Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 68 references

Random geometric graphs quantitatively reproduce the shifted percolation thresholds of reversible associative polymer solutions when the detection radius is set by the polymer's radius of gyration.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 02:09 UTC pith:M35AP4FV

load-bearing objection Useful framework, but the central predictive claim about Rcut=Rg is not yet established: the flexible-case agreement comes from a fitted Rcut, and the stiffness-transfer test is the real evidence. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25534 v2 pith:M35AP4FV submitted 2026-07-28 cond-mat.soft

From real polymers to random graphs: percolation thresholds in associative polymer solutions

Xinxiang Chen , Lennart Hebestreit , Friederike Schmid This is my paper
classification cond-mat.soft
keywords associative polymerspercolation thresholdrandom geometric graphFlory-Stockmayer theoryprimary loopsradius of gyrationgelationmolecular dynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper argues that the gel point of a solution of reversibly associating polymer chains is not set by the classical mean-field branching condition alone; geometry and small loops shift it, and a random geometric graph—where each chain is a point vertex and any two chains closer than a detection radius can bond—reproduces the shifted threshold quantitatively. The detection radius is not a free parameter: it is set by the polymer's own size, about twice the radius of gyration for identical chains, or the sum of the two radii in a two-component system. With a coordinate-free random graph, the classical mean-field threshold is recovered exactly, which pins down the missing ingredient as spatial constraint. The paper identifies primary loops formed in the pre-gel regime as the microscopic cause of the shift, and shows that cluster statistics near the threshold follow the three-dimensional percolation universality class rather than the mean-field one. If right, this gives a minimal predictive route from single-chain conformational information to gelation thresholds in associative polymer solutions.

Core claim

In associative polymer solutions, percolation thresholds are systematically higher than the classical mean-field prediction because bond formation is restricted to chains that are physically close and because small loops consume binding sites without expanding clusters. The paper shows that a random geometric graph, in which chains are placed uniformly in a box and a bond is allowed only when the chain centers are within a cutoff distance, quantitatively matches molecular-dynamics simulated thresholds when the cutoff equals the conformational size of the chains: Rcut≈2Rg for homoassociative chains and Rcut≈Rg,A+Rg,B for heteroassociative mixtures. The same RGG construction also reproduces th

What carries the argument

The central object is the random geometric graph (RGG): each polymer is a vertex, each binding site defines a maximum degree, and a bond is permitted only between vertex pairs whose center-to-center distance is at most a detection radius Rcut. The carrying identity is the relation Rcut≈2Rg (homoassociative) or Rcut≈Rg,A+Rg,B (heteroassociative), which converts a measured single-chain radius of gyration into the connectivity range and thereby turns the gel point into a geometric percolation problem. Alongside the RGG, the paper uses primary loops—minimal cycles, intrachain bonds in the homo system and redundant double bonds in the hetero system—to renormalize the effective functionality and e

Load-bearing premise

The mapping assumes that a single scalar length scale—the polymer's radius of gyration—fully captures the spatial constraints on bonding, so a chain can be replaced by a point vertex with a hard interaction cutoff; if intrachain connectivity, chain orientation, or many-body correlations matter, the random-geometric-graph description breaks down.

What would settle it

For a solution with non-uniformly placed stickers, measure the percolation threshold at known concentration and binding probability and check whether any single Rcut reproduces it; if no single cutoff matches the simulated threshold, the point-vertex RGG is refuted as a quantitative description. A more targeted test would compare the fitted Rcut with the independently measured center-of-mass separation at which two chains first form a stable bond.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • The gel point of reversible associative polymer solutions can be predicted from single-chain conformational measurements (Rg) rather than fitted to binding energies alone.
  • The classical Flory–Stockmayer threshold is the RGG limit with infinite detection radius; geometry, not topology, is what moves the threshold.
  • Primary-loop formation before gelation lowers effective functionality; suppressing loops (e.g., by chain stiffening) pushes the threshold back toward the mean-field prediction.
  • Near the gel point, cluster statistics are in the three-dimensional percolation universality class, so observed exponents can be used to test the RGG description.
  • The RGG picture remains quantitatively accurate across chain stiffnesses as long as Rcut is updated with the measured Rg.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test of the mapping would be to measure Rg and the percolation threshold for polymers with non-uniform sticker placement; the paper predicts a single-Rcut RGG will fail, and the deviation size would indicate how much local sticker geometry matters.
  • Because the RGG places chains as points in a pre-assigned random configuration, the mapping implicitly assumes annealed, equilibrium bonding; for kinetically trapped or irreversible networks the same cutoff may not hold, and a dynamic RGG with moving vertices would be the natural extension.
  • The fitted homo cutoff being below 2Rg suggests the effective bonding range is set by the sticker–sticker contact distance rather than the coil's outer extent; measuring this independently would refine the interpretation.
  • If the universality claim holds, experimental gel-point exponents in dilute associative polymer solutions should match three-dimensional percolation rather than mean-field, a testable distinguishing prediction.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper combines coarse-grained molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of homo- and heteroassociative polymer solutions with random graph (RG) and random geometric graph (RGG) models to interpret sol–gel percolation thresholds. The RG model is shown to recover the Flory–Stockmayer mean-field limit, while an RGG with a spatial cutoff Rcut is claimed to reproduce the MD percolation thresholds when Rcut is set by the polymer radius of gyration (≈2Rg for homo, ≈Rg,A+Rg,B for hetero). The authors attribute the upward deviation from mean-field to primary loops formed in the pre-gel regime, propose loop-corrected effective-functionality criteria, derive analytical cluster-size distributions via generating functions and Lagrange inversion, and report 3D percolation critical behavior near the gel point.

Significance. If the RGG mapping is predictive, it offers a minimal framework connecting single-chain conformation to gelation, with broad relevance to associative polymers, supramolecular materials, and biomolecular condensates. The manuscript is strengthened by open data/code, thorough analytical derivations in Appendices A and B, and the use of chain-stiffness variation as a non-fitted test. However, the core predictive claim is not fully supported by the presented evidence: the flexible homoassociative Rcut is manually fitted and inconsistent with 2Rg, and the only non-fitted test (stiffness transfer) lacks quantitative uncertainty analysis. The potential is clear, but the paper currently overstates what is demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III A, Fig. 3, Table I] The central claim that RGG thresholds are reproduced when Rcut is chosen from polymer conformational size is not established for the flexible homoassociative system. The text admits that Rcut was 'adjusted manually to obtain optimal agreement' (Section III A), and the fitted Rcut=8σ is inconsistent with the stated 2Rg=9.74±0.64σ, differing by about 22% (>2σ). Since the RGG threshold is strongly Rcut-dependent, the paper must show that using Rcut=2Rg (with its uncertainty) still matches the MD thresholds; otherwise the homo case is a fit rather than a prediction. The hetero flexible case (Rcut=10σ vs Rg,A+Rg,B=9.79σ) alone cannot carry the general claim.
  2. [Section III D, Table III, Fig. 8] The stiffness transfer is the only test in which Rcut is not fitted to the percolation threshold, and it is therefore the load-bearing evidence for predictivity. Yet no error bars or quantitative agreement metric are provided for the RGG versus MD threshold curves; visual agreement is asserted. Moreover, the reported Rg values are measured in the interacting MD system, not in independent single-chain or dilute simulations, so the test does not establish that gelation can be inferred from single-chain conformational information alone. Please quantify the agreement (e.g., threshold residuals in pA or pB) and, ideally, determine Rg from dilute isolated-chain simulations.
  3. [Section III A, Fig. 3(a)] The dilute-regime deviation (c < c* ≈ 0.18σ−3) is set aside by attributing it to non-equilibration at ϵsp>13kBT, with those points marked as open symbols. This is precisely the regime where the RGG uniform-random-position assumption is most questionable, and excluding it weakens the 'quantitative reproduction' claim in the abstract. Please either restrict the claim to the equilibrated semidilute regime or provide equilibrated data in the dilute regime, and discuss whether the RGG model is expected to apply there.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figures 3 and 8] Several axis labels and symbols in the manuscript version appear garbled, making it difficult to verify numerical values. Please provide clean, readable figures.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A30)] By symmetry and comparison with the first factor, the second probability factor in P^(0)_{m,n} should be (1−p_B)^{f_B n − m − n +1}, not (1−p_A) as printed. Please correct this typo.
  3. [Table I] Labeling Rcut=8σ as '≈2Rg' is misleading when the difference is 22%. Please list the best-fit value and the inferred physical value separately and discuss the discrepancy explicitly.
  4. [Section IV, Summary] The summary states that Rcut 'can be determined directly by polymer conformations measured in simulation, rather than treated as a fitting parameter', which contradicts the manual adjustment admitted in Section III A. These statements should be reconciled.
  5. [Section II C, Eq. (7)] The quantity n_total^bound is not explicitly defined; please clarify that it denotes the total number of reacted binding sites in the system.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

RGG validation rests on a fitted Rcut: homo Rcut=8σ is manually adjusted to match MD thresholds and deviates from 2Rg≈9.7σ; the loop-corrected F–S criterion also ingests simulation-measured loops.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III A (Percolation threshold), Fig. 3; Table I]
    "Here we have adjusted Rcut manually to obtain optimal agreement between simulations and RGG data. ... The RGG detection radius can therefore be interpreted as a physically motivated conformational length scale, rather than an arbitrary fitting parameter."

    The central validation that RGG quantitatively reproduces the MD thresholds is obtained by tuning the RGG detection radius to those very MD thresholds. The claim that Rcut is set by conformational size is post hoc: Table I gives Rg=4.87±0.32σ for the homo chains, implying 2Rg≈9.74±0.64σ, while the fitted Rcut=8σ is about 18% smaller and more than two sigma away. Since the RGG percolation threshold moves monotonically with Rcut, as the paper itself notes, the Fig. 3 agreement is enforced rather than derived. The stiffness-transfer runs are a genuine non-fitted check, but the primary homo/hetero threshold comparison is a one-parameter fit renamed as a prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section II C (Eqs. 6-8) and Section III B; Fig. 5]
    "⟨feff⟩ = f − 2nloop/nchain ... peff = 2(ntotal bound − nloop)/(nchain ⟨feff⟩) ... Together, we can modify gelation threshold to become peff(⟨feff⟩ − 1) = 1."

    nloop and ntotal bound are measured from the same MD simulations whose percolation threshold is then predicted by Eq. (8) in Fig. 5. The loop-corrected threshold is therefore constructed from the target data; its improved agreement with simulation is an inevitable consequence of the measured loop statistics, not an independent prediction. The same construction applies to the hetero criterion Eq. (12) via nred. It usefully diagnoses the loop mechanism, but it is not a first-principles prediction.

full rationale

The paper contains real independent content: the RG-to-FS mapping, the generating-function derivations, the three-dimensional-percolation critical exponents, and especially the stiffness-transfer tests where Rcut=Rg,A+Rg,B is not tuned to the thresholds. However, the main homo/hetero RGG validation is circular in the precise sense that Rcut, the geometric parameter controlling the RGG threshold, was manually adjusted to the MD thresholds before being re-labelled as a conformational length scale; for the homo system the fitted value does not even equal 2Rg. The loop-corrected criterion similarly feeds measured loop counts back into the threshold it claims to predict. These are fitted-input-called-prediction steps rather than a self-citation chain, so the appropriate score is 6 rather than higher.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central RGG claim rests on one fitted parameter (Rcut) per flexible system, later rationalized by Rg; the analytical F–S derivations are standard tree-level generating functions resting on tree-like assumptions. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Rcut (homoassoc, flexible) = 8σ
    Adjusted manually to optimal agreement with MD percolation thresholds (Sec. III A); interpreted as ≈2Rg but measured 2Rg=9.7σ.
  • Rcut (heteroassoc, flexible) = 10σ
    Adjusted manually to match MD thresholds; matches Rg,A+Rg,B=9.79σ.
  • Rcut (ka=5 kBT) = 17σ
    Prescribed by fitted rule Rcut≈RgA+RgB from MD-measured Rg (11.55+5.78); not fitted to the ka=5 threshold, but rule was fit on flexible systems.
  • Rcut (ka=100 kBT) = 30σ
    Same fitted rule; RgA+RgB=29.8σ; predicted, not threshold-fitted.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Equal reactivity of all functional groups, random reactions, no cyclization within finite clusters (F–S assumptions).
    Invoked in Appendix A to derive cluster-size distributions (Eqs. A6-A11, A19-A33).
  • domain assumption A polymer chain maps to a point vertex; chain connectivity enters only through functionality and Rg.
    Defines RG/RGG construction (Sec. II B); RGG places vertices uniformly at random with no internal structure.
  • ad hoc to paper Rcut≈2Rg (homo) and Rcut≈RgA+RgB (hetero) is the correct physical contact rule.
    Post-hoc rationalization of fitted Rcut values; not derived independently; homo match is approximate (8σ vs 9.7σ).
  • domain assumption Simulated systems do not phase separate, only percolate.
    Stated in Sec. III A: "they do not phase separate, they only feature percolation transitions"; depends on parameter choices.
  • domain assumption Three-bead binding site enforces one-to-one binding without spurious effects.
    Simulation modeling assumption; not directly verified beyond bond lifetime checks.
  • standard math Lagrange–Bürmann and Lagrange–Good inversion theorems are valid for coefficient extraction.
    Used in Appendix A (Eqs. A9, A26).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25904 in / 19145 out tokens · 172647 ms · 2026-08-01T02:09:01.548349+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From real polymers to random graphs: percolation thresholds in associative polymer solutions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M35AP4FV

@misc{pith2026260725534,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From real polymers to random graphs: percolation thresholds in associative polymer solutions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M35AP4FV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25534}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Sol-gel transitions are ubiquitous in soft matter and biological systems, yet their thresholds are often poorly captured by classical Flory-Stockmayer theory because spatial organization and loop formation are neglected. Here, we combine molecular dynamics simulations with random graph and random geometric graph models to determine the respective roles of topology and geometry in reversible associative polymer solutions. We show that a coordinate-free random graph recovers the mean-field Flory-Stockmayer limit, whereas a random geometric graph quantitatively reproduces the shifted percolation thresholds observed in molecular dynamics simulations when the detection radius is chosen according to the polymer conformational size. This geometric mapping remains quantitatively valid for linear chains with regularly spaced binding sites over a broad range of chain stiffness. At the microscopic level, we identify primary loops formed already in the pre-gel regime as the dominant source of the deviation from mean-field predictions. Near the gel point, the cluster-size statistics obtained from simulations and random geometric graphs are consistent with the universality class of three-dimensional percolation. These results establish random geometric graphs as a minimal predictive framework for describing topological transitions in reversible associative polymer solutions and show that gelation and network formation can be inferred directly from single-chain conformational information.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25534 by Friederike Schmid, Lennart Hebestreit, Xinxiang Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The structure of heteroassociative (a) and homoas￾sociative (b) polymers in the simulation model. The red and blue beads are the binding sites for each component, con￾nected by the neutral linkers (white beads). For the homoas￾sociative polymer in (b), each binding site contains two side beads, which ensure one-to-one binding by their steric inter￾actions. Side beads have repulsive interactions with all ot… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Flowchart of the random graph(RG) (a) and random geometric graph (RGG) generation (b) for the homoassociative polymer system. The procedure for heteroassociative polymers (not shown) is analogous, except that a second type of vertices is introduced, and the bond formation is restricted to occur only between two different kinds of vertices (i.e., only A–B crosslinking is allowed, while A–A and B–B crosslink… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Percolation threshold for (a) homoassociative and (b) heteroassociative polymer solutions. The lower-left region corresponds to the sol state, the upper-right region to the gel state. The blue point lines mark parameter values where the averaged percolation probability is ⟨P⟩ = 0.5 in simula￾tions. The open symbols in (a) denote points where binding energies are so large (ϵsp > 13kBT) that the system could… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Schematic illustration of a primary loop in each system: intra-chain binding in the homoassociative system, and a minimal cycle in the heteroassociative system. (b,c) Comparison of cycle statistics in MD simulations, RGG, and RG models for homo- and hetero-associative polymer systems, respectively. Symbols denote MD simulation results, solid lines the corresponding RGG prediction with an optimized cuto… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between percolation thresholds pre￾dicted by the original and loop-corrected F–S percolation cri￾teria and MD simulation results (blue squares, same data as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cluster-size distribution as a function of the cluster size fraction for different binding probabilities p, obtained from (a) MD simulations, (b) RGG with detection radius Rcut = 8σ, and (c) RG or RGG with an extremely large detection radius(Rcut > 100σ). Light solid lines indicate the theoretical prediction (calculated by Eq. (A11)). Light dashed vertical lines mark the giant-cluster fraction G = n giant … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cluster-size distributions of the heteroassociative system as a function of the cluster-size fraction for fixed A￾component number (nA = 250) and increasing B-component number(nB), obtained from (a) MD simulations, (b) RGG with detection radius Rcut = 10σ, and (c) RG or RGG with extremely large detection radius(Rcut > 100σ). Light solid lines denote the corresponding theoretical predictions (calculated by … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Percolation thresholds of the heteroassociative system at different chain stiffnesses, comparing MD simulation results with predictions from the RGG model and the mean-field theory. (a) and (b) correspond to angular potential constants (ka = 5kBT) and (ka = 100kBT), respectively. (c) shows the loop number as a function of stiffness from MD simulations, and (d) the corresponding loop number predicted by the… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Randomly generate polymers(vertices)in a box--n chains(vertices)--f sites per chain

  2. [2]

    Random shuffle of all n·fsites array = [0,0,..0, 1,1,1...]farray = [3,7,3,1,4,1,2,8, ...] Pairs:(array[0],array[1]),(array[2],array[3]),

  3. [3]

    Pair sites: sequentiallyform ≈ n·f·p/2 bonds--Allows intra-chain and inter-chain bonds--Controls p through the number of pairs

  4. [4]

    Randomly sample pairs from the candidate list, while enforcing that each chain does not exceed f bonds, accepting pairs until the target number of bonds ≈ n·f·p/2 is reached

  5. [5]

    Flowchart of the random graph(RG) (a) and random geometric graph (RGG) generation (b) for the homoassociative polymer system

    For every pair of chains 𝑖,𝑗within the cut-off distance Rcut(including 𝑖=𝑗), add the pair (𝑖,𝑗) to the candidate list Rcut (a) Random graph (b) Random geometric graph (RGG) Figure 2. Flowchart of the random graph(RG) (a) and random geometric graph (RGG) generation (b) for the homoassociative polymer system. The procedure for heteroassociative polymers (no...

    2000

  6. [6]

    The extent of reaction is characterized by the conver- sion p (0 ≤ p < 1), representing the fraction of func- tional groups that have reacted

    Homoassociative system We begin by considering a system of N identical monomers, each containing f functional groups ( f ≥ 2). The extent of reaction is characterized by the conver- sion p (0 ≤ p < 1), representing the fraction of func- tional groups that have reacted. We invoke the standard assumptions of Flory–Stockmayer (F–S) theory: (i) all functional...

  7. [7]

    Since every bond consumes one reactive group on each species, the reaction probabilities pA and pB are constrained by the stoichiometric relation pAfANA = pBfBNB =: Np

    Heteroassociative system We next consider a binary system composed of NA molecules of type A with functionality fA and NB monomers of type B with functionality fB, where only A–B bonds are allowed. Since every bond consumes one reactive group on each species, the reaction probabilities pA and pB are constrained by the stoichiometric relation pAfANA = pBfB...

  8. [8]

    (B2) We denote by E(W out) the expected branch weight ob- tained by following a randomly chosen reactive group

    Homoassociative system For a polydisperse homoassociative system containing nfi molecules with functionality fi, the probability of reaching a molecule of type i following a reacted bond is proportional to the number of reactive groups carried by that species, xi = finfi∑ j fjnfj . (B2) We denote by E(W out) the expected branch weight ob- tained by follow...

  9. [9]

    (B13) Here, xi and yj are the probabilities of reaching an A- type or B-type junction of a given functionality when following a reacted bond

    Heteroassociative system For a heteroassociative system composed of nA,fi molecules of component A with functionality fi and nB,gj molecules of component B with functionality gj, we de- fine xi = finA,fi∑ k fknA,fk , y j = gjnB,gj ∑ k gknB,gk . (B13) Here, xi and yj are the probabilities of reaching an A- type or B-type junction of a given functionality wh...

  10. [10]

    R. V. Pappu, S. R. Cohen, F. Dar, M. Farag, and M. Kar, Phase transitions of associative biomacro- molecules, Chemical Reviews 123, 8945–8987 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    Formanek, L

    M. Formanek, L. Rovigatti, E. Zaccarelli, F. Sciortino, and A. J. Moreno, Gel formation in reversibly cross- linking polymers , Macromolecules 54, 6613–6627 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    A. N. Semenov and M. Rubinstein, Thermoreversible gelation in solutions of associative polymers. 1. statics , Macromolecules 31, 1373–1385 (1998)

    1998

  13. [13]

    J.-M. Choi, A. A. Hyman, and R. V. Pappu, General- ized models for bond percolation transitions of associative polymers, Physical Review E 102, 042403 (2020)

    2020

  14. [14]

    Rovigatti and F

    L. Rovigatti and F. Sciortino, Designing enhanced en- tropy binding in single-chain nanoparticles , Physical Re- view Letters 129, 047801 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    X. Chen, J. A. Vishnu, P. Besenius, J. Konig, and F. Schmid, Sol–gel transition in heteroassociative rna- protein solutions: A quantitative comparison of coarse- grained simulations and the semenov–rubinstein theory , Macromolecules 58, 3331–3342 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    P. B. Rapp, A. K. Omar, B. R. Silverman, Z.-G. Wang, and D. A. Tirrell, Mechanisms of diffusion in associa- tive polymer networks: Evidence for chain hopping , Jour- nal of the American Chemical Society 140, 14185–14194 (2018)

    2018

  17. [17]

    Rossow, A

    T. Rossow, A. Habicht, and S. Seiffert, Relaxation and dynamics in transient polymer model networks , Macro- molecules 47, 6473–6482 (2014)

    2014

  18. [18]

    F. Dar, S. R. Cohen, D. M. Mitrea, A. H. Phillips, G. Nagy, W. C. Leite, C. B. Stanley, J.-M. Choi, R. W. Kriwacki, and R. V. Pappu, Biomolecular conden- sates form spatially inhomogeneous network fluids , Na- ture communications 15, 3413 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    P. J. Flory, Molecular size distribution in three- dimensional polymers. i. gelation , Journal of the Ameri- can Chemical Society 63, 3083–3090 (1941)

    1941

  20. [20]

    W. H. Stockmayer, Theory of molecular size distribution and gel formation in branched-chain polymers , The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics 11, 45–55 (1943)

    1943

  21. [21]

    W. H. Stockmayer, Theory of molecular size distribution and gel formation in branched polymers II. General cross linking, The Journal of Chemical Physics 12, 125–131 (1944)

    1944

  22. [22]

    J. L. Mann, R. L. Rossi, A. A. Smith, and E. A. Ap- pel, Universal scaling behavior during network formation in controlled radical polymerizations, Macromolecules 52, 9456–9465 (2019)

    2019

  23. [23]

    H. K. Beech, T.-S. Lin, D. Sen, D. Rota, and B. D. Olsen, Kinetics of polymer gel formation cause deviation from percolation theory in the dilute regime , Macromolecules 56, 9255–9263 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    Wang, T.-S

    R. Wang, T.-S. Lin, J. A. Johnson, and B. D. Olsen, Ki- netic monte carlo simulation for quantification of the gel point of polymer networks , ACS Macro Letters 6, 1414– 1419 (2017)

    2017

  25. [25]

    A. V. Dobrynin, Phase diagram of solutions of associative polymers, Macromolecules 37, 3881–3893 (2004)

    2004

  26. [26]

    Santra, B

    A. Santra, B. Dünweg, and J. Ravi Prakash, Univer- sal scaling and characterization of gelation in associa- tive polymer solutions , Journal of Rheology 65, 549–581 (2021)

    2021

  27. [27]

    Kryven, J

    I. Kryven, J. Duivenvoorden, J. Hermans, and P. D. Iedema, Random graph approach to multifunctional molecular networks , Macromolecular Theory and Simu- lations 25, 449–465 (2016)

    2016

  28. [28]

    Zhang, G

    R. Zhang, G. Mitra, S. Ghosh, and R. V. Pappu, Com- putational rheometry for modeling viscoelasticity and me- chanical responses of biomolecular condensates , Biophys- ical Journal 125, 1979–1995 (2026)

    1979

  29. [29]

    Y. Li, W. Zhao, Z. Cheng, Z.-Y. Sun, and H. Liu, Struc- tural heterogeneity in tetra-armed gels revealed by com- puter simulation: Evidence from a graph theory assisted characterization, The Journal of Chemical Physics 160, 144902 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    Erdös, A

    P. Erdös, A. Rényi, and B. Bollobás, Publicationes math- ematicae debrecen, Random Graphs I 6, 290–297 (1959)

    1959

  31. [31]

    Dall and M

    J. Dall and M. Christensen, Random geometric graphs , Physical Review E 66, 016121 (2002). 2 Heteroassociative system 19

    2002

  32. [32]

    G. S. Grest and K. Kremer, Molecular dynamics simula- tion for polymers in the presence of a heat bath , Physical Review A 33, 3628 (1986)

    1986

  33. [33]

    Kremer and G

    K. Kremer and G. S. Grest, Dynamics of entangled linear polymer melts: A molecular-dynamics simulation , The Journal of Chemical Physics 92, 5057–5086 (1990)

    1990

  34. [34]

    J. D. Weeks, D. Chandler, and H. C. Andersen, Role of repulsive forces in determining the equilibrium structure of simple liquids , The Journal of Chemical Physics 54, 5237–5247 (1971)

    1971

  35. [35]

    Zhang, B

    Y. Zhang, B. Xu, B. G. Weiner, Y. Meir, and N. S. Wingreen, Decoding the physical principles of two-component biomolecular phase separation , eLife 10, e62403 (2021)

    2021

  36. [36]

    Sciortino, Three-body potential for simulating bond swaps in molecular dynamics , The European Physical Journal E 40, 3 (2017)

    F. Sciortino, Three-body potential for simulating bond swaps in molecular dynamics , The European Physical Journal E 40, 3 (2017)

    2017

  37. [37]

    Rovigatti and F

    L. Rovigatti and F. Sciortino, Entropy-driven phase be- havior of associative polymer networks , SciPost Physics 15, 163 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    J. A. Anderson, C. D. Lorenz, and A. Travesset, Gen- eral purpose molecular dynamics simulations fully imple- mented on graphics processing units , Journal of Compu- tational Physics 227, 5342–5359 (2008)

    2008

  39. [39]

    Dall and M

    J. Dall and M. Christensen, Random geometric graphs , Physical Review E 66, 016121 (2002)

    2002

  40. [40]

    Newman, Networks (Oxford university press, 2018)

    M. Newman, Networks (Oxford university press, 2018)

    2018

  41. [41]

    P. J. Flory, Principles of polymer chemistry (Cornell uni- versity press, 1953)

    1953

  42. [42]

    S. P. O. Danielsen, A. N. Semenov, and M. Rubinstein, Phase separation and gelation in solutions and blends of heteroassociative polymers , Macromolecules 56, 5661– 5677 (2023)

    2023

  43. [43]

    Gordon, Goods theory of cascade processes applied to the statistics of polymer distributions , Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    M. Gordon, Goods theory of cascade processes applied to the statistics of polymer distributions , Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 268, 240–256 (1962)

    1962

  44. [44]

    C. W. Macosko and D. R. Miller, A new derivation of average molecular weights of nonlinear polymers , Macro- molecules 9, 199–206 (1976)

    1976

  45. [45]

    W. H. Stockmayer, Molecular distribution in conden- sation polymers , Journal of Polymer Science 9, 69–71 (1952)

    1952

  46. [46]

    M. E. Newman, S. H. Strogatz, and D. J. Watts, Ran- dom graphs with arbitrary degree distributions and their applications, Physical Review E 64, 026118 (2001)

    2001

  47. [47]

    I. J. Good, Generalizations to several variables of la- grange’s expansion, with applications to stochastic pro- cesses, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 56, 367–380 (1960)

    1960

  48. [48]

    I. J. Good, The generalization of lagrange’s expansion and the enumeration of trees , Mathematical Proceed- ings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 61, 499–517 (1965)

    1965

  49. [49]

    I. M. Gessel, A combinatorial proof of the multivari- able lagrange inversion formula , Journal of Combinato- rial Theory, Series A 45, 178–195 (1987)

    1987

  50. [50]

    Flajolet and R

    P. Flajolet and R. Sedgewick, Analytic combinatorics (cambridge University press, 2009)

    2009

  51. [51]

    Surya and L

    E. Surya and L. Warnke, Lagrange inversion formula by induction, The American Mathematical Monthly 130, 944–948 (2023)

    2023

  52. [52]

    T. S. Harmon, A. S. Holehouse, M. K. Rosen, and R. V. Pappu, Intrinsically disordered linkers determine the in- terplay between phase separation and gelation in multi- valent proteins , eLife 6, e30294 (2017)

    2017

  53. [53]

    Livraghi, K

    M. Livraghi, K. Hollring, C. R. Wick, D. M. Smith, and A.-S. Smith, An exact algorithm to detect the percolation transition in molecular dynamics simulations of cross- linking polymer networks , Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 17, 6449–6457 (2021)

    2021

  54. [54]

    Ranganathan and E

    S. Ranganathan and E. I. Shakhnovich, Dynamic metastable long-living droplets formed by sticker-spacer proteins, eLife 9, e56159 (2020)

    2020

  55. [55]

    Zhong, R

    M. Zhong, R. Wang, K. Kawamoto, B. D. Olsen, and J. A. Johnson, Quantifying the impact of molecular de- fects on polymer network elasticity , Science 353, 1264– 1268 (2016)

    2016

  56. [56]

    Zhang, J

    Z. Zhang, J. Krajniak, A. Z. Dookhith, Y. Tian, H. S. Sachar, N. Marioni, T. J. Duncan, J. Liu, G. E. Sanoja, and V. Ganesan, Topology and mechanical prop- erties of polymer networks formed under free radical and atom transfer radical polymerizations , Macromolecules 58, 3168–3187 (2025)

    2025

  57. [57]

    Tavares, P

    J. Tavares, P. Teixeira, M. Telo da Gama, and F. Sciortino, Equilibrium self-assembly of colloids with distinct interaction sites: Thermodynamics, percolation, and cluster distribution functions , The Journal of Chem- ical Physics 132, 234502 (2010)

    2010

  58. [58]

    Corezzi, C

    S. Corezzi, C. De Michele, E. Zaccarelli, D. Fioretto, and F. Sciortino, A molecular dynamics study of chem- ical gelation in a patchy particle model , Soft Matter 4, 1173–1177 (2008)

    2008

  59. [59]

    Z. M. Jedlinska and R. A. Riggleman, Effects of associa- tive interactions on the phase behavior of complex coac- ervates, Macromolecules 57, 4323–4334 (2024)

    2024

  60. [60]

    D. T. Li, P. E. Rudnicki, and J. Qin, Distribution cutoff for clusters near the gel point , ACS Polymers Au 2, 361– 370 (2022)

    2022

  61. [61]

    De Gennes, Critical behaviour for vulcanization processes, Journal de Physique Lettres 38, 355–358 (1977)

    P.-G. De Gennes, Critical behaviour for vulcanization processes, Journal de Physique Lettres 38, 355–358 (1977)

    1977

  62. [62]

    Rubinstein and R

    M. Rubinstein and R. H. Colby, Polymer Physics (Oxford University Press, 2003)

    2003

  63. [63]

    I. M. Rasid, C. Do, N. Holten-Andersen, and B. D. Olsen, Effect of sticker clustering on the dynamics of associative networks, Soft Matter 17, 8960–8972 (2021)

    2021

  64. [64]

    S. Qin, Z. Yang, H. Liu, X. Wang, B. Miao, S. Hou, and K. Huang, Binding memory of liquid molecules , Nature Communications 16, 6555 (2025)

    2025

  65. [65]

    X. Chen, J. A. Vishnu, P. Besenius, J. König, and F. Schmid, Dilute but dense–reversible crosslinking en- ables water-rich (bio) polymer condensates , Advanced Science , e19636 (2026)

    2026

  66. [66]

    R. P. Stanley, Enumerative combinatorics volume 1 (2011)

    2011

  67. [67]

    H. S. Wilf, Generating Functionology (CRC press, 2005)

    2005

  68. [68]

    E. A. Bender and L. B. Richmond, A multivariate la- grange inversion formula for asymptotic calculations , The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics , R33–R33 (1998). FOR T ABLE OF CONTENTS USE ONL Y Real associative chainsBinding is geometry-constrainedMapped as a random geometric graphbinding 𝑟𝑖𝑗≤𝑅𝑐𝑢𝑡no binding 𝑟𝑖𝑗>𝑅𝑐𝑢𝑡 𝑅𝑐𝑢𝑡 Connect nodes 𝑖and 𝑗if 𝑟𝑖𝑗≤𝑅𝑐𝑢𝑡

    1998