Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

Double Splay Nematic Order in Confined Polar Fluids

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A modulated phase of confined RM734 is identified as the predicted double splay nematic phase.

desk verdict A well-argued optical identification of the double-splay nematic phase in confined RM734; the case is strong but stops short of direct structural proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12336 v2 pith:GH66HKLV submitted 2024-11-19 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Zhongjie Ma , Miao Jiang , Aile Sun , Shengzhu Yi , Jidan Yang , Mingjun Huang , Satoshi Aya , Qi-Huo Wei This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords ferroelectricnematicdoublesplayRM734modulatedphaseflexoelectricityconfinementsecond-harmonicgenerationtopologicaldefects
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 reports that a modulated phase appearing in the ferroelectric nematic liquid crystal RM734, confined between glass plates coated with a cationic polymer, is the double splay nematic phase that theory had predicted. The phase grows continuously out of the nematic on cooling and then becomes ferroelectric nematic through a first-order transition. The identification is based on optical signatures: the stripe period saturates at twice the cell thickness, the director angle follows a sine curve, the retardance oscillates in space, and bright-field stripe lines alternate in intensity. These features together match the director field of a double splay nematic, in which splay deformations alternate along two orthogonal directions tilted at 45 degrees to the cell plane. If correct, this resolves the structure of the previously ambiguous intermediate phase and provides the first experimental realization of double-splay order in a polar fluid.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the double splay nematic director field: a two-dimensional square lattice of domains in which the polar order and the splay vector point in opposite directions in neighboring domains and vanish at the interfaces between them. Confinement selects a 45-degree rotated, cell-spanning version of this field, expressed as $\mathbf{n}(X,Z)=[\theta_0\sin(KX),1,-\theta_0\sin(KZ)]/n_0$, which keeps director and polarization parallel to both surfaces and gives $p_m=2d$. The argument is carried by combining this analytic field with measurement: polarized microscopy maps director and retardance, second-harmonic imaging maps polar order, and finite-difference time-domain simulations of the assumed field reproduce the observed bright-field intensity and retardance profiles. Electrostatic screening by mobile ions from the cationic polymer coating is the stabilization mechanism that makes the phase observable.

What would settle it

A direct reconstruction of the three-dimensional director or polarization field in the modulated phase—via grazing-incidence X-ray scattering, electron tomography, or depth-resolved nonlinear optical imaging—would settle the claim. The assignment fails if the reconstructed field does not show splay alternating along two orthogonal 45-degree directions, or if the saturated modulation wavelength deviates from $p_m=2d$. It also fails if another director configuration is found to reproduce all of the same optical signatures, since the present match would then be underdetermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the modulated (M) phase of RM734 between cationic-polymer-coated plates is a confined double splay nematic rather than a single splay or some other modulated texture. In this phase the director is $\mathbf{n}(X,Z)=[\theta_0\sin(KX),1,-\theta_0\sin(KZ)]/n_0$ with $K=\pi/d$, so the splay alternates along two orthogonal axes at 45 degrees to the substrates and the saturated modulation wavelength is $p_m=2d$, matching the measured thickness dependence. The same field explains the sinusoidal director angle, the periodic retardance, the alternating bright-field intensity produced by triangular domains acting as lenses, the spatially periodic second-harmonic signal, and the -1, radial +1, and toroidal +1 topological defects observed in the phase. The paper also argues that cationic polymer coatings are essential because their fixed positive charges neutralize negative surface bound charge while mobile negative ions screen positive bulk bound charge, stabilizing the double-splay state.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the measured optical textures uniquely point to the double-splay director field, because the simulation that matches the textures is itself built from that assumed field rather than from an independent measurement of the director.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The intermediate NX phase of RM734, at least under cationic-polymer confinement, has a concrete director structure rather than an unknown one: double splay nematic.
  • Because the saturated stripe period equals twice the cell thickness, cell thickness is a direct dial for the modulation wavelength.
  • The observed -1, radial +1, and toroidal +1 defects give a three-dimensional picture of how double-splay order accommodates topological charge in confinement.
  • Cationic polymer coatings and their mobile counterions supply a general surface-charge prescription for stabilizing double-splay order in polar fluids.
  • Control of stripe orientation and periodicity, combined with the phase's strong nonlinear optical response, points toward patterned nonlinear and quantum optical applications.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An independent structural probe, such as grazing-incidence X-ray scattering or electron tomography, would test whether the optical assignment is unique, since the FDTD match is computed from the assumed double-splay field.
  • The $p_m=2d$ relation is a cheap diagnostic: any other polar fluid showing a confined modulated phase with this thickness scaling would be a candidate double-splay nematic.
  • Varying the ionic strength or the charge density of the coating should shift the stability window of the double-splay phase if the proposed electrostatic mechanism is the controlling one; this is a testable consequence not directly measured in the paper.
  • The qualitatively different textures seen with the small ionic surfactant CTAB hint that dopant size, not just charge, selects double-splay order, which could be probed by systematically varying polymer molecular weight.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental study of RM734 confined in planar cells coated with cationic polymers, where a modulated (M) phase appears between the nematic and ferroelectric-nematic phases. Using polarized and bright-field optical microscopy, PolScope retardance/orientation imaging, and second-harmonic generation, the authors observe a sinusoidal in-plane director modulation, a saturated modulation wavelength pm = 2d, periodic retardance variations, and alternating bright-field stripe intensities. They argue that these features match the double splay nematic phase predicted by Rosseto and Selinger, with a director field n = [θ0 sin(KX), 1, -θ0 sin(KZ)]/n0 under confinement. Finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) simulations based on this director field reproduce the alternating intensity pattern and the retardance profile. The authors also report that only cationic polymer coatings stabilize this phase, and they describe topological defects attributed to the confined double-splay structure.

Significance. If the identification holds, this is the first experimental realization of double-splay nematic order, resolving a long-standing ambiguity about the structure of intermediate antiferroelectric phases in ferroelectric nematics and providing a concrete validation of the Rosseto-Selinger theory. The paper also demonstrates a practical surface-charge protocol for stabilizing the phase and shows several independent optical signatures, including the thickness-dependent periodicity and the sinusoidal director angle, which together make a strong consistency case. The FDTD forward modeling is a useful service to the community, and the observation of integer ratios pm/p = 1,2,3,4 in the sub-stripe structure is a clever additional check. The work is therefore likely to be of high interest to the soft-matter and liquid-crystal communities.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 'Structures of double splay nematic phase', around Eq. (2)] The derivation of Eq. (2) from Eq. (1) is not self-consistent. Applying the stated rotation R = Rz(π/4)Rx(π/2) to the director in Eq. (1) and setting K = k/√2 gives Cartesian components proportional to sin(2KX) and sin(2KZ), not sin(KX) and sin(KZ). Consequently, the subsequent identification K = π/d (which yields pm = 2d) does not follow from the preceding line. The factor of two in the wavevector must be resolved, either by correcting the rotation calculation or by treating Eq. (2) as an independent ansatz for the confined double-splay state and deriving the boundary-condition constraint on its wavevector separately. As written, this is a load-bearing inconsistency in a central piece of evidence.
  2. [Optical identification and FDTD, Figs. 3(f,g) and related text] The optical evidence is consistent with the double-splay ansatz, but the paper does not test alternative three-dimensional director configurations that satisfy the same boundary conditions (director parallel to the substrates at Z = 0 and Z = d) and the same 2d periodicity. The FDTD calculation in Fig. 3 uses Eq. (2) as input, so the agreement in Figs. 3(f,g) is a forward-model consistency check rather than a model-discrimination test. To support the claim that the observations 'demonstrate' double-splay order, the authors should compare the predictions of at least one or two competing ansätze (for example, a director field with an out-of-plane tilt varying as θ(X,Z) = θ0 sin(πX/d) sin(πZ/d)) against the measured retardance, bright-field intensity, and orientation angle, or explicitly restrict the claim to consistency with the RS theory.
  3. [Theoretical estimate of θ0 and Eq. (1)] The parameter θ0 is used with two different meanings. In the text and in the RS-theory estimate, θ0 is the amplitude of the sinusoidal director angle, with θ(x) = θ0 sin(kx), and the experimental fit gives θ0 ≈ 80°. In Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), θ0 is the amplitude of dimensionless Cartesian director components, so for a director angle of 80° the Cartesian amplitude would be sin(80°) ≈ 0.98, not 1.4. The comparison 'θ0~60° vs ~80°' therefore mixes definitions. The authors should define θ0 consistently and, if the comparison is meant to be quantitative, derive the in-plane orientation angle predicted by Eq. (2) — which is arctan[θ0 sin(KX)] when θ0 is the Cartesian amplitude — and compare that prediction to the measured angle.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Introduction, first paragraph] There is a typo in 's spontaneous electrical polarization'; it should be 'a spontaneous electrical polarization'.
  2. [Throughout] Several spaced hyphens appear in 'double -splay' and similar phrases; these should be removed for consistency.
  3. [Paragraph on RS theory wavelength behavior] The sentence 'The RS theory shows that the modulation wavelength decreases rapidly and reaches a minimum right below the N-Ns transition temperature and the n go up again when the temperature is lowered' contains a typo ('the n' should be 'then') and is grammatically broken; it also leaves unclear which region of the theoretical prediction is being compared to Fig. 1(f).
  4. [Fig. 1(g) caption] To aid the reader, the caption should state the fit equation (pm = 2d) and indicate whether error bars are shown for the measured pm values.
  5. [Fig. 2(d) and related text] The inset in Fig. 1(d) is described only as 'measured optical intensity at an arbitrary position versus the orientation angle with the polarizer'; a more specific description (e.g., the angular range and the extinction condition) would improve reproducibility.
  6. [Coordinate definitions] The text would benefit from an explicit statement that X is perpendicular to the stripes, Y is parallel to the stripes, and Z is across the cell thickness, ideally before Eq. (2) is introduced.
  7. [Eq. (1) notation] The symbol n0 is used both for the normalization factor in Eq. (1) and for the ordinary refractive index later in the paper; using a different symbol (e.g., N0) for the normalization would prevent confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the double-splay identification is tested against the external Rosseto-Selinger theory, and the fitted parameters are used in standard consistency checks rather than renamed predictions.

full rationale

The central claim identifies the observed M phase with the double-splay nematic predicted by Rosseto and Selinger (Ref. [31]), an external theory not authored by the present group. The relation p_m = 2d is derived by applying the surface-alignment boundary condition to that model and then compared with the measured thickness dependence, so it is a genuine model prediction. The sinusoidal director amplitude theta0 is fitted from PolScope orientation data and then compared with an order-of-magnitude estimate using literature elastic constants; this is a standard consistency check, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The FDTD intensity and retardance calculations use Eq. (2) as forward input, so the agreement with microscopy demonstrates optical consistency of the assumed director field but does not uniquely exclude other 3D director configurations; this is an evidential limitation, not a circular reduction, because the calculated signatures are derived from Maxwell equations and no parameter is adjusted to force the match. The only self-citation of note is the flexoelectric coefficient lambda = 10^-4 V taken from Ref. [14] for the theta0 estimate; it is not load-bearing for the structural identification. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the external theory, and the paper does not reduce its conclusions to its own inputs by construction.

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

The paper does not propose new physical entities or new fundamental equations. Its central claim rests on an external theory (RS) and on standard assumptions about surface alignment and optical measurements. The main fitted quantity is the splay angle amplitude theta0, and the measured wavenumber is used to validate the model.

free parameters (2)
  • splay angle amplitude theta0 = approximately 80 degrees (from fits)
    Obtained by fitting the measured director orientation angle to theta(x) = theta0 sin(kx) in Fig. 2(e). Used to compare with the RS theory estimate (about 60 degrees) and as input to the retardance calculation.
  • modulation wavenumber K = K = pi/d from saturated periodicity pm = 2d
    The wavenumber is determined from the observed stripe spacing, which is then interpreted as the boundary-condition result of the RS model. It is not an independent prediction; the observed pm=2d relation is one of the key pieces of evidence.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Rosseto-Selinger theory provides the correct director field and free-energy landscape for the double-splay nematic phase.
    The paper uses the RS director field (Eq. 1 and its rotated version Eq. 2) as the model to compare with experiment; this theory is cited from Ref. [31] and not re-derived.
  • domain assumption The director and polarization at the confining surfaces must lie parallel to the cell plane to avoid surface charge.
    Used to select the confined periodicity, leading to pm = 2d and the rotated director field Eq. (2).
  • domain assumption Optical techniques (PolScope and SHG) faithfully map the director field and polar order.
    The identification of the phase relies on interpreting the measured retardance and SHG patterns as arising from the assumed director configuration; standard liquid-crystal optics are assumed.
  • domain assumption The flexoelectric free energy F_Flexo and the Coulomb energy F_Elec with Debye screening length describe the relevant physics.
    The stabilization mechanism for the M phase is discussed in terms of these energies, following Refs. [15,26,27,31].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Double Splay Nematic Order in Confined Polar Fluids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GH66HKLV

@misc{pith2026241112336,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Double Splay Nematic Order in Confined Polar Fluids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GH66HKLV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12336}
}
read the original abstract

In this study, we demonstrate that when a ferroelectric nematic is confined between two glass plates coated with ionic polymers, a modulated phase emerges in a narrow temperature range between the nematic and ferroelectric nematic phases. This modulated phase emerges from the nematic phase in a continuous manner and then transforms into the ferroelectric nematic phase via a first-order transition upon cooling. Using optical microscopy, we provide compelling evidence that this modulated phase corresponds to the theoretically predicted double splay nematic phase. In this phase, splay deformations alternate in two orthogonal directions oriented at 45{\deg} to the substrate surfaces, creating a modulation wavelength that is twice the thickness of the cell. Our experiments with different ionic coatings reveal that only polymeric cationic coatings effectively promote the formation of this phase, highlighting the critical role of electrical screening. These findings not only confirm the existence of the double splay nematic phase but also provide insights into the distinctive topological defects of this phase in confined geometries.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Spontaneous helix formation in polar smectic phase

    cond-mat.soft 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A tilted ferroelectric smectic liquid crystal spontaneously forms a heliconical structure with a nearly temperature-independent pitch of about 600 nm.

  2. Director-layer dynamics in the antiferroelectric smectic-ZA phase of a ferroelectric nematic liquid crystal

    cond-mat.soft 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In the smectic-ZA phase of DIO, the director lies parallel to the smectic layers, and a chevron-corrected smectic-C model fits the light scattering relaxation rates and gives a layer compression constant about 100 tim...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    P. G. de Gennes, The Physics of Liquid Crystals (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993), Vol. 2. 6

    work page 1993

  2. [2]

    Kleman and O

    M. Kleman and O. D. Lavrentovich, Soft matter physics: an introduction (Springer New York, NY, 2003)

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    Born, Ueber anisotrope flü ssigkeiten: versuch einer theorie der flü ssigen kristalle und des elektrischen Kerr - Effekts in flü ssigkeiten 1916)

    M. Born, Ueber anisotrope flü ssigkeiten: versuch einer theorie der flü ssigen kristalle und des elektrischen Kerr - Effekts in flü ssigkeiten 1916)

    work page 1916

  4. [4]

    R. J. Mandle, S. J. Cowling, and J. W. Goodby, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 19, 11429 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Nishikawa, K

    H. Nishikawa, K. Shiroshita, H. Higuchi, Y. Okumura, Y. Haseba, S. I. Yamamoto, K. Sago, and H. Kikuchi, Adv. Mater. 29, 1702354 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Chen et al., Proc

    X. Chen et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 14021 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    O. D. Lavrentovich, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 14629 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Sebastián, M

    N. Sebastián, M. Čopič, and A. Mertelj, Phys. Rev. E 106, 021001 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Erkoreka, N

    A. Erkoreka, N. Sebastiá n, A. Mertelj, and J. Martinez- Perdiguero, J. Mol. Liq. 407, 125188 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Kumari, B

    P. Kumari, B. Basnet, M. O. Lavrentovich, and O. D. Lavrentovich, Science 383, 1364 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Basnet, M

    B. Basnet, M. Rajabi, H. Wang, P. Kumari, K. Thapa, S. Paul, M. O. Lavrentovich, and O. D. Lavrentovich, Nat. Commum. 13, 3932 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    J. Yang, Y. Zou, W. Tang, J. Li, M. Huang, and S. Aya, Nat. Commum. 13, 7806 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Kumari, B

    P. Kumari, B. Basnet, H. Wang, and O. D. Lavrentovich, Nat. Commum. 14, 748 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    J. Yang, Y. Zou, J. Li, M. Huang, and S. Aya, Nat. Phys. 20, 991 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Y. Zou, J. Yang, X. Zhang, M. Huang, and S. Aya, Soft Matter 20, 3392 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Karcz, J

    J. Karcz, J. Herman, N. Rychłowicz, P. Kula, E. Górecka, J. Szydlowska, P. W. Majewski, and D. Pociecha, Science 384, 1096 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    C. J. Gibb et al., Nat. Commum. 15, 5845 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Nishikawa, D

    H. Nishikawa, D. Okada, D. Kwaria, A. Nihonyanagi, M. Kuwayama, M. Hoshino, and F. Araoka, Adv. Sci. 11, 2405718 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Ma et al., PNAS Nexus 3, pgae552 (2024)

    Z. Ma et al., PNAS Nexus 3, pgae552 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Yi et al

    S. Yi et al. , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 121, e2413879121 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    R. B. Meyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 22, 918 (1969)

    1969

  14. [22]

    J. V. Selinger, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 13, 49 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Dhakal and J

    S. Dhakal and J. V. Selinger, Phys. Rev. E 81, 031704 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    R. J. Mandle, N. Sebastiá n, J. Martinez-Perdiguero, and A. Mertelj, Nat. Commum. 12, 4962 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Pleiner and H

    H. Pleiner and H. R. Brand, Europhys. Lett. 9, 243 (1989)

    1989

  18. [26]

    Paik and J

    L. Paik and J. V. Selinger, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10347 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Zou and S

    Y. Zou and S. Aya, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 26, 15637 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    J. V. Selinger, Liq. Cryst. Rev. 6, 129 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Čopič and A

    M. Čopič and A. Mertelj, Phys. Rev. E 101, 022704 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Pleiner and H

    H. Pleiner and H. Brand, Europhys. Lett. 9, 243 (1989)

    1989

  23. [31]

    M. P. Rosseto and J. V. Selinger, Phys. Rev. E 101, 052707 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Tadapatri, K

    P. Tadapatri, K. S. Krishnamurthy, and W. Weissflog, Soft Matter 8, 1202 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    I. V. Simdyankin, A. R. Geivandov, B. A. Umanskii, and S. P. Palto, Liq. Cryst. 50, 663 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Zhong, Martinez, E

    B. Zhong, Martinez, E. Korblova, M. A. Glaser, J. E. Maclennan, D. M. Walba, and N. A. Clark, (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    X. Chen, M. Shuai, B. Zhong, V. Martinez, E. Korblova, M. A. Glaser, J. E. Maclennan, D. M. Walba, and N. A. Clark, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.04935 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    X. Chen, Z. Zhu, M. J. Magrini, E. Korblova, C. S. Park, M. A. Glaser, J. E. Maclennan, D. M. Walba, and N. A. Clark, Liq. Cryst. 49, 1531 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Chen et al

    X. Chen et al. , Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 120, e2217150120 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Sebastiá n, L

    N. Sebastiá n, L. Cmok, R. J. Mandle, M. R. de la Fuente, I. D. Olenik, M. Čopič, and A. Mertelj, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 037801 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Alexander and J

    G. Alexander and J. Yeomans, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 067801 (2007)

    2007

  32. [40]

    Mertelj, L

    A. Mertelj, L. Cmok, N. Sebastiá n, R. J. Mandle, R. R. Parker, A. C. Whitwood, J. W. Goodby, and M. Čopič, Phys. Rev. X 8, 041025 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Thoen, G

    J. Thoen, G. Cordoyiannis, E. Korblova, D. M. Walba, N. A. Clark, W. Jiang, G. H. Mehl, and C. Glorieux, Phys. Rev. E 110, 014703 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Franken and J

    P. Franken and J. F. Ward, Rev. Mod. Phys. 35, 23 (1963)

    1963

  35. [43]

    Shribak and R

    M. Shribak and R. Oldenbourg, Appl. Optics 42, 3009 (2003)

    2003

  36. [44]

    Oh and M

    C. Oh and M. J. Escuti, Opt. Express 14, 11870 (2006)

    2006

  37. [45]

    S. Liu, H. Yu, M. Jiang, L. -L. Ma, Y.-Q. Lu, and Q.-H. Wei, Phys. Rev. Mater. 8, 085201 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Sebastiá n et al., Nat

    N. Sebastiá n et al., Nat. Commum. 14, 3029 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Medle Rupnik, E

    P. Medle Rupnik, E. Hanžel, M. Lovšin, N. Osterman, C. J. Gibb, R. J. Mandle, N. Sebastiá n, and A. Mertelj, Adv. Sci. 12, 2414818 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.