Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Transport theory in moderately anisotropic plasmas: I, Collisionless aspects of axisymmetric velocity space

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A finite moment model aims to replace the Vlasov equation for moderately anisotropic plasmas.

desk verdict A systematic but unvalidated moment closure for anisotropic plasmas, with a real error in the spherical-symmetry argument; worth refereeing but not as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08634 v4 pith:COGY3QEY submitted 2025-01-15 physics.plasm-ph math-phmath.MP

Yanpeng Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phmath-phmath.MP MSC 82D1035Q8376X05 PACS 52.65.Ff52.25.Fi52.25.Dg52.35.Sb
keywords kineticmoment-closedmodelfinitelydistinguishableindependentfeaturesVlasovequationanisotropicplasmasaxisymmetricvelocityspaceKingfunctionexpansionsphericalharmonicsmomentclosure
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 tries to establish that the collisionless Vlasov equation for plasmas with axisymmetric velocity space can be replaced by a finite system of coupled moment equations, called the kinetic moment-closed model (KMCM), without invoking a near-equilibrium assumption. The model is derived by expanding the distribution function in spherical harmonics in angle and in King functions in speed, then closing the moment hierarchy through the finitely distinguishable independent features (FDIF) hypothesis. If correct, KMCM would let researchers capture kinetic effects such as multi-peak structures and higher-order moments in moderately anisotropic plasmas at far lower cost than direct Vlasov solves. The paper derives the model, gives explicit closure relations, and shows that the low-order limit reproduces the two-fluid equations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the general King mixture model (GKMM), which represents each spherical-harmonic amplitude f_l(v) as a sum of N_K King functions, each specified by a weight, a group velocity, and a group thermal velocity. The King function (Eq. 79) is a modified Bessel function that naturally satisfies the boundary conditions of the plasma distribution in the speed coordinate. Substituting GKMM into the kinetic moment definition yields the characteristic parameter equations (CPEs), a nonlinear algebraic system that maps kinetic moments to the mixture parameters; the characteristic closure relation (CCR) then uses those parameters to generate all other moments. The CPEs plus the natural truncation in l are what convert the infinite moment hierarchy into a finite closed system.

What would settle it

Take a known distribution that is not a King mixture—for example, a bi-Maxwellian or a beam-bump distribution—at moderate anisotropy, compute its kinetic moments exactly, then solve the CPEs to recover King-mixture parameters. If the higher moments reconstructed from those parameters deviate from the true moments beyond the chosen tolerance, the closure fails. Alternatively, run KMCM on a standard test such as linear Landau damping of a Langmuir wave and compare the predicted damping rate and moment evolution to a direct Vlasov solve; disagreement beyond the truncation tolerance would falsify the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the pair of expansions—spherical harmonics expansion (SHE) for the angular variables and King function expansion (KFE) for the speed coordinate—turns the 1D-2V Vlasov equation into a hierarchy of kinetic moment evolution equations (KMEE) that can be closed exactly under the FDIF hypothesis. The closure consists of the natural closure relation (NCR) in the harmonic order l, which truncates at l_M based on a tolerance, and the characteristic closure relation (CCR) in the moment order j, which expresses out-of-collection moments as functions of a finite set of characteristic parameters recovered from the in-collection moments by solving the characteristic parameter equations (CPEs). The resulting KMCM is a finite, nonlinear system of constrained first-order PDEs that the paper claims approximates the Vlasov equation with specified accuracy for moderately anisotropic plasmas (anisotropy a <= 3), and that reduces to the traditional two-fluid equations in its low-order limit.

Load-bearing premise

The whole closure rests on the claim that each velocity-space amplitude can be accurately written as a finite sum of King functions whose parameters are uniquely determined by a chosen set of moments; the paper offers no evidence for this representability or uniqueness in transport scenarios.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • KMCM provides a parameter-free nonlinear closure for moderately anisotropic plasmas, replacing the near-equilibrium assumption of Grad's method and the Chapman-Enskog expansion.
  • The model exactly preserves the three conservation laws and reduces to the two-fluid equations in the low-order limit, while retaining kinetic information in higher moments.
  • The same SHE-KFE construction extends to the collisional (Fokker-Planck) case and to general 3D-3V velocity space, so KMCM could serve as a basis for a unified transport framework.
  • Because it avoids velocity-space grids, KMCM offers a route to kinetic simulation of fusion-relevant problems such as turbulent transport, pedestal gradients, and alpha-particle accumulation.
  • The truncation order l_M is set automatically by a tolerance, making the model self-adaptive to the degree of anisotropy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The practical value of KMCM hinges on the representability assumption: whether realistic distribution functions in transport scenarios are well approximated by a small number of King functions with unique recoverable parameters; the paper does not test this on non-King distributions.
  • The CPE inversion is a nonlinear algebraic problem at every time step; without a robust, publicly demonstrated solver, the computational advantage over direct Vlasov simulation remains unproven.
  • A falsifiable prediction is that, for a fixed physical problem, KMCM moments converge to direct Vlasov moments as l_M and N_K increase; verifying this on a benchmark such as Langmuir wave damping would test the closure.
  • The paper's own efficiency claim is limited to anisotropy a <= 3; for beam-dominated or strongly non-Maxwellian cases the method may become expensive or fail, so the practical niche is narrower than 'non-equilibrium plasmas' generally.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the pair of expansions—spherical harmonics expansion (SHE) for the angular variables and King function expansion (KFE) for the speed coordinate—turns the 1D-2V Vlasov equation into a hierarchy of kinetic moment evolution equations (KMEE) that can be closed exactly under the FDIF hypothesis. The closure consists of the natural closure relation

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a kinetic moment-closed model (KMCM) for collisionless plasmas with axisymmetric velocity space. Starting from the 1D-2V Vlasov equation, the author derives spherical-harmonic spectral equations and corresponding kinetic moment evolution equations (KMEE). Closure is attempted in l-space by truncating the spherical-harmonic series and in j-space by assuming each amplitude is a finite sum of King functions (GKMM), whose parameters are obtained from a selected set of kinetic moments through characteristic parameter equations (CPEs). The paper claims this produces a finite nonlinear system that approximates the Vlasov equation for moderately anisotropic, non-equilibrium plasmas.

Significance. If the closure were valid, the KMCM would offer a finite-dimensional moment model retaining kinetic effects without a near-equilibrium assumption, a potentially useful alternative to Grad-type closures. The KMEE derivation is a standard and clean spectral formulation, and the King-function basis has demonstrated moment-convergence properties in the author's earlier work. However, the central j-space closure is not validated, and the paper contains a clear mathematical error in its treatment of spherical symmetry. As presented, the main claim that KMCM approximates the Vlasov equation with specified accuracy is not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II A, Eq. (22)] The statement that spherical symmetry implies d_t f_l ≡ 0 is incorrect. In the l=1 spectral equation, the convection term (10)-(12) contains a term −v ∂_z f_0 because C_{A,0}=1, and the electric-field term in (11) contains f_0/v. Hence a spherically symmetric distribution with a spatial gradient, or in a parallel electric field, immediately develops f_1 ≠ 0. Consequently Eq. (36) and the conclusion in Sec. IV that the macro state remains unchanged are false unless the plasma is additionally homogeneous and field-free. This error undermines the claimed degeneracy of the model to the 0D-1V Vlasov case.
  2. [Sec. III C 2, Eqs. (78)-(87)] The j-space closure is not validated. The characteristic closure relation (87) is simply the CPEs evaluated at moments outside the fitted set; the resulting predictions are determined by the assumed King-mixture ansatz, not by independent Vlasov dynamics. No evidence is given that the spherical-harmonic amplitudes f_l of actual Vlasov solutions are representable by a finite King mixture (78) with small N_K, nor that the nonlinear moment inversion (82) is well-posed (existence, uniqueness, and stability). The paper itself acknowledges the initial-value sensitivity of the optimization problem in Sec. III D 1 and states in Sec. IV that numerical verification is future work. Therefore the central claim that KMCM approximates the Vlasov equation with specified accuracy is unsupported.
  3. [Sec. III C 2, Eq. (89)] The definition of moderately anisotropic plasmas by the bound a_a ≤ 3 is presented without justification. The l_M ≤ 45 estimate in Sec. III C 1 is derived only for a drift-Maxwellian distribution and does not by itself imply that the King-mixture closure is accurate for general distributions within that anisotropy range. The paper needs a numerical or analytical demonstration that the truncated KMCM controls the closure error over the claimed parameter range.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III C 2, text near Eq. (87)] 'It is nature to offer' should read 'It is natural to offer'.
  2. [Sec. III D 1] 'Rung-Kutta method' should be 'Runge-Kutta method'.
  3. [Sec. III B 1, text near Eq. (55)] 'Obvious, it is a function' should be 'Obviously, it is a function'.
  4. [Eqs. (26)-(27)] The notation ℳ_{j+1,l±} denotes vectors that only have a z-component; this is a consequence of axisymmetry but is confusing because ℳ_{j,l} is otherwise a scalar. A sentence clarifying this notational convention would help.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

KMCM's j-space closure is a fitted King-mixture reconstruction, not an independent Vlasov prediction; the accuracy claim rests on same-author convergence results and remains unbenchmarked.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III C 2, Eqs. (82) and (87)]
    "given a specific collection 𝑗𝑙 with a number 𝑁𝑙 = 3𝑁𝐾𝑎 and the values of the corresponding kinetic moments, the characteristic parameters can be determined by the well-posed CPEs (82). It is nature to offer the closure in (𝑗) space based on the CPEs... 𝒟𝑗,𝑙 (𝑧,𝑡 ) = 𝒟𝑗,𝑙 (𝑗,𝑙, ^𝑛𝑎𝑠,𝑙, ^𝑢𝑎𝑠,𝑙, ^𝑣𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑠,𝑙,𝑁𝐾𝑎) , 𝑗 /∈ 𝑗𝑙, ∀𝑙."

    The CPEs (82) are algebraic identities obtained by substituting the GKMM ansatz (78) into the kinetic-moment definition (24). Once 3N_K kinetic moments are selected, the 3N_K characteristic parameters are fitted to those moments; the CCR (87) then evaluates every moment with j outside the selected set from those same parameters. Thus the 'closed' higher-order moments are algebraic consequences of the chosen moments and the parametric ansatz, not information obtained from the Vlasov equation. The assertion that KMCM 'approximates the Vlasov equation with specified accuracy' therefore reduces to the unverified assumptions that each f_l is representable by a small GKMM and that the CPE inversion is well-posed.

  2. self citation load bearing [Sec. III D, item (ii), p. 15]
    "The numerical results in reference[32] demonstrate that the KFE has moment convergence, and the corresponding polynomial convergence order can reach 16 (approaching spectral convergence)."

    The central accuracy claim rests on convergence properties of KFE/GKMM, and the cited evidence is the same author's prior work, refs [31] and [32], with [32] listed as 'Under review'. The finite-N_K GKMM representability and the well-posedness of the CPE inversion are asserted in this paper, not proved or numerically demonstrated here. Consequently the claim that a truncated finite nonlinear KMCM 'approximates the Vlasov equation with specified accuracy' is supported by a self-citation chain rather than by an independent derivation or by a numerical comparison in the present manuscript.

full rationale

The KMEE (25) is an exact weak form of the 1D-2V Vlasov equation, so the transport part is not circular, and the NCR (73) is a conventional truncation in l-space. The circularity enters at the j-space closing step: GKMM parameters are fitted to a chosen set of kinetic moments via the CPEs, and all remaining moments are recomputed from those parameters through the CCR. Those recomputed moments are determined by the ansatz and the selected moments by construction. The paper itself concedes in Sec. IV that 'the performance of this framework under various physical conditions needs to be verified through numerical experiments' and in Sec. III D 3 that a robust CPE solver 'is on our schedule and will be published in the future', so the claimed 'specified accuracy' is not demonstrated. The convergence foundation is drawn from same-author refs [31,32], one under review, making the central closure claim partly dependent on self-citation. This is partial circularity because the closure reduces to a fit, but the KMEE hierarchy, conservation laws, and the explicit closure ansatz remain separate content. A separate non-circular correctness concern is Eq. (22), where spherical symmetry is said to imply d_t f_l ≡ 0 for all l; with a nonzero parallel electric field an initially isotropic distribution can develop an l=1 component, so the assertion is at best an initial-condition statement.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on a set of structural assumptions. Most are explicitly stated, but none are validated in this paper, and the free parameters are not determined by an optimization principle or error control.

free parameters (5)
  • SHE truncation order l_M
    Determined by the tolerance A_tol_df and the state; the paper suggests l_M <= 45 for drift-Maxwellian distributions with normalized drift <= 3. It controls the accuracy of the l-space truncation and is not derived from first principles.
  • Moment collection j_l
    The set of kinetic moment orders used to solve for the King mixture parameters. No selection criterion or optimality condition is provided.
  • Number of King components N_K_a
    Number of sub-distributions in the King mixture for each l. The paper does not specify how to choose N_K_a or how it affects accuracy.
  • Anisotropy limit a_a <= 3 = 3
    Defines 'moderately anisotropic' based on SHE convergence for a drift-Maxwellian distribution. The threshold is not justified for general King mixtures.
  • Tolerance A_tol_df = 1e-14
    Defaults to 1e-14 for the natural truncation in l-space. The value is arbitrary and affects l_M and thus the model size.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper FDIF hypothesis: a fully ionized plasma has a finite number of distinguishable independent characteristics.
    Introduced in Sec III.C as the basis for closure. It is not derived, and no evidence is given that a small finite set of features suffices for transport problems.
  • standard math King function expansion can represent any smooth one-dimensional function, based on Wiener's Tauberian theorem.
    Invoked from reference [31] for convergence of KFE in the speed coordinate. The theorem covers infinite expansions, but the finite-mixture truncation with few components is not covered by it.
  • domain assumption The distribution function is smooth in velocity space.
    Stated in Sec II.A as an assumption for the spherical harmonics expansion. This excludes distributions with discontinuities or sharp structures.
  • ad hoc to paper The characteristic parameter equations (82) are well-posed and uniquely solvable for the chosen moment sets.
    Assumed in Sec III.C.2. No existence or uniqueness proof is given for the nonlinear CPEs.
  • ad hoc to paper The truncated KMCM approximates the 1D-2V Vlasov equation with specified accuracy for moderately anisotropic plasmas.
    This is the central claim, stated in Sec III.D and IV. It is not proven and no numerical demonstration is provided.
invented entities (1)
  • Dientropy D_{j,l}
    purpose: A new name for the normalized kinetic moment M_{j,l} used to express the characteristic parameter equations compactly (Eq. 80).
    It is a rescaling of an existing quantity, carrying no new physics content. The name, IPA, and Chinese character add no independent evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transport theory in moderately anisotropic plasmas: I, Collisionless aspects of axisymmetric velocity space." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/COGY3QEY

@misc{pith2026250108634,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transport theory in moderately anisotropic plasmas: I, Collisionless aspects of axisymmetric velocity space},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/COGY3QEY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08634}
}
read the original abstract

A novel transport theory, based on the finitely distinguishable independent features (FDIF) hypothesis, is presented for scenarios when velocity space exhibits axisymmetry. In this theory, the transport equations are derived from the 1D-2V Vlasov equation, employing the spherical harmonics expansions (SHE) together with the King function expansion (KFE) in velocity space. The characteristic parameter equations (CPEs) are provided based on the general King mixture model (GKMM), serving as the constraint equations of the transport equations. It is a nature process to present the closure relations of transport equations based on SHE and KFE, successfully providing a kinetic moment-closed model (KMCM). This model is typically a nonlinear system, effective for moderately anisotropic non-equilibrium plasmas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08634 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Convergence of SHE for drift-Maxwellian distribution: Truncated order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The first few orders of them represent the components of the traditional velocity moment[3], denoted by the symbol<··· ,𝑓 >=𝑚𝑎 ´ 𝑣(··· )𝑓(𝑟, 𝑣,𝑡 )d𝑣

    Velocity moments KMEE (25) indicates that the kinetic moments of orders (𝑗,𝑙 ) represent the intensive quantities and of orders (𝑗 + 1,𝑙± 1) denote the fluxes in the plasmas system, while those of orders (𝑗− 1,𝑙 ± 1) stand for the quantities associated with the electric field. The first few orders of them represent the components of the traditional veloci...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (33), 𝜕 𝜕𝑡ℳ0,0 (𝑧,𝑡 ) = −1 3 𝜕 𝜕𝑧ℳ1,1, (63) 𝜕 𝜕𝑡ℳ1,1 (𝑧,𝑡 ) = − 𝜕 𝜕𝑧 (︂ ℳ2,0 + 2 5ℳ2,2 )︂ + 3𝑍𝑎 𝑚𝑎 𝐸𝑧ℳ0,0, (64) 𝜕 𝜕𝑡ℳ2,0 (𝑧,𝑡 ) = −1 3 𝜕 𝜕𝑧ℳ3,1 + 2 3 𝑍𝑎 𝑚𝑎 𝐸𝑧ℳ1,1

    Conservation laws When (𝑗,𝑙 ) = (0, 0), (𝑗,𝑙 ) = (1, 1) and (𝑗,𝑙 ) = (2, 0), the KMEE (25) is simplified to the mass, momentum and energy conservation laws when velocity space exhibits axisymmetry, which can be directly derived from Eq. (33), 𝜕 𝜕𝑡ℳ0,0 (𝑧,𝑡 ) = −1 3 𝜕 𝜕𝑧ℳ1,1, (63) 𝜕 𝜕𝑡ℳ1,1 (𝑧,𝑡 ) = − 𝜕 𝜕𝑧 (︂ ℳ2,0 + 2 5ℳ2,2 )︂ + 3𝑍𝑎 𝑚𝑎 𝐸𝑧ℳ0,0, (64) 𝜕 𝜕𝑡ℳ2,0...

    work page

  3. [3]

    (6) will converge rapidly

    Closure in (𝑙) space For moderately anisotropic plasmas[32, 34], the series on the right side of the Eq. (6) will converge rapidly. Similar to Grad’s method[7], the order𝑙 can be truncated at a max- imum value, 𝑙𝑀, where the subscript 𝑀 stands for𝑚𝑎𝑥, satisfying that max| ^𝑓𝑙(𝑟,𝑣,𝑡 )|≤ 𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑓 where ^𝑓𝑙 =𝑣3 𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑛−1 𝑎 𝑓𝑙. Here,𝐴𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑓 is a tolerance with a de...

    work page

  4. [4]

    According to this hypothesis, it is assumed that the𝑙𝑡ℎ-order amplitude distribution has distinguish- able independent features with a number of 𝑁𝑙

    Closure in (𝑗) space For moderately anisotropic plasmas, the FDIF hypothesis[31, 32] is an effective as- sumption to offer closure and capture the nonlinearity of the plasmas system. According to this hypothesis, it is assumed that the𝑙𝑡ℎ-order amplitude distribution has distinguish- able independent features with a number of 𝑁𝑙. Then, if we know the valu...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Similar to solving the Vlasov equation and the traditional moment theory, KMCM can be addressed by constructing specific numerical algorithms of different levels

    Numerical solution Mathematically, KMCM is a system of constrained first-order partial differential equa- tions. Similar to solving the Vlasov equation and the traditional moment theory, KMCM can be addressed by constructing specific numerical algorithms of different levels. The numerical solution of KMCM is divided into two steps: the time integration of...

    work page

  6. [6]

    It can be further extended to the general velocity space case with nonlinear Fokker-Planck collision terms (3D-3V VFP)

    Physical application KMCM can be strictly degenerated from the case with axisymmetric velocity space (1D-2V Vlasov) to the spherical symmetric case (0D-1V Vlasov) and the simplest thermo- dynamic equilibrium state. It can be further extended to the general velocity space case with nonlinear Fokker-Planck collision terms (3D-3V VFP). Physically, the applic...

    work page

  7. [7]

    As a moment approach, KMCM possesses its diverse advantages

    Some advantages and challenges of KMCM SHE together with KFE framework has various advantages and disadvantages, which are outlined in reference[31] and a topic review[16]. As a moment approach, KMCM possesses its diverse advantages. ■ Some advantages of KMCM (i) Convergence: KMCM is derived from the SHE together with KFE framework based on the FDIF hypot...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Kondepudi D and Prigogine I 2014 Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics: The Foundations (Wi- ley) pp 341–356 URL https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118698723.ch15

    work page doi:10.1002/9781118698723.ch15 2014

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    org/10.1070/PU1968v010n06ABEH003709

    Vlasov A A 1968 Soviet Physics Uspekhi 10(6) 721–733 ISSN 0038-5670 URL https://doi. org/10.1070/PU1968v010n06ABEH003709

    1968 doi

  2. [10]

    org/10.1103/PhysRev.120.1103

    Johnston T W 1960 Physical Review 120(4) 1103–1111 ISSN 0031899X URL http://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRev.120.1103

    1960 doi

  3. [11]

    Tzoufras M, Bell A R, Norreys P A and Tsung F S 2011 Journal of Computational Physics 230(17) 6475–6494 ISSN 10902716 URL http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2011.04. 034

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    Thomas A G, Tzoufras M, Robinson A P , Kingham R J, Ridgers C P , Sherlock M and Bell A R 2012 Journal of Computational Physics 231(3) 1051–1079 ISSN 10902716 URL https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2011.09.028

    2012 doi

  5. [13]

    Taitano W T and Chacø sn L 2015 Journal of Computational Physics 284 718–736 ISSN 10902716 URL http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2014.12.038

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    Grad H 1949 Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 2(4) 331–407 ISSN 0010- 3640 URL https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.3160020403

    1949 doi

  7. [15]

    Chapman S and Cowling T G 1953 The Mathematical Theory of Non-Uniform Gases (Cambridge University Press) ISBN 9780521408448 URL https://doi.org/10.1021/ ed018p48.2

    1953

  8. [16]

    Braginskii S I 1958 J. Exptl. Theoret. Phys. (U.S.S.R.) 6(33) 459–472 URL http://jetp.ras. ru/cgi-bin/dn/e_006_02_0358.pdf

    1958

  9. [17]

    Hunana P , Passot T, Khomenko E, MartÃnez-Gø smez D, Collados M, Tenerani A, Zank G P , Maneva Y, Goldstein M L and Webb G M 2022The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 260(2) 26 ISSN 0067-0049 URL https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/ac5044

    doi

  10. [18]

    Cai Z, Fan Y and Li R 2015 SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 75(5) 2001–2023 ISSN 20 0036-1399 URL https://doi.org/10.1137/14100110X

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    Lee W 1987 Journal of Computational Physics 72(1) 243–269 ISSN 00219991 URL https: //doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(87)90080-5

    1987 doi

  12. [20]

    Brizard A J and Hahm T S 2007 Reviews of Modern Physics 79(2) 421–468 ISSN 0034-6861 URL https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.79.421

    2007 doi

  13. [21]

    Zhang Y, Xu A, Zhang G, Chen Z and Wang P 2019 Computer Physics Communications 238 50–65 ISSN 00104655 URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2018.12.018

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Zhu B, Li Y, Ma Z, Yan H, Zhong Y, Wang W, Guo Y, Zheng L and Yuen D A 2023Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Statistics: Theory and Applications (ICSTA’23) URL https://doi.org/10.11159/icsta23.122

    doi

  15. [23]

    Wang Y 2024 ( Preprint 2409.12573) URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409. 12573

    2024 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    Taitano W T, Chacø sn L, Simakov A N and Molvig K 2015Journal of Computational Physics 297 357–380 ISSN 10902716 URL http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2015.05.025

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    org/10.1029/RG015i004p00429

    Schunk R W 1977 Reviews of Geophysics 15(4) 429–445 ISSN 8755-1209 URLhttps://doi. org/10.1029/RG015i004p00429

    1977 doi

  18. [26]

    Cai Z 2021 Journal of Computational Physics 444 110593 ISSN 00219991 URL https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2021.110593

    2021

  19. [27]

    Arfken G and Pan Y K 1971 American Journal of Physics 39(4) 461–461 ISSN 0002-9505 URL https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1986189

    1971 doi

  20. [28]

    Sarna N, Giesselmann J and Torrilhon M 2020 SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis 58(2) 1164–1194 ISSN 0036-1429 URL https://doi.org/10.1137/19M1270884

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Rangan A V , Cai D and Tao L 2007 Journal of Computational Physics 221(2) 781–798 ISSN 00219991 URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2006.06.036

    2007 doi

  22. [30]

    Li R, Ren Y and Wang Y 2021 Journal of Computational Physics 434 ISSN 10902716 URL http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2021.110235

    2021

  23. [31]

    Dimarco G and Pareschi L 2010 SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 32(2) 603–634 ISSN 1064-8275 URL https://doi.org/10.1137/080730585

    2010 doi

  24. [32]

    Cai Z, Fan Y and Li R 2014 Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 67(3) 464–518 ISSN 0010-3640 URL https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.21472

    2014 doi

  25. [33]

    Levermore C D 1996 Journal of Statistical Physics 83(5-6) 1021–1065 ISSN 0022-4715 URL 21 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02179552

    1996 doi

  26. [34]

    Fox R 2009 Journal of Computational Physics 228(20) 7771–7791 ISSN 00219991 URL http: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2009.07.018

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

    BÃ˝ uhmer N and Torrilhon M 2020 Journal of Computational Physics 401 108992 ISSN 00219991

    2020

  28. [36]

    Eu B C 1998 The Chapman-Enskog and Moment Methods (Springer Netherlands) pp 96–122 URL http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2438-8_6

    1998 doi

  29. [37]

    1007/978-3-030-36848-7

    RadoÅijycki T 2020 Solving Problems in Mathematical Analysis, Part II (Springer In- ternational Publishing) ISBN 978-3-030-36847-0 URL http://link.springer.com/10. 1007/978-3-030-36848-7

    2020

  30. [38]

    Wang Y, Xiao J, Rao X, Zhang P , Adil Y and Zhuang G 2025Chinese Physics B 34 015202 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1056/ad9455

    doi

  31. [39]

    2408.01616

    Wang Y, Xiao J, Zheng Y, Zou Z, Zhang P and Zhuang G 2025 Journal of Computational Physics (Under review) (Preprint 2408.01616) URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2408.01616

    2025 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    Wang Y, Wu S and Fan P 2025 Chinese Physics B URL https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1674-1056/adc2de

    2025

  33. [41]

    Bell A R, Robinson A P , Sherlock M, Kingham R J and Rozmus W 2006 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 48(3) ISSN 07413335 URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/ 48/3/R01

    2006 doi

  34. [42]

    Wiener N 1932 The Annals of Mathematics 33(1) 1 ISSN 0003486X URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.2307/1968102

    1932 doi

  35. [43]

    Min K and Liu K 2015 Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 120(4) 2739–2753 ISSN 21699402 URL http://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021041

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    Freidberg J P 2014 Ideal MHD vol 9781107006 (Cambridge University Press) ISBN 9781107006256 URL https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511795046

    2014 doi

  37. [45]

    Rackauckas C and Nie Q 2017 Journal of Open Research Software 5(1) 15 ISSN 2049-9647 URL https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.151 22

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.