Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 42 references

Slit-snapping and multistability in buckled beams with partial cuts

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding a partial cut to a flexible beam turns ordinary buckling into a two-stage instability: the beam buckles, then snaps open, and can hold three stable shapes in the same compressed state.

desk verdict Genuinely new instability mechanics in buckled beams with partial cuts, well supported by experiments and FEM, but the elastic nature of the hysteresis needs clearer evidence before the boldest design claims are taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.07696 v1 pith:D2Y2QLYU submitted 2025-09-09 cond-mat.soft

Bernat Durà Faulí , Lennard Kwakernaak , Martin van Hecke This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.soft
keywords elasticinstabilitybucklingsnappingslitbeamsmultistabilityhysteresismechanicalmetamaterialstrussmodel
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 claims that a simple geometric modification—cutting a slit partway across a flexible beam—can turn the beam's familiar buckling into a programmable sequence of instabilities. Under compression the beam first buckles like an ordinary beam, then at a higher strain snaps open at the slit, and the open shape remains stable as the load is reduced, so a single beam holds three distinct stable configurations. The authors show that the slit's depth and position tune the snapping thresholds independently, and that beams with several slits can produce sequential snapping, four stable states, states that persist even at zero compression, and a transition that flips the beam from one buckled side to the other. The insight matters because it offers a general, easy-to-implement design rule for increasing the number of stable states and the complexity of snapping in mechanical metamaterials, with consequences for mechanical memory and computing.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is a modified version of a minimal truss model for buckling: two linear springs joined by a torsional hinge, with the central hinge replaced by a triplet of hinges connected by rigid bars. This adds a second degree of freedom—the slit opening angle—alongside the midpoint deflection. The model treats two configurations: the closed solution, valid only while torques on the slit are compressive, and the free solution, valid only for nonnegative opening angles so the slit does not self-overlap. The opening transition occurs where the closed and free solutions meet and the closed branch loses admissibility; the closing transition occurs at a saddle-node on the free branch. This

What would settle it

Fabricate the same slit-beam geometry in a material with negligible viscoelasticity—for example a spring-steel or polycarbonate beam—and sweep compression quasistatically, with slit faces lubricated. If the beam does not show a distinct snap-open at the opening strain and a lower snap-close at the closing strain, or if the hysteresis loop shrinks with loading rate or vanishes when slit friction is removed, the reported multistability is not intrinsic elastic multistability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a transverse slit cut partway into a flexible beam makes the beam undergo a new instability—slit-snapping—on top of ordinary buckling. For a beam with thickness-to-length ratio 0.125 and slit depth 0.6 of the width, compression first triggers buckling at strain about 0.046; further compression makes a right-buckled beam snap open at about 0.057, and the open configuration persists until strain drops to about 0.05, leaving a tristable window between. The authors show that the opening strain is set by the beam's aspect ratio and is independent of slit depth once the slit is long enough, while the closing strain—and hence the hysteresis width—is controlled by s

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that slit-snapping multistability is intrinsic elastic multistability. The paper's own experiments show creep-induced hysteresis in the rubber and limited reproducibility on reclamping, so the finite-element simulations carry the claim; if friction or slow time-dependent deformation, not geometry, produced the hysteresis, the design rules would fail in other materials.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single slit converts a bistable buckled beam into a tristable element, increasing the number of stable states per element without adding parts.
  • Slit depth controls the closing strain and hysteresis width, while beam aspect ratio sets the overall strain scale—two independent design knobs for snapping behavior.
  • With two slits, curvature-mediated interactions can be cooperative or antagonistic, enabling single-beam sequential snapping and quadstability.
  • Multi-slit designs reach stable states at zero compression and a compression-driven jump between left- and right-buckled branches, expanding the transitions a mechanical element can perform under one driving protocol.
  • Because slit-snapping moves material perpendicular to the compression axis, slit beams offer a way to route deformation or signals in directions not aligned with the applied load.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit: the same coupling between global curvature and local contact nonlinearity should work in plates, shells, or creased sheets, making the slit a generic design element rather than a beam-specific trick.
  • If zero-strain tristability survives in low-creep materials, mechanical memory bits could hold states without sustained load or power, lowering the energy cost of passive information storage.
  • The cooperative and antagonistic slit interactions look like geometrically tunable hysteron couplings; slit position could serve as a continuous dial for the interaction sign in networks designed for sequential logic.
  • Testable extrapolation: coupling two slit-beams side by side, the transverse motion released by one slit-snap might trigger a neighbor's snap, enabling signal propagation perpendicular to the compression direction.
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. The paper reports experiments, finite-element simulations, and a minimal truss model for elastomeric beams containing one or more partial transverse cuts ('slits'). For a single slit, the beam first buckles in the usual way and then, on one buckled branch, undergoes a second snapping instability that opens the slit; the open branch persists below the opening strain, yielding a tristable window. The truss model combines closed and open configurations with unilateral slit constraints and reproduces the qualitative bifurcation structure, including the prediction that the opening strain is independent of slit depth while the closing strain depends on it. The authors extend the design to two slits, classify interaction regimes numerically, and experimentally demonstrate four dual-slit scenarios (giant hysteresis, cooperative snapping, quadstability, sequential snapping) as well as six-slit tristability at zero compression and a three-slit beam that snaps from one buckled branch to the other. The central claim is that partial cuts are a simple and general strategy to program post-buckling multistability and snapping transitions.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a valuable and elegant design principle: a single geometric modification (a slit) enlarges the instability repertoire of a slender beam without changing material or overall dimensions. The combination of experiments, FEM, and a simple explanatory model is a strength, and the opening-strain independence in the truss model is a genuine, non-circular prediction. The multi-slit demonstrations, especially tristability at zero strain and branch-switching under compression, are striking and likely to stimulate follow-up work. However, the experimental validation is weakened by the manuscript's own admission that the rubber's creep contributes to the measured hysteresis and by the absence of a quantitative FEM-versus-experiment comparison of the critical strains. The model's closing-strain dependence on slit size is partly calibrated rather than predicted. These issues are fixable and do not call the existence of the phenomena into question, but they do affect the strength of the 'general strategy' and 'programmable behavior' claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Materials and Methods – Numerical simulations; Fig. 2A] The paper states that FEM is needed to tackle 'material induced hysteresis steaming from material creep (Fig. 2A)' and 'limited reproducibility when reclamping'. Yet the central experimental bifurcation diagram in Fig. 2A is measured on Mold Star 30, whose hysteresis loop is explicitly acknowledged to contain creep, and no quantitative comparison of the critical strains ε_o and ε_c between FEM and experiment is given for Fig. 2A or for the multi-slit demonstrations in Figs. 5 and 6. Because the central claim is intrinsic, transferable multistability, the manuscript should provide at least one of: rate-controlled experiments, a low-creep material, or a quantitative FEM-experiment overlay of the critical strains and loop widths. Without this, the relative contributions of geometric/contact nonlinearity and viscoelastic or frictional effects to the reported hysteresis remain unquantified.
  2. [Mechanism of slit-snapping (truss model), Fig. 3] The model's prediction that the opening strain is independent of κ_θ (and hence of s) is non-circular and is a genuine strength. However, the statement that the model 'faithfully captures' the dependence of the closing strain on s is circular as presented: κ_θ is a free parameter, and the text says the κ_θ–s relation is established by matching the observed decrease of ε_c with s. The paper should clearly label ε_c(s) as a calibrated output, and ideally test the model by obtaining κ_θ(s) from an independent measurement or from FEM.
  3. [Beams with dual slits; Figs. 4–6] The classification of dual-slit interaction regimes and the rational design of the many-slit beams rely entirely on FEM, but for the four realized scenarios in Fig. 5 and the two extreme beams in Fig. 6 only qualitative x_m(ε) curves and snapshots are shown. No quantitative comparison of predicted versus measured ε_o and ε_c, no error bars, and no repeated-sample statistics are reported. Given the paper's design-space and programmability claims, a table or overlay with FEM and experimental critical strains for the representative designs is needed to substantiate those claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 5B and main text, item (ii)] The paragraph describing the S2ll sample concludes 'Hence, scenario (iv) highlights...' but the sample is scenario (ii). Please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [Introduction and Results] Several typos: 'combing' should be 'combining'; 'the demonstrates' should be 'the diagram demonstrates'; 'steaming' should be 'stemming'; 'scenario's' should be 'scenarios'; 'Youngs Modulus of Young’s Modulus' is duplicated in Materials and Methods.
  3. [Beams with dual slits] The sentence 'the closing strain can not be lowered below approximately 0.5ε_b' appears inconsistent with the earlier statement that the hysteresis width approaches ε_c ≈ 0.5ε_o as s → 1. Since ε_o > ε_b for these beams, these are different bounds; please clarify which scale is meant.
  4. [Fig. 6A] The claim of 'tristability at zero compression' should be supported explicitly in the plot: mark the three zero-strain stable branches and report the measured ε_c values (with uncertainty) for the two branches.
  5. [Mechanism of slit-snapping (truss model)] The condition ∂E/∂θ ≤ 0 is called a 'non-holonomic constraint'; this is nonstandard terminology. These are inequality (unilateral) constraints on a generalized coordinate; please use standard terminology or justify the term.
  6. [References] References [14] and [28] are the same paper (Rafsanjani, Akbarzadeh, Pasini, Adv. Mater. 27, 5931, 2015) and should be consolidated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central experimental and FEM results are self-contained; the truss model's parameter mapping is explicit and not presented as an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—slit-beam buckling followed by hysteretic slit-snapping, tristability, and the multi-slit behaviors—are established by direct experiments and by FEM simulations with a standard Neo-Hookean material model. The FEM is not fitted to the critical strains; it is used explicitly to address experimental limitations (creep and reclamping reproducibility), as stated in the 'Numerical simulations' section. The truss model contains one parameter, kappa_theta, that is mapped to slit size s by matching the observed closing strains. The paper is explicit about this: 'allowing to establish a relation between k_theta and s that captures the three scenarios shown in Fig. 2'. This is a calibration, not a hidden prediction. The model's statement that the opening strain is independent of kappa_theta, and hence of s, is a genuine structural prediction that is not obtained by fitting and is checked against data. Self-citations, such as [21] for the t^2 scaling of torsional stiffness, are standard beam-buckling scaling and are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The acknowledged viscoelastic creep in experiments is a validity limitation, not a circularity: it is disclosed and addressed by independent FEM simulations. No derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs, and no prediction is merely a renamed fit.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental result rests on standard rubber mechanics and careful fabrication. The theoretical explanation adds a truss model with two fitted stiffness parameters and a custom unilateral-contact constraint, which are the main additional assumptions the reader pays for.

free parameters (2)
  • kappa_alpha (torsional stiffness of R1/R2 hinges in truss model) = 0.048 (model units); scaled to t^2
    Set by requiring the model to reproduce the buckling onset of the closed beam, i.e., matched to experiments.
  • kappa_theta (torsional stiffness of center hinge H) = 3*kappa_alpha in Fig. 3; later mapped to slit size s
    The relation between kappa_theta and s is established by matching the model's closing strains to numerical/experimental closing strains, so it is fit to the data it explains.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The beam is slender and elastic, and can be represented by a Bellini truss with linear springs and torsional hinges.
    The entire 'Mechanism of slit-snapping' section is built on this minimal model; it is a known modeling choice, not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper The slit acts as a unilateral constraint: closed solutions are admissible only when dE/dtheta <= 0, and open solutions only when theta >= 0.
    This contact nonlinearity is introduced to combine the closed and free configurations; it is not derived from first principles and neglects friction and finite contact area.
  • domain assumption The FEM material is Neo-Hookean with nu=0.49 and plane stress, and quasistatic loading is achieved by damping in Dynamic/Explicit.
    Stated in Numerical simulations; standard for rubber but an unverified approximation of the actual Mold Star 30 behavior.
  • domain assumption Clamped-clamped boundary conditions are ideal and the experimental clamps realize them.
    The whole bifurcation structure depends on the boundary conditions; the paper describes clamping but does not quantify clamp stiffness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Slit-snapping and multistability in buckled beams with partial cuts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D2Y2QLYU

@misc{pith2026250907696,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Slit-snapping and multistability in buckled beams with partial cuts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D2Y2QLYU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07696}
}
read the original abstract

Elastic instabilities such as buckling and snapping have evolved into a powerful design principle, enabling memory, sequential shape morphing, and computing in metamaterials and devices. Modifying the post-buckling configurations or their snapping transitions would greatly expand design possibilities, yet general principles for controlling elastic instabilities are lacking. Here, we show that adding a partial cut, or slit, to a flexible beam enables precise control of post-buckling behavior: under compression, slit-beams first buckle, then snap, leading to trista-bility within the hysteretic regime. A truss model explains these phenomena by uncovering the interplay of geometric and slit induced nonlinearities. Leveraging these insights, we realize multi-slit beams with programmable behavior, unlocking a vast design space featuring giant hysteresis, quadstability, multi-step snapping, tristability at zero compression, and compression-induced snapping between left and right-buckled states. Our strategy is general, simple to design and implement, and enables mechanical metamaterials and devices with advanced memory and sequential behavior.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bertoldi, V

    K. Bertoldi, V. Vitelli, J. Christensen, M. van Hecke, Flexible mechanical metamaterials.Na- ture Reviews Materials2(11), 17066 (2017), doi: 10.1038/natrevmats.2017.66,https://doi.org/10. 1038/natrevmats.2017.66

    doi:10.1038/natrevmats.2017.66 2017

  2. [2]

    Bertoldi, P

    K. Bertoldi, P. M. Reis, S. Willshaw, T. Mullin, Negative Poisson’s Ratio Behavior Induced by an Elastic Instability.Advanced Materials22(3), 361–366 (2010), doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.200901956, https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ abs/10.1002/adma.200901956

    work page doi:10.1002/adma.200901956 2010

  3. [3]

    Coulais, J

    C. Coulais, J. T. B. Overvelde, L. A. Lubbers, K. Bertoldi, M. van Hecke, Discontinuous Buckling of Wide Beams and Metabeams.Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 044301 (2015), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.044301, https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 115.044301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.044301 2015

  4. [4]

    R. Sachse,et al., Snapping Mechanics of the Venus Fly- trap (Dionaea Muscipula).Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117(27), 16035–16042 (2020), doi:10.1073/pnas.2002707117,https://pnas.org/doi/ full/10.1073/pnas.2002707117

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2002707117 2020

  5. [5]

    D. P. Holmes, A. J. Crosby, Snapping Surfaces. Advanced Materials19(21), 3589–3593 (2007), doi: 10.1002/adma.200700584,https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adma.200700584

    work page doi:10.1002/adma.200700584 2007

  6. [6]

    H. C. Bennet-Clark, The Energetics of the Jump of the LocustSchistocerca Gregaria.Jour- nal of Experimental Biology63(1), 53–83 (1975), doi:10.1242/jeb.63.1.53,https://journals. biologists.com/jeb/article/63/1/53/22130/ The-energetics-of-the-jump-of-the-locust

    work page doi:10.1242/jeb.63.1.53 1975

  7. [7]

    E. Queathem, The Ontogeny of Grasshopper Jumping Performance.Journal of Insect Physiology37(2), 129–138 (1991), doi:10.1016/0022-1910(91)90098-K, https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ 002219109190098K

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-1910(91)90098-k 1991

  8. [8]

    Jin,et al., Ultrafast, Programmable, and Electronics- Free Soft Robots Enabled by Snapping Metacaps

    L. Jin,et al., Ultrafast, Programmable, and Electronics- Free Soft Robots Enabled by Snapping Metacaps. Advanced Intelligent Systems5(6), 2300039 (2023), doi:10.1002/aisy.202300039,https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aisy.202300039

    work page doi:10.1002/aisy.202300039 2023

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    J. T. B. Overvelde, T. Kloek, J. J. A. D’haen, K. Bertoldi, Amplifying the Response of Soft Actuators by Harnessing Snap-through Instabilities.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112(35), 10863– 10868 (2015), doi:10.1073/pnas.1504947112,https:// pnas.org/doi/full/10...

    2015 doi

  2. [10]

    Yang,et al., Phase-Transforming and Switchable Metamaterials.Extreme Mechanics Letters6, 1–9 (2016), doi:10.1016/j.eml.2015.11.004,https://linkinghub

    D. Yang,et al., Phase-Transforming and Switchable Metamaterials.Extreme Mechanics Letters6, 1–9 (2016), doi:10.1016/j.eml.2015.11.004,https://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352431615300092

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    H. Yang, L. Ma, Multi-Stable Mechanical Meta- materials by Elastic Buckling Instability.Journal of Materials Science54(4), 3509–3526 (2019), doi:10.1007/s10853-018-3065-y,http://link.springer. com/10.1007/s10853-018-3065-y

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    J. Ding, M. Van Hecke, Sequential Snapping and Pathways in a Mechanical Metamaterial.The Journal of Chemical Physics156(20), 204902 (2022), doi:10.1063/5.0087863,https://pubs. aip.org/jcp/article/156/20/204902/2841495/ Sequential-snapping-and-pathways-in-a-mechanical

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Rafsanjani, K

    A. Rafsanjani, K. Bertoldi, Buckling-Induced Kirigami. Physical Review Letters118(8), 084301 (2017), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.084301,https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.084301

    2017 doi

  6. [15]

    S. Shan,et al., Multistable Architected Materials for Trapping Elastic Strain Energy.Advanced Materials 27(29), 4296–4301 (2015), doi:10.1002/adma.201501708, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ adma.201501708

    2015 doi

  7. [16]

    T. Chen, M. Pauly, P. M. Reis, A repro- grammable mechanical metamaterial with stable memory.Nature589(7842), 386–390 (2021), doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-03123-5,https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41586-020-03123-5

    2021 doi

  8. [17]

    Melancon, A

    D. Melancon, A. E. Forte, L. M. Kamp, B. Goris- sen, K. Bertoldi, Inflatable Origami: Mul- timodal Deformation via Multistability.Ad- vanced Functional Materials32(35), 2201891 (2022), doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202201891, https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ ab...

    2022 doi

  9. [18]

    A. S. Meeussen, M. van Hecke, Multistable sheets with rewritable patterns for switchable shape-morphing.Nature621(7979), 516–520 (2023), doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06353-5,https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06353-5

    2023 doi

  10. [19]

    L. J. Kwakernaak, M. van Hecke, Counting and Se- quential Information Processing in Mechanical Meta- materials.Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 268204 (2023), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.268204,https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.268204

    2023 doi

  11. [20]

    J. Liu,et al., Controlled pathways and sequential information processing in serially coupled mechani- cal hysterons.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121(22), e2308414121 (2024), doi: 10.1073/pnas.2308414121,https://www.pnas.org/doi/ abs/10.1073/pnas.2308414121

    2024 doi

  12. [21]

    L. J. Kwakernaak, A. Guerra, D. P. Holmes, M. van Hecke, The collective snapping of a pair of bumping buckled beams.Extreme Mechanics Letters69, 102160 (2024), doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eml.2024.102160, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S2352431624000403

    2024

  13. [22]

    Guerra, A

    A. Guerra, A. C. Slim, D. P. Holmes, O. Ko- dio, Self-Ordering of Buckling, Bending, and Bump- ing Beams.Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 148201 (2023), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.148201,https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.148201

    2023 doi

  14. [23]

    L. M. Kamp,et al., Reprogrammable sequencing for physically intelligent under-actuated robots (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.03737

    2024 arXiv

  15. [24]

    C. M. Meulblok, A. Singh, M. Labousse, M. van Hecke, Path-dependency and emergent computing under vectorial driving (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/2503. 07764

    2025

  16. [25]

    Yasuda,et al., Mechanical computing.Nature 598(7879), 39–48 (2021), doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03623- 11 y,https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03623-y

    H. Yasuda,et al., Mechanical computing.Nature 598(7879), 39–48 (2021), doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03623- 11 y,https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03623-y

    2021 doi

  17. [26]

    P. X. Bellini, The Concept of Snap-Buckling Illustrated by a Simple Model.International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics7(6), 643–650 (1972), doi:10.1016/0020- 7462(72)90004-2,https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/0020746272900042

    1972

  18. [27]

    C. M. Meulblok, H. Bense, M. Caelen, M. van Hecke, Ac- celerated snapping of slender beams under lateral forcing (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10091

    2025 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Rafsanjani, A

    A. Rafsanjani, A. Akbarzadeh, D. Pasini, Snap- ping Mechanical Metamaterials under Tension. Advanced Materials27(39), 5931–5935 (2015), doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201502809, https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ abs/10.1002/adma.201502809

    2015 doi

  20. [29]

    C. M. Meulblok, M. van Hecke, Transients and multi- periodic responses: a hierarchy of material bits (2025), https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.09517

    2025 arXiv

  21. [30]

    J. R. Raney,et al., Stable propagation of mechanical signals in soft media using stored elastic energy.Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113(35), 9722–9727 (2016), doi:10.1073/pnas.1604838113,https: //www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1604838113

    2016 doi

  22. [31]

    C. W. Lindeman, T. R. Jalowiec, N. C. Keim, Gener- alizing multiple memories from a single drive: The hys- teron latch.Science Advances11(5), eadr5933 (2025), doi:10.1126/sciadv.adr5933,https://www.science.org/ doi/abs/10.1126/sciadv.adr5933

    2025 doi

  23. [32]

    C. W. Lindeman, S. R. Nagel, Multiple memory for- mation in glassy landscapes.Science Advances7(33), eabg7133 (2021), doi:10.1126/sciadv.abg7133,https:// www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/sciadv.abg7133

    2021 doi

  24. [33]

    N. C. Keim, J. Hass, B. Kroger, D. Wieker, Global memory from local hysteresis in an amor- phous solid.Phys. Rev. Res.2, 012004 (2020), doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.012004,https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.012004

    2020 doi

  25. [34]

    Bense, M

    H. Bense, M. van Hecke, Complex pathways and mem- ory in compressed corrugated sheets.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118(50), e2111436118 (2021), doi:10.1073/pnas.2111436118,https://www. pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2111436118

    2021 doi

  26. [35]

    Shohat, D

    D. Shohat, D. Hexner, Y. Lahini, Memory from coupled instabilities in unfolded crumpled sheets.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119(28), e2200028119 (2022), doi:10.1073/pnas.2200028119,https://www. pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2200028119

    2022 doi

  27. [36]

    J. D. Paulsen, Mechanical hysterons with tunable inter- actions of general sign (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2409.07726

    2025 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Shohat, M

    D. Shohat, M. van Hecke, Geometric Control and Memory in Networks of Hysteretic Ele- ments.Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 188201 (2025), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.188201,https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.188201

    2025 doi

  29. [38]

    J. D. Paulsen, N. C. Keim, Mechanical Memories in Solids, from Disorder to Design.Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics16(Volume 16, 2025), 61–81 (2025), doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- conmatphys-032822-035544,https://www. annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/ ...

    2025 doi

  30. [39]

    van Hecke, Profusion of transition pathways for inter- acting hysterons.Phys

    M. van Hecke, Profusion of transition pathways for inter- acting hysterons.Phys. Rev. E104, 054608 (2021), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.104.054608,https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.104.054608

    2021 doi

  31. [40]

    M. H. Teunisse, M. van Hecke, Transition Graphs of Interacting Hysterons: Structure, Design, Organization and Statistics (2024),https://arxiv.org/abs/2404. 11344

    2024

  32. [41]

    Comoretto, T

    A. Comoretto, T. Mandke, J. T. B. Overvelde, Embody- ing mechano-fluidic memory in soft machines to program behaviors upon interactions (2025),https://arxiv.org/ abs/2502.19192

    2025 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Zehnder, E

    J. Zehnder, E. Knoop, M. B¨ acher, B. Thomaszewski, Metasilicone: Design and Fabrication of Com- posite Silicone with Desired Mechanical Proper- ties.ACM Transactions on Graphics36(6), 1– 13 (2017), doi:10.1145/3130800.3130881,https: //dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3130800.3130881

    2017

  34. [43]

    Bradski, The OpenCV Library.Dr

    G. Bradski, The OpenCV Library.Dr. Dobb’s Journal of Software Tools(2000)

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.