REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 112 references
Self-diffusion anomalies of an odd tracer in soft-core media
T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read For an odd tracer in a Gaussian-core fluid, crowding slows diffusion for $\kappa<1$ and speeds it up for $\kappa>1$, with $\kappa=1$ marking a density-independent cancellation.
desk verdict Clean field-theoretic derivation of a novel odd-tracer result (κc=1, inverted GCM anomaly), but the main approximation is admittedly uncontrolled and the simulation check lacks error bars. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central object is the weak-coupling formula for the long-time self-diffusion coefficient, Eq. (30). It is derived by coarse-graining the host particles into a fluctuating density field via the Dean-Kawasaki equation, expanding the coupled tracer-field dynamics in powers of the interaction strength $\lambda_{\mathrm{tr}}$, and taking the overdamped limit $m \to 0$. The sign-controlling factor $(1-\kappa^2)/(1+\kappa^2)$, with $\kappa$ the oddness parameter of the tracer's antisymmetric friction tensor, is what carries the argument: it sets a density-independent threshold $\kappa_c = 1$ and produces the inverted Gaussian-core-model anomaly.
What would settle it
Extract the two-time tracer correlation $Q_q(t,s)$ from Brownian-dynamics trajectories of the odd tracer at $\kappa=1$ and high density (e.g., $c=1.0$) and compare it with the exponential $\exp(-q^2 D_0 |t-s|)$ used in Eq. (C.8); systematic deviations that grow with density or with the coupling $\lambda_{\mathrm{tr}}$ would show that the factorization behind Eq. (30) fails, and the predicted density-independent $D_s = D_0$ line would not hold.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's central result is Eq. (30), $$\frac{D_s}{D_0} = 1 - \frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{tr}}^2 \rho_0}{2 \$gamma^{2}$} \, \frac{1-\$kappa^{2}$}{1+\$kappa^{2}$} \int \frac{dq}{(2\pi)^2} \, \frac{$q^{4}$ |U_q|^2}{\alpha_q (\alpha_q + D_0 $q^{2}$)} + O(\lambda_{\mathrm{tr}}^4),$$ derived in the overdamped limit from a weak-coupling expansion of the Dean-Kawasaki dynamics of a density field of host particles coupled to a single odd tracer. Because the prefactor $(1-\kappa^2)$ is the only sign-changing factor, the theory predicts a sharp critical oddness $\kappa_c=1$ separating suppression $(\kappa<1)$ from enhancement $(\kappa>1)$ of self-diffusion, with $D_s = D_0$ at $\kappa=1$ for every density within the weak-coupling regime. For the Gaussian core model this turns the familiar anomaly—$D_s$ non-monotonic in density yet always below $D_0$, rising toward $D_0$ at high density—into its mirror image for $\kappa>1$: $D_s > D_0$ with $D_s \downarrow D_0$ as density grows. The paper checks the approximation against Brownian dynamics simulations, finding agreement across densities for weak coupling, with visible degradation in the dilute regime and near $\kappa_c$ for stronger coupling $\lambda=4$.
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing step is the overdamped substitution $Q_q(t,s) \to \exp(-q^2 D_0 |t-s|)$ in Eq. (C.8), which drops every mass-proportional term before the limit $m \to 0$ and is checked only afterwards against simulations—the paper itself flags it as 'seemingly uncontrolled'.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- For $\kappa<1$ the tracer behaves conventionally: crowding reduces self-diffusion, $D_s < D_0$, and for the Gaussian core model the standard non-monotonic anomaly in density is recovered.
- For $\kappa>1$ the anomaly is inverted: $D_s > D_0$ at all densities, the largest enhancement sits at an intermediate density (about $c=0.15$ for $\lambda=4$), and $D_s$ approaches $D_0$ from above at high density.
- At $\kappa=\kappa_c=1$ within the weak-coupling regime the host medium is effectively invisible: $D_s \approx D_0$ independent of the medium density, because the hindering and the odd-rolling effects cancel.
- The critical oddness is interaction-softness specific: $\kappa_c=1$ for the Gaussian core model, compared with $\kappa_c=1/\sqrt{3}$ for hard disks, so a stronger chirality is needed to reverse the crowding effect.
- Because Eq. (30) does not use the specific form of $U$, the same sign rule applies to any bounded soft-core pair potential with $\nabla U(0)=0$, not just the Gaussian core model.
Reading between the lines
- A natural extension, not pursued in the paper, is to compute the fourth-order correction in the coupling; the simulation data at $\lambda=4$ already hint that the clean threshold $\kappa_c=1$ drifts, so the density-independent line may be an artifact of truncation at order $\lambda^2$.
- The same Dean-Kawasaki set-up could yield the full effective diffusion tensor of the tracer, including its odd off-diagonal component; one would predict a density-dependent odd contribution with the same sign structure, measurable as a transverse current in a density gradient.
- In particle-tracking experiments on chiral or magnetically driven colloids in polymer-coil hosts, the inverted anomaly would appear as a non-monotonic $D_s$ versus density with $D_s > D_0$ for $\kappa>1$, a signature observable even when the enhancement is only a few percent.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper studies the long-time self-diffusion coefficient D_s of an odd-diffusive tracer embedded in a two-dimensional Gaussian-core-model (GCM) fluid of otherwise normal host particles. The authors derive a Dean-Kawasaki field-theoretic description, linearize the density fluctuations around a homogeneous state, and perform a weak-coupling expansion in the tracer-host interaction strength λ. Their central analytical result, Eq. (30), gives D_s/D_0 = 1 - C (1-κ^2)/(1+κ^2) + O(λ^4), with a positive coefficient C, so that interactions suppress diffusion for κ<1 and enhance it for κ>1, with κ_c=1 marking a density-independent 'invisible medium' point. The authors specialize the result to the GCM, evaluate the momentum integral numerically, and compare with Brownian dynamics simulations in Figs. 1 and 2. They report qualitative and quantitative agreement, including the inversion of the GCM self-diffusion anomaly for κ>1, and they identify the regime of validity as the weak-coupling, high-density limit. The appendices provide the velocity marginalization, the free-tracer and free-field correlators, the detailed weak-coupling calculation, and simulation details.
Significance. If the central result holds, the paper makes a substantive contribution to the odd-diffusion literature: it extends the previously known dilute-limit, hard-core enhancement of self-diffusion to dense soft-core systems and predicts a critical oddness κ_c=1 that is independent of host density within the weak-coupling approximation. The derivation is given in unusual detail, no constants are fitted to the simulation data, and the simulations are used as an independent check, which strengthens the paper's credibility. The authors are also candid about the limitations of the calculation, explicitly flagging Eq. (C.8) as 'seemingly uncontrolled' and acknowledging that the weak-coupling series can produce unphysical negative D_s. These strengths make the paper worth pursuing. However, the main prediction rests on an uncontrolled approximation step, and the simulation evidence offered to validate it has visible gaps in precisely the regimes where that approximation is least reliable.
major comments (3)
- [Appendix C, Eq. (C.8)] The central result Eq. (30) depends crucially on the replacement Q_q(t,s) → exp(-q^2 D_0 |t-s| + i q·(μ_0(t)-μ_0(s))) in Eq. (C.8), which drops all mass-proportional terms in the exponent before the m→0 limit is taken. The authors call this approximation 'seemingly uncontrolled' and justify it only a posteriori by comparing with simulations. This is a load-bearing step: the sign and magnitude of the O(λ^2) coefficient, and hence the predicted κ_c=1 and the inversion of the GCM anomaly, are determined by this approximation. A quantitative error in Eq. (C.8) would change the central claim, not just the numerical prefactor. I ask the authors to provide a controlled estimate of the error, for example by keeping the leading m-dependent corrections in the exponent and evaluating the resulting integrals at the finite simulation mass m=0.01, or by numerically integrating the full expressions (C.4) and (C.7) without the replacement (C.8) and comparing directly.
- [Figs. 1(b) and 2(b), Appendix D] The a posteriori simulation check is not fully decisive in the regime where Eq. (C.8) is least controlled. In Fig. 2(b) for λ=4, the agreement between theory and simulation visibly degrades at low densities (c ≈ 0.05–0.2) and near κ≈κ_c, which is exactly the regime where the uncontrolled replacement (C.8) and the truncation at O(λ^2) are expected to be least accurate. The symbols in Figs. 1 and 2 are plotted without error bars, and the simulations use only imax=10 independent trajectories of N=200 particles, so statistical significance cannot be assessed. Please report error bars or confidence intervals for the simulation data, and discuss explicitly whether the discrepancies at λ=4 and near κ_c are statistically significant. Without this, the claim of 'strong agreement' is not yet established in the parameter range most relevant to the central prediction.
- [Section 3.1, text after Eq. (30)] The paper correctly notes that Eq. (30) can give negative D_s for some parameters, which indicates a breakdown of the weak-coupling approximation. However, the text does not specify the parameter range in which this happens, nor whether any of the curves shown in Figs. 1 and 2 fall into or near that range. Since Eqs. (33) and (30) are used to produce predictions across all displayed densities and couplings, the authors should identify the regions where D_s/D_0 remains positive and state whether the displayed parameters satisfy that condition. This will help the reader judge which parts of the phase diagram are actually covered by the approximation.
minor comments (5)
- [Abstract] The abstract contains a duplicated word: 'Here we we extend the investigation' should read 'Here we extend the investigation'.
- [Fig. 1 caption] The caption contains 'compared to the the value D_0'; 'the the' should be 'the'.
- [Section 4, Conclusions] The conclusions contain an incomplete sentence: 'Coupling odd tracers to this kind of mixtures might show surprising behaviour in the dynamics of the transition. correlations on arbitrarily large length scales which could introduce fluctuation-induced forces...' The second sentence appears to be a dangling fragment and should be rewritten or merged with the preceding discussion.
- [Appendix C, Eqs. (C.10)–(C.12)] The text refers to f_q and g_q as 'complex numbers', but they are functions of the wavevector q; the notation would be clearer if they were called complex-valued functions or momentum-dependent coefficients.
- [Appendix C, numerical integration paragraph] The momentum cutoff q_b = 300 is introduced with a statement that insensitivity to q_b was checked, but no convergence data are shown. A short convergence test (e.g., D_s versus q_b for a representative set of parameters) would make the numerical evaluation of Eq. (33) fully reproducible.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the central result is an analytic weak-coupling expansion with no fitted parameters; simulations and self-citations are independent and non-load-bearing.
full rationale
The self-diffusion formula Eq. (30) is derived from the linearised Dean-Kawasaki field dynamics, Eqs. (20) and (23), by a systematic expansion in the tracer-medium coupling λ_tr. The first non-trivial correction is obtained by evaluating the two correlation functions in Eqs. (C.4) and (C.7) analytically in the m→0 limit, with the compact result following from the sums in Eqs. (C.15) and (C.16). No parameter is fitted to any target quantity: the critical value κ_c=1 emerges algebraically from the prefactor (1−κ^2)/(1+κ^2) in Eq. (30), and its density independence is a property of that same algebraic factor rather than an input. The Brownian dynamics simulations are used only as an independent a posteriori test; no simulation data enter the derivation. The authors explicitly flag the approximation in Eq. (C.8) as 'seemingly uncontrolled' and check it numerically, which is a robustness or correctness concern, not circularity, because the approximation is not tuned to reproduce the claimed result. The self-citations [22,24,25] are used for motivation and physical interpretation, such as the mutual rolling mechanism and prior hard-disk results, but they are not load-bearing steps in the derivation. The weak-coupling technique is attributed to references [84,85,88], which are not authored by the present authors. There is no imported uniqueness theorem and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The paper's central prediction is therefore self-contained with respect to its stated assumptions.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (1)
- Momentum integration cutoff q_b =
300
assumptions (6)
- standard math Dean-Kawasaki equation with Itô-interpreted multiplicative noise correctly describes the host density field.
- domain assumption Density fluctuations φ are small compared with the homogeneous density ρ0, justifying linearization.
- domain assumption The interaction coupling λtr is small enough that truncating the series at O(λ_tr^2) in Eq. (30) is accurate.
- domain assumption The overdamped limit m→0 with Q_q approximated by exp(-q^2 D_0 |t-s|) in Eq. (C.8) is accurate.
- domain assumption Host-host and host-tracer interactions have the same potential and coupling strength λ_ho=λ_tr=λ.
- domain assumption The host field is initially in equilibrium, with correlator given by Eq. (B.9).
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Self-diffusion anomalies of an odd tracer in soft-core media." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KSWNVUG6
@misc{pith2026241115552,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Self-diffusion anomalies of an odd tracer in soft-core media},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KSWNVUG6}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15552}
}
abstract
Odd-diffusive systems, characterised by broken time-reversal and/or parity symmetry, have recently been shown to display counterintuitive features such as interaction-enhanced dynamics in the dilute limit. Here we we extend the investigation to the high-density limit of an odd tracer embedded in a soft-Gaussian core medium (GCM) using a field-theoretic approach based on the Dean-Kawasaki equation. Our theory reveals that interactions can enhance the dynamics of an odd tracer even in dense systems. We demonstrate that oddness results in a complete reversal of the well-known self-diffusion ($D_\mathrm{s}$) anomaly of the GCM. Ordinarily, $D_\mathrm{s}$ exhibits a non-monotonic trend with increasing density, approaching but remaining below the interaction-free diffusion, $D_0$, ($D_\mathrm{s} < D_0$) so that $D_\mathrm{s} \uparrow D_0$ at high densities. In contrast, for an odd tracer, self-diffusion is enhanced ($D_\mathrm{s}> D_0$) and the GCM anomaly is inverted, displaying $D_\mathrm{s} \downarrow D_0$ at high densities. The transition between the standard and reversed GCM anomaly is governed by the tracer's oddness, with a critical oddness value at which the tracer diffuses as a free particle ($D_\mathrm{s} \approx D_0$) across all densities. We validate our theoretical predictions with Brownian dynamics simulations, finding strong agreement between the two.
Figures
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
H¨ ofling F and Franosch T 2013Rep. Prog. Phys. 76 046602
-
[2]
Ramadurai S, Holt A, Krasnikov V, van den Bogaart G, Killian J A and Poolman B 2009 J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131 12650–12656
2009
-
[3]
Scott S, Weiss M, Selhuber-Unkel C, Barooji Y F, Sabri A, Erler J T, Metzler R and Oddershede L B 2023 Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 25 1513–1537
2023
-
[4]
Maxwell J C 1867 Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 49–88
-
[5]
Stefan J 1871 Sitzungsber. Kaiserl. Akad. Wiss. 63 63–124
-
[6]
Boltzmann L 1896 Vorlesungen ¨ uber Gastheorie. 1. Theil: Theorie der Gase mit einatomigen Molek¨ ulen, deren Dimensionen gegen die mittlere Wegl¨ ange verschwinden (Verlag von Johannes Ambrosius Barth (Arthur Meiner)) URL https://www.deutschestextarchiv.de/ boltzmann_gastheorie01_1896
-
[7]
Maxwell J C 1875 Nature 11 374–377
-
[8]
Hanna S, Hess W and Klein R 1982 Physica A 111 181–199
1982
Show all 112 references
-
[9]
Imhof A and Dhont J K G 1995 Phys. Rev. E 52 6344
1995
-
[10]
Felderhof B U and Jones R B 1983 Physica A 121 329–344
1983
-
[11]
L¨ owen H and Szamel G 1993J. Phys. Condens. Matter 5 2295
-
[12]
Kushick J and Berne B J 1973 J. Chem. Phys. 59 3732–3736
1973
-
[13]
Bembenek S D and Szamel G 2000 J. Phys. Chem. B 104 10647–10652 Self-diffusion anomalies of an odd tracer in soft-core media 24
2000
-
[14]
Yamaguchi T, Matubayasi N and Nakahara M 2001 J. Chem. Phys. 115 422–432
2001
-
[15]
Seefeldt K F and Solomon M J 2003 Phys. Rev. E 67 050402
2003
-
[16]
Wensink H H, L¨ owen H, Rex M and Likos Christos N and van Teeffelen S 2008 Comp. Phys. Commun. 179 77–81
2008
-
[17]
Krekelberg W P, Kumar T, Mittal J, Errington J R and Truskett T M 2009 Phys. Rev. E 79 031203
2009
-
[18]
Weeks E R and Weitz D A 2002 Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 095704
2002
-
[19]
Michailidou V, Petekidis G, Swan J and Brady J 2009 Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 068302
2009
-
[20]
Fluid Mech
Peng Y, Chen W, Fischer T M, Weitz D A and Tong P 2009 J. Fluid Mech. 618 243–261
2009
-
[21]
Thorneywork A L, Rozas R E, Dullens R P A and Horbach J 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 268301
2015
-
[22]
Kalz E, Vuijk H D, Abdoli I, Sommer J U, L¨ owen H and Sharma A 2022 Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 090601
2022
-
[23]
Hargus C, Epstein J M and Mandadapu K K 2021 Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 178001
2021
-
[24]
Langer A, Sharma A, Metzler R and Kalz E 2024 Phys. Rev. Res. 6(4) 043036
2024
-
[25]
Kalz E, Vuijk H D, Sommer J U, Metzler R and Sharma A 2024 Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 057102
2024
-
[26]
Kur¸ sunoˇ glu B 1962Ann. Phys. 17 259–268
-
[27]
Fluids 17 1828–1830
Karmeshu 1974 Phys. Fluids 17 1828–1830
1974
-
[28]
Chun H M, Durang X and Noh J D 2018 Phys. Rev. E 97 032117
2018
-
[29]
Park J M and Park H 2021 Phys. Rev. Res. 3 043005
2021
-
[30]
Muzzeddu P L, Vuijk H D, L¨ owen H, Sommer J U and Sharma A 2022 J. Chem. Phys. 157 134902
2022
-
[31]
Chan C W, Wu D, Qiao K, Fong K L, Yang Z, Han Y and Zhang R 2024 Nat. Commun. 15 1406
2024
-
[32]
Kalz E, Sharma A and Metzler R 2024 J. Phys. A 57 265002
2024
-
[33]
Valecha B, Muzzeddu P L, Sommer J U and Sharma A 2024 arXiv:2409.18703
2024 arXiv
-
[34]
Fluids 30 642650
Koch D L and Brady J F 1987 Phys. Fluids 30 642650
1987
-
[35]
85 771–783
Auriault J L, Moyne C and Amaral Souto H P 2010 Transport Porous Med. 85 771–783
2010
-
[36]
Ghimenti F, Berthier L, Szamel G and van Wijland F 2024 Phys. Rev. E 110 034604
2024
-
[37]
Ghimenti F, Berthier L, Szamel G and van Wijland F 2023 Phys. Rev. Lett. 131(25) 257101
2023
-
[38]
Brown B L, T¨ auber U C and Pleimling M 2018 Phys. Rev. B 97 020405(R)
2018
-
[39]
Gruber R, Brems M A, Roth¨ orl J, Sparmann T, Schmitt M, Kononenko I, Kammerbauer F, Syskaki M A, Farago O, Virnau P and Kl¨ aui M 2023Adv. Mater. 35 2208922
-
[40]
Schick D, Weißenhofer M, R´ ozsa L, Roth¨ orl J, Virnau P and Nowak U 2024 Phys. Rev. Res. 6 013097
2024
-
[41]
Wu P, Huang R, Tischer C, Jonas A and Florin E L 2009 Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 108101
2009
-
[42]
Volpe G, Marag` o O M, Rubinsztein-Dunlop H, Pesce G, Stilgoe A Bet al. 2023 J. Phys. Photonics 5 022501
2023
-
[43]
Reichhardt C J O and Reichhardt C 2022 Europhys. Lett. 137 66004
2022
-
[44]
Cao X, Das D, Windbacher N, Ginot F, Kr¨ uger M and Bechinger C 2023Nat. Phys. 19 1904–1909
1904
-
[45]
Shalchi A 2011 Phys. Rev. E 83 046402
2011
-
[46]
Effenberger F, Fichtner H, Scherer K, Barra S, Kleimann J and Strauss R D T 2012 Astrophys. J. 750 108
2012
-
[47]
Likos C N 2001 Phys. Rep. 348 267–439
2001
-
[48]
Vlassopoulos D and Cloitre M 2014 Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 19 561–574
2014
-
[49]
Stillinger F H 1976 J. Chem. Phys. 65 3968–3974
1976
-
[50]
Stillinger F H and Weber T A 1978 J. Chem. Phys. 68 3837–3844
1978
-
[51]
Stillinger F H 1979 J. Chem. Phys. 70 4067–4075
1979
-
[52]
Stillinger F H 1979 Phys. Rev. B 20 299
1979
-
[53]
Stillinger F H and Weber T A 1980 Phys. Rev. B 22 3790
1980
-
[54]
Weber T A and Stillinger F H 1981 J. Chem. Phys. 74 4020–4028
1981
-
[55]
Flory P J and Krigbaum W R 1950 J. Chem. Phys. 18 1086–1094
1950
-
[56]
Louis A A, Finken R and Hansen J P 1999 Europhys. Lett. 46 741 Self-diffusion anomalies of an odd tracer in soft-core media 25
1999
-
[57]
Lang A, Likos C N, Watzlawek M and L¨ owen H 2000 J. Phys. Condens. Matter 12 5087
2000
-
[58]
Likos C N, Lang A, Watzlawek M and L¨ owen H 2001 Phys. Rev. E 63 031206
2001
-
[59]
Bolhuis P G, Louis A A, Hansen J P and Meijer E J 2001 J. Chem. Phys. 114 4296–4311
2001
-
[60]
Louis A A, Bolhuis P G, Hansen J P and Meijer E J 2000 Phys. Rev. Lett. 85(12) 2522–2525
2000
-
[61]
Bolhuis P G and Louis A A 2002 Macromolecules 35 1860–1869
2002
-
[62]
Likos C N, Schmidt M, L¨ owen H, Ballauff M, P¨ otschke D and Lindner P 2001 Macromolecules 34 2914–2920
2001
-
[63]
Stillinger F H and Stillinger D K 1997 Physica A 244 358–369
1997
-
[64]
Mausbach P and May H O 2006 Fluid Ph. Equilib. 249 17–23
2006
-
[65]
Mausbach P and May H O 2009 Z. Phys. Chem. 223 1035–1046
2009
-
[66]
Shall L A and Egorov S A 2010 J. Chem. Phys. 132
2010
-
[67]
Speranza C, Prestipino S and Giaquinta P V 2011 Mol. Phys. 109 3001–3013
2011
-
[68]
thesis University of Bristol
Archer A J 2003 Statistical mechanics of soft core fluid mixtures Ph.D. thesis University of Bristol
2003
-
[69]
Sposini V, Likos C N and Camargo M 2023 Soft Matter 19 9531–9540
2023
-
[70]
Prestipino S, Saija F and Giaquinta P V 2011 Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 235701
2011
-
[71]
Mendoza-Coto A, Mattiello V, Cenci R, Defenu N and Nicolao L 2024 Phys. Rev. B 109 064101
2024
-
[72]
Dean D S 1996 J. Phys. A 29 L613
1996
-
[73]
Kawasaki K 1994 Physica A 208 35–64
1994
-
[74]
Illien P 2024 arXiv:2411.13467
2024 arXiv
-
[75]
Benois A, Jardat M, Dahirel V, D´ emery V, Agudo-Canalejo J, Golestanian R and Illien P 2023 Phys. Rev. E 108 054606
2023
-
[76]
Jardat M, Dahirel V and Illien P 2022 Phys. Rev. E 106 064608
2022
-
[77]
Marbach S, Dean D S and Bocquet L 2018 Nat. Phys. 14 1108–1113
2018
-
[78]
Fluid Mech
Wang Y, Dean D S, Marbach S and Zakine R 2023 J. Fluid Mech. 972 A8
2023
-
[79]
Vuijk H D, Brader J M and Sharma A 2019 J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. 2019 063203
2019
-
[80]
D´ emery V, B´ enichou O and Jacquin H 2014New J. Phys. 16 053032
-
[81]
Poncet A, B´ enichou O, D´ emery V and Oshanin G 2017Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 118002
-
[82]
Venturelli D, Illien P, Grabsch A and B´ enichou O 2024arXiv:2411.09326
-
[83]
T¨ auber U C 2014 Critical Dynamics: A Field Theory Approach to Equilibrium and Non- Equilibrium Scaling Behavior (Cambridge University Press)
2014
-
[84]
Venturelli D, Ferraro F and Gambassi A 2022 Phys. Rev. E 105 054125
2022
-
[85]
Venturelli D and Gambassi A 2022 Phys. Rev. E 106 044112
2022
-
[86]
Venturelli D and Gambassi A 2023 New J. Phys. 25 093025
2023
-
[87]
Venturelli D, Loos S A M, Walter B, Rold´ an´E and Gambassi A 2024 Europhys. Lett. 146 27001
2024
-
[88]
Basu U, D´ emery V and Gambassi A 2022 SciPost Phys. 13 078
2022
-
[89]
D´ emery V and Dean D S 2011 Phys. Rev. E 84 011148
2011
-
[90]
D´ emery V and Fodor´E 2019 J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. 2019 033202
2019
-
[91]
D´ emery V and Gambassi A 2023Phys. Rev. E 108 044604
-
[92]
Pond M J, Krekelberg W P, Shen V K, Errington J R and Truskett T M 2009 J. Chem. Phys. 131
2009
-
[93]
Pond M J, Errington J R and Truskett T M 2011 J. Chem. Phys. 134
2011
-
[94]
Nakamura T and Yoshimori A 2009 J. Phys. A 42 065001
2009
-
[95]
Dur´ an-Olivencia M A, Yatsyshin P, Goddard B D and Kalliadasis S 2017New J. Phys. 19 123022
-
[96]
Archer A J and Evans R 2001 Phys. Rev. E 64 041501
2001
-
[97]
Louis A A, Bolhuis P G and Hansen J P 2000 Phys. Rev. E 62 7961
2000
-
[98]
Hertlein C, Helden L, Gambassi A, Dietrich S and Bechinger C 2008 Nature 451 172–175
2008
-
[99]
Gambassi A, Macio lek A, Hertlein C, Nellen U, Helden L, Bechinger C and Dietrich S 2009 Phys. Rev. E 80 061143
2009
-
[100]
Mart ´ ınez I A, Devailly C, Petrosyan A and Ciliberto S 2017Entropy 19 77
-
[101]
Magazzu A, Callegari A, Staforelli J P, Gambassi A, Dietrich S and Volpe G 2019 Soft Matter 15 2152–2162 Self-diffusion anomalies of an odd tracer in soft-core media 26
2019
-
[102]
Gambassi A and Dietrich S 2024 Soft Matter 20 3212–3242
2024
-
[103]
Kuroda Y and Miyazaki K 2023 J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. 2023 103203
2023
-
[104]
Fruchart M, Scheibner C and Vitelli V 2023 Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 14 471–510
2023
-
[105]
Reichhardt C and Reichhardt C J O 2019 Phys. Rev. E 100 012604
2019
-
[106]
Yang Q, Zhu H, Liu P, Liu R, Shi Q, Chen K, Zheng N, Ye F and Yang M 2021 Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 198001
2021
-
[107]
Poggioli A R and Limmer D T 2023 Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 158201
2023
-
[108]
Hosaka Y, Golestanian R and Daddi-Moussa-Ider A 2023 New J. Phys. 25 083046
2023
-
[109]
Duclut C, Bo S, Lier R, Armas J, Sur´ owka P and J¨ ulicher F 2024Phys. Rev. E 109 044126
-
[110]
Lier R, Duclut C, Bo S, Armas J, J¨ ulicher F and Sur´ owka P 2023Phys. Rev. E 108 L023101
-
[111]
He Y, Burov S, Metzler R and Barkai E 2008 Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 058101
2008
-
[112]
Burov S, Jeon J H, Metzler R and Barkai E 2011 Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 13 1800–1812
2011
Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.