Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Minimizing Lattice Energy and Hexagonal Crystallization

T0 review · 5 major / 4 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 For α≥3/2, the hexagonal lattice uniquely minimizes the energy sum Σ_{P∈Λ}|P|^4 e^{-πα|P|^2} over all unit-density two-dimensional lattices.

desk verdict Genuine new theorem and plausible strategy, but the proof leans on unproved inequalities that must be pinned down before I'd trust it. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17199 v1 pith:STAK6ACG submitted 2024-11-26 math.AP

Kaixin Deng , Senping Luo This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 11F2782B20
keywords latticeenergyminimizationhexagonalcrystallizationthetafunctionsnon-monotonepotentialsJacobiderivativeestimatesfundamentaldomainmodularsymmetry
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 proves that among all two-dimensional lattices of unit density, the energy $R(\alpha;\Lambda)=\sum_{P\in\Lambda}|P|^4 e^{-\pi\alpha|P|^2}$ is minimized by the hexagonal lattice whenever $\alpha\ge 3/2$, and that this minimizer is unique up to rotation and translation. The potential is not monotone in the distance $|P|$, so the result goes beyond the classical Gaussian case and moves toward explaining why hexagonal order appears in systems with interaction wells. A corollary shows a similar hexagonal minimizer for the non-monotone two-body potential $|P|^2(e^{-\pi\alpha|P|^2}-e^{-\pi\beta|P|^2})$ when $\beta>\alpha\ge 3/2$. This partially answers open questions, raised in references [11] and [27], about which potentials force hexagonal crystallization.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the identity $R(\alpha;z)=\frac1{\pi^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\alpha^2}\theta(\alpha;z)$ linking the energy to the $\theta$ function, together with the modular symmetries of $\theta$, which reduce the minimization from the upper half-plane to the fundamental domain. The positivity and sign control needed on the boundary come from sharp two-sided estimates on the quotients $\vartheta_{XY}(X;Y)/\vartheta_Y(X;Y)$ and $\vartheta_{XXY}(X;Y)/\vartheta_Y(X;Y)$ of derivatives of the classical one-dimensional $\theta$ function, expressed through the series $\mu,\nu,\omega$; these estimates are refined versions of bounds in [27]. A case division in $(\alpha,y)$ then yields uniform lower bounds for the principal term $\Phi_{\alpha,A}(z)$ and shows the remaining terms $\Phi_{\alpha,B}(z)$ are at most about $1/77$ of it, giving strict transversal monotonicity; a parallel estimate on vertical derivatives closes the boundary argument.

What would settle it

For $\alpha=3/2$, evaluate $R(\alpha;z)$ numerically from the exact series on a fine grid in the fundamental domain, comparing the hexagonal point $z=\frac12+i\frac{\sqrt3}{2}$ with the square point $z=i$ and intermediate shearings; a lower value at any non-hexagonal lattice would refute Theorem 1.1, as would a single counterexample to the claimed inequalities in Lemmas 3.9, 3.10, 4.5, or 4.12.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is Theorem 1.1: for $\alpha\ge 3/2$, the minimum of $R(\alpha;\Lambda)$ over unit-density two-dimensional lattices exists and is attained exactly at the hexagonal lattice, the lattice generated by $1$ and $e^{i\pi/3}$. The proof establishes two monotonicity facts: within a fundamental domain the energy strictly decreases as the lattice is sheared toward the right boundary $\Gamma=\{z=\frac12+iy:y\ge\sqrt3/2\}$, and along $\Gamma$ the energy is non-decreasing as $y$ grows. Hence the global minimum sits at the bottom corner $z=\frac12+i\frac{\sqrt3}{2}$, the hexagonal point.

Load-bearing premise

The proof rests on several inequalities that are asserted without complete proof, most notably the concavity of a one-variable function and the smallness of certain error terms, and if any one of those inequalities fails the proof of Theorem 1.1 collapses even though the theorem itself might still be true.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Corollary 1.1: for $\beta>\alpha\ge 3/2$, the non-monotone two-body potential $|P|^2(e^{-\pi\alpha|P|^2}-e^{-\pi\beta|P|^2})$ also has the hexagonal lattice as its unique minimizer among unit-density lattices.
  • The result covers the case $k=2$ of Conjecture 1.1, which predicts that $\sum_{P\in\Lambda}|P|^{2k}e^{-\pi\alpha|P|^2}$ is minimized by the hexagonal lattice whenever $\alpha\ge k$.
  • The refined theta-derivative estimates (Lemmas 2.6–2.8) are stated in a form reusable for other lattice-energy and theta-function minimization problems.
  • The theorem partially answers the open questions from [11] and [27] by supplying a new non-monotone family of potentials with a provable hexagonal minimizer.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The threshold $\alpha\ge 3/2$ is likely not sharp: Montgomery's theorem shows the pure Gaussian case works for all $\alpha>0$, so numerical tests on $\alpha<3/2$ could probe how far hexagonal optimality extends for the $|P|^4$ Gaussian potential.
  • The omitted analytic checks (concavity of $\psi$, monotonicity of $h$, the $D_4$ lower bound, and the $\epsilon$ smallness bounds) could be made fully rigorous by certified interval-arithmetic computations, which would close the gaps without changing the structure of the proof.
  • The same reduction and boundary monotonicity scheme may extend to higher powers $k>2$, possibly with a threshold $\alpha\ge k$ as conjectured, or with smaller thresholds if the refined theta estimates are sharpened.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves Theorem 1.1: for α ≥ 3/2, the energy per particle R(α;Λ) = Σ_{P∈Λ} |P|^4 e^{-πα|P|^2} over two-dimensional unit-density lattices is minimized uniquely by the hexagonal lattice. The proof first reduces the minimization to the standard fundamental domain, then proves a transversal monotonicity (∂_x R < 0) in Section 3 and a monotonicity along the vertical boundary (∂_y R ≥ 0) in Section 4, forcing the minimum to the hexagonal point 1/2 + i√3/2. Corollary 1.1 extends the result to the difference of two Gaussian-type terms.

Significance. If completed, this is a substantial contribution to the lattice-energy minimization literature and partially answers open questions of Bétermin–Petrache and Luo–Wei. The paper contains useful explicit identities, such as Lemmas 3.2, 4.2, and 4.10, and reduces the problem to concrete analytic inequalities with explicit constants; there is no parameter fitting, and the main claim is independent of the inputs. However, several load-bearing inequalities are justified by figure inspection, 'direct checking', or an explicitly omitted proof, so the current manuscript does not yet provide a complete rigorous proof of the main theorem.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.2, Lemma 4.12] Lemma 4.12 asserts the numerical bounds εa ≤ 1/980, εb ≤ 101/2100, and εc ≤ 4/5, but its proof consists of a single sentence saying that the terms are exponentially decaying and the summation can be controlled effectively. These bounds are load-bearing: they enter the lower bound Y(α;y) ≥ 77/200 in Lemma 4.13, which yields Lemma 4.9 and hence Proposition 4.1. At the corner (α,y) = (3/2,√3/2), the leading contributions to εc already amount to roughly 0.778, so the claimed 4/5 bound is not a crude qualitative estimate. The proof should supply explicit majorants for each series defining εa, εb, εc, for example by bounding tails with geometric series and evaluating the resulting numerical constants.
  2. [§3.3, Lemmas 3.8–3.9] Lemma 3.9 states that ψ''(y) ≤ 0 on [√3/2,1] and explicitly says the proof is omitted. This concavity is what reduces the minimum of ψ to its endpoint values, and Lemma 3.8 uses monotonicity in α, asserted only by reference to Figure 4, to reduce D3 to ψ. Both facts are needed for Φα,A(z) > 0 in region Ac. A figure is not a proof; the authors should provide a verifiable inequality for ψ'' or an interval-arithmetic certificate, and a proof of ∂α D3 ≥ 0 or an alternative lower bound on D3 that does not rely on this monotonicity.
  3. [§4.1, Lemma 4.5] Lemma 4.5 relies on two graphical claims: ∂r h(r,t) ≥ 0 for r ≥ 3/2, t ≥ 4/5, and the uniqueness of the critical point t0 of g with g''(t0) > 0, both justified by 'see Figure 5'. These statements imply P(α;y) ≥ 1/5, which is the quantitative input to Lemma 4.4 and therefore to the positivity of ∂y R on Ω1. The manuscript should replace the figure inspection by explicit derivative signs or rigorous interval bounds on the relevant ranges.
  4. [§3.1, §3.4, and §2.1] Several 'direct checking' claims are load-bearing and are not demonstrated. Lemma 3.6 needs ∂α D1 > 0 and ∂y D1 > 0 on unbounded region Aa; Lemma 3.10 needs D4(α;y) ≥ D4(3√3/2,√3/2) ≥ 38 on unbounded region Ad; and Lemma 2.6's proof asserts a1(X)c2(X) − a2(X)c1(X) ≥ 0 and πb2(X) − 4X^2 b1(X) ≥ 0 by 'straightforward computations' on (0,1/2]. Since several of these domains are unbounded, a direct check is not a finite computation; the authors should provide monotonicity arguments, explicit asymptotic expansions, or rigorous interval arithmetic that covers the whole range.
  5. [§4.2, Lemma 4.13] Lemma 4.13 asserts two monotonicity properties of Y(α;y) on Ω2 — decreasing in y, and the one-variable curve Y(α;4α/5) attaining its minimum either at α = 3/2 or in the limit α → ∞ — both supported only by Figure 6. These are two-parameter qualitative claims, and combined with Lemma 4.12 they give the lower bound Y ≥ 77/200. The manuscript needs analytic proofs or at least rigorous interval arithmetic on a finite grid plus asymptotic expansions as α → ∞.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains many typographical errors and formatting glitches, including 'LA TTICE' in the abstract, 'haxagonal' in the statement of Theorem A, 'sigh' instead of 'sign', 'f or' instead of 'for', and broken displays such as 'M inimaA⊂admissible configurations'. A careful copyedit is needed.
  2. [§3.3, Figure 4; §4.1, Figure 5; §4.2, Figure 6] The paper uses figures not only as illustrations but as part of the proof of several monotonicity claims. Even if the major technical gaps are filled elsewhere, the figures should be clearly labeled as aids and the corresponding inequalities proved in the text.
  3. [§2.2, Lemma 2.9] Lemma 2.9's proof says 'A direct checking shows that N(X;Y) = N(X;Y+1), N(X;Y) = N(X;1−Y)' and then cites earlier work for the monotonicity; some readers may appreciate an explicit definition of the domain Y ∈ [0,1/2] and a more complete explanation of how the two cited ranges cover all Y.
  4. [References and bibliography] Some references are cited in the text with a different numbering style than the list, and the bibliography contains minor formatting inconsistencies, e.g., in [16], [20], and [25]. The authors should harmonize the reference style with the journal's conventions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the hexagonal minimizer claim is not assumed as an input, and the cited prior results are real published lemmas, not equivalents of the theorem.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that R(α;Λ)=Σ|P|^4 e^{-πα|P|^2} is minimized by the hexagonal lattice for α≥3/2. No parameter in the target functional is fitted to the hexagonal datum, and the conclusion is not used in defining the auxiliary functions D1–D4, Φ_{α,A}, Φ_{α,B}, Y, or the error terms ε_a, ε_b, ε_c. The proof reduces the global minimization to the fundamental domain via Lemma 2.3, then shows ∂_x R<0 on D_G (Theorem 3.2) and ∂_y R≥0 on Γ (Proposition 4.1); both signs are established from theta-function estimates rather than assumed. The Luo–Wei citations ([24], [27]) supply modular invariance, exponential expansions, and quotient estimates for Jacobi theta functions; these are parameter-free published results whose assumptions do not include the target theorem, so under the stated rules they are real evidence and do not constitute circularity. The manuscript does contain serious rigor gaps: Lemma 3.9 omits the proof of ψ''≤0, Lemma 4.5 uses a figure for ∂_r h≥0, Lemma 4.12 asserts ε_a≤1/980, ε_b≤101/2100, ε_c≤4/5 with only a handwave about exponential decay, and Lemma 4.13 invokes Figure 6 for monotonicity. These are unverified analytic claims that would be needed for a complete proof, and if false the proof of Theorem 1.1 would collapse; but failure of an asserted inequality is a correctness risk, not an equivalence between input and output. No equation is defined in terms of the hexagon minimizer, no fitted parameter is renamed a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is used to force the hexagon. Accordingly the derivation chain is not circular, and the circularity score is 0.

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

The central proof imports a substantial toolkit of theta-function estimates, several from the authors' own prior work (Luo-Wei [24, 27]), and uses standard analytic facts. It introduces no free parameters and no new physical entities.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Jacobi triple product formula (Eq. 2.4)
    Used to derive the product representation of the one-dimensional theta function in Eq. 2.7.
  • standard math Poisson summation formula (Eq. 2.6)
    Used to express the theta function and its derivatives in exponentially convergent forms.
  • standard math Modular transformation properties of theta functions (Eq. 2.25)
    Used in Lemma 2.10 to evaluate limits at Y=0 and Y=1/2.
  • standard math Lemma 2.1 from Luo-Wei [24]: θ(α;γ(z)) = θ(α;z) for γ in the group G
    Cited without proof; provides the invariance that lets the minimization be restricted to the fundamental domain.
  • standard math Lemmas 2.4, 2.5, 2.12 from Luo-Wei [27] bounding quotients of theta derivatives
    Cited without proof; several of the paper's new lemmas (2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.13) rely directly on these prior bounds.
  • standard math Lemma 4.1 from Bétermin [7]: ∂_y R(α;1/2 + i√3/2) = 0 for α ≥ 3/2
    Cited without proof; used as the starting point for the monotonicity argument on the vertical boundary.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Minimizing Lattice Energy and Hexagonal Crystallization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/STAK6ACG

@misc{pith2026241117199,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Minimizing Lattice Energy and Hexagonal Crystallization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/STAK6ACG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17199}
}
abstract

Consider the energy per particle on the lattice given by $\min_{ \Lambda }\sum_{ \mathbb{P}\in \Lambda} \left|\mathbb{P}\right|^4 e^{-\pi \alpha \left|\mathbb{P}\right|^2 }$, where $\alpha >0$ and $\Lambda$ is a two dimensional lattice. We prove that for $\alpha\geq\frac{3}{2}$, among two dimensional lattices with unit density, such energy minimum is attained at $e^{i\frac{\pi}{3}}$, corresponding to the hexagonal lattice. Our result partially answers some open questions proposed by B\'etermin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17199 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The hexagonal structure and periodic hexagonal structure. min Λ Eϕ(Λ), where Eϕ(Λ) := X P ∈Λ\{0} ϕ(|P| 2 ). (1.4) Here Λ is a d-dimensional lattice, and ϕ is the two-body potential of the system. We shall focus on dimension two, since the two dimensional theories capture many essential features of higher di￾mensions, without sharing the complexities of higher dimensions(Alvarez-Gaum´e-Moore-Vafa [3]). The hexagonal … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The images of ϕˆ 1(r 2 ) and ϕˆ 2(r 2 ). Conjecture 1.1. Assume that k ∈ Z +, α ≥ k, then among two dimensional lattices with unit density, min Λ X P∈Λ |P| 2k e −πα|P| 2 always exists and is always achieved at hexagonal lattice. The following parts of the paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, some useful properties of the functionals are characterized and the estimates of the related forms of the Jacobi theta… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The hexagonal point in the fundamental domain. By Definition 1, the fundamental domain associated to modular group S is DS := {z ∈ H : |z| > 1, − 1 2 < x < 1 2 }. Note that the fundamental domain can be open (See [page 30, [4]]). Next we introduce another group related to the functional θ(α; z). The generators of the group are given by G : the group generated by τ 7→ − 1 τ , τ 7→ τ + 1, τ 7→ −τ. (2.1) It is easy to … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The images of D3(α; y) and ψ(y). Proof. In view of Lemmas 2.9 and 2.11, one has ∂ ∂Y ϑXY (X; Y ) ϑY (X; Y ) ≥ 0, ∂ ∂Y ϑXXY (X; Y ) ϑY (X; Y ) ≤ 0, for X ≥ 1 3 , 0 ≤ Y ≤ 1 2 . (3.15) Note that the region that point z belongs to is z ∈ {(x, y)| 0 < x < 1 2 , x2 + y 2 > 1…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The images of ∂ ∂rh(r;t) and g(t). By (4.10)-(4.12), one gets P(α; y) = P(r; rt) ≥ g(t). As t ≥ 4 5 , the equation g ′ (t) = 0 that satisfy the condition g ′′(t) > 0 has only one solution t0 = 1.781450608 · · ·(see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The images of Y(α; y) and Y(α; 4 5 α). The subsequent Lemma 4.12 will provide the numerical upper bound estimates, further eluci￾dating that ϵa, ϵb, ϵc are small in Lemma 4.11, thereby laying down the foundation for proving Lemma 4.13. Lemma 4.12. Assume that (α, y) ∈ …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Signs of high order derivatives for the theta and Epstein zeta functions and application

    math.AP 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The authors show that ∂²/∂x∂y of the theta and Epstein zeta functions is strictly positive, and ∂³/∂x∂y² is strictly negative, in the relevant fundamental domain.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A. A. Abrikosov, Nobel Lecture: Type-II superconductors and the vortex lattice, Reviews of modern physics, 76(2004), no.3, p. 975

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    H. A. Albarqi, L. H. Wong, C. Schumann, F. Y. Sabei, T. Korzun, X. Li, M. N. Hansen, P. Dhagat, A. S.Moses and O.Taratula, Biocompatible Nanoclusters with High Heating Efficiency for Systemically Delivered Magnetic Hyperthermia, ACS Nano, 6383-6395, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Alvarez-Gaum´ e, G.Moore and C.Vafa, Theta functions, modular invariance, and strings,Comm

    L. Alvarez-Gaum´ e, G.Moore and C.Vafa, Theta functions, modular invariance, and strings,Comm. Math. Phys, 106 (1986), no. 1, 1-40

    work page 1986

  4. [4]

    T. M. Apostol, Modular functions and Dirichlet series in number theory, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 1976

    1976

  5. [5]

    B´ etermin and P

    L. B´ etermin and P. Zhang, Minimization of energy per particle among Bravais lattices in R2 Lennard-Jones and Thomas-Fermi cases, Commun. Contemp. Math., 17(6) (2015), 1450049

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    B´ etermin, Two-dimensional theta functions and crystallization among Bravais lattices, SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 48(5) (2016), 3236-269

    L. B´ etermin, Two-dimensional theta functions and crystallization among Bravais lattices, SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 48(5) (2016), 3236-269

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    B´ etermin, Local variational study of 2d lattice energies and application to Lennard-Jones type interactions, Nonlinearity, 31(9) (2018), 973-4005

    L. B´ etermin, Local variational study of 2d lattice energies and application to Lennard-Jones type interactions, Nonlinearity, 31(9) (2018), 973-4005

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    B´ etermin, Minimizing lattice structures for Morse potential energy in two and three dimensions, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 60(10) (2019), 102901

    L. B´ etermin, Minimizing lattice structures for Morse potential energy in two and three dimensions, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 60(10) (2019), 102901

    work page 2019

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    B´ etermin and M

    L. B´ etermin and M. Petrache, Dimension reduction techniques for the minimization of theta functions on lattices, Journal of Mathematical Physics, 58 (7) (2017), 071902

    2017

  2. [10]

    B´ etermin, M

    L. B´ etermin, M. Faulhuber and H. Kn¨upfer, On the optimality of the rock-salt structure among lattices with charge distributions, Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 31 (2): 293-325, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    B´ etermin and M

    L. B´ etermin and M. Petrache, Optimal and non-optimal lattices for non-completely monotone interaction potentials, Analysis and Mathematical Physics, 9 (4): 2033-2073, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    B´ etermin, On energy ground states among crystal lattice structures with prescribed bonds, Journal of Physics A, 54(24): 245202, 2021

    L. B´ etermin, On energy ground states among crystal lattice structures with prescribed bonds, Journal of Physics A, 54(24): 245202, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    J. D. Caldwell, I. Aharonovich, G.Cassabois, J. H. Edgar, B. Gil and D. N. Basov, Photonics with hexagonal boron nitride, Nat. Rev. Mater., 4, 552-567 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    H. Cohn, A. Kumar, S. D. Miller, D. Radchenko and M. Viazovska, Universal optimality of the E8 and Leech lattices and interpolation formulas, Ann. of Math., (2) 196 (2022), no. 3, 983-1082

    2022

  7. [15]

    J. H. Conway and N. J. A. Sloane, Sphere Packings, Lattices and Groups, Springer, Volume 290, 1999

    1999

  8. [16]

    Evans, A fundamental region for Hecke modular group, J

    R. Evans, A fundamental region for Hecke modular group, J. Number Theory, 5(2) (1973), 108-115

    1973

  9. [17]

    Faulhuber, M

    M. Faulhuber, M. A. de Gosson and D. Rottensteiner, Gaussian distributions and phase space Weyl-Heisenberg frames, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 48 (1), 374-394 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Faulhuber, A short note on the frame set of odd functions, Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society, 2018, 98(3), 481-493

    M. Faulhuber, A short note on the frame set of odd functions, Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society, 2018, 98(3), 481-493

    2018

  11. [19]

    A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, The rise of graphene, Nature Materials, 183-191, 2007

    2007

  12. [20]

    P. M. Gruber, In many cases optimal configurations are almost regular hexagonal, Rend. Mat. Palermo, 2 (Suppl. 65), 121-145, 2000

    2000

  13. [21]

    P. M. Gruber, Convex and Discrete Geometry, Grundlehren der mathematicschen Wissenschaften, Part of the Springer Proceedings in mathematics book series, volume 336, 2007

    2007

  14. [22]

    J. F. Lutsko, How crystals form: A theory of nucleation pathways, Sci. Adv., 5, eaav 7399 (2019). 34 KAIXIN DENG AND SENPING LUO

    2019

  15. [23]

    S. Luo, X. Ren and J. Wei, Non-hexagonal lattices from a two species interacting system, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 52(2) (2020), 1903-1942

    2020

  16. [24]

    Luo and J

    S. Luo and J. Wei, On minima of sum of theta functions and application to Mueller-Ho conjecture, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 243 (2022), no. 1, 139-199

    2022

  17. [25]

    Luo and J

    S. Luo and J. Wei, On minima of difference of theta functions and application to hexagonal crystallization, Math. Ann., 387 (2023), no. 1-2, 499-539

    2023

  18. [26]

    S. Luo, J. Wei and W. Zou, On universally optimal lattice phase transitions and energy minimizers of completely monotone potentials, arXiv:2110.08728

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Luo and J

    S. Luo and J. Wei, On lattice hexagonal crystallization for non-monotone potentials, J. Math. Phys., 65(2024), no. 7, Paper No. 071901, 28 pp

    2024

  20. [28]

    Montgomery, Minimal theta functions, Glasgow Math

    H. Montgomery, Minimal theta functions, Glasgow Math. J., 30 (1988), 75-85

    1988

  21. [29]

    Sandier and S

    E. Sandier and S. Serfaty, From the Ginzburg-Landau model to vortex lattice problems, Comm. Math. Phys., 313(2012), 635-743

    2012

  22. [30]

    Serfaty, Systems of points with Coulomb interactions, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathe- maticians Rio de Janeiro 2018,Vol

    S. Serfaty, Systems of points with Coulomb interactions, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathe- maticians Rio de Janeiro 2018,Vol. I. Plenary lectures, 935-977, World Sci. Pulb., Hackensack, NJ, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Simon, Fifteen problems in mathematical physics, Oberwolfach Anniversary Volume, 1984, 423-454

    B. Simon, Fifteen problems in mathematical physics, Oberwolfach Anniversary Volume, 1984, 423-454

    1984

  24. [32]

    Simon, Schr¨odinger Operators in the Twenty-First Century, Mathematical Physics 2000, Imperial College London, pp

    B. Simon, Schr¨odinger Operators in the Twenty-First Century, Mathematical Physics 2000, Imperial College London, pp. 283-288, 2000

    2000

  25. [33]

    Strohmer and S

    T. Strohmer and S. Beaver, Optimal OFDM design for time-frequency dispersive channels, IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 1111-1122, July 2003

    2003

  26. [34]

    Uzunova, W

    V. Uzunova, W. Pan, V. Lubchenko and P. G. Vekilov, Control of the nucleation of sickle cell hemoglobin polymers by free hematin, Faraday Discuss, 159, 87-104 (2012). (K. Deng) School of Mathematics and statistics, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, 330022, China (S. Luo) Sc...

    2012

Pith tools

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