Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 20 references

From sLLG to Fokker-Planck: Accurate WER Modeling for Non-Axisymmetric MRAM Devices

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a 2D finite-volume Fokker-Planck solver with central differencing reproduces stochastic LLG write-error rates for non-axisymmetric MRAM devices, while Scharfetter-Gummel and upwind schemes systematically predict earli

desk verdict Useful comparison of FP discretization schemes for non-axisymmetric MRAM, but the central validation compares a first-passage absorber to an m_z<0 occupation metric without establishing equivalence. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25505 v1 pith:L6FHWHX4 submitted 2026-07-28 cs.ET

Fernando Garcia Redondo , Trisha Bhowmik , Maxwel Gama Monteiro , Yang Xiang , Jan Van Houdt , Kristiaan Temst , Siddharth Rao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ET MSC 65M0882C31
keywords writeerrorrateFokker-PlanckstochasticLandau-Lifshitz-GilbertfinitevolumemethodMRAMspin-transfertorquespin-orbitunitsphere
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tackles the problem of predicting write error rates (WER) in STT and SOT MRAM devices when azimuthal symmetry is broken by in-plane fields or field-like torques. It develops a 2D finite-volume Fokker-Planck solver on the unit sphere and validates it against one million stochastic LLG trajectories. The central claim is that the choice of spatial flux discretization controls WER accuracy: central differencing matches the stochastic reference within statistical uncertainty, whereas Scharfetter-Gummel and upwind schemes introduce an early-switching bias. The paper argues that preserving flux balance matters more than monotonicity for coupled drift-diffusion on the sphere. If correct, this makes reliable WER prediction possible for next-generation non-axisymmetric devices without expensive trajectory simulations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the finite-volume discretization of the Fokker-Planck equation in conservative flux form on a structured (phi, theta) mesh on the unit sphere. The four face-flux schemes -- central difference, Scharfetter-Gummel, upwind, and a Peclet-based hybrid adaptive blend -- differ only in how the drift-diffusion flux across each control-volume face is approximated. The hybrid blend uses Hermite interpolation to weight central versus SG fluxes based on the local Peclet number, and in the tested scenarios it automatically selects mostly central differencing. The spherical metric is handled exactly through geometric face lengths and cell areas, avoiding pole singularities and preser

What would settle it

Run the same STT scenario with the FP solver using central differencing while varying the absorbing-cap angular radius from a small cap to a full hemisphere, and compare each resulting WER curve to the sLLG m_z<0 reference; if no cap size reproduces the reference within the 95% confidence interval, the validation result is an artifact of the absorbing-boundary definition rather than a genuine property of the flux scheme.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper shows that for a spin-transfer-torque device with an in-plane assist field and for a spin-orbit-torque device with intrinsic field-like torque asymmetry, the 2D Fokker-Planck solution using central differencing overlaps the 10^6-trajectory sLLG WER reference within Monte Carlo statistical uncertainty. In contrast, the Scharfetter-Gummel and upwind schemes shift WER curves to earlier switching times, with the bias growing in the SOT case where azimuthal circulation is stronger. The authors conclude that in these 2D non-axisymmetric regimes, preserving the coupled drift-diffusion flux balance is more important than the monotonicity that SG and upwind were designed to enforce, and tha

Load-bearing premise

The paper equates the write-error rate to first-passage probability through an absorbing boundary near the south pole (Eq. 18) while the stochastic reference counts trajectories with m_z below zero (Eq. 27), without proving their equivalence or specifying the cap's angular size, so every reported agreement rests on this unexamined boundary identification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • 1D Fokker-Planck reductions are unreliable for any MRAM geometry with broken azimuthal symmetry; a full 2D treatment on the sphere is required for accurate WER.
  • Central-differencing WER matches 10^6-trajectory sLLG within statistical uncertainty across the measured range, offering a trajectory-free route to write-error prediction.
  • Scharfetter-Gummel and upwind schemes systematically lower WER by predicting earlier switching, so discretization choice should be reported as a model parameter in MRAM reliability studies.
  • The hybrid adaptive blending scheme recovers central results while diagnosing local Peclet regimes, making it a practical default for production use.
  • The exact spherical metric and conservative finite-volume formulation preserve probability to machine precision, enabling robust rare-event WER calculations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the first-passage absorbing-cap WER is truly equivalent to the m_z<0 switching convention, the same solver architecture could be extended to non-macrospin models, though those would require a higher-dimensional Fokker-Planck state space.
  • The observed bias of monotone schemes on curved manifolds suggests that classical upwinding may systematically distort first-passage statistics in other surface-drift-diffusion problems, not just magnetism.
  • A testable extension is to sweep the absorbing-cap angular radius near the south pole and compare against the m_z<0 threshold; this would pin down the boundary detail that the current validation leaves unspecified.
  • The hybrid blending recommendation is based on three test geometries; a broader suite of anisotropy landscapes and temperature ranges would show how far the 'central-differencing-first' heuristic generalizes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a two-dimensional finite-volume Fokker-Planck (FP) solver on the unit sphere for write-error-rate (WER) prediction in STT and SOT MRAM devices with broken azimuthal symmetry. Four spatial discretizations are implemented: central, Scharfetter-Gummel (SG), upwind, and a Péclet-based hybrid blending. The solver is validated against 10^6-trajectory stochastic Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert-Slonczewski (sLLGS) simulations in three scenarios: quasi-axisymmetric STT, STT with an in-plane assist field, and SOT with field-like torque. The central claim is that central differencing reproduces the sLLGS reference WER within statistical uncertainty, whereas SG and upwind introduce a systematic early-switching bias; the hybrid scheme is then recommended as a practical default.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a useful contribution by demonstrating that spatial discretization is not a neutral numerical detail for 2D FP-based WER prediction in non-axisymmetric MRAM. The use of a 10^6-trajectory sLLGS reference and the conservative finite-volume formulation are strengths, as is the systematic Péclet-number analysis across three physically distinct scenarios. However, the current manuscript does not yet establish the equivalence between the FP observable and the sLLGS observable used for validation, and the validation is restricted to relatively high WER values. These gaps must be resolved before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II-D3 vs §II-H, Eq. (18) vs Eq. (27)] The FP WER is defined as first-passage probability to an absorbing 'south-pole boundary or absorbing cap near θ=π', while the sLLGS WER is the fraction of trajectories with m_z(t)<0. These are different observables: a trajectory can cross m_z=0 and return, or reach the lower hemisphere without hitting a small polar cap. The cap size is never specified. Since every reported agreement between FP and sLLGS depends on equating these two quantities, the central validation is not well-posed as written. Please either specify the cap and justify equivalence, or change the FP WER definition to P(m_z(t)<0) computed from the full density, and re-run the comparisons.
  2. [Abstract, §I, §III-D (Figs. 5–6)] The abstract and introduction motivate WER prediction 'especially below 10^-6', but the validation results in Figures 5 and 6 cover only WER values in the approximate range 0.1–1. In this transient regime, first-passage and occupation probabilities differ most, and the regime where WER is a rare-event probability is not tested. The paper should either extend validation to lower WER (e.g., lower current or longer time) or explicitly limit the claims to the demonstrated range.
  3. [§III-E, Eq. (24)] The hybrid adaptive blending uses hand-picked thresholds Pe<1 and Pe>2 at which central differencing is selected exclusively, so the hybrid is constructed to prefer central. It is then used as evidence that 'central differencing is geometrically optimal'. This is circular as a validation of central differencing, and the reported diagnostic contains an impossible value: 'Scenario 3: ∼785.5% central differencing and ∼14.5% blended region' does not sum to 100%. Please provide a sensitivity analysis for the thresholds and correct the reporting.
  4. [§III-D2, §III-F3] The paper claims central differencing remains stable and accurate for Pe≫1 because the transport is 'rotational' on the sphere, but no formal argument or mesh-convergence evidence is provided. Central differencing is non-monotone and can produce spurious oscillations at high Péclet number; the claim that flux-balance preservation outweighs monotonicity needs quantitative support, such as error norms, density positivity checks, or a resolved-mesh convergence study. Without this, the central-vs-SG/upwind conclusion is not fully established.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§II-H, §IV] The code repository is given as 'github.com/IMEC/PAPERUNDERREVIEW', which is a placeholder and not a reproducible benchmark. Please provide a permanent DOI or repository URL before final submission.
  2. [§III-E] The phrase '∼785.5% central differencing' is a clear typo; presumably 78.5% was intended. Please correct and re-verify all percentages in the hybrid diagnostic.
  3. [Figure captions, Figs. 4–7] Figure captions refer to 'no numerical diffusion' for central and hybrid schemes; this is misleading because central differencing can introduce phase errors even if it is less dissipative. Consider rephrasing to 'minimal numerical diffusion'.
  4. [§II-E4, Eq. (24)] The blending function is described as Hermite interpolation, but the formula as written (3x^2-2x^3) is a smoothstep, not a Hermite interpolation between two functions. Please clarify the relationship to the cited hybrid scheme.
  5. [§III-B, Fig. 3] Minor typographical issues include 'araising' in §III-B and inconsistent use of 'P ´eclet' spacing. These should be corrected.
  6. [§III-D1, Eq. (27)] The empirical WER is defined as a fraction of trajectories with m_z<0, but the paper also compares 'switching-time distributions'. Please define the switching time for a trajectory, since m_z<0 alone does not specify a unique switching time in the presence of thermal fluctuations.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Hybrid 'automatic validation' of central differencing is encoded in Eq. 24; SG is never selected by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section II-E4 (Eq. 24), consumed in Section III-E and Section III-F4]
    "This inverted blending (preferring central over wide Pe range) is motivated by the observation that in 2D spherical geometry with drift, the central scheme remains stable and accurate even at Pe≫1. The hybrid formulation serves as a diagnostic: in our test cases (Section III-E), it naturally devolves ranges around 92.5-85.5% central and 7.5-14.5% blended regions, with SG never selected. This validates that central differencing is geometrically optimal for the coupled 2D transport."

    Eq. 24 defines the hybrid weight as θ(Pe)=0 for Pe<1.0, θ(Pe)=3x^2−2x^3 for 1.0≤Pe≤2.0, and θ(Pe)=0 for Pe>2.0. Thus pure SG is only blended inside the narrow interval [1,2] and is never selected alone anywhere; the scheme is purely central outside that interval by construction. The reported '85–92% central, SG never selected' percentages are simply the fraction of faces with Pe outside [1,2], not an independent empirical determination of which scheme is more accurate. Presenting this as 'automatic validation' (Section III-E) and 'self-validated physics' (Section III-F4) turns a hand-chosen blending rule into evidence for central differencing's optimality. The separate sLLGS comparison of central vs SG/upwind is anchored to 10^6 trajectories and is not itself circular.

full rationale

The main claim — central differencing recovers sLLGS WER while SG/upwind bias early switching — is anchored to independent 10^6-trajectory sLLGS simulations with identical physics (Section II-H, Eq. 27), so it is not circular. The FP equation is the standard density-level representation of the Stratonovich sLLGS dynamics, and the discretization comparison is an external numerical experiment. I do not count the FP first-passage WER (Eq. 18) versus sLLGS m_z<0 occupation (Eq. 27) as circularity: that is a possible observable mismatch and a validation-risk, but the paper does not define one observable in terms of the other. Self-citations [2,3,9,11] are used as implementation templates or prior modeling references, not as a load-bearing uniqueness argument. The genuine circular step is the hybrid scheme's 'self-validated physics': Eq. 24 makes the scheme prefer central differencing over essentially the whole Pe range, so the observation that SG is 'never selected' and central dominates is a restatement of the definition, not confirmation of central's geometric optimality. Since that constructed 'validation' is promoted to a headline conclusion (Section III-F4) while the core sLLG-anchored comparison remains independent, a score of 6 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the FP formulation, the WER equivalence (first-passage vs occupation), and an empirical stability assertion about central differencing. The only free parameters are the hybrid blending thresholds and the unspecified absorbing-cap location. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Hybrid blending thresholds = Pe=1.0 and Pe=2.0
    The blending function θ(Pe) in Eq. (24) uses hand-picked thresholds that force central differencing for Pe<1 and Pe>2, with blending only in [1,2]. This ad hoc choice guarantees SG is never fully selected, so the hybrid 'diagnostic' of Section III-E is self-fulfilling.
  • Absorbing boundary location / cap size = Unspecified ('south-pole boundary or absorbing cap near θ=π')
    The FP WER (Eq. 18) depends on where the absorbing boundary is placed. The paper never specifies whether an exact pole or a finite cap is used, nor the cap's angular size. To match sLLGS m_z<0 (Eq. 27), a cap position/size must be chosen; without this specification the validation is not reproducible and may hide tuning.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Stratonovich s-LLGS process (Eqs. 1–6) induces the conservative FP equation (Eqs. 8–10) with flux J = vρ − D∇_Sρ and D = αγk_BT/((1+α²)µ0M_sV)
    Invoked in Section II-B without derivation. If the correct FP form for multiplicative noise on the sphere differs (e.g., includes a noise-induced drift or covariant Laplacian), the central WER predictions shift. The validation against sLLGS is the only check.
  • ad hoc to paper The empirical WER (Eq. 27), defined as the fraction of sLLGS trajectories with m_z(t)<0, is equal to the survival probability of the FP process with absorbing boundary near the south pole (Eq. 18)
    Stated in Sections II-D3 and II-H without proof. First-passage to a south-pole cap is not generally identical to the occupation condition m_z<0; recrossing and cap size matter. This is the load-bearing premise for the entire validation.
  • domain assumption The sLLGS solver uses the OOMMF sign convention [12] and a Stratonovich-stochastic midpoint integrator with identical parameters to the FP solver, so that discrepancies are purely numerical
    Relied on in Section II-H. No convergence test of the sLLGS integrator or seed/sample details are provided, and the scaling to 10^6 trajectories is asserted.
  • ad hoc to paper Central differencing remains stable and accurate for Pe>>1 on the 2D sphere due to rotational (divergence-free) transport
    Assumed in Section II-E4 and Section III-F3 to justify the inverted one-dimensional Péclet reasoning; no stability analysis is given, and it is contrary to usual expectations for central differencing of advection-dominated problems.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From sLLG to Fokker-Planck: Accurate WER Modeling for Non-Axisymmetric MRAM Devices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L6FHWHX4

@misc{pith2026260725505,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From sLLG to Fokker-Planck: Accurate WER Modeling for Non-Axisymmetric MRAM Devices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L6FHWHX4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25505}
}
abstract

The Fokker--Planck (FP) equation is essential for predicting write error rates (WER) in STT and SOT-MRAM devices, but traditional 1D projections fail when symmetry is broken by in-plane fields, field-like torques, or anisotropic barriers. We develop a 2D finite-volume (FVM) solver on the unit sphere and validate it against $10^6$-trajectory stochastic Landau--Lifshitz--Gilbert (sLLG) simulations. The solver supports four discretization schemes---central, Scharfetter--Gummel (SG), upwind, and hybrid adaptive blending---each with different P\'eclet-dependent accuracy and monotonicity properties. We demonstrate that central differencing recovers ground-truth WER for STT and SOT geometries where 2D effects dominate, and show that the choice of discretization scheme directly affects predicted WER. For magnetic simulations, we recommend hybrid adaptive blending as the optimal balance of accuracy and stability across variable P\'eclet regimes. These results establish that customizable discretization is critical for accurate, unbiased predictions of switching dynamics in next-generation magnetic memory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25505 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. STT/SOT MRAM’s free layer magnetizations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Finite-volume stencil on the unit sphere. Control [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spatial Peclet number distribution on the unit sphere: comparison across the three physical scenarios. Quasi-axisymmetric ´ case (top) exhibits smoother, nearly uniform distribution. With broken azimuthal symmetry (middle and bottom), the full 2D transport structure emerges with localized high-Peclet regions. ´ This resolution is sufficient to resolve the localized high￾Peclet regions while maintaining diffusion-res… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: STT device with in-plane assist field (hx = 0.0). Insets show probability density snapshots ρ(θ, ϕ, τ ), and WER(τ ) comparison between 106 -trajectory sLLG reference and 2D FP solutions using central, SG, and upwind fluxes. The color of ρ(θ, ϕ, τ ) distributions repre…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: STT device with in-plane assist field (hx = 0.12). WER(τ ) comparison between 106 -trajectory sLLG reference and 2D FP solutions using central, SG, and upwind fluxes. The presence of ϵ ′ ̸= 0, but more importantly hx ̸= 0, shows the 1D-solver inability to correctly tra…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SOT device results. Top: stochastic switching trajectories showing the complex azimuthal spiraling induced by field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Hybrid discretization scheme shows consistent adaptive regime distribution, validating the blending strategy. These results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Fokker-Planck Study of Parameter Dependence on Write Error Slope in Spin-Torque Switching,

    Y . Xie, B. Behin-Aein, and A. W. Ghosh, “Fokker-Planck Study of Parameter Dependence on Write Error Slope in Spin-Torque Switching,”IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 319–324, 2017. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7797620

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    A compact model for scalable mtj simulation,

    F. Garcia Redondo, P. Prabhat, M. Bhargava, and C. Dray, “A compact model for scalable mtj simulation,” inIEEE Int. Conf. on Synthesis, Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Methods and Applications to Circuit Design, ser. SMACD, 2021, available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.04976

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    A fokker-planck solver to model mtj stochasticity,

    F. Garcia Redondo, P. Prabhat, and M. Bhargava, “A fokker-planck solver to model mtj stochasticity,” inEuropean Solid-State Device Research Conf., ESSDERC, 2021, https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.12304

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    A High-Accuracy STT-MTJ SPICE Model Based on Variable Parameters,

    H. Liu, S. Gao, C. Chu, K. Tian, F. Huang, Y . Zhang, and Z.-H. Zhang, “A High-Accuracy STT-MTJ SPICE Model Based on Variable Parameters,”IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 72, no. 7, pp. 3543–3549, Jul. 2025. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11003814/

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Magnetic Immunity of STT-MRAM: External Magnetic Field Orientation Impact on Writing Reliability,

    N. V . Meeren, S. Van Beek, M. Monteiro, F. Garcia-Redondo, J. Chatterjee, A. Kumar, K. Wostyn, S. Couet, and I. Verbauwhede, “Magnetic Immunity of STT-MRAM: External Magnetic Field Orientation Impact on Writing Reliability,” in2024 IEEE Int. Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM), Dec. 2024, pp. 1–4, iSSN: 2156-017X. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10873572/

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Switching Distributions for Perpendicular Spin-Torque Devices Within the Macrospin Approximation,

    W. H. Butler, T. Mewes, C. K. A. Mewes, P. B. Visscher, W. H. Rippard, S. E. Russek, and R. Heindl, “Switching Distributions for Perpendicular Spin-Torque Devices Within the Macrospin Approximation,”IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 48, no. 12, pp. 4684–4700, Dec. 2012. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6242414/

    arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    Modular Compact Modeling of MTJ Devices,

    M. M. Torunbalci, P. Upadhyaya, S. A. Bhave, and K. Y . Camsari, “Modular Compact Modeling of MTJ Devices,”IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 65, no. 10, pp. 4628–4634, 2018. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8443128

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Spin-orbit torques: Materials, mechanisms, performances, and potential applications,

    C. Song, R. Zhang, L. Liao, Y . Zhou, X. Zhou, R. Chen, Y . You, X. Chen, and F. Pan, “Spin-orbit torques: Materials, mechanisms, performances, and potential applications,”Progress in Materials Science, vol. 118, p. 100761, May 2021. https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079642520301250

    2021

Show all 20 references
  1. [9]

    Modeling SOT-Driven Domain Wall Motion in MTJ Switching,

    T. Bhowmik, Y . Xiang, M. Gama Monteiro, S. Rao, F. Garc ´ıa-Redondo, J. Van Houdt, and K. Temst, “Modeling SOT-Driven Domain Wall Motion in MTJ Switching,” inInt. Conf. on Sim. of Sem. Proc. and Dev. SISPAD, 2025. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11186379/

    2025

  2. [10]

    A Finite-V olume Method for Nonlinear Nonlocal Equations with a Gradient Flow Structure,

    J. A. Carrillo, A. Chertock, and Y . Huang, “A Finite-V olume Method for Nonlinear Nonlocal Equations with a Gradient Flow Structure,”Communications in Computational Physics, vol. 17, 2015. https://www.global-sci.com/cicp/article/view/7533

    2015

  3. [11]

    Analytical sot mram modeling: From deterministic to fokker-planck based stochastic switching,

    T. Bhowmik, M. Gama Monteiro, S. Rao, Y . Xiang, J. Van Houdt, K. Temst, G. Sankar Kar, and F. Garc ´ıa-Redondo, “Analytical sot mram modeling: From deterministic to fokker-planck based stochastic switching,” inInt. Conf. on Sim. of Sem. Proc. and Dev. SISPAD, 2026

    2026

  4. [12]

    OOMMF user’s guide, version 2.1a,

    M. Donahue, “OOMMF user’s guide, version 2.1a,” 2015. https: //math.nist.gov/oommf/software.html

    2015

  5. [13]

    Neural SDEs as Infinite-Dimensional GANs,

    P. Kidger, J. Foster, X. Li, H. Oberhauser, and T. Lyons, “Neural SDEs as Infinite-Dimensional GANs,”International Conference on Machine Learning, 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.03657

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Large-signal analysis of a silicon read diode oscillator,

    D. L. Scharfetter and H. K. Gummel, “Large-signal analysis of a silicon read diode oscillator,”IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 64–77, 1969. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1475609

    1969

  7. [15]

    Selberherr,Analysis and Simulation of Semiconductor Devices

    S. Selberherr,Analysis and Simulation of Semiconductor Devices. Springer-Verlag, 1984. https://link.springer.com/book/10. 1007/978-3-7091-8752-4

    1984

  8. [16]

    Hybrid central-upwind finite volume schemes for solving the Euler and Navier–Stokes equations,

    Z.-H. Jiang, C. Yan, J. Yu, and Y . Li, “Hybrid central-upwind finite volume schemes for solving the Euler and Navier–Stokes equations,”Computers & Mathematics with Applications, vol. 72, no. 9, pp. 2241–2258, Nov. 2016. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S089812211630476X

    2016

  9. [17]

    J. C. Strikwerda,Finite Difference Schemes and Partial Differential Equations, 2nd ed. SIAM, 2004

    2004

  10. [18]

    K. W. Morton and D. F. Mayers,Numerical Solution of Partial Differ- ential Equations, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2005

    2005

  11. [19]

    C. W. Gardiner,Stochastic Methods: A Handbook for the Natural and Social Sciences, 4th ed. Springer, 2009

    2009

  12. [20]

    P. E. Kloeden and E. Platen,Numerical Solution of Stochastic Differen- tial Equations. Springer-Verlag, 1992

    1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.