Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 57 references

Collision Induced Binding and Transport of Shape Changing Robot Pairs

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pairs of individually immotile three-link robots spontaneously bind and translate ballistically through repulsive collisions alone.

desk verdict A solid experimental discovery—repulsive collisions binding shape-changing robots into translating dimers—despite a shaky immotility premise that needs direct measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14170 v2 pith:QYXGEFYU submitted 2025-04-19 cs.RO nlin.AO

Akash Vardhan , Ram Avinery , Hosain Bagheri , Velin Kojohourav , Shengkai Li , Hridesh Kedia , Tianyu Wang , Daniel Soto
show 2 more authors
Kurt Wiesenfeld Daniel I. Goldman
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROnlin.AO
keywords activemattershape-changingrobotssmarticlescollision-inducedbindingemergenttransportdynamicalboundstatestactilefeedbacknon-reciprocalinteractions
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 reports that pairs of individually immotile, three-link robots (called smarticles) spontaneously form dynamically bound 'gliders' that translate ballistically for at least a hundred gait cycles and several body lengths. In experiments, 64% of trials (97 of 151) produced a pair that moved together for at least 100 gait periods, traveling on average 2.9 body widths. The authors establish the phenomenon in tabletop experiments and in a simulation calibrated against them, and they identify the mechanism: during a shape-changing gait the robots pass through concave configurations, so the net impulse of a repulsive collision can act as an effective attraction that pulls the pair together. The result matters because it shows that purely local, repulsive interactions can produce directed transport and dynamic binding in active matter without any attractive forces, adhesion, or central control. A contact-sensing feedback rule that modulates concavity extends the lifetime of the less stable glider mode, showing the mechanism can be actively exploited.

What carries the argument

The central object is the smarticle, a three-link robot with two servo-driven arms that execute a square gait in arm-angle space while the body rests on a surface; the arms have ground clearance so the robot is nearly immotile alone. The mechanism that carries the argument is 'effective dynamical attraction': because the pair's shapes become concave and their gaits phase-lock, the impulse delivered during a repulsive collision can point toward the partner rather than away from it, acting as a periodic attractive contact force. Friction prevents coasting, so persistent binding requires these attractive contacts to recur each cycle. In simulation, the authors single out the specific collision events per cycle that produce attraction and transport, and a concavity-modulating feedback rule is used to control the unstable C2 binding mode.

What would settle it

Track the center of mass of a single smarticle on the same leveled surface for many gait cycles; the effective-attraction explanation predicts negligible per-cycle drift (the paper reports on the order of tens of micrometers), while any sizable drift would allow pair transport to be explained by individual self-propulsion plus interlocking rather than by collision-induced binding.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that pairs of robots that cannot move on their own and interact only through short-range repulsive contacts nevertheless form stable translating bound states. The bound dyads appear in two symmetry classes, C1 (nearly anti-aligned) and C2 (nearly aligned), each with its own lifetime and transport signature. Formation is not random: a polar scan of initial relative positions and headings reveals basins of attraction in the relative configuration space, with binding favored when the robots' normal vectors are antiparallel in certain sectors. Within a gait cycle, attraction is produced by brief mechanical hooking or bracing events in which one robot's arm contacts the other's body or arm, causing a sharp decrease in separation; the same collisions drive displacement along the pair's heading. The C2 mode, which is sterically destabilized by enveloping collisions, can be stabilized by halting arm motion on detected impact, significantly extending its lifetime. Binding probability and transport speed both depend on the maximal arm angle, which sets the maximal concavity of the robots' shapes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that an isolated smarticle is effectively immotile: its arms' ground clearance supposedly keeps inertial impulses from moving the central body, so a pair's translation cannot be explained by ordinary individual locomotion plus mechanical interlocking.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, active-matter systems made of deformable, concave-capable bodies can self-organize into translating units without any attractive forces between them.
  • Gait parameters such as arm amplitude become control knobs for collective transport, since they directly set binding probability, pair separation, and center-of-mass speed.
  • The feedback-stabilized C2 glider shows that contact sensing alone can keep an otherwise unstable bound state alive, pointing toward simple closed-loop strategies for directed assembly.
  • The observation that gliders assemble into long structures on collision suggests a pathway from pairwise binding to long-range order in dense robot collectives.
  • Describing glider pairs as limit cycles in relative coordinates reduces the inherently discrete, collision-heavy dynamics to a tractable reduced model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the geometric mechanism should transfer to soft or passive deformable objects: if any body becomes concave at the right phase of a periodic deformation, repulsive contacts should produce the same effective attraction; this could be tested by swapping servo arms for compliant flaps.
  • Editorial inference: the two observed symmetries imply that the pair's heading and turning could be programmed by deliberately breaking phase symmetry between the two gaits, a control degree of freedom the paper does not exploit.
  • Editorial inference: the amplitude-dependent re-entrant transport (fast at both 90° and 10°, slow in between) suggests that single-particle inertial drift and collision-induced binding can either cooperate or compete; adding controlled floor vibration should shift the balance in a measurable way.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports experiments and complementary Chrono simulations in which pairs of three-link, two-motor 'smarticle' robots, driven by periodic shape changes and interacting only through collisions, spontaneously form bound translating pairs ('gliders'). The gliders appear in two symmetry classes, a long-lived nearly anti-aligned mode (C1) and a shorter-lived nearly aligned mode (C2), and persist for hundreds of gait cycles. The authors characterize the relative-position and relative-orientation statistics of these modes, use simulation to identify specific collision events that draw the pair together, and demonstrate a tactile-feedback strategy that stabilizes the otherwise short-lived C2 configuration. The central claim is that purely repulsive local interactions, combined with shape change and ground friction, produce an effective dynamical attraction and directed transport.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a useful contribution to active-matter and robotic-collective behavior: it provides a clean physical platform in which repulsive collisions are converted into persistent binding and transport, with two distinct dynamical symmetries and a control strategy that extends lifetime. The experimental basis is substantial: 151 trials, a 64% glider-formation rate, lifetime distributions that distinguish C1 and C2, and a simulation that reproduces the bimodal relative-distance and orientation distributions. The feedback result is a concrete, falsifiable demonstration that contact sensing can stabilize an otherwise unstable collective mode. The main significance depends on the immotility of isolated smarticles, which is asserted rather than directly measured; if that premise fails, the phenomenon could be reinterpreted as interlocking of weakly self-propelled robots rather than collision-induced attraction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Experimental Apparatus] The premise that isolated smarticles are immotile is asserted rather than demonstrated, and the supporting statements are internally in tension. The physical argument that arm ground clearance 'prevents the inertial impulse of the actuated arms from being transmitted to the central body' overlooks reaction torques transmitted through the motor mounts; in any case, the quantitative support ('0.0015 W (75 µm) per cycle') mixes power and displacement and is not tied to the gait amplitude, motor speed, or measurement procedure used in the main glider trials. The Glider Robustness section itself reports enhanced single-smarticle drift at 10–20° arm amplitudes (Fig. 8, Fig. S2), so immotility is not a global property of the platform. Because the abstract and Binding Mechanism sections interpret pair transport as emerging from repulsive collisions between individually immotile robots, the authors should report a direct isolated-drift measurement at the α_max used in the main experiments (and, ideally, over the full α_max range), and should state that amplitude explicitly.
  2. [Binding Mechanism / Fig. 4] The classification of initial conditions into 'attraction' and 'repulsion' in Fig. 4 is based on survival for 75 gait periods, not on a measured attractive force or impulse. Since geometrically interlocked, frictional bodies can remain in contact without any attractive interaction, the term 'effective dynamical attraction' is not established by these data. The authors should define an operational measure of attraction (e.g., a negative contribution to the center-of-mass impulse or a contracting separation rate during the post-collision interval) and apply it to both simulation and experiment before concluding that repulsive collisions produce an attractive effect.
  3. [Experimental Apparatus / Simulation calibration (Fig. S1)] The simulation is calibrated against experimental data (Fig. S1) and then used to identify the specific collisions responsible for binding and transport. The text does not state which parameters were fitted, how many trials were used for calibration, or whether the fitted parameters were selected to reproduce glider statistics. If the calibration target included the bimodal r and φ distributions shown in Fig. 3(c), the simulation-based mechanistic decomposition is partially circular: it would recover the fitted statistics by construction. The authors should list the free parameters, the calibration data set, and provide at least one out-of-sample prediction (e.g., the α_max dependence of binding probability or the relative C1/C2 lifetime ordering) that was not used in fitting.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] There is a typo: 'individally immotile' should be 'individually immotile'.
  2. [Experimental Apparatus] The sentence 'any motion induced by arm actuation is limited by the fiction between the central link and the underlying surface' contains a typo: 'fiction' should be 'friction'.
  3. [Experimental Apparatus] The quantitative support 'contributing 0.0015 W ( 75µm) per cycle' should be rewritten with consistent units; as written it mixes power with a displacement per cycle and does not specify how the 75 µm value was measured.
  4. [Observation of Gliders] The cross-reference 'Fig. EM 7' appears to be a leftover label; it should be 'Fig. 7' or a proper extended-data reference.
  5. [Glider Lifetimes vs. Conclusion] The stated lifetime of open-loop C2 gliders is inconsistent: the Conclusion says they 'typically unbound permanently within 60-70 cycles,' while the Glider Lifetimes section says C2 gliders 'last only 70–100 cycles.' Please reconcile these numbers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the glider claim is an experimental observation, and the calibrated simulation is used for mechanistic decomposition rather than as a prediction that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that pairs of individually immotile smarticles spontaneously bind and translate via repulsive collisions—is an experimental result (64% of 151 trials, Fig. 1c), not a derived quantity that depends on a fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. The simulation is introduced as a tool to study the discrete, nonlinear collisions ('we developed a simulation based on the open-source physics engine Chrono and calibrated it against experiments'), and it is then used to classify initial configurations into attracted/repelled basins and to identify collision events that produce attraction. This is standard calibrated-simulation practice: the calibration does not encode the mechanistic conclusion (arm hooking in C1, alternating arm-body bracing in C2), and the simulation also reproduces the bimodal r-phi distributions (Fig. 3c) as validation against data not used to fit that distribution. No equation is constructed that equals its own input, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The paper explicitly defers the symmetry-based theoretical derivation to future work ('A detailed analysis of how glider transport can be understood and modulated by enumerating the symmetries ... is in preparation'), so no load-bearing derivation is being protected by a self-citation chain. The self-citations (e.g., refs. 43–46) provide background on smarticles and are not load-bearing for the glider phenomenon. The immotility of isolated smarticles is asserted with limited direct measurement and some tension with the low-amplitude inertial effects reported in Fig. 8, but this is an empirical robustness/correctness concern, not a circularity of the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim is empirical. The unstated inputs are the simulation calibration parameters and the assumption that individual smarticles are immotile. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Chrono simulation contact/friction parameters
    The simulation is 'calibrated it against experiments (see Fig. S1)'; the exact friction, restitution, and damping coefficients are not given in the main text, so the simulation-based mechanism and basin-of-attraction map depend on unstated fitted parameters.
  • Force sensor impact threshold for feedback
    The feedback controller triggers when contact force 'within that range' is detected; the threshold was calibrated from the compression collision in the C2 conformation (Fig. S6), and the reported lifetime improvement depends on this chosen threshold.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Smarticle arms have ground clearance; arm actuation does not translate the central link.
    Stated in Experimental Apparatus; establishes that isolated robots are immotile, a premise needed for the claim that glider transport is emergent rather than individual self-propulsion.
  • domain assumption Chrono rigid-body contact model faithfully represents the robot collisions after calibration.
    The binding mechanism, basin-of-attraction, and collision-event decomposition are all derived from simulation; the main text references the SM for details but does not provide the constitutive parameters in the reviewed text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Collision Induced Binding and Transport of Shape Changing Robot Pairs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QYXGEFYU

@misc{pith2026250414170,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Collision Induced Binding and Transport of Shape Changing Robot Pairs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QYXGEFYU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14170}
}
read the original abstract

We report in experiment and simulation the spontaneous formation of dynamically bound pairs of shape changing robots undergoing locally repulsive collisions. These physical `gliders' robustly emerge from an ensemble of individually undulating three-link two-motor robots and can remain bound for hundreds of undulations and travel for multiple robot dimensions. Gliders occur in two distinct binding symmetries and form over a wide range of angular oscillation extent. This parameter sets the maximal concavity which influences formation probability and translation characteristics. Analysis of dynamics in simulation reveals the mechanism of effective dynamical attraction -- a result of the emergent interplay of appropriately oriented and timed repulsive interactions. Tactile sensing stabilizes the short-lived conformation via concavity modulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14170 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Configuration of a smart active particle (smar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Strobed snapshots of the asymmetric emergent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) A gliding dyad is defined by a pair of smarticles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) (i) Polar grid scan around a reference smarticle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Collision events for a C1 dyad (i), where at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Smarticles equipped with force sensing re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Lifetime of emergent dyads vs. relative angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) MSD ⟨σ 2 (t)⟩ vs. time delay for five arm amplitudes, with snapshots of the corresponding bound pairs. (b) Binding probability Pb vs. arm amplitude for random initial conditions; blue: pairs active at trial end, red: pairs active throughout the trial. (c) MSD expon…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. S. Olafsen and J. S. Urbach, Physical Review Letters 81, 4369 (1998)

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    I. S. Aranson and L. S. Tsimring, Reviews of Modern Physics78, 641 (2006)

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Zhou and L

    T. Zhou and L. P. Kadanoff, Physical Review E54, 623 (1996)

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    S. J. Cornell, M. R. Swift, and A. J. Bray, Physical Re- view Letters81, 1142 (1998)

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    McNamara and W

    S. McNamara and W. R. Young, Physical Review E50, R28 (1994)

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    Goldman, M

    D. Goldman, M. D. Shattuck, C. Bizon, W. D. Mc- Cormick, J. B. Swift, and H. L. Swinney, Physical Review E57, 4831 (1998)

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    M. G. Clerc, P. Cordero, J. Dunstan, N. Mujica, R. Soto, D. Risso, and M. Roghani, Nature Physics4, 249 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    R. P. Behringer and B. Chakraborty, Reports on Progress in Physics82, 012601 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    M. J. Bowick, N. Fakhri, M. C. Marchetti, and S. Ra- maswamy, Physical Review X12, 010501 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Ramaswamy and R

    S. Ramaswamy and R. A. Simha, Solid State Communi- cations139, 617 (2006)

    2006

  3. [11]

    Ramaswamy, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics1, 323 (2010)

    S. Ramaswamy, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics1, 323 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    Sartori, E

    P. Sartori, E. Chiarello, G. Jayaswal, M. Pierno, G. Mis- tura, and E. Orlandini, Physical Review E97, 022610 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    C. Li, A. O. Pullin, D. W. Haldane, H. K. Lam, R. S. Fearing, and R. S. Full, Bioinspiration and Biomimetics 10, 046003 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    Schaller, C

    V. Schaller, C. Weber, C. Semmrich, E. Frey, and A. R. Bausch, Nature467, 73 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    Sumino, K

    Y. Sumino, K. H. Nagai, Y. Shitaka, D. Tanaka, K. Yoshikawa, H. Chat´ e, and K. Oiwa, Nature483, 448 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    B¨ ar, R

    M. B¨ ar, R. Großmann, S. Heidenreich, and F. Peruani, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics11, 441 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    X. Q. Shi and H. Chat´ e, arXiv preprint (2018), arXiv:1807.00294. 6

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Chat´ e, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 11, 189 (2020)

    H. Chat´ e, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 11, 189 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Deseigne, O

    J. Deseigne, O. Dauchot, and H. Chat´ e, Physical Review Letters105, 098001 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    Kudrolli, G

    A. Kudrolli, G. Lumay, D. Volfson, and L. S. Tsimring, Physical Review Letters100, 058001 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    Kumar, H

    N. Kumar, H. Soni, S. Ramaswamy, and A. K. Sood, Nature Communications5, 4688 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Lauga and T

    E. Lauga and T. Powers, Reports on Progress in Physics 72, 096601 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    Lauga, Soft Matter7, 3060 (2011)

    E. Lauga, Soft Matter7, 3060 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    D. I. Goldman, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 943 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Lauga and D

    E. Lauga and D. Bartolo, Physical Review E78, 030901 (2008)

    2008

  18. [26]

    Marvi, C

    H. Marvi, C. Gong, N. Gravish, H. Astley, M. Travers, R. L. Hatton, and D. I. Goldman, Science346, 224 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    G. L. Wagner and E. Lauga, Journal of Theoretical Bi- ology324, 42 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    D. L. Hu, J. Nirody, T. Scott, and M. J. Shelley, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences106, 10081 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    R. L. Hatton, Y. Ding, H. Choset, and D. I. Goldman, Physical Review Letters110, 078101 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    P. E. Schiebel, J. M. Rieser, A. M. Hubbard, L. Chen, D. Z. Rocklin, and D. I. Goldman, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116, 4798 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    J. M. Rieser, P. E. Schiebel, A. Pazouki, F. Qian, Z. God- dard, K. Wiesenfeld, and D. I. Goldman, Physical Review E99, 022606 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Zhang, N

    X. Zhang, N. Naughton, T. Parthasarathy, and M. Gaz- zola, Nature Communications12, 6076 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Brandenbourger, C

    M. Brandenbourger, C. Scheibner, J. Veenstra, V. Vitelli, and C. Coulais, arXiv preprint (2021), arXiv:2108.08837

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    T. Wang, C. Pierce, V. Kojouharov, B. Chong, K. Diaz, H. Lu, and D. I. Goldman, Science Robotics8, eadi2243 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    J. Yuan, D. M. Raizen, and H. H. Bau, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111, 6865 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    A. C. Quillen, A. Peshkov, E. Wright, and S. McGaffigan, Physical Review E104, 014412 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Peshkov, S

    A. Peshkov, S. McGaffigan, and A. C. Quillen, Soft Mat- ter18, 1174 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    W. Zhou, Z. Hao, and N. Gravish, Physical Review X11, 031051 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    W. Zhou, J. D. Peralta, Z. Hao, and N. Gravish, Physical Review E105, 054604 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Ozkan-Aydin, D

    Y. Ozkan-Aydin, D. I. Goldman, and M. S. Bhamla, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, e2010542118 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    V. P. Patil, H. Tuazon, E. Kaufman, T. Chakrabortty, D. Qin, J. Dunkel, and M. S. Bhamla, Science380, 392 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    N. J. Mlot, C. A. Tovey, and D. L. Hu, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108, 7669 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    E. M. Purcell, American Journal of Physics45, 3 (1977)

    1977

  36. [44]

    Savoie, A

    W. Savoie, A. Pazouki, D. Negrut, and D. I. Goldman, in The First International Symposium on Swarm Behavior and Bio-Inspired Robotics(2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    Savoie, S

    W. Savoie, S. Cannon, J. J. Daymude, R. Warkentin, S. Li, A. W. Richa, and D. I. Goldman, Artificial Life and Robotics23, 459 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Savoie, T

    W. Savoie, T. A. Berrueta, Z. Jackson, A. Pervan, R. Warkentin, S. Li, and D. I. Goldman, Science Robotics 4, eaax4316 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    M. L. Manning, Physical Review Letters130, 130002 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Levine and D

    H. Levine and D. I. Goldman, Soft Matter (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    VanSaders and V

    B. VanSaders and V. Vitelli, arXiv preprint (2023), arXiv:2302.07402

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    M. J. Falk, V. Alizadehyazd, H. Jaeger, and A. Murugan, Physical Review Research3, 033291 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Tam and A

    D. Tam and A. E. Hosoi, Physical Review Letters98, 068105 (2007)

    2007

  44. [52]

    Fruchart, R

    M. Fruchart, R. Hanai, P. B. Littlewood, and V. Vitelli, Nature592, 363 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Eldering and H

    J. Eldering and H. O. Jacobs, SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems15, 24 (2016)

    2016

  46. [54]

    S. A. Loos, S. H. Klapp, and T. Martynec, Physical Re- view Letters130, 198301 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    L. P. Dadhichi, J. Kethapelli, R. Chajwa, S. Ramaswamy, and A. Maitra, Physical Review E101, 052601 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Vardhan and Others, To be submitted (2025)

    A. Vardhan and Others, To be submitted (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    Rosenfeld, Pattern Recognition Letters3, 71 (1985)

    A. Rosenfeld, Pattern Recognition Letters3, 71 (1985). END MA TTER Glider Lifetimes. The C1 glider, or nearly antisymmetric mode, re- mained sterically stable due to sustained periodic at- traction from the hooking interaction between its arms (Fig. 5(a)(i)). (a) (b) 10 30 100...

    1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.