Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Racetrack computing with a topological boundary ratchet

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A beam-chain racetrack stores bits as buckling domains and moves them one unit cell per cycle via a boundary-mode instability caused by inter-domain pressure.

desk verdict Genuinely nice experimental demonstration of a mechanical racetrack memory, but the 'topological origin' claim rests on an unvalidated approximation and single-cycle data. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01706 v1 pith:K2FQFJLZ submitted 2025-09-01 cond-mat.mes-hall cs.ET

Parisa Omidvar , Markus Bestler , Sima Zahedi Fard , Oded Zilberberg , Marc Serra-Garcia This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcs.ET
keywords topologicalboundaryratchetelasticmetamaterialbucklingdomainsracetrackmemoryquantizedsolitontransportBogoliubovmodesmechanicallogicgatestight-bindingmodel
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 aims to show that information stored as stable buckling domains in a mechanical chain can be transported in a controlled, quantized way by an external cyclic load—something previously available only in magnetic or other field-coupled systems. The authors built a polymer beam chain in which alternating beams are bistable, so each stores a 0 or a 1, and weaker coupling beams connect them. When the chain is cyclically compressed with a four-site pattern, a soliton (a 1-domain between two 0-domains) advances by exactly one unit cell per cycle, and swapping the static compression levels reverses the direction. They argue the motion is a topological boundary ratchet: the domain wall hosts a localized fluctuation mode that the neighboring domain's pressure softens until it goes unstable, shifting the wall by two sites. The paper closes by showing numerically that the same mechanism can be wired into NAND, NOT, buffer/amplifier, and half-adder circuits, which would remove the reset-after-every-step limitation of earlier buckling-based mechanical computers.

What carries the argument

The central object is the topological boundary ratchet: a domain wall between two buckling domains whose localized boundary mode is destabilized by pressure from the opposite domain. The load-bearing formula is the renormalized boundary-mode frequency, Eq. (E13), ω̃_b = sqrt(ω_b² + 6λ q_1^(0) W_b / A_ñ + 3λ W_b² / A_ñ²), derived in Appendix E from a single-mode approximation of the fluctuation dynamics; when the argument of the square root turns negative, the mode is unstable and the wall advances. The underlying model is the four-site tight-binding potential V = Σ_{n,j}[λ/4 q⁴ + ½(ω₀² + a₀ⱼ + a₁ⱼ(θ))q²] + Σ_l c/2(q_l − q_{l+1})², where alternating signs of the quadratic term make main beams

What would settle it

Sweep the stiffness of the coupling beam between domains at fixed pump phase and measure the boundary-mode frequency: the renormalized formula Eq. (E13) predicts a softening to zero exactly at the moment the wall jumps two sites. If the wall advances while the mode frequency stays positive, or if the mode softens without any wall jump, the pressure-instability ratchet is not the operative mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a topological boundary ratchet can carry information-bearing domain walls through a multistable elastic material. The device is a chain of alternating bistable main beams and monostable coupling beams with a four-site sublattice potential set by static compressions β1 and β2; stable buckling shapes encode 0 and 1. Applying a cyclic AC compression pattern makes a soliton advance by one unit cell (two lattice sites) per cycle, and exchanging β1 and β2 reverses the direction. The transport is not a conventional adiabatic Thouless pump: along the experimental trajectory the bulk bands close and the Chern number is ill-defined. Instead, the

Load-bearing premise

The explanation assumes the two domains interact only through a pressure term and that the boundary mode behaves as a single-site oscillation, ignoring mode-mixing; if that single-mode picture fails, the predicted softening and the wall advance it drives would not occur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A multistable elastic chain can act as a race-track memory: bits written as buckling domains can be shuttled by one unit cell per cycle and read out at the end of the chain.
  • Transport direction is a boundary-condition switch: exchanging the static compressions β1 and β2 sends the same soliton the opposite way.
  • The same mechanism generalizes to any platform described by a tight-binding model with quartic nonlinearity and a four-site drive, so it is not restricted to buckled beams.
  • The domain-wall ratchet can be assembled into logic: simulations show universal NAND gates, NOT gates, buffering/amplifying tapered racetracks, and a two-bit half adder in a planar honeycomb layout.
  • Because the device is planar and its operation energy can approach the thermal scale at small sizes, it is compatible with standard microfabrication routes for mechanical computers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I would expect the same pressure-induced boundary-mode instability to produce quantized wall motion in other two-domain systems, such as ferroelectric or superconducting-qubit arrays, whose interfaces carry localized linear modes, since the derivation only uses a generic tight-binding structure.
  • The single-site approximation in Appendix E suggests a testable scaling: the wall should jump by exactly two sites (one unit cell) per instability; observing a one-site or variable-size jump in a different parameter regime would indicate where the approximation breaks.
  • The β1/β2 swap that reverses transport could be treated as a real-time control input, turning the device into a reconfigurable router or a directionally programmable shift register rather than a fixed-direction conveyor.
  • The logic simulations use an output racetrack softer than the inputs; this implies a concrete fan-out and cascading constraint that could be measured experimentally by chaining gates and monitoring how the softer output back-perturbs the input racetracks.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports an elastic metamaterial racetrack memory in which information is encoded in bistable buckling domains and transported by cyclic compression. The proposed mechanism is a 'topological boundary ratchet': neighboring domains act as different topological pumps for their Bogoliubov excitations, so their interface hosts localized boundary modes; cyclic loading destabilizes these modes through inter-domain pressure, advancing the domain wall by two sites per instability and thereby shifting a soliton by one unit cell per cycle. The authors present a tight-binding model, numerical simulations (including FEM), and experiments using DIC and laser vibrometry. They also numerically demonstrate logic gates (NAND, NOT, buffer) and a half adder built from racetrack elements. The central experimental observation is a single soliton shift by one cell in one pump cycle, with direction reversal when β1 and β2 are exchanged, and a separate measurement showing mode softening and localization at a transitioning beam.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this would be a valuable step toward non-magnetic, neutral-platform racetrack memory and mechanical logic, addressing the reset problem of prior buckling-based computers. The paper is commendable for combining an experimentally realized physical system, detailed setup and image-processing methods, FEM validation, and a tight-binding analysis with a Chern-number calculation. The experimental observation of direction-controlled soliton transport and the frequency-softening signature are suggestive and potentially important. However, the 'quantized' and 'topological in origin' claims require stronger quantitative support than the current manuscript provides.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1 and main text (Observation of quantized information transport)] The claim of 'quantized' transport is supported only by a single measured trajectory per β configuration, with no repeated cycles, no multiple samples, and no error bars or statistical analysis of the soliton position. The plotted normalized displacements show one cell shift, but the text does not define how the soliton coordinate is extracted or its uncertainty. A single event could be a generic buckling transition rather than a robust quantized ratchet. Please provide repeated cycles, multiple samples, and a statistical summary (mean shift, variance, success probability) to substantiate the quantized nature.
  2. [Appendix E, Eqs. (E9)-(E10)] The theoretical basis for the pressure-induced boundary-mode softening, used to compute the unstable regions in Fig. 2c, rests on two uncontrolled approximations: (i) T^{-1}e_{M~} ≈ A_{M~}e_b, which assumes the boundary mode is essentially a single-site mode, and (ii) δq_{M~}^n ≈ (w_b/A_{M~})^n, which discards all mode mixing. However, Fig. 2d shows the localized mode spread over several sites, so the dominance condition |A_{M~}| >> |A_r| is not clearly satisfied. No comparison is made with an exact diagonalization of the full linearized dynamics about the two-domain static solution. Please provide such a comparison and quantify the error of Eq. (E13) over the relevant parameter range; otherwise the predicted pressure-induced softening is not quantitatively established.
  3. [Fig. 3 and Appendix C] The experimental evidence for boundary-mode softening is a single event at beam 10. The frequency spectrum has one motor step omitted and replaced with the preceding data point, and the mode-shape PCA is performed on 11 sites using a manually selected frequency window. No repeated trials or uncertainty estimates are given. Moreover, Appendix C introduces an empirical bias force ε in Eq. (C1) that is 'manually adjusted to achieve qualitative agreement' with the observed softening. This raises the possibility that the measured softening is dominated by local bias/asymmetry rather than inter-domain pressure. Please report repeated softening events, quantify PCA uncertainties, and compare the measured softening trajectory with the full two-domain model including the bias term.
  4. [Main text, Fig. 2c and Abstract] The abstract states that the transport is 'topological in origin,' but along the experimental trajectory the bulk Chern number is ill-defined because the bands close (Fig. 2c). The topological origin is therefore inferred from localized boundary modes and the instability mechanism of Ref. [27], which is co-authored by two of the present authors. This is not circular by itself, but the claim needs to be framed more carefully and supported by a concrete quantitative test. For example, compare the observed softening frequency and mode shape with exact diagonalization predictions that include the two-domain pressure term, and show that a generic buckling instability without boundary-mode structure fails to reproduce the data.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix A] Typo: 'Runge-Kuta' should be 'Runge-Kutta'.
  2. [Appendix B] The disclosure that one motor step in Fig. 3b was omitted and replaced with data from the preceding step is buried in the appendix. This should be stated in the figure caption, and the sensitivity of the displayed spectrum to this replacement should be discussed.
  3. [Fig. 1c,d] The axes label 'Pump phase' but the normalized displacement axis is not explicitly defined. Clarify the normalization used for q and whether the plotted quantity is the raw DIC displacement or a normalized coordinate.
  4. [Appendix C] The bias term ε is 'manually adjusted' to fit the experimental softening. Please report the fitted values, their uncertainties, and a brief identifiability analysis showing which parameters are constrained by the data.
  5. [Fig. 3c,d] The PCA mode shape and FEM mode shape are compared only qualitatively. A quantitative overlap measure (e.g., normalized inner product or participation ratio) would strengthen the claim that the observed localized mode is the same boundary mode as in the simulation.
  6. [Reference [27]] Ref. [27] is an arXiv preprint and is load-bearing for the mechanism. Consider updating the reference if a published version exists, or at least note in the text that the detailed derivation is provided there.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central 'topological boundary ratchet' mechanism is imported from a co-authored preprint, but experimental observations provide independent support.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 'Theory of Soliton Movement' (text around Fig. 2e) and Appendix E]
    "Unlike a vacuum edge, the opposing domain exerts an additional 'pressure' [28], which can destabilize the boundary mode (see Appendix and Ref. [27]). ... In this Appendix, we show how to calculate the corresponding renormalization of such an eigenmode by applying the procedure of Ref. [27] to our classical system."

    The load-bearing explanation for the observed quantized soliton transport — that inter-domain pressure destabilizes a topological boundary mode, causing the domain wall to advance by two sites and the phase to jump by π — is not derived in this paper. It is explicitly attributed to Ref. [27], an arXiv preprint by two of the present authors (Bestler and Zilberberg). Appendix E applies 'the procedure of Ref. [27]' to the elastic system, so the theoretical mechanism that underlies the claim 'transport is topological in origin' reduces to a self-citation rather than to an independent derivation or external benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's central theoretical mechanism is load-bearing self-citation: the pressure-induced boundary-mode destabilization and the resulting wall displacement are taken from Ref. [27], a co-authored preprint, and Appendix E explicitly applies that procedure. However, the paper is not purely circular. It provides independent experimental evidence for the mechanism: the measured fluctuation spectrum shows the boundary-mode frequency dropping toward zero at the wall advance (Fig. 3b), PCA mode-shape imaging shows the mode localized at the domain wall (Fig. 3c), FEM reproduces the localization (Fig. 3d), and full numerical simulations of the tight-binding model reproduce the phase diagram and direction reversal (Fig. 2e, Figs. 1c-d). These observations are not forced by the cited theory; they test it. The tight-binding parameters are chosen through an explicit design loop (Appendix A) to exhibit soliton propagation, so the experiment is a designed realization rather than a parameter-free prediction, but that is a normal engineering procedure and not itself a circular prediction. On balance, the central claim has independent content, but its 'topological in origin' explanation leans on a self-citation chain. Score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The main load-bearing assumptions are the validity of the tight-binding model, the small-fluctuation linearization, and the specific approximations in Appendix E that allow the boundary mode instability calculation. The tight-binding parameters are design choices rather than fitted constants, but they are tuned to make the demonstrated behavior occur.

free parameters (2)
  • Tight-binding model parameters = lambda=1, omega0^2=0.49, a0,1=a0,3=-2.3, a0,2=a0,4=-1.0, a1,1=a1,2=sin(theta), c=0.47 (Appendix A); for logic circuits l
    These parameters were chosen through an exploration design loop to make the soliton propagation work in the experiment and simulations. They are not derived from first principles, so the experimental demonstration is a designed example, not a parameter-free prediction.
  • Bias force epsilon = negative for neutral support, positive for angled support (Appendix C)
    The bias force in Eq. (C1) is manually adjusted to fit the measured frequency softening in the control experiment. This is a fit to auxiliary data, not the central transport claim.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The elastic metamaterial is accurately described by the tight-binding potential in Eq. (1) with a quartic nonlinearity and nearest-neighbor coupling.
    The entire theory and the logic circuit simulations rely on this model. It is motivated by prior work [22,23] and validated by FEM for some configurations, but is assumed to hold over the full pump cycle.
  • standard math Linearization of the equations of motion around a steady state is valid for computing Bogoliubov excitations (Appendix D).
    This is the standard small-fluctuation approximation, widely used for phonons and Bogoliubov modes. It is appropriate for the linear-response measurements.
  • ad hoc to paper The two domains are decoupled except for a pressure term, and the boundary mode can be represented by the displacement of a single site (Appendix E, Eqs. E9-E10).
    These approximations are introduced to compute the renormalized boundary mode frequency. They are not rigorously justified and are critical for the instability prediction.
  • domain assumption The procedure of Ref. [27] for quantized nonlinear kink movement through boundary state instabilities applies to this classical system.
    The paper adopts this procedure without re-deriving it from first principles. Ref. [27] is co-authored by two of the present authors, so this is a self-referential theoretical basis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Racetrack computing with a topological boundary ratchet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K2FQFJLZ

@misc{pith2026250901706,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Racetrack computing with a topological boundary ratchet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K2FQFJLZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01706}
}
read the original abstract

Multistable order parameters provide a natural means of encoding non-volatile information in spatial domains, a concept that forms the foundation of magnetic memory devices. However, this stability inherently conflicts with the need to move information around the device for processing and readout. While in magnetic systems, domains can be transported using currents or external fields, mechanisms to robustly shuttle information-bearing domains across neutral systems are scarce. Here, we experimentally realize a topological boundary ratchet in an elastic metamaterial, where digital information is encoded in buckling domains and transported in a quantized manner via cyclic loading. The transport is topological in origin: neighboring domains act as different topological pumps for their Bogoliubov excitations, so their interface hosts topological boundary modes. Cyclic loading renders these modes unstable through inter-domain pressure, which in turn drives the motion of the domain wall. We demonstrate that the direction of information propagation can be controlled through adjustable mechanical constraints on the buckling beams, and numerically investigate buckling-based domain-wall logic circuits in an elastic metamaterial network. The underlying tight-binding structure with low-order nonlinearities makes this approach a general pathway toward racetrack memories in neutral systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01706 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. b shows the resulting modulation of the local potential as θ is varied. Nearest neighbors are attrac￾tively coupled with constant c > 0. For compact no￾tation, we let l index all pairs of i and j, with l + 1 corresponding to the next site in the racetrack. The static compressive displacements are chosen such that a0,1 = a0,3 and a0,2 = a0,4 . The quadratic term of each FIG. 2. Theory of Soliton Movement. a Sketch of… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    Quantized nonlinear kink movement through topological boundary state instabilities

    M. Bestler and O. Zilberberg, “Quantized nonlinear kink movement through topological boundary state instabili- ties,” (2025), arXiv:2508.12101 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Backus, Communications of the ACM21, 613 (1978)

    J. Backus, Communications of the ACM21, 613 (1978)

    work page 1978

  3. [2]

    Bourzac, Nature (2024), 10.1038/d41586-024-03408- z

    K. Bourzac, Nature (2024), 10.1038/d41586-024-03408- z

    work page doi:10.1038/d41586-024-03408- 2024

  4. [3]

    Hayashi, L

    M. Hayashi, L. Thomas, R. Moriya, C. Rettner, and S. S. Parkin, Science320, 209 (2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [4]

    S. S. Parkin, M. Hayashi, and L. Thomas, Science320, 190 (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [5]

    Z. Luo, A. Hrabec, T. P. Dao, G. Sala, S. Finizio, J. Feng, S. Mayr, J. Raabe, P. Gambardella, and L. J. Heyder- man, Nature579, 214 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    V. T. Pham, N. Sisodia, I. Di Manici, J. Urrestarazu- Larrañaga, K. Bairagi, J. Pelloux-Prayer, R. Guedas, L. D. Buda-Prejbeanu, S. Auffret, A. Locatelli, et al. , Science 384, 307 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    K. Gu, Y. Guan, B. K. Hazra, H. Deniz, A. Migliorini, W. Zhang, and S. S. Parkin, Nature nanotechnology17, 1065 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    Szameit and M

    A. Szameit and M. C. Rechtsman, Nature Physics20, 905 (2024)

    2024

  2. [9]

    Rice and E

    M. Rice and E. Mele, Physical Review Letters49, 1455 (1982)

    1982

  3. [10]

    Thouless, Physical Review B27, 6083 (1983)

    D. Thouless, Physical Review B27, 6083 (1983)

    1983

  4. [11]

    Y. E. Kraus, Y. Lahini, Z. Ringel, M. Verbin, and O. Zil- berberg, Physical review letters109, 106402 (2012)

    2012

  5. [12]

    Lohse, C

    M. Lohse, C. Schweizer, O. Zilberberg, M. Aidelsburger, and I. Bloch, Nature Physics12, 350 (2016)

    2016

  6. [13]

    Citro and M

    R. Citro and M. Aidelsburger, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 87 (2023)

    2023

  7. [14]

    Y. Xia, E. Riva, M. I. Rosa, G. Cazzulani, A. Erturk, F. Braghin, and M. Ruzzene, Physical Review Letters 126, 095501 (2021)

    2021

  8. [15]

    Jürgensen, S

    M. Jürgensen, S. Mukherjee, and M. C. Rechtsman, Na- ture 596, 63 (2021)

    2021

  9. [16]

    Jürgensen, S

    M. Jürgensen, S. Mukherjee, C. Jörg, and M. C. Rechts- man, Nature Physics19, 420 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

    L. J. Kwakernaak and M. van Hecke, Physical Review Letters 130, 268204 (2023)

    2023

  11. [18]

    X. Fang, D. Yu, J. Wen, Y. Dai, M. R. Begley, H. Gao, 6 and P. Gumbsch, Nature639, 639 (2025)

    2025

  12. [19]

    Bordiga, E

    G. Bordiga, E. Medina, S. Jafarzadeh, C. Bösch, R. P. Adams, V. Tournat, and K. Bertoldi, Nature Materials 23, 1486 (2024)

    2024

  13. [20]

    Ducarme, B

    P. Ducarme, B. Weber, M. van Hecke, and J. T. Overvelde, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences 122, e2423301122 (2025)

    2025

  14. [21]

    B.Florijn, C.Coulais, andM.vanHecke,Physicalreview letters 113, 175503 (2014)

    2014

  15. [22]

    K. H. Matlack, M. Serra-Garcia, A. Palermo, S. D. Hu- ber, and C. Daraio, Nature materials17, 323 (2018)

    2018

  16. [23]

    Zahedi Fard, P

    S. Zahedi Fard, P. Tiso, P. Omidvar, and M. Serra- Garcia, (2025)

    2025

  17. [24]

    Serra-Garcia, A

    M. Serra-Garcia, A. Foehr, M. Molerón, J. Lydon, C. Chong, and C. Daraio, Physical review letters117, 010602 (2016)

    2016

  18. [25]

    Jürgensen and M

    M. Jürgensen and M. C. Rechtsman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 113901 (2022)

    2022

  19. [26]

    Mostaan, F

    N. Mostaan, F. Grusdt, and N. Goldman, Nature Com- munications 13, 5997 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Kellendonk, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 37, L161 (2004)

    J. Kellendonk, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 37, L161 (2004)

    2004

  21. [29]

    Han and B

    S. Han and B. Feeny, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 17, 989 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    Kerschen, J.-c

    G. Kerschen, J.-c. Golinval, A. F. Vakakis, and L. A. Bergman, Nonlinear dynamics41, 147 (2005)

    2005

  23. [31]

    A. A. Cantu, A. Luchsinger, R. Schweller, and T. Wylie, Algorithmica 83, 531 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Jaeger, B

    H. Jaeger, B. Noheda, and W. G. Van Der Wiel, Nature communications 14, 4911 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Aifer, Z

    M. Aifer, Z. Belateche, S. Bramhavar, K. Y. Cam- sari, P. J. Coles, G. Crooks, D. J. Durian, A. J. Liu, A. Marchenkova, A. J. Martinez,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.10463 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Yasuda, P

    H. Yasuda, P. R. Buskohl, A. Gillman, T. D. Murphey, S. Stepney, R. A. Vaia, and J. R. Raney, Nature598, 39 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    A. Alù, A. F. Arrieta, E. Del Dottore, M. Dickey, S. Fer- racin, R. Harne, H. Hauser, Q. He, J. B. Hopkins, L. P. Hyatt, et al., Smart Materials and Structures34, 063501 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Mei and C

    T. Mei and C. Q. Chen, Nature Communications 14, 5204 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    T. Mei, Z. Meng, K. Zhao, and C. Q. Chen, Nature communications 12, 7234 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Stuij, J

    S. Stuij, J. M. van Doorn, T. Kodger, J. Sprakel, C. Coulais, and P. Schall, Physical Review Research1, 023033 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    M. W. Scroggs, I. A. Baratta, C. N. Richardson, and G. N. Wells, Journal of Open Source Software7, 3982 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    M. S. Alnæs, A. Logg, K. B. Ølgaard, M. E. Rognes, and G. N. Wells, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS)40, 1 (2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    I. A. Baratta, J. P. Dean, J. S. Dokken, M. Habera, J. HALE, C. N. Richardson, M. E. Rognes, M. W. Scroggs, N. Sime, and G. N. Wells, (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    M. W. Scroggs, J. S. Dokken, C. N. Richardson, and G. N. Wells, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Soft- ware (TOMS)48, 1 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    A. N. Gent, Rubber Chemistry and Technology31, 896 (1958)

    1958

  36. [44]

    Hatsugai and T

    Y. Hatsugai and T. Fukui, Phys. Rev. B 94, 041102 (2016). 7 0 5 10 15 Site (i) -1 1 1 2 3 1 2 30 4 Site (i) 0 5 10 15 Pump phase (/2) Pump phase (/2) a b q FIG. 5.Soliton propagation in the Finite Element sim- ulation. a Normalized deformation fields from FEM sim- ulation ...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.