Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 19 references

Solving the Dissipation Inequality not as a constitutive restriction

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Enforcing the dissipation inequality as a constraint repairs faulty constitutive laws with a minimal correction.

desk verdict Honest 1D proof of concept for enforcing the dissipation inequality via a dual variational scheme; the closed-form part is solid, the numerical part is base-state dependent and the authors say so. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02215 v2 pith:QASQWEJ2 submitted 2026-08-03 physics.class-ph cond-mat.mtrl-scimath.OC

Maximiliano Larrain Silva , Amit Acharya This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.class-phcond-mat.mtrl-scimath.OC
keywords dissipationinequalitysecondlawofthermodynamicsconstrainedoptimizationelastoplasticitydualvariationalprincipleconstitutivemodelingrate-dependentplasticityminimalcorrection
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

This paper tries to establish that the Second Law of thermodynamics need not be imposed as a restriction on constitutive equations. In a 1D rate-dependent elastoplastic bar, it treats the dissipation inequality $\sigma p_t \ge 0$ as a constraint equation and solves for the plastic strain rate as a prescribed response plus a correction $a$. Minimizing a quadratic cost in the correction and the dissipation selects the smallest correction that keeps dissipation non-negative; in an appropriate limit the plastic strain rate becomes $\max(f^c,0)$, so a deliberately faulty prescription that would give negative dissipation is automatically replaced by zero plastic flow. A computational scheme based on a convex dual variational principle reproduces the closed-form solution accurately for two rate-sensitivity cases. If true, the approach offers a route to couple or correct constitutive models without building the Second Law into each model's structure.

What carries the argument

The central object is the minimization problem (10)-(11) with quadratic cost $H(a,s) = \tfrac12 c_a a^2 + \tfrac12 c_s s^2$, solved pointwise in time. Because the constraint $l(f^c+a) = s^2/2$ has no differential structure, the minimizer is obtained algebraically as the projection (12). For the computational treatment, the paper builds a pre-dual functional with an auxiliary potential $H(U,\bar U)$ and derives a dual-to-primal (DtP) map $U^{(H)}(D,\bar U,t)$ that expresses primal fields through dual fields and base states; restricting the dual functional to the 'DtP zone' (here $\alpha > -c_s$) makes it convex, and a gradient-flow and Newton-Raphson iteration in the dual variables solves the resulting system. The base states $\bar U$ parametrize the sequence of convex problems and act as a selection parameter among the infinite family of Second-Law-satisfying solutions.

What would settle it

Starting the numerical algorithm from the natural base state $\bar s=0$ forces $s_H(t)\equiv 0$ for all $t$ through the DtP map $s_H = c_s\bar s/(\alpha+c_s)$, yielding a solution of the primal system with identically zero dissipation; comparing that solution with the closed-form minimizer (12) would show whether the computational claim depends on a hand-picked initial base state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the quasi-static, rate-dependent elastoplastic bar, the paper's central discovery is that the dissipation inequality $l(f^c+a) = s^2/2 \ge 0$ can be treated as an algebraic constraint in a constrained optimization problem. The pointwise minimizer of $H = \int_0^T (\tfrac12 c_a a^2 + \tfrac12 c_s s^2)\,dt$ subject to this constraint and $p_t = f^c + a$ is $s^2 = 0$ when $f^c < (c_s/c_a)l$ and $s^2 = 2l(f^c - (c_s/c_a)l)$ otherwise, which in the limit $c_s\sigma_0/(c_a\hat\gamma)\to 0$ gives $p_t = \max(f^c,0)$. Thus when the prescribed constitutive response $f^c$ is negative, the correction $a$ cancels it and the plastic strain rate vanishes, keeping dissipation exactly at zero and satisfying the Second Law at every instant. The claimed outcome is a well-set procedure that selects the minimal deviation from the specified constitutive law among the infinite family of solutions satisfying equilibrium, the constitutive equation, and the Second Law.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the premise that minimizing the quadratic cost $H$ selects the physically relevant solution, and the reported numerical match to that minimizer relies on a hand-picked small initial base state $\bar s$, since $\bar s=0$ freezes the dissipation variable at zero and large $\bar s$ converges to different solutions of the same primal system.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a constitutive model violates the Second Law, the scheme repairs it by setting plastic strain rate to zero in the offending interval, producing 'elastic gaps' in the stress-strain response.
  • The method provides a practical way to couple established constitutive models for disparate phenomena without first deriving complicated Second Law restrictions on the joint response.
  • The computational scheme extends to systems where eliminating differential constraints analytically is not feasible, since it solves the primal equations through a convex dual functional.
  • The selected minimal correction depends on the ratio $c_s/c_a$; as this ratio goes to zero, the correction becomes the simple rectifier $p_t = \max(f^c,0)$.
  • The solution family is infinite, and the minimization chooses one member, while the numerical method's choice is guided by the initial base state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The base-state dependence suggests the variational problem is not fully self-contained as a selection criterion: the analytical minimizer (10)-(11) is recovered numerically only because a small nonzero $\bar s$ is hand-chosen, so a principled selection rule would require an additional physical criterion or a limit procedure.
  • The same machinery could be used to correct other constitutive inequalities, such as entropy production constraints in heat or mass transport, by replacing the inequality with a minimal additive control field.
  • A testable extension is to replace the quadratic cost by an $\ell^1$ cost on $a$, which would yield a sparse correction active only where needed; comparing predictions in the transition regions could discriminate the cost choice.
  • The infinite family of solutions parametrized by the dissipation function shows that the Second Law alone does not pin down plastic response; the physical content is carried by the choice of cost functional.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a variational procedure for enforcing the Second Law when the constitutive specification for the plastic strain rate is faulty. For a one-dimensional rate-dependent elastoplastic bar under a prescribed force, the authors assume p_t = f^c(l(t),t) + a(x,t), impose equilibrium and the dissipation inequality l(f^c+a) - s^2/2 = 0, and minimize the quadratic objective ∫(1/2 c_a a^2 + 1/2 c_s s^2)dt subject to those constraints. The closed-form pointwise minimizer is derived in Eq. (12), and in the limit c_s σ_0/(c_a γ̂) → 0 it reduces to p_t = max(f^c,0), so that the dissipation inequality holds even when the prescribed f^c is negative. The paper then develops a dual variational, DtP-based computational scheme following earlier work by the same group, and reports good agreement with the analytic solution for two material exponents. Crucially, the paper also states that the numerical scheme minimizes a sequence of functionals H_k with changing base states rather than the original H, and that the agreement is due to the small initial base state s̄, which acts as a selection parameter among infinitely many solutions of the primal system.

Significance. If the computational branch were justified, this paper would provide a concrete, checkable demonstration that a faulty constitutive specification can be corrected by the minimal additive control enforcing non-negative dissipation, which is a genuinely useful idea for complex constitutive modeling. The closed-form section is transparent and the derivation of Eq. (12) is straightforward to verify; the limiting result p_t = max(f^c,0) is clean and central. However, the numerical validation currently reduces to showing that a small initial base state selects the analytic branch of an infinite solution family. No principled criterion for that selection is provided, and the paper candidly admits that other base states converge to different solutions that also satisfy equilibrium, the constitutive equation, and the Second Law. The abstract and conclusion claim the computational solutions are 'accurate' and provide 'numerical confirmation', but that claim is not established for the stated minimization problem (10)-(11).

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (18), Table 2] The numerical equivalence claim is not established for the stated problem (10)-(11). The DtP map (18) gives s_H = c_s s̄/(α+c_s), which is homogeneous in s̄; setting s̄ = 0 traps s_H = 0 for the entire computation. The authors initialize s̄ = 0.1 and explicitly state in Sec. 3.1 that the initial base state acts as a selection parameter and that values of order 1e6 converge to a different solution of the primal system. Since no criterion is given for choosing the base state, and no proof connects the base-state sequence to the minimizer of H, the reported errors below 0.8% are properties of the hand-picked initialization rather than of the minimization problem the paper claims to solve.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, paragraph after Eq. (45)] The manuscript itself concedes that 'strictly speaking, the numerical scheme does not attempt to discretize the problem defined by (10)-(11)' and that it works instead with a sequence of functionals H_k parametrized by changing base states. This is a load-bearing limitation, not a minor caveat: the abstract and conclusion credit the accuracy of the computational scheme to the dual variational formulation, but the formulation as implemented is a different algorithm. The paper needs either a convergence argument showing that the fixed point of the base-state update minimizes the original H, or a recharacterization of the numerical results as a sensitivity study of the base-state selection.
  3. [Sec. 4, Conclusion] The conclusion that the results 'provide a first numerical confirmation that the dual variational principle ... is capable of enforcing the Second Law' is stronger than the evidence supports. Given the paper's own acknowledgment that the initial s̄ is a free selection parameter and that different s̄ values yield different valid solutions, the numerical experiments confirm only that one particular selection reproduces the analytic branch. The claim of numerical confirmation should be either withdrawn or accompanied by a well-defined selection rule (for example, a continuation argument from the exactly solved limit, or a proof of Γ-convergence of the H_k sequence).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (12)] The assumption in Sec. 2 is stated as l(t) ≥ 0, but the constraint (11a) divides by l(t); the closed-form formula (12) should be stated for l(t) > 0, with the initial instant l(0)=0 treated as a limit.
  2. [Fig. 9b caption] The caption for Fig. 9b says 'Dissipated energy for m=1 case', but the figure and surrounding text describe the m=0.1 case; this appears to be a typo.
  3. [Eq. (45)] The notation m(v_r(t)) is described as 'the mean of v_r(t) in the physical time domain', but the formula is unclear about whether this mean is over all time or a local average; please define it precisely.
  4. [Table 1] The algorithm text contains a typographical error: 'F or n≥0' should read 'For n≥0'.
  5. [Sec. 3, Eq. (16) and surrounding text] The notation D is used both for the ordered pair (D, D_t) and for the dual field itself; this is confusing and should be disambiguated, for instance by writing D = (α, β) and D_t = (α_t, β_t).
  6. [Sec. 3, Eq. (15) vs Eq. (10)] The same symbol H is used for the physical objective in Eq. (10) and for the auxiliary potential in Eq. (15); although the text explains the relation, different symbols (e.g., H_phys and H_aux) would greatly improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Closed-form derivation is self-contained; computational accuracy claims are steered by the base-state selection parameter, making the numerical validation partially circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.1 (Results), final paragraph; cf. Eq. (18) DtP map s_H = c_s ¯s/(α+c_s)]
    "Numerical experiments (not shown) with initial values of ¯s of the order of 1×10^6 converge to a different solution of the primal system, still satisfying force equilibrium, the constitutive equation, and the Second Law, but does not resemble the analytical solution obtained by minimizing H. This confirms that the initial value of the base state is acting as a selection parameter among infinite possible solutions, and that the small value of ¯s used here guides the scheme toward the desired closed-form solution, within the errors reported above."

    The DtP map (18) gives s_H = c_s ¯s/(α+c_s), so the base state ¯s linearly selects the s-branch that the iterative scheme can explore: ¯s = 0 traps s_H = 0, while large ¯s converges to a different member of the infinite family of primal solutions that also satisfy equilibrium, the constitutive relation, and the Second Law. The paper chooses ¯s = 0.1 precisely to remain close to the closed-form minimizer, and then reports agreement with that minimizer. Thus the reported sub-0.8% errors are not an independent confirmation that the algorithm solves the minimization problem (10)-(11); they are a consequence of the hand-picked selection parameter.

full rationale

The analytic solution of Sec. 2 is derived directly from the objective (10) and constraints (11), with no circular dependence on the cited dual variational framework; the limit giving p_t = max(f^c, 0) follows algebraically from (12). The numerical section imports its dual variational machinery and convergence strategy from the authors' own prior work ([1], [3], [11]), but those citations are not the source of the closed-form result. The genuine circularity is in the computational validation: the algorithm's output branch is selected by the initial base state, as the paper itself acknowledges. Since ¯s = 0 traps s_H = 0 and larger ¯s selects other valid solutions, the choice ¯s = 0.1 effectively uses knowledge of the desired analytical solution to guide the scheme toward it. Consequently, the reported accuracy of the computational method is a property of the initialization, not an independent demonstration that the stated minimization problem (10)-(11) is solved. This is a partial circularity of the numerical prediction, while the central analytical derivation remains self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central derivation uses standard continuum mechanics plus the new additive-correction ansatz p_t = f^c + a. The numerical part imports the convex-dual framework and convergence proofs from refs. [3] and [11] without reproving them. The solution selected depends on four hand-chosen weights/parameters: c_a, c_s, c_p, and the initial base state bar-s. These are not derived from data or from a physical principle, so they count as free parameters.

free parameters (4)
  • c_a = 1e15 sigma_0 T_0^2
    Weight penalizing the corrective strain rate a in objective (10); the large value drives the correction to the minimal value that zeroes dissipation, effectively selecting the branch p_t = max(f^c,0). Chosen, not derived.
  • c_s = 1e3 T_0
    Weight penalizing dissipation density s^2; the ratio c_s/c_a sets the threshold c_s l/c_a in the minimizer (12), taken small so the analytic solution approaches (13).
  • c_p = 1e3 sigma_0
    Weight in the auxiliary potential H (15) for p; influences the DtP map and the convergence path, but not the final solution.
  • initial base states (bar-p, bar-s, bar-a) = 0, 0.1, 0
    bar-s is nonzero to avoid trapping s_H = 0; it acts as a selection parameter among the infinite family of solutions of the primal system (Sec. 3.1). The values are hand-picked to match the closed-form minimizer.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Dissipation inequality in the isothermal 1D setting takes the form sigma p_t >= 0 (Eq. 5)
    Standard local form of the second law for a 1D elastoplastic bar; assumed without derivation beyond the chain rule on the quadratic free energy.
  • domain assumption Additive decomposition of strain and quadratic free energy (Eq. 4)
    Classical small-strain elastoplasticity assumption; standard and not argued in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Plastic strain rate has the form p_t = f^c(sigma,t) + a(x,t) (Eq. 8)
    The proposed representation of incomplete constitutive knowledge; a is a free correction field. This is the central modeling ansatz of the paper, not a standard result.
  • domain assumption x-independent fields suffice for the 1D problem (Sec. 2, 'ansatz we adopt')
    Given equilibrium and homogeneous loading, the paper restricts to x-independent (p,s,a). For this problem it is consistent, but it is stated as an ansatz.
  • domain assumption Convexity and convergence of the dual functional rely on theorems from refs. [3] and [11]
    The paper imports the convex-dual variational framework and the gradient-flow/Newton scheme from prior work without proving them here; the DtP-zone condition (24) is quoted.
invented entities (1)
  • a(x,t): additive correction to the prescribed plastic strain rate
    purpose: Represents the unknown part of the constitutive response and enforces the dissipation inequality (9) without treating the second law as a restriction on f^c.
    A new field introduced by the paper; it has no independent falsifiable handle outside the paper and is determined by optimization against weights c_a and the base-state selection. The paper itself notes the solution selected depends on the initial base state.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solving the Dissipation Inequality not as a constitutive restriction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QASQWEJ2

@misc{pith2026260802215,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solving the Dissipation Inequality not as a constitutive restriction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QASQWEJ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02215}
}
read the original abstract

A solution procedure is formulated and solved for treating the nonlinear Dissipation Inequality as a constraint equation within continuum mechanics, and allowing for incomplete knowledge of constitutive behavior. The scheme is demonstrated in the context of the rate-dependent, elastoplastic response of a bar, resulting in a nonlinear problem of constrained optimization. Both closed form and computational results are developed. The computational solutions utilize a sequence of convex optimization problems, and are shown to be accurate. In the example considered, the approach is shown to automatically correct an (intentionally) faulty constitutive specification, resulting in the solution to be in accord with the fundamental postulates of continuum mechanics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02215 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the physical problem. implies that the stress is only a function time in the bar given by σ(x, t) = σ(1, t) = l(t). (2) Let ψ be the stored energy density for the material. Then the Second Law/Dissipation Inequality is given by σut [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Curve g(t) and external load applied. For each case, the approximate solutions obtained with the scheme, say t 7→ v(t), is compared with the analytical solution, say t 7→ v r (t), computed using (11a), (11b) and (12). The percent 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Curve g(t) and external load applied. For each case, the approximate solutions obtained with the scheme, say t 7→ v(t), is compared with the analytical solution, say t 7→ v r (t), computed using (11a), (11b) and (12). The percent 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Stress-strain relations. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Stress-strain relations. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Error percentage for total strain. The solution for a(t) is shown in Figs. 5a to 6b. Recall that the constitutive response for the plastic strain rate in this problem is composed of two parts, a completely determined part t 7→ f c (t) from the boundary condition and (4…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Error percentage for total strain. The solution for a(t) is shown in Figs. 5a to 6b. Recall that the constitutive response for the plastic strain rate in this problem is composed of two parts, a completely determined part t 7→ f c (t) from the boundary condition and (4…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Function a(t). 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Function a(t). 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Error percentage for a(t). The effect of this correction is that the constitutive response (8) becomes pt = 0 in the activation interval. This is shown in Figs. 7a to 8b, where p remains constant over the interval where a(t) > 0 and f c < csl ca . Thus, dσ dt = E dux d…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Error percentage for a(t). The effect of this correction is that the constitutive response (8) becomes pt = 0 in the activation interval. This is shown in Figs. 7a to 8b, where p remains constant over the interval where a(t) > 0 and f c < csl ca . Thus, dσ dt = E dux d…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Plastic strain. t T0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 p e ( t )[%] 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 (a) Error for m = 1. t T0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 p e ( t )[%] 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 (b) Error for m = 0.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Plastic strain. t T0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 p e ( t )[%] 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 (a) Error for m = 1. t T0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 p e ( t )[%] 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 (b) Error for m = 0.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Error percentage for the plastic strain. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Error percentage for the plastic strain. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Dissipated energy. 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 t T0 10!10 10!5 10!1 10 1 1 s ( t ) 2 2 2 e ( t )[%] (a) Error for m = 1. 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 t T0 10!10 10!5 10!1 10 1 1 s ( t ) 2 2 2 e ( t )[%] (b) Error for m = 0.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Dissipated energy. 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 t T0 10!10 10!5 10!1 10 1 1 s ( t ) 2 2 2 e ( t )[%] (a) Error for m = 1. 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 t T0 10!10 10!5 10!1 10 1 1 s ( t ) 2 2 2 e ( t )[%] (b) Error for m = 0.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Error percentage for the dissipated energy. Regarding numerical accuracy, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Error percentage for the dissipated energy. Regarding numerical accuracy, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mechanics Research Communications , volume=

    The Second Law as a constraint and admitting the approximate nature of constitutive assumptions , author=. Mechanics Research Communications , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Fleck, N. A. and Hutchinson, J.W. and Willis, J.R. , pages=. Guidelines for constructing strain gradient plasticity theories , journal=. 2025 , publisher=

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids , volume=

    Discrete defect plasticity and implications for dissipation , author=. European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Hidden convexity in the heat, linear transport, and

    Kouskiya, Uditnarayan and Acharya, Amit , journal =. Hidden convexity in the heat, linear transport, and

    work page

  5. [5]

    A new perspective in linear

    Acharya, Amit , journal=. A new perspective in linear. 2026 , url=

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    Journal of Elasticity , volume=

    A dual variational principle for nonlinear dislocation dynamics , author=. Journal of Elasticity , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Variational principles for nonlinear

    Acharya, Amit , journal=. Variational principles for nonlinear

    work page

  8. [8]

    Pure Appl

    Acharya, Amit , TITLE =. Pure Appl. Funct. Anal. , FJOURNAL =. 2025 , NUMBER =

    work page 2025

Show all 19 references
  1. [9]

    , TITLE =

    Acharya, Amit and Sengupta, Ambar N. , TITLE =. Proc. of the Royal Society A. , FJOURNAL =. 2024 , NUMBER =

    2024

  2. [10]

    Variational formulation based on duality to solve partial differential equations: Use of

    Sukumar, N and Acharya, Amit , journal=. Variational formulation based on duality to solve partial differential equations: Use of. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  3. [11]

    Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids , year =

    A hidden convexity in continuum mechanics, with application to classical, continuous-time, rate-(in)dependent plasticity , author =. Mathematics and Mechanics of Solids , year =

  4. [12]

    On the variational dual formulation of the

    Vorotnikov, Dmitry and Acharya, Amit , journal=. On the variational dual formulation of the

  5. [13]

    Variational Principle for a Damped, Quadratically Interacting Particle Chain with Nonconservative Forcing

    Acharya, Amit and Sengupta, Ambar N. Variational Principle for a Damped, Quadratically Interacting Particle Chain with Nonconservative Forcing. Continuum Models and Discrete Systems. 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Variational Dual Solutions for Incompressible Fluids. arXiv e-prints , keywords =

  7. [15]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Variational Dual Solutions of Chern-Simons Theory. arXiv e-prints , keywords =

  8. [16]

    Journal of Elasticity , volume=

    A hidden convexity of nonlinear elasticity , author=. Journal of Elasticity , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  9. [17]

    Quarterly of Applied Mathematics , volume =

    Kouskiya, Uditnarayan and Acharya, Amit , title =. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics , volume =

  10. [18]

    and Acharya, Amit , journal=

    Kouskiya, Uditnarayan and Pego, Robert L. and Acharya, Amit , journal=. Traveling wave profiles for a semi-discrete. 2025 , url=

    2025

  11. [19]

    arXiv e-prints , year = 2025, url=

    A convex variational principle for the necessary conditions of classical optimal control. arXiv e-prints , year = 2025, url=

    2025

Pith tools

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