Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 28 references

Infinitesimal asphericity changes the universality of the jamming transition

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Even a tiny asphericity changes the universality class of the jamming transition.

desk verdict A solid extension of the authors' PNAS 2018 result with a clearer variational derivation and good breathing-particle numerics, but the universality claim is overstated: the key sign condition fails for dimers and Platonic solids. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02091 v3 pith:FKYYSTWH submitted 2019-08-06 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.stat-mech

Harukuni Ikeda , Carolina Brito , Matthieu Wyart This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords jammingtransitionnon-sphericalparticlesasphericityuniversalityclassmarginalstabilityshearmodulusgapdistributionbreathing
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

Jamming of frictionless particles is usually described by universal power laws set by isostaticity, but this paper argues that those laws are special to perfect spheres. The authors claim that any nonzero asphericity $\Delta$ puts the transition in a different universality class: particles become hypostatic, the excess contact number scales as $\delta z \sim \Delta^{1/2}$, and the shear modulus becomes linear in pressure sufficiently close to jamming rather than following the spherical square-root law. They further claim the power-law singularities in the gap and force distributions are rounded at scales set by $\Delta$, and that breathing particles—spheres whose radii can fluctuate—fall in the same class. The practical consequence is that a tiny shape anisotropy should be visible in the critical exponents measured in experiments and simulations.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a variational estimate of the smallest vibrational eigenvalue combined with the assumption of marginal stability. The interaction potential is expanded in a small shape parameter $\Delta$ around a reference sphere; the leading asphericity introduces a term $Q_N \sim p\Delta$ that stabilizes the rotational zero modes, with stiffness $k_R \sim p\Delta$. Applying the variational argument of spherical jamming to these zero modes gives $\lambda_{\min} \sim p(c_1 \Delta \delta z^2 + c_2 \Delta^2)$, where the first term is the stabilizing pre-stress and the second (negative, $c_2<0$) is the destabilizing buckling contribution. Requiring $\lambda_{\min} \sim 0$ (marginal stability) balances the two terms and yields $\delta z \sim \Delta^{1/2}$. This single relation then controls the contact number, the shear modulus via $G \sim p\delta z/\Delta$, and the truncation scales of the gap and force distributions through finite-size scaling with $\delta z$ in place of $1/N$.

What would settle it

Numerically simulate slightly aspherical ellipsoids at fixed small $\Delta$ and measure the shear modulus as a function of pressure down to $p$ much smaller than $\Delta$: the predicted linear regime $G \sim p$ must appear, with crossover to $G \sim p^{1/2}$ near $p \sim \Delta$. If the square-root law persists all the way to $p=0$ at fixed $\Delta>0$, the central scaling claim is wrong. Equivalently, the excess contact number at jamming should scale as $(A-1)^{1/4}$; a different exponent would falsify Eq. (21).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the jamming transition of non-spherical particles belongs to a universality class distinct from that of spherical particles, and that the distinction survives in the limit of infinitesimal asphericity. Concretely, for any fixed $\Delta > 0$, sufficiently near the transition ($p \ll \Delta$) the shear modulus behaves as $G \sim p/\Delta^{1/2}$, linear in pressure, whereas for spheres $G \sim p^{1/2}$; the crossover between the two regimes occurs at $p \sim \Delta$. The excess contact number at the jamming point scales as $\delta z \sim \Delta^{1/2} \sim (A-1)^{1/4}$, and above jamming $z-z_J \sim p/\Delta^{1/2}$. The gap distribution $g(h)$ and force distribution $P(f)$, which for spheres diverge as power laws at the transition, remain finite and analytic for $\Delta > 0$, with the singularities truncated at $h \sim \Delta^{\mu/2}$ and $f \sim \Delta^{\nu}$. The density of states splits into three bands with characteristic frequencies $\omega_0 \sim \Delta^{1/2} p^{1/2}$, $\omega_1 \sim \Delta$, and $\omega_2 \sim \Delta^{1/2}$. The same exponents are found for breathing particles, and the paper presents numerical data supporting the predictions.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the first-order effect of asphericity stabilizes the rotational zero modes; for shapes where that stabilization is absent or negative—the paper names dimers and Platonic solids—the predicted exponents do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any nonzero asphericity, the shear modulus of a jammed packing is linear in pressure in the asymptotic unjamming limit, changing the low-frequency mechanics from the spherical square-root form.
  • The gap and force distributions are regular functions at the jamming point for aspherical particles, so the power-law singularities characteristic of isostatic jamming disappear for any $\Delta>0$.
  • The density of states contains three distinct bands with characteristic frequencies $\omega_0 \sim \Delta^{1/2}p^{1/2}$, $\omega_1 \sim \Delta$, and $\omega_2 \sim \Delta^{1/2}$, rather than the single soft mode scale of spheres.
  • Breathing particles reproduce the same critical exponents, giving a rotationally symmetric model in which the predictions can be tested efficiently.
  • The contact number at jamming increases with asphericity as $z_J = 2d + O(\Delta^{1/2})$, and above jamming $z-z_J$ grows linearly in $p/\Delta^{1/2}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the claim holds, any experimental granular material composed of slightly elongated grains should show a linear pressure dependence of the shear modulus in the deeply unjammed regime; this could be checked with photoelastic disks or 3D ellipsoidal particles.
  • The sign of the first-order stabilizing coefficient becomes a shape classifier: shapes with positive sign should follow the new universality class, while shapes where it is zero or negative (dimers, Platonic solids) remain isostatic—so the universality class may be selected by the geometry of the rotational modes.
  • The same marginal-stability balance might extend to other internal degrees of freedom, such as particle deformability or internal orientational fields, whenever the first-order stabilizing term is positive.
  • Because the gap distribution is regularized, force-network criticality and associated avalanches near jamming may be suppressed at scales below $\Delta$, a testable prediction for mesoscopic simulations.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the jamming transition of non-spherical particles and argues that even infinitesimal asphericity changes the universality class relative to spherical particles. Using a variational argument combined with marginal stability, the authors derive scaling laws for the excess contact number δz ∼ Δ^{1/2}, the shear modulus G ∼ p/Δ^{1/2} for p ≪ Δ, the truncation of gap and force distributions, and the characteristic frequencies of the density of states. They support these predictions with numerical simulations of the breathing-particle model and by comparisons with literature data for ellipsoids and other shapes. The paper is presented as a longer, more direct version of the authors' earlier PNAS work, with additional numerical data.

Significance. The central claim, if established, is significant: it would imply that the jamming universality class is discontinuous at the spherical limit, and it unifies non-spherical particles with breathing particles into a single class with hypostatic jamming. The paper's strengths are that the exponents are derived rather than fitted to the new data, that the numerical collapses in Figs. 2, 4, 5, and 6 are convincing, and that the predictions are checked against external data in Refs. [7, 15, 16]. However, the derivation of the key scaling δz ∼ Δ^{1/2} relies on a sign assumption about the pre-stress coefficients that the authors themselves state fails for dimers and Platonic solids; the scope of the universality claim therefore needs to be narrowed or supported by additional argument.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 6, Eq. (20)] The step from Eq. (20) to Eq. (21) requires c1 > 0 and c2 < 0. The paper explicitly states in Sec. 6 that the assumption c1 > 0 is violated for non-spherical particles made of spherical particles such as dimers, and that Platonic solids are isostatic at jamming. Since the abstract and the opening of Sec. 6 present the universality change for non-spherical particles without this restriction, the strongest form of the claim is not supported by the derivation. Please restrict the claim to shapes satisfying the sign assumption, or provide a criterion for determining the sign of c1 and ideally a numerical check of the balance in Eq. (20).
  2. [Fig. 1] The text says Fig. 1 compares Eq. (21) with numerical results for 'various shapes of non-spherical particles' from Ref. [15]. It is not stated which shapes are actually included. If dimers or Platonic solids are among them, this would be in tension with the Sec. 6 caveat and needs discussion; if they are excluded, the figure caption should say so explicitly.
  3. [Eqs. (6)-(7)] The expression for g_i(ui) in Eq. (7) appears to contain both f(r_ij, ui) and f(-r_ij, ui), whereas the first-order gap correction in Eq. (3) involves f(r_ij, ui) + f(-r_ij, uj). Summing Eq. (7) over i does not reproduce the first-order expansion of the potential derived from Eq. (3) unless a factor of 1/2 or a reindexing is intended. Please correct or clarify this step, since QN and its stiffness kR are the basis of Eq. (19).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] In the abstract, 'a sphericity' should be 'asphericity'.
  2. [Sec. 5, Eq. (52)] Please clarify the p- and Δ-dependence of the characteristic frequencies: Fig. 5(b) is at fixed p, giving ω0 ∼ Δ^{1/2}, while Fig. 5(c) is at fixed Δ, giving ω0 ∼ p^{1/2}; the text currently mixes these two dependencies without distinguishing the fixed variable.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says the data are for 'non-spherical particles', but the text explains that the simulations are of the breathing-particle model; this should be reflected in the caption for clarity.
  4. [Sec. 2.4, Eq. (18)] The statement that N_c^Q - N0 = N δz/2 > 0 'indeed suffices to stabilize the zero modes' is not immediate, because extra constraints stabilize the modes only if they are independent; a brief justification of the independence assumption would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claimed scaling exponents are derived from a variational marginal-stability argument and checked against external and new simulations, not obtained by fitting or by definition.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. Eq. (21), δz ∼ Δ^{1/2}, follows from balancing the first- and second-order asphericity terms in the marginal-stability condition Eq. (20), λ_min ∼ p[c1Δδz² + c2Δ²]; c1 > 0 and c2 < 0 are explicit assumptions with stated (and partly self-cited) justifications, not fit parameters, and the paper openly notes shapes where the sign assumption fails (dimers, Platonic solids). The subsequent predictions for the shear modulus (Eq. 27), gap distribution (Eqs. 48–49), and density-of-states frequencies (Sec. 5) are derived from this scaling and then compared with data from external references (Refs. 7, 15) and with new BP simulations in collapse plots (Figs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6). No 'prediction' is equivalent by construction to an input; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The reliance on the authors' prior works [5, 9, 10, 11] is real, but the central claim has independent content: the direct variational derivation and the external benchmarks would stand or fall on their own. The acknowledged c1 > 0 limitation is a correctness/scope concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on marginal stability, the sign of the pre-stress term, and the convex single-contact assumption; these are stated physical hypotheses, some of which the authors themselves flag as not universally valid. No new particles, forces, or free fitted exponents are introduced; known sphere exponents γ and θ enter as inputs from prior literature.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Marginal stability persists above jamming, λ_min ~ 0 or at most ~ p.
    Used in Sec. 2.3 and 2.4 to convert the variational bound (Eqs. 14, 20) into the scaling relations δz ~ p^{1/2} for spheres and δz ~ Δ^{1/2} for aspherical particles.
  • ad hoc to paper The first-order pre-stress term stabilizes (c1 > 0) and the second-order term destabilizes (c2 < 0).
    Needed for the balance in Eq. (20). The paper validates it only for Gay-Berne ellipsoids and breathing particles, and notes in Sec. 6 that it is violated for dimers and Platonic solids.
  • domain assumption Each particle pair contributes at most one contact.
    Assumed in Sec. 6; valid for convex shapes, and the theory does not cover non-convex particles with multiple contacts per pair.
  • domain assumption The variational estimate λ_min ~ k δz² for near-isostatic systems holds (Ref [12]).
    Taken from prior work by the same group; used for Eq. (13) and its analogue for zero modes in Eq. (19).
  • domain assumption The gap and radius can be expanded to first order in the asphericity parameter Δ, Eqs. (2)-(3).
    Used in Sec. 2.2 to write the potential as U + Q; higher-order terms are assumed negligible.
  • domain assumption The scaling functions Z(x) and G(x) are regular and interpolate to the spherical limit.
    Eqs. (22) and (29) assume a smooth crossover between δz ~ Δ^{1/2} for p << Δ and δz ~ p^{1/2} for p >> Δ, and similarly for G.
  • domain assumption Shear deformation excites only the soft zero modes.
    Used in Sec. 2.4 to estimate the energy change under shear and derive G ~ p/Δ^{1/2} (Eqs. 25-27).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Infinitesimal asphericity changes the universality of the jamming transition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FKYYSTWH

@misc{pith2026190802091,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Infinitesimal asphericity changes the universality of the jamming transition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FKYYSTWH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02091}
}
read the original abstract

The jamming transition of non-spherical particles is fundamentally different from the spherical case. Non-spherical particles are hypostatic at their jamming points, while isostaticity is ensured in the case of the jamming of spherical particles. This structural difference implies that the presence of asphericity affects the critical exponents related to the contact number and the vibrational density of states. Moreover, while the force and gap distributions of isostatic jamming present power-law behaviors, even an infinitesimal asphericity is enough to smooth out these singularities. In a recent work [PNAS 115(46), 11736], we have used a combination of marginal stability arguments and the replica method to explain these observations. We argued that systems with internal degrees of freedom, like the rotations in ellipsoids, or the variation of the radii in the case of the \textit{breathing} particles fall in the same universality class. In this paper, we review comprehensively the results about the jamming with internal degrees of freedom in addition to the translational degrees of freedom. We use a variational argument to derive the critical exponents of the contact number, shear modulus, and the characteristic frequencies of the density of states. Moreover, we present additional numerical data supporting the theoretical results, which were not shown in the previous work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02091 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Scaling of the contact number of non-spherical particles. The symbols denote the numerical results, and the solid line denotes the theoretical prediction z − 4 ∼ (A − 1)1/4 . Data for non-spherical particles are taken from Ref. [15]. We now turn our attention to the scaling of the shear modulus G. In the standard numerical procedure to calculate G, one first imposes the small strain and then minimizes the energy. Co… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Saling plot of the shear modulus of ellipsoids. The symbols denote the numerical results. The solid and dotted lines denote the theoretical predictions G ∼ δϕ and G ∼ δϕ1/2 , respectively. Data are taken from Ref. [7]. We chose the stiffness k so that the standard deviation of the radii is proportional to ∆: ∆ ∝ s 1 NR2 0 X i (Ri − R0 i ) 2 . (34) From the saddle point condition, ∂RiVN = 0, one can infer that k ∼ p … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cumulative gap distribution (left) and its sclaing plot (right). Symbols are results of numerical simulations of the harmonic potential at the jamming point for different system sizes, and the lines are theoretical predictions. 4.2. Finite size scaling Here we first describe the distribution functions of spherical particles when the number of particles N is finite. Then, in the next subsection, we show that the scal… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cumulative gap distribution (left) of non-spherical particles and its sclaing plot (right). Symbols are results of numerical simulations of the BP system for different values of variance of the radii ∆ and a system with N=8192 particles. Lines are the theoretical predi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Density of states D(ω) for the BP system at ∆ = 10−3 and p = 10−4 and the definition of the characteristic frequencies. (b) The ∆ dependence of the characteristic frequencies. Lines are the theoretical predictions, ω0 ∝ ∆1/2 , ω1 ∝ ∆, and ω2 ∝ ∆1/2 (c) The p depend…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The weights of the three bands of the D(ω) as the example shown in Fig. (5)-a. Symbols denote the numerical results for the BP system, and the solid lines denote the theoretical predictions, see main text. (a) The p dependence at fixed variance ∆ = 10−1 . (b) The ∆ dep…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Summary of the scaling prediction. ∆ denotes the linear deviation from the spherical particles. (left) The shear modulus G as a function of the pressure p. G exhibits the linear scaling G ∼ p for p ≪ ∆, while G ∼ p 1/2 for p ≫ ∆. (right) The gap distribution g(h). g(h)…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    VanderWerf K, Jin W, Shattuck M D and O’Hern C S 2018 Phys. Rev. E 97(1) 012909 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.97.012909

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.97.012909 2018

  2. [1]

    Van Hecke M 2009 Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 22 033101

    work page 2009

  3. [2]

    Torquato S and Stillinger F H 2010 Rev. Mod. Phys. 82(3) 2633–2672 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.2633

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.82.2633 2010

  4. [3]

    Donev A, Cisse I, Sachs D, Variano E A, Stillinger F H, Connelly R, Tor quato S and Chaikin P M 2004 Science 303 990–993

    work page 2004

  5. [4]

    Bernal J and Mason J 1960 Nature 188 910 Infinitesimal asphericity changes the universality of the j amming transition 17

    work page 1960

  6. [5]

    Brito C, Ikeda H, Urbani P, Wyart M and Zamponi F 2018 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 11736–11741

    work page 2018

  7. [6]

    Donev A, Torquato S and Stillinger F H 2005 Phys. Rev. E 71(1) 011105 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.71.011105

    doi:10.1103/physreve.71.011105 2005

  8. [7]

    Mailman M, Schreck C F, O’Hern C S and Chakraborty B 2009 Phys. Rev. Lett. 102(25) 255501 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.255501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.102.255501 2009

Show all 28 references
  1. [8]

    Schreck C F, Mailman M, Chakraborty B and O’Hern C S 2012 Phys. Rev. E 85(6) 061305 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.85.061305

    2012 doi

  2. [9]

    Ikeda H, Urbani P and Zamponi F 2019 Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 52 344001

    2019

  3. [10]

    Brito C, Lerner E and Wyart M 2018 Phys. Rev. X 8(3) 031050 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.8.031050

    2018 doi

  4. [11]

    Wyart M, Silbert L E, Nagel S R and Witten T A 2005 Phys. Rev. E 72(5) 051306 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.72.051306

    2005 doi

  5. [12]

    Yan L, DeGiuli E and Wyart M 2016 EPL (Europhysics Letters) 114 26003

    2016

  6. [13]

    Alexander S 1998 Physics reports 296 65–236

    1998

  7. [14]

    O’Hern C S, Silbert L E, Liu A J and Nagel S R 2003 Phys. Rev. E 68(1) 011306 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.68.011306

    2003 doi

  8. [16]

    Schreck C F, Xu N and O’Hern C S 2010 Soft Matter 6 2960–2969

    2010

  9. [17]

    Wyart M 2005 arXiv preprint cond-mat/0512155

    2005 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Charbonneau P, Corwin E I, Parisi G and Zamponi F 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 109(20) 205501 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.205501

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    Charbonneau P, Kurchan J, Parisi G, Urbani P and Zamponi F 2 014 Nat. Commun. 5 3725

  12. [20]

    Charbonneau P, Corwin E I, Parisi G and Zamponi F 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 114(12) 125504 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.125504

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    Kallus Y 2016 Phys. Rev. E 93(1) 012902 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.93.012902

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    Goodrich C P, Liu A J and Nagel S R 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 109(9) 095704 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.095704

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    Goodrich C P, Liu A J and Sethna J P 2016 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 9745–9750

    2016

  16. [24]

    2(3) 019 URL https://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.2.3.019

    Franz S, Parisi G, Sevelev M, Urbani P and Zamponi F 2017 SciPost Phys. 2(3) 019 URL https://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys.2.3.019

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    Kittel C, McEuen P and McEuen P 1996 Introduction to solid state physics vol 8 (Wiley New York)

    1996

  18. [26]

    Lerner E, D¨ uring G and Wyart M 2012 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 4798–4803

    2012

  19. [27]

    Papanikolaou S, O’Hern C S and Shattuck M D 2013 Phys. Rev. Lett. 110(19) 198002 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.198002

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    Smith K C, Fisher T S and Alam M 2011 Phys. Rev. E 84(3) 030301 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.84.030301

    2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.