Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 48 references

This paper presents a general-purpose, gradient-based framework that inverts an analytical yield calculation, so a designer can tune temperature, interaction strengths, and monomer concentrations to hit target equilibrium yields in both sel

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A differentiable wrapper around an analytical equilibrium-yield calculation enables gradient-based design of dimers, temperature-switchable shells, and size-controlled polymers, validated by molecular dynamics.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection Good framework, solid dimer validation, but the polymer mass-action penalty has a real equation error that the authors need to fix before the 'general purpose' claim holds. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.17677 v2 pith:LTUR3UJP submitted 2025-10-20 cond-mat.soft physics.app-ph

General Purpose Inverse Design of Heterogeneous Finite-Sized Assemblies

Livia A. J. Guttieres , Ryan K. Krueger , Remi Drolet , Michael P. Brenner This is my paper
classification cond-mat.soft physics.app-ph
keywords inverse designself-assemblygradient-based optimizationanalytical yield calculationpatchy particlesmass-action regularizationequilibrium yieldnon-self-limiting polymerization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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's central claim is that equilibrium assembly yield can be made a differentiable function of design parameters and then inverted by gradient descent, without ever differentiating through a molecular dynamics trajectory. It builds this on a closed-form grand-canonical calculation of cluster partition functions and equilibrium concentrations, and differentiates through both the partition-function step and the fixed-point concentration solve. The authors demonstrate the method on a dimer, on a six-monomer octahedral shell that must assemble at low temperature and disassemble at high temperature, and on a polymerizing system in which growth is unbounded unless an auxiliary mass-action penalty is added. They report that the optimized parameters transfer to finite-size canonical molecular dynamics, with near-quantitative agreement for the dimer and the correct switch-like behavior for the shell. A sympathetic reader would care because it turns a descriptive equilibrium theory into a stable and cheap design tool for anisotropic, entropically rich assemblies.

Core claim

The central discovery is that a recent analytical yield calculation — in which each candidate cluster's partition function is approximated by a symmetry-corrected product of ground-state Boltzmann weight, translational, rotational, and vibrational entropies, and concentrations are then obtained by solving coupled mass-action and conservation equations — can be made fully differentiable. Automatic differentiation handles the dependence of partition functions on control parameters, and implicit differentiation of the concentration solver provides the remaining gradient of yields, avoiding the instabilities of differentiating an unrolled numerical solver. With these gradients, the paper optimiz

What carries the argument

The working object is the partition-function-to-yield pipeline: per-cluster partition functions Z_s ≈ exp(-βE_0) · V · (e^J/σ_s) · ∏_i √(2π/βω_i²), which encode translational, rotational, and vibrational entropy of rigid anisotropic clusters, followed by the coupled system of conservation laws (Σ_s N_{s,α} c_s = c_α^tot) and mass-action relations (V c_s ∏_α c_α^{N_{s,α}} = Z_s ∏_α Z_α^{-N_{s,α}}) that determine equilibrium concentrations and yields. The new ingredient is differentiating this whole pipeline: dZ/dθ by automatic differentiation, dY/dZ by implicit differentiation of the fixed-point system. For the polymerizing case, an auxiliary generalized mass-action estimate c_s = n · e^{-β ε

Load-bearing premise

The procedure assumes that a drastically reduced off-target ensemble — one representative connected structure per intermediate cluster size for the shell, and explicit chains only up to trimers plus a heuristic tetramer mass-action penalty for polymers — captures the thermodynamic competition well enough that parameters optimized under it still work in a full simulation.

What would settle it

For the shell, run the optimization with the single representative tetramer and again with several distinct connected size-4 subsets included; if the optimized interaction parameters and simulated switch-like yields differ substantially, the one-per-size reduction is the bottleneck. For the polymer, vary the prefactor and per-subunit energy estimate in the tetramer mass-action penalty and check whether the simulated chain-length distribution at kT=0.75 changes discontinuously or long chains reappear.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Researchers can design equilibrium self-assembly without running molecular dynamics at every optimization step; simulation is relegated to validation of the final parameters.
  • A single set of optimized interaction parameters can produce condition-dependent behavior, such as shell assembly at low temperature and near-complete disassembly at high temperature, which is relevant for cargo-delivery and reconfigurable materials.
  • Unbounded, non-self-limiting polymerization can be steered toward a finite target cluster by penalizing the first unrepresented growth step, suggesting that local overgrowth control can substitute for global enumeration.
  • Because monomer concentrations are also continuous design variables, the framework can exploit strongly non-stoichiometric monomer ratios to mitigate yield catastrophes.
  • The approach covers anisotropic, heterogeneous building blocks with translational, rotational, and vibrational entropy and concentration dependence — regimes where differentiating through full simulations is unstable or infeasible.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: because the forward model is smooth and the gradients are exact, the same machinery yields parameter sensitivity information — which interactions or concentrations most strongly control each yield — that could guide experimental design beyond the chosen loss function.
  • Beyond the paper: the mass-action regularization idea could be tested on other non-self-limiting processes, such as micellization, fibrillization, or virus capsid overgrowth, where a single penalty on the first unenumerated aggregate size might replace explicit enumeration.
  • Beyond the paper: the shell results make a clear prediction that the one-representative-per-size reduction is the limiting approximation; adding several distinct size-4 or size-5 off-targets to the ensemble should measurably change the optimized parameters and simulated yields, which is directly testable.
  • Beyond the paper: the tetramer penalty's functional form — linear prefactor n, per-subunit energy E_s/n, and product of monomer concentrations — is an unvalidated heuristic; scanning those choices would reveal whether the regularization is robust or tuned to the specific system.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a differentiable inverse-design framework for equilibrium self-assembly. The forward model is the analytical grand-canonical yield calculation of Curatolo et al. [22], which computes cluster partition functions from ground-state energies and vibrational spectra and maps them to concentrations via mass-action and conservation equations. The authors make this calculation end-to-end differentiable with implicit differentiation and automatic differentiation, and demonstrate gradient-based optimization of interaction parameters and monomer concentrations for three systems: a two-monomer dimer, an octahedral shell with temperature-dependent assembly/disassembly, and a polymerizing system with a target trimer. Optimized parameters are validated by canonical-ensemble molecular dynamics. The dimer case matches simulation to within 1%; the shell case reproduces the intended switch-like trend but with >10% quantitative error; the polymer case uses a mass-action penalty to suppress tetramer overgrowth and reports improved target yield and reduced long-chain formation.

Significance. The framework addresses a real bottleneck: using simulation data for inverse design is expensive and numerically unstable, whereas analytical yield calculations are fast. Making the mapping from partition functions to equilibrium yields differentiable via implicit differentiation is a clean methodological contribution. The validation protocol—independent canonical MD at fixed particle number—is the right external check for a grand-canonical design calculation, and the dimer results are convincingly quantitative. The shell and polymer examples illustrate two important regimes: multi-ensemble optimization and unbounded growth with an auxiliary regularizer. If the polymer regularization is corrected and shown to be robust, the framework would be a useful addition to the soft-matter design toolbox.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (8), Appendix D Eq. (S15)] The multi-species mass-action expression is not the extension of the classical law it cites. Eq. (7)/(S13) is c_n = n c_1^n e^{-nβϵ(n)}. With ϵ_s(n)=E_s/n from Eq. (S14), substituting into Eq. (S15) gives c_s^MA = n e^{-β E_s/n} ∏ c_m^{N_s,m}, whereas consistency requires e^{-nβϵ_s(n)} = e^{-β E_s}. The same issue appears in main-text Eq. (8). Consequently, the penalty in Eq. (S16) underestimates (for E_s<0) the tetramer concentrations it was designed to suppress, and the optimized polymer parameters in Fig. 4C are not those that follow from the stated mass-action prior. Please correct the exponent and rerun the polymer optimization/simulations, or justify Eq. (S15) as a separate heuristic that still reduces to Eq. (7) in the single-species limit. This is load-bearing because non-self-limiting control is a central claim of the abstract.
  2. [Case 2 (Octahedral Shell), Appendix C] The shell case is presented as a demonstration of precise control, but Appendix C states that theory and simulation differ by >10% and that non-negligible off-target concentrations appear in simulation. The underlying approximation is that one representative connected subset per cluster size captures the whole off-target ensemble. This is a strong assumption and is not tested against either all enumerated subsets of the shell or against alternative off-target geometries. Since the abstract's 'precise control' claim covers this system, the manuscript should either provide evidence that the selected representatives dominate the off-target partition function (e.g., a comparison of predicted yields with and without additional off-target structures) or explicitly limit the shell claim to qualitative trend design. The comparison in Fig. 3C is suggestive, but the reported error is too large to
  3. [Appendix C-D, Fig. 4C] The polymer demonstration depends on several hand-set choices: λ=1000 in Eq. (S12), η=1 in Eq. (S16), the softplus form of the penalty, and the restriction of the penalty to n=4 only. No sensitivity analysis is reported. Because the non-self-limiting case is one of the three signature examples, the generality claim is only as strong as the robustness of these choices. Please report the dependence of the optimized yields on λ and η (or at least on λ) and justify the n+1 truncation more carefully, especially after correcting Eq. (S15).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 4A caption] The caption says 'On the left, we depict the target αβγ trimer... The left panel depicts the 6×6 interaction matrix'; this is self-contradictory—presumably the matrix is on the right. Also 'the the' is a typo.
  2. [Appendix E, polymer simulations] Optimized monomer concentrations are continuous but simulations use rounded integer counts of N=300. Please state the rounding rule and discuss the sensitivity to the resulting stoichiometry discretization, especially at the low concentrations used here.
  3. [Eq. (2)] The notation eJ is not defined; if it denotes e^J, please typeset accordingly and define J. A list of symbols for the partition-function expression would improve readability.
  4. [Eq. (S4)] The grand partition function Q is not explicitly defined. Please define it and clarify how the yield is normalized, since the dimer and shell texts sometimes refer to monomer fraction and sometimes to cluster fraction.
  5. [Fig. 4C] The x-axis is labeled 1/kT but the text and callouts refer to kT=0.75; choose one convention and use it consistently. Also report error bars on the yield distributions.
  6. [Appendix A, symmetry numbers] For off-target shell clusters, σ_s=1 for all sizes, which assumes no residual symmetry. Please state whether the symmetry detection was verified on lower-symmetry clusters, as this directly affects the partition function and hence the yield.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: optimized parameters are validated by independent fixed-N canonical MD; the forward model is a published prior calculation and self-citations are not load-bearing uniqueness arguments.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the equilibrium yields are computed from the published Curatolo et al. partition-function/mass-action model (Eqs. 2, 4, 5), and the paper's contribution is the end-to-end differentiation (Eq. 6) and optimization against target yields. Each optimization is a fit by construction; the paper's actual claim is that the fitted parameters transfer, and this is checked in fixed-N canonical MD, which is an independent ensemble with different particle-number statistics and is not part of the differentiable objective. Thus the central 'prediction' (simulated yield at optimized parameters) is not the same object as the training target (analytical yield at those parameters), so there is no self-definitional reduction. The shell and polymer cases explicitly acknowledge limited off-target enumeration and >10% error; these are approximations that could affect validity, but they are not equivalences between input and output. The polymer mass-action regularization is an auxiliary penalty (Appendix D), not a prediction claim; the MD outcomes provide the external test. I note an apparent algebraic inconsistency: Eq. S15 uses e^{-beta E_s/n} where a direct extension of Eq. S13 would require e^{-beta E_s}; this is a correctness risk in the regularizer, not a circularity. The only self-citations are to the published forward model [22] and to model/code repositories [41,44]; these are not invoked as a uniqueness or existence theorem and do not force the paper's design results. Overall: no load-bearing circular step; score 1 reflects minor author-overlap self-citation with an otherwise independent central validation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central claim rests on the fidelity of the Curatolo analytical partition-function approximation, the grand-canonical-to-canonical transfer, and a set of modeling choices: reduced off-target ensembles, fixed ground states, approximated symmetry numbers, and a heuristic multi-species mass-action penalty. The free parameters are loss scalars, solver weights, clipping thresholds, and a concentration mismatch deliberately used in SI E to improve polymer yields.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda_poly = 1000
    Empirical scaling factor balancing target-yield vs overgrowth penalty in polymer loss (Eq. S12); set by hand.
  • eta_mass_action = 1
    Scaling factor in overgrowth penalty (Eq. S16); tunable and chosen ad hoc.
  • shell_solver_weights = w=[10,1,1,1,1]; Var weight=50
    Hand-chosen weighting in the yield solver cost to favor monomer residual (Appendix A).
  • polymer_clipping_thresholds = min c=9e-5, min epsilon=0.25
    Clipping used to mitigate numerical instability in polymer optimization (Appendix C).
  • optimization_vs_simulation_concentration = c_tot=1e-3 (optimization), 1e-4 (simulation) in SI E
    Deliberate mismatch exploited to improve polymer trimer yield via under-approximation of monomer concentration in the mass-action penalty.
  • shell_initial_parameters = modest interaction strengths
    Initial parameter values for shell optimization determined by preliminary single-ensemble optimizations (Appendix C).
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Curatolo et al. harmonic partition-function approximation (Eq. 2): thermal energy small relative to potential energy; translational/rotational/vibrational modes decouple.
    The forward model used for design inherits this approximation from Ref. [22]; if it fails, optimized parameters will not transfer to simulation.
  • domain assumption Grand-canonical yields map to canonical MD behavior for finite systems (N=54-300).
    The framework optimizes in a grand-canonical-like setting but validates and targets canonical simulations (main text; refs [27,28]).
  • domain assumption Fixed ground-state structures for each candidate assembly during optimization.
    Acknowledged limitation in Discussion; if energy minima shift with parameters, partition functions are miscomputed.
  • ad hoc to paper One representative off-target structure per cluster size sufficiently captures shell off-target competition.
    Shell enumeration keeps a single connected subset per size (Appendix A); this is a major model reduction.
  • ad hoc to paper Polymer enumeration truncated at n=3 plus mass-action penalty for n=4 suffices to capture unbounded-growth competition.
    All chains >3 are excluded; the penalty assumes tetramers are the bottleneck (Case 3, Appendix D).
  • ad hoc to paper Multi-species mass-action approximation c_MA_s = n e^{-β E_s/n} prod_m c_m^{N_{s,m}} (Eq. S15) estimates tetramer concentrations.
    Presented as a 'novel approximation' with no derivation or error analysis; load-bearing for polymer regularization.
  • domain assumption Symmetry number approximations (sigma_shell=8; sigma_polymer=3^{n-1}) computed via the described procedures.
    Approximate for distorted/off-target clusters, acknowledged in Appendix A; errors in sigma shift partition functions.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of General Purpose Inverse Design of Heterogeneous Finite-Sized Assemblies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LTUR3UJP

@misc{pith2026251017677,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: General Purpose Inverse Design of Heterogeneous Finite-Sized Assemblies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LTUR3UJP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.17677}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Designing heterogeneous, self-assembling systems is a central challenge in soft matter and biology. We present a framework that uses gradient-based optimization to invert an analytical yield calculation, tuning systems toward target equilibrium yields. We design systems ranging from simple dimers to temperature-controlled shells to polymerizing systems, achieving precise control of self- and non-self-limiting assemblies. By operating directly on closed-form calculations, our framework bypasses trajectory-based instabilities and enables efficient optimization in otherwise challenging regimes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.17677 by Livia A. J. Guttieres, Michael P. Brenner, Remi Drolet, Ryan K. Krueger.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: B illustrates this issue: while our analytical framework can explicitly include monomers, dimers, and the target trimer (left), the space of all possible larger chains is exponentially large (right). A straightforward application of our base framework is to approximate this complexity by considering only a representative set of smaller off-targets, as we did in the shell and dimer examples. However, this a… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Load vertex positions and species identities

  2. [2]

    Re-center the positions per the structure’s center of mass

  3. [3]

    Apply each of the 24 rotation matrices in theO(octahedral) point group

  4. [4]

    Onlyrotationsthatpreserveboththespatialconfigurationandspeciesassignmentcontributetothesymmetrynumber

    For each rotation, check whether the rotated configuration is indistinguishable from the original by comparing the sorted coordinate sets within each species group. Onlyrotationsthatpreserveboththespatialconfigurationandspeciesassignmentcontributetothesymmetrynumber. This method allows us to compute the symmetry numbers even for partially symmetric or het...

  5. [5]

    M. F. Hagan and O. M. Elrad, Nano letters8, 3850 (2008)

    2008

  6. [6]

    J. J. McManus, P. Charbonneau, E. Zaccarelli, and N. Asherie, Current opinion in colloid & interface science22, 73 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    B. A. Grzybowski, C. E. Wilmer, J. Kim, K. P. Browne, and K. J. Bishop, Soft Matter5, 1110 (2009)

    2009

  8. [8]

    J.-F. Lutz, M. Ouchi, D. R. Liu, and M. Sawamoto, Science341, 1238149 (2013)

    2013

  9. [9]

    A. Jain, J. R. Errington, and T. M. Truskett, Soft Matter9, 3866 (2013)

    2013

  10. [10]

    Y.-T. Lai, N. P. King, and T. O. Yeates, Trends in cell biology22, 653 (2012)

    2012

  11. [11]

    Sánchez-Iglesias, M

    A. Sánchez-Iglesias, M. Grzelczak, T. Altantzis, B. Goris, J. Perez-Juste, S. Bals, G. Van Tendeloo, S. H. Donaldson Jr, B. F. Chmelka, J. N. Israelachvili,et al., ACS nano6, 11059 (2012)

    2012

  12. [12]

    A. D. Law, M. Auriol, D. Smith, T. S. Horozov, and D. M. A. Buzza, Physical review letters110, 138301 (2013)

    2013

  13. [13]

    Sacanna and D

    S. Sacanna and D. J. Pine, Current opinion in colloid & interface science16, 96 (2011)

    2011

  14. [14]

    W. M. Jacobs, A. Reinhardt, and D. Frenkel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112, 6313 (2015)

    2015

  15. [15]

    A. W. Wilber, J. P. K. Doye, A. A. Louis, E. G. Noya, M. A. Miller, and P. Wong, The Journal of Chemical Physics127, 085106 (2007)

    2007

  16. [16]

    B. A. Lindquist, R. B. Jadrich, and T. M. Truskett, The Journal of Chemical Physics145, 111101 (2016)

    2016

  17. [17]

    Jadrich, B

    R. Jadrich, B. Lindquist, and T. Truskett, The Journal of Chemical Physics146(2017)

    2017

  18. [18]

    E. D. Klein, R. W. Perry, and V. N. Manoharan, Physical Review E98, 032608 (2018)

    2018

  19. [19]

    Y. Geng, G. van Anders, P. M. Dodd, J. Dshemuchadse, and S. C. Glotzer, Science advances5, eaaw0514 (2019)

    2019

  20. [20]

    Van Anders, D

    G. Van Anders, D. Klotsa, A. S. Karas, P. M. Dodd, and S. C. Glotzer, Acs Nano9, 9542 (2015)

    2015

  21. [21]

    Hormoz and M

    S. Hormoz and M. P. Brenner, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108, 5193 (2011)

    2011

  22. [22]

    E. M. King, C. X. Du, Q.-Z. Zhu, S. S. Schoenholz, and M. P. Brenner, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121, e2311891121 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    R. K. Krueger, E. M. King, and M. P. Brenner, Physical Review Letters133, 228201 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    G. Meng, N. Arkus, M. P. Brenner, and V. N. Manoharan, Science327, 560 (2010)

    2010

  25. [25]

    Zeravcic, V

    Z. Zeravcic, V. N. Manoharan, and M. P. Brenner, Reviews of Modern Physics89, 031001 (2017)

    2017

  26. [26]

    A. I. Curatolo, O. Kimchi, C. P. Goodrich, R. K. Krueger, and M. P. Brenner, Nature Communications14, 8328 (2023)

    2023

  27. [27]

    M. F. Hagan and G. M. Grason, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 025008 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    Murugan, J

    A. Murugan, J. Zou, and M. P. Brenner, Nature communications6, 6203 (2015)

    2015

  29. [29]

    Blondel, Q

    M. Blondel, Q. Berthet, M. Cuturi, R. Frostig, S. Hoyer, F. Llinares-López, F. Pedregosa, and J.-P. Vert, arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.15183 10.48550/arXiv.2105.15183 (2021)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.15183 2021

  30. [30]

    J.Bradbury, R.Frostig, P.Hawkins, M.J.Johnson, C.Leary, D.Maclaurin, J.VanderPlas, S.Wanderman-Milne, Q.Zhang, et al., GitHub (2018), available athttps://github.com/google/jax

    2018

  31. [31]

    J. J. Harris, G. A. Pantelopulos, and J. E. Straub, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B125, 5068–5077 (2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    T. E. Ouldridge, The Journal of Chemical Physics137, 144105 (2012)

    2012

  33. [33]

    Torquato, Soft Matter5, 1157 (2009)

    S. Torquato, Soft Matter5, 1157 (2009)

    2009

  34. [34]

    A. Jain, J. A. Bollinger, and T. M. Truskett, AIChE Journal60, 2732 (2014), originally available as arXiv:1405.4060 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [35]

    Dijkstra and E

    M. Dijkstra and E. Luijten, Nature materials20, 762 (2021)

    2021

  36. [36]

    R. Niu, C. X. Du, E. Esposito, J. Ng, M. P. Brenner, P. L. McEuen, and I. Cohen, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116, 24402 (2019)

    2019

  37. [37]

    A. L. Fenley, C. X. Du, P. L. McEuen, I. Cohen, M. P. Brenner, and J. Dshemuchadse, ACS nano19, 14770 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    H. M. Berman, J. Westbrook, Z. Feng, G. Gilliland, T. N. Bhat, H. Weissig, I. N. Shindyalov, and P. E. Bourne, Nucleic acids research28, 235 (2000)

    2000

  39. [39]

    Krueger, M

    R. Krueger, M. P. Brenner, and K. Shrinivas, bioRxiv , 2024 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    IUPAC, Symmetry number,https://goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/S06214(1997)

    1997

  41. [41]

    Wikipedia contributors, Symmetry number,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_number(2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    K. V. Shaitan, Biophysics67, 386 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    M. K. Gilson and K. K. Irikura, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B114, 16304 (2010)

    2010

  44. [44]

    N. M. Vandewiele, R. Van de Vijver, K. M. Van Geem, M.-F. Reyniers, and G. B. Marin, Journal of Computational Chemistry36, 183 (2015)

    2015

  45. [45]

    Krueger, Tuning colloidal reactions (shell assembly, jax-md),https://github.com/rkruegs123/ tuning-colloidal-reactions(2023)

    R. Krueger, Tuning colloidal reactions (shell assembly, jax-md),https://github.com/rkruegs123/ tuning-colloidal-reactions(2023)

    2023

  46. [46]

    DeepMind, Optax: Gradient processing and optimization in jax (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    D. P. Kingma, arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  48. [48]

    Drolet, Patchy triparticle simulations (hoomd),https://github.com/remidrolet/patchy_triparticle_simulations (2024)

    R. Drolet, Patchy triparticle simulations (hoomd),https://github.com/remidrolet/patchy_triparticle_simulations (2024)

    2024

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.