Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 100 references

Under random active forcing, even ultrastable dense materials yield ductilely, and the correlation length of the forcing field controls the ductile-to-brittle transition.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 18:48 UTC pith:CVXKKQSJ

load-bearing objection A clean numerical result — ultrastable packings become ductile under uncorrelated random driving — is undercut only by an overbroad abstract and an untested leap from the AQRD limit to finite-persistence active matter. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2512.03252 v2 pith:CVXKKQSJ submitted 2025-12-02 cond-mat.soft

Yielding in dense active matter

Adil Ghaznavi , Saverio Rossi , Francesco Zamponi , M. Lisa Manning This is my paper
classification cond-mat.soft
keywords dense active matteryielding transitionductile-to-brittle transitionathermal quasistatic random displacement (AQRD)elastoplastic modelEshelby stress propagatorinput field correlation lengthplasticity prediction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper argues that how dense active matter yields—whether it breaks brittlely or flows ductilely—is set not just by how carefully the material was prepared, but by the spatial correlation length of the random internal driving field. Using athermal quasi-static random displacements in particle simulations, it shows that ultrastable packings, which fail catastrophically under shear, flow ductilely when pushed by uncorrelated random forces. A modified elastoplastic model with randomly oriented, correlated Eshelby stress kernels reproduces the observed crossover, with the input-field correlation length as the governing parameter. In broad parameter windows the plastic flow pattern is predicted directly from the input field, at about 80% accuracy, pointing toward a way to control flow in dense active materials by design.

Core claim

Under random active forcing, ultrastable amorphous materials are always ductile: their stress-strain curves show no system-spanning avalanches, unlike the same packings under shear. The ductile-to-brittle crossover is instead controlled by the correlation length of the input displacement field relative to the system size; large stress drops emerge gradually once that ratio exceeds a few percent, without a sharp phase transition. The paper verifies that local plastic rearrangements are oriented randomly at small correlation lengths and become correlated over precisely that length at larger correlation lengths, confirming the modified elastoplastic model's central assumption. It also shows tha

What carries the argument

The driving protocol is athermal quasi-static random displacement: each particle is displaced along a Gaussian-correlated random vector field with correlation length, then relaxed without backtracking along that vector. The model that explains the simulation results is a modified elastoplastic model in which each site's stress redistribution is carried by the two-dimensional Eshelby stress propagator, proportional to cos(4θ)/r², rotated by an angle drawn from a uniform distribution that is itself spatially correlated over length. This single modification—randomizing and correlating the orientation of plastic events—converts brittle elastoplastic behavior into ductile behavior and reproduces

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the athermal, quasi-static, infinite-persistence limit is representative of dense active matter, so that finite persistence times and finite driving rates only perturb the ductile-brittle crossover—an assumption the paper states is untested.

What would settle it

A simulation or experiment on an ultrastable dense active packing with short persistence time and particle-scale uncorrelated self-propulsion: if it shows a large, system-spanning stress drop and localized shear band, the claim that ultrastable materials are always ductile under random active forcing is wrong. A sharper check is to measure whether the ductile-brittle onset in the maximum stress drop stays at the same correlation-length ratio as the persistence time is reduced.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • An ultrastable material that would be brittle under shear becomes ductile under uncorrelated random forcing; stability and brittleness are decoupled.
  • The correlation length of the input driving field replaces material disorder as the tuning parameter for the ductile-to-brittle crossover, with a gradual onset of large avalanches at roughly 7–11% of the system size.
  • A simple modification of elastoplastic models—randomly rotating the Eshelby stress propagator with orientation correlations of the input length—reproduces the observed stress-strain curves, stress-drop statistics, and shear-blob organization.
  • In low- and high-correlation regimes, the input strain field alone predicts the locations of plastic rearrangements with about 80% accuracy, so active driving patterns can be used to control flow.
  • The intermediate regime, where plasticity self-organizes into system-spanning avalanches not predicted by the input field, identifies where more detailed constitutive models are needed.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If this correlation-length control transfers to finite persistence times, a practical design rule emerges for active or robotic collectives: tune the spatial correlation of agents' self-propulsion directions to program where and how the material fails, without changing its preparation.
  • The same elastoplastic logic could apply to other structured driving fields, such as spatially patterned shear or localized forcing, suggesting a unifying 'input correlation length' description of yielding under non-uniform deformation.
  • A testable consequence is that varying the structural correlation length of the material (via different preparation protocols) should shift the location and width of the intermediate non-predictable window.
  • The 80% predictability in the outer regimes implies that expensive structural soft-spot analysis is unnecessary there; the input field itself acts as the soft-spot map.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies yielding in dense active matter using athermal quasi-static random displacement (AQRD) simulations of breathing-particle packings and a modified elastoplastic model (EPM). It reports that, unlike AQS shear, AQRD with short-range-correlated random displacement fields renders even ultrastable packings ductile, with no system-spanning stress drops; as the input-field correlation length ξ/L increases, large stress drops reappear, with a gradual onset around ξ/L≈0.07. A modified EPM with randomly oriented Eshelby kernels, whose orientations are correlated over ξ, reproduces this behavior qualitatively. The paper further shows that the yielding-angle correlation length in simulations matches the input-field correlation length, and that regions of high input shear strain predict output plasticity well at low and high ξ/L but poorly at intermediate ξ/L.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a valuable contribution: it challenges the universality of the shear-driven ductile-to-brittle transition picture and shows that the spatial structure of the active driving field, not just material preparation, controls yielding. The paper also provides a falsifiable and partially parameter-free mechanism—the input-field correlation length sets the orientation correlation of Eshelby kernels—and demonstrates a predictor (input local shear strain) for plastic activity. The EPM modification is simple and testable, and the quantitative collapse of pre-yielding stress-strain curves via the empirical κ rescaling is a useful technical step. However, the scope is explicitly limited to the AQRD (quenched, zero-temperature, quasistatic) limit; the paper's title-level claim about dense active matter generally is not yet established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusions (also Fig. 1D/E)] The abstract claims that 'under random active forcing, however, ultrastable materials are always ductile.' This is contradicted by the paper's own data: Fig. 1E and Figs. 3 and 7 show that large stress drops reappear once ξ/L exceeds roughly 0.07, and Fig. 1D shows increasing departures from the small-avalanche baseline as ξ/L increases. The claim is only valid for sufficiently small ξ/L. The wording 'always ductile' should be qualified throughout, including the title-adjacent language, to refer to the uncorrelated or short-correlation limit.
  2. [Conclusions, last paragraph] The central result is established only in the AQRD limit: zero temperature, infinitely slow driving, and infinite persistence time (quenched field with a non-reversal constraint, Methods and Appendix A). The paper explicitly acknowledges that finite persistence times, finite driving rates, and finite temperatures are left for future work. Since the ductility mechanism may rely on the quenched field preventing the system from organizing repeated sampling toward a shear band, the transfer of the title-level claim 'dense active matter' to realistic finite-persistence active matter is an untested assumption. The Conclusions should either be reframed as claims about the AQRD limit, or the abstract should carry the same caveat that appears in the Conclusions. This is a load-bearing scope issue, not a technical error.
  3. [Section III.B and Eq. (5)] The modified EPM is constructed by setting the orientation correlation length of the Eshelby kernels to the input field's correlation length ξ. This is the very quantity the paper claims to explain. The 'confirmation' in Fig. 4D measures the correlation length of yielding angles X_y and shows it scales with ξ/L, but this is a proportionality, not an ab initio derivation. The EPM therefore 'captures and explains' the ductile-to-brittle crossover in a qualitative, post-hoc sense. The paper should state more precisely that the EPM assumes this correspondence and empirically validates it, rather than deriving it. This does not invalidate the EPM as a predictive model, but it changes the strength of the claim. Also, the orientation distribution is uniform in [−π/4,π/4], which is a modeling choice; the paper does not test sensitivity to this distribution.
  4. [Section III.B, Fig. 2E and Fig. 1E] The comparison between the EPM and simulations in the onset of large stress drops is qualitative. Fig. 1E shows an onset at ξ/L≈0.07 in simulations, while Fig. 2E shows an onset 'starting from zero' in the EPM (as the authors note). The paper attributes this to the different accessible ranges of ξ/L, but this does not explain why the simulation onset is at 0.07 rather than, say, the smallest accessible ξ/L. This shift is not derived and may reflect finite-size or mesoscale-region effects. The authors should either provide a scaling argument connecting the EPM grid scale to the particle-scale core size, or explicitly list this as a limitation rather than a success.
  5. [Section III.D and Fig. 6B] The claim of '80% accuracy' prediction by the input field (Conclusions) rests on the threshold χ=0.06, which is chosen post-hoc based on the bimodal distribution in Fig. 11E. Moreover, P* counts stress drops with exactly one proficiency above threshold, which is a coarse success measure. The paper does not report confidence intervals or a null-model comparison (e.g., random cluster placement with the same cluster-size distribution). Given that the low- and high-ξ regimes have small or system-spanning clusters, respectively, chance overlap may be nontrivial. This is a load-bearing point for the 'controllability' claim, and the method should be benchmarked against a null model.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] 'Always ductile' is too strong; please qualify with 'for sufficiently small correlation lengths' or 'in the AQRD limit with short-range-correlated fields.'
  2. [Section II.C, Eq. (5)] The range of ϕ_i is [−π/4,π/4], but the Eshelby kernel has fourfold symmetry. The paper should justify why this range (rather than, e.g., uniform on [0,π/2)) is chosen, and whether results depend on this bound.
  3. [Section II.A and Appendix A] The definition of ξ/L for a system of N=L×L particles is clear, but the mapping from ξ to particle diameters is not given for the simulation values. For example, in Fig. 4D, X_y is reported in units of particle diameters while ξ/L is dimensionless; stating the box size L in particle diameters for each N would aid the reader.
  4. [Appendix D, Eq. (D1)] The sign function in the mutual information definition is unusual; please clarify how negative contributions are accumulated when summing over the four pairs of sets, and how the normalization in the proficiency χ handles these negative terms. A worked example would help.
  5. [Section III.D and Fig. 6A] The scatter plot uses only 12 packings per ξ/L. Given the strong claim about three distinct regimes, error bars or bootstrapped confidence regions should be provided. Currently, the separation between blue and red points appears clear, but the green and red regions may overlap.
  6. [Appendix E, Fig. 10 caption] The text says 'two data points with a substantially higher value of the persistence' but the figure is not provided in the text; please ensure the caption describes the actual panel content (the caption mentions larger red dots, but the panel is not visible in the manuscript text as provided).
  7. [General] The phrase 'statistics, and specifically the correlation length, of the input driving field' in the Conclusions is central; the paper should define the correlation length ξ more precisely in the main text (e.g., the decay length of the Gaussian field) rather than only in Appendix A.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central observations come from particle simulations independent of the EPM, and the EPM's key orientational-correlation assumption is directly tested against those simulations.

full rationale

The paper's main claims are established by AQRD particle simulations (Fig. 1C-E), not by the modified EPM. The EPM is presented as a separate consistency check: its new ingredient is a rotated Eshelby propagator whose orientations are correlated over the input length ξ (Eq. 5). This is an explicit hypothesis, not a hidden fit, and Section III C attempts to verify it independently by measuring the yielding-angle correlation length X_y from particle configurations (Fig. 4D). The κ rescaling (Eq. A7) is an empirically measured elastic-modulus normalization in the pre-yielding regime; it does not by construction generate the yielding transition, which is the quantity under study. The χ=0.06 proficiency threshold and the P* metric are descriptive data-analysis choices, not model parameters presented as predictions. Self-citations [38] and [59] supply the AQRD protocol and the baseline EPM, but the new qualitative claims are checked against particle simulations and do not reduce to those citations. The acknowledged limitation that finite persistence times and finite driving rates are not tested is a scope caveat, not a circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the AQRD protocol as a model of active matter, breathing-particle ultrastable packings as proxies for swap-MC glasses, an empirical per-ξ modulus rescaling κ, post-hoc analysis thresholds (cluster sizes, χ=0.06), and the untested-in-general assumption that rearrangement orientations follow the input correlation length ξ. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • κ (AQRD/AQS modulus ratio) = computed per ξ from simulations; values not tabulated
    Appendix A: σ=σ̃√κ, γ=γ̃√κ; κ=⟨μ̃0⟩/⟨μ0⟩ measured from the same ensembles used for the yielding analysis, so the rescaling is fitted, not predicted.
  • Proficiency threshold χ_max = 0.06
    Section III D / Appendix E: threshold chosen from the bimodal distribution of proficiency values (Fig 11E); defines 'predicted' plastic events and underlies the 80% controllability claim.
  • Persistent homology cluster size thresholds = 15 and 3N/4 particles
    Appendix D: clusters outside this size range are pruned; affects which D2min clusters count as avalanches and hence P*.
  • EPM disorder parameter R = R=0.15 used for brittleness scans (Fig 2E); other values for ductile
    Sect II C: R characterizes initial stability; no quantitative mapping to particle k_λ established; the EPM comparison is qualitative.
  • EPM stress-drop parameters λ, σ_th = λ=σ_th=1
    Sect II C: fixed by convention; the model is not calibrated to particle-scale stress units.
axioms (6)
  • standard math 2D isotropic Eshelby stress propagator G_E(r) = cos(4θ)/(πr²)
    Used in EPM stress redistribution (Eq. 4); standard elasticity result for a shear transformation in an incompressible 2D medium.
  • standard math Persistent homology on particle-level fields identifies significant localized clusters via birth-death persistence
    Used for D2min and shear-strain clustering (Appendix D); standard TDA technique.
  • domain assumption Breathing-particle packings with low k_λ are ultrastable glasses analogous to swap Monte Carlo preparations
    Fig 8 shows AQS stress-drop trend matches swap-MC results; otherwise the ultrastability/ductility mapping is assumed.
  • domain assumption AQRD (zero temperature, infinitely slow driving, infinite persistence) is a representative limit of dense active matter
    Defined in Methods and flagged in Conclusions as a limit whose finite-persistence generalization is future work; the paper's title/abstract claims are for dense active matter generally.
  • ad hoc to paper Rearrangement orientation correlation length equals the input displacement-field correlation length ξ
    This is the key assumption of the modified EPM (Sect II C); the paper tests it via X_y (Fig 4D) and finds agreement, but it is not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Local shear strain capacity of the input field is a valid predictor of plastic-event locations
    Underlies the proficiency/P* controllability analysis (Sect III D); predictive utility is the paper's design claim, not a derived law.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18486 in / 15877 out tokens · 137359 ms · 2026-08-03T18:48:43.033192+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

High-density granular active matter is a useful model for dense animal collectives and could be useful for designing reconfigurable materials that can flow or solidify on command. Recent work has demonstrated key similarities and differences between the mechanical response of dense active matter and its sheared passive counterpart, yet a constitutive law that predicts precisely how dense active matter flows or fails remains elusive. Here we study the yielding transition in dense active matter in the limit of slow driving and large persistence times, across a wide range of material preparations. Under shear, materials prepared to be very low energy or ultrastable are brittle, and well-described by elastoplastic constitutive laws. We show that under random active forcing, however, ultrastable materials are always ductile. We develop a modified elastoplastic model that captures and explains these observations, where the key parameter is the correlation length of the input active driving field. We also observe large parameter regimes where the plastic flow is surprisingly well-predicted by the input active driving field and not highly dependent on the structural disorder, suggesting new strategies for control.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.03252 by Adil Ghaznavi, Francesco Zamponi, M. Lisa Manning, Saverio Rossi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Effective stress-strain curves for AQRD in a single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Mean (∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: highlights some details about our clustering procedure, persistent homology. Panel A shows the ob￾served clusters at the two largest stress drops when an ultrastable system is driven by field with ξ/L = 0.10. Panel B shows a birth death plot for the clustering al￾gorithm. As mentioned in Sec II B, the persistence of a cluster is defined as birth − death. Looking at panel B, we can conclude that the distri… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: As expected, the size of small avalanches decreases as a function of system size N. As in previous work [56], for each system size we subtract off this baseline aver￾age value from the largest stress drop when computing ∆σ ∗ max in the main text [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 8 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Pierce, H

    C. Pierce, H. Wijesinghe, E. Mumper, B. Lower, S. Lower, and R. Sooryakumar, Physical Review Let- ters121, 188001 (2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    Dell’Arciprete, M

    D. Dell’Arciprete, M. L. Blow, A. T. Brown, F. D. Far- rell, J. S. Lintuvuori, A. F. McVey, D. Marenduzzo, and W. C. Poon, Nature communications9, 4190 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Sch¨ otz, M

    E.-M. Sch¨ otz, M. Lanio, J. A. Talbot, and M. L. Man- ning, Journal of the Royal Society Interface10, 1 (2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    D. Bi, X. Yang, M. C. Marchetti, and M. L. Manning, Physical Review X6, 021011 (2016)

    2016

  5. [5]

    J. M. Yeomans, S. Bhattacharyya, and M. R. Nejad, Liquid Crystals , 1 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    Kempf, R

    F. Kempf, R. Mueller, E. Frey, J. M. Yeomans, and A. Doostmohammadi, Soft matter15, 7538 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    P. J. Foster, S. F¨ urthauer, and N. Fakhri, BioRxiv , 2022 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Cavagna, A

    A. Cavagna, A. Cimarelli, I. Giardina, G. Parisi, R. San- tagati, F. Stefanini, and R. Tavarone, Mathemati- cal Models and Methods in Applied Sciences20, 1491 (2010)

    2010

  9. [9]

    Cavagna and I

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

    2014

  10. [10]

    Cavagna, L

    A. Cavagna, L. Del Castello, I. Giardina, T. Grigera, A. Jelic, S. Melillo, T. Mora, L. Parisi, E. Silvestri, M. Viale,et al., Journal of Statistical Physics158, 601 (2015)

    2015

  11. [11]

    Garcimart ´ ın, J

    A. Garcimart ´ ın, J. Pastor, L. Ferrer, J. Ramos, C. Mart ´ ın-G´ omez, and I. Zuriguel, Physical Review E 91, 022808 (2015)

    2015

  12. [12]

    Bottinelli, D

    A. Bottinelli, D. T. Sumpter, and J. L. Silverberg, Physical review letters117, 228301 (2016)

    2016

  13. [13]

    F. Gu, B. Guiselin, N. Bain, I. Zuriguel, and D. Bartolo, Nature638, 112 (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    Toner and Y

    J. Toner and Y. Tu, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 4326 (1995)

    1995

  15. [15]

    E. S. Bililign, F. Balboa Usabiaga, Y. A. Ganan, A. Pon- cet, V. Soni, S. Magkiriadou, M. J. Shelley, D. Bartolo, and W. T. Irvine, Nature Physics18, 212 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    J. A. Cohen and R. Golestanian, Physical review letters 112, 068302 (2014)

    2014

  17. [17]

    D. J. Cohen, W. James Nelson, and M. M. Maharbiz, Nature materials13, 409 (2014)

    2014

  18. [18]

    Popa and S

    B.-I. Popa and S. A. Cummer, Nature communications 5, 3398 (2014)

    2014

  19. [19]

    Fruchart, R

    M. Fruchart, R. Hanai, P. B. Littlewood, and V. Vitelli, arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.1317619(2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  20. [20]

    Fruchart, C

    M. Fruchart, C. Scheibner, and V. Vitelli, Annual Re- view of Condensed Matter Physics14, 471 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    Ishimoto, C

    K. Ishimoto, C. Moreau, and K. Yasuda, PRX Life1, 023002 (2023)

    2023

  22. [22]

    Toner, N

    J. Toner, N. Guttenberg, and Y. Tu, Physical review letters121, 248002 (2018)

    2018

  23. [23]

    Toner and Y

    J. Toner and Y. Tu, Phys. Rev. E58, 4828 (1998)

    1998

  24. [24]

    Toner, Y

    J. Toner, Y. Tu, and S. Ramaswamy, Annals of Physics 318, 170 (2005), special Issue

    2005

  25. [25]

    Wyart and M

    M. Wyart and M. E. Cates, Physical review letters112, 098302 (2014)

    2014

  26. [26]

    M. C. Marchetti, J. F. Joanny, S. Ramaswamy, T. B. Liverpool, J. Prost, M. Rao, and R. A. Simha, Reviews of Modern Physics85, 1143 (2013)

    2013

  27. [27]

    L. M. Janssen, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 31, 503002 (2019)

    2019

  28. [28]

    Henkes, Y

    S. Henkes, Y. Fily, and M. C. Marchetti, Physical Re- view E84(2011), 10.1103/PhysRevE.84.040301, arXiv: 1107.4072

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  29. [29]

    Berthier and J

    L. Berthier and J. Kurchan, Nature Physics9, 310 (2013)

    2013

  30. [30]

    Berthier, E

    L. Berthier, E. Flenner, and G. Szamel, New Journal of Physics19, 125006 (2017)

    2017

  31. [31]

    K. Paul, A. Mutneja, S. K. Nandi, and S. Karmakar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences120, e2217073120 (2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    S. K. Nandi, R. Mandal, P. J. Bhuyan, C. Dasgupta, M. Rao, and N. S. Gov, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115, 7688 (2018)

    2018

  33. [33]

    Szamel and E

    G. Szamel and E. Flenner, Europhysics Letters133, 60002 (2021)

    2021

  34. [34]

    Henkes, K

    S. Henkes, K. Kostanjevec, J. M. Collinson, R. Sknep- nek, and E. Bertin, Nature communications11, 1405 (2020)

    2020

  35. [35]

    Berthier, G

    L. Berthier, G. Biroli, L. Manning, and F. Zamponi, Nature Reviews Physics , 1 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    Mandal, P

    R. Mandal, P. J. Bhuyan, P. Chaudhuri, C. Dasgupta, and M. Rao, Nature communications11, 2581 (2020)

    2020

  37. [37]

    Mandal, M

    S. Mandal, M. Nicolas, and O. Pouliquen, Physical Re- view X11, 021017 (2021)

    2021

  38. [38]

    P. K. Morse, S. Roy, E. Agoritsas, E. Stanifer, E. I. Cor- win, and M. L. Manning,118, e2019909118, publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

  39. [39]

    Woillez, Y

    E. Woillez, Y. Kafri, and N. S. Gov, Physical Review Letters124, 118002 (2020)

    2020

  40. [40]

    Mandal and P

    R. Mandal and P. Sollich, Physical Review Letters125, 218001 (2020)

    2020

  41. [41]

    Mandal and P

    R. Mandal and P. Sollich, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter33, 184001 (2021)

    2021

  42. [42]

    Liao and N

    Q. Liao and N. Xu, Soft Matter14, 853 (2018)

    2018

  43. [43]

    Ghosh, P

    T. Ghosh, P. Sollich, and S. K. Nandi, Soft Matter21, 3047 (2025)

    2025

  44. [44]

    Nicolas, E

    A. Nicolas, E. E. Ferrero, K. Martens, and J.-L. Barrat, 90, 045006, 1708.09194 [cond-mat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    P. D. Olmsted, Rheologica Acta47, 283 (2008)

    2008

  46. [46]

    S. M. Fielding, D. Marenduzzo, and M. E. Cates, Phys- ical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics83, 041910 (2011)

    2011

  47. [47]

    M. E. Cates and S. M. Fielding, Advances in Physics 55, 799 (2006)

    2006

  48. [48]

    S. M. Fielding, Soft Matter3, 1262 (2007)

    2007

  49. [49]

    Falk and J

    M. Falk and J. Langer, Physical Review E57, 7192 (1998)

    1998

  50. [50]

    Sollich, inMolecular Gels(Springer, 2006) pp

    P. Sollich, inMolecular Gels(Springer, 2006) pp. 161– 192

    2006

  51. [51]

    Coussot, Q

    P. Coussot, Q. D. Nguyen, H. Huynh, and D. Bonn, Physical review letters88, 175501 (2002)

    2002

  52. [52]

    Bar´ o and J

    J. Bar´ o and J. Davidsen, Physical Review E97, 033002 (2018)

    2018

  53. [53]

    K. A. Dahmen, Y. Ben-Zion, and J. T. Uhl, Nature Physics7, 554 (2011)

    2011

  54. [54]

    D. F. Castellanos and M. Zaiser, Physical review letters 121, 125501 (2018)

    2018

  55. [55]

    Karimi, E

    K. Karimi, E. E. Ferrero, and J.-L. Barrat, Physical Review E95, 013003 (2017)

    2017

  56. [56]

    Ozawa, L

    M. Ozawa, L. Berthier, G. Biroli, A. Rosso, and G. Tar- jus, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 16 115, 6656 (2018)

    2018

  57. [57]

    Popovi´ c, T

    M. Popovi´ c, T. W. J. de Geus, and M. Wyart, Physical Review E98, 040901 (2018)

    2018

  58. [58]

    Pollard and S

    J. Pollard and S. M. Fielding,4, 043037, 2103.06782 [cond-mat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  59. [59]

    Rossi, G

    S. Rossi, G. Biroli, M. Ozawa, G. Tarjus, and F. Zam- poni, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 228002 (2022)

    2022

  60. [60]

    Divoux, E

    T. Divoux, E. Agoritsas, S. Aime, C. Barentin, J.-L. Barrat, R. Benzi, L. Berthier, D. Bi, G. Biroli, D. Bonn, et al., Soft Matter20, 6868 (2024)

    2024

  61. [61]

    H. J. Barlow, J. O. Cochran, and S. M. Fielding, Phys- ical Review Letters125, 168003 (2020)

    2020

  62. [62]

    Rossi, G

    S. Rossi, G. Biroli, M. Ozawa, and G. Tarjus, Physical Review B108, L220202 (2023)

    2023

  63. [63]

    C. E. Maloney and A. Lema ˆ ıtre, Physical Review E74, 016118 (2006)

    2006

  64. [64]

    K. M. Salerno, C. E. Maloney, and M. O. Robbins, Physical Review Letters109, 105703 (2012)

    2012

  65. [65]

    Nicolas, J

    A. Nicolas, J. Rottler, and J.-L. Barrat, The European Physical Journal E37, 1 (2014)

    2014

  66. [66]

    A. E. Lagogianni, C. Liu, K. Martens, and K. Samwer, The European Physical Journal B91, 1 (2018)

    2018

  67. [67]

    Vicsek, A

    T. Vicsek, A. Czir´ ok, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen, and O. Shochet, Physical Review Letters75, 1226 (1995), publisher: American Physical Society

    1995

  68. [68]

    Agoritsas,2021, 033501, 2009.08944 [cond-mat]

    E. Agoritsas,2021, 033501, 2009.08944 [cond-mat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  69. [69]

    Brito, E

    C. Brito, E. Lerner, and M. Wyart,8, 031050

  70. [70]

    Kapteijns, W

    G. Kapteijns, W. Ji, C. Brito, M. Wyart, and E. Lerner, Physical Review E99, 012106 (2019)

    2019

  71. [71]

    Ninarello, L

    A. Ninarello, L. Berthier, and D. Coslovich, Physical Review X7, 021039 (2017)

    2017

  72. [72]

    Degiuli, E

    E. Degiuli, E. Lerner, and M. Wyart, The Journal of chemical physics142(2015)

    2015

  73. [73]

    V. F. Hagh, S. R. Nagel, A. J. Liu, M. L. Manning, and E. I. Corwin, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119(2022), 10.1073/pnas.2117622119

    doi:10.1073/pnas.2117622119 2022

  74. [74]

    C. S. O’Hern, L. E. Silbert, A. J. Liu, and S. R. Nagel, Physical Review E68, 011306 (2003)

    2003

  75. [75]

    K. L. Johnson and K. L. Johnson,Contact mechanics (Cambridge university press, 1987)

    1987

  76. [76]

    Richard, M

    D. Richard, M. Ozawa, S. Patinet, E. Stanifer, B. Shang, S. A. Ridout, B. Xu, G. Zhang, P. K. Morse, J.-L. Barrat, L. Berthier, M. L. Falk, P. Guan, A. J. Liu, K. Martens, S. Sastry, D. Vandembroucq, E. Lerner, and M. L. Manning,4, 113609, 2003.11629 [cond-mat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  77. [77]

    Otter, M

    N. Otter, M. A. Porter, U. Tillmann, P. Grindrod, and H. A. Harrington, EPJ Data Science6, 17 (2017)

    2017

  78. [78]

    Stanifer and M

    E. Stanifer and M. L. Manning, (2022), arXiv:2110.02803 [cond-mat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  79. [79]

    Ozawa and G

    M. Ozawa and G. Biroli, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 138201 (2023)

    2023

  80. [80]

    D. L. Malandro and D. J. Lacks, Physical review letters 81, 5576 (1998)

    1998

Showing first 80 references.