Machine Learning-Informed Scattering Correlation Analysis of Sheared Colloids

Changwoo Do; Lijie Ding; Yihao Chen

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Machine Learning-Informed Scattering Correlation Analysis of Sheared Colloids

T0 review · 2 major / 7 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 This paper claims that a Gaussian process regressor trained on simulated angular scattering correlations retrieves affine shear strain, non-affine rearrangement, and polydispersity from dilute colloidal dispersions with relative errors of…

desk verdict A plausible ML inversion demo for sheared colloids whose headline accuracy numbers rest on a preventable SVD leakage; worth a serious referee, but needs a properly nested split and experimental grounding before the numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07926 v1 pith:YC7QOGTU submitted 2024-12-10 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.stat-mech

Lijie Ding , Yihao Chen , Changwoo Do This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.stat-mech

keywords scatteringcorrelationfunctionmachinelearninginversionGaussianprocessregressionsingularvaluedecompositioncolloidaldispersionsshearstrainnon-affinerearrangementspolydispersity

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 asks whether the angular correlation function of coherently scattered intensity from a dilute colloidal dispersion encodes enough information to read back three physical parameters: the affine shear strain, the amplitude of non-affine rearrangement, and the particle size polydispersity. Using Monte Carlo simulations of 2D dispersions, it generates thousands of scattering patterns and corresponding correlation functions, then shows via singular value decomposition that the angular correlation data lie on a three-dimensional manifold. A Gaussian process regressor trained on these features recovers the three parameters on held-out simulation data with relative errors of 3% for shear strain, 1% for non-affine displacement, and 6% for polydispersity. If this holds for real scattering data, it would let experiments quantify microscopic rearrangements in non-steady and transient dynamics without time averaging.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the angularly averaged intensity correlation function g(θ) = ⟨I(q;S)I(q;Γ(S))⟩_S / ⟨I(q;S)⟩²_S, averaged over q, defined for a transformation Γ of affine shear plus Gaussian non-affine displacements. For monodisperse dilute systems, the theory gives a closed form g(q) = 1 + sinc²(qγL cosθ/2) exp(−q²D2²/2), so that γL controls the angular width of the correlation peak near the shear-gradient direction θ = π/2, D2 controls the isotropic decay, and polydispersity Rs sets the baseline height. These three effects are separated by projecting each g(θ) onto the top three singular vectors of the dataset matrix; the projected coordinates form the features for a Gaussian process regressor with a radial-basis-function kernel plus white noise that maps to (Rs, D2, γL).

What would settle it

A concrete test is to take a scattering pattern from a rheo-XPCS experiment on a dilute colloidal dispersion with known shear strain and polydispersity, compute g(θ) from two successive frames, and feed it to the trained regressor; if the recovered parameters deviate from the known values by more than the reported relative errors of 1-6%, the manifold-transfer assumption fails. A cheaper simulation test is to generate data with parameters outside the training ranges (e.g., D2 = 4 or γL = 40) or with added uniform detector noise, and check whether the regressor outputs degrade substantially.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the angular correlation function g(θ), obtained by averaging the intensity correlation g(q) over scattering angles, contains sufficient information to invert for the affine simple shear strain γL, the non-affine rearrangement amplitude D2, and the polydispersity index Rs of a dilute polydisperse colloidal dispersion. The paper demonstrates this by first deriving a closed-form expression for the correlation function in the monodisperse dilute limit, g(q) = 1 + sinc²(qγL cosθ/2) exp(−q²D2²/2), which captures the anisotropic structure of the correlation pattern. It then generates a large Monte Carlo dataset, shows that singular value decomposition reduces each g(θ) to three dominant projections, and trains a Gaussian process regressor that maps those projections to the three system parameters. On the held-out test set, the regressor achieves relative errors of 3% for γL, 1% for D2, and 6% for Rs. The authors argue that because the features are averaged over many configurations, the trained model can be applied to single pairs of scattering patterns, improving time resolution for non-steady dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

Real scattering data must lie on the same low-dimensional manifold as the simulated data: the experiment is assumed to match the forward model of dilute, independent, nearly 2D spherical particles, with affine shear plus Gaussian random displacements, no detector noise or multiple scattering, and parameters inside the training ranges.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The angular correlation function g(θ) alone is sufficient to recover three physical parameters, so radial information is not needed for this inversion.
The low-dimensional structure (three singular vectors) means the inversion is stable and interpretable rather than a black-box fit of the full function.
Because the features are configuration-averaged, the regressor can be applied to two instantaneous scattering patterns without time averaging, improving time resolution for transient dynamics.
The same SVD plus Gaussian process pipeline can be applied to other soft-matter systems, such as glasses and gels, where non-affine rearrangements are the key dynamic mode.
The approach can be adapted to experimental data by identifying the shear direction from the high-correlation strip in g(θ) and rotating or interpolating the data.

Reading between the lines

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

The near-perfect reconstruction suggests the mapping from (Rs, D2, γL) to g(θ) is nearly injective inside the sampled parameter box; a natural extension is to compute the Jacobian of this map to quantify actual resolution limits and identify regions where different parameter combinations give nearly identical angular correlations.
Since the theoretical form in Eq. (5) ties γL to the angular width and D2 to the q-dependent decay, a closed-form inversion may be possible for monodisperse systems, for example from the curvature of g(θ) near θ = π/2 and the q-dependence of the peak, making the machine-learning step optional in that limit.
The reported relative errors use the denominator max(µ_MC, µ_ML), which can make errors appear smaller when true values are small; a test with denser sampling near the lower bounds (Rs near 0, D2 near 0.5) would reveal whether the mapping remains accurate there.
The paper does not test the regressor on experimental data; a natural next step is a blind test on a published rheo-XPCS dataset with known shear, treating the simulated training set as fixed and checking whether recovered parameters match the known values.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new thing here is applying the SVD-plus-Gaussian-process pipeline to angular intensity correlation functions of sheared colloids, and the paper shows convincingly that the three parameters (shear strain, non-affine displacement, polydispersity) leave distinguishable traces in g(θ). The theory for the monodisperse case matches the simulations, and the qualitative separation of parameters in the SVD projection space (Fig. 5) is a nice demonstration of feasibility. Prior ML scattering work was mostly static; extending to two-time correlations is a real step, even if built on the authors' own established pipeline.

The main problem is the train/test split. SVD is performed on the full 6000-sample matrix in Sec. III.B, before the 70/30 split in Sec. III.C. If the GPR features are the three projection coefficients — and that is what Fig. 5 and the text imply — then the test inputs are expressed in a basis computed with the test points included. The reported 3%, 1%, and 6% errors are therefore transductive, not clean holdout estimates. The bias may be small because each sample contributes only 1/6000 to V, but these numbers are the paper's central quantitative claim, and they need to survive a properly nested split. This is a fixable flaw, not a fatal one, but it has to be fixed before the accuracy claim is credible.

There are two softer spots. First, the paper asserts in Sec. IV that the framework can be "easily adopted" to experiments, but it never tests against real scattered intensity or even adds detector noise, partial coherence, or multiple scattering to the simulations. The transfer claim is speculation, not demonstration. Second, the paper provides no code or data, and the GPR hyperparameters are given but not the uncertainty of the predictions. For a machine learning paper, that is a reproducibility gap.

The citation pattern is fine; the self-cited SVD-GPR methodology is not load-bearing for the inversion target, and the new target is distinct enough. The internal Monte Carlo calculations look consistent.

Who gets value from this? People in the XPCS/SANS soft-matter community who want a quick read on whether ML inversion of two-time correlation functions is worth trying. It is a useful demonstration of feasibility, but the quantitative claims need revision. I would send it to peer review with a request for a properly nested SVD split, GP uncertainties, and either experimental validation or a much more cautious statement about transferability.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents a machine-learning framework to invert coherent scattering correlation data for microscopic parameters of dilute colloidal dispersions. Using Monte Carlo simulations, the authors generate 6,000 angular correlation functions g(θ) for random combinations of number density, polydispersity, non-affine displacement, and affine shear strain. They perform singular value decomposition (SVD) on the full data set and retain the top three singular vectors as features, then train a Gaussian process regressor (GPR) on 70% of the data to predict the polydispersity Rs, non-affine rearrangement D2, and affine shear strain γL. They report relative errors of 6%, 1%, and 3% for these quantities on the remaining 30% 'test' set, and argue the approach can be adapted to experimental coherent scattering data.

Significance. If the reported accuracy were established under a correct holdout protocol, this would be a valuable proof-of-concept for extracting transient, non-steady microscopic dynamics from single pairs of speckle patterns—potentially improving time resolution over traditional correlation averaging. The paper's theoretical expression for the correlation function (Eq. 5) and the systematic simulation pipeline are useful contributions. However, the central quantitative claim (3%/1%/6% errors) is currently undermined by a data-preprocessing flaw that makes the reported test errors transductive rather than true generalization estimates. The underlying idea is sound and the flaw is fixable, so the manuscript merits revision rather than rejection.

major comments (2)

[Sec. III.B and Sec. III.C] The SVD basis is computed on the full 6000-sample matrix F in Sec. III.B, and only afterward is F split into training (70%) and test (30%) sets in Sec. III.C. The GPR input features are the projection coefficients (FV0, FV1, FV2) of each g(θ) onto the singular vectors V. Because V is derived from the full data set, the test-set features contain information from the test samples themselves, and the training-set features are also influenced by the test rows. The reported errors (Err = 0.06, 0.01, 0.03 in Fig. 7) are therefore transductive estimates, not clean holdout errors. The authors must recompute the SVD using only the training set (or use nested cross-validation) and project the test set onto that training-derived basis, then report the resulting errors. This is essential to support the central claim of generalization to unseen data.
[Sec. III.B] The number of SVD components retained (three) is selected by inspecting the singular value spectrum of the full data set (Fig. 4(a)). This is a hyperparameter chosen using information from both training and test samples. Even if the SVD is recomputed on the training set alone, the decision to keep three components must be made within the training folds (e.g., by cross-validation) to avoid optimistic bias. The paper should either justify the three-component choice a priori from the underlying physics or demonstrate that the downstream errors are stable across a proper nested cross-validation.

minor comments (7)

[Sec. II.B] The simulation box is described as '[-L, L]^2' in the first sentence of Sec. II.B, but later the scattering intensity is calculated for particles 'inside the box of [-0.5L, 0.5L]^2'. This inconsistency is important because the length scale L enters the theoretical expression in Eq. (5) through the sinc term; please clarify which box size was actually used.
[Sec. II.A and Eq. (5)] The text states that the non-affine displacements δxi and δyi follow a Gaussian distribution with standard deviation D2, but Eq. (5) uses exp(-q^2 D2/2), which is the characteristic function for a Gaussian with variance D2 (or standard deviation sqrt(D2)). Please reconcile the notation so that the parameter D2 is defined consistently between the simulation and the theoretical formula.
[Sec. III.C] The error metric Err = ⟨|μMC - μML|/max(μMC, μML)⟩ is unconventional. Using the maximum of the reference and predicted values in the denominator can understate errors when the true parameter is small. Please justify this choice or report also the mean absolute error and the mean relative error with respect to the reference value.
[Sec. III.C] The paper does not state whether the 70/30 split was random, stratified, or repeated, nor does it give the random seed. For reproducibility, please describe the splitting procedure and, ideally, report the mean and standard deviation of the errors over multiple random splits.
[Sec. IV] The statement that the trained SVD features and GPR models 'can be easily compared and adopted to analyze real experimental data' is overly strong without any experimental test or sensitivity analysis. The model is trained on simulation data that assume dilute, independent particles, no multiple scattering, no detector noise, and a specific q-grid and parameter range. Please temper this claim or add a discussion of the conditions under which the model would need retraining or recalibration.
[Sec. II.B and Sec. IV] The number of configuration samples used for averaging is given as 10^4 in Sec. II.B and as 2×10^4 in Sec. IV. Please make the numbers consistent.
[Fig. 4(a)] The singular value spectrum is plotted with a linear y-axis against a log-scale x-axis. A log-log plot would better illustrate the decay rate and support the claim that the top three singular values dominate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ML inversion targets are independent simulation ground truths, and the self-cited methodology is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's forward model is defined directly in Eqs. (1)-(4) from particle coordinates and scattering amplitudes; no parameter in the scattering calculation is fitted to the inversion targets. The analytic g(q) in Eq. (5) is derived for dilute monodisperse spheres and compared with the MC data in Fig. 2, so the theory and simulation are independent implementations of the same physical model. The dataset F is generated by MC with random (nL^2, Rs, D2, gammaL); these values are the ground-truth labels used to train and evaluate the GPR. The GPR is trained on 70% of F and tested on the remaining 30% (Sec. III C), so the reported 3%, 1%, and 6% errors are internal holdout benchmarks rather than fitted predictions. Refs. [29-35] are cited as methodological precedent for SVD/ML scattering analysis, but the present SVD and GPR are recomputed on this paper's own dataset, so those self-citations are not load-bearing. The SVD is computed on the full F before the train/test split (Sec. III B vs. III C), which is a potential generalization-evaluation leakage, but this is a statistical selection issue, not circular reasoning: the test labels are never used to construct the features or the regression. Transfer to experimental data is an extrapolation assumption, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central inversion claim rests on the simulation forward model, the SVD truncation, and the GPR hyperparameters, all of which are either fitted to data or chosen by hand. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are the GPR hyperparameters, the number of SVD components, and the training distribution bounds.

free parameters (8)

GPR kernel length scale l for Rs = 1.338e-1
Optimized by maximizing log marginal likelihood on the training set (Table I); controls the smoothness of the Rs regression.
GPR noise variance sigma for Rs = 2.673e-3
Optimized along with l (Table I); models observation noise in the Rs regression.
GPR kernel length scale l for D2 = 2.419e-1
Optimized by maximizing log marginal likelihood on the training set (Table I).
GPR noise variance sigma for D2 = 2.717e-3
Optimized along with l (Table I).
GPR kernel length scale l for gammaL = 1.405e-1
Optimized by maximizing log marginal likelihood on the training set (Table I).
GPR noise variance sigma for gammaL = 1.927e-2
Optimized along with l (Table I).
Number of SVD components retained = 3
Chosen from the rapid singular-value decay in Fig. 4(a); determines the compact feature space used for the claimed three-parameter inversion.
Training parameter ranges = (nL2, Rs, D2, gammaL) in (100-200, 0-0.3, 0.5-3, 5-30)
Manually selected to mirror experimental regimes; inversion accuracy is only characterized inside these bounds (Sec. III.B).

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The dispersion is dilute, so particle positions and rearrangements are uncorrelated.
Used to derive Eq. (5) and to argue that number density does not affect the angular correlation; stated in Sec. II.A as 'positions of different particles and, thus, their rearrangements are uncorrelated'.
domain assumption Particles are 2D spheres and the rearrangement is exactly affine simple shear plus Gaussian random displacement (Eq. (3)).
This model defines the ground-truth labels in the MC simulations and is assumed to represent experimental rearrangements; introduced in Sec. II.A.
domain assumption Small-angle coherent scattering is single-scattering (kinematic approximation) with no multiple scattering, background, or detector artifacts.
Standard scattering assumption used to compute I(q) from Eq. (1); implicit in Sec. II.A and not stated as a limitation.
ad hoc to paper The top three SVD components of g(θ) capture essentially all information needed for inversion.
Justified empirically by singular-value decay in Fig. 4(a), not by an error bound; underlies the three-feature claim and the feasibility conclusion in Sec. III.B.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Machine Learning-Informed Scattering Correlation Analysis of Sheared Colloids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YC7QOGTU

@misc{pith2026241207926,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Machine Learning-Informed Scattering Correlation Analysis of Sheared Colloids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YC7QOGTU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07926}
}

read the original abstract

We carry out theoretical analysis, Monte Carlo simulations and Machine Learning analysis to quantify microscopic rearrangements of dilute dispersions of spherical colloidal particles from coherent scattering intensity. Both monodisperse and polydisperse dispersions of colloids are created and undergo a rearrangement consisting of an affine simple shear and non-affine rearrangement using Monte Carlo method. We calculate the coherent scattering intensity of the dispersions and the correlation function of intensity before and after the rearrangement, and generate a large data set of angular correlation functions for varying system parameters, including number density, polydispersity, shear strain, and non-affine rearrangement. Singular value decomposition of the data set shows the feasibility of machine learning inversion from the correlation function for the polydispersity, shear strain, and non-affine rearrangement using only three parameters. A Gaussian process regressor is then trained based on the data set and can retrieve the affine shear strain, non-affine rearrangement, and polydispersity with a relative error of 3\%, 1\% and 6\%, respectively. Together, our model provides a framework for quantitative studies of both steady and non-steady microscopic dynamics of colloidal dispersions using coherent scattering methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07926 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** (a) shows an example of scattering pattern I(q) of monodisperse particles after averaging over 20, 000 configurations of S. The scattering intensity I(q) is isotropic and reflects the form factor F 2 (q) of the spherical particles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Singular value decomposition (SVD) of the angular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Radial (left column) and angular (right column) cor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Distribution of the system parameters in the singular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison between the system parameters extracted from the angular scattering correlation function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Scattering-Based Structural Inversion of Soft Materials via Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks
cond-mat.soft 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A KAN-based surrogate model is trained on simulated scattering data and then used to fit experimental SANS curves, extracting lamellar defect parameters and colloidal interaction parameters.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Wu, W.-s

Q. Wu, W.-s. Miao, Y.-d. Zhang, H.-j. Gao, and D. Hui, Mechanical properties of nanomaterials: A review, Nan- otechnology Reviews 9, 259 (2020)

work page 2020
[2]

Badon, A

A. Badon, A. C. Boccara, G. Lerosey, M. Fink, and A. Aubry, Multiple scattering limit in optical microscopy, Optics Express 25, 28914 (2017)

work page 2017
[3]

R. P. Murphy, Z. W. Riedel, M. A. Nakatani, P. F. Sali- pante, J. S. Weston, S. D. Hudson, and K. M. Weigandt, Capillary rheosans: Measuring the rheology and nanos- tructure of complex fluids at high shear rates, Soft Matter 16, 6285 (2020)

work page 2020
[4]

Guinier, G

A. Guinier, G. Fournet, C. B. Walker, and K. L. Yudow- itch, Small-angle Scattering of X-rays(Wiley New York, 1955)

work page 1955
[5]

Chu and B

B. Chu and B. S. Hsiao, Small-angle x-ray scattering of polymers, Chemical reviews 101, 1727 (2001)

work page 2001
[6]

O. G. Shpyrko, X-ray photon correlation spectroscopy, Journal of synchrotron radiation 21, 1057 (2014)

work page 2014
[7]

R. L. Leheny, M. C. Rogers, K. Chen, S. Narayanan, and J. L. Harden, Rheo-xpcs, Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 20, 261 (2015)

work page 2015
[8]

Madsen, A

A. Madsen, A. Fluerasu, and B. Ruta, Structural dynam- ics of materials probed by x-ray photon correlation spec- troscopy, Synchrotron Light Sources and Free-Electron Lasers: Accelerator Physics, Instrumentation and Sci- ence Applications , 1989 (2020)

work page 2020

Show all 42 references

[9]

W. I. Goldburg, Dynamic light scattering, American Journal of Physics 67, 1152 (1999)

1999
[10]

Aime and L

S. Aime and L. Cipelletti, Probing shear-induced rear- rangements in fourier space. i. dynamic light scattering, Soft matter 15, 200 (2019)

2019
[11]

Shibayama, Small-angle neutron scattering on poly- mer gels: phase behavior, inhomogeneities and deforma- tion mechanisms, Polymer journal 43, 18 (2011)

M. Shibayama, Small-angle neutron scattering on poly- mer gels: phase behavior, inhomogeneities and deforma- tion mechanisms, Polymer journal 43, 18 (2011)

2011
[12]

Chen, Small angle neutron scattering studies of the structure and interaction in micellar and microemulsion systems, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 37, 351 (1986)

S.-H. Chen, Small angle neutron scattering studies of the structure and interaction in micellar and microemulsion systems, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 37, 351 (1986)

1986
[13]

Y. Chen, S. A. Rogers, S. Narayanan, J. L. Harden, and R. L. Leheny, Microscopic dynamics of stress relaxation in a nanocolloidal soft glass, Physical Review Materials 4, 035602 (2020)

2020
[14]

G. J. Donley, S. Narayanan, M. A. Wade, J. D. Park, R. L. Leheny, J. L. Harden, and S. A. Rogers, Inves- tigation of the yielding transition in concentrated col- loidal systems via rheo-xpcs, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, e2215517120 (2023)

2023
[15]

Ruocco, L

N. Ruocco, L. Dahbi, P. Driva, N. Hadjichristidis, J. All- gaier, A. Radulescu, M. Sharp, P. Lindner, E. Straube, W. Pyckhout-Hintzen, et al., Microscopic relaxation pro- cesses in branched-linear polymer blends by rheo-sans, Macromolecules 46, 9122 (2013)

2013
[16]

L¨ uttich, V

M. L¨ uttich, V. M. Giordano, S. Le Floch, E. Pineda, F. Zontone, Y. Luo, K. Samwer, and B. Ruta, Anti- aging in ultrastable metallic glasses, Physical review let- ters 120, 135504 (2018)

2018
[17]

W. R. Burghardt, M. Sikorski, A. R. Sandy, and S. Narayanan, X-ray photon correlation spec- troscopy during homogenous shear flow, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 85, 021402 (2012)

2012
[18]

Leitner, B

M. Leitner, B. Sepiol, L.-M. Stadler, B. Pfau, and G. Vogl, Atomic diffusion studied with coherent x-rays, Nature materials 8, 717 (2009)

2009
[19]

Y. Chen, S. A. Rogers, S. Narayanan, J. L. Harden, and R. L. Leheny, Microscopic ergodicity breaking governs the emergence and evolution of elasticity in glass-forming nanoclay suspensions, Physical Review E 102, 042619 (2020)

2020
[20]

N. C. Keim and P. E. Arratia, Role of disorder in finite- amplitude shear of a 2d jammed material, Soft matter 11, 1539 (2015)

2015
[21]

Q. Wen, A. Basu, P. A. Janmey, and A. G. Yodh, Non- affine deformations in polymer hydrogels, Soft matter 8, 8039 (2012)

2012
[22]

Jana and L

R. Jana and L. Pastewka, Correlations of non-affine dis- placements in metallic glasses through the yield transi- tion, Journal of Physics: Materials 2, 045006 (2019)

2019
[23]

Galloway, E

K. Galloway, E. Teich, X. Ma, C. Kammer, I. Graham, N. Keim, C. Reina, D. Jerolmack, A. Yodh, and P. Ar- ratia, Relationships between structure, memory and flow in sheared disordered materials, Nature Physics 18, 565 (2022)

2022
[24]

L. Ma, F. Zhang, A. Allen, and L. Levine, Unveiling the origin of a nonequilibrium dynamic process detected by x-ray photon correlation spectroscopy via a finite ele- ment analysis approach, Acta Crystallographica Section A: Foundations and Advances 70, 338 (2014)

2014
[25]

H. He, H. Liang, M. Chu, Z. Jiang, J. J. de Pablo, M. V. Tirrell, S. Narayanan, and W. Chen, Transport coeffi- cient approach for characterizing nonequilibrium dynam- ics in soft matter, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121, e2401162121 (2024)

2024
[26]

K. P. Murphy, Machine learning: a probabilistic perspec- tive (MIT press, 2012)

2012
[27]

Carleo, I

G. Carleo, I. Cirac, K. Cranmer, L. Daudet, M. Schuld, N. Tishby, L. Vogt-Maranto, and L. Zdeborov´ a, Machine learning and the physical sciences, Reviews of Modern Physics 91, 045002 (2019)

2019
[28]

Krauth, Statistical mechanics: algorithms and com- putations, Vol

W. Krauth, Statistical mechanics: algorithms and com- putations, Vol. 13 (OUP Oxford, 2006)

2006
[29]

Chang, C.-H

M.-C. Chang, C.-H. Tung, S.-Y. Chang, J. M. Carrillo, Y. Wang, B. G. Sumpter, G.-R. Huang, C. Do, and W.-R. Chen, A machine learning inversion scheme for determin- ing interaction from scattering, Communications Physics 5, 46 (2022)

2022
[30]

Huang, C.-H

G.-R. Huang, C.-H. Tung, L. Porcar, Y. Wang, Y. Shi- nohara, C. Do, and W.-R. Chen, Model-free approach for profiling of polydisperse soft matter using small angle scattering, Macromolecules 56, 6436 (2023)

2023
[31]

Tung, S.-Y

C.-H. Tung, S.-Y. Chang, H.-L. Chen, Y. Wang, K. Hong, J. M. Carrillo, B. G. Sumpter, Y. Shinohara, C. Do, and W.-R. Chen, Small angle scattering of diblock copoly- mers profiled by machine learning, The Journal of Chem- ical Physics 156 (2022)

2022
[32]

Tung, Y.-J

C.-H. Tung, Y.-J. Hsiao, H.-L. Chen, G.-R. Huang, L. Porcar, M.-C. Chang, J.-M. Carrillo, Y. Wang, B. G. Sumpter, Y. Shinohara, et al., Unveiling mesoscopic structures in distorted lamellar phases through deep learning-based small angle neutron scattering analysis, Journal of ...

2024
[33]

Tung, S.-Y

C.-H. Tung, S.-Y. Chang, M.-C. Chang, J.-M. Carrillo, 8 B. G. Sumpter, C. Do, and W.-R. Chen, Inferring col- loidal interaction from scattering by machine learning, Carbon Trends 10, 100252 (2023)

2023
[34]

Ding, C.-H

L. Ding, C.-H. Tung, B. G. Sumpter, W.-R. Chen, and C. Do, Machine learning inversion from scatter- ing for mechanically driven polymers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05574 (2024)

2024
[35]

Ding, C.-H

L. Ding, C.-H. Tung, Z. Cao, Z. Ye, X. Gu, Y. Xia, W.-R. Chen, and C. Do, Machine learning-assisted profiling of ladder polymer structure using scattering, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00134 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[36]

C. K. Williams and C. E. Rasmussen, Gaussian processes for machine learning, Vol. 2 (MIT press Cambridge, MA, 2006)

2006
[37]

S. Kotz, N. Balakrishnan, and N. L. Johnson, Contin- uous multivariate distributions, Volume 1: Models and applications, Vol. 334 (John Wiley & Sons, 2019)

2019
[38]

Pedregosa, G

F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, et al., Scikit-learn: Machine learn- ing in python, the Journal of machine Learning research 12, 2825 (2011)

2011
[39]

Z. Liu, Y. Wang, S. Vaidya, F. Ruehle, J. Halver- son, M. Soljaˇ ci´ c, T. Y. Hou, and M. Tegmark, Kan: Kolmogorov-arnold networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19756 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[40]

Z. Liu, P. Ma, Y. Wang, W. Matusik, and M. Tegmark, Kan 2.0: Kolmogorov-arnold networks meet science, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10205 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[41]

S. S. Schoenholz, E. D. Cubuk, D. M. Sussman, E. Kaxi- ras, and A. J. Liu, A structural approach to relaxation in glassy liquids, Nature Physics 12, 469 (2016)

2016
[42]

J. P. Horwath, X.-M. Lin, H. He, Q. Zhang, E. M. Dufresne, M. Chu, S. K. Sankaranarayanan, W. Chen, S. Narayanan, and M. J. Cherukara, Ai-nerd: Elucida- tion of relaxation dynamics beyond equilibrium through ai-informed x-ray photon correlation spectroscopy, Na- ture Communica...

2024

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Wu, W.-s

Q. Wu, W.-s. Miao, Y.-d. Zhang, H.-j. Gao, and D. Hui, Mechanical properties of nanomaterials: A review, Nan- otechnology Reviews 9, 259 (2020)

work page 2020

[2] [2]

Badon, A

A. Badon, A. C. Boccara, G. Lerosey, M. Fink, and A. Aubry, Multiple scattering limit in optical microscopy, Optics Express 25, 28914 (2017)

work page 2017

[3] [3]

R. P. Murphy, Z. W. Riedel, M. A. Nakatani, P. F. Sali- pante, J. S. Weston, S. D. Hudson, and K. M. Weigandt, Capillary rheosans: Measuring the rheology and nanos- tructure of complex fluids at high shear rates, Soft Matter 16, 6285 (2020)

work page 2020

[4] [4]

Guinier, G

A. Guinier, G. Fournet, C. B. Walker, and K. L. Yudow- itch, Small-angle Scattering of X-rays(Wiley New York, 1955)

work page 1955

[5] [5]

Chu and B

B. Chu and B. S. Hsiao, Small-angle x-ray scattering of polymers, Chemical reviews 101, 1727 (2001)

work page 2001

[6] [6]

O. G. Shpyrko, X-ray photon correlation spectroscopy, Journal of synchrotron radiation 21, 1057 (2014)

work page 2014

[7] [7]

R. L. Leheny, M. C. Rogers, K. Chen, S. Narayanan, and J. L. Harden, Rheo-xpcs, Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 20, 261 (2015)

work page 2015

[8] [8]

Madsen, A

A. Madsen, A. Fluerasu, and B. Ruta, Structural dynam- ics of materials probed by x-ray photon correlation spec- troscopy, Synchrotron Light Sources and Free-Electron Lasers: Accelerator Physics, Instrumentation and Sci- ence Applications , 1989 (2020)

work page 2020