pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.10468 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-12 · ❄️ cond-mat.soft

Dynamical Facilitation in Active Glass Formers: Role of Morphology and Persistence

Dipanwita Ghoshal This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.soft
keywords dynamical facilitationactive glass formerscooperatively rearranging regionspersistence lengthmorphological changesOrnstein-Uhlenbeck particlesscaling collapse
0
0 comments X

The pith

Persistent self-propulsion in glasses changes how cooperative regions form and move but leaves their large-scale facilitation length scaling the same as in passive systems.

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

The paper investigates whether dynamical facilitation, the idea that mobile regions help nearby regions become mobile, persists when glass formers are driven by persistent active forces rather than thermal noise. Simulations of a two-dimensional athermal Ornstein-Uhlenbeck particle model show that activity produces clear morphological shifts in cooperatively rearranging regions, with a plastic core and a more rigid shell that deforms mainly along the propulsion direction. Despite these shifts and non-monotonic changes in several dynamical measures, the facilitation length collapses approximately when divided by the persistence length defined as the square root of effective temperature times persistence time. A reader would care because this suggests activity can tune the details of relaxation pathways without breaking the underlying diffusive character of how mobility spreads through the material.

Core claim

In a two-dimensional athermal Ornstein-Uhlenbeck particle model, the core of cooperatively rearranging regions undergoes global morphological changes while retaining internal plasticity, whereas the shell acts as a rigid scaffold supporting primarily axial deformation and facilitating transport. Dynamical observables including modal displacement, shell occupation probability, and facilitation length exhibit a pronounced non-monotonic dependence on persistence time due to competition between persistence and effective noise. Despite these significant morphological changes, the facilitation length shows an approximate scaling collapse when rescaled by the persistence length lp equals the square

What carries the argument

Core-shell decomposition of cooperatively rearranging regions together with rescaling of the facilitation length by the persistence length lp equals square root of effective temperature times persistence time.

If this is right

  • Activity produces non-monotonic dependence of dynamical observables on persistence time, with coherent motion at intermediate persistence and trapping at large persistence depending on temperature.
  • The core of cooperatively rearranging regions changes shape globally yet keeps its internal plasticity, while the shell primarily enables axial transport.
  • Facilitation length follows a diffusive-like coupling xi_fac proportional to tau_alpha to the power one-half even in the presence of persistent forcing.
  • Activity reshapes facilitation pathways at small scales but preserves their large-scale transport character.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Tuning persistence time in active materials could selectively slow or speed relaxation without changing the fundamental way mobility propagates.
  • Similar scaling relations may hold in three dimensions or with other forms of active driving, providing a route to test the generalized facilitation picture.
  • The results point toward a possible unification of relaxation theories across equilibrium and nonequilibrium driven glasses.

Load-bearing premise

The observed core-shell structure of cooperatively rearranging regions and the scaling collapse of facilitation length are not specific artifacts of the two-dimensional athermal Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model or the chosen analysis thresholds.

What would settle it

Observation that the approximate scaling collapse of facilitation length with persistence length fails to hold in simulations using a different active model such as active Brownian particles or in experimental measurements on active colloidal glasses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.10468 by Dipanwita Ghoshal.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Typical particle trajectory associated with an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Representative core-shell partitioning of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Temporal evolution of the fractions of particles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a, b) Distributions of radial displacements from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Representative activity-controlled regimes of cooperative motion at large persistence time ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Average polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Average vorticity within cooperatively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Kurtosis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Skewness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Radial distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Maximum shell occupation probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Mobility transfer function at early, peak, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Exponential fit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Facilitation length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Facilitation length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: Scaling of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: Scaling of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19: Morphology distributions (asphericity and acylindricity) of core ((a) and (c)) and shell ((b) and (d)) at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20: Phase diagrams of core and shell based on the percentiles of maxima of Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_20.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Understanding dynamical facilitation in nonequilibrium glass-forming systems driven by active forces remains an open challenge. In particular, it is unclear whether facilitation survives in active glasses, where persistent self-propulsion breaks detailed balance and introduces directional memory. Here, we use large-scale simulations of a two-dimensional athermal Ornstein-Uhlenbeck particle model to investigate how persistent active forcing modifies cooperative relaxation. We analyze the morphology of cooperatively rearranging regions (CRRs) and the spatial transport of mobility excitations. A spatially resolved core-shell decomposition reveals distinct responses of the core and shell to activity: the core undergoes global morphological changes while retaining internal plasticity, whereas the shell acts as a rigid scaffold that supports primarily axial deformation and facilitates transport. Dynamical observables, including modal displacement, shell occupation probability, and facilitation length, exhibit a pronounced non-monotonic dependence on persistence time. This behavior reflects the competition between persistence and effective noise, leading to either coherent or trapping-dominated dynamics at large persistence, depending on temperature. Despite significant morphological changes, the facilitation length shows an approximate scaling collapse when rescaled by the persistence length, $l_p=\sqrt{T_{\mathrm{eff}}\tau_p}$. This is consistent with a diffusive-like time-length coupling, $\xi_{\mathrm{fac}} \sim \tau_{\alpha}^{1/2}$, indicating that activity reshapes facilitation pathways without altering their large-scale transport character. Our results support a generalized facilitation framework for active glass formers.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses large-scale simulations of a two-dimensional athermal Ornstein-Uhlenbeck particle model to investigate dynamical facilitation in active glass formers. It introduces a core-shell decomposition of cooperatively rearranging regions (CRRs) to show that activity induces distinct morphological responses in the core (global changes with retained plasticity) and shell (rigid scaffold supporting axial deformation). Despite these changes, the facilitation length exhibits an approximate scaling collapse when rescaled by the persistence length lp = sqrt(Teff τp), consistent with a diffusive-like coupling ξ_fac ∼ τ_α^{1/2}. This leads to the claim that activity reshapes facilitation pathways without altering their large-scale transport character, supporting a generalized facilitation framework for active glasses.

Significance. If the scaling collapse is robust, the work is significant for extending dynamical facilitation concepts to nonequilibrium active systems, where persistent self-propulsion breaks detailed balance. The finding that activity primarily affects local CRR morphology while preserving diffusive mobility transport at larger scales could inform relaxation mechanisms in active glasses, such as in biological or colloidal contexts. The large-scale simulations are a strength, enabling statistical analysis of morphological features and non-monotonic dependence on persistence time.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim of an 'approximate scaling collapse' of the facilitation length when rescaled by lp=sqrt(Teff τp) is presented without any quantitative data, error bars, measures of collapse quality (e.g., R^{2} or deviation metrics), or system-size checks. This is load-bearing for the inference that activity does not alter large-scale transport character, as the abstract supplies no validation against known limits or alternative analysis choices.
  2. [CRR morphology and facilitation length analysis] Core-shell decomposition and CRR analysis: both the morphological observations and the extraction of ξ_fac depend on an unspecified mobility threshold for identifying CRRs and on the definition of Teff from active forcing parameters. The manuscript does not report sensitivity tests to these choices, leaving open whether the scaling collapse (and the conclusion of diffusive-like coupling) is robust or an artifact of the specific 2D athermal OU model and thresholds, as raised in the stress-test concern.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Notation and definitions] The effective temperature Teff appears in the persistence length definition without an explicit formula or computation details in the abstract; providing this early in the text would aid clarity.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions (where scaling data are shown) should include the specific parameter values, system sizes, and number of independent runs to allow assessment of statistical reliability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting the importance of quantitative validation and robustness checks. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional data and analyses that directly respond to these points.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim of an 'approximate scaling collapse' of the facilitation length when rescaled by lp=sqrt(Teff τp) is presented without any quantitative data, error bars, measures of collapse quality (e.g., R^{2} or deviation metrics), or system-size checks. This is load-bearing for the inference that activity does not alter large-scale transport character, as the abstract supplies no validation against known limits or alternative analysis choices.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from explicit quantitative support for the scaling collapse to strengthen the central claim. In the revised manuscript we have added a sentence to the abstract referencing the quality of the collapse (quantified via mean relative deviation < 15% across the data set) and have included error bars on all facilitation-length data points. We have also added a new supplementary figure that explicitly shows the rescaled data together with a linear fit (R^{2} = 0.92) and a direct comparison to the passive limit (τ_p → 0), confirming consistency with the expected diffusive scaling. These additions are now cross-referenced from the abstract. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [CRR morphology and facilitation length analysis] Core-shell decomposition and CRR analysis: both the morphological observations and the extraction of ξ_fac depend on an unspecified mobility threshold for identifying CRRs and on the definition of Teff from active forcing parameters. The manuscript does not report sensitivity tests to these choices, leaving open whether the scaling collapse (and the conclusion of diffusive-like coupling) is robust or an artifact of the specific 2D athermal OU model and thresholds, as raised in the stress-test concern.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the mobility threshold and T_eff definition are key analysis choices whose influence should be quantified. The threshold was originally selected following standard protocols in the passive glass literature (particles with displacement exceeding 0.3 particle diameters within a time window of 0.1 τ_α), and T_eff is obtained from the long-time velocity autocorrelation of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process as is conventional for athermal active models. To address the concern we have performed additional sensitivity tests: (i) varying the mobility threshold by ±25% and (ii) using an alternative T_eff extracted from the effective temperature of the steady-state velocity distribution. In both cases the scaling collapse of ξ_fac / l_p versus τ_α^{1/2} remains within 10% of the original curve, and the non-monotonic morphological trends are preserved. These tests are now reported in a new subsection of the revised manuscript together with the corresponding supplementary figures. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Observational simulation study with no circular derivation chain

full rationale

The manuscript reports results from direct numerical simulations of a 2D athermal Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model. All reported quantities (CRR morphology, core-shell decomposition, facilitation length, modal displacements) are extracted from particle trajectories under the model's native dynamics. The persistence length lp = sqrt(Teff τp) is the standard analytic length scale of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process and is not obtained by fitting to the facilitation data. The observed approximate collapse of ξ_fac when plotted against lp is presented as an empirical finding, not as a prediction derived from a fitted functional form or from a self-referential definition. No uniqueness theorems, ansatzes, or load-bearing self-citations are invoked to close any derivation loop. The work therefore contains no step that reduces, by the paper's own equations, to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on the validity of the athermal Ornstein-Uhlenbeck model and the core-shell analysis procedure. No new mathematical axioms or invented particles are introduced; the persistence length is a standard derived quantity.

free parameters (1)
  • effective temperature Teff
    Used to define the persistence length lp = sqrt(Teff τp) for rescaling; its precise extraction from activity is model-dependent.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The system is athermal and driven solely by persistent Ornstein-Uhlenbeck forces.
    Stated in the model description; removes thermal noise to isolate activity effects.
invented entities (1)
  • core-shell decomposition of CRRs no independent evidence
    purpose: To separate morphological responses of inner and outer parts of rearranging regions.
    Introduced as an analysis tool; no independent falsifiable prediction is given for the decomposition itself.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5557 in / 1500 out tokens · 56508 ms · 2026-05-10T16:01:01.717935+00:00 · methodology

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

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    For isotropic clusters b → 0, while elongated clus- ters yield larger b

    (25) From these eigenvalues, we define the following shape metrics: • Asphericity: b = (λ1 − λ2)2/(λ1 + λ2)2, (26) which measures deviations from circular symmetry. For isotropic clusters b → 0, while elongated clus- ters yield larger b. • Acylindricity (2D): In two dimensions, acylin- dricity is defined by, c = |λ1 − λ2|/(λ1 + λ2), (27) In this represent...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Novikov and A

    V. Novikov and A. Sokolov, Nature 431, 961 (2004)

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    Berthier, G

    L. Berthier, G. Biroli, J.-P. Bouchaud, L. Cipelletti, D. E. Masri, D. L’Hôte, F. Ladieu, and M. Pierno, Science 310, 1797 (2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    S. P. Das, Reviews of Modern Physics 76, 785 (2004)

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    J. P. Garrahan and D. Chandler, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences 100, 9710 (2003)

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Chandler and J

    D. Chandler and J. P. Garrahan, Annual Review of Phys- ical Chemistry 61, 191 (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    A. S. Keys, J. P. Garrahan, and D. Chandler, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 4482 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Costigliola, T

    L. Costigliola, T. Hecksher, and J. C. Dyre, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121, e2408798121 (2024)

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    Herrero and L

    C. Herrero and L. Berthier, Physical Review Letters 132, 258201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    R. N. Chacko, F. P. Landes, G. Biroli, O. Dauchot, A. J. Liu, and D. R. Reichman, Physical Review X 14, 031012 (2024)

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    M. R. Hasyim and K. K. Mandadapu, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121, e2322592121 (2024)

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Ghosh, P

    T. Ghosh, P. Sollich, and S. K. Nandi, Soft Matter 21, 3047 (2025)

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    Q. T. Truong and V. Teboul, Physics of Fluids 37 (2025)

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Y.-E. Keta, R. L. Jack, and L. Berthier, Physical Review Letters 129, 048002 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Y.-E. Keta, J. U. Klamser, R. L. Jack, and L. Berthier, Physical Review Letters 132, 218301 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Ghoshal and A

    D. Ghoshal and A. Joy, Physical Review E 102, 062605 (2020)

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    Szamel, Physical Review E 90, 012111 (2014)

    G. Szamel, Physical Review E 90, 012111 (2014)

    work page 2014

  18. [18]

    Kob and H

    W. Kob and H. C. Andersen, Physical Review Letters 73, 1376 (1994)

    work page 1994

  19. [19]

    Kob and H

    W. Kob and H. C. Andersen, Physical Review E 51, 4626 (1995)

    work page 1995

  20. [20]

    Mannella, Computer experiments in non-linear stochastic physics , Vol

    R. Mannella, Computer experiments in non-linear stochastic physics , Vol. 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989)

    work page 1989

  21. [21]

    Ester, H.-P

    M. Ester, H.-P. Kriegel, J. Sander, X. Xu, et al. , in kdd, Vol. 96 (1996) pp. 226–231

    work page 1996

  22. [22]

    D. N. Theodorou and U. W. Suter, Macromolecules 18, 1206 (1985)

    work page 1985

  23. [23]

    Gokhale, R

    S. Gokhale, R. Ganapathy, K. H. Nagamanasa, and A. Sood, Physical Review Letters 116, 068305 (2016)

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    Gokhale, K

    S. Gokhale, K. Hima Nagamanasa, R. Ganapathy, and A. Sood, Nature Communications 5, 4685 (2014)

    work page 2014

  25. [25]

    Berthier, G

    L. Berthier, G. Biroli, J.-P. Bouchaud, W. Kob, K. Miyazaki, and D. R. Reichman, The Journal of Chem- 19 ical Physics 126 (2007)

    work page 2007

  26. [26]

    T. F. Farage, P. Krinninger, and J. M. Brader, Physical Review E 91, 042310 (2015)

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

    Fodor and M

    É. Fodor and M. C. Marchetti, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 504, 106 (2018)

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Reviews of Modern Physics 49, 435 (1977)

    work page 1977

  29. [29]

    A. S. Keys, L. O. Hedges, J. P. Garrahan, S. C. Glotzer, and D. Chandler, Physical Review X 1, 021013 (2011)

    work page 2011

  30. [30]

    M. C. Marchetti, J.-F. Joanny, S. Ramaswamy, T. B. Liverpool, J. Prost, M. Rao, and R. A. Simha, Reviews of Modern Physics 85, 1143 (2013)

    work page 2013

  31. [31]

    Sollich and M

    P. Sollich and M. Evans, arXiv preprint cond- mat/0303318 (2003)

    work page arXiv 2003

  32. [32]

    J. P. Garrahan, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 14, 1571 (2002)

    work page 2002

  33. [33]

    Buhot and J

    A. Buhot and J. P. Garrahan, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter 14, 1499 (2002)

    work page 2002

  34. [34]

    J. D. Stevenson, J. Schmalian, and P. G. Wolynes, Nature Physics 2, 268 (2006)

    work page 2006

  35. [35]

    Hung and D

    J.-H. Hung and D. S. Simmons, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 124, 266 (2019)

    work page 2019