Self-organized criticality driven by droplet influx and random fusion

Bohan Lyu; Jie Lin

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Self-organized criticality driven by droplet influx and random fusion

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

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

Pith's one-line read Slowly adding droplets that fuse on contact drives the system to a critical state in which droplet sizes follow a 3/2 power law and spatial correlations diverge.

desk verdict Nice simulations, but the Smoluchowski sum-kernel story does not survive contact with the paper's own moment equation. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06236 v2 pith:ISQ5K2F2 submitted 2025-02-10 cond-mat.soft physics.bio-ph

Bohan Lyu , Jie Lin This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph

keywords self-organizedcriticalitydropletcoalescenceSmoluchowskiequationsumkernelpower-lawsizedistributionliquid-liquidphaseseparationnucleolusvolumesdensityfluctuations

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 sets out to establish that a minimal process—quasi-static addition of small liquid droplets that instantly fuse upon overlap—is enough to push a two-dimensional droplet system into a self-organized critical state as the area fraction approaches a critical value. At that critical point, the droplet size distribution becomes a power law with exponent 3/2 and an exponential cutoff, and spatial correlations diverge, with density fluctuations in a subsystem decaying anomalously slowly with subsystem size. The engine is a Smoluchowski coagulation equation whose fusion kernel, fixed by dimensional analysis and symmetry to be proportional to S1+S2, is known to produce exactly the 3/2 exponent. This matters because a 3/2 power law is precisely what has been observed for nucleoli volumes in amphibian oocytes, so the paper offers a minimal physical explanation of that observation without invoking special reaction-limited chemistry.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Smoluchowski coagulation equation with a source term, dn(S, phi)/dphi = (1/2) sum_{S1} K(S1,S-S1) n(S1, phi) n(S-S1, phi) - n(S, phi) sum_{S1} K(S,S1) n(S1, phi) + delta_{S,1}, together with the fusion kernel K(S1,S2) ~ S1+S2. Dimensional analysis and the equivalence of droplets under system rescaling fix the kernel to be homogeneous of degree one; the symmetric sum is the candidate the paper proposes and verifies numerically. For this kernel the equation has a closed asymptotic solution n(S, phi) = (phi/$\sqrt$(pi S_c)) S^(-3/2) e^(-S/S_c), which produces the 1.5 exponent below a diverging characteristic size S_c and, through the density-variance analysis, a divergent correlation length.

What would settle it

Track individual fusion events in an independent simulation or controlled emulsion experiment, binning by the sizes of the two fusing droplets, and test whether K(S1,S2)/(S1+S2) is constant; a systematic dependence on, say, S1S2/(S1+S2) would falsify the predicted 3/2 power law and divergent correlation length.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that droplet influx plus random fusion is sufficient to produce criticality: as the area fraction phi approaches the critical value phi_c, the characteristic droplet size diverges as S* ~ (phi_c - phi)^(-gamma), the size distribution obeys dynamical scaling n(S, phi) = phi S_c^(-2) psi(S/S_c) with psi(x) = x^(-3/2) e^(-x)/$\sqrt$(pi), and the system becomes spatially scale-free with $sigma_rho^{2}$(l) ~ l^(-eta) and g(r) - <rho> ~ r^(-eta). The mechanism is the sum-form fusion kernel K(S1,S2) ~ S1+S2, which maps the droplet problem onto the Smoluchowski aggregation problem with a monomer source, so the droplet system inherits the known 3/2 exponent and a diverging correlation length. The paper reports phi_c = 0.782 and gamma = 2.5 for the quasi-static protocol, with eta = 0.84, and qualitatively similar values for a fixed-area-fraction protocol.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that two droplets of sizes S1 and S2 fuse at a rate proportional to S1+S2 per unit area fraction; dimensional analysis alone leaves other symmetric degree-one kernels possible, so if the true fusion kernel is different, the predicted 3/2 exponent and critical behavior change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For two-dimensional droplet systems, the model predicts n(S) ~ S^{-3/2} below an exponentially diverging cutoff, with measured critical area fractions phi_c ~ 0.782 (quasi-static influx) and phi_c ~ 0.756 (fixed area fraction).
Spatial criticality is predicted: density fluctuations in a subsystem of linear size l decay as sigma_rho^2(l) ~ l^{-0.84} for quasi-static influx and l^{-1.12} for fixed area fraction, and the pair correlation function decays with the same exponent, implying a divergent correlation length.
Because the dimensional argument for the sum kernel carries over to three dimensions, the model predicts a 3/2 power law for droplet volumes, which the paper offers as the explanation for the measured nucleoli volume distribution in amphibian oocytes.
For area fractions above phi_c, the model predicts that system-spanning droplets coexist with a power-law tail of exponent 3/2 for the remaining finite droplets.
The paper argues that the same mechanism underlies power-law distributions in hyperbranched polymer growth and in bubble-size statistics of active phase separation, extending the result beyond droplet systems.

Reading between the lines

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

If the mechanism is generic, any coalescence process with a constant monomer source and a fusion rate proportional to total mass should show the same 3/2 size distribution in any dimension; testing hyperbranched polymer or active-bubble statistics would probe this universality.
The measured spatial fluctuation exponents differ between the two protocols (eta ~ 0.84 vs 1.12), so universality may hold for the size exponent while the spatial exponent depends on the injection protocol; systematically varying the protocol would settle this.
The critical area fraction around 0.78 is below geometric close packing, suggesting the criticality is kinetic rather than packing-driven; running the same protocol with non-fusing disks would separate these effects.
An independent event-by-event measurement of fusion rates in a separate simulation, rather than the same run used for the size-distribution fit, would directly confirm the sum kernel and the predicted exponent.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing to know about this paper is that the simulation results are probably real, but the theoretical story built around them does not hold together. The model — quasi-static addition of unit droplets that fuse on contact — does show a power-law droplet size distribution with exponent about 1.5 near a critical area fraction, and the spatial correlation analysis is a nice addition. That part is worth a look.

The problem is the Smoluchowski equation. They write Eq. (2), propose the sum kernel K ~ S1+S2, and then import the known solution for that kernel, Eq. (4), to explain the 1.5 exponent and the diverging cutoff S*. But even granting the kernel, the equation cannot produce a finite-phi_c divergence. The exact second-moment equation from Eq. (2) is dM2/dphi = 2 phi M2 + 1, whose solution is finite for every finite phi. Their scaling form, whether Eq. (4) or Eq. (5), makes M2 proportional to Sc (or Sc^{1/2} in the misprinted version), which would diverge if Sc does. So Eq. (4) is not a solution of Eq. (2), and the claimed divergence has to come from spatial percolation that the mean-field equation ignores. The paper doesn't say that; it presents the Smoluchowski sum-kernel mechanism as the explanation.

There are also smaller problems. Eq. (4) as printed does not conserve area: the integral S n(S) dS equals phi/sqrt(Sc), not phi. Eq. (5) is dimensionally consistent, but Eq. (4) is not, so the prefactor is off by a factor sqrt(Sc). The kernel form is not uniquely fixed by dimensional analysis; other homogeneous degree-one kernels are possible, and the numerical check is done on the same simulation whose size distribution is then fitted, so it is not an independent validation.

None of this means the numerics are worthless. The observed power laws and the robustness across protocols are likely correct, and the connection to nucleoli is worth discussing. But the central theoretical claim — that the Smoluchowski sum-kernel solution explains the exponent and the criticality — is not supported by the paper's own equations. A revision would need to either drop the mean-field mechanism for the divergence and explain the percolation origin, or show how the moment equation is modified by spatial correlations.

I would send it to peer review, because the phenomenon is interesting and the simulations are clean, but with a clear request for major revision and a careful check of the theory. It is not a paper to cite for the mechanism as it stands.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a two-dimensional model in which droplets are added quasi-statically at random positions and fuse upon overlap, with total area conserved. The authors report that as the area fraction approaches a critical value ϕ_c ≈ 0.78, the characteristic droplet size S* diverges, the droplet size distribution obeys n(S) ∼ S^{-3/2}, and the droplet spatial configuration becomes scale-free, with density variance decaying as a power law and a divergent correlation length. They propose a Smoluchowski coagulation equation with fusion kernel K(S1,S2) ∼ S1+S2, claim an analytical solution with exponent 3/2, and interpret the result as self-organized criticality driven by monomer influx. They also present an alternative fixed-area-fraction protocol with similar results and connect the findings to power-law nucleolus volumes.

Significance. If the claims were correct, this would be a simple and striking mechanism for power-law droplet-size distributions in phase-separating systems, with direct relevance to nucleoli. The simulations are simple, the data collapse in Fig. 2 is visually suggestive, and the robustness to a second protocol is a genuine strength. However, the mean-field theoretical core is internally inconsistent: the printed scaling form does not conserve total area, and the second moment of the proposed solution contradicts the exact moment equation of the proposed Smoluchowski equation. The numerical criticality may be real, but the paper's central explanation is not supported by its own equations. Because the theoretical chain (Eqs. (2)–(4)) is load-bearing for the SOC interpretation, the manuscript in its present form cannot be recommended.

major comments (3)

[Results, Eq. (4) and Eq. (5)] Equation (4) does not satisfy the normalization condition ϕ = ∑_S S n(S,ϕ). For Eq. (4), ∫_0^∞ S n(S,ϕ) dS = ϕ/√S_c, not ϕ, except when S_c = 1. Equation (5) with ψ(x) = x^{-3/2}e^{-x}/√π gives the correct normalization but differs from Eq. (4) by a factor S_c^{1/2}. Thus the two displayed forms are inconsistent, and the fitting of Eq. (4) in Fig. 2b cannot be interpreted as a normalized size distribution. This needs to be corrected before the scaling analysis can be assessed.
[Results, Eq. (2) with Eqs. (1) and (4)] The claimed finite-ϕ_c divergence cannot arise from the Smoluchowski equation with K = S1+S2. Multiplying Eq. (2) by S^2 and summing gives dM2/dϕ = 2ϕ M2 + 1, where M2 = ∑_S S^2 n(S,ϕ). This linear ODE has the explicit solution M2(ϕ) = e^{ϕ^2} ∫_0^ϕ e^{-s^2} ds, which is finite for every finite ϕ. The scaling form implied by Eq. (4) gives M2 ∼ ϕ S_c (after correcting the normalization), and Eq. (1) states S_c ∼ (ϕ_c−ϕ)^{-γ}, so M2 would diverge at ϕ_c. This is a direct contradiction. Consequently the theoretical chain Eqs. (2)–(4) cannot explain the simulated criticality; any divergence of S* must come from spatial or percolation effects outside the mean-field equation. This undermines the central claim that the droplet size dynamics is governed by the sum-kernel Smoluchowski solution.
[Results, Eq. (3)] Dimensional analysis fixes only homogeneity: K(λ^2 S1, λ^2 S2) = λ^2 K(S1,S2), i.e., degree one. Many symmetric degree-one kernels, e.g., K = S1 S2/(S1+S2), also satisfy this. The numerical verification in Fig. 3 is performed on the same simulation whose size distribution is subsequently compared with the sum-kernel solution, so it is not an independent test. Please provide either a derivation that selects K ∼ S1+S2 among degree-one kernels or an independent check, such as a simulation with altered fusion rules.

minor comments (4)

[Fig. 2a and Eq. (1)] The extraction of ϕ_c and γ from the linear relation dϕ/d ln S* = (ϕ_c−ϕ)/γ is a central quantitative claim, but the fit range and the uncertainty of the extracted values are not reported.
[Eq. (2)] The source term δ_{S,1} is only implicit. Since n(S,ϕ) is a number density per unit area, adding one unit-area droplet contributes to n_1 by dϕ, but this derivation should be stated explicitly.
[Discussion] The statement that the same dimensional argument holds in three dimensions is not self-evident: if S is a volume, the dimensional analysis changes unless the collision rate is assumed to be proportional to the sum of volumes. A brief justification or caveat is needed.
[Eq. (4) and Fig. 2b] The assertion that S* is proportional to S_c is based on an integral involving Eq. (4); once Eq. (4) is corrected, this relation should be re-derived, and the data collapse in the inset of Fig. 2b should be re-presented using the corrected form.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 1.5 exponent is imported from an independent known solution of the sum-kernel Smoluchowski equation, and fitted parameters are labeled as fits, not predictions.

full rationale

The paper's claimed chain is: (i) define a quasi-static droplet-influx fusion model; (ii) write a mean-field Smoluchowski equation, Eq. (2); (iii) propose from dimensional analysis plus symmetry that the fusion kernel is K(S1,S2) ~ S1+S2, Eq. (3); (iv) numerically confirm this kernel from fusion events; (v) cite the known kinetic-aggregation result that the sum kernel gives an asymptotic size distribution n(S) ~ S^{-3/2} exp(-S/Sc), Eq. (4); and (vi) fit Sc to the simulated size distributions while extracting phi_c, gamma, and eta from scaling collapses. No step in this chain equates an output with an input by construction. The exponent 1.5 is not fitted; it is taken from external aggregation literature [10,27,28], and the only fitted quantity in Eq. (4) is the cutoff Sc. The parameters phi_c, gamma, and eta are described as extracted from the simulation, not as first-principles predictions, so they are not relabeled predictions. The only self-citations are to the amorphous-solids analogy in the Discussion [8,9], which is not load-bearing. A genuine concern is the mathematical consistency of Eq. (4) with Eq. (2): for K=S1+S2, the second moment obeys dM2/dphi = 2 phi M2 + 1, whose solution is finite for all finite phi, so the divergent cutoff implied by Eq. (4) cannot be a solution of the paper's own Smoluchowski equation. That is a serious correctness problem, but it is not circularity: Eq. (4) is imported from a different aggregation problem rather than derived from Eq. (2), so no circular reduction by construction is present.

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

The central claim rests on a small number of modeling choices. The most important is the sum-form fusion kernel: it is not uniquely implied by dimensional analysis and is verified from the same simulation that later produces the fitted distribution. The mean-field Smoluchowski equation is assumed rather than derived, and the critical exponents are fitted, not predicted. These are not fatal, but they mean the paper's theoretical contribution is a plausible mapping onto a known universality class, with numerical support, rather than a parameter-free derivation.

free parameters (4)

phi_c (quasi-static protocol) = 0.782
Critical area fraction extracted from the linear relation dphi/dln S* = (phi_c - phi)/gamma (Fig. 2a). The reported critical scaling depends on this fitted location.
gamma = 2.5 (quasi-static), 2.6 (fixed-phi)
Divergence exponent of characteristic droplet size S* ~ (phi_c - phi)^-gamma, obtained by fitting the same linear relation. Not derived from the model.
Sc = varies with phi
Characteristic droplet size used in Eq. (4) to fit each size distribution; the authors state Sc is the fitting parameter.
eta = 0.84 (quasi-static), 1.12 (fixed-phi)
Exponent for density variance sigma_rho^2 ~ l^-eta and pair correlation decay g(r) - <rho> ~ r^-eta; measured from simulations, not derived.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Overlapping droplets fuse instantaneously into a new spherical droplet with conserved area and fixed centre of mass.
This defines the model and is invoked in the algorithm paragraph and throughout; real droplets may coalesce with different geometry or kinetics.
domain assumption Droplet size dynamics is described by the mean-field Smoluchowski equation (Eq. 2), which neglects spatial correlations and finite-system boundary effects.
The paper writes Eq. (2) without derivation from the microscopic fusion rule. This is the main analytical frame.
ad hoc to paper The fusion kernel is homogeneous of degree one, symmetric, and specifically K(S1,S2) ~ S1+S2 (Eq. 3).
Dimensional analysis fixes only scaling under lambda, not the functional form; the sum form is proposed and then verified numerically on the same simulation. The 3/2 exponent depends on this choice.
domain assumption The exact solution for the sum kernel in kinetic aggregation of colloids (Refs. 10, 27, 28) transfers to droplet fusion with a monomer source.
The paper states 'we propose that the same result should apply' and imports Eqs. (4) and (5). Different boundary conditions or source terms could alter the solution.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-organized criticality driven by droplet influx and random fusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ISQ5K2F2

@misc{pith2026250206236,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-organized criticality driven by droplet influx and random fusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ISQ5K2F2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06236}
}

abstract

The droplet size distribution typically decays exponentially in solutions formed by liquid-liquid phase separation. Nevertheless, a power-law distribution of nucleoli volumes has been observed in amphibian oocytes, which appears similar to the cluster size distribution in reaction-limited aggregation. In this work, we study the mechanism of power-law distributed droplet sizes and unveil a self-organized criticality driven by droplet influx and random fusion between droplets. Surprisingly, the droplet size dynamics is governed by a similar Smoluchowski equation as the cluster size in aggregation systems. The system reaches a critical state as the area fraction approaches the critical value at which the droplet size has a power-law distribution with a $1.5$ exponent. Furthermore, the system is also spatially scale-free with a divergent correlation length at the critical state, marked by giant droplet-density fluctuations and power-law decay of the pair correlation function.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06236 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. We randomly add small droplets quasi-statically to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (a) The fusion kernel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The same analysis as Figure 2 for the alternative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

H. E. Stanley, Phase transitions and critical phenomena, Vol. 7 (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1971)

work page 1971
[2]

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

1977
[3]

Ma, Modern theory of critical phenomena(Rout- ledge, 2018)

S.-K. Ma, Modern theory of critical phenomena(Rout- ledge, 2018)

work page 2018
[4]

P. Bak, C. Tang, and K. Wiesenfeld, Self-organized crit- icality: An explanation of the 1/f noise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 381 (1987)

1987
[5]

P. Bak, C. Tang, and K. Wiesenfeld, Self-organized crit- icality, Phys. Rev. A 38, 364 (1988)

work page 1988
[6]

D. L. Turcotte, Self-organized criticality, Reports on Progress in Physics 62, 1377 (1999)

1999
[7]

Bak, How nature works: the science of self-organized criticality (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

P. Bak, How nature works: the science of self-organized criticality (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

work page 2013
[8]

J. Lin, E. Lerner, A. Rosso, and M. Wyart, Scaling de- scription of the yielding transition in soft amorphous solids at zero temperature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 14382 (2014)

work page 2014

Show all 38 references

[9]

J. Lin, T. Gueudr´ e, A. Rosso, and M. Wyart, Criticality in the approach to failure in amorphous solids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 168001 (2015)

2015
[10]

G. K. von Schulthess, G. B. Benedek, and R. W. D. Blois, Measurement of the cluster size distributions for high functionality antigens cross-linked by antibody, Macro- molecules 13, 939 (1980)

1980
[11]

D. A. Weitz, J. S. Huang, M. Y. Lin, and J. Sung, Dynamics of diffusion-limited kinetic aggregation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 1657 (1984)

1984
[12]

D. A. Weitz, J. S. Huang, M. Y. Lin, and J. Sung, Limits of the fractal dimension for irreversible kinetic aggrega- tion of gold colloids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 1416 (1985)

1985
[13]

D. A. Weitz and M. Y. Lin, Dynamic scaling of cluster- mass distributions in kinetic colloid aggregation, Physical Review Letters 57, 2037 (1986)

1986
[14]

R. C. Ball, D. A. Weitz, T. A. Witten, and F. Leyvraz, Universal kinetics in reaction-limited aggregation, Phys- ical Review Letters 58, 274 (1987)

1987
[15]

Similar to the power-law distributions of cluster sizes in particle-aggregation systems [10, 12–14], Brangwynne et al

are also observed in non-equilibrium systems, such as sheared colloidal suspensions [16, 17], the jamming transition [18], and spinodal decomposition [19]. Similar to the power-law distributions of cluster sizes in particle-aggregation systems [10, 12–14], Brangwynne et al. ha...

2025 arXiv
[16]

Torquato, Hyperuniform states of matter, Physics Re- ports 745, 1 (2018), hyperuniform States of Matter

S. Torquato, Hyperuniform states of matter, Physics Re- ports 745, 1 (2018), hyperuniform States of Matter

2018
[17]

Corte, P

L. Corte, P. M. Chaikin, J. P. Gollub, and D. J. Pine, Random organization in periodically driven systems, Na- ture Physics 4, 420 (2008)

2008
[18]

Wilken, R

S. Wilken, R. E. Guerra, D. J. Pine, and P. M. Chaikin, Hyperuniform structures formed by shearing colloidal suspensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 148001 (2020)

2020
[19]

Wilken, R

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

2021
[20]

Wilken, A

S. Wilken, A. Chaderjian, and O. A. Saleh, Spatial orga- nization of phase-separated dna droplets, Phys. Rev. X 13, 031014 (2023)

2023
[21]

C. P. Brangwynne, T. J. Mitchison, and A. A. Hyman, Active liquid-like behavior of nucleoli determines their size and shape in xenopus laevis oocytes, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 4334 (2011)

2011
[22]

C. P. Brangwynne, C. R. Eckmann, D. S. Courson, A. Rybarska, C. Hoege, J. Gharakhani, F. J¨ ulicher, and A. A. Hyman, Germline p granules are liquid droplets that localize by controlled dissolution/condensation, Sci- ence 324, 1729 (2009). 5

2009
[23]

A. A. Hyman, C. A. Weber, and F. J¨ ulicher, Liquid-liquid phase separation in biology, Annual review of cell and developmental biology 30, 39 (2014)

2014
[24]

S. F. Banani, H. O. Lee, A. A. Hyman, and M. K. Rosen, Biomolecular condensates: organizers of cellular biochemistry, Nature reviews Molecular cell biology 18, 285 (2017)

2017
[25]

J¨ ulicher and C

F. J¨ ulicher and C. A. Weber, Droplet physics and intra- cellular phase separation, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 15, 237 (2024)

2024
[26]

Meakin, Diffusion-limited droplet coalescence, Phys- ica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 165, 1 (1990)

P. Meakin, Diffusion-limited droplet coalescence, Phys- ica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 165, 1 (1990)

1990
[27]

Berry, C

J. Berry, C. P. Brangwynne, and M. Haataja, Physical principles of intracellular organization via active and pas- sive phase transitions, Reports on Progress in Physics81, 046601 (2018)

2018
[28]

P. G. J. van Dongen and M. H. Ernst, Dynamic scaling in the kinetics of clustering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 1396 (1985)

1985
[29]

P. G. J. Dongen and M. H. Ernst, Cluster size distribu- tion in irreversible aggregation at large times, Journal of Physics A 18, 2779 (1985)

1985
[30]

Boisvert, S

F.-M. Boisvert, S. Van Koningsbruggen, J. Navascu´ es, and A. I. Lamond, The multifunctional nucleolus, Nature reviews Molecular cell biology 8, 574 (2007)

2007
[31]

Feric, N

M. Feric, N. Vaidya, T. S. Harmon, D. M. Mitrea, L. Zhu, T. M. Richardson, R. W. Kriwacki, R. V. Pappu, and C. P. Brangwynne, Coexisting liquid phases underlie nu- cleolar subcompartments, Cell 165, 1686 (2016)

2016
[32]

Rubinstein and R

M. Rubinstein and R. H. Colby, Polymer physics(Oxford university press, 2003)

2003
[33]

X.-q. Shi, G. Fausti, H. Chat´ e, C. Nardini, and A. Solon, Self-organized critical coexistence phase in repulsive ac- tive particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 168001 (2020)

2020
[34]

Tjhung, C

E. Tjhung, C. Nardini, and M. E. Cates, Cluster phases and bubbly phase separation in active fluids: Reversal of the ostwald process, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031080 (2018)

2018
[35]

Chauve, T

P. Chauve, T. Giamarchi, and P. Le Doussal, Creep and depinning in disordered media, Phys. Rev. B 62, 6241 (2000)

2000
[36]

Rosso, A

A. Rosso, A. K. Hartmann, and W. Krauth, Depinning of elastic manifolds, Phys. Rev. E 67, 021602 (2003)

2003
[37]

Rosso, P

A. Rosso, P. Le Doussal, and K. J. Wiese, Avalanche-size distribution at the depinning transition: A numerical test of the theory, Phys. Rev. B 80, 144204 (2009)

2009
[38]

Ozawa, L

M. Ozawa, L. Berthier, G. Biroli, A. Rosso, and G. Tar- jus, Random critical point separates brittle and ductile yielding transitions in amorphous materials, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 6656 (2018)

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

H. E. Stanley, Phase transitions and critical phenomena, Vol. 7 (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1971)

work page 1971

[2] [2]

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

1977

[3] [3]

Ma, Modern theory of critical phenomena(Rout- ledge, 2018)

S.-K. Ma, Modern theory of critical phenomena(Rout- ledge, 2018)

work page 2018

[4] [4]

P. Bak, C. Tang, and K. Wiesenfeld, Self-organized crit- icality: An explanation of the 1/f noise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 381 (1987)

1987

[5] [5]

P. Bak, C. Tang, and K. Wiesenfeld, Self-organized crit- icality, Phys. Rev. A 38, 364 (1988)

work page 1988

[6] [6]

D. L. Turcotte, Self-organized criticality, Reports on Progress in Physics 62, 1377 (1999)

1999

[7] [7]

Bak, How nature works: the science of self-organized criticality (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

P. Bak, How nature works: the science of self-organized criticality (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

work page 2013

[8] [8]

J. Lin, E. Lerner, A. Rosso, and M. Wyart, Scaling de- scription of the yielding transition in soft amorphous solids at zero temperature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 14382 (2014)

work page 2014