Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 39 references

The paper predicts that a fluid confined in a small closed cavity can flip between a bubbled and a bubble-free state, and derives the mean waiting times for both transitions.

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

2026-08-02 21:52 UTC pith:JR35N3K4

load-bearing objection A plausible new kinetic framework for bubble lifetimes in closed cavities, with a nice phase-flipping prediction that is demonstrated in a single simulation but not quantitatively validated—treat the MFPT numbers as illustrative. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.18785 v2 pith:JR35N3K4 submitted 2026-02-21 cond-mat.soft

Phase fluctuations in a confined fluid

Fr\'ed\'eric Caupin , Alberto Zaragoza , Miguel A. Gonzalez , Chantal Valeriani This is my paper
classification cond-mat.soft
keywords phase flippingbubble collapseconfined fluidfluid inclusionsmean first-passage timecavitationLennard-Jones simulation
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.

The paper tackles the kinetics of a vapor bubble in a closed, fixed-volume cavity. It derives closed-form expressions for the average time a metastable bubble survives before collapsing, and the average time the homogeneous liquid takes to nucleate a bubble. The central prediction is a phase-flipping regime: in the smallest cavities at high temperature, the system spontaneously oscillates between the two states, and a direct simulation of a Lennard-Jones fluid shows such flipping. For geologically relevant cavities (a micrometre or larger), the model says collapse happens only extremely close to the bubble spinodal, which sharpens the interpretation of fluid-inclusion thermometry. A sympathetic reader would care because the results turn bubble collapse from a thermodynamic unknown into a quantitatively testable kinetic prediction.

Core claim

In a closed cavity, the free energy of a bubble as a function of its volume fraction has three regimes; in the metastable-bubble regime, the paper computes the rate of barrier crossing with a diffusive, volume-dependent mobility. This yields closed-form mean first-passage times for bubble collapse and for bubble nucleation, whose ratio equals the equilibrium probability ratio between the two sides of the barrier. The formulas predict that for cavities with water at room temperature and volumes around 1 µm³, bubble collapse within one second requires being within a few tenths of a percent of the bubble spinodal in density. For volumes below roughly 10^-5 µm³ at high temperature, the barrier a

What carries the argument

The central object is a reduced free-energy landscape φ(x) = (δ0(1−x)/2 − 1)x + 9ε x^{2/3}, where x is the vapor volume fraction, δ0 the reduced average density, and ε the ratio of a microscopic length (surface tension times compressibility) to the cavity radius. The landscape's two minima and intervening barrier are analyzed analytically in the small-ε limit. Escape rates are obtained from the standard diffusive barrier-crossing formula with a friction coefficient from the overdamped equation of motion of a spherical bubble, yielding a diffusion coefficient proportional to the bubble volume; that coefficient, together with the barrier curvature and height, sets the two mean first-passage ti

Load-bearing premise

The lifetimes rely on the assumption that the only slow coordinate is the bubble volume and that the viscous damping of the bubble is the same as in an unbounded liquid, described by an overdamped equation of motion; if this dynamical picture is wrong, the predicted lifetimes and flipping conditions fail.

What would settle it

Run a direct molecular-dynamics simulation of a Lennard-Jones fluid in a closed cavity with a higher free-energy barrier (larger volume or lower temperature) and measure the mean first-passage times from liquid to bubble and back; if the measured times do not follow the predicted scaling with barrier height and volume, the kinetic model is refuted.

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

If this is right

  • For water-filled cavities of 1 µm³ and above at 20 °C, bubble collapse is predicted to occur only within about 0.7% of the gap between binodal and spinodal density, i.e., within a fraction of a degree of the spinodal temperature.
  • In the phase-flipping regime (small V, high T), the usual definitions of the binodal as equal well depths do not imply equal probability of observing liquid versus bubble, because the bubble side contains vastly more configurations.
  • The ratio of the two mean first-passage times is fixed by the equilibrium probability ratio, giving a direct check of the theory in simulation or experiment.
  • The model provides a kinetic route to set bounds on fluid inclusion density and temperature at bubble collapse, rather than only thermodynamic bounds.
  • The Lennard-Jones simulation demonstrates that phase flipping is real, though the quantitative mismatch highlights where the simplified free energy and reaction-coordinate description need refinement.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted lifetimes are confirmed, a single measured collapse time could be inverted to infer the fluid density in an inclusion, because τbub changes by orders of magnitude over a narrow density window near the spinodal.
  • The same flipping mechanism should appear in other confined systems with a nucleation barrier, such as cavitation in nanopores or droplet condensation in small wells, whenever the barrier is a few tens of k_BT or less.
  • The most likely source of the simulation discrepancy is the neglect of curvature-dependent surface tension for nanometre-size bubbles; a curvature-corrected surface tension would likely raise the barrier and bring the predicted lifetimes closer to the simulated ones.

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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a free-energy model for a liquid in a closed cavity containing a vapor bubble, using a linearized equation of state (Eq. 2). It applies Kramers theory to compute mean first-passage times for bubble collapse and formation (Eqs. 28, 30), predicting that for geologically relevant cavities (V ≥ 1 µm³) bubble disappearance occurs only extremely close to the bubble spinodal (Fig. 9). It also predicts phase flipping in small systems and presents a preliminary NVT simulation of a Lennard-Jones fluid showing such flipping. The authors acknowledge large quantitative differences between model and simulation at the end of the paper.

Significance. The qualitative prediction of phase flipping in small confined systems is novel and interesting, and the simulation provides a direct demonstration. The thermodynamic framework could offer useful kinetic bounds for fluid–inclusion geothermometry, going beyond the earlier thermodynamic-only treatments. However, the quantitative MFPT predictions are not validated: the only benchmark shows discrepancies of 4–5 orders of magnitude and a much lower energy barrier than the model. Because the central geoscience conclusion (Fig. 9) is controlled by the exponential of the free-energy barrier, the quantitative claims currently rest on an unvalidated barrier. The paper is transparent about these limitations, which is a strength, but the limitations are load-bearing for the main quantitative conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III C, Table II, Eqs. (28), (30)] The quantitative predictions are dominated by the exponential of the free-energy barrier. The only simulation benchmark gives a barrier of 0.84 kBT at the simulated binodal, whereas the model predicts 11.1 kBT at its own binodal. The resulting MFPTs differ by factors of ~1.4×10^4 (τliq) and ~1.2×10^5 (τbub). The authors state in Sec. IV that Kramers theory is inaccurate for small barriers, but the discrepancy is not merely a prefactor issue: the exponential alone contributes a factor ~3×10^4. Since Fig. 9 and the associated geoscience claim depend on this barrier, the quantitative predictions are not supported by the evidence presented. Additional validation for larger cavities or a revised free-energy model is needed before these numbers can be used.
  2. [Sec. III C, Table II] The simulated bubble binodal at ρ ≈ 0.6107 lies far below the model binodal (ρ0,eq = 0.706) and even below the model spinodal (ρ0,sp = 0.720) in reduced density. Since δ0 = 0.743 < δ0,sp, the model is actually in regime (iii) with two minima, so the claim that Eq. 2 would forbid flipping is not correct. However, the 13% displacement of the binodal density shows that the linear-EOS free energy (Eq. 2) is not quantitatively predictive for this Lennard-Jones system. The qualitative shape may match (Fig. 15), but the exponential barrier is not under control, and no test is provided at the ε ≈ 10^-5 water scale used in Fig. 9.
  3. [Sec. III C, Sec. II B] The MFPTs quoted in Table II are extracted from a single simulation trajectory, as acknowledged in Sec. II B ('results discussed here should be treated as preliminary'). No error bars, multiple independent runs, or block-statistics analysis are provided. This is acceptable for a proof-of-principle demonstration of phase flipping, but it is insufficient to support the quantitative comparison in Table II. At minimum, the authors should provide several independent runs and report the variance of the block durations.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eqs. (10)–(11)] The definitions of Ax and Aϕ appear to contain ε^{3/4} and ε^{3/2} respectively, which would make xc and ϕc scale as ε^{3/2} and ε^3, contradicting Eq. (9). Likely these factors should be constants; please clarify.
  2. [Sec. II B] The formula v = s^{3/2}/(4√π) for a sphere volume from its surface area s is incorrect; the correct factor is 1/(6√π). Please check whether this affects the reported effective volumes.
  3. [Sec. II A 2, after Eq. (24)] The statement that 'confinement does not modify the dissipation' is presented as a fact without support. It should be explicitly flagged as an assumption, and the relevant analysis (e.g., Vincent & Marmottant 2017) should be cited.
  4. [Sec. III C, Fig. 14] The vertical axis of the PMF panel is labeled 'U(V)' but the text uses v; also the normalization constant v0 used to set U(v=0)=0 is not defined precisely.
  5. [References] Reference 9 contains garbled text: 'Novembre 00, 1948'.
  6. [Eq. (31), Sec. III C] The ratio τbub/τliq = Zbub/Zliq is a detailed-balance identity; it does not test the kinetic prefactor or the barrier height. The factor-12 agreement for the ratio in Sec. III C therefore only checks relative thermodynamic weights, not the kinetic model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: model inputs come from independently published work and literature values; the admitted LJ discrepancies are a validity concern, not an input-output equivalence.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. The free-energy model (Eq. 2) and the spinodal/binodal expressions are taken from an independently published prior model (Ref. 21, Caupin 2022) whose stated assumptions (linear chemical potential, perfect-gas vapor, rho_V << rho_L) do not include the MFPT predictions made here. The kinetic part follows Kramers' theory and the overdamped Rayleigh-Plesset equation (Eqs. 24-25), with diffusion coefficient from fluctuation-dissipation, and all material parameters (gamma, kappa, eta, rho_L^inf) are literature values for the Lennard-Jones fluid, not fitted to the simulation. The LJ simulation is a genuine external benchmark, and the paper honestly reports that it is preliminary and shows large quantitative differences (`the agreement is better for the ratio of the two MFPTs`, `Most of the discrepancy stems from the difference in energy barrier`); this is a correctness/validity limitation, explicitly acknowledged in the Discussion (`there are large quantitative differences`, `Kramers’ theory is expected to become inaccurate`), not a circular reduction. Equation (31), tau_bub/tau_liq = Z_bub/Z_liq, is an equilibrium detailed-balance identity rather than a fitted prediction. The self-citations (Refs. 12 and 21) are to published, peer-reviewed work with stated assumptions; they are not invoked to forbid alternatives, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. Therefore no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs or to an unverified self-citation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model pulls its free energy from a prior linearized equation of state (Eq. 1) and the resulting expression (Eq. 2) from Ref. [21]. The kinetic part imports Kramers' theory and the reaction-coordinate choice from Menzl et al. (Ref. [12]), and a Rayleigh-Plesset diffusion coefficient. No parameter is fitted to the simulation; however, the simulation analysis involves hand-chosen smoothing/probe parameters and a threshold that affect the measured bubble volume and MFPTs.

free parameters (3)
  • OVITO smoothing level = 2
    The bubble size, and hence the effective volume and PMF, depends on the smoothing level; chosen by hand (Section II B).
  • probe sphere radius = tailored
    Probe sphere radius in OVITO is tailored to capture the interface; this affects bubble surface area and therefore the reaction coordinate (Section II B).
  • liquid/bubble threshold = local maximum of U(v)
    The threshold on v used to split the trajectory into liquid and bubble blocks is set at the local maximum of the potential of mean force (Fig. 14); it directly determines the simulated MFPTs.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The free energy of a bubble in a closed cavity is given by the linearized-EOS expression φ = (δ0/(2(1-x))-1)x + 9ε x^{2/3} (Eq. 2), from Ref. [21].
    This simplified model assumes a linear chemical potential, perfect-gas vapor, ρV << ρL, and spherical bubble with constant surface tension.
  • domain assumption The vapor is a perfect gas with density much smaller than the liquid, and the liquid wets the walls so the bubble is spherical.
    Invoked in Section II A 1 to derive the free energy expression.
  • domain assumption The surface tension is independent of curvature (classical nucleation theory); curvature corrections are neglected.
    Acknowledged to be poor for small bubbles (Section IV), yet used for all quantitative predictions.
  • domain assumption Kramers' theory with the bubble volume as reaction coordinate gives the escape rate; D(v) follows from the overdamped Rayleigh-Plesset equation with no confinement modification to dissipation (Eqs. 24-25).
    This is the central kinetic assumption; its validity for barriers of order kBT is questionable and the simulation comparison shows large deviations.
  • domain assumption The system is canonical (fixed N,V,T) and at equilibrium, so detailed balance holds (Eq. 26).
    Needed to relate the two MFPTs to the partial partition functions.
  • domain assumption The simulation's effective bubble volume, obtained from the surface area of the largest vacuum region, corresponds to the theoretical bubble volume v.
    The OVITO-based detection with smoothing and probe radius approximates the bubble volume; the authors note the choice affects the PMF.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12501 in / 29123 out tokens · 216428 ms · 2026-08-02T21:52:16.305749+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Fluid phase equilibrium depends on the external constraints imposed on a system. In a closed system with fixed volume, depending on the average density, a vapor bubble may be stable, metastable, or unstable, with respect to the homogeneous liquid phase. In the case where the bubble is metastable, we study its lifetime, i.e. the average waiting time needed to observe bubble collapse, and the corresponding lifetime of the homogeneous liquid. For the smallest systems, we predict the possibility to observe phase flipping, when the fluid oscillates between states with and without bubble. We provide an example of phase flipping in a simulation of a Lennard-Jones fluid.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.18785 by Alberto Zaragoza, Chantal Valeriani, Fr\'ed\'eric Caupin, Miguel A. Gonzalez.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Reduced free energy as a function of reduced bubble volume [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Snapshot of a typical bubble created following the protocol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Characteristic bubble volumes as a function of reduced aver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Energy barrier for bubble collapse as a function of reduced [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. MFPT from the bubble side [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Top: characteristic reduced average densities as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Top: characteristic volumes at the bubble binodal a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. MFPT from the bubble side as a function of temperature for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Bottom: histogram of the effective bubble volume [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Potential of mean force [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_15.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

39 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    author author G. C. \ Rollins \ and\ author K. A. \ Dill ,\ 10.1021/ja5049434 journal journal J. Am. Chem. Soc. \ volume 136 ,\ pages 11420 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1021/ja5049434 2014

  2. [2]

    Lyons , author A

    author author A. Lyons , author A. Devi , author N. Q. \ Hoffer , \ and\ author M. T. \ Woodside ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevX.14.011017 journal journal Phys. Rev. X \ volume 14 ,\ pages 011017 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.14.011017 2024

  3. [3]

    author author L. I. \ McCann , author M. Dykman , \ and\ author B. Golding ,\ 10.1038/45492 journal journal Nature \ volume 402 ,\ pages 785 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1038/45492 1999

  4. [4]

    Chupeau , author J

    author author M. Chupeau , author J. Gladrow , author A. Chepelianskii , author U. F. \ Keyser , \ and\ author E. Trizac ,\ 10.1073/pnas.1910677116 journal journal Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. \ volume 117 ,\ pages 1383 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1073/pnas.1910677116 2020

  5. [5]

    author author P. G. \ Debenedetti ,\ @noop title Metastable Liquids \ ( publisher Princeton University Press ,\ year 1996 ) NoStop

    1996

  6. [6]

    Caupin \ and\ author R

    author author F. Caupin \ and\ author R. E. \ Grisenti ,\ 10.1021/acs.jpclett.5c03082 journal journal J. Phys. Chem. Lett. \ ( year 2026 ),\ 10.1021/acs.jpclett.5c03082 NoStop

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.5c03082 2026

  7. [7]

    author author J. W. \ Gibbs ,\ @noop journal journal Trans. Conn. Acad. \ volume 3 ,\ pages 343 ( year 1878 ) NoStop

  8. [8]

    Volmer \ and\ author A

    author author M. Volmer \ and\ author A. Weber ,\ 10.1515/zpch-1926-11927 journal journal Zeitschrift f\"ur Physikalische Chemie \ volume 119U ,\ pages 277 ( year 1926 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1515/zpch-1926-11927 1926

  9. [9]

    author author J. C. \ Fisher ,\ 10.1063/1.1698012 journal journal J. Appl. Phys. \ volume 19 ,\ pages 1062 ( year Novembre 00, 1948 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1063/1.1698012 1948

  10. [10]

    Zheng , author D

    author author Q. Zheng , author D. J. \ Durben , author G. H. \ Wolf , \ and\ author C. A. \ Angell ,\ 10.1126/science.254.5033.829 journal journal Science \ volume 254 ,\ pages 829 ( year 1991 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1126/science.254.5033.829 1991

  11. [11]

    author author M. E. M. \ Azouzi , author C. Ramboz , author J.-F. \ Lenain , \ and\ author F. Caupin ,\ 10.1038/nphys2475 journal journal Nature Physics \ volume 9 ,\ pages 38 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1038/nphys2475 2012

  12. [12]

    Menzl , author M

    author author G. Menzl , author M. A. \ Gonzalez , author P. Geiger , author F. Caupin , author J. L. F. \ Abascal , author C. Valeriani , \ and\ author C. Dellago ,\ 10.1073/pnas.1608421113 journal journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences \ volume 113 ,\ pages 13582 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1073/pnas.1608421113 2016

  13. [13]

    Hurai , editor M

    editor V. Hurai , editor M. Huraiov \'a , editor M. Slobodn \'i k , \ and\ editor R. Thomas ,\ eds.,\ 10.1016/C2014-0-03099-7 title Geofluids ,\ Vapor- Liquid Equilibrium Data Bibliography \ ( publisher Elsevier ,\ year 2015 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1016/c2014-0-03099-7 2015

  14. [14]

    Roedder ,\ 10.1515/9781501508271 title Fluid Inclusions ,\ series Reviews in Mineralogy \ No

    author author E. Roedder ,\ 10.1515/9781501508271 title Fluid Inclusions ,\ series Reviews in Mineralogy \ No. number 12 \ ( publisher De Gruyter ,\ year 1984 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1515/9781501508271 1984

  15. [15]

    Kr \"u ger , author D

    author author Y. Kr \"u ger , author D. Marti , author R. H. \ Staub , author D. Fleitmann , \ and\ author M. Frenz ,\ 10.1016/j.chemgeo.2011.07.009 journal journal Chemical Geology \ volume 289 ,\ pages 39 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2011.07.009 2011

  16. [16]

    Guillerm , author T

    author author E. Guillerm , author T. K. \ Lowenstein , author V. Gardien , author A. Brauer , author Y. Kr \"u ger , author W. D. \ Arnuk , \ and\ author F. Caupin ,\ 10.2475/001c.130836 journal journal American Journal of Science \ volume 325 ( year 2025 ),\ 10.2475/001c.130836 NoStop

    work page doi:10.2475/001c.130836 2025

  17. [17]

    Marti , author Y

    author author D. Marti , author Y. Kr \"u ger , author D. Fleitmann , author M. Frenz , \ and\ author J. Ri c ka ,\ 10.1016/j.fluid.2011.08.010 journal journal Fluid Phase Equilib. \ volume 314 ,\ pages 13 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1016/j.fluid.2011.08.010 2011

  18. [18]

    Wilhelmsen , author D

    author author . Wilhelmsen , author D. Bedeaux , author S. Kjelstrup , \ and\ author D. Reguera ,\ 10.1063/1.4893701 journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 141 ,\ pages 071103 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4893701 2014

  19. [19]

    Wilhelmsen \ and\ author D

    author author . Wilhelmsen \ and\ author D. Reguera ,\ 10.1063/1.4907367 journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 142 ,\ pages 064703 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4907367 2015

  20. [20]

    Vincent \ and\ author P

    author author O. Vincent \ and\ author P. Marmottant ,\ 10.1017/jfm.2017.487 journal journal J. Fluid Mech. \ volume 827 ,\ pages 194 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2017.487 2017

  21. [21]

    Caupin ,\ 10.1063/5.0098969 journal journal J

    author author F. Caupin ,\ 10.1063/5.0098969 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 157 ,\ pages 054506 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0098969 2022

  22. [22]

    author author H. A. \ Kramers ,\ 10.1016/S0031-8914(40)90098-2 journal journal Physica \ volume 7 ,\ pages 284 ( year 1940 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1016/s0031-8914(40)90098-2 1940

  23. [23]

    Schulten , author Z

    author author K. Schulten , author Z. Schulten , \ and\ author A. Szabo ,\ 10.1063/1.441684 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 74 ,\ pages 4426 ( year 1981 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.441684 1981

  24. [24]

    author author C. E. \ Brennen ,\ 10.1093/oso/9780195094091.001.0001 title Cavitation And Bubble Dynamics \ ( publisher Oxford University Press ,\ year 1995 ) NoStop

    arXiv 1995

  25. [25]

    Chen , author J

    author author B. Chen , author J. I. \ Siepmann , \ and\ author M. L. \ Klein ,\ 10.1021/jp011950p journal journal The Journal of Physical Chemistry B \ volume 105 ,\ pages 9840 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1021/jp011950p 2001

  26. [26]

    Stephan , author M

    author author S. Stephan , author M. Thol , author J. Vrabec , \ and\ author H. Hasse ,\ 10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00620 journal journal Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling \ volume 59 ,\ pages 4248 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00620 2019

  27. [27]

    Lotfi , author J

    author author A. Lotfi , author J. Vrabec , \ and\ author J. Fischer ,\ 10.1080/00268979200101611 journal journal Molecular Physics \ volume 76 ,\ pages 1319 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1080/00268979200101611 1992

  28. [28]

    Meier , author A

    author author K. Meier , author A. Laesecke , \ and\ author S. Kabelac ,\ 10.1063/1.1770695 journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 121 ,\ pages 3671 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1770695 2004

  29. [29]

    author author A. P. \ Thompson , author H. M. \ Aktulga , author R. Berger , author D. S. \ Bolintineanu , author W. M. \ Brown , author P. S. \ Crozier , author P. J. \ in 't Veld , author A. Kohlmeyer , author S. G. \ Moore , author T. D. \ Nguyen , author R. Shan , author M. J. \ Stevens , author J. Tranchida , author C. Trott , \ and\ author S. J. \ P...

    arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Nosé ,\ 10.1063/1.447334 journal journal Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 81 ,\ pages 511 ( year 1984 ) NoStop

    author author S. Nosé ,\ 10.1063/1.447334 journal journal Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 81 ,\ pages 511 ( year 1984 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1063/1.447334 1984

  31. [31]

    author author W. G. \ Hoover ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.31.1695 journal journal Physical Review A \ volume 31 ,\ pages 1695 ( year 1985 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physreva.31.1695 1985

  32. [32]

    author author G. J. \ Martyna , author M. L. \ Klein , \ and\ author M. Tuckerman ,\ 10.1063/1.463940 journal journal Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 97 ,\ pages 2635 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1063/1.463940 1992

  33. [33]

    Stukowski ,\ 10.1088/0965-0393/18/1/015012 journal journal Modelling Simul

    author author A. Stukowski ,\ 10.1088/0965-0393/18/1/015012 journal journal Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. \ volume 18 ,\ pages 015012 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1088/0965-0393/18/1/015012 2009

  34. [34]

    Puibasset ,\ 10.1063/5.0272545 journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 163 ,\ pages 034110 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    author author J. Puibasset ,\ 10.1063/5.0272545 journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 163 ,\ pages 034110 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0272545 2025

  35. [35]

    Caupin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevE.71.051605 journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 71 ,\ pages 051605 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    author author F. Caupin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevE.71.051605 journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 71 ,\ pages 051605 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.71.051605 2005

  36. [36]

    author author M. W. \ Cole \ and\ author W. F. \ Saam ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.32.985 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 32 ,\ pages 985 ( year 1974 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.32.985 1974

  37. [37]

    author author W. F. \ Saam \ and\ author M. W. \ Cole ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.11.1086 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 11 ,\ pages 1086 ( year 1975 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.11.1086 1975

  38. [38]

    author author T. A. \ Kesselring , author G. Franzese , author S. V. \ Buldyrev , author H. J. \ Herrmann , \ and\ author H. E. \ Stanley ,\ 10.1038/srep00474 journal journal Scientific Reports \ volume 2 ( year 2012 ),\ 10.1038/srep00474 NoStop

    work page doi:10.1038/srep00474 2012

  39. [39]

    Bruot \ and\ author F

    author author N. Bruot \ and\ author F. Caupin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.056102 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 116 ,\ pages 056102 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.056102 2016