Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 38 references

Nucleation kinetics in phase transformations with spatially correlated nuclei

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 A rate equation connects hard-sphere nucleation to both RSA and KJMA kinetics.

desk verdict A genuine self-consistent integral equation for the actual nucleation rate under hard-sphere correlated progressive nucleation, carefully derived but not yet validated for finite correlation strength. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08515 v1 pith:ZRCOVYRO submitted 2025-06-10 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.mtrl-sci

M. Tomellini This is my paper
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords nucleationkineticsspatiallycorrelatednucleiprogressivehard-sphereinteractionKJMAmodelrandomsequentialadsorptioncorrelationfunctionsphasetransformation
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 sets out to compute the rate at which real ('actual') nuclei appear in a phase transformation when nuclei are not randomly placed but repel one another with a hard-core distance, as happens in electrodeposition and seeded film growth. The author shows that this rate, together with the no-nucleus probability, obeys a self-consistent integral equation built from second-order correlation functions. Solving it for linear growth in two and three dimensions gives a nucleation kinetics that starts like random sequential adsorption and later becomes KJMA-like, while the transformed volume fraction changes only slightly with the correlation radius. The practical payoff is a way to model transformation kinetics for non-Poissonian nucleation rather than assuming randomness.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the second-order truncation of the correlation-function expansion for the probability that no nucleus lies in a given space-time domain, together with a hard-sphere pair distribution $g(r,t_1,t_2)=H(r-R_{hc})$ when the older nucleus has not yet reached radius $R_{hc}$, and $g=H(r-R(t_1-t_2))$ otherwise (Eq. 4). The spatial integrals reduce to overlap volumes of spheres of radius $R_{hc}$ and $R(t,t')$, and the time integration is split into three domains (Eqs. 7a-7c) according to whether each nucleus is larger or smaller than the correlation sphere. This turns the nucleation rate into the fixed point of an integral equation, which is solved by iteration starting from the KJMA solution.

What would settle it

A direct test would be a kinetic Monte Carlo simulation of progressive nucleation with hard-core exclusion radius $R_{hc}/2$ and linear growth in 2D or 3D, measuring the actual nucleation rate $I_a(t)$. If the simulated $Q_a(t)$ differs from the numerical solution of Eq. 9 by more than the reported iteration error for a nonzero $\gamma$, the second-order truncation fails in the correlated regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for hard-sphere correlated progressive nucleation, the actual nucleation rate is $I_a(t)=I_0 Q_a(t)$, where $Q_a(t)$ is the probability that a generic point is neither inside the new phase nor within the hard-core distance $R_{hc}$ of an existing nucleus. This probability is the solution of the integral equation $Q_a(t)=\exp(F[Q_a])$ (Eqs. 5 and 9), in which the functional $F$ collects the second-order correlation-function terms, with the pair distribution $g(r,t_1,t_2)$ chosen to enforce the exclusion between nuclei born at different times. For $R_{hc}=0$ the equation reproduces the KJMA kinetics, and for finite $R_{hc}$ its numerical solution in 2D and 3D shows a crossover: initially the rate follows the RSA curve for spheres of radius $R_{hc}/2$, and after the time when nuclei grow beyond the correlation radius it approaches the KJMA tail. The volume fraction computed from this rate depends only mildly on the correlation radius, because the reduction in nucleation density is nearly balanced by fewer impingement events.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that stopping the correlation-function series at the second order and using the hard-sphere pair distribution is accurate for every correlation strength; the paper only checks this against the exact KJMA solution at zero correlation, so the correlated regime rests on that truncation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $R_{hc}=0$ the integral equation reduces to the KJMA result $Q_a(t)=e^{-X_{ex}(t)}$, providing a consistency check that the second-order approximation is exact in the Poissonian limit.
  • For finite correlation, the nucleation rate first follows the RSA kinetics of hard spheres of radius $R_{hc}/2$, then crosses over to a KJMA-like decay once nuclei grow beyond the correlation radius.
  • The volume fraction of the new phase remains close to the random-nucleation result: Avrami exponents stay in 3.92-4 in 3D and 2.9-3 in 2D, so impingement reductions nearly cancel the lower nucleation density.
  • The nucleation density at saturation decreases with increasing correlation strength, and its kinetics is more sensitive to correlation than the volume fraction is, making it a better experimental probe.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the structure of Eq. 9 only changes through the growth law and the overlap volumes, the same iterative scheme should carry over to parabolic or diffusion-limited growth; one would predict a similar RSA-to-KJMA crossover but with a different crossover time.
  • The predicted crossover time $t_{hc}=(\gamma/3)^{1/(D+1)}$ in reduced units is a testable scaling: experiments or simulations that vary the deposition rate $I_0$ and the exclusion radius $R_{hc}$ should see the inflection of $I_a(t)$ shift accordingly.
  • If the weak dependence of the volume fraction on correlation holds in real electrodeposition, then fitting only $\xi(t)$ will systematically underestimate the degree of spatial order; extracting $I_a(t)$ from island density measurements would be a sharper diagnostic.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a theoretical framework for computing the actual nucleation rate in phase transformations with spatially correlated nuclei, under hard-sphere (hard-core) interactions and linear growth. The author derives an integral equation for Q_a(t)=I_a(t)/I_0, based on a second-order truncation of the correlation-function series (Eqs. 3 and 9) with a hard-sphere pair distribution (Eq. 4), and solves it numerically by iteration for 2D and 3D. The paper reports that the solution reproduces the exact KJMA result at zero correlation, that the nucleation rate crosses over from RSA-like to KJMA-like behavior, and that the transformed volume fraction depends weakly on the correlation radius. The central claim is that the second-order truncation with the hard-core closure gives accurate kinetics for all correlation strengths.

Significance. If the finite-gamma predictions are correct, this is a useful extension of KJMA theory to non-Poissonian nucleation, with direct relevance to electrodeposition and seeded film growth. The derivation is detailed and parameter-free: gamma is an input combination of R_hc, I_0, and a, not a fitted constant, and the numerical iteration is reported to converge. The gamma=0 check is a genuine internal consistency test and is passed to 0.04% (3D) and 0.3% (2D). However, the paper does not provide an independent benchmark for finite gamma, and the RSA comparison is not independent because Eq. (10) is the same closure. The significance therefore depends on completing that validation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, Fig. 4 and Eq. (9)] The only quantitative validation of the integral equation is at gamma=0, where the exact KJMA solution is recovered. This exercises the algebraic and numerical implementation, but it does not test the hard-sphere exclusion or the second-order truncation for finite gamma, because the g(r)=H(r-R_hc) terms and the case splits in Eqs. (7a-c) and (B1) contribute only when R_hc>0. The central predictions (the RSA-to-KJMA crossover location, the saturation nucleation density, and the weak dependence of volume fraction on gamma) therefore rest on an unverified closure. I ask the author to benchmark finite gamma against kinetic Monte Carlo simulations of the same hard-core nucleation-and-growth process, or against an independent exact or series result, and to show the sensitivity to the truncation order.
  2. [§2.2, Eq. (4)] The hard-sphere closure is justified by stating that higher-order terms can be neglected at low densities of nuclei, but at the claimed crossover the density is not low. For gamma=2, the crossover time is t_bar_hc=(gamma/3)^(1/(D+1)), at which X_ex(t_bar_hc)=gamma/3 approximately 0.67; even the uncorrected extended volume is of order unity, and the packing fraction of exclusion spheres is substantial. The manuscript does not provide an estimate of the omitted third-order terms and does not show that the second-order truncation remains accurate in this regime. Since the crossover is a central claim, this missing support is load-bearing.
  3. [§2.3, Eq. (10) and Fig. 7] The comparison with RSA is not an independent check of the closure. Eq. (10) is obtained by applying the same second-order correlation-function truncation (Eq. (2)) to the site-saturated RSA process, and the paper itself notes that this approximation does not give the exact jamming density. Consequently, agreement between the nucleation curve and the RSA curve before t_hc only reflects the exact early-time equivalence of the two processes, not accuracy of the closure. A meaningful test would compare against simulation of RSA or against an exact jamming limit, rather than against an approximate curve derived from the same approximation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.1] The phrase "relay on" should read "rely on".
  2. [§3] In the Conclusions, "KIMA" should read "KJMA".
  3. [§2.3, Fig. 8 caption area] The text says the kinetics were computed "using the nucleation rate of Fig.3 (section 2.2)", but the relevant nucleation-rate plots are in Fig. 5, not Fig. 3.
  4. [§2.3] In the sentence defining the extended volume, "the extended volume is given by 1 X_ex(t)" contains a stray "1" that should be removed.
  5. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption lists the gamma values only as "several values" without specifying them; adding the exact gamma values used in each curve would improve reproducibility.
  6. [§2.3, Eq. (10)] Before Eq. (10), the connection between the RSA spheres of radius R_hc/2 and the hard-core radius R_hc could be stated more explicitly, since the reader must infer that the center-to-center exclusion distance is R_hc.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central integral equation is self-consistent, gamma is an input parameter, and the gamma=0 limit is benchmarked against the exact KJMA solution.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in the sense of the review. Eq. (3), with the derivation in Appendix A, is an explicit second-order correlation-function expansion; the truncation is an approximation, not a hidden input fitted to the target results. The correlation strength gamma is a composite of the physical inputs R_hc, I0, and a, and the actual nucleation rate Q_a(t) is obtained as the fixed point of the integral equation Eq. (9) by iteration, not by fitting data. The gamma=0 comparison against the exact analytical KJMA solution (Fig. 4) provides an independent check of the algebraic reduction, and no parameter is adjusted in that comparison. The hard-sphere closure Eq. (4) is an input model, not a consequence of the results. The RSA comparison in Fig. 7 is not an independent validation, because for t < t_hc both Q_a and Eq. (10) descend from the same second-order expression Eq. (2); however, the paper explicitly identifies this regime as RSA rather than using the match to certify the finite-gamma closure. The finite-gamma predictions are therefore unvalidated by an external benchmark, which is a correctness risk, not circularity. The self-citations to refs. [22,27,33] concern prior derivations of the correlation-function equations; they are not uniqueness theorems and they are not used to forbid alternatives. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no claimed first-principles result reduces by construction to its own input. The score of 1 reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations in support of the second-order approximation.

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

The theory has no fitted free parameters. Its load-bearing assumptions are the second-order truncation, the hard-sphere pair distribution, linear growth, and the exclusion-region model. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Truncation of the correlation function series at second order is valid for the probabilities Q0 and Qa.
    Eqns. 2, 3 and Appendix A use only up to g2. The paper argues low density but applies to strong correlations (gamma up to 2), validated only at gamma = 0 in Fig. 4.
  • domain assumption The pair distribution of actual nuclei is g(r) = H(r - R_hc) for R(t1-t2) < R_hc and H(r - R(t1-t2)) otherwise (eqn. 4).
    This neglects higher-order correlations and assumes the hard-sphere exclusion is the only nonrandom structure.
  • domain assumption Linear growth law R(t,t') = a(t-t') and constant phantom-inclusive rate I0.
    Assumed throughout. Linear growth is a standard KJMA assumption and is stated explicitly in section 2.2.
  • domain assumption The probability Qa can be computed by eqn. 3 with the enlarged exclusion sphere radius r(t,t') = max(R_hc, R(t,t')) (eqn. 6).
    This encodes the union of the growing nucleus and the hard-core exclusion zone, which is exact for concentric spheres but assumes no other interaction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nucleation kinetics in phase transformations with spatially correlated nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZRCOVYRO

@misc{pith2026250608515,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nucleation kinetics in phase transformations with spatially correlated nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZRCOVYRO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08515}
}
read the original abstract

Phase transitions ruled by nucleation and growth can occur by nonrandom arrangement of nuclei. This is verified, for instance, in thin film growth at solid surfaces by vapor condensation or by electrodeposition where, around each nucleus, a depletion zone of reactants sets up within which nucleation is prevented. In this contribution, a theoretical approach for the kinetics of phase transition with spatially correlated nuclei by progressive nucleation is developed. The work focuses on the rate of formation of the actual nuclei, a quantity that is necessary for describing the transformation kinetics. The approach is based on correlation functions and applied to treat hard-sphere interaction between nuclei. Computations have been performed for 2D and 3D growths by truncation of the series expansion in correlation functions up to second order terms. It is shown that the nucleation kinetics undergoes a transition from a typical Random Sequential Adsorption (RSA) behavior to one that is like the Kolmogorov-Johnson-Mehl-Avrami (KJMA) kinetics. The time evolution of the volume fraction of the new phase is found to depend slightly on correlation radius. Such behavior is explained by the partial balancing between the reduction in nucleation density and the decrease in impingement events, which have opposite effects on the kinetics.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kolmogorov, On the Statistical Theory of the Crystallization of Metals., URSS Bull

    A.N. Kolmogorov, On the Statistical Theory of the Crystallization of Metals., URSS Bull. Acad. Sci. (Cl. Sci. Math. Nat.) 3, (1937) 355

    work page 1937

  2. [2]

    Johnson, R.F

    W.A. Johnson, R.F. Mehl, Reaction Kinetics in Processes of Nucleation and Growth ,Trans. AIME 135 (1939) 416

    work page 1939

  3. [3]

    Avrami, Kinetics of Phase Change

    M. Avrami, Kinetics of Phase Change. J. Chem. Phys. 7 (1939) 1103; 8 (1940) 212, 9 (1941) 177

    work page 1939

  4. [4]

    Blazquez, F.J

    J.S. Blazquez, F.J. Romero, C.F. Conde, A. Conde, A Review of Different Models Derived from Classical Kolmogorov, Johnson and Mehl, and Avrami (KJMA) Theory to Recover Physical Meaning in Solid‐State Transformations , Physica Status Solidi (b) 259 (2022) 2100524

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Bruna, D

    P. Bruna, D. Crespo, R. Gonzàlez-Cinca, On the validity of Avrrami formalism in primary christallization, J. Appl. Phys. 100 (2006) 054907

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Ramos, P.A

    R.A. Ramos, P.A. Rikvold, M.A. Novotny , Test of the Kolmogorov -Johnson-Mehl- Avrami picture of metastable decay in a model with microscopic dynamics, Phys. Rev. B 59 (1999) 9053

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Farjas, P

    J. Farjas, P. Roura , Microstructure development during isothermal crystallization , Phys. Rev. B 75 (2007) 184112

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Teran, A

    A.V. Teran, A. Bill, R.B. Bergmann, Time evolution of grain size distribution in random nucleation and growth crystallization process, Phys. Rev. B 81 (2010) 075319

    work page 2010

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Rheingans, E

    B. Rheingans, E. J. Mittemeijer, Phase transformation kinetics: advanced modeling strategies, JOM, 65 (9) (2013) 1145-1154

    2013

  2. [10]

    Shirzad, C

    K. Shirzad, C. Viney, A critical review on application of the Avrami equations beyond materials science, J. R. Soc. Interface 20 (2023) 20230242

    2023

  3. [11]

    Fanfoni, M

    M. Fanfoni, M. Tomellini, The Johnson -Mehl-Avrami-Kolmogorov model: A brief review, Il Nuovo Cimento, 20 D (1998) 1171

    1998

  4. [12]

    M. J. Starink, Analysis of Aluminum based alloys by calorimetry: quantitative analysis of reactions and reactions kinetics, Intern. Mater. Rev. 49 (3-4) (2004)191-226

    2004

  5. [13]

    Radisic, P

    A. Radisic, P. M. V ereecken, J. B. Hannon, P. C. Searson, F. M. Ross, Quantifying electrochemical nucleation and growth of nanoscale clusters using real-time kinetic data, Nano Letters 6 (2) (2006) 238-242

    2006

  6. [14]

    Moehl, P

    G.E. Moehl, P. N. Bartlett, A. L. Hector, Using GISAXS to detect correlations between the locations of gold particles electrodeposited from an aqueous solution, Langmuir 36 (2020) 4432-4438 19

    2020

  7. [15]

    Tsakova, A

    V. Tsakova, A. Milchev, Spatial distribution of electrochemically deposited clusters: a simulation study, J. Electroanal. Chem. 451 (1998) 211

    1998

  8. [16]

    Hyde, R.M.J

    M.E. Hyde, R.M.J. Jacobs, R.C. Compton, An electrodeposition study of the nucleation and growth of silver on boron doped diamond electrodes,J. Electroanal. Chem. 562 (2004) 61

    2004

  9. [17]

    Y. Sun, G. Zangari, Observation of Weibull, Lognormal, and Gamma Distributions in Electrodeposited Cu and Cu-Ag Particles, Materials 16 (2023) 6452

    2023

  10. [18]

    Guo, P.C

    L. Guo, P.C. Searson, Simulations of Island Growth and Island Spatial Distribution during Electrodeposition, Electrochem. Solid-State Lett. 10 (2007) D76

    2007

  11. [19]

    Tomellini, Spatial distribution of nuclei in progressive nucleation, Physica A: Stat

    M. Tomellini, Spatial distribution of nuclei in progressive nucleation, Physica A: Stat. Mech. and its Appl. 496 (2018) 481–494

    2018

  12. [20]

    Janssens, D

    S.D. Janssens, D. Vazquez -Cortes, E. Fried, Formation and morphology of closed and porous films grown from grains seeded on substrates: Two-dimensional simulations, Acta Mater. 225 (2022), 117555

    2022

  13. [21]

    Tomellini, R

    M. Tomellini, R. Polini, Impact of seed density on continuous ultrathin nanodiamond film formation, Diam. and Relat. Mater. 133 (2023) 109700

    2023

  14. [22]

    Tomellini, M

    M. Tomellini, M. Fanfoni, M. Volpe, Spatially correlated nuclei: How the Johnson-Mehl- Avrami-Kolmogorov formula is modified in the case of simultaneous nucleation , Phys. Rev. B 62 (2000) 11300

    2000

  15. [23]

    Tong, J.M

    W.S. Tong, J.M. Rickman, K. Barmak, Impact of short-range repulsive interactions between nuclei on the evolution of a phase transformation, J. Chem. Phys. 114 (2001) 915

    2001

  16. [24]

    Pineda, T

    E. Pineda, T. Pradell, D. Crespo, Non‐random nucleation and the Avrami kinetics, Philos. Mag. A Phys. Condens. Matter, Struct. Defects Mech. Prop. 82 (2002) 107–121

    2002

  17. [25]

    Rios, J.C.P.T

    P.R. Rios, J.C.P.T. Oliveira, V.T. Oliveira, J.A. Castro, Microstructural Descriptors and Cellular Automata Simulation of the Effects of Non-random Nuclei Location on Recrystallization in Two Dimensions, Mater. Res. 9 (2) (2006) 165-170

    2006

  18. [26]

    Rickman, K

    J.M. Rickman, K. Barmak, Kinetics of first order phase transitions with correlated nuclei, Phys. Rev .E 95 (2017) 022121

    2017

  19. [27]

    Tomellini, M

    M. Tomellini, M. Fanfoni, M. Volpe, Phase transition kinetics in the case of nonrandom nucleation, Phys. Rev. B 65 140301 (R) (2002)

    2002

  20. [28]

    Tomellini, M

    M. Tomellini, M. Fanfoni, Connection between phantom and spatial correlation in the Kolmogorov– Johnson–Mehl–Avrami-model: A brief review, Physica A 590 (2022) 126748 20

    2022

  21. [29]

    Tomellini, M

    M. Tomellini, M. Fanfoni, Why phantom nuclei must be considered in the Johnson-Mehl- Avrami-Kolmogoroff kinetics, Phys. Rev B 55 (1997) 14071-14073

    1997

  22. [30]

    M.P. Shepilov, Kinetics of transformation for model with a diffusion law of growth of new- phase particles nucleated on active centers, Glass Physics and Chemistry, 30 (4) (2004) 291-299

    2004

  23. [31]

    Tomellini, M

    M. Tomellini, M. Fanfoni, Eliminating overgrowth effects in Kolmogorov–Johnson–Mehl– Avrami model through the correlation among actual nuclei, Physica A 333 (2004) 65-70

    2004

  24. [32]

    Alekseechkin, Extension of the Kolmogorov–Johnson–Mehl–Avrami theory to growth laws of diffusion type, J

    N.V. Alekseechkin, Extension of the Kolmogorov–Johnson–Mehl–Avrami theory to growth laws of diffusion type, J. Non Cryst. Solids 357 (2011) 3159-3167

    2011

  25. [33]

    Fanfoni, M

    M. Fanfoni, M. Tomellini, Beyond the constraint underlying the Kolmogorov-Johnson- Mehl-Avrami model: inclusion of the spatial correlation, Eur. Phys. J. B 34 (2003) 331; M. Tomellini, M. Fanfoni, Comparative study of approaches based on the differential critical region and co...

    2003

  26. [34]

    Talbot, Kinetics of random sequential adsorption, Phys

    P.Schaaf, J. Talbot, Kinetics of random sequential adsorption, Phys. Rev. Letters 62 (2) (1989) 175-178

    1989

  27. [35]

    Y. Qian, S. Li, Optimal three-dimensional particle shapes for maximally dense saturated packing, The J. of Chem. Phys. 161, (2024) 014505

    2024

  28. [36]

    𝑡’-class

    S. Torquato, O. U. Uche, F. H. Stillinger, Random sequential addition of hard spheres in high Euclidean dimensions, Phys. Rev. E 74, (2006) 061308 21 Appendix A - Derivation of eqn.3. Eqn.3 is derived by considering a set of different classes of dots. Dots belonging to differe...

    2006

  29. [37]

    − 1 12 𝑥3 + 1 2 𝑥(𝜌𝑎 2 + 𝜌𝑏

  30. [38]

    In these equations 𝜌𝑘 = 𝑅𝑘 𝑎𝑡 is the reduced radius

    + (𝜌𝑎 2 − 𝜌𝑏 2)2 4𝑥 ]. In these equations 𝜌𝑘 = 𝑅𝑘 𝑎𝑡 is the reduced radius. Eqn.9 in the main text was solved numerically by successive iteration, 𝑄𝑎 (𝑘) = exp(𝐹[𝑄𝑎 (𝑘−1)]), starting from 𝑄𝑎 (0)(𝑡̅) = 𝑒−𝑋𝑒𝑥(𝑡̅) = 𝑒−𝑡̅(𝐷+1) that is the KJMA solution. Fig.B1 shows the behavior o...

Pith tools

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