Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 40 references

A graph theoretic view on small signal stability of inverter-based power grids

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Asymptotic small-signal stability of lossless inverter grids is exactly positive-definiteness of one matrix built from topology, operating point, and effective droop gains.

desk verdict Clean N&S small-signal criterion for heterogeneous q-V droop inverters on arbitrary lossless graphs; the math holds and the cycle analysis is useful. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08260 v1 pith:ARWU2SWP submitted 2026-07-09 eess.SY cs.SY

Iva Bačić , Jakob Niehues , Philipp C. Böttcher , Cai Dieball , Leonardo Rydin Gorjão , Andrea Benigni , Frank Hellmann , Dirk Witthaut This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords small-signalstabilityinverter-basedresourcesgrid-formingcontrolnecessaryandsufficientcriteriaalgebraicgraphtheoryconedroopgainsdecentralizedcertificates
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

As synchronous generators give way to inverter-based resources, operators need clear rules for when a grid remains stable under small disturbances. Most existing certificates only give sufficient conditions and throw away network structure, so they grow conservative under stress. This paper proves that, for lossless grids of arbitrary topology whose inverters admit an effective q-V droop, linear stability is necessary and sufficient for a single matrix Ξ to be positive definite on the physically relevant subspace. That matrix folds together line susceptances, power-flow angles and voltages, and the local droop gains. Interpreting the reduced matrix as the grounded Laplacian of a weighted cone graph immediately yields local node- and edge-wise certificates, and also measures how much security margin is lost by ignoring cycles. On three IEEE test systems the cycle correction is tiny, so the simpler sufficient tests already track the exact boundary closely. The result supplies both an exact central test and a transparent hierarchy of decentralized tests that could inform future grid codes.

What carries the argument

The matrix Ξ (equivalently its Schur-reduced form Ŷ), which packages network topology, operating-point loadings, and effective droop gains into one quadratic form whose positive-definiteness decides stability.

What would settle it

Construct a lossless multi-inverter network whose devices satisfy the q-V separation yet whose closed-loop Jacobian has a right-half-plane eigenvalue while Ξ remains positive definite on the relevant subspace (or the converse).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For lossless inverter-based power grids whose devices admit the structural q-V separation, the linearized closed-loop system is asymptotically stable if and only if the single matrix Ξ—the network response plus the diagonal voltage-droop shift—is positive definite on the subspace orthogonal to uniform phase shifts. Under the mild loading condition that all cosine angle differences remain positive, this is equivalent to positive-definiteness of an explicitly reduced matrix that is the grounded Laplacian of a weighted cone graph plus a positive-semidefinite cycle correction.

Load-bearing premise

Every inverter must admit an effective reactive-voltage droop constant that makes its modified transfer function strictly positive-real, so the voltage feedback can be cleanly shifted onto the network side.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives a necessary and sufficient small-signal stability criterion for lossless inverter-based power grids with heterogeneous q-V droop devices on arbitrary topology. Under Conditions 1 on the modified device transfer functions, Theorem 1 states that the linearized closed-loop system is asymptotically stable on the subspace D⊥ orthogonal to the trivial phase mode if and only if the matrix Ξ (network linear response plus the diagonal voltage-droop shift K_q^{-1}) is positive definite on D⊥. Under the additional assumption cos(Δθ°)>0, Theorem 2 reduces this to positive definiteness of a Schur-complement matrix Ŷ that includes an explicit cycle correction. Omitting the cycle term and applying further diagonal dominance yields decentralized nodal and edge-wise sufficient certificates (Corollaries 3–4), recovered as special cases of earlier work. Graph-theoretic interpretation via a grounded Laplacian of an augmented cone graph is given, and three IEEE test cases illustrate that the cycle contribution is typically small relative to the stability-limiting mode.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions hold, the result closes a long-standing gap: prior necessary-and-sufficient criteria required restrictive device models or topologies, while decentralized certificates were only sufficient. The single-matrix condition Ξ ≻ 0 on D⊥ unifies network topology, operating point, and effective droop gains, and the cone-graph view makes the conservatism of decentralization quantifiable. The homotopy argument of Theorem 1 is carefully written, the cycle analysis is explicit, and the IEEE illustrations give concrete evidence that cycle corrections are often negligible for the limiting mode. These strengths make the framework a useful analytical tool for grid-code design and for assessing how much security margin local criteria discard.

major comments (2)
  1. The structural device assumption of Sec. III-C (existence of k_q^i such that the modified transfer function D̃(s) is strictly positive real in C+ and satisfies the high-frequency growth condition) is load-bearing for the entire N&S reduction: without the loop shift that produces Ξ, Theorem 1 does not apply. The paper correctly flags this and recovers droop as the main example, but the manuscript should state more explicitly which common grid-forming controls (e.g., virtual synchronous machine, matching control, or dispatchable virtual oscillator control) admit this separation and under what parameter restrictions, so that the scope of the N&S claim is clear to practitioners.
  2. Theorem 2 and all subsequent corollaries require cos(θ_i°−θ_j°)>0 on every edge so that Q≻0. Near the loadability boundary this can fail on heavily loaded lines. The paper should either (i) discuss how the criterion degrades when some cosines become non-positive, or (ii) note that the fundamental statement remains Theorem 1 (Ξ≻0 on D⊥), which does not need this sign condition, and that Theorem 2 is only a convenient reduction inside the usual operating regime.
minor comments (5)
  1. Fig. 4 caption and the middle-row panels: the notation for the projection x_min^ op Υ_cycle x_min is clear, but the vertical-axis labels mix λ1(Υ_cycle) with the projection; a short legend or consistent scaling would help readers see that the projection is orders of magnitude smaller than the spectral scale.
  2. Eq. (6) and the definition of R_ii: the sign convention B_ii<0 is stated early, but a brief reminder when R_ii is introduced would avoid momentary confusion for readers who treat the susceptance matrix as a pure Laplacian.
  3. The two-inverter example (Sec. VI-A) shows that Corollary 3 is tight for homogeneous droops; a one-sentence remark that this tightness is special to the tree case would prevent over-generalization.
  4. References [10], [11], [14], [15] appear as arXiv preprints with future dates; if they have been published or updated, the bibliographic entries should be refreshed.
  5. Typographical: 'V oltage' (space after V) appears in Sec. VI-B; 'desynchronization' is spelled correctly in the references but the abstract uses 'synchronization' consistently—minor polish only.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: N&S stability reduces to Ξ ≻ 0 by a self-contained homotopy/algebraic argument; self-citation of [13] only supplies a modeling assumption and a recovered special case.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. III-C (device model) and Corollary 3 / Sec. V-A]
    "For our analysis, we make the structural assumption introduced in [13]: the nodes react proportionally to reactive power and to voltage disturbances; in other words, they implement a type of q-V droop with effective droop constant kq_i. ... An equivalent sufficient condition has previously been derived in [13]."

    The q-V separability that enables the loop shift to Ξ and Conditions 1 is adopted from overlapping-author work [13], and Corollary 3 is acknowledged as equivalent to that paper's certificate. This is not load-bearing for the N&S claim (Theorems 1–2 are independently proved under the stated assumption), but it is the only self-citation that supplies a premise of the framework rather than external support.

full rationale

Theorem 1 equates asymptotic stability on D⊥ with positive definiteness of Ξ via a standard homotopy on Φ_a(s)=sΓ_a(s)+Ξ: positivity of Γ prevents imaginary-axis crossings, the high-frequency growth condition prevents escape to infinity, and the trivial phase mode is projected out. Theorem 2 and the cone-graph view are algebraic rewritings (Schur complement + incidence matrices), not fits. The only self-citation of substance is Niehues et al. [13] (overlapping authors), which introduces the q-V separability assumption used to define the loop shift and which is recovered as the special case Corollary 3. That assumption is stated as a modeling choice, not derived from the stability claim itself, and the exact matrix condition plus cycle analysis go beyond [13]'s sufficient inequalities. IEEE illustrations of small cycle contribution are empirical, not predictions forced by construction. No fitted-input-as-prediction loop, no uniqueness theorem imported to forbid alternatives, and no renaming of a known empirical pattern as a first-principles result. Score 1 only for the non-load-bearing self-citation of the structural device assumption.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central N&S claim rests on standard linear systems and algebraic graph theory plus three domain modeling choices: lossless power flow, the q-V structural separation of device dynamics, and the positive-real Conditions 1 on D̃(s). No numerical free parameters enter the theorems; IEEE loading factors and the 0.1 droop ratio for PQ buses are scenario choices for illustration only.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Network is lossless: power flow uses susceptance matrix B with Bij=Bji≥0 and the classical sin/cos load-flow equations (Sec. III-B).
    Stated as modeling scope; lossy and constant-R/X extensions are deferred. Without it the matrix structure of Ξ changes.
  • domain assumption Each device admits an effective q-V droop k_q^i so that the modified transfer D̃(s) is invertible, strictly positive real on C+, and satisfies a uniform high-frequency dissipation lower bound (Conditions 1, Sec. IV).
    Enables the loop shift that produces Ξ and the homotopy proof of Theorem 1. Inherited from the structural assumption of [13].
  • domain assumption For the reduced criterion (Theorem 2 and corollaries), cos(θ_i°−θ_j°)>0 on every edge so that Q≻0.
    Needed for strict convexity of the edge quadratic form and uniqueness of the cycle-constrained minimizer.
  • domain assumption Shunt elements satisfy B_ii<0; passive load-only nodes may be Kron-reduced into an effective B (Sec. III-B).
    Standard network modeling; used to keep R_ii>0 and the effective graph well-defined.
  • standard math Homotopy and Schur-complement arguments over real-rational positive-real matrix functions; cycle space characterized by EC=0 and im(E^T)=ker(C^T).
    Standard tools from control theory and algebraic graph theory; no novel axioms.
invented entities (1)
  • Augmented cone graph (apex node 0 with edge weights T_ii, original edges weighted by B_ij v_i° v_j° / cos(Δθ°)) independent evidence
    purpose: Interpret the sufficient matrix Υ as the grounded Laplacian of a signed weighted cone graph so that graph-theoretic PSD tests apply.
    A mathematical construction for interpretation, not a physical postulate; independent of any new force or particle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A graph theoretic view on small signal stability of inverter-based power grids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ARWU2SWP

@misc{pith2026260708260,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A graph theoretic view on small signal stability of inverter-based power grids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ARWU2SWP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08260}
}
read the original abstract

Dynamic grid stability is traditionally ensured with synchronous generators. Modern grids rely substantially more on inverter-based resources, which require grid-forming control to guarantee adequate system-wide synchronization and stability. Small-signal stability has granted various centralized and decentralized stability certificates - but these have primarily been limited to sufficient criteria only. In this work, we construct a necessary and sufficient small-signal stability criterion for lossless inverter-based power grids with arbitrary topology. We show that asymptotic stability is equivalent to the positive definiteness of a single matrix that combines network topology, operating point, and effective droop gains. We derive graph-theoretic stability criteria based on an augmented cone graph and show that the contribution of graph cycles is typically small, as illustrated for three IEEE test cases. The resulting framework yields decentralized stability criteria, quantifies the conservatism introduced by decentralization, and may support the development of future grid codes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08260 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. System model with coordinate transformation and loop shift. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Graph-theoretic interpretation of corollary 1. The matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Stability regions for two identical inverters. We show the upper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Collective nonlinear dynamics and self-organization in decentralized power grids,

    D. Witthaut, F. Hellmann, J. Kurths, S. Kettemann, H. Meyer-Ortmanns, and M. Timme, “Collective nonlinear dynamics and self-organization in decentralized power grids,”Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 94, p. 015005, Feb. 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    High penetration of power electronic interfaced power sources and the potential contribution of grid forming converters,

    ENTSO-E Technical Group on High Penetration of Power Electronic In- terfaced Power Sources, “High penetration of power electronic interfaced power sources and the potential contribution of grid forming converters,” tech. rep., ENTSO-E, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    A structure preserving model for power system stability analysis,

    A. R. Bergen and D. J. Hill, “A structure preserving model for power system stability analysis,”IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-100, pp. 25–35, Jan. 1981

    work page 1981

  4. [4]

    Machowski, Z

    J. Machowski, Z. Lubo ´sny, J. W. Białek, and J. R. Bumby,Power System Dynamics: Stability and Control. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 3 ed., 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Synchronization in complex oscillator networks and smart grids,

    F. Dörfler, M. Chertkov, and F. Bullo, “Synchronization in complex oscillator networks and smart grids,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 110, pp. 2005–2010, Jan. 2013

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Conditions for stability of droop-controlled inverter-based microgrids,

    J. Schiffer, R. Ortega, A. Astolfi, J. Raisch, and T. Sezi, “Conditions for stability of droop-controlled inverter-based microgrids,”Automatica, vol. 50, pp. 2457–2469, Oct. 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Decentralised robust inverter-based control in power systems,

    R. Pates and E. Mallada, “Decentralised robust inverter-based control in power systems,”IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 50, pp. 5548–5553, July 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Secant and popov-like conditions in power network stability,

    N. Monshizadeh and I. Lestas, “Secant and popov-like conditions in power network stability,”Automatica, vol. 101, pp. 258–268, Mar. 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Gain and phase: Decentralized stability conditions for power electronics-dominated power systems,

    L. Huang, D. Wang, X. Wang, H. Xin, P. Ju, K. H. Johansson, and F. Dörfler, “Gain and phase: Decentralized stability conditions for power electronics-dominated power systems,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 39, pp. 7240–7256, Nov. 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Geometric decentralized stability certificate for power systems based on projecting DW shells,

    L. Huang, L. Luo, R. Leng, H. Xin, D. Wang, and F. Dörfler, “Geometric decentralized stability certificate for power systems based on projecting DW shells,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.17033, Nov. 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    The phantom of Davis- Wielandt shell: A unified framework for graphical stability analysis of MIMO LTI systems,

    D. Zhang, X. Yang, A. Ringh, and L. Qiu, “The phantom of Davis- Wielandt shell: A unified framework for graphical stability analysis of MIMO LTI systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.19918, Mar. 2026

    2026

  4. [12]

    Decentralized parametric stability certificates for grid-forming converter control,

    V . Häberle, X. He, L. Huang, F. Dörfler, and S. Low, “Decentralized parametric stability certificates for grid-forming converter control,”IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems (Early Access), pp. 1–12, May 2026

    2026

  5. [13]

    Small-signal stability of power systems with voltage droop,

    J. Niehues, R. Delabays, A. Büttner, and F. Hellmann, “Small-signal stability of power systems with voltage droop,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 41, pp. 1429–1440, Mar. 2026

    2026

  6. [14]

    On the impact of operating points on small-signal stability: Decentralized stability sets via scaled relative graphs,

    E. Baron-Prada, A. Anta, and F. Dörfler, “On the impact of operating points on small-signal stability: Decentralized stability sets via scaled relative graphs,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 262, p. 113570, Jan. 2027

    2027

  7. [15]

    Decentralized stability certificates in IBR-dominated grids: The role of the network state,

    Z. Wang, S. Chatterjee, S. Geng, R. Pates, and E. Mallada, “Decentralized stability certificates in IBR-dominated grids: The role of the network state,” inPowerUp Conference 2026, vol. (Accepted), June 2026

    2026

  8. [16]

    Synchronization and power sharing for droop-controlled inverters in islanded microgrids,

    J. W. Simpson-Porco, F. Dörfler, and F. Bullo, “Synchronization and power sharing for droop-controlled inverters in islanded microgrids,” Automatica, vol. 49, pp. 2603–2611, Sept. 2013

    2013

  9. [17]

    Small-signal stability condition of inverter-integrated power systems: Closed-form expression by stationary power flow variables,

    T. Nishino, Y . Onishi, and T. Ishizaki, “Small-signal stability condition of inverter-integrated power systems: Closed-form expression by stationary power flow variables,”IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 59, pp. 73–78, July 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Generalized short circuit ratio for multi power electronic based devices infeed systems: Definition and theoretical analysis,

    H. Xin, W. Dong, D. Gan, and X. Yuan, “Generalized short circuit ratio for multi power electronic based devices infeed systems: Definition and theoretical analysis,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.08046, Mar. 2018

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Identification of stability regions in inverter-based microgrids,

    A. Gorbunov, J. C.-H. Peng, J. W. Białek, and P. V orobev, “Identification of stability regions in inverter-based microgrids,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 37, pp. 2613–2623, July 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Compensating network dynamics in grid-forming control,

    D. Groß, “Compensating network dynamics in grid-forming control,” in 2022 58th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), pp. 1–8, Sept. 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Multistability in lossy power grids and oscillator networks,

    C. Balestra, F. Kaiser, D. Manik, and D. Witthaut, “Multistability in lossy power grids and oscillator networks,”Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, vol. 29, Dec. 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Matrix diagonal stability and its implications,

    A. Berman and D. Hershkowitz, “Matrix diagonal stability and its implications,”SIAM Journal on Algebraic Discrete Methods, vol. 4, pp. 377–382, Sept. 1983

    1983

  15. [23]

    Diagonal stability of a class of cyclic systems and its connection with the secant criterion,

    M. Arcak and E. D. Sontag, “Diagonal stability of a class of cyclic systems and its connection with the secant criterion,”Automatica, vol. 42, pp. 1531–1537, Sept. 2006

    2006

  16. [24]

    Diagonal stability on cactus graphs and application to network stability analysis,

    M. Arcak, “Diagonal stability on cactus graphs and application to network stability analysis,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 56, pp. 2766–2777, Dec. 2011

    2011

  17. [25]

    Braess’s paradox in oscillator networks, desynchronization and power outage,

    D. Witthaut and M. Timme, “Braess’s paradox in oscillator networks, desynchronization and power outage,”New Journal of Physics, vol. 14, p. 083036, Aug. 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    Graph homology and stability of coupled oscillator networks,

    J. C. Bronski, L. DeVille, and T. Ferguson, “Graph homology and stability of coupled oscillator networks,”SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, vol. 76, pp. 1126–1151, Jan. 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    Robustness of synchrony in complex networks and generalized kirchhoff indices,

    M. Tyloo, T. Coletta, and Ph. Jacquod, “Robustness of synchrony in complex networks and generalized kirchhoff indices,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 120, p. 084101, Feb. 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Complex phase analysis of power grid dynamics,

    J. Niehues, A. Büttner, A. Riegler, and F. Hellmann, “Complex phase analysis of power grid dynamics,” in2025 IEEE Kiel PowerTech, pp. 1–6, Oct. 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Complex frequency,

    F. Milano, “Complex frequency,”IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 37, pp. 1230–1240, Aug. 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Normal form for grid-forming power grid actors,

    R. Kogler, A. Plietzsch, P. Schultz, and F. Hellmann, “Normal form for grid-forming power grid actors,”PRX Energy, vol. 1, p. 013008, June 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Complex- phase, data-driven identification of grid-forming inverter dynamics,

    A. Büttner, H. Würfel, S. Liemann, J. Schiffer, and F. Hellman, “Complex- phase, data-driven identification of grid-forming inverter dynamics,”IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 16, pp. 4854–4864, Nov. 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Next-generation grid codes: Toward a new paradigm for dynamic ancillary services,

    V . Häberle, K. Zhuang, X. He, L. Huang, and F. Dörfler, “Next-generation grid codes: Toward a new paradigm for dynamic ancillary services,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.07090, Mar. 2026

    2026

  25. [33]

    Kron reduction of graphs with applications to electrical networks,

    F. Dörfler and F. Bullo, “Kron reduction of graphs with applications to electrical networks,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, vol. 60, pp. 150–163, Jan. 2013

    2013

  26. [34]

    Electrical networks and algebraic graph theory: Models, properties, and applications,

    F. Dörfler, J. W. Simpson-Porco, and F. Bullo, “Electrical networks and algebraic graph theory: Models, properties, and applications,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 106, pp. 977–1005, May 2018

    2018

  27. [35]

    On the definiteness of the weighted Laplacian and its connection to effective resistance,

    D. Zelazo and M. Bürger, “On the definiteness of the weighted Laplacian and its connection to effective resistance,” in53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 2895–2900, Dec. 2014

    2014

  28. [36]

    On the smallest eigenvalue of grounded Laplacian matrices,

    M. Pirani and S. Sundaram, “On the smallest eigenvalue of grounded Laplacian matrices,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 61, pp. 509–514, Feb. 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    On the definiteness of graph Laplacians with negative weights: Geometrical and passivity-based approaches,

    Y . Chen, S. Z. Khong, and T. T. Georgiou, “On the definiteness of graph Laplacians with negative weights: Geometrical and passivity-based approaches,” in2016 American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 2488– 2493, July 2016

    2016

  30. [38]

    Characterizing the positive semidefiniteness of signed Laplacians via effective resistances,

    W. Chen, J. Liu, Y . Chen, S. Z. Khong, D. Wang, T. Basar, L. Qiu, and K. H. Johansson, “Characterizing the positive semidefiniteness of signed Laplacians via effective resistances,” in2016 IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 985–990, Dec. 2016

    2016

  31. [39]

    On extension of effective resistance with application to graph Laplacian definiteness and power network stability,

    Y . Song, D. J. Hill, and T. Liu, “On extension of effective resistance with application to graph Laplacian definiteness and power network stability,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, vol. 66, pp. 4415–4428, Nov. 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    D. J. Griffiths and D. F. Schroeter,Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 3 ed., 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed July 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.