Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Predictive orientational phase behavior in convex polyhedral entropic crystals

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Three single-particle attributes — asphericity, moment-of-inertia isotropy, and point-group order difference — predict the orientational phase sequence across the solid region of sixty hard convex polyhedra.

desk verdict Useful empirical map of orientational phases in hard polyhedra, but the three-attribute rule is a post hoc fit, not a validated prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19707 v1 pith:CWQFNFUW submitted 2024-11-29 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Sumitava Kundu , Kaustav Chakraborty , Avisek Das This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords hardpolyhedraorientationalphasesplasticcrystalsdiscreteentropicself-assemblyMonteCarlosimulationshapeattributespointgroupsymmetry
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 claims that for hard convex polyhedra, the orientational behavior of particles inside a crystal is fixed by three single-particle shape attributes: asphericity, moment-of-inertia anisotropy, and the difference between the point-group orders of the particle and its crystal. Across Monte Carlo simulations of sixty shapes, these three attributes cleanly separate plastic-crystal (freely rotating), discrete-plastic-crystal (hopping among a fixed set of orientations), and orientationally ordered phases, and they predict which phases appear at low versus high packing fractions. If the claim holds, a researcher can anticipate the rotational phase sequence of a new convex polyhedral material from three simple geometric numbers rather than from long simulations. The paper advances this as the strongest evidence yet of a predictive relationship, while acknowledging that the cutoffs are roughly defined and lack an exact theoretical derivation.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a three-attribute classification carried through a sixty-shape simulation campaign. $IQ = 36\pi V^2/S^3$ measures how far a shape is from being spherical ($IQ=1$ for a sphere). $M$ resides in the unit interval and equals $1$ when the principal-frame moments of inertia are isotropic, so it captures the orientational freedom of the low-density solid. $O = O_c - O_p$ is an integer counting how many more symmetry operations the crystal's point group has than the particle's; its sign is the switch between orientationally ordered crystals ($O \leq 0$) and discrete plastic crystals ($O > 0$). These attributes act in separate pressure windows: $IQ$ and $M$ gate the low-pressure plastic phase, while $O$ gates the high-pressure phase. The paper's analysis shows that vertex, face, and edge counts carry no predictive signal once these three quantities are known.

What would settle it

Run the same compression-melting protocol on a hard convex polyhedron not among the sixty that has $IQ > 0.5$, $M > 0.9$, and a known crystal point group; the rule requires a plastic phase at lower pressure and, if $O = O_c - O_p > 0$, a discrete plastic phase at high pressure. A single qualifying shape that instead shows only an orientationally ordered crystal, or melts directly from the solid, falsifies the universal claim. The excluded icosahedral-group shapes provide a ready out-of-sample check of the $O$ rule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the entire orientational phase behavior of hard convex polyhedral crystals is governed by three attributes: the isoperimetric quotient $IQ = 36\pi V^2/S^3$ (asphericity), the moment-of-inertia isotropy parameter $M$ (equal to $1$ for isotropic inertia in the principal frame), and $O = O_c - O_p$ (the order of the crystal's point group minus the order of the particle's point group). In the sixty-shape Monte Carlo survey, the plastic-crystal phase appears at lower packing fractions exactly for $IQ > 0.5$ and $M > 0.9$; at high packing fractions, shapes with $O \leq 0$ are orientationally ordered, while shapes with $O > 0$ show the discrete plastic crystal. Only three phase sequences are observed — OC alone, OC followed by PC, and DPC followed by PC — and the authors find no counterexample among the sixty shapes. The authors emphasize that the relationships are empirical, data-driven, and conditional on knowing the crystal structure, so the $O$ rule couples particle symmetry with the assembled translational order.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the fitted cutoffs (roundness above $0.5$, inertia isotropy above $0.9$, and the sign of the crystal-minus-particle symmetry count) are stable and universal for hard convex polyhedra, even though they were fitted and tested on the same set of sixty shapes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A polyhedron with $IQ > 0.5$ and $M > 0.9$ will show a freely rotating plastic phase at lower packing fractions before melting to the isotropic liquid.
  • At high packing fractions, shapes with $O = O_c - O_p \leq 0$ crystallize in orientationally ordered states, while shapes with $O > 0$ form discrete plastic crystals with a small set of allowed orientations.
  • The phases appear sequentially with pressure: plastic behavior at lower pressure, and the ordered or discrete behavior at higher pressure, with no shape exhibiting all three phases in one phase diagram.
  • Because the sign of $O$ decides the high-pressure phase only when the crystal's point group is known, predicting orientational behavior for a new shape requires first predicting (or simulating) its crystal structure.
  • The tabulated classifications for all sixty shapes are reproduced with just these three quantities plus the crystal point group; descriptors such as face, vertex, and edge counts show no predictive power once $IQ$, $M$, and $O$ are known.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the same sixty shapes were used to set and to test the $IQ$ and $M$ cutoffs, a newly simulated polyhedron with $IQ > 0.5$ and $M > 0.9$ that fails to show a plastic phase would break the predictive claim. This out-of-sample test is not performed in the paper.
  • The icosahedral point-group shapes excluded from the high-pressure analysis are a natural probe of the $O$ rule: with $O_p = 120$ and FCC crystals ($O_c = 48$), their $O$ would be strongly negative, so the rule would predict orientationally ordered crystals; a simulation resolving their high-pressure orientational behavior would directly test that prediction.
  • If the cutoffs survive out-of-sample tests, the scheme becomes a fast screening rule: computing $IQ$, $M$, and the point-group orders for any proposed convex polyhedral nanoparticle would indicate whether its dense phase will be a rotator, an ordered crystal, or a discrete plastic crystal.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 manuscript reports a Monte Carlo simulation study of sixty hard convex polyhedral shapes and proposes that three single-particle or structure-dependent attributes control the orientational phases (plastic crystal, discrete plastic crystal, orientationally ordered crystal) exhibited in the crystalline solid region. The attributes are the isoperimetric quotient (IQ), the moment-of-inertia isotropy parameter (M), and the difference O = Oc - Op between the orders of the crystal and particle point groups. The authors find that shapes with IQ > 0.5 and M > 0.9 show plastic phases at lower packing fractions, while the sign of O determines whether the high-density solid is orientationally ordered (O ≤ 0) or exhibits the discrete plastic phase (O > 0). The text explicitly states that the relationships are empirical, data-driven, and lack a theoretical derivation.

Significance. If the proposed rule were validated out of sample, it would be a useful design heuristic for entropic self-assembly of polyhedral colloids, complementing earlier shape-dependent classifications by Damasceno et al. and Agarwal & Escobedo. The study's strengths include the large systematic dataset (sixty shapes, long equilibration runs, NPT melting simulations), the explicit tabulation of IQ, M, point-group order and observed phases, and the authors' honest admission that the correspondence is empirical rather than derived. The central weakness is that the predictive cutoffs and the O = 0 boundary are inferred from and evaluated on the same dataset, so the paper establishes a descriptive correlation but not a demonstrated prediction. The claim of a 'fully predictive relationship' is stronger than the evidence provided.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Section II C] The predictive rule (IQ > 0.5, M > 0.9, O = 0) is fitted post hoc to the same sixty-shape dataset that is used to validate it. The manuscript itself states in Section II C that the observations were 'completely data-driven' and in Section IV that the cutoffs are 'roughly defined' and stable only within the observed data. No held-out shapes, leave-one-out analysis, cross-validation, or predictions for previously unstudied polyhedra are reported. Consequently, the central claim of a 'fully predictive relationship' is not supported by the present evidence; the manuscript would need either an out-of-sample test or a reformulation of the claim as an empirical correlation within the studied family.
  2. [Section III] All shapes with the icosahedral (Ih) point group are explicitly excluded from the high-density solid analysis because their orientational behavior 'remained obscured' and they were discarded 'to maintain the scientific clarity.' These excluded shapes include the most spherical and highest-symmetry cases (IQ between 0.829 and 0.95, M = 1.0, order 120). The O = 0 boundary that distinguishes DPC from OC is therefore untested precisely in the region where the symmetry mismatch between particle and crystal is largest. The claim that three attributes control all orientational phases 'across the entire solid region' must be restricted to the shapes that were actually classified, or the excluded Ih cases must be resolved.
  3. [Section II C 3, Eq. (3)] The attribute O = Oc - Op depends on the point group of the self-assembled crystal, which is not knowable a priori from the particle shape alone. The manuscript acknowledges this in Section IV, noting that the relationship is conditional on known translational order. Since the predictive scheme requires the crystal structure as an input, it cannot predict orientational phases for a shape whose assembled crystal is unknown. This limitation is load-bearing for the 'predictive' framing and should be stated explicitly in the abstract and introduction, with the scope of the prediction clearly defined as conditional on the translational order.
  4. [Section II B 2] The detection of unique orientations uses an angular tolerance θc defined as the first minimum in the pairwise-angle distribution. This is a free parameter, and no sensitivity analysis is reported for its influence on the DPC versus OC classification. Given that the high-density phase boundary O = 0 is based on this classification, a robustness check over a range of θc values would strengthen the conclusion that the boundary is not an artifact of the chosen tolerance.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, Introduction] The text contains several grammatical errors and misspellings, e.g., 'where as' should be 'whereas' in the abstract and elsewhere, and 'the characteristics of which were found to be controlled' is awkwardly phrased. A careful proofread is recommended.
  2. [References] Reference [59] is cited as 'S. Kundu, K. Chakraborty, and A. Das, (2024)' with no journal name, volume, or arXiv identifier. This citation is incomplete and should be updated or removed.
  3. [Tables in Section V B] The table entries use shape labels such as 'A02' and 'A03' without a consistent legend; the text refers to 'Truncated Tetrahedron (A03)' but similar names are not defined for all labels. Adding a column with the common polyhedron name would improve readability.
  4. [Section III A] The caption of Figure 2 says 'Combinations of all possible orientational phases' but the text immediately limits this to three observed combinations. The caption should specify 'observed combinations' to avoid giving the impression that the omitted combinations are impossible.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The predictive three-attribute rules are fitted on the same sixty shapes used to confirm them; the high-density O rule additionally depends on the already-assembled crystal point group, so the 'fully predictive' claim is stronger than the demonstrated in-sample correlation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section II.B.3 (shape attributes) and Section III.C (relationship to phases); Tables in Section V.B]
    "These observations were completely data-driven and we were unable to justify exact theoretical arguments. This correspondence was tested over a large data set and it appeared to be satisfied by all the shapes reported in this study under the influence of hard-core interaction."

    The correspondence being 'tested' is the three-attribute rule (IQ>0.5, M>0.9 -> PC; O>0 -> DPC; O<=0 -> OC), and the 'large data set' is the same sixty shapes whose simulation results were used to read off the cutoffs in the first place. The paper reports no held-out shapes, cross-validation, or pre-specified cutoffs; the stated test is an in-sample consistency check, so the claimed predictive power reduces to a restatement of the fitted classification.

  2. other [Section III.C (OC/DPC rule; O defined in Section II.B.3)]
    "if the particle with lower order point group (Op) crystallized into a structure with higher order crystallographic point group (Oc) i.e., Oc - Op > 0, then the DPC phase was expected to appear in the respective phase diagrams. On the other hand, OC phases occurred at higher range of packing fractions for the shapes with Oc - Op ≤ 0."

    The high-density predictor O is not a single-particle attribute: Oc is the point-group order of the self-assembled crystal, i.e., part of the assembled state whose orientational behavior is to be predicted. The DPC/OC boundary was also read off the same sixty crystals, and the paper itself conditions the analysis on 'if corresponding crystal structures were known.' The Section IV claim that three attributes control all orientational phases therefore goes beyond what the O rule can predict from particle shape alone.

full rationale

The underlying simulations and phase inventory are substantive, and the phase labels are checked against published external results; self-citations to [34,59] supply methodology and DPC characterization but are not the sole basis for the central claim, so no self-citation chain is itself load-bearing. The circularity is narrower but real: the paper explicitly says the observations were 'completely data-driven' and that the correspondence was 'tested' on 'all the shapes reported in this study,' i.e., the same sixty shapes from which the IQ>0.5, M>0.9, and O=0 cutoffs were derived. The PC branch is partially rescued by the projection onto Damasceno et al.'s external plastic-crystal labels, but the DPC/OC branch is not independently tested, and its predictor O includes Oc, the point-group order of the already-formed crystal. The paper also explicitly discards Ih shapes from the high-density classification ('we had to discard these shapes to maintain the scientific clarity'), so the 'entire solid region' claim is narrower than stated. These factors make the 'fully predictive' claim partially circular (in-sample fit called prediction), but not definitionally forced, hence a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on three fitted thresholds (IQ, M, angular tolerance) and on the assumption that the simulation phase labels are equilibrium labels. No new physical entities are introduced; the paper is an empirical correlation study rather than a derivation.

free parameters (3)
  • IQ cutoff for plastic crystal phase = ~0.5
    Shapes with IQ > 0.5 are classified as showing PC; the cutoff is chosen post hoc from the 60-shape dataset (Section IV, Fig. 3A).
  • M cutoff for plastic crystal phase = ~0.9
    Shapes with moment-of-inertia isotropy M > 0.9 are classified as showing PC; the cutoff is chosen post hoc from the same dataset (Section IV, Fig. 3A).
  • Angular tolerance theta_c for unique orientation detection = first minimum of pairwise-angle histogram, varies per shape
    Used to define unique orientations for DPC/OC classification; determined from each simulation trajectory rather than fixed physically (Section II B 2).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Hard-particle NPT Monte Carlo with 50-100 million MC steps reaches equilibrium at every state point.
    The paper uses compression and melting cycles but performs no free-energy calculations, so metastable or kinetically trapped states could be mislabeled as equilibrium phases (Section II A).
  • domain assumption Pairwise-angle histograms and unique-orientation counting are sufficient to distinguish PC, DPC, and OC without free-energy calculations.
    Stated in Section II B 2: 'Without performing rigorous free energy calculation ... these analyses tools were enough to distinguish the orientational phases'.
  • domain assumption The crystal structure, and hence the crystallographic point group order Oc, is known and fixed for each shape across the relevant solid region.
    The predictive rule for DPC vs OC depends on O = Oc - Op; a misassigned or pressure-dependent crystal structure would change the classification (Section III C).
  • ad hoc to paper The fitted cutoffs IQ > 0.5, M > 0.9, and O = 0 generalize beyond the sixty studied shapes.
    No theoretical derivation or out-of-sample test is provided; Section IV states only that 'any value equivalent to 0.5 for IQ and 0.9 for M was stable for acknowledging the orientational phases'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predictive orientational phase behavior in convex polyhedral entropic crystals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CWQFNFUW

@misc{pith2026241119707,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predictive orientational phase behavior in convex polyhedral entropic crystals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CWQFNFUW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19707}
}
read the original abstract

Hard convex polyhedra, idealized models for anisotropic colloids and nanoparticles, are known to form variety of orientational phases despite the regular arrangement of particles in the crystalline assemblies. Based on the orientational behavior of the constituents particles, such phases could be categorized into freely rotating plastic crystals (PC), discrete plastic crystals (DPC) and orientationally ordered crystals (OC). In this article, we report an extensive Monte Carlo computer simulation study of sixty hard convex polyhedral shape indicating a direct predictive relationship between the nature of orientational phases in the crystalline assemblies and single-particle shape attributes. The influence of three attributes namely; (i) Isoperimetric Quotient (IQ) i.e., the extent of asphericity; (ii) isotropy of the moment of inertia tensor in the principal frame and (iii) number of symmetry operations in the point group of the particle and self-assembled crystal structure, were observed to control the orientational phase behavior of the entire solid region in many-body system. The translational order in the crystal appeared to play significant role only in the DPC phase, where as, other two phases were completely governed by the combination of two attributes. In this study, the role of shape attributes were characterized by sequential appearance of one or two of the aforementioned rotational phases across the phase diagram in a pressure dependent manner which could be regarded as an important stepping stone towards fully predictive self-assembly behavior of hard particle systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19707 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Shapes exhibiting PC phases (triangular markers), are plotted in the space of (A) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (A) The number of vertices and the number of faces are plotted for the shapes forming [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    shark-fin

    Pairwise orientational differences The anisotropic particle orientations in three dimensions were described by quaternions [62]. The orientations of ith and jth particles were represented by Qi and Qj respectively and orientational difference between two particles could be estimated by implementing the Equations 1,2 consecutively. The point group of the c...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Detection of the unique orientations To detect the number of unique orientations in the simulated system, angular tolerance (θc) was required to be imposed to deal with the noise. In our previous study, we introduced an algorithmic approach to detect the number of unique orientations which did not depend on the system size and required minimum human inter...

    work page

  3. [3]

    asphericity

    Shape attributes used for predicting orientational phases A rigid convex polyhedron could be described by several shape attributes. In general, the shape attributes could be extended with new type of complex descriptors incorporating geometrical properties of the shape, it was instructive to seek for correlation(s) between shape and assembly behavior in c...

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Pawel, Contemporary Physics 24, 25 (1983)

    P. Pawel, Contemporary Physics 24, 25 (1983). 23

    work page 1983

  5. [5]

    A. D. Dinsmore, J. C. Crocker, and A. G. Yodh, Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science 3, 5 (1998)

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Assembly and phase transitions of colloidal crystals,

    B. Li, D. Zhou, and Y. Han, “Assembly and phase transitions of colloidal crystals,” (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    N. H. Orr, T. Yanagishima, I. P. Dolbnya, A. V. Petukhov, and R. P. Dullens, Journal of Chemical Physics 157 (2022), 10.1063/5.0112602

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0112602 2022

  8. [8]

    M. A. Boles, M. Engel, and D. V. Talapin, Chemical Reviews 116, 11220 (2016)

    2016

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    C. A. Mirkin, R. L. Letsinger, R. C. Mucic, and J. J. Storhoff, Nature 382, 607 (1996)

    1996

  2. [10]

    R. J. Macfarlane, B. Lee, M. R. Jones, N. Harris, G. C. Schatz, and C. A. Mirkin, Science 334, 204 (1996)

    1996

  3. [11]

    G. M. Whitesides and M. Boncheva, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99, 4769 (2002)

    2002

  4. [12]

    M. M. Maye, D. Nykypanchuk, D. V. D. Lelie, and O. Gang, Small 3, 1678 (2007)

    2007

  5. [13]

    Henzie, M

    J. Henzie, M. Grunwald, A. Widmer-Cooper, P. L. Geissler, and P. Yang, Nature Materials 11, 131 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    M. I. Bodnarchuk, E. V. Shevchenko, and D. V. Talapin, Journal of the American Chemical Society 133, 20837 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    M. P. Boneschanscher, W. H. Evers, J. J. Geuchies, T. Altantzis, B. Goris, F. T. Rabouw, S. A. V. Rossum, H. S. V. D. Zant, L. D. Siebbeles, G. V. Tendeloo, I. Swart, J. Hilhorst, A. V. Petukhov, S. Bals, and D. Vanmaekelbergh, Science 344, 1377 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    H. Lin, S. Lee, L. Sun, M. Spellings, M. Engel, S. C. Glotzer, and C. A. Mirkin, Science 355, 931 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    S. Zhou, J. Li, J. Lu, H. Liu, J. Y. Kim, A. Kim, L. Yao, C. Liu, C. Qian, Z. D. Hood, X. Lin, W. Chen, T. E. Gage, I. Arslan, A. Travesset, K. Sun, N. A. Kotov, and Q. Chen, Nature 612, 259 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    J. J. Geuchies, C. V. Overbeek, W. H. Evers, B. Goris, A. D. Backer, A. P. Gantapara, F. T. Rabouw, J. Hilhorst, J. L. Peters, O. Konovalov, A. V. Petukhov, M. Dijkstra, L. D. Siebbeles, S. V. Aert, S. Bals, and D. Vanmaekelbergh, Nature Materials 15, 1248 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    E. V. Shevchenko, D. V. Talapin, N. A. Kotov, S. O’Brien, and C. B. Murray, Nature 439, 55 (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    Zhang, F

    Y. Zhang, F. Lu, K. G. Yager, D. V. D. Lelie, and O. Gang, Nature Nanotechnology 8, 865 (2013). 24

    2013

  13. [21]

    M. R. Jones, R. J. MacFarlane, B. Lee, J. Zhang, K. L. Young, A. J. Senesi, and C. A. Mirkin, Nature Materials 9, 913 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    S. C. Glotzer and M. J. Solomon, Nature Materials 6, 557 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    D. V. Talapin, MRS Bulletin 37, 63 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    A. L. Rogach, D. V. Talapin, E. V. Shevchenko, A. Kornowski, M. Haase, and H. Weller, Advanced Functional Material 12, 653 (2002)

    2002

  17. [25]

    Tang and N

    Z. Tang and N. A. Kotov, Advanced Materials 17, 951 (2005)

    2005

  18. [26]

    K. Deng, Z. Luo, L. Tan, and Z. Quan, Chemical Society Reviews 49, 6002 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Samanta, W

    D. Samanta, W. Zhou, S. B. Ebrahimi, S. H. Petrosko, and C. A. Mirkin, Advanced Materials 34 (2022), 10.1002/adma.202107875

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    R. P. Dullens and A. V. Petukhov, EPL 77 (2007), 10.1209/0295-5075/77/58003

    2007 doi

  21. [29]

    M. N. O’Brien, M. Girard, H. X. Lin, J. A. Millan, M. O. D. L. Cruz, B. Lee, and C. A. Mirkin, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113, 10485 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    W. L. Ong, E. S. O’Brien, P. S. Dougherty, D. W. Paley, C. F. Higgs, A. J. McGaughey, J. A. Malen, and X. Roy, Nature Materials 16, 83 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    J. M. Meijer, A. Pal, S. Ouhajji, H. N. Lekkerkerker, A. P. Philipse, and A. V. Petukhov, Nature Communications 8 (2017), 10.1038/ncomms14352

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    Agarwal and F

    U. Agarwal and F. A. Escobedo, Nature Materials 10, 230 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    Torquato and Y

    S. Torquato and Y. Jiao, Nature 460, 876 (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    W. Zhou, Y. Li, K. Je, T. Vo, H. Lin, B. E. Partridge, Z. Huang, S. C. Glotzer, and C. A. Mirkin, Science 383, 312 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    W. Zhou, Y. Lim, H. Lin, S. Lee, Y. Li, Z. Huang, J. S. Du, B. Lee, S. Wang, A. S´ anchez- Iglesias, M. Grzelczak, L. M. Liz-Marz´ an, S. C. Glotzer, and C. A. Mirkin, Nature Materials 23, 424 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    A. P. Gantapara, J. D. Graaf, R. V. Roij, and M. Dijkstra, Journal of Chemical Physics 142 (2015), 10.1063/1.4906753

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    Kundu, K

    S. Kundu, K. Chakraborty, and A. Das, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 204907 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    C. L. Phillips and S. C. Glotzer, Journal of Chemical Physics 137 (2012), 10.1063/1.4748817

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    Agarwal and F

    U. Agarwal and F. A. Escobedo, Journal of Chemical Physics 137 (2012), 10.1063/1.4734021

    2012 doi

  32. [40]

    P. F. Damasceno, M. Engel, and S. C. Glotzer, Science 337, 453 (2012). 25

    2012

  33. [41]

    W. L. Miller, B. Bozorgui, and A. Cacciuto, Journal of Chemical Physics 132 (2010), 10.1063/1.3370345

    2010 doi

  34. [42]

    Bianchi, R

    E. Bianchi, R. Blaak, and C. N. Likos, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 13, 6397 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    E. K. Price and W. A. Tisdale, Nano Letters (2024), 10.1021/acs.nanolett.4c02636

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    Onsager, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 51, 627 (1949)

    L. Onsager, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 51, 627 (1949)

    1949

  37. [45]

    B. J. Alder and T. E. Wainwright, Journal of Chemical Physics (U.S.) 27 (1957), 10.1063/1.1743957

    1957 doi

  38. [46]

    Frenkel, Physica A 263, 26 (1999)

    D. Frenkel, Physica A 263, 26 (1999)

    1999

  39. [47]

    B. S. John, C. Juhlin, and F. A. Escobedo, Journal of Chemical Physics 128 (2008), 10.1063/1.2819091

    2008 doi

  40. [48]

    R. D. Batten, F. H. Stillinger, and S. Torquato, Physical Review E - Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 81 (2010), 10.1103/PhysRevE.81.061105

    2010 doi

  41. [49]

    R. Ni, A. P. Gantapara, J. D. Graaf, R. V. Roij, and M. Dijkstra, Soft Matter 8, 8826 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    A. P. Gantapara, J. D. Graaf, R. V. Roij, and M. Dijkstra, Physical Review Letters 111, 1 (2013)

    2013

  43. [51]

    A. S. Karas, J. Dshemuchadse, G. V. Anders, and S. C. Glotzer, Soft Matter 15, 5380 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    S. Lee, T. Vo, and S. C. Glotzer, Nature Chemistry 15, 905 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    A. K. Sharma and F. A. Escobedo, The Journal of Chemical Physics 161 (2024), 10.1063/5.0216886

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    Timmermans, J

    J. Timmermans, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 18, 1 (1961)

    1961

  47. [55]

    P. A. Reynolds, Molecular Physics 29, 519 (1975)

    1975

  48. [56]

    M. C. Valsakumar, N. Subramanian, M. Yousuf, P. C. Sahu, Y. Hariharan, A. Bharathi, V. S. Sastry, J. Janaki, C. V. N. Rao, T. S. Radhakrishnan, and C. S. Sundar, Physical Review B 48, 15 (1993)

    1993

  49. [57]

    A. A. Udovenko and N. M. Laptash, Acta Crystallographica Section B: Structural Science 64, 527 (2008)

    2008

  50. [58]

    A. A. Udovenko, A. D. Vasiliev, and N. M. Laptash, Acta Crystallographica Section B: Structural Science 66, 34 (2010)

    2010

  51. [59]

    G. A. Vdovichenko, A. I. Krivchikov, O. A. Korolyuk, J. L. Tamarit, L. C. Pardo, M. Rovira- Esteva, F. J. Bermejo, M. Hassaine, and M. A. Ramos, Journal of Chemical Physics 143 (2015), 10.1063/1.4929530. 26

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    E. O. Beake, M. G. Tucker, M. T. Dove, and A. E. Phillips, ChemPhysChem 18, 459 (2017)

    2017

  53. [61]

    W. Shen, J. Antonaglia, J. A. Anderson, M. Engel, G. van Anders, and S. C. Glotzer, Soft Matter 15, 2571 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    Kundu, K

    S. Kundu, K. Chakraborty, and A. Das, (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    J. D. Bernal and R. H. Fowler, The Journal of Chemical Physics 1, 515 (1933)

    1933

  56. [64]

    D. A. Keen and A. L. Goodwin, Nature 521, 303 (2015)

    2015

  57. [65]

    J. A. Anderson, M. E. Irrgang, and S. C. Glotzer, Computer Physics Communications 204, 21 (2016)

    2016

  58. [66]

    Frenkel and A

    D. Frenkel and A. J. Ladd, The Journal of Chemical Physics 81, 3188 (1984)

    1984

  59. [67]

    P. F. Damasceno, M. Engel, and S. C. Glotzer, ACS Nano 6, 609 (2012). 27 SUPPLEMENT AR Y INFORMA TION A. Role of vertices, faces, edges in orientational phases The shapes were plotted in the space of number of vertices and faces in Fig. 6 to un- derstand the predictive relatio...

    2012

Pith tools

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