Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 146 references

Emergent scales and spatial correlations at the yielding transition of glassy materials

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A lattice model shows that the abruptness of yielding in glassy materials is set by a diverging correlation length.

desk verdict Nice mean-field catastrophe picture, but the central claim of a diverging correlation length is undercut by selection bias in the averaging. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10039 v1 pith:RDUQAJI2 submitted 2025-01-17 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.mtrl-sci

Stefano Aime , Domenico Truzzolillo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords yieldingtransitionglassymaterialsdynamicheterogeneitycorrelationlengthcuspcatastrophelatticemodeldisorderoscillatoryshear
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 tries to explain why some glassy materials yield abruptly while others yield gradually, and to give the sharp-to-gradual switch a concrete mechanism. It builds a lattice model of local relaxation rates under oscillatory shear, adding a dynamic-facilitation coupling that makes nearby regions relax in a coordinated way. In the mean-field version, the model reproduces the observed solid-to-fluid dynamic transition as a cusp-catastrophe equation of state, with discontinuous yielding and hysteresis. Once disorder in the coupling is switched on, the transition becomes continuous and rounded: fluid-like domains nucleate at weakly coupled sites and coexist with solid-like domains over a finite strain window. The paper's central claim is that this coexistence carries an emergent correlation length ξ which grows as disorder decreases and diverges at zero disorder, making abrupt yielding the finite-size shadow of a diverging dynamic heterogeneity length.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the facilitated-advection (FA) coupling in Eq. 4: the shear-induced relaxation of a lattice site is slowed by a term α_ij/(Γ_i Γ_j) that penalizes rate differences between neighbours, borrowing the idea of dynamic facilitation from quiescent glasses. In mean field this reduces to a Van der Waals-like equation of state, which the authors recast as a cusp catastrophe manifold $ρ^{3}$ + aρ + b = 0 with an effective potential V(ρ) = $ρ^{4}$/4 + $aρ^{2}$/2 + bρ. The potential's two minima give the solid and fluid branches, the fold set gives the spinodal thresholds γ_th^±, and the Maxwell set (equal-depth minima) gives the yield strain γ_th^(M) selected in large disordered systems. The emergent correlation length is extracted from the connected spatial correlation of log Γ_i, together with finite-size statistics linking disorder to domain size.

What would settle it

Measure the connected correlation length of local relaxation rates (for example by imaging tracer motion or stroboscopic DLS in a colloidal glass under oscillatory shear) while systematically reducing sample disorder by deeper annealing: if the peak correlation length does not grow, or if abrupt yielding does not track the condition ξ* ≈ sample size, the central claim is wrong. A direct numerical test is to replace the α_ij/(Γ_i Γ_j) coupling with a linear (Γ_i − Γ_j) coupling and check whether the bimodal coexistence and the ξ divergence survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that the sharp-versus-gradual dilemma of yielding can be stated as a competition between two lengths. In the model, local relaxation rates Γ_i satisfy a coupled equation whose disorder-free mean field is a Van der Waals-like equation of state on a cusp catastrophe manifold: for sufficiently glassy parameters, increasing strain amplitude brings the system to a fold where Γ jumps discontinuously. Introducing quenched disorder in the coupling constants rounds the transition: the lattice splits into solid-like and fluid-like domains whose coexistence reproduces the two-mode correlation functions seen in experiments. The correlation length ξ of the local rates peaks at yielding and increases as the disorder variance tends to zero, so a finite sample is abrupt exactly when ξ exceeds the system size. The authors conclude that, in the thermodynamic limit, the model predicts gradual yielding with coexistence for any finite disorder, while the abruptness seen in small systems is a finite-size effect controlled by the same emergent length scale.

Load-bearing premise

The entire mechanism rests on the specific facilitated-advection coupling term proportional to α_ij/(Γ_i Γ_j) in Eq. 4, which is introduced by analogy with dynamic facilitation rather than derived from any underlying microscopic dynamics, so a different coupling form could change or erase the cusp, the bimodal coexistence, and the divergence of ξ.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the thermodynamic limit N→∞, the model predicts gradual, rounded yielding with solid/fluid coexistence for every finite disorder.
  • Abrupt (brittle) yielding in a finite sample is predicted whenever the peak correlation length ξ* exceeds the system size N.
  • The yield strain of a large, weakly disordered system is set by the Maxwell rule, γ_th^(M) = γ_c (4Kr−3)^(−1/n), rather than by the mean-field spinodal thresholds.
  • The model predicts a genuine critical point at Kr = 1 separating discontinuous from continuous yielding, with second-order behavior at the glass transition.
  • Because one disorder parameter d controls the whole sharp-to-gradual crossover, the model offers a testable route to design samples with prescribed yielding abruptness.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the central claim is right, then 'brittle' yielding in laboratory samples is not a distinct intrinsic phase but a consequence of the dynamic heterogeneity length exceeding the sample size; the same material should become ductile in a larger sample.
  • The effective potential V(ρ) was introduced by formal analogy, but its Maxwell-rule behavior suggests it may capture a true out-of-equilibrium free energy; testing whether its barrier height predicts the nucleation rate of fluid domains would extend the model to time-dependent and stress-controlled yielding.
  • The model is not limited to oscillatory shear: replacing the Γ_sh ∝ ωγ_0^n ansatz with a steady-shear counterpart should produce an analogous correlation length in creep or shear-rate sweeps, an extension the paper leaves implicit.
  • Systems with spatially correlated disorder, such as shear bands or gradients in annealing, would break the assumption of uncorrelated coupling constants; the Weibull analysis suggests the low-coupling tail, not the variance alone, controls nucleation, so tuning that tail could sharpen or suppress brittleness without changing the average.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a lattice model with facilitated advection coupling to describe the dynamics of yielding in glassy materials under oscillatory shear. In mean-field, the model reduces to a Van der Waals-like equation of state whose non-monotonic regime maps onto a cusp catastrophe, predicting abrupt yielding with hysteresis. Adding quenched disorder in the coupling constants produces gradual, rounded yielding with coexistence of solid-like and fluid-like domains. The authors report a correlation length ξ of local relaxation rates that peaks at yielding and grows as disorder decreases, and they argue that abrupt yielding occurs when ξ exceeds the system size, making sharp yielding a finite-size effect in this model. The paper also proposes a Maxwell-rule interpretation of the yield strain in the thermodynamic limit, based on an effective potential V(ρ) obtained by integrating the mean-field equation of state.

Significance. If the central scenario were fully established, the paper would offer a unified mesoscopic mechanism for both abrupt and gradual yielding, connecting a dynamically emerging correlation length to the abruptness of the transition. The mean-field algebra is internally consistent, and the simulations qualitatively reproduce rounded transitions, bimodal rate distributions, and growing domain sizes with decreasing disorder. However, the decisive quantitative evidence—the claimed divergence of ξ as d→0 and the lengthscale competition with N—is currently compromised by a conditioning artifact in the sampling of ξ*, as detailed below. With more careful statistics, the qualitative scenario remains plausible and worth testing, but the paper in its present form does not support the central claim as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VII, Fig. 6c] The central claim that abrupt yielding is controlled by the competition between N and ξ* rests on ξ*(d) growing as d decreases. However, Fig. 6c's caption states that full datapoints are averaged only over the 10 independent simulations that exhibited gradual yielding, and that simulations with abrupt yielding were excluded from the averaged dataset. Section VII itself reports that abruptly yielding runs have ξ as small as a single lattice spacing. Because at small d most runs are abrupt (Fig. 4b shows Ψ decreasing strongly with d), the conditional average over the gradual subset can inflate the mean ξ* and manufacture the apparent growth with decreasing d. The comparison with N*(d) is also not apples-to-apples: N*(d) is extracted from Ψ(d), the fraction of gradual runs over all realizations (Fig. 4c), while ξ*(d) is averaged only over the gradual subset. Thus the conclusion that ξ* tracks N* and that abruptness corresponds to ξ exceeding the system size is not supported by the data as presented.
  2. [Sections VII and VIII] The conclusion that ξ* diverges as d→0 (stated in the abstract and reiterated in Section VIII) is an extrapolation from simulations with N=512 and d between 0.02 and 0.2. No scaling fit, no error bars on ξ*, no fitted divergence exponent, and no finite-size scaling collapse are provided. The data in Fig. 6c cover only a limited range of d, and the highest-disorder points are open (partially excluded) symbols. The authors should either perform a scaling analysis with system-size dependence or explicitly soften the claim to a suggestion, rather than asserting a divergence.
  3. [Section VI, Eq. (12)] The Maxwell-rule yield strain γth^(M), which is used as the thermodynamic-limit yield point and as the reference in Figs. 3 and SM6, is obtained by globally minimizing the potential V(ρ) of Eq. (12). The authors themselves state that the physical meaning of V is 'yet to be unveiled' and that its global minimization does not have straightforward physical relevance. Since V is introduced by formal analogy and its global minimum is not derived from microscopic dynamics, the first-order-transition interpretation and the identification of γth^(M) with the simulated yield point are not theoretically grounded. A derivation of the global-minimization criterion, or at least a stability argument showing why nucleation selects the Maxwell set, is needed before this claim can be accepted.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 6c] The open symbols are described only as 'disorders for which one or more simulations exhibited abrupt yielding,' but the fraction of excluded runs is not given; adding that fraction (or showing Ψ(d) alongside) would make the conditioning transparent.
  2. [Section V, Fig. 3a caption] The caption states that dashed lines represent simulations where yielding was abrupt due to finite size effects, but the text uses dashed lines also for small-disorder mean-field-like behavior; please unify the notation and clarify the criterion for labeling a simulation as abrupt.
  3. [End of Section V] The statement 'in the thermodynamic limit, N→∞, our model predicts gradual yielding with coexistence for all finite disorders' is made without a scaling analysis or a control parameter for the thermodynamic limit; it should be phrased as a conjecture supported by the Weibull trends, not a proven result.
  4. [Introduction and Section V] There are several typographical errors: 'univoquely' (Introduction), 'gradudal' (Section V), and 'the reminder of this paper' (Introduction). These should be corrected.
  5. [Section VII, Eq. (7) and KWW fit] The definition of ξ via the integral of c(r) and the KWW fit is clear, but no details are given on the fit range, the quality of the fits, or how the integral behaves when c(r) does not decay to zero within the simulation box; a brief discussion of these practical issues would strengthen the measurement.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central ξ-divergence claim rests on conditional averaging that excludes abrupt runs with ξ ≈ 1; the gradual-yielding phenomenology is built into the fitted FA ansatz.

  1. self definitional [Section VII and Fig. 6c caption (definition of ξ* and the divergence claim)]
    "For simulations exhibiting abrupt yielding, we find that c(r) decays very fast for all values of γ0: ξ is as small as a single lattice spacing... Full datapoints are averaged on 10 independent simulations, all of which exhibited gradual yielding. Open black symbols denote disorders for which one or more simulations exhibited abrupt yielding: these simulations were excluded from the averaged dataset."

    The paper's central prediction that ξ* grows and diverges as d→0 is computed by averaging ξ only over gradually yielding runs, while abruptly yielding runs—which have ξ ≈ 1 lattice spacing by the paper's own statement—are excluded. At small disorder, Ψ(d) is small, so the retained gradual subset is a minority selected precisely for the property (large domains/gradual yielding) that the paper claims to explain. The comparison with N* is not apples-to-apples: N*(d) is obtained from Ψ(d) over all independent realizations, whereas ξ*(d) is a conditional mean over the gradual subset only.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sections III-V (Eq. 4, FA ansatz, and fit to Ref [46] data)]
    "By analogy, we introduce a facilitated advection (FA) model that couples the shear-induced dynamics of nearby sample regions in an Ising-like fashion... the FA term introduced in Eq. 4 suppresses differences between neighbor lattice sites... Numerical simulations with disorder can quantitatively reproduce the gradual yielding observed in experiments, as shown by the solid lines in Figure 1d."

    The FA coupling in Eq. 4 is introduced specifically to penalize gradients of local relaxation rates, so with quenched disorder it necessarily produces spatially correlated fast/slow domains and coexistence. The 'prediction' of gradual yielding with coexistence in the thermodynamic limit is therefore a built-in consequence of the chosen ansatz, not an emergent discovery. Moreover, the model parameters (notably α) were adjusted to reproduce the authors' earlier rheo-DLS data (Ref [46]), so the agreement in Fig. 1d is a consistency check of a fit rather than an independent prediction. The correlation length ξ then measures the size of the very domains that the FA term was designed to create; its growth as d→0 follows from the gradient penalty dominating over a shrinking disorder variance.

full rationale

The paper contains a genuine mathematical core that is not circular: Eq. 5 is algebraically recast as the VdW-like Eq. 6/7 and mapped onto the cusp-catastrophe manifold, and the Maxwell-rule potential V(ρ) is integrated from the EOS with the authors explicitly noting that its physical meaning is 'yet to be unveiled' (Section VI). These transformations are exact given the stated model. The parametrization against the authors' prior work (Ref [46]) is disclosed as a fit, not hidden. However, the central lengthscale claim is compromised. In Section VII and Fig. 6c, ξ* is defined only over gradually yielding runs; abruptly yielding runs, which the paper itself says have ξ ≈ 1 lattice spacing, are excluded from the averaged dataset. As d is lowered, Ψ(d) decreases, so the average over the remaining gradual runs is a conditional statistic that can grow even if the ensemble-averaged correlation length does not. The subsequent conclusion that abrupt yielding occurs when ξ exceeds the system size is therefore partly definitional—the runs with small ξ are simply removed from the divergence plot—and the comparison of N*(d) (from all realizations) with ξ*(d) (from the gradual subset only) is asymmetric. This is a specific, quotable reduction of the prediction to the selection rule, not merely a vague worry. The FA ansatz itself was introduced to make neighboring sites relax in a correlated way and was fitted to reproduce gradual yielding, so the qualitative phenomenology is also built in. On balance, the paper retains independent content in the catastrophe mapping and in the quantitative N*–ξ* tracking, but the central 'ξ diverges and controls abruptness' claim is partially circular. Score 6.

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

The model loads several assumptions from prior literature and from its own construction: the power-law rate ansatz, the ad hoc FA coupling form, the truncated Gaussian disorder, and the speculative Maxwell-rule potential. The paper's new physical claim (ξ diverges as d→0) is therefore conditional on these modeling choices, and none of them is backed by independent, machine-checked or code-released evidence.

free parameters (4)
  • mean FA coupling α = α=0.17 in Fig. 2 example; experimental best-fit values reported in Ref [46]
    Controls the spinodal thresholds and the reduced temperature K_r; adjusted to reproduce the magnitude of dynamic acceleration at yielding in rheo-DLS experiments.
  • FA coupling range β = 2 in main simulations; varied in SM
    The paper fixes β=2 'without loss of generality', but SM Fig. SM2 shows the jump size and thresholds depend on β; a longer-range coupling changes the mean-field EOS.
  • disorder d = σ_α^2/ᾱ^2 = varied from 10^-5 to 0.2
    Central control parameter; the claimed divergence of ξ as d→0 and the abrupt-to-gradual crossover are statements about this chosen parameter.
  • shear-rate exponent n = n≈3 from Ludox data; set to n=1 in most simulations
    Borrowed from prior power-law ansatz (Refs [121,122]) and fitted to the experimental Γ_f(γ0); affects the EOS but is set to unity in the disorder simulations.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Shear-induced relaxation rate follows a power law Γ = Γ0 + K ω γ0^n (Eq. 2)
    Inherited from prior work (Refs [121,122]) and adapted to oscillatory shear; all later equations build on this.
  • ad hoc to paper Facilitated advection coupling takes the specific form of Eq. 4 with τ_FA ∝ ω^2 α_ij/(Γ_i Γ_j)
    Introduced by analogy with dynamic facilitation, not derived from microscopic dynamics; the qualitative predictions (cusp catastrophe, bimodality, ξ divergence) depend on this form.
  • domain assumption Disorder in coupling constants is Gaussian, truncated to positive values, with variance σ_α^2 and d = σ_α^2/ᾱ^2
    Chosen for convenience; the paper does not test whether other disorder distributions give the same divergence.
  • ad hoc to paper The potential V(ρ) (Eq. 12), obtained by integrating the EOS, can be globally minimized to select the yield strain (Maxwell rule)
    The authors state 'its global minimization does not have a straightforward physical relevance' and 'the profound physical meaning of this functional is yet to be unveiled'; the Maxwell-rule match is empirical.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergent scales and spatial correlations at the yielding transition of glassy materials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RDUQAJI2

@misc{pith2026250110039,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergent scales and spatial correlations at the yielding transition of glassy materials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RDUQAJI2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10039}
}
abstract

Glassy materials yield under large external mechanical solicitations. Under oscillatory shear, yielding shows a well-known rheological fingerprint, common to samples with widely different microstructures. At the microscale, this corresponds to a transition between slow, solid-like dynamics and faster liquid-like dynamics, which can coexist at yielding in a finite range of strain amplitudes. Here, we capture this phenomenology in a lattice model with two main parameters: glassiness and disorder, describing the average coupling between adjacent lattice sites, and their variance, respectively. In absence of disorder, our model yields a law of correspondent states equivalent to trajectories on a cusp catastrophe manifold, a well-known class of problems including equilibrium liquid-vapour phase transitions. Introducing a finite disorder in our model entails a qualitative change, to a continuous and rounded transition, whose extent is controlled by the magnitude of the disorder. We show that a spatial correlation length $\xi$ emerges spontaneously from the coupling between disorder and bifurcating dynamics. With vanishing disorder, $\xi$ diverges and yielding becomes discontinuous, suggesting that the abruptness of yielding can be rationalized in terms of a lengthscale of dynamic heterogeneities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10039 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Inverse strain amplitude [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 (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. a) Cusp catastrophe manifold and trajectories. Three trajec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

146 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nicolas, E

    A. Nicolas, E. E. Ferrero, K. Martens, and J.-L. Barrat, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 045006 (2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    D. Bonn, M. M. Denn, L. Berthier, T. Divoux, and S. Manneville, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035005 (2017), arXiv:1502.05281

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    J. T. Parley, S. Sastry, and P. Sollich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 198001 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    J. M. Brader, M. Siebenbürger, M. Ballauff, K. Reinheimer, 12 M. Wilhelm, S. J. Frey, F. Weysser, and M. Fuchs, Phys. Rev. E 82, 061401 (2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    V oigtmann, Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 19, 549 (2014)

    T. V oigtmann, Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 19, 549 (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    Sollich, F

    P. Sollich, F. Lequeux, P. Hébraud, and M. E. Cates, Physical review letters 78, 2020 (1997)

    1997

  7. [7]

    Picard, A

    G. Picard, A. Ajdari, L. Bocquet, and F. Lequeux, Physical Review E 66 (2002), 10.1103/PhysRevE.66.051501

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.66.051501 2002

  8. [8]

    Benzi, T

    R. Benzi, T. Divoux, C. Barentin, S. Manneville, M. Sbra- gaglia, and F. Toschi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 248001 (2019)

    2019

Show all 146 references
  1. [9]

    C. Liu, K. Martens, and J.-L. Barrat, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 028004 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Divoux, E

    T. Divoux, E. Agoritsas, S. Aime, C. Barentin, J.-L. Barrat, R. Benzi, L. Berthier, D. Bi, G. Biroli, D. Bonn, P. Bourrianne, M. Bouzid, E. Del Gado, H. Delanoë-Ayari, K. Farain, S. M. Fielding, M. Fuchs, J. Van Der Gucht, S. Henkes, M. Jalaal, Y . M. Joshi, A. Lemaître, R. L....

    2024

  3. [11]

    G. J. Donley, P. K. Singh, A. Shetty, and S. A. Rogers, Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A. 117, 21945 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Kamani, G

    K. Kamani, G. J. Donley, and S. A. Rogers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 218002 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    D. J. Pine, J. P. Gollub, J. F. Brady, and A. M. Leshansky, Nature 438, 997 (2005)

    2005

  6. [14]

    Hima Nagamanasa, S

    K. Hima Nagamanasa, S. Gokhale, A. K. Sood, and R. Gana- pathy, Phys. Rev. E89, 062308 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    E. D. Knowlton, D. J. Pine, and L. Cipelletti, Soft Matter 10, 6931 (2014), arXiv:1403.4433

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A. D. Gopal and D. J. Durian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2610 (1995)

    1995

  9. [17]

    Fiocco, G

    D. Fiocco, G. Foffi, and S. Sastry, Phys. Rev. E 88, 020301 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Kawasaki and L

    T. Kawasaki and L. Berthier, Phys. Rev. E 94, 022615 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Regev, T

    I. Regev, T. Lookman, and C. Reichhardt, Phys. Rev. E 88, 062401 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Bhaumik, G

    H. Bhaumik, G. Foffi, and S. Sastry, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 118, e2100227118 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Ness and M

    C. Ness and M. E. Cates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 088004 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    R. Mari, E. Bertin, and C. Nardini, Phys. Rev. E105, L032602 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Mungan and T

    M. Mungan and T. A. Witten, Phys. Rev. E99, 052132 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Hinrichsen, Advances in Physics 49, 815 (2000)

    H. Hinrichsen, Advances in Physics 49, 815 (2000)

    2000

  17. [25]

    Lübeck, Int

    S. Lübeck, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 18, 3977 (2004)

    2004

  18. [26]

    Dickman, A

    R. Dickman, A. Vespignani, and S. Zapperi, Phys. Rev. E 57, 5095 (1998)

    1998

  19. [27]

    Maire, A

    R. Maire, A. Plati, M. Stockinger, E. Trizac, F. Smallenburg, and G. Foffi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 238202 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    R. M. Ziff, E. Gulari, and Y . Barshad, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 2553 (1986)

    1986

  21. [29]

    Corté, P

    L. Corté, P. M. Chaikin, J. P. Gollub, and D. J. Pine, Nature Phys 4, 420 (2008)

    2008

  22. [30]

    Jeanneret and D

    R. Jeanneret and D. Bartolo, Nat. Commun. 5, 3474 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    N. C. Keim and P. E. Arratia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 028302 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Tjhung and L

    E. Tjhung and L. Berthier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 148301 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    J. H. Weijs, R. Jeanneret, R. Dreyfus, and D. Bartolo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 108301 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    K. A. Takeuchi, M. Kuroda, H. Chaté, and M. Sano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 234503 (2007)

    2007

  27. [35]

    Möbius and C

    R. Möbius and C. Heussinger, Soft Matter 10, 4806

  28. [36]

    B. Néel, I. Rondini, A. Turzillo, N. Mujica, and R. Soto, Phys. Rev. E 89, 042206 (2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    Chantry, L

    M. Chantry, L. S. Tuckerman, and D. Barkley, J. Fluid Mech. 824, R1 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    M. C. Rogers, K. Chen, M. J. Pagenkopp, T. G. Mason, S. Narayanan, J. L. Harden, and R. L. Leheny, Physical Re- view Materials 2, 095601 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    P. K. Jaiswal, I. Procaccia, C. Rainone, and M. Singh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 085501 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Karmakar, E

    S. Karmakar, E. Lerner, and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. E 82, 055103 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    Leishangthem, A

    P. Leishangthem, A. D. S. Parmar, and S. Sastry, Nat Commun 8, 14653 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Divoux, V

    T. Divoux, V . Grenard, and S. Manneville, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 018304 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    Mungan, S

    M. Mungan, S. Sastry, K. Dahmen, and I. Regev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 178002

  36. [44]

    N. C. Keim and P. E. Arratia, Soft Matter 9, 6222 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    K. N. Nordstrom, J. P. Gollub, and D. J. Durian, Phys. Rev. E 84, 021403 (2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    S. Aime, D. Truzzolillo, D. J. Pine, L. Ramos, and L. Cipel- letti, Nat. Phys. (2023), 10.1038/s41567-023-02153-w

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    Goyon, A

    J. Goyon, A. Colin, G. Ovarlez, A. Ajdari, and L. Bocquet, Nature 454, 84 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    Bonnoit, J

    C. Bonnoit, J. Lanuza, A. Lindner, and E. Clement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 108302 (2010)

    2010

  41. [49]

    Sentjabrskaja, P

    T. Sentjabrskaja, P. Chaudhuri, M. Hermes, W. C. K. Poon, J. Horbach, S. U. Egelhaaf, and M. Laurati, Sci Rep 5, 11884 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    Mukherji, N

    S. Mukherji, N. Kandula, A. K. Sood, and R. Ganapathy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 158001 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    P. Jop, V . Mansard, P. Chaudhuri, L. Bocquet, and A. Colin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 148301 (2012)

    2012

  44. [52]

    H. A. Vinutha, M. Marchand, M. Caggioni, V . V . Vasisht, E. Del Gado, and V . Trappe, PNAS Nexus3, pgae441 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Martens, L

    K. Martens, L. Bocquet, and J.-L. Barrat, Soft Matter 8, 4197 (2012)

    2012

  46. [54]

    N. C. Keim, J. Hass, B. Kroger, and D. Wieker, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 012004 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Bhaumik, G

    H. Bhaumik, G. Foffi, and S. Sastry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 098001 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Bhaumik, G

    H. Bhaumik, G. Foffi, and S. Sastry, J. Chem. Phys. 156, 064502 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    Del Gado, P

    E. Del Gado, P. Ilg, M. Kröger, and H. C. Öttinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 095501 (2008)

    2008

  50. [58]

    M. L. Manning and A. J. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 108302 (2011)

    2011

  51. [59]

    Schall, D

    P. Schall, D. A. Weitz, and F. Spaepen, Science 318, 1895 (2007)

    2007

  52. [60]

    R. L. Jack and L. Berthier, The Journal of Chemical Physics 144, 244506 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    K. L. Kearns, M. D. Ediger, H. Huth, and C. Schick, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 1, 388 (2010)

    2010

  54. [62]

    S. F. Swallen, K. Traynor, R. J. McMahon, M. D. Ediger, and T. E. Mates, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 065503 (2009)

    2009

  55. [63]

    Herrero, C

    C. Herrero, C. Scalliet, M. D. Ediger, and L. Berthier, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 120, e2220824120 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    A. S. Keys, L. O. Hedges, J. P. Garrahan, S. C. Glotzer, and D. Chandler, Phys. Rev. X 1, 021013 (2011)

    2011

  57. [65]

    M. D. Ediger, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 51, 99 (2000)

    2000

  58. [66]

    Donth, H

    E. Donth, H. Huth, and M. Beiner, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 13, L451 (2001)

    2001

  59. [67]

    Yielding under the microscope: A multi-scale perspective on brittle and ductile behaviors in oscillatory shear,

    P. Edera, M. Brizioli, M. Madani, E. Ngouamba, P. Cous- 13 sot, V . Trappe, G. Petekidis, F. Giavazzi, and R. Cerbino, “Yielding under the microscope: A multi-scale perspective on brittle and ductile behaviors in oscillatory shear,” (2024), arXiv:2402.00221 [cond-mat]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Ozawa, L

    M. Ozawa, L. Berthier, G. Biroli, A. Rosso, and G. Tarjus, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 6656 (2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    Pollard and S

    J. Pollard and S. M. Fielding, Phys. Rev. Research 4, 043037 (2022)

    2022

  62. [70]

    Pommella, L

    A. Pommella, L. Cipelletti, and L. Ramos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 268006 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    Le Bouil, A

    A. Le Bouil, A. Amon, S. McNamara, and J. Crassous, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 246001 (2014)

    2014

  64. [72]

    Houdoux, T

    D. Houdoux, T. B. Nguyen, A. Amon, and J. Crassous, Phys. Rev. E 98, 022905 (2018)

    2018

  65. [73]

    A. S. Argon and H. Y . Kuo, Mater. Sci. Eng.39, 101 (1979)

    1979

  66. [74]

    Maloney and A

    C. Maloney and A. Lemaître, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 195501 (2004)

    2004

  67. [75]

    Dasgupta, H

    R. Dasgupta, H. G. E. Hentschel, and I. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 255502 (2012)

    2012

  68. [76]

    Antonaglia, W

    J. Antonaglia, W. J. Wright, X. Gu, R. R. Byer, T. C. Hufnagel, M. LeBlanc, J. T. Uhl, and K. A. Dahmen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 155501 (2014)

    2014

  69. [77]

    J. M. Alegre, I. I. Cuesta, and M. Lorenzo, Exp Mech 54, 1441 (2014)

    2014

  70. [78]

    Koivisto, M

    J. Koivisto, M. Ovaska, A. Miksic, L. Laurson, and M. J. Alava, Physical Review E 94, 23002 (2016)

    2016

  71. [79]

    Garcimartín, A

    A. Garcimartín, A. Guarino, L. Bellon, and S. Ciliberto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3202 (1997)

    1997

  72. [80]

    Kandula, B

    N. Kandula, B. Cordonnier, E. Boller, J. Weiss, D. K. Dysthe, and F. Renard, J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth124, 6121 (2019)

    2019

  73. [81]

    Renard, B

    F. Renard, B. Cordonnier, M. Kobchenko, N. Kandula, J. Weiss, and W. Zhu, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 476, 69 (2017)

    2017

  74. [82]

    D. A. Lockner, J. D. Byerlee, V . Kuksenko, A. Ponomarev, and A. Sidorin, Nature 350, 39 (1991)

    1991

  75. [83]

    Lockner, Int

    D. Lockner, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 30, 883 (1993)

    1993

  76. [84]

    C. A. Schuh and A. C. Lund, Nature Mater 2, 449 (2003)

    2003

  77. [85]

    Zöller, S

    G. Zöller, S. Hainzl, and J. Kurths, J. Geophys. Res.106, 2167 (2001)

    2001

  78. [86]

    S. M. Potirakis, A. Karadimitrakis, and K. Eftaxias, Chaos 23, 023117 (2013)

    2013

  79. [87]

    Girard, J

    L. Girard, J. Weiss, and D. Amitrano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 225502 (2012)

    2012

  80. [88]

    Sornette, Proc

    D. Sornette, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 2522 (2002)

    2002

  81. [89]

    Sornette and J

    D. Sornette and J. Andersen, Eur. Phys. J. B 1, 353 (1998)

    1998

  82. [90]

    Zapperi, A

    S. Zapperi, A. Vespignani, and H. E. Stanley, Nature 388, 658 (1997)

    1997

  83. [91]

    P. A. Johnson, B. Ferdowsi, B. M. Kaproth, M. Scuderi, M. Griffa, J. Carmeliet, R. A. Guyer, P.-Y . Le Bas, D. T. Trug- man, and C. Marone, Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 5627 (2013)

    2013

  84. [92]

    Houdoux, A

    D. Houdoux, A. Amon, D. Marsan, J. Weiss, and J. Crassous, Commun Earth Environ 2, 1 (2021)

    2021

  85. [93]

    A. A. Ostapchuk and K. G. Morozova, Sci Rep 10, 7245 (2020)

    2020

  86. [94]

    Gvirtzman and J

    S. Gvirtzman and J. Fineberg, Nat. Phys. 17, 1037 (2021)

    2021

  87. [95]

    R. A. Kromer, D. J. Hutchinson, M. J. Lato, D. Gauthier, and T. Edwards, Eng. Geol. 195, 93 (2015)

    2015

  88. [96]

    M. M. Scuderi, C. Marone, E. Tinti, G. Di Stefano, and C. Collettini, Nature Geosci 9, 695 (2016)

    2016

  89. [97]

    T. H. Dixon, Y . Jiang, R. Malservisi, R. McCaffrey, N. V oss, M. Protti, and V . Gonzalez, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 17039 (2014)

    2014

  90. [98]

    Vasseur, F

    J. Vasseur, F. B. Wadsworth, Y . Lavallée, A. F. Bell, I. G. Main, and D. B. Dingwell, Sci Rep 5, 13259 (2015)

    2015

  91. [99]

    Kádár, G

    V . Kádár, G. Pál, and F. Kun, Sci. Rep. 10, 2508 (2020)

    2020

  92. [100]

    J. Yu, A. Datye, Z. Chen, C. Zhou, O. E. Dagdeviren, J. Schroers, and U. D. Schwarz, Commun Mater 2, 1 (2021)

    2021

  93. [101]

    B. A. Sun, H. B. Yu, W. Jiao, H. Y . Bai, D. Q. Zhao, and W. H. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 035501 (2010)

    2010

  94. [102]

    Idrissi, M

    H. Idrissi, M. Ghidelli, A. Béché, S. Turner, S. Gravier, J.-J. Blandin, J.-P. Raskin, D. Schryvers, and T. Pardoen, Sci Rep 9, 13426 (2019)

    2019

  95. [103]

    Richard, M

    D. Richard, M. Ozawa, S. Patinet, E. Stanifer, B. Shang, S. A. Ridout, B. Xu, G. Zhang, P. K. Morse, J.-L. Barrat, L. Berthier, M. L. Falk, P. Guan, A. J. Liu, K. Martens, S. Sastry, D. Van- dembroucq, E. Lerner, and M. L. Manning, Phys. Rev. Mate- rials 4, 113609 (2020)

    2020

  96. [104]

    Rossi and G

    S. Rossi and G. Tarjus, J. Stat. Mech. 2022, 093301 (2022)

    2022

  97. [105]

    Rodney, A

    D. Rodney, A. Tanguy, and D. Vandembroucq, Modelling Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 19, 083001 (2011)

    2011

  98. [106]

    B. F. Di Dio, F. Khabaz, R. T. Bonnecaze, and M. Cloitre, J. Rheol. 66, 717 (2022)

    2022

  99. [107]

    Tuning residual stress, directional memory and aging in soft glassy materials,

    P. Edera, M. Bantawa, S. Aime, R. T. Bonnecaze, and M. Cloitre, “Tuning residual stress, directional memory and aging in soft glassy materials,” (2024), arXiv:2402.08293 [cond-mat]

    2024

  100. [108]

    Vasoya, C

    M. Vasoya, C. H. Rycroft, and E. Bouchbinder, Phys. Rev. Appl. 6, 024008 (2016)

    2016

  101. [109]

    M. Fan, M. Wang, K. Zhang, Y . Liu, J. Schroers, M. D. Shat- tuck, and C. S. O’Hern, Phys. Rev. E 95, 022611 (2017)

    2017

  102. [110]

    Kumar, P

    G. Kumar, P. Neibecker, Y . H. Liu, and J. Schroers, Nat. Com- mun. 4, 1536 (2013)

    2013

  103. [111]

    ¸ Sopu, F

    D. ¸ Sopu, F. Spieckermann, X. Bian, S. Fellner, J. Wright, M. Cordill, C. Gammer, G. Wang, M. Stoica, and J. Eckert, NPG Asia Mater 15, 1 (2023)

    2023

  104. [112]

    X. Bian, D. ¸ Sopu, G. Wang, B. Sun, J. Bednarˇcik, C. Gammer, Q. Zhai, and J. Eckert, NPG Asia Mater 12, 1 (2020)

    2020

  105. [113]

    Patinet, D

    S. Patinet, D. Vandembroucq, and M. L. Falk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 045501 (2016)

    2016

  106. [114]

    Rossi, G

    S. Rossi, G. Biroli, M. Ozawa, and G. Tarjus, Phys. Rev. B 108, L220202 (2023)

    2023

  107. [115]

    J. P. Sethna, K. A. Dahmen, and C. R. Myers, Nature 410, 242 (2001)

    2001

  108. [116]

    Rossi, G

    S. Rossi, G. Biroli, M. Ozawa, G. Tarjus, and F. Zamponi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 228002 (2022)

    2022

  109. [117]

    A. D. S. Parmar, S. Kumar, and S. Sastry, Phys. Rev. X 9, 021018 (2019)

    2019

  110. [118]

    Ozawa, L

    M. Ozawa, L. Berthier, G. Biroli, and G. Tarjus, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023227 (2022)

    2022

  111. [119]

    B. J. Berne and R. Pecora, Dynamic Light Scattering with Ap- plication to Chemistry, Biology, and Physics.(John Wiley and Sons, INC, 1990)

    1990

  112. [120]

    Philippe, D

    A.-M. Philippe, D. Truzzolillo, J. Galvan-Myoshi, P. Dieudonné-George, V . Trappe, L. Berthier, and L. Cipel- letti, Phys. Rev. E 97, 040601 (2018)

    2018

  113. [121]

    H. M. Wyss, K. Miyazaki, J. Mattsson, Z. Hu, D. R. Reich- man, and D. A. Weitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 238303 (2007)

    2007

  114. [122]

    Hess and N

    A. Hess and N. Aksel, Phys. Rev. E 84, 051502 (2011)

    2011

  115. [123]

    J. E. Hallett, F. Turci, and C. P. Royall, Nat Commun 9, 3272 (2018)

    2018

  116. [124]

    Gokhale, K

    S. Gokhale, K. Hima Nagamanasa, R. Ganapathy, and A. K. Sood, Nat Commun 5, 4685 (2014)

    2014

  117. [125]

    C. K. Mishra, K. Hima Nagamanasa, R. Ganapathy, A. K. Sood, and S. Gokhale, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 15362 (2014)

    2014

  118. [126]

    Chandler and J

    D. Chandler and J. P. Garrahan, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 61, 191 (2010)

    2010

  119. [127]

    Speck, J

    T. Speck, J. Stat. Mech. 2019, 084015 (2019)

    2019

  120. [128]

    L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifšic, L. P. Pitaevskij, and L. D. Landau, 14 Statistical Physics. 1: By E. M. Lifshitz and L. P. Pitaevskii , 3rd ed., Course of Theoretical Physics / L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz No. 5 (Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann, Amster- dam Heidelberg, 2011)

    2011

  121. [129]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL Will Be Inserted by Pub- lisher] for I) Model with arbitrary range of facilitated advec- tion coupling; II) Role of disorder: General considerations us- ing the central limit theorem; III) Convergence kinetics; IV) Statistics at fixed disorder...

  122. [130]

    H. Tong, S. Sengupta, and H. Tanaka, Nat Commun 11, 4863 (2020)

    2020

  123. [131]

    Colombo, A

    J. Colombo, A. Widmer-Cooper, and E. Del Gado, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 198301 (2013)

    2013

  124. [132]

    Ortlieb, T

    L. Ortlieb, T. S. Ingebrigtsen, J. E. Hallett, F. Turci, and C. P. Royall, Nat Commun 14, 2621 (2023)

    2023

  125. [133]

    E. D. Cubuk, R. J. S. Ivancic, S. S. Schoenholz, D. J. Strick- land, A. Basu, Z. S. Davidson, J. Fontaine, J. L. Hor, Y .-R. Huang, Y . Jiang, N. C. Keim, K. D. Koshigan, J. A. Lefever, T. Liu, X.-G. Ma, D. J. Magagnosc, E. Morrow, C. P. Ortiz, J. M. Rieser, A. Shavit, T. Stil...

    2017

  126. [134]

    Tong and H

    H. Tong and H. Tanaka, Nat Commun 10, 5596 (2019)

    2019

  127. [136]

    Petrov and I

    O. Petrov and I. Furó, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 13, 16358 (2011)

    2011

  128. [137]

    Chikazumi, C

    S. Chikazumi, C. D. Graham, and S. Chikazumi, Physics of Ferromagnetism, 2nd ed., The International Series of Mono- graphs on Physics No. 94 (Clarendon Press ; Oxford Univer- sity Press, Oxford : New York, 1997)

    1997

  129. [138]

    M. T. Dang, D. Denisov, B. Struth, A. Zaccone, and P. Schall, Eur. Phys. J. E 39, 44 (2016)

    2016

  130. [139]

    Weibull, IVB-Handl

    W. Weibull, IVB-Handl. 151 (1939)

    1939

  131. [140]

    B. D. Coleman, J. Appl. Phys. 29, 968 (1958)

    1958

  132. [141]

    S. Aime, N. D. Eisenmenger, and T. A. P. Engels, J. Rheol. 61, 1329 (2017)

    2017

  133. [142]

    Okni ´nski, Catastrophe Theory, Comprehensive Chemical Kinetics No

    A. Okni ´nski, Catastrophe Theory, Comprehensive Chemical Kinetics No. v. 33 (Elsevier ; PWN–Polish Scientific Publish- ers, Amsterdam ; New York : Warszawa, 1992)

    1992

  134. [143]

    Demazure, Bifurcations and Catastrophes (Springer, Berlin, 2000)

    M. Demazure, Bifurcations and Catastrophes (Springer, Berlin, 2000)

    2000

  135. [144]

    Widmer-Cooper, H

    A. Widmer-Cooper, H. Perry, P. Harrowell, and D. R. Reich- man, Nature Phys 4, 711 (2008)

    2008

  136. [145]

    Bellafard, S

    A. Bellafard, S. Chakravarty, M. Troyer, and H. G. Katz- graber, Annals of Physics 357, 66 (2015). Supplemental Material: Emergent scales and spatial correlations at the yielding transition of glassy materials Stefano Aime Laboratoire Matière Molle et Chimie, (UMR 7167, ESPCI-...

    2015 arXiv

  137. [146]

    Hence, the variance of P(Y ) (σ 2 Y ) exists and is finite if P(Y ) calculated at the two bounds is finite. For ND≫ 1 we can apply the central limit theorem for weakly dependent random variables [1] to the expression (2) and write ΓD− Γ0 = 1 ND [ NDE[Y ]± σY √ ND ] = E[Y ]± σY...

  138. [147]

    Fleermann and W

    M. Fleermann and W. Kirsch, arXiv.2202.04717 , 17 (2022). 8 0 .010 .11 1 01 001 00010- 51 0- 31 0- 11 01 1 03 1 0- 71 0- 41 0- 11 02 100 102 104 106 ¡ [s- 1]° 0 [%] 102 103 104 N ¡ t e qa 1 00 1 02 1 04 1 06 te q [steps] t e q [steps]° / ° y -1, °y /° - 1b Figure SM5. (a) Blac...

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.