Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 110 references

Response-Selected Hidden Hyperuniformity in Hydrodynamic Active Matter

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that hyperuniformity in active fluids comes from locally balanced active forces, and that rare unpaired moments set the finite screening length of quiet flow.

desk verdict Genuine conceptual advance—hyperuniformity defined relative to a response operator—with a sound analytic core and two modeling checks, but the marquee k^4-to-k^6 crossover is fit over a crossover-dominated window, so the asymptotic purity of the law is not yet proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24102 v1 pith:77ROOM2N submitted 2026-07-27 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.stat-mech

Liyu Zhong , Yang Jiao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.stat-mech
keywords hyperuniformityactivematterresponse-selectedordermultipolescreeningtransverseforcespectrumvalence-onefluidinfraredcrossoverlength
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

Hyperuniformity — anomalously suppressed fluctuations at long wavelengths — in an active fluid is not determined by how uniformly the particles are arranged, but by which part of their microscopic forcing the surrounding fluid can actually respond to: in an incompressible fluid, longitudinal forces are absorbed into pressure, so only the transverse (solenoidal) part of the signed active-moment field drives flow. The authors define response-selected hyperuniformity as suppressed long-wavelength fluctuations in that transverse source sector, and derive the universal law chi^f_T(k) = W(k)^2 (Δu k^4 + B k^6) for the transverse-force spectrum, with a crossover wavenumber k× = sqrt(Δu/B). They verify it in two simulated active fluids — a valence-one carrier fluid in which partners constantly exchange, and a fixed-partner molecular model — and find that complete partner renewal leaves the k^6 window intact while the unpaired-moment density tunes the k^4 residual. A sympathetic reader should care because this reframes 'hyperuniform active matter' from a structural property into a property of a source–response pair, and identifies the rare unscreened moments that set the finite screening length of quiet flow.

What carries the argument

The central object is the response-selected first-moment spectrum S1(k): the spectrum of the signed active-moment field after contraction with the transverse projector P^T_ij = δ_ij − k̂_i k̂_j, which selects the sector of active forcing that can actually drive incompressible flow. The identity carrying the argument is the cluster expansion: a homogeneous population of finite, locally neutral clusters contributes B k^2 + O(k^4) to S1 regardless of partner identity, while unpaired or imperfectly neutral carriers contribute a plateau Δu. The source-to-force map (divergence of the active stress followed by transverse projection) adds four powers of k, yielding chi^f_T = W^2 k^4 S1 = W^2 (Δu k^4

What would settle it

Measure the transverse-force spectrum at wavenumbers well below k× = sqrt(Δu/B) in a steady active fluid with a measurable finite density of unpaired moments: if chi^f_T continues as k^6 rather than bending to k^4 in that deepest infrared window, the normal form S1 = Δu + B k^2 fails. Concretely, the paper's collapse S1/(B k^2) = 1 + (k×/k)^2 and the predicted real-space velocity variance V_v(R) ≃ a Δu R^{-2} + b B R^{-4} are testable; a free-power-law fit that beats the two-term form on the smallest resolved shells and does not bend toward k^4 would contradict the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central claim: the response-selected first-moment spectrum obeys S1(k) = Δu + B k^2 + O(k^4), giving the transverse-force spectrum chi^f_T(k) = W(k)^2 (Δu k^4 + B k^6). The k^6 term comes from finite locally neutral clusters of opposite-signed active moments whose leading multipole cancels; the k^4 term comes from a nonzero infrared plateau Δu due to unscreened or unpaired moments. Since the Stokes Green function adds an extra k^{-2} per vector component, the velocity spectrum is ≃ (Δu + B k^2)/η^2 — strictly hyperuniform only when Δu = 0, with any finite residual restoring a velocity plateau and setting a screening length ξ_scr = sqrt(B/Δu). Two simulated active fluids (exchangeable valence

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the long-wavelength first-moment spectrum has the exact analytic form Δu + B k^2 + O(k^4) all the way to k → 0; the paper's Supplemental Material (Sec. S5.6) notes the two-term fit is made only over k ≤ 0.9 and a free power law fits individual spectra as well, so the universal k^4/k^6 separation and ξ_scr = sqrt(B/Δu) presuppose that this analytic expansion remains valid in the deepest infrared.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Δu = 0, the fluid's velocity fluctuations are strictly hyperuniform even when the particle density is not; the order lives in the hidden transverse-moment sector, invisible to ordinary structure factors.
  • Any finite density of locally unscreened moments is an infrared-relevant perturbation: at sufficiently long wavelengths the k^4 term always dominates, so strict velocity hyperuniformity is lost and the quiet-flow regime has a finite range ξ_scr = sqrt(B/Δu).
  • Constant partner exchange does not destroy the hidden order — the k^6 window persists under complete partner renewal — because the order is carried by instantaneous local neutrality rather than permanent molecular identity.
  • The same universal normal form appears in two different models with different reaction chemistry and defect routes, so the leading powers and crossover are fixed by local neutrality, analyticity, and finite correlation length, not by a particular binding scheme.
  • Non-integer spectral exponents measured over finite wavenumber windows (for example ≈ 4.8) are the crossover signature predicted by the two-term normal form, not new asymptotic exponents.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference — the framework suggests a practical design rule for quiet active fluids: minimize the local density of unpaired selected moments, since the plateau Δu (not the bound fraction) controls the screening length.
  • Editorial inference — in chiral, odd-elastic, or compressible fluids, the response operator can mix longitudinal and transverse sectors, creating additional channels through which hidden residuals leak into observable motion; the paper notes this possibility but does not analyze it.
  • Editorial inference — the fixed-partner model's inability to select the complementary branch from every random preparation, while the exchangeable model assembles it de novo, hints that partner-exchange kinetics may be important for realizing response-selected hyperuniformity from generic initial conditions.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces 'response-selected hyperuniformity' as a property of a source–response pair rather than of a bare density or continuum field. For an incompressible active fluid whose units carry signed first moments, the transverse projector selects a force sector whose spectrum is argued to have the normal form S1(k)=Δu+Bk^2+O(k^4) (Eq. 6). This yields the central law χ̃_T^f(k)=Ŵ(k)^2(Δu k^4+B k^6) (Eq. 7), with a crossover k×=sqrt(Δu/B), a screening length ξ_scr=k×^(−1), and a strict hyperuniform velocity limit only when Δu=0. The claim is tested in two stochastic many-body models: an exchangeable valence-one active-multipole fluid and a fixed-partner active-molecule model. Both are reported to exhibit the same S1 and force-spectrum forms. The paper further argues that complete partner renewal preserves the multipole inheritance, that the plateau Δu is controlled by an independently measured local unpaired-moment density ρ_loc^u (Fig. 2b), and that the resulting velocity variance has the R^(−2)/R^(−4) crossover (Eq. 12).

Significance. If the central asymptotic claim holds, this is a genuinely new organizing principle for hyperuniformity in active matter: it shifts attention from the spectrum of a prescribed field to the response-selected sector of a signed source, and it makes a falsifiable prediction (the universal k^4→k^6 crossover and its defect-controlled leakage) that is unusual in this literature. The paper's strengths are substantial: the cluster-expansion derivation of Eq. (6) is clean; the simulations use independent seeds with confidence intervals, exact Fourier summation, finite-size checks over N=256–1024 (Model I) and up to 4096 (Model II); and the local residual ρ_loc^u is an independent, physically motivated observable that does correlate with the fitted plateau. The paper is also unusually candid about its own limitations, explicitly flagging in SM S5.6 that AICc cannot always distinguish the crossover form from a free power law and in SM S8 that finite cluster size and finite-range correlations are assumed. The main weakness is that the numerical verification of the asymptotic k→0 normal form is less deep than the abstract implies, as detailed below.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (7), SM S4.1, SM S5.6] The central law χ̃_T^f(k)=Ŵ^2(Δu k^4+B k^6) rests on S1(k)=Δu+Bk^2+O(k^4) holding all the way to k→0. The numerical support does not establish this asymptotic statement: all fits use k≤0.9, and at N=1024 the smallest resolved wave number is k_min≈0.098, only about 0.18 k× at k_off=0.06. The fit window is therefore dominated by crossover behavior, not by a clean k^4 plateau or a clean k^6 asymptote. SM S5.6 explicitly admits that a free power law can fit individual finite-window spectra as well as the two-term crossover, so AICc does not select the normal form. Moreover, B is extracted from the same S1(k) that the law is tested against, so the collapse in Fig. 2(d) is a consistency check rather than an independent prediction. A nonanalytic correction (e.g., c k^2 ln k or k^(2+ε)) would be absorbed into B/Δu over this window while changing the true k→0 limit and the predicted R^(−4) veloci
  2. [Fig. 2(d), Eq. (9)] The collapse of S1/(Bk^2) onto 1+(k×/k)^2 is presented as evidence for the universal crossover form. But k× and B are fitted from each individual spectrum using the very two-term form being tested, so the collapse is guaranteed asymptotically by construction for any S1 that is smooth over the fitted window. The independent anchor is the Δu–ρ_loc^u proportionality, which validates the plateau amplitude as a local defect density, but nothing independently measures B or the k^2 curvature. I recommend stating more explicitly that Fig. 2(d) is a parameterization check, not a falsifiable prediction, and moving the main evidentiary weight to the velocity prediction and the local–spectral proportionality, which are genuinely independent.
  3. [Eq. (10), SM S3.3, SM S7.4] The local diagnostic ρ_loc^u includes only unpaired carriers and explicitly excludes the residual of imperfect bound pairs. The claim that unpaired carriers dominate Δu rests on the observed near-linear Δu–ρ_loc^u relation, but this is not a direct measurement of the bound-pair residual. If imperfect bound-pair residuals were proportional to ρ_loc^u, the near-linear relation could hold even if those residuals contributed a significant part of the plateau. The fixed-partner model's healing branch also maintains a small but nonzero plateau (Δu≈1.0–1.3×10^(−4), Table S7), so the 'strictly hyperuniform velocity limit' described in the abstract is never actually realized in simulation; it is a theoretical limiting statement. I would not require the authors to realize Δu=0, but the text should be careful not to present the zero-residual limit as a demonstrated simulation result rather than a c
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract/Introduction] There are several typographical artifacts: 'universallaweχf' and 'response-selectedhyperuniformity' lack spacing; 'eχf' and other calligraphic symbols use inconsistent fonts. These should be cleaned before publication.
  2. [Fig. 1] The caption says 'shaded regions are 95% confidence intervals' but the panels in Fig. 1(e) show bands; 'shaded regions' should be 'shaded bands' for consistency with the text. Also, the gray k^4 and k^6 slope guides are useful, but it would help to state explicitly over which k range each guide is drawn.
  3. [SM S5.1 / Table S1] The parameter 'reaction stride n_r' is listed but not defined in the table caption; define it as the number of integration steps between reaction attempts for completeness.
  4. [SM S5.7] The statement that the real-space fit length ξ_v is smaller than ξ_scr is clear, but the discussion would benefit from a sentence explaining why the Gaussian window finite-k effects push ξ_v below ξ_scr; currently the reader must infer this from the figure.
  5. [References] Some references appear to be future-dated (e.g., [25] '2026', [27] '2026', [11] '2026'). If these are preprints or accepted articles, please add the arXiv or DOI identifiers; if they are placeholders, update them before publication.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The k⁴/k⁶ force law is derived non-circularly from multipole analyticity, but its headline confirmations (Fig. 2(d) collapse, Fig. 3(c) window exponents) and the crossover/screening length reduce algebraically to the same two-parameter fit; only the ρ_loc^u–Δu defect link is genuinely independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text, 'Defect-controlled infrared leakage' paragraph; Fig. 2(d) discussion]
    "Yet after each seed is scaled by its independently fitted B and k×, the complete family collapses onto 1 + (k×/k)2 given by Eq. (9) [Fig. 2(d)]."

    SM S4.1 fits S1(k) = Δu + Bk² over k ≤ 0.9, and Eq. (8) defines k× = (Δu/B)^{1/2}. Substituting the fitted form gives S1/(Bk²) = 1 + (Δu/B)/k² = 1 + (k×/k)² identically. Because B and k× are fitted from the very spectra being rescaled, the collapse is an algebraic restatement of the two-parameter fit, not an independent confirmation of the claimed universal crossover. The wording 'independently fitted' means per-seed fits, not independence from the fitted data.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Main text, 'Thermodynamic persistence and velocity leakage' paragraph; Fig. 3(c)]
    "The agreement between measured window exponents and Eq. (9) improves as kmin/k× decreases [Fig. 3(c)]."

    Eq. (9) is the running exponent obtained by substituting the fitted two-term S1 into β ≡ d ln χ̃/d ln k; the 'predicted' window exponent is that curve averaged over the same k ≤ 0.9 window in which Δu and B were fitted, while the 'measured' exponent is a power-law fit to the same data. The agreement is therefore a self-consistency check of one dataset. SM S5.6 explicitly concedes AICc and held-out-shell tests cannot distinguish the two-term normal form from a free power law on individual finite-window spectra, so the match does not select the k⁴/k⁶ form.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Main text, Eq. (8) and abstract]
    "The crossover and screening length are k× = (Δu/B)^{1/2}, ξscr = k×^{-1} ,(8)"

    k× and ξscr are defined from the two amplitudes Δu and B fitted from S1(k) over k ≤ 0.9 (SM S4.1); they are not independently measured quantities. The claimed 'universal crossover from fourth- to sixth-order scaling' and 'finite screening length' are the running-exponent form 4 + 2/(1 + (k×/k)²) obtained by algebraically substituting the fitted S1 into d ln χ̃/d ln k. Hence the quantitative crossover position and screening length restate the fit parameters in new notation rather than being verified predictions.

full rationale

The k⁴ factor in Eq. (7) follows from the exact identity χ̃^f_T = Ŵ²k⁴S1 (SM Eq. S6), and the k² term in Eq. (6) follows from the multipole expansion of finite neutral clusters (Eq. (5): −i(k·d)M e^{−ik·R} + O(k²)); the direct-vs-spectral velocity agreement (0.905–0.998, Figs. 3(d,e)) validates the Green-function chain. These are genuine derivations that do not assume the target result, and refs [9–11] by co-author Jiao are background only, so no load-bearing self-citation is present. The circularity is in the confirmation layer. SM S4.1 fits S1(k) = Δu + Bk² over k ≤ 0.9; Eq. (8) then defines k× = (Δu/B)^{1/2}. Dividing the fitted form by Bk² gives exactly 1 + (k×/k)², so the Fig. 2(d) collapse is an algebraic restatement of the fit rather than an independent test. The Fig. 3(c) 'predicted' window exponents are Eq. (9) evaluated at the same fitted Δu and B over the same window in which they were fitted, so the agreement is a self-consistency check. The paper itself flags the limits: SM S5.6 admits AICc and held-out-shell tests cannot distinguish the two-term normal form from a free power law on individual finite-window spectra, and SM S8 concedes the finite-cluster/finite-range assumptions on which the k→0 extrapolation rests. The genuinely independent evidence is ρ_loc^u, a real-space diagnostic with no low-k fitting, whose near-linear relation to Δu (slope 0.984 at N=256; 0.964 pooled) anchors the plateau amplitude; but nothing independently constrains B, so ξscr = (B/Δu)^{1/2} is a reparameterization of the fit. Partial circularity: the derived law has independent content, while its quantitative confirmations reduce largely to the fitted inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities (particles, fields, forces) are introduced; the models are coarse-grained descriptions of existing concepts, and observables (ρ_loc^u, Δu, B) are diagnostics. The main ledger entries are the fitted spectral amplitudes and the hand-picked simulation parameters.

free parameters (5)
  • Δu (infrared plateau) = 2.20e-3 (koff=0.06) to 4.32e-3 (koff=0.4) at N=256
    Fitted nonnegative constant in S1(k)=Δu+Bk^2 over k≤0.9; sets the k^4 leakage amplitude.
  • B (neutral-cluster amplitude) = extracted per seed; not tabulated alone
    Fitted coefficient of k^2 term in S1; used with Δu to construct k×.
  • k× = sqrt(Δu/B) = 0.548–0.822 at N=256
    Crossover wave number defined from fitted Δu and B; not independently measured.
  • γ (Δu–ρ_loc^u exponent) = 0.984 [0.821,1.145] (N=256); 0.964 [0.884,1.044] (all runs)
    Slope in log–log regression of Δu on local unpaired density; near 1 but confidence interval does not exclude 0.8–1.15.
  • Model parameters Pe, J, kon, koff = Pe=8, J=24, kon=50, koff=0.06,0.10,0.40
    Chosen from pilot scans (Fig S1) to realize high association with active exchange; these are hand-picked simulation inputs, not universal constants.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Incompressible fluid response: longitudinal force is absorbed by pressure; only the transverse force sector drives Stokes flow (PT projection + k^-2 Green function).
    Used in Eq. (4) and SM S2.2; standard for low-Reynolds hydrodynamics.
  • domain assumption The microscopic active stress is generated by signed first moments via stress amplitude −i Ŵ(k) k_l A_ijℓ.
    SM Eq. (S2); the coarse-grained multipole representation of active units.
  • domain assumption Finite cluster size and finite-range correlations; cluster expansion truncated at O(k^2) per neutral cluster.
    SM S2.1 and S8; the paper states critical cluster distributions could generate nonanalytic corrections.
  • domain assumption The selected-source spectrum S1(k) is analytic in k: Δu + Bk^2 + O(k^4).
    SM Eq. (S8); assumes finite-range correlations, no algebraic tails.
  • ad hoc to paper Unpaired carrier self-correlation dominates the plateau; imperfect bound-pair residual is subleading.
    SM S3.3; supported empirically by near-linear Δu–ρ_loc^u relation, but not proven in general.
  • domain assumption Stochastic dynamics are overdamped Langevin with reversible reaction kinetics; the specific rates (Bell breakage etc.) realize the binding/unbinding.
    SM S3; the model is a minimal realization, not a specific experimental system.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Response-Selected Hidden Hyperuniformity in Hydrodynamic Active Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/77ROOM2N

@misc{pith2026260724102,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Response-Selected Hidden Hyperuniformity in Hydrodynamic Active Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/77ROOM2N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24102}
}
read the original abstract

Hyperuniformity in active matter is usually treated as a property of a prescribed density or continuum field. This view misses a basic feature of hydrodynamic active matter: an incompressible fluid does not respond equally to every microscopic force. Longitudinal forcing is absorbed into pressure, whereas transverse forcing drives flow. The relevant question is therefore not only whether particles are uniformly arranged or whether the total activity is small, but which sector of the active forcing is selected by the physical response. Here we introduce response-selected hyperuniformity, in which long-wavelength order is a property of a source-response pair. In a reversible valence-one fluid with no prescribed partners, locally neutral clusters screen the signed active-moment sector that controls transverse flow, producing a first-moment spectrum that vanishes quadratically at low wavenumber. Locally unscreened moments instead generate a nonzero infrared plateau. The resulting transverse-force spectrum has a universal crossover from fourth- to sixth-order scaling, with the crossover set by the ratio of the unscreened residual to the screened analytic contribution. Complete partner renewal preserves this normal form, establishing exchangeable multipole inheritance, while turnover tunes the residual through an independently measured local defect density. The zero-residual limit yields strictly hyperuniform velocity fluctuations; any finite residual causes defect-controlled infrared leakage and sets a finite screening length. Thus microscopic exchange need not destroy hidden hyperuniform flow order, but rare unscreened moments determine how far the quiet-flow regime survives.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24102 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Gabrielli, M

    A. Gabrielli, M. Joyce, and F. Sylos Labini, Physical Re- view D65, 083523 (2002)

    2002

  2. [2]

    Torquato and F

    S. Torquato and F. H. Stillinger, Physical Review E68, 041113 (2003)

    2003

  3. [3]

    Torquato, Physics Reports745, 1 (2018)

    S. Torquato, Physics Reports745, 1 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    Donev, F

    A. Donev, F. H. Stillinger, and S. Torquato, Physical Review Letters95, 090604 (2005)

    2005

  5. [5]

    C. E. Zachary and S. Torquato, Journal of Statistical Me- chanics: Theory and Experiment2009, P12015 (2009)

    2009

  6. [6]

    Florescu, S

    M. Florescu, S. Torquato, and P. J. Steinhardt, Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America106, 20658 (2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    Leseur, R

    O. Leseur, R. Pierrat, and R. Carminati, Optica3, 763 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    Chen and S

    D. Chen and S. Torquato, Acta Materialia142, 152 (2018)

    2018

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Jiao, F. H. Stillinger, and S. Torquato, Physical Re- view E77, 031135 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    Y. Xu, S. Chen, P. Chen, W. Xu, and Y. Jiao, Phys. Rev. E96, 043301 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Jiao, Physical Review Letters136, 137402 (2026)

    Y. Jiao, Physical Review Letters136, 137402 (2026)

    2026

  4. [12]

    Cort´ e, P

    L. Cort´ e, P. M. Chaikin, J. P. Gollub, and D. J. Pine, Nature Physics4, 420 (2008)

    2008

  5. [13]

    Hexner and D

    D. Hexner and D. Levine, Physical Review Letters114, 110602 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    J. H. Weijs, R. Jeanneret, R. Dreyfus, and D. Bartolo, Physical Review Letters115, 108301 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Hexner, P

    D. Hexner, P. M. Chaikin, and D. Levine, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America114, 4294 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Wilken, R

    S. Wilken, R. E. Guerra, D. J. Pine, and P. M. Chaikin, Physical Review Letters125, 148001 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Q.-L. Lei, M. P. Ciamarra, and R. Ni, Science Advances 5, eaau7423 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Lei and R

    Q.-L. Lei and R. Ni, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 116, 22983 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Huang, W

    M. Huang, W. Hu, S. Yang, Q.-X. Liu, and H. Zhang, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America118, e2100493118 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Zhang and A

    B. Zhang and A. Snezhko, Physical Review Letters128, 218002 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Backofen, A

    R. Backofen, A. Y. A. Altawil, M. Salvalaglio, and A. Voigt, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences of the United States of America121, e2320719121 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Zheng, M

    Y. Zheng, M. A. Klatt, and H. L¨ owen, Physical Review Research6, L032056 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    J. Chen, X. Lei, Y. Xiang, M. Duan, X. Peng, and H. P. Zhang, Physical Review Letters132, 118301 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Maire and L

    R. Maire and L. Chaix, The Journal of Chemical Physics 163, 214507 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Maire, Physical Review E113, 064103 (2026)

    R. Maire, Physical Review E113, 064103 (2026)

    2026

  18. [26]

    Chremos and J

    A. Chremos and J. F. Douglas, Physical Review Letters 121, 258002 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Torquato, J

    S. Torquato, J. Kim, M. A. Klatt, R. Car, and P. J. Steinhardt, Physical Review X16, 011042 (2026)

    2026

  20. [28]

    R. A. Simha and S. Ramaswamy, Physical Review Letters 89, 058101 (2002)

    2002

  21. [29]

    T. B. Liverpool and M. C. Marchetti, Physical Review Letters90, 138102 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    Hatwalne, S

    Y. Hatwalne, S. Ramaswamy, M. Rao, and R. A. Simha, Physical Review Letters92, 118101 (2004)

    2004

  23. [31]

    Kruse, J.-F

    K. Kruse, J.-F. Joanny, F. J¨ ulicher, J. Prost, and K. Seki- moto, Physical Review Letters92, 078101 (2004)

    2004

  24. [32]

    Ramaswamy, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics1, 323 (2010)

    S. Ramaswamy, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics1, 323 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

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

    2013

  26. [34]

    Saintillan and M

    D. Saintillan and M. J. Shelley, Comptes Rendus Physique14, 497 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Elgeti, R

    J. Elgeti, R. G. Winkler, and G. Gompper, Reports on Progress in Physics78, 056601 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    Prost, F

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

    2015

  29. [37]

    Bechinger, R

    C. Bechinger, R. Di Leonardo, H. L¨ owen, C. Reichhardt, G. Volpe, and G. Volpe, Reviews of Modern Physics88, 045006 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Happel and H

    J. Happel and H. Brenner,Low Reynolds Number Hy- drodynamics: With Special Applications to Particulate Media(Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1983)

    1983

  31. [39]

    Kim and S

    S. Kim and S. J. Karrila,Microhydrodynamics: Princi- ples and Selected Applications(Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, 1991)

    1991

  32. [40]

    Lauga and T

    E. Lauga and T. R. Powers, Reports on Progress in Physics72, 096601 (2009). 6

    2009

  33. [41]

    D. L. Koch and G. Subramanian, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics43, 637 (2011)

    2011

  34. [42]

    Saintillan and M

    D. Saintillan and M. J. Shelley, Physical Review Letters 99, 058102 (2007)

    2007

  35. [43]

    Thiffeault and S

    J.-L. Thiffeault and S. Childress, Physics Letters A374, 3487 (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    Drescher, J

    K. Drescher, J. Dunkel, L. H. Cisneros, S. Ganguly, and R. E. Goldstein, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America108, 10940 (2011)

    2011

  37. [45]

    S. E. Spagnolie and E. Lauga, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 700, 105 (2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    D. O. Pushkin and J. M. Yeomans, Physical Review Let- ters111, 188101 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    Goldfriend, H

    T. Goldfriend, H. Diamant, and T. A. Witten, Physical Review Letters118, 158005 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Sanchez, D

    T. Sanchez, D. T. N. Chen, S. J. DeCamp, M. Heymann, and Z. Dogic, Nature491, 431 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    H. H. Wensink, J. Dunkel, S. Heidenreich, K. Drescher, R. E. Goldstein, H. L¨ owen, and J. M. Yeomans, Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America109, 14308 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    S. C. Takatori, W. Yan, and J. F. Brady, Physical Review Letters113, 028103 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    Y. Fily, S. Henkes, and M. C. Marchetti, Soft Matter10, 2132 (2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    A. P. Solon, J. Stenhammar, R. Wittkowski, M. Kardar, Y. Kafri, M. E. Cates, and J. Tailleur, Physical Review Letters114, 198301 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    S. A. Mallory, A. Sari´ c, C. Valeriani, and A. Cacciuto, Physical Review E89, 052303 (2014)

    2014

  46. [54]

    Giomi, M

    L. Giomi, M. J. Bowick, X. Ma, and M. C. Marchetti, Physical Review Letters110, 228101 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    S. J. DeCamp, G. S. Redner, A. Baskaran, M. F. Hagan, and Z. Dogic, Nature Materials14, 1110 (2015)

    2015

  48. [56]

    Doostmohammadi, J

    A. Doostmohammadi, J. Ign´ es-Mullol, J. M. Yeomans, and F. Sagu´ es, Nature Communications9, 3246 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    Alert, J

    R. Alert, J. Casademunt, and J.-F. Joanny, Annual Re- view of Condensed Matter Physics13, 143 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    Berthier, Physical Review Letters112, 220602 (2014)

    L. Berthier, Physical Review Letters112, 220602 (2014)

    2014

  51. [59]

    Flenner, G

    E. Flenner, G. Szamel, and L. Berthier, Soft Matter12, 7136 (2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    Berthier, E

    L. Berthier, E. Flenner, and G. Szamel, The Journal of Chemical Physics150, 200901 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    P. K. Morse, S. Roy, E. Agoritsas, E. Stanifer, E. I. Cor- win, and M. L. Manning, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 118, e2019909118 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Tailleur and M

    J. Tailleur and M. E. Cates, Physical Review Letters100, 218103 (2008)

    2008

  55. [63]

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

    2015

  56. [64]

    Fodor, C

    ´E. Fodor, C. Nardini, M. E. Cates, J. Tailleur, P. Visco, and F. van Wijland, Physical Review Letters117, 038103 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    Tjhung, C

    E. Tjhung, C. Nardini, and M. E. Cates, Physical Review X8, 031080 (2018)

    2018

  58. [66]

    Ness and M

    C. Ness and M. E. Cates, Physical Review Letters124, 088004 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    M. E. Cates and C. Nardini, Reports on Progress in Physics88, 056601 (2025)

    2025

  60. [68]

    N. B. Padhan and A. Voigt, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter37, 105101 (2025)

    2025

  61. [69]

    Zheng, D

    M. Zheng, D. Khomenko, and P. Charbonneau, Physical Review Letters134, 228301 (2025)

    2025

  62. [70]

    Banerjee, A

    D. Banerjee, A. Souslov, A. G. Abanov, and V. Vitelli, Nature Communications8, 1573 (2017)

    2017

  63. [71]

    V. Soni, E. S. Bililign, S. Magkiriadou, S. Sacanna, D. Bartolo, M. J. Shelley, and W. T. M. Irvine, Nature Physics15, 1188 (2019)

    2019

  64. [72]

    Souslov, K

    A. Souslov, K. Dasbiswas, M. Fruchart, S. Vaikun- tanathan, and V. Vitelli, Physical Review Letters122, 128001 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    Scheibner, A

    C. Scheibner, A. Souslov, D. Banerjee, P. Sur´ owka, W. T. M. Irvine, and V. Vitelli, Nature Physics16, 475 (2020)

    2020

  66. [74]

    Response-Selected Hidden Hyperuniformity in Hydrodynamic Active Matter

    M. Fruchart, C. Scheibner, and V. Vitelli, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics14, 471 (2023). Supplemental Material for “Response-Selected Hidden Hyperuniformity in Hydrodynamic Active Matter” Liyu Zhong 1 and Yang Jiao 2, 3 1Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engine...

    2023

  67. [75]

    Ramaswamy, The mechanics and statistics of active matter, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics1, 323 (2010)

    S. Ramaswamy, The mechanics and statistics of active matter, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics1, 323 (2010)

    2010

  68. [76]

    M. C. Marchetti, J.-F. Joanny, S. Ramaswamy, T. B. Liverpool, J. Prost, M. Rao, and R. A. Simha, Hydrodynamics of soft active matter, Reviews of Modern Physics85, 1143 (2013)

    2013

  69. [77]

    Saintillan and M

    D. Saintillan and M. J. Shelley, Active suspensions and their nonlinear models, Comptes Rendus Physique14, 497 (2013)

    2013

  70. [78]

    Elgeti, R

    J. Elgeti, R. G. Winkler, and G. Gompper, Physics of microswimmers–single particle motion and collective behavior: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics78, 056601 (2015)

    2015

  71. [79]

    Prost, F

    J. Prost, F. J¨ ulicher, and J.-F. Joanny, Active gel physics, Nature Physics11, 111 (2015)

    2015

  72. [80]

    Bechinger, R

    C. Bechinger, R. Di Leonardo, H. L¨ owen, C. Reichhardt, G. Volpe, and G. Volpe, Active particles in complex and crowded environments, Reviews of Modern Physics88, 045006 (2016)

    2016

  73. [81]

    Sanchez, D

    T. Sanchez, D. T. N. Chen, S. J. DeCamp, M. Heymann, and Z. Dogic, Spontaneous motion in hierarchically assembled active matter, Nature491, 431 (2012)

    2012

  74. [82]

    Banerjee, A

    D. Banerjee, A. Souslov, A. G. Abanov, and V. Vitelli, Odd viscosity in chiral active fluids, Nature Communications8, 1573 (2017)

    2017

  75. [83]

    V. Soni, E. S. Bililign, S. Magkiriadou, S. Sacanna, D. Bartolo, M. J. Shelley, and W. T. M. Irvine, The odd free-surface flows of a colloidal chiral fluid, Nature Physics15, 1188 (2019)

    2019

  76. [84]

    Souslov, K

    A. Souslov, K. Dasbiswas, M. Fruchart, S. Vaikuntanathan, and V. Vitelli, Topological waves in fluids with odd viscosity, Physical Review Letters122, 128001 (2019)

    2019

  77. [85]

    Scheibner, A

    C. Scheibner, A. Souslov, D. Banerjee, P. Sur´ owka, W. T. M. Irvine, and V. Vitelli, Odd elasticity, Nature Physics16, 475 (2020)

    2020

  78. [86]

    Fruchart, C

    M. Fruchart, C. Scheibner, and V. Vitelli, Odd viscosity and odd elasticity, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 14, 471 (2023)

    2023

  79. [87]

    Cort´ e, P

    L. Cort´ e, P. M. Chaikin, J. P. Gollub, and D. J. Pine, Random organization in periodically driven systems, Nature Physics 4, 420 (2008)

    2008

  80. [88]

    Hexner, P

    D. Hexner, P. M. Chaikin, and D. Levine, Enhanced hyperuniformity from random reorganization, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America114, 4294 (2017)

    2017

  81. [89]

    Wilken, R

    S. Wilken, R. E. Guerra, D. J. Pine, and P. M. Chaikin, Hyperuniform structures formed by shearing colloidal suspensions, Physical Review Letters125, 148001 (2020)

    2020

  82. [90]

    Q.-L. Lei, M. P. Ciamarra, and R. Ni, Nonequilibrium strongly hyperuniform fluids of circle active particles with large local density fluctuations, Science Advances5, eaau7423 (2019)

    2019

  83. [91]

    Lei and R

    Q.-L. Lei and R. Ni, Hydrodynamics of random-organizing hyperuniform fluids, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America116, 22983 (2019)

    2019

  84. [92]

    Huang, W

    M. Huang, W. Hu, S. Yang, Q.-X. Liu, and H. Zhang, Circular swimming motility and disordered hyperuniform state in an algae system, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America118, e2100493118 (2021)

    2021

  85. [93]

    Zhang and A

    B. Zhang and A. Snezhko, Hyperuniform active chiral fluids with tunable internal structure, Physical Review Letters128, 218002 (2022)

    2022

  86. [94]

    Backofen, A

    R. Backofen, A. Y. A. Altawil, M. Salvalaglio, and A. Voigt, Nonequilibrium hyperuniform states in active turbulence, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America121, e2320719121 (2024)

    2024

  87. [95]

    Zheng, M

    Y. Zheng, M. A. Klatt, and H. L¨ owen, Universal hyperuniformity in active field theories, Physical Review Research6, L032056 (2024)

    2024

  88. [96]

    Maire and L

    R. Maire and L. Chaix, Hyperuniformity and conservation laws in non-equilibrium systems, The Journal of Chemical Physics163, 214507 (2025)

    2025

  89. [97]

    Maire, Hyperuniformity in active fluids reshapes nucleation and capillary-wave dynamics, Physical Review E113, 064103 (2026)

    R. Maire, Hyperuniformity in active fluids reshapes nucleation and capillary-wave dynamics, Physical Review E113, 064103 (2026)

    2026

  90. [98]

    Tailleur and M

    J. Tailleur and M. E. Cates, Statistical mechanics of interacting run-and-tumble bacteria, Physical Review Letters100, 218103 (2008)

    2008

  91. [99]

    M. E. Cates and J. Tailleur, Motility-induced phase separation, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics6, 219 (2015)

    2015

  92. [100]

    Fodor, C

    ´E. Fodor, C. Nardini, M. E. Cates, J. Tailleur, P. Visco, and F. van Wijland, How far from equilibrium is active matter?, Physical Review Letters117, 038103 (2016)

    2016

  93. [101]

    Tjhung, C

    E. Tjhung, C. Nardini, and M. E. Cates, Cluster phases and bubbly phase separation in active fluids, Physical Review X 8, 031080 (2018)

    2018

  94. [102]

    Ness and M

    C. Ness and M. E. Cates, Absorbing-state transitions in granular materials close to jamming, Physical Review Letters124, 088004 (2020)

    2020

  95. [103]

    M. E. Cates and C. Nardini, Active phase separation: new phenomenology from non-equilibrium physics, Reports on Progress in Physics88, 056601 (2025)

    2025

  96. [104]

    Berthier, Nonequilibrium glassy dynamics of self-propelled hard disks, Physical Review Letters112, 220602 (2014)

    L. Berthier, Nonequilibrium glassy dynamics of self-propelled hard disks, Physical Review Letters112, 220602 (2014)

    2014

  97. [105]

    Flenner, G

    E. Flenner, G. Szamel, and L. Berthier, The nonequilibrium glassy dynamics of self-propelled particles, Soft Matter12, 7136 (2016)

    2016

  98. [106]

    Berthier, E

    L. Berthier, E. Flenner, and G. Szamel, Glassy dynamics in dense systems of active particles, The Journal of Chemical Physics150, 200901 (2019)

    2019

  99. [107]

    Zheng, D

    M. Zheng, D. Khomenko, and P. Charbonneau, Not-so-glass-like caging and fluctuations of an active matter model, Physical Review Letters134, 228301 (2025). 25

    2025

  100. [108]

    P. K. Morse, S. Roy, E. Agoritsas, E. Stanifer, E. I. Corwin, and M. L. Manning, A direct link between active matter and sheared granular systems, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America118, e2019909118 (2021)

    2021

  101. [109]

    Praetorius, A

    S. Praetorius, A. Voigt, R. Wittkowski, and H. L¨ owen, Active crystals on a sphere, Physical Review E97, 052615 (2018)

    2018

  102. [110]

    Reichhardt and C

    C. Reichhardt and C. J. O. Reichhardt, Pattern formation and transport for externally driven active matter on periodic substrates, Europhysics Letters142, 37001 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.