Polarity from the Bottom Up: A Computational Framework for Predicting Spontaneous Polar Order

Calum J. Gibb; Jordan Hobbs; Richard J. Mandle

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Polarity from the Bottom Up: A Computational Framework for Predicting Spontaneous Polar Order

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The presence or absence of the ferroelectric nematic phase in closely related liquid crystals is decided by the relative stability of parallel versus antiparallel molecular pairs, not by dipole-moment magnitude alone.

desk verdict Plausible interaction motifs for polar order, but the predictive claim is undercut by the DIO anomaly and missing error bars; deserves a rigorous revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16810 v1 pith:2RMIHIA5 submitted 2025-04-23 cond-mat.soft

Jordan Hobbs , Calum J. Gibb , Richard J. Mandle This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.soft

keywords polarliquidcrystalsferroelectricnematicbimolecularpotentialenergysurfaceintermolecularinteractionscomplexationdensityfunctionaltheoryelectrostaticmoleculardesign

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that whether a liquid crystal develops polar order—its molecular dipoles all pointing the same way—can be read off from how two of its molecules prefer to pack together. In the closely related pair RM734, which shows the ferroelectric nematic phase, and RM734-CN, which does not, the framework traces the difference to specific lateral contacts: the nitro group stabilizes parallel pairs, while the nitrile group opens a deep antiparallel minimum. The same dimer-energy comparison accounts for why DIO is polar while its near relatives CIO and DIO(-F) are not. If this picture is right, dipole-dipole forces are not the primary cause of spontaneous polar order; instead, subtle directional non-covalent interactions between specific chemical groups decide, and candidate materials could be screened from gas-phase dimer calculations before synthesis.

What carries the argument

The central object is the bimolecular potential energy surface (bPES): a second copy of the optimized monomer is translated over a three-dimensional grid in both parallel and antiparallel orientations, and every physically valid configuration is assigned a counterpoise-corrected DFT single-point energy (B97-D3/cc-pVTZ). Discrete minima are then freely optimized, duplicate geometries are removed by RMSD comparison, and surviving minima are classified into pairing modes such as twisted parallel, slipped parallel, and twisted antiparallel. The argument is carried by comparing the complexation energies $\Delta E_{\rm cplx}$ of parallel versus antiparallel minima, with electrostatic potential maps and traceless quadrupole tensor components used to explain why specific contact geometries are stabilizing or repulsive. The $N_F$ phase is treated not as a property of one molecule but as a competition between these lateral interaction motifs.

What would settle it

Recompute the decisive dimers with a higher-level electronic-structure method or an explicit condensed-phase free-energy simulation: if the antiparallel form of DIO remains clearly more stable while DIO still shows the $N_F$ phase, or if the parallel form of RM734-CN becomes clearly more stable while RM734-CN still lacks it, the central claim is contradicted. A synthetic test would be to make a DIO analogue whose electrostatic potential the framework predicts to restore the parallel preference and show that it still fails to form a polar phase.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a rigid bimolecular potential energy surface—scanned in parallel and antiparallel orientations and then relaxed at the minima—reproduces the experimentally known presence or absence of the $N_F$ phase in three closely related families. For RM734 the global minimum is a twisted parallel pair stabilized by contacts between nitro and ester groups; for RM734-CN the global minimum is a twisted antiparallel pair that the nitro-terminated material cannot adopt for electrostatic reasons. For DIO the parallel and antiparallel forms are almost exactly balanced, with the antiparallel form lower by only 0.1 kcal/mol, and the paper argues that this near-degeneracy, rather than a clear parallel win, is the signature of a material that still becomes polar. In CIO and DIO(-F), by contrast, the antiparallel form is far lower in energy, matching the absence of polar order. The authors conclude that specific molecular features and strong directional intermolecular interactions, not dipole-dipole forces, establish polar order.

Load-bearing premise

The controlling premise is that gas-phase dimer complexation energies, computed for rigid optimized monomers with B97-D3/cc-pVTZ, reliably predict which condensed-phase liquid-crystal ordering wins—even when the deciding energy gap is 0.1 kcal/mol.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A candidate material's tendency to form a polar phase can be screened from dimer calculations before synthesis, using the sign and size of $\Delta E_{\rm cplx}$ for parallel versus antiparallel pairs.
Chemical groups with spatially extended charge distributions—nitro, dioxane, optimally placed fluorines—act as polarity-promoting contact motifs; replacing them with nitrile, cyclohexane, or a removed fluorine should usually suppress the $N_F$ phase, matching experiment.
Fluorination pattern controls polar order through electrostatic potential anisotropy and quadrupole sign changes, giving a concrete recipe for tuning $T(N_F)$ by editing ring fluorination.
Mixtures lose polar order when the components lack complementary lateral interactions, explaining the rapid suppression of $N_F$ observed in blends such as 5CB with DIO or RM734.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the near-degeneracy of DIO suggests that the framework's real predictive content may be the balance of contact energies rather than a hard threshold; a natural next test is whether higher-level wavefunction calculations preserve the 0.1 kcal/mol ordering.
The gas-phase dimer picture omits entropy and many-body packing; extending it to finite-temperature dimer free energies or polarizable molecular dynamics would test whether the predicted parallel preference survives in the actual fluid.
If the contact-motif picture holds, the same logic could be exported to other polar soft matter—organic ferroelectrics, polar molecular crystals, or surface monolayers—where local pairwise contacts rather than isolated dipole moments decide the emergent polarity.
One testable extension is to use the dimer preference to predict $T(N_F)$ itself: systems with a larger parallel-favouring $\Delta E_{\rm cplx}$ should show higher onset temperatures, as the DIO(+F) trend already hints.

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

Colleague, here's my read of Hobbs et al.

The work applies the bPES workflow from their JACS paper to a handful of known NF-forming and non-forming materials. The new content is the application to RM734-CN, CIO, DIO(-F), and the RM734/DIO heterodimer, and the interaction-level stories are chemically plausible: nitro groups engaging in staggered electrostatics, dioxane's electrostatic complementarity, fluorination patterning that tunes ring quadrupoles. I think those qualitative motifs will be useful to people designing new materials.

The soft spot is the central claim. The paper's criterion is that the sign of the parallel/antiparallel complexation-energy difference predicts polar order. But DIO, a canonical ferroelectric nematic, has an antiparallel global minimum, lower by only 0.1 kcal/mol. The paper tries to rescue this by contrasting that with CIO/DIO(-F), where antiparallel is 'far lower,' but no threshold is specified. As stated, the criterion doesn't distinguish DIO from CIO; it only rationalizes after the fact. That's a real internal tension, independent of the numerical issue that 0.1 kcal/mol is below the expected accuracy of B97-D3/cc-pVTZ for noncovalent interactions. The paper lacks error bars or higher-level benchmarks. The rigid-monomer, gas-phase approximation also ignores entropy and condensed-phase effects—an approximation that's fine for hypothesis generation but too fragile for the predictive title.

On the positive side, the authors are frank in the conclusions that they are rationalizing, not predicting, and they don't oversell the dipole argument. The citation pattern looks fine; the workflow is self-cited but that's legitimate since they're building on their own method.

Who is this for? Computational chemists and LC experimentalists working on polar nematics. It will be a useful reference for the interaction motifs, but I would not cite it as evidence for a predictive framework until the threshold question is answered and a genuine blind prediction is made.

My recommendation: send it to peer review. A good referee can push them to define the criterion more carefully, add benchmarks, and ideally test on a new compound. The qualitative chemistry is worth preserving, but the current version's claim is too strong for its evidence.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a computational workflow for probing the bimolecular potential energy surface (bPES) of liquid crystal-forming molecules, using rigid scans at the B97-D3/cc-pVTZ level with counterpoise correction followed by unconstrained optimization of selected minima. The authors apply this workflow to pairs of closely related materials: RM734 vs RM734-CN, DIO vs CIO vs DIO(-F), and the mixed RM734/DIO pair. Their central claim is that the presence or absence of the ferroelectric nematic (NF) phase can be accounted for by the relative complexation energies of parallel versus antiparallel dimer configurations, with polar order arising from specific directional non-covalent interactions rather than from generic dipole-dipole forces. They find that RM734 favors parallel geometries while RM734-CN favors antiparallel, that DIO favors antiparallel only marginally while CIO and DIO(-F) favor antiparallel strongly, and that RM734/DIO mixes ideally because their parallel interactions are complementary.

Significance. If validated, the proposed framework could provide a practically useful, chemistry-specific route to design new polar liquid crystals by computing dimer interaction energies, a field that currently lacks first-principles design rules. The work is commendable for using counterpoise-corrected DFT, for explicitly analyzing electrostatic potential and quadrupole anisotropies, and for addressing a set of experimentally well-characterized comparisons that present a challenging test of any model. The identification of specific interaction motifs (e.g., nitro-nitro and nitro-ester contacts in RM734, dioxane-mediated contacts in DIO) is insightful and may guide synthetic efforts. However, the paper's own DIO result contradicts the stated parallel-versus-antiparallel criterion unless an energy-gap threshold is introduced, and the decisive energy difference in that case (0.1 kcal/mol) is below typical DFT accuracy. As written, the workflow rationalizes known phase behavior rather than providing a validated prediction scheme. The strengths of the approach and the clarity of the presentation justify serious consideration, but the central predictive claim requires substantial additional support.

major comments (4)

[Results, DIO paragraph and Figure 8a] The paper's central criterion is that polar order is associated with a preference for parallel dimer configurations. Yet for DIO, the text states that the antiparallel form is the global energy minimum by only 0.1 kcal/mol, despite DIO being an archetypal NF material. This is a direct counterexample to the criterion as stated unless an energy-gap threshold is specified. The distinction between 'only 0.1 kcal/mol' for DIO and 'far lower' for CIO and DIO(-F) is qualitative; no numerical threshold, statistical confidence interval, or sensitivity analysis is provided. Consequently, the framework cannot classify DIO a priori, and the claim of prediction in the title and abstract is not supported. The authors should either define and justify a threshold, restate the criterion in a falsifiable form (e.g., relative to a chemical analogue), or explicitly reframe the work as providing post hoc rationalization rather than prediction.
[Methods and Figure 8a] The decisive DIO result rests on a 0.1 kcal/mol energy difference between antiparallel and parallel optimized dimers. This is below the expected accuracy of the B97-D3/cc-pVTZ method for noncovalent interactions, which is typically at least 0.5 kcal/mol for such systems. The manuscript provides no error bars, no benchmarks against higher-level wavefunction methods (e.g., CCSD(T)/CBS) or a reasonable DFT reference set, and no assessment of numerical noise (grid, convergence tolerances). Since the sign of the energy difference is the entire basis for classifying DIO versus CIO/DIO(-F), the conclusion is not robust. A higher-level single-point benchmark on the optimized minima, or at least a clear discussion of expected uncertainty, is needed.
[Methods, rigid-monomer and gas-phase approximations] The workflow computes dimer complexation energies for rigid monomers in the gas phase at zero temperature, then equates these energy differences with the thermodynamic preference for parallel vs antiparallel order in the condensed phase. This neglects conformational flexibility, vibrational and configurational entropy, and many-body/polarization effects of the surrounding medium. These effects can plausibly alter the ordering of free-energy differences at the 0.1-1 kcal/mol scale that is decisive here. The authors should either test these assumptions (e.g., by harmonic free-energy corrections, ab initio molecular dynamics on selected dimers, or comparison with empirical force-field simulations of the bulk) or explicitly acknowledge that the framework is an approximate energetic surrogate and discuss how the neglected terms might affect the conclusions.
[Methods, bPES construction and sampling] The bPES is constructed using arbitrary numerical parameters: a 1 Å grid resolution, minimum and maximum interatomic separation cutoffs of 3.0 Å and 5.0 Å, selection of only 10 discrete minima for optimization, and an RMSD duplicate threshold of 0.2 Å. No sensitivity analysis is presented to show that the identified global minima and the relative stabilities of parallel versus antiparallel forms are robust to these choices. Because the entire argument depends on which minimum is the global one, the authors should test at least a subset of these parameters (e.g., finer grid, different cutoffs, more minima) and report how the main conclusions change.

minor comments (5)

[Figure 1 caption] The similarity metric is referred to as 'Roger-Stanimo' in the caption; this appears to be a typo for 'Rogers-Tanimoto'.
[Throughout] There are several typographical errors, e.g., 'antiparalell' in the Figure 8 caption and 'HCNF in 14 or NTBF in 15' in the introduction, where the citation formatting is unclear. A careful proofread is needed.
[Methods, first paragraph] The description of the transition temperature sources is terse; it would be helpful to list the exact phases and temperatures in a table for each material, since the experimental phase behavior is the ground truth against which the calculations are compared.
[Results, RM734/RM734-CN section] The phrase 'ΔG_complex' is used in the early part of the Results section, while the rest of the paper reports ΔE_cplx. The distinction between free energy and electronic energy should be clarified, as the calculations appear to report electronic energies only.
[Figure 7] The figure shows DIO(+F) and discusses its expected behavior, but DIO(+F) is not part of the computational study. The text should make clear whether these are literature results or predictions, and if predictions, they should be flagged as such.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

DIO's antiparallel global minimum shows the parallel/antiparallel criterion is applied post hoc; the DFT data are independent, so the circularity is partial.

fitted input called prediction [Results, 'We now consider DIO and two derivatives' / Figure 8 paragraph]
"For DIO, the antiparallel form is the global energy minimum (Fig. 8a) albeit by only 0.1 kcal mol-1, despite the fact polar order is known to prevail (as the material exhibits polar LC phases). For CIO and DIO(-F) the antiparallel form is far lower in energy than the parallel form."

The paper's implicit rule is that a lower-energy antiparallel dimer implies absence of polar order. DIO violates the sign rule: its antiparallel dimer is the global minimum, yet DIO is a canonical NF material. The rule is retained by adding an unspecified magnitude threshold ('only 0.1' vs 'far lower'), chosen with knowledge of the experimental phase behavior. No threshold or error bar is given, so the framework cannot assign DIO before knowing its phase; the 'prediction' is the experimental assignment re-expressed in energy language. This is post-hoc threshold fitting rather than a derived criterion.

full rationale

The core DFT complexation-energy calculations are computed ab initio from molecular structure and are not fitted to the phase behavior; the RM734/RM734-CN comparison is consistent with the sign of the global minimum and provides independent chemical content. Self-citations (refs 16, 43, 47) supply methods and prior ESP discussions but do not force the conclusions. However, the central claim that the parallel/antiparallel energy balance predicts NF presence is not consistently specified: the DIO result requires a magnitude threshold that is introduced only after the experimental phase is known, and the paper's own conclusion concedes it 'rationalises' rather than predicts. This makes the predictive framing partially circular for the DIO family, though not a definitional equivalence.

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

The framework introduces no new physical entities. It relies on methodological choices (distance cutoffs, grid resolution, number of minima) and on the assumption that isolated dimer energies map directly onto bulk phase behavior. These choices and assumptions are the main source of uncertainty.

free parameters (5)

Minimum interatomic distance cutoff = 3.0 Å
Configurations with atom-atom distances below 3.0 Å are excluded as unphysical; this choice affects which minima appear on the bPES.
Maximum interatomic separation cutoff = 5.0 Å
Configurations where the longest interatomic distance exceeds 5.0 Å are excluded to avoid unbound states; this arbitrary bound shapes the sampled PES.
Grid resolution = 1 Å
Initial rigid scan translation step; finite resolution could miss narrow minima.
Number of discrete local minima optimized = 10
Global minimum plus 9 local minima are relaxed; a different count could change the set of compared pairing modes.
RMSD duplicate threshold = 0.2 Å
Optimized geometries with RMSD below this are discarded as duplicates; this choice affects classification of distinct pairing modes.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Gas-phase dimer complexation energy is a valid proxy for condensed-phase packing preference.
The entire analysis compares isolated dimer energies and then connects them to bulk NF phase formation; no free-energy or many-body corrections are computed.
domain assumption Rigid monomer geometry from isolated optimization is representative of molecular conformation in the liquid crystal phase.
A single molecule optimized alone is used for the full rigid scan; liquid crystal phases may involve different conformations.
domain assumption B97-D3/cc-pVTZ with counterpoise yields chemically accurate relative noncovalent interaction energies.
Relative energies on the order of 0.1 to 2 kcal/mol are interpreted as decisive; no benchmark against higher-level methods is provided.
domain assumption Parallel dimer preference is sufficient for polar order, while antiparallel preference suppresses it.
The paper equates the sign of the parallel/antiparallel energy difference with the presence of the NF phase, without a statistical or thermodynamic model of the bulk transition.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polarity from the Bottom Up: A Computational Framework for Predicting Spontaneous Polar Order." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2RMIHIA5

@misc{pith2026250416810,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polarity from the Bottom Up: A Computational Framework for Predicting Spontaneous Polar Order},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2RMIHIA5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16810}
}

read the original abstract

So-called polar liquid crystals possess spontaneous long-range mutual orientation of their electric dipole moments, conferring bulk polarity to fluid phases of matter. The combination of polarity and fluidity leads to complex phase behaviour, and rich new physics, yet the limited understanding around how specific molecular features generate long-range polar ordering in a fluid is a hindrance to development of new materials. In this work, we introduce a computational framework that probes the bimolecular potential energy landscape of candidate molecules, enabling us to dissect the role of directional intermolecular interactions in establishing polar order. In closely related families of materials we find conflicting preferences for (anti)parallel ordering which can be accounted for by specific interactions between molecules. Thus, our results allow us to argue that the presence (or absence) of polar order is a product of specific molecular features and strong directional intermolecular interactions rather than being simply a product of dipole-dipole forces. The design principles established can be leveraged to developing new polar liquid crystalline materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16810 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Depictions of apolar (A) and polar (B) nematic phases; the arrows represent molecular electric dipole moments and are coloured according to their orientation. (C) Molecular similarity of polar liquid crystals visualised with a plot of Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP) – molecules are represented as a 1024-bit Morgan fingerprint 17 with a radius of 2, 50 nearest neighbours, a minimum distance of 0.… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

[1]

Mertelj, L

A. Mertelj, L. Cmok, N. Sebastián, R. J. Mandle, R. R. Parker, A. C. Whitwood, J. W. Goodby and M. J. P . R. X. Čopič, Phys Rev X, 2018, 8, 041025

work page 2018
[2]

Sebastian, L

N. Sebastian, L. Cmok, R. J. Mandle, M. R. de la Fuente, I. Drevensek Olenik, M. Copic and A. Mertelj, Phys Rev Lett, 2020, 124, 037801

work page 2020
[3]

X. Chen, E. Korblova, D. Dong, X. Wei, R. Shao, L. Radzihovsky, M. A. Glaser, J. E. Maclennan, D. Bedrov, D. M. Walba and N. A. Clark, PNAS, 2020, 117, 14021- 14031

work page 2020
[4]

R. J. Mandle, N. Sebastián, J. Martinez-Perdiguero and A. Mertelj, Nat Commun, 2021, 12, 4962

work page 2021
[5]

Gopalan, T

V . Gopalan, T. E. Mitchell, Y . Furukawa and K. Kitamura, Appl Phys Lett, 1998, 72, 1981-1983

work page 1998
[6]

S. R. Berrow, J. Hobbs and C. J. Gibb, Small, 2025, DOI: 10.1002/smll.202501724

work page doi:10.1002/smll.202501724 2025
[7]

M. T. Máthé, M. S. H. Himel, A. Adaka, J. T. Gleeson, S. Sprunt, P . Salamon and A. Jákli, Adv Funct Mater, 2024, 34

work page 2024
[8]

Sultanov, A

V . Sultanov, A. Kavčič, E. Kokkinakis, N. Sebastián, M. V . Chekhova and M. Humar, Nature, 2024, 631, 294-299

work page 2024

Show all 60 references

[9]

Kikuchi, H

H. Kikuchi, H. Matsukizono, K. Iwamatsu, S. Endo, S. Anan and Y . Okumura, Adv Sci, 2022, 9, 2202048

2022
[10]

Chen Xi, Martinez V ., Nacke Pierre, Korblova Eva, Manabe Atsutaka, Klasen- Memmer Melanie, Freychet Guillaume, Zhernenkov Mikhail, Glaser Matthew A., Radzihovsky Leo, Maclennan Joseph E., Walba David M., Bremer Matthias, Giesselmann Frank and C. N. A., Proceedings of the Nati...

2022
[11]

Hobbs, C

J. Hobbs, C. J. Gibb, D. Pociecha, J. Szydłowska, E. Górecka and R. J. Mandle, Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2025, 64, e202416545

2025
[12]

G. J. Strachan, E. Górecka, J. Szydłowska, A. Makal and D. Pociecha, Adv Sci, 2025, 12, 2409754

2025
[13]

Kikuchi, H

H. Kikuchi, H. Nishikawa, H. Matsukizono, S. Iino, T. Sugiyama, T. Ishioka and Y . Okumura, Adv Sci, 2024, 11, 2409827

2024
[14]

Nishikawa, D

H. Nishikawa, D. Okada, D. Kwaria, A. Nihonyanagi, M. Kuwayama, M. Hoshino and F . Araoka, Adv Sci, 2024, 11, 2405718

2024
[15]

Karcz, J

J. Karcz, J. Herman, N. Rychłowicz, P . Kula, E. Górecka, J. Szydlowska, P . W. Majewski and D. Pociecha, Science, 2024, 384, 1096-1099

2024
[16]

C. J. Gibb, J. Hobbs, D. I. Nikolova, T. Raistrick, S. R. Berrow, A. Mertelj, N. Osterman, N. Sebastián, H. F . Gleeson and R. J. Mandle, Nat Commun, 2024, 15, 5845

2024
[17]

H. L. Morgan, Journal of Chemical Documentation, 1965, 5, 107-113

1965
[18]

Kirsch, M

P . Kirsch, M. Bremer, A. Taugerbeck and T. Wallmichrath, Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2001, 40, 1480-1484

2001
[19]

Kirsch, W

P . Kirsch, W. Binder, A. Hahn, K. Jährling, M. Lenges, L. Lietzau, D. Maillard, V . Meyer, E. Poetsch, A. Ruhl, G. Unger and R. Fröhlich, Eur J Org Chem, 2008, 2008, 3479-3487

2008
[20]

R. J. Mandle, S. J. Cowling and J. W. Goodby, Chemistry – A European Journal, 2017, 23, 14554-14562

2017
[21]

R. J. Mandle, S. J. Cowling and J. W. Goodby, Phys Chem Chem Phys, 2017, 19, 11429-11435

2017
[22]

Nishikawa, K

H. Nishikawa, K. Shiroshita, H. Higuchi, Y . Okumura, Y . Haseba, S. i. Yamamoto, K. Sago and H. Kikuchi, Adv Mater, 2017, 29, 1702354

2017
[23]

Brown, E

S. Brown, E. Cruickshank, J. M. D. Storey, C. T. Imrie, D. Pociecha, M. Majewska, A. Makal and E. Gorecka, Chemphyschem, 2021, 22, 2506-2510

2021
[24]

J. Li, R. Xia, H. Xu, J. Yang, X. Zhang, J. Kougo, H. Lei, S. Dai, H. Huang, G. Zhang, F . Cen, Y . Jiang, S. Aya and M. Huang, J Am Chem Soc, 2021, 143, 17857-17861

2021
[25]

Manabe, M

A. Manabe, M. Bremer and M. Kraska, Liq Cryst, 2021, 48, 1079-1086

2021
[26]

R. J. Mandle, S. J. Cowling and J. W. Goodby, Liq Cryst, 2021, 48, 1780-1790

2021
[27]

Nishimura, S

S. Nishimura, S. Masuyama, G. Shimizu, C. Ä. Chen, T. Ichibayashi and J. Watanabe, Advanced Physics Research, 2022, 1, 2270001

2022
[28]

Pociecha, R

D. Pociecha, R. Walker, E. Cruickshank, J. Szydlowska, P . Rybak, A. Makal, J. Matraszek, J. M. Wolska, J. M. D. Storey, C. T. Imrie and E. Gorecka, J Mol Liq, 2022, 361, 119532

2022
[29]

R. Saha, P . Nepal, C. Feng, M. S. Hossain, M. Fukuto, R. Li, J. T. Gleeson, S. Sprunt, R. J. Twieg and A. JÃ¡kli, Liq Cryst, 2022, 49, 1784-1796

2022
[30]

Y . Song, M. Deng, Z. Wang, J. Li, H. Lei, Z. Wan, R. Xia, S. Aya and M. Huang, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 2022, 13, 9983-9990

2022
[31]

Cruickshank, A

E. Cruickshank, A. Pearson, S. Brown, J. M. D. Storey, C. T. Imrie and R. Walker, Liq Cryst, 2023, 50, 1960-1967

2023
[32]

Cruickshank, P

E. Cruickshank, P . Rybak, M. M. Majewska, S. Ramsay, C. Wang, C. Zhu, R. Walker, J. M. D. Storey, C. T. Imrie, E. Gorecka and D. Pociecha, Acs Omega, 2023, 8, 36562-36568

2023
[33]

Nishikawa, M

H. Nishikawa, M. Kuwayama, A. Nihonyanagi, B. Dhara and F . Araoka, J Mater Chem C, 2023, 11, 12525-12542

2023
[34]

Tufaha, E

N. Tufaha, E. Cruickshank, D. Pociecha, E. Gorecka, J. M. D. Storey and C. T. Imrie, Chemistry - A European Journal, 2023, 29, e202300073

2023
[35]

Adaka, P

A. Adaka, P . Guragain, K. Perera, P . Nepal, B. Almatani, S. Sprunt, J. Gleeson, R. J. Twieg and A. Jakli, Liq Cryst, 2024, 51, 1140-1148

2024
[36]

Arakawa, Q

Y . Arakawa, Q. Ning, S. Karthick and S. Aya, J Mater Chem C, 2024, 12, 16206- 16217

2024
[37]

Cruickshank, N

E. Cruickshank, N. Tufaha, R. Walker, S. Brown, E. Gorecka, D. Pociecha, J. M. D. Storey and C. T. Imrie, Liq Cryst, 2024, 51, 401-415

2024
[38]

Matsukizono, Y

H. Matsukizono, Y . Sakamoto, Y . Okumura and H. Kikuchi, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 2024, 15, 4212-4217

2024
[39]

Stepanafas, E

G. Stepanafas, E. Cruickshank, S. Brown, M. M. Majewska, D. Pociecha, E. Gorecka, J. M. D. Storey and C. T. Imrie, Materials Advances, 2024, 5, 525-538

2024
[40]

Cruickshank, R

E. Cruickshank, R. Walker, G. J. Strachan, E. Gorecka, D. Pociecha, J. M. D. Storey and C. T. Imrie, J Mater Chem C, 2025, 13, 3902-3916

2025
[41]

J. Li, Z. Wang, M. Deng, Y . Zhu, X. Zhang, R. Xia, Y . Song, Y . Hisai, S. Aya and M. Huang, Giant, 2022, 11, 100109

2022
[42]

J. Li, H. Nishikawa, J. Kougo, J. Zhou, S. Dai, W. Tang, X. Zhao, Y . Hisai, M. Huang and S. Aya, Sci Adv, 2021, 7, eabf5047

2021
[43]

Hobbs, C

J. Hobbs, C. J. Gibb and R. J. Mandle, Small Science, 2024, 4, 2400189

2024
[44]

R. J. Mandle et al., Unpublished Results, 2022-2025

2022
[45]

R. J. Mandle, Liq Cryst, 2023, 50, 534-542

2023
[46]

C. J. Gibb and R. J. Mandle, J Mater Chem C, 2023, 11, 16982-16991

2023
[47]

C. J. Gibb, J. Hobbs and R. J. Mandle, J Am Chem Soc, 2025, 147, 4571-4577

2025
[48]

M. A. Osipov, Liq Cryst, 2024, 51, 2349-2355

2024
[49]

M. A. Osipov, Liq Cryst Rev, 2024, 12, 14-29

2024
[50]

Kumari, B

P . Kumari, B. Basnet, M. O. Lavrentovich and O. D. Lavrentovich, Science, 2024, 383, 1364-1368

2024
[51]

Grönfors and P

E. Grönfors and P . and Rudquist, Liq Cryst, DOI: 10.1080/02678292.2025.2470124, 1-10

2025
[52]

Paik and J

L. Paik and J. V . Selinger, arXiv e-prints, 2024, DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.10347, arXiv:2408.10347

2024 doi arXiv
[53]

N. V . Madhusudana, Phys Rev E, 2021, 104, 014704

2021
[54]

de Mello, M

M. de Mello, M. R. Wilson and T. Araki, Soft Matter, 2025, 21, 1479-1488

2025
[55]

Neese, WIREs Computational Molecular Science, 2012, 2, 73-78

F . Neese, WIREs Computational Molecular Science, 2012, 2, 73-78

2012
[56]

Neese, WIREs Computational Molecular Science, 2022, 12, e1606

F . Neese, WIREs Computational Molecular Science, 2022, 12, e1606

2022
[57]

Grimme, S

S. Grimme, S. Ehrlich and L. Goerigk, J Comput Chem, 2011, 32, 1456-1465

2011
[58]

T. H. Dunning, Jr., The Journal of Chemical Physics, 1989, 90, 1007-1023

1989
[59]

X. Chen, Z. Zhu, M. J. Magrini, E. Korblova, C. S. Park, M. A. Glaser, J. E. Maclennan, D. M. Walba and N. A. Clark, Liq Cryst, 2022, 49, 1531-1544

2022
[60]

K. G. Nazarenko, N. A. Kasian, S. S. Minenko, O. M. Samoilov, V . G. Nazarenko, L. N. Lisetski and I. A. Gvozdovskyy, Liq Cryst, 2023, 50, 98-109

2023

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Mertelj, L

A. Mertelj, L. Cmok, N. Sebastián, R. J. Mandle, R. R. Parker, A. C. Whitwood, J. W. Goodby and M. J. P . R. X. Čopič, Phys Rev X, 2018, 8, 041025

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Sebastian, L

N. Sebastian, L. Cmok, R. J. Mandle, M. R. de la Fuente, I. Drevensek Olenik, M. Copic and A. Mertelj, Phys Rev Lett, 2020, 124, 037801

work page 2020

[3] [3]

X. Chen, E. Korblova, D. Dong, X. Wei, R. Shao, L. Radzihovsky, M. A. Glaser, J. E. Maclennan, D. Bedrov, D. M. Walba and N. A. Clark, PNAS, 2020, 117, 14021- 14031

work page 2020

[4] [4]

R. J. Mandle, N. Sebastián, J. Martinez-Perdiguero and A. Mertelj, Nat Commun, 2021, 12, 4962

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Gopalan, T

V . Gopalan, T. E. Mitchell, Y . Furukawa and K. Kitamura, Appl Phys Lett, 1998, 72, 1981-1983

work page 1998

[6] [6]

S. R. Berrow, J. Hobbs and C. J. Gibb, Small, 2025, DOI: 10.1002/smll.202501724

work page doi:10.1002/smll.202501724 2025

[7] [7]

M. T. Máthé, M. S. H. Himel, A. Adaka, J. T. Gleeson, S. Sprunt, P . Salamon and A. Jákli, Adv Funct Mater, 2024, 34

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Sultanov, A

V . Sultanov, A. Kavčič, E. Kokkinakis, N. Sebastián, M. V . Chekhova and M. Humar, Nature, 2024, 631, 294-299

work page 2024