Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Generalized mode-coupling theory of the glass transition. I. Numerical results for Percus-Yevick hard spheres

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By extending mode-coupling theory to sixth order, this paper shows that the predicted glass-transition density of hard spheres shifts from about 0.516 to roughly 0.565, near the experimental value, while the theory's scaling laws remain…

desk verdict A solid, transparent numerical extension of GMCT whose abstract overstates convergence to the experimental glass density; it deserves serious refereeing, but the 'converges toward experiment' claim needs to be reined in. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00428 v1 pith:QC6LKQPE submitted 2019-09-01 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.soft

Chengjie Luo , Liesbeth M. C. Janssen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.soft
keywords generalizedmode-couplingtheoryglasstransitionhardspheresPercus-Yevickcriticalexponentsfragilityscalinglaws
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 claims that a systematically extendable version of mode-coupling theory, called GMCT, can remove standard MCT's biggest quantitative errors for dense hard spheres. Solving the GMCT hierarchy up to sixth order with only the static structure factor as input, the predicted critical packing fraction rises from 0.516 to about 0.565, close to the experimental colloidal glass density. The theory also corrects MCT's overestimated fragility: the power-law exponent gamma, the von Schweidler exponent b, and the Kohlrausch stretching exponents all move toward simulation values as the closure level increases. Crucially, the celebrated MCT scaling laws in the beta- and alpha-relaxation regimes survive at every closure order, so the quantitative gains do not come at the cost of the theory's universal structure.

What carries the argument

The central object is a hierarchy of coupled integro-differential equations for normalized multi-point density correlators phi_n(k1,...,kn,t), closed at finite order N by a mean-field or an exponential closure. The memory function at level n feeds the level n+1 correlator, and the only material input is the static structure factor S(k). The paper solves these equations for Percus-Yevick hard spheres on a 100-point wavenumber grid up to N=6 (twelve-point correlations) and uses the resulting dynamics to extract the critical point, non-ergodicity parameters, relaxation times, and scaling exponents.

What would settle it

Compute or measure the off-diagonal dynamic three-point and four-point correlators in a Brownian-dynamics simulation of hard spheres and compare the magnitudes of these neglected terms with the diagonal terms retained by GMCT at N=5 and N=6; if the neglected corrections are comparable in size, the hierarchy's apparent convergence is not a true small-parameter expansion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that finite-order truncations of the generalized mode-coupling hierarchy converge uniformly and systematically repair standard MCT's pathologies for Percus-Yevick hard spheres. As the closure level N increases from 2 to 6 under mean-field closures, the predicted glass transition packing fraction increases in a near-logarithmic, convergent manner toward the experimental colloidal value, and the predicted critical non-ergodicity parameters grow. At a fixed absolute packing fraction, higher orders restore ergodicity by accelerating relaxation; at a fixed reduced distance from the critical point, they instead yield slower, more glassy dynamics. The extracted critical exponents a, b, gamma, and lambda change monotonically with N and approach empirical hard-sphere results, while the beta- and alpha-relaxation scaling laws (power-law divergence of the relaxation time, critical decay and von Schweidler law, time-wavenumber factorization, superposition principle, and Kohlrausch stretching) remain valid at every level.

Load-bearing premise

The results hold only if the neglected correlations (static multi-point correlators factorized through convolution and Gaussian approximations, and off-diagonal dynamic multi-point correlators) are genuinely small in dense hard spheres; if those are significant, the apparent convergence of the finite hierarchy would be misleading.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the observed convergence pattern persists, finite-order GMCT with accurate static-structure input may be sufficient for a first-principles prediction of the glass transition location.
  • The MCT scaling-law apparatus, including the relations gamma = 1/(2a) + 1/(2b) and lambda = Gamma(1-a)^2/Gamma(1-2a) = Gamma(1-b)^2/Gamma(1-2b), transfers to all closure orders, so higher-order results can be interpreted with the same universal language.
  • Higher-order GMCT lowers the predicted fragility index of hard spheres, meaning the framework can account for material-specific fragility in a way standard MCT cannot.
  • The exponential closures bracket the mean-field results from below, suggesting that a converged GMCT interpolation can describe dynamics in the experimentally 'activated' regime between the standard MCT and experimental glass densities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: Retaining the off-diagonal dynamic multi-point correlators that the hierarchy neglects could alter the apparent N-convergence; applying GMCT to a polydisperse or multi-component hard-sphere system and comparing directly with simulation would separate static-input errors from closure errors.
  • Editorial inference: If the near-logarithmic growth of phi_c continues beyond N=6, the Percus-Yevick structure factor will become the limiting factor; using Verlet-Weis-corrected or simulation-derived S(k) may make finite-order GMCT quantitatively predictive at the experimental glass density.
  • Editorial inference: The systematic lowering of b and Kohlrausch beta(k) toward simulation values suggests GMCT can resolve a known bias of standard MCT; testing a strong glass-former such as silica is the natural next step to see whether the framework can also produce Arrhenius-like fragility.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents numerical solutions of generalized mode-coupling theory (GMCT) for monodisperse Percus–Yevick hard spheres, solving the wavenumber- and time-dependent hierarchy up to sixth order under mean-field closures and up to seventh order under exponential closures. The authors compute the critical packing fraction phi_c as a function of closure level, the critical non-ergodicity parameters, the full time-dependent density correlators at absolute and reduced packing fractions, and test the standard MCT scaling laws in the beta- and alpha-relaxation regimes. The central claims are that increasing the GMCT closure level moves phi_c toward the experimental colloidal glass transition density (from 0.5159 at N=2 to 0.565 at N=6), that the MCT scaling laws are preserved at all closure levels with quantitatively improved exponents a, b, gamma, and lambda, and that higher-order GMCT remedies standard MCT's underestimation of phi_c and overestimation of hard-sphere fragility.

Significance. If substantiated, the results would be significant: a first-principles-based hierarchical extension of MCT that systematically improves the predicted critical point and fragility while preserving the universal scaling structure of MCT would be an important step toward a quantitative theory of the glass transition. The numerical work is substantial and largely careful: the authors solve the full wavenumber- and time-dependent hierarchy with explicit memory functions, demonstrate data collapse in the beta- and alpha-relaxation regimes (Figs. 7 and 8), and confirm internal consistency relations among the exponents. The manuscript also provides a clear overview of the GMCT formalism, including the mean-field and exponential closures, and compares with prior lower-order studies. However, as detailed below, the headline convergence and fragility claims are not supported by the evidence presented in the manuscript itself, including the authors' own caveats.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III A, Fig. 1 and Abstract] The claim that phi_c converges toward the experimental value phi_g = 0.563 is not established by the presented data. The authors state in Section III A that 'we expect that the GMCT-predicted phi_c will grow further beyond N=6, perhaps indefinitely, until the physical maximum of random close packing is reached'. With only five closure levels, with the N=6 value determined to only three significant digits and labeled an upper bound, and with the Percus–Yevick input becoming increasingly inaccurate at exactly the densities where phi_c(N) lands, the apparent agreement with phi_g at N=6 is consistent with a crossing rather than a convergence. The abstract's statement that the finite-order calculations 'unambiguously reveal a uniform convergence pattern' overreaches; the data show a monotonic increase that the authors themselves expect to continue, so the sequence is not demonstrated to converge to any limit, experimental or otherwise.
  2. [Section III C 1 and Table I] The fragility claim is internally inconsistent as written. Table I shows that the fitted power-law exponent gamma increases from 2.46 (N=2) to 3.15 (N=5), and the text states that gamma increases by 28% with increasing closure level. Yet the same section says that 'a higher N leads to a lower fragility index, i.e. a more gradual vitrification process as compared to standard MCT', and the abstract claims that standard MCT's 'overestimation of the hard-sphere fragility' is remedied by higher-order GMCT. If gamma is the fragility exponent, larger gamma implies a stronger (more fragile) divergence of the relaxation time; if a different fragility index is intended (e.g., one defined at a fixed experimental phi_g), it must be defined explicitly and its relation to gamma demonstrated. As written, the central claim about fragility is ambiguous and potentially contradictory.
  3. [Table I and Section III C] The critical exponents a, b, gamma, lambda are reported without any uncertainty estimates or detailed fit information. The exponents are extracted by fitting power laws to numerical data for tau(epsilon) and tau_beta(epsilon), and the N=6 phi_c is only an upper bound with three significant digits. Without error bars or a sensitivity analysis (e.g., with respect to the fit range in epsilon and the uncertainty in phi_c), the assertion that the exponents 'manifestly converge' with N cannot be quantitatively assessed. The authors should provide fit ranges, uncertainties, and a discussion of how the three-digit accuracy of the N=6 critical point affects the exponent extraction.
  4. [Section III C and Conclusions] The manuscript relies on the analytic proof of GMCT scaling laws in the accompanying paper for interpreting the numerical data, and states that the scaling laws are 'rigorously preserved' for arbitrary N. Since the companion paper is not available to the reader, the present paper should clearly identify which relations are assumed and which are independently verified numerically here. In particular, the use of the relation gamma = 1/(2a) + 1/(2b) and the Gamma-function relation for lambda are quoted from standard MCT and the companion paper; the numerical verification presented (e.g., the collapse in Fig. 7) tests the factorization and scaling forms but does not independently derive the exponent relations. This distinction should be stated explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III A and Fig. 2] The notation '0.56(5)' for the N=6 critical packing fraction is ambiguous; it should be written as 0.565 if three significant digits are meant, and the caption of Fig. 2 should specify which lines correspond to the solid versus dashed curves for each closure level.
  2. [Section III C 1] The sentence 'standard MCT overestimates the fragility index' appears to contradict the reported gamma values, since the simulation gamma of 2.63 is larger than the standard MCT value of 2.445. Please clarify whether 'fragility index' refers to gamma or to a separate quantity, and correct any typographical error.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption states that solid and dashed lines are fits using the exponents a and b, but it does not specify which line corresponds to the t^{-a} critical decay and which to the t^b von Schweidler law; please label them directly in the figure or in the caption.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'exibit' (Section III C, after Fig. 9), 'Kolhrausch' (Section IV), 'exponentional' (Section II), 'characteric' (Section IV), and 'V erlet' (line after Eq. (8)). These should be corrected.
  5. [Eq. (6) and notation] The notation MF-N[(N-1)111] is not self-contained; readers unfamiliar with Ref. 28 will not know the meaning of the bracketed indices. Please define the notation at first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GMCT predictions are numerical outputs of explicit integro-differential equations driven only by the Percus-Yevick static structure factor; self-citations to the GMCT framework are not load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: the target quantities are not used as inputs. The GMCT hierarchy (Eqs. (2)-(5)) is introduced from prior work, but the equations are explicitly stated and the only material input is the analytic Percus-Yevick static structure factor S(k). The critical packing fraction, non-ergodicity parameters, relaxation times, and exponents a, b, gamma, lambda are all obtained by solving or fitting the output of these equations, not by fitting to the experimental/simulation values with which they are later compared. The scaling-law tests in Section III.C are internal consistency checks: the power-law forms are asserted by the companion analytic paper and then verified on the independently generated numerical solutions, so the numerics do not reduce to the assertion. Self-citations to Refs. 25-28 supply the hierarchy structure and closure-bound theorems; these are stated assumptions and prior results that the current finite-order calculations independently corroborate, and the central numerical claims would stand even if those citations were removed. The skeptical concern that phi_c(N) may cross rather than converge to the experimental phi_g is a scientific overclaim about extrapolation and input accuracy, not a circularity: the paper explicitly says phi_c may grow toward random close packing and that PY input worsens at high density, so the N=6 agreement is presented as suggestive, not definitionally forced. The paper also flags its own limitations, including lack of full convergence at high packing fractions and the neglect of off-diagonal dynamic correlations. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no equation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the GMCT hierarchy as given (with its underlying factorization approximations), on the analytic scaling-law results from the companion paper, and on the Percus-Yevick static structure factor. The fitted exponents are outputs of the analysis, not input parameters, but are listed because they are the quantities used to demonstrate improvement.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha-relaxation exponent gamma (fitted) = 2.46 to 3.15 for N=2..5
    Power-law exponent for alpha-relaxation time, obtained by fitting tau(epsilon) data; supports the fragility-improvement claim.
  • beta-relaxation exponent a (fitted) = 0.31 to 0.25 for N=2..5
    Extracted from the beta-relaxation time scaling tau_beta ~ epsilon^{-1/(2a)}.
  • von Schweidler exponent b (fitted) = 0.59 to 0.43 for N=2..5
    Obtained from gamma and a via gamma = 1/(2a) + 1/(2b), also compared with direct fits to the late beta-relaxation decay.
  • exponent parameter lambda (fitted) = 0.73 to 0.83 for N=2..5
    Computed from the Gamma-function relation and used as a consistency check; not an input to the dynamics.
  • effective friction coefficients nu_n = 1 for all n
    Set to unity by hand following Ref. 25; a unit choice rather than a fit to data, but it affects absolute time scales.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The GMCT hierarchy equations (2)-(5) are a valid microscopic description of glassy dynamics.
    Taken from Ref. 25; derived using convolution and Gaussian factorization for static multi-point correlators and neglecting off-diagonal dynamic correlators. The present paper does not re-derive or justify these approximations.
  • domain assumption The scaling laws of standard MCT generalize to arbitrary GMCT order under mean-field closures.
    Stated to be proven analytically in the companion paper; this paper relies on that result for interpreting the numerical data.
  • domain assumption The Percus-Yevick closure provides an accurate static structure factor for hard spheres in the density range studied.
    S(k) is the sole input to the theory; the authors acknowledge it becomes increasingly inaccurate at higher densities near the glass transition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalized mode-coupling theory of the glass transition. I. Numerical results for Percus-Yevick hard spheres." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QC6LKQPE

@misc{pith2026190900428,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalized mode-coupling theory of the glass transition. I. Numerical results for Percus-Yevick hard spheres},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QC6LKQPE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00428}
}
abstract

Mode-coupling theory (MCT) constitutes one of the few first-principles-based approaches to describe the physics of the glass transition, but the theory's inherent approximations compromise its accuracy in the activated glassy regime. Here we show that microscopic generalized mode-coupling theory (GMCT), a recently proposed hierarchical framework to systematically improve upon standard MCT, provides a promising pathway toward a more accurate first-principles description of glassy dynamics. We present a comprehensive numerical analysis for Percus-Yevick hard spheres by performing explicitly wavenumber- and time-dependent GMCT calculations up to sixth order. Specifically, we calculate the location of the critical point, the associated non-ergodicity parameters, the time-dependent dynamics of the density correlators at both absolute and reduced packing fractions, and we test several universal scaling relations in the $\alpha$- and $\beta$-relaxation regimes. It is found that higher-order GMCT can successfully remedy some of standard MCT's pathologies, including an underestimation of the critical glass transition density and an overestimation of the hard-sphere fragility. Furthermore, we numerically demonstrate that the celebrated scaling laws of standard MCT are preserved in GMCT at all closure levels, and that the predicted critical exponents manifestly improve as more levels are incorporated in the GMCT hierarchy. Although formally the GMCT equations should be solved up to infinite order to reach full convergence, our finite-order GMCT calculations unambiguously reveal a uniform convergence pattern for the dynamics. We thus argue that GMCT can provide a feasible and controlled means to bypass MCT's main uncontrolled approximation, offering hope for the future development of a quantitative first-principles theory of the glass transition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00428 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The predicted critical packing fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Two-point density correlation functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Relaxation times at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Relative two-point density correlation functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Rescaled critical amplitudes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Fit parameters for the stretched-exponential Kohlr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Shared Observation Shields Collective Fluctuations while Preserving Local Independence

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Conditioning an exchangeable population on its own noisy collective record produces a rank-one, nonpositive Schur shield correction to collective fluctuations while keeping pair correlations at O(1/z), giving a calcul...

  2. Particle Contacts Generate Fractional Density Relaxation

    cond-mat.soft 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The amplitude of the t^(3/2) short-time relaxation of density correlations is exactly set by equilibrium contact geometry in reversible Brownian hard-particle systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    author author P. G. \ Debenedetti \ and\ author F. H. \ Stillinger ,\ @noop journal journal Nature \ volume 410 ,\ pages 259 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    Berthier \ and\ author G

    author author L. Berthier \ and\ author G. Biroli ,\ @noop journal journal Reviews of Modern Physics \ volume 83 ,\ pages 587 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Kirkpatrick \ and\ author D

    author author T. Kirkpatrick \ and\ author D. Thirumalai ,\ @noop journal journal Reviews of Modern Physics \ volume 87 ,\ pages 183 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Ritort \ and\ author P

    author author F. Ritort \ and\ author P. Sollich ,\ @noop journal journal Advances in Physics \ volume 52 ,\ pages 219 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Adam \ and\ author J

    author author G. Adam \ and\ author J. H. \ Gibbs ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 43 ,\ pages 139 ( year 1965 ) NoStop

    work page 1965

  7. [7]

    author author C. P. \ Royall \ and\ author S. R. \ Williams ,\ @noop journal journal Physics Reports \ volume 560 ,\ pages 1 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    author author M. D. \ Ediger ,\ @noop journal journal Annual Review of Physical Chemistry \ volume 51 ,\ pages 99 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

    work page 2000

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Tarjus ,\ in\ @noop booktitle Dynamical Heterogeneities in Glasses, Colloids, and Granular Media ,\ editor edited by\ editor L

    author author G. Tarjus ,\ in\ @noop booktitle Dynamical Heterogeneities in Glasses, Colloids, and Granular Media ,\ editor edited by\ editor L. Berthier , editor G. Biroli , editor J.-P. \ Bouchaud , editor L. Cipelletti , \ and\ editor W. van Saarloos \ ( publisher Oxford Un...

    2011

  2. [10]

    Biroli \ and\ author J

    author author G. Biroli \ and\ author J. P. \ Garrahan ,\ @noop journal journal The Journal of Chemical Physics \ volume 138 ,\ pages 12A301 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013

  3. [11]

    G \"o tze ,\ @noop title Complex dynamics of glass-forming liquids: A Mode-Coupling Theory \ ( publisher Oxford University Press ,\ address Oxford ,\ year 2009 ) NoStop

    author author W. G \"o tze ,\ @noop title Complex dynamics of glass-forming liquids: A Mode-Coupling Theory \ ( publisher Oxford University Press ,\ address Oxford ,\ year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009

  4. [12]

    Leutheusser ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review A \ volume 29 ,\ pages 2765 ( year 1984 ) NoStop

    author author E. Leutheusser ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review A \ volume 29 ,\ pages 2765 ( year 1984 ) NoStop

    1984

  5. [13]

    Bengtzelius , author W

    author author U. Bengtzelius , author W. G \"o tze , \ and\ author A. Sjolander ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics \ volume 17 ,\ pages 5915 ( year 1984 ) NoStop

    1984

  6. [14]

    author author D. R. \ Reichman \ and\ author P. Charbonneau ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment \ volume 2005 ,\ pages P05013 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005

  7. [15]

    author author L. M. C. \ Janssen ,\ @noop journal journal Frontiers in Physics \ volume 6 ,\ pages 97 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  8. [16]

    author author K. N. \ Pham , author A. M. \ Puertas , author J. Bergenholtz , author S. U. \ Egelhaaf , author A. Moussa d , author P. N. \ Pusey , author A. B. \ Schofield , author M. E. \ Cates , author M. Fuchs , \ and\ author W. C. \ Poon ,\ @noop journal journal Science \...

    2002

  9. [17]

    Berthier , author A

    author author L. Berthier , author A. J. \ Moreno , \ and\ author G. Szamel ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 82 ,\ pages 060501 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010

  10. [18]

    Van Megen , author S

    author author W. Van Megen , author S. Underwood , \ and\ author P. Pusey ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 67 ,\ pages 1586 ( year 1991 ) NoStop

    1991

  11. [19]

    Biroli , author J.-P

    author author G. Biroli , author J.-P. \ Bouchaud , author K. Miyazaki , \ and\ author D. R. \ Reichman ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 97 ,\ pages 195701 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006

  12. [20]

    Ikeda \ and\ author K

    author author A. Ikeda \ and\ author K. Miyazaki ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 104 ,\ pages 255704 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010

  13. [21]

    Schmid \ and\ author R

    author author B. Schmid \ and\ author R. Schilling ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 81 ,\ pages 041502 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010

  14. [22]

    Maimbourg , author J

    author author T. Maimbourg , author J. Kurchan , \ and\ author F. Zamponi ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 116 ,\ pages 015902 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  15. [23]

    author author P. G. \ Wolynes \ and\ author V. Lubchenko ,\ @noop title Structural glasses and supercooled liquids : Theory, Experiment, and Applications \ ( publisher John Wiley & Sons ,\ address Hoboken, New Jersey ,\ year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

  16. [24]

    Szamel ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 90 ,\ pages 228301 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    author author G. Szamel ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 90 ,\ pages 228301 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003

  17. [25]

    Wu \ and\ author J

    author author J. Wu \ and\ author J. Cao ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 95 ,\ pages 078301 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005

  18. [26]

    author author L. M. C. \ Janssen \ and\ author D. R. \ Reichman ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 115 ,\ pages 205701 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015

  19. [27]

    author author L. M. C. \ Janssen , author P. Mayer , \ and\ author D. R. \ Reichman ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 90 ,\ pages 052306 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014

  20. [28]

    Mayer , author K

    author author P. Mayer , author K. Miyazaki , \ and\ author D. R. \ Reichman ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 97 ,\ pages 095702 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006

  21. [29]

    author author L. M. C. \ Janssen , author P. Mayer , \ and\ author D. R. \ Reichman ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment \ volume 2016 ,\ pages 054049 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  22. [30]

    Wertheim ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 10 ,\ pages 321 ( year 1963 ) NoStop

    author author M. Wertheim ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 10 ,\ pages 321 ( year 1963 ) NoStop

    1963

  23. [31]

    \ Hansen \ and\ author I

    author author J.-P. \ Hansen \ and\ author I. R. \ McDonald ,\ @noop title Theory of simple liquids \ ( publisher Elsevier ,\ address Amsterdam ,\ year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013

  24. [32]

    note The notation MF- N[n_1^ m_1 n_2^ m_2 ] implies a closure of the form _N _ n_1 ^ m_1 _ n_2 ^ m_2 . Stop

  25. [33]

    author author R. A. \ Biezemans ,\ @noop title Mathematical analysis of generalized mode-coupling theory and numerical exploration of super-strong glass formation , \ ( year 2018 ),\ note bachelor's thesis NoStop

    2018

  26. [34]

    Franosch , author M

    author author T. Franosch , author M. Fuchs , author W. G \"o tze , author M. R. \ Mayr , \ and\ author A. Singh ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 55 ,\ pages 7153 ( year 1997 ) NoStop

    1997

  27. [35]

    Fuchs , author W

    author author M. Fuchs , author W. Gotze , author I. Hofacker , \ and\ author A. Latz ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter \ volume 3 ,\ pages 5047 ( year 1991 ) NoStop

    1991

  28. [36]

    Brambilla , author D

    author author G. Brambilla , author D. El Masri , author M. Pierno , author L. Berthier , author L. Cipelletti , author G. Petekidis , \ and\ author A. B. \ Schofield ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 102 ,\ pages 085703 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009

  29. [37]

    Verlet \ and\ author J.-J

    author author L. Verlet \ and\ author J.-J. \ Weis ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review A \ volume 5 ,\ pages 939 ( year 1972 ) NoStop

    1972

  30. [38]

    Weysser , author A

    author author F. Weysser , author A. M. \ Puertas , author M. Fuchs , \ and\ author T. Voigtmann ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 82 ,\ pages 011504 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010

  31. [39]

    Mattsson , author H

    author author J. Mattsson , author H. M. \ Wyss , author A. Fernandez-Nieves , author K. Miyazaki , author Z. Hu , author D. R. \ Reichman , \ and\ author D. A. \ Weitz ,\ @noop journal journal Nature \ volume 462 ,\ pages 83 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009

  32. [40]

    Kob ,\ in\ @noop booktitle Les Houches 2002 Summer School Session LXXVII: Slow Relaxations Nonequilibrium Dynamics in Condensed Matter ,\ editor edited by\ editor J.-L

    author author W. Kob ,\ in\ @noop booktitle Les Houches 2002 Summer School Session LXXVII: Slow Relaxations Nonequilibrium Dynamics in Condensed Matter ,\ editor edited by\ editor J.-L. \ Barrat , editor M. V. \ Feigelman , editor J. Kurchan , \ and\ editor J. Dalibard \ ( pub...

    2002

  33. [41]

    Gleim \ and\ author W

    author author T. Gleim \ and\ author W. Kob ,\ @noop journal journal The European Physical Journal B \ volume 13 ,\ pages 83 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

    2000

  34. [42]

    Voigtmann , author A

    author author T. Voigtmann , author A. M. \ Puertas , \ and\ author M. Fuchs ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 70 ,\ pages 061506 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004

  35. [43]

    Nauroth \ and\ author W

    author author M. Nauroth \ and\ author W. Kob ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 55 ,\ pages 657 ( year 1997 ) NoStop

    1997

  36. [44]

    Kob \ and\ author H

    author author W. Kob \ and\ author H. C. \ Andersen ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 52 ,\ pages 4134 ( year 1995 ) NoStop

    1995

  37. [45]

    Fuchs ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids \ volume 172 ,\ pages 241 ( year 1994 ) NoStop

    author author M. Fuchs ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids \ volume 172 ,\ pages 241 ( year 1994 ) NoStop

    1994

  38. [46]

    author author J. S. \ Langer ,\ @noop journal journal Reports on Progress in Physics \ volume 77 ,\ pages 042501 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014

  39. [47]

    Xu , author T

    author author N. Xu , author T. K. \ Haxton , author A. J. \ Liu , \ and\ author S. R. \ Nagel ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 103 ,\ pages 245701 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.