Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 53 references

Constraint-native quantum control for fidelity--complexity trade-offs with inexact proximal ADMM

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Building hardware constraints into the optimizer itself yields a clear fidelity–complexity trade-off for quantum control pulses, not a free fidelity win.

desk verdict We only have the abstract for the quantum-control PADMM paper; the supplied body is a different nanofluidics manuscript, so the reported trade-off numbers stay unverifiable. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.13020 v2 pith:X7TMXV6G submitted 2026-03-13 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Ziwen Song This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords quantumcontrolproximalADMMpulseshapingfidelity-complexitytrade-offtotalvariationband-limitedcontrolsGRAPEKrotov
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

Standard quantum-control design first maximises gate fidelity and only later enforces waveform limits such as amplitude caps, bandwidth, sparsity, and smoothness. That order hides how much fidelity is lost once the pulse must actually run on hardware. This paper instead optimises gate fidelity and those constraints together using inexact proximal alternating-direction updates. On a single-qubit gate, a leakage-prone qutrit gate, and a two-qubit entangler, the warm-started method reaches mean fidelities of about 0.64 and 0.95 for the harder cases while cutting total variation by factors of roughly 13 and 11 relative to an unconstrained quasi-Newton baseline. The result is framed as a reproducible map of low-complexity control frontiers, not a claim of universally higher fidelity. Readers who care about implementable pulses get a concrete numerical tool for trading smoothness and bandwidth against gate error under paired random seeds.

What carries the argument

Inexact proximal ADMM (PADMM-Warm): alternating-direction updates that jointly minimise gate infidelity and apply proximal projections for amplitude bounds, band-limited Fourier content, sparsity, and total variation, so constraints are native to the search rather than post-processed.

What would settle it

On the same three gates (or a new device Hamiltonian), re-run the paired-seed comparison with a different constraint model or with realistic noise; if PADMM-Warm no longer simultaneously lowers total variation by an order of magnitude and keeps comparable subspace fidelity, the claimed trade-off does not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When amplitude bounds, Fourier bandwidth projection, amplitude sparsity, and total-variation regularisation are enforced inside the optimiser via inexact proximal ADMM rather than after unconstrained fidelity maximisation, the resulting pulses define a reproducible fidelity–complexity trade-off: PADMM-Warm attains mean qutrit and two-qubit fidelities of 0.6363 and 0.9541 while reducing total variation by factors of 13.2 and 10.7 versus L-BFGS-B, without claiming superiority over unconstrained high-fidelity solvers.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen constraint set and the three selected gates with paired seeds are enough to represent the dominant hardware limits and to establish a general, useful control frontier.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Control designers can report fidelity together with total variation, bandwidth, and sparsity instead of fidelity alone.
  • Warm-started proximal ADMM becomes a practical tool for charting low-complexity pulse frontiers on leakage-prone and multi-qubit targets.
  • Unconstrained high-fidelity solvers remain the right choice when the only figure of merit is peak fidelity.
  • Paired random seeds and subspace-plus-leakage reporting become standard for fair method comparisons.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same constraint-native template could be attached to other pulse optimisers (not only ADMM) to test whether the trade-off is method-specific or constraint-driven.
  • Hardware teams that already measure filter bandwidth and amplitude slew rates could use these regularisers as soft models of their electronics and re-rank candidate pulses before calibration.
  • If the two-qubit entangler without a directly controlled target generator is representative, similar gains may appear on any gate whose generator is only indirectly actuated.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The abstract claims that optimising quantum-control pulses for fidelity first and imposing waveform constraints afterwards conceals the fidelity cost of smooth, band-limited, amplitude-admissible controls. As an alternative, the authors propose a constraint-native formulation based on inexact proximal alternating-direction method of multipliers (PADMM), jointly minimising gate infidelity subject to amplitude bounds, Fourier-domain bandwidth projection, amplitude sparsity, and total-variation regularisation. On a single-qubit gate, a leakage-prone qutrit gate, and a two-qubit entangler without a directly controlled target generator, and with random seeds paired across methods, PADMM-Warm is reported to reach mean qutrit and two-qubit fidelities of 0.6363 and 0.9541 while reducing total variation by factors of 13.2 and 10.7 relative to L-BFGS-B (with GRAPE and Krotov as additional baselines). The abstract self-limits the contribution: the results define a reproducible fidelity–complexity trade-off, not a universal fidelity advantage, and position the method as a numerical tool for low-complexity control frontiers rather than a replacement for unconstrained high-fidelity solvers.

Significance. If the numerical comparisons hold under fair baselines and well-specified constraint operators, the work would be a useful methodological contribution to quantum optimal control: it makes the fidelity cost of hardware-relevant waveform constraints explicit rather than post-hoc, and it reports a multi-gate, paired-seed protocol with leakage alongside computational-subspace fidelity. The self-limited framing (trade-off tool, not universal solver) is scientifically appropriate. However, significance cannot be assessed from the abstract alone; load-bearing content (proximal operators, inexactness tolerances, Hamiltonians, tables, and figures) is required to credit reproducibility or algorithmic novelty.

major comments (3)
  1. The supplied full-text body does not match the title, abstract, or arXiv id under review. The body is a continuum electrohydrodynamics manuscript on dipolar-solvent corrections to transient nanoscale electroosmotic flow (Poisson–Nernst–Planck–Stokes with Langevin–Bikerman permittivity and viscoelectric viscosity; arXiv-style content consistent with 2603.13021), not a quantum-control paper. Consequently there are no PADMM updates, constraint projections, gate Hamiltonians, leakage metrics, baseline settings, tables, or figures with which to verify the reported fidelities (0.6363 / 0.9541) or TV reduction factors (13.2 / 10.7). This mismatch is load-bearing: the central empirical claim cannot be checked, confirmed, or refuted from the provided manuscript.
  2. Even taking the abstract at face value, the strongest claim depends on numerical protocol details that are not present in the supplied body: (i) definitions and implementation of the Fourier bandwidth projection, amplitude sparsity, and total-variation proximal maps; (ii) inexactness tolerances and warm-start policy for proximal ADMM; (iii) fairness of GRAPE / Krotov / L-BFGS-B baselines under the same amplitude and bandwidth limits (or a clear statement that baselines are unconstrained); and (iv) the paired-seed design and leakage definition for the qutrit. Without those sections, one cannot assess whether the trade-off is reproducible or an artifact of unequal constraint handling.
  3. The abstract’s weakest load-bearing premise—that the chosen constraint set and the three selected gates suffice to map a general low-complexity control frontier—cannot be stress-tested without methods and results. Robustness to other device Hamiltonians, noise models, or alternative constraint encodings is not available for review in the supplied text.
minor comments (3)
  1. Abstract only: the acronym PADMM-Warm is used without expansion of the warm-start policy; a one-clause definition would help readers who stop at the abstract.
  2. Abstract only: reporting mean fidelities without uncertainty (e.g., standard error over paired seeds) makes the 0.6363 / 0.9541 figures hard to interpret even at the abstract level.
  3. Editorial: the CACHEABLE source appears to have swapped arXiv 2603.13020 (quant-ph control) with 2603.13021 (flu-dyn electroosmosis). The correct quantum-control PDF/source must be provided before a technical review can proceed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity detectable from the supplied abstract; full body is a mismatched paper so derivation chain cannot be reduced to inputs.

full rationale

The target paper (arXiv:2603.13020) is represented only by its abstract. That abstract frames an empirical numerical comparison of inexact proximal ADMM (PADMM-Warm) against external baselines (GRAPE, standard Krotov, L-BFGS-B) on three gates, with paired random seeds, reporting gate fidelity, leakage, and total variation. The reported means (0.6363, 0.9541) and TV reduction factors (13.2, 10.7) are presented as simulation outcomes, not as quantities defined in terms of free parameters that are then re-predicted. The abstract explicitly disclaims a universal fidelity advantage and positions the method as a tool for fidelity–complexity frontiers. No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-smuggling step appears in the abstract text. The CACHEABLE full-manuscript block is a completely different paper (dipolar-solvent nanofluidic electroosmosis, arXiv:2603.13021) and therefore supplies no equations, operators, or self-citations belonging to 2603.13020 that could be checked for circular reduction. Under the hard rule that circularity may be claimed only when a specific reduction can be quoted and exhibited, the only honest finding is no significant circularity (score 0) on the available material.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review. Load-bearing modeling choices include continuum quantum control under a Schrödinger/Liouville-type gate objective, the validity of hard amplitude and Fourier bandwidth projections as hardware surrogates, total-variation and sparsity as complexity proxies, and the fairness of paired-seed comparisons. No free parameters or invented physical entities are numerically specified in the abstract; algorithmic hyperparameters of PADMM (penalty parameters, inexactness tolerances, warm-start policy) are implied free parameters but not given values.

free parameters (3)
  • PADMM penalty / proximal step-size and inexactness tolerances
    Inexact proximal ADMM performance depends on dual step sizes, penalty parameters, and how inexact subproblem solves are terminated; values are not stated in the abstract but the reported fidelities and TV ratios depend on them.
  • Relative weights of sparsity and total-variation regularizers
    Amplitude sparsity and TV regularization strengths set the fidelity–complexity operating point; abstract reports outcomes for (unspecified) choices of these weights.
  • Fourier bandwidth cutoff and amplitude bounds
    Hardware-surrogate constraint levels are design choices that define the feasible set; not numerically specified in the abstract.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gate quality is adequately measured by computational-subspace fidelity (and leakage for the qutrit), and total variation is a meaningful complexity proxy for hardware waveforms.
    Abstract reports subspace fidelity alongside leakage and TV reduction factors; these metrics are taken as the right axes for the trade-off.
  • domain assumption Amplitude bounds, Fourier-domain bandwidth projection, amplitude sparsity, and TV regularization together capture the dominant constraints that post-hoc filtering would impose.
    The constraint-native claim rests on this set being representative of practical waveform limits.
  • ad hoc to paper Inexact proximal alternating-direction updates converge sufficiently for the reported gate problems under the chosen warm-start policy.
    Abstract presents PADMM-Warm results without stating convergence guarantees or residual tolerances.
  • domain assumption Paired random seeds across methods yield a fair multi-method comparison on the three selected control problems.
    Abstract emphasizes paired seeds as the experimental control for method comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraint-native quantum control for fidelity--complexity trade-offs with inexact proximal ADMM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X7TMXV6G

@misc{pith2026260313020,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraint-native quantum control for fidelity--complexity trade-offs with inexact proximal ADMM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X7TMXV6G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.13020}
}
abstract

Quantum-control pulses are often optimised for nominal fidelity before waveform constraints are imposed. This sequence can conceal the fidelity cost of producing smooth, band-limited, and amplitude-admissible controls. Here, we evaluate a constraint-native alternative based on inexact proximal alternating-direction updates. The formulation combines gate-infidelity minimisation with amplitude bounds, Fourier-domain bandwidth projection, amplitude sparsity, and total-variation regularisation. We compare it with GRAPE, standard Krotov optimisation, and L-BFGS-B on a single-qubit gate, a leakage-prone qutrit gate, and a two-qubit entangler without a directly controlled target generator. Random seeds are paired across methods, and qutrit computational-subspace fidelity is reported alongside leakage. PADMM-Warm reached mean qutrit and two-qubit fidelities of $0.6363$ and $0.9541$, respectively, while reducing total variation by factors of $13.2$ and $10.7$ relative to L-BFGS-B. These results define a reproducible fidelity--complexity trade-off, not a universal fidelity advantage. The method is therefore a numerical tool for exploring low-complexity control frontiers rather than a replacement for unconstrained high-fidelity solvers.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references

  1. [1]

    W. Liu, T. Mei, Z. Cao, C. Li, Y . Wu, L. Wang, G. Xu, Y . Chen, Y . Zhou, S. Wang,et al., Bioinspired carbon nanotube–based nanofluidic ionic transistor with ultrahigh switching capabilities for logic circuits, Science Advances10, eadj7867 (2024)

    2024

  2. [2]

    Emmerich, Y

    T. Emmerich, Y . Teng, N. Ronceray, E. Lopriore, R. Chiesa, A. Chernev, V . Artemov, M. Di Ventra, A. Kis, and A. Radenovic, Nanofluidic logic with mechano–ionic memristive switches, Nature Electronics7, 271 (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    Y . He, M. Tsutsui, C. Fan, M. Taniguchi, and T. Kawai, Gate manipulation of dna capture into nanopores, ACS nano5, 8391 (2011)

    2011

  4. [4]

    Y . He, M. Tsutsui, C. Fan, M. Taniguchi, and T. Kawai, Controlling dna translocation through gate modulation of nanopore wall surface charges, ACS nano5, 5509 (2011)

    2011

  5. [5]

    J. Wei, H. Hong, X. Wang, X. Lei, M. Ye, and Z. Liu, Nanopore-based sensors for dna sequencing: a review, Nanoscale16, 18732 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    H. Tian, M. A. Alkhadra, and M. Z. Bazant, Theory of shock electrodialysis i: Water dissociation and electrosmotic vortices, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science589, 605 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    De Valenca, M

    J. De Valenca, M. Jogi, R. M. Wagterveld, E. Karatay, J. A. Wood, and R. G. Lammertink, Confined electroconvective vortices at structured ion exchange membranes, Langmuir34, 2455 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    J. Choi, M. Cho, J. Shin, R. Kwak, and B. Kim, Electroconvective instability at the surface of one-dimensionally patterned ion exchange membranes, Journal of Membrane Science691, 122256 (2024)

    2024

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Choudhary, C

    A. Choudhary, C. Maffeo, and A. Aksimentiev, Multi-resolution simulation of dna transport through large synthetic nanostructures, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics24, 2706 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    L. Peng, Y . Hao, R. Liu, Z. Zhao, and J. Li, Ionic current rectification properties of power-law fluids in a nanochannel with non-uniform surface charge density, Physics of Fluids37(2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    S. K. Mehta and P. K. Mondal, Viscoelectric effect on the chemiosmotic flow in charged soft nanochannels, Physics of Fluids35(2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Rammoorthi and D

    R. Rammoorthi and D. Mohanavel, Numerical simulation of an electromagnetic squeezing hybrid nanofluid flow through permeable plates with sensor monitoring system, Physics of Fluids35(2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Majhi and S

    S. Majhi and S. Bhattacharyya, Finite ion size effects on electrophoresis of a dielectric surfactant-laden droplet in a non-dilute electrolyte, Applied Mathematical Modelling132, 384 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Pennathur and J

    S. Pennathur and J. G. Santiago, Electrokinetic transport in nanochannels. 2. experiments, Analytical chemistry77, 6782 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    Siria, P

    A. Siria, P. Poncharal, A.-L. Biance, R. Fulcrand, X. Blase, S. T. Purcell, and L. Bocquet, Giant osmotic energy conversion measured in a single transmembrane boron nitride nanotube, Nature494, 455 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    Borukhov, D

    I. Borukhov, D. Andelman, and H. Orland, Steric effects in electrolytes: A modified poisson-boltzmann equation, Physical review letters 79, 435 (1997)

    1997

  9. [17]

    M. S. Kilic, M. Z. Bazant, and A. Ajdari, Steric effects in the dynamics of electrolytes at large applied voltages. ii. modified poisson- nernst-planck equations, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics75, 021503 (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    Pandey and S

    D. Pandey and S. Bhattacharyya, Impact of finite ion size, born energy difference and dielectric decrement on the electroosmosis of multivalent ionic mixtures in a nanotube, Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects610, 125905 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Pandey and S

    D. Pandey and S. Bhattacharyya, Effects of membrane polarization, steric repulsion and ion-solvent interactions on electroosmosis through a conical nanopore, Applied Mathematical Modelling111, 471 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    S. Sahu, B. Mondal, and S. Bhattacharyya, Ion steric interactions and electrostatic correlations on electro-osmotic flow in charged nanopores with multivalent electrolytes, Physical Review Fluids9, 074201 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    D. R. Ladiges, A. Nonaka, K. Klymko, G. Moore, J. Bell, S. Carney, A. Garcia, S. Natesh, and A. Donev, Discrete ion stochastic continuum overdamped solvent algorithm for modeling electrolytes, Physical Review Fluids6, 044309 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Fumagalli, A

    L. Fumagalli, A. Esfandiar, R. Fabregas, S. Hu, P. Ares, A. Janardanan, Q. Yang, B. Radha, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe,et al., Anoma- lously low dielectric constant of confined water, Science360, 1339 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Zheng, W.-C

    J.-m. Zheng, W.-C. Chin, E. Khijniak, E. Khijniak Jr, and G. H. Pollack, Surfaces and interfacial water: evidence that hydrophilic surfaces have long-range impact, Advances in colloid and interface science127, 19 (2006)

    2006

  16. [24]

    Igli ˇc, E

    A. Igli ˇc, E. Gongadze, and K. Bohinc, Excluded volume effect and orientational ordering near charged surface in solution of ions and langevin dipoles, Bioelectrochemistry79, 223 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Monet, F

    G. Monet, F. Bresme, A. Kornyshev, and H. Berthoumieux, Nonlocal dielectric response of water in nanoconfinement, Physical Review Letters126, 216001 (2021). 13

    2021

  18. [26]

    Abrashkin, D

    A. Abrashkin, D. Andelman, and H. Orland, Dipolar poisson-boltzmann equation: ions and dipoles close to charge interfaces, Physical review letters99, 077801 (2007)

    2007

  19. [27]

    P. Liu, X. Ji, and Z. Xu, Modified poisson–nernst–planck model with accurate coulomb correlation in variable media, SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics78, 226 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Liu and B

    J.-L. Liu and B. Eisenberg, Molecular mean-field theory of ionic solutions: A poisson-nernst-planck-bikerman model, Entropy22, 550 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    S. Gui, B. Lu, and W. Yu, Ion transport in dipolar medium i: A local dielectric poisson–nernst–planck/poisson–boltzmann model, SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics84, 2110 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Saurabh and M

    K. Saurabh and M. Solovchuk, Mathematical and computational modeling of electrohydrodynamics through a nanochannel, AIP Ad- vances13(2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    E. N. D. C. Andrade and C. Dodd, The effect of an electric field on the viscosity of liquids, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences187, 296 (1946)

    1946

  24. [32]

    E. N. D. C. Andrade and C. Dodd, The effect of an electric field on the viscosity of liquids. ii, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences204, 449 (1951)

    1951

  25. [33]

    Lyklema and J

    J. Lyklema and J. T. G. Overbeek, On the interpretation of electrokinetic potentials, Journal of Colloid Science16, 501 (1961)

    1961

  26. [34]

    R. J. Hunter and J. Leyendekkers, Viscoelectric coefficient for water, Journal of the Chemical Society, Faraday Transactions 1: Physical Chemistry in Condensed Phases74, 450 (1978)

    1978

  27. [35]

    D. Jin, Y . Hwang, L. Chai, N. Kampf, and J. Klein, Direct measurement of the viscoelectric effect in water, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119, e2113690119 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    W.-L. Hsu, H. Daiguji, D. E. Dunstan, M. R. Davidson, and D. J. Harvie, Electrokinetics of the silica and aqueous electrolyte solution interface: Viscoelectric effects, Advances in Colloid and Interface Science234, 108 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    S. K. Mehta, G. Biswas, and P. K. Mondal, Arresting of viscoelectric effect modulated flow reduction in nanochannels with imposed temperature gradients, Langmuir41, 19754 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Mattia, H

    D. Mattia, H. Leese, and F. Calabrò, Electro-osmotic flow enhancement in carbon nanotube membranes, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences374, 20150268 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Sinha, L

    S. Sinha, L. Myers, and S. Das, Effect of solvent polarization on electroosmotic transport in a nanofluidic channel, Microfluidics and Nanofluidics20, 1 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Sin, N.-H

    J.-S. Sin, N.-H. Kim, C.-H. Kim, and Y .-M. Jang, Influence of solvent polarization and non-uniform ionic size on electrokinetic transport in a nanochannel, Microfluidics and Nanofluidics22, 1 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Srinivasula, Dipolar solvent corrections in nanopore electroosmotic flow with different surface electrostatic conditions, Journal of Electrostatics138, 104201 (2025)

    P. Srinivasula, Dipolar solvent corrections in nanopore electroosmotic flow with different surface electrostatic conditions, Journal of Electrostatics138, 104201 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Di Muccio, S

    G. Di Muccio, S. Gargano, D. F. Iacoviello, B. M. della Rocca, and M. Chinappi, Validity of approximated expressions for electro-osmotic flow in nanopores evaluated by continuum electrohydrodynamics and atomistic simulations, Flow5, E28 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    Blankenburg, H

    G. Blankenburg, H. Hernández-Alpízar, L. Lesser-Rojas, and C.-F. Chou, Nanoscale ac electroosmotic flow and the frequency–size scaling observed beyond the charge relaxation regime, Nano Letters (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Niu and Y

    Y . Niu and Y . Xie, Electrohydrodynamics of ionic-surfactant-covered liquid films in soft memristors, Physical Review Fluids10, 093702 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    J. N. Israelachvili,Intermolecular and surface forces(Academic press, 2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    M. S. Kilic, M. Z. Bazant, and A. Ajdari, Steric effects in the dynamics of electrolytes at large applied voltages. i. double-layer charging, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics75, 021502 (2007)

    2007

  39. [47]

    Gongadze, U

    E. Gongadze, U. van Rienen, V . Kralj-Igli ˇc, and A. Igli ˇc, Spatial variation of permittivity of an electrolyte solution in contact with a charged metal surface: a mini review, Computer methods in biomechanics and biomedical engineering16, 463 (2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    A. Baer, Z. Mili ˇcevi´c, D. M. Smith, and A.-S. Smith, Water in an electric field does not dance alone: The relation between equilibrium structure, time dependent viscosity and molecular motions, Journal of molecular liquids282, 303 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    M. Duan, L. Xu, J. Chen, and G. Chen, Non-monotonic salt dependence of electro-osmotic flow in ph-regulated nanochannels, Journal of Fluid Mechanics1007, R2 (2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    Saville, Electrohydrodynamics: the taylor-melcher leaky dielectric model, Annual review of fluid mechanics29, 27 (1997)

    D. Saville, Electrohydrodynamics: the taylor-melcher leaky dielectric model, Annual review of fluid mechanics29, 27 (1997)

    1997

  43. [51]

    M. Z. Bazant, K. Thornton, and A. Ajdari, Diffuse-charge dynamics in electrochemical systems, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlin- ear, and Soft Matter Physics70, 021506 (2004)

    2004

  44. [52]

    X. Zhao, Y . Zhang, and G. Qing, Nanopore toward genuine single-molecule sensing: Molecular ping-pong technology, Nano Letters25, 3692 (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    Laucirica, Y

    G. Laucirica, Y . Toum-Terrones, V . Cayón, M. Toimil-Molares, O. Azzaroni, and W. A. Marmisollé, Advances in nanofluidic field-effect transistors: external voltage-controlled solid-state nanochannels for stimulus-responsive ion transport and beyond, Physical Chemistry Chemica...

    2024

Pith tools

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