Like I said, impressive work.
Converting science to shaders is an art.

I guess your coding standards follows scientific standards.
And I guess it depends on your audience.

I guess the perspective is that science/maths formulae are meant to be manipulated. So writing out descriptive names is only done at the most basic levels of understanding. Most of the workings are done on paper/boards, or manually. Extra letters are not efficient.
Whereas programming is meant to be understood and adapted. So self-describing code is key! Most workings are done within an IDE with autocomplete. Extra letters don't matter.

If you are targeting the science community with this, a paragraph about adapting science to programming will be important.
Scientists will find your article and go "well yeh, that's K2". But explaining why these aren't named as such will hopefully help them to produce useful code in the future.

The fun of code that spans disciplines!

Edit;
Om a side note, I am terrible at coding standards when I'm working with a new paradigm.
First is "make it work", after which it's pretty much done.
Never mind consistent naming conventions and all that.
The fact you wrote up an article on it is amazing!
Good work!