Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 26 references

Consistent Solutions of the Radiation Diffusion Equation in Spherical and Cylindrical Geometries

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

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the planar quasi-analytic model for radiation-driven heat waves can be extended to spherical and cylindrical geometries, yielding a heat-front position that matches numerical diffusion solutions to about 10 percent…

desk verdict Useful curvilinear extension with a correct-looking front ODE, but the printed profile is mathematically wrong and the consistency claim fails as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07930 v1 pith:HLFDXDKL submitted 2025-02-11 physics.comp-ph physics.flu-dyn

Ethan Smith , Evan Bursch , Ryan G. McClarren This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-phphysics.flu-dyn
keywords radiationdiffusionheatfrontsphericalgeometrycylindricalquasi-analyticmodelinertialconfinementfusionfixed-pointiteration
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

Radiation-driven heat waves in a spherical or cylindrical shell—heated from an inner surface and expanding outward—are usually studied with full numerical diffusion simulations. This paper claims that a quasi-analytic model, built on the planar radiation-diffusion solution, can be extended to these curved geometries while keeping its biggest practical advantage: the drive temperature at the inner boundary can be an arbitrary function of time. The extension reduces the problem to one ordinary differential equation for the heat-front position $r_f(t)$ and a formula for the temperature profile, and the paper reports that for inner radii $r_0 \ge 0.1$ cm the predicted front position agrees with numerical diffusion solutions to about 10 percent. The agreement fails as $r_0$ shrinks, because curvature produces a steep temperature gradient near the inner boundary that the perturbative construction does not capture; the model then moves the front too slowly. If correct, the model makes fast iteration on small curved systems such as inertial-confinement-fusion capsules possible without running full simulations for every design variation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing structure is the moving-coordinate transformation $y = (r-r_0)/(r_f(t)-r_0)$, which turns the expanding wave into a fixed-boundary problem, and the smallness of $\epsilon = \beta/(4+\alpha)$, the ratio formed from the power-law exponents of internal energy and opacity. Setting the left-hand side of the transformed equation to zero away from the front gives the planar-like profile $\zeta_0 = 1-y$; feeding that profile back through the full equation yields the logarithmic geometric correction $\psi$ and a consistency condition that becomes the front-position ODE. This ODE is the one piece that must be integrated numerically; once $r_f(t)$ is known, the temperature profile and albedo follow from closed-form expressions. The same machinery reduces cleanly to the planar case as $r_0 \to \infty$, and it produces a geometric correction twice as large in spherical as in cylindrical geometry.

What would settle it

Run a high-resolution numerical diffusion solve for a small-$\epsilon$ material at $r_0 = 0.05$ cm and compare the heat-front trajectory and the inner-boundary temperature gradient to Eqs. (36)-(37); if the front position lies within 10 percent of the PDE result, the claimed applicability range would extend below 0.1 cm, while a large slowdown and a sharp gradient at $r_0$ would confirm the stated failure mode. Equivalently, evaluate the dropped left-hand side of Eq. (21) on the numerical solution and check whether it is small compared with the right-hand side.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At its core, the paper establishes that the consistency condition at the moving heat front—the requirement that the temperature and its gradient vanish together at the front—can be written as an ODE for the front position in spherical and cylindrical geometry, not just in planar geometry. The derivation transforms the nonlinear radiation-diffusion equation into a moving coordinate $y=(r-r_0)/(r_f-r_0)$, expands in the small material exponent $\epsilon = \beta/(4+\alpha)$, and uses one round of fixed-point iteration around the planar profile $\zeta_0 = 1-y$ to build in a logarithmic geometric correction. The final front-position ODE, Eq. (37), together with the profile, Eq. (36), is the claimed 'consistent solution'. The paper validates it against finite-volume numerical solutions for four materials spanning a range of $\epsilon$ and for inner radii from 0.01 to 1000 cm, finding roughly 10 percent agreement in front position for $r_0 \ge 0.1$ cm and systematic slowdown at smaller radii.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that the left-hand side of the transformed diffusion equation—the drive term and the geometric correction—is small away from the heat front, so it can be dropped before the profile iteration; this becomes false as the inner radius approaches zero, where a steep temperature gradient appears near the boundary.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For inner radii down to 0.1 cm, the model gives heat-front positions accurate to about 10 percent for the four materials tested, so design scans can replace expensive PDE solves in that regime.
  • Because the drive temperature remains arbitrary, the model can handle shaped or time-varying radiation drives, not just constant or power-law boundary conditions.
  • In cylindrical geometry the geometric correction is smaller than in spherical geometry, so the model is accurate at even smaller inner radii in cylinders.
  • The model reproduces the qualitative waiting behavior of nonlinear diffusion fronts when the drive changes from constant to ramped, although it exaggerates the front slowdown.
  • The temperature profile and material albedo are available semi-analytically once the front ODE is integrated, which is what enables rapid iteration for design studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same perturbative strategy—drop the geometric correction at lowest order, then iterate—might be applied to converging waves by reversing the sign of the correction, but the semi-infinite domain assumption would need to be replaced; the paper only identifies converging waves as future work.
  • Because the failure at small $r_0$ stems from the inner-boundary gradient, a boundary-layer treatment near $r_0$ matched to the outer profile could extend the model below 0.1 cm; this is a testable modification.
  • The accuracy threshold $r_0 \ge 0.1$ cm is likely material-dependent through $\epsilon$; a systematic mapping of the failure radius versus $\epsilon$ and geometry would turn the reported examples into a design rule.
  • If adopted as a reduced-order model in multi-dimensional codes, the front-position ODE could serve as a fast subgrid model for radiation flow in curved geometry, with error estimates derived from the $\epsilon$ and $1/r_0$ expansion.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the planar, arbitrary-drive radiation diffusion model of Hammer and Rosen to diverging spherical and cylindrical geometries. The authors nondimensionalize the nonlinear diffusion equation with power-law material properties, introduce a moving heat-front coordinate, and use a perturbation/Picard iteration in ε = β/(4+α) to obtain an ODE for the front position rf(t) (Eq. 37) and a temperature profile (Eq. 36). They compare front position and profiles against finite-volume numerical solutions for four materials and inner radii from 1000 cm down to 0.001 cm, reporting roughly 10% agreement for r0 ≥ 0.1 cm and documenting breakdown at smaller radii.

Significance. If the derivation is corrected, the front-position ODE is a useful extension: it is free of fitted parameters, uses C and ε from tabulated material properties, and preserves the arbitrary-drive feature of the planar model. The numerical comparisons in Figures 3–4 provide external support for the ODE. However, the profile portion is currently not a consistent O(ε) solution because of an integration error in Eq. (32); the claimed 'consistent approximate solution' is therefore not yet established, and the temperature-profile comparisons in Figures 5–8 need to be redone. The contribution is potentially significant for semi-analytic modeling of ICF-scale curved systems, but the revision is nontrivial.

major comments (3)
  1. [II, Eqs. (29)–(36)] The step from Eq. (29) to Eq. (32) is not correct. The exact antiderivative of d ln((γy+r0)/(γ+r0)) on [0,y] is d[ y ln((γy+r0)/(γ+r0)) + (r0/γ) ln(1+γy/r0) − y ], but Eq. (32) retains only the last two terms. Consequently Eq. (36) does not satisfy the first-order equation Eq. (29) to O(ε). The missing term is not negligible: for r0 = 0.1 cm, γ = 1, y = 0.1 it contributes about −0.17 to ζ^{1−ε}, the same size as the retained geometric correction. Because the missing term vanishes at y = 1, the front-position ODE obtained by imposing ζ(1) = 0 may still be correct, but the interior profile is not. Please correct Eq. (32), derive the corresponding profile, and repeat the profile comparisons in Figures 5–8.
  2. [II, Eqs. (23)–(24) and (31)] There is a sign inconsistency in the zeroth-order solution. Equation (24) as printed, 1 = (ε−1)(1/γ)∂rf/∂s, gives a negative front speed for ε < 1, and it does not lead to Eq. (25). The subsequent use of (1/γ)∂rf/∂s = 1 + O(ε) in Eq. (31) and the positive front speeds reported in Section III require 1 = (1−ε)(1/γ)∂rf/∂s. Please correct Eq. (23)/(24) and the text around them.
  3. [II, around Eq. (21)] The treatment of the geometric term as a small correction is not quantified. The left-hand side of Eq. (21) contains dγ/(yγ+r0)∂ζ/∂y, which for r0 = 0.1 cm and γ of order 0.1–0.25 cm is O(1), not O(ε). The assertion that this side is small 'away from the wavefront' is especially delicate because the term is largest near y = 0. The manuscript should state a smallness criterion (e.g., a bound on γ/r0) and verify it for the cases where the 10% agreement is claimed; otherwise the 'ranges of applicability' are only empirically motivated, not supported by the asymptotic ordering.
minor comments (6)
  1. [II, Eq. (28)] The dummy variable of integration should not be denoted y; use a different symbol such as ŷ or y′.
  2. [II, Eq. (23)] The solution of Eq. (22) displayed in Eq. (23) should be shown to satisfy the boundary conditions; this will also clarify the sign correction needed in Eq. (24).
  3. [References] References 4 and 16 are the same paper (Milovich et al.); consolidate them.
  4. [References] Reference 1 contains a typo: 'Univeristy' should be 'University'.
  5. [III.A] The claim of 'about 10% or less' for r0 ≥ 0.1 cm would be better supported by a table of relative errors at 3 ns for each material and r0.
  6. [III.B] Figures 5–8 should state in the captions which analytic profile (equation number) is plotted, so that the corrected profile can be checked against them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the curvilinear extension is derived from the stated PDE via perturbation, with material parameters C and epsilon as external inputs and the numerical diffusion comparison serving as an independent check.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation is self-contained with respect to its inputs. The front-position ODE (Eq. 37) and profile (Eq. 36) follow from a Picard iteration on Eq. (21) with no free constants fitted to the validation data: C and epsilon are material properties taken from prior opacity tables (Table I and Ref. 21), and the numerical solutions of Eq. (1) are external benchmarks, not fitting targets. The only parameters that enter are the material inputs and the given drive H(t); the wavefront ODE is obtained by imposing the boundary condition zeta(1,s)=0 on the integrated perturbation equation, which is a consistency condition rather than an encoding of the numerical result. The paper explicitly acknowledges the small-r0 limitation where the neglected left-hand side of Eq. (21) is no longer small, and it also notes that attempts to place the geometric term on the other side before iteration have been fruitless. The apparent algebraic mis-integration between Eqs. (29) and (32), and the sign inconsistency in Eq. (24)/(28), are correctness errors that would make the printed profile inconsistent with the first-order equation, but they do not make an output equal to an input; they are therefore outside the definition of circularity. No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness import appears: the Hammer-Rosen model is external prior work, and the numerical comparisons are independent checks.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No constants are fitted to the numerical results shown; C and epsilon are material inputs from prior opacity tables. The central claim relies on the Hammer-Rosen power-law diffusion framework, on small-epsilon ordering, on vanishing boundary conditions at the front, and on the accuracy of the finite-volume PDE solver used for validation. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Supersonic diffusive radiation transport with constant density, Eq. (1).
    Underlies the PDE being modeled; excludes hydrodynamics and non-diffusive transport.
  • domain assumption Power-law closures e = f T^beta rho^{-mu} and 1/K = g T^alpha rho^{-lambda}.
    Defines C and epsilon; material values are taken from Cohen et al., not fitted here.
  • domain assumption Small parameter epsilon = beta/(4+alpha) with neglect of O(epsilon squared) terms.
    Central ordering for the perturbative solution; stated in Section II and used throughout.
  • ad hoc to paper Left-hand side of Eq. (21) is small away from the front and may be zeroed before Picard iteration.
    The key approximation enabling the curvilinear correction; the paper acknowledges it fails at small r0.
  • domain assumption Marshak-wave boundary conditions: cold initial medium, zeta(1) = 0, and derivative of zeta equal to zero at the front.
    Required to integrate Eq. (22) and to fix the front-position ODE.
  • domain assumption The finite-volume numerical diffusion solution is an accurate reference solution.
    Used as validation ground truth; no grid-convergence or error analysis is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Consistent Solutions of the Radiation Diffusion Equation in Spherical and Cylindrical Geometries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HLFDXDKL

@misc{pith2026250207930,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Consistent Solutions of the Radiation Diffusion Equation in Spherical and Cylindrical Geometries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HLFDXDKL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07930}
}
read the original abstract

We have extended the radiation diffusion model of Hammer and Rosen to diverging spherical and cylindrical geometries. The effect of curvilinear geometry on the supersonic, expanding wavefront increases as the internal radius of a spherical or cylindrical shell approaches zero. Small spherical geometries are important for modeling systems at the size scale of ICF capsules, at these scales existing quasi-analytic models for planar geometry significantly disagree with the results of simulation. With this method, the benefits of rapid iteration can be applied to common spherical systems at much smaller length scales. We present comparisons between numerical diffusion solutions and the analytic model to give ranges of applicability for the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07930 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic diagram of the considered problem. A temperature boundary is imposed at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Temperature boundary condition for the test problem. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Our approximate model, solid line, compared to a numerical diffusion solution, dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Our approximate model (solid line) compared to a numerical diffusion solution, (dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Comparison of the numerical (dashed) and model (solid) temperature profiles in gold at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Comparison of the numerical (dashed) and model (solid) temperature profiles in SiO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Comparison of the numerical (dashed) and model (solid) temperature profiles in gold at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Comparison of the numerical (dashed) and model (solid) temperature profiles in SiO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translat...

    2010

  2. [2]

    merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translat...

    2010

  3. [3]

    merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  4. [4]

    author author J. I. \ Castor ,\ @noop title Radiation Hydrodynamics \ ( publisher Cambridge Univeristy Press ,\ year 2004 ) NoStop

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    author author R. P. \ Drake ,\ @noop title High Energy Density Physics ,\ Springer\ ( publisher Springer ,\ year 2006 ) NoStop

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Atzeni \ and\ author J

    author author S. Atzeni \ and\ author J. Meyer-ter Vehn ,\ @noop title The physics of inertial fusion: beam plasma interaction, hydrodynamics, hot dense matter ,\ Vol.\ volume 125 \ ( publisher OUP Oxford ,\ year 2004 ) NoStop

    work page 2004

  7. [8]

    author author M. S. \ Rubery , author M. D. \ Rosen , author N. Aybar , author O. L. \ Landen , author L. Divol , author C. V. \ Young , author C. Weber , author J. Hammer , author J. D. \ Moody , author A. S. \ Moore , author A. L. \ Kritcher , author A. B. \ Zylstra , author O. Hurricane , author A. E. \ Pak , author S. MacLaren , author G. Zimmerman , ...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.065104

  8. [9]

    author author A. S. \ Moore , author T. M. \ Guymer , author J. Morton , author B. Williams , author J. L. \ Kline , author N. Bazin , author C. Bentley , author S. Allan , author K. Brent , author A. J. \ Comley , author K. Flippo , author J. Cowan , author J. M. \ Taccetti , author K. Mussack-Tamashiro , author D. W. \ Schmidt , author C. E. \ Hamilton ...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2015.02

Show all 26 references
  1. [10]

    author author E. S. \ Dodd , author K. Molvig , author C.-K. \ Huang , \ and\ author B. J. \ Albright ,\ 10.1063/5.0003637 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 27 ,\ pages 072702 ( year 2020 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/...

    2020 doi

  2. [11]

    Hristov ,\ 10.2298/tsci171011308h journal journal Thermal Science \ volume 22 ,\ pages 777 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    author author J. Hristov ,\ 10.2298/tsci171011308h journal journal Thermal Science \ volume 22 ,\ pages 777 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  3. [12]

    Krief \ and\ author R

    author author M. Krief \ and\ author R. G. \ McClarren ,\ @noop journal journal Physics of Fluids \ volume 36 ( year 2024 a ) NoStop

    2024

  4. [13]

    author author A. P. \ Cohen \ and\ author S. I. \ Heizler ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Computational and Theoretical Transport \ volume 47 ,\ pages 378 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  5. [14]

    author author T. K. \ Lane \ and\ author R. G. \ McClarren ,\ @noop journal journal New Journal of Physics \ volume 15 ,\ pages 095013 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013

  6. [15]

    author author C. C. \ Smith ,\ 10.1016/j.hedp.2009.06.009 journal journal High Energy Density Physics \ volume 6 ,\ pages 48 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2009 doi

  7. [16]

    author author C. L. \ Fryer , author E. Dodd , author W. Even , author C. J. \ Fontes , author C. Greeff , author A. Hungerford , author J. Kline , author K. Mussack , author I. Tregillis , author J. B. \ Workman , author J. Benstead , author T. M. \ Guymer , author A. S. \ Mo...

    doi

  8. [17]

    author author J. H. \ Hammer \ and\ author M. D. \ Rosen ,\ 10.1063/1.1564599 journal journal Physics of Plasmas \ volume 10 ,\ pages 1829 ( year 2003 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/10/5/1829/19269946/1829\_1\_online.pdf https://pubs.aip.org...

    2003 doi

  9. [18]

    Bellenbaum ,\ in\ @noop booktitle International Conference on Inertial Fusion Sciences and Applications (IFSA) \ ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    author author H. Bellenbaum ,\ in\ @noop booktitle International Conference on Inertial Fusion Sciences and Applications (IFSA) \ ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  10. [19]

    author author J. L. \ Milovich , author D. C. \ Casey , author B. MacGowan , author D. Clark , author D. Mariscal , author T. Ma , author K. Baker , author R. Bionta , author K. Hahn , author A. Moore , author D. Schlossberg , author E. Hartouni , author S. Sepke , \ and\ auth...

    doi

  11. [20]

    Krief \ and\ author R

    author author M. Krief \ and\ author R. G. \ McClarren ,\ 10.1063/5.0186666 journal journal Physics of Fluids \ volume 36 ,\ pages 017108 ( year 2024 b ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pof/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0186666/18293668/017108\_1\_5.0186666.pdf ht...

    2024 doi

  12. [21]

    Malka \ and\ author S

    author author E. Malka \ and\ author S. I. \ Heizler ,\ 10.1063/5.0088104 journal journal Physics of Fluids \ volume 34 ,\ pages 066105 ( year 2022 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pof/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0088104/16583103/066105\_1\_online.pdf https://p...

    2022 doi

  13. [22]

    author author R. G. \ McClarren ,\ @noop title Computational Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Science Using Python \ ( publisher Elsevier ,\ year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  14. [23]

    Virtanen , author R

    author author P. Virtanen , author R. Gommers , author T. E. \ Oliphant , author M. Haberland , author T. Reddy , author D. Cournapeau , author E. Burovski , author P. Peterson , author W. Weckesser , author J. Bright , author S. J. \ van der Walt , author M. Brett , author J....

  15. [24]

    author author A. P. \ Cohen , author G. Malamud , \ and\ author S. I. \ Heizler ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.023007 journal journal Phys. Rev. Res. \ volume 2 ,\ pages 023007 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020 doi

  16. [25]

    author author W. L. \ Kath ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2789(84)90541-4 journal journal Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena \ volume 12 ,\ pages 375 ( year 1984 ) NoStop

    1984 doi

  17. [26]

    merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number orga...

    2010

  18. [27]

    merlin.mbs apsrmp4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs apsrmp4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number orga...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.