Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Transparency versus Anderson localization in one-dimensional disordered stealthy hyperuniform layered media

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that disordered stealthy hyperuniform layered media transmit light without Anderson localization across a continuous frequency band from zero up to $\omega_T$, for systems of 10,000 slabs.

desk verdict Solid numerical confirmation of predicted transparency in 1D stealthy hyperuniform media, with an honest caveat that the minimized Lyapunov exponent could hide weak localization. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22377 v1 pith:44LIG65W submitted 2025-07-30 cond-mat.dis-nn

Michael A. Klatt , Paul J. Steinhardt , Salvatore Torquato This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.dis-nn
keywords LayeredmediaAndersonlocalizationstealthyhyperuniformityLyapunovexponentstransfermatrixmethodtransparencybandone-dimensionaldisorderthinfilms
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 claims that a specially correlated type of disorder—stealthy hyperuniform disorder—lets electromagnetic waves pass through a one-dimensional stack of dielectric slabs with no sign of Anderson localization across a continuous band of frequencies, from zero up to a threshold $\omega_T$. That would contradict the usual one-dimensional rule that any amount of disorder localizes waves at all frequencies. The authors simulate stacks of up to 10,000 slabs, compute Lyapunov exponents with a transfer-matrix method, and find that the minimized exponent vanishes to floating-point precision below $\omega_T$, matching a perfect periodic lattice. Above $\omega_T$ the same samples localize sharply, so they behave as low-pass filters. The paper states this as apparent transparency for accessible system sizes and leaves open whether the true localization length is astronomically large or truly infinite.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the finite-size Lyapunov exponent $\lambda(L) = (1/L)\log\|\Pi(L)\|$, the logarithm of the spectral norm of the product of transfer matrices, whose inverse is the localization length; the paper's diagnostic is the minimized value $\lambda_{\min}$ obtained by varying $L$ over $[9900,10000]$ and taking a median over about 20–40 shifts of the sample. Minimization is what removes the ripple effect, the boundary-induced oscillations that otherwise make a perfectly transparent lattice look as if it scatters. The second central element is the strong-contrast formula's upper bound $\omega_c = \pi\chi/\sqrt{\phi(\varepsilon_2-1)+\varepsilon_1}$, which sets the predicted edge of the transparency band and which the numerical threshold $\omega_T$ tracks closely but always lies below. The QR decomposition of the transfer-matrix product is what makes products of roughly 20,000 matrices numerically stable enough to resolve exponents near $10^{-15}$.

What would settle it

Perform the same transfer-matrix analysis on samples of 100,000 slabs or with arbitrary-precision arithmetic at a fixed frequency below $\omega_T$; if the minimized decay measure rises above $10^{-15}$ and increases with system size, the apparent transparency band is a finite-size artifact of weak localization. Alternatively, compute the imaginary part of the strong-contrast remainder $R_4(\omega)$: if it is positive anywhere in the predicted transparency interval, the band cannot be truly transparent in the thermodynamic limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from the standard expectation that one-dimensional systems with uncorrelated disorder localize all frequencies, the paper's central claim is that disordered stealthy hyperuniform layered media form an exception on a continuous frequency interval. Using a transfer-matrix method with QR decomposition, the authors compute the finite-size Lyapunov exponent $\lambda(L)$ for 10,000-slab samples and define a minimized value $\lambda_{\min}$ by varying $L$ over $[9900,10000]$ and taking a median over sample shifts, which suppresses boundary-induced ripple oscillations. For these media, $\lambda_{\min}$ is indistinguishable from zero, below about $10^{-15}$, for all $\omega$ below $\omega_T$, and the localization length $\xi(L)$ stays larger than the system size, the same numerical fingerprint as a perfectly periodic lattice known to be transparent. Above $\omega_T$ the hyperuniform layers localize at every frequency, unlike the lattice, which shows a photonic band gap followed by a second transparent window. The threshold $\omega_T$ lies close to, but strictly below, the upper bound $\omega_c = \pi\chi/\sqrt{\phi(\varepsilon_2-1)+\varepsilon_1}$ from the strong-contrast formula, and the same analysis applied to perturbed lattices, equiluminous, and RSA layered media finds clear localization at all frequencies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the minimized finite-size measure of wave decay, computed for samples around 10,000 slabs and averaged over shifts, equals the infinite-system value; if the true decay rate is positive but below the numerical precision of about $10^{-15}$, the simulation would classify a weakly localized system as transparent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the transparency band is real, one-dimensional disorder does not inevitably localize: stealthy hyperuniform correlations suppress single scattering over $0<k<K$ and keep the stack transparent up to $\omega_T$, directly contradicting the usual statement that any disorder localizes all frequencies in one dimension.
  • The threshold $\omega_T$ is controlled by $\chi$, the dielectric contrast, and the volume fraction through $\omega_c$, giving a quantitative design rule for disorder-based low-pass filters and transparent thin films.
  • Above $\omega_T$, the same disordered samples localize every frequency, so they behave as true low-pass filters, unlike periodic lattices which show a photonic band gap followed by a second transparent band.
  • Because even a tiny perturbation of a periodic lattice localizes at all frequencies, and equiluminous samples with $S(k)=10^{-2}$ also localize, transparency appears to require exactly zero structure factor over the constrained band, not merely a small value.
  • Even in the conservative reading where the localization length is finite but larger than $10^4$ slab spacings, stacks of this size are already effectively transparent, which is the scale relevant for thin-film applications.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the numerics cannot distinguish $\lambda=0$ from $\lambda$ below the floating-point threshold, so the mathematically decisive question—whether these media are true exceptions to the one-dimensional localization theorem—remains open; a rigorous treatment of the strong-contrast remainder $R_4(\omega)$ would settle it.
  • Editorial inference: the mechanism is structural rather than electromagnetic, so the same transparency band should appear for acoustic or electronic waves in one-dimensional stealthy hyperuniform potentials; a tight-binding chain with stealthy hyperuniform site energies would be a direct and inexpensive test.
  • Editorial inference: the sharp transparency-to-localization transition at $\omega_T$ resembles a disorder-induced mobility edge in one dimension; examining the density of states and eigenmode character just above and below the transition could reveal whether it is a true localization-delocalization transition or an avoided band edge.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's own caution implies that transparency is scale-relative; practical applications should quote the 10,000-slab effective transparency, while the infinite-size question is a separate theoretical target.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents transfer-matrix simulations of electromagnetic wave propagation through one-dimensional disordered stealthy hyperuniform layered media with up to 10,000 high-dielectric slabs. The authors compute transmission coefficients and finite-size Lyapunov exponents, and compare disordered stealthy hyperuniform samples with perfect lattices, perturbed lattices, equiluminous systems, and random sequential adsorption models. Their central claim is that, for a continuous frequency band from zero up to a threshold omega_T, the stealthy hyperuniform samples show no apparent evidence of Anderson localization and behave indistinguishably from a perfectly periodic lattice within numerical precision, whereas ordinary disordered systems localize at all frequencies. The threshold omega_T is reported to be close to, and bounded by, the strong-contrast formula prediction omega_c. The authors explicitly acknowledge that whether the localization length is finite but extremely large or truly infinite remains an open question.

Significance. If the central result holds, it is significant for the theory of Anderson localization: it would identify a class of one-dimensional disordered media with a continuous transparency band, in sharp contrast to the standard result that arbitrarily weak disorder localizes all frequencies. The numerical work is carefully designed in several respects: it uses QR-decomposed transfer-matrix products for numerical stability, compares multiple disorder models, uses large system sizes and many samples, and is appropriately cautious in the abstract and discussion about the extrapolation to the thermodynamic limit. The agreement with the strong-contrast formula provides a nontrivial cross-check between independent theoretical and numerical routes. The main weakness is that the inference of transparency relies on a minimized finite-size Lyapunov exponent whose behavior in the weakly localized regime is not validated; this makes the central claim defensible but not fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Materials and Methods, Localization analysis; Eqs. (1)-(2)] The central inference of transparency is based on lambda_min, the minimum of the finite-size Lyapunov exponent lambda(L) over L in [9900,10000], combined with a median over sample shifts, rather than on the limsup in Eq. (2) or on a scaling analysis of lambda(L) with L. For a system whose true Lyapunov exponent is positive but much smaller than about 10^-4, rare near-resonant windows can make lambda(L) dip below the floating-point threshold for finite L, so the minimized envelope can mimic the perfect lattice even when the thermodynamic exponent is positive. The calibration on the perfect lattice and the strongly localized perturbed lattice (lambda_min ~ 10^-3) does not test the weakly localized regime in which the transparency claim is made. The authors should add a weakly localized control with a known small positive Lyapunov exponent (for example, a very weak perturbed lattice or a weakly disordered random medium) and show that the pipeline detects it, or alternatively report an estimate of the limsup from lambda(L) versus L and demonstrate convergence.
  2. [Fig. 3; Materials and Methods, Localization analysis] The protocol stops the golden-search minimization when lambda falls below 10^-15 and then classifies lambda_min < 10^-15 as "transparent (like for a lattice)". This places the transparency-to-localization boundary in Fig. 3 at a numerical threshold chosen by the algorithm, not at a demonstrated separation between zero and small positive Lyapunov exponents. The phrase "no apparent evidence" in the abstract is appropriately cautious, but the binary phase diagram implicitly equates the threshold with the absence of localization. The authors should quantify the precision of the Lyapunov computation in the small-lambda regime and report the fraction of samples or shifts that give values above the threshold, not only the median.
  3. [Results; Materials and Methods, Localization analysis] The manuscript states in Results that "we use the median over about 40 shifts per sample" while Materials and Methods states that "we average over about 20 shifts for Fig. 3". Beyond this numerical inconsistency, the median over shifts is itself a lower-envelope statistic: because the distribution of lambda_min is described as bimodal with a large near-zero component, the median will report zero even if a substantial minority of shifts produce small but positive values. For the lattice this is harmless, but for the disordered stealthy hyperuniform samples the choice of a lower-envelope statistic is load-bearing and should be justified by reporting the full distribution across shifts and samples.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The term "Lyaponov" is consistently misspelled; it should be "Lyapunov".
  2. [Eq. (1) and Fig. 5] Eq. (1) defines lambda(L) with an angular-bracket ensemble average, but Fig. 5 presents xi(L) = 1/lambda(L) for individual configurations; the notation should be clarified so that single-sample exponents are distinguished from ensemble-averaged ones.
  3. [Fig. 3 and Fig. 4] The phase diagram and the frequency-dependent lambda_min plots would benefit from error bars, confidence intervals, or at least an explicit statement of the number of samples and the spread across samples, since lambda_min values span many orders of magnitude.
  4. [Materials and Methods, Localization analysis] The minimization window changes for omega < 0.1 from [9900,10000] to [9500,10000]; this frequency-dependent choice should be stated in figure captions or in the text where the relevant figures are discussed.
  5. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states that the bottom-panel curves are averages over 100 samples, but the text says 10,000 samples per model were used for the average transmission coefficients in Fig. 2; these numbers should be reconciled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the numerical transparency claim is independently generated, and the self-cited strong-contrast formula is used only as an external benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The transparency claim rests on transfer-matrix simulations of samples with up to 10,000 slabs; these samples are generated independently of the strong-contrast formula, and the Lyapunov exponents are computed from the transfer-matrix products, not from Eq. (3). The strong-contrast formula of Refs. [1,6] enters only as an external, parameter-free benchmark (Eq. (3), ωc = πχ sqrt(ϕ(ε2−1)+ε1)) against which the measured ωT is compared; no parameter of Eq. (3) is fitted to the present data, and the paper explicitly attributes the formula to prior work. The minimization of λ(L) over L∈[9900,10000] and the median over shifts is a finite-size proxy; using it to infer transparency is a methodological limitation, not a circular reduction, and the paper itself flags that whether the localization length is finite or infinite remains open in the Discussion. The many self-citations to hyperuniformity and strong-contrast theory are normal and are not used to smuggle in the present numerical result, since the cited theory is independently checkable. Consequently, no equation or fitted value reduces by construction to the claimed outcome.

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

The central numerical claim is largely self-contained, but it depends on a calibrated lower-envelope statistic (lambda_min), on numerical approximations of ideal stealthy hyperuniformity, and on the prior strong-contrast formula used for the frequency benchmark.

free parameters (4)
  • Lyapunov minimization window = [9900,10000], extended to [9500,10000] for omega < 0.1
    Hand-chosen window over which lambda(L) is minimized to suppress ripple oscillations; the reported transparency depends on this choice.
  • Floating-point transparency threshold = 1e-15
    lambda_min values below 1e-15 are treated as zero, classifying the system as transparent; if the true exponent were smaller than this threshold, localization would be missed.
  • Number of sample shifts for median = 20 to 40
    The median over shifts is used to define lambda_min; the reported transparency depends on this averaging protocol.
  • Stealthy generation energy tolerances = 1e-17 (final), 1e-8 (soft-core step)
    Tolerances chosen to realize S(k) < 1e-20; finite precision approximates the ideal S(k) = 0 for 0 < k < K.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The strong-contrast formula provides a valid upper bound omega_c for the transparency threshold.
    The paper uses omega_c from Eq. (3), derived in [1] by the same group, as the benchmark for comparing omega_T; if the formula is inaccurate, the claimed agreement is weakened.
  • domain assumption Numerically generated stealthy hyperuniform configurations with S(k) < 1e-20 faithfully represent ideal stealthy hyperuniform media with S(k) = 0 for 0 < k < K.
    The transparency claim is for ideal stealthy hyperuniformity; the simulations can only approximate it, and deviations could introduce spurious localization, as acknowledged in the Discussion.
  • standard math The transfer matrix method exactly describes wave propagation under homogeneous, loss-free, normal-incidence conditions.
    Stated in the Transfer matrix method section; the method is exact under these standard assumptions.
  • ad hoc to paper The finite-size minimized Lyapunov exponent lambda_min, calibrated on the perfect lattice, can be used to gauge the localization length for stealthy hyperuniform media.
    The Methods section calibrates lambda_min against the perfect lattice, for which lambda = 0 is known, and then applies the same criterion to disordered stealthy hyperuniform media; this transfer of calibration is an assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transparency versus Anderson localization in one-dimensional disordered stealthy hyperuniform layered media." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/44LIG65W

@misc{pith2026250722377,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transparency versus Anderson localization in one-dimensional disordered stealthy hyperuniform layered media},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/44LIG65W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22377}
}
abstract

We present numerical simulations of disordered stealthy hyperuniform layered media ranging up to 10,000 thin slabs of high-dielectric constant separated by intervals of low dielectric constant that show no apparent evidence of Anderson localization of electromagnetic waves or deviations from transparency for a continuous band of frequencies ranging from zero up to some value $\omega_T$. The results are consistent with the strong-contrast formula including its tight upper bound on $\omega_T$ and with previous simulations on much smaller systems. We utilize a transfer matrix method to compute the Lyaponov exponents, which we show is a more reliable method for detecting Anderson localization by applying it to a range of systems with common types of disorder known to exhibit localization, such as perturbed periodic lattices. The Lyaponov exponents for these systems with ordinary disorder show clear evidence of localization, in contrast to the cases of perfectly periodically spaced slabs and disordered stealthy hyperuniform layered systems. As with any numerical study, one should be cautious about drawing definitive conclusions. There remains the challenge of determining whether one-dimensional disordered stealthy hyperuniform layered media possess a finite localization length on some scale much larger than our already large system size or, alternatively, are exceptions to the standard Anderson localization theorems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22377 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of transparency vs Anderson localization in layered media that con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top panel: transmission T through single samples of a lattice with periodically spaced slabs (rightmost) compared to disordered stealthy hyperuniform layered media with different values of χ demonstrating that they exhibit qualitatively similar behavior: a sharp transition between a transparent and localized regime. (Here, we only show data up to ωT for each case to avoid confusion with numerical noise in the locali… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The ‘phase diagram’ of the Lyaponov exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Minimal Lyaponov exponent λmin as a function of frequency ω rescaled by ωc of the strong-contrast formula (3): as expected, we observe a transparency regime for the lattice but localization at all frequencies for the perturbed lattice. Surprisingly, the disordered stea…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Localization length ξ(L) as a function of the system size L that varies over about the last 60 slabs for single samples using ε2 = 9, ϕ = 1%, and ω = 0.5ωc for χ = 0.3; corresponding portions of the samples are shown above the plots of ξ(L). For the perturbed lattice (…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kim and S

    J. Kim and S. Torquato. Effective electromagnetic wave properties of disordered stealthy hyperuniform layered media beyond the quasistatic regime. Optica, 10:965– 972, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    P. W. Anderson. Absence of Diffusion in Certain Random Lattices. Phys. Rev., 109:1492–1505, 1958

    work page 1958

  3. [3]

    Abrahams, P

    E. Abrahams, P. W. Anderson, D. C. Licciardello, and T. V. Ramakrishnan. Scaling Theory of Localization: Absence of Quantum Diffusion in Two Dimensions. Phys. Rev. Lett., 42:673–676, 1979

    work page 1979

  4. [4]

    P. Sheng. Introduction to Wave Scattering, Localization and Mesoscopic Phenomena. Springer Series in Materials Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2 edition, 2006

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    D. H. Dunlap, H.-L. Wu, and P. W. Phillips. Absence of localization in a random- dimer model. Phys. Rev. Lett., 65:88–91, 1990

    work page 1990

  6. [6]

    Kim and S

    J. Kim and S. Torquato. Extraordinary optical and transport properties of disordered stealthy hyperuniform two-phase media. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, 36:225701, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    P. Yeh. Optical Waves in Layered Media. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 1988

    work page 1988

  8. [8]

    H. A. Macleod. Thin-Film Optical Filters. CRC Press, Boca Raton; London; New York, fourth edition, 2010

    work page 2010

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Torquato and F

    S. Torquato and F. H. Stillinger. Local density fluctuations, hyperuniformity, and order metrics. Phys. Rev. E, 68:041113, 2003. 15

    2003

  2. [10]

    Torquato

    S. Torquato. Hyperuniform states of matter. Phys. Rep., 745:1–95, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    R. D. Batten, F. H. Stillinger, and S. Torquato. Classical disordered ground states: Super-ideal gases and stealth and equi-luminous materials. J. Appl. Phys., 104:033504, 2008

    2008

  4. [12]

    stealthy

    G. Zhang, F. H. Stillinger, and S. Torquato. Can exotic disordered “stealthy” particle configurations tolerate arbitrarily large holes? Soft Matter, 13:6197–6207, 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Ghosh and J

    S. Ghosh and J. L. Lebowitz. Generalized Stealthy Hyperuniform Processes: Maximal Rigidity and the Bounded Holes Conjecture. Commun. Math. Phys., 363:97–110, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Florescu, S

    M. Florescu, S. Torquato, and P. J. Steinhardt. Designer disordered materials with large complete photonic band gaps. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 106:20658–20663, 2009

    2009

  7. [15]

    Leseur, R

    O. Leseur, R. Pierrat, and R. Carminati. High-density hyperuniform materials can be transparent. Optica, 3:763–767, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    L. S. Froufe-P´ erez, M. Engel, J. Jos´ e S´ aenz, and F. Scheffold. Transport Phase Diagram and Anderson Localization in Hyperuniform Disordered Photonic Materials. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 114:9570—-9574, 2017

    2017

  9. [17]

    Zhang, H

    H. Zhang, H. Chu, H. Giddens, W. Wu, and Y. Hao. Experimental demonstra- tion of luneburg lens based on hyperuniform disordered media. Appl. Phys. Lett., 114:053507, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Tavakoli, R

    N. Tavakoli, R. Spalding, A. Lambertz, P. Koppejan, G. Gkantzounis, C. Wan, R. R”ohrich, E. Kontoleta, A. F. Koenderink, R. Sapienza, M. Florescu, and E. Alarcon-Llado. Over 65% sunlight absorption in a 1 µm si slab with hyperuniform texture. ACS photonics, 9:1206–1217, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    M. A. Klatt, P. J. Steinhardt, and S. Torquato. Wave propagation and band tails of two-dimensional disordered systems in the thermodynamic limit. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 119:e2213633119, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Meek and M

    A. Meek and M. Florescu. Light propagation in one-dimensional stealthy hyper- uniform disordered photonic structures. In Nanophotonics X, volume 12991, pages 314–320. SPIE, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Gkantzounis, T

    G. Gkantzounis, T. Amoah, and M. Florescu. Hyperuniform disordered phononic structures. Phys. Rev. B, 95:094120, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Romero-Garc ´ ıa, N

    V. Romero-Garc ´ ıa, N. Lamothe, G. Theocharis, O. Richoux, and L. M. Garc ´ ıa-Raffi. Stealth acoustic materials. Phys. Rev. Appl., 11:054076, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    Kim and S

    J. Kim and S. Torquato. Multifunctional composites for elastic and electromagnetic wave propagation. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 117:8764–8774, 2020. 16

    2020

  16. [24]

    Zhang, F

    G. Zhang, F. H. Stillinger, and S. Torquato. Transport, geometrical and topological properties of stealthy disordered hyperuniform two-phase systems. J. Chem. Phys, 145:244109, 2016

    2016

  17. [25]

    Torquato and D

    S. Torquato and D. Chen. Multifunctional hyperuniform cellular networks: optimal- ity, anisotropy and disorder. Multifunctional Materials, 1:015001, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Torquato and J

    S. Torquato and J. Kim. Nonlocal Effective Electromagnetic Wave Characteristics of Composite Media: Beyond the Quasistatic Regime. Phys. Rev. X, 11:021002, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    J. Park, S. Park, K. Kim, J. Kwak, S. Yu, and N. Park. Deep-subwavelength engi- neering of stealthy hyperuniformity. Nanophotonics, 2025

    2025

  20. [28]

    S. N. Chiu, D. Stoyan, W. S. Kendall, and J. Mecke. Stochastic Geometry and Its Applications. Wiley, Chichester, third edition, 2013

    2013

  21. [29]

    Torquato

    S. Torquato. Random Heterogeneous Materials, volume 16 of Interdisciplinary Ap- plied Mathematics. Springer, New York, second edition, 2002

    2002

  22. [30]

    Kim and S

    J. Kim and S. Torquato. Theoretical prediction of the effective dynamic dielectric con- stant of disordered hyperuniform anisotropic composites beyond the long-wavelength regime [Invited]. Opt. Mater. Express, OME, 14:194–215, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Kim and S

    J. Kim and S. Torquato. Ultradense Sphere Packings Derived From Disordered Stealthy Hyperuniform Ground States, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Torquato, G

    S. Torquato, G. Zhang, and F. H. Stillinger. Ensemble Theory for Stealthy Hyper- uniform Disordered Ground States. Phys. Rev. X, 5:021020, 2015

    2015

  25. [33]

    Torquato

    S. Torquato. Disordered hyperuniform heterogeneous materials. J. Phys.: Cond. Mat, 28:414012, 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    Geist, U

    K. Geist, U. Parlitz, and W. Lauterborn. Comparison of Different Methods for Computing Lyapunov Exponents. Progress of Theoretical Physics, 83:875–893, 1990

    1990

  27. [35]

    J. A. Scales and E. S. Van Vleck. Lyapunov Exponents and Localization in Randomly Layered Media. Journal of Computational Physics, 133:27–42, 1997

    1997

  28. [36]

    J. D. Joannopoulos, S. G. Johnson, J. N. Winn, and R. D. Meade. Photonic Crystals: Molding the Flow of Light. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2nd ed edition, 2008

    2008

  29. [37]

    Dal Negro

    L. Dal Negro. Waves in Complex Media: Fundamentals and Device Applications. Cambridge university Press, New York, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Yu, C.-W

    S. Yu, C.-W. Qiu, Y. Chong, S. Torquato, and N. Park. Engineered disorder in photonics. Nat. Rev. Mater., 6:226–243, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Furstenberg

    H. Furstenberg. Noncommuting Random Products. Trans Am Math Soc, 108:377, 1963. 17

    1963

  32. [40]

    I. Ya. Goldsheid, S. A. Molchanov, and L. A. Pastur. A pure point spectrum of the stochastic one-dimensional schr¨ odinger operator.Funct Anal Its Appl, 11:1–8, 1977

    1977

  33. [41]

    Aizenman and S

    M. Aizenman and S. Molchanov. Localization at large disorder and at extreme energies: An elementary derivation. Commun.Math. Phys., 157:245–278, 1993

    1993

  34. [42]

    Eckmann and D

    J.-P. Eckmann and D. Ruelle. Ergodic theory of chaos and strange attractors. Rev. Mod. Phys., 57:617, 1985

    1985

  35. [43]

    Atkinson, F

    S. Atkinson, F. H. Stillinger, and S. Torquato. Static structural signatures of nearly jammed disordered and ordered hard-sphere packings: Direct correlation function. Phys. Rev. E, 94:032902, 2016

    2016

  36. [44]

    Torquato, G

    S. Torquato, G. Zhang, and M. D. Courcy-Ireland. Hidden multiscale order in the primes. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 52:135002, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    M. A. Klatt, J. Kim, and S. Torquato. Cloaking the underlying long-range order of randomly perturbed lattices. Phys. Rev. E, 101:032118, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    Last and M

    G. Last and M. Penrose. Lectures on the Poisson Process. Institute of Mathematical Statistics Textbooks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017. 18

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.