Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Barkhausen noise in the organic ferroelectric copolymer P(VDF:TrFE)

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Experimental Barkhausen noise is observed in P(VDF:TrFE), with power-law exponents that rise with field, fall with rise time, and approach 1.5 for fast, strong driving.

desk verdict First field-driven Barkhausen noise measurement in an organic ferroelectric, but the convergence-to-1.5 claim rests on an unvalidated mapping from slew-rate PDF to event sizes. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12671 v1 pith:2WCNDAUX submitted 2024-12-17 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.other

Andrey Alekseevich Butkevich , Marcel Hecker , Toni Seiler , Martijn Kemerink This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.other
keywords BarkhausennoisecracklingferroelectricswitchingP(VDF:TrFE)power-lawexponentsself-organizedcriticalitypolarizationreversalmean-fieldplasticity
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 tries to establish that polarization reversal in thin films of the organic ferroelectric copolymer P(VDF:TrFE) is not smooth: it proceeds through discrete avalanche-like switching events whose sizes follow power-law distributions, and the exponent of that distribution moves systematically with how the electric field is applied. Raising the maximum field raises the exponent; lengthening the rise time lowers it. At the fastest, strongest driving tested, the exponents converge around 1.5, the value predicted by mean-field plasticity models, which the authors read as the system being close to, but not exactly at, self-organized criticality. If true, organic ferroelectrics become a testbed for crackling-noise and avalanche universality in a soft, disordered material, and switching statistics can be tied directly to driving conditions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the slew rate $S(t)=(dI/dt)^2$ computed from the measured switching current. Its probability density function, after thresholding and baseline subtraction, is fitted with power laws by maximum-likelihood and least-squares methods, and the fitted slope is the reported exponent. This step turns raw current traces into event-size statistics, so the entire quantitative comparison to the mean-field value $3/2$ rests on how faithfully $S$ represents the actual avalanche sizes.

What would settle it

Take the same recorded current traces, integrate each resolved Barkhausen pulse to get the charge switched per avalanche, and fit the resulting event-size distribution under the same field and rise-time protocols; if its exponent deviates from the slew-rate PDF exponent, or if the convergence to $3/2$ vanishes, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is experimental: Barkhausen noise appears during field-driven polarization reversal in P(VDF:TrFE), and its event-size distribution is a power law whose exponent depends weakly but systematically on the driving protocol. Exponents extracted by two fitting methods increase with applied voltage at roughly 0.01 V$^{-1}$ for fixed rise time, and shift to lower values as the rise time grows from 100 to 800 µs. For the fastest rise time and fields at or above the coercive field, the exponents sit at or slightly below $3/2$, the mean-field plasticity prediction, while slower and weaker driving produces lower exponents consistent with partial, disorder-limited switching. The authors conclude that the system is not truly self-organized critical, but that fast, strong driving brings it close to that limit, and that the observed events are large cooperative avalanches built from many much smaller nucleation sites.

Load-bearing premise

The central quantitative claims assume that the power-law exponent fitted to the slew-rate distribution $S=(dI/dt)^2$ equals the exponent of the true avalanche event-size distribution, and the paper does not prove that mapping.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, polarization reversal in P(VDF:TrFE) is an experimentally accessible organic system with crackling-noise statistics, so switching can be characterized by more than just hysteresis loops.
  • The exponent trends give a quantitative expectation: faster and stronger driving pushes the avalanche-size distribution toward the mean-field exponent $3/2$, while slower driving enriches larger, more abrupt switching events.
  • Because the smallest resolvable events already involve about $10^8$ dipoles, noise spectroscopy in this material probes cooperative avalanches rather than the initial nucleation act.
  • The consistency with thermally activated nucleation-limited switching means coercivity trends and avalanche statistics can be discussed within a single picture.
  • If universal behavior emerges under fast, strong driving, P(VDF:TrFE) could serve as a comparative organic counterpart to inorganic ferroelectric Barkhausen-noise studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's exponent estimates depend on the unverified assumption that the slew-rate PDF has the same power-law tail as true event sizes; reconstructing each avalanche by integrating its current pulse would give an independent check.
  • If the near-$3/2$ convergence survives direct event-size reconstruction, it would suggest that microscopic details of P(VDF:TrFE) are irrelevant to the large-avalanche limit, a strong universality statement.
  • The observed field-annealing and sample-history effects imply the disorder landscape changes during measurement, so a before/after cycling protocol could separate intrinsic avalanche behavior from history-dependent disorder.
  • A natural extension is to compare the field and rise-time exponent map with disordered-dipole simulations, testing whether the approximately $0.01\,\mathrm{V}^{-1}$ slope is generic or material-specific.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports experimental measurements of current noise during ferroelectric polarization reversal in thin-film P(VDF:TrFE) copolymers, interpreted as Barkhausen noise. The authors define a slew rate S(t) = (dI/dt)^2, threshold the signal, subtract an interpolated baseline, and fit power-law probability density functions of S for different applied voltages and rise times. They report power-law exponents around or below the mean-field value 1.5, with weak trends: exponents increase with applied field and decrease with rise time. The results are discussed in the context of the mean-field plasticity model and the thermally activated nucleation-limited switching (TA-NLS) model, and the paper concludes that the system is not truly self-organized critical but appears close to it for fast and strong driving.

Significance. If the measured quantity were indeed the avalanche event-size distribution, this would be the first experimental observation of Barkhausen noise in an organic ferroelectric and a valuable data point for universality studies of crackling noise. The paper also provides a detailed description of the experimental setup, noise characterization, and fitting methods, and it is honestly hedged about the exploratory nature of the trends. The careful instrumental work and the explicit discussion of detection limits (about 10^8 dipoles versus about 10^3 dipoles in a TA-NLS critical volume) are strengths. However, the central quantitative claim is currently built on an unvalidated identification of the slew-rate PDF with the event-size distribution, so the significance of the extracted exponents as physical avalanche exponents is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Figure 2d; abstract; Section 4] The paper fits the probability density function of the instantaneous slew rate S(t) = (dI/dt)^2, but the abstract and Section 4 describe the results as event size distributions. The equivalence between the exponent of P(S) and the exponent of the underlying avalanche size distribution is never derived, calibrated, or tested. For a simple pulse model in which pulse amplitudes A follow P(A) ~ A^{-τ}, the transformation S ∝ A^2 gives P(S) ~ S^{-(τ+1)/2}, so the measured exponent cannot be directly compared with the mean-field value 1.5 without an explicit mapping. The authors should either segment the current signal into individual pulses and integrate them to obtain event sizes, or demonstrate on synthetic data that the slew-rate PDF exponent equals the event-size exponent. As it stands, the claim of convergence to 1.5 is not supported as a statement about avalanche sizes, and the field/rise-time trends are only trends in the slew-rate PDF.
  2. [Section 2, data cleaning and threshold] The analysis relies on a slew-rate threshold of S < 10^-5 A^2/s^2 and on manual approval of individual waveforms. The paper does not quantify how sensitive the extracted power-law exponents are to the threshold choice or to the manual selection, even though the reported trends in Figure 3 are weak. Given that waveforms were rejected both automatically and by hand, a robustness check is needed: for example, vary the threshold over a reasonable range and report the resulting spread in exponents, or compare an automated rejection criterion with the manual one. Without such a check, the weak trends could be artifacts of the cleaning procedure.
  3. [Section 3, Figure S4.6] The claimed trends (an increase of roughly 0.01 V^-1 with applied voltage, and a shift with rise time) are based on linear fits to data with substantial scatter and with some points excluded as 'inconclusive.' No confidence intervals, p-values, or goodness-of-fit measures are given for the slopes. The paper should report the fitted slopes with standard errors and a test of whether they are statistically distinguishable from zero, especially because the offset between the ML and LS methods is comparable to the claimed effect sizes. Without this, the trends remain suggestive rather than established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1, Section 3, Section 4] The text contains unresolved placeholder citations [REF] in several places; these must be completed before publication.
  2. [Abstract and Section 4] The phrase 'event size distribution' is used for what is actually a slew-rate distribution; if the slew-rate proxy is retained, the terminology should be changed throughout to avoid misleading readers.
  3. [Section S4 (Figure S4.2-4)] Many histograms show multiple power-law-like regions, and the final fits are chosen 'based on a combination of manual decision and minimizing the fit error.' The authors should specify the selection procedure in a reproducible way, for example by stating a rule for choosing the fitting range or by using an automated x_min estimator.
  4. [Section 3] The value 'roughly 0.01 V^-1' should be accompanied by the fitted slope, standard error, and number of points for each rise time, rather than given as a single approximate number.
  5. [Table S6.1] The table is labeled Table S6.1 but appears in Section S3; the numbering should be adjusted for consistency with the section order.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the Barkhausen exponents are measured and compared against external MFP/TA-NLS values; self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an independent measurement: switching currents are converted to a slew-rate S=(dI/dt)^2, thresholded, baseline-corrected, histogrammed, and power-law fitted, and the resulting exponents are compared with the mean-field value 1.5 and with TA-NLS expectations. Nothing in this chain feeds the fitted exponents back into the model being compared; the MFP and TA-NLS exponents are external constants and are not calibrated from these data. The authors' prior BTA simulation is used only to contextualize the direction of the trends and to motivate a speculative hysteron-avalanche connection, and the paper explicitly hedges the central claim ('do not allow to conclusively confirm or refute universal self-organized critical behavior'). The one substantive concern is that the fitted PDF is of S=(dI/dt)^2 rather than of segmented avalanche sizes, so the quoted 'event size' exponents are proxy exponents; however, that is a proxy-validation and correctness issue, not a circular reduction, because the exponent is measured rather than constructed from the comparison value and no equation in the paper maps P(S) to P(size) by construction. Therefore no circular step meets the evidentiary bar.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. The central claims rest on the experimental identification of Barkhausen noise, the unsupported mapping from slew-rate PDF to event-size distribution, and prior models (MFP, TA-NLS) taken from the literature. Three hand-chosen analysis parameters affect the extracted exponents and trends.

free parameters (3)
  • Slew-rate noise threshold = 10^-5 A^2/s^2
    Hand-chosen threshold in Section 2 to exclude background noise; datasets with slew rate below this threshold were rejected before analysis.
  • Power-law x_min per histogram = not specified; chosen manually
    For each PDF, the lower cutoff for power-law fitting was chosen by manual decision and fit-error minimization (Section S4, Figures S4.2-4), affecting the extracted exponents.
  • Waveform acceptance threshold based on maximum applied voltage = not specified
    Section 2 states that the slew rate was compared to a threshold based on the maximum applied voltage, and waveforms not meeting it were rejected.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Measured current spikes correspond to ferroelectric switching avalanches
    Section 2: after rejecting background via thresholds and manual approval, the remaining slew-rate signal is attributed to Barkhausen noise from polarization reversal.
  • ad hoc to paper Slew-rate PDF exponent equals the event-size power-law exponent
    Section 3 compares fitted PDF exponents to the MFP event-size exponent 1.5 without deriving the relationship between S=(dI/dt)^2 and avalanche size.
  • domain assumption TA-NLS model describes nucleation in P(VDF:TrFE)
    Sections 1 and 3 use TA-NLS predictions (Equation 1, critical volume V*=4 nm^3 from reference 39) to interpret the exponent trends.
  • domain assumption MFP model applies to ferroelectric domain-wall avalanches
    Section 1 invokes MFP exponents 3/2 and 5/3 for ferroelectric switching, following references 31 and 35.
  • domain assumption PCHIP baseline interpolation is unbiased
    Section 2: the baseline is constructed by interpolating local minima of the slew rate; this assumes the baseline captures the switching peak without removing avalanche signal.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Barkhausen noise in the organic ferroelectric copolymer P(VDF:TrFE)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2WCNDAUX

@misc{pith2026241212671,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Barkhausen noise in the organic ferroelectric copolymer P(VDF:TrFE)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2WCNDAUX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12671}
}
read the original abstract

Polarization reversal within a ferroelectric material is commonly described as a progression of smaller switching events, giving rise to crackling or Barkhausen noise. While studies on Barkhausen noise, and particularly the associated event size distribution, allow for better understanding of switching processes in ferroelectrics, they were not yet conducted experimentally on organic ferroelectric materials. In this work, Barkhausen noise in the organic ferroelectric copolymer poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-trifluoroethylene) (P(VDF:TrFE)) is experimentally investigated under different electric fields, increasing at various rates. A weak dependence of the structure of the Barkhausen noise on both the magnitude and rise time of the applied electric field is observed, which manifests as a trend in the probability density function power-law exponents. Specifically, an increase in maximum electric field leads to an increase of the power-law exponent; increasing the rise time causes a parallel shift towards lower exponents. While these findings do not allow to conclusively confirm or refute universal self-organized critical behavior of the polarization reversal avalanches in P(VDF:TrFE), the exponents were found to seemingly converge to the universal value of 1.5 for fast and strong driving, suggesting the system is close to this limit.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Barkhausen noise in the columnar hexagonal organic ferroelectric BTA

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Kinetic Monte Carlo simulations of the organic ferroelectric BTA predict power-law distributed dipole avalanches and self-organized criticality below about 175 K, while measured current noise in BTA films stays below ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    C. F. C. Fitié, W. S. C. Roelofs, P. C. M. M. Magusin, M. Wübbenhorst, M. Kemerink, R. P. Sijbesma, J. Phys. Chem. B 2012, 116, 3928

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Horiuchi, T

    S. Horiuchi, T. Hasegawa, Y. Tokura, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 2006, 75, 051016

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Horiuchi, K

    S. Horiuchi, K. Kobayashi, R. Kumai, S. Ishibashi, Chemistry Letters 2014, 43, 26

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Horiuchi, S

    S. Horiuchi, S. Ishibashi, Y. Tokura, in Organic Ferroelectric Materials and Applications (Ed.: K. Asadi), Woodhead Publishing, 2022, pp. 7–46

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Barman, A

    S. Barman, A. Pal, A. Mukherjee, S. Paul, A. Datta, S. Ghosh, Chemistry – A European Journal 2024, 30, e202303120

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Z. Sun, T. Chen, C. Ji, S. Zhang, S. Zhao, M. Hong, J. Luo, Chem. Mater. 2015, 27, 4493

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Horiuchi, S

    S. Horiuchi, S. Ishibashi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 2020, 89, 051009

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    J. Wu, Q. Zhu, T. Takeda, N. Hoshino, T. Akutagawa, ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. 2021, 3, 3521

    work page 2021

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Horiuchi, S

    S. Horiuchi, S. Ishibashi, Y. Tokura, in Organic Ferroelectric Materials and Applications (Ed.: K. Asadi), Woodhead Publishing, 2022, pp. 47–84

    2022

  2. [10]

    Horiuchi, Y

    S. Horiuchi, Y. Tokura, Nature Mater 2008, 7, 357

    2008

  3. [11]

    H. Liu, Y. Ye, X. Zhang, T. Yang, W. Wen, S. Jiang, Journal of Materials Chemistry C 2022, 10, 13676

    2022

  4. [12]

    T. D. Cornelissen, M. Biler, I. Urbanaviciute, P. Norman, M. Linares, M. Kemerink, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2019, 21, 1375

    2019

  5. [13]

    T. D. Cornelissen, I. Urbanaviciute, M. Kemerink, Phys. Rev. B 2020, 101, 214301

    2020

  6. [14]

    Cornelissen, M

    T. Cornelissen, M. Kemerink, in Organic Ferroelectric Materials and Applications (Ed.: K. Asadi), Woodhead Publishing, 2022, pp. 185–232

    2022

  7. [15]

    J. Liu, W. Chen, B. Wang, Y. Zheng, Materials 2014, 7, 6502

    2014

  8. [16]

    Sepliarsky, A

    M. Sepliarsky, A. Asthagiri, S. R. Phillpot, M. G. Stachiotti, R. L. Migoni, Current Opinion in Solid State and Materials Science 2005, 9, 107

    2005

  9. [17]

    R. E. Cohen, in Ferroelectricity, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2005, pp. 139–154

    2005

  10. [18]

    U. V. Waghmare, Acc. Chem. Res. 2014, 47, 3242

    2014

  11. [19]

    Picinin, M

    A. Picinin, M. H. Lente, J. A. Eiras, J. P. Rino, Phys. Rev. B 2004, 69, 064117

    2004

  12. [20]

    V. Ya. Shur, E. L. Rumyantsev, D. V. Pelegov, V. L. Kozhevnikov, E. V. Nikolaeva, E. L. Shishkin, A. P. Chernykh, R. K. Ivanov, Ferroelectrics 2002, 267, 347

    2002

  13. [21]

    I. S. Baturin, M. V. Konev, A. R. Akhmatkhanov, A. I. Lobov, V. Ya. Shur, Ferroelectrics 2008, 374, 136

    2008

  14. [22]

    V. Ya. Shur, A. R. Akhmatkhanov, I. S. Baturin, E. V. Shishkina, Journal of Applied Physics 2012, 111, 014101

    2012

  15. [23]

    C. D. Tan, C. Flannigan, J. Gardner, F. D. Morrison, E. K. H. Salje, J. F. Scott, Phys. Rev. Mater. 2019, 3, 034402

    2019

  16. [24]

    Flannigan, C

    C. Flannigan, C. D. Tan, J. F. Scott, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2019, 32, 055403

    2019

  17. [25]

    E. K. H. Salje, D. Xue, X. Ding, K. A. Dahmen, J. F. Scott, Phys. Rev. Mater. 2019, 3, 014415

    2019

  18. [26]

    Casals, G

    B. Casals, G. F. Nataf, E. K. H. Salje, Nat Commun 2021, 12, 345

    2021

  19. [27]

    M. Mai, H. Kliem, Journal of Applied Physics 2013, 114, 224104

    2013

  20. [28]

    K. G. Wilson, Scientific American 1979, 241, 158

    1979

  21. [29]

    Sornette, Critical Phenomena in Natural Sciences: Chaos, Fractals, Selforganization and Disorder: Concepts and Tools, Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    D. Sornette, Critical Phenomena in Natural Sciences: Chaos, Fractals, Selforganization and Disorder: Concepts and Tools, Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    2006

  22. [30]

    J. P. Sethna, K. A. Dahmen, C. R. Myers, Nature 2001, 410, 242

    2001

  23. [31]

    K. A. Dahmen, Y. Ben-Zion, J. T. Uhl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2009, 102, 175501

    2009

  24. [32]

    K. A. Dahmen, in Avalanches in Functional Materials and Geophysics (Eds.: E. K. H. Salje, A. Saxena, A. Planes), Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017, pp. 19–30. 15

    2017

  25. [33]

    Zaiser, B

    M. Zaiser, B. Marmo, P. Moretti, in Proceedings of International Conference on Statistical Mechanics of Plasticity and Related Instabilities — PoS(SMPRI2005), Sissa Medialab, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India, 2006, p. 053

    2006

  26. [34]

    Durin, S

    G. Durin, S. Zapperi, J. Stat. Mech. 2006, 2006, P01002

    2006

  27. [35]

    E. K. H. Salje, K. A. Dahmen, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 2014, 5, 233

    2014

  28. [36]

    Vopsaroiu, J

    M. Vopsaroiu, J. Blackburn, M. G. Cain, P. M. Weaver, Phys. Rev. B 2010, 82, 024109

    2010

  29. [37]

    Vopsaroiu, P

    M. Vopsaroiu, P. M. Weaver, M. G. Cain, M. J. Reece, K. B. Chong, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control 2011, 58, 1867

    2011

  30. [38]

    A. V. Gorbunov, T. Putzeys, I. Urbanavičiūtė, R. A. J. Janssen, M. Wübbenhorst, R. P. Sijbesma, M. Kemerink, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2016, 18, 23663

    2016

  31. [39]

    Urbanavičiūtė, T

    I. Urbanavičiūtė, T. D. Cornelissen, X. Meng, R. P. Sijbesma, M. Kemerink, Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 4409

    2018

  32. [40]

    N. Meng, R. Mao, W. Tu, X. Zhu, R. M. Wilson, E. Bilotti, M. J. Reece, Polymer 2016, 100, 69

    2016

  33. [41]

    Urbanaviciute, Multifunctional Supramolecular Organic Ferroelectrics, Linköping University Electronic Press, 2019

    I. Urbanaviciute, Multifunctional Supramolecular Organic Ferroelectrics, Linköping University Electronic Press, 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    J. P. Sethna, K. A. Dahmen, O. Perkovic, 2005, DOI 10.48550/arXiv.cond-mat/0406320

    2005 doi arXiv

  35. [43]

    W. J. Hu, D.-M. Juo, L. You, J. Wang, Y.-C. Chen, Y.-H. Chu, T. Wu, Sci Rep 2014, 4, 4772. 16 Supporting information to Barkhausen noise in the organic ferroelectric copolymer P(VDF:TrFE) Andrey Alekseevich Butkevich, Marcel Hecker, Toni Seiler, Martijn Kemerink Andrey Aleksee...

    2014

  36. [44]

    J. F. Legrand, Ferroelectrics 1989, 91, 303

    1989

  37. [45]

    Furukawa, Phase Transitions 1989, 18, 143

    T. Furukawa, Phase Transitions 1989, 18, 143

    1989

  38. [46]

    A. V. Gorbunov, M. Garcia Iglesias, J. Guilleme, T. D. Cornelissen, W. S. C. Roelofs, T. Torres, D. González-Rodríguez, E. W. Meijer, M. Kemerink, Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1701017

    2017

  39. [47]

    Fukunaga, Y

    M. Fukunaga, Y. Noda, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 2008, 77, 064706

    2008

  40. [48]

    J. F. Scott, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2007, 20, 021001

    2007

  41. [49]

    Clauset, C

    A. Clauset, C. R. Shalizi, M. E. J. Newman, SIAM Rev. 2009, 51, 661

    2009

  42. [50]

    Alstott, E

    J. Alstott, E. Bullmore, D. Plenz, PLOS ONE 2014, 9, e85777

    2014

  43. [51]

    Levenberg, Quart

    K. Levenberg, Quart. Appl. Math. 1944, 2, 164

    1944

  44. [52]

    D. W. Marquardt, Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics 1963, 11, 431

    1963

  45. [53]

    Poppe, Prüfungstrainer Elektrotechnik, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2018

    M. Poppe, Prüfungstrainer Elektrotechnik, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2018

    2018

  46. [54]

    J. P. Sethna, K. A. Dahmen, O. Perkovic, 2005, DOI 10.48550/arXiv.cond- mat/0406320

    2005 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.