Information-optimal mixing at low Reynolds number

Andrej Vilfan; Luca Cocconi; Yihong Shi

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 38 references

Information-optimal mixing at low Reynolds number

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Optimal low-Reynolds mixing is exactly solvable: a mid-time shear pulse wins under fixed total shear.

desk verdict A clean derivation of an exact mixing functional and two optimal-protocol candidates, with a genuine global-optimality gap in the fixed-dissipation case. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03567 v2 pith:YSAW3TE4 submitted 2025-02-05 cond-mat.stat-mech physics.flu-dyn

Luca Cocconi , Yihong Shi , Andrej Vilfan This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.stat-mechphysics.flu-dyn

keywords lowReynoldsnumbermixingmutualinformationoptimalcontrolplanarshearflowdissipationboundJacobiellipticfunctionserasure

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 sets out to find, among all time-dependent planar shear flows at low Reynolds number, the protocols that maximise mixing efficiency as measured by mutual information between particle positions before and after mixing. It derives a compact expression for that efficiency: $\Delta I = \frac{1}{2}\ln\left(1 + A[\omega]/2T^2\right)$, where $A[\omega]$ is a positive functional of the shearing protocol. The optimisation is then solved exactly under two constraints: fixed total shear gives a single Dirac-delta impulse at the middle of the interval, and fixed dissipated energy gives a Jacobi elliptic-sine protocol that becomes a sine in the simple-shear limit. The optimal protocols are universal across shear matrices and time-reversal symmetric, and the bounds they imply include a minimum energetic cost of erasing information in drift-diffusive systems.

What carries the argument

The central object is the covariance matrix $\Sigma(t)$ of a tagged particle whose position obeys $\dot r=\omega(t)M r + \sqrt{2D}\eta(t)$. Because $\mathrm{Tr}\,M=0$, the mutual information depends on the protocol only through $\det\Sigma(T)$, and in two dimensions the Jacobi determinant formula combined with the Lyapunov equation gives $\det\Sigma(t)=2D\int_0^t dt_1\,\mathrm{Tr}\,\Sigma(t_1)$. Evaluating the traceless matrix exponential and using $\cosh^2=1+\sinh^2$ converts the trace into the double-integral action $A[\omega]$ of Eq. (14). The exact optima follow from two mechanisms: a discretisation argument shows the action is maximised by concentrating all shear at the midpoint, and three derivatives of the Euler-Lagrange equation eliminate the Lagrange multiplier and leave the Duffing equation $\omega''=-c^2\omega+2\lambda_M^2\omega^3$, solved by Jacobi elliptic functions. The action's invariance under time reversal and sign reversal is what forces the optima to be symmetric.

What would settle it

Numerically maximise $A[\omega]$ at fixed total shear for a flow with $m_{p,1}^2+m_{p,2}^2<4m_r^2$, so that $\lambda_M$ is imaginary, and compare the best $\Delta I$ with Eq. (23); any rotational protocol beating that bound would refute the claimed universality. A direct experiment could apply the predicted mid-time pulse in a microfluidic shear cell and compare tracer mutual information with smooth protocols at equal total shear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the information-optimal mixing problem for a generic traceless $2\times2$ shear matrix $M$ is exactly solvable. With a uniform initial distribution, mixing efficiency is the reduction in mutual information from the purely diffusive baseline, $\Delta I = \frac{1}{2}\ln(1 + A[\omega]/2T^2)$, with $A[\omega]$ built from a double time integral of $\sinh^2$ of the accumulated shear. Maximising $A[\omega]$ under fixed total shear yields $\omega^*(t)=(\Omega/\gamma_M)\delta(t-T/2)$, and under fixed dissipation it yields $\omega^*(t)=\frac{2K(m)\sqrt{m}}{\lambda_M T}\operatorname{sn}\left(\frac{2K(m)t}{T}\mid m\right)$, the solution of a Duffing equation. Both optima are independent of the detailed form of $M$ in the pure-shear-dominated regime and are time-reversal symmetric; the resulting bounds, Eqs. (23) and (24), give a closed-form dissipation bound for simple shear and at most square-root growth with dissipation in general.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the shear matrix being dominated by pure shear, so that $\lambda_M=\sqrt{-\det M}$ is real; for strongly rotational flows the claimed optima and bounds are not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For fixed total shear, any protocol that is not an impulse at $t=T/2$ is suboptimal; the paper's bound (23) quantifies the maximum possible $\Delta I$ for that constraint.
For fixed dissipation, the optimal protocol is the elliptic sine in Eq. (22), reducing to a sine for simple shear and small dissipation; pure-shear flows mix more efficiently than simple shear at equal dissipation.
The simple-shear dissipation bound $\Delta I \le \tfrac{1}{2}\ln(1+\sigma T/(2\eta\pi^2))$ gives a universal minimum energetic cost of erasing information in this class of drift-diffusive systems.
In the large-dissipation limit, mixing efficiency grows at most as $\sqrt{\sigma}$, so returns on added energy diminish.

Reading between the lines

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

My inference: a microfluidic experiment could test the pulse prediction directly by comparing a short central high-shear burst with smooth protocols at equal total shear; the paper stops at the theoretical optimum.
My inference: the exactness of the optima depends on the unbounded linear-flow setting with a uniform prior; in a bounded container the covariance-determinant reduction and the resulting bounds would require modification.
My inference: because $\Delta I$ is independent of diffusivity $D$, a practical mixer could tune tracer size to measure mixing efficiency without waiting for molecular diffusion, a freedom the paper does not exploit.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new content is the exact action functional A[ω] in Eq. (14), the reduction of mutual information to Eq. (15), the proof that a mid-time impulse maximizes A under fixed total shear, and the explicit elliptic-sine solution under fixed dissipation. The stochastic-calculus path to Eq. (15) is sound, and the fixed-shear proof in Appendix B is elegant and convincing for positive protocols. Appendix A also gives a complete spectral argument for the simple-shear case at fixed dissipation, so the bound in Eq. (24) rests on firm ground. This is a real step beyond the numerical results of Ref. [15], and the numerical validation in Fig. 2 is solid evidence that the analytic candidates are at least the physically relevant ones.

The main soft spot is exactly what the stress-test identifies: for λM > 0, Eq. (22) is only shown to be a stationary point of A under the dissipation constraint, not a global maximizer. Equation (21) has an infinite family of Jacobi-elliptic solutions ω_n(t) = (2nK(m)√m/(λ_M T)) sn(2nK(m)t/T | m), all with the same dissipation, and the paper provides no second-variation or upper-bound argument to exclude n ≥ 2. The authors' claim that they 'solve the extremisation problem exactly' and that Eq. (22) is 'the optimal protocol' is therefore not established inside the stated λ_M ≥ 0 regime. This does not invalidate the main machinery, but it does mean the headline optimality is a conjecture supported by numerics rather than a theorem. The rotational-regime restriction (imaginary λ_M) is explicitly acknowledged with a reasonable performance argument, so I treat that as a boundary of scope, not a hidden flaw.

The paper is honest and well-organized. The derivation of Eq. (21) via Appendix D is clever, and the authors do not fit parameters or assume the target result. The citation pattern is fine; the self-references to Ref. [15] are appropriate since that is where the metric and numerical hints come from. If I were refereeing, I would ask for a proof of global maximality — perhaps via a bounding argument or by showing A is concave in a suitable sense — or, failing that, a clear downgrade of the claims from 'optimal' to 'locally optimal candidate.' That is a substantial revision, not a rejection.

Who gets value: anyone working on optimal control of low-Reynolds mixing, stochastic thermodynamics, or information erasure in diffusive systems. The functional and the fixed-shear bound are useful and likely correct; the fixed-dissipation result needs tightening. I would bring this to a reading group and would cite it for the functional and the fixed-shear result. A serious editor should send it to review.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies information-optimal mixing in two-dimensional divergence-free linear shear flows with time-dependent shear rate. It identifies mutual information between initial and final tagged-particle positions as the mixing cost, reduces the protocol-dependent part to the nonlinear functional A[omega] in Eq. (14), and obtains Delta I = (1/2) ln(1 + A/(2T^2)) in Eq. (15). For fixed total shear it proves, under lambda_M >= 0 and omega > 0, that the optimal protocol is a mid-time Dirac impulse, Eq. (17). For fixed dissipation it derives a Duffing-type stationarity equation, proposes the Jacobi-elliptic solution Eq. (22), and uses it to compute bounds, including the simple-shear erasure bound Eq. (24). The paper explicitly assumes pure-shear-dominated flows (lambda_M real) and validates its stationary solutions against numerical optimization.

Significance. The derivation through Eq. (15) is clean and gives an exact, parameter-free reduction of a stochastic-control problem; the fixed-shear argument in Appendix B is a genuine variational proof, and for lambda_M = 0 the fixed-dissipation problem is solved rigorously by the spectral calculation in Appendix A, yielding Eq. (24). If the global-optimality gap for lambda_M > 0 can be closed, the universal time-reversal-symmetric protocols and the dissipation bound would be a substantial contribution to optimal mixing and to stochastic thermodynamics. The numerical checks are supportive but do not replace the missing global selection argument.

major comments (2)

[Optimal protocol under fixed dissipation; Appendix D] The derivation does not establish that Eq. (22) is the global maximizer of A under the dissipation constraint. Eq. (19) is only the first-order necessary condition, and the triple differentiation in Appendix D removes the Lagrange multiplier, and with it the amplitude relation that would select a maximizing branch. For every integer n >= 1 the function omega_n(t) = (2nK(m)sqrt(m)/(lambda_M T)) sn(2nK(m)t/T | m) satisfies the same ODE (21) with omega_n(0) = omega_n(T) = 0, and the amplitude-dissipation relation 4 n^2 K(m)(K(m)-E(m)) = sigma_M lambda_M^2 T places every sibling at the same fixed dissipation. For lambda_M = 0 these reduce to sin(n pi t / T), where the spectral ordering in Appendix A selects n = 1; for lambda_M > 0 no second-variation, concavity, or upper-bound argument is supplied to exclude n >= 2 or other branches. Thus Eq. (22) is a candidate stationary point rather than a proven global optimum, and the tight bound for lambda_M > 0 shown in Fig. 3 and the claim that the fixed-dissipation problem is solved exactly are not established.
[Optimal protocol under fixed shear; Eq. (17)] The text before Eq. (17) says the Dirac-impulse result holds "for any M", and the abstract advertises results for "a generic planar shear flow". The proof in Appendix B uses monotonicity of Gamma(t) = lambda_M times the antiderivative of omega, which is available only when lambda_M is real, i.e. under the assumption m_{p,1}^2 + m_{p,2}^2 >= 4 m_r^2 stated two paragraphs earlier. For rotational-dominated flows lambda_M is imaginary, the monotonicity argument collapses, and the paper only offers the heuristic that trigonometric factors give "comparatively poorer performance". The main claims should either be extended to the rotational regime or explicitly restricted to pure-shear-dominated flows in the abstract and in the statement of Eq. (17).

minor comments (3)

[Appendix C, Eq. (C3)] The definition alpha = (t / 2 mu)^{1/4} appears to be a typo: dimensional consistency requires alpha = (T / 2 mu)^{1/4}.
[Abstract and Eq. (17)] Please qualify "generic planar shear flow" and "for any M" so that the stated lambda_M >= 0 assumption is reflected in the advertised scope of the results.
[Fig. 3] The solid "tight bound" for lambda_M > 0 is obtained by numerical evaluation at the stationary solution, so the caption should state that this curve is the value at the candidate optimum, not a proven upper bound, until the global-optimality question is resolved.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the optimization derivation is self-contained; the fixed-dissipation global-optimality gap is a rigor issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The mutual-information metric is taken from the authors' prior work (Ref. [15]), but that is a definition imported as a premise, not a result being re-derived from the present optimization; the derivation of the action functional A[omega] from the Gaussian covariance (Eqs. (5)-(14)) and of Delta I = 1/2 ln(1 + A/(2T^2)) (Eq. (15)) is an explicit calculation that does not assume the optimal protocols. The fixed-shear optimum Eq. (17) is supported by a discretization argument in Appendix B that does not presuppose the answer. The fixed-dissipation candidate Eq. (22) is obtained from the Euler-Lagrange condition Eq. (19) through the ODE (21), with no fitted parameter drawn from data; the dissipation relation fixes the elliptic parameter m, and the bounds Eqs. (23)-(24) are evaluations of Eq. (14). The numerical optimization in Fig. 2 is an independent check, not an input. The paper explicitly restricts to lambda_M >= 0 ('We henceforth assume m_{p,1}^2 + m_{p,2}^2 >= 4 m_r^2'), and the unresolved question whether higher-harmonic Jacobi-elliptic solutions of Eq. (21) can beat Eq. (22) at equal dissipation is a mathematical gap in the proof of global optimality, not a circularity: nothing in the derivation assumes Eq. (22) is optimal. Accordingly, no self-definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation-load-bearing step is present.

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

No empirical fitting or invented physical entities. The central derivation uses known stochastic calculus and special functions. The only free quantities are the Lagrange multipliers and the elliptic parameter m, which are fixed by the constraints and boundary conditions, not fitted to data. The main assumptions are modeling choices (linear shear, uniform prior, non-negative shear, real lambda_M) and an unproven global-optimality step for the dissipation-constrained problem.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The velocity field is a divergence-free linear shear v_i = omega(t) M_ij r_j with Tr(M) = 0.
Used in Eqs. (2) and (9); all results are restricted to this flow class, so spatially non-uniform or bounded flows are excluded.
domain assumption Mixing efficiency is measured by the mutual-information metric of Ref. [15], with a uniform prior and a single tracer's covariance.
This is the objective function from prior work by two of the same authors; the paper does not justify this metric against L2/Sobolev norms or Shannon-entropy measures.
ad hoc to paper The optimal protocol under fixed dissipation is smooth and the Euler-Lagrange stationarity condition identifies the global maximum.
The derivation in Eqs. (19)-(22) solves a stationary condition; no proof of uniqueness or global optimality among all admissible protocols is given.
ad hoc to paper The shear matrix is restricted to lambda_M >= 0, i.e. m_p,1^2 + m_p,2^2 >= 4 m_r^2.
Stated in the main text; the universal forms and bounds are only claimed in this regime, excluding rotational-dominated flows.
domain assumption The total-shear problem restricts controls to non-negative shear rates, omega(t) > 0.
This constraint rules out protocols that reverse direction, which could in principle change the optimum; it is stated but not physically derived.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Information-optimal mixing at low Reynolds number." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YSAW3TE4

@misc{pith2026250203567,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Information-optimal mixing at low Reynolds number},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YSAW3TE4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03567}
}

read the original abstract

Mutual information between particle positions before and after mixing provides a universal assumption-free measure of mixing efficiency at low Reynolds number which accounts for the kinematic reversibility of the Stokes equation. For a generic planar shear flow with time-dependent shear rate, we derive a compact expression for the mutual information as a nonlinear functional of the shearing protocol and solve the associated extremisation problem exactly to determine the optimal control under both linear and non-linear constraints, specifically total shear and total dissipation per unit volume. Remarkably, optimal protocols turn out to be universal and time-reversal symmetric in both cases. Our results establish a minimum energetic cost of erasing information in a broad class of non-equilibrium drift-diffusive systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03567 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Numerical validation of the optimal protocols for (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Dissipation bounds on the mixing efficiency. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

[15]

Y. Shi, R. Golestanian, and A. Vilfan, Mutual informa- tion as a measure of mixing efficiency in viscous fluids, Phys. Rev. Research 6, L022050 (2024)

work page 2024
[1]

E. M. Purcell, Life at low Reynolds number, Am. J. Phys 45, 3 (1977)

work page 1977
[2]

Arrieta, J

J. Arrieta, J. H. Cartwright, E. Gouillart, N. Piro, O. Piro, and I. Tuval, Geometric mixing, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 378, 20200168 (2020)

work page 2020
[3]

National Committee for Fluid Mechanics Films, Illus- trated experiments in fluid mechanics: the NCFMF book of film notes (MIT Press (MA), 1972)

work page 1972
[4]

J. P. Heller, An unmixing demonstration, Am. J. Phys 28, 348 (1960)

1960
[5]

Villermaux, Mixing versus stirring, Annu

E. Villermaux, Mixing versus stirring, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 51, 245 (2019)

2019
[6]

Tang and R

E. Tang and R. Golestanian, Quantifying configurational information for a stochastic particle in a flow-field, New J. Phys. 22, 083060 (2020)

work page 2020
[7]

G. I. Taylor, Dispersion of soluble matter in solvent flow- ing slowly through a tube, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 219, 186 (1953)

work page 1953

Show all 38 references

[8]

A. D. Stroock, S. K. Dertinger, A. Ajdari, I. Mezic, H. A. Stone, and G. M. Whitesides, Chaotic mixer for microchannels, Science 295, 647 (2002)

2002
[9]

C. J. Campbell and B. A. Grzybowski, Microfluidic mix- ers: from microfabricated to self-assembling devices, Phi- los. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 362, 1069 (2004)

2004
[10]

R. O. Grigoriev, M. F. Schatz, and V. Sharma, Chaotic mixing in microdroplets, Lab. Chip 6, 1369 (2006)

2006
[11]

D. J. Pine, J. P. Gollub, J. F. Brady, and A. M. Leshan- sky, Chaos and threshold for irreversibility in sheared sus- pensions, Nature 438, 997 (2005)

2005
[12]

H. Aref, J. R. Blake, M. Budiˇ si´ c, S. S. Cardoso, J. H. Cartwright, H. J. Clercx, K. El Omari, U. Feudel, R. Golestanian, E. Gouillart, et al. , Frontiers of chaotic advection, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 025007 (2017)

2017
[13]

Konopka, Analytical Gaussian solutions for anisotropic diffusion in a linear shear flow, J

P. Konopka, Analytical Gaussian solutions for anisotropic diffusion in a linear shear flow, J. Non- Equilib. Thermodyn. 20, 73 (1995)

1995
[14]

D’Alessandro, M

D. D’Alessandro, M. Dahleh, and I. Mezic, Control of mixing in fluid flow: A maximum entropy approach, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 44, 1852 (1999)

1999
[16]

Lin, J.-L

Z. Lin, J.-L. Thiffeault, and C. R. Doering, Optimal stir- ring strategies for passive scalar mixing, J. Fluid Mech. 675, 465–476 (2011)

2011
[17]

Gubanov and L

O. Gubanov and L. Cortelezzi, Towards the design of an optimal mixer, J. Fluid Mech. 651, 27–53 (2010)

2010
[18]

Schmiedl and U

T. Schmiedl and U. Seifert, Optimal finite-time pro- cesses in stochastic thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 108301 (2007)

2007
[19]

S. A. Loos, S. Monter, F. Ginot, and C. Bechinger, Uni- versal symmetry of optimal control at the microscale, Phys. Rev. X 14, 021032 (2024)

2024
[20]

Proesmans, J

K. Proesmans, J. Ehrich, and J. Bechhoefer, Optimal finite-time bit erasure under full control, Phys. Rev. E 102, 032105 (2020)

2020
[21]

Garcia-Millan, J

R. Garcia-Millan, J. Sch¨ uttler, M. E. Cates, and S. A. Loos, Optimal closed-loop control of active par- ticles and a minimal information engine, arXiv preprint 10.48550/arXiv.2407.18542 (2024)

2024 doi arXiv
[22]

Cocconi, B

L. Cocconi, B. Mahault, and L. Piro, Dissipation- accuracy tradeoffs in autonomous control of smart active matter, New J. Phys. 27, 013002 (2025)

2025
[23]

M. C. Engel, J. A. Smith, and M. P. Brenner, Optimal control of nonequilibrium systems through automatic dif- ferentiation, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041032 (2023)

2023
[24]

L. K. Davis, K. Proesmans, and E. Fodor, Active matter under control: Insights from response theory, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011012 (2024)

2024
[25]

Proesmans, Precision-dissipation trade-off for driven stochastic systems, Commun

K. Proesmans, Precision-dissipation trade-off for driven stochastic systems, Commun. Phys. 6, 226 (2023)

2023
[26]

Danckwerts, The definition and measurement of some characteristics of mixtures, Appl

P. Danckwerts, The definition and measurement of some characteristics of mixtures, Appl. Sci. Res. 3, 279 (1952)

1952
[27]

Thiffeault, Using multiscale norms to quantify mix- ing and transport, Nonlinearity 25, R1 (2012)

J.-L. Thiffeault, Using multiscale norms to quantify mix- ing and transport, Nonlinearity 25, R1 (2012)

2012
[28]

Camesasca, M

M. Camesasca, M. Kaufman, and I. Manas-Zloczower, Quantifying fluid mixing with the Shannon entropy, Macromol. Theory Simul. 15, 595 (2006)

2006
[29]

Thiffeault, Nonuniform mixing, Phys

J.-L. Thiffeault, Nonuniform mixing, Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 090501 (2021)

2021
[30]

Tsang, T

Y.-K. Tsang, T. M. Antonsen Jr, and E. Ott, Exponential decay of chaotically advected passive scalars in the zero diffusivity limit, Phys. Rev. E 71, 066301 (2005)

2005
[31]

de Sousa Filho, V

F. de Sousa Filho, V. Pereira de S´ a, and E. Brigatti, En- tropy estimation in bidimensional sequences, Phys. Rev. E 105, 054116 (2022)

2022
[32]

N. G. van Kampen, The expansion of the master equa- tion, Adv. Chem. Phys. 34, 245 (1976)

1976
[33]

In this case, one of the three coordinates (say, z(t)) re- duces to an independent Wiener process and the covari- 6 ance matrix Σ acquires a block diagonal structure. Its determinant is given by the product of the nontrivial up- per block, which accounts for the coupled dynami...
[34]

E. J. Putzer, Avoiding the Jordan canonical form in the discussion of linear systems with constant coefficients, Am. Math. Monthly 73, 2 (1966)

1966
[35]

Dieball and A

C. Dieball and A. Godec, Coarse graining empirical den- sities and currents in continuous-space steady states, Phys. Rev. Research 4, 033243 (2022)

2022
[36]

J. M. T. Thompson and H. B. Stewart, Nonlinear dy- namics and chaos (John Wiley & Sons, 2002)

2002
[37]

Salas, J

A. Salas, J. E. C. Hern´ andez, and L. J. M. Hern´ andez, The Duffing oscillator equation and its applications in physics, Math. Probl. Eng. 2021, 9994967 (2021)

2021
[38]

Abramowitz and I

M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of mathe- matical functions with formulas, graphs, and mathemati- cal tables, Vol. 55 (US Government printing office, 1968). END MA TTERS Appendix A: Simple shear and the λM = 0 case Eq. (11) indicates that the case λM = 0 might require...

1968

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [15]

Y. Shi, R. Golestanian, and A. Vilfan, Mutual informa- tion as a measure of mixing efficiency in viscous fluids, Phys. Rev. Research 6, L022050 (2024)

work page 2024

[2] [1]

E. M. Purcell, Life at low Reynolds number, Am. J. Phys 45, 3 (1977)

work page 1977

[3] [2]

Arrieta, J

J. Arrieta, J. H. Cartwright, E. Gouillart, N. Piro, O. Piro, and I. Tuval, Geometric mixing, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 378, 20200168 (2020)

work page 2020

[4] [3]

National Committee for Fluid Mechanics Films, Illus- trated experiments in fluid mechanics: the NCFMF book of film notes (MIT Press (MA), 1972)

work page 1972

[5] [4]

J. P. Heller, An unmixing demonstration, Am. J. Phys 28, 348 (1960)

1960

[6] [5]

Villermaux, Mixing versus stirring, Annu

E. Villermaux, Mixing versus stirring, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 51, 245 (2019)

2019

[7] [6]

Tang and R

E. Tang and R. Golestanian, Quantifying configurational information for a stochastic particle in a flow-field, New J. Phys. 22, 083060 (2020)

work page 2020

[8] [7]

G. I. Taylor, Dispersion of soluble matter in solvent flow- ing slowly through a tube, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 219, 186 (1953)

work page 1953