Active Hyperuniform Networks of Chiral Magnetic Micro-Robotic Spinners

Duyu Chen; Gao Wang; Guo Chen; Huaicheng Chen; Jianwei Shuai; Jing Wang; Liyu Liu; Mingcheng Yang; Yang Jiao; Zihao Sun

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Active Hyperuniform Networks of Chiral Magnetic Micro-Robotic Spinners

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports that roughly 1,000 magnetically bound chiral spinners self-assemble into stable disordered hyperuniform networks, suppressing long-wavelength density fluctuations like a crystal while staying amorphous.

desk verdict A plausible experimental advance in active hyperuniform matter at N~1000, but the DHU classification needs error bars and finite-size controls. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21820 v1 pith:V6JMNOCL submitted 2025-05-27 cond-mat.soft

Jing Wang , Zihao Sun , Huaicheng Chen , Gao Wang , Duyu Chen , Guo Chen , Jianwei Shuai , Mingcheng Yang

show 2 more authors

Yang Jiao Liyu Liu

This is my paper

classification cond-mat.soft

keywords disorderedhyperuniformityactivemattermagneticspinnersself-assemblyStone-Walesdefectsthree-coordinatednetworksstructurefactorphasediagram

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 reports a route to disordered hyperuniform (DHU) matter in an active-particle system: about a thousand three-fold symmetric magnetic spinners, driven to rotate clockwise by light, self-organize into stable three-coordinated networks. In a balanced regime where magnetic binding and rotation-induced twist compete, the networks are DHU, with long-wavelength density fluctuations suppressed almost like a crystal even though the local structure stays amorphous. The authors find that these networks are topological transformations of the honeycomb lattice generated by Stone-Wales defects, and they show the transition into hyperuniformity can be switched on reversibly by cycling the rotation speed. If correct, this is the largest stable solid DHU state experimentally realized in an active-particle system, and it provides a tunable platform for DHU materials with photonic or phononic bandgaps.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the active network itself: a dense, three-coordinated assembly of rotating Magbots whose node positions are analyzed through the static structure factor $S(k)$ and the hyperuniformity index $H = \lim_{k \to 0} S(k)/S(k_p)$, where $k_p$ marks the first peak. Stone-Wales defects are the named structural motif: a 90-degree bond rotation converts four adjacent hexagons into two pentagons and two heptagons, preserving hyperuniformity (unlike vacancies), and the paper generates model networks by introducing such defects with probability $p$. The organizing principle is the competition between magnetic torque, which restores alignment of the three binding sites, and active torque from the imposed rotation, which twists bonds and breaks them; the balanced regime is where weak bonds are eliminated and stable defects remain. An underdamped Langevin model for each spinner extends the measured parameter plane to 44 additional $(F,\omega)$ pairs and produces the continuous phase diagram in the scaling exponent $\beta$.

What would settle it

Repeat the assembly at larger system sizes (e.g., $N = 2000$ or more) or with many independent trials at $N = 1000$ and measure $S(k)$ at the lowest resolved wavenumbers; if the low-$k$ plateau does not keep falling toward zero, or if the fitted $\beta$ for $\sigma_N^2(R)$ drifts back toward 2, then the DHU classification is a finite-size or sampling artifact rather than a true hyperuniform state.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a set of stable disordered hyperuniform networks reliably emerges from the self-assembly of $N \approx 1000$ Magbots, each carrying three symmetric magnetic binding sites and rotating clockwise under a light field. In the balanced $F$-$\omega$ regime, the measured static structure factor $S(k)$ is strongly suppressed at small $k$: for $\omega = 0.7$ rps, networks with $F = 0.52$ N and $0.66$ N have hyperuniformity index $H < 10^{-3}$ and exponents $\alpha \approx 0.32$ and $0.48$, which correspond to number-variance scaling $\sigma_N^2(R) \sim R^\beta$ with $\beta \approx 1.64$ and $1.51$, placing them in Class III DHU. These networks are honeycomb-like lattices decorated with Stone-Wales defects, formed by 90-degree bond rotations that turn four hexagons into two pentagons and two heptagons; the defects are stabilized by magnetic binding and destabilized by twist, so their density is set by the $F/\omega$ competition. The same mechanism, encoded in an underdamped Langevin model, yields a phase diagram $\beta(F,\omega)$ with a broad hyperuniform region and predicts that cycling $\omega$ between 2.2 and 0.7 rps converts a metastable non-hyperuniform network into a hyperuniform one, which the experiments confirm. If correct, this establishes a new organizing principle for DHU solids: reversible binding balanced against symmetry-breaking activation.

Load-bearing premise

The classification of these networks as hyperuniform rests on the assumption that the structure factor measured at the smallest wavenumbers accessible with $N \approx 1000$ robots genuinely extrapolates to zero as $k \to 0$, rather than leveling off at a small finite value; the paper supports that extrapolation with only three experimental repeats and no reported error bars.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Two of the nine experimental conditions, $\omega = 0.7$ rps with $F = 0.52$ N and $0.66$ N, produce networks with $H < 10^{-3}$ and hyperuniformity exponents $\alpha \approx 0.32$ and $0.48$, i.e., Class III DHU with density fluctuations growing slower than the window area.
Varying $F$ and $\omega$ tunes the hyperuniformity exponent continuously, so distinct stable DHU networks with different large-scale density-fluctuation scaling can be selected by external control parameters.
The hyperuniform state is stable against kinetic trapping: a metastable non-hyperuniform network can be driven to a hyperuniform one by temporarily raising $\omega$ and then lowering it back, a reversible annealing-like protocol.
Because the structures are Stone-Wales transformations of the honeycomb network, they sit in the class of two-dimensional DHU networks previously shown to support large, isotropic photonic and phononic bandgaps.
The active-particle model predicts a broad hyperuniform region in the $F$-$\omega$ plane, with Class III exponents $\beta \in (1.4,2)$, extending the DHU behavior beyond the nine directly measured conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

As an editorial extension: the same balance of reversible binding and symmetry-breaking twist could be realized in other three-coordinated active systems, such as torque-driven colloids or granular rotors, making Stone-Wales hyperuniformity a generic organizing principle rather than a quirk of magnetic robots.
The paper only mentions chirality mixtures as future work; a testable extension is that balancing clockwise and counterclockwise spinners removes the net twist and should shrink or eliminate the hyperuniform region in the $F$-$\omega$ diagram.
A consequence the authors leave implicit: if the Stone-Wales defect fraction $p$ is a monotone function of $F/\omega$, it becomes a design parameter for prescribing isotropic bandgap properties of the assembled network.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

Mike —

Quick take: this is a real advance and worth a serious referee, but the central quantitative claim — that these networks are hyperuniform with H < 10^-3 — is not yet supported with the statistical rigor it needs. The paper is not a waste of time; it just needs a stronger evidence section.

What's new: they get stable disordered hyperuniform networks in an active-particle system at N ~ 1000, an order of magnitude larger than the previous active DHU experiment (Ref 59, N ~ 50). The mechanism — magnetic binding stabilizing Stone-Wales 5-7 defects against rotation-induced twist — is a plausible organizing principle, and they back it with a Langevin model and a small set of simulations. The annealing result (Fig 4b) is a nice demonstration that the DHU state is robustly reachable, and the phase diagram in Fig 4a is a useful map even if it is interpolated from limited data.

Weak spots, in order of severity. First, the DHU classification itself. Hyperuniformity is a k -> 0 statement, but the smallest k they can measure with N ~ 1000 is only about 1/sqrt(N) below the first peak. They report H values below 10^-3 with no error bars, no ensemble statistics, no statement about instantaneous vs time-averaged positions, and no account of binning or boundary handling. With three repeats, the low-k estimate is controlled by a handful of modes. That does not invalidate the claim — the variance curves in Fig 3h are qualitatively consistent — but it means the exponents alpha and beta, and the phase boundary, are not pinned down. A finite-size control (e.g., comparing to non-hyperuniform references with the same protocol) and bootstrap resampling would fix this. Second, the phase diagram is built by interpolating the same data used to classify hyperuniformity, so it is a smooth summary, not independent confirmation. Third, the paper leans on supplementary material that is not in the v1; that's fine for a preprint, but referees will need it.

Citation pattern is fine. The self-citations to Refs 22 and 25 are relevant prior SW-hyperuniform work, and hyperuniformity here is measured directly rather than defined through that model.

Who should read this: active matter and hyperuniform materials people, and anyone who cares about robotic self-assembly as a platform for material design. It deserves a full peer review, with the request for better statistics and finite-size controls. I'd be comfortable citing the experimental system-size advance once it passes that review.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports experiments on roughly 1000 chiral magnetic micro-robotic spinners ('Magbots') with three-fold symmetric magnetic binding sites. By tuning the magnetic binding force F and rotation speed ω, the spinners self-assemble into three-coordinated networks. The central claim is that a subset of these active networks are disordered hyperuniform (DHU), with S(k) strongly suppressed at small k (H < 10^-3 for ω = 0.7 rps, F = 0.52 and 0.66 N), and that these networks are topological transformations of a honeycomb network via Stone-Wales defects generated by the competition between magnetic binding and active rotation. The paper further presents a phase diagram in the (F, ω) plane based on the variance exponent β, and a demonstration that a non-hyperuniform initial state can be reorganized into a hyperuniform state by cycling ω. Supporting simulations with an underdamped Langevin model and simulated SW-defect networks are used to interpret the experimental observations.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this would be the first stable solid DHU state realized experimentally in an active-particle system at N ~ 1000, notably larger than the N ~ 50 in the previous active-robot DHU experiment (Ref. [59]). The proposed mechanism—competition between reversible magnetic binding and active rotation-induced twist producing SW defects—is physically appealing and potentially generalizable. The use of a large experimental system to access smaller wavenumbers than earlier work is a genuine strength, as is the combination of experiments, an active-particle model, and SW-defect simulations. However, the quantitative evidence for DHU currently lacks statistical grounding, and the claimed phase diagram is built from interpolated data without uncertainty quantification; these issues must be addressed before the main claim can be considered established.

major comments (3)

[Sec. II.D, Figs. 3d-3h] The DHU classification rests on the hyperuniformity index H = lim_{k→0} S(k)/S(kp) and on the fitted exponents α and β, but no error bars or uncertainties are reported for any of these quantities, and the text states only that experiments were repeated three times. For N ~ 1000, the smallest accessible wavenumber is k_min ~ 2π/L, which is only a factor ~N^{-1/2} below the first peak; the limit k→0 is therefore not directly sampled. The paper also does not state whether S(k) is computed from single-frame instantaneous positions or from time-averaged configurations, nor does it describe the binning, windowing, or boundary treatment for the low-k modes. Because H < 10^-3 is controlled by very few low-k modes, a single boundary or imaging artifact could produce an apparent hyperuniform signal. Please provide bootstrap or ensemble error bars, specify the averaging protocol, and validate the k→0 extrapolation with a finite-size control (e.g., varying system size or comparing against known non-hyperuniform reference systems).
[Sec. II.E, Fig. 4a] The 'hyperuniformity phase diagram' is constructed by piecewise cubic interpolation and quadratic polynomial surface fitting of β(F,ω) computed from the same experimental and simulated data that are then classified as hyperuniform or non-hyperuniform. The paper does not report uncertainties on β or on the location of the β = 2 contour, so it is not possible to assess whether the boundary is meaningful or an artifact of the fitting procedure. Similarly, the claimed transition from non-hyperuniform to hyperuniform induced by decreasing ω (Intro and Fig. 4b) is supported by a single H trajectory with no repeat statistics. Please report the number of independent runs and the uncertainty on β and H, and state how many (F,ω) points underlie the phase boundary.
[Sec. II.D, Fig. 3b] The claim that the self-assembled networks are topological transformations of a honeycomb network via Stone-Wales defects is supported visually and by a separate simulated SW-defect model, but the manuscript never quantifies the SW-defect concentration p in the experimental networks or compares the experimental defect statistics with the simulated p values. Since the robustness of DHU is argued to follow from the presence of SW defects, please report an experimentally measured p (or equivalent defect density) for the hyperuniform networks, with error bars, and show that it is consistent with the range of p values for which the simulated SW networks are hyperuniform.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. II.E, last paragraph] 'an unflavored yet meta-stable configuration' appears to be a typo for 'an unfavorable yet meta-stable configuration'; please correct.
[Fig. 3b caption vs Sec. II.D] The Fig. 3b caption states p = 0.10 for the simulated SW-defect network, while the main text (Sec. II.D) states p = 0.08; please reconcile these values.
[Eq. (1)] The symbol ω is used both for the control parameter (rotation speed of the Magbots) and for the angular-velocity variable in the rotational Langevin equation; please use distinct symbols (e.g., Ω for the instantaneous angular velocity) to avoid ambiguity.
[Sec. II.D, definition of H] The definition H = lim_{k→0} S(k)/S(kp) is written as a limit, but in practice it is evaluated at the smallest accessible k; please state explicitly the k range used and how the limit is approximated for each experimental configuration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: hyperuniformity is measured directly from S(k), and the only self-citation (SW-defect hyperuniformity) is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that stable DHU networks emerge from self-assembly of about 1000 chiral magnetic spinners—rests on direct measurement of the static structure factor S(k), the number variance sigma_N^2(R), and the pair-correlation function g2(r) from experimental particle positions (Sec. II.D, Figs. 3d-h). The hyperuniformity index H = lim_{k->0} S(k)/S(kp) and the exponents alpha and beta are computed from these measured quantities using standard definitions (Sec. II.A); no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The Stone-Wales defect interpretation is presented as a structural mechanism, supported by separately published studies of amorphous silica and graphene (Refs. [22,25]) and by the authors' own numerical generation of SW-defected honeycomb networks following Ref. [25]. Those citations involve overlapping authors, but the cited results are external, published findings in other systems and are not used to define or force the experimental H value. The numerical model in Sec. II.E and the Appendix is a stated underdamped Langevin model (Eq. 1), and the phase diagram is an interpolation over simulated beta(F, omega); it does not reduce to the experimental hyperuniformity classification. The main statistical caveat—finite-size and few-mode sensitivity of the low-k S(k) estimate, with no error bars—is a correctness and robustness concern, not circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is identified; the score reflects only a minor self-citation that is not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

There are no invented physical entities; the Magbots are real robots. The main ledger items are the fitted exponents alpha and beta used for classification and phase mapping, plus five domain assumptions about isotropy, interaction dominance, the SW-defect structural model, and finite-size extrapolation. The absence of uncertainty quantification makes the classification assumptions heavier than they would otherwise be.

free parameters (2)

Hyperuniformity exponent alpha (small-k slope of S(k)) = alpha = 0.32 (F=0.52 N, omega=0.7 rps), 0.48 (F=0.66 N), 0.14 (F=0.45 N)
Obtained by fitting small-k S(k) data to classify the networks as Class-III DHU; no uncertainties are reported (Sec. II.D).
Variance scaling exponent beta = beta = 1.51, 1.64, 1.88 for omega=0.7 rps; beta ~ 2 for non-hyperuniform cases
Fitted from the large-R scaling of the number variance sigma^2(R) and used to construct the phase diagram; no uncertainties are reported (Sec. II.D).

assumptions (5)

standard math Standard definition of DHU via the equivalence between vanishing S(k) at k = 0 and slow growth of the number variance.
Invoked in Sec. II.A following Torquato and Stillinger; it is background mathematics the paper relies on.
domain assumption The network point patterns are statistically isotropic, so S(k) depends only on k = |k|.
All analysis uses the radial S(k); no anisotropy quantification is provided (Sec. II.A).
domain assumption The self-organized networks can be modeled as perfect honeycomb networks with continuously introduced Stone-Wales defects.
Used in Sec. II.D and SI Sec. 3 to interpret the observed structures; the quantitative mapping is deferred to the SI.
domain assumption Magnetic binding and active rotation-induced twist are the dominant interactions; friction, repulsion, and boundary effects are subdominant.
Asserted in the Appendix and SI Sec. 6 as the basis for the proposed competition mechanism.
domain assumption Finite-size S(k) data at the smallest accessible wavenumbers can be extrapolated to k = 0 to assess hyperuniformity.
The DHU classification depends on this extrapolation, but no error bars or convergence tests are provided (Sec. II.D).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Active Hyperuniform Networks of Chiral Magnetic Micro-Robotic Spinners." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V6JMNOCL

@misc{pith2026250521820,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Active Hyperuniform Networks of Chiral Magnetic Micro-Robotic Spinners},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V6JMNOCL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21820}
}

abstract

Disorder hyperuniform (DHU) systems possess a hidden long-range order manifested as the complete suppression of normalized large-scale density fluctuations like crystals, which endows them with many unique properties. Here, we demonstrate a new organization mechanism for achieving stable DHU structures in active-particle systems via investigating the self-assembly of robotic spinners with three-fold symmetric magnetic binding sites up to a heretofore experimentally unattained system size, i.e., with $\sim 1000$ robots. The spinners can self-organize into a wide spectrum of actively rotating three-coordinated network structures, among which a set of stable DHU networks robustly emerge. These DHU networks are topological transformations of a honeycomb network by continuously introducing the Stone-Wales defects, which are resulted from the competition between tunable magnetic binding and local twist due to active rotation of the robots. Our results reveal novel mechanisms for emergent DHU states in active systems and achieving novel DHU materials with desirable properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21820 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1: (a) Magnetic robot system containing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: (a) Left panel: A hyperuniform network of Mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) A hyperuniform phase diagram of Magbots on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) Schematic illustration of the competition between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

[59]

J. Chen, X. Lei, Y. Xiang, M. Duan, X. Peng, and H. Zhang, Physical Review Letters 132, 118301 (2024)

2024
[1]

Torquato and F

S. Torquato and F. H. Stillinger, Phys. Rev. E68, 041113 (2003)

2003
[2]

Torquato, Phys

S. Torquato, Phys. Rep. 745, 1 (2018)

work page 2018
[3]

Florescu, S

M. Florescu, S. Torquato, and P. J. Steinhardt, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 20658 (2009)

work page 2009
[4]

Florescu, P

M. Florescu, P. J. Steinhardt, and S. Torquato, Phys. Rev. B 87, 165116 (2013)

work page 2013
[5]

Zhang, F

G. Zhang, F. H. Stillinger, and S. Torquato, J. Chem. Phys. 145, 244109 (2016)

work page 2016
[6]

Chen and S

D. Chen and S. Torquato, Acta Mater. 142, 152 (2018)

work page 2018
[7]

Y. Xu, S. Chen, P. Chen, W. Xu, and Y. Jiao, Phys. Rev. E 96, 043301 (2017)

work page 2017

Show all 67 references

[8]

M. A. Klatt, P. J. Steinhardt, and S. Torquato, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, e2213633119 (2022)

2022
[9]

Leseur, R

O. Leseur, R. Pierrat, and R. Carminati, Optica 3, 763 (2016)

2016
[10]

Yu, Nature Computational Science 3, 128 (2023)

S. Yu, Nature Computational Science 3, 128 (2023)

2023
[11]

W. Shi, D. Keeney, D. Chen, Y. Jiao, and S. Torquato, Physical Review E 108, 045306 (2023)

2023
[12]

J. Park, S. Park, K. Kim, J. Kwak, S. Yu, and N. Park, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07875 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[13]

Wang, J.-H

Y.-L. Wang, J.-H. Zhu, L. Meng, T. Liu, and W.-H. Zhang, Advances in Engineering Software 199, 103818 (2025)

2025
[14]

Diego, J

M. Diego, J. Hardouin, G. Mazevet-Schargrod, M. Pirro, B. Kim, R. Anufriev, and M. Nomura, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04428 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[15]

R. P. Feynman and M. Cohen, Phys. Rev. 102, 1189 (1956)

1956
[16]

Y. A. Gerasimenko, I. Vaskivskyi, M. Litskevich, J. Ravnik, J. Vodeb, M. Diego, V. Kabanov, and D. Mi- hailovic, Nat. Mater. 18, 1078 (2019)

2019
[17]

G. Rumi, J. A. S´ anchez, F. El ´ ıas, R. C. Maldonado, J. Puig, N. R. C. Bolecek, G. Nieva, M. Konczykowski, Y. Fasano, and A. B. Kolton, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033057 (2019)

2019
[18]

J. A. S´ anchez, R. C. Maldonado, N. R. C. Bolecek, G. Rumi, P. Pedrazzini, M. I. Dolz, G. Nieva, C. J. van der Beek, M. Konczykowski, C. D. Dewhurst, et al., Commun. Phys. 2, 1 (2019)

2019
[19]

Sakai, R

S. Sakai, R. Arita, and T. Ohtsuki, arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.09698 (2022)

2022 arXiv
[20]

J. A. S´ anchez, R. C. Maldonado, M. L. Amig´ o, G. Nieva, A. Kolton, and Y. Fasano, Physical Review B 107, 094508 (2023)

2023
[21]

D. Chen, R. Samajdar, Y. Jiao, and S. Torquato, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122, e2416111122 (2025)

2025
[22]

Zheng, L

Y. Zheng, L. Liu, H. Nan, Z.-X. Shen, G. Zhang, D. Chen, L. He, W. Xu, M. Chen, Y. Jiao, et al., Sci. Adv. 6, eaba0826 (2020)

2020
[23]

D. Chen, H. Zhuang, M. Chen, P. Y. Huang, V. Vlcek, and Y. Jiao, Applied Physics Reviews 10 (2023)

2023
[24]

Zhang, X

H. Zhang, X. Wang, J. Zhang, H.-B. Yu, and J. F. Dou- glas, arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.01429 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[25]

D. Chen, Y. Zheng, L. Liu, G. Zhang, M. Chen, Y. Jiao, and H. Zhuang, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2016862118 (2021)

2021
[26]

D. Chen, X. Jiang, D. Wang, H. Zhuang, and Y. Jiao, Acta Materialia 246, 118678 (2023)

2023
[27]

Chremos and J

A. Chremos and J. F. Douglas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 258002 (2018)

2018
[28]

Kurita and E

R. Kurita and E. R. Weeks, Phys. Rev. E 84, 030401 (2011)

2011
[29]

G. L. Hunter and E. R. Weeks, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 066501 (2012)

2012
[30]

Dreyfus, Y

R. Dreyfus, Y. Xu, T. Still, L. A. Hough, A. G. Yodh, and S. Torquato, Phys. Rev. E 91, 012302 (2015)

2015
[31]

Donev, F

A. Donev, F. H. Stillinger, and S. Torquato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 090604 (2005)

2005
[32]

C. E. Zachary, Y. Jiao, and S. Torquato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 178001 (2011)

2011
[33]

Y. Yuan, Y. Jiao, Y. Wang, and S. Li, Physical Review Research 3, 033084 (2021)

2021
[34]

Gabrielli, M

A. Gabrielli, M. Joyce, and F. S. Labini, Phys. Rev. D 65, 083523 (2002)

2002
[35]

Atkinson, Y

S. Atkinson, Y. Jiao, and S. Torquato, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 86, 031302 (2012)

2012
[36]

Y. Jiao, T. Lau, H. Hatzikirou, M. Meyer-Hermann, J. C. Corbo, and S. Torquato, Phys. Rev. E89, 022721 (2014)

2014
[37]

Mayer, V

A. Mayer, V. Balasubramanian, T. Mora, and A. M. Wal- czak, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 5950 (2015)

2015
[38]

Y. Liu, D. Chen, J. Tian, W. Xu, and Y. Jiao, Physical Review Letters 133, 028401 (2024)

2024
[39]

Ge, Proc

Z. Ge, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2306514120 (2023)

2023
[40]

J. Chen, R. Su, X. Zhang, Y. Li, and R. He, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces (2024)

2024
[41]

Torquato, G

S. Torquato, G. Zhang, and F. H. Stillinger, Phys. Rev. X 5, 021020 (2015)

2015
[42]

Jiao, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Appli- cations 585, 126435 (2022)

Y. Jiao, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Appli- cations 585, 126435 (2022)

2022
[43]

Hexner and D

D. Hexner and D. Levine, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 110602 (2015)

2015
[44]

R. L. Jack, I. R. Thompson, and P. Sollich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 060601 (2015)

2015
[45]

J. H. Weijs, R. Jeanneret, R. Dreyfus, and D. Bartolo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 108301 (2015)

2015
[46]

Salvalaglio, M

M. Salvalaglio, M. Bouabdellaoui, M. Bollani, A. Benali, L. Favre, J.-B. Claude, J. Wenger, P. de Anna, F. Intonti, A. Voigt, et al., Physical Review Letters 125, 126101 (2020). 7

2020
[47]

¨U. S. Nizam, G. Makey, M. Barbier, S. S. Kahra- man, E. Demir, E. E. Shafigh, S. Galioglu, D. Vahabli, S. H¨ usn¨ ugil, M. H. G¨ une¸ s, et al., Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 33, 304002 (2021)

2021
[48]

Zheng, M

Y. Zheng, M. A. Klatt, and H. L¨ owen, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03107 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[49]

X. Ma, J. Pausch, and M. E. Cates, arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17391 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[50]

Hexner and D

D. Hexner and D. Levine, Physical review letters 118, 020601 (2017)

2017
[51]

Hexner, P

D. Hexner, P. M. Chaikin, and D. Levine, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 4294 (2017)

2017
[52]

J. H. Weijs and D. Bartolo, Physical review letters 119, 048002 (2017)

2017
[53]

Wilken, A

S. Wilken, A. Z. Guo, D. Levine, and P. M. Chaikin, arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09913 (2022)

2022 arXiv
[54]

Q.-L. Lei, M. P. Ciamarra, and R. Ni, Sci. Adv. 5, eaau7423 (2019)

2019
[55]

Lei and R

Q.-L. Lei and R. Ni, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 22983 (2019)

2019
[56]

Huang, W

M. Huang, W. Hu, S. Yang, Q.-X. Liu, and H. Zhang, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2100493118 (2021)

2021
[57]

Zhang and A

B. Zhang and A. Snezhko, Physical Review Letters 128, 218002 (2022)

2022
[58]

Oppenheimer, D

N. Oppenheimer, D. B. Stein, M. Y. B. Zion, and M. J. Shelley, Nature communications 13, 804 (2022)

2022
[60]

J. Wang, G. Wang, H. Chen, Y. Liu, P. Wang, D. Yuan, X. Ma, X. Xu, Z. Cheng, B. Ji, et al., Nature communi- cations 15, 8853 (2024)

2024
[61]

Berlinger, M

F. Berlinger, M. Gauci, and R. Nagpal, Science Robotics 6, eabd8668 (2021)

2021
[62]

G. Wang, T. V. Phan, S. Li, M. Wombacher, J. Qu, Y. Peng, G. Chen, D. I. Goldman, S. A. Levin, R. H. Austin, et al., Physical review letters 126, 108002 (2021)

2021
[63]

Savoie, T

W. Savoie, T. A. Berrueta, Z. Jackson, A. Pervan, R. Warkentin, S. Li, T. D. Murphey, K. Wiesenfeld, and D. I. Goldman, Science Robotics 4, eaax4316 (2019)

2019
[64]

S. Li, B. Dutta, S. Cannon, J. J. Daymude, R. Avinery, E. Aydin, A. W. Richa, D. I. Goldman, and D. Randall, Science Advances 7, eabe8494 (2021)

2021
[65]

X. Mao, Q. Chen, and S. Granick, Nature materials 12, 217 (2013)

2013
[66]

A. J. Stone and D. J. Wales, Chem. Phys. Lett. 128, 501 (1986)

1986
[67]

D. Chen, Y. Zheng, and Y. Jiao, Physical Review B 104, 174101 (2021)

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [59]

J. Chen, X. Lei, Y. Xiang, M. Duan, X. Peng, and H. Zhang, Physical Review Letters 132, 118301 (2024)

2024

[2] [1]

Torquato and F

S. Torquato and F. H. Stillinger, Phys. Rev. E68, 041113 (2003)

2003

[3] [2]

Torquato, Phys

S. Torquato, Phys. Rep. 745, 1 (2018)

work page 2018

[4] [3]

Florescu, S

M. Florescu, S. Torquato, and P. J. Steinhardt, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 20658 (2009)

work page 2009

[5] [4]

Florescu, P

M. Florescu, P. J. Steinhardt, and S. Torquato, Phys. Rev. B 87, 165116 (2013)

work page 2013

[6] [5]

Zhang, F

G. Zhang, F. H. Stillinger, and S. Torquato, J. Chem. Phys. 145, 244109 (2016)

work page 2016

[7] [6]

Chen and S

D. Chen and S. Torquato, Acta Mater. 142, 152 (2018)

work page 2018

[8] [7]

Y. Xu, S. Chen, P. Chen, W. Xu, and Y. Jiao, Phys. Rev. E 96, 043301 (2017)

work page 2017