Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Higher-order Tuning of Interface Physics in Multiphase Lattice Boltzmann

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper derives the first analytical expression for the Tolman length in the Shan-Chen lattice Boltzmann model and demonstrates that the length can be tuned independently of surface tension and bulk densities.

desk verdict First real Tolman-length dial for Shan-Chen LBM, worth a serious referee despite one uncontrolled analytical step. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23647 v1 pith:4PH5STSY submitted 2025-05-29 cond-mat.stat-mech nlin.CGphysics.flu-dyn

Matteo Lulli , Emily S. C. Ching This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechnlin.CGphysics.flu-dyn
keywords TolmanlengthlatticeBoltzmannShan-Chenmodelsurfacetensionnucleationratespressuretensorforcingstencilisotropycoefficients
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 aims to give mesoscale simulations quantitative control over the leading curvature correction to surface tension, the Tolman length, in the Shan-Chen multiphase lattice Boltzmann model. Its central claim is that the Tolman length can be tuned over a wide range while the flat-interface surface tension, the bulk coexistence densities, and the flat interface profile all remain fixed. The authors unlock hidden degrees of freedom in the forcing stencil by writing the stencil weights as functions of the stencil moments, and they derive a closed-form expression for the Tolman length from the one-dimensional projection of the lattice pressure tensor. Hydrostatic and dynamic tests in one, two, and three dimensions, plus fluctuating-hydrodynamics simulations, support the claim and show that homogeneous nucleation rates respond to the Tolman length at fixed surface tension. This matters because nucleation and cavitation rates depend exponentially on a free-energy barrier that is sensitive to curvature corrections, and no previous lattice Boltzmann approach could control that correction.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the lattice pressure tensor of the Shan-Chen model and the forcing-stencil weights $\{W(|e_a|^2)\}$. The lattice pressure tensor is a discrete pressure tensor whose normal component is exactly constant across a flat interface, so its one-dimensional projection gives the coefficients $c_{mn}$ multiplying products of derivatives of the pseudopotential $\psi$; those coefficients combine into the three knobs $\hat{\sigma}_0=c_{11}-c_{02}$, $\hat{\sigma}_1=c_{22}-c_{13}+c_{04}$, and $\hat{\delta}_0=c_{02}$. The stencil weights, which control the range and strength of the pseudo-potential interaction, are normally fixed by demanding maximal isotropy; here they are instead solved for as linear combinations of the isotropy coefficients $e_{2n}$ (the fully symmetric parts of the even moments) and the anisotropy coefficients $I_{2n,k}$, with the anisotropic parts set to zero to fix the desired isotropy order. The core of the argument is inverting these relations so the weights become explicit functions of $\hat{\sigma}_0$, $\hat{\sigma}_1$, and $\hat{\delta}_0$, which is what makes the physical properties independently tunable. The mechanism is that changing $e_8$ moves $\hat{\delta}_0$ without moving $e_4$ or $e_6$, so the Tolman length changes while the flat-interface profile, densities, and leading/higher-order surface tension stay put.

What would settle it

Run one-dimensional flat-interface simulations at fixed temperature and fixed $\sigma_0$ over the full stability range of $e_8$, compute $\delta$ directly from the first moment of $P_N - P_T$ and from the Gibbs-adsorption formula $\Gamma(z_s)/(n_l - n_g)$, and check whether $\delta(\Delta\delta)$ remains a straight line of slope equal to the reference $\delta$. If the gap between the analytical formula and the direct values drifts with $e_8$, or if the slope departs from the reference value, the predicted linear tuning law fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is a parameterization of the Shan-Chen forcing stencil in which the physical coefficients of the interface are the control knobs. From the Taylor expansion of the normal-minus-tangential pressure difference, the surface tension is $\sigma_0 \simeq G c_s^2(\hat{\sigma}_0\Sigma_{11}+\hat{\sigma}_1\Sigma_{22})$ with $\hat{\sigma}_0=c_{11}-c_{02}=-e_4/2$ and $\hat{\sigma}_1=c_{22}-c_{13}+c_{04}=e_6/4$, and the paper derives the first analytical estimate of the Tolman length, $\delta \simeq -G c_s^2 \hat{\delta}_0[\psi^2(n_l)-\psi^2(n_g)]/(2\sigma_0)$ with $\hat{\delta}_0=c_{02}$. In the sixth-order-isotropic stencils used for tuning, $\hat{\delta}_0 = 1/12 + 95 e_4/432 + 7 e_6/72 - 5 e_8/144$, so varying only the eighth-order isotropy coefficient $e_8$ changes $\delta$ while keeping $\hat{\sigma}_0$, $\hat{\sigma}_1$, and thus the flat-interface physics fixed; the prediction is $\delta(\Delta\delta)\simeq\delta(1+\Delta\delta)$. Simulations confirm the scaling in one dimension through both the surface-of-tension/equimolar definition and the Gibbs-adsorption definition, and in two and three dimensions through Laplace-law fits for droplets and bubbles, with bulk densities unchanged to machine precision and the flat surface tension constant to about $10^{-3}$. The paper further demonstrates that in fluctuating simulations homogeneous nucleation rates vary by roughly 10% when the Tolman length is changed at fixed surface tension.

Load-bearing premise

The closed-form formula for the Tolman length assumes that the first-moment averages of the squared interface-derivative profiles coincide with the equimolar surface position, an approximation the paper checks only indirectly; the paper observes a roughly constant offset between the formula and the direct definitions, but does not prove that this offset stays constant as the tuning knob $e_8$ is varied.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Practitioners can now vary the Tolman length of a Shan-Chen simulation without touching the equation of state, the density ratio, or the flat-interface surface tension, using the explicit two- and three-dimensional weight tables.
  • The closed-form expression for $\delta$ lets one extract the Tolman length from a flat-interface simulation alone, bypassing the expensive droplet/bubble series fits previously needed.
  • Because the free-energy barrier in classical nucleation theory depends on the curvature-corrected surface tension, controlling $\delta$ gives a direct handle on homogeneous nucleation and cavitation rates: the paper measures a roughly 10% change in the rate $J$ when $\delta$ is retuned at fixed $\sigma_0$.
  • Tuning $e_4$ upward reduces spurious currents by about an order of magnitude at a fixed, relatively small stencil size, offering a cheaper alternative to maximally isotropic stencils with many more lattice vectors.
  • The same weight-solving machinery can in principle control any interface property expressible as a linear combination of stencil moments, such as coefficients of the structure factor $S(k)$, extending the tuning strategy beyond the Tolman length.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the offset between the analytical formula and the direct definitions of $\delta$ is truly independent of the tuning knob $e_8$, the formula can be calibrated once and then used as a cheap predictor in production runs; the paper does not prove this constancy, so it remains an open check.
  • The paper reports stable sign changes of the Tolman length only in one dimension; a natural test is whether the $F_2$ forcing extension it points to stabilizes negative Tolman lengths for closed droplets and bubbles in two and three dimensions, which would make cavitation-barrier sign flips accessible.
  • Because the stencil moments are pure numerical parameters, the same tuning could be used to match the effective Tolman length of a lattice fluid to values measured in molecular dynamics or inferred from nucleation experiments, effectively fitting the pseudopotential to real-fluid curvature physics.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a method to tune the Tolman length in the Shan-Chen lattice Boltzmann model by exploiting the degrees of freedom of non-maximally isotropic forcing stencils. The authors express the stencil weights in terms of physical knobs (σ̂0, σ̂1, δ̂0) and derive an analytical estimate of the Tolman length, δ ≈ -G c_s² c02/(2σ0)(ψ_l² - ψ_g²) (Eq. 41), which is then used to predict a linear tuning law δ(Δδ) = δ(1+Δδ). The method is tested with 1D flat-interface simulations, 2D and 3D droplet/bubble simulations, and fluctuating-hydrodynamic nucleation simulations, reporting that the Tolman length can be varied while bulk densities remain constant to O(10^-13) and surface tension changes by O(10^-3). The paper also discusses spurious-current reduction and the relation to earlier multirange/multibelt approaches.

Significance. If the results are correct, this is the first quantitative control of the Tolman length in multiphase LBM, enabling nucleation and cavitation modelling beyond the capillary approximation. The empirical validation is extensive: the linear tuning law is confirmed across dimensions (d=1,2,3) and two temperatures, with excellent agreement for ΔT̂=0.1 and good agreement for ΔT̂=0.2; the flat-interface profiles and bulk densities are essentially unchanged; and the source code is provided for reproducibility. The principal caveat is that the analytical derivation of Eq. (41) contains an uncontrolled identification of first-moment integrals with the equimolar surface position, and a concrete integration-by-parts error in Eqs. (38)-(39). These issues affect the claim of a fully analytical, predictive formula, even though the empirical tuning appears robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV.B, Eqs. (38)-(39)] The integration by parts for the c04 and c13 terms is incorrect: ∫ x ψ ψ'''' dx = ∫(dψ/dx)² dx + ∫ x (d²ψ/dx²)² dx, and ∫ x ψ' ψ''' dx = -∫(dψ/dx)² dx - ∫ x (d²ψ/dx²)² dx. Therefore Eq. (39) should contain an additional (c04 - c13)∫(dψ/dx)² dx term inside the first-moment integral, and the coefficient of x(dψ/dx)² becomes (c11 - c02 + c04 - c13), not (c11 - c02) as written. This missing term alters the expression for z_w and, consequently, the derivation of Eq. (41). The authors should correct Eqs. (38)-(39) or explicitly justify the omission.
  2. [Section IV.B, Eqs. (39)-(41) and Section V.C, Fig. 5(c)] The identification of the first-moment integrals with the equimolar surface position z_e is uncontrolled: the integrand W is not pointwise positive for the reference parameters (σ̂0 < 0, σ̂1 > 0), and the paper acknowledges a 'roughly constant offset' between Eq. (41) and the direct definitions (35)/(48) but does not prove that the offset is independent of the tuning parameter Δδ. Since Eq. (47) predicts a strictly linear law, a drift in the offset with Δδ would invalidate the tuning relation. The empirical data are consistent with a constant offset over the probed range, but the analytical basis remains conditional; a quantitative bound on z_e - z_w or a derivation of its constancy is needed.
  3. [Section V.B, Figs. 3(e) and 4(e)] The measured surface tension after σ̂1-tuning does not follow the predicted linear relation of Eq. (43); the text states that 'the estimated variation of the surface tension does not match the expected slope'. This contradicts the claim of quantitative surface-tension control via σ̂1. The authors should explain the discrepancy (e.g., higher-order truncation effects) and either provide a corrected prediction or characterize the actual achievable control range more precisely.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V.C, Figs. 6 and 8 captions] Typo: 'paramter' should be 'parameter' in the captions of Figs. 6 and 8.
  2. [Section V.C, Eq. (45)] The symbol M in the geometric construction for R_e is not defined explicitly; please state that it is the conserved total mass of the system.
  3. [Section IV.B, near Eq. (41)] The statement 'This is the first analytical estimate of the Tolman length in the SC model' is too strong given the uncontrolled approximation in Eqs. (39)-(40); recommend softening to 'an approximate analytical estimate'.
  4. [Section V.C, Figs. 5(c) and 7(c)] For ΔT̂=0.2, the text mentions 'slight deviation' from the expected linear law; please quantify this deviation (e.g., slope difference or residual analysis).
  5. [References] Reference [53] is incomplete: 'X. Shan, 17, 475 (2016)' lacks the journal name; please provide the full citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the Tolman-length tuning law is tested against independent definitions, and Eq. (41) rests on an explicit, non-tautological approximation.

full rationale

The central claim is that the Tolman length can be tuned linearly through the stencil knob δ̂0 while keeping σ0, bulk densities, and flat-interface profiles fixed. The analytical expression Eq. (41) is derived from the lattice pressure tensor via an explicit approximation: the first moment of the derivative-squared combination in Eq. (39) is estimated as z_e. This is an uncontrolled approximation, not a definitional identity: z_e is defined independently by vanishing adsorbance, and z_s by the first moment of P_N−P_T. The verification uses independent definitions, Eqs. (35) and (48), that do not presuppose Eq. (41). The predicted scaling δ(Δδ)=δ(1+Δδ) follows algebraically from Eq. (41) only if the neglected first-moment term and the reported offset are independent of e8; the paper notes a roughly constant offset between Eq. (41) and Eqs. (35)/(48), and the measured linear behavior is an empirical confirmation rather than a fit. The cited prior work on the lattice pressure tensor and anisotropy coefficients ([39], [41], [44]) is externally published and independently constructible; those citations supply tools, not the target result itself. No equation reduces to its own input, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors to forbid alternatives. The admitted 'reasonable estimation' in Section IV.B, Eqs. (39)-(41), is a robustness caveat about an approximation, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the lattice pressure tensor formalism and a fourth-order truncation. The only hand-chosen numbers are the reference isotropy coefficients e4, e6, e8; they do not enter the tuning as fitted constants but set the operating point. No entities are invented; the pseudo-potential is from [57].

free parameters (3)
  • reference fourth-order isotropy coefficient e4 = 4/5
    Hand-chosen reference value for the stencil in the Tolman-length tuning section. It sets ε=14/29 and the reference surface tension. The tuning is defined as a deviation around this value, so the specific value is a modeling choice, not a fit to data.
  • reference sixth-order isotropy coefficient e6 = e4^(3/2) = (4/5)^(3/2)
    Chosen to satisfy the dimensional scaling e6 = e4^(3/2). This keeps the higher-order surface tension coefficient σ̂1 = e6/4 at a reference value.
  • reference eighth-order isotropy coefficient e8 = e4^2 = 16/25
    Chosen to satisfy e8 = e4^2; the Tolman length is tuned by varying e8 around this reference. Again a hand-chosen reference, not a fit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The lattice pressure tensor satisfies the mechanical equilibrium condition PN(x)=p0 for a flat interface at the discrete lattice level.
    Used in Eq. (21) to derive the interface profile and in the surface tension/Tolman length derivations. Established in the cited works [39,41,44].
  • domain assumption The fourth-order Taylor expansion of PN-PT captures the surface tension and Tolman length to sufficient accuracy.
    Eqs. (32)-(33) and (37)-(38) truncate at fourth order; higher-order derivatives are neglected. Not proven, but the numerical tests in Section V support it in the studied range.
  • ad hoc to paper The first-moment integrals of (dψ/dx)^2 and (d^2ψ/dx^2)^2 can be identified with the equimolar surface position z_e.
    Section IV.B, Eqs. (39)-(41). This identification is the key approximation in the analytical Tolman length expression. The paper calls it a 'reasonable estimation' but does not bound its error.
  • domain assumption The pseudo-potential ψ(n) = (n/(ε+n))^{1/ε} with ε = ε(e4) ensures thermodynamic consistency of the Shan-Chen model.
    Eq. (23), from Sbragaglia and Shan [57]. It fixes the equilibrium densities and pressure through the constrained integral (Eq. 22).
  • standard math The Guo forcing scheme and the chosen 6th-order isotropic stencil recover the Navier-Stokes equations at the required hydrodynamic order.
    Section II and Eq. (12). This is the standard lattice Boltzmann derivation; the authors assume it holds with the modified weights.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Higher-order Tuning of Interface Physics in Multiphase Lattice Boltzmann." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4PH5STSY

@misc{pith2026250523647,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Higher-order Tuning of Interface Physics in Multiphase Lattice Boltzmann},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4PH5STSY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23647}
}
read the original abstract

Tuning the interface properties of multiphase models is of paramount importance to the final goal of achieving a one-to-one matching with nucleation and cavitation experiments. The surface tension, at the leading order, and the Tolman length, at higher order, play a crucial role in the estimation of the free-energy barrier determining the experimentally observed nucleation rates. The lattice Boltzmann method allows for a computationally efficient modelling approach of multiphase flows, however, tuning results are concerned with the surface tension and neglect the Tolman length. We present a novel perspective that leverages all the degrees of freedom hidden in the forcing stencil of the Shan-Chen multiphase model. By means of the lattice pressure tensor we determine and tune the coefficients of higher-order derivative terms related to surface tension and Tolman length at constant interface width and density ratio. We test the method by means of both hydrostatic and dynamic simulations and demonstrate the dependence of homogeneous nucleation rates on the value of the Tolman length. This work provides a new tool that can be integrated with previously existing strategies thus marking a step forwards to a high-fidelity modelling of phase-changing fluid dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23647 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Set of basis vectors {ea} used to construct the forcing schemes presented for the two-dimensional simulations. Panels (a), (b) and (c) show the numbers referred to lattice vectors, with the color coding for the different squared lengths {|ea| 2 = 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 18}. B. Interface Physics We continue now by reintroducing the ideal gas term and projecting the lattice pressure tensor to one dimen￾sion in order to con… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Panel (a) and (b): density map for a two￾dimensional droplet obtained using the weights reported in Table II for different values of e4 and ε yielding a thinner and thicker interface respectively. Panel (c): largest Mach number for spurious currents as a function of e4 with the values from higher isotropy stencils in two dimensions. Tuning e4 = −2σˆ0 – 6th-order Forcing Isotropy d = 2 d = 3 W(1) 8 15 + 4ˆσ0 3 4 15 +… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results for ∆Tˆ = 0.1. Panels (a), (b) and (c): one￾dimensional simulation results for interface profiles, deriva￾tives and equilibrium density changes as a function of ∆σ, respectively. Panels (d) and (e): two- and three-dimensional simulations results for the Laplace law and comparison of the estimated surface tension (triangles d = 1, squares d = 2 and pentagons d = 3) with respect to the theoretical expectation … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results for ∆Tˆ = 0.2. Panels (a), (b) and (c): one￾dimensional simulation results for interface profiles, deriva￾tives and equilibrium density changes as a function of ∆σ, respectively. Panels (d) and (e): two- and three-dimensional simulations results for the Laplace…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results for ∆Tˆ = 0.1 for curved interfaces in two and three dimensions. Negative curvatures, R −1 e < 0 or R −1 s < 0, are meant to indicate bubbles for which b = 1. Panel (a): Laplace law data for different values of the Tolman length tuning paramter ∆δ. Panel (b): c…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Results for ∆Tˆ = 0.2 for curved interfaces in two and three dimensions. Negative curvatures, R −1 e < 0 or R −1 s < 0, are meant to indicate bubbles for which b = 1. Panel (a): Laplace law data for different values of the Tolman length tuning paramter ∆δ. Panel (b): c…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Panels displaying the different stages of homogeneous nucleation dynamics for ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Panel (a): number of nucleating bubbles as a func￾tion of time Nb(t) in a fully periodic system with L = 4096. Each curve represents the average over Nrep = 32 independent simulations. The steady-state nucleation rates are estimated from the linear fits indicated by t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P. G. Debenedetti,Metastable Liquids: Concepts and Principles(Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersy, 1996)

    work page 1996

  2. [2]

    0 b(N) [−2,2] 4W(16) b(N) [−1,1] 2W(4) + 4W(5) + 4W(8) b(N) [1,3] 4W(16) b(N) [1,2] 3W(9) + 6W(18) a(T) [−4,0,4] 0 a(T) [−3,0,3] 3W(18) a(T) [−2,0,2] 1 2 W(5) + 2W(8) a(T) [−1,0,1] W(2) + 4W(5) a(T)

    work page

  3. [3]

    anisotropy coefficients

    W(1) + 4W(4) + 9W(9) + 16W(16) b(T) [−2,2] 0 b(T) [−1,1] W(5) + 4W(8) b(T) [1,3] 0 b(T) [1,2] 6W(18) Table VII. Definitions in terms of the two-dimensional weights of the coefficients appearing in Eq. (D2). In the present work, we wish to outline a different strat- egy, that only relies on the geometrical properties of the Shan-Chen forcing stencil rather...

    work page

  4. [4]

    binary mask

    Thermodynamic consistency is assured by means of the pseudo-potential defined in Eq. (23) for the corresponding value ofε= 14/29 with Gc =−2519424 7√ 31888098/12313081. Within this set- ting the expression for the prefactor of the Tolman length can be written as ˆδ0 = 1 12 + 95e4 432 + 7e6 72 − 5e8 144 ,(46) which can be used, together with Eq. (42), to e...

    work page

  5. [5]

    idea.deploy

    ψ2 (x) +Gc 2 sb(•) [−2,2]ψ(x+ 2)ψ(x−2) +Gc 2 sb(•) [−1,1]ψ(x+ 1)ψ(x−1) +Gc 2 sb(•) [1,3] [ψ(x+ 3)ψ(x−1) +ψ(x+ 1)ψ(x−3)] +Gc 2 sb(•) [1,2] [ψ(x+ 2)ψ(x−1) +ψ(x+ 1)ψ(x−2)], (D2) where the symbol•should be replaced with N or T for the normal or tangential component, respectively. The related coefficients are reported in Table VII. The follow- ing step is to t...

    work page

  6. [6]

    V. I. Kalikmanov,Nucleation Theory, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 860 (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht,

    work page

  7. [7]

    L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, and R. T. Beyer, inPer- spect. Theor. Phys.(Elsevier, 1992) pp. 359–361

    work page 1992

  8. [8]

    E. M. Lifshitz and L. P. Pitaevskii,Statistical physics. Part 2: Theory of the condensed state(Butterworth- Heinemann, Oxford, 1980)

    work page 1980

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    C. E. Brennen,Cavitation and Bubble Dynamics(Oxford University Press, 1995)

    1995

  2. [10]

    Chryssakis, D

    C. Chryssakis, D. N. Assanis, and C. Bae, SAE Technical Paper Series 10.4271/2006-01-1546 (2006)

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    C.-D. Ohl, M. Arora, R. Ikink, N. de Jong, M. Versluis, M. Delius, and D. Lohse, Biophys. J.91, 4285 (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    Aasen, D

    A. Aasen, D. Reguera, and Ø. Wilhelmsen, Physical Re- view Letters124, 045701 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    J. W. Gibbs,The collected works of J. Willard Gibbs. (Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, 1948) oCLC: 520226

    1948

  6. [14]

    R. C. Tolman, The Journal of Chemical Physics17, 333 (1949)

    1949

  7. [15]

    Talanquer and D

    V. Talanquer and D. W. Oxtoby, The Journal of Physical Chemistry99, 2865 (1995)

    1995

  8. [16]

    K. K. Tanaka, H. Tanaka, R. Ang´ elil, and J. Diemand, Physical Review E92, 10.1103/physreve.92.022401 (2015)

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    Bruot and F

    N. Bruot and F. Caupin, Physical Review Letters116, 056102 (2016), arXiv:1601.00468

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    V. D. Nguyen, F. C. Schoemaker, E. M. Blokhuis, and P. Schall, Physical Review Letters121, 246102 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Aasen, E

    A. Aasen, E. M. Blokhuis, and Ø. Wilhelmsen, The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics148, 204702 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Rehner and J

    P. Rehner and J. Gross, The Journal of Chemical Physics 148, 164703 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    E. M. Blokhuis and A. E. Van Giessen, Journal of Physics Condensed Matter25, 10.1088/0953-8984/25/22/225003 (2013)

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    Wilhelmsen, D

    Ø. Wilhelmsen, D. Bedeaux, and D. Reguera, The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics142, 064706 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    A. E. van Giessen and E. M. Blokhuis, The Journal of Chemical Physics131, 164705 (2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    M. J. P. Nijmeijer, C. Bruin, A. B. van Woerkom, A. F. Bakker, and J. M. J. van Leeuwen, The Journal of Chem- ical Physics96, 565 (1992)

    1992

  17. [25]

    Schrader, P

    M. Schrader, P. Virnau, and K. Binder, Phys. Rev. E79, 061104 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    Menzl, M

    G. Menzl, M. A. Gonzalez, P. Geiger, F. Caupin, J. L. F. Abascal, C. Valeriani, and C. Dellago, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113, 13582 (2016), arXiv:1606.03392

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    D. M. Anderson, G. B. McFadden, and A. A. Wheeler, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics30, 139 (1998). 26

    1998

  20. [28]

    Magaletti, M

    F. Magaletti, M. Gallo, L. Marino, and C. M. Cas- ciola, International Journal of Multiphase Flow84, 10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2016.02.012 (2016)

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    Gallo, F

    M. Gallo, F. Magaletti, and C. M. Casciola, Phys. Rev. Fluids3, 053604 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Gallo, F

    M. Gallo, F. Magaletti, D. Cocco, and C. M. Casciola, J. Fluid Mech.883, A14 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Kr¨ uger, H

    T. Kr¨ uger, H. Kusumaatmaja, A. Kuzmin, O. Shardt, G. Silva, and E. M. Viggen, Graduate Texts in Physics 10.1007/978-3-319-44649-3 (2017)

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    Succi,The lattice Boltzmann equation: for complex states of flowing matter(Oxford University Press, 2018)

    S. Succi,The lattice Boltzmann equation: for complex states of flowing matter(Oxford University Press, 2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    M. R. Swift, W. R. Osborn, and J. M. Yeomans, Physical Review Letters75, 830 (1995)

    1995

  26. [34]

    M. R. Swift, E. Orlandini, W. R. Osborn, and J. M. Yeomans, Physical Review E54, 5041 (1996)

    1996

  27. [35]

    Guo, Physics of Fluids33, 031709 (2021)

    Z. Guo, Physics of Fluids33, 031709 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Hosseini, B

    S. Hosseini, B. Dorschner, and I. Karlin, Journal of Fluid Mechanics953, 10.1017/jfm.2022.867 (2022)

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    A. K. Gunstensen, D. H. Rothman, S. Zaleski, and G. Zanetti, Physical Review A43, 4320 (1991)

    1991

  30. [38]

    Montessori, M

    A. Montessori, M. Lauricella, N. Tirelli, and S. Succi, Journal of Fluid Mechanics872, 327 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    X. He, S. Chen, and R. Zhang, Journal of Computational Physics152, 10.1006/jcph.1999.6257 (1999)

    1999

  32. [40]

    Fakhari and M

    A. Fakhari and M. H. Rahimian, Physical Review E81, 10.1103/physreve.81.036707 (2010)

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

    Shan and H

    X. Shan and H. Chen, Physical Review E47, 1815 (1993)

    1993

  34. [42]

    Shan and H

    X. Shan and H. Chen, Physical Review E49, 2941 (1994)

    1994

  35. [44]

    Sbragaglia and D

    M. Sbragaglia and D. Belardinelli, Physical Review E88, 10.1103/physreve.88.013306 (2013)

    2013 doi

  36. [47]

    Lulli, L

    M. Lulli, L. Biferale, G. Falcucci, M. Sbragaglia, and X. Shan, Springer INdAM Series 10.1007/978-981-19- 6462-6 14 (2022)

    2022 doi

  37. [49]

    Meurer, C

    A. Meurer, C. P. Smith, M. Paprocki, O. ˇCert ´ ık, S. B. Kirpichev, M. Rocklin, A. Kumar, S. Ivanov, J. K. Moore, S. Singh, T. Rathnayake, S. Vig, B. E. Granger, R. P. Muller, F. Bonazzi, H. Gupta, S. Vats, F. Johans- son, F. Pedregosa, M. J. Curry, A. R. Terrel, v. Rouˇ cka,...

    2017

  38. [50]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Pe- terson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, ˙I. Po- lat, Y...

    2020

  39. [51]

    T. E. Oliphant,A guide to NumPy, Vol. 1 (Trelgol Pub- lishing USA, 2006)

    2006

  40. [52]

    Van Der Walt, S

    S. Van Der Walt, S. C. Colbert, and G. Varoquaux, Com- puting in Science & Engineering13, 22 (2011)

    2011

  41. [53]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cour- napeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay, Jour- nal of Machine Learning Research12, 2825 (2011)

    2011

  42. [54]

    J. D. Hunter, Computing in Science & Engineering9, 90 (2007)

    2007

  43. [55]

    P´ erez and B

    F. P´ erez and B. E. Granger, Computing in Science and Engineering9, 21 (2007)

    2007

  44. [56]

    Kl¨ ockner, N

    A. Kl¨ ockner, N. Pinto, Y. Lee, B. Catanzaro, P. Ivanov, and A. Fasih, Parallel Computing38, 157 (2012)

    2012

  45. [57]

    Shan,17, 475 (2016)

    X. Shan,17, 475 (2016)

    2016

  46. [58]

    P. L. Bhatnagar, E. P. Gross, and M. Krook, Physical Review94, 511 (1954)

    1954

  47. [59]

    SHAN, X.-F

    X. SHAN, X.-F. YUAN, and H. CHEN, Journal of Fluid Mechanics550, 413 (2006)

    2006

  48. [60]

    Z. Guo, C. Zheng, and B. Shi, Physical Review E65, 10.1103/physreve.65.046308 (2002)

    2002 doi

  49. [61]

    Sbragaglia and X

    M. Sbragaglia and X. Shan, Physical Review E84, 10.1103/physreve.84.036703 (2011)

    2011 doi

  50. [62]

    Khajepor, J

    S. Khajepor, J. Wen, and B. Chen, Physical Review E 91, 10.1103/physreve.91.023301 (2015)

    2015 doi

  51. [63]

    Khajepor and B

    S. Khajepor and B. Chen, Physical Review E93, 10.1103/physreve.93.013303 (2016)

    2016 doi

  52. [64]

    J. S. Rowlinson and B. Widom,Molecular Theory of Cap- illarity(Clarendon, Oxford, 1982)

    1982

  53. [65]

    Wolfram, Journal of Statistical Physics45, 471 (1986)

    S. Wolfram, Journal of Statistical Physics45, 471 (1986)

    1986

  54. [67]

    Sbragaglia, R

    M. Sbragaglia, R. Benzi, L. Biferale, S. Succi, K. Sugiyama, and F. Toschi, Physical Review E75, 10.1103/physreve.75.026702 (2007)

    2007 doi

  55. [68]

    Li and K

    Q. Li and K. H. Luo, Physical Review E88, 10.1103/physreve.88.053307 (2013)

    2013 doi

  56. [69]

    Falcucci, G

    G. Falcucci, G. Bella, G. Chiatti, S. Chibbaro, M. Sbra- gaglia, and S. Succi, Communications in Computational Physics2, 1071 (2007)

    2007

  57. [71]

    Benzi, M

    R. Benzi, M. Sbragaglia, S. Succi, M. Bernaschi, and S. Chibbaro, The Journal of Chemical Physics131, 104903 (2009)

    2009

  58. [72]

    Derzsi, D

    L. Derzsi, D. Filippi, G. Mistura, M. Pierno, M. Lulli, M. Sbragaglia, M. Bernaschi, and P. Garstecki, Physical Review E95, 10.1103/physreve.95.052602 (2017)

    2017 doi

  59. [73]

    Derzsi, D

    L. Derzsi, D. Filippi, M. Lulli, G. Mistura, M. Bernaschi, P. Garstecki, M. Sbragaglia, and M. Pierno, Soft Matter 14, 1088 (2018)

    2018

  60. [74]

    Pelusi, M

    F. Pelusi, M. Lulli, M. Sbragaglia, and M. Bernaschi, Computer Physics Communications273, 108259 (2022)

    2022

  61. [75]

    Pelusi, D

    F. Pelusi, D. Filippi, L. Derzsi, M. Pierno, and M. Sbra- gaglia, Soft Matter20, 10.1039/d4sm00041b (2024)

    2024 doi

  62. [76]

    Falcucci, E

    G. Falcucci, E. Jannelli, S. Ubertini, and S. Succi, Jour- nal of Fluid Mechanics728, 362 (2013)

    2013

  63. [77]

    Falcucci, S

    G. Falcucci, S. Ubertini, G. Bella, and S. Succi, Commu- nications in Computational Physics13, 685 (2013)

    2013

  64. [78]

    C. E. Colosqui, G. Falcucci, S. Ubertini, and S. Succi, Soft Matter8, 10.1039/c2sm06353k (2012)

    2012 doi

  65. [79]

    L. E. Czelusniak, V. P. Mapelli, A. J. Wagner, and L. Cabezas-G´ omez, Physical Review E105, 10.1103/physreve.105.015303 (2022). 27

    2022 doi

  66. [80]

    Belardinelli, M

    D. Belardinelli, M. Sbragaglia, L. Biferale, M. Gross, and F. Varnik, Physical Review E91, 10.1103/phys- reve.91.023313 (2015)

    2015 doi

  67. [81]

    C. S. From, E. Sauret, S. A. Galindo-Torres, and Y. T. Gu, Physical Review E99, 10.1103/physreve.99.063318 (2019)

    2019 doi

Pith tools

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