Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A statistical mechanics derivation and implementation of non-conservative phase field models for front propagation in elastic media

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives, without phenomenology or fitting, a non-conservative phase field model for front propagation in a one-dimensional elastic medium from the microscopic Langevin dynamics, yielding coupled strain-phase gradient-flow…

desk verdict The derivation is careful and the numerical results are credible, but the singular (μ, Φ) phase field equations—the paper's central deliverable—are never integrated through a transition, leaving the most important claim untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17972 v1 pith:QPB2I572 submitted 2024-12-23 cond-mat.stat-mech

Travis Leadbetter , Prashant K. Purohit , Celia Reina This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords phasefieldmodelsAllen-Cahnstochasticthermodynamicsinternalvariablesgradientflowcoarsegrainingfrontpropagationnon-equilibriumfreeenergy
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

Phase field models are the workhorse of mesoscale simulations of moving interfaces, but their free energies, mobilities, and interface thicknesses are normally chosen by hand and tuned to data. This paper claims the first derivation of a non-conservative phase field model for a one-dimensional elastic medium directly from the microscopic Langevin equations, using the Stochastic Thermodynamics with Internal Variables (STIV) framework with a strictly diagonal multivariate Gaussian approximation to the density of states. The result is a parameter-free gradient-flow model in which mean particle positions and phase fractions evolve through a coupled mobility matrix, driven by a non-equilibrium free energy that is non-local in the phase field yet lacks the usual Landau-Ginzburg $|\nabla\Phi|^2$ term. In the systems tested, the model reproduces Langevin simulations including stress-induced nucleation of fronts, and the paper supplies two numerical implementations that extend the derivation to arbitrary interatomic potentials, including a coiled-coil protein free energy from molecular dynamics. If the derivation is right, it replaces tuned phase field inputs with predictions that follow from statistical mechanics alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the STIV reduction: a variational scheme that projects the Fokker-Planck dynamics of the microscopic Langevin equation onto a parametric family of densities, here a strictly diagonal multivariate Gaussian with means $\mu_i$ and variances $\sigma_i^2$. From this ansatz one obtains the mean interaction force $\hat{f}(\epsilon,\tau) = \langle -u'(z)\rangle_{z\sim\mathcal{N}(\epsilon,\tau^2)}$, which determines both the kinetic equations for $\mu$ and $\sigma$ and the non-equilibrium free energy, with no free parameters left to fit. The promotion of phase fractions to independent variables uses the invertible map $\hat{\Phi}_i = \Phi(\epsilon_i/\tau_i)$, valid away from $\epsilon_i=0$, which replaces the $\sigma$ variables by $\hat{\Phi}$ and transforms the dissipation matrix into a coupled contravariant tensor. All derived thermodynamic rates, including work, heat, and total entropy production, follow by substituting the approximate density into the stochastic thermodynamics definitions.

What would settle it

A direct check is to run Langevin simulations of the quartic double-well mass-spring chain under the same cyclic protocol and measure the off-diagonal entries of the particle-position covariance matrix during coexistence; if those correlations are large enough to shift the mean spring forces $\langle -u'(z)\rangle$ beyond the reported agreement, the strictly diagonal Gaussian ansatz is falsified. A second observable is the total entropy production late in the cyclic protocol, where the paper already reports the approximation beginning to break down.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the center of the paper is the claim that a phase field model need not be postulated but can be projected out of microscopic dynamics. For a one-dimensional chain of masses connected by double-well springs and pulled by an external protocol, the STIV variational principle applied to a diagonal multivariate Gaussian ansatz produces kinetic equations for the mean positions $\mu_i$ and standard deviations $\sigma_i$, and a change of variables promotes the spring phase fractions $\hat{\Phi}_i = \Phi((\mu_i-\mu_{i-1})/\sqrt{\sigma_i^2+\sigma_{i-1}^2})$ to independent fields. In these variables the dynamics is a gradient flow of the non-equilibrium free energy $\hat{A}_{\mathrm{neq}} = \sum_i \hat{U}(\epsilon_i,\tau_i) - (1/2\beta)\sum_i \log \sigma_i^2 + \mathrm{const}$, with a mobility matrix that is not block diagonal, so strain and phase dynamics are coupled. The free energy is non-local in $\hat{\Phi}$ through the entropy term but contains no $|\nabla\Phi|^2$ interfacial term, unlike standard Landau-Ginzburg phase field energies. The paper further states that, in all examples tested, the model captures stress-induced nucleation without additional physics, and that the predictions agree with Langevin simulations for spring lengths, external force, and total entropy production, including for a realistic coiled-coil potential, with Gauss-Hermite and sampling-based numerical implementations for arbitrary potentials.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the true distribution of particle positions during a front transition is well enough approximated by a single Gaussian with independent coordinates; because the paper itself notes the true density is multimodal and the covariance is taken to be strictly diagonal, this ansatz is the step that carries every subsequent formula.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For one-dimensional elastic chains with double-well interactions, phase field simulation inputs such as free energy, mobilities, and interface structure can be computed from the interatomic potential, temperature, and drag coefficient alone.
  • The strain and phase fields must be evolved together, because the mobility matrix is not block diagonal; treating them independently, as traditional Allen-Cahn formulations do, is not the gradient flow this derivation yields.
  • The physical interface width is resolved rather than artificially widened, so numerical costs scale with real interfacial physics and standard diffuse-interface acceleration is not automatically available.
  • Stress-induced nucleation of fronts is an emergent property of the model, so no stochastic noise or artificial nucleation events are needed in the tested one-dimensional systems.
  • Arbitrary double-well potentials, including data-driven ones, can be inserted through either Gauss-Hermite quadrature or sample-based polynomial approximation, with accuracy checked against analytical cases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the diagonal-Gaussian closure remains accurate in higher dimensions, the same construction could yield parameter-free phase field models for multi-dimensional transformations; the paper notes that the change of variables to phase fractions is no longer one-to-one there, so a different set of coarse variables would be needed.
  • The absence of a $|\nabla\Phi|^2$ term suggests that interfacial energy is not an independent input but an emergent consequence of entropy and potential averaging; in regimes where the Gaussian closure is poor, such as strong coexistence with two well-separated peaks, the model's error should show up first in the entropy production rate.
  • A natural testable extension is to replace the diagonal Gaussian with a multimodal or mixture ansatz; the sampling-based implementation already points toward densities that are easy to sample, and such an ansatz might preserve the derivation while capturing coexistence more faithfully.
  • Because the model outputs total entropy production at much lower cost than trajectory-based estimates, it could serve as a cheap consistency check for fluctuation-theorem relations in simulated or experimental single-molecule pulling, although this use is not explored in the paper.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper uses the Stochastic Thermodynamics with Internal Variables (STIV) framework to derive a phase field model for a one-dimensional mass-spring chain with double-well interactions. Starting from Langevin dynamics, the authors posit a strictly diagonal multivariate Gaussian approximation to the density of states, obtain kinetic equations for the mean positions μ and standard deviations σ, and show that these obey a gradient flow with respect to a non-equilibrium free energy. They then introduce a change of variables from (μ, σ) to (μ, Φ), where Φ is the probability that each spring is in the right well, yielding a coupled, non-diagonal gradient flow that resembles an Allen-Cahn-type phase field model. The paper reports closed-form results for piecewise quadratic and quartic potentials, presents two numerical implementations for arbitrary potentials, and validates the approach against Langevin simulations for these potentials and for a coiled-coil protein interaction potential.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a significant methodological contribution: it provides a parameter-free, microscopically grounded alternative to phenomenological Allen-Cahn models for a class of one-dimensional elastic systems, with quantitative predictions for forces, free energies, and entropy production, and it naturally captures stress-driven transitions without added nucleation physics. The derivation is explicit and internally consistent: the gradient flow structure is verified in Appendix B, the change of variables is worked out in detail, and the two numerical implementations agree with the analytical results and with Langevin simulations for three different potentials. The main caveats are that the entire construction rests on the diagonal Gaussian closure, which is acknowledged to be inaccurate during multimodal transition states, and that the phase-field form (μ, Φ) is validated only indirectly: all reported simulations are performed in the (μ, σ) variables, while the (μ, Φ) equations are singular at transition points and are not numerically integrated in the paper.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.1, equation for dΦ_i/dt] The change of variables (μ, σ) → (μ, Φ) is one-to-one only away from Φ_i = 1/2, and the text asserts on page 7 that 'the new equations can be numerically integrated through phase transition points without loss of accuracy' because τ_i = (μ_i − μ_{i−1})/Φ^{−1}(Φ_i) is finite and continuous at the singular set. However, no proof of continuity of the transformed vector field is given, and no numerical experiment in the paper integrates the (μ, Φ) equations across a transition: Figures 2, 3, and 5 all report results from the (μ, σ) form (or its numerical approximations), not from the singularly reparameterized phase-field equations. Since a propagating front is precisely a sequence of crossings of Φ_i = 1/2, this is a load-bearing gap: the central object of the phase-field formulation—the dynamics of the phase variables across the front—remains untested. Please provide either an analytic proof of the removable singularity (including regularity of the transformed vector field in a neighborhood of the singular set) or a numerical demonstration of a full front propagation using the (μ, Φ) equations.
  2. [Section 3, Eqs. (6)–(7) and Section 5] The strictly diagonal multivariate Gaussian ansatz stated in Section 3 ('we take for the approximate density of states ... a strictly diagonal multivariate Gaussian') is the sole closure that produces the free energy (7), the mobilities, and the gradient flow structure. Section 5 acknowledges that 'the true density of states is highly multimodal during transitions,' so the Gaussian closure truncates exactly the physics of coexistence and nucleation that the phase field model is intended to describe. The paper's abstract claims a derivation 'without appeal to phenomenology or fitting to experiments or simulation data,' but the Gaussian ansatz is an undetermined modeling assumption, and its accuracy is demonstrated only for N = 8, a few potentials and protocols, and always in the (μ, σ) variables. No quantitative closure-error analysis is provided (e.g., a comparison with the full-covariance STIV model of [19] or with a multi-modal parametric family). Please either temper the 'without appeal to phenomenology' claim to reflect the role of the Gaussian closure, or add a systematic closure-error study that quantifies the error of the diagonal Gaussian approximation across the protocol and parameter range tested.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, paragraph after Eq. (7)] There is a typo: 'Moerover' should be 'Moreover'.
  2. [Section 6, Data Availability] The data availability statement says source code 'will be made available and linked here prior to final submission,' but no link or repository identifier is present in the manuscript. For reproducibility, please provide a persistent DOI or URL.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (6) and surrounding text] The symbol Φ is used both for the cumulative distribution function of a standard Gaussian and for the phase fraction vector (e.g., Φ(ε/τ) versus RhatΦ_i). This overloading is confusing, especially in the equations for RhatΦ_i. Consider using a distinct notation for the CDF, such as N(·) or G(·).
  4. [Section 3.1, Fig. 1] The claim that the STIV free energy and a traditional phase field free energy 'reveal qualitatively similar transition paths' is supported only by visual inspection of the yellow dashed lines in panels (B) and (C). A quantitative comparison of barrier heights or of the path in (ε, Φ) space would make this statement more rigorous.
  5. [Appendix A and Section 3] The derivation in Appendix A is presented as a specialization of results from [19], but the main text does not always clearly delineate which expressions are new to this paper (e.g., the derivation of the phase-field equations) and which are taken from [19]. A short statement at the start of Section 3 distinguishing the novel contributions would help readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the phase-field model is an explicit change of variables from the authors' STIV framework, whose self-citation is independent and re-validated here.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained after the stated Gaussian closure. The STIV evolution equation (Eq. 4) is cited to the authors' prior work [19], but that framework is an independently published variational method rooted in Eyink's action principle and stochastic thermodynamics, with stated assumptions that do not include the phase-field result. Moreover, the paper re-derives the Gaussian expectation values in Appendices A and B and validates the resulting models against Langevin simulations, so this self-citation is not circular. The new phase-field structure is obtained by the exact algebraic change of variables (µ, σ) to (µ, Φ) described in Section 3.1; the paper explicitly states that the transformed equations are equivalent to the previous µ, σ equations away from transitions, so the phase-field dynamics are a reparameterization rather than a fitted prediction. The non-equilibrium free energy and mobility matrix are computed from Gaussian averages of the given interaction potential, not fitted to the quantities being predicted. The identified weaknesses, such as the diagonal-Gaussian closure and the singular behavior of the (µ, Φ) equations at Φ = 1/2, are approximation and numerical-integration concerns rather than instances of circular reasoning.

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

The model introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The phase fraction is a coordinate transformation of the Gaussian internal variables, and the non-equilibrium free energy is an exact algebraic re-expression of the STIV free energy. The only free inputs are physical parameters such as β, η, l1, l2, and the interaction potential, which are taken from the microscopic model, not fitted to the predictions.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The true density of states is well approximated by a strictly diagonal multivariate Gaussian distribution with mean μ and variances σ^2.
    Section 3 states 'we take for the approximate density of states, p̂(x, α) a strictly diagonal multivariate Gaussian'. This closure is posited, not derived, and the diagonal restriction is what makes the later change of variables to phase fractions invertible.
  • domain assumption The microscopic dynamics are overdamped Langevin equations at constant temperature with drag η and diffusion d = 1/(ηβ).
    Eq. (5) and Section 2 assume this dynamics; both the STIV derivation and the Langevin validation depend on it.
  • domain assumption The total energy is a sum of nearest-neighbor pair interactions u(x_i - x_{i-1}) plus a boundary spring to the external control.
    Section 3 defines e(x, λ) this way; all analytical and numerical results are restricted to this one-dimensional chain geometry.
  • domain assumption The Eyink variational principle and the stochastic thermodynamics definitions for work, heat, and entropy production are accepted as the basis for STIV.
    Section 2 invokes [19, 22, 23]; the derived evolution equations and thermodynamic quantities inherit these definitions without re-deriving them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A statistical mechanics derivation and implementation of non-conservative phase field models for front propagation in elastic media." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QPB2I572

@misc{pith2026241217972,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A statistical mechanics derivation and implementation of non-conservative phase field models for front propagation in elastic media},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QPB2I572}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17972}
}
read the original abstract

Over the past several decades, phase field modeling has been established as a standard simulation technique for mesoscopic science, allowing for seamless boundary tracking of moving interfaces and relatively easy coupling to other physical phenomena. However, despite its widespread success, phase field modeling remains largely driven by phenomenological justifications except in a handful of instances. In this work, we leverage a recently developed statistical mechanics framework for non-equilibrium phenomena, called Stochastic Thermodynamics with Internal Variables (STIV), to provide the first derivation of a phase field model for front propagation in a one dimensional elastic medium without appeal to phenomenology or fitting to experiments or simulation data. In the resulting model, the variables obey a gradient flow with respect to a non-equilibrium free energy, although notably, the dynamics of the strain and phase variables are coupled, and while the free energy functional is non-local in the phase field variable, it deviates from the traditional Landau-Ginzburg form. Moreover, in the systems analyzed here, the model accurately captures stress induced nucleation of transition fronts without the need to incorporate additional physics. We find that the STIV phase field model compares favorably to Langevin simulations of the microscopic system and we provide two numerical implementations enabling one to simulate arbitrary interatomic potentials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17972 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A comparison of the STIV non-equilibrium free energy for a single particle in a quartic potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A comparison of the average spring length (A), average external force (B), and total entropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A comparison of the average spring length (A), average external force (B), and total entropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Coiled-coil interaction free energy (black solid line) and interaction force (blue dashed line). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A comparison of the average spring length (A), average external force (B), and total entropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. On a structure preserving closure of Langevin dynamics

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A closure method that turns overdamped Langevin dynamics into gradient-flow macroscopic models for arbitrary approximate densities, automatically satisfying the second law.

  2. Bridging statistical mechanics and thermodynamics away from equilibrium: a data-driven approach for learning internal variables and their dynamics

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A machine learning framework learns thermodynamically consistent internal variables and Markovian evolution equations directly from stochastic particle trajectories, validated on an analytically solvable trap model an...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [19]

    A statistical mechanics framework for con- structing nonequilibrium thermodynamic models

    Travis Leadbetter, Prashant K Purohit, and Celia Reina. A statistical mechanics framework for con- structing nonequilibrium thermodynamic models. PNAS Nexus , 2(12):pgad417, 2023. 17

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Phase-field models for microstructure evolution

    Long-Qing Chen. Phase-field models for microstructure evolution. Annual Review of Materials Research, 32(1):113–140, 2002

    work page 2002

  3. [2]

    Phase-field models in materials science

    Ingo Steinbach. Phase-field models in materials science. Modelling and simulation in materials science and engineering, 17(7):073001, 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [3]

    An introduction to phase-field modeling of mi- crostructure evolution

    Nele Moelans, Bart Blanpain, and Patrick Wollants. An introduction to phase-field modeling of mi- crostructure evolution. Calphad, 32(2):268–294, 2008

    work page 2008

  5. [4]

    The diffuse interface approach in materials science: thermodynamic concepts and applications of phase-field models , volume 73

    Heike Emmerich. The diffuse interface approach in materials science: thermodynamic concepts and applications of phase-field models , volume 73. Springer Science & Business Media, 2003

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Phase-field simula- tion of solidification

    William J Boettinger, James A Warren, Christoph Beckermann, and Alain Karma. Phase-field simula- tion of solidification. Annual review of materials research , 32(1):163–194, 2002

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    Quantitative phase-field model of alloy solidification

    Blas Echebarria, Roger Folch, Alain Karma, and Mathis Plapp. Quantitative phase-field model of alloy solidification. Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics , 70(6):061604, 2004

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    A phase field model for rate-independent crack propagation: Robust algorithmic implementation based on operator splits

    Christian Miehe, Martina Hofacker, and Fabian Welschinger. A phase field model for rate-independent crack propagation: Robust algorithmic implementation based on operator splits. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 199(45-48):2765–2778, 2010

    work page 2010

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Phase field modeling of crack propagation

    Robert Spatschek, Efim Brener, and Alain Karma. Phase field modeling of crack propagation. Philo- sophical Magazine, 91(1):75–95, 2011

    2011

  2. [10]

    Morphogenesis and propagation of complex cracks induced by thermal shocks

    Blaise Bourdin, Jean-Jacques Marigo, Corrado Maurini, and Paul Sicsic. Morphogenesis and propagation of complex cracks induced by thermal shocks. Physical review letters , 112(1):014301, 2014

    2014

  3. [11]

    Modeling and numerical simulations of dendritic crystal growth

    Ryo Kobayashi. Modeling and numerical simulations of dendritic crystal growth. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 63(3-4):410–423, 1993

    1993

  4. [12]

    Phase-field modeling of two-dimensional crystal growth with anisotropic diffusion

    Esteban Meca, Vivek B Shenoy, and John Lowengrub. Phase-field modeling of two-dimensional crystal growth with anisotropic diffusion. Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics , 88(5):052409, 2013

    2013

  5. [13]

    A phase-field theory of dislocation dynamics, strain hardening and hysteresis in ductile single crystals.Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , 50(12):2597–2635, 2002

    Marisol Koslowski, Alberto M Cuitino, and Michael Ortiz. A phase-field theory of dislocation dynamics, strain hardening and hysteresis in ductile single crystals.Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , 50(12):2597–2635, 2002

    2002

  6. [14]

    Phase-field modeling of microstructure evolution: Recent applications, perspectives and challenges

    Damien Tourret, Hong Liu, and Javier LLorca. Phase-field modeling of microstructure evolution: Recent applications, perspectives and challenges. Progress in Materials Science , 123:100810, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Free energy of a nonuniform system

    John W Cahn and John E Hilliard. Free energy of a nonuniform system. I. Interfacial free energy. The Journal of Chemical Physics , 28(2):258–267, 1958

    1958

  8. [16]

    A microscopic theory for antiphase boundary motion and its application to antiphase domain coarsening

    Samuel M Allen and John W Cahn. A microscopic theory for antiphase boundary motion and its application to antiphase domain coarsening. Acta Metallurgica, 27(6):1085–1095, 1979

    1979

  9. [17]

    Entropy production and the geometry of dissipative evolution equations

    Celia Reina and Johannes Zimmer. Entropy production and the geometry of dissipative evolution equations. Physical Review E , 92(5):052117, 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

    New coarse-grained derivation of a phase field model for precipitation

    Q Bronchart, Y Le Bouar, and A Finel. New coarse-grained derivation of a phase field model for precipitation. Physical Review Letters, 100(1):015702, 2008

    2008

  11. [20]

    Thermodynamics with internal variables

    Gerard A Maugin and Wolfgang Muschik. Thermodynamics with internal variables. Part I. General concepts. Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics , 1994

    1994

  12. [21]

    Dynamics and thermodynamics of complex fluids

    Miroslav Grmela and Hans Christian ¨Ottinger. Dynamics and thermodynamics of complex fluids. I. Development of a general formalism. Physical Review E , 56(6):6620, 1997

    1997

  13. [22]

    Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation theorems and molecular machines

    Udo Seifert. Stochastic thermodynamics, fluctuation theorems and molecular machines. Reports on Progress in Physics, 75(12):126001, 2012

    2012

  14. [23]

    Action principle in nonequilibrium statistical dynamics

    Gregory L Eyink. Action principle in nonequilibrium statistical dynamics. Physical Review E , 54(4):3419, 1996

    1996

  15. [24]

    The fokker-planck equation

    H Risken. The fokker-planck equation. methods of solution and applications., 1989

    1989

  16. [25]

    Multi phase field model for solid state transformation with elastic strain

    Ingo Steinbach and Markus Apel. Multi phase field model for solid state transformation with elastic strain. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena , 217(2):153–160, 2006

    2006

  17. [26]

    Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables , volume 55

    Milton Abramowitz and Irene A Stegun. Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables , volume 55. US Government printing office, 1948

    1948

  18. [27]

    Phase field modeling of simultaneous nucleation and growth by explicitly incorporating nucleation events

    JP Simmons, C Shen, and Y Wang. Phase field modeling of simultaneous nucleation and growth by explicitly incorporating nucleation events. Scripta materialia , 43(10):935–942, 2000

    2000

  19. [28]

    Remarks on some open problems in phase-field modelling of solidification

    Mathis Plapp. Remarks on some open problems in phase-field modelling of solidification. Philosophical Magazine, 91(1):25–44, 2011

    2011

  20. [29]

    ASM Handbook, volume 22A Fundamentals of Modeling for Metals Processing , chapter Modeling of nucleation processes, pages 203–219

    Emmanuel Clouet. ASM Handbook, volume 22A Fundamentals of Modeling for Metals Processing , chapter Modeling of nucleation processes, pages 203–219. ASM International, 2009

    2009

  21. [30]

    Combined molec- ular/continuum modeling reveals the role of friction during fast unfolding of coiled-coil proteins

    Alejandro Torres-S´ anchez, Juan M Vanegas, Prashant K Purohit, and Marino Arroyo. Combined molec- ular/continuum modeling reveals the role of friction during fast unfolding of coiled-coil proteins. Soft Matter, 15(24):4961–4975, 2019

    2019

  22. [31]

    Robust kernel density estimation

    JooSeuk Kim and Clayton D Scott. Robust kernel density estimation. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13(1):2529–2565, 2012. 18

    2012

Pith tools

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