Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Defect Localization by Vanishing Deviatoric Stress in Active Nematics

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read In active nematic turbulence, all half-integer defects sit where the in-plane deviatoric stress vanishes.

desk verdict Clean numerical observation that both nematic and principal-stress defects sit on the vanishing contour of deviatoric stress J2, useful for TFM experiments, with the main non-definitional claim resting on active-stress dominance that is only shown visually. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.17595 v2 pith:D2UOZJZM submitted 2026-06-16 cond-mat.soft physics.flu-dyn

Sameer Kumar , Manas Khan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softphysics.flu-dyn
keywords activenematicstopologicaldefectsdeviatoricstressprincipalturbulencecellmonolayersdefectlocalization
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

The paper studies how stresses organize themselves in a standard continuum model of active nematics, the theoretical description often used for dense cell monolayers. It shows that the direction of maximal principal stress lines up perpendicular to the cell orientation for extensile activity and parallel for contractile activity. In the chaotic turbulent regime the authors isolate a simple scalar built from the anisotropic part of the stress tensor. Its zero contour is an organizing backbone: every topological defect of charge plus or minus one-half, whether defined from the orientation field or from the stress field itself, sits exactly on that contour. The localization holds for both signs of activity and across a range of activity strengths. Because traction-force and monolayer-stress microscopy already measure stress more easily than cell shape, the result offers a practical mechanical marker for defect locations in living tissues.

What carries the argument

The second invariant of the deviatoric stress, J2 = sqrt(((σxx−σyy)/2)^2 + σxy^2), whose vanishing requires the simultaneous conditions σxx−σyy = 0 and σxy = 0 and thereby forces the principal directions to become undefined; the isoline σxx−σyy = 0 therefore supplies a geometric backbone on which all half-integer defects must sit.

What would settle it

Measure both the nematic director field and the full stress tensor in a turbulent active nematic (simulation or cell monolayer) and check whether any half-integer defect lies off the J2 = 0 contour once passive or viscous stresses are made comparable to the active stress.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the fully developed turbulent state of an incompressible active nematic, a rotation-invariant scalar measure of the in-plane deviatoric stress (the second invariant J2, equivalently half the difference of the principal stresses) reaches zero along a continuous isoline; every plus-or-minus one-half topological defect of both the nematic director and the maximal-principal-stress director is localized on that isoline. The coincidence is independent of the magnitude and of the sign (extensile or contractile) of the activity parameter.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the active stress being strong enough that the zeros of stress anisotropy still coincide with the zeros of nematic order even though the total stress also contains passive and viscous contributions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Principal-stress defects of charge ±1/2 exist and share the same locations as the ordinary nematic defects.
  • The isoline of vanishing normal-stress difference can be used as a mechanical proxy to locate all half-integer defects without reconstructing the full orientation field.
  • Alignment of maximal principal stress with the director flips from perpendicular (extensile) to parallel (contractile), giving a local diagnostic of activity type.
  • Stress measurements already available from traction-force microscopy become sufficient to map defect topology in confluent monolayers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same J2 isoline continues to host defects when substrate friction or multi-layer geometry is added, the localization rule may serve as a general diagnostic for active turbulence beyond the ideal continuum model.
  • Experimental groups that already extract principal-stress maps from monolayer stress microscopy could test the prediction by simply contouring J2 and overlaying independently identified nematic defects.
  • The offset between the isotropic-stress maximum and the core of a stress defect (versus a nematic defect) suggests that flow-induced stress singularities may be used to distinguish passive from active contributions in mixed tissues.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports hybrid Lattice-Boltzmann simulations of the standard continuum active-nematic equations (Beris–Edwards hydrodynamics with active stress −ζQij) in two dimensions. It shows that the orientation of maximal principal stress aligns perpendicular (parallel) to the nematic director for extensile (contractile) activity, quantified by angle PDFs and cross-correlations. In the turbulent regime the authors introduce the rotation-invariant scalar J2 (second invariant of the in-plane deviatoric stress) and claim that its zero-level isolines (equivalently the loci of vanishing anisotropy) coincide with the cores of all ±1/2 topological defects of both the nematic director and the principal-stress orientation field; the coincidence is stated to be robust to the magnitude and sign of activity. The results are motivated by the experimental accessibility of stress fields in cellular monolayers via traction-force microscopy.

Significance. If the claimed localization of nematic defects on the J2 isoline is quantitatively robust, the work supplies a practical, stress-only criterion for locating topological defects—an experimentally useful route when cell-shape or order-parameter fields are harder to extract than principal stresses. The alignment result follows directly from the structure of active stress and is consistent with existing observations. The simulations themselves are standard and the parameter set is fully stated, so the findings are in principle reproducible. The advance is incremental rather than transformative: it re-examines known active-nematic turbulence through the lens of principal stresses and adds a geometric observation whose practical value depends on the strength of the active-stress dominance assumption.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III.D, Figs. 4 and 7] Sec. III.D and Figs. 4, 7: Localization of principal-stress defects at J2 minima is definitional (principal directions become undefined once the stress tensor is isotropic). The only non-trivial claim is therefore the coincidence of nematic ±1/2 defects with the same loci. The text acknowledges that total stress is not strictly proportional to Q yet asserts coincidence “because of the dominant role of active stress.” No quantitative diagnostic is supplied—neither the relative magnitude |σa| / |σp + σv| near defect cores nor a histogram (or mean/variance) of spatial offsets between S = 0 and J2 = 0 points across activity strengths and signs. Visual overlay of a few snapshots is insufficient to establish the robustness asserted in the abstract and conclusion; without such a measure the central claim remains untested against the possibility that passive or viscous contributions systematical
  2. [Sec. III.D, Fig. 8] Sec. III.D (and Appendix B): The argument that (q1, p1) constructed from the anisotropic stress components “closely resemble” the nematic directors is again only visual (Fig. 8). A direct comparison of the two order-parameter fields (e.g., spatial correlation of their magnitudes or of their defect-core positions as a function of ζ) is needed to quantify how completely active stress dominates the anisotropy that sets the defect locations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title / Abstract] Title inconsistency: the arXiv title and abstract use “Vanishing Deviatoric Stress,” while the manuscript body title uses “Stress Anisotropy.” Choose one and keep it consistent.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract grammar: “whose zero-level contour coincides with the locations of all ±1/2 topological defects o are localized” is incomplete; rewrite for clarity.
  3. [Fig. 1] Fig. 1 caption and text: the angle difference Δθ is reported in radians, yet the peaks are described as π/2 and 0; a brief note that the director is headless (so Δθ ∈ [0, π/2]) would avoid confusion.
  4. [Sec. III.A–B] Notation: the maximal-principal-stress director is variously called ns, np and n_s; unify the symbol.
  5. [Appendix A] Appendix A, Fig. 5: the time axis is labeled t/100 without stating the unit; clarify lattice-Boltzmann time units.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Principal-stress defects sit at J2 minima by construction (eigenvectors undefined when isotropic); nematic coincidence is asserted from the model’s active-stress term σ^a ∝ −ζQ plus an unquantified dominance assumption.

  1. self definitional [Sec. III.D (Defect localization), paragraph beginning “We calculate the anisotropic stress, J2…”]
    "The defect locations correspond to points where, J2 vanishes or attains a minimum. At these points, the stress tensor becomes locally isotropic and degenerate, implying that the principal directions are undefined. This is precisely the condition required for a topological defect in an orientation field. Consequently, principal stress defects occur at minima of J2 where the orientation of principal stress eigenvectors becomes singular."

    A singularity of the principal-stress orientation field is defined to be a point at which the eigenvectors of the stress tensor cease to exist. That occurs if and only if the two principal values coincide, i.e., J2 = 0. The statement that principal-stress defects lie at J2 minima is therefore true by the definition of those defects, not by any independent dynamical prediction.

  2. self definitional [Sec. III.A (Alignment of the maximal principal stress) and Sec. III.D]
    "The appearance of peak at π/2 (or 0) can be understood by looking at the how we define the active stress, σa_ij = −ζQ_ij, which is the dominating stress in the system. … although the fields are not identical, their zeros coincide due to the dominant role of active stress in generating anisotropy."

    Both the reported director–principal-stress alignment and the claimed coincidence of nematic zeros with J2 zeros are direct algebraic consequences of the constitutive choice σ^a = −ζQ once that term is declared to dominate the anisotropic stress. The paper supplies no independent measurement that would falsify the dominance premise; the “finding” therefore reduces to the model’s built-in active-stress term.

full rationale

The paper’s central claim is that the zero-level set of the rotation-invariant deviatoric invariant J2 localizes all ±1/2 defects of both the nematic director and the maximal-principal-stress orientation. For the principal-stress field this is tautological: a topological defect in an orientation field exists precisely where the eigenvectors become undefined, which occurs exactly when the stress tensor is isotropic (J2 = 0). The authors state this equivalence explicitly. The alignment of principal stress with the director (perpendicular for extensile, parallel for contractile) is likewise a direct consequence of the constitutive definition σ^a_ij = −ζ Q_ij once that term is assumed to dominate. The only non-definitional content is the numerical observation that nematic defects also lie on the same isoline; that observation is explained by invoking the shared traceless structure of active stress and Q together with the claim that active stress dominates the anisotropic part of the total stress. No quantitative test of that dominance (relative magnitudes near cores, measured spatial offsets between S = 0 and J2 = 0) is supplied, so the nematic half of the claim rests on a model-built-in premise rather than an independent derivation. There is no self-citation chain, no fitted parameter re-labeled as prediction, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors. The circularity is therefore partial and confined to the definitional character of the stress-defect result and the untested dominance step that bridges to nematic defects.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim is a numerical observation inside the standard continuum active-nematic model. Almost all structure is inherited from prior literature (Beris–Edwards hydrodynamics plus active stress −ζQ). Free parameters are the usual simulation knobs chosen by hand; no data fitting is performed. No new physical entities are postulated. The load-bearing modeling axioms are the form of active stress, incompressibility, and the single-constant Frank elasticity, all standard in the field. The ‘new’ content is the reported coincidence of defect locations with vanishing stress anisotropy, which partly follows from those axioms.

free parameters (4)
  • activity strength ζ
    Scanned by hand over |ζ| ∈ {0.2,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.8}; central robustness claim depends on this scan but values are not fitted to experiment.
  • flow-alignment parameter ξ
    Fixed at ξ=0.3 without experimental calibration; enters the generalized advection term S_ij and can change defect dynamics.
  • Landau–de Gennes scale C and Frank constant L
    Set to C=0.1, L=0.5 (coherent length L0=√(L/C)); chosen by hand and control defect core size.
  • rotational diffusivity Γ, density ρ, viscosity η
    Γ=0.1, ρ=200, η=1/6 in LB units; standard numerical choices that set timescales and ensure Re≪1.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Active stress takes the form σ^a_ij = −ζ Q_ij (extensile for ζ>0, contractile for ζ<0).
    Standard constitutive assumption of continuum active nematics (Simha & Ramaswamy; Thampi et al.); used throughout Sec. II–III and is the direct reason alignment is 0 or π/2.
  • domain assumption Two-dimensional incompressible continuum hydrodynamics with Beris–Edwards evolution of Q and hybrid Lattice-Boltzmann momentum solver.
    Sec. II; the entire numerical evidence rests on this model class representing confluent cell layers.
  • domain assumption Single elastic constant (one-constant Frank) approximation in the free energy F.
    Sec. II; simplifies molecular field H_ij; common but not always accurate for cells.
  • standard math Principal-stress orientation is undefined precisely when the deviatoric invariant J2 vanishes, defining stress defects.
    Linear algebra of 2D symmetric tensors; stated in Sec. III.D; makes stress-defect localization at J2=0 definitional.
  • ad hoc to paper Total stress anisotropy is dominated by the active contribution so that zeros of Q and of σ_aniso coincide.
    Invoked in Sec. III.D to extend localization from stress defects to nematic defects; not independently measured against passive/viscous contributions.
invented entities (1)
  • principal-stress defects (±1/2 defects of the maximal principal stress orientation field)
    purpose: Provide a stress-based topological counterpart to nematic defects and support the claim that both species share the same J2 backbone.
    Orientation singularities of principal stress are a natural construct once n_s is defined; the paper treats them as observable objects analogous to nematic defects. Independent experimental handles exist in principle via TFM but are not demonstrated here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Defect Localization by Vanishing Deviatoric Stress in Active Nematics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D2UOZJZM

@misc{pith2026260617595,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Defect Localization by Vanishing Deviatoric Stress in Active Nematics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D2UOZJZM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.17595}
}
abstract

Collective stress generation in cellular monolayers is a key phenomenological process governing coordinated migration and emergent multicellular dynamics. We employ a generic active nematics model to investigate stress generation and its associated properties. By analyzing the maximal principal stress and its correlation with the nematic director across different activity strengths, we find that the principal stress aligns perpendicular (parallel) to the nematic director for extensile (contractile) activity. In the turbulent regime, we identify a rotation-invariant scalar measure of the in-plane deviatoric stress whose zero-level contour coincides with the locations of all $\pm 1/2$ topological defects (both nematic and principal stress defects) are localized. This feature is robust and remains unchanged with variations in both the magnitude and nature (extensile or contractile) of activity. Our findings thus open up a new route to probe the spatial alignment from the mechanical and rheological properties of confluent cell layers, where stress measurements are more accessible than detailed cell shape or size characterisation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.17595 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Snapshots from the simulation for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Cross correlation function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Average iso-stress [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Snapshots for defect localization in the turbulent state. Color bar shows the magnitude of the anisotropic stress, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Root mean square velocity, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Average iso-stress [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Snapshots for defect localization in the turbulent state. Color bar shows the magnitude of the anisotropic stress, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. At the onset of the active turbulence, plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The magnitude of the correlation decreases with increasingτ, reflecting the temporal decorrelation of the two fields. Notably, the decay becomes progressively faster with increasing activity strength,ζ, lead to achieve the active turbulence state fast (see Appendix A for details) hence accelerates the reorientation dynamics of bothnandn s. In Fig. 2(b), w...

  2. [2]

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

    2013

  3. [3]

    M. E. Cates and J. Tailleur, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics6, 219 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    Ramaswamy, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2017, 054002 (2017)

    S. Ramaswamy, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2017, 054002 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    Prost, F

    J. Prost, F. J¨ ulicher, and J.-F. Joanny, Nature Physics 11, 111 EP (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    Kumar, N

    S. Kumar, N. de Graaf Sousa, and A. Doostmohammadi, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 268302 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    Doostmohammadi, S

    A. Doostmohammadi, S. P. Thampi, and J. M. Yeomans, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 1 (2016), arXiv:1601.04489

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Copenhagen, R

    K. Copenhagen, R. Alert, N. S. Wingreen, and J. W. Shaevitz, Nature Physics17, 211 (2021), arXiv:2001.03804 [physics.bio-ph]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Friedl and D

    P. Friedl and D. Gilmour, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology10, 445 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    T. B. Saw, A. Doostmohammadi, V. Nier, L. Kocgozlu, S. Thampi, Y. Toyama, P. Marcq, C. T. Lim, J. M. Yeomans, and B. Ladoux, Nature544, 212 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Vicsek, A

    T. Vicsek, A. Czir´ ok, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen, and O. Shochet, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 1226 (1995)

    1995

  4. [12]

    Toner and Y

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

    1995

  5. [13]

    Serra-Picamal, V

    X. Serra-Picamal, V. Conte, R. Vincent, E. Anon, D. T. Tambe, E. Bazellieres, J. P. Butler, J. J. Fredberg, and X. Trepat, Nature Physics8, 628 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    Giampieri, C

    S. Giampieri, C. Manning, S. Hooper, L. Jones, C. S. Hill, and E. Sahai, Nature Cell Biology11, 1287 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    Friedl, Y

    P. Friedl, Y. Hegerfeldt, and M. Tusch, Int. J. Dev. Biol. 48, 441 (2004)

    2004

  8. [16]

    D. T. Tambe, C. Corey Hardin, T. E. Angelini, K. Rajendran, C. Y. Park, X. Serra-Picamal, E. H. Zhou, M. H. Zaman, J. P. Butler, D. A. Weitz, J. J. Fredberg, and X. Trepat, Nature Materials10, 469 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Aditi Simha and S

    R. Aditi Simha and S. Ramaswamy, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 058101 (2002)

    2002

  10. [18]

    S. P. Thampi, R. Golestanian, and J. M. Yeomans, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 118101 (2013), arXiv:1302.6732 [cond- mat.soft]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Doostmohammadi, M

    A. Doostmohammadi, M. F. Adamer, S. P. Thampi, and J. M. Yeomans, Nat. Comm.7, 10557 EP (2016), article

    2016

  12. [20]

    Doostmohammadi, J

    A. Doostmohammadi, J. Ign´ es-Mullol, J. M. Yeomans, and F. Sagu´ es, Nat. Comm.9(2018), 10.1038/s41467- 018-05666-8

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Thijssen, D

    K. Thijssen, D. A. Khaladj, S. A. Aghvami, M. A. Gharbi, S. Fraden, J. M. Yeomans, L. S. Hirst, and T. N. Shendruk, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science118, e2106038118 (2021), arXiv:2102.10184 [cond-mat.soft]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kumar and S

    S. Kumar and S. Mishra, Phys. Rev. E102, 052609 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Kumar and S

    S. Kumar and S. Mishra, Phys. Rev. E106, 044603 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Duclos, C

    G. Duclos, C. Erlenk¨ amper, J. F. Joanny, and P. Silberzan, Nature Physics13, 58 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    X. Li, R. Balagam, T.-F. He, P. P. Lee, O. A. Igoshin, and H. Levine, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science114, 8974 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Zhang, N

    J. Zhang, N. Yang, P. K. Kreeger, and J. Notbohm, APL Bioengineering5, 036103 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    M. R. Nejad, M. McCord, J. Zhang, J. Notbohm, and J. M. Yeomans, Nature Communications15, 3621 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Comelles, S

    J. Comelles, S. S. Soumya, L. Lu, E. Le Maout, S. Anvitha, G. Salbreux, F. J¨ ulicher, M. M. Inamdar, and D. Riveline, eLife10, e57730 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Ascione, S

    F. Ascione, S. Caserta, S. Esposito, V. R. Villella, L. Maiuri, M. R. Nejad, A. Doostmohammadi, J. M. Yeomans, and S. Guido, Journal of the Royal Society Interface20, 20220719 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Dombrowski, L

    C. Dombrowski, L. Cisneros, S. Chatkaew, R. E. Goldstein, and J. O. Kessler, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 2 (2004)

    2004

  23. [31]

    Blanch-Mercader, V

    C. Blanch-Mercader, V. Yashunsky, S. Garcia, G. Duclos, L. Giomi, and P. Silberzan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 208101 (2018), arXiv:1711.01568

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Doxzen, S

    K. Doxzen, S. R. K. Vedula, M. C. Leong, H. Hirata, N. S. Gov, A. J. Quaye, B. C. Low, C. T. Lim, and B. Ladoux, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences109, 12974 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    J. G. Mamblona, A. S´ aez, J. J. Rico-Martinez, N. Gavara, R. Roset, X. Trepat, and P. Roca-Cusachs, Biophysical Journal107, 548 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Mueller, J

    R. Mueller, J. M. Yeomans, and A. Doostmohammadi, Physical Review X10, 011016 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Trepat and J

    X. Trepat and J. J. Fredberg, Trends in Cell Biology21, 638 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    Journal of Chemical Education72, A93 (1995). 7 1 10 100 1000 t/100 1e-06 0.0001 0.01 1 vrms |ζ |=0.2 |ζ |=0.4 |ζ |=0.6 |ζ |=0.8 1 10 100 1000 t/100 1e-06 0.0001 0.01 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 |ζ | 10 20 30 40N+1/2 ζ >0 ζ <0 (a) (b) (c) FIG. 5. Root mean square velocity,v rms vs. timet...

    1995

  29. [37]

    P. G. d. Gennes,The physics of liquid crystals, by p. G. de Gennes(Clarendon Press Oxford [Eng.], 1974) pp. xi, 333 p

    1974

  30. [38]

    F. C. Frank, Discuss. Faraday Soc.25, 19 (1958)

    1958

  31. [39]

    M. E. Cates, S. M. Fielding, D. Marenduzzo, E. Orlandini, and J. M. Yeomans, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 068102 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    S. M. Fielding, D. Marenduzzo, and M. E. Cates, Phys. Rev. E83, 041910 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    Denniston, E

    C. Denniston, E. Orlandini, and J. M. Yeomans, Phys. Rev. E63, 056702 (2001)

    2001

  34. [42]

    Marenduzzo, E

    D. Marenduzzo, E. Orlandini, M. E. Cates, and J. M. Yeomans, Phys. Rev. E76, 031921 (2007)

    2007

  35. [43]

    S. P. Thampi, R. Golestanian, and J. M. Yeomans, Europhysics Letters105, 18001 (2014). Appendix A: Active turbulent state We start with a uniform initial configuration and let the system evolve to the active turbulent state. We confirm the steady state by calculating the root ...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed July 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.