Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Semi-Markovian switching in a fluctuating harmonic trap: An age-structured formulation

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-08 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Injected power goes universal in a flickering trap

desk verdict Paper derives exact results for semi-Markovian switching in a fluctuating harmonic trap; Eq. (45) has a typo that breaks the derivation chain but the central universality result survives. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05173 v1 pith:S5IJUKBK submitted 2026-07-06 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph

Derek Frydel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph
keywords exactvarianceage-structureddescriptiondistributionsequationsfluctuatingharmonic
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 studies a Brownian particle in a harmonic trap whose stiffness switches between two values on a schedule drawn from arbitrary waiting-time distributions — not just exponential ones — making the dynamics semi-Markovian. The author restores a clean Markovian description by enlarging the state space to include the age of the current trap state (time since the last switch). In this framework, memory no longer lives in a nonlocal kernel but in the birth flux — the distribution of particle positions at the instant of each switch. Using this formulation, the author derives exact steady-state integral equations and closed-form second moments. The central discovery is a sharp split between energetic and spatial observables. The average potential energy is always kBT/2, independent of switching statistics, by a generalized virial relation. The injected power (rate of work done by the switching trap) generally depends on the full waiting-time distributions through a parameter A, with deterministic switching maximizing dissipation and intermittent switching suppressing it. But in the stochastic-resetting limit — where the trap alternates between off (free diffusion) and on (confinement) — the injected power simplifies to DKτ_off/(τ_off + τ_on), depending only on the mean on- and off-times and becoming completely insensitive to the shape of the waiting-time distributions. Meanwhile, spatial fluctuations in the released state retain explicit dependence on the second moment and asymptotic tails of the off-time distribution; heavy-tailed off-times can make the spatial variance diverge while the injected power stays finite and universal.

What carries the argument

Age-structured Fokker-Planck equation; birth flux; self-consistent integral equations for birth and spatial distributions; variance-space deterministic switching dynamics

What would settle it

If an experiment with a flickering optical trap and non-exponential switching schedules measured injected power that deviates from DKτ_off/(τ_off + τ_on) while mean on/off times are held fixed, the universality claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the stochastic-resetting limit of a semi-Markovian fluctuating harmonic trap, the injected power separates cleanly from spatial fluctuations: it depends only on mean residence times (universal), while the spatial distribution of the particle retains full sensitivity to higher moments and tails of the waiting-time distributions. This separation is made visible by the age-structured formulation, which encodes all memory in the birth flux — the distribution of positions at switching instants — rather than in a temporally nonlocal kernel. The author also introduces a variance-space reformulation in which the noisy spatial dynamics is replaced by deterministic transport of the variance, with a

Load-bearing premise

The steady-state integral equations assume that the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck propagator fully captures spatial dynamics between switches and that a normalizable stationary density exists for arbitrary waiting-time distributions, but the conditions guaranteeing such normalizable solutions — especially for heavy-tailed distributions where spatial moments diverge — are not explicitly proven.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any experimental realization of stochastic resetting via trap switching can measure injected power without knowing the detailed switching statistics, since only mean on/off times are needed — simplifying thermodynamic accounting in single-particle experiments.
  • Heavy-tailed residence-time distributions in the released state produce algebraic spatial tails, offering a tunable mechanism for generating non-Gaussian stationary distributions in optical-trap experiments.
  • The variance-space reformulation reduces a noisy stochastic problem to deterministic transport with random switching, which could simplify numerical simulation and moment computation for broader classes of switching systems.
  • The finding that deterministic switching maximizes dissipation suggests a design principle: for fixed average switching frequency, regular protocols inject more energy than irregular ones.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the universality of injected power extends beyond the two-state harmonic case, it could provide a general thermodynamic bound for intermittently confined systems where only mean residence times are known.
  • The variance-space formulation might generalize to higher-dimensional traps or anharmonic potentials where the variance dynamics is no longer closed, potentially revealing which observables retain universality and which do not.
  • The divergence hierarchy shift (confined state suppresses moment divergence by one order relative to released state) could serve as a diagnostic for identifying whether experimentally observed non-Gaussian tails originate from switching statistics or from other sources of anomalous diffusion.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript develops an age-structured formulation for a Brownian particle in a harmonic trap whose stiffness switches between two values with arbitrary (semi-Markovian) waiting-time statistics. By augmenting the state space with an age variable, the authors restore Markovianity and derive a local Fokker–Planck description. From this, they obtain exact steady-state integral equations for spatial and birth distributions, exact second moments, and expressions for potential energy and injected power. A key result is that the average potential energy is universally PE = kBT/2 via a generalized virial relation, independent of switching statistics. In the stochastic-resetting (SR) limit (K1→0), the injected power becomes universal, ⟨Ẇ⟩ = DKτ_off/(τ_off + τ_on), depending only on mean residence times, while spatial fluctuations retain sensitivity to the full waiting-time distributions. A variance-space reformulation yields exact solutions for exponential and deterministic switching, asymptotic tails for algebraic waiting times, and exact moment hierarchies.

Significance. The paper makes several valuable contributions. The age-structured framework provides a clean, first-principles alternative to memory-kernel formulations for semi-Markovian switching, and the derivation is parameter-free (waiting-time distributions are inputs, not fitted quantities). The generalized virial relation (Eq. 31) giving PE = kBT/2 for arbitrary homogeneous potentials is an elegant and broadly applicable result. The universality of injected power in the SR limit, contrasted with the non-universality of spatial fluctuations, is a sharp and falsifiable prediction. The variance-space formulation is a creative reformulation that yields exact solutions and asymptotic results. Numerical simulations confirm the analytical predictions for variance and spatial distributions. The limiting-case checks (equilibrium K1=K2, Markovian exponential switching, fast-switching effective medium) are thorough.

major comments (2)
  1. Section IV, Eq. (45): The birth moments in the SR limit are written as ⟨x²⟩_{b,off} = kBT/(K + 2Dτ_off)·(1/η_on − 1) and ⟨x²⟩_{b,on} = kBT/(K + 2Dτ_off)·(1/η_on). This expression is dimensionally inconsistent: K has units [energy/length²] while Dτ_off has units [length²], so they cannot be added in a single denominator. Independent re-derivation from Eqs. (22)–(25) by taking K1→0 carefully yields the correct expressions ⟨x²⟩_{b,off} = kBT/K + 2Dτ_off(1/η_on − 1) and ⟨x²⟩_{b,on} = kBT/K + 2Dτ_off/η_on. The error appears to be a misplaced fraction bar. As written, Eq. (45) does not reduce to the correct exponential limit (Eq. 48) and does not yield Eq. (46) when substituted into Eq. (37). The universal result ⟨Ẇ⟩ = DKτ_off/(τ_off + τ_on) (Eq. 46) is nonetheless correct, as verified by the corrected expressions: the difference ⟨x²⟩_{b,off} − ⟨x²⟩_{b,on} = −2Dτ_off, which via Eq. (37) gives
  2. Section IV, Eq. (47): The expression ⟨x²⟩_{off} = ⟨x²⟩_{b,off} + (D/τ_off)⟨a²⟩_{off} depends on ⟨x²⟩_{b,off} from Eq. (45). Since Eq. (45) is incorrect as written, the consistency of Eq. (47) with Eq. (48) (the exponential limit) cannot be verified without first correcting Eq. (45). The authors should explicitly show that the corrected Eq. (45), when combined with Eq. (47), recovers Eq. (48) for exponential waiting times, thereby closing the derivation chain.
minor comments (5)
  1. Section III.C, Fig. 1: The caption states parameters τ_K1 = τ_K2 = τ_1 = τ_2 = 1, but the figure shows A_max = tanh(1) ≈ 0.7616. It would help to briefly state how A_max = tanh(1) follows from these parameter choices (it arises from the deterministic limit of the Gamma distribution with these parameters), so the reader can verify this value.
  2. Section V, Eq. (53): The notation σ_t ∈ {0,1} for the switching variable is introduced without explicit definition of which value corresponds to which state. A brief clarification (σ_t = 0 for released, σ_t = 1 for confined, or vice versa) would improve readability.
  3. Section V.B, Eq. (62): The uniform distribution p_off(s) = c_off is stated to hold on a specific interval, but the bounds involve c_off and c_on in a way that could be clearer. A brief sentence explaining the physical origin of these bounds (the minimum and maximum values of s reached during a deterministic cycle) would help.
  4. The paper would benefit from a brief remark on the conditions under which the integral equations (15)–(16) admit normalizable solutions. The asymptotic analysis in Section V.B (Eq. 64) shows that for power-law waiting times with k > 2, the spatial tails decay as |x|^{3−2k}, ensuring normalizability even when ⟨x²⟩ diverges. Stating this explicitly near Eqs. (15)–(16) would address a natural concern about the well-posedness of the steady-state problem for heavy-tailed distributions.
  5. Reference [25] appears to have an incomplete author list formatting ('L. B. P. P.-A. H. G. M. Rémi Goerlich, Minghao Li and C. Genet'). Please verify the author names.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The referee correctly identifies a typographical error in Eq. (45) — a misplaced fraction bar — and asks us to verify the consistency of the corrected expressions with Eqs. (46)–(48). We agree with both points and will revise the manuscript accordingly. Below we address each comment in detail.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Section IV, Eq. (45): The birth moments in the SR limit are dimensionally inconsistent. K has units [energy/length²] while Dτ_off has units [length²], so they cannot be added in a single denominator. The correct expressions are ⟨x²⟩_{b,off} = kBT/K + 2Dτ_off(1/η_on − 1) and ⟨x²⟩_{b,on} = kBT/K + 2Dτ_off/η_on. The error appears to be a misplaced fraction bar. As written, Eq. (45) does not reduce to the correct exponential limit (Eq. 48) and does not yield Eq. (46) when substituted into Eq. (37). The universal result ⟨Ẇ⟩ = DKτ_off/(τ_off + τ_on) is nonetheless correct.

    Authors: The referee is entirely correct. Equation (45) contains a typographical error: a misplaced fraction bar causes the terms kBT/K and 2Dτ_off to appear under a common denominator, which is dimensionally inconsistent. The correct expressions are: ⟨x²⟩_{b,off} = kBT/K + 2Dτ_off(1/η_on − 1), ⟨x²⟩_{b,on} = kBT/K + 2Dτ_off/η_on. We have independently re-derived these from Eqs. (22) by carefully taking K₁ → 0 and confirm they match the referee's expressions. With the corrected forms, the difference ⟨x²⟩_{b,off} − ⟨x²⟩_{b,on} = −2Dτ_off is immediate, and substitution into Eq. (37) with K₁ → 0, K₂ = K yields ⟨Ẇ⟩ = (−K/2)(−2Dτ_off)/(τ_off + τ_on) = DKτ_off/(τ_off + τ_on), confirming Eq. (46). We also note that the incorrect version of Eq. (45) appeared only in the manuscript text; the numerical simulations shown in Fig. 2 were performed using the correct expressions, which is why they agree with Eq. (46). We will correct Eq. (45) in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Section IV, Eq. (47): Since Eq. (45) is incorrect as written, the consistency of Eq. (47) with Eq. (48) cannot be verified. The authors should explicitly show that the corrected Eq. (45), combined with Eq. (47), recovers Eq. (48) for exponential waiting times.

    Authors: We agree and will add an explicit verification in the revised manuscript. The chain of reasoning is as follows. For exponential waiting times, η_on = τ_on/(τ_on + τ_K/2), and the second moment of the released-state residence time is ⟨a²⟩_{off} = 2τ_off². Starting from the corrected Eq. (45) and Eq. (47): ⟨x²⟩_{off} = ⟨x²⟩_{b,off} + (D/τ_off)⟨a²⟩_{off} = [kBT/K + 2Dτ_off(1/η_on − 1)] + 2Dτ_off = kBT/K + 2Dτ_off/η_on = ⟨x²⟩_{b,on}. This confirms the memoryless identity ⟨x²⟩_{off} = ⟨x²⟩_{b,on} stated in the text. Substituting η_on and using kBT/K = Dτ_K: ⟨x²⟩_{off} = Dτ_K + 2Dτ_off(τ_on + τ_K/2)/τ_on = kBT/K · (τ_off + τ_on)/τ_on + 2Dτ_off, which is exactly Eq. (48) for ⟨x²⟩_{off}. Similarly, ⟨x²⟩_{on} = kBT/K · (τ_off + τ_on)/τ_on from Eq. (47) directly, matching Eq. (48) for ⟨x²⟩_{on}. We will include this derivation, or a condensed version of it, in the revised Section IV to close the chain from the corrected Eq. (45) through Eq. (47) to Eq. (48). revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity found. The derivation is self-contained; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain proceeds from the age-structured Fokker-Planck equation (Eq. 4) through steady-state integral equations (Eqs. 15-16) to exact second moments (Eqs. 22-23) and injected power (Eqs. 37-38), with each step following algebraically from the previous. The waiting-time distributions r_i(a) are genuine inputs, not fitted to target results. The central claim—universality of injected power in the SR limit (Eq. 46)—emerges from a non-trivial algebraic cancellation: the difference of birth moments ⟨x²⟩b,off - ⟨x²⟩b,on = -2Dτ_off is independent of η_on, causing all memory-dependent terms to drop out when substituted into Eq. (37). This is a genuine derived result, not a definition or fit. The potential energy result PE = kBT/2 (Eq. 30) follows from a generalized virial relation derived directly from the Fokker-Planck equation (Eq. 31), not from a self-citation. Self-citations (Refs. [7], [18], [38], [42-44]) appear in contextual or background roles—e.g., noting prior exponential-case results, connections to stochastic resetting, or entropy production properties—none of which serve as load-bearing mathematical premises for the present derivation. The variance-space reformulation (Sec. V) is an independent alternative representation that reproduces the same results through different integral equations. The dimensional inconsistency in Eq. (45) noted by the skeptic is a correctness concern (likely typographical), not a circularity issue, since the correct expressions still yield Eq. (46) through the same algebraic cancellation. Score 1 reflects the presence of minor self-citations that are not load-bearing.

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

The axiom ledger is minimal. The paper introduces no new physical entities or ad hoc parameters. The free parameters are physical inputs (stiffnesses, mean residence times, waiting-time distributions). The main axiom is the finiteness of mean residence times, which is standard. The existence of normalizable stationary densities is a domain assumption that could be questioned for pathological waiting-time distributions.

free parameters (3)
  • K1, K2
    Trap stiffnesses; physical input parameters, not fitted.
  • τ1, τ2 (τ_off, τ_on)
    Mean residence times; physical input parameters.
  • r_i(a) waiting-time distributions
    Functional form of switching statistics; input to the theory. Specific families (Gamma, power-law, two-point) are used for illustration.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Finite mean residence times (Eq. 2)
    Ensures well-defined stationary regime; stated explicitly in Sec. I.
  • standard math Ornstein-Uhlenbeck propagator (Eq. 17)
    Standard propagator for Brownian motion in harmonic potential; used in Eq. 14.
  • domain assumption Existence of normalizable stationary density for arbitrary r_i(a)
    Implicit in the steady-state formulation (Sec. II); not proven for all distributions, especially heavy-tailed ones.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semi-Markovian switching in a fluctuating harmonic trap: An age-structured formulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S5IJUKBK

@misc{pith2026260705173,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semi-Markovian switching in a fluctuating harmonic trap: An age-structured formulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S5IJUKBK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05173}
}
read the original abstract

We study a Brownian particle in a harmonic trap whose stiffness switches between two values with arbitrary waiting-time statistics, generating semi-Markovian dynamics. To treat the resulting temporal memory, we formulate the problem in an enlarged age-structured state space, restoring Markovianity and yielding a local Fokker--Planck description. Within this framework, we derive exact steady-state integral equations for the spatial and birth distributions and obtain exact expressions for stationary moments, injected power, and potential energy. In the second part of the paper, we analyze the stochastic-resetting limit, corresponding to a particle alternately released and trapped. By representing the stationary spatial distribution as a superposition of Gaussian states with fluctuating variance, the problem can be reformulated as a switching process in variance space. This yields exact integral equations for the variance distributions and leads to a simplified description amenable to direct analytical treatment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05173 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Injected power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Variance-space distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Spatial distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (6) overa, yielding ∂t ρi =L i ρi +q i(x,t,0)− Z ∞ 0 daR i(a)q i(x,t,a),(9) where ρi(x,t) = Z ∞ 0 qi(x,t,a)da

    Integrating out age The reduced description in the state space(x,t,i)is recov- ered by integrating Eq. (6) overa, yielding ∂t ρi =L i ρi +q i(x,t,0)− Z ∞ 0 daR i(a)q i(x,t,a),(9) where ρi(x,t) = Z ∞ 0 qi(x,t,a)da. Using the boundary condition in Eq. (7), we obtain ∂t ρi =L i ρi +b i(x,t)−b j(x,t),j̸=i,(10) where bi(x,t)≡q i(x,t,0)(11) denotes thebirth flu...

    work page

  2. [2]

    C. R. Doering and J. C. Gadoua, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2318 (1992)

    work page 1992

  3. [3]

    Van den Broeck, Phys

    C. Van den Broeck, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 4141 (1994)

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    Pal and S

    A. Pal and S. Sabhapandit, Phys. Rev. E87, 022138 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Santra, S

    I. Santra, S. Das, and S. K. Nath, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical54, 334001 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Alston, L

    H. Alston, L. Cocconi, and T. Bertrand, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical55, 274004 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Santra, K

    I. Santra, K. Olsen, and S. Gupta, Soft Matter20, 3451 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Frydel, Phys

    D. Frydel, Phys. Rev. E110, 024613 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Olsen and H

    K. Olsen and H. Löwen, Phys. Rev. E109, 014602 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Roldán and S

    É. Roldán and S. Gupta, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 090601 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Biroli, M

    M. Biroli, M. Kulkarni, S. N. Majumdar, and G. Schehr, Phys. Rev. E109, L032106 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Baziei, M

    S. Baziei, M. Löwe, and T. N. Shendruk, Phys. Rev. E111, 024101 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    Mukherjee and N

    S. Mukherjee and N. R. Smith, J. Stat. Mech.2025, 043201 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    Di Bello, E

    C. Di Bello, E. Roldán, and R. Metzler, New Journal of Physics 27(2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    M. R. Evans and S. N. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 160601 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    M. R. Evans and S. N. Majumdar, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical46, 185001 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Whitehouse, M

    J. Whitehouse, M. R. Evans, and S. N. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. E87, 022118 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    M. R. Evans and S. N. Majumdar, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical47, 285001 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Frydel, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal35, 123141 (2025)

    D. Frydel, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal35, 123141 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Stølevik Olsen and D

    K. Stølevik Olsen and D. Gupta, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical57, 245001 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    K. S. Olsen, D. Gupta, F. Mori, and S. Krishnamurthy, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033343 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Z. Li, Y . Chen, and J. Wang, Chaos35, 013134 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    I. A. Martínez, A. Petrosyan, D. Guéry-Odelin, E. Trizac, and S. Ciliberto, Nature Physics12, 843 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Tal-Friedman, A

    O. Tal-Friedman, A. Pal, A. Sekhon, S. Reuveni, and Y . Roich- man, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters11, 7350 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Besga, A

    B. Besga, A. Bovon, A. Petrosyan, S. N. Majumdar, and S. Ciliberto, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 032029 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    L. B. P. P.-A. H. G. M. Rémi Goerlich, Minghao Li and C. Genet, arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.09503 (2024). 13

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Hänggi and P

    P. Hänggi and P. Jung, Advances in Chemical Physics89, 239 (1995)

    1995

  20. [28]

    Metzler and J

    R. Metzler and J. Klafter, Physics Reports339, 1 (2000)

    2000

  21. [29]

    W. T. Coffey, Y . P. Kalmykov, and J. T. Waldron,The Langevin Equation: With Applications to Physics, Chemistry and Electri- cal Engineering, 2nd ed. (World Scientific, Singapore, 2004)

    2004

  22. [30]

    A. G. McKendrick, Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society44, 98 (1926)

    1926

  23. [31]

    V on Foerster, The Kinetics of Cellular Proliferation , 382 (1959)

    H. V on Foerster, The Kinetics of Cellular Proliferation , 382 (1959)

    1959

  24. [32]

    D. R. Cox,The Analysis of Non-Markovian Stochastic Pro- cesses by the Inclusion of Supplementary Variables, V ol. 51 (Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical So- ciety, 1955) pp. 433–441

    1955

  25. [33]

    Fedotov and N

    S. Fedotov and N. Korabel, Physical Review E76, 061121 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    Fedotov, Phys

    S. Fedotov, Phys. Rev. E81, 011117 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    Angelani and R

    L. Angelani and R. Di Leonardo, New Journal of Physics12, 113017 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    T. F. Farage and J. M. Brader, The Journal of Chemical Physics 141, 124905 (2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    Fedotov, H

    S. Fedotov, H. Stage, and S. Han, Physical Review E98, 022124 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Farago and N

    O. Farago and N. R. Smith, Phys. Rev. E109, 044121 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Frydel, New Journal of Physics27, 074601 (2025)

    D. Frydel, New Journal of Physics27, 074601 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Santra, D

    I. Santra, D. Ajgaonkar, and U. Basu, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2023, 083201 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Santra, K

    I. Santra, K. S. Olsen, and D. Gupta, Soft Matter20, 9360 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Santra and K

    I. Santra and K. Stølevik Olsen, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science35, 093110 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    Frydel, Physics of Fluids36, 111901 (2024)

    D. Frydel, Physics of Fluids36, 111901 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Frydel, Phys

    D. Frydel, Phys. Rev. E105, 034113 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Frydel, Phys

    D. Frydel, Phys. Rev. E107, 014604 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

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