Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

A polymer's length and topology decide whether it rides along a traveling activity wave or swims against it.

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 19:14 UTC pith:6DZ5GKSK

load-bearing objection A solid, useful paper: the epsilon criterion is a nice new result and the simulations independently back it, but the single-particle sign convention in Eq. (10) should be double-checked. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.02777 v2 pith:6DZ5GKSK submitted 2026-03-03 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.stat-mech

Riding the Wave: Polymers in Time-dependent Nonequilibrium Baths

Bhavesh Valecha , Jens-Uwe Sommer , Abhinav Sharma This is my paper
classification cond-mat.soft cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords active polymersRouse modeltactic response parametertraveling activity wavedirected transportpolymer topologynonequilibrium steady stateactive Ornstein-Uhlenbeck particles
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 asks how a polymer made of self-propelled monomers behaves when its surroundings carry an activity signal that moves as a wave. The authors show analytically that the polymer develops a steady drift whose direction is fixed by a single number, the tactic response parameter, built from the polymer's relaxation-mode spectrum and the persistence time of the active forces. A negative parameter means the polymer piles up at the wave crests and moves with the wave; a positive parameter means it piles up at the troughs and moves against it. Longer chains and open architectures such as rings and stars ride the wave, while short chains and fully connected cliques drift against it. Simulations of the full Langevin model match the coarse-grained prediction.

Core claim

For an ideal Rouse polymer whose monomers are self-propelled by an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process in a traveling activity wave, the center of mass obeys a drift-diffusion equation with activity-enhanced diffusivity and a drift proportional to the gradient of the squared activity. The proportionality constant is epsilon = 1 - sum_i 1/(1 + tau gamma_i), where tau is the persistence time of the active forces and gamma_i are the relaxation rates of the polymer's internal modes. For epsilon < 0 the polymer localizes at wave maxima and drifts along the wave; for epsilon > 0 it localizes at wave minima and drifts against it. Because the spectrum depends on polymerization degree and connectivity, length

What carries the argument

The tactic response parameter epsilon = 1 - sum_{i=1}^{N-1} 1/(1 + tau gamma_i), defined in Eq. (11), is the central object. It compares the persistence time of each monomer's self-propulsion with the relaxation timescales tau_i = 1/gamma_i of the polymer's internal Rouse modes. Modes that relax much more slowly than tau push epsilon negative and favour wave crests, whereas fast-relaxing structures behave like single particles and favour troughs. This parameter appears as the coefficient linking the effective drift to the gradient of the squared activity in the coarse-grained drift-diffusion equation, so its sign is the whole mechanism of directed transport.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation closes the hierarchy of orientation moments by assuming the persistence time tau is short enough that internal orientation moments relax quasi-statically compared with the slow center-of-mass density; if tau is too large, that timescale separation fails and the drift-diffusion equation is not reliable.

What would settle it

Measure the center-of-mass drift of linear polymers of increasing chain length in a sinusoidal traveling activity wave at fixed tau/tau_0. The theory predicts a sign change at the crossover length N_c ~ sqrt(tau_0/tau) set by the mode spectrum; crossing that length at fixed wave speed should flip the drift from negative to positive, and the measured crossover should track sqrt(tau_0/tau).

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • For sinusoidal activity waves, the steady-state density and center-of-mass drift are given in closed form, so the sign and magnitude of the drift are predictable from monomer number and the connectivity matrix.
  • A crossover length N_c ~ sqrt(tau_0/tau) separates chains that ride the wave from chains that drift against it.
  • In the limit of very short persistence time relative to monomer relaxation, every polymer longer than a dimer has epsilon < 0 and follows wave maxima.
  • Ring and star architectures, with low average connectivity, give negative epsilon for a given monomer number, while a fully connected clique gives positive epsilon and behaves like a single particle.
  • The effective diffusivity of the center of mass is enhanced by local activity, so transport is stronger in high-activity regions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • One consequence the paper leaves implicit: a spatially periodic activity signal could act as a passive length-and-topology separator, since long chains collect at crests and short chains at troughs of the same traveling wave.
  • Hydrodynamic interactions are omitted, so in solvents with strong backflow the drift magnitudes and possibly the crossover length could shift; a wet active-polymer simulation would test robustness.
  • The same epsilon structure may apply when the activity signal changes slowly in time rather than moving as a wave, because the calculation uses slow gradients rather than the specific waveform; a flashing or breathing activity pattern would be a direct test.
  • In cellular settings, slowly traveling kinase or chemical waves could bias the transport of long chromatin or cytoskeletal polymers according to their length, a scenario the model does not itself address but suggests.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies ideal Rouse polymers whose monomers are active Ornstein-Uhlenbeck particles in a spatial activity field that propagates as a traveling wave. By a moment expansion of the Fokker-Planck equation and subsequent coarse-graining to the center-of-mass density, the authors derive an effective drift-diffusion equation with an activity-enhanced diffusivity and a drift proportional to ∇v_a^2. The proportionality coefficient involves a single tactic-response parameter ε = 1 − Σ_{i=1}^{N−1} 1/(1+τγ_i) (Eq. 11). The sign of ε determines whether the polymer accumulates at wave crests and drifts with the wave (ε<0) or at wave troughs and drifts against the wave (ε>0). Predictions are compared with Langevin simulations for linear chains of different length and for chain, ring, star, and fully connected (clique) topologies; the simulations reproduce the predicted density profiles and drift directions. The paper concludes that polymer length and architecture can be used to control directed transport in time-dependent activity landscapes.

Significance. If the central derivation is correct, this is a useful and fairly general analytical result for active polymer transport in time-varying activity fields, extending earlier single-particle and dimer results to a broad class of polymer architectures. The main strength is that the tactic parameter ε is derived from the model parameters and is not fitted: the simulations independently solve the full monomer Langevin equations and confirm the sign changes in the drift and the density profiles. The falsifiable prediction that topology and length control the drift direction is clean and well communicated. The main weaknesses are (i) an apparent inconsistency in the printed derivation of the central result in Appendix B, (ii) an incorrect spectral statement about the fully connected clique that underpins the qualitative interpretation, and (iii) the absence of a direct test of the adiabatic approximation in the large-persistence regime, which the paper itself identifies as the approximation's limit.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B10)–(B11)] The displayed algebra does not close. Eq. (B10) gives I_iα ∝ ρ0 ∂0α v_a(χ0/√N), while Eq. (B11) states J = −(τ ε/2d)ρ0 ∇0 v_a^2(χ0/√N). Since ∂0α v_a and ∂0α v_a^2 differ by a factor of v_a, the combination of the B7 term and the B10 term does not produce the quoted coefficient −τ ε/(2d). Either a factor is missing in B10 (or in the intermediate integration by parts), or the summation leading to B11 follows a different route than the one shown. Because Eq. (11) and Eq. (10) are the central results, the derivation must be corrected so that the printed algebra is traceable.
  2. [Sec. II, topology discussion (fully connected clique)] The text states that a fully connected clique has 'only one mode' with τ_1^clique = N τ0. For the standard graph Laplacian of the complete graph K_N, the nonzero eigenvalues are N with multiplicity N−1, so all internal modes relax on the fast monomer scale τ0/N, not on the slow scale N τ0. With the correct spectrum, Eq. (11) yields ε = 1 − (N−1)/(1+τN/τ0), which approaches 2−N for τ/τ0→0 and is therefore negative for N>2; the claim that fully connected structures always behave like a single active particle (ε≈1, accumulation at minima) does not follow from the stated formula. The authors need to specify the exact connectivity matrix used for the clique and either correct this qualitative argument or restrict the claim to the parameter regime simulated.
  3. [Sec. IV and Appendix D] The central prediction is the sign of the drift as a function of ε, and the derivation of Eq. (9) relies on the adiabatic closure, which the paper itself states (Appendix B) is valid only when the persistence time τ is not too large. The simulations vary N and topology, which changes γ_i and thus moves ε across zero, but they do not vary τ for fixed N and topology. An explicit τ-sweep for a fixed N would directly test the adiabatic closure in the region where it is least controlled, especially the large-τ limit where the theory predicts ε→1 and hence negative drift for all polymers. Please add such a sweep (or an equivalent quantitative bound on the validity of Eq. (9)), since without it the regime of applicability of the headline claim is not demonstrated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (8) and general notation] The symbol O(∇²) is used in Eq. (8) without a precise definition of the gradient order with respect to the small-gradient expansion. Please define the counting of derivatives and say explicitly which terms are retained.
  2. [Appendix D] There is a typo: 'varibales' should be 'variables'. Also, while the text states that numerical errors are within symbol size, no quantitative error estimate is given. Please report the number of independent runs (or effective sample size) used for the density profiles and the standard error of the drift data.
  3. [Eqs. (9)–(10) and co-moving frame] The transformation to the co-moving frame is introduced in Eq. (4) but is not restated when Veff and Deff are presented in Eq. (10). A reader may be confused by the explicit −N v_w term in Veff and the sign convention in Eq. (9). Please state explicitly that Eq. (9) is written in the frame co-moving with the wave.
  4. [Fig. 2/Fig. 3 captions] The parameters are listed in the captions but the value of τ (or DR) is given only via DR, and the relation τ=(d−1)^{-1}DR^{-1} is mentioned in the text. It would help to list τ/τ0 explicitly for each figure, since this ratio enters ε directly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: ε is derived from model parameters and verified by independent full-monomer Langevin simulations.

full rationale

The paper’s central prediction is Eq. (11), where the tactic parameter ε = 1 − Σ_i 1/(1+τγ_i) is computed from model parameters (persistence time τ and Rouse relaxation rates γ_i), not fitted to simulation data. The effective drift–diffusion equation (Eqs. 9–10) and the steady-state density and drift formulas (Eqs. 12 and 14) are derived in Appendices A–C via a moment expansion of the Fokker–Planck equation using explicit small-gradient and adiabatic closures. The numerical validation in Appendix D integrates the full monomer Langevin equations (Eq. 2) and orientation OUPs (Eq. 3) with no adjustable parameters, so the comparison provides independent support rather than a restatement of the theory. Self-citations to prior moment-expansion treatments (e.g., Refs. 25, 28, 33, 40) are methodological and non-load-bearing because the derivation is reproduced in the appendices. The paper itself flags the main limitation — the adiabatic approximation (Eq. B1) requires a timescale separation and becomes less accurate for large persistence times — but this is a robustness caveat, not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs. No fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors’ own earlier work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters fitted to data and no new physical entities. All parameters are standard model inputs. It relies on the Rouse model, AOUP activity, and two closure approximations (small gradients, adiabatic). The central prediction epsilon derives from the model without additional fitting.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Rouse Hamiltonian with quadratic springs and connectivity matrix M_ij describes the polymer.
    Implicit in Eq. (1); standard model for ideal polymers.
  • domain assumption Active monomers follow AOUP dynamics with persistence time tau.
    Eqs. (2)-(3); choice of active noise model.
  • domain assumption Small gradients approximation: activity variations are small compared to persistence length and bond length.
    Appendix B; needed to truncate gradient expansion. Violated for short-wavelength waves.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic approximation: orientation moments relax quasi-statically relative to center-of-mass density.
    Appendix B, Eq. (B1); requires sufficient timescale separation; may fail for large tau.
  • domain assumption The activity field is a traveling wave moving at constant speed v_w.
    Eq. (2) and Fig. 1; central premise of the study.
  • standard math Orthogonal diagonalization matrix phi exists with unit-normalized rows.
    Rouse transformation; follows from symmetry of connectivity matrix.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14246 in / 8902 out tokens · 75718 ms · 2026-08-02T19:14:31.194084+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Riding the Wave: Polymers in Time-dependent Nonequilibrium Baths." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6DZ5GKSK

@misc{pith2026260302777,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Riding the Wave: Polymers in Time-dependent Nonequilibrium Baths},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6DZ5GKSK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.02777}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Directed transport is a characteristic feature of numerous biological systems in response to signals such as nutrient and chemical gradients. These signals often depend on time owing to the high complexity of interactions in these systems. In this study, we focus on the steady-state behavior of polymeric systems responding to such time-dependent signals. We model them as ideal Rouse polymers submerged in a nonequilibrium bath, which is described by a spatially and temporally varying self-propulsion wave field. Through a coarse-graining analysis, we show that these polymers display rich emergent response to the temporal stimuli as a function of their length and topology. In particular, long polymers and structures with ring and star topologies ride the wave, displaying a positive drift in the direction of the wave. Whereas, shorter polymers and fully connected structures drift against the wave signal. We confirm these analytical predictions with robust numerical simulations, showing that the response of polymeric systems to temporal stimuli can be controlled by the topology or the length of the polymer.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.02777 by Abhinav Sharma, Bhavesh Valecha, Jens-Uwe Sommer.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of active polymers of varying lengths [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Steady state density profiles for linear active poly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Average drift for different lengths of the linear active [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.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

62 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ramaswamy, Annu

    S. Ramaswamy, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.1, 323 (2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

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

    2013

  3. [3]

    Ramaswamy, J

    S. Ramaswamy, J. Stat. Mech.2017, 054002 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    M. t. Vrugt, B. Liebchen, and M. E. Cates, What exactly is ’active matter’ ? (2025), arXiv:2507.21621 [cond-mat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    R. G. Winkler and G. Gompper, The Journal of Chemical Physics153, 040901 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    Guthold, X

    M. Guthold, X. Zhu, C. Rivetti, G. Yang, N. H. Thom- son, S. Kasas, H. G. Hansma, B. Smith, P. K. Hansma, and C. Bustamante, Biophysical Journal77, 2284 (1999)

    1999

  7. [7]

    S. C. Weber, A. J. Spakowitz, and J. A. Theriot, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences109, 7338 (2012), publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

    2012

  8. [8]

    Zidovska, D

    A. Zidovska, D. A. Weitz, and T. J. Mitchison, Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences110, 15555 (2013), publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

    2013

  9. [9]

    F. C. MacKintosh and A. J. Levine, Physical Review Let- ters100, 018104 (2008), publisher: American Physical Society

    2008

  10. [10]

    Ravichandran, G

    A. Ravichandran, G. A. Vliegenthart, G. Saggiorato, T. Auth, and G. Gompper, Biophysical Journal113, 1121 (2017), publisher: Elsevier

    2017

  11. [11]

    G. K. Auer, P. M. Oliver, M. Rajendram, T.-Y. Lin, Q. Yao, G. J. Jensen, and D. B. Weibel, mBio10, 10.1128/mbio.00210 (2019), publisher: American Society for Microbiology

    work page doi:10.1128/mbio.00210 2019

  12. [12]

    Y. I. Yaman, E. Demir, R. Vetter, and A. Kocabas, Na- ture Communications10, 2285 (2019), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2019

  13. [13]

    Wang and W

    J. Wang and W. Gao, ACS Nano6, 5745 (2012), pub- lisher: American Chemical Society

    2012

  14. [14]

    B. E.-F. de ´Avila, P. Angsantikul, J. Li, M. Angel Lopez-Ramirez, D. E. Ram ´ ırez-Herrera, S. Thamphi- watana, C. Chen, J. Delezuk, R. Samakapiruk, V. Ramez, M. Obonyo, L. Zhang, and J. Wang, Nature Communica- tions8, 272 (2017), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2017

  15. [15]

    Mathesh, J

    M. Mathesh, J. Sun, F. v. d. Sandt, and D. A. Wilson, Nanoscale12, 22495 (2020), publisher: The Royal Soci- ety of Chemistry

    2020

  16. [16]

    Jurado-S´ anchez and J

    B. Jurado-S´ anchez and J. Wang, Environmental Science: Nano5, 1530 (2018), publisher: The Royal Society of Chemistry

    2018

  17. [17]

    Parmar, D

    J. Parmar, D. Vilela, K. Villa, J. Wang, and S. S´ anchez, Journal of the American Chemical Society140, 9317 (2018), publisher: American Chemical Society

    2018

  18. [18]

    Baraban, M

    L. Baraban, M. Tasinkevych, M. N. Popescu, S. Sanchez, S. Dietrich, and O. G. Schmidt, Soft Matter8, 48 (2011), publisher: The Royal Society of Chemistry

    2011

  19. [19]

    X. Ma, K. Hahn, and S. Sanchez, Journal of the American Chemical Society137, 4976 (2015), publisher: American Chemical Society

    2015

  20. [20]

    Merlitz, C

    H. Merlitz, C. Wu, and J.-U. Sommer, Soft Matter13, 3726 (2017), publisher: The Royal Society of Chemistry

    2017

  21. [21]

    B. Qian, D. Montiel, A. Bregulla, F. Cichos, and H. Yang, Chem. Sci.4, 1420 (2013)

    2013

  22. [22]

    Mano, J.-B

    T. Mano, J.-B. Delfau, J. Iwasawa, and M. Sano, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.114, E2580 (2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    Massana-Cid, D

    H. Massana-Cid, D. Levis, R. J. H. Hern´ andez, I. Pag- onabarraga, and P. Tierno, Phys. Rev. Res.3, L042021 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    Valecha, H

    B. Valecha, H. Vahid, P. L. Muzzeddu, J.-U. Sommer, and A. Sharma, Soft Matter21, 3384 (2025), publisher: The Royal Society of Chemistry

    2025

  25. [25]

    H. D. Vuijk, H. Merlitz, M. Lang, A. Sharma, and J.-U. Sommer, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 208102 (2021)

    2021

  26. [26]

    H. D. Vuijk, S. Klempahn, H. Merlitz, J.-U. Sommer, and A. Sharma, Phys. Rev. E106, 014617 (2022)

    2022

  27. [27]

    P. L. Muzzeddu, H. D. Vuijk, H. L¨ owen, J.-U. Sommer, and A. Sharma, J. Chem. Phys.157, 134902 (2022)

    2022

  28. [28]

    P. L. Muzzeddu, A. Gambassi, J.-U. Sommer, and A. Sharma, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 118102 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    Ravichandir, B

    S. Ravichandir, B. Valecha, P. L. Muzzeddu, J.-U. Som- mer, and A. Sharma, Soft Matter21, 1835 (2025), pub- lisher: The Royal Society of Chemistry

    2025

  30. [30]

    Geiseler, P

    A. Geiseler, P. H¨ anggi, F. Marchesoni, C. Mulhern, and S. Savel’ev, Physical Review E94, 012613 (2016). 7

    2016

  31. [31]

    Geiseler, P

    A. Geiseler, P. H¨ anggi, and F. Marchesoni, Scientific Re- ports7, 41884 (2017)

    2017

  32. [32]

    Merlitz, H

    H. Merlitz, H. D. Vuijk, J. Brader, A. Sharma, and J.-U. Sommer, J. Chem. Phys.148, 194116 (2018)

    2018

  33. [33]

    P. L. Muzzeddu, ´E. Rold´ an, A. Gambassi, and A. Sharma, EPL142, 67001 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    Sommer and A

    J.-U. Sommer and A. Blumen, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General28, 6669 (1995)

    1995

  35. [35]

    Caprini and U

    L. Caprini and U. M. B. Marconi, Soft Matter15, 2627 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    Martin, J

    D. Martin, J. O’Byrne, M. E. Cates, E. Fodor, C. Nar- dini, J. Tailleur, and F. van Wijland, Physical Review E 103, 032607 (2021), publisher: American Physical Soci- ety

    2021

  37. [37]

    Caprini, A

    L. Caprini, A. R. Sprenger, H. L¨ owen, and R. Wittmann, The Journal of Chemical Physics156, 071102 (2022)

    2022

  38. [38]

    M. Doi, S. F. Edwards, M. Doi, and S. F. Edwards, The Theory of Polymer Dynamics, International Series of Monographs on Physics (Oxford University Press, Ox- ford, New York, 1988)

    1988

  39. [39]

    Risken,The Fokker-Planck Equation: Methods of So- lution and Applications, edited by H

    H. Risken,The Fokker-Planck Equation: Methods of So- lution and Applications, edited by H. Haken, Springer Series in Synergetics, Vol. 18 (Springer, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 1996)

    1996

  40. [40]

    M. E. Cates and J. Tailleur, EPL101, 20010 (2013)

    2013

  41. [41]

    N. S. Goel,Stochastic models in biology(Academic Press, New York, 1974)

    1974

  42. [42]

    H¨ anggi and F

    P. H¨ anggi and F. Marchesoni, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 387 (2009)

    2009

  43. [43]

    M. J. Schnitzer, Phys. Rev. E48, 2553 (1993)

    1993

  44. [44]

    Sharma and J

    A. Sharma and J. M. Brader, Phys. Rev. E96, 032604 (2017)

    2017

  45. [45]

    Bechinger, R

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

    2016

  46. [46]

    L¨ owen, Europhysics Letters121, 58001 (2018)

    H. L¨ owen, Europhysics Letters121, 58001 (2018)

    2018

  47. [47]

    Niu and T

    R. Niu and T. Palberg, Soft Matter14, 7554 (2018)

    2018

  48. [48]

    J. R. Howse, R. A. L. Jones, A. J. Ryan, T. Gough, R. Vafabakhsh, and R. Golestanian, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 048102 (2007)

    2007

  49. [50]

    W. Gao, A. Pei, R. Dong, and J. Wang, Journal of the American Chemical Society136, 2276 (2014)

    2014

  50. [51]

    Jiang, Physical Review Letters105, 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.105.268302 (2010)

    H.-R. Jiang, Physical Review Letters105, 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.105.268302 (2010)

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2010

  51. [52]

    W¨ urger, Reports on Progress in Physics73, 126601 (2010)

    A. W¨ urger, Reports on Progress in Physics73, 126601 (2010)

    2010

  52. [53]

    Scholz, A

    C. Scholz, A. Ldov, T. P¨ oschel, M. Engel, and H. L¨ owen, Sci. Adv.7, eabf8998 (2021)

    2021

  53. [54]

    Martinez-Pedrero, A

    F. Martinez-Pedrero, A. Cebers, and P. Tierno, Soft Mat- ter12, 3688 (2016)

    2016

  54. [55]

    Mhanna, Y

    R. Mhanna, Y. Gao, I. Van Tol, E. Springer, N. Wu, and D. W. M. Marr, Langmuir38, 5730 (2022)

    2022

  55. [56]

    Di Leonardo, Nature Materials15, 1057 (2016)

    R. Di Leonardo, Nature Materials15, 1057 (2016)

    2016

  56. [57]

    H. R. Vutukuri, B. Bet, R. van Roij, M. Dijkstra, and W. T. S. Huck, Scientific Reports7, 16758 (2017)

    2017

  57. [58]

    Nishiguchi, J

    D. Nishiguchi, J. Iwasawa, H.-R. Jiang, and M. Sano, New Journal of Physics20, 015002 (2018)

    2018

  58. [59]

    Biswas, R

    B. Biswas, R. K. Manna, A. Laskar, P. B. S. Kumar, R. Adhikari, and G. Kumaraswamy, ACS Nano11, 10025 (2017)

    2017

  59. [60]

    B. N. Kholodenko, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biol- ogy7, 165 (2006)

    2006

  60. [61]

    Caudron, G

    M. Caudron, G. Bunt, P. Bastiaens, and E. Karsenti, Science309, 1373 (2005)

    2005

  61. [62]

    Valecha, bhavesh-valecha/rouse-polymers-in-time- dependent- nonequilibrium-baths: Workflow release (citation) (2026)

    B. Valecha, bhavesh-valecha/rouse-polymers-in-time- dependent- nonequilibrium-baths: Workflow release (citation) (2026)

    2026

  62. [63]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun,Handbook of Mathe- matical Functions: With Formulas, Graphs, and Math- ematical Tables(Courier Corporation, 1965) google- Books-ID: MtU8uP7XMvoC. Appendix A: Coarse-graining Procedure Here, we entail the coarse-graining procedure to reach Eq. (7) and Eq. (8), starting from the Fokker-Planck equation Eq. (5). This is done in ...

    1965