Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Identifying the relevant parameters in design strategies for stable glasses

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that structural order in stable glasses is a byproduct, not the cause, of their stability.

desk verdict A well-designed negative control for stable-glass design rules; the post-compression characterization gap is the main soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.12127 v2 pith:YUREZCHJ submitted 2026-05-12 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.softphysics.comp-ph

Leonardo Galliano , Ludovic Berthier This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.softphysics.comp-ph
keywords ultrastableglasseshyperuniformitylocalpackingorderparameterglassstabilityparticle-diameterdynamicsharddisksMonteCarlosimulationequationofstate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Many numerical routes to ultrastable glasses optimize a structural quantity—hyperuniformity at large scale or local packing order at small scale—while also letting particle diameters evolve. This paper asks whether the optimized quantity is what produces the stability, and answers no. Using two new position-only protocols that push these structural metrics to values typical of very stable glasses while leaving diameters fixed, the authors find no gain in stability: the resulting glasses follow exactly the same decompression equation of state as ordinary glasses prepared from the same initial fluid. The central conclusion is that the dynamical process, most plausibly the coupled position-diameter dynamics, is the causal agent, and the optimized structure is a correlated symptom. If right, this redirects the design problem for stable glasses from choosing the right target observable to engineering the right dynamics.

What carries the argument

Two position-only non-equilibrium protocols. Conserved biased random organization dynamics suppresses large-scale density fluctuations, producing χ(q)~q^2 at small q without touching diameters; biased Monte Carlo with a modified Hamiltonian H = H0 + λΘ^2 drives the local packing order parameter Θ far into the tail of its equilibrium distribution. Both are designed to decouple the optimized observable from any diameter dynamics. Stability is benchmarked along the decompression glass equation of state (1/φ versus 1/Z), measured in a regime where no particle rearrangements occur, so that denser curves at fixed Z indicate deeper, more stable glasses.

What would settle it

Take a hyperuniform or low-Θ configuration produced by the paper's position-only protocols, then probe kinetic stability directly under fixed diameters—for example by measuring structural relaxation time or the onset of melting on reheating. If these optimized configurations relax significantly more slowly or survive to higher temperature than conventional glasses from the same initial pressure, the claim that structure does not cause stability would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is negative: strongly enhancing two structural signatures of stable glasses—density-fluctuation suppression (hyperuniformity) at long wavelengths and local packing order, as measured by the order parameter Θ—while keeping all particle diameters fixed does not improve glass stability at all. Glasses built from these optimized configurations have essentially the same decompression equation of state as conventional glasses made from the same initial equilibrium fluid, so the depth of the glassy state is still controlled entirely by the initial pressure Z_init. The authors conclude that hyperuniformity and local order are correlated with stability because they are c

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the decompression equation of state, measured without particle rearrangements, is a sensitive enough proxy for glass stability that a structurally optimized glass that is genuinely more stable would necessarily appear denser at the same reduced pressure along that curve.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reported correlations between structural order and glass stability should be treated as symptoms, not control parameters; design strategies should be compared by their underlying dynamics rather than by the observable they optimize.
  • Existing ultrastable-glass algorithms that target hyperuniformity or local order likely owe their success to the coupled position-diameter dynamics embedded in them, so removing that coupling should remove the stability gain.
  • This explains why protocols aimed at very different observables can produce similarly stable glasses: they share the same dynamical mechanism, not the same target quantity.
  • For vapor-deposited ultrastable glasses, the controlling factor should be the deposition dynamics (surface-bulk decoupling), not the structural anisotropy or other structural features of the film.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper's reasoning generalizes, the same decoupling test could be applied to other optimized observables, such as local virial stress; the plausible prediction is that it too will confer no stability when diameters are frozen.
  • A sharper confirmatory test is to run a protocol with active position-diameter coupling but no targeted structural observable; producing ultrastable glasses in that case would directly implicate the dynamics rather than any metric.
  • Hyperuniformity may still be causally important for other material properties, such as optical response, transport, or mechanical performance, even if it is not causal for thermodynamic or kinetic stability.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the question of which parameters in computational design strategies for stable glasses are causally responsible for enhanced stability. Using a two-dimensional hard-disk glass former, the authors construct two non-equilibrium protocols that optimize a structural quantity while keeping particle diameters fixed: (i) hyperuniformity at large scales, via conserved biased random organization dynamics (Sec. III.A), and (ii) local packing order Θ, via biased Monte Carlo targeting a modified Hamiltonian (Sec. IV.A). For both cases, the optimized configurations are then subjected to the same fast-compression/decompression protocol used to prepare conventional glasses from equilibrium fluid states at the same Z_init. The central empirical result, reported in Figs. 5 and 7, is that the glass equations of state are grouped by Z_init, not by whether the configurations were structurally optimized. The paper concludes that hyperuniformity and local order are correlated with stability but not causally responsible; the stability gain in prior algorithms is instead attributed to the coupled position–diameter dynamics. The manuscript is clearly written and the null result is a controlled comparison, but several load-bearing issues need attention, particularly whether the optimized structure survives the fast compression into the glass state.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper would reframe the interpretation of many recent stable-glass algorithms: the targeted physical observable (hyperuniformity, local packing, stress fluctuations) may be a byproduct of the dynamical process rather than the causal agent. This is a timely and potentially influential message for the glass community. The study has clear strengths: it uses an independent controlled design, validates the biased-MC sampling by reweighting to reconstruct the equilibrium distribution (Fig. 6d), varies Z_init over a wide dynamic range, and makes the data openly available. However, the conclusion is only as strong as the evidence that the optimized structural features actually survive into the measured glass state, and the statistical support for the null result is currently visual rather than quantitative. Because the manuscript’s central claim rests on these two points, they must be addressed before the conclusion can be regarded as firmly established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Secs. III.B and IV.B] The optimized structural quantities are characterized only before the fast compression: χ(q) in Fig. 4 is measured at the end of the random-organization protocol, and Θ in Fig. 6 is measured in the biased-MC steady state. The stability protocol then compresses to Z=500, ages for 10^5 steps, and decompresses. The paper does not report χ(q) or Θ in the compressed glass state. If the fast compression erases the optimized hyperuniformity or local order, the null result reduces to the statement that a standard quench from different Z_init controls stability, and the causal role of the optimized structures is untested. The authors should measure χ(q) and Θ in the final glass (or at least at an intermediate pressure) for both optimized and conventional glasses, and show that the optimized quantities are indeed present in the glasses whose stability is compared. This is necessary to substantiate
  2. [Figs. 5 and 7] The central null result is that the glass equations of state “are grouped by colors,” with optimized and conventional glasses equally stable. However, the figures show single curves with no error bars, no measure of sample-to-sample fluctuations, and no statement of how many independent realizations were averaged. Without this, the claim that the curves are equivalent is not statistically grounded. Please provide the number of independent runs, error bars (or confidence bands), and, ideally, a quantitative comparison (e.g., the difference in 1/φ at a given 1/Z versus the estimated uncertainty). This is essential for a null result that aims to exclude a causal effect.
  3. [Sec. IV.A and bulk protocol] The biased Monte Carlo simulations in Sec. IV.A are performed with N=200 particles, whereas the bulk equilibrium and conventional-glass protocol (Sec. II.A) is described with N=1000. The text does not state what system size is used for the stability runs of the optimized configurations in Fig. 7. If the optimized and conventional glasses are prepared at different N, finite-size effects could affect the equation of state and confound the comparison. Please clarify the system size used in each stability measurement, and if needed, run the biased-MC stability tests at the same N as the conventional protocol to rule out size effects.
  4. [Sec. II.D and Figs. 5/7] The stability comparison uses only the decompression equation of state (1/φ vs 1/Z), which reflects the density/free-volume difference between glasses. The authors explicitly check that no rearrangements occur on decompression, but this measure does not capture all aspects of kinetic stability, such as resistance to rearrangement under heating or shear. A glass with optimized local structure could in principle exhibit kinetic stability that is not visible in this thermodynamic proxy. The conclusion should be scoped to the measured stability metric, or the authors should add a complementary probe (e.g., thermal cycling, shear response) to strengthen the claim that stability is unchanged.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.A] There is a typographical artifact: “…and suppressed density fluctuations at large length scales, and these have been obtained without any dynamic coupling between diameters and positions. Ale” — the stray “Ale” should be removed.
  2. [Sec. II.B / Fig. 1] The parabolic fit parameters (A,B,C) are mentioned but not defined in the text or table. For reproducibility, give their values or the fitting function explicitly.
  3. [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (6)] The acceptance probability contains β, but for hard disks β is immaterial and effectively absorbed into λ. It would be clearer to state that β is set to unity or show explicitly how the hard-sphere limit is taken.
  4. [Fig. 3] The axes are labeled “1/Z” and “1/φ”; the caption calls 1/φ the free volume. A brief sentence noting the analogy to energy–temperature plots would help readers unfamiliar with this representation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the null result is an independent controlled experiment; self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that optimizing hyperuniformity or the local packing order parameter Θ without coupled position–diameter dynamics does not improve glass stability—rests on controlled numerical experiments (Figs. 5 and 7). Optimized and conventional configurations are prepared at the same initial pressure/density, subjected to the same fast compression to Z=500, aging, and decompression, and compared via the glass equation of state (1/φ vs 1/Z). This stability metric is defined through the decompression protocol (Sec. II.D) and is logically independent of the optimized observables χ(q) and Θ; no equation identifies stability with either structural quantity, so the null result is not self-definitional. The parabolic fit to τ_α(Z) (Fig. 1b) is used only to extrapolate relaxation times at Z≈36 and Z≈29–40 for calibration; the actual stability comparison is measured directly, so no fitted input is relabeled as a prediction. The interpretive claim that diameter–position dynamics is the causal agent is explicitly offered as 'the most plausible interpretation' (Sec. V) and is supported by (i) the independent null result and (ii) the swap-Monte-Carlo literature. Several swap-MC references are the authors' own (Refs. [27,45–50]), but the swap acceleration is an externally reproduced, parameter-free result, so these citations are real evidence rather than a load-bearing self-citation chain. Two limitations weaken the breadth (not the circularity) of the claim: the paper does not verify χ(q) or Θ in the compressed glass used for stability measurement (Fig. 4 shows χ(q) only before compression; Fig. 6 shows Θ only during biased MC), so the fast quench could in principle erase the targeted structure; and Sec. V acknowledges that improved stability 'could also stem, in part, from some increase in local order.' Both are empirical gaps, not reductions of the conclusion to its inputs. Because the two families differ only in structure at fixed density and the outcome is measured with an independent metric, the derivation chain is self-contained and no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central null result rests on relatively few domain assumptions: the choice of hard-disk model as a glass former, the use of random-organization dynamics to create hyperuniform states at fixed diameter, the biased-MC ensemble as a way to produce low-Θ states, and the decompression EoS as the stability metric. No new physical entities are introduced. The main fitted input is the parabolic extrapolation of relaxation times, which is used for context rather than to produce the negative result.

free parameters (2)
  • Parabolic fit parameters (A,B,C) for log τα vs Z = not stated (fit to Fig. 1b data)
    Used in Secs. III.A and IV.A to convert optimized χ(qmin) and Θ values into equivalent equilibrium relaxation times (e.g. τα~10^19 at Z≈36). These extrapolated time scales support the claim that the optimization is strong, but are not needed for the null stability result.
  • Bias strength λ = λ=5×10^5 for main optimization; 0–7.5×10^3 for reweighting tests
    Chosen by hand to drive Θ to low values in the biased MC algorithm (Eq. 5). The main conclusion is insensitive to the value; several λ are used to validate reweighting.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Detailed balance of local MC and NPT moves samples the equilibrium hard-disk distribution
    Sec. II.A; used to define equilibrium baselines and the biased-MC proposal distribution.
  • domain assumption Conserved biased random organization dynamics reaches a hyperuniform steady state at fixed area fraction
    Sec. III.A; borrowed from Refs. [38–42]; the paper does not re-derive the hyperuniform steady state, it relies on it to generate optimized configurations.
  • domain assumption The parabolic law for log τα vs 1/Z (Elmatad et al.) applies to this 2D hard-disk model
    Sec. II.B; used to extrapolate relaxation times beyond Z≈29 (e.g. Z=36, 38, 40); the extrapolated values are not direct measurements.
  • domain assumption Glass stability can be read off the decompression equation of state 1/φ vs 1/Z
    Sec. II.D; the protocol assumes no particle rearrangements during decompression and that denser glass EoS corresponds to more stable glass; this is the metric used for all stability comparisons.
  • standard math Metropolis-Hastings acceptance in Eq. (6) is valid for proposals generated by n MC steps satisfying detailed balance wrt H0
    Sec. IV.A; used to justify biased sampling; the algebra follows from detailed balance and target ratio.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identifying the relevant parameters in design strategies for stable glasses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YUREZCHJ

@misc{pith2026260512127,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identifying the relevant parameters in design strategies for stable glasses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YUREZCHJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.12127}
}
read the original abstract

A glass is conventionally obtained by cooling a bulk supercooled liquid through its glass transition temperature. The discovery of ultrastable glasses prepared using physical vapor deposition, together with the recent multiplication of numerical algorithms created to increase the stability of glasses, demonstrates the existence of a variety of strategies for designing glasses with different physical properties. This raises a broader question: which parameters most strongly govern the enhancement of glass stability? Existing computational strategies often produce highly stable glasses by optimizing certain physical properties through dynamical changes in particle diameters. We challenge the idea that these physical quantities are causally responsible for glass stability and suggest instead that diameter dynamics is the principal source of enhanced stability. To support our view, we introduce computational methods to optimize physical quantities without changing the particle diameters. Using the examples of enhanced hyperuniformity at large scale and local ordering at small scale, we design glass configurations with highly optimized values compared to bulk equilibrium states. However, these glasses do not show enhanced stability. The proposed physical quantities are correlated with glass stability, but are not causally responsible for ultrastability. These findings indicate that design rules for stable glasses should be reinterpreted in terms of the dynamical processes that generate stability, rather than the optimized physical quantities they target.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.12127 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Equilibrium slow dynamics of the bulk model. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Static bulk properties in thermal equilibrium. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Optimizing hyperuniformity at large length scales. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Glass equations of state for glasses prepared using ei [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Berthier and M

    L. Berthier and M. D. Ediger, Facets of glass physics, Physics today69, 40 (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    C. A. Angell, Formation of glasses from liquids and biopolymers, Science267, 1924 (1995)

    1924

  3. [3]

    C. P. Royall, F. Turci, S. Tatsumi, J. Russo, and J. Robinson, The race to the bottom: approaching the ideal glass?, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter30, 363001 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    S. F. Swallen, K. L. Kearns, M. K. Mapes, Y. S. Kim, R. J. McMahon, T. Wu, L. Yu, and S. Satija, Organic glasses with exceptional thermodynamic and kinetic sta- bility, Science315, 353 (2007)

    2007

  5. [5]

    M. D. Ediger, Perspective: Highly stable vapor-deposited glasses, The Journal of Chemical Physics147, 210901 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Rodriguez-Tinoco, M

    C. Rodriguez-Tinoco, M. Gonzalez-Silveira, M. A. Ramos, and J. Rodriguez-Viejo, Ultrastable glasses: new perspectives for an old problem, La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento45, 325 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Berthier and D

    L. Berthier and D. R. Reichman, Modern computational studies of the glass transition, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 102 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Barrat and L

    J.-L. Barrat and L. Berthier, Computer simulations of the glass transition and glassy materials, Comptes Rendus. Physique24, 57 (2023)

    2023

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Leoni, M

    F. Leoni, M. Ozawa, J. Russo, T. Yanagishima, and A. Ninarello, Computational methods towards ultra- stable glasses, arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.02679 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Zhang, F

    G. Zhang, F. H. Stillinger, and S. Torquato, The perfect glass paradigm: Disordered hyperuniform glasses down to absolute zero, Scientific reports6, 36963 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Berthier, P

    L. Berthier, P. Charbonneau, E. Flenner, and F. Zam- poni, Origin of ultrastability in vapor-deposited glasses, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 188002 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Brito, E

    C. Brito, E. Lerner, and M. Wyart, Theory for swap ac- celeration near the glass and jamming transitions for con- tinuously polydisperse particles, Phys. Rev. X8, 031050 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Yanagishima, J

    T. Yanagishima, J. Russo, R. P. A. Dullens, and H. Tanaka, Towards glasses with permanent stability, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 215501 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    V. F. Hagh, S. R. Nagel, A. J. Liu, M. L. Manning, and E. I. Corwin, Transient learning degrees of freedom for introducing function in materials, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences119, e2117622119 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    J. R. Dale, J. D. Sartor, R. C. Dennis, and E. I. Corwin, Hyperuniform jammed sphere packings have anomalous material properties, Phys. Rev. E106, 024903 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    X. Fan, D. Xu, J. Zhang, H. Hu, P. Tan, N. Xu, H. Tanaka, and H. Tong, Ideal non-crystals as a distinct form of ordered states without symmetry breaking, Na- ture Materials , 1 (2026)

    2026

  9. [17]

    Y. Wang, Z. Qian, H. Tong, and H. Tanaka, Hyperuni- form disordered solids with crystal-like stability, Nature 11 Communications16, 1398 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Leoni, J

    F. Leoni, J. Russo, F. Sciortino, and T. Yanagishima, Generating ultrastable glasses by homogenizing the local virial stress, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 128201 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    V. M. Bolton-Lum, R. C. Dennis, P. K. Morse, and E. I. Corwin, Ideal glass and ideal disk packing in two dimen- sions, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 058201 (2026)

    2026

  12. [20]

    Kapteijns, W

    G. Kapteijns, W. Ji, C. Brito, M. Wyart, and E. Lerner, Fast generation of ultrastable computer glasses by min- imization of an augmented potential energy, Phys. Rev. E99, 012106 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Berthier and M

    L. Berthier and M. Ediger, Designing disordered mate- rials beyond equilibrium: Glasses, Nature Materials , 1 (2026)

    2026

  14. [22]

    Torquato, Hyperuniform states of matter, Physics Re- ports745, 1 (2018)

    S. Torquato, Hyperuniform states of matter, Physics Re- ports745, 1 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Tong and H

    H. Tong and H. Tanaka, Revealing hidden structural or- der controlling both fast and slow glassy dynamics in supercooled liquids, Phys. Rev. X8, 011041 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Frenkel and B

    D. Frenkel and B. Smit,Understanding Molecular Sim- ulation: From Algorithms to Applications, third edition ed. (Elsevier Academic Press, S.l., 2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    T. S. Grigera and G. Parisi, Fast monte carlo algorithm for supercooled soft spheres, Phys. Rev. E63, 045102 (2001)

    2001

  18. [26]

    Berthier, D

    L. Berthier, D. Coslovich, A. Ninarello, and M. Ozawa, Equilibrium sampling of hard spheres up to the jamming density and beyond, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 238002 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Ninarello, L

    A. Ninarello, L. Berthier, and D. Coslovich, Models and algorithms for the next generation of glass transition studies, Phys. Rev. X7, 021039 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Berthier and W

    L. Berthier and W. Kob, The monte carlo dynamics of a binary lennard-jones glass-forming mixture, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter19, 205130 (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    Berthier and T

    L. Berthier and T. A. Witten, Glass transition of dense fluids of hard and compressible spheres, Phys. Rev. E80, 021502 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    Y. S. Elmatad, D. Chandler, and J. P. Garrahan, Cor- responding states of structural glass formers, The Jour- nal of Physical Chemistry B113, 5563 (2009), pMID: 19254014

    2009

  23. [31]

    Berthier and M

    L. Berthier and M. D. Ediger, How to “measure” a struc- tural relaxation time that is too long to be measured?, The Journal of Chemical Physics153, 044501 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Berthier, P

    L. Berthier, P. Chaudhuri, C. Coulais, O. Dauchot, and P. Sollich, Suppressed compressibility at large scale in jammed packings of size-disperse spheres, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 120601 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    A. B. Bhatia and D. E. Thornton, Structural aspects of the electrical resistivity of binary alloys, Phys. Rev. B2, 3004 (1970)

    1970

  26. [34]

    Ikeda and L

    A. Ikeda and L. Berthier, Thermal fluctuations, mechan- ical response, and hyperuniformity in jammed solids, Phys. Rev. E92, 012309 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Berthier and G

    L. Berthier and G. Biroli, Theoretical perspective on the glass transition and amorphous materials, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 587 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    C. J. Fullerton and L. Berthier, Density controls the ki- netic stability of ultrastable glasses, Europhysics Letters 119, 36003 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Corte, P

    L. Corte, P. M. Chaikin, J. P. Gollub, and D. J. Pine, Random organization in periodically driven systems, Na- ture Physics4, 420 (2008)

    2008

  30. [38]

    Hexner and D

    D. Hexner and D. Levine, Noise, diffusion, and hyperuni- formity, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 020601 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Hexner, P

    D. Hexner, P. M. Chaikin, and D. Levine, Enhanced hy- peruniformity from random reorganization, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114, 4294 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Wilken, R

    S. Wilken, R. E. Guerra, D. Levine, and P. M. Chaikin, Random close packing as a dynamical phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 038002 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Galliano, M

    L. Galliano, M. E. Cates, and L. Berthier, Two- dimensional crystals far from equilibrium, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 047101 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Galliano and L

    L. Galliano and L. Berthier, Glass and jamming tran- sitions in a random organization model, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.15519 (2026)

    2026

  35. [43]

    Landau and K

    D. Landau and K. Binder,A guide to Monte Carlo simu- lations in statistical physics(Cambridge university press, 2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    A. M. Ferrenberg and R. H. Swendsen, Optimized monte carlo data analysis, Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 1195 (1989)

    1989

  37. [45]

    Berthier, E

    L. Berthier, E. Flenner, C. J. Fullerton, C. Scalliet, and M. Singh, Efficient swap algorithms for molecular dynam- ics simulations of equilibrium supercooled liquids, Jour- nal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2019, 064004 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Szamel, Theory for the dynamics of glassy mixtures with particle size swaps, Phys

    G. Szamel, Theory for the dynamics of glassy mixtures with particle size swaps, Phys. Rev. E98, 050601(R) (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    Ikeda, F

    H. Ikeda, F. Zamponi, and A. Ikeda, Mean field theory of the swap monte carlo algorithm, The Journal of Chemical Physics147, 234506 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Nishikawa, F

    Y. Nishikawa, F. Ghimenti, L. Berthier, and F. van Wij- land, Irreversible swap algorithms for soft sphere glasses, Phys. Rev. E111, 045416 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    Ghimenti, L

    F. Ghimenti, L. Berthier, and F. van Wijland, Irreversible monte carlo algorithms for hard disk glasses: From event- chain to collective swaps, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 028202 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Berthier, F

    L. Berthier, F. Ghimenti, and F. van Wijland, Monte carlo simulations of glass-forming liquids beyond metropolis, The Journal of Chemical Physics161, 114105 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    S. S. Dalal, D. M. Walters, I. Lyubimov, J. J. de Pablo, and M. Ediger, Tunable molecular orientation and ele- vated thermal stability of vapor-deposited organic semi- conductors, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences112, 4227 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    L. Zhu, C. W. Brian, S. F. Swallen, P. T. Straus, M. D. Ediger, and L. Yu, Surface self-diffusion of an organic glass, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 256103 (2011)

    2011

  45. [53]

    Daley, Z

    C. Daley, Z. Fakhraai, M. Ediger, and J. Forrest, Com- paring surface and bulk flow of a molecular glass former, Soft Matter8, 2206 (2012)

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.