Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Non-reciprocal interactions drive emergent chiral crystallites

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In 2D active matter made of achiral colloids, non-reciprocal coupling between polar and hexatic order makes dense clusters spontaneously rotate, with clockwise and counterclockwise clusters appearing together.

desk verdict Solid experiments, real phenomenon, but the theory's rotating state is a uniform precession without vorticity—so the causal link to the observed clusters is not made. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15996 v1 pith:6HFYE4WX submitted 2025-01-27 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.stat-mech

S. J. Kole , Xichen Chao , Abraham Mauleon-Amieva , Ryo Hanai , C. Patrick Royall , Tanniemola B. Liverpool This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.stat-mech PACS 82.70.Dd05.65.+b
keywords activematterQuinckerollersnon-reciprocalinteractionsspontaneouschiralsymmetrybreakinghexaticorderpolarcolloidalclustersself-organization
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 reports that a 2D active material built from achiral self-propelled colloids can spontaneously break chiral symmetry: dense hexatic clusters rotate rigidly, with both clockwise and counterclockwise versions in the same sample. The authors back this with a field theory in which the polar and hexatic order parameters are coupled non-reciprocally. The theory shows that the misalignment angle between the two orderings relaxes to a stable finite value, giving a constant angular velocity, and that both signs of the angle are allowed. Experiments on Quincke rollers confirm rigidly rotating amoeba-like clusters and counter-rotating vortices, and in a channel geometry the measured misalignment angles match the predicted pair.

What carries the argument

The central object is the coupled set of angle dynamics for the polar angle $\phi$ and the hexatic bond angle $\theta_6$, written in terms of the joint fields $\alpha = \theta_6 - \phi$ and $\beta = \theta_6 + \phi$. The key identity is the fixed-point condition $\cos 6\alpha_0 = -[\tilde\eta_2\Phi_0^6 + 6\tilde\eta_1\Phi_0^4\Psi_0^2] / [2\Psi_0(\tilde\eta_4\Phi_0^{12} + 6\tilde\eta_3\Phi_0^{10}\Psi_0^2)]$, which, when the non-reciprocal coefficients and order-parameter amplitudes have the right signs and magnitudes, gives a stable finite $\alpha_0$ and a constant angular velocity $\omega_0$. The stability condition (Eq. 12) shows this rotating state is linearly stable; the degeneracy $\pm\alpha_0$ follows from the sine/cosine structure of the coupling.

What would settle it

Measure the linear response of the hexatic angle $\theta_6$ to a small perturbation of the polar angle $\phi$ (and vice versa) in a single dense cluster; if the effective non-reciprocal couplings are zero or of the wrong sign, Eq. (9) would predict $\alpha_0=0$ and no rotation, so any observed rotation would demand a different mechanism. Alternatively, tune the electric field and check whether the observed finite misalignment angle $\alpha$ follows the field-dependent prediction of Eq. (9) and whether the angular speed obeys $\omega_0 \propto \sin 6\alpha_0$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that chirality can emerge spontaneously in a non-equilibrium system even when all building blocks are achiral, provided two broken symmetries are non-reciprocally coupled. The authors construct a hydrodynamic theory for the complex polar field $\Phi$ and the complex hexatic field $\Psi$, whose phases are the polar angle $\phi$ and the six-fold bond angle $\theta_6$. Non-reciprocal couplings $\Delta\eta_i$ are symmetry-allowed out of equilibrium. In terms of the misalignment $\alpha = \theta_6 - \phi$, the mean-field dynamics has a rotating fixed point with $\cos 6\alpha_0$ given by Eq. (9) and angular velocity $\omega_0$ given by Eq. (10); because only $\alpha$ enters, $\pm\alpha_0$ are both allowed, yielding counter-rotating clusters. The equilibrium (reciprocal) limit forces $\alpha_0 = 0$. The experiments measure the internal velocity field of clusters and find rigid rotation with constant angular speed, a population of both clockwise and anticlockwise rotating clusters, and a pair of hexatic orientations at $+8.7^\circ$ and $-8.0^\circ$ in the channel, consistent with the predicted pair $\pm\alpha_0$.

Load-bearing premise

The rotating state requires that the non-reciprocal coupling coefficients introduced in the theory have signs and magnitudes that make Eq. (9) yield a stable finite misalignment angle; the paper does not derive these coefficients from the Quincke-roller electrohydrodynamics or measure them directly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Self-organized stirring: confined dense active clusters will spontaneously generate persistent, counter-rotating vortical flows, providing a mechanism for mixing at the microscale without external rotors.
  • Cluster handedness is a genuine spontaneous symmetry breaking: individual clusters pick a rotation sign not controlled by any chiral cue, so ensembles should show roughly equal populations of clockwise and counterclockwise clusters.
  • Because $\omega_0$ is proportional to activity-related coefficients, the rotation speed can be tuned by external parameters such as the electric field, allowing external control of cluster rotation and cluster size.
  • The same mechanism should apply to other pairs of broken symmetries coupled non-reciprocally, not just polar plus hexatic order, predicting rotating states in other two-field active systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The theory's coefficients $\Delta\eta_i$ are not yet derived from the Quincke-roller electrohydrodynamics; deriving them from the microscopic forces would provide a parameter-free test of Eq. (9) and predict how rotation speed depends on field strength.
  • The observed pair of hexatic orientations at approximately $+8.7^\circ$ and $-8.0^\circ$ is a direct probe of the predicted $\pm\alpha_0$ degeneracy; measuring the full distribution of $\alpha$ across many clusters and checking for bimodality would quantitatively test the theory.
  • If the non-reciprocal couplings turn out to be too weak or have the wrong sign, the observed rotation would require a different mechanism; the paper's theoretical prediction can be falsified by measuring these couplings from microscopic dynamics.
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 manuscript reports experiments on Quincke-roller colloids in which dense hexatic clusters rotate rigidly, with both clockwise and counterclockwise populations, and proposes a field theory of two coupled non-reciprocal order parameters (polar and hexatic) to explain this phenomenology. In the theory, non-reciprocal couplings (Delta_eta_i) between the polar angle phi and hexatic angle theta_6 produce a linearly stable misalignment alpha_0 = theta_6 - phi and a steady phase precession omega_0 (Eqs. 7-10). The experiments show rigid rotation with constant angular speed versus radius (Fig. 2d), PIV vortices (Fig. 3), and nearly symmetric positive/negative orientations of hexatic domains relative to the polarization direction in a channel (Sec. V).

Significance. If the causal chain from non-reciprocity to rotating clusters were established, this would be a notable advance: spontaneous chirality from achiral building blocks via coupled broken symmetries, with a clear experimental realization in a tunable colloidal system. The experimental observations themselves, rigidly rotating clusters with constant angular speed, coexisting CW and CCW vortices, and the channel-geometry measurement of opposite hexatic orientations, are valuable and reproducible in principle. The theoretical framework is carefully built on rotational invariance and explicitly separates reciprocal from non-reciprocal couplings. However, as presented, the theory only solves a spatially uniform mean-field problem, and the load-bearing link between that solution and the observed spatially structured cluster rotation is missing. The central claim is therefore plausible but not yet demonstrated by the reported calculation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (7)-(10)] The rotating fixed point is derived in the spatially homogeneous mean-field limit: taking Phi_0 and Psi_0 uniform reduces the angle dynamics to ordinary differential equations for alpha and beta with no spatial gradients. The resulting state has phi and theta_6 precessing uniformly in time at every point in space, which has zero vorticity and describes a global clock rotation of the order parameters, not a finite-size cluster rotating about a center. The observed rigid rotation (Fig. 2d) has an azimuthal velocity field with nonzero winding, and the paper does not show that the uniform precession becomes a cluster vortex under confinement or boundary conditions. Thus Eqs. (9)-(10) do not, by themselves, support the statement in Sec. III that clusters identified with constant angle difference will exhibit systematic rigid rotation.
  2. [Sec. III, Eqs. (1)-(2) and (9)] The non-reciprocal coefficients Delta_eta_i are introduced as generic symmetry-allowed terms, but their signs and magnitudes are neither derived from the Quincke-roller electrohydrodynamics nor measured. Consequently, the observed rotation is not a quantitative test of the model: for any observation of rotating clusters, one can choose Delta_eta_i such that Eq. (9) yields a stable nonzero alpha_0. To make the causal claim that non-reciprocity drives the rotation falsifiable, the paper would need to either constrain Delta_eta_i from microphysics or report a measurement, for example of the amplitude and sign of the angular response, that can be compared with the prediction, rather than only showing that a rotating solution exists in the model.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 2d and Sec. III] The experimentally measured quantity in Fig. 2d is the angular speed of particles about the cluster center as a function of radius, which is constant in the interior and decays at the periphery. The theory's omega_0 in Eq. (10) is the precession rate of the order-parameter angles, which is not the same observable; the paper provides no relation between omega_0 and the experimental angular velocity profile, nor does it predict the radial dependence. This is part of the same gap between the mean-field calculation and the cluster geometry, but it deserves separate emphasis because the paper explicitly states that the angular speed profile can be experimentally verified without defining the mapping.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (B10)] There is a typographical error in Eq. (B10): the term containing Gamma_1 sigma_a Phi_0 has an extra plus sign.
  2. [Sec. II] The text says that psi_j^6 runs between perfect ordering and complete disorder, but psi_j^6 is complex; the statement should refer to its magnitude |psi_j^6|.
  3. [Sec. V, Fig. 4] The reported hexatic orientations of +8.7 degrees and -8.0 degrees are presented without error bars, the number of independent domains, or a statistical test that the two orientations are distinguishable from zero; providing such statistics would strengthen the comparison with Eq. (9).
  4. [Sec. III, Eq. (5)] The symbol sigma_1 in Eq. (5) is used for the renormalized polar elastic coefficient, while sigma_a was introduced earlier as the bare elastic coefficient; this redefinition could be flagged more clearly to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the rotating state is a derived consequence of the assumed non-reciprocal couplings, with no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citations; the uniform-precession-to-vortex step is an omitted derivation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: starting from the symmetry-allowed coupled field equations (1)-(2) with explicit non-reciprocal terms Δη_i, the angle dynamics (5)-(6) are projected onto α and β, and the fixed point condition (9) and angular speed (10) follow by elementary algebra. The rotating state is a derived consequence of the assumption that the Δη_i break Onsager reciprocity with suitable signs; no parameter is fitted to the experimental data, and the qualitative predictions (two signs of α0, constant ω0, stability condition (12)) are structural and could in principle fail. The self-citations [44,45] provide the experimental system (Quincke roller amoebae) but are not load-bearing for the theoretical result. The comparison to experiment is qualitative: measured ±8.7°/−8.0° are said to be 'consistent with' Eq. (9), and the measured constant angular-velocity plateau is associated with the mean-field ω0, but no free parameter is extracted from the data. The paper does omit a spatial derivation connecting the spatially uniform precession solution to the finite-size rotating cluster with azimuthal flow observed in Fig. 2d/3; that is a completeness/correctness gap, not a circular reduction, and it does not make the prediction equivalent to the input.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a long list of Landau coefficients and nonreciprocal terms. The specific values of Δη_i determine whether a rotating state exists, but they are not derived from the microscopic Quincke electrohydrodynamics nor measured in the experiments. The equilibrium limit is standard, but the active mechanism is postulated.

free parameters (7)
  • η̃1, Δη1 (polar-hexatic nonreciprocal coupling)
    Appears in Eq (5) as torque on the polar angle from the hexatic field. Not measured or derived; its sign and magnitude control the rotating state.
  • η̃2, Δη2 (hexatic-polar nonreciprocal coupling)
    Appears in Eq (6) and in the fixed point condition Eq (9). No experimental constraint is provided.
  • η̃3, η̃4, Δη3, Δη4 (higher-order nonreciprocal couplings)
    These generate the sin12α terms needed for a stable nonzero α0. Their values are unknown and not derived from the microscopic dynamics.
  • Φ0, Ψ0 (ordered-phase amplitudes)
    Assumed constant in the mean-field reduction; set by the free-energy polynomial and not measured independently.
  • λ1, λ2 (active advection coefficients)
    Appear in advective nonlinearities; not measured and they do not enter the uniform fixed point.
  • Γ1, Γ2 (dissipative coefficients)
    In Appendix B they are set to Φ0^2 and 6Ψ0^2 to enforce detailed balance; this choice is presented without physical motivation.
  • Free energy coefficients a1...g2, ηa, ηb, σa, σb
    Landau parameters defining F in Eq (B3); they determine which ordered state is selected and the equilibrium angle landscape.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Nonreciprocal couplings Δη_i can violate Onsager symmetry and do so with the signs and magnitudes required by Eq (9) for a stable nonzero α0.
    Load-bearing premise: without it the rotating fixed point may not exist, and no microscopic derivation is given.
  • domain assumption The ordered phase can be described by constant amplitudes Φ0, Ψ0 with only angle dynamics (mean-field, uniform).
    Used throughout Eqs (3)-(12), ignoring amplitude fluctuations, density variations, and hydrodynamic interactions.
  • standard math The equilibrium free energy F with reciprocal coefficients has α0=0 as the unique stable angle configuration.
    Follows from minimizing the cos6α and cos12α terms in Eq (B3) for passive hexatic-tilt systems.
  • domain assumption Gradient terms only stabilize spatial variations; they do not change the uniform rotating state.
    The linear stability analysis in Appendix B2 treats α as spatially uniform.
  • domain assumption Quincke rollers are achiral in the xy plane, so any 2D chirality is emergent.
    The authors argue rolling occurs in a plane perpendicular to xy, making individual trajectories isotropic persistent random walks (Sec I).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-reciprocal interactions drive emergent chiral crystallites." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6HFYE4WX

@misc{pith2026250115996,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-reciprocal interactions drive emergent chiral crystallites},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6HFYE4WX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15996}
}
read the original abstract

We study a new type of 2D active material that exhibits macroscopic phases with two emergent broken symmetries: self-propelled achiral particles that form dense hexatic clusters, which spontaneously rotate. We experimentally realise active colloids that self-organise into both polar and hexatic crystallites, exhibiting exotic emergent phenomena. This is accompanied by a field theory of coupled order parameters formulated on symmetry principles, including non-reciprocity, to capture the non-equilibrium dynamics. We find that the presence of two interacting broken symmetry fields leads to the emergence of novel chiral phases built from (2D) achiral active colloids (here Quincke rollers). These phases are characterised by the presence of both clockwise and counterclockwise rotating clusters. We thus show that spontaneous rotation can emerge in non-equilibrium systems, even when the building blocks are achiral, due to non-reciprocally coupled broken symmetries. This interplay leads to self-organized stirring through counter-rotating vortices in confined colloidal systems, with cluster size controlled by external electric fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15996 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic of the self-assembly of active Quincke rollers. (a) Side view of the experimental set up. (b) Top view [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Rotating amoeba. (a) Particle resolved image of amoeba cluster, scale bar is 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Counter rotating amoebae. (a) A snapshot of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Channel Geometry. (a) An experimental snapshot of colloids confined in a channel. Scale bar is 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Lattice-dependent orientational order in active crystals

    cond-mat.soft 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A distance-dependence parameter Ω controls how active particles on a lattice orient, yielding aligned or anti-aligned states, stripes, and frustration, via a mapping to an anisotropic spin model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    living crystals

    (9) with ∂tβ = ω0 ω0 = −˜η2Φ6 0 6Ψ0 + ˜η1Φ4 0Ψ0 sin 6α0 + 2 − ˜η4Φ12 0 6 + ˜η3Φ10 0 Ψ2 0 sin 6α0 cos 6α0 (10) A theory of hexatic phases with tilt degrees of free- dom [48] corresponds to the equilibrium limit of the cou- pled orientational order dynamics described above. In the passive case, the tilt angle is slaved to align along a hexatic easy axis, wi...

    work page

  2. [2]

    M. C. Marchetti, J.-F. Joanny, S. Ramaswamy, T. B. Liverpool, J. Prost, M. Rao, and R. A. Simha, Reviews of modern physics 85, 1143 (2013)

    2013

  3. [3]

    Ramaswamy, Annu

    S. Ramaswamy, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 1, 323 (2010)

    2010

  4. [4]

    Vicsek, A

    T. Vicsek, A. Czir´ ok, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen, and O. Shochet, Physical review letters 75, 1226 (1995)

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    Toner and Y

    J. Toner and Y. Tu, Physical review E 58, 4828 (1998)

    1998

  6. [6]

    Toner, Y

    J. Toner, Y. Tu, and S. Ramaswamy, Annals of Physics 318, 170 (2005)

    2005

  7. [7]

    Fily and M

    Y. Fily and M. C. Marchetti, Physical review letters 108, 235702 (2012)

    2012

  8. [8]

    M. E. Cates and J. Tailleur, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 6, 219 (2015)

    2015

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Alert, J.-F

    R. Alert, J.-F. Joanny, and J. Casademunt, Nature Physics 16, 682 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Alert, J

    R. Alert, J. Casademunt, and J.-F. Joanny, Annual Re- view of Condensed Matter Physics 13, 143 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Creppy, O

    A. Creppy, O. Praud, X. Druart, P. L. Kohnke, and F. Plourabou´ e, Physical Review E92, 032722 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Dunkel, S

    J. Dunkel, S. Heidenreich, K. Drescher, H. H. Wensink, M. B¨ ar, and R. E. Goldstein, Physical review letters110, 228102 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    T. H. Tan, A. Mietke, J. Li, Y. Chen, H. Higinbotham, P. J. Foster, S. Gokhale, J. Dunkel, and N. Fakhri, Nature 607, 287 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Schwarz-Linek, C

    J. Schwarz-Linek, C. Valeriani, A. Cacciuto, M. Cates, D. Marenduzzo, A. Morozov, and W. Poon, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 4052 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    S. Kole, G. P. Alexander, S. Ramaswamy, and A. Maitra, Physical Review Letters 126, 248001 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    S. Kole, G. P. Alexander, A. Maitra, and S. Ramaswamy, PNAS nexus 3, pgae398 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Maitra and S

    A. Maitra and S. Ramaswamy, Physical review letters 123, 238001 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Maitra, M

    A. Maitra, M. Lenz, and R. Voituriez, Physical Review Letters 125, 238005 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Gompper, R

    G. Gompper, R. G. Winkler, T. Speck, A. Solon, C. Nar- dini, F. Peruani, H. L¨ owen, R. Golestanian, U. B. Kaupp, L. Alvarez, et al., Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 32, 193001 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Maggi, J

    C. Maggi, J. Simmchen, F. Saglimbeni, J. Katuri, M. Di- palo, F. De Angelis, S. Sanchez, and R. Di Leonardo, arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.03630 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    K. J. Bishop, S. L. Biswal, and B. Bharti, Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering 14, 1 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    C. P. Goodrich and M. P. Brenner, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 257 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Z¨ ottl and H

    A. Z¨ ottl and H. Stark, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 28, 253001 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    D. K. Sahu, S. Kole, S. Ramaswamy, and S. Dhara, Phys- ical Review Research 2, 032009 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Z¨ ottl and H

    A. Z¨ ottl and H. Stark, Annual Review of Condensed Mat- ter Physics 14, 109 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    I. S. Aranson, Physics-Uspekhi 56, 79 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    Aubret, Q

    A. Aubret, Q. Martinet, and J. Palacci, Nature commu- nications 12, 6398 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Soto and R

    R. Soto and R. Golestanian, Physical review letters 112, 068301 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Z. You, A. Baskaran, and M. C. Marchetti, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 19767 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    S. Saha, J. Agudo-Canalejo, and R. Golestanian, Physi- cal Review X 10, 041009 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Fruchart, R

    M. Fruchart, R. Hanai, P. B. Littlewood, and V. Vitelli, Nature 592, 363 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Lahiri, M

    R. Lahiri, M. Barma, and S. Ramaswamy, Physical Re- view E 61, 1648 (2000)

    2000

  25. [33]

    Scheibner, A

    C. Scheibner, A. Souslov, D. Banerjee, P. Sur´ owka, W. T. Irvine, and V. Vitelli, Nature Physics 16, 475 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Fruchart, C

    M. Fruchart, C. Scheibner, and V. Vitelli, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 14, 471 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Frohoff-H¨ ulsmann, U

    T. Frohoff-H¨ ulsmann, U. Thiele, and L. M. Pismen, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 381, 20220087 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Dinelli, J

    A. Dinelli, J. O’Byrne, A. Curatolo, Y. Zhao, P. Sollich, and J. Tailleur, Nature Communications14, 7035 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Brauns and M

    F. Brauns and M. C. Marchetti, Physical Review X 14, 021014 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Suchanek, K

    T. Suchanek, K. Kroy, and S. A. Loos, Physical Review E 108, 064610 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    E. S. Bililign, F. Balboa Usabiaga, Y. A. Ganan, A. Pon- cet, V. Soni, S. Magkiriadou, M. J. Shelley, D. Bartolo, and W. T. Irvine, Nature Physics 18, 212 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Bricard, J.-B

    A. Bricard, J.-B. Caussin, N. Desreumaux, O. Dauchot, and D. Bartolo, Nature 503, 95 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    Geyer, A

    D. Geyer, A. Morin, and D. Bartolo, Nature materials 17, 789 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Chardac, S

    A. Chardac, S. Shankar, M. C. Marchetti, and D. Bar- 8 tolo, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2018218118 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Karani, G

    H. Karani, G. E. Pradillo, and P. M. Vlahovska, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 208002 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Jorge, A

    C. Jorge, A. Chardac, A. Poncet, and D. Bartolo, Nature Physics 20, 303 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Mauleon-Amieva, M

    A. Mauleon-Amieva, M. P. Allen, T. B. Liverpool, and C. P. Royall, Science Advances 9, eadf5144 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Mauleon-Amieva, M

    A. Mauleon-Amieva, M. Mosayebi, J. E. Hallett, F. Turci, T. B. Liverpool, J. S. Van Duijneveldt, and C. P. Royall, Physical Review E 102, 032609 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Stukowski, Modelling and simulation in materials sci- ence and engineering 18, 015012 (2009)

    A. Stukowski, Modelling and simulation in materials sci- ence and engineering 18, 015012 (2009)

    2009

  40. [48]

    R. J. Adrian and J. Westerweel, Particle image velocime- try, 30 (Cambridge university press, 2011)

    2011

  41. [49]

    D. R. Nelson and B. Halperin, Physical Review B 21, 5312 (1980)

    1980

  42. [50]

    Drouin-Touchette, P

    V. Drouin-Touchette, P. P. Orth, P. Coleman, P. Chan- dra, and T. C. Lubensky, Physical Review X 12, 011043 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    S.-R. Yeh, M. Seul, and B. I. Shraiman, Nature 386, 57 (1997)

    1997

  44. [52]

    Ristenpart, I

    W. Ristenpart, I. A. Aksay, and D. Saville, Physical Re- view E 69, 021405 (2004)

    2004

  45. [53]

    Zhang and X

    K.-Q. Zhang and X. Y. Liu, Nature 429, 739 (2004)

    2004

  46. [54]

    Palacci, S

    J. Palacci, S. Sacanna, A. P. Steinberg, D. J. Pine, and P. M. Chaikin, Science 339, 936 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    Buttinoni, J

    I. Buttinoni, J. Bialk´ e, F. K¨ ummel, H. L¨ owen, C. Bechinger, and T. Speck, Physical review letters 110, 238301 (2013)

    2013

  48. [56]

    M. N. Van Der Linden, L. C. Alexander, D. G. Aarts, and O. Dauchot, Physical review letters 123, 098001 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    Quincke, Annalen der Physik 295, 417 (2006)

    G. Quincke, Annalen der Physik 295, 417 (2006)

    2006

  50. [58]

    Pannacci, E

    N. Pannacci, E. Lemaire, and L. Lobry, Rheologica acta 46, 899 (2007)

    2007

  51. [59]

    Das and D

    D. Das and D. Saintillan, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 87, 043014 (2013)

    2013

  52. [60]

    Zhang, A

    H.-P. Zhang, A. Be’er, E.-L. Florin, and H. L. Swinney, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 13626 (2010)

    2010

  53. [61]

    D. B. Allan, T. Caswell, N. C. Keim, C. M. van der Wel, and R. W. Verweij, soft-matter/trackpy: v0.6.4 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    J. C. Crocker and D. G. Grier, Journal of colloid and interface science 179, 298 (1996). Appendix A: Experimental Details We use the so-called Quincke electrorotation mechanism of colloidal active rollers [39]. A uniform electric field E aligned in the z−direction is applied t...

    1996

  55. [63]

    The two ordering fields are local polarisation Φ( x, t) and hexatic order Ψ(x, t)

    Active hydrodynamics In this section, we formulate and analyse the hydrodynamics of two non-reciprocally coupled order parameters. The two ordering fields are local polarisation Φ( x, t) and hexatic order Ψ(x, t). We use the complex (Euler) representation for the two fields, w...

  56. [64]

    The dissipative coefficients Γ 1 = Φ2 0, Γ 2 = 6Ψ2 0 together with the Onsager reciprocal relations as discussed before ensure detailed balance

    (B18) This implies ∂tβ = ω0 ω0 = −˜η2Φ6 0 6Ψ0 + ˜η1Φ4 0Ψ0 sin 6α0 + 2 − ˜η4Φ12 0 6 + ˜η3Φ10 0 Ψ2 0 sin 6α0 cos 6α0 (B19) Indeed the fixed point in the active case is allowed only when −˜η2Φ6 0 − 6˜η1Φ4 0Ψ2 0 < 2Ψ0 ˜η4Φ12 0 + 6˜η3Φ10 0 Ψ2 0 and 2Ψ0 ˜η4Φ12 0 + 6˜η3Φ10 0 Ψ2 0 ̸= ...

  57. [65]

    The inequality condition for a quadratic expression implies two cases cos 6α0 > −(Σ2 + Σ1) ± p (Σ2 + Σ1)2 + 32(Σ3 + Σ4)2 8(Σ3 + Σ4) (B26)

    Linear stability analysis of rotating states In this section, we investigate whether the rotating fixed point is linearly stable to perturbations, α = α0 + δα ∂t(α0 + δα) = −˜η2Φ6 0 6Ψ0 − ˜η1Φ4 0Ψ0 sin 6(α0 + δα) − 2 ˜η4Φ12 0 6 + ˜η3Φ10 0 Ψ2 0 sin 6(α0 + δα) cos 6(α0 + δα) (B2...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.