Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 50 references

A high-order deterministic dynamical low-rank method for proton transport in heterogeneous media

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Deterministic proton dose calculations can match Monte Carlo accuracy at clinical resolution by evolving the collided flux as a low-rank matrix with energy as pseudo-time, cutting memory by orders of magnitude.

desk verdict Solid extension of DLRA to proton transport with real computational gains, but the physics claim rests on an unverified straggling assumption that the paper only supports post hoc. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.04484 v1 pith:ZNMWBBAP submitted 2025-08-06 math.NA cs.NAphysics.comp-phphysics.med-ph

Pia Stammer , Niklas Wahl , Jonas Kusch , Danny Lathouwers This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NAphysics.comp-phphysics.med-ph MSC 65M7082C7065F5592C50
keywords dynamicallow-rankapproximationprotontherapydeterministictransportBoltzmannequationFokker-Planckmodelorderreductionraytracingdosecalculation
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 the linear Boltzmann equation governing proton transport in tissue can be solved deterministically at clinically relevant spatial resolution by evolving a low-rank representation of the collided particle flux with energy as pseudo-time. Uncollided protons are handled by a ray tracer that retains energy straggling, while the collided part advances without straggling on the manifold of low-rank matrices. The method reproduces the output of a full-rank deterministic code with ranks as small as 5–20, reducing complexity from $O(n\cdot m)$ to $O(r^2(n+m))$ and memory from $O(n\cdot m)$ to $O(r(n+m))$. At high resolution it agrees reasonably with TOPAS Monte Carlo in homogeneous and heterogeneous materials, and several beam angles can be computed together with little extra cost.

What carries the argument

The engine is the rank-adaptive augmented basis-update & Galerkin (BUG) integrator for dynamical low-rank approximation. The discretized flux matrix $u(t)\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times m}$ is kept in factorized form $X(t)S(t)V(t)^\top$ with orthonormal bases, and the dynamics are projected onto the tangent space of the rank-$r$ manifold; the augmented BUG integrator updates the basis matrices in parallel, forms a Galerkin system for $S$, and truncates singular values after each step. The enabling split is the collided–uncollided decomposition: the uncollided flux is advanced by a deterministic ray tracer that keeps the straggling term, while the collided equation, in which straggling is dropped via

What would settle it

In the homogeneous water phantom at 0.25 mm resolution, run a full-rank deterministic reference that keeps the full straggling term in the collided equation and compare depth-dose profiles with the low-rank code's output; if the difference in the Bragg-peak region exceeds a few percent of peak dose, or if a 30 MeV beam (where straggling is proportionally larger) shows low-rank dose deviating from TOPAS MC by more than the full-rank code does, the Eq. (16) assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

What the paper establishes is that the cost of deterministic proton dose calculation is set not by the physics of transport but by the representation of the solution. By splitting the angular flux into an uncollided part that is ray-traced (with straggling) and a collided part that is advanced without straggling on the manifold of rank-$r$ matrices, the authors turn the energy variable into a pseudo-time and apply a rank-adaptive augmented BUG integrator. In the homogeneous 90 MeV beam test, the Boltzmann-based solver reproduces the full-rank reference with an average rank of 4.77, and at 0.25 mm spatial / $P_{115}$ angular resolution it agrees with TOPAS Monte Carlo within a few percent exc

Load-bearing premise

The method rests on the assumption that energy-loss straggling can be dropped from the collided equation, $\partial^2(T\psi_c)/\partial E^2\approx 0$ (Eq. (16)); if the term is non-negligible, the energy spread of scattered protons and hence the Bragg peak will be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dose distributions with full angle and energy resolution become affordable for treatment-planning problems, enabling Monte-Carlo-free uncertainty quantification and beam configuration optimization.
  • The Boltzmann test case's theoretical memory drops from 41.4 TiB to 1.69 GiB (0.0039%), so a single workstation GPU can run what previously required a supercomputer-scale dense solve.
  • Because ranks rise only slightly when a second beam at a different angle is added (roughly +2 for Boltzmann), many beamlets can be bundled into a few angle groups instead of thousands of pencil-beam runs.
  • The Boltzmann operator with the extended transport correction outperforms the Fokker-Planck approximation in accuracy and rank at high resolution, suggesting the cheaper operator is not the right trade once DLRA removes the cost penalty.
  • The same code structure can absorb nuclear interactions and absorption without changing the low-rank machinery, since those effects enter only the collision operator.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors validate the no-straggling collided assumption only by agreement with TOPAS MC; a quantitative a priori estimate of the neglected $\partial^2(T\psi_c)/\partial E^2$ term would show whether the method transfers to lower energies or higher-Z materials where straggling is relatively larger.
  • The reported speedups mix algorithm gains with GPU implementation effects (the full-rank baseline runs on CPU); a constant-error comparison against optimized Monte Carlo on the same hardware would better locate the method's clinical value.
  • The appearance of small negative dose regions behind the Bragg peak suggests the modal $P_N$ expansion plus upwinding is not entirely positivity-preserving; a limit on the angular expansion or a correction could close this gap without a major redesign.
  • If the rank stays this low for anatomically realistic CT-based geometries, DLRA could turn time-dependent treatment-planning questions (e.g., 4D dose with organ motion) into tractable deterministic simulations.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a dynamical low-rank approximation (DLRA) method for deterministic proton transport dose calculations. The authors split the solution into uncollided and collided parts, treat the uncollided part with a ray tracer that includes straggling, and evolve the collided part with a rank-adaptive DLRA integrator while neglecting straggling in that part (Eq. (16)). They combine high-order spatial upwinding and spherical-harmonics angular discretizations with a mixture model for heterogeneous materials, and test both the Boltzmann operator and a Fokker-Planck approximation. Numerical experiments compare DLRA against an equivalent full-rank solver on coarse grids and against TOPAS MC at higher resolutions, for homogeneous, heterogeneous, and two-beam cases. The central claims are that DLRA reproduces full-rank results with significantly lower rank and cost, enables finer resolutions, and achieves 'good accuracy' relative to TOPAS MC.

Significance. If fully validated, the method would be a significant step toward practical deterministic proton dose calculation, potentially enabling high-resolution simulations on clinical workstations and joint treatment of multiple beams. The paper has notable strengths: the DLRA/full-rank agreement is demonstrated on independent coarse-grid experiments for both Boltzmann and Fokker-Planck, the implementation is openly available, and the multi-beam rank behavior is an interesting and useful observation. However, the physical accuracy claim relative to TOPAS MC currently rests on a partly circular comparison (stopping powers extracted from TOPAS in §2.1.1) and on an unverified neglect of straggling in the collided flux (Eq. (16)). The absence of quantitative error metrics further weakens the central claim. These issues are addressable but require additional benchmarking and reporting.

major comments (4)
  1. [3.1, Eq. (16)] The assumption ∂²(T ψ_c)/∂E² ≈ 0 is load-bearing for the paper's accuracy claim against TOPAS MC. The full-rank reference solver uses the same approximation, so the excellent DLRA/full-rank agreement in Figs. 3, 5, 7, 8 validates only the low-rank projection, not the physics. The paper's only justification is qualitative agreement with TOPAS and reference [32] (Section 6). Please provide a quantitative test of this assumption, e.g., a one-dimensional or simplified version of the collided equation with the straggling term included, compared against the current model, or a TOPAS run with collided-part straggling disabled. Without such evidence, the high-resolution accuracy claim is conditional on an unverified approximation.
  2. [2.1.1 and Section 4] The comparison to TOPAS MC is partly circular. Section 2.1.1 states that stopping powers are extracted from TOPAS MC, and Section 4 compares the computed dose to TOPAS MC. Agreement with TOPAS is therefore partly built in. Please state explicitly which physical parameters come from TOPAS and which are independently modeled, and quantify the sensitivity of the dose to the stopping-power source. An independent benchmark using ICRU/NIST stopping-power data for at least one test case would remove this concern.
  3. [Section 4] No quantitative error metrics are reported. Claims such as 'good accuracy' or 'reasonable agreement' are supported only by visual inspection of Figs. 3, 5, 7, 8. Please provide, for each test case, quantitative measures such as relative L2 error or gamma-index pass rates (e.g., 1%/1 mm or 2%/2 mm) against TOPAS MC, and for the DLRA/full-rank comparison. This is necessary to support the central claim and to make the Boltzmann vs. Fokker-Planck comparison meaningful rather than anecdotal.
  4. [4.1, 4.2, Figs. 3(e), 5(e), 8(e)] The paper reports negative dose values behind the Bragg peak in several tests. These negative regions are dismissed as 'slightly negative', but their magnitude and spatial extent are not reported. Since dose is a non-negative physical quantity, negative values of clinically relevant magnitude would undermine the clinical applicability claim. Please quantify these artifacts (e.g., minimum value relative to peak dose) and discuss whether they can be eliminated or bounded by the chosen discretizations or rank-adaptivity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [3.1, after Eq. (17)] The text says 'Γ_out;i and Γ_out;i' where the second should presumably be Γ_in;i. Please correct the notation.
  2. [Section 5, Table 1] The theoretical complexity for the Fokker-Planck case is reported as 101% of full rank, yet runtime is only 1.2% because of GPU acceleration. This makes the 'theoretical' column misleading without an explicit statement that the comparison mixes GPU and CPU implementations. Please clarify or report CPU-only DLRA times.
  3. [Section 5] The 'average rank' used for theoretical cost estimates is not precisely defined (average over all time/energy steps? weighted by step size?). Please define it precisely.
  4. [Section 4] The statement that full-rank high-resolution is infeasible is clear, but the resulting dependence of the fine-grid accuracy claim on extrapolation should be stated again in the abstract or conclusion, where the claim 'feasible at much higher resolutions' might be read as implying validated accuracy at those resolutions.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity in the TOPAS comparison: stopping powers are imported from TOPAS MC and then used as the validation target; the DLRA-vs-full-rank result is self-contained and the straggling assumption is an acknowledged ansatz.

  1. other [Section 2.1.1 (physical quantities) and abstract/Section 4 (TOPAS validation)]
    "For comparability, we extract the stopping power for each material and different energies from the Monte Carlo code TOPAS MC [40]. ... At higher resolutions, we also achieve good accuracy with respect to TOPAS MC in homogeneous as well as heterogeneous materials."

    The stopping power S(E,r) is the coefficient of the energy-loss term in the transport equation (Eqs. (1), (7), (23)) and therefore fixes proton range and Bragg-peak depth. By taking S from TOPAS MC and then presenting the computed dose as 'good accuracy with respect to TOPAS MC', the depth-dose part of the validation is inherited from the benchmark input by construction. This is not a full collapse: scattering, angular/spatial discretizations, ray tracing, material mixing and the DLRA projection are independently solved and verified against the full-rank solver. It is a partial benchmark-input circularity in the physical validation.

full rationale

The central numerical claim - that DLRA reproduces the full-rank deterministic solver at low rank and reduced cost - is self-contained: the full-rank reference uses the same models and discretizations, and the DLRA/full-rank agreement is a measured numerical result, not an input. The main circular element is confined to the TOPAS-MC validation: stopping powers are extracted from TOPAS MC for comparability and then the same code is used as the accuracy benchmark, so the range/Bragg-peak component of the agreement is shared by construction. The neglected-straggling assumption for the collided flux (Eq. (16)) is an explicit modeling ansatz; the paper supports it by the same TOPAS comparison and by prior work of one of the authors ([32]), and Section 6 flags it as a limitation and future work. Under the strict definition this is not a derivation collapse, but the headline 'good accuracy with respect to TOPAS MC' is less independent than it appears. Score 4 reflects the partial benchmark-input reuse; it does not imply the DLRA method itself is circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central DLRA claim rests on standard kinetic theory assumptions (CSDA, Bragg additivity), the empirical low-rank structure of the solution, and a practical restriction to monodirectional beams. No new physical entities are introduced. The main external fitted input is the stopping power taken from TOPAS MC, which weakens the independence of the validation.

free parameters (2)
  • Stopping power S(E,r) for 12 materials = extracted from TOPAS MC (no numeric values in paper)
    Section 2.1.1: 'we extract the stopping power for each material and different energies from the Monte Carlo code TOPAS MC'. This input is taken from the code used as validation reference, so the dose agreement partly inherits this fit.
  • Rank-adaptivity truncation tolerance theta = 0.01
    Section 3.3.3 and Section 4: user-determined threshold for singular value truncation; controls the accuracy/efficiency tradeoff and was chosen by hand in all experiments.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Continuous slowing down approximation (CSDA) for proton transport
    Section 2.1, Eq. (1) uses CSDA to model energy loss as continuous with stopping power and straggling; this neglects discrete energy-loss events.
  • domain assumption Bragg additivity rule for material mixtures
    Section 2.1, Eq. (6): cross sections and stopping powers are weighted sums of the 12 base elements; assumes no chemical binding effects.
  • domain assumption Fokker-Planck operator is a first-order approximation to Boltzmann for forward-peaked scattering
    Section 2.1, cited to [34]; used for the FP variant.
  • domain assumption Nuclear scattering and absorption are neglected
    Section 2.1.1: 'we neglect nuclear scattering ... and absorption as their effect on the deposited energy is relatively small'.
  • domain assumption The solution matrix has rapidly decaying singular values so low-rank approximation is accurate
    Section 2.2 and Section 4: empirical observation; no a priori bound. The entire method rests on this.
  • standard math Energy as pseudo-time via t(E)=Emax-E
    Section 3.3: transformation from energy to pseudo-time; valid as the equation is first-order in E after neglecting collided straggling.
  • domain assumption Beam sources are monodirectional (delta function in angle) for the ray tracer
    Section 3.3.1: 'we deal with monodirectional beam sources in this work'; the authors note generalization to angular distributions is possible (as in [27]).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A high-order deterministic dynamical low-rank method for proton transport in heterogeneous media." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZNMWBBAP

@misc{pith2026250804484,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A high-order deterministic dynamical low-rank method for proton transport in heterogeneous media},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZNMWBBAP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.04484}
}
read the original abstract

Dose calculations in proton therapy require the fast and accurate solution of a high-dimensional transport equation for a large number of (pencil) beams with different energies and directions. Deterministically solving this transport problem at a sufficient resolution can however be prohibitively expensive, especially due to highly forward peaked scattering of the protons. We propose using a model order reduction approach, the dynamical low-rank approximation (DLRA), which evolves the solution on the manifold of low-rank matrices in (pseudo-)time. For this, we compare a collided-uncollided split of the linear Boltzmann equation and its Fokker-Planck approximation. We treat the uncollided part using a ray-tracer and combine high-order phase space discretizations and a mixture model for materials with DLRA for the collided equation. Our method reproduces the results of a full-rank reference code at significantly lower rank, and thus computational cost and memory, and further makes computations feasible at much higher resolutions. At higher resolutions, we also achieve good accuracy with respect to TOPAS MC in homogeneous as well as heterogeneous materials. Finally, we demonstrate that several beam sources with different angles can be computed with little cost increase compared to individual beams.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.04484 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Graphical illustration of dynamical low-rank approximation. The solution at time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic representations of the domain size, composition and beam directions in the three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Surface plots (a)-(d) and profiles (e)-(g) of deposited energy in the homogeneous test case with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ranks chosen by rank-adaptive integrator for different spatial and angular resolutions and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Surface plots (a)-(d) and profiles (e)-(g) of deposited energy in the homogeneous test case with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ranks chosen by rank-adaptive integrator for different spatial and angular resolutions and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Surface plots (a)-(d) and profiles (e)-(g) of deposited energy in the heterogeneous test case with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Surface plots (a)-(d) and profiles (e)-(g) of deposited energy in the heterogeneous test case with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Surface plots (a)-(c) and profiles (d)-(e) of deposited energy for two perpendicular beams in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Ranks chosen by rank-adaptive integrator using (a) Boltzmann and (b) the Fokker-Planck ap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: First four dominant angular modes after one fifth of the time/energy steps. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    Lathouwers

    D. Lathouwers. A Deterministic Approach for Proton Transport. In Proceedings of M&C 2023 - The International Conference on Mathematics and Computational Methods Applied to Nuclear Science and Engineering, Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada, Aug. 2023. American Nuclear Society – ANS

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    H. A. Bethe. Moli` ere’s Theory of Multiple Scattering. Physical Review, 89(6):1256–1266, Mar. 1953

    work page 1953

  3. [2]

    Burlacu, D

    T. Burlacu, D. Lathouwers, and Z. Perk´ o. A Deterministic Adjoint-Based Semi-Analytical Algorithm for Fast Response Change Computations in Proton Therapy. Journal of Computational and Theoretical Transport, 52(1):1–41, Jan. 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    Burlacu, D

    T. Burlacu, D. Lathouwers, and Z. Perk´ o. Yet anOther Dose Algorithm (YODA) for independent computations of dose and dose changes due to anatomical changes. Physics in Medicine and Biology , 69(16), July 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [4]

    B¨ orgers

    C. B¨ orgers. Complexity of Monte Carlo and deterministic dose-calculation methods. Physics in Medicine & Biology , 43(3):517, Mar. 1998

    work page 1998

  6. [5]

    W. Cao, H. Rocha, R. Mohan, G. Lim, H. M. Goudarzi, B. C. Ferreira, and J. M. Dias. Reflections on beam configuration optimization for intensity-modulated proton therapy. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 67(13):13TR01, June 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    Ceruti, L

    G. Ceruti, L. Einkemmer, J. Kusch, and C. Lubich. A robust second-order low-rank BUG integrator based on the midpoint rule. BIT Numerical Mathematics , 64(3):30, July 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Ceruti, J

    G. Ceruti, J. Kusch, and C. Lubich. A rank-adaptive robust integrator for dynamical low-rank approx- imation. BIT Numerical Mathematics , 62(4):1149–1174, Dec. 2022. 24

    work page 2022

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Ceruti, J

    G. Ceruti, J. Kusch, and C. Lubich. A Parallel Rank-Adaptive Integrator for Dynamical Low-Rank Approximation. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , 46(3):B205–B228, June 2024

    2024

  2. [9]

    Ceruti and C

    G. Ceruti and C. Lubich. An unconventional robust integrator for dynamical low-rank approximation. BIT Numerical Mathematics , 62(1):23–44, Mar. 2022

    2022

  3. [10]

    Coughlin, J

    J. Coughlin, J. Hu, and U. Shumlak. Robust and conservative dynamical low-rank methods for the Vlasov equation via a novel macro-micro decomposition.Journal of Computational Physics, 509:113055, July 2024

    2024

  4. [11]

    C. R. Drumm, F. , Wesley C., L. , Leonard, and J. Liscum-Powell. An Analysis of the Extended- Transport Correction with Application to Electron Beam Transport. Nuclear Science and Engineering, 155(3):355–366, Mar. 2007

    2007

  5. [12]

    Durante and H

    M. Durante and H. Paganetti. Nuclear physics in particle therapy: a review. Reports on Progress in Physics, 79(9):096702, Aug. 2016

    2016

  6. [13]

    Einkemmer, K

    L. Einkemmer, K. Kormann, J. Kusch, R. G. McClarren, and J.-M. Qiu. A review of low-rank methods for time-dependent kinetic simulations. Journal of Computational Physics , 538:114191, Oct. 2025

    2025

  7. [14]

    Einkemmer and A

    L. Einkemmer and A. Moriggl. Semi-Lagrangian 4d, 5d, and 6d kinetic plasma simulation on large-scale GPU-equipped supercomputers. The International Journal of High Performance Computing Applica- tions, 37(2):180–196, 2023

    2023

  8. [15]

    Elcim, B

    Y. Elcim, B. Dirican, and O. Yavas. Dosimetric comparison of pencil beam and Monte Carlo algorithms in conformal lung radiotherapy. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, 19(5):616–624, Sept. 2018

    2018

  9. [16]

    L. Eyges. Multiple Scattering with Energy Loss. Physical Review, 74(10):1534–1535, Nov. 1948

    1948

  10. [17]

    Gottschalk

    B. Gottschalk. Radiotherapy Proton Interactions in Matter, Mar. 2018. arXiv:1804.00022 [physics]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [18]

    L. Hong, M. Goitein, M. Bucciolini, R. Comiskey, B. Gottschalk, S. Rosenthal, C. Serago, and M. Urie. A pencil beam algorithm for proton dose calculations. Physics in Medicine & Biology, 41(8):1305, 1996

    1996

  12. [19]

    Huang, M

    S. Huang, M. Kang, K. Souris, C. Ainsley, T. D. Solberg, J. E. McDonough, C. B. Simone, and L. Lin. Validation and clinical implementation of an accurate Monte Carlo code for pencil beam scanning proton therapy. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics , 19(5):558–572, July 2018

    2018

  13. [20]

    J. F. Janni. Proton Range-Energy Tables, 1 keV-10 GeV, Energy Loss, Range, Path Length, Time-of- Flight, Straggling, Multiple Scattering, and Nuclear Interaction Probability. Part I. For 63 Compounds. Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables , 27:147, Jan. 1982

    1982

  14. [21]

    M. W. K. Kan, P. K. N. Yu, and L. H. T. Leung. A Review on the Use of Grid-Based Boltzmann Equation Solvers for Dose Calculation in External Photon Beam Treatment Planning.BioMed Research International, 2013(1):692874, 2013

    2013

  15. [22]

    Kawrakow

    I. Kawrakow. The effect of Monte Carlo statistical uncertainties on the evaluation of dose distributions in radiation treatment planning. Physics in Medicine and Biology , 49(8):1549–1556, Apr. 2004

    2004

  16. [23]

    Kieri, C

    E. Kieri, C. Lubich, and H. Walach. Discretized Dynamical Low-Rank Approximation in the Presence of Small Singular Values. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , 54(2):1020–1038, Jan. 2016

    2016

  17. [24]

    Koch and C

    O. Koch and C. Lubich. Dynamical Low-Rank Approximation. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 29(2):434–454, Jan. 2007

    2007

  18. [25]

    J. Kusch. Second-order robust parallel integrators for dynamical low-rank approximation. BIT Nu- merical Mathematics, 65(3):31, June 2025

    2025

  19. [26]

    Kusch, L

    J. Kusch, L. Einkemmer, and G. Ceruti. On the Stability of Robust Dynamical Low-Rank Approxima- tions for Hyperbolic Problems. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , 45(1):A1–A24, Feb. 2023

    2023

  20. [27]

    Kusch and P

    J. Kusch and P. Stammer. A robust collision source method for rank adaptive dynamical low-rank ap- proximation in radiation therapy. ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 57(2):865– 891, Mar. 2023

    2023

  21. [28]

    Kusch, B

    J. Kusch, B. Whewell, R. McClarren, and M. Frank. A low-rank power iteration scheme for neutron transport criticality problems. Journal of Computational Physics , 470:111587, 2022

    2022

  22. [29]

    K´ oph´ azi and D

    J. K´ oph´ azi and D. Lathouwers. A space–angle DGFEM approach for the Boltzmann radiation transport equation with local angular refinement. Journal of Computational Physics , 297:637–668, Sept. 2015

    2015

  23. [30]

    Landesman and J

    M. Landesman and J. E. Morel. Angular Fokker-Planck Decomposition and Representation Techniques. Nuclear Science and Engineering , 103(1):1–11, Sept. 1989. 25

    1989

  24. [31]

    E. W. Larsen, M. M. Miften, B. A. Fraass, and I. A. D. Bruinvis. Electron dose calculations using the Method of Moments. Medical Physics, 24(1):111–125, 1997

    1997

  25. [33]

    Lathouwers and Z

    D. Lathouwers and Z. Perk´ o. An angular multigrid preconditioner for the radiation transport equation with Fokker–Planck scattering. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics , 350:165–177, Apr. 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    C. L. Leakeas and E. W. Larsen. Generalized Fokker-Planck Approximations of Particle Transport with Highly Forward-Peaked Scattering. Nuclear Science and Engineering, 137(3):236–250, Mar. 2001

    2001

  27. [35]

    Lubich and I

    C. Lubich and I. V. Oseledets. A projector-splitting integrator for dynamical low-rank approximation. BIT Numerical Mathematics , 54(1):171–188, Mar. 2014

    2014

  28. [36]

    Moli` ere

    G. Moli` ere. Theorie der Streuung schneller geladener Teilchen II Mehrfach-und Vielfachstreuung. Zeitschrift f¨ ur Naturforschung A, 3(2):78–97, Feb. 1948

    1948

  29. [37]

    J. E. Morel. Fokker-Planck Calculations Using Standard Discrete Ordinates Transport Codes. Nuclear Science and Engineering , 79(4):340–356, Dec. 1981

    1981

  30. [38]

    J. E. Morel and T. A. Manteuffel. An Angular Multigrid Acceleration Technique for Sn Equations with Highly Forward-Peaked Scattering. Nuclear Science and Engineering , 107(4):330–342, Apr. 1991

    1991

  31. [39]

    W. D. Newhauser and R. Zhang. The physics of proton therapy. Physics in medicine and biology , 60(8):R155, Mar. 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    J. Perl, J. Shin, J. Sch¨ umann, B. Faddegon, and H. Paganetti. TOPAS: An innovative proton Monte Carlo platform for research and clinical applications. Medical Physics, 39(11):6818–6837, 2012

    2012

  33. [41]

    Scalone, L

    C. Scalone, L. Einkemmer, J. Kusch, and R. G. McClarren. A Multi-fidelity Adaptive Dynamical Low- Rank Based Optimization Algorithm for Fission Criticality Problems. Journal of Scientific Computing , 104(1):27, May 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    Schaffner, E

    B. Schaffner, E. Pedroni, and A. Lomax. Dose calculation models for proton treatment planning using a dynamic beam delivery system: an attempt to include density heterogeneity effects in the analytical dose calculation. Physics in Medicine & Biology , 44(1):27, 1999

    1999

  35. [43]

    Schneider, T

    W. Schneider, T. Bortfeld, and W. Schlegel. Correlation between CT numbers and tissue parameters needed for Monte Carlo simulations of clinical dose distributions. Physics in Medicine & Biology , 45(2):459, 2000

    2000

  36. [44]

    W. T. Scott. The Theory of Small-Angle Multiple Scattering of Fast Charged Particles. Reviews of Modern Physics, 35(2):231–313, Apr. 1963

    1963

  37. [45]

    Soukup, M

    M. Soukup, M. Fippel, and M. Alber. A pencil beam algorithm for intensity modulated proton therapy derived from Monte Carlo simulations. Physics in Medicine & Biology , 50(21):5089, 2005

    2005

  38. [46]

    P. A. Taylor, S. F. Kry, and D. S. Followill. Pencil Beam Algorithms Are Unsuitable for Proton Dose Calculations in Lung. International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics , 99(3):750–756, Nov. 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    Turcksin, R

    B. Turcksin, R. , Jean C., and J. E. Morel. Angular Multigrid Preconditioner for Krylov-Based Solution Techniques Applied to the Sn Equations with Highly Forward-Peaked Scattering. Transport Theory and Statistical Physics , 41(1-2):1–22, Jan. 2012

    2012

  40. [48]

    O. N. Vassiliev, T. A. Wareing, I. M. Davis, J. McGhee, D. Barnett, J. L. Horton, K. Gifford, G. Failla, U. Titt, and F. Mourtada. Feasibility of a Multigroup Deterministic Solution Method for 3D Radio- therapy Dose Calculations. International journal of radiation oncology, bi...

    2008

  41. [49]

    E. J. Williams and W. L. N. Bragg. The passage of alpha- and beta- particles through matter and Born’s theory of collisions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character , 135(826):108–131, Jan. 1997

    1997

  42. [50]

    Yepes, A

    P. Yepes, A. Adair, D. Grosshans, D. Mirkovic, F. Poenisch, U. Titt, Q. Wang, and R. Mohan. Compar- ison of Monte Carlo and analytical dose computations for intensity modulated proton therapy. Physics in Medicine & Biology , 63(4):045003, 2018. 26

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.