Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Comment on "Explicit Analytical Solution for Random Close Packing in $d=2$ and $d=3$"

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2201.06129 v4 pith:STBZTAZM submitted 2022-01-16 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mech

classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mech
keywords analyticalclosederivationexplicitrandomcommenterratumpacking
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
abstract

In this short commentary we provide our comment on the article "Explicit Analytical Solution for Random Close Packing in $d=2$ and $d=3$" and its subsequent Erratum that are recently published in Physical Review Letters. In that Letter, the author presented an explicit analytical derivation of the volume fractions $\phi_{\rm RCP}$ for random close packings (RCP) in both $d=2$ and $d=3$. Here we first briefly show the key parts of the derivation in Ref.~\cite{Za22}, and then provide arguments on why we think the derivation of the analytical results is problematic and unjustified, and why the Erratum does not address or clarify the concerns raised previously by us.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools