Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Flocking as a second-order phase transition in self-aligning active crystals

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A self-aligning active crystal flocks through a continuous, second-order phase transition, and a Landau-Ginzburg free energy predicts where the order appears.

desk verdict A plausible, parameter-free theory for the flocking transition in self-aligning active crystals; the central prediction B_c=Pe^{-1} is clean, but the rigid-lattice assumption and an unspecified stiffness K mean the second-order claim is not as settled as the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12967 v1 pith:26ZISC4M submitted 2025-06-15 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.stat-mech

Marco Musacchio , Alexander P. Antonov , Hartmut Löwen , Lorenzo Caprini This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords activematterflockingself-alignmentLandau-Ginzburgtheorysecond-orderphasetransitioncrystalsvelocitycorrelationsPécletnumber
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 claims that a dense two-dimensional crystal of particles whose orientation self-aligns to their velocity undergoes a genuine phase transition from a disordered to a flocking state, and that this transition is continuous, i.e. second order. A microscopic derivation maps the particle dynamics onto a Landau-Ginzburg free energy for the velocity field, in which the sign of the quadratic mass term flips at the critical self-alignment strength $\beta_c/\gamma_r = 1/(v_0 \tau)$. This yields an explicit prediction for the transition point in terms of the Péclet number, $B_c = \mathrm{Pe}^{-1}$, a mean-field polarization curve $|S| \sim \sqrt{B-B_c}$, and a correlation length that diverges as $(1-B/B_c)^{-1/2}$. If the mapping is correct, it provides a microscopic foundation for reading experiments on granular self-aligning particles and migrating cells as critical phenomena, and it distinguishes this mechanism from Vicsek-style velocity-alignment models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a Landau-Ginzburg free-energy functional for the velocity field, Eq. (4): $F[v] = (3\tau\sigma^2 K/2\gamma)(\nabla v)^2 + (1 - v_0\tau\beta/\gamma_r)|v|^2/2 + (\tau\beta/\gamma_r)|v|^4/(4 v_0^2)$. The parameter $K$ is the curvature (second derivative) of the interaction potential on the lattice, and it turns the repulsive force between nearest neighbors into a discrete Laplacian coupling velocities. The sign of the mass term is controlled by the competition between the self-alignment time $\gamma_r/\beta$ and the persistence length $v_0 \tau$; when the mass term goes negative, the potential becomes a Mexican hat, rotational symmetry breaks, and flocking sets in.

What would settle it

Measure the polarization and correlation length as functions of $B$ in a self-aligning crystal that is allowed to deform or host vacancies at a fixed Péclet number; a discontinuous jump in polarization, or a critical point displaced from $B_c = \mathrm{Pe}^{-1}$ beyond simulation uncertainty, would show the fixed-lattice free energy does not capture the actual transition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the velocity field of a self-aligning active crystal obeys a relaxational Landau-Ginzburg dynamics, Eq. (3), with the effective free energy of Eq. (4). The coefficient of $|v|^2$ changes sign exactly when $\beta/\gamma_r$ crosses $1/(v_0\tau)$, so the free energy goes from a single well to a Mexican hat. The gradient term, produced by repulsive interactions acting as a discrete Laplacian on velocities, penalizes spatial variation and sets the correlation length. Simulations corroborate the predicted transition point, the square-root growth of polarization, and the divergence of the correlation length, which together establish that flocking in this system is a second-order phase transition.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation treats the crystal as a rigid, force-balanced lattice whose only slow variable is the velocity field, so density fluctuations, positional disorder, and the unspecified interaction curvature $K$ play no role.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The transition point is fixed by the dimensionless combination $B = \beta\sigma/\gamma_r$ equaling $\mathrm{Pe}^{-1}$, so increasing the persistence length lowers the self-alignment strength needed for flocking.
  • The polarization grows continuously as $|S| \sim \sqrt{B-B_c}$, a mean-field behavior reminiscent of the magnetization curve in the Ising model.
  • The correlation length of spatial velocity correlations diverges as $(1 - B/B_c)^{-1/2}$, making the system scale-free as the transition is approached.
  • No explicit velocity-alignment interaction between neighbors is required for flocking; repulsive interactions plus self-alignment suffice, which explains collective motion in polar granular particles and cell monolayers.
  • The free-energy structure provides a basis for building a hydrodynamic (Toner-Tu-type) description of self-aligning active matter.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If density fluctuations and lattice disorder are allowed to couple to the velocity field, the fixed-lattice prediction for the critical point might acquire corrections; a natural extension is to test whether $B_c = \mathrm{Pe}^{-1}$ survives in deformable or defective crystals.
  • The mean-field square-root polarization and the $1/2$ correlation-length exponent suggest that flocking in this class may belong to a different universality class from the continuous but non-mean-field transitions of Vicsek-style models, a question a full renormalization-group analysis could settle.
  • The theory implies that velocity fluctuations should relax slowly near the transition; measuring the dynamic correlation time as a function of $B - B_c$ on granular particles would be a direct experimental test of the Landau-Ginzburg dynamics.
  • Because the crystal is used as a rigid background, applying the same mapping to active liquids or glasses, where positional order is weaker, may reveal whether the transition there remains second order or becomes first order.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a two-dimensional crystal of self-aligning active Brownian particles and proposes a microscopic mapping from the particle dynamics to a Landau-Ginzburg free energy for the velocity field. Under a rigid-lattice approximation (F_i=0), the authors derive an effective velocity evolution equation, Eq. (2), and from it the free-energy functional in Eq. (4), whose mass term changes sign at β_c/γ_r = 1/(v0 τ), i.e., B_c = Pe^{-1}. From this free energy they predict a mean-field polarization curve |S| ~ sqrt(B−B_c) and a correlation length λ ~ (1−BPe)^{-1/2}. Simulations of the full particle model show a smooth increase of the polarization and a growing correlation length, which the authors interpret as evidence that flocking in these crystals is a second-order phase transition. The paper claims to provide the first microscopic theory for self-alignment-induced flocking in dense active matter.

Significance. If the mapping is correct, the paper delivers a valuable and nontrivial result: a parameter-free prediction of the transition point, B_c = Pe^{-1}, that appears to match simulations, and a transparent connection between a microscopic active-particle model and a Landau-Ginzburg description. The derivation is elegant and the simulations are relevant to recent experimental and numerical observations of self-aligning granular particles and cell monolayers. The paper also makes an explicit and falsifiable prediction for the divergence of the correlation length. These strengths are substantial. However, the current manuscript does not yet provide all the evidence needed to support the strong claim that the transition is second order: the derivation is not self-contained, the correlation-length amplitude contains an unspecified stiffness K, and the numerical evidence lacks finite-size scaling and other checks that would rule out a weakly first-order transition.

major comments (5)
  1. [Derivation of Eqs. (2) and (4)] The derivation of the effective velocity equation and of the Landau-Ginzburg free energy is deferred entirely to the Supplemental Material, which is not available with the manuscript. Since every subsequent prediction follows from Eq. (4), the main text should present the key steps of the derivation (or the SM should be provided for review), so that the mapping can be checked. This is a load-bearing point, not a presentation issue.
  2. [Eq. (7) and Fig. 3(b)] The correlation-length prediction in Eq. (7) contains the lattice stiffness K, whose numerical value is not given. The comparison in Fig. 3(b) therefore cannot be assessed as a parameter-free quantitative test. The authors should either compute K from the WCA potential and the lattice geometry, or state explicitly that K is fitted to the simulation data. This matters because the divergence of the correlation length is one of the two central pieces of evidence for the second-order claim.
  3. [Fig. 2(a) and Eq. (5)] The phase boundary in Fig. 2(a) is defined by the condition ⟨S⟩>0.5, which is an arbitrary threshold. For a continuous transition, the critical point is the onset of nonzero polarization in the thermodynamic limit, not the location of the 0.5 contour. Comparing the theoretical line B_c = Pe^{-1} to this threshold contour is not a rigorous test of Eq. (5); the authors should provide a finite-size extrapolation of the critical point, for example from Binder cumulants or from the crossing of the correlation length at different system sizes.
  4. [Sec. on spatial velocity correlations and Fig. 3] The numerical evidence for a second-order transition is incomplete. No finite-size scaling analysis, no hysteresis sweep, and no error bars on the correlation length are presented. A weakly first-order transition can produce a smooth-looking order-parameter curve and a growing correlation length in a finite box. To substantiate the classification as second order, the authors should examine the system-size dependence of ⟨S⟩ and ξ and check for discontinuities in the order parameter or in the Binder parameter across the transition.
  5. [Lattice approximation in Eq. (2)] The derivation of Eq. (2) assumes that particles sit at fixed lattice positions with balanced forces, F_i = 0. This rigid-lattice approximation removes density fluctuations, phonons, and positional disorder from the theory. Near the transition, if density or positional fluctuations couple to the velocity field, the effective free energy may differ from Eq. (4) and the transition point or its order could change. The manuscript should justify the irrelevance of these couplings in the crystal phase, or at least state this as an explicit limitation of the theory.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] There is a typo in the caption: 'self-alignment strenght' should be 'self-alignment strength'.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] In the caption, 'P` eclet' should be 'Péclet' (the accent is misplaced).
  3. [Eq. (6)] The expression after the proportionality sign is written as sqrt(B−B_c/B), which is ambiguous; it should be sqrt((B−B_c)/B) to match the preceding formula.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] In the caption for Fig. 3(b), the reference to Eq. (7) appears after the description of the critical points; it would be clearer to state explicitly whether the solid curves are the prediction of Eq. (7) with a specified K or a fit to the data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the transition point and order-parameter curve are read off the derived mass coefficient in Eq. (2), not fitted.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Starting from the microscopic equations (1), the authors eliminate the orientational dynamics under the stated lattice approximation F_i=0 and obtain the effective velocity equation (2). The Landau-Ginzburg free energy (4) is then constructed so that its functional derivative reproduces Eq. (2) via Eq. (3). The critical condition (5), beta_c/gamma_r = 1/(v0 tau), is exactly the sign change of the linear velocity coefficient in Eq. (2), namely 1/tau - (beta/gamma_r) v0. This coefficient is derived, not fitted, so the prediction B_c = Pe^{-1} is not circular. Similarly, the polarization curve (6) is just the minimizer of the same free energy, and the correlation length (7) is the standard LG correlation length obtained from the gradient and mass coefficients, with K identified as a Hessian-dependent lattice stiffness. The simulation comparisons do involve fits: Fig. 3(a) fits the parameters a and xi of an exponential correlation function, and Fig. 2(d) adds an additive constant for finite-size effects in the disordered phase. However, neither fit sets the critical point: the vertical dashed lines in Fig. 3(b) are the analytically derived values B_c = Pe^{-1}, and the additive constant does not enter the square-root dependence of Eq. (6). The value of K is not quoted in the main text, which weakens the quantitative character of the correlation-length amplitude, and the lattice approximation plus the absence of finite-size scaling are legitimate correctness concerns; but these are not circularity. The manuscript's self-citations (e.g., Refs. [50,51,57]) provide context and prior numerical observations; the central LG derivation does not rest on any uncited or self-cited uniqueness theorem or fitted parameter. No step reduces by construction to its own output, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theory derives the Landau-Ginzburg free energy from the microscopic equations of motion, but it rests on a rigid-lattice approximation, a continuum limit, and the assumption that velocity statistics are Gibbsian. The main hidden input is the lattice stiffness K, which is not reported in the main text.

free parameters (4)
  • Lattice stiffness K = Not specified in the main text.
    Enters the gradient term and the correlation length (Eq. 7). The main text does not give its value or its computation; if it is fit to the simulated correlation lengths in Fig. 3(b), the correlation-length prediction is partly a fit.
  • Additive constant in polarization comparison = Not quantified.
    In Fig. 2(d), the theoretical polarization curve (Eq. 6) is plotted with an additive constant accounting for finite size effects, making the comparison a fit to the disordered-phase background.
  • S > 0.5 threshold for transition line = 0.5
    The numerical transition line in Fig. 2(a) is defined by the polarization exceeding 0.5, a hand-chosen criterion that can shift the inferred transition point.
  • Fit parameters a and xi for correlation function = Varies per simulation.
    The correlation length is extracted by fitting C(r) to f(r)=a e^{-r/xi}/sqrt{r}; these are analysis parameters fitted to the target observable.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The ABP-to-velocity stochastic mapping (time-derivative of Eq. 1a, elimination of n-dot) is exact for m/(gamma tau) -> 0 and yields a closed Langevin equation for v_i.
    This technique is established in refs. 63-66 and is invoked before Eq. (2); the derivation itself is in the Supplemental Material.
  • domain assumption Lattice approximation: particles are fixed at lattice sites with zero net force, while the harmonic curvature K generates the velocity Laplacian term.
    Stated in the text before Eq. (2); neglects density fluctuations and lattice deformations.
  • domain assumption Continuum limit: the velocity field v_i -> v(r) is smooth, justifying the gradient expansion leading to the Landau-Ginzburg functional.
    Invoked to pass from Eq. (2) to Eqs. (3)-(4).
  • domain assumption The velocity field obeys relaxational dynamics with white noise, described by the free energy F[v] (an equilibrium-like Boltzmann statistics for v).
    Used to identify the steady-state velocity statistics with the free energy; assumes detailed balance in the velocity sector.
  • domain assumption Rotational dynamics are overdamped and orientational noise is Gaussian white noise with diffusivity D_r.
    Model assumption in Eq. (1b), motivated by granular experiments.
  • domain assumption The crystal remains stable and homogeneous at packing fraction Phi=1.1 with WCA repulsion.
    The simulations are performed in a box compatible with a hexagonal crystal; if the crystal melts (as noted for Pe=1), the theory may not apply.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Flocking as a second-order phase transition in self-aligning active crystals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/26ZISC4M

@misc{pith2026250612967,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Flocking as a second-order phase transition in self-aligning active crystals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/26ZISC4M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12967}
}
read the original abstract

We study a two-dimensional crystal composed of active units governed by self-alignment. This mechanism induces a torque that aligns a particle's orientation with its velocity and leads to a phase transition from a disordered to a flocking crystal. Here, we provide the first microscopic theory that analytically maps the crystal dynamics onto a Landau-Ginzburg model, in which the velocity-dependent effective free energy undergoes a transition from a single-well shape to a Mexican-hat profile. As confirmed by simulations, our theory quantitatively predicts the transition point and characteristic spatial velocity correlations. The continuous change of the order parameter and the diverging behavior of the analytically predicted correlation length imply that flocking in self-aligning active crystals is a second-order phase transition. These findings provide a theoretical foundation for the flocking phenomenon observed experimentally in active granular particles and migrating cells.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12967 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Lattice-dependent orientational order in active crystals

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

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Marchetti, J

    M. Marchetti, J. Joanny, S. Ramaswamy, T. Liverpool, J. Prost, M. Rao, and R. A. Simha, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1143 (2013)

    2013

  2. [2]

    Elgeti, R

    J. Elgeti, R. G. Winkler, and G. Gompper, Rep. Prog. Phys.78, 56601 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    D. B. Kearns, Nat. Rev. Microbiol.8, 634 (2010)

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Alert and X

    R. Alert and X. Trepat, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.11, 77 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Bechinger, R

    C. Bechinger, R. Di Leonardo, H. L¨ owen, C. Reichhardt, G. Volpe, and G. Volpe, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 045006 (2016)

    2016

  6. [6]

    Bricard, J.-B

    A. Bricard, J.-B. Caussin, N. Desreumaux, O. Dauchot, and D. Bartolo, Nature503, 95 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    Geyer, D

    D. Geyer, D. Martin, J. Tailleur, and D. Bartolo, Phys. Rev. X9, 031043 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    A. E. Turgut, H. C ¸ elikkanat, F. G¨ ok¸ ce, and E. S ¸ahin, Swarm Intell.2, 97 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    V´ as´ arhelyi, C

    G. V´ as´ arhelyi, C. Vir´ agh, G. Somorjai, T. Nepusz, A. E. Eiben, and T. Vicsek, Sci. Robot3, eaat3536 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Agrawal and S

    M. Agrawal and S. C. Glotzer, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.117, 8700 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Deseigne, O

    J. Deseigne, O. Dauchot, and H. Chat´ e, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 098001 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    Kumar, H

    N. Kumar, H. Soni, S. Ramaswamy, and A. Sood, Nat. Commun.5, 4688 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    Vir´ agh, G

    C. Vir´ agh, G. V´ as´ arhelyi, N. Tarcai, T. Sz¨ or´ enyi, G. So- morjai, T. Nepusz, and T. Vicsek, Bioinspir. & Biomim. 9, 025012 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    L. Chen, K. J. Welch, P. Leishangthem, D. Ghosh, B. Zhang, T.-P. Sun, J. Klukas, Z. Tu, X. Cheng, and X. Xu, arXiv pre-prints (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    S. Das, M. Ciarchi, Z. Zhou, J. Yan, J. Zhang, and R. Alert, Phys. Rev. X14, 031008 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Brambilla, E

    M. Brambilla, E. Ferrante, M. Birattari, and M. Dorigo, Swarm Intell.7, 1 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Vicsek and A

    T. Vicsek and A. Zafeiris, Phys. Rep.517, 71 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    Chat´ e, F

    H. Chat´ e, F. Ginelli, G. Gr´ egoire, F. Peruani, and F. Raynaud, Eur. Phys. J. B.64, 451 (2008)

    2008

  11. [19]

    Ihle, Phys

    T. Ihle, Phys. Rev. E83, 030901 (2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    A. P. Solon and J. Tailleur, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 078101 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    Barberis and F

    L. Barberis and F. Peruani, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 248001 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Shankar, M

    S. Shankar, M. J. Bowick, and M. C. Marchetti, Phys. Rev. X7, 031039 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Levis, I

    D. Levis, I. Pagonabarraga, and B. Liebchen, Phys. Rev. Res.1, 023026 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Casiulis, M

    M. Casiulis, M. Tarzia, L. F. Cugliandolo, and O. Dau- chot, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 198001 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Chatterjee, N

    R. Chatterjee, N. Rana, R. A. Simha, P. Perlekar, and S. Ramaswamy, Phys. Rev. X11, 031063 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    D. Geiß, K. Kroy, and V. Holubec, Phys. Rev. E106, 014609 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    K. L. Kreienkamp and S. H. Klapp, New J. Phys.24, 123009 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Giraldo-Barreto and V

    J. Giraldo-Barreto and V. Holubec, arXiv preprint (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    J. J. Binney, N. J. Dowrick, A. J. Fisher, and M. E. New- man,The theory of critical phenomena: an introduction to the renormalization group(Oxford University Press, 1992)

    1992

  22. [30]

    Cavagna and I

    A. Cavagna and I. Giardina, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.5, 183 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    Cavagna, D

    A. Cavagna, D. Conti, C. Creato, L. Del Castello, I. Gia- rdina, T. S. Grigera, S. Melillo, L. Parisi, and M. Viale, Nat. Phys.13, 914 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Baconnier, O

    P. Baconnier, O. Dauchot, V. D´ emery, G. D¨ uring, S. Henkes, C. Huepe, and A. Shee, Rev. Mod. Phys. 97, 015007 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Szabo, G

    B. Szabo, G. Sz¨ oll¨ osi, B. G¨ onci, Z. Jur´ anyi, D. Selmeczi, and T. Vicsek, Phys. Rev. E74, 061908 (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    Malinverno, S

    C. Malinverno, S. Corallino, F. Giavazzi, M. Bergert, Q. Li, M. Leoni, A. Disanza, E. Frittoli, A. Oldani, E. Martini,et al., Nat. Mater.16, 587 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    D. L. Barton, S. Henkes, C. J. Weijer, and R. Sknepnek, PLoS Comput. Biol.13, e1005569 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Giavazzi, M

    F. Giavazzi, M. Paoluzzi, M. Macchi, D. Bi, G. Scita, M. L. Manning, R. Cerbino, and M. C. Marchetti, Soft Matter14, 3471 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Y. Shen, J. O’Byrne, A. Schoenit, A. Maitra, R.-M. M` ege, R. Voituriez, and B. Ladoux, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.122, e2421327122 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Giomi, N

    L. Giomi, N. Hawley-Weld, and L. Mahadevan, Proc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.469, 20120637 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Deblais, T

    A. Deblais, T. Barois, T. Guerin, P.-H. Delville, R. Vau- daine, J. S. Lintuvuori, J.-F. Boudet, J.-C. Baret, and H. Kellay, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 188002 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Dauchot and V

    O. Dauchot and V. D´ emery, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 068002 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Leoni, M

    M. Leoni, M. Paoluzzi, S. Eldeen, A. Estrada, L. Nguyen, M. Alexandrescu, K. Sherb, and W. W. Ahmed, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043299 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Tapia-Ignacio, L

    C. Tapia-Ignacio, L. L. Gutierrez-Martinez, and M. San- doval, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp.2021, 053404 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Siebers, A

    F. Siebers, A. Jayaram, P. Bl¨ umler, and T. Speck, Sci. Adv.9, eadf5443 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Altshuler, O

    A. Altshuler, O. L. Bonomo, N. Gorohovsky, S. Marchini, E. Rosen, O. Tal-Friedman, S. Reuveni, and Y. Roich- man, Phys. Rev. Research6, 023255 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    I. S. Aranson, D. Volfson, and L. S. Tsimring, Phys. Rev. E75, 051301 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    Kudrolli, G

    A. Kudrolli, G. Lumay, D. Volfson, and L. S. Tsimring, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 058001 (2008)

    2008

  39. [47]

    Koumakis, A

    N. Koumakis, A. Gnoli, C. Maggi, A. Puglisi, and R. Di Leonardo, New J. Phys.18, 113046 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Scholz, M

    C. Scholz, M. Engel, and T. P¨ oschel, Nat. Commun.9, 931 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    M. A. L´ opez-Casta˜ no, A. M. Seco, A. M. Seco, ´A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Rivas, and F. V. Reyes, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033230 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    A. P. Antonov, L. Caprini, A. Ldov, C. Scholz, and H. L¨ owen, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 198301 (2024). 6

    2024

  43. [51]

    A. P. Antonov, M. Musacchio, H. L¨ owen, and L. Caprini, arXiv preprint (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2503.02996

    2025 doi arXiv

  44. [52]

    K.-D. N. T. Lam, M. Schindler, and O. Dauchot, New J. Phys.17, 113056 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    Casiulis, E

    M. Casiulis, E. Arbel, Y. Lahini, S. Martiniani, N. Op- penheimer, and M. Y. B. Zion, arXiv preprint (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Shimoyama, K

    N. Shimoyama, K. Sugawara, T. Mizuguchi, Y. Hayakawa, and M. Sano, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 3870 (1996)

    1996

  47. [55]

    Henkes, Y

    S. Henkes, Y. Fily, and M. C. Marchetti, Phy. Rev. E 84, 040301 (2011)

    2011

  48. [56]

    Canavello, R

    D. Canavello, R. H. Damascena, L. R. Cabral, and C. C. de Souza Silva, Soft Matter20, 2310 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Musacchio, A

    M. Musacchio, A. P. Antonov, H. L¨ owen, and L. Caprini, arXiv preprint (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2504.04644

    2025 doi arXiv

  50. [58]

    Paoluzzi, D

    M. Paoluzzi, D. Levis, and I. Pagonabarraga, Commun. Phys.7, 57 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Ferrante, A

    E. Ferrante, A. E. Turgut, M. Dorigo, and C. Huepe, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 268302 (2013)

    2013

  52. [60]

    Ferrante, A

    E. Ferrante, A. E. Turgut, M. Dorigo, and C. Huepe, New J. Phys.15, 095011 (2013)

    2013

  53. [61]

    Baconnier, D

    P. Baconnier, D. Shohat, C. H. L´ opez, C. Coulais, V. D´ emery, G. D¨ uring, and O. Dauchot, Nat. Phys.18, 1234 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    Kinoshita, N

    Y. Kinoshita, N. Uchida, and A. M. Menzel, J. Chem. Phys.162(2025), 10.1063/5.0244615

    2025 doi

  55. [63]

    U. M. B. Marconi and C. Maggi, Soft Matter11, 8768 (2015)

    2015

  56. [64]

    Fodor, C

    ´E. Fodor, C. Nardini, M. E. Cates, J. Tailleur, P. Visco, and F. van Wijland, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 038103 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    Maggi, U

    C. Maggi, U. M. B. Marconi, N. Gnan, and R. Di Leonardo, Sci. Rep.5, 10742 (2015)

    2015

  58. [66]

    S. Das, G. Gompper, and R. G. Winkler, New J. Phys. 20, 015001 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    U. M. B. Marconi, N. Gnan, M. Paoluzzi, C. Maggi, and R. Di Leonardo, Sci. Rep.6, 23297 (2016)

    2016

  60. [68]

    Caprini, U

    L. Caprini, U. Marini Bettolo Marconi, and A. Puglisi, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 078001 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    Cavagna, I

    A. Cavagna, I. Giardina, and T. S. Grigera, Phys. Rep. 728, 1 (2018)

    2018

  62. [70]

    Baglietto and E

    G. Baglietto and E. V. Albano, Phys. Rev. E80, 050103 (2009)

    2009

  63. [71]

    Aldana, V

    M. Aldana, V. Dossetti, C. Huepe, V. Kenkre, and H. Larralde, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 095702 (2007)

    2007

  64. [72]

    Chat´ e, F

    H. Chat´ e, F. Ginelli, and G. Gr´ egoire, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 229601 (2007)

    2007

  65. [73]

    Bialk´ e, T

    J. Bialk´ e, T. Speck, and H. L¨ owen, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 168301 (2012)

    2012

  66. [74]

    Digregorio, D

    P. Digregorio, D. Levis, A. Suma, L. F. Cugliandolo, G. Gonnella, and I. Pagonabarraga, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 098003 (2018)

    2018

  67. [75]

    Henkes, K

    S. Henkes, K. Kostanjevec, J. M. Collinson, R. Sknepnek, and E. Bertin, Nat. Commun.11, 1405 (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    Caprini, U

    L. Caprini, U. Marini Bettolo Marconi, A. Puglisi, and H. L¨ owen, J. Chem. Phys.159, 041102 (2023)

    2023

  69. [77]

    Y.-E. Keta, J. U. Klamser, R. L. Jack, and L. Berthier, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 218301 (2024)

    2024

  70. [78]

    Caprini and H

    L. Caprini and H. L¨ owen, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 148202 (2023)

    2023

  71. [79]

    Toner, Y

    J. Toner, Y. Tu, and S. Ramaswamy, Ann. Phys.318, 170 (2005)

    2005

Pith tools

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