Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 46 references

Anomalous energy diffusion in two-dimensional nonlinear lattices

T0 review · 4 major / 3 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 Energy diffusion in 2D momentum-conserving nonlinear lattices is anomalous and follows Lévy-stable distributions.

desk verdict Worth refereeing: the 2D energy-vs-momentum decoupling is a real observation, but the quartic lattice's Lévy-stable claim is not quantitatively established. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01689 v1 pith:HKJ6OHHY submitted 2019-08-05 cond-mat.stat-mech

Jian Wang , Tian-xing Liu , Xiao-zhi Luo , Xiu-Lian Xu , Nianbei Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords anomalousheattransportenergydiffusionLévy-stabledistributiontwo-dimensionalnonlinearlatticesmomentumconservationFermi-Pasta-Ulamlatticethermalconductivitydivergencefluctuationcorrelationfunction
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 settle whether heat transport in two-dimensional momentum-conserving nonlinear lattices is anomalous by simulating energy diffusion directly with fluctuation correlation functions, bypassing finite-size conductivity simulations. It reports that energy spreads superdiffusively in the 2D purely quartic and FPU-$\beta$ lattices, with profiles well described by Lévy-stable distributions, and that the mean-square energy displacement grows faster than linearly. If correct, thermal conductivity in these 2D lattices diverges with system size, and the 1D diagnostic tying anomalous heat conduction to momentum superdiffusion fails in 2D. It also finds that adding an on-site potential restores normal Gaussian diffusion.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spatiotemporal correlation function of energy fluctuations, $\rho_E(i,t)$, whose central heat-mode peak rescales as $t^{1/\gamma}\rho_E(i/t^{1/\gamma},t)$ and is fitted by the Lévy-stable distribution $f_{\rm LW}^{\gamma}$; the companion momentum correlation $\rho_P(i,t)$ tracks sound modes. The scaling exponent $\gamma$ extracted from the peak-height decay $H_c^E \sim t^{-1/\gamma}$, together with the MSD exponent $\beta$ from $\langle \Delta x^2(t)\rangle_E \sim t^{\beta}$, carries the classification: $1<\gamma<2$ and $\beta>1$ mark superdiffusion.

What would settle it

Extend the equilibrium simulation of the purely quartic 2D lattice (width 1024) to correlation times beyond $t=200$ and compare the MSD $\langle \Delta x^2(t)\rangle_E$ against $t^{1.27}$ and $t\ln t$: if the data bend toward $t\ln t$, the power-law diffusion exponent claimed for the quartic lattice is a finite-window artifact rather than the asymptotic law.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using equilibrium energy and momentum fluctuation correlation functions in two-dimensional square lattices with vector displacements, the paper finds that energy diffusion in the momentum-conserving purely quartic and FPU-$\beta$ lattices is superdiffusive: the heat-mode profile rescales with exponents $\gamma = 1.818$ and $\gamma = 1.504$ for width 1024 and is well fitted by Lévy-stable distributions, while the mean-square displacement grows as $t^{1.27}$ and $t^{1.51}$, respectively. In the same 2D systems the momentum correlation peaks decay with exponent $\mu = 0.402$ (quartic case), i.e. momentum diffusion is no longer superdiffusive, so the 1D rule that anomalous heat transport is corroborated by momentum superdiffusion does not extend to 2D. The $\phi^4$ lattice with an on-site potential shows Gaussian normal diffusion regardless of width.

Load-bearing premise

The fitted exponents $\gamma$ and $\beta$ come from power-law fits over times up to $t=200$ and are assumed to be asymptotic; for the quartic lattice, $t^{1.27}$ and $t\ln t$ cannot be told apart, so the quantitative exponents could be logarithmic corrections in disguise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the 2D FPU-$\beta$ lattice, thermal conductivity should diverge as a power law, roughly $\kappa \sim N^{0.51}$, matching direct nonequilibrium simulations with vector displacements.
  • In the 2D purely quartic lattice, the conductivity divergence is at least logarithmic; whether it is exactly $\ln N$ or a weak power law is left unresolved.
  • The 1D criterion that anomalous heat transport is corroborated by momentum superdiffusion does not hold in 2D, where momentum spreads normally or subdiffusively while energy remains superdiffusive.
  • Harmonic interactions accelerate energy diffusion, so the nature of the divergence depends on the balance between harmonic and purely anharmonic forces.
  • Adding a $\phi^4$ on-site potential gives normal diffusion in both 1D and 2D, confirming that momentum conservation is the key ingredient for anomalous 2D heat transport.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable next step is to apply the same fluctuation-correlation analysis to a 2D coupled-rotator lattice with momentum conservation but normal 1D conduction; if its energy diffusion is normal, momentum conservation would be necessary but not sufficient for anomalous 2D heat transport, mirroring the 1D rotator exception.
  • The reported $\mu = 0.402$ subdiffusive momentum decay in 2D suggests that sound-mode damping, not the heat mode itself, carries the dimensional crossover; comparing $\mu$ across widths could give a sharper diagnostic than $\gamma$.
  • If logarithmic corrections are genuine for the quartic lattice, the apparent power-law spread $t^{1.27}$ could be an effective exponent drifting toward $t\ln t$; a clean way to test this is to plot $\langle\Delta x^2\rangle_E/(t\ln t)$ versus time and look for a plateau.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper studies energy and momentum diffusion in two-dimensional nonlinear lattices (purely quartic, FPU-β, and φ4) by computing spatiotemporal correlation functions of energy and momentum fluctuations in equilibrium. For the momentum-conserving lattices, the authors extract a scaling exponent γ from the decay of the central peak height of the energy correlation and report superdiffusive values γ=1.818 (2D quartic) and γ=1.504 (2D FPU-β), both in the range 1<γ<2, and they claim that the rescaled profiles are well described by Lévy-stable distributions. The mean-square displacement (MSD) of the energy distribution grows as t^β with β=1.27 (quartic) and β=1.51 (FPU-β), supporting anomalous diffusion, while for the φ4 model the MSD grows linearly, indicating normal diffusion. The authors also find that momentum diffusion, superdiffusive in 1D, becomes normal or subdiffusive when the width Ny is increased to 1024, which contradicts the 1D hypothesis that anomalous heat transport is accompanied by momentum superdiffusion. They conclude that energy diffusion in 2D momentum-conserving lattices is anomalous and infer possible logarithmic (quartic) or power-law (FPU-β) divergence of thermal conductivity.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, this is one of the first direct numerical characterizations of energy diffusion in 2D momentum-conserving lattices using fluctuation correlation functions, and it clarifies that the 1D momentum-superdiffusion criterion does not extend to 2D. The 1D benchmarking against the nonlinear fluctuating hydrodynamics prediction γ=3/2 is a useful validation, and the use of two diagnostics (peak-height scaling and MSD) is a strength. However, the quantitative support for the Lévy-stable description is incomplete: for the quartic lattice the measured β=1.27 is inconsistent with the stated Lévy relation β=3−γ (which would give 1.18), and the paper explicitly acknowledges that t^1.27 and t ln t cannot be distinguished over the simulated time window. These issues materially affect the quantitative conclusions, although the qualitative anomalous-diffusion verdict appears robust.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IIIB, Fig. 7] For the 2D quartic lattice, the Lévy-walk relation β=3−γ stated in Sec. IIIB predicts β≈1.18 for the measured γ=1.818 (Fig. 4), whereas the reported MSD exponent is β=1.27 (Fig. 7). The paper does not address this ~0.09 discrepancy, and no error bars are provided, so it is unclear whether this is a finite-time transient or a genuine breakdown of the Lévy-stable description for the quartic case. As written, the MSD result does not independently confirm the abstract claim that energy diffusion is "well described by the Lévy-stable distribution."
  2. [Sec. IIIB, Fig. 7] The paper states that for the quartic lattice "the discrepancy in the scaling behavior between the power-law ∼ t^1.27 and the function of ∼ t ln t is so small that it is difficult to numerically determine" which is correct, and later "we cannot exclude that this may be a numerical coincidence." Given this admitted degeneracy, the fitted exponent β=1.27 and the inferred power-law divergence of thermal conductivity for the quartic lattice are not established; the text should clearly frame these as tentative and explicitly discuss the log-corrected alternative as equally compatible with the data.
  3. [Sec. IIIA, Figs. 5-6] The collapse of the rescaled correlation functions in Figs. 5 and 6 is performed using the same exponent γ that was extracted from the peak-height decay in Fig. 4. Consequently, the visible collapse is a self-consistency check rather than an independent validation of the Lévy-stable distribution; an independent test would require fitting the full profiles without inputting γ, or at least reporting a goodness-of-fit measure for the Lévy curves shown as the solid lines.
  4. [Sec. IIIA-III C, Figs. 4, 7-9, 12] No error bars, confidence intervals, or fitting-window information is provided for any of the reported exponents (γ, β, µ). Because the paper's quantitative claims rest on small differences (e.g., γ=1.818 versus 1.504, β=1.27 versus t ln t, and the 1D-to-2D crossover), uncertainty quantification is needed to assess whether these differences and the dimensional crossover are statistically significant.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IIIA, text after Fig. 6] The sentence "the scaling exponent γ reaches γ = 1.818 for the 1D purely quartic lattice" should read "for the 2D purely quartic lattice", since the preceding sentence discusses the 1D values and the following values are for Ny=1024.
  2. [Sec. IIB and Sec. IIIB] There are several typographical errors, including "we we" and "of of", and the notation in Eq. (4) is confusing because the left-hand side is written with a time-dependent argument; please rewrite the scaling relation for clarity.
  3. [Fig. 1-3 captions] The figure captions do not state the integration time step, the number of ensemble realizations used for each width, or the fit ranges for the power-law fits in Fig. 4; adding these details would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Lévy-stable comparison reuses the same fitted exponent; independent MSD and 1D benchmarks keep the classification partially supported.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IIIA, discussion of Figs. 5 and 6]
    "The scaling exponent γ is obtained from the relation H E c ∼ t−1/γ shown in Fig. 4. To further confirm the superdiffusive property of ρE(i, t ), the L´evy-stable distribution45,46 f γ LW (i, t ) with the same scaling exponent γ is also plotted by the solid line in each figure."

    The Lévy-stable curve used as evidence for the central claim is constructed with the same γ that was already fitted from the same data's central-peak decay. The central-peak collapse is therefore imposed by construction, and the comparison checks only the remaining shape of the Lévy-stable family with that pre-selected exponent. The abstract's statement that energy diffusion is 'well described by the Lévy-stable distribution' is thus partly a self-consistency check rather than an independent prediction. Independent support does exist elsewhere, via the separately measured MSD exponent β and the 1D quartic benchmark matching γ=3/2, which limits the circularity to partial.

full rationale

The derivation chain is mostly self-contained: the peak-height exponent γ is measured from the decay of the central peak, the MSD exponent β is measured independently, and the 1D quartic value agrees with the theoretical Lévy-3/2 prediction. The one genuinely circular element is the visual confirmation in Figs. 5 and 6, where the Lévy-stable distribution is plotted with the same γ that was fitted from the same data; this makes the collapse a self-consistency check rather than a parameter-free prediction of the Lévy form. The paper itself flags a related limitation in Sec. IIIB, saying 'we cannot exclude that this may be a numerical coincidence' when distinguishing t^1.27 from t ln t; that is a finite-time/statistical ambiguity rather than circularity. Similarly, the mismatch between γ=1.818 and the Lévy relation β=3−γ=1.18 versus the measured β=1.27 is a quantitative inconsistency, but it is not a circular reduction. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain and no imported uniqueness theorem, so the moderate score reflects only the reuse of the fitted exponent in the Lévy-stable comparison.

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

The central claim rests on fitted scaling exponents (gamma, beta, mu) and on the assumed validity of hydrodynamic scaling forms in 2D. No new entities are introduced. The most significant axiom is that the finite-time power-law fits represent asymptotic behavior, which the paper itself questions for the quartic lattice.

free parameters (4)
  • gamma (energy scaling exponent) = quartic: 1D ~1.49, 2D 1.818; FPU-beta: 1D ~1.45, 2D ~1.50
    Extracted from power-law fits to the central peak height decay H_C ~ t^{-1/gamma} in Fig. 4. The same gamma is then used to rescale profiles and to fit the Lévy-stable distribution.
  • beta (MSD exponent) = quartic: 1D 1.42, 2D 1.27; FPU-beta: 1D 1.60, 2D 1.51
    From power-law fits of the energy mean-square displacement versus time in Figs. 7 and 8.
  • mu (momentum peak decay exponent) = quartic: 1D 0.616, 2D 0.402; FPU-beta: 1D 0.611
    From power-law fits to the decay of the momentum correlation peak height in Fig. 12.
  • sound speed c = quartic: 0.914 (1D), 0.861 (2D); FPU-beta: 1.22 (1D), 1.16 (2D)
    Obtained from the ballistic motion of the sound-mode side peaks in the momentum correlation profiles.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The spatiotemporal energy correlation obeys the scaling form t^{1/gamma} rho_E(i/t^{1/gamma}, t) for the central heat mode (Eq. 4).
    Assumed from the nonlinear fluctuating hydrodynamics framework; the paper does not derive this scaling for 2D and uses it to classify diffusion behavior.
  • ad hoc to paper The decay of the central peak height alone determines the exponent gamma over the simulated time range.
    The extraction method assumes a clean power-law decay H_C ~ t^{-1/gamma} without corrections from side peaks or finite-time transients, which is especially delicate for the 1D cases where side peaks are prominent.
  • domain assumption The 1D connection between energy MSD and heat-current autocorrelation (Eq. 5) can be extended qualitatively to 2D.
    The authors explicitly state that no strict 2D relationship yet exists and use Eq. (5) only to infer thermal conductivity divergence from MSD exponents.
  • domain assumption Microcanonical equilibrium at T = 0.5 (quartic and FPU) and T = 3.0 (phi4) samples the relevant nonlinear regime.
    Temperatures are chosen to excite nonlinear interactions, but no convergence check across temperatures or system sizes is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anomalous energy diffusion in two-dimensional nonlinear lattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HKJ6OHHY

@misc{pith2026190801689,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anomalous energy diffusion in two-dimensional nonlinear lattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HKJ6OHHY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01689}
}
read the original abstract

Heat transport in one-dimensional (1D) momentum-conserving lattices is generally assumed to be anomalous, thus yielding a power-law divergence of thermal conductivity with system length. However, whether heat transport in two-dimensional (2D) system is anomalous or not is still on debate because of the difficulties involved in experimental measurements or due to the insufficiently large simulation size. Here, we simulate energy and momentum diffusion in the 2D nonlinear lattices using the method of fluctuation correlation functions. Our simulations confirm that energy diffusion in the 2D momentum-conserving lattices is anomalous and can be well described by the L\'{e}vy-stable distribution. We also find that the disappear of side peaks of heat mode may suggest a weak coupling between heat mode and sound mode in the 2D nonlinear system. It is also observed that the harmonic interactions in the 2D nonlinear lattices can accelerate the energy diffusion. Contrary to the hypothesis of 1D system, we clarify that anomalous heat transport in the 2D momentum-conserving system cannot be corroborated by the momentum superdiffusion any more. Moreover, as is expected, lattices with a nonlinear on-site potential exhibit normal energy diffusion, independent of the dimension. Our findings offer some valuable insights into the mechanism of thermal transport in 2D system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01689 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (Color online). The spatial profiles of the energy fluc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (Color online). The spatial profiles of the energy fluc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (Color online). The spatial profiles of the energy fluc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Color online). The decay of the peak height of the ene [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (Color online). The rescaled energy fluctuation corr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (Color online). The rescaled energy fluctuation corr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (Color online). The mean-square deviation(MSD) of e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: (Color online). The mean-square deviation(MSD) of e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: (Color online). The mean-square deviation(MSD) of e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: (Color online). The spatial profiles of the momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: (Color online). The spatial profiles of the momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: (Color online). The decay of the peak height [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bonetto , author J

    author F. Bonetto , author J. Lebowitz , and author L. Rey-Bellet , title Mathematical Physics 2000, p. 128 ( publisher Imperial College Press, London , year 2000 )

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Lepri , author R

    author S. Lepri , author R. Livi , and author A. Politi , journal Phys. Rep. volume 377 , pages 1 ( year 2003 )

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    Dhar , journal Adv

    author A. Dhar , journal Adv. Phys. volume 57 , pages 457 ( year 2008 )

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Wang , author J

    author J.-S. Wang , author J. Wang , and author J. T. Lü , journal Eur. Phys. J. B volume 62 , pages 381 ( year 2008 )

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Lepri , ed., title Thermal Transport in Low Dimensions , vol

    editor S. Lepri , ed., title Thermal Transport in Low Dimensions , vol. volume 921 of series Lecture notes in Physics ( publisher Springer, Cham , year 2016 )

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Li , author J

    author N. Li , author J. Ren , author L. Wang , author G. Zhang , author P. Hänggi , and author B. Li , journal Rev. Mod. Phys. volume 84 , pages 1045 ( year 2012 )

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Gu , author Y

    author X. Gu , author Y. Wei , author X. Yin , author B. Li , and author R. Yang , journal Rev. Mod. Phys. volume 90 , pages 1103 ( year 2018 )

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Lepri , author R

    author S. Lepri , author R. Livi , and author A. Politi , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 78 , pages 1896 ( year 1997 )

    work page 1997

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Lepri , author R

    author S. Lepri , author R. Livi , and author A. Politi , journal Europhys. Lett. volume 43 , pages 271 ( year 1998 )

    1998

  2. [10]

    Hu , author B

    author B. Hu , author B. Li , and author H. Zhao , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 57 , pages 2992 ( year 1998 )

    1998

  3. [11]

    Lepri , author R

    author S. Lepri , author R. Livi , and author A. Politi , journal Chaos volume 15 , pages 015118 ( year 2005 )

    2005

  4. [12]

    Mai , author A

    author T. Mai , author A. Dhar , and author O. Narayan , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 98 , pages 184301 ( year 2007 )

    2007

  5. [13]

    Hatano , journal Phys

    author T. Hatano , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 59 , pages R1 ( year 1999 )

    1999

  6. [14]

    Grassberger , author W

    author P. Grassberger , author W. Nadler , and author L. Yang , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 89 , pages 180601 ( year 2002 )

    2002

  7. [15]

    Xiong , journal Phys

    author D. Xiong , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 95 , pages 062140 ( year 2017 )

    2017

  8. [16]

    Li and author N

    author S. Li and author N. Li , journal Sci. Rep. volume 8 , pages 5329 ( year 2018 ), ISSN issn 2045-2322

    2018

  9. [17]

    author J. M. Deutsch and author O. Narayan , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 68 , pages 010201 ( year 2003 )

    2003

  10. [18]

    Lepri , journal Phys

    author S. Lepri , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 58 , pages 7165 ( year 1998 )

    1998

  11. [19]

    Narayan and author S

    author O. Narayan and author S. Ramaswamy , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 89 , pages 200601 ( year 2002 )

    2002

  12. [20]

    van Beijeren , journal Phys

    author H. van Beijeren , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 108 , pages 180601 ( year 2012 )

    2012

  13. [21]

    Spohn , journal J Stat

    author H. Spohn , journal J Stat. Phys. volume 154 , pages 1191 ( year 2014 )

    2014

  14. [22]

    author G. P. Tsironis , author A. R. Bishop , author A. V. Savin , and author A. V. Zolotaryuk , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 60 , pages 6610 ( year 1999 )

    1999

  15. [23]

    author B. B. Hu , author B. W. Li , and author H. Zhao , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 61 , pages 3828 ( year 2000 )

    2000

  16. [24]

    Aoki and author D

    author K. Aoki and author D. Kusnezov , journal Phys Lett A volume 265 , pages 250 ( year 2000 )

    2000

  17. [25]

    Prosen and author D

    author T. Prosen and author D. K. Campbell , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 84 , pages 2857 ( year 2000 )

    2000

  18. [26]

    Giardina , author R

    author C. Giardina , author R. Livi , author A. Politi , and author M. Vassalli , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 84 , pages 2144 ( year 2000 )

    2000

  19. [27]

    Li , author S

    author Y. Li , author S. Liu , author N. Li , author P. Hänggi , and author B. Li , journal New J Phys volume 17 , pages 043064 ( year 2015 )

    2015

  20. [28]

    author D. L. Nika and author A. A. Balandin , journal Rep. Prog. Phys. volume 80 , pages 036502 ( year 2017 )

    2017

  21. [29]

    Lippi and author R

    author A. Lippi and author R. Livi , journal J. Stat. Phys. volume 100 , pages 1147 ( year 2000 )

    2000

  22. [30]

    Xiong , author J

    author D. Xiong , author J. Wang , author Y. Zhang , and author H. Zhao , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 82 , pages 030101 ( year 2010 )

    2010

  23. [31]

    Shiba and author N

    author H. Shiba and author N. Ito , journal J Phys Soc Jpn volume 77 , pages 054006 ( year 2008 )

    2008

  24. [32]

    Wang , author B

    author L. Wang , author B. Hu , and author B. Li , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 86 , pages 040101 ( year 2012 )

    2012

  25. [33]

    author A. V. Savin , author V. Zolotarevskiy , and author O. V. Gendelman , journal Europhys. Lett. volume 113 , pages 24003 ( year 2016 )

    2016

  26. [34]

    Liu , author P

    author S. Liu , author P. Haenggi , author N. Li , author J. Ren , and author B. Li , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 112 , pages 040601 ( year 2014 )

    2014

  27. [35]

    Cheng , author M

    author J. Cheng , author M. Grossman , and author T. McKercher , title Professional Cuda C Programming ( publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc. , year 2014 )

    2014

  28. [36]

    Zhao , journal Phys

    author H. Zhao , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 96 , pages 140602 ( year 2006 )

    2006

  29. [37]

    Chen , author Y

    author S. Chen , author Y. Zhang , author J. Wang , and author H. Zhao , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 87 , pages 032153 ( year 2013 )

    2013

  30. [38]

    Gao , author N

    author Z. Gao , author N. Li , and author B. Li , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 93 , pages 022102 ( year 2016 ), ISSN issn 2470-0045

    2016

  31. [39]

    Xiong , journal Phys

    author D. Xiong , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 97 , pages 022116 ( year 2018 )

    2018

  32. [40]

    Xiong and author Y

    author D. Xiong and author Y. Zhang , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 98 , pages 012130 ( year 2018 )

    2018

  33. [41]

    Yang , author P

    author L. Yang , author P. Grassberger , and author B. Hu , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 74 , pages 062101 ( year 2006 )

    2006

  34. [42]

    Xiong and author S.-V

    author D.-X. Xiong and author S.-V. Dmitriev , title A Dynamical Perspective on the ^4 Model (Pages 281-308) ( publisher Springer, Cham , year 2019 )

    2019

  35. [43]

    author S. G. Das , author A. Dhar , author K. Saito , author C. B. Mendl , and author H. Spohn , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 90 , pages 012124 ( year 2014 )

    2014

  36. [44]

    author G. R. Lee-Dadswell , author B. G. Nickel , and author C. G. Gray , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 72 , pages 031202 ( year 2005 )

    2005

  37. [45]

    Zaburdaev , author S

    author V. Zaburdaev , author S. Denisov , and author J. Klafter , journal Rev Mod Phys volume 87 , pages 483 ( year 2015 )

    2015

  38. [46]

    Klafter and author I

    author J. Klafter and author I. M. Sokolov , title First Steps in Random Walks: From Tools to Applications ( publisher OUP Oxford , year 2011 )

    2011

Pith tools

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