Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Continuous Approximation of the Ising Hamiltonian: Exact Ground States and Applications to Fidelity Assessment in Ising Machines

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A deterministic family of fully connected Ising models has exact two-cluster ground states, found in polynomial time.

desk verdict A useful benchmark class of Ising instances with a likely-correct closed-form ground state, but the paper's proof of the two-cluster pattern has a real gap and the d<=-1 extension is asserted rather than derived. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19604 v3 pith:RAWT3Z2E submitted 2024-11-29 physics.comp-ph quant-ph

Amirhossein Rezaei , Mahmood Hasani , Alireza Rezaei , S.M. Hassan Halataei This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-phquant-ph MSC 82B2082B80 PACS 05.50.+q75.10.Hk
keywords Isingmodelgroundstatecontinuousapproximationtwo-clusteransatzfullyconnectedcouplingsmachinefidelityenergylandscapequantumannealerbenchmark
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 introduces a deterministic family of fully connected Ising couplings $J^{(N,d)}_{ij}=(i^d+j^d)(1-\delta_{ij})/N^d$ and claims that for every $d>-1$ the ground state is always two adjacent clusters, one of up spins and one of down spins. This reduces the search over $2^N$ spin configurations to a one-variable minimization over the cluster size $M$, taking $O(N)$ time. The authors derive a closed-form equation for the large-$N$ cluster ratio $q=M/N$, and they report that the prediction matches brute-force enumeration and a simulated coherent Ising machine, while a physical quantum annealer deviates for larger problem sizes. The practical point is that this class is an exact, polynomial-time-verifiable benchmark for testing how faithfully Ising hardware encodes a problem.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the continuous spin function $S(x,\mathbf q)=(-1)^\Lambda \prod_{\alpha=1}^\Lambda \mathrm{sgn}(x-q_\alpha)$, which encodes all domain-wall positions as discontinuities and turns the discrete Hamiltonian into a Riemann-sum integral. The factorization $H_\Lambda=\frac{N^2}{1+d}QP$ is what makes the argument work: it separates the geometry of the boundaries from the $d$-dependent weights, so the energetics reduces to comparing signs of two alternating sums. A second ingredient is the power-sum identity $F_d(N)=\sum_{i=1}^N i^d$, which converts the two-cluster energy into a closed algebraic form and yields the transcendental equation for $q$.

What would settle it

Run an exact search for $N=32$ at fractional $d$ values such as $d=0.3$ and compare the true ground state with the two-cluster minimizer from Eq. (8): any ground state with more than two spin clusters, or any mismatch in the minimizing $M$, would falsify the transfer from the continuous functional to the discrete Hamiltonian.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the energy of any configuration in this coupling family can be represented, in the continuous limit, by a functional $H_\Lambda(d,\mathbf q)$ built from sign functions at the domain-wall positions $\mathbf q=(q_1,\dots,q_\Lambda)$. This functional factorizes as $H_\Lambda=\frac{N^2}{1+d}QP$, where $Q$ and $P$ are alternating sums over the boundaries, and the paper argues that only the two-cluster case $\Lambda=1$ can make the product negative while remaining stable; configurations with more domain walls either have zero energy at their critical points or relax to fewer walls. The ground state is therefore the two-cluster configuration, with the cluster split obtained from $1+(1+d)q^d-2(2+d)q^{d+1}=0$ in the large-$N$ limit. For finite $N$, the closed expression $H(M,N,d)=N^{-d}\big((N-2M-1)F_d(N)+(4M-2N)F_d(M)\big)$ with $F_d(N)=\sum_{i=1}^N i^d$ gives an $O(N)$ recipe that the authors verify against exhaustive enumeration.

Load-bearing premise

The proof leans on replacing the discrete spin sum by a Riemann integral whose integrand contains a discontinuous sign product, and the stated $O(1/N)$ error bound is for smooth integrands; if that transfer fails at finite $N$, the exactness of the two-cluster ground state for fixed $N$ is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any $d>-1$ and large $N$, the ground-state magnetization fraction $q$ is determined by a single equation, so no heuristic search is needed for this coupling class.
  • Brute-force validation is replaced by an $O(N)$ check, making $J^{(N,d)}$ a scalable exact-reference benchmark for Ising minimizers.
  • A physical quantum annealer showed measurable deviation from the analytical ground state starting near $N=20$, while a simulated coherent Ising machine stayed on the predicted ground state up to $N=1000$, isolating encoding fidelity as the source of the gap.
  • Permutation invariance lets one choose $d$ so that a prescribed spin configuration with a given up-spin fraction $q$ is the ground state, turning the class into a generator of instances with known answers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The continuous-to-discrete transfer is the step that would benefit from a rigorous finite-$N$ error bound for the discontinuous sign-product integrand; without it the exactness of the two-cluster ansatz for every finite $N$ remains an asymptotic inference.
  • The same construction may work for other monotone coupling functions $f(i)+f(j)$, and the two-sum factorization suggests a route to additional exactly solvable fully connected families.
  • Because tuning $d$ moves the landscape from many local minima to a smoother spectrum, the family could serve as a controlled ruggedness knob in experiments on annealing dynamics.
  • A direct finite-$N$ check of the minimal $M$ formula at, say, $N=32$ for several fractional $d$ values would cost little and would test whether the transfer already holds in the regime where quantum hardware begins to fail.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the deterministic fully connected Ising coupling matrix J_{ij}^{(N,d)}=(i^d+j^d)(1-\delta_{ij})/N^d and claims that, for every real d and every N, the ground state has the ordered two-cluster form of Eq. (4), with the number M of up spins obtained by minimizing the one-parameter function H(M,N,d) in Eq. (8). In the large-N limit the ratio q=M/N is claimed to satisfy the algebraic equation 1+(1+d)q^d-2(2+d)q^{d+1}=0, Eq. (17), with an additional regularized branch, Eq. (D6), for d\le -1. The proof strategy is to approximate the discrete spin configuration by a continuous sign-product function S(x,q), pass from the Hamiltonian to the continuous functional H_\Lambda of Eq. (23), and argue that the minimum of H_\Lambda occurs at \Lambda=1. The paper then uses this class as a fidelity benchmark: brute-force enumeration for N\le 28 and SimCIM runs for N=1000 agree with the predicted energies and ratios, while a D-Wave QPU deviates for N>20.

Significance. If the finite-N exactness claim is correct, the paper provides a nontrivial class of fully connected Ising models solvable in polynomial time, with no fitted parameters in the central derivation. This would give the community a useful, deterministic benchmark for testing Ising machines, and the paper's numerical checks against brute-force enumeration and SimCIM are a genuine strength. The post-hoc power-law fit q(d)=0.61 d^{0.13} is descriptive and does not feed back into the derivation, so the circularity burden is low. However, the proof of the two-cluster pattern currently rests on a continuous-limit argument whose error control does not apply to the discontinuous integrand actually used, and the d\le -1 branch is asserted rather than derived; these gaps are load-bearing for the central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eqs. (21)-(23)] The proof that the ground state has the two-cluster form rests on replacing the discrete sum by H_\Lambda and on the Riemann-sum error bound in Eq. (22). That bound is stated for smooth integrands, and the text itself warns that the method cannot be used when the derivative of the integrand does not exist. The integrand in Eq. (23) contains \Lambda factors of sgn(x-q_\alpha) and sgn(y-q_\alpha) and is discontinuous, so the O(1/N) quadrature error is not justified. Moreover, because H_\Lambda carries a prefactor N^2, a quadrature error of order 1/N becomes an absolute energy error of order N, which can exceed the O(1) energy differences between adjacent integer values of M near the continuous minimum. Consequently, the exactness of the finite-N ground-state pattern Eq. (4) is not rigorously established by the continuous-limit argument; it currently rests on the numerical checks in Figure 3 and on heuristic SimCIM runs.
  2. [Appendix D, Eq. (D6)] For d\le -1 the integral in Eq. (23) diverges, and replacing the lower integration limit by 1/N is an asserted regularization rather than a derivation from the discrete Hamiltonian Eq. (8). The sentence 'The proof for this case follows a similar line of reasoning' is a placeholder, not a proof. This matters because Figure 4 reports q(d) from Eq. (D6) over the whole d\le -1 range and Section V B explicitly discusses d<0 instances; as written, the d\le -1 branch of the central claim is unsupported.
  3. [Section III, Eqs. (8)-(11)] The algebraic reduction contains a sign error in the description of the objective. From Eq. (8), H(M,N,d)=N^{-d}((N-1)F_d(N)-2\tilde H) with \tilde H=M F_d(N)+(N-2M)F_d(M), so minimizing the Ising energy is equivalent to maximizing \tilde H, not minimizing it as stated before Eq. (11). The first-order condition Eq. (12) is unchanged and Eq. (17) is numerically correct, but the argument that the stationary point is the global energy minimum is incomplete: the convexity discussion in Appendix C is for H_1, not for the discrete objective \tilde H, and the boundary cases M=0,N are not compared there.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (7)] 'Bernouli' should be 'Bernoulli'.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (22)] The displayed error bound (f(b)-f(a))(b-a)/N is not a general quadrature error bound for smooth f; for smooth functions one expects O(N^{-2}) for trapezoidal or midpoint rules, and for monotone f the displayed form needs a separate derivation. Please replace it with a correct statement or a citation.
  3. [Appendix C] The claim that H_1 is 'always negative for q_1\neq 1/2 and d>-1' has an exception at d=0, where the critical value is H_1=0. The statement should be restricted to the critical branch and to d>0, or d=0 should be handled separately.
  4. [Appendix D] The phrase 'Without any loss of generality' before changing the lower limit of a divergent integral is inaccurate; the regularization changes the model and should be labeled as such.
  5. [Figure 3 caption] Since brute-force enumeration up to N=28 involves 2^28 configurations, the caption should state explicitly whether the enumeration is exhaustive and how the computational cost was handled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the derivation of the two-cluster ground state and Eq. (17) is not reduced to any fitted input or self-citation; the identified weaknesses are rigor gaps, not circular steps.

full rationale

No circularity found. The central derivation chain is self-contained: Eq. (8) is the exact Hamiltonian restricted to a two-cluster configuration, Eq. (17) is obtained by minimizing that expression in the large-N limit, and the two-cluster form is meant to be justified independently in Section IV by minimizing the continuous H_Lambda. That continuous minimization does not use Eq. (17) or any fitted parameter, so the large-N prediction is not an input to the proof of the pattern. The only fitted quantity in the paper, q(d)=0.61*d^0.13, is presented as a descriptive power-law fit to the roots of Eq. (17) and never feeds back into the derivation. The brute-force enumeration and SimCIM runs are independent external checks, not predictions derived from the fitted values, and the paper makes no load-bearing self-citation: the cited results (Faulhaber's formula, Wishart ensemble data, D-Wave documentation, SimCIM sources) are all external to the authors. The paper's own caveats, such as the statement in Section IV that the Riemann-sum error bound in Eq. (22) is valid for smooth integrands while Eq. (23) contains the discontinuous sign product, and the asserted regularization for d<=-1 in Eq. (D6), are correctness and rigor concerns about the exactness claim, not circular reductions. A proof gap is not a circularity: nothing in the derivation is defined in terms of the target result, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation introduces no fitted free parameters for d>-1; d and N are inputs of the problem class. The model rests on standard Bernoulli and Euler-Maclaurin expansions, on transferring a continuous-limit minimization to the finite-N discrete problem, and on an ad hoc lower-cutoff regularization for d≤-1.

free parameters (1)
  • lower integration cutoff (1/N) for d≤-1 = 1/N (chosen, not fitted)
    Appendix D regularizes the divergent integral in Eq. (23) for d≤-1 and produces Eq. (D6). The choice of 1/N is asserted without proof and is not derived from the discrete sum.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Riemann sum in Eq. (22) approximates the discontinuous sign-product integrand with O(1/N) error so that the continuous functional HΛ has the same ground state as the finite-N Hamiltonian.
    Invoked in Section IV (Eqs. 21-23) to replace the discrete problem by Eq. (24). The quoted error bound is for smooth f, while the sign functions have jump discontinuities.
  • ad hoc to paper For d≤-1, the divergent integral Eq. (23) can be regularized by setting the lower limit to 1/N, and the resulting Eq. (D6) describes the ground state ratio.
    Stated in Appendix D as without any loss of generality. No proof is given, and for d<-1 the discrete sum Σ i^d converges to a constant while the regularized integral grows with N.
  • standard math The Bernoulli sum-of-powers formula Eq. (7) and its derivative Eq. (13) apply for the real parameter d.
    Used in Section III to obtain Eqs. (16)-(17). Eq. (7) as written is a finite sum over r=0..d and is only standard for integer d, though the leading-term Euler-Maclaurin expansion is valid for d>-1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Continuous Approximation of the Ising Hamiltonian: Exact Ground States and Applications to Fidelity Assessment in Ising Machines." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RAWT3Z2E

@misc{pith2026241119604,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Continuous Approximation of the Ising Hamiltonian: Exact Ground States and Applications to Fidelity Assessment in Ising Machines},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RAWT3Z2E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19604}
}
read the original abstract

In this study, we present a novel analytical approach to solving large-scale Ising problems by reformulating the discrete Ising Hamiltonian into a continuous framework. This transformation enables us to derive exact solutions for a non-trivial class of fully connected Ising models. To validate our method, we conducted numerical experiments comparing our analytical solutions with those obtained from a quantum-inspired Ising algorithm and a quantum Ising machine. The results demonstrate that the quantum-inspired algorithm and brute-force method successfully align with our solutions, while the quantum Ising machine exhibits notable deviations. Our method offers promising avenues for analytically solving diverse Ising problem instances, while the class of Ising problems addressed here provides a robust framework for assessing the fidelity of Ising machines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19604 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Sign of interactions between spins, denoted by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Visualization of arbitrary spin configurations in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The ground state energy, computed for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: In the ground state configuration, the up spins are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Benchmarking results of the D-Wave quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Number of local minima as a function of system size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Full energy spectrum and density of states (DOS) for our proposed model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Full energy spectrum and density of states (DOS) for the Wishart planted ensemble [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Considering the following formula [35]: F d (N ) = NX i =1 i d = dX r =0 (−1)r Br d + 1 Ã d + 1 r ! N d +1−r , (7) where Br is the r th Bernouli number

    The third and fourth terms correspond to the interactions between spins with opposite orientation such that: si s j = −1. Considering the following formula [35]: F d (N ) = NX i =1 i d = dX r =0 (−1)r Br d + 1 Ã d + 1 r ! N d +1−r , (7) where Br is the r th Bernouli number. We can write Equation (6), in terms of Equation (7) as follows: H(M, N , d) = 1 N ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Barahona, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 15, 3241 (1982)

    F . Barahona, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 15, 3241 (1982)

    work page 1982

  3. [3]

    Haribara, S

    Y. Haribara, S. Utsunomiya, and Y. Yamamoto, Entropy18, 151 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    S. G. Brush, Reviews of modern physics 39, 883 (1967)

    work page 1967

  5. [5]

    Cipra, SIAM News 33, 1 (2000)

    B. Cipra, SIAM News 33, 1 (2000)

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    R. M. Karp, Reducibility among combinatorial problems (Springer, 2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    D. E. Knuth, SIGACT News 6, 15–16 (1974)

    work page 1974

  8. [8]

    H. M. Salkin and C. A. De Kluyver, Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 22, 127 (1975)

    work page 1975

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    T . R. Jensen and B. Toft, Graph coloring problems (John Wiley & Sons, 2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    ˇCern`y, Journal of optimization theory and applications 45, 41 (1985)

    V . ˇCern`y, Journal of optimization theory and applications 45, 41 (1985)

    1985

  3. [11]

    A. D. King, J. Raymond, T . Lanting, R. Harris, A. Zucca, F . Al- tomare, A. J. Berkley, K. Boothby, S. Ejtemaee, C. Enderud, et al., Nature 617, 61 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    M. W . Johnson, M. H. Amin, S. Gildert, T . Lanting, F . Hamze, N. Dickson, R. Harris, A. J. Berkley, J. Johansson, P . Bunyk, et al., Nature 473, 194 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    Gramm, J

    J. Gramm, J. Guo, F . Hüffner, and R. Niedermeier, Journal of Experimental Algorithmics (JEA) 13, 2 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    Marandi, Z

    A. Marandi, Z. Wang, K. Takata, R. L. Byer, and Y. Yamamoto, Nature Photonics 8, 937 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Inagaki, K

    T . Inagaki, K. Inaba, R. Hamerly, K. Inoue, Y. Yamamoto, and H. Takesue, Nature Photonics10, 415 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    A. D. King, A. Nocera, M. M. Rams, J. Dziarmaga, R. Wiersema, W . Bernoudy, J. Raymond, N. Kaushal, N. Heinsdorf, R. Harris, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.00910 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Inagaki, Y

    T . Inagaki, Y. Haribara, K. Igarashi, T . Sonobe, S. Tamate, T . Honjo, A. Marandi, P . L. McMahon, T . Umeki, K. Enbutsu, et al., Science 354, 603 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Goto, Scientific reports 6, 21686 (2016)

    H. Goto, Scientific reports 6, 21686 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    P . L. McMahon, A. Marandi, Y. Haribara, R. Hamerly, C. Lan- grock, S. Tamate, T . Inagaki, H. Takesue, S. Utsunomiya, K. Ai- hara, et al., Science 354, 614 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    H. Goto, K. Endo, M. Suzuki, Y. Sakai, T . Kanao, Y. Hamakawa, R. Hidaka, M. Yamasaki, and K. Tatsumura, Science Advances 7, eabe7953 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Kirkpatrick, C

    S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, and M. P . Vecchi, Science220, 671 (1983)

    1983

  14. [22]

    H. Goto, K. Tatsumura, and A. R. Dixon, Science advances 5, eaav2372 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Bertsimas and J

    D. Bertsimas and J. Tsitsiklis, Statistical science 8, 10 (1993)

    1993

  16. [24]

    Huang, D

    W . Huang, D. A. Kitchaev, S. T . Dacek, Z. Rong, A. Urban, S. Cao, C. Luo, and G. Ceder, Physical Review B 94, 134424 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Both of these solutions assume a finite interaction range, i.e., non-fully connected

    found the ground state for Shastry-Sutherland lattice in the presence of a magnetic field. Both of these solutions assume a finite interaction range, i.e., non-fully connected. Also, these solutions are only valid for uniform interaction couplings (where all elements have a fi...

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    P . J. Van Laarhoven, E. H. Aarts, P . J. van Laarhoven, and E. H. Aarts, Simulated annealing (Springer, 1987)

    1987

  19. [27]

    U. Löw, V . Emery, K. Fabricius, and S. Kivelson, Physical Re- view Letters 72, 1918 (1994)

    1994

  20. [28]

    Y. I. Dublenych, Physical Review Letters 109, 167202 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Bak and R

    P . Bak and R. Bruinsma, Physical Review Letters 49, 249 (1982)

    1982

  22. [30]

    Hen, Physical Review Applied 12, 011003 (2019)

    I. Hen, Physical Review Applied 12, 011003 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Perera, I

    D. Perera, I. Akpabio, F . Hamze, S. Mandra, N. Rose, M. Ara- mon, and H. G. Katzgraber, arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14344 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Hamze, J

    F . Hamze, J. Raymond, C. A. Pattison, K. Biswas, and H. G. Katzgraber, Physical Review E 101, 052102 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    F . Chen, B. Isakov, T . King, T . Leleu, P . McMahon, and T . On- odera, cim-optimizer: a simulator of the Coherent Ising Ma- chine (2022). 10

    2022

  26. [34]

    Ercsey-Ravasz and Z

    M. Ercsey-Ravasz and Z. Toroczkai, Nature Physics 7, 966 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    Yamamoto, K

    Y. Yamamoto, K. Aihara, T . Leleu, K.-i. Kawarabayashi, S. Kako, M. Fejer, K. Inoue, and H. Takesue, npj Quantum Information 3, 49 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Supplementary Material, the actual URL will be inserted by the publisher

  29. [37]

    Zeng, X.-P

    Q.-G. Zeng, X.-P . Cui, B. Liu, Y. Wang, P . Mosharev, and M.-H. Yung, Communications Physics 7, 249 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    D. E. Knuth, Mathematics of Computation 61, 277 (1993)

    1993

  31. [40]

    McGeoch and P

    C. McGeoch and P . Farré, D-Wave Systems Inc., Burnaby, BC, Canada, Tech. Rep (2020). Appendix A: CIM Hyperparameters The hyperparameters for SimCIM were tuned with Bayesian optimization. The hyperspace for finding the ground state is shown in Table I. In this table, the hyper...

    2020

  32. [104]

    d → 0 Limit,

    The dark and green line represent the root of Equation (17) and Equation (D6) respectively, while the blue dots cor- respond to the results obtained through the SimCIM. Given that our simulations were conducted with N = 1000, the precision of the q ratio is limited to three de...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.