping from modularity to QUBO can be applied to any weighted graph, not just the two benchmarks tested.
  • Scanning $K$ and taking the peak modularity gives a concrete procedure for choosing the number of communities in new networks.
  • A single GPU suffices to match the best reported annealer result, so access to quantum annealing hardware is not necessary for this class of instances.
  • The reported optimal partitions coincide with the digital-annealer partitions, suggesting both solvers are converging to the same optimum of the QUBO landscape.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: the paper compares modularity maxima but reports no wall-clock time or GPU-versus-annealer cost; a runtime comparison would show whether SB's practical advantage is speed, cost, or both.
  • Editorial: the penalty weights $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are never given; reporting them and adding a feasibility check would let others verify that the returned solutions are valid partitions and would make the comparison reproducible.
  • Editorial: a natural next test is to apply the same encoding to larger graphs with known planted community structure to see whether SB's advantage persists as network size grows beyond 34 nodes.
  • Editorial: the electrical-modularity weighting used for the 33-bus network points toward a direct application in reconfigurable microgrids, where repeated partitioning under changing loads could exploit SB's GPU speed.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript applies the Simulated Bifurcation (SB) algorithm, specifically the discrete variant dSB, to modularity-based community detection. The modularity maximization problem is formulated as a QUBO with one-hot per-node and non-empty community constraints, using slack variables for the non-empty constraint. The authors report results for Zachary's Karate Club and the IEEE 33-bus system, obtaining Qe=0.445 at K=4 and Qe=0.743 at K=7, and compare these values with published results from IBM, D-Wave, Fujitsu Digital Annealer, and Gurobi. The abstract and conclusion claim that SB matches Fujitsu and surpasses the other platforms.

Significance. If the comparative claims were supported by controlled same-formulation experiments, the paper would provide a useful benchmark showing that a GPU-based classical heuristic can be competitive with specialized annealing hardware on small instances. The QUBO formulation itself is standard, and the reported modularity values agree with the cited Fujitsu results, which lends some credibility. However, the central comparative claim rests on numbers taken from different papers without evidence that the same objective, edge weights, constraints, and K range were used. In particular, the claimed superiority over Gurobi is internally suspicious because an exact MILP solver cannot return a lower optimum on the identical problem. As presented, the results support a feasibility demonstration rather than a rigorous performance comparison.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table II, Section IV.B] The claim that SB surpasses Gurobi is unsupported because the comparison is not made on the same optimization problem. The Gurobi and D-Wave entries (Qe=0.711) are cited from Ref. [29], while the SB entry uses the electrical modularity of Kao et al. with weights 1/|r+jx|, K=7, and constraints (7)-(8). For a 33-vertex graph, an exact MILP solver such as Gurobi cannot return a strictly lower maximum modularity than SB on identical problem data; a lower value necessarily implies a different objective, a fixed K restriction, a time limit, or different constraints. The text gives no evidence that Ref. [29] used the same electrical weighting, the same modularity definition, or the same feasible set. Please either re-run all baselines on the same QUBO problem, or state precisely the problem solved by each cited method and soften the 'surpasses Gurobi' claim accordingly.
  2. [Tables I and II, Sections IV.A-B] The comparative claim rests on single 'best' values from external papers, with no run-to-run statistics for SB and no reported hyperparameters. For a stochastic heuristic such as dSB, a single best value is not reproducible evidence that SB 'achieves the highest modularity'; the difference between 0.445 and 0.444 in Table I is within typical run-to-run variation. The authors should report the number of runs, mean/median/max, standard deviation, and all SB parameters (a0, c0, time step, total time, number of samples), as well as the K scan range used in Figs. 1 and 3. This information is necessary both for reproducibility and for any qualitative ordering among methods.
  3. [Section II.B.4, Eq. (9)] The penalty multipliers alpha and beta and the slack-bit count dmax are described only as 'carefully configured'; their values are never reported, and no evidence is given that every partition in Figs. 2 and 4 satisfies the two constraints (7)-(8). If alpha and beta are too small, the unconstrained QUBO optimum of Eq. (9) may violate the one-community-per-node or non-empty-community constraints, in which case the reported modularity values would not correspond to valid community assignments. The authors should report alpha, beta, and dmax for each K, and provide a constraint-satisfaction check for all displayed partitions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.B title] The title 'Electrical Virtual Micriogrids' contains a typo; it should read 'Microgrids'.
  2. [Section II.B.3, Eq. (9)] The notation x' and Q'_e in Eq. (9) is not defined; clarify that x' augments x with the slack variables and that Q'_e includes the penalty terms.
  3. [Section III] The text says 'we focus on the dSB algorithm' but later refers generically to 'SB'; state explicitly which variant (bSB or dSB) produced the reported numbers and use consistent terminology.
  4. [References] References [30]-[32] are arXiv preprints; if published versions are available, they should be cited instead or in addition, so that readers can verify the exact formulations used in the comparisons.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported modularity values are optimized objective values on fixed external benchmarks, the comparison numbers come from outside papers with no author overlap, and there is no fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

Modularity Qe (Eq. 1) serves as both the optimization objective (Eq. 6, M = -x^T Q_e x, with Q_e encoding the modularity matrix) and the reported evaluation metric, but this is the standard benchmark design for modularity-maximization community detection, not a circular reduction: the headline results (Qe = 0.445 for Karate Club, 0.743 for IEEE 33-bus) are the objective values of concrete partitions displayed in Figs. 2 and 4, obtained on two fixed external benchmark graphs, and the comparison values are taken from external papers (refs. 29-32) authored by different research groups. The reference list contains no self-citations, so no self-citation chain supports the central claim. The unreported penalty strengths alpha, beta and dmax in Eq. (9) are a reproducibility gap, but they are constraint-enforcement parameters, not parameters fitted to the reported modularity values; the modularity of a feasible partition is independent of them once feasibility is enforced, and the displayed partitions are feasible. Adopting the electrical modularity with weights 1/|r+jx| from Kao et al. [32] and then matching the Fujitsu value taken from that same reference is a legitimate replication of a competitor's stated benchmark, not a prediction manufactured from the input. The genuine weakness in the paper is a comparison-validity problem, which lies outside the circularity definition: for the 33-bus graph, an exact MILP solver such as Gurobi cannot be strictly worse than SB on the identical objective and feasible set, so the '0.743 vs 0.711' claim in Table II can hold only if ref. [29] optimized a different objective, imposed a fixed K, used different edge weights, or terminated early; the paper does not establish that the problems are identical. That concern belongs to correctness risk rather than circularity. Verdict: no significant circularity; the derivation is self-contained and externally benchmarked.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on penalty parameters and the correctness of the standard QUBO/SB mapping, but no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (penalty for one-community constraint) = not reported
    Penalty multiplier in Eq. (9); the paper says it is 'carefully configured' but gives no value, and the equivalence of the QUBO optimum to the constrained optimum depends on it.
  • beta (penalty for non-empty community constraint) = not reported
    Penalty multiplier in Eq. (9); same issue as alpha.
  • dmax (number of slack bits) = not reported
    Determines the range of representable community sizes in Eq. (9); the paper says it is 'predetermined based on the number of nodes and communities' but does not give exact values.
  • SB integration parameters (time step, total time) = not reported
    The symplectic Euler integrator in Eqs. (10)-(14) requires a time step and total simulation time; no values are given, and solution quality depends on them.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The QUBO formulation in Eq. (9) exactly represents the constrained modularity maximization problem
    The paper assumes that with suitable alpha, beta, and dmax, the unconstrained QUBO optimum equals the constrained optimum. This is standard in penalty methods but requires sufficiently large penalties; no proof or values are given.
  • domain assumption Modularity Q_e is a valid objective for community detection
    Standard in the field; the resolution parameter gamma=1 is fixed.
  • domain assumption The electrical modularity weighting for IEEE 33-bus (edge weight = 1/|r + i x|) is appropriate
    Adopted from Kao et al. [32]; the paper does not justify it independently.
  • standard math SB algorithm from refs [33,35,36] works as described
    The SB equations are taken from prior work; the paper relies on their correctness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Community detection by simulated bifurcation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GA5M4UVX

@misc{pith2026250100075,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Community detection by simulated bifurcation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GA5M4UVX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00075}
}
read the original abstract

Community detection, also known as graph partitioning, is a well-known NP-hard combinatorial optimization problem with applications in diverse fields such as complex network theory, transportation, and smart power grids. The problem's solution space grows drastically with the number of vertices and subgroups, making efficient algorithms crucial. In recent years, quantum computing has emerged as a promising approach to tackling NP-hard problems. This study explores the use of a quantum-inspired algorithm, Simulated Bifurcation (SB), for community detection. Modularity is employed as both the objective function and a metric to evaluate the solutions. The community detection problem is formulated as a Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) problem, enabling seamless integration with the SB algorithm. Experimental results demonstrate that SB effectively identifies community structures in benchmark networks such as Zachary's Karate Club and the IEEE 33-bus system. Remarkably, SB achieved the highest modularity, matching the performance of Fujitsu's Digital Annealer, while surpassing results obtained from two quantum machines, D-Wave and IBM. These findings highlight the potential of Simulated Bifurcation as a powerful tool for solving community detection problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00075 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. illustrates the modularity Qe as a function of the number of communities K, obtained using the SB algo￾rithm. The SB algorithm identifies the optimal commu￾nity structure at Kopt = 4, achieving a modularity score of Qe = 0.445. Tab. I compares the best results from different hardware platforms and algorithms. Remark￾ably, our SB algorithm achieves a modularity of 0.445, outperforming IBM’s result of 0.419 [30] and D… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Partitioned Graph with the highest Modularity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Partitioned Graph with the highest Modularity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Modularity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    Duch and A

    J. Duch and A. Arenas, Community detection in complex networks using extremal optimization, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 72, 027104 (2005)

    work page 2005

  2. [1]

    Ising Model The Ising spin glass model minimizes the spin system energy given by: E(S) = − NX i=1 NX j=1 Ji,jsisj − NX i=1 hisi, (4) where: • si ∈ {−1, 1}: the binary spin state of the i-th spin, • Ji,j: the coupling coefficient between spins i and j, satisfying Ji,j = Jj,i and Ji,i = 0, • hi: the external magnetic field acting on spin i, • N : the total ...

    work page

  3. [2]

    This reformulation yields: H(x) = xT ˆQx, (5) where: • x: the binary vector of variables xi, • ˆQ: a symmetric matrix whose elements derive from the Ising model parameters

    Mapping to QUBO The Ising model can be transformed into a QUBO problem using the substitution si = 2 xi − 1, where xi ∈ {0, 1}. This reformulation yields: H(x) = xT ˆQx, (5) where: • x: the binary vector of variables xi, • ˆQ: a symmetric matrix whose elements derive from the Ising model parameters. 3

    work page

  4. [3]

    , xi(K−1)), where K is the number of communities

    Community Detection as a QUBO Problem In the context of community detection, each node i is assigned a binary vector xi = ( xi0, xi1, . . . , xi(K−1)), where K is the number of communities. If node i belongs to community k, then xik = 1 and all other entries in xi are 0. The modularity function to be maximized is reformulated as minimizing M : M = −xT ˆQe...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Constraints Two constraints must be enforced to ensure valid com- munity assignments:

    work page

  6. [5]

    Each node belongs to exactly one commu- nity: K−1X k=0 xik = 1, for i = 0, 1, . . . , n− 1. (7)

    work page

  7. [6]

    create nxgraph

    Each community contains at least one node: n−1X i=0 xik ≥ 1, for k = 0, 1, . . . , K− 1. (8) These constraints are incorporated into the Hamilto- nian using penalty terms. The complete Hamiltonian is given by: H ≡ −x′T ˆQ′ ex′ = −xT ˆQex + α n−1X i=0 K−1X k=0 xik − 1 !2 + β K−1X k=0 n−1X i=0 xik − dmaxX d=1 2d−1xdk − 1 !2 , (9) where α and β are the penal...

    work page

  8. [7]

    Boccaletti, V

    S. Boccaletti, V. Latora, Y. Moreno, M. Chavez, and D.- U. Hwang, Complex networks: Structure and dynamics, Phys. Rep. 424, 175 (2006)

    work page 2006

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    Newman, Networks (Oxford university press, 2018)

    M. Newman, Networks (Oxford university press, 2018)

    2018

  2. [9]

    Mislove, S

    A. Mislove, S. Lehmann, Y.-Y. Ahn, J.-P. Onnela, and J. Rosenquist, Understanding the demographics of twit- ter users, in Proc. Int. AAAI Conf. Web Soc. Media, Vol. 5 (2011) pp. 554–557

    2011

  3. [10]

    N. Du, B. Wu, X. Pei, B. Wang, and L. Xu, Com- munity detection in large-scale social networks, in We- bKDD/SNAKDD’07 (2007) pp. 16–25

    2007

  4. [11]

    Kojaku, L

    S. Kojaku, L. H´ ebert-Dufresne, E. Mones, S. Lehmann, and Y.-Y. Ahn, The effectiveness of backward contact tracing in networks, Nat. Phys. 17, 652 (2021)

    2021

  5. [12]

    Colizza, A

    V. Colizza, A. Barrat, M. Barth´ elemy, and A. Vespignani, The role of the airline transportation network in the pre- diction and predictability of global epidemics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103, 2015 (2006)

    2006

  6. [13]

    Barth´ elemy, Spatial networks, Phys

    M. Barth´ elemy, Spatial networks, Phys. Rep. 499, 1 (2011)

    2011

  7. [14]

    Lin and Y

    J. Lin and Y. Ban, Complex network topology of trans- portation systems, Transp. Rev. 33, 658 (2013)

    2013

  8. [15]

    Caldarelli, S

    G. Caldarelli, S. Battiston, D. Garlaschelli, and M. Catanzaro, Emergence of complexity in financial net- works, Complex Netw. , 399 (2004)

    2004

  9. [16]

    Bardoscia, P

    M. Bardoscia, P. Barucca, S. Battiston, F. Caccioli, G. Cimini, D. Garlaschelli, F. Saracco, T. Squartini, and G. Caldarelli, The physics of financial networks, Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 490 (2021)

    2021

  10. [17]

    Barucca, M

    P. Barucca, M. Bardoscia, F. Caccioli, M. D’Errico, G. Visentin, G. Caldarelli, and S. Battiston, Network valuation in financial systems, Math. Finance 30, 1181 (2020)

    2020

  11. [18]

    D. S. Bassett and E. Bullmore, Small-world brain net- works, Neuroscientist 12, 512 (2006)

    2006

  12. [19]

    Sporns, Contributions and challenges for network models in cognitive neuroscience, Nat

    O. Sporns, Contributions and challenges for network models in cognitive neuroscience, Nat. Neurosci. 17, 652 (2014)

    2014

  13. [20]

    D. S. Bassett and O. Sporns, Network neuroscience, Nat. Neurosci. 20, 353 (2017)

    2017

  14. [21]

    Fortunato and M

    S. Fortunato and M. E. Newman, 20 years of network community detection, Nature Physics 18, 848 (2022)

    2022

  15. [22]

    Girvan and M

    M. Girvan and M. E. Newman, Community structure in social and biological networks, Proceedings of the na- tional academy of sciences 99, 7821 (2002)

    2002

  16. [23]

    Lucas, Ising formulations of many np problems, Fron- tiers in physics 2, 74887 (2014)

    A. Lucas, Ising formulations of many np problems, Fron- tiers in physics 2, 74887 (2014)

    2014

  17. [24]

    M. E. Newman and M. Girvan, Finding and evaluating community structure in networks, Physical review E 69, 026113 (2004)

    2004

  18. [25]

    M. E. Newman, Fast algorithm for detecting community structure in networks, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 69, 066133 (2004)

    2004

  19. [26]

    Clauset, M

    A. Clauset, M. E. Newman, and C. Moore, Finding com- munity structure in very large networks, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 70, 066111 (2004)

    2004

  20. [27]

    Guimera, M

    R. Guimera, M. Sales-Pardo, and L. A. N. Amaral, Mod- ularity from fluctuations in random graphs and complex networks, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 70, 025101 (2004)

    2004

  21. [28]

    Medus, G

    A. Medus, G. Acuna, and C. O. Dorso, Detection of com- munity structures in networks via global optimization, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 358, 593 (2005)

    2005

  22. [30]

    S. Li, Y. Chen, H. Du, and M. W. Feldman, A genetic al- gorithm with local search strategy for improved detection of community structure, Complexity 15, 53 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    V. D. Blondel, J.-L. Guillaume, R. Lambiotte, and E. Lefebvre, Fast unfolding of communities in large net- works, Journal of statistical mechanics: theory and ex- periment 2008, P10008 (2008)

    2008

  24. [32]

    Rostami, M

    M. Rostami, M. Oussalah, K. Berahmand, and V. Far- rahi, Community detection algorithms in healthcare ap- plications: a systematic review, IEEE Access 11, 30247 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Mohseni, P

    N. Mohseni, P. L. McMahon, and T. Byrnes, Ising ma- chines as hardware solvers of combinatorial optimization problems, Nature Reviews Physics 4, 363 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    C. F. Negre, H. Ushijima-Mwesigwa, and S. M. Mniszewski, Detecting multiple communities using quan- tum annealing on the d-wave system, Plos one 15, e0227538 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Fern´ andez-Campoamor, C

    M. Fern´ andez-Campoamor, C. O’Meara, G. Cortiana, V. Peric, and J. Bernab´ e-Moreno, Community detec- tion in electrical grids using quantum annealing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.08300 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    F. G. Gemeinhardt, R. Wille, and M. Wimmer, Quantum k-community detection: algorithm proposals and cross- architectural evaluation, Quantum Information Process- ing 20, 302 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Wierzbi´ nski, J

    M. Wierzbi´ nski, J. Falc´ o-Roget, and A. Crimi, Commu- nity detection in brain connectome using quantum an- nealer devices, Scientific Reports 13, 3446 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Kao, J.-L

    Y.-T. Kao, J.-L. Liao, and H.-C. Hsu, Solving combina- torial optimization problems on fujitsu digital annealer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05196 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Goto, Bifurcation-based adiabatic quantum computa- tion with a nonlinear oscillator network, Scientific reports 6, 21686 (2016)

    H. Goto, Bifurcation-based adiabatic quantum computa- tion with a nonlinear oscillator network, Scientific reports 6, 21686 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Improved bounds on bell numbers and on moments of sums of random variables, Probability and Mathematical Statistics 30, 185 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    H. Goto, K. Endo, M. Suzuki, Y. Sakai, T. Kanao, Y. Hamakawa, R. Hidaka, M. Yamasaki, and K. Tat- sumura, High-performance combinatorial optimization 7 based on classical mechanics, Science Advances 7, eabe7953 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Kanao and H

    T. Kanao and H. Goto, Simulated bifurcation assisted by thermal fluctuation, Communications Physics 5, 153 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Leimkuhler and S

    B. Leimkuhler and S. Reich, Simulating hamiltonian dy- namics, 14 (Cambridge university press, 2004)

    2004

  36. [44]

    W. W. Zachary, An information flow model for conflict and fission in small groups, Journal of anthropological research 33, 452 (1977)

    1977

  37. [45]

    Hagberg, P

    A. Hagberg, P. J. Swart, and D. A. Schult, Exploring net- work structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX, Tech. Rep. (Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States), 2008)

    2008

  38. [46]

    X. Xu, F. Xue, S. Lu, H. Zhu, L. Jiang, and B. Han, Structural and hierarchical partitioning of virtual micro- grids in power distribution network, IEEE Systems Jour- nal 13, 823 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    M. E. Baran and F. F. Wu, Network reconfiguration in distribution systems for loss reduction and load balanc- ing, IEEE Transactions on Power delivery4, 1401 (1989)

    1989

  40. [48]

    Thurner, A

    L. Thurner, A. Scheidler, F. Sch¨ afer, J.-H. Menke, J. Dol- lichon, F. Meier, S. Meinecke, and M. Braun, pan- dapower—an open-source python tool for convenient modeling, analysis, and optimization of electric power systems, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 33, 6510 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Cotilla-Sanchez, P

    E. Cotilla-Sanchez, P. D. Hines, C. Barrows, S. Blum- sack, and M. Patel, Multi-attribute partitioning of power networks based on electrical distance, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems 28, 4979 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.