Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 66 references

Kinetically arrested clusters in active filament arrays

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A pinned-free array of active elastic filaments self-assembles into regularly spaced, kinetically arrested clusters whose size and spacing are set by activity, elasticity, and grafting density.

desk verdict Useful simulation study of clustered active filament carpets; the clustering phenomenology is solid, but the headline cluster-size scaling law is not yet supported by independent parameter sweeps. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20536 v1 pith:VAS5BDY7 submitted 2024-12-29 cond-mat.soft physics.bio-ph

Sonu Karayat , Prashant K. Purohit , L. Mahadevan , Arvind Gopinath , Raghunath Chelakkot This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph
keywords activefilamentskineticallyarrestedclustersfollowerforcesBrowniandynamicsfilamentarraysself-assemblystericfrictionactivity-elasticityscaling
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 claims that a fluid-permeated array of elastic filaments, pinned at one end and free at the other, spontaneously organizes into regularly spaced, compact clusters that are kinetically arrested rather than equilibrium structures. The clustering is driven by a global buckling instability of each active filament, and it stops when steric contact forces plus effective surface friction balance the active compressive forces and bending elasticity. The paper derives a scaling theory in which the mean number of filaments in a cluster and the spacing between clusters are set by two dimensionless parameters: activity $\beta = f\sigma^2(N_m-1)^3/\kappa$ and anchoring gap $\Delta = \delta/\sigma$. If correct, cluster size is not a materials accident but a predictable function of activity, elasticity, and grafting density, which gives a design rule for self-assembled filament fabrics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dimensionless activity parameter $\beta = f \sigma^2 (N_m-1)^3/\kappa$, the ratio of active compressive forcing to bending stiffness, together with the dimensionless anchoring spacing $\Delta = \delta/\sigma$. The argument also depends on a second structural feature: setting the bond length equal to the bead diameter, $\ell_0=\sigma$, makes each filament a corrugated chain, so bead-bead contacts supply tangential resistance that acts as friction. These two ingredients do the work: $\beta$ drives the global rotation and buckling instability of individual filaments, while $\Delta$ controls how many rotated filaments can be packed before contact torques balance the active torques. The paper's scaling theory combines the single-filament coil radius $\sim \ell/\beta^{1/3}$ with the grafting spacing to arrive at the cluster size.

What would settle it

Repeat the same parameter sweep with continuous smooth filaments or with overlapping beads ($\ell_0<\sigma$) so that tangential bead-locking is absent, holding $\beta$ and $\Delta$ fixed; if clusters no longer appear or the mean cluster size no longer follows the predicted scaling, the corrugation-friction mechanism is the load-bearing part of the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that activity alone, with no attractive interactions, organizes an array of pinned-free elastic filaments into a periodic pattern of compact towers. For activity parameter $\beta$ above the single-filament buckling threshold, each filament buckles and rotates; normal steric repulsion prevents free rotation, and tangential contact forces produced by the bead-scale corrugation lock neighboring filaments into arrested bundles. The authors show that cluster outlines at different grafting densities collapse onto a common shape after rescaling lateral widths by $\Delta^{a(\beta)}$, and they derive a scaling expression in which the mean number of filaments per cluster, $\langle N_f\rangle$, decreases with $\beta$ and with the anchoring spacing $\Delta = \delta/\sigma$.

Load-bearing premise

The arrest mechanism requires the filament surfaces to be corrugated: only because the bead spacing equals the bead diameter do tangential contact forces mimic friction and lock filaments in place; with smoother filaments the clusters might glide past each other or oscillate instead of jamming.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Above a threshold activity (around $\beta \approx 29.7$ in the simulations), sufficiently large arrays form stable kinetically arrested clusters, while arrays below the threshold tilt or fluctuate without clustering.
  • For fixed activity, decreasing the anchoring spacing $\Delta$ produces wider clusters containing more filaments, whereas increasing $\beta$ produces more compact tower-like clusters.
  • Cluster outlines for different $\Delta$ can be collapsed onto a self-similar shape by rescaling lateral widths by $\Delta^{a(\beta)}$, with $a(\beta)$ decreasing as activity increases.
  • The average number of filaments in a cluster decreases monotonically with $\Delta$ and follows the scaling-theory prediction, while the number of clusters grows approximately linearly with $\Delta$ at a slope set by $\beta$.
  • Filaments that oscillate between adjacent clusters do so with a well-defined frequency, and the geometric constraint of arrest makes pinned filaments behave like effectively clamped, shorter filaments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The geometric friction mechanism suggests a tunable design axis: changing bead shape, size, or bond length relative to bead diameter while holding $\beta$ and $\Delta$ fixed should continuously vary how strongly clusters are arrested.
  • Because the simulations use the freely draining approximation, full hydrodynamic coupling between clustered filaments could alter the arrest threshold; comparing cluster statistics with and without pair-mobility hydrodynamic interactions would test that sensitivity.
  • If the scaling law holds beyond the simulated range, it implies that cluster size can be actively toggled by modulating activity over time, allowing reversible assembly and disassembly of filament-based materials.
  • The effectively clamped behavior of arrested filaments suggests that inter-cluster oscillators could be engineered as localized, synchronized actuators embedded in an otherwise static filament carpet.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports Brownian dynamics simulations of a two-dimensional array of 300 active elastic bead-spring filaments, pinned at one end and free at the other, with compressive follower forces acting along each filament and WCA steric interactions between beads. For inter-filament spacing Δ = δ/σ between 2 and 5 and activity β = f σ^2 (Nm−1)^3/κ above a threshold, the authors observe that the array self-assembles into regularly spaced, compact clusters that appear kinetically arrested. They characterize cluster outlines by rescaling them with an activity-dependent exponent a(β), and they propose a scaling theory, summarized as a dashed line in Fig. 4(a), that relates the mean number of filaments per cluster to β and Δ. They also compute local pressure fields and active, elastic, and contact torques in an effort to identify the mechanism of cluster stabilization.

Significance. If the central quantitative claims hold, the paper provides a useful design principle: cluster size and spacing in pinned active filament arrays are controlled by β and Δ. The simulations are presented with some care: cluster-size data are averaged over time and initial conditions with error bars, and clustering appears robust across Δ = 2–5 and β in the range 23.97–59.32. However, the quantitative theory is not self-contained in the main text: the scaling law for ⟨Nf⟩ is not displayed, and the dependences on elasticity and filament length are not independently tested. These gaps currently make the predictive claim hard to assess rather than directly contradicted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, Fig. 4(a)] The abstract and Introduction promise 'theoretical expressions' for the number of filaments in a cluster and the spacing between clusters, but the main text never writes such an expression. The only quantitative comparison is the dashed line in Fig. 4(a), described as the prediction from the scaling theory, with details relegated to the ESM. Without the equation, including prefactors and any fitted constants, a reader cannot reproduce the prediction or see how β and Δ enter. The inter-cluster spacing prediction is similarly not shown. This is load-bearing because the claimed derivation of a scaling law is a central advertised result.
  2. [Table 1 and §4.3] The simulation campaign varies f and δ, while κ = 2×10^4, Nm = 40, and ℓ = 39 are fixed in the main runs. The dependence of cluster size on elasticity and filament length is therefore only implied through the combination β. If, for example, κ were doubled and f were doubled so that β remained fixed, the current data cannot rule out a different cluster size. Given the abstract's claim that elasticity crucially influences cluster size, at least a few runs at different κ and Nm (or an explicit dimensional argument showing why such sweeps are unnecessary) are needed.
  3. [§3.4, Fig. 3(d)–(f)] The self-similar exponents a(β) are reported as best-fit values 1.6, 1.3, and 1.05 with no uncertainties, and the collapse is visibly imperfect near the pinned ends, as the authors acknowledge. Since these exponents are one of the paper's quantitative outputs, the authors should report fit uncertainties, define a collapse metric, and state how many clusters and Δ values contribute to each fit.
  4. [§3.5 and Fig. 4] The notion of 'kinetic arrest' is not quantitatively established. Cluster size counts only filaments that are always part of a cluster, explicitly excluding inter-cluster oscillating filaments, but no operational criterion or time scale for arrest (for example, a plateau in cluster-member mobility or an upper bound on detachment rate) is reported. Because the title and central claim depend on the arrest mechanism, a quantitative definition of arrest should be added.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (4)] Equation (4) writes a gradient of Φα_κ for the bending term, but the bending potential is defined as Φα_B in Eq. (2); the notation should be made consistent.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption lists β = 44.94 while the text and other figures use β = 44.49; please check which value is correct.
  3. [Fig. 4(b)] The text quotes linear slopes for ⟨Nc⟩ versus Δ as 3.8, 5.5, and 6.8 without uncertainties; since these slopes are presented as quantitative trends, giving confidence intervals would be useful.
  4. [§3.2] The discussion of 'short system sizes' suppressing clustering does not report the system sizes tested or show the corresponding data; a supplementary figure or table would make this claim checkable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the central clustering observation is a direct simulation result and the scaling theory is not shown to reduce to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claims are produced by Brownian dynamics simulations of a defined model, and the scaling theory is invoked only after those simulations produce the clustered states. The single-filament instability threshold (βc ≈ 30.6) is imported from earlier work by the same group, but that result is a parameter-free prediction from the stated follower-force model, is re-examined in Section 4.1 via the solvability condition, and is consistent with the current f = 10 simulations (β = 29.66, near threshold), so it counts as independent support rather than circular input. The tangential 'effective friction' mechanism is an explicit modeling choice (ℓ0 = σ making the filament surface corrugated), not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The self-similar collapse exponents a(β) are reported as best-fit descriptions of observed cluster outlines, not as predictions derived from themselves. The central quantitative claim, ⟨Nf⟩ as a function of β and Δ, is stated as a scaling theory, but the provided text does not display a closed-form relation or its fitted constants; consequently no specific equation can be exhibited that reduces the prediction to the simulation data. The skeptic's concern that κ and Nm are not independently swept is a correctness and generality risk, not a circularity. Under the hard requirement of quoting a specific reduction, no circular step is established.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a specific bead-chain discretization that supplies tangential friction, on the freely draining approximation, and on prior linear-stability results for single filaments. The self-similarity exponents are fitted; the cluster-size scaling appears parameter-free but its derivation is only sketched in the provided text.

free parameters (2)
  • Cluster shape scaling exponent a(β) = a ≈ 1.6 for β = 29.66; 1.3 for β = 44.49; 1.05 for β = 59.32
    Best-fit exponents used to collapse cluster outlines onto self-similar curves (Fig. 3 caption and Section 3.4). The collapse is not perfect, and the exponents are not predicted a priori.
  • Empirical slope of ⟨Nc⟩ versus Δ = 3.8, 5.5, and 6.8 for β = 29.66, 44.49, and 59.32
    The average number of clusters is approximated by a linear fit; the slopes are reported as empirical descriptors rather than derived from theory.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Freely draining limit: hydrodynamic interactions between beads and filaments are neglected; drag is local and isotropic.
    Stated in Section 2: 'we restrict ourselves to the freely draining limit'. This affects all simulated dynamics and means long-ranged fluid coupling is absent.
  • domain assumption Filament inextensibility in the analytical stability and scaling theory.
    Section 4.1: 'We assume inextensibility' to leading order; real bead chains are extensible, though the spring constant is large.
  • domain assumption Equating bead spacing and bead diameter (ℓ0 = σ) to generate corrugation-induced tangential friction.
    Section 2: 'the surface of the filament effectively acts as a corrugated surface... imposes effective tangential forces'. This modeling choice is needed for kinetic arrest.
  • ad hoc to paper Replacement of the distributed follower force by a concentrated tip force in the simplified linear stability analysis.
    Section 4.1: 'the distributed follower force is replaced by a concentrated point force fℓ acting at the free end [36]'. The simplified result β ≈ 20.2 differs from the exact βc ≈ 30.6; the paper relies on the latter.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kinetically arrested clusters in active filament arrays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VAS5BDY7

@misc{pith2026241220536,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kinetically arrested clusters in active filament arrays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VAS5BDY7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20536}
}
read the original abstract

We use Brownian dynamics simulations and theory to study the over-damped spatiotemporal dynamics and pattern formation in a fluid-permeated array of equally spaced, active, elastic filaments that are pinned at one end and free at the other. The filaments are modeled as connected colloidal chains with activity incorporated via compressive follower forces acting along the filament backbone. The length of the chains is smaller than the thermal persistence length. For a range of filament separation and activity values, we find that the filament array eventually self-assembles into a series of regularly spaced, kinetically arrested, compact clusters. Filament activity, geometry, elasticity, and grafting density are each seen to crucially influence the size, shape, and spacing of emergent clusters. Furthermore, cluster shapes for different grafting densities can be rescaled into self-similar forms with activity-dependent scaling exponents. We derive theoretical expressions that relate the number of filaments in a cluster and the spacing between clusters, to filament activity, filament elasticity, and grafting density. Our results provide insight into the physical mechanisms involved in the initiation of clustering and suggest that steric contact forces and friction balance active forces and filament elasticity to stabilize the clusters. Our simulations suggest design principles to realize filament-based clusters and similar self-assembling biomimetic materials using active colloids or synthetic microtubule-motor systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20536 by the authors.

Figure 5
Figure 5. Since initial bending of the filament and possible fluctuations y, g length of the simulation domain being too small compared to a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. fb ￾⇥ 1 ⇥ 2 10 ￾ 2 29.74 29.48 10 ￾ 3 22.51 21.65 10 ￾ 4 16.65 16.43 15 ￾ 2 27.71 27.69 15 ￾ 3 23.52 25.86 15 ￾ 4 18.37 15.92 20 ￾ 2 23.03 30.17 20 ￾ 3 20.27 18.13 20 ￾ 4 19.22 16.92 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. 4 ⇥1 ⇥2 (a) ￾ = 2 and f =5, 10, 15, 20 (b) ￾ = 4 and f =5, 10, 15, 20 f = 10 ￾ =2 ￾ =3 ￾ =4 (d) (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G. M. Whitesides and B. Grzybowski, Science, 2002, 295, 2418--2421

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    V. N. Manoharan, Science, 2015, 349, 1253751

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    L. L. Ong, N. Hanikel, O. K. Yaghi, C. Grun, M. T. Strauss, P. Bron, J. Lai-Kee-Him, F. Schueder, B. Wang, P. Wang et al., Nature, 2017, 552, 72--77

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    W. B. Rogers, W. M. Shih and V. N. Manoharan, Nature Reviews Materials, 2016, 1, 1--14

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    W. Zhou, Y. Lim, H. Lin, S. Lee, Y. Li, Z. Huang, J. S. Du, B. Lee, S. Wang, A. S \'a nchez-Iglesias et al., Nature materials, 2024, 23, 424--428

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    McMullen, M

    A. McMullen, M. Mu \ n oz Basagoiti, Z. Zeravcic and J. Brujic, Nature, 2022, 610, 502--506

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Y. Cui, H. Zhu, J. Cai and H. Qiu, Nature Communications, 2021, 12, 5682

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    M. Liu, X. Zheng, V. Grebe, D. J. Pine and M. Weck, Nature Materials, 2020, 19, 1354--1361

    work page 2020

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Nishiguchi, J

    D. Nishiguchi, J. Iwasawa, H.-R. Jiang and M. Sano, New Journal of Physics, 2018, 20, 015002

    2018

  2. [10]

    Huang, C

    Y. Huang, C. Wu, J. Chen and J. Tang, Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2024, 63, e202313885

    2024

  3. [11]

    Bricard, J.-B

    A. Bricard, J.-B. Caussin, N. Desreumaux, O. Dauchot and D. Bartolo, Nature, 2013, 503, 95

    2013

  4. [12]

    Palacci, S

    J. Palacci, S. Sacanna, A. P. Steinberg, D. J. Pine and P. M. Chaikin, Science, 2013, 339, 936--940

    2013

  5. [13]

    A. E. Patteson, A. Gopinath and P. E. Arratia, Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science, 2016, 21, 86--96

    2016

  6. [14]

    S. A. Mallory, C. Valeriani and A. Cacciuto, Annual review of physical chemistry, 2018, 69, 59--79

    2018

  7. [15]

    Z. Wang, Z. Wang, J. Li, C. Tian and Y. Wang, Nature communications, 2020, 11, 2670

    2020

  8. [16]

    Ramaswamy, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 2010, 1, 323--345

    S. Ramaswamy, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 2010, 1, 323--345

    2010

  9. [17]

    M. C. Marchetti, J. F. Joanny, S. Ramaswamy, T. B. Liverpool, J. Prost, M. Rao and R. A. Simha, Rev. Mod. Phys., 2013, 85, 1143--1189

    2013

  10. [18]

    Y. Fily, A. Baskaran and M. F. Hagan, Physical Review E, 2015, 91, 012125

    2015

  11. [19]

    G. S. Redner, M. F. Hagan and A. Baskaran, Phys. Rev. Lett., 2013, 110, 055701

    2013

  12. [20]

    M. E. Cates and J. Tailleur, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 2015, 6, 219--244

    2015

  13. [21]

    Digregorio, D

    P. Digregorio, D. Levis, A. Suma, L. F. Cugliandolo, G. Gonnella and I. Pagonabarraga, Physical review letters, 2018, 121, 098003

    2018

  14. [22]

    C. B. Caporusso, P. Digregorio, D. Levis, L. F. Cugliandolo and G. Gonnella, Physical Review Letters, 2020, 125, 178004

    2020

  15. [23]

    Sanoria, R

    M. Sanoria, R. Chelakkot and A. Nandi, Soft Matter, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Das and R

    S. Das and R. Chelakkot, Soft Matter, 2020, 16, 7250--7255

    2020

  17. [25]

    S. Das, S. Ghosh and R. Chelakkot, Physical Review E, 2020, 102, 032619

    2020

  18. [26]

    Kushwaha, S

    P. Kushwaha, S. Maity, A. Menon, R. Chelakkot and V. Chikkadi, Soft Matter, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Sanoria, R

    M. Sanoria, R. Chelakkot and A. Nandi, Phys. Rev. E, 2022, 106, 034605

    2022

  20. [28]

    B \"a r, R

    M. B \"a r, R. Gro mann, S. Heidenreich and F. Peruani, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 2020, 11, 441--466

    2020

  21. [29]

    Sanchez, D

    T. Sanchez, D. Welch, D. Nicastro and Z. Dogic, Science, 2011, 333, 456--459

    2011

  22. [30]

    S. A. Yadav, D. Khatri, A. Soni, N. Khetan and C. A. Athale, Biophysical Journal, 2024, 123, 509--524

    2024

  23. [31]

    Nitta, Y

    T. Nitta, Y. Wang, Z. Du, K. Morishima and Y. Hiratsuka, Nature materials, 2021, 20, 1149--1155

    2021

  24. [32]

    Xu, C.-r

    T.-l. Xu, C.-r. Qin, B. Tang, J.-c. Gao, J. Zhou, K. Chen, T. H. Zhang and W.-d. Tian, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 2024, 161, 064905

    2024

  25. [33]

    Zheng, M

    E. Zheng, M. Brandenbourger, L. Robinet, P. Schall, E. Lerner and C. Coulais, Physical Review Letters, 2023, 130, 178202

    2023

  26. [34]

    Tiwari, P

    I. Tiwari, P. Parmananda and R. Chelakkot, Soft Matter, 2020, 16, 10334--10344

    2020

  27. [35]

    De Canio, E

    G. De Canio, E. Lauga and R. E. Goldstein, Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 2017, 14, 20170491

    2017

  28. [36]

    Y. Fily, P. Subramanian, T. M. Schneider, R. Chelakkot and A. Gopinath, Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 2020, 17, 20190794

    2020

  29. [37]

    Chelakkot, A

    R. Chelakkot, A. Gopinath, L. Mahadevan and M. F. Hagan, Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 2014, 11, 20130884

    2014

  30. [38]

    Elgeti, R

    J. Elgeti, R. G. Winkler and G. Gompper, Reports on progress in physics, 2015, 78, 056601

    2015

  31. [39]

    A. S. Sangani and A. Gopinath, Physical Review Fluids, 2020, 5, 083101

    2020

  32. [40]

    Fatehiboroujeni, A

    S. Fatehiboroujeni, A. Gopinath and S. Goyal, Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics, 2018, 13, 121005--121005--8

    2018

  33. [41]

    Fatehiboroujeni, A

    S. Fatehiboroujeni, A. Gopinath and S. Goyal, Physical Review E, 2021, 103, 013005

    2021

  34. [42]

    X. Liao, P. K. Purohit and A. Gopinath, The Journal of Chemical Physics, 2020, 153, 194901

    2020

  35. [43]

    R. G. Winkler, J. Elgeti and G. Gompper, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 2017, 86, 101014

    2017

  36. [44]

    Eisenstecken, G

    T. Eisenstecken, G. Gompper and R. Winkler, Polymers, 2016, 8, 304

    2016

  37. [45]

    S. K. Anand and S. P. Singh, Physical Review E, 2018, 98, 042501

    2018

  38. [46]

    S. K. Anand and l. P. Singh, Soft Matter, 2019, 15, 4008--4018

    2019

  39. [47]

    Jayaraman, S

    G. Jayaraman, S. Ramachandran, S. Ghose, A. Laskar, M. S. Bhamla, P. B. S. Kumar and R. Adhikari, Phys. Rev. Lett., 2012, 109, 158302

    2012

  40. [48]

    Laskar, R

    A. Laskar, R. Singh, S. Ghose, G. Jayaraman, P. B. S. Kumar and R. Adhikari, Scientific Reports, 2013, 3, 1964

    2013

  41. [49]

    Chakrabarti and D

    B. Chakrabarti and D. Saintillan, Physical Review Fluids, 2019, 4, 043102

    2019

  42. [50]

    Elgeti and G

    J. Elgeti and G. Gompper, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2013, 110, 4470--4475

    2013

  43. [51]

    Chakrabarti, S

    B. Chakrabarti, S. F \"u rthauer and M. J. Shelley, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2022, 119, e2113539119

    2022

  44. [52]

    D. J. Hickey, R. Golestanian and A. Vilfan, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2023, 120, e2307279120

    2023

  45. [53]

    von Kenne, M

    A. von Kenne, M. B \"a r and T. Niedermayer, Physical Review E, 2024, 109, 054407

    2024

  46. [54]

    Chakrabarti and D

    B. Chakrabarti and D. Saintillan, Physical review letters, 2019, 123, 208101

    2019

  47. [55]

    W. Zhou, Z. Hao and N. Gravish, Physical Review X, 2021, 11, 031051

    2021

  48. [56]

    W. Zhou, J. D. Peralta, Z. Hao and N. Gravish, Physical Review E, 2022, 105, 054604

    2022

  49. [57]

    Quillen, A

    A. Quillen, A. Peshkov, E. Wright and S. McGaffigan, Physical Review E, 2021, 104, 014412

    2021

  50. [58]

    Chelakkot, M

    R. Chelakkot, M. F. Hagan and A. Gopinath, Soft matter, 2021, 17, 1091--1104

    2021

  51. [59]

    Gopinath and L

    A. Gopinath and L. Mahadevan, Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 2011, 467, 1665--1685

    2011

  52. [60]

    R. E. Isele-Holder, J. J \"a ger, G. Saggiorato, J. Elgeti and G. Gompper, Soft Matter, 2016, 12, 8495--8505

    2016

  53. [61]

    F. Ling, H. Guo and E. Kanso, Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 2018, 15, 20180594

    2018

  54. [62]

    Vilfan, S

    A. Vilfan, S. Subramani, E. Bodenschatz, R. Golestanian and I. Guido, Nano Letters, 2019, 19, 3359--3363

    2019

  55. [63]

    Laskar and R

    A. Laskar and R. Adhikari, New Journal of Physics, 2017, 19, 033021

    2017

  56. [64]

    A. L. Chau, C. D. Pugsley, M. E. Miyamoto, Y. Tang, C. D. Eisenbach, T. E. Mates, C. J. Hawker, M. T. Valentine and A. A. Pitenis, Tribology Letters, 2023, 71, 108

    2023

  57. [65]

    deviated-bending

    P. G. Gillespie and U. M \"u ller, Cell, 2009, 139, 33--44 mcitethebibliography Active-Clusters.out0000664000000000000000000000212214734304355013331 0ustar rootroot [1][-] section.1 Introduction [1][-] section.2 Model and simulation details [1][-] section.3 Simulation results ...

    2009

  58. [66]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.