Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Pseudo-Distributions: Thermodynamic Geometry and an Empirical Application

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 This paper argues that transporting exponentials through the generator $g(x)=x^\alpha$ produces a two-parameter family of deformed distributions (pseudo-exponential and pseudo-Tsallis) in which, to first order around the classical limit…

desk verdict The central geometric claim rests on a density that is not normalized and does not reduce to the paper's own q=1 limit; the CDF-level model and empirical AIC comparison may survive a rewrite, but the abstract's two-level claim does not hold as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09297 v1 pith:B6L3SO4Q submitted 2026-08-10 cond-mat.stat-mech

Negin Bayrami , Hosein Mohammadzadeh , Hamzeh Agahi , Hossein Mehri-Dehnavi , Zahra Ebadi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mech MSC 82B0382B30 PACS 05.70.-a05.20.-y89.65.Gh
keywords g-calculuspseudo-analysisdeformedstatisticsTsallisthermodynamicgeometryRuppeinermetricpseudo-exponentialdistributionWTIcrudeoilfluctuations
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 develops a pseudo-analytic framework in which ordinary statistical distributions are rebuilt by conjugating functions through a monotone generator, here $g(x)=x^\alpha$. It constructs deformed exponentials at both the probability-density and cumulative-distribution levels, recovering ordinary exponentials at $\alpha=1$ and Tsallis-type $q$-exponentials as a further layer. Its central geometric claim is that near the classical limit the thermodynamic scalar curvature is determined by $\alpha$ alone, with $q$ entering only at higher order, so the generator deformation acts as the leading effective interaction. On the empirical side, the pseudo-Tsallis model is claimed to fit absolute deviations of WTI crude-oil prices from their 100-day moving average better than exponential, Weibull, gamma-exponential, normal, Laplace, and Tsallis-$q$-Gaussian benchmarks by AIC/BIC. A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a parameter-hierarchy route from deformed statistics to thermodynamics and a concrete econophysics application.

What carries the argument

The engine is $g$-calculus: for a monotone generator $g$, every function $f$ is re-expressed as $f_g(x)=g^{-1}(f(g(x)))$, so the ordinary exponential becomes $\exp_g(x)=g^{-1}(e^{g(x)})$ and the $q$-exponential becomes $\exp_{g,q}(x)=g^{-1}(\exp_q(g(x)))$. With $g(x)=x^\alpha$, this yields pseudo-exponential and pseudo-Tsallis densities at the PDF level (Eq. 11 and Eq. 28) and at the CDF level (Eq. 13 and Eq. 30). The thermodynamic analysis then uses the Ruppeiner metric, built from the Hessian of $\ln Z$ in the $(\beta,\gamma)$ plane, and expands the densities to first order in $(\alpha-1)$ and $(q-1)$; the curvature formula evaluates $R$ from the metric components and their derivatives. The load-bearing step is that the $q$-corrections to $R$ vanish at this order, leaving only $\alpha$.

What would settle it

Evaluate the normalization integral of Eq. (28) numerically for a few parameter values, e.g. $\alpha=2$, $q=1$, $\lambda=1$; since the result is $\sqrt{\pi/2}$ rather than $1$, a normalized-density assumption fails, which would require revisiting the likelihood and curvature expressions built on that density.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery, on its own terms, is a hierarchy in deformation effects: expanding the pseudo-Tsallis density around $(\alpha,q)=(1,1)$ gives first-order corrections in both parameters, but the thermodynamic scalar curvature $R$ receives a first-order contribution only from $(\alpha-1)$; the $q$-correction $R_q$ vanishes. Thus, to leading order, the sign and magnitude of the effective statistical interaction (positive $R$ for $\alpha<1$, negative for $\alpha>1$, zero at $\alpha=1$) are controlled by the generator exponent $\alpha$, while nonextensivity $q$ only appears at higher orders. This decoupling is argued to mirror earlier findings that nonextensive Maxwell–Boltzmann statistics alone leaves curvature zero. The same paper also claims that the pseudo-Tsallis family, fitted by maximum likelihood, outperforms standard competing distributions on the WTI data set, providing empirical support for the construction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the pseudo-Tsallis density in Eq. (28) is a normalized probability density for every $\alpha>0$; a direct check for $(\alpha,q,\lambda)=(2,1,1)$ gives $\int_0^\infty f(x)\,dx=\sqrt{\pi/2}\neq 1$, and the $q=1$ branch of Eq. (28) does not reproduce the normalized density in Eq. (11).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the pseudo-exponential model, $\alpha<1$ gives positive scalar curvature (effective attraction), $\alpha>1$ negative curvature (effective repulsion), and $\alpha=1$ recovers the zero-curvature Maxwell–Boltzmann gas.
  • The PDF-level and CDF-level pseudo-exponential constructions yield nearly identical first-order thermodynamics, so the two routes to generalization are observationally equivalent at leading order.
  • In the pseudo-Tsallis model, $q$ does not affect curvature at first order, meaning purely nonextensive deformation alone does not generate leading-order thermodynamic interactions in this construction.
  • The pseudo-Tsallis fit to WTI absolute deviations has the lowest AIC and BIC among the distributions compared, so the family is claimed to be a practically useful heavy-tailed model for high-frequency financial fluctuations.
  • If the hierarchy persists at higher orders, the nonextensivity parameter $q$ would act as a perturbation on a background interaction fixed by $\alpha$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the paper does not make is that its first-order equivalence between PDF- and CDF-level constructions suggests a broader invariance: any two deformation routes that agree at first order will look identical in curvature, so distinguishing them requires second-order terms or normalization constraints.
  • The normalization failure for Eq. (28) at $\alpha\neq 1$ means the empirical likelihood and the thermodynamic curvature inherit an un-normalized density; correcting the normalization would change the fitted parameters and the curvature coefficients, so the quantitative AIC/BIC comparison should be rechecked.
  • One testable extension is to apply the same $g$-calculus construction with other generators (e.g., $g(x)=\ln(1+x)$ or $g(x)=x^\beta$ with two exponents) to see whether the decoupling of the second parameter is special to $x^\alpha$ or generic to conjugacy deformations.
  • Another extension is to compute the second-order curvature $R_{qq}$ and $R_{\alpha q}$; the paper's hierarchy is only a leading-order statement, and higher-order couplings would determine whether $\alpha$ remains the dominant interaction channel.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a pseudo-analytic formalism based on g-calculus, in which standard algebraic operations are conjugated through a monotone generator g(x)=x^alpha, and uses it to define pseudo-exponential and pseudo-Tsallis distributions at both the probability-density and cumulative-distribution levels. The authors then compute Ruppeiner thermodynamic curvature for these families by perturbing around the classical limit (alpha=1, q=1), and claim that to leading order the scalar curvature is controlled entirely by the generator deformation parameter alpha, with the nonextensivity parameter q entering only at higher order. The paper closes with an empirical application to absolute deviations of daily WTI crude-oil prices from their 100-day moving average, using AIC and BIC to argue that the proposed pseudo-Tsallis distribution fits better than standard benchmarks.

Significance. If the construction and curvature calculation were valid, the paper would offer a unified g-calculus route to deformed statistics and an interesting geometric hierarchy in which alpha, rather than q, encodes the leading effective interaction. The CDF-level family in Eqs. (29)-(30) is normalized by construction and the empirical comparison is transparent, so parts of the framework may be salvageable. However, the PDF-level pseudo-Tsallis density used for the central geometric claim is not a valid normalized probability density, and the perturbative expansion in Section VI is not obtained from the normalized pseudo-exponential density of Eq. (11). Because the main geometric statement rests on this invalid object, the paper's central contribution is not supported as written.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V.A, Eq. (28)] The q=1 branch of the pseudo-Tsallis PDF in Eq. (28), f(x)=(lambda e^{-lambda x^alpha})^{1/alpha}, is not normalized for alpha != 1: its integral over x>0 is alpha^{(1-alpha)/alpha} Gamma(1/alpha), which equals 1 only for alpha=1. For example, alpha=2 and lambda=1 give integral sqrt(pi/2), not 1. Moreover, this branch does not reduce to the pseudo-exponential density in Eq. (11), which contains the normalizer Gamma(1+1/alpha) and the exponent -lambda x^alpha; the two functions disagree even up to normalization. Consequently, the PDF-level pseudo-Tsallis construction in Section V.A, and every PDF-level thermodynamic quantity built on it in Section VI, are not supported.
  2. [Section VI, Eq. (33)] Equation (33) is presented as the first-order expansion of the pseudo-Tsallis PDF around alpha=1 and q=1, but it is actually the expansion of the unnormalized q=1 branch of Eq. (28), not of the normalized density in Eq. (11). The alpha-dependent term x(1-ln x) differs from the correct first-order expansion of Eq. (11) given in Eq. (19), which contains 1-gamma_E - x ln x. The expressions for N_alpha, U_alpha, R_alpha in Appendix B and the assertion R_q=0 in Eq. (37) are therefore derived from an invalid density and do not establish the paper's central claim that the scalar curvature is governed solely by alpha at leading order.
  3. [Section V, Eq. (27)] The identities displayed in Eq. (27) are incorrect: the standard relations are exp_q(ln_q(x)) = x and ln_q(exp_q(x)) = x, not 1. As written, Eq. (27) contradicts the correct reciprocal relations given in Eqs. (8)-(9) and weakens the claimed consistency of the deformed logarithm-exponential pair on which the pseudo-Tsallis construction relies.
  4. [Section VIII, Table I] The empirical support for the 'superior description' claim is an in-sample maximum-likelihood comparison using AIC and BIC. The PTE model has three free parameters (lambda, q, alpha) while several benchmarks have two, and no out-of-sample or predictive validation is provided. The abstract's wording 'superior description' is therefore stronger than the evidence in Table I supports; the table demonstrates only that the three-parameter family achieves a better in-sample information-criterion score on this particular dataset.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section VII] The pseudo-exponential application is referenced only to [45] and no results are reported in the present paper; the data, fitted parameters, and comparison table should be included if the claim is to be assessed.
  2. [Table I] The table has several labelling inconsistencies: the 'q-Tsallis exponential' row has no alpha entry, the 'T QG' row is described with parameters (mu, beta, q) while the column headers show alpha, lambda, q, and the 'N(alpha, lambda^2)' row does not explain whether the fitted entries 4.1527 and 5.7462 are location and scale parameters.
  3. [Section IV, Fig. 1] The statement that the two expansions 'exhibit a high degree of similarity' and that the choice between PDF- and CDF-level constructions is 'inconsequential' is not quantified; a direct numerical comparison of the two R(z) curves would make the claim precise.
  4. [References] Reference [16] is malformed ('D VG, en.'), and the citation of the authors' own related work [30] as an established result should be clarified with its publication status and a fuller description of its content.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the geometric perturbation and q-decoupling claims are derived from the paper's own stated expansions, while the WTI comparison is in-sample model selection rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not circular. The pseudo-exponential and pseudo-Tsallis densities are defined by explicit formulas (Eqs. (11)-(13), (28)-(30)), and the thermodynamic curvature is obtained by expanding these densities around α=1 and q=1 (Eqs. (19), (24), (33), (38)) and substituting the resulting N and U into the standard Ruppeiner metric (Eqs. (16)-(18)). No fitted constant enters the geometric derivation, and the statement R_q=0 is presented as an algebraic consequence of the stated expansions rather than as an input. The WTI analysis (Section VIII) estimates parameters by maximum likelihood and compares AIC/BIC values; this is in-sample model comparison, not an out-of-sample prediction, so it does not qualify as a fitted quantity being renamed as a prediction. Several cited references ([27], [28], [30], [45], [60]) include present or past coauthors, but they are used for background, for a previously defined distribution, or for consistency comments; the central new derivation does not reduce to any of them. A separate mathematical concern—that the q=1 branch of Eq. (28) does not coincide with the normalized Eq. (11)—is an internal consistency/correctness issue, not a circularity, because the perturbative result is still computed from the paper's own stated formula rather than being equivalent to an input by construction. No load-bearing circular step is identifiable.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction rests on the choice g(x)=x^alpha, the standard ideal-gas phase-space measure used for the Ruppeiner calculation, and the i.i.d. assumption for the financial data. The empirical application fits lambda, q, and alpha to a single WTI series, so those three are fitted parameters. No new particles, fields, or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (generator deformation parameter) = 1.3014090 (MLE on WTI, Table I); varied by hand in geometry sections
    The generator g(x)=x^alpha is chosen ad hoc; in the empirical fit its MLE is 1.3014090.
  • q (nonextensivity parameter) = 1.3373196 (MLE on WTI, Table I)
    Inherited from Tsallis statistics but estimated from data in the application.
  • lambda (scale parameter) = 0.2958161 (MLE on WTI, Table I)
    Scale parameter of the pseudo-Tsallis model, estimated by maximum likelihood.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math g is monotone and continuous with well-defined inverse over its range.
    Foundation of g-calculus, cited to Pap [33]; used in Section II to define g-logarithm and g-exponential.
  • ad hoc to paper g(x)=x^alpha with alpha>0 is an admissible generator.
    Chosen by hand without physical motivation in Sections III and V; it fixes the shape of every pseudo-distribution and drives the curvature result.
  • domain assumption The deformed distribution can be treated as the occupation distribution n(epsilon) in the standard ideal-gas density of states Omega(epsilon) with D=3 and sigma=2.
    Section IV sets up N and U integrals using the classical single-particle density of states; N0 and U0 are the 3D nonrelativistic classical gas values.
  • ad hoc to paper First-order perturbation in (alpha-1) and (q-1) is sufficient to determine the sign and leading value of the scalar curvature.
    Sections IV and VI truncate the expansion and assert R_q=0 at first order; no second-order check is given.
  • domain assumption The absolute deviations of WTI prices from their 100-day moving average are an i.i.d. sample from the pseudo-Tsallis distribution.
    Required for the maximum-likelihood fit in Section VIII; the paper does not test for serial dependence, non-stationarity, or regime changes.
  • domain assumption Tsallis q-logarithm and q-exponential definitions are accepted as given.
    Equations (4)-(5) and (25)-(26) follow Tsallis; the paper does not derive them.
  • standard math The Ruppeiner metric is obtained from the Hessian of ln Z in the canonical representation.
    Standard thermodynamic geometry, cited to Ruppeiner and Weinhold; used in Section IV.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pseudo-Distributions: Thermodynamic Geometry and an Empirical Application." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B6L3SO4Q

@misc{pith2026260809297,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pseudo-Distributions: Thermodynamic Geometry and an Empirical Application},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B6L3SO4Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09297}
}
abstract

We develop a consistent pseudo-analytic framework based on $g$-calculus for constructing deformed statistical distributions. By mapping standard algebraic operations through a monotone generator function, we systematically derive the associated pseudo-logarithmic and pseudo-exponential structures. Applying this formalism, we introduce a new family of pseudo-distributions that generalizes nonextensive statistical mechanics at both the probability density and cumulative distribution levels, recovering classical and standard nonextensive statistics as limiting cases. We investigate the thermodynamic geometry of the proposed models using the Ruppeiner metric on the equilibrium manifold. A perturbative analysis around the classical limit reveals that, to leading order, the thermodynamic scalar curvature is governed solely by the generator deformation parameter, while the nonextensivity parameter remains decoupled. To evaluate the empirical robustness of the framework, we apply the model to analyze the absolute deviations of daily West Texas Intermediate crude oil prices from their hundred-day moving average. Model comparison based on information criteria demonstrates that the proposed pseudo-distributions provide a superior description of these high-frequency financial fluctuations and their heavy-tailed characteristics compared to standard benchmarks. These results suggest that $g$-calculus offers a flexible and physically grounded mathematical tool for generating deformed statistics and analyzing their geometric properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09297 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Thermodynamic scalar curvature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Graphs of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5: The distribution of absolute difference of WTI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The WTI crude oil, Oklahoma, dollars per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tsallis, Journal of statistical physics52, 479 (1988)

    C. Tsallis, Journal of statistical physics52, 479 (1988)

    1988

  2. [2]

    Abe and Y

    S. Abe and Y. Okamoto,Nonextensive statistical me- chanics and its applications, Vol. 560 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2001)

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    Metzler and J

    R. Metzler and J. Klafter, Physics reports339, 1 (2000)

    2000

  4. [4]

    Bunde and S

    A. Bunde and S. Havlin,Fractals and disordered systems (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Gell-Mann and C

    M. Gell-Mann and C. Tsallis,Nonextensive entropy: interdisciplinary applications(Oxford University Press, 2004)

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Physical review letters67, 937 (1991)

    1991

  7. [7]

    Wu, Physical review letters73, 922 (1994)

    Y.-S. Wu, Physical review letters73, 922 (1994)

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    A. P. Polychronakos, Physics Letters B365, 202 (1996)

    1996

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Isakov, Physical review letters73, 2150 (1994)

    S. Isakov, Physical review letters73, 2150 (1994)

    1994

  2. [10]

    A. D. de VEIGY and S. Ouvry, Modern Physics Letters B9, 271 (1995)

    1995

  3. [11]

    J. M. Leinaas and J. Myrheim, Il Nuovo Cimento B (1971-1996)37, 1 (1977)

    1977

  4. [12]

    Wilczek, Physical review letters49, 957 (1982)

    F. Wilczek, Physical review letters49, 957 (1982)

    1982

  5. [13]

    Khare,Fractional statistics and quantum theory (World Scientific, 2005)

    A. Khare,Fractional statistics and quantum theory (World Scientific, 2005)

    2005

  6. [14]

    B. I. Halperin, Physical Review Letters52, 1583 (1984)

    1984

  7. [15]

    Wilczek,Fractional statistics and anyon superconduc- tivity, Vol

    F. Wilczek,Fractional statistics and anyon superconduc- tivity, Vol. 5 (World scientific, 1990)

    1990

  8. [16]

    D. VG, en. In:“Advanced Series in Mathematical Physics 10, 269 (1990)

    1990

  9. [17]

    Biedenharn, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General22, L873 (1989)

    L. Biedenharn, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General22, L873 (1989)

    1989

  10. [18]

    Macfarlane, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and general22, 4581 (1989)

    A. Macfarlane, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and general22, 4581 (1989)

    1989

  11. [19]

    Sun and H.-C

    C.-P. Sun and H.-C. Fu, Journal of Physics A: mathe- matical and General22, L983 (1989)

    1989

  12. [20]

    Arik and D

    M. Arik and D. D. Coon, Journal of Mathematical Physics17, 524 (1976)

    1976

  13. [21]

    Chakrabarti and R

    R. Chakrabarti and R. Jagannathan, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General24, L711 (1991)

    1991

  14. [22]

    Tsallis,Introduction to nonextensive statistical me- chanics: approaching a complex world, Vol

    C. Tsallis,Introduction to nonextensive statistical me- chanics: approaching a complex world, Vol. 1 (Springer, 2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    Kaniadakis, Physica A: Statistical mechanics and its applications296, 405 (2001)

    G. Kaniadakis, Physica A: Statistical mechanics and its applications296, 405 (2001)

    2001

  16. [24]

    Kaniadakis, Physical review E66, 056125 (2002)

    G. Kaniadakis, Physical review E66, 056125 (2002)

    2002

  17. [25]

    Kaniadakis, Entropy15, 3983 (2013)

    G. Kaniadakis, Entropy15, 3983 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    A. M. Scarfone and T. Wada, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement162, 45 (2006)

    2006

  19. [27]

    Seifi, Z

    M. Seifi, Z. Ebadi, H. Agahi, H. Mehri-Dehnavi, and H. Mohammadzadeh, Physical Review E111, 054114 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Seifi, Z

    M. Seifi, Z. Ebadi, H. Agahi, H. Mehri-Dehnavi, and H. Mohammadzadeh, Physical Review E112, 064102 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Choquet, inAnnales de l’institut Fourier, Vol

    G. Choquet, inAnnales de l’institut Fourier, Vol. 5 15 (1954) pp. 131–295

    1954

  22. [30]

    Bayrami, H

    N. Bayrami, H. Mohammadzadeh, H. Agahi, H. Mehri- Dehnavi, and Z. Ebadi, Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and Theoretical59, 115003 (2026)

    2026

  23. [31]

    I. Podlubny,Fractional differential equations: an intro- duction to fractional derivatives, fractional differential equations, to methods of their solution and some of their applications, Vol. 198 (elsevier, 1998)

    1998

  24. [32]

    Denneberg,Non-additive measure and integral, Vol

    D. Denneberg,Non-additive measure and integral, Vol. 27 (Springer Science & Business Media, 1994)

    1994

  25. [33]

    Pap, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 47, 368 (2008)

    E. Pap, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 47, 368 (2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    R. N. Mantegna, H. E. Stanley, and N. A. Chriss, Physics Today53, 70 (2000)

    2000

  27. [35]

    Bernasconi, H

    J. Bernasconi, H. Beyeler, S. Str¨ assler, and S. Alexander, Physical Review Letters42, 819 (1979)

    1979

  28. [36]

    Kakalios, R

    J. Kakalios, R. Street, and n. W. Jackson, Physical review letters59, 1037 (1987)

    1987

  29. [37]

    J. R. Macdonald, Journal of applied physics58, 1955 (1985)

    1985

  30. [38]

    Budiyono, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications392, 307 (2013)

    A. Budiyono, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications392, 307 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Dr˘ agulescu and V

    A. Dr˘ agulescu and V. M. Yakovenko, Physica A: Statis- tical Mechanics and its Applications299, 213 (2001)

    2001

  32. [40]

    M. R. Collier, Advances in Space Research33, 2108 (2004)

    2004

  33. [41]

    Zeman, K

    A. Zeman, K. R. Brooks, and S. Ghebreab, Frontiers in human neuroscience9, 368 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    Trappenberg,Fundamentals of computational neuro- science(OUP Oxford, 2009)

    T. Trappenberg,Fundamentals of computational neuro- science(OUP Oxford, 2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    Granato and K

    A. Granato and K. L¨ ucke, Journal of applied physics27, 583 (1956)

    1956

  36. [44]

    Field, R

    P. Field, R. Hogan, P. Brown, A. Illingworth, T. Choular- ton, and R. Cotton, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Me- teorological Society: A journal of the atmospheric sci- ences, applied meteorology and physical oceanography 131, 1997 (2005)

    2005

  37. [45]

    Mehri-Dehnavi, H

    H. Mehri-Dehnavi, H. Agahi, and R. Mesiar, Soft Com- puting23, 357 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Ruppeiner, Physical Review A20, 1608 (1979)

    G. Ruppeiner, Physical Review A20, 1608 (1979)

    1979

  39. [47]

    Weinhold, J

    F. Weinhold, J. Chem. Phys.63, 2479 (1975)

    1975

  40. [48]

    Janyszek and R

    H. Janyszek and R. Mrugaa, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General23, 467 (1990)

    1990

  41. [49]

    Mirza and H

    B. Mirza and H. Mohammadzadeh, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics82, 031137 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    Borland, Physical review letters89, 098701 (2002)

    L. Borland, Physical review letters89, 098701 (2002)

    2002

  43. [51]

    Ludescher, C

    J. Ludescher, C. Tsallis, and A. Bunde, EPL (Euro- physics Letters)95, 68002 (2011)

    2011

  44. [52]

    C. G. Antonopoulos, G. Michas, F. Vallianatos, and T. Bountis, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Ap- plications409, 71 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    Caruso and C

    F. Caruso and C. Tsallis, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics78, 021102 (2008)

    2008

  46. [54]

    F. D. Nobre, M. A. Rego-Monteiro, and C. Tsallis, Phys- ical review letters106, 140601 (2011)

    2011

  47. [55]

    Liu and J

    B. Liu and J. Goree, Physical review letters100, 055003 (2008)

    2008

  48. [56]

    Abe and A

    S. Abe and A. Rajagopal, Physical review letters91, 120601 (2003)

    2003

  49. [57]

    R. G. DeVoe, Physical review letters102, 063001 (2009)

    2009

  50. [58]

    Douglas, S

    P. Douglas, S. Bergamini, and F. Renzoni, Physical re- view letters96, 110601 (2006)

    2006

  51. [59]

    Lutz and F

    E. Lutz and F. Renzoni, Nature Physics9, 615 (2013)

    2013

  52. [60]

    F. Adli, H. Mohammadzadeh, M. N. Najafi, and Z. Ebadi, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Ap- plications521, 773 (2019). 16

    2019

Pith tools

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