Almost-rigidity of frameworks

Louis Theran; Miranda Holmes-Cerfon; Steven J. Gortler

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 47 references

Almost-rigidity of frameworks

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 This paper gives explicit, semidefinite-programming-checkable conditions under which a flexible framework cannot flex far, and guarantees a nearby rigid configuration.

desk verdict A valuable quantitative extension of prestress stability, with a real but fixable constant-error in Proposition III that needs correction before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03802 v2 pith:GGMWNTZD submitted 2019-08-10 math.MG

Miranda Holmes-Cerfon , Louis Theran , Steven J. Gortler This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.MG MSC 52C25

keywords almost-rigidityframeworkrigidityprestressstabilitysemidefiniteprogrammingmatrixinfinitesimalflexspherepackingenergybarrier

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

The paper develops a quantitative theory, called almost-rigidity, for frameworks: graphs with vertices in Euclidean space and fixed edge lengths. Its goal is to extract explicit radii from near-critical spectral data: any continuous edge-length-preserving flex stays inside a small ball of radius $\eta_1$; any other configuration with the same edge lengths is either inside that ball or at least $\eta_2$ away; moving to a distant configuration forces the squared edge lengths to change by at least $e^*_{\min}$; and some configuration within $\eta_1$ is genuinely rigid (prestress stable). These guarantees matter because real and computed frameworks—sphere packs, molecules, engineered structures—are always perturbed, and tiny perturbations can destroy exact rigidity while leaving the structure almost rigid. The conditions are checkable by semidefinite programming, and the paper demonstrates them on a large survey of sphere clusters.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the artificial energy $H(q)=\sum_{(i,j)\in E}\bigl(\tfrac12\kappa(q_{ij}^2-p_{ij}^2)^2+\omega_{ij}q_{ij}^2\bigr)$, which models squared edge lengths as springs with stiffness $\kappa$ carrying tensions $\omega$. The proof controls three things on $C$: the gradient bound $|H'(p)|\le2|\omega^T R(p)|$, the Hessian lower bound $\tfrac12H''\ge\lambda$, and a third-derivative bound written as $\eta_0(r)=\tfrac{L}{2}\bigl(\bar\mu^{1/2}+r/L\bigr)^{-1}$, with $L=(\lambda/8z\kappa)^{1/2}$ and $\bar\mu=1-\mu_0/\lambda$. From those, a generalized second-derivative test for functions that are almost critical produces the discriminant conditions $D<1/2$, (3.12), and $D_{\rm pss}<1/2$, and the explicit formulas for $\eta_1,\eta_2,\eta_3,e^*_{\min}$.

What would settle it

Run numerical path-following or algebraic solving on any framework satisfying Theorem I's inequalities to look for a same-edge-length configuration at distance in $(\eta_1,\eta_2)$ from $p$; a single example would refute the theorem. The natural test case is cluster 45601 from the 13-sphere survey, whose computed $D$ exceeds the threshold, or a slight perturbation of it, to see whether it actually flexes beyond $\eta_1$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that near-rigidity is certifiable. Starting from a configuration $p$, a subspace $C$ transverse to trivial motions, an almost-flex space $V$, an almost-stress $\omega$, and parameters $\lambda,\kappa$ chosen so that the energy $H(q)=\sum_{(i,j)\in E}\bigl(\tfrac12\kappa(q_{ij}^2-p_{ij}^2)^2+\omega_{ij}q_{ij}^2\bigr)$ has second derivative at least $2\lambda$ along unit vectors in $C$, Theorem I proves that if $D=(\eta_1/L)(\sqrt{\bar\mu}+\eta_1/L)<1/2$ with $\eta_1=4|\omega^T R(p)|/\lambda$, then every continuous path $q(t)\in p+C$ preserving edge lengths obeys $|q(t)-p|\le\eta_1$. Theorem II gives an outer radius $\eta_2>\eta_1$ separating nearby from distant same-edge-length configurations; Theorem III gives a minimum squared-edge-length change $e^*_{\min}$ along any path to a distant configuration; and Theorem IV, under a stronger $D_{\rm pss}<1/2$, guarantees a nearby prestress-stable configuration, which is therefore rigid. The paper computes these radii for sphere clusters, isostatic frameworks, Siamese dipyramids, and $K_{3,4}$ examples.

Load-bearing premise

The certificate rests on the computed quantity $D$ (or $D_{\rm pss}$ for Theorem IV) being below $1/2$ for the chosen stress, subspaces, and $\lambda$; one of the 98,529 surveyed clusters fails this, so the condition is not automatic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A framework computed by finite-precision numerical solving can be certified to be nearly rigid: Theorem IV produces a nearby prestress-stable, hence rigid, configuration without assuming that small singular values of the rigidity matrix come from exact zeros.
For first-order rigid frameworks, Corollary 3.4 gives explicit separation constants: any other same-edge-length configuration is at least roughly $0.618\,\sigma_0/(2\sqrt z)$ away, and any path to it must change squared edge lengths by at least roughly $0.528\,\sigma_0^2/(2\sqrt z)$.
The asymptotics in Corollary 3.5 imply that when the exact framework is prestress stable but not first-order rigid, a numerical solution with squared-edge-length error $\epsilon$ can be only $\sqrt{\epsilon}$-close in configuration, so one expects roughly half as many digits of accuracy.
In the survey of 98,529 rigid clusters of 13 unit spheres, all but one satisfy the numerical conditions of Theorems I–II and all but four satisfy the condition of Theorem IV, so the certificates are not empty in the applications that motivated the theory.
With signs on the edges, the same radii extend to tensegrities under the added condition that no edge length changes by more than $2|\omega_{ij}|/\kappa$ on any cable or strut.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the conditions are convex, one could optimize over choices of $V$, $W$, and $\lambda$ to make $\eta_2$ as large as possible; the paper fixes $\lambda$ in most examples and reports that $L(\lambda)$ varies by only about a factor of two, so such tuning could give noticeably larger outer radii.
The edge-change barrier $e^*_{\min}$ could serve as a rigorous lower bound in molecular or colloidal settings where the question is whether a cluster can reach another geometry without breaking bonds; the paper's energy function already has the form of such interaction potentials, though it does not pursue this application.
Because the certificate failed only for very floppy, high-$\bar\mu$ clusters in the 13-sphere survey, a practical screening rule could estimate $\bar\mu$ first and only run the full semidefinite test when it is moderate; this is a natural by-product of the paper's constants, not something it states.
One could test how close the constants are to sharp by searching, via numerical continuation, for same-edge-length configurations inside the annulus $(\eta_1,\eta_2)$; the Siamese-dipyramid and $K_{3,4}$ examples suggest such close configurations are often absent, so the constants are likely conservative.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear —,

This paper deserves serious refereeing. The core idea is new and useful: a quantitative, nonlocal variant of prestress stability, giving explicit radii and edge-change barriers via SDP-tested certificates. Theorems I–IV are real results, not restatements; the energy-barrier technique and the extension of the second-derivative test to almost-critical points are original and likely to be reused. The examples are well chosen, and the authors honestly report on a large dataset of 98,529 sphere clusters, including one cluster where the main condition fails.

The soft spot is a genuine error in Section 5.3. Proposition III announces the assumption Strong(2/9) but displays the bound (max|H'|/H'')(max|H'''|/H'') < 3/8. Under the paper's own definitions in (5.35), Strong(2/9) requires that product < 1/3; the displayed < 3/8 corresponds only to Strong(1/4). This is not a harmless typo: a cubic H(t)=t^3+t^2+0.3t satisfies the displayed bound yet has product 0.3 > 2/9, and the claimed energy-barrier radius does not exist. Since Theorem III is proved via Proposition 7.4 and Corollary 5.12, which invokes Proposition III, the written proof chain has a gap. I believe the intended theorem is recoverable—Corollary 5.12's actual condition η1/η0(3η1/2)<8/9 does imply the needed constant—but the manuscript must be corrected and the chain re-verified. Minor concerns: no code or data accompany the SDP computations, which makes the certificates hard to reproduce; and the smallness conditions are restrictive, as the paper itself notes (Example 1 works only for tiny perturbations, and one cluster in the survey fails).

Who should read this: rigidity theorists, and people working on sphere packings, materials, or molecular geometry. It deserves peer review; I would accept it with major revision, primarily to fix the constant and to make the computational pipeline reproducible. The core contribution is solid enough to justify the time.

Best

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper introduces and proves a quantitative theory of "almost-rigidity" for bar frameworks. Given a framework (p,E), a subspace C complementary to the trivial motions, an almost-flex space V, an almost-stress ω whose stress matrix is positive definite on V, and derived quantities L, μ̄, η1, the authors state four theorems: (I) every continuous edge-length-preserving path in C_p starting at p remains within distance η1 of p; (II) any other configuration with the same edge lengths is either in the η1-ball or at distance at least η2>η1; (III) a deformation reaching distance η>(3/2)η1 forces a minimal squared-edge-length change e_min(η), hence any path to a distant equivalent configuration crosses a barrier e*_min; and (IV) under a stronger smallness condition there is a nearby prestress-stable framework. The proofs construct a spring energy H, prove general barrier propositions for functions that are almost critical (Section 5), specialize the derivative bounds to framework energies (Section 6), and then apply them (Section 7). The paper also reports SDP-based numerical tests on many examples and on 98,529 sphere clusters.

Significance. If the proof chain is repaired, this is a valuable contribution. It gives explicit, analytically defined radii and edge-length barriers that can be certified by linear algebra and semidefinite programming, without assuming that small singular values of the rigidity matrix are perturbed zeros. The framework is genuinely certificate-based: given V, W, ω satisfying (3.3), each theorem's conclusion follows from arithmetic verification of smallness conditions, and the examples and 98,529-cluster survey directly show how often the hypotheses hold and where they fail. The paper is also honest about limitations: the conditions are restrictive, one cluster fails in the survey, and Example 1 applies only for tiny perturbations. No parameter fitting or external ground truth is used in the estimates. However, the manuscript currently contains a load-bearing constant error in Proposition III and an overstatement in Theorem IV, so the central claims are defensible but need revision.

major comments (2)

[Section 5.3, Eq. (5.39)] The hypothesis labeled Strong(2/9, (3/2)η1*) is stated with the wrong threshold. From the definitions in (5.9) and (5.35), a=H'''/6, b=H''/2, c=H', so (max |a|/b)(max |c|/b) = (2/3)(max |H'|/H'')(max |H'''|/H''). Strong(2/9) therefore requires the displayed product to be < (3/2)(2/9) = 1/3, not <3/8; 3/8 is the threshold for Strong(1/4). As written, Proposition III is false: for H(t)=t³+t²+0.24t one has η1*=0.48 and η3*=2/3<0.72=(3/2)η1*, while the displayed product equals 0.36<3/8 (using |H'(0)|/H''(0)=0.12 and max|H'''|/H''(0)=3), so the asserted positivity interval is empty. Because Theorem III is proved through Proposition 7.4 and Corollary 5.12, which invokes Proposition III, the proof chain for Theorem III has a real gap. The intended theorem is recoverable by correcting the constant to 1/3 and re-verifying the chain; note that Corollary 5.12's condition η1/η0(3η1/2)<8/9 is the correct Strong(2/9) analogue.
[Section 3 (Theorem IV) and Section 7 proof] Theorem IV as stated asserts existence of (ppss,E)∈C_p with the same edge lengths as p, but the proof only shows that the unconstrained energy H achieves an interior minimum ppss with ∇H(ppss)=0 and positive definite Hessian on C. A critical point of H is not forced to satisfy e(ppss)=e(p): for each edge energy h_i(x)=½κ(x-p_i²)²+ω_i x, the equation h_i(x)=h_i(p_i²) has a second root x=p_i²-2ω_i/κ, and the proof does not even show H(ppss)=H(p). Thus the "same edge lengths as p" clause is unsupported; it is also not used in the applications (Section 4.1.1 explicitly says "we don't know that ppss has the desired edge lengths"). The theorem should be restated with the weaker conclusion "there is a nearby prestress-stable framework" (matching the abstract and introduction), or an additional argument must be supplied. The phrase "since the energy function is quadratic" in the proof is also inaccurate: the energy in (6.2) is quartic in q.

minor comments (3)

[Section 4.2.4] The sentence "the the K3,4 framework" contains a duplicated article.
[Section 9] The phrase "using the spectral data associated associated with" contains a duplicated word.
[Section 5.2, after Eq. (5.22)] The phrase "This is a slightly stronger than condition (5.14)" is grammatically incomplete, and the "constant of 2/8" should be written as 1/4 to avoid confusion with the adjacent 2/9 constant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: main theorems derive quantitative certificates from stated inputs, not from fitted outputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The paper's Theorem I-IV set up an energy H(q)=sum(1/2 kappa(q^2 - p^2)^2 + omega q^2), whose Hessian is controlled by the SDP condition (3.5), and then prove containment radii eta1, eta2, and e*_min as analytic consequences. The stress omega is obtained numerically via SDP (2.10), but it is an input certificate rather than a fit to the phenomenon being predicted; eta1 = 4|omega^T R(p)|/lambda is a computed bound from the residual of the almost-stress, not a parameter fitted to observed flex distances. In the examples, the radii are computed from the formulas and only afterwards compared with independently computed distances (e.g. Section 4.1.1), so the predictions are not statistically forced. No theorem is defined in terms of its own conclusion, no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness or ansatz is imported from prior work of the same authors in a load-bearing way. The principal external reference [8] is cited for the standard definition of prestress stability and is not a self-citation of the present authors. Self-citations such as [23], [11], and [33] appear as sources of example clusters and datasets, not as premises of the proofs. A separate constant-mismatch concern in Proposition III (displayed assumption (5.39) is <3/8 while Strong(2/9) as defined in (5.35) would require the displayed product to be <1/3) is a correctness issue, not circularity: it does not make the conclusion equal to an input by construction. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new physical entities. Almost-flex spaces, almost-stress spaces, and the almost-rigidity property are mathematical definitions built from the framework's singular data. The only hand-chosen inputs are the eigenvalue slack lambda, the singular-value cutoff, and the derived spring constant kappa, which act as certificate parameters rather than fitted physical constants.

free parameters (3)

lambda (eigenvalue slack below lambda0) = lambda0/2 or 0.8 lambda0 in examples
Hand-chosen within (0, lambda0); all radii scale with L and eta1, so the choice materially changes the output (Section 4.4).
singular value cutoff for almost-flex/stress spaces = sigma0 or 1e-7 in examples
The subspaces V and W are built from singular vectors with singular values below a user-chosen threshold; different thresholds yield different certificates.
kappa (spring constant) = 3.26 in example 2
Computed by solving the convex problem (3.5) after lambda is fixed; not a physical input but a certificate value that shapes L.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption A strict local minimum of the edge-energy function H with positive definite Hessian is prestress stable and therefore rigid (Connelly and Whiteley 1996).
Invoked in the proof of Theorem IV (Section 7) to translate the Hessian condition at ppss into rigidity.
standard math Jordan-Brouwer separation theorem
Used in the proof of Proposition I to ensure a continuous curve leaving the eta1 ball crosses the constructed energy surface S.
domain assumption The affine slice C_p is a valid local chart for the congruence quotient near p
Stated in Section 3.1; the theorems are local and do not require a global homeomorphism.

invented entities (3)

almost-flex space V
purpose: Contains infinitesimal flexes plus additional near-flex directions; used to certify positivity of the stress matrix on likely motions
Defined in (3.2) from singular vectors; it is a mathematical construction with no independent empirical handle.
almost-self-stress space W
purpose: Contains self-stresses plus near-stress directions; used to find an almost-stress omega via SDP
Defined in (3.2); internal certificate, not a new physical quantity.
almost-rigidity
purpose: A new notion of near-confinement for flexible frameworks
A definition used to package the theorems; no external evidence possible beyond the theorems themselves.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Almost-rigidity of frameworks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GGMWNTZD

@misc{pith2026190803802,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Almost-rigidity of frameworks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GGMWNTZD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03802}
}

abstract

We extend the mathematical theory of rigidity of frameworks (graphs embedded in $d$-dimensional space) to consider nonlocal rigidity and flexibility properties. We provide conditions on a framework under which (I) as the framework flexes continuously it must remain inside a small ball, a property we call "almost-rigidity"; (II) any other framework with the same edge lengths must lie outside a much larger ball; (III) if the framework deforms by some given amount, its edge lengths change by a minimum amount; (IV) there is a nearby framework that is prestress stable, and thus rigid. The conditions can be tested efficiently using semidefinite programming. The test is a slight extension of the test for prestress stability of a framework, and gives analytic expressions for the radii of the balls and the edge length changes. Examples illustrate how the theory may be applied in practice, and we provide an algorithm to test for rigidity or almost-rigidity. We briefly discuss how the theory may be applied to tensegrities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03802 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Schematic illustrating different kinds of local rigidity and how they are related. Exam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Left: A packing of N = 10 unit spheres that has 3N − 7 = 23 contacts, fewer than the 3N −6 needed generically to be rigid. Nevertheless, this packing is rigid. Middle: a representation of the packing as a framework, with vertices at the sphere centers and edges between spheres in contact. Right: the self-stress, as colors on bars, (blue is positive, like a cable that wants to shrink, and red is negative, like a stru… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Characteristic lengthscales and theorem constants for the cluster of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Left, Middle: Isostatic frameworks that are prestress stable but not first-order rigid. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Lengthscales calculated for frameworks made from rigid clusters of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Lengthscale L from (3.6) for examples (a),(c),(g),(h) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Example polynomials g(t, a) = a t3 + b t2 + c t from Lemma 5.1, with b = 2,c = 1, and varying a as indicated in the legend. Here a∗ = b 2 /4c, t∗ = 2c/b, and we chose a¯ = 0.8a∗ . The intervals for t from (5.5) where g(t, a) is positive for all −a¯ ≤ a ≤ a¯ are shown i…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Schematic for a cubic energy function illustrating the relation between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

[1]

http://www.arup.com/projects/kurilpa_bridge, 2009

Kurilpa bridge. http://www.arup.com/projects/kurilpa_bridge, 2009. URL http://www. arup.com/projects/kurilpa_bridge

work page 2009
[2]

Generalizations of Kempe’s universality theorem

T G Abbott. Generalizations of Kempe’s universality theorem. PhD thesis, Master’s Thesis, 2008

work page 2008
[3]

The rigidity of graphs

L Asimow and B Roth. The rigidity of graphs. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 245:279–289, 1978

work page 1978
[4]

Flexible mechan- ical metamaterials

Katia Bertoldi, Vincenzo Vitelli, Johan Christensen, and Martin van Hecke. Flexible mechan- ical metamaterials. Nature Reviews, 2:17066, 2017

work page 2017
[5]

New Principles for Auxetic Periodic Design

Ciprian S Borcea and Ileana Streinu. New Principles for Auxetic Periodic Design. SIAM Journal on Applied Algebra and Geometry, 1(1):442–458, January 2017

work page 2017
[6]

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988

John Canny .The complexity of robot motion planning, volume 1987 of ACM Doctoral Disser- tation Awards. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988. ISBN 0-262-03136-1

work page 1987
[7]

Higher-order rigidity–What is the proper deﬁnition? Discrete & Computational Geometry, 11(2):193–200, 1994

R Connelly and H Servatius. Higher-order rigidity–What is the proper deﬁnition? Discrete & Computational Geometry, 11(2):193–200, 1994

work page 1994
[8]

Second-order rigidity and prestress stability for tensegrity frameworks

R Connelly and W Whiteley . Second-order rigidity and prestress stability for tensegrity frameworks. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 9(3):453–491, August 1996

work page 1996

Show all 47 references

[9]

The rigidity of certain cabled frameworks and the second-order rigidity of arbitrarily triangulated convex surfaces

Robert Connelly . The rigidity of certain cabled frameworks and the second-order rigidity of arbitrarily triangulated convex surfaces. Advances in Mathematics, 37(3):272–299, 1980

1980
[10]

strut-cable

Robert Connelly and Allen Back. Mathematics and tensegrity: Group and representation theory make it possible to form a complete catalogue of "strut-cable" constructions with pre- scribed symmetries. American Scientist, 86(2):142–151, 1998. URL http://www.jstor. org/stable/27856980

1998
[11]

Gortler, and Louis Theran

Robert Connelly , Steven J. Gortler, and Louis Theran. Rigidity for sticky discs.Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 475(2222):20180773,
[12]

Guest, Andrea Micheletti, and Pete Winslow

Paola Daro, Don Gray , Simon D. Guest, Andrea Micheletti, and Pete Winslow. The Kent Tensegritree project. In Proceedings of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures Symposium 2015: Future Visions (IASS’15: Future Visions), August 2015

2015
[13]

Online course 4.491: Form-ﬁnding and structural optimization: Gaudi work- shop

Erik Demaine, John Ochsendorf, Martin Demaine, Simon Greenwold, Axel Kilian, and Bar- bara Cutler. Online course 4.491: Form-ﬁnding and structural optimization: Gaudi work- shop. Online course, 2004. URL https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/architecture/ 4-491-form-finding-and-structur...

2004
[14]

Geometric folding algorithms

Erik D Demaine and Joseph O’Rourke. Geometric folding algorithms . Linkages, Origami, Polyhedra. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Cambridge, 2007

2007
[15]

Separation bounds for polynomial systems

Ioannis Emiris, Bernard Mourrain, and Elias Tsigaridas. Separation bounds for polynomial systems. J. Symbolic Comput., 101:128–151, 2020. ISSN 0747-7171

2020
[16]

Epsilon local rigidity and numerical algebraic geometry , 2020

Andrew Frohmader and Alexander Heaton. Epsilon local rigidity and numerical algebraic geometry , 2020

2020
[17]

Unstable Polyhedral Structures

Michael Goldberg. Unstable Polyhedral Structures. Mathematics Magazine, 51(3):165–170, May 1978

1978
[18]

On the model ﬂexibility of Siamese dipyramids

V Gorkavyy and I Fesenko. On the model ﬂexibility of Siamese dipyramids. Journal of Geometry, 110(1):1–19, December 2018

2018
[19]

Graph implementations for nonsmooth convex programs

Michael Grant and Stephen Boyd. Graph implementations for nonsmooth convex programs. In V . Blondel, S. Boyd, and H. Kimura, editors, Recent Advances in Learning and Control , Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, pages 95–110. Springer-Verlag Limited,
[20]

CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex program- ming, version 2.1

Michael Grant and Stephen Boyd. CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex program- ming, version 2.1. http://cvxr.com/cvx, March 2014

2014
[21]

Quint, Yaouen Fily , and J

Silke Henkes, David A. Quint, Yaouen Fily , and J. M. Schwarz. Rigid cluster decompo- sition reveals criticality in frictional jamming. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 116:028301, Jan 2016. doi: 10.1103 /PhysRevLett.116.028301. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.116.028301

2016
[22]

Sticky-Sphere Clusters.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 8(1):77–98, March 2017

Miranda Holmes-Cerfon. Sticky-Sphere Clusters.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 8(1):77–98, March 2017

2017
[23]

Enumerating Rigid Sphere Packings

Miranda C Holmes-Cerfon. Enumerating Rigid Sphere Packings. SIAM Review, 58(2):229– 244, May 2016

2016
[24]

Connected rigidity matroids and unique realizations of graphs

Bill Jackson and Tibor Jordán. Connected rigidity matroids and unique realizations of graphs. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B , 94(1):1–29, 2005. ISSN 0095-8956. doi: 10.1016 / j.jctb.2004.11.002. URL https://doi-org.ezproxy.st-andrews.ac.uk/10.1016/ j.jctb.2004.11.002

2005
[25]

Protein ﬂexibility predictions using graph theory

D J Jacobs, A J Rader, L A Kuhn, and M F Thorpe. Protein ﬂexibility predictions using graph theory. Proteins-Structure Function and Genetics, 44(2):150–165, 2001. 55

2001
[26]

W . Kabsch. A solution for the best rotation to relate two sets of vectors.Acta Crystallographica Section A, 32(5):922–923, Sep 1976. doi: 10.1107 /S0567739476001873. URL https: //doi.org/10.1107/S0567739476001873

1976 doi
[27]

Free energy of singular sticky-sphere clusters

Yoav Kallus and Miranda Holmes-Cerfon. Free energy of singular sticky-sphere clusters. Physical Review E, 95(2):2491–18, February 2017

2017
[28]

The Jamming Transition and the Marginally Jammed Solid

Andrea J Liu and Sidney R Nagel. The Jamming Transition and the Marginally Jammed Solid. Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 1(1):347–369, 2010

2010
[29]

Colloidal matter: Packing, geometry , and entropy

V N Manoharan. Colloidal matter: Packing, geometry , and entropy. Science, 349(6251): 1253751–1253751, August 2015

2015
[30]

Direct obser- vation of a local structural mechanism for dynamic arrest

C Patrick Royall, Stephen R Williams, Takehiro Ohtsuka, and Hajime Tanaka. Direct obser- vation of a local structural mechanism for dynamic arrest. Nature Materials, 7(7):556–561, June 2008

2008
[31]

Selective buckling via states of self- stress in topological metamaterials

Jayson Paulose, Anne S Meeussen, and Vincenzo Vitelli. Selective buckling via states of self- stress in topological metamaterials. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 112 (25):7639–7644, June 2015

2015
[32]

Position- based tensegrity design

Nico Pietroni, Marco Tarini, Amir Vaxman, Daniele Panozzo, and Paolo Cignoni. Position- based tensegrity design. Acm Transactions on Graphics, 36(6):1–14, November 2017

2017
[33]

Daniel Rayneau-Kirkhope, Chengzhao Zhang, Louis Theran, and Marcelo A. Dias. Analytic analysis of auxetic metamaterials through analogy with rigid link systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 474(2210):20170753,
[34]

Morphometric Approach to Many-Body Correlations in Hard Spheres

Joshua F Robinson, Francesco Turci, Roland Roth, and C Patrick Royall. Morphometric Approach to Many-Body Correlations in Hard Spheres. Physical Review Letters , 122(6): 068004, February 2019

2019
[35]

Designing allostery-inspired response in mechanical networks

J W Rocks, N Pashine, I Bischofberger, C P Goodrich, A J Liu, and S R Nagel. Designing allostery-inspired response in mechanical networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114:2520–2525, 2017

2017
[36]

The ﬂexibility window in zeolites

Asel Sartbaeva, Stephen A Wells, M M J Treacy , and M F Thorpe. The ﬂexibility window in zeolites. Nature Materials, 5(12):962–965, November 2006

2006
[37]

Sommese and Charles W

Andrew J. Sommese and Charles W . Wampler, II.The numerical solution of systems of poly- nomials. World Scientiﬁc Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, 2005. Arising in engi- neering and science

2005
[38]

Louis Theran, Anthony Nixon, Elissa Ross, Mahdi Sadjadi, Brigitte Servatius, and M. F . Thorpe. Anchored boundary conditions for locally isostatic networks. Phys. Rev. E , 92: 053306, Nov 2015. doi: 10.1103 /PhysRevE.92.053306. URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.92...

2015 doi
[39]

Semideﬁnite programming.SIAM Rev., 38(1):49– 95, 1996

Lieven Vandenberghe and Stephen Boyd. Semideﬁnite programming.SIAM Rev., 38(1):49– 95, 1996. ISSN 0036-1445. doi: 10.1137 /1038003. URL https://doi-org.ezproxy. st-andrews.ac.uk/10.1137/1038003

1996 doi
[40]

Veenendaal and P

D. Veenendaal and P . Block. An overview and comparison of structural form ﬁnding methods for general networks. International Journal of Solids and Structures , 49(26):3741–3753,
[41]

White and Walter Whiteley

Neil L. White and Walter Whiteley . The algebraic geometry of stresses in frameworks. SIAM J. Algebraic Discrete Methods, 4(4):481–511, 1983. ISSN 0196-5212. doi: 10.1137 / 0604049. URL https://doi-org.ezproxy.st-andrews.ac.uk/10.1137/0604049

1983 doi
[42]

Counting out to the ﬂexibility of molecules

Walter Whiteley . Counting out to the ﬂexibility of molecules. Physical Biology, 2(4):S116– S126, December 2005

2005
[43]

Architecture and coevolution of allosteric materials

L Yan, R Ravasio, C Brito, and M Wyart. Architecture and coevolution of allosteric materials. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114:2526–2531, 2017. 57

2017
[2008]

http://stanford.edu/~boyd/graph_dcp.html
[2012]

doi: 10.1016 /j.ijsolstr.2012.08.008

2012
[2018]

doi: 10.1098 /rspa.2017.0753

2017
[2019]

doi: 10.1098 /rspa.2018.0773. 54

2018

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

http://www.arup.com/projects/kurilpa_bridge, 2009

Kurilpa bridge. http://www.arup.com/projects/kurilpa_bridge, 2009. URL http://www. arup.com/projects/kurilpa_bridge

work page 2009

[2] [2]

Generalizations of Kempe’s universality theorem

T G Abbott. Generalizations of Kempe’s universality theorem. PhD thesis, Master’s Thesis, 2008

work page 2008

[3] [3]

The rigidity of graphs

L Asimow and B Roth. The rigidity of graphs. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 245:279–289, 1978

work page 1978

[4] [4]

Flexible mechan- ical metamaterials

Katia Bertoldi, Vincenzo Vitelli, Johan Christensen, and Martin van Hecke. Flexible mechan- ical metamaterials. Nature Reviews, 2:17066, 2017

work page 2017

[5] [5]

New Principles for Auxetic Periodic Design

Ciprian S Borcea and Ileana Streinu. New Principles for Auxetic Periodic Design. SIAM Journal on Applied Algebra and Geometry, 1(1):442–458, January 2017

work page 2017

[6] [6]

MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988

John Canny .The complexity of robot motion planning, volume 1987 of ACM Doctoral Disser- tation Awards. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988. ISBN 0-262-03136-1

work page 1987

[7] [7]

Higher-order rigidity–What is the proper deﬁnition? Discrete & Computational Geometry, 11(2):193–200, 1994

R Connelly and H Servatius. Higher-order rigidity–What is the proper deﬁnition? Discrete & Computational Geometry, 11(2):193–200, 1994

work page 1994

[8] [8]

Second-order rigidity and prestress stability for tensegrity frameworks

R Connelly and W Whiteley . Second-order rigidity and prestress stability for tensegrity frameworks. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 9(3):453–491, August 1996

work page 1996