Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 64 references

A rigorous data-driven approach to the nucleation of defects in metals exploiting the link between kinetic properties and (dis)order parameters

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the choice of order parameter strongly controls inferred nucleation rates, and uses a variational principle to rank descriptors for dislocation nucleation in copper.

desk verdict A credible, well-executed demonstration that order-parameter choice controls inferred dislocation-nucleation rates, with an honest workflow for ranking descriptors; the Markovianity caveat is real but does not overturn the central ranking. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20211 v2 pith:KF2G4AUJ submitted 2025-04-28 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Mattia Perrone , David D. Girardier , Giovanni M. Pavan , Fabio Pietrucci This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords dislocationnucleationorderparametervariationalprincipleLangevindynamicskineticratenon-affinedisplacementcommittoranalysismolecular
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

This paper argues that the order parameter used to monitor a thermally activated nucleation event in a metal is not a neutral reporting choice: it directly controls the accuracy of free-energy barriers and kinetic rates estimated from molecular dynamics trajectories. Studying spontaneous dislocation nucleation in a sheared fcc copper crystal through 200 replica simulations, the authors infer one-dimensional Langevin models for seven candidate order parameters and rank them using a variational principle: better order parameters yield lower predicted rates, converging to the exact brute-force rate as the order parameter approaches the committor. The non-affine displacement summed over the largest defect cluster ranks best, overestimating the brute-force nucleation rate by a factor of about 150 with a single stochastic model and by less than one order of magnitude when separate models are built for ten different transition states. The results identify the critical nucleus as an elongated cluster of 80–120 atoms with hot spots of high non-affine displacement that initiate slip, and the workflow is meant to extend to higher-barrier processes via transition path sampling.

What carries the argument

The central object is the one-dimensional projected trajectory $q(t)$ of the system along a candidate order parameter, analyzed as an overdamped Langevin process with a free-energy profile $F(q)$ and a position-dependent diffusion coefficient $D(q)$ inferred by likelihood maximization. This model converts each descriptor into a predicted kinetic rate through a mean-first-passage-time integral, and a variational principle of effective dynamics says that the predicted rate decreases toward the brute-force value as $q$ approaches the committor. The ranking criterion is therefore not a human judgment of how physical a descriptor looks, but a quantitative comparison of predicted rates. The machinery also includes committor analysis to locate transition states and per-transition-state stochastic models to separate genuine order-parameter limitation from pathway heterogeneity.

What would settle it

Run the same likelihood-inference workflow on the same 200 replica trajectories at a much longer lag time, such as 0.2 ps where the velocity autocorrelation is clearly nonzero, and compare the predicted rate for $D^2_{min,cluster}$ with the brute-force rate; if the rate changes by orders of magnitude or falls below the brute-force rate, the Markovian reduction at the working resolution fails. Alternatively, build a deliberately committor-like descriptor through a machine-learned surrogate of the committor: if it does not lower the predicted rate, the variational ranking is not operative for this system.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the projected dynamics of a rare nucleation event along a one-dimensional order parameter can be used not only to characterize the process but to select the optimal order parameter itself: regardless of the physical intuition behind a descriptor, the kinetic rate predicted by the maximum-likelihood overdamped Langevin model decreases as the descriptor improves, and the lower bound is attained by the committor. For homogeneous dislocation nucleation in fcc copper near the elastic-plastic limit, the authors demonstrate this convergence partially: the non-affine displacement of atoms in the largest defect cluster, $D^2_{min,cluster}$, gives the lowest inferred rate, the closest free-energy barrier, and the best committor correlation among the tested descriptors. A single stochastic model overestimates the brute-force rate by a factor of about 150; replacing it with ten models conditioned on distinct transition states reduces the overestimate to less than one order of magnitude. The authors further show that the critical nuclei are heterogeneous: elongated clusters of 80–120 atoms with hcp atoms near the core and localized hot spots of non-affine displacement, and that these non-affine hot spots precede the collective slip of atomic planes.

Load-bearing premise

The projected one-dimensional dynamics is assumed to be Markovian and governed by the overdamped Langevin equation at a lag time of 0.02 ps, so the inferred free-energy profile, diffusion coefficient, and rate are meaningful.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Order-parameter choice can change inferred nucleation rates by orders of magnitude, so rate-based ranking provides a quantitative way to select descriptors without knowing the mechanism in advance.
  • In fcc copper under shear, tracking the sum of non-affine displacements in the largest defect cluster is the best of the tested descriptors, and per-transition-state models reproduce the brute-force rate to within one order of magnitude.
  • Homogeneous dislocation nucleation in copper proceeds through elongated critical nuclei of 80–120 atoms; the controlling events are localized hot spots of non-affine displacement, often associated with hcp atoms, that initiate plane slip.
  • The same likelihood-inference and variational-ranking workflow applies to processes with higher barriers when transition path sampling supplies the unbiased reactive trajectories.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A per-atom or spatial version of the non-affine displacement field, such as the volume or peak intensity of the hot spot, is a natural next descriptor; the cluster-summed variable may still smooth away part of the signal, and the paper does not test it.
  • The spread among the ten transition-state models implies that no single scalar order parameter may capture every nucleation pathway; a mixture model over critical-nucleus geometries could bring predicted rates even closer to the brute-force value.
  • The inferred rate itself could be used as a training loss for machine-learned order parameters, an extension the paper mentions but does not demonstrate.
  • Because the framework is coordinate-independent, applying it to heterogeneous nucleation at surfaces or grain boundaries may reveal different controlling descriptors than bulk homogeneous nucleation.
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 proposes a data-driven workflow for studying defect nucleation in metals by projecting unbiased molecular dynamics trajectories onto one-dimensional order parameters, inferring free-energy and diffusion profiles with a maximum-likelihood overdamped Langevin model, and using the predicted kinetic rates together with committor analysis to rank candidate order parameters. The method is applied to homogeneous dislocation nucleation in fcc Cu under constant shear at 300 K, using 200 replica MD simulations. The authors show that the inferred barrier and rate depend strongly on the order parameter, that the non-affine displacement of atoms in the largest defect cluster (D2min,cluster) is the best among the tested descriptors, and that building separate Langevin models for different transition states improves the rate estimate from a factor of about 150 to less than one order of magnitude above the brute-force rate. They interpret the monotonic decrease of the rate with order-parameter quality as a realization of the variational principle of Ref. 40.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the paper makes a useful methodological contribution by quantifying, in a concrete metal system, how strongly the choice of order parameter affects inferred nucleation barriers and rates, and by showing that a systematic combination of committor analysis and Langevin modeling can rank descriptors and identify transition states. The mechanistic finding that non-affine displacements localized in hot spots within the critical nucleus drive the collective slip is interesting and connects dislocation nucleation to the physics of amorphous plasticity. The manuscript is also commendable for providing reproducible code and data, and for comparing the inferred rates against independent brute-force MFPT estimates rather than fitting them. The main risk is that the central ranking and rate claims rest on the assumption that the projected one-dimensional dynamics is Markovian at the chosen lag time, an assumption that is only partially validated by the reported diagnostics.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.4, Eqs. (1)–(6), and SI Figs. S4, S7, S8] The Markovianity of the projected one-dimensional dynamics at τ = 0.02 ps is load-bearing for the inference of F(q), D(q), and for the rates computed from Eq. (6). The velocity autocorrelation decay and the whiteness of the model noise shown in the SI are necessary but not sufficient evidence: a high-dimensional Hamiltonian projected onto one coordinate generically retains memory, and velocity decorrelation at lag τ does not rule out hidden slow modes (e.g., cluster identity fluctuations or competing nucleation channels) acting on the ~5 ps barrier-crossing timescale. Residual non-Markovianity would bias the inferred profiles and could change the variational ranking of the order parameters, including the reported superiority of D2min,cluster. Please add a direct test of the Markov assumption, for example by simulating the Langevin dynamics with the inferred F and D and comparing the predicted mean first-passage time distribution with the brute-force data, or by estimating the memory kernel of the projected dynamics and showing that it decays on a timescale well below τ. The consistency between the τ = 0.02 ps and τ = 0.04 ps results (SI Figs. S5 and S6) is reassuring but does not by itself exclude memory on the crossing timescale.
  2. [§3.2, Fig. 5] The central quantitative claims—that the single-model rate for D2min,cluster overestimates the brute-force rate by a factor of about 150 and that the per-transition-state models reduce this to less than one order of magnitude—are presented without propagated uncertainties. The brute-force rate is given with a standard error, and the 10 per-TS estimates show a spread in the figure, but the Langevin-inferred rates themselves are point values with no confidence intervals. Please provide bootstrap or ensemble-based intervals for the inferred F, D, and rates (for example, resampling the 200 reactive trajectories or the 10 transition states), and state whether the ordering of the order parameters and the factor-150 comparison survive when inference noise is accounted for. This is particularly important because the ranking of D2min,cluster over Ncluster is the main claim of the paper.
  3. [§3.2, per-transition-state models] The per-transition-state models are inferred from short MD trajectories initialized at ten configurations with committor ~0.5. These trajectories are not stationary, and the likelihood inference is applied as if the transition density of the equilibrium Langevin process (Eqs. 2–5) governs them. The systematic improvement of the rates in Fig. 5 could therefore reflect transient-relaxation artifacts of the non-equilibrium initialization rather than genuine pathway heterogeneity. Please justify the application of the equilibrium Langevin likelihood to these short biased trajectories, or validate it by checking that per-TS models reproduce the same F(q) and D(q) as the global model in the regions where both are well sampled (e.g., in the metastable basin).
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2] The text contains two typos: 'pre-yeld conditions' should read 'pre-yield conditions', and the shear strain values are written as 'γ =10,525%' instead of the decimal notation '10.525%' used elsewhere.
  2. [§3.2 and Fig. 5 caption] The text says the best predicted rates are 'represented by the crosses in Fig. 5' and later describes the per-TS results as being 'reported in Fig. 5 with dots', while the caption refers to red crosses and colored circles; please unify the symbol terminology.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption in the main text begins with 'Figure 2: Figure 2:', a duplicated label that should be corrected.
  4. [§2.1 and §2.3] The text repeatedly renders 'fcc' as 'f cc' (for example, 'single f cc unit cell' and 'f cc local environment'); please correct the typesetting throughout.
  5. [Introduction] The introductory claim that for the optimal coordinate 'the free-energy landscape aligns closely with the exact profile' is stronger than what Fig. 4 shows, since even the best order parameter underestimates the barrier by about 5 kBT; please temper this phrasing or provide the quantitative comparison in the same place.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: predicted Langevin rates are benchmarked against brute-force MD and not fit to it; variational ranking rests on an external theorem and independent committor analysis.

full rationale

The paper's chain is: project reactive MD trajectories onto each candidate order parameter q; infer F(q) and D(q) by maximum likelihood from the overdamped Langevin propagator (Eqs. 2-5); compute a kinetic rate from the inferred profiles via the MFPT integral (Eq. 6); and compare that rate with the brute-force rate measured as the inverse mean first-passage time of the same 200-replica ensemble. The predicted rate is not a fit to the brute-force rate: the likelihood objective is the distribution of q-displacements over lag tau, not the MFPT, and the reported discrepancy (factor ~150 for D2min,cluster) demonstrates the model output is not forced to match the benchmark. The variational principle used for ranking is the external theorem of Ref. 40 (Zhang-Hartmann-Schutte), and the paper independently corroborates the ranking with committor-probability correlations (Fig. 3D), so the ranking is not imported solely from the authors' prior work. Self-citations to Refs. 38, 39, and 55 supply the inference machinery and its earlier MD application, but these are published methods with available code and do not smuggle in the target conclusion. The use of the same reactive trajectories for inference and benchmarking is a limitation of statistical independence but not circularity, because the MFPT is not a parameter of the likelihood model. The Markovianity of the one-dimensional projection at tau = 0.02 ps is a modeling assumption tested with velocity-autocorrelation and noise diagnostics (SI Figs. S4, S7, S8); even if those tests were insufficient, residual memory would be a validity threat, not a reduction of the predicted rate to the input data by construction. No equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is used to predict, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the EAM potential's fidelity, the Markovian overdamped-Langevin assumption for the projected dynamics, the local-equilibrium assumption for free-energy reconstruction, and the variational principle from Ref. 40. Several hand-set thresholds define the order parameters. No new physical entities are introduced; the free-energy and diffusion profiles are inferred from the trajectories by maximum likelihood, so the main 'free' content is the inferred model itself.

free parameters (4)
  • Non-affine displacement cutoff (D2min) = 2.65 Å
    Cutoff radius used to compute the non-affine displacement for each atom, following Falk and Langer (Ref. 53). Chosen by hand; not optimized against the kinetic rate.
  • Slipped-atom thresholds (Nslip) = 0.33 Å displacement; 3.4 Å cluster distance
    Thresholds used to define the Nslip order parameter, taken from Refs. 19 and 29. They are hand-set and affect the ranking but are not fitted to the target rate.
  • Langevin lag time tau = 0.02 ps (0.04 ps in SI)
    Time resolution for the discrete Langevin model, chosen so that the projected dynamics is approximately Markovian; validated with velocity autocorrelation. Results are checked at both values.
  • Applied shear strains = γ = 10.525% and 10.550%
    Pre-yield strains selected so that dislocation nucleation occurs spontaneously on MD timescales; these are simulation conditions, not tuned to match the benchmark rate.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Mishin EAM potential faithfully describes copper energetics and kinetics of dislocation nucleation.
    The entire simulation study uses this interatomic potential (Section 2.1); all quantitative conclusions are conditional on its fidelity.
  • domain assumption The projected one-dimensional dynamics q(t) is Markovian and follows the overdamped Langevin equation with position-dependent D(q) at τ = 0.02 ps.
    Central modeling assumption for inferring F(q) and D(q) and computing rates from Eq. 6. Checked via velocity autocorrelation and noise diagnostics (SI Figs. S4, S7, S8), but not proven from the full Hamiltonian dynamics.
  • domain assumption The system in the metastable basin is in local equilibrium, so F(q) = −kBT log ρeq(q) is valid up to the transition state.
    Used in Section 3.1 to construct brute-force free-energy landscapes and to benchmark the Langevin models; the paper explicitly limits this to the local-equilibrium region.
  • standard math The variational principle of Ref. 40 (rate decreases monotonically with order parameter quality, reaching the exact rate for the committor) applies to the finite and discretely sampled trajectories analyzed here.
    The ranking of order parameters by predicted rate relies on this theorem; the paper cites Zhang, Hartmann, and Schütte (2016) and its application in Ref. 39.
  • domain assumption DXA/CNA structural classification correctly identifies fcc, hcp, and defect atoms.
    The cluster-based order parameters (Ncluster, Rgyr,cluster, D2min,cluster) are defined on the largest cluster of non-fcc atoms from DXA; classification errors would change the descriptors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A rigorous data-driven approach to the nucleation of defects in metals exploiting the link between kinetic properties and (dis)order parameters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KF2G4AUJ

@misc{pith2026250420211,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A rigorous data-driven approach to the nucleation of defects in metals exploiting the link between kinetic properties and (dis)order parameters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KF2G4AUJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20211}
}
abstract

Nucleation processes, through which a new structure progressively forms within a pre-existing homogeneous phase, are fundamental in materials science, but are also typically non-trivial to elucidate. Cases in which to nucleate are defects (or disorder) in an initially ordered structure make no exception. A prominent example is the nucleation of dislocations in metals, which critically govern their mechanical, electronic, thermal, and chemical properties. While atomic-level insights can be attained using, \textit{e.g.}, molecular dynamics simulations, systematically characterizing nucleation mechanisms and accurately quantifying kinetic rates remain challenging tasks. In this work, we demonstrate how the choice of the order parameter used to track the transition has a very strong effect on the accuracy of the kinetic rate predicted from the corresponding free-energy barrier and diffusion coefficient, a fact that has been often overlooked in the past. By exploiting this systematic error to our advantage, we demonstrate that it is possible to rigorously characterize the nucleation process using a data-driven scheme based on a variational principle, leading to optimal order parameters and a faithful mechanistic description. We apply this method to characterize, as a representative case study, the nucleation of dislocations in crystalline $fcc$ copper by analyzing replica molecular dynamics simulations at the elastic-plastic limit. By means of committor analysis and Langevin modeling, our approach allows to systematically rank candidate (dis)order parameters, identify the critical nuclei (transition states), and infer the free-energy landscapes. Given its general foundations, this method can be extended to nucleation phenomena in a broad class of materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20211 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (A) Stress-strain curve of the Cu crystalline supercell modeled here under simple shear deformation (inset). The light blue shaded area indicates the pre-yield conditions used as the starting point for the equilibrium MD simulations. Close to such elastic/plastic limit, dislocation nucleation is a rare event. (B) Schematic representation of the free-energy landscape as a function of the order parameter q. The plot i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a provides an example of the time evolution of the “global structural asymmetry” ΣCSP order parameter (i.e., the sum at each timestep of the CSPi local centrosimmetry parameters of each atom i in the system), highlighting the two metastable states and the transition. By analyzing all trajectories, the rate of the process is estimated as the inverse of the mean first passage time, i.e., the inverse of the average tra… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (A) Reactive trajectories illustrating the evolution of the order parameters over time. Scatter points highlight the transition states, with colors representing the committor probability. (B) Probability histograms for the initial basin (blue) and the transition-states region (light blue) with committor probability between 0.4 and 0.6. (C) Free-energy barrier estimates as a function of the order parameters. The soli… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Estimated profiles of free-energy (F) and diffusion-coefficient (D) obtained using a Langevin model for various order parameters. The thick red line represents the inferred profiles from spontaneous brute-force transitions, while the thin colored lines correspond to mo…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of kinetic rate constants estimated using different order parameters. The red crosses represent rates inferred from spontaneous brute-force transitions, while the colored circles correspond to rates inferred from models constructed using short trajectories i…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Three-dimensional representations of the ten randomly selected transition states (TS) used to investigate dislocation nucleation through single transition pathways. For each TS, the upper panels show the largest defect cluster, with atoms colored according to their loc…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W., Mermin, N

    Ashcroft, N. W., Mermin, N. D. & Rodriguez, S. Solid state physics. American Journal of Physics 46, 116–117 (1978)

    work page 1978

  2. [2]

    M., Hirth, J

    Anderson, P. M., Hirth, J. P. & Lothe, J. Theory of dislocations (Cambridge University Press, 2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    P., Lothe, J

    Hirth, J. P., Lothe, J. & Mura, T. Theory of Dislocations (2nd ed.). Journal of Applied Mechanics 50, 476– 477 (1983). https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/appliedmechanics/article-pdf/50/ 2/476/5457083/476_3.pdf

    work page 1983

  4. [4]

    & Bacon, D

    Hull, D. & Bacon, D. J. Introduction to dislocations, vol. 37 (Elsevier, 2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    & Cai, W.Computer Simulations of Dislocations (Oxford University Press, 2006)

    Bulatov, V . & Cai, W.Computer Simulations of Dislocations (Oxford University Press, 2006). URL http://dx.doi. org/10.1093/oso/9780198526148.001.0001

    arXiv 2006

  6. [6]

    Meyers, M. A. & Chawla, K. K. Mechanical Behavior of Materials (Cambridge University Press, 2008). URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810947

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511810947 2008

  7. [7]

    Y ., He, M.-r., Shin, J., Richter, G

    Chen, L. Y ., He, M.-r., Shin, J., Richter, G. & Gianola, D. S. Measuring surface dislocation nucleation in defect-scarce nanostructures. Nature materials 14, 707–713 (2015). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/nmat4288

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Perrone, M., Cioni, M., Piane, M. D. & Pavan, G. M. Unsupervised tracking of local and collective defects dynamics in metals under deformation (2024). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.20999

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Miller, R. E. & Rodney, D. On the nonlocal nature of dislocation nucleation during nanoindentation. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 56, 1203–1223 (2008). URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2007.10. 005

    2008 doi

  2. [10]

    Singer, A. et al. Nucleation of dislocations and their dynamics in layered oxide cathode materials during battery charging. Nature Energy 3, 641–647 (2018). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-018-0184-2

    2018

  3. [11]

    Bertin, N., Sills, R. B. & Cai, W. Frontiers in the simulation of dislocations. Annual Review of Materials Research 50, 437–464 (2020). URL https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-matsci-091819-015500

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Shin, J. et al. Controlling dislocation nucleation-mediated plasticity in nanostructures via surface modification. Acta Materialia 166, 572–586 (2019). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2018.12.048

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    D., Baker, K

    Nguyen, L. D., Baker, K. L. & Warner, D. H. Atomistic predictions of dislocation nucleation with transition state theory. Physical Review B 84 (2011). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.024118

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    & Curtin, W

    Warner, D. & Curtin, W. Origins and implications of temperature-dependent activation energy barriers for dislocation nucleation in face-centered cubic metals. Acta Materialia 57, 4267–4277 (2009). URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.actamat.2009.05.024

    2009

  7. [15]

    & Curtin, W

    Ghafarollahi, A. & Curtin, W. A. Theory of double-kink nucleation in dilute bcc alloys. Acta Materialia 196, 635–650 (2020). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2020.07.008

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Activation enthalpy for kink-pair nucleation on dislocations: Comparison between static and dynamic atomic- scale simulations

    Rodney, D. Activation enthalpy for kink-pair nucleation on dislocations: Comparison between static and dynamic atomic- scale simulations. Physical Review B 76 (2007). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.76.144108

    2007 doi

  9. [17]

    Atomistic modeling of surface and grain boundary dislocation nucleation in fcc metals

    Zhang, Y .et al. Atomistic modeling of surface and grain boundary dislocation nucleation in fcc metals. Acta Materialia 237, 118155 (2022). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2022.118155

    2022

  10. [18]

    & Crandall, R

    Yelon, A., Movaghar, B. & Crandall, R. S. Multi-excitation entropy: its role in thermodynamics and kinetics. Reports on Progress in Physics 69, 1145–1194 (2006). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/69/4/R04

    2006 doi

  11. [19]

    & Cai, W

    Ryu, S., Kang, K. & Cai, W. Predicting the dislocation nucleation rate as a function of temperature and stress. Journal of Materials Research 26, 2335–2354 (2011). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1557/jmr.2011.275

    2011 doi

  12. [20]

    & Perez, D

    Bagchi, S. & Perez, D. Anomalous entropy-driven kinetics of dislocation nucleation (2024). arXiv:2402.00810

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    & Pietrucci, F

    Lam, J. & Pietrucci, F. Critical comparison of general-purpose collective variables for crystal nucleation. Physical Review E 107 (2023). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.107.L012601

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    M., Advincula, X

    Dietrich, F. M., Advincula, X. R., Gobbo, G., Bellucci, M. A. & Salvalaglio, M. Machine learning nucleation collective variables with graph neural networks. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 20, 1600–1611 (2023). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00722. 13/16

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    R., Zou, Z

    Beyerle, E. R., Zou, Z. & Tiwary, P. Recent advances in describing and driving crystal nucleation using machine learning and artificial intelligence. Current Opinion in Solid State and Materials Science 27, 101093 (2023). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cossms.2023.101093

    2023

  16. [24]

    Sosso, G. C. et al. Crystal nucleation in liquids: Open questions and future challenges in molecular dynamics simula- tions. Chemical reviews 116, 7078–7116 (2016). URL https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrev. 5b00744

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    & Dellago, C

    Jungblut, S. & Dellago, C. Pathways to self-organization: Crystallization via nucleation and growth. The European Physical Journal E 39, 1–38 (2016). URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epje/i2016-16077-6

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    Lupi, L. et al. Role of stacking disorder in ice nucleation. Nature 551, 218–222 (2017). URL https://doi.org/10. 1038/nature24279

    2017

  19. [27]

    Arjun, Berendsen, T. A. & Bolhuis, P. G. Unbiased atomistic insight in the competing nucleation mechanisms of methane hydrates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 19305–19310 (2019). URL https://doi.org/10. 1073/pnas.1906502116

    2019

  20. [28]

    & Rogal, J

    Liang, Y ., D´ıaz Leines, G., Drautz, R. & Rogal, J. Identification of a multi-dimensional reaction coordinate for crystal nucleation in ni3al. The Journal of chemical physics 152 (2020). URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0010074

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Ngan, A., Zuo, L. & Wo, P. Size dependence and stochastic nature of yield strength of micron-sized crystals: a case study on ni¡sub¿3¡/sub¿al. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 462, 1661–1681 (2006). URL https://royalsocietypub...

    2006

  22. [30]

    & Pavan, G

    Crippa, M., Cardellini, A., Caruso, C. & Pavan, G. M. Detecting dynamic domains and local fluctuations in complex molecular systems via timelapse neighbors shuffling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, e2300565120 (2023). URL https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2300565120

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    & Pavan, G

    Becchi, M., Fantolino, F. & Pavan, G. M. Layer-by-layer unsupervised clustering of statistically relevant fluctuations in noisy time-series data of complex dynamical systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121, e2403771121 (2024). URL https://doi.org/10.1073/p...

    2024 doi

  24. [33]

    Rapetti, D. et al. Machine learning of atomic dynamics and statistical surface identities in gold nanoparticles. Commun. Chem. 6, 143 (2023). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s42004-023-00936-z

    2023 doi

  25. [34]

    Cioni, M. et al. Innate dynamics and identity crisis of a metal surface unveiled by machine learning of atomic environments. J. Chem. Phys. 158, 124701 (2023). URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0139010

    2023 doi

  26. [35]

    Cioni, M. et al. Sampling real-time atomic dynamics in metal nanoparticles by combining experiments, simulations, and ma- chine learning. Advanced Science 11, 2307261 (2024). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/advs.202307261

    2024 doi

  27. [36]

    Caruso, C. et al. Classification and spatiotemporal correlation of dominant fluctuations in complex dynamical systems. PNAS Nexus 4 (2025). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf038

    2025 doi

  28. [37]

    & Doring, W

    Becker, R. & Doring, W. The kinetic treatment of nuclear formation in superheated vapors. Ann Phys 24, 719–752 (1935)

    1935

  29. [38]

    & Pietrucci, F

    Palacio-Rodriguez, K. & Pietrucci, F. Free energy landscapes, diffusion coefficients, and kinetic rates from transition paths. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 18, 4639–4648 (2022). URL https://doi.org/10.1021/ acs.jctc.2c00324. PMID: 35899416, https://doi.org/10.102...

    2022 doi

  30. [39]

    & Pietrucci, F

    Mouaffac, L., Palacio-Rodriguez, K. & Pietrucci, F. Optimal reaction coordinates and kinetic rates from the projected dynamics of transition paths. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 19, 5701–5711 (2023). URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00158

    2023 doi

  31. [40]

    & Sch¨utte, C

    Zhang, W., Hartmann, C. & Sch¨utte, C. Effective dynamics along given reaction coordinates, and reaction rate theory. Faraday Discuss. 195, 365–394 (2016). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C6FD00147E

    2016 doi

  32. [41]

    & Bolhuis, P

    Dellago, C. & Bolhuis, P. G. Transition path sampling and other advanced simulation techniques for rare events. Advanced computer simulation approaches for soft matter sciences III 167–233 (2009)

    2009

  33. [42]

    Gkeka, P. et al. Machine learning force fields and coarse-grained variables in molecular dynamics: application to materials and biological systems. Journal of chemical theory and computation 16, 4757–4775 (2020). URL https: //pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jctc.0c00355. 14/16

    2020 doi

  34. [43]

    J., Papaconstantopoulos, D

    Mishin, Y ., Mehl, M. J., Papaconstantopoulos, D. A., V oter, A. F. & Kress, J. D. Structural stability and lattice defects in copper: Ab initio, tight-binding, and embedded-atom calculations. Physical Review B 63, 224106 (2001). URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.63.224106

    2001 doi

  35. [44]

    Mendelev, M., Kramer, M., Becker, C. A. & Asta, M. Analysis of semi-empirical interatomic potentials appropriate for simulation of crystalline and liquid al and cu. Philosophical Magazine 88, 1723–1750 (2008). URL https: //doi.org/10.1080/14786430802206482

    2008 doi

  36. [45]

    M., Mao, Y

    Rassoulinejad-Mousavi, S. M., Mao, Y . & Zhang, Y . Evaluation of copper, aluminum, and nickel interatomic potentials on predicting the elastic properties. Journal of Applied Physics 119 (2016). URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1. 4953676

    2016 doi

  37. [46]

    Thompson, A. P. et al. LAMMPS - a flexible simulation tool for particle-based materials modeling at the atomic, meso, and continuum scales. Comp. Phys. Comm. 271, 108171 (2022). URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2021. 108171

    2022 doi

  38. [47]

    A unified formulation of the constant temperature molecular dynamics methods

    Nos´e, S. A unified formulation of the constant temperature molecular dynamics methods. The Journal of Chemical Physics 81, 511–519 (1984). URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.447334. https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/ article-pdf/81/1/511/18949062/511_1_online.pdf

    1984 doi

  39. [48]

    Hoover, W. G. & Holian, B. L. Kinetic moments method for the canonical ensemble distribution.Physics Letters A 211, 253– 257 (1996). URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0375960195009736

    1996

  40. [49]

    Todd, B. D. & Daivis, P. J. Nonequilibrium Molecular Dynamics: Theory, Algorithms and Applications (Cambridge University Press, 2017). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781139017848

    2017 doi

  41. [50]

    Stukowski, A., Bulatov, V . V . & Arsenlis, A. Automated identification and indexing of dislocations in crystal interfaces. Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering 20, 085007 (2012). URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/0965-0393/20/8/085007

    2012

  42. [51]

    Honeycutt, J. D. & Andersen, H. C. Molecular dynamics study of melting and freezing of small lennard-jones clusters. The Journal of Physical Chemistry 91, 4950–4963 (1987). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/j100303a014

    1987 doi

  43. [52]

    L., Plimpton, S

    Kelchner, C. L., Plimpton, S. J. & Hamilton, J. C. Dislocation nucleation and defect structure during surface indentation. Physical Review B 58, 11085–11088 (1998). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.58.11085

    1998 doi

  44. [53]

    Falk, M. L. & Langer, J. S. Dynamics of viscoplastic deformation in amorphous solids. Physical Review E 57, 7192–7205 (1998). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.57.7192

    1998 doi

  45. [54]

    Nonequilibrium statistical mechanics (Oxford university press, 2001)

    Zwanzig, R. Nonequilibrium statistical mechanics (Oxford university press, 2001)

    2001

  46. [55]

    D., Vroylandt, H., Bonella, S

    Girardier, D. D., Vroylandt, H., Bonella, S. & Pietrucci, F. Inferring free-energy barriers and kinetic rates from molecular dynamics via underdamped langevin models. The Journal of Chemical Physics 159 (2023). URL http://dx.doi. org/10.1063/5.0169050

    2023 doi

  47. [56]

    Drozdov, A. N. High-accuracy discrete path integral solutions for stochastic processes with noninvertible diffusion matrices. Phys. Rev. E 55, 2496–2508 (1997). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.55.2496

    1997 doi

  48. [57]

    & Pavan, G

    Doria, D., Martino, S., Becchi, M. & Pavan, G. M. Data-driven assessment of optimal spatiotemporal resolutions for information extraction in noisy time series data (2024). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.13741

    2024

  49. [58]

    & Pavan, G

    Martino, S., Doria, D., Lionello, C., Becchi, M. & Pavan, G. M. A data driven approach to classify descriptors based on their efficiency in translating noisy trajectories into physically-relevant information (2024). URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2411.12570

    2024

  50. [59]

    Wang, H. et al. Nonaffine strains control ductility of metallic glasses. Physical Review Letters 128, 155501 (2022). URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.155501

    2022 doi

  51. [60]

    Dong, J. et al. Non-affine atomic rearrangement of glasses through stress-induced structural anisotropy. Nature Physics 19, 1896–1903 (2023). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02243-9

    2023 doi

  52. [61]

    Theory of disordered solids

    Zaccone, A. Theory of disordered solids. Cham: Springer .[Google Scholar](2023). URL https://link.springer. com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-24706-4

    2023 doi

  53. [62]

    Baggioli, M., Kriuchevskyi, I., Sirk, T. W. & Zaccone, A. Plasticity in amorphous solids is mediated by topological defects in the displacement field. Physical Review Letters 127, 015501 (2021). URL https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.127.015501. 15/16

    2021

  54. [63]

    & Falk, M

    Desmarchelier, P., Fajardo, S. & Falk, M. L. Topological characterization of rearrangements in amorphous solids. Physical Review E 109, L053002 (2024). URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.109.L053002

    2024 doi

  55. [64]

    Clara-Rahola, J. et al. Affine and nonaffine motions in sheared polydisperse emulsions. Physical Review E 91, 010301 (2015). URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.91.010301

    2015 doi

  56. [65]

    General theory of the viscosity of liquids and solids from nonaffine particle motions

    Zaccone, A. General theory of the viscosity of liquids and solids from nonaffine particle motions. Physical Review E 108, 044101 (2023). URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.108.044101. 16/16 A rigorous data-driven approach to the nucleation of defects in metals exploiting the...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.