Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Scaling Description of the Relaxation Dynamics and Dynamical Heterogeneity of an Active Glass-forming Liquid

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Raising run-and-tumble activity in a glass-forming liquid first lowers fragility, then reverses relaxation from super-Arrhenius to sub-Arrhenius, and an effective-temperature scaling collapses the whole spectrum.

desk verdict Solid simulation results on a new high-activity regime in active glasses, wrapped in a scaling ansatz that is still a fit rather than a derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17666 v1 pith:ZPNO5RNH submitted 2024-12-23 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mechphysics.bio-ph

Subhodeep Dey , Smarajit Karmakar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mechphysics.bio-ph
keywords activeglassrun-and-tumbleparticleseffectivetemperaturescalingsuper-Arrheniustosub-Arrheniuscrossoverdynamicalheterogeneityfragilityfinite-sizeeffectsKob-Andersenmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper studies a 3D Kob-Andersen glass where a fraction of particles are driven by run-and-tumble forces, with three activity knobs: force strength $f_0$, fraction of active particles $c$, and persistence time $\tau_p$. The central claim is that activity is not just an extra source of noise: beyond a threshold ($f_0 \approx 3.25$ at $c = 0.1$) the relaxation crosses over from fragile, super-Arrhenius temperature dependence to sub-Arrhenius behavior, so the system stops acting like a glass at low temperature. The authors propose an effective-temperature scaling ansatz that collapses the entire relaxation-time dataset, over $T$, $f_0$, $c$, and $\tau_p$, onto a single master curve with two branches, and they show the same construction rationalizes the four-point susceptibility peak for small $\tau_p$. They also report that at high activity the relaxation time increases with system size from $N = 500$ to $N = 10000$, the opposite of passive glasses, which they interpret as a possible crossover from activated relaxation to mode-coupling-like critical dynamics. If these claims are right, they establish a distinct high-activity dynamical regime in active glasses and a compact predictive description for it, with direct consequences for how simulations and theories of biological and synthetic active materials are compared.

What carries the argument

The central object is an effective-temperature scaling ansatz that turns two assumed functional forms into a master curve. The first is the modified Vogel-Fulcher-Tammann form $\tau_\alpha \simeq \exp\left[\left(1/(K(T/T_{VFT}-1))\right)^\delta\right]$ with $\delta \simeq 1.5$; the second is the effective-temperature expansion $T_{eff} \simeq T\left[1 + A(\Omega/T)^\beta + B(\Omega/T)\right]$ in the single activity parameter $\Omega = c f_0^2 \tau_p/(1+G\tau_p)$, with $\beta < 1$. Substituting the second into the first yields a scaling function $\log \tau_\alpha \simeq (A/|T-T_{VFT}|)^\delta F_\pm\left(|T-T_{VFT}|/((\Omega/T)^\beta + \kappa\Omega)\right)$, whose two asymptotic branches correspond to the super- and sub-Arrhenius regimes. The claimed data collapse is achieved with $\delta = 1.5$, $\kappa = 0.75$, $\beta = 0.35$, and $G = 0.6$, satisfying $\beta = 1-1/\delta$, and the same machinery, with $\nu = 2.0$, $\kappa_1 = 1.75$, $\beta = 0.75$, is applied to the peak of $\chi_4(t)$. This machinery is what makes the crossover quantitative: it reduces a large set of simulation curves to a single curve plus a few constants.

What would settle it

Use the published parameters to predict $\tau_\alpha$ at a state point not included in the fit (for instance $c = 0.25$, $f_0 = 3.0$, $\tau_p = 5$) and run the simulation; a miss would show the master curve is fit-specific. Equally decisive: measure the tracer diffusivity $D(T, f_0, c, \tau_p)$ and ask whether it collapses onto the passive $D(T)$ curve when plotted against the same $T_{eff}$; if it does not, $T_{eff}$ is not a common thermodynamic state variable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that in a 3D Kob-Andersen model with run-and-tumble activity, the structural relaxation time $\tau_\alpha$ obeys super-Arrhenius VFT-like behavior at low activity, becomes Arrhenius at an intermediate activity, and then turns sub-Arrhenius at high activity; the kinetic fragility $K$ decreases with $f_0$ and becomes negative. The authors account for the full spectrum by writing $\tau_\alpha$ with a modified VFT form, $\tau_\alpha \simeq \tau_0 \exp\left[\left(1/(K(T/T_{VFT} - 1))\right)^\delta\right]$ with $\delta \simeq 1.5$, and by replacing $T$ with $T_{eff} \simeq T\left[1 + A(\Omega/T)^\beta + B(\Omega/T)\right]$, where $\Omega = c f_0^2 \tau_p/(1+G\tau_p)$. With parameters $\delta = 1.5$, $\kappa = 0.75$, $\beta = 0.35$, $G = 0.6$, three of which are independent because $\beta = 1 - 1/\delta$, all relaxation data collapse onto a two-branch master curve: a flat branch for super-Arrhenius states and a power-law branch for sub-Arrhenius states. The same effective-temperature ansatz, with different exponents ($\nu = 2.0$, $\kappa_1 = 1.75$, $\beta = 0.75$), also collapses the peak of the four-point susceptibility for small $\tau_p$. In addition, the paper shows that in the high-activity sub-Arrhenius regime, $\tau_\alpha$ increases with system size from $N = 500$ to $N = 10000$, a finite-size trend not seen in passive systems, and that the dynamic correlation length $\xi_\Gamma$ grows with $f_0$ and then saturates; the paper suggests this may signal a mode-coupling-like relaxation mechanism at high activity.

Load-bearing premise

The whole master-curve theory rests on the assumption that an ad hoc formula for an effective temperature, with parameters tuned to fit the same relaxation data it claims to explain, is the correct way to coarse-grain the active glass; if a different formula fits just as well, the crossover would be a fitting artifact rather than a physical explanation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Activity becomes a continuous control knob for fragility: at fixed composition, raising $f_0$ first decreases the kinetic fragility $K$ below its passive value and then drives $K$ negative, eliminating the glassy divergence.
  • The two-branch master curve makes $\tau_\alpha$ predictable across the full parameter grid from a handful of constants, so simulations at new combinations of $f_0$, $c$, $\tau_p$, and $T$ need not be run to know the relaxation time.
  • The high-activity finite-size effect, with $\tau_\alpha$ growing from $N = 500$ to $N = 10000$, implies that small-system simulations of strongly active glasses can systematically underestimate relaxation times in the sub-Arrhenius regime.
  • The same effective-temperature scaling, with different exponents, rationalizes the peak of the four-point susceptibility $\chi_4^P$ for small persistence times, so dynamic heterogeneity shares the quasi-equilibrium description in that regime.
  • Large persistence times fall outside the scaling theory and show a non-monotonic correlation length with $\tau_p$, marking the boundary of the effective-temperature regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive test the paper leaves implicit is held-out prediction: the published parameters should predict $\tau_\alpha$ at untried state points, and a second observable such as tracer diffusivity should collapse under the same $T_{eff}$; neither test appears in the paper.
  • The fitted sub-linear exponent $\beta = 0.35$ for the leading activity term is not derived from any microscopic argument; if it reflects a real fluctuation-dissipation structure of the active bath, it should reappear in independent measurements such as the spectrum of active-force fluctuations, which the paper does not analyze.
  • The finite-size growth of $\tau_\alpha$ at high $f_0$ is reminiscent of critical slowing down, but the correlation length $\xi_\Gamma$ saturates beyond $f_0 \approx 3.5$; if the mode-coupling analogy is to hold, larger systems or a sharper observable should reveal a growing rather than flattening length scale.
  • Testing the same protocol with a different activity mechanism, for example active Brownian particles instead of run-and-tumble dynamics, would show whether the sub-Arrhenius crossover and the finite-size reversal are generic to active glass-formers or specific to this forcing scheme.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports extensive molecular dynamics simulations of a 3D Kob-Andersen glass former with run-and-tumble activity, varying the active force f0, active-particle concentration c, persistence time τp, and system size N up to 25000. The main claims are (i) that increasing activity first reduces the kinetic fragility and then, beyond a threshold, changes the relaxation from super-Arrhenius to sub-Arrhenius temperature dependence; (ii) that this crossover, together with the full relaxation-time data, can be collapsed onto a master curve via an effective-temperature scaling ansatz (Eqs. 9 and 12); and (iii) that at high activity the relaxation time increases with system size, a finite-size trend not present in passive glasses. The paper also analyzes dynamical heterogeneity through the four-point susceptibility and correlation-length scaling, proposing a second scaling form for the susceptibility peak.

Significance. The simulation data are extensive and the reported crossover and finite-size effects are potentially interesting; if the scaling description were sound, it would provide a compact framework for active-glass relaxation and identify a new high-activity regime. The paper is also commendable for the breadth of parameter space explored and for relating the dynamical-heterogeneity data to the relaxation data. However, the central theoretical contribution, the effective-temperature scaling collapse, is currently a phenomenological in-sample fit with several adjustable parameters and a freely fitted master function. The empirical observations may well be correct, but the manuscript does not yet establish the claimed unified scaling description.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III, Eqs. (9)-(12)] The claimed scaling theory is not tested by the presented collapse. Substituting the effective-temperature expansion Eq. (9) into the modified VFT form Eq. (10) yields a specific closed-form crossover function, approximately log τα |T−T_VFT|^δ = C[1 + (A T^{1−β}Ω^β + BΩ)/|T−T_VFT|]^{-δ}, rather than the generic two-branch function F± introduced in Eq. (12). The manuscript instead fits F± together with δ, κ, β, and G to the same relaxation data being explained, so the good collapse in Fig. 2 does not discriminate Eq. (9) from other effective-temperature parameterizations. Please either test the closed-form prediction without a free shape function or provide out-of-sample predictions for activity parameters not used in the fit.
  2. [§III, Eq. (12) and Fig. 2] The paper reports a 'best collapse' with δ=1.5, κ≃0.75, β=0.35, G=0.6 but gives no error bars on the relaxation times and no quantitative measure of collapse quality (e.g., a cost function, residual analysis, or parameter sensitivity study). In addition, Eq. (13) with δ=1.5 implies β=1/3, whereas the quoted β=0.35 is noticeably different; the reported values therefore only approximately satisfy the relation used to reduce the number of free parameters. The degeneracy and sensitivity of the collapse should be quantified.
  3. [§III, Eq. (7)] The modified VFT form with δ≃1.5 is used throughout, and the paper states that it fits the data 'equally well' as the standard VFT (δ=1), but no direct comparison is shown. Because δ enters the scaling exponent in Eq. (12) and also determines the relation between β and δ via Eq. (13), the determination of δ must be shown to be robust and non-degenerate; otherwise the modified VFT exponent can absorb active-temperature curvature that the scaling theory then attributes to the effective-temperature expansion.
  4. [§III, Figs. 3-5] The finite-size effect at high activity—the increase of τα with system size—is the most striking empirical result, but the claim rests on comparisons without error bars and without a demonstration that the observed N-dependence is not a protocol artifact. The scaling collapse in Fig. 5(b) uses ξ(f0) and τ∞_α extracted from the same data, and the large relaxation times (up to ~10^5) raise the question of whether the runs are long enough to guarantee steady state. Please provide error estimates, equilibration checks, and a test of whether the N-dependence persists at fixed effective temperature or at fixed reduced relaxation time.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo, 'sub-Arrhenieus' should be 'sub-Arrhenius', and the capitalization of 'we'/'We' is inconsistent throughout the abstract and introduction.
  2. [§II, Eq. (4)] The coarse-graining length 'a' is used in the definition of Q(t) before it is defined in the text; please define it explicitly and state the criterion by which a=0.3 was chosen.
  3. [§III, Eq. (12)] The scaling variable |T−T_VFT|/[T(Ω/T)^β + κΩ] is not dimensionless as written; the units of κ and G should be specified, or the expression should be rewritten using dimensionless reduced variables.
  4. [§III, Eqs. (6)-(12)] The notation for the VFT temperature alternates between TVFT, T_VFT, and TK; please use a single symbol consistently.
  5. [§III, Eq. (14)] The scaling form for χP4 introduces three additional adjustable parameters (ν, κ1, β) and is not derived from Eq. (12); its status as an independent scaling assumption should be clarified.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Effective-temperature scaling is an in-sample fit: Eq.12's master function and δ, κ, β, G are tuned to the same relaxation data they are claimed to rationalize.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III, 'Relaxation Dynamics', below Eq.12 and Fig.2]
    "All these parameters are to be determined by the data collapse to check the validity of this scaling assumption. According to Eq.12, if we now plot |T − TVFT|δ log(τα(c, f0, τp)) for all temperatures and activities as a function of (Ω/T)^β + κΩ and tune the two variables δ and κ, then one should be able to collapse all the data on master curves if the scaling ansatz is correct."

    The scaling-law parameters δ, κ, β, G and the shape of F±(x) are obtained from the same relaxation-time data that the collapse is then used to validate; the section later reports 'We varied δ, κ, β and G to obtain the data collapse. The best collapse is obtained using δ = 1.5, κ ≃ 0.75, β = 0.35 and G = 0.6.' Since F± is only fixed at x→∞ and x→0 and its full form is set by the data, the master curve is a fit to τα, not a derivation from the effective-temperature ansatz Eq.9. A flexible two-branch function with four tuned parameters can collapse smooth crossover data even if Eq.9 is not the correct effective-temperature form.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section III, 'Dynamical Heterogeneity', around Eq.14 and Fig.7]
    "Thus, if the scaling function is a good description of the system, then one will be able to obtain data collapse if one plots |T − TVFT|νχP4(c, f0) as a function of |T − TVFT|/(cf0^2 + κ1T(cf0^2/T)^β) for all the data by varying ν, κ1 and β."

    The same in-sample fitting pattern is repeated for dynamical heterogeneity: ν, κ1 and β are chosen to obtain the collapse of χP4 data and then the collapse is offered as evidence that the scaling theory 'can rationalize all these different behaviors of χP4'. The paper states 'For the obtained collapse, we have chosen the following parameters ν = 2.0, κ1 = 1.75, and β = 0.75.' No independent data or fixed-parameter prediction tests the effective-temperature form, so the rationalization is a post-hoc fit.

full rationale

The paper's empirical observations are not circular: the super-to-sub-Arrhenius crossover (Fig.1), the finite-size increase of τα at large activity (Figs.3-5), and the correlation-length growth (Fig.8) stand on simulation data. The circularity lies in the scaling theory presented as the explanatory framework. Eq.9 is an explicitly ad hoc effective-temperature ansatz, and Eq.12's F± plus δ, κ, β, G are tuned to the very relaxation data they are claimed to rationalize. The successful collapse in Fig.2 is therefore an in-sample fit, not a test of Eq.9; the DH scaling in Eq.14 repeats the same procedure. Because the central theoretical claim reduces to a flexible fit, the paper deserves a partial-circularity score of 6, while the raw data and crossover phenomenology remain independent content. The self-citations to Ref.[12] are prior simulations and are not the principal load-bearing circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The ledger reflects that the paper's genuinely new physical content is in the simulation data; the scaling description is a phenomenological fit. It introduces no new particles or forces, but it does introduce a generalized effective temperature with fitted coefficients, plus several scaling exponents and amplitudes used to collapse the data. The modified VFT exponent and the truncation of the effective-temperature series are ad hoc assumptions on which the claimed unification rests.

free parameters (10)
  • delta (modified VFT exponent) = 1.5
    Sets the stretched VFT form Eq.7 for passive and active relaxation; optimized in scaling collapse.
  • beta (effective-temperature exponent, relaxation) = 0.35
    Sub-linear exponent in Eq.9 and Eq.12; determined by data collapse, compatible with beta=1-1/delta constraint.
  • kappa (scaling argument coefficient) = 0.75
    Coefficient in the scaling variable of Eq.12; adjusted to achieve data collapse.
  • G (effective activity denominator) = 0.6
    Enters Omega = c f0^2 tau_p/(1+G tau_p); called a fitting parameter in the text and fixed by Tg/tau_alpha collapse.
  • A and B (effective-temperature amplitudes) = not reported
    Amplitudes in the T_eff series Eq.8 and Eq.9; not stated numerically, but effective free parameters of the ansatz.
  • nu (chi4 scaling exponent) = 2.0
    Exponent in Eq.14 used to collapse four-point susceptibility peaks.
  • kappa1 (chi4 scaling coefficient) = 1.75
    Coefficient in Eq.14 scaling argument, set by data collapse.
  • beta_chi4 (effective-temperature exponent for chi4) = 0.75
    Separate value used only for the chi4 collapse, different from the relaxation beta.
  • Per-state VFT parameters K and T_VFT = not tabulated
    VFT fits to each activity curve are used to define Tg and enter the scaling variable; values are not given in the text.
  • Coarse-graining length a = 0.3
    Window in overlap function Q(t); chosen from the MSD plateau in the supercooled regime and used in every relaxation time.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Kob-Andersen binary Lennard-Jones mixture with smoothed potential is a suitable minimal model of a glass-forming liquid under activity.
    All results come from this single model; generality to other active glass formers is not demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Nose-Hoover thermostat keeps the active system in a well-defined steady state without altering the RTP dynamics.
    Used for NVT simulations; no comparison with other thermostats is shown.
  • ad hoc to paper Relaxation time is well described by the modified VFT relation Eq.7 with delta=1.5 for all temperatures and activities.
    This functional form is assumed before the scaling theory, with the exponent fixed globally.
  • ad hoc to paper The generalized effective temperature has the truncated series form Eq.9 with beta < 1.
    Explicitly described as an ansatz in the text; no derivation from microscopic equations is provided.
  • domain assumption Finite-size scaling with a single length scale xi controls both tau_alpha and chi4 in the active system.
    Borrowed from passive glass analyses; the paper fits xi values to obtain collapses.
invented entities (1)
  • Generalized effective temperature T_eff
    purpose: To map active relaxation and dynamic heterogeneity data onto passive-like scaling curves.
    Not measured independently, for example via fluctuation-dissipation ratio; it is a postulated function of Omega/T with fitted coefficients.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scaling Description of the Relaxation Dynamics and Dynamical Heterogeneity of an Active Glass-forming Liquid." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZPNO5RNH

@misc{pith2026241217666,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scaling Description of the Relaxation Dynamics and Dynamical Heterogeneity of an Active Glass-forming Liquid},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZPNO5RNH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17666}
}
read the original abstract

Active glasses refer to a class of driven non-equilibrium systems that share remarkably similar dynamical behavior as conventional glass-formers in equilibrium. Glass-like dynamical characteristics have been observed in various biological systems from micro to macro length scales. As activity induces additional fluctuations in the system, studying how they couple with density fluctuations is an interesting question to address. Via extensive molecular dynamics simulations, We show that activity enhances density fluctuations more strongly than its passive counterpart. Increasing activity beyond a limit results in the sub-Arrhenieus-type relaxation behavior in active glasses. We also propose a unified scaling theory that can rationalize the relaxation spectrum over a broad parameter range using the concept of an effective temperature. In particular, we show that our scaling theory can capture the dynamical crossover from super to sub-Arrhenius relaxation behavior by changing activity from small to large values. Furthermore, We present non-trivial system size dependencies of the relaxation time at large activity limits that have not been found in any passive systems or even in active systems at small activities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17666 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (d). We first divide the whole simulation box into smaller sub-boxes and then study dynamic fluctuations in these sub-boxes with linear size LB. In this study, we show the results when LB = L/3. This choice ensures that we have a large enough sub-box and a large enough…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. H. Kim, A. F. Pegoraro, A. Das, S. A. Koehler, S. A. Ujwary, B. Lan, J. A. Mitchel, L. Atia, S. He, K. Wang, D. Bi, M. H. Zaman, J.-A. Park, J. P. Butler, K. H. Lee, J. R. Starr, and J. J. Fredberg, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 521, 706 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Poujade, E

    M. Poujade, E. Grasland-Mongrain, A. Hertzog, J. Jouanneau, P. Chavrier, B. Ladoux, A. Buguin, and P. Silberzan, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 15988 (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Vishwakarma, B

    M. Vishwakarma, B. Thurakkal, J. P. Spatz, and T. Das, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Bio- logical Sciences 375, 20190391 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Jiang, Q

    S. Jiang, Q. Chen, M. Tripathy, E. Luijten, K. S. Schweizer, and S. Granick, Advanced Materials 22, 1060 14 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Narayan, S

    V. Narayan, S. Ramaswamy, and N. Menon, Science317, 105 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Vicsek, A

    T. Vicsek, A. Czir´ ok, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen, and O. Shochet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1226 (1995)

    1995

  7. [7]

    Toner and Y

    J. Toner and Y. Tu, Phys. Rev. E 58, 4828 (1998)

    1998

  8. [8]

    Ramaswamy, Ann

    S. Ramaswamy, Ann. Rev. of Condens. Matt. Phys. 1, 323 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Palacci, S

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

    2013

  2. [10]

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

    2013

  3. [11]

    Mandal, P

    R. Mandal, P. J. Bhuyan, M. Rao, and C. Dasgupta, Soft Matter 12, 6268 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    K. Paul, A. Mutneja, S. K. Nandi, and S. Karmakar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, 10.1073/pnas.2217073120 (2023)

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    S. Dey, A. Mutneja, and S. Karmakar, Soft Matter 18, 7309 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Berthier, E

    L. Berthier, E. Flenner, and G. Szamel, The Journal of Chemical Physics 150, 200901 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    L. M. C. Janssen, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 31, 503002 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Sadhukhan, S

    S. Sadhukhan, S. Dey, S. Karmakar, and S. K. Nandi, The European Physical Journal Special Topics 233, 3193–3224 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    E. H. Zhou, X. Trepat, C. Y. Park, G. Lenormand, M. N. Oliver, S. M. Mijailovich, C. Hardin, D. A. Weitz, J. P. Butler, and J. J. Fredberg, Proc. Nat. Acad. of Sci. (USA) 106, 10632 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    T. E. Angelini, E. Hannezo, X. Trepat, M. Marquez, J. J. Fredberg, and D. A. Weitz, Proc. Nat. Acad. of Sci. (USA) 108, 4714 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    B. R. Parry, I. V. Surovtsev, M. T. Cabeen, C. S. O’Hern, E. R. Dufresne, and C. Jacobs-Wagner, Cell 156, 183 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    J.-A. Park, J. H. Kim, D. Bi, J. A. Mitchel, N. T. Qazvini, K. Tantisira, C. Y. Park, M. McGill, S.-H. Kim, B. Gweon, J. Notbohm, R. S. Jr, S. Burger, S. H. Ran- dell, A. T. Kho, D. T. Tambe, C. Hardin, S. A. Shore, E. Israel, D. A. Weitz, D. J. Tschumperlin, E. P. Henske, S. ...

    2015

  13. [21]

    Garcia, E

    S. Garcia, E. Hannezo, J. Elgeti, J.-F. Joanny, P. Sil- berzan, and N. S. Gov, Proc. Nat. Acad. of Sci. (USA) 112, 15314 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Malinverno, S

    C. Malinverno, S. Corallino, F. Giavazzi, M. Bergert, Q. Li, M. Leoni, A. Disanza, E. Frittoli, A. Oldani, E. Martini, T. Lendenmann, G. Deflorian, G. V. Beznoussenko, D. Poulikakos, K. H. Ong, M. Uroz, X. Trepat, D. Parazzoli, P. Maiuri, W. Yu, A. Ferrari, R. Cerbino, and G. ...

    2017

  15. [23]

    Nishizawa, K

    K. Nishizawa, K. Fujiwara, M. Ikenaga, N. Nakajo, M. Yanagisawa, and D. Mizuno, Scientific Reports 7, 10.1038/s41598-017-14883-y (2017)

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    Cerbino, S

    R. Cerbino, S. Villa, A. Palamidessi, E. Frittoli, G. Scita, and F. Giavazzi, Soft Matter 17, 3550 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Fodor, C

    ´E. Fodor, C. Nardini, M. E. Cates, J. Tailleur, P. Visco, and F. van Wijland, Phys. Rev. L 117, 10.1103/phys- revlett.117.038103 (2016)

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    Kob and H

    W. Kob and H. C. Andersen, Physical Review E 51, 4626 (1995)

    1995

  19. [27]

    te Vrugt, T

    M. te Vrugt, T. Frohoff-H¨ ulsmann, E. Heifetz, U. Thiele, and R. Wittkowski, Nat. Commun. 14, 10.1038/s41467- 022-35635-1 (2023)

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    G. J. Martyna, M. L. Klein, and M. Tuckerman, The Journal of Chemical Physics 97, 2635–2643 (1992)

    1992

  21. [29]

    G. J. Martyna, M. E. Tuckerman, D. J. Tobias, and M. L. Klein, Molecular Physics 87, 1117–1157 (1996)

    1996

  22. [30]

    Dasgupta, A

    C. Dasgupta, A. V. Indrani, S. Ramaswamy, and M. K. Phani, Europhysics Letters (EPL) 15, 307 (1991)

    1991

  23. [31]

    Karmakar, C

    S. Karmakar, C. Dasgupta, and S. Sastry, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 3675–3679 (2009)

    2009

  24. [32]

    C. A. Angell, Science 267, 1924 (1995)

    1995

  25. [33]

    Berthier and T

    L. Berthier and T. A. Witten, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 86, 10001 (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    Berthier and T

    L. Berthier and T. A. Witten, Physical Review E 80, 10.1103/physreve.80.021502 (2009)

    2009 doi

  27. [35]

    Adhikari, S

    M. Adhikari, S. Karmakar, and S. Sastry, Physi- cal Review Letters 131, 10.1103/physrevlett.131.168202 (2023)

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    S. K. Nandi and N. S. Gov, Soft Matter 13, 7609 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    P. H. Poole, C. Donati, and S. C. Glotzer, Physica A: Sta- tistical Mechanics and its Applications 261, 51 (1998)

    1998

  30. [38]

    Tah and S

    I. Tah and S. Karmakar, Physical Review Research 2, 10.1103/physrevresearch.2.022067 (2020)

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    S. K. Nandi, R. Mandal, P. J. Bhuyan, C. Dasgupta, M. Rao, and N. S. Gov, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 7688–7693 (2018)

    2018

  32. [103]

    strong” liquid, and the one that shows a deviation below the straight line is called the “fragile

    Unlike the conventional ABP (Active Brownian par- ticle) model, this RTP model preserves the contribution of the system’s inertial effect, which holds additional in- formation about the system’s intrinsic properties. Re- cent work also suggests that the inertial term is essent...

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.