Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Large-Scale Processing and Validation of Grid Data for Assessing the Fair Spatial Distribution of PV Hosting Capacity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that doubling PV fairness costs under 1% of profit and that offline load flows expose gross DSO data errors.

desk verdict A genuinely useful DSO data-validation toolchain wrapped around a fairness-constrained hosting-capacity OPF whose headline numbers rest on an undefined quantity for junction nodes. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08684 v1 pith:AZFHIDNS submitted 2025-07-11 eess.SY cs.SY

Ali Mohamed Ali , Yaser Raeisi , Plouton Grammatikos , Davide Pavanello , Pierre Roduit , Fabrizio Sossan This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords distributiongriddatavalidationPVhostingcapacityspatialfairnessoptimalpowerflowloadanalysisrule-basedsanitychecksqualitylow-voltagenetwork
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper is trying to establish two connected things. First, that a distribution system operator's raw grid database can be turned into load-flow-ready models by a reproducible toolchain, and that combining rule-based sanity checks with offline multi-period load flows under nominal conditions catches gross inconsistencies. In the authors' data, 62% of networks had basic errors and 36% violated voltage or ampacity limits during validation. Second, that the same validated data can drive an optimal power flow that allocates PV hosting capacity across nodes while penalizing spatial unfairness, measured as the variance of per-unit installed capacity. The economically meaningful result is a quantified trade-off: in the 58-node low-voltage case study, halving the variance of PV hosting capacity costs less than 1% of profit over a 20-year lifespan, while perfect fairness is far more expensive.

What carries the argument

The machinery has two parts. The first is a data-transformation and validation loop: raw database entries are refactored into a load-flow solver's exchange format, then checked by basic rules (topology validity, GPS bounds, cable lengths and sections, missing attributes) and by a bus-admittance load flow under synthetic nominal profiles, with statutory voltage bounds, line ampacity, and transformer rating as detectors of gross errors. The second is a fairness-augmented optimal power flow whose objective is $J_C(\alpha)+J_O(\alpha)+\lambda M_U(\alpha)$, where $M_U(\alpha)=\frac{1}{N-1}\sum_{n=1}^N\left(\frac{\alpha_n}{p_n}-\overline{\frac{\alpha}{p}}\right)^2$ is the variance of per-unit installed PV capacity. Because $M_U$ is the composition of a convex variance function with a linear scaling, adding it preserves convexity, and the weight $\lambda$ acts as a price per unit of spatial unfairness, allowing a direct economic reading of the fairness-cost trade-off.

What would settle it

Reproduce the fairness curves with an explicit convention for the 39 junction nodes: if $p_n=0$ for any of them, Eq. (6) is undefined, so Figures 8 and 9 cannot be regenerated; the claim that variance can be halved for under 1% profit must be rechecked under a stated nonzero convention such as $p_n$ equal to connected load, transformer rating, or a small floor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the authors' terms, the central claim is that grid data quality and spatial fairness are both tractable, quantifiable engineering problems. The validation half says that a database is consistent if, after rule-based checks, offline multi-period load flows under nominal loading show no voltage, current, or transformer violations; violations flag data for expert correction. The fairness half says that allocating PV capacity by solving a convex optimal power flow that minimizes investment plus operating cost plus a penalty term proportional to the variance of per-unit capacities yields a Pareto front, along which the monetary cost of fairness is explicit. Applied to one real low-voltage feeder with 58 nodes, the front shows that doubling fairness costs less than 1% of 20-year profit, but ideal fairness would cut total installable capacity from about 840 kWp to 300 kWp because the weakest node sets the common cap.

Load-bearing premise

The fairness metric divides each node's installed capacity by the node's nominal power, and the paper never states what nominal power means for the 39 junction nodes that carry no load; if those values are zero, the whole fairness axis is undefined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DSOs can run the validation toolchain across thousands of substations and prioritize only the networks that fail load-flow checks for expert review, turning a manual audit into a triage step.
  • The same fairness-constrained OPF can be rerun with different $\lambda$ values to produce a decision curve: a DSO can choose the fairness weight from a budget, or read off the capacity loss implied by a fairness target.
  • Because perfect fairness caps every node at the weakest node's capacity, total installable capacity in the case study drops from about 840 kWp to 300 kWp, exposing when fairness becomes counterproductive.
  • The validated data can feed other grid studies besides PV hosting, such as storage siting or EV charging analyses, since the output is a load-flow-ready model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not specify the nominal power $p_n$ for the 39 junction nodes that carry no load, so the fairness metric is undefined unless a convention is supplied; the headline 'under 1%' figure should be re-derived under an explicit nonzero convention.
  • The load-flow validation is a one-directional filter: violations imply likely data errors, but a grid that passes can still contain wrong parameters that happen to keep voltages and currents in bounds, so adding measurement-based cross-checks would close that gap.
  • The method measures spatial fairness across nodes but not temporal fairness between early and late PV adopters, which the authors identify as a separate source of inequity; a sequential allocation model would be a natural extension.
  • Applying the method to all 1,100 validated networks rather than one feeder would tell whether the cheap-fairness result is typical or specific to this grid.
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 manuscript presents a workflow for extracting, validating, and converting a DSO's distribution grid database into load-flow-ready models, combining rule-based sanity checks with offline load-flow screening. It then formulates a convex optimal power flow problem with a variance-based fairness penalty to allocate PV hosting capacity across nodes. On a 58-node low-voltage case study, the paper reports that halving the spatial unfairness metric costs less than 1% of profit over a 20-year lifespan, while perfect fairness reduces total installed PV capacity from about 840 kWp to about 300 kWp.

Significance. The applied contribution is genuine: the paper works with a real DSO database, describes a PowerFactory DGS integration path, and proposes a convex, economically interpretable formulation for spatially fair PV hosting capacity. The Pareto-style analysis linking fairness to cost is a useful planning tool for DSOs. However, the central quantitative claims are not reproducible as stated because the fairness metric in Eq. (6) relies on a nominal power p_n that is undefined for the 39 non-load junction nodes, and because the lifetime operational cost appears to omit the number of days per year in the NPV calculation. These issues affect the headline "less than 1% profit loss" result and the Pareto curves in Figs. 8 and 9.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (6); Sec. 3.3; Fig. 7] The fairness metric M_U(alpha) is undefined for 39 of the 58 case-study nodes. The text defines p_n as "the nominal power of node n," but Section 3.3 states that only 19 nodes have electrical loads and the remaining nodes are junctions or potential extensions. If p_n = 0 at junction nodes, the ratio alpha_n / p_n in Eq. (6) is undefined and constraint (8c) forces alpha_n = 0; if junction nodes are excluded, the variance should be computed over 19 nodes and the N-1 factor and sample mean in Eq. (7) must be adjusted accordingly. Figure 7 actually plots 19 load nodes, suggesting the latter convention, but the paper never states it. The authors must specify the exact set over which Eq. (6) is evaluated and the value of p_n for every node in that set; otherwise Figs. 8-9 and the "halve the variance for less than 1% profit loss" claim are not reproducible.
  2. [Sec. 3.1.2, Eqs. (3)-(5)] The lifetime operational cost appears to be missing the annualization factor. J_O0 in Eq. (3) is the bill over T time intervals with Delta = 1/6 hours, and the profiles in Fig. 4 are daily profiles. Multiplying this daily quantity by the NPV factor in Eq. (4) yields a value in units of discounted days, not discounted years; a factor of 365 days per year must be included if the objective is the 20-year operational cost. If T is instead intended to span a full year, that needs to be stated explicitly, since T = 52,560 for 10-minute intervals. This issue changes the balance between investment and operational costs, and therefore affects the Pareto fronts in Figs. 8-9 and the economic interpretation in Section 3.5.2.
  3. [Sec. 2.4.2 and Sec. 2.4.3] The advanced validation is presented as a method to detect "gross inconsistencies" in the DSO database, but its core premise is not tested against any ground truth. The method flags any load-flow limit violation under nominal conditions as a likely data error; however, the load profiles are synthesized and the load flow is a single-phase equivalent, so false positives are possible in a correctly modeled grid if the assumed simultaneity or nominal loading is not the planning case. The paper reports that 36% of networks violate limits and that these were communicated to the DSO, but it gives no precision or recall estimate, nor any comparison with known introduced errors. Please provide a benchmark with known error injections, or at minimum a clear justification that the chosen nominal scenario is the appropriate worst-case planning condition for these networks.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.1.2, after Eq. (3)] The text states "Generally, c+ <= c- due to grid utilization tariffs and balancing costs," but the opposite inequality (c+ >= c-) is the standard situation and is consistent with the values in Table 1 (c+ = 0.25 CHF/kWh, c- = 0.14 CHF/kWh). Please correct this sign.
  2. [Fig. 8 caption and axis label] The x-axis label "Investment J_C and operational costs J_O (CHF)" is ambiguous because J_O includes revenues and can be negative. Clarify whether the plotted quantity is J_C + J_O, the net profit (J_C + J_O with sign flipped), or something else.
  3. [Fig. 7 caption] Figure 7 shows only the 19 load nodes, while the text defines the network as having N = 58 nodes. The caption should state that the plotted per-unit capacities correspond to load nodes only.
  4. [References] References [11] and [15] are the same paper (de Winkel et al., 2024) and should be consolidated.
  5. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (8)] The constraint label "Nodes' nominal powers" is not descriptive; the constraint appears to bound the net power exchange at each node by p_n. Consider renaming it to something like "Net power exchange limits" and explicitly state the assumption p_n > 0.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the hosting-capacity and fairness results are computed from independently stated inputs, and the cited convex reformulation is a published tool rather than a fitted or self-referential premise.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The PV generation model (Eq. 1), investment and operational costs (Eqs. 2-5), economic parameters (Table 1), and the fairness penalty (Eqs. 6-7) are all stated as definitions or inputs, not as predictions fitted to the output quantities. The optimization in Eq. (8) is solved for varying fairness weights lambda, and the reported trade-offs (Figs. 8-9) are direct evaluations of that objective, so the 'halve variance for under 1% profit loss' statement is a computed result of the stated model rather than a quantity equivalent to an input by construction. The convex reformulation attributed to [22] (co-authored by one of the present authors) is a published mathematical reformulation of the nonconvex split objective and is used as a standard tool; the paper does not invoke it as an external uniqueness theorem or as evidence that its conclusions are forced. The data-validation scheme is a necessary-condition consistency check: load-flow violations under nominal conditions flag inconsistencies, and the text explicitly limits the claim to indicating presence of inconsistencies. A reproducibility caveat exists: Eq. (6) divides by p_n for all N nodes, while Section 3.3 states that only 19 of 58 nodes have loads and p_n for junction nodes is not specified; this is an underspecification that affects numerical reproduction of Figs. 8-9, but it is not a circularity because p_n is not defined in terms of the predicted alpha_n or fitted from the target result. Self-citations in [7], [12], [19], [21], and [22] are background or tool citations and do not carry the central argument.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several stated simplifications and one unstated assumption about p_n for non-load nodes; the fairness metric is defined ad hoc. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • lambda (fairness weight) = varied from 0 to ~1e6 (see Figs. 8, 9)
    Trade-off weight in the objective (Eq. 8a); not fitted to data, but the results depend on its value.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Under accurate grid data, no violations should occur under nominal loading in the offline multi-period load flow.
    Section 2.4.2, the basis of the advanced validation; this equates physical violations with data errors, which is not guaranteed.
  • domain assumption The single-phase equivalent load flow is sufficiently accurate for data validation and hosting analysis of a three-phase network.
    Section 2.4.2 states three-phase load flow is considered unnecessary; Section 3.3 uses single-phase equivalent for a three-phase 400 V network.
  • domain assumption The sensitivity-based linearized load flow (from [23]) accurately captures voltage and current constraints.
    Section 3.1.3, used for grid constraints in the optimization.
  • domain assumption PV generation scales linearly with installed capacity via a uniform nominal profile (Eq. 1).
    Section 3.1.1 assumes uniform layout, irradiance, and temperature.
  • ad hoc to paper The variance of per-unit installed capacities (Eq. 6) is a valid fairness metric, with well-defined p_n for all nodes.
    Section 3.2; the paper does not define p_n for non-load (junction) nodes, and division by zero is possible.
  • domain assumption Prosumers' electricity bill (Eq. 3) captures the economic objective, ignoring DSO tariffs and other costs.
    Section 3.1.2, economic model from the prosumer perspective.
  • domain assumption PV plants operate at unity power factor.
    Section 3.1.3, stated assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large-Scale Processing and Validation of Grid Data for Assessing the Fair Spatial Distribution of PV Hosting Capacity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AZFHIDNS

@misc{pith2026250708684,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large-Scale Processing and Validation of Grid Data for Assessing the Fair Spatial Distribution of PV Hosting Capacity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AZFHIDNS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08684}
}
read the original abstract

The integration of PV systems and increased electrification levels present significant challenges to the traditional design and operation of distribution grids. This paper presents a methodology for extracting, validating, and adapting grid data from a distribution system operator's (DSO) database to facilitate large-scale grid studies, including load flow and optimal power flow analyses. The validation process combines rule-based sanity checks and offline automated power flow analyses to ensure data consistency and detect potential errors in the grid database, allowing for their correction. As a practical application, the paper proposes a method to assess the PV hosting capacity of distribution grids, with a focus on ensuring fairness in their spatial distribution. By incorporating fairness criteria into the analyses, we quantify the costs (in terms of missed revenues from selling PV generation) associated with spatial fairness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08684 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Grid data storing and utilization cycle. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Procedure for automatic validation based on load flow results. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the formulation of the PV hosting capacity problem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Nominal PV generation (top panel) and power consumption (bottom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Topology of the case study network. Red nodes represent load connec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Allocated PV hosting capacity per node normalized by the nominal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Spatial unfairness against total expenditure (investment and opera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Spatial unfairness against total installed PV generation capacity for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Optimal sizing and siting of energy storage systems considering curtailable photovoltaic generation in power distribution networks

    Rahul Gupta and Fabrizio Sossan. Optimal sizing and siting of energy storage systems considering curtailable photovoltaic generation in power distribution networks. Applied Energy, 339:120955, 2023. ISSN 0306-2619. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.120955. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0306261923003197

    work page arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Martinez- Ramos

    Carlos García-Santacruz, Alejandro Marano-Marcolini, and José L. Martinez- Ramos. A review of non-wires alternatives to distribution network reinforcements: Comparison of utility and investor perspectives. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2023 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC / I...

    work page arXiv 2023

  3. [2]

    Bad data detection for smart grid state estimation

    Frhat Aeiad, Wenzhong Gao, and James Momoh. Bad data detection for smart grid state estimation. In 2016 North American Power Symposium (NAPS) , pages 1–6. IEEE, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [3]

    A pre-estimation filtering process of bad data for linear power sys- tems state estimators using pmus

    J-Y Le Boudec. A pre-estimation filtering process of bad data for linear power sys- tems state estimators using pmus. In 2014 Power systems computation conference , pages 1–8. IEEE, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [4]

    Stewart, S

    E.M. Stewart, S. Kiliccote, D. Arnold, A. von Meier, and R. Arghandeh. Accuracy and validation of measured and modeled data for distributed pv interconnection and control. In 2015 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting , pages 1–5,

    work page 2015

  6. [5]

    Data-driven detection of stealthy false data injection attack against power system state estimation.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 18(12):8467–8476, 2022

    Chunyu Chen, Yunpeng Wang, Mingjian Cui, Junbo Zhao, Wenjun Bi, Yang Chen, and Xiao Zhang. Data-driven detection of stealthy false data injection attack against power system state estimation.IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 18(12):8467–8476, 2022. doi: 10.1109/TII.2022.3149106

    arXiv 2022

  7. [6]

    Machine learning based false data injection in smart grid

    Rehan Nawaz, Rabbaya Akhtar, Muhammad Awais Shahid, Ijaz Mansoor Qureshi, and Muhammad Habib Mahmood. Machine learning based false data injection in smart grid. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems , 130: 106819, 2021. ISSN 0142-0615. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2021.106819. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article...

    work page arXiv 2021

  8. [7]

    Measurement-Based Line-Impedance Estimation in the Absence of Phasor Measurement Units

    Plouton Grammatikos, Ali Mohamed Ali, and Fabrizio Sossan. Measurement- based line-impedance estimation in the absence of phasor measurement units. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21606, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

Show all 27 references
  1. [8]

    Power system analysis

    John J Grainger. Power system analysis. McGraw-Hill, 1999

    1999

  2. [9]

    Benchmark systems for network integration of renewable and distributed energy resources

    CIGRE’ Task Force C6.04.02. Benchmark systems for network integration of renewable and distributed energy resources. Technical report, Cigre’ International Council on large electric systems, July 2009

    2009

  3. [10]

    Evaluating fairness indicators for local energy markets, 05 2023

    Marthe Dynge, Erlend Nilsen Anfinnsen, and Umit Cali. Evaluating fairness indicators for local energy markets, 05 2023

    2023

  4. [11]

    A review of fairness conceptualizations in electrical distribution grid congestion management

    Eva de Winkel, Zofia Lukszo, Mark Neerincx, and Roel Dobbe. A review of fairness conceptualizations in electrical distribution grid congestion management. In 2024 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT EUROPE) , pages 1–5, 2024. doi: 10.1109/ISGTEUROPE62998.2...

    2024

  5. [12]

    Fair real-time control of energy storage systems in active distribution networks in the presence of uncertainties

    Plouton Grammatikos. Fair real-time control of energy storage systems in active distribution networks in the presence of uncertainties . PhD thesis, EPFL, Lausanne,

  6. [13]

    Fair control of distributed PV plants in low voltage grids

    Numa Gueissaz, Konstantina Christakou, Jean-Yves Le Boudec, and Mario Paolone. Fair control of distributed PV plants in low voltage grids. In 2017 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT-Europe) , pages 1–6,

    2017

  7. [14]

    Chapman, and Gregor Verbič

    Daniel Gebbran, Sleiman Mhanna, Yiju Ma, Archie C. Chapman, and Gregor Verbič. Fair coordination of distributed energy resources with volt-var control and PV curtailment. Applied Energy, 286:116546, 2021. ISSN 0306-2619. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116546. URL...

    2021

  8. [15]

    A review of fairness conceptualizations in electrical distribution grid congestion management

    Eva de Winkel, Zofia Lukszo, Mark Neerincx, and Roel Dobbe. A review of fairness conceptualizations in electrical distribution grid congestion management. 2024 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT EUROPE) , pages 1–5, 2024

    2024

  9. [16]

    Nazif Faqiry

    Ahmad Khaled Zarabie, Sanjoy Das, and M. Nazif Faqiry. Fairness-regularized dlmp-based bilevel transactive energy mechanism in distribution systems. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 10(6):6029–6040, 2019. doi: 10.1109/TSG.2019.2895527

    2019

  10. [17]

    Local market- aware optimal allocation of energy storage systems considering price fairness in power distribution networks

    Lu Wang, Matthieu Jacobs, Pål Forr Austnes, and Mario Paolone. Local market- aware optimal allocation of energy storage systems considering price fairness in power distribution networks. Sustainable Energy, Grids and Networks , 42:101648,

  11. [18]

    Large-scale rooftop solar photovoltaic technical potential estimation using random forests

    Dan Assouline, Nahid Mohajeri, and Jean-Louis Scartezzini. Large-scale rooftop solar photovoltaic technical potential estimation using random forests. Applied ACM SIGENERGY Energy Informatics Review Volume 5 Issue 3, September 2025 energy, 217:189–211, 2018

    2025

  12. [19]

    Large scale deployment of pv units in existing distribu- tion networks: Optimization of the installation layout

    Fabrizio Sossan, Jana Darulova, Mario Paolone, Annelen Kahl, Stuart J Bartlett, and Michael Lehning. Large scale deployment of pv units in existing distribu- tion networks: Optimization of the installation layout. In 2016 power systems computation conference (PSCC), pages 1–6....

    2016

  13. [20]

    Photovoltaic module energy yield measurements: Existing approaches and best practice

    Gabi Friesen et al. Photovoltaic module energy yield measurements: Existing approaches and best practice. Report IEA-PVPS T13-11, 2018

    2018

  14. [21]

    Fabrizio Sossan, Enrica Scolari, Rahul Gupta, and Mario Paolone. Solar irradiance estimations for modeling the variability of photovoltaic generation and assessing violations of grid constraints: A comparison between satellite and pyranometers measurements with load flow simul...

    2019

  15. [23]

    Efficient computation of sensitivity coefficients of node voltages and line currents in unbalanced radial electrical distribution networks, 2013

    Konstantina Christakou, Jean-Yves Le Boudec, Mario Paolone, and Dan-Cristian Tomozei. Efficient computation of sensitivity coefficients of node voltages and line currents in unbalanced radial electrical distribution networks, 2013. URL https://infoscience.epfl.ch/handle/20.500...

    2013

  16. [2015]

    doi: 10.1109/PESGM.2015.7286484

    2015

  17. [2017]

    doi: 10.1109/ISGTEurope.2017.8260294

    2017

  18. [2024]

    URL https://infoscience.epfl.ch/handle/20.500.14299/208788

  19. [2025]

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.segan.2025.101648

    ISSN 2352-4677. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.segan.2025.101648

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.