Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Testing thermal conductivity models with equilibrium molecular dynamics simulations of the one component plasma

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read New simulations give accurate one-component plasma conductivity, and no theory works at strong coupling.

desk verdict A valuable, mostly reliable OCP thermal conductivity benchmark that advances the field, but the unspecified production ensemble and overstated 2% accuracy claim need fixing before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08415 v1 pith:BS3U3JXS submitted 2019-08-22 physics.plasm-ph

Brett Scheiner , Scott D. Baalrud This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.25.Fi52.65.Yy
keywords thermalconductivityone-componentplasmaGreen-KubomoleculardynamicsCoulombcouplingheatfluxautocorrelationstronglycoupledLandau-Spitzertheory
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

Using equilibrium molecular dynamics and the Green-Kubo formalism, this paper produces thermal conductivity data for the one-component plasma (OCP) across $0.1\le\Gamma\le180$, resolving a long-standing 30% discrepancy between equilibrium and non-equilibrium simulation results. The authors show that the heat-flux autocorrelation function decays slowly, with oscillations persisting for hundreds of plasma periods, so prior equilibrium runs were too short and their noise levels contaminated the conductivity. The new long ($6\times10^5\,\omega_p^{-1}$) simulations give the first accurate conductivities for $\Gamma\lesssim1$, which serves as the first computational test of Landau-Spitzer theory: agreement holds only for $\Gamma\lesssim0.3$. Extensions to strong coupling are tested, and although EPT and Tanaka-Ichimaru work reasonably up to $\Gamma\approx10$, none of the examined theories reproduces the $\Gamma\gtrsim10$ regime, where the heat flux is dominated by potential-energy and virial contributions rather than kinetic transport.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Green-Kubo relation with a component-resolved heat-flux autocorrelation. The heat flux $\mathbf{j}$ is split into a kinetic part (particle mass flow carrying kinetic energy), a potential part (potential energy transported by mass flow), and a virial part (stress coupled to mass flow). The paper computes the autocorrelation of each part and of the cross terms, showing for the first time in the OCP that at $\Gamma\gtrsim10$ the potential and virial terms oscillate in phase and dominate the transport. A second piece of machinery is the noise-control protocol: because the ACF tail obeys the $1/\tau$ noise scaling of Zwanzig-Ailawadi, the authors use $6\times10^5\,\omega_p^{-1}$ time series and average the cumulative integral over a window where oscillations have decayed but noise has not yet built up.

What would settle it

Re-run the Γ = 30 simulation with the thermostat explicitly disabled during production and compare the heat-flux autocorrelation and integrated conductivity with the reported value; if the conductivity shifts by more than the stated error bars, the dataset is biased. Alternatively, an independent non-equilibrium MD calculation at Γ = 30 that reproduces the reported λ* would support the claim, while disagreement would falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the OCP heat-flux autocorrelation function (ACF) has a slowly decaying oscillatory envelope, predicted to scale as $1/\sqrt{t}$, so the cumulative Green-Kubo integral is still oscillating by about 5% at $t=100\,\omega_p^{-1}$ and only converges after hundreds of plasma periods. Prior equilibrium MD runs of roughly $400$ and $8000\,\omega_p^{-1}$ were too short, which explains the discrepancies with non-equilibrium MD. The authors run $6\times10^5\,\omega_p^{-1}$ trajectories, verify noise levels against cross-correlations of different heat-flux components, and average the cumulative integral over $[100,150]\,\omega_p^{-1}$. The resulting dimensionless conductivity $\lambda^*=\lambda/(n\omega_p k_B a^2)$ agrees with non-equilibrium data for $\Gamma\ge2$ and extends down to $\Gamma=0.1$. Decomposing the heat flux into kinetic, potential, and virial parts shows that the kinetic term dominates up to $\Gamma\approx5$, while for $\Gamma\gtrsim10$ the potential, virial, and their cross term are largest; no theory that treats only kinetic transport can capture this regime.

Load-bearing premise

The paper never states whether the Nose-Hoover thermostat used during equilibration is turned off during the production runs; if the thermostat remains coupled, it could damp the heat-flux autocorrelation and bias all reported conductivities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The new dataset interpolates from weak coupling to solidification at $\Gamma\approx170$ and provides a fitted formula (Eqs. 7–9) for use in hydrodynamic simulations of dense plasmas.
  • Landau-Spitzer theory is confirmed only for $\Gamma\lesssim0.3$; using it beyond that coupling overestimates the thermal conductivity.
  • The Lee-More model's ad hoc replacement of the Debye length by the ion-sphere radius is shown to be inadequate for $\Gamma\gtrsim1$, a relevant caveat for high-energy-density simulations that use this model.
  • Existing theories such as EPT can describe the kinetic component of the heat flux to fairly strong coupling, but none describes the potential-virial dominated regime, indicating a need for transport theories that include multi-particle dynamics.
  • The component decomposition reveals that at $\Gamma\approx9$ the conductivity reaches a minimum where the kinetic term becomes smaller than the sum of potential and virial terms, providing a benchmark for future theories.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The in-phase oscillations of the potential and virial ACF components and the opposite-signed cross term suggest that a conserved quantity, such as an enthalpy current, may be exchanged between the two channels; a mode-coupling or hydrodynamic description might reproduce this cancellation and extend theory past $\Gamma\approx10$.
  • The $1/\sqrt{t}$ noise envelope implies that even longer runs, or variance-reduction estimators such as cepstral analysis, could push the accuracy below 2% and extend the dataset to lower $\Gamma$ or to two-component plasmas without prohibitive cost.
  • A direct test of the unstated thermostat protocol, whether the Nose-Hoover thermostat is removed during production, would determine whether the reported conductivities are biased; this check is not addressed in the paper but is a necessary reproducibility test.
  • The different ranges of validity of EPT for diffusion, shear viscosity, and thermal conductivity suggest that each transport coefficient has a different sensitivity to many-body correlations, which could guide which coefficient is best for benchmarking new strong-coupling theories.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports equilibrium molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of the thermal conductivity of the one-component plasma (OCP) using the Green-Kubo formalism, covering Γ from 0.1 to 180. The authors use long heat-flux time series (up to 6×10^5 ω_p^{-1}), analyze statistical noise via cross-correlations and the Zwanzig-Ailawadi estimate, decompose the conductivity into kinetic, potential, virial, and cross contributions, and compare the total conductivity against Landau-Spitzer, Lee-More, Tanaka-Ichimaru, and Effective Potential Theory (EPT). They conclude that Landau-Spitzer agrees with simulations for Γ≲0.3, that EPT and Tanaka-Ichimaru are accurate up to Γ≈7, and that none of the models captures the regime Γ≳10, where potential and virial heat-flux components dominate. The paper also provides analytic fits to the MD data.

Significance. If the reported data are reliable, this is a valuable benchmark: it is the first equilibrium MD dataset extending to Γ<1, provides the first MD test of Landau-Spitzer thermal conductivity, and quantitatively documents the failure of binary-collision-based theories at strong coupling. The component decomposition (kinetic/potential/virial) is a useful diagnostic for future theory development. The error analysis is thoughtful, using six independent time series, cross-correlation noise estimators, and explicit comparison with the predicted 1/τ scaling. The agreement with prior non-equilibrium MD for Γ≥2 partially mitigates concerns about the equilibrium method. However, the central claim of 'accurate data' is weakened by an unspecified production-phase ensemble and by an accuracy statement that is not consistent with the tabulated statistical uncertainties.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IIA, Eq. (1)] The manuscript specifies a Nosé-Hoover thermostat only for the equilibration phase and never states whether the thermostat is turned off during the production runs. Because the Green-Kubo relation in Eq. (1) is derived for Hamiltonian dynamics, and because the paper itself emphasizes heat-flux autocorrelation oscillations persisting for hundreds of ω_p^{-1} at Γ≥10, coupling a thermostat during production could damp those oscillations and bias the reported conductivities. The agreement with non-equilibrium MD in Fig. 1 for Γ≥2 is reassuring but does not validate the new Γ<0.5 data used for the Landau-Spitzer test. Please state explicitly the ensemble used during data collection (e.g., NVE or NVT) and, if NVT is used, justify its consistency with the Green-Kubo formula.
  2. [Abstract and Table II] The abstract's claim that 6×10^5 ω_p^{-1} time series allow '≲2% accuracy' is not supported by the Table II numbers if those are standard deviations of the six independent time series: the relative standard deviations at Γ=0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 5.0 are about 3.7%, 3.5%, 4.0%, and 2.7%, respectively. If the tabulated values are instead standard errors of the mean (standard deviation divided by sqrt(6)), the text should say so explicitly and the abstract should state which quantity corresponds to 'accuracy.' Please reconcile the abstract with the tabulated uncertainties.
  3. [Sec. IIC] The choice of the averaging window [100,150] ω_p^{-1} for Γ≥0.5 is justified only by the qualitative statement that alternate windows do not change results 'significantly.' Since the cumulative integral still exhibits oscillations at the ~5% level at t=100 ω_p^{-1}, a quantitative sensitivity analysis (e.g., a table or figure showing λ* for several averaging windows) is needed to support the claimed accuracy. In addition, for Γ<0.5 a different saturation-based method is used; the crossover between methods and its effect on the reported values should be documented.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. IIB, Eq. (4)] The notation ⟨...⟩ is used both for the ensemble average in Eq. (1) and for the finite-time average in Eq. (3); please distinguish the two, for example by using a subscript for the time-average.
  2. [Reference [41]] Reference [41] lists the first author as 'Z. Donk' instead of 'Z. Donkó' and omits the publication year; please correct the citation.
  3. [Sec. IIC, Table II] The table caption states 'standard deviation' but the text says the six values were 'averaged ... with their standard deviation.' Please specify whether the reported error is the standard deviation of the six values or the standard error of the mean, and use consistent terminology throughout.
  4. [Sec. IIIA and Eq. (11)] In the discussion of the Landau-Spitzer limit, the text says the kinetic fit is 'proportional to C/ln(DΓ^{-3/2})' at low Γ, but the full expression in Eq. (7) also contains the prefactor Γ^{-5/2}; please correct this limiting-form description.
  5. [Sec. IIC] The word 'neagitive' appears in the sentence 'reaches its maximum neagitive value'; this should be 'negative.'
  6. [Sec. IIC, Eq. (9)] The text states that the fit of Eq. (9) passes through all markers 'with one exception'; please identify which data point is the exception, since this is not otherwise evident from Fig. 4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MD data are independent measurements, the tested models are not fitted to these data, and the paper's own fits are explicitly labeled as fits.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is: run equilibrium MD, compute the Green-Kubo heat-flux ACF integral, and compare the resulting λ* with four theoretical models. None of the models is fitted to the new conductivity data. EPT (Refs. 21, 44) is the authors' own theory, but in this paper it is evaluated by computing g(r) from HNC closure and solving Chapman-Enskog collision integrals (Eqs. 17-21); the text reports that EPT fails for Γ ≳ 7 (Fig. 7), which shows the theory is not used to define the outcome. Tanaka-Ichimaru uses a bridge function fitted to OCP MD static structure (Sec. III.C), but that is a static pair-correlation input, not the transport coefficient being predicted. The fits in Eqs. (7)-(9) are introduced for convenience and explicitly called 'fit' (Sec. IIC), so they are not disguised predictions. The Landau-Spitzer test uses the new independent low-Γ MD data. Self-citations (Refs. 4, 7, 21, 44, 46, 52) are theoretical derivations or prior comparisons of other transport coefficients; none incorporates the thermal conductivity values reported here. The only notable manuscript omission—the absence of an explicit statement whether the Nosé-Hoover thermostat is removed during production—is a reproducibility/algorithmic concern, not a circularity, and per the hard rules no circularity score is assigned to it.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central data are produced by MD and do not rely on new theory, so the free-parameter burden is limited to the interpolation fits. The main assumptions are standard Green-Kubo/OCP modeling and the unstated production ensemble.

free parameters (5)
  • C (λ_kk fit, Eq. 7) = 3.766
    Fitted to the MD kinetic-component data; sets the amplitude of the low-Γ divergence.
  • D (λ_kk fit, Eq. 7) = 1.52
    Fitted to MD λ_kk; determines the effective Coulomb logarithm argument. The fit form mimics Landau-Spitzer but with fitted constants, so it does not strictly reduce to LS.
  • Padé coefficients p_i, q_i for λ_kk (Eq. 7) = Table III
    Fitted to the MD kinetic component to provide a compact interpolation; not used in theory tests.
  • Padé coefficients p_i, q_i for λ_pp,pv,vv (Eq. 8) = Table III
    Fitted to the MD potential+virial+cross component; interpolation only.
  • Biexponential coefficients p_i for λ_kv,kp (Eq. 9) = Table III
    Fitted to the MD kinetic cross component; interpolation only.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Green-Kubo relation (Eq. 1) correctly gives thermal conductivity from the equilibrium heat flux ACF.
    Standard statistical mechanics; not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The OCP model (Coulomb potential in a uniform neutralizing background) is the relevant reference system for strongly coupled plasmas.
    The paper's conclusions about model failure apply to the OCP; transferring to real plasmas assumes the OCP captures the essential strong-coupling physics.
  • domain assumption The production phase of the MD is in the correct equilibrium ensemble (thermostat-free NVE or equivalent) so that j(t) fluctuations are unperturbed by the thermostat.
    Not stated in Sec. IIA; the heat flux autocorrelation can be damped by an active thermostat, biasing λ.
  • domain assumption The heat flux ACF has converged by t=150ω_p^{-1}, so the [100,150] averaging window yields the true Green-Kubo integral.
    The paper supports this with alternate window tests and noise scaling, but it remains an empirical convergence assumption.
  • domain assumption For the Tanaka-Ichimaru model, the bridge function b(r) is taken from fits to OCP MD pair distributions (Ref. 20); for EPT, the HNC closure (Eqs. 15-16) provides adequate g(r).
    The theory tests inherit the accuracy of these closures; an inaccurate g(r) would alter the predicted conductivity.
  • domain assumption PPPM with a 50^3 mesh and 5a cutoff accurately represents the bare Coulomb interaction in the OCP.
    Force accuracy affects the ACF; standard practice, but not quantified in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing thermal conductivity models with equilibrium molecular dynamics simulations of the one component plasma." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BS3U3JXS

@misc{pith2026190808415,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing thermal conductivity models with equilibrium molecular dynamics simulations of the one component plasma},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BS3U3JXS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08415}
}
abstract

Equilibrium molecular dynamics simulations are used to calculate the thermal conductivity of the one component plasma (OCP) via the Green-Kubo formalism over a broad range of Coulomb coupling strength, $0.1\le\Gamma\le180$. These simulations address previous discrepancies between computations using equilibrium versus nonequilibrium methods. Analysis of heat flux autocorrelation functions show that very long ($6\times10^5\omega_p^{-1}$) time series are needed to reduce the noise level to allow $\lesssim2\%$ accuracy. The new simulations provide the first accurate data for $\Gamma \lesssim 1$. This enables a test of the traditional Landau-Spitzer theory, which is found to agree with the simulations for $\Gamma \lesssim 0.3$. It also enables tests of theories to address moderate and strong Coulomb coupling. Two are found to provide accurate extensions to the moderate coupling regime of $\Gamma \lesssim 10$, but none are accurate in the $\Gamma \gtrsim 10$ regime where potential energy transport and coupling between mass flow and stress dominate thermal conduction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08415 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Thermal conductivity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. a) ACFs for Γ = 3, 10, and 60. b) The corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Equilibrium MD data for the total thermal conductiv [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) The total ACF compared to the cross correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) The total ACF and its components. (b) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) The total ACF and its components. (b) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. A comparison of the calculated value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The second order Chapman Enskog correction for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Baus and J.-P

    M. Baus and J.-P. Hansen, Phys. Rep. 59, 1 (1980). [2] S. Chapman and T. G. Cowling, Cambridge: University Press, 1970, 3rd ed. (1970). 10

    work page 1980

  2. [3]

    Ferziger and H

    J. Ferziger and H. Kaper, Mathematical Theory of Trans- port Processes in Gases (North-Holland Publishing Com- pany, 1972)

    work page 1972

  3. [4]

    Daligault, Phys

    J. Daligault, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 065003 (2006)

    work page 2006

  4. [5]

    J. P. Hansen, I. R. McDonald, and E. L. Pollock, Phys. Rev. A 11, 1025 (1975)

    work page 1975

  5. [6]

    Vieillefosse and J

    P. Vieillefosse and J. P. Hansen, Phys. Rev. A 12, 1106 (1975)

    work page 1975

  6. [7]

    Accurate Determination of the Shear Viscosity of the One-Component Plasma

    J. Daligault, K. Ø. Rasmussen, and S. D. Baal- rud, Phys. Rev. E 90, 033105 (2014), arXiv:1407.3875 [physics.plasm-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  7. [8]

    Bernu and P

    B. Bernu and P. Vieillefosse, Phys. Rev. A 18, 2345 (1978)

    work page 1978

  8. [9]

    Donk´ o, B

    Z. Donk´ o, B. Ny´ ıri, L. Szalai, and S. Holl´ o, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1622 (1998)

    work page 1998

Show all 51 references
  1. [10]

    Donk´ o and P

    Z. Donk´ o and P. Hartmann, Phys. Rev. E 69, 016405 (2004)

    2004

  2. [11]

    E. L. Vold, R. M. Rauenzahn, C. H. Aldrich, K. Molvig, A. N. Simakov, and B. M. Haines, Physics of Plasmas 24, 042702 (2017)

    2017

  3. [12]

    S. X. Hu, V. N. Goncharov, P. B. Radha, S. P. Regan, and E. M. Campbell, Nuclear Fusion 59, 032011 (2019)

    2019

  4. [13]

    S. X. Hu, L. A. Collins, T. R. Boehly, Y. H. Ding, P. B. Radha, V. N. Goncharov, V. V. Karasiev, G. W. Collins, S. P. Regan, and E. M. Campbell, Physics of Plasmas 25, 056306 (2018)

    2018

  5. [14]

    S. X. Hu, L. A. Collins, T. R. Boehly, J. D. Kress, V. N. Goncharov, and S. Skupsky, Phys. Rev. E 89, 043105 (2014)

    2014

  6. [15]

    A. I. Chugunov and P. Haensel, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society 381, 1143 (2007), http://oup.prod.sis.lan/mnras/article- pdf/381/3/1143/3654270/mnras0381-1143.pdf

    2007

  7. [16]

    Nunomura, D

    S. Nunomura, D. Samsonov, S. Zhdanov, and G. Morfill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 025003 (2005)

    2005

  8. [17]

    Bannasch, J

    G. Bannasch, J. Castro, P. McQuillen, T. Pohl, and T. C. Killian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 185008 (2012)

    2012

  9. [18]

    T. S. Strickler, T. K. Langin, P. McQuillen, J. Daligault, and T. C. Killian, Phys. Rev. X 6, 021021 (2016)

    2016

  10. [19]

    M. C. Marchetti and T. R. Kirkpatrick, Phys. Rev. A 32, 2981 (1985)

    1985

  11. [20]

    Tanaka and S

    S. Tanaka and S. Ichimaru, Phys. Rev. A34, 4163 (1986)

    1986

  12. [21]

    S. D. Baalrud and J. Daligault, Physical Review Letters 110, 235001 (2013), arXiv:1303.3202 [physics.plasm-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Daligault, S

    J. Daligault, S. D. Baalrud, C. E. Starrett, D. Saumon, and T. Sjostrom, Physical Review Letters 116, 075002 (2016)

    2016

  14. [23]

    Bernu, P

    B. Bernu, P. Vieillefosse, and J. P. Hansen, Physics Let- ters A 63, 301 (1977)

    1977

  15. [24]

    Salin and J.-M

    G. Salin and J.-M. Caillol, Physics of Plasmas 10, 1220 (2003)

    2003

  16. [25]

    Donko and B

    Z. Donko and B. Nyiri, Physics of Plasmas 7, 45 (2000), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.873824

    2000 doi

  17. [26]

    Evans and G

    D. Evans and G. Morriss, Statistical Mechanics of Nonequilibrium Liquids , DOAB Directory of Open Ac- cess Books (ANU E Press, 2007)

    2007

  18. [27]

    Eu, Transport Coefficients of Fluids , Springer Series in Chemical Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010)

    B. Eu, Transport Coefficients of Fluids , Springer Series in Chemical Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010)

    2010

  19. [28]

    T. Ott, M. Bonitz, and Z. Donk´ o, Phys. Rev. E 92, 063105 (2015)

    2015

  20. [29]

    Donk´ o, J

    Z. Donk´ o, J. Goree, P. Hartmann, and B. Liu, Phys. Rev. E 79, 026401 (2009)

    2009

  21. [30]

    Y. V. Khrustalyov and O. S. Vaulina, Phys. Rev. E 85, 046405 (2012)

    2012

  22. [31]

    Spitzer and R

    L. Spitzer and R. H¨ arm, Physical Review89, 977 (1953)

    1953

  23. [32]

    Y. T. Lee and R. M. More, Physics of Fluids 27, 1273 (1984)

    1984

  24. [33]

    Sekiguchi and R

    T. Sekiguchi and R. C. Herndon, Phys. Rev. 112, 1 (1958)

    1958

  25. [34]

    Gauthier and J.-F

    J.-C. Gauthier and J.-F. Delpech, Physics of Fluids 18, 1467 (1975)

    1975

  26. [35]

    K. J. Nygaard, Phys. Rev. 157, 138 (1967)

    1967

  27. [36]

    McKelvey, G

    A. McKelvey, G. E. Kemp, P. A. Sterne, A. Fernand ez-Panella, R. Shepherd, M. Marinak, A. Link, G. W. Collins, H. Sio, J. King, R. R. Freeman, R. Hua, C. McGuffey, J. Kim, F. N. Beg, and Y. Ping, Scien- tific Reports 7, 7015 (2017)

    2017

  28. [37]

    Plimpton, Journal of Computational Physics 117, 1 (1995)

    S. Plimpton, Journal of Computational Physics 117, 1 (1995)

    1995

  29. [38]

    Nos´ e, J

    S. Nos´ e, J. Chem. Phys.81, 511 (1984)

    1984

  30. [39]

    Zwanzig and N

    R. Zwanzig and N. K. Ailawadi, Physical Review 182, 280 (1969)

    1969

  31. [40]

    P. C. Howell, J. Chem. Phys. 137, 224111 (2012)

    2012

  32. [41]

    T. Ott, Z. Donk, and M. Bonitz, Contributions to Plasma Physics 56, 246

  33. [42]

    W. L. Slattery, G. D. Doolen, and H. E. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. A 21, 2087 (1980)

    1980

  34. [43]

    Ichimaru and S

    S. Ichimaru and S. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. A32, 1790 (1985)

    1985

  35. [44]

    S. D. Baalrud and J. Daligault, Phys. Rev. E 91, 063107 (2015), arXiv:1506.03112 [physics.plasm-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Spitzer, Physics of fully ionized gases , Interscience tracts on physics and astronomy (Interscience Publish- ers, 1962)

    L. Spitzer, Physics of fully ionized gases , Interscience tracts on physics and astronomy (Interscience Publish- ers, 1962)

    1962

  37. [46]

    S. D. Baalrud and J. Daligault, Physics of Plasmas 21, 055707 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4875282

    2014 doi

  38. [47]

    J. S. Green, N. Booth, R. J. Dance, R. J. Gray, D. A. MacLellan, A. Marshall, P. McKenna, C. D. Murphy, C. P. Ridgers, A. P. L. Robinson, D. Rusby, R. H. H. Scott, and L. Wilson, Scientific Reports 8, 4525 (2018)

    2018

  39. [48]

    M. J. May, G. E. Kemp, J. D. Colvin, D. A. Liedahl, P. L. Poole, D. B. Thorn, K. Widmann, R. Benjamin, M. A. Barrios, and B. E. Blue, Physics of Plasmas 26, 063105 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5097960

    2019 doi

  40. [49]

    Ichimaru, S

    S. Ichimaru, S. Mitake, S. Tanaka, and X. Z. Yan, Phys. Rev. A 32, 1768 (1985)

    1985

  41. [50]

    Hansen and I

    J. Hansen and I. McDonald, Theory of Simple Liquids (Elsevier Science, 2006)

    2006

  42. [51]

    Hill, An Introduction to Statistical Thermodynamics , Dover Books on Physics (Dover Publications, 2012)

    T. Hill, An Introduction to Statistical Thermodynamics , Dover Books on Physics (Dover Publications, 2012)

    2012

  43. [52]

    S. D. Baalrud and J. Daligault, Physics of Plasmas 26, 082106 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5095655

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.