Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 59 references

The XY model with vision cone: non-reciprocal vs. reciprocal interactions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that long-range order in the two-dimensional XY model with vision-cone interactions arises from the lattice geometry reducing the O(2) symmetry to Z4, not from non-reciprocity, and that one reciprocal variant exhibits an…

desk verdict Solid, genuinely new MC study showing non-reciprocity isn't what drives vision-cone XY order; the θ=180° LRO call is real but needs a stronger finite-size knife. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19297 v2 pith:FYWCXPA7 submitted 2024-12-26 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.soft

Gabriele Bandini , Davide Venturelli , Sarah A. M. Loos , Asja Jelic , Andrea Gambassi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.soft MSC 82B2082B2782B80
keywords XYmodelvisionconenon-reciprocalinteractionslong-rangeorderZ4symmetrybydisorderMonteCarlosimulationsquarelattice
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

This paper asks what actually produces long-range order (LRO) in the two-dimensional XY model when each spin interacts only with neighbours inside a 'vision cone' of angular width $\theta$. It studies three versions of the model: the original non-reciprocal one and two newly designed reciprocal, equilibrium versions, the ARXY and SRXY models. Monte Carlo simulations and symmetry arguments lead the authors to conclude that all three can order at low temperature, and that the ordering mechanism is not the non-reciprocal drive but the coupling between spin orientation and square-lattice bond structure, which reduces the continuous $O(2)$ symmetry to the discrete $\mathbb{Z}_4$ symmetry of the lattice. A separate result is that in the symmetric reciprocal model with $\theta$ slightly above $180^\circ$, raising the temperature carries the system from quasi-long-range order into true long-range order, a classical order-by-disorder transition. A sympathetic reader should care because the result separates geometry from active driving as the source of order and shows equilibrium models with configuration-dependent couplings can evade the usual two-dimensional no-order expectation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the energetically unfavorable range (EUR): the angular window in which a spin loses one of its $n$ visible nearest neighbours ($n\rightarrow n-1$), whose extension and centering change discontinuously at multiples of $90^\circ$ and set the preferred collective alignment directions on the square lattice. The argument is carried by a symmetry-probing rotation $r_\vartheta$ of an entire configuration: for a perfectly aligned state the energy change per spin is a $90^\circ$-periodic square wave, which is the concrete mechanism by which the cone reduces $O(2)$ to $\mathbb{Z}_4$. A second mechanism, the redundant bond of the SRXY model (a bond activated once counts once even if both spins see each other), explains why $\theta>180^\circ$ restores quasi-long-range order, and the temperature-dependent emergence of non-redundant bonds under rotation explains the order-by-disorder transition.

What would settle it

For the $\theta=180^\circ$ NRXY and ARXY models, simulate $\xi^{(2)}_L/L$ up to $L\geq256$ at fixed low temperatures: the claimed LRO predicts that $\xi^{(2)}_L/L$ keeps growing as $L$, while a quasi-long-range phase predicts that it saturates at a constant independent of $L$. For the SRXY model at $\theta=190^\circ$, the order-by-disorder claim predicts a window of temperatures in which $\xi^{(2)}_L/L$ separates with system size (LRO) between a low-temperature collapsing branch (QLRO) and the high-temperature transition to disorder; if the curves collapse at every temperature below the disorder transition, the claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the vision cone alone, through the coupling it creates between spin directions and lattice bond directions, is sufficient to produce long-range order in equilibrium, reciprocal versions of the XY model. Concretely, the energetically unfavorable range (EUR), the set of spin orientations in which a spin loses one visible neighbour, makes the energy landscape of a globally rotated configuration periodic with the lattice's $90^\circ$ periodicity, so the effective internal symmetry is $\mathbb{Z}_4$ instead of $O(2)$, and the discrete symmetry allows LRO despite Mermin-Wagner. For $\theta=180^\circ$, where the EUR vanishes, the paper argues that alignment along lattice directions is still entropically selected because such configurations possess a spectrum with more strongly gapless excitations. For the SRXY model with $\theta>180^\circ$, redundant bonds restore an effectively $O(2)$-symmetric quasi-long-range ordered phase, but for $\theta\gtrsim190^\circ$ thermal fluctuations generate a dynamical EUR that selects the four diagonal directions, producing a quasi-long-range-to-long-range transition as temperature rises.

Load-bearing premise

The central numerical claim relies on reading thermodynamic order from the finite-size growth of the correlation-length ratio in systems up to $L=90$, where a quasi-long-range phase can mimic part of the same signal at low temperature.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The NRXY and ARXY models have qualitatively the same phase diagram with three LRO lobes opening above $\theta=90^\circ$, so the non-equilibrium character of the original model is not what creates the ordered phase.
  • At $\theta=180^\circ$ and $270^\circ$ the model is long-range ordered even though the EUR has zero width; the XY-like finite-size magnetization scaling must not be read as evidence of quasi-long-range order.
  • In the SRXY model with $\theta>180^\circ$, redundant bonds make the low-temperature phase quasi-long-range ordered with the same correlation-length signature as the standard XY model.
  • For $\theta$ slightly above $180^\circ$ in the SRXY model, increasing temperature drives quasi-long-range order to long-range order and then to disorder, an order-by-disorder phenomenon in a classical equilibrium system.
  • The symmetry arguments imply that the residual low-temperature symmetry is set by the lattice ($\mathbb{Z}_4$ on the square lattice), not by the cone alone, so the mechanism is intrinsically lattice-geometric.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the symmetry-reduction mechanism is generic, the same model on a triangular or honeycomb lattice should show LRO lobes aligned with the $120^\circ/60^\circ$ bond directions and an effective $\mathbb{Z}_3$ or $\mathbb{Z}_6$ symmetry; this is not simulated in the paper but follows directly from its EUR logic.
  • The order-by-disorder transition at $\theta\gtrsim180^\circ$ suggests a practical probe: measuring whether the specific-heat peak across the reentrant boundary grows logarithmically with system size (LRO-to-DO signature) or stays size-independent (QLRO-to-DO signature) should locate the transition more sharply than the susceptibility map.
  • For off-lattice active particles, the paper's equilibrium result raises the possibility that reciprocal vision-cone interactions alone could sustain polar order, separating the alignment mechanism from the non-reciprocal drive; the paper mentions off-lattice extensions as future work without making this claim.
  • The $\theta=180^\circ$ LRO-versus-QLRO distinction is the most delicate numerical point, and a dedicated study of the correlation-length ratio at fixed low temperature up to much larger $L$ would either confirm or overturn the entropic-selection argument.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies three variants of the two-dimensional XY model with vision-cone interactions on a square lattice: the non-reciprocal NRXY model, and two new reciprocal models, ARXY and SRXY. Using Monte Carlo simulations and finite-size scaling of the second-moment correlation length, the authors map out temperature–cone-angle phase diagrams. Their central claim is that non-reciprocity is not essential for long-range order: both NRXY and ARXY show three LRO 'lobes' for θ>90°, and even at θ=180°, where the energetically unfavorable range (EUR) vanishes, the models are claimed to have LRO rather than QLRO. For SRXY, the phase diagram shows LRO for 90°<θ≲180° and QLRO for θ>180°, with a reentrant QLRO-to-LRO transition for θ≳180° that the authors interpret as an order-by-disorder phenomenon. Symmetry arguments based on the effective reduction of O(2) to Z4 are used to rationalize these findings.

Significance. If the claims are correct, the paper makes a conceptually important point: a reciprocal, equilibrium lattice model with vision-cone couplings can reproduce the LRO phase previously associated with non-reciprocal flocking-like dynamics, and the mechanism is the lattice-induced reduction of O(2) to Z4 rather than the non-equilibrium drive. The identification of an order-by-disorder transition in a classical 2D XY-type model is also a striking result. The paper is careful in several respects: the numerical analysis for representative angles uses multiple observables and is benchmarked against 4-state clock, 6-state clock, and XY models; the protocol dependence of the NRXY steady state is explicitly studied in Appendix C; and the phase classification for θ=100°, 280°, 300°, and 190° is supported by finite-size scaling of ξ_L^(2)/L. The main weaknesses are evidentiary: the two headline claims (LRO at θ=180° and the SRXY order-by-disorder transition) rest on finite-size signatures that are not fully separated from the alternative interpretations of QLRO or of a weakly broken Z4 symmetry, and the heuristic defect argument in Sec. V D has an entropy tension that is not resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [V D and Figs. 4(e), 9(b), A1(b)] The classification of the θ=180° phase of NRXY and ARXY as LRO rests entirely on the scaling of ξ_L^(2)/L for L≤90, but the magnetization data in Fig. 4(d) are explicitly consistent with the XY finite-size scaling m∼N^(−T/(8πJ)) of Eq. (14). This is exactly the signature one would expect for a QLRO phase, so the ξ/L crossing does not by itself exclude a preasymptotic transient of a weakly anisotropic QLRO system. Please add a direct thermodynamic discriminator, such as a finite-size extrapolation of ⟨|m|⟩ at fixed low T (comparing Eq. (14) with a nonzero thermodynamic-limit value), a Binder cumulant of m, or the spin-wave stiffness, and report the largest system sizes used for that analysis. This is load-bearing because the abstract and conclusions assert LRO at θ=180° for both NRXY and ARXY.
  2. [V D, Eq. (27)] The line-defect argument used to select the 90°-type alignment has an internal consistency problem. Equation (27) states that around the preferred alignment a single row defect costs only δE_AR≈α²/4, i.e., an intensive energy. If one such defect can be placed in each row independently, the configurational entropy is O(L log L) while the total energy is only O(L); the resulting free energy per row, F≈α²/4−T log L, becomes negative for sufficiently large L at any T>0, exactly as in the domain-wall estimate used in Appendix E for θ=60°. If these defects proliferate, they would destroy the very LRO they are invoked to select. The paper should either quantify and control this entropy, or show that the defects cannot be treated as independent (for example, because of the bond-activation compensation under periodic boundary conditions), or provide numerical evidence that their density does not grow with L. As written, the heuristic does not yet establish the stability of the θ=180° LRO.
  3. [VI C and Figs. 10(b), 11(f)–(j)] The claimed QLRO-to-LRO order-by-disorder transition for SRXY at θ=190° is based on system sizes up to L=48. The low-temperature QLRO identification relies on the collapse of ξ_L^(2)/L curves, while the intermediate-temperature LRO identification relies on their separation; a weakly anisotropic Z4-symmetric system with a small but nonzero lattice-pinning term would produce the same sequence of collapse followed by separation on these sizes. Please provide a finite-size analysis of the reentrant LRO window, for example by estimating the QLRO-LRO boundary as a function of L and showing that it extrapolates to a nonzero interval in the thermodynamic limit, and check explicitly whether the low-temperature collapse region shrinks as L increases. This is needed to support the order-by-disorder claim, which is one of the paper's two central novel results.
minor comments (4)
  1. [VI B] The text refers to 'Fig. 8(c)', but Fig. 8 has only panels (a) and (b); the intended reference is probably Fig. 8(b).
  2. [V C, Eq. (25)] The f_EUR estimate assumes that most spins remain roughly aligned and uses the zero-temperature rotation-energy profile V(ϑ) as an effective single-particle potential. This is a reasonable heuristic, but the assumptions should be stated explicitly as an approximation, and the formula should be labeled as a qualitative estimate rather than a quantitative derivation; it is not used in the phase classification.
  3. [IV, Fig. 4(d)] The solid curve showing Eq. (14) is stated to be for L=48, but the panel contains data for several L; please specify the value of L for the theoretical curve and consider showing the expected scaling for each L to make the comparison transparent.
  4. [III B and Figs. 4, 5, 10] The global phase-diagram heatmaps are computed at L=100, and the LRO/QLRO labels in regions not covered by the finite-size scaling analysis are inferred from m and χm alone. A sentence stating which phase boundaries are confirmed by the ξ_L^(2)/L scaling and which are only indicative from single-size heatmaps would help the reader calibrate the reliability of the diagrams.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase diagrams and central claims come from direct Monte Carlo simulations, with only a mild in-sample f_EUR rationalization in Sec. V C and a non-load-bearing self-citation to Ref. [5].

  1. other [Sec. V C, Eq. (25) and the following paragraph]
    "This relation allows us to determine the value of fEUR at the transition temperature for θ = 100◦ and θ = 280◦ on the basis of the knowledge of the transition temperatures, previously estimated from the crossing points in Figs. 7(b) and (g). Correspondingly, we obtain f θ=100◦ EUR ≃ 0.5 and f θ=280◦ EUR ≃ 0.8."

    f_EUR is not an independent theoretical prediction: Eq. (25) converts the already-estimated Monte Carlo transition temperatures into occupation fractions, and those fractions are then used to explain why the two angles behave differently (Z4 clock-like versus XY-like). The explanatory quantity is therefore inferred from the very data it is invoked to rationalize. This is a transparent postdiction rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and it is not load-bearing for the central claim: the LRO/DO classification at θ=100° and θ=280° is established from ξ^(2)_L/L crossings and magnetization/susceptibility behavior, independently of f_EUR. Hence the circularity is mild and localized.

full rationale

The paper's central claims, namely that reciprocal vision-cone models can show LRO, that non-reciprocity is not essential, and that SRXY shows an order-by-disorder transition, are supported by direct Monte Carlo simulations benchmarked against XY and q-state clock models. The phase classifications come from standard ξ^(2)_L/L scalings and magnetization behavior, not from a fitted theory. The symmetry arguments in Secs. V B-D and VI B-C are rationalizations of the data and are partly heuristic (e.g., the defect-energy estimate in Eq. (27)), but they do not substitute an input for an output: the models are defined independently, and the MC observables are independent of the symmetry framework. The only mildly circular piece is the f_EUR estimate in Sec. V C, which uses the simulated T_c to compute f_EUR and then uses f_EUR to explain the same phenomenology; the paper is explicit that T_c was 'previously estimated,' so this is a transparent in-sample rationalization, not a hidden fit. Self-citation to Ref. [5] (Loos et al., with a co-author overlap) supplies the EUR concept and prior NRXY context, but the new reciprocal-model results are generated here and even overturn Ref. [5]'s QLRO suggestion at θ=180°. The θ=180° LRO classification is a finite-size extrapolation concern (ξ/L data up to L=90 and XY-like magnetization scaling), but that is a correctness or robustness issue, not a circular derivation. Overall score 2 reflects one localized in-sample explanatory estimate and minor self-citation; the central derivation is self-contained.

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

The central claims are established by Monte Carlo simulations; no free parameters are fitted to data. The symmetry framework introduces two heuristic ingredients: the effective single-particle potential V(ϑ) for the EUR fraction f_EUR (Eq. 25), and the independent line-defect calculation (Eqs. 26-27) for entropic selection of lattice directions. Neither ingredient is independently verified, but neither is required for the primary simulation-based conclusions. No new particles, forces, or postulated entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Glauber dynamics for the ARXY and SRXY models satisfies detailed balance, so the stationary measure is the Boltzmann distribution p ∝ e^{-βE}.
    Used throughout Secs. V and VI to interpret Monte Carlo averages as equilibrium thermal averages; standard for symmetric energies with Glauber updates.
  • domain assumption The scaling of the second-moment correlation length ξ^(2)_L/L ∼ L, const, 1/L unambiguously identifies LRO, QLRO and DO phases in finite-size simulations.
    Stated in Sec. III A (Eq. 18) and used as the main phase-classification tool for all models, including the delicate θ=180° and θ=190° cases.
  • ad hoc to paper For the f_EUR estimate in Sec. V C, most spins remain roughly aligned at finite temperature, so the rotation-energy profile V(ϑ) of an aligned configuration acts as an effective single-particle potential.
    This approximation is stated in Sec. V C and used to derive Eq. (25), which yields f_EUR ≈ 0.5 for θ=100° and 0.8 for θ=280° at their respective transition temperatures.
  • ad hoc to paper The defect-energy calculations in Sec. V D (Eqs. 26 and 27) consider one independent defect per lattice row and ignore interactions between defects.
    Used to argue that configurations aligned along lattice directions have more gapless excitations, breaking O(2) down to Z4 even without an EUR; the authors label the argument heuristic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The XY model with vision cone: non-reciprocal vs. reciprocal interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FYWCXPA7

@misc{pith2026241219297,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The XY model with vision cone: non-reciprocal vs. reciprocal interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FYWCXPA7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19297}
}
read the original abstract

We study the behavior of the classical XY model on a two-dimensional square lattice, with interactions occurring within a vision cone of each spin. Via Monte Carlo simulations, we explore one non-reciprocal and two reciprocal implementations of these interactions. The corresponding energy involves couplings that depend non-trivially on the system's configuration, leading to both long-range and quasi-long-range ordered phases at low temperatures. Our results demonstrate that non-reciprocity is not essential for achieving long-range order at low temperatures. Using symmetry arguments, we provide a theoretical framework to explain these findings, and additionally we uncover an unexpected order-by-disorder transition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19297 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a), was introduced in Ref. [5]. In this model, a spin at a lattice site i does not seek to minimize a global energy, but rather its own “selfish” local energy [35] ENR i , consisting of ferromagnetic interactions with the nearest neighbors within its vision cone. In particular, E NR i = − X j∈Ni Jij (ϕi) cos (ϕi − ϕj ), (2) where j ∈ Ni indicates that the sum runs over all the nearest neighbors j of spin i, and the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    S. A. M. Loos, S. H. L. Klapp, and T. Martynec, Long- range order and directional defect propagation in the nonreciprocal XY model with vision cone interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 198301 (2023)

    2023

  2. [1]

    Onsager, Crystal statistics

    L. Onsager, Crystal statistics. I. A two-dimensional model with an order-disorder transition, Phys. Rev. 65, 117 (1944)

    1944

  3. [2]

    N. D. Mermin and H. Wagner, Absence of ferromag- netism or antiferromagnetism in one- or two-dimensional isotropic Heisenberg models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 1133 (1966)

    1966

  4. [3]

    J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, Ordering, metasta- bility and phase transitions in two-dimensional systems, J. Phys. C 6, 1181 (1973)

    1973

  5. [4]

    J. M. Kosterlitz, The critical properties of the two- dimensional XY model, J. Phys. C 7, 1046 (1974)

    work page 1974

  6. [6]

    Vicsek, A

    T. Vicsek, A. Czir´ ok, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen, and O. Shochet, Novel type of phase transition in a system of self-driven particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1226 (1995)

    1995

  7. [7]

    Toner and Y

    J. Toner and Y. Tu, Long-range order in a two- dimensional dynamical XY model: How birds fly to- gether, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4326 (1995)

    1995

  8. [8]

    Uchida and R

    N. Uchida and R. Golestanian, Synchronization and col- lective dynamics in a carpet of microfluidic rotors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 178103 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Shankar, A

    S. Shankar, A. Souslov, M. J. Bowick, M. C. Marchetti, and V. Vitelli, Topological active matter, Nat. Rev. Phys. 4, 380 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    S. Saha, S. Ramaswamy, and R. Golestanian, Pairing, waltzing and scattering of chemotactic active colloids, New J. Phys. 21, 063006 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    M. Nagy, Z. ´Akos, D. Biro, and T. Vicsek, Hierarchical group dynamics in pigeon flocks, Nature 464, 890 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    Cavagna, I

    A. Cavagna, I. Giardina, A. Jelic, S. Melillo, L. Parisi, E. Silvestri, and M. Viale, Nonsymmetric interactions trigger collective swings in globally ordered systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 138003 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Yllanes, M

    D. Yllanes, M. Leoni, and M. C. Marchetti, How many dissenters does it take to disorder a flock?, New J. Phys. 19, 103026 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    T. H. Tan, A. Mietke, J. Li, Y. Chen, H. Higinbotham, P. J. Foster, S. Gokhale, J. Dunkel, and N. Fakhri, Odd dynamics of living chiral crystals, Nature 607, 287 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    L. P. Dadhichi, J. Kethapelli, R. Chajwa, S. Ramaswamy, and A. Maitra, Nonmutual torques and the unimportance of motility for long-range order in two-dimensional flocks, Phys. Rev. E 101, 052601 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Besse, H

    M. Besse, H. Chat´ e, and A. Solon, Metastability of constant-density flocks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 268003 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Montbri´ o and D

    E. Montbri´ o and D. Paz´ o, Kuramoto model for excitation-inhibition-based oscillations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 244101 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Sompolinsky and I

    H. Sompolinsky and I. Kanter, Temporal association in asymmetric neural networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 2861 (1986)

    1986

  11. [19]

    Scheibner, A

    C. Scheibner, A. Souslov, D. Banerjee, P. Sur´ owka, W. T. M. Irvine, and V. Vitelli, Odd elasticity, Nat. Phys. 16, 475 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Brandenbourger, X

    M. Brandenbourger, X. Locsin, E. Lerner, and C. Coulais, Non-reciprocal robotic metamaterials, Nat. Commun. 10, 4608 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Y.-J. Li, S. Wang, Z.-L. Han, B.-M. Tian, Z.-D. Xi, and B.-H. Wang, Optimal view angle in the three-dimensional self-propelled particle model, EPL 93, 68003 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    P. T. Nguyen, S.-H. Lee, and V. T. Ngo, Effect of vi- sion angle on the phase transition in flocking behavior of animal groups, Phys. Rev. E 92, 032716 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Barberis and F

    L. Barberis and F. Peruani, Large-scale patterns in a minimal cognitive flocking model: Incidental leaders, ne- matic patterns, and aggregates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 248001 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Durve, A

    M. Durve, A. Saha, and A. Sayeed, Active particle con- densation by non-reciprocal and time-delayed interac- tions, Eur. Phys. J. E 41, 49 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    I. D. Couzin, J. Krause, R. James, G. D. Ruxton, and N. R. Franks, Collective memory and spatial sorting in animal groups, J. Theor. Biol. 218, 1–11 (2002)

    2002

  18. [26]

    Hildenbrandt, C

    H. Hildenbrandt, C. Carere, and C. Hemelrijk, Self- organized aerial displays of thousands of starlings: a model, Behav. Ecol. 21, 1349–1359 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    Solon, H

    A. Solon, H. Chat´ e, J. Toner, and J. Tailleur, Suscep- tibility of polar flocks to spatial anisotropy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 208004 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Chatterjee, M

    S. Chatterjee, M. Mangeat, and H. Rieger, Polar flocks with discretized directions: The active clock model ap- proaching the Vicsek model, EPL 138, 41001 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Solon, Flocking without moving, Journal Club for Condensed Matter Physics (2022)

    A. Solon, Flocking without moving, Journal Club for Condensed Matter Physics (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Rouzaire, D

    Y. Rouzaire, D. J. Pearce, I. Pagonabarraga, and D. Levis, Non-reciprocal interactions reshape topologi- cal defect annihilation (2024), arXiv:2401.12637 [cond- mat.stat-mech]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    R. G. Melko, A. Paramekanti, A. A. Burkov, A. Vish- wanath, D. N. Sheng, and L. Balents, Supersolid order from disorder: Hard-core bosons on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 127207 (2005)

    2005

  24. [32]

    Honecker, D

    A. Honecker, D. C. Cabra, H.-U. Everts, P. Pujol, and F. Stauffer, Order by disorder and phase transitions in a highly frustrated spin model on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B 84, 224410 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    Rousochatzakis, J

    I. Rousochatzakis, J. Reuther, R. Thomale, S. Rachel, and N. B. Perkins, Phase diagram and quantum order by disorder in the Kitaev K1 − K2 honeycomb magnet, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041035 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Marro and R

    J. Marro and R. Dickman, Nonequilibrium Phase Tran- sitions in Lattice Models , Collection Alea-Saclay: Mono- graphs and Texts in Statistical Physics (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 1999)

    1999

  27. [35]

    Y. Avni, M. Fruchart, D. Martin, D. Seara, and V. Vitelli, The non-reciprocal Ising model (2023), arXiv:2311.05471 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    D. S. Seara, A. Piya, and A. P. Tabatabai, Non-reciprocal interactions spatially propagate fluctuations in a 2D Ising model, J. Stat. Mech. 2023, 043209 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Tobochnik and G

    J. Tobochnik and G. V. Chester, Monte Carlo study of the planar spin model, Phys. Rev. B 20, 3761 (1979)

    1979

  30. [38]

    Archambault, S

    P. Archambault, S. T. Bramwell, and P. C. W. Holdsworth, Magnetic fluctuations in a finite two- dimensional model, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 30, 8363 (1997). 21

    1997

  31. [39]

    Cooper, B

    F. Cooper, B. Freedman, and D. Preston, Solving ϕ4 1,2 field theory with Monte Carlo, Nucl. Phys. B 210, 210 (1982)

    1982

  32. [40]

    D. J. Amit and V. Martin-Mayor, Field Theory, the Renormalization Group, and Critical Phenomena , 3rd ed. (World Scientific, 2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    Martynec, S

    T. Martynec, S. H. L. Klapp, and S. A. M. Loos, Entropy production at criticality in a nonequilibrium Potts model, New J. Phys. 22, 093069 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    C. E. F. Noa, P. E. Harunari, M. J. de Oliveira, and C. E. Fiore, Entropy production as a tool for charac- terizing nonequilibrium phase transitions, Phys. Rev. E 100, 012104 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Tom´ e and M

    T. Tom´ e and M. J. de Oliveira, Entropy production in nonequilibrium systems at stationary states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 020601 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    Schnakenberg, Network theory of microscopic and macroscopic behavior of master equation systems, Rev

    J. Schnakenberg, Network theory of microscopic and macroscopic behavior of master equation systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 48, 571 (1976)

    1976

  37. [45]

    Li, L.-P

    Z.-Q. Li, L.-P. Yang, Z. Y. Xie, H.-H. Tu, H.-J. Liao, and T. Xiang, Critical properties of the two-dimensional q-state clock model, Phys. Rev. E 101, 060105 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Baxter, Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechan- ics, Dover books on physics (Dover Publications, 2007)

    R. Baxter, Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechan- ics, Dover books on physics (Dover Publications, 2007)

    2007

  39. [47]

    Surungan, S

    T. Surungan, S. Masuda, Y. Komura, and Y. Ok- abe, Berezinskii–Kosterlitz–Thouless transition on reg- ular and Villain types of q-state clock models, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 52, 275002 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    L. M. Tuan, T. T. Long, D. X. Nui, P. T. Minh, N. D. Trung Kien, and D. X. Viet, Binder ratio in the two- dimensional q-state clock model, Phys. Rev. E 106, 034138 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Drouin-Touchette, The Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition: an introduction for the intrepid student (2022), arXiv:2207.13748 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    V. Drouin-Touchette, The Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition: an introduction for the intrepid student (2022), arXiv:2207.13748 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Hasenbusch, The two-dimensional XY model at the transition temperature: a high-precision Monte Carlo study, J

    M. Hasenbusch, The two-dimensional XY model at the transition temperature: a high-precision Monte Carlo study, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38, 5869 (2005)

    2005

  43. [51]

    Loffredo, D

    E. Loffredo, D. Venturelli, and I. Giardina, Collective re- sponse to local perturbations: how to evade threats with- out losing coherence, Phys. Biol. 20, 035003 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Theory of dynamic critical phenomena, Rev. Mod. Phys. 49, 435 (1977)

    1977

  45. [53]

    M. C. Marchetti, J. F. Joanny, S. Ramaswamy, T. B. Liverpool, J. Prost, M. Rao, and R. A. Simha, Hydrody- namics of soft active matter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1143 (2013)

    2013

  46. [54]

    S. K. Saha and P. K. Mohanty, Non-reciprocal inter- actions preserve the universality class of Potts model (2024), arXiv:2412.19664 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    M. E. J. Newman and G. T. Barkema, Monte Carlo Methods in Statistical Physics (Oxford University Press, 1999)

    1999

  48. [56]

    Metropolis, A

    N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, Equation of state calcula- tions by fast computing machines, J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087 (1953)

    1953

  49. [57]

    Berche, A

    B. Berche, A. I. Fari˜ nas-S´ anchez, Y. Holovatch, and R. Paredes, Influence of quenched dilution on the quasi- long-range ordered phase of the 2d XY model, Eur. Phys. J. B 36, 91 (2003)

    2003

  50. [58]

    Okabe and T

    Y. Okabe and T. Surungan, Phase transition of two- dimensional diluted XY and clock models, Progr. Theor. Phys. Supp. 157, 132 (2005)

    2005

  51. [59]

    Pathria and P

    R. Pathria and P. D. Beale, 13 - Phase transitions: exact (or almost exact) results for various models, in Statis- tical Mechanics , edited by R. Pathria and P. D. Beale (Academic Press, 2022) 4th ed., pp. 487–554. Appendix A: Details of the Monte Carlo simulation We report he...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.