Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 59 references

Depinning and activated motion of chiral self-propelled robots

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A pulled spinning robot behaves exactly like a Brownian particle in a tilted washboard potential, with a sharp depinning transition at a critical drive speed and a noise-induced creep regime below it.

desk verdict A careful experimental realization of the washboard depinning problem with chiral robots; the central physics holds up, but the 'no fitting parameters' claim is overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20610 v1 pith:IRMZ7HSC submitted 2025-06-25 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.soft

Juan Pablo Carrillo-Mora , Adrià Garcés , Demian Levis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.soft
keywords chiralactivematterself-propelledrobotsdepinningtransitiontiltedperiodicpotentialcreepregimeKramersescapetimeFokker-Planckequationself-alignment
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

Small vibrating robots that swim in circles on their own are pulled at constant speed through a straight channel, and the paper claims that their orientation dynamics becomes exactly that of a Brownian particle rolling down a tilted periodic potential. In that picture the ratio $\Omega = \omega_0 / \omega_a$ of the robot's intrinsic rotation rate to the self-alignment rate set by the pull controls everything: for $|\Omega| < 1$ the heading locks to a fixed angle, and for $|\Omega| > 1$ it rotates continuously, with a sharp saddle-node depinning transition at $\Omega = 1$ that carries the standard square-root exponent $\beta = 1/2$. Rotational noise, always present in the robots, rounds the transition into a creep regime in which the heading occasionally escapes over potential barriers and rotates by $2\pi$; these escape times are computed from the exact stationary solution of the Fokker-Planck equation. Using only robot parameters measured from free and driven trajectories, the analytical distributions and escape times match particle-based simulations and experiments, establishing the toy robots as a quantitative model system for chiral active matter.

What carries the argument

The central object is the tilted washboard potential $U(\theta) = -\omega_0\theta - \omega_a \cos\theta$, obtained from the self-alignment equation $\dot{\theta} = \omega_0 - \omega_a \sin\theta + \sqrt{2D_R}\,\eta$, where $\omega_a = V/\ell_a$ is the self-alignment frequency imposed by the drive and $\omega_0$ is the robot's intrinsic chirality. This potential turns the pulled-robot problem into the textbook problem of a Brownian particle driven over a periodic landscape, for which the Fokker-Planck equation admits an exact steady-state solution in terms of modified Bessel functions and the escape times follow from mean first-passage time (Kramers) theory. The saddle-node bifurcation at $|\omega_0| = \omega_a$ is the mechanism that produces the depinning transition, and the barrier height $\Delta U(\Omega)$ sets the creep rate.

What would settle it

Measure the mean angular velocity $\overline{\dot{\theta}}$ as a function of the drive speed $V$ for a single robot at the lowest attainable noise, and test whether near the threshold it scales as $\sqrt{\Omega^2 - 1}$ with the saddle-node exponent; a different scaling, or a value of $\ell_a$ obtained from Eq. (4) that drifts with $V$, would falsify the model. Alternatively, compare the orientation histograms for $|\Omega| < 1$ against the exact Bessel-function solution (Eq. (9)) using parameters measured from free trajectories only, without any calibration against driven data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under a constant-velocity drive, the angular dynamics of a chiral self-aligning particle reduces to $\dot{\theta} = \omega_0 - \omega_a \sin\theta + \sqrt{2D_R}\,\eta$, which is the equation of an overdamped Brownian particle in the tilted periodic potential $U(\theta) = -\omega_0\theta - \omega_a \cos\theta$, with the robot's activity providing both the tilt and the noise. In the noiseless limit ($D_R = 0$) the stable fixed point $\theta_{\mathrm{st}} = \arcsin(\omega_0 / \omega_a)$ exists only for $|\omega_0| < \omega_a$, so a saddle-node bifurcation at the critical ratio $\Omega_c = 1$ separates a pinned phase, in which the robot relaxes to a stationary orientation, from a depinned phase in which the orientation advances at mean rate $\overline{\dot{\theta}} \sim \sqrt{\Omega^2 - 1}$ with exponent $\beta = 1/2$. For finite $D_R$, activation across the barriers of $U$ produces a creep regime below threshold, and the paper solves the Fokker-Planck equation exactly to obtain the stationary orientation distribution and the mean first-passage times, finding that the Kramers-like escape time grows exponentially with the barrier height. Experiments on centimeter-scale robots confirm the predicted stationary distributions and the rounded depinning curves with no additional fitting parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that the only effect of the pull is the self-alignment term $\omega_a \sin\theta$ in the angular equation, with the circular shell, wire, and motor contributing no extra torque or noise; if the pulling mechanics injects additional forces, the exact mapping to a tilted washboard potential would not hold as stated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The robots provide an accessible tabletop experiment in which the depinning transition and its critical exponent $\beta = 1/2$ can be measured directly, without specialized microfabrication.
  • In the presence of rotational noise, the heading can rotate by $2\pi$ even when $|\Omega| < 1$, with the escape time controlled by the barrier height $\Delta U(\Omega)$ and the noise amplitude $D_R$ playing the role of temperature.
  • The exact steady-state orientation distribution, Eq. (9), reproduces the experimental histograms for both the pinned and depinned regimes using independently measured robot parameters, supporting the claim that the robots form a quantitative experimental model for chiral active matter.
  • Because the model is exactly solvable, the paper's dynamic phase diagram can serve as a benchmark for comparing other chiral active systems, including microscopic swimmers, against a parameter-free theoretical prediction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The identical equation describes a resistively and capacitively shunted Josephson junction and a phase-locked loop, so the robot experiment offers a macroscopic analog in which noise rounding of the depinning transition can be visualized in real time.
  • The same mapping suggests a practical protocol for measuring the chirality of microscopic swimmers: impose a controlled flow, record orientation histograms, and fit the stationary distribution Eq. (9) to extract $\omega_0$ and $\omega_a$.
  • A natural extension is to pull many interacting robots in parallel; the competition between self-alignment and chirality may then give rise to collective depinning or synchronized rotation, which the single-particle solution could seed but not fully describe.
  • The claim of 'no fitting parameters' depends on the calibration of $\ell_a$ from driven time series via Eq. (4); a stricter test would measure $\ell_a$ from robot geometry or free dynamics alone, which would verify whether the self-alignment term is truly torque-free.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies a single chiral self-propelled robot (a Hexbug) pulled at constant translational velocity V through a channel while its orientation is free to rotate. The authors model the angular dynamics by Eq. (3), theta_dot = omega_0 - (V/l_a) sin(theta) + sqrt(2 D_R) eta, which is equivalent to an overdamped Brownian particle in a tilted periodic potential U(theta) = -omega_0 theta - omega_a cos(theta), with omega_a = V/l_a. In the noiseless limit, the stable orientation is theta_st = arcsin(Omega) with Omega = omega_0/omega_a, and a saddle-node bifurcation at |Omega| = 1 gives a depinning transition with mean angular velocity scaling as (Omega - Omega_c)^(1/2). With rotational noise, escapes over potential barriers produce a creep regime. The authors solve the Fokker-Planck equation exactly for the steady-state distribution P_st(theta), Eq. (9), and use Kramers theory to estimate the mean first-passage time, Eq. (7). They report agreement between the analytic results, particle-based simulations, and experiments on 20 robots, claiming that this agreement is achieved with no fitting parameters after measuring v_0, omega_0, D_R, and l_a from trajectory data.

Significance. If the claims are properly supported, the paper offers a clean experimental realization of a depinning transition in a tilted periodic potential using an active granular system, and it demonstrates that a simple single-particle Fokker-Planck model quantitatively captures the orientation dynamics. The exact steady-state solution Eq. (9) and the systematic measurement of model parameters across many robots are valuable contributions, as is the explicit link between self-alignment and a washboard potential. However, the central claim of 'no fitting parameters' is not supported as stated, because l_a is extracted by fitting the model's own deterministic solution Eq. (4) to driven trajectories; the subsequent comparisons therefore serve as consistency checks of a fitted model rather than independent predictions. In addition, the escape-time result is presented as exact in the abstract although Eq. (7) is an approximate Kramers expression valid only for |Omega| << 1. These issues are local and fixable by rewording and by adding the missing supporting analyses, so the paper's core physics and experimental demonstration remain credible.

major comments (3)
  1. [Parameter measurement and Eq. (4)] The self-alignment length l_a is not measured independently. The text states that l_a 'cannot be simply extracted from free trajectories' and is instead obtained by fitting Eq. (4), the noiseless solution of the model Eq. (3), to driven theta(t) time series. Later comparisons of P_st(theta) (Fig. 3) and mean angular velocity (Fig. 2(f)) use this same fitted l_a. Consequently, those comparisons test whether the fitted Fokker-Planck equation reproduces other observables, but they do not validate the model as parameter-free. The abstract's phrase 'with no fitting parameters' is therefore an overstatement. To support the claim, the authors should either provide an independent measurement of l_a, or demonstrate explicitly that l_a extracted at different pulling velocities V is constant (within uncertainty); otherwise the 'no fitting parameters' wording should be replaced by a description such as 'with parameters fixed from free and driven single-trajectory measurements.'
  2. [Abstract and Eq. (7)] The abstract states that 'the steady-state distribution and escape times from local potential barriers ... can be computed exactly within the model,' but Eq. (7) is a Kramers approximation valid only in the |Omega| << 1 limit, as the main text itself acknowledges: 'Eq. (7) provides a very good approximation of T for |Omega| << 1.' The figure label 'exact T computed from our model' in Fig. 2(e) is thus inaccurate. The authors should revise these statements to distinguish the exact steady-state solution from the approximate Kramers escape-time expression and state the validity range of Eq. (7) in the figure and text.
  3. [Eq. (3) and experimental setup] The mapping to the tilted periodic potential rests on the assumption that the imposed translational velocity enters the angular dynamics only through the self-alignment term with |rdot| = V, and that the circular shell and wire exert no orientation-dependent torque on the robot. However, in the experiment the robot's own self-propulsion mechanism (v_0) remains active while the shell is pulled, and the interaction between the vibrating legs and the shell could generate additional torques. Because l_a is fitted from driven trajectories using Eq. (4), any such torque would be absorbed into an effective l_a, so the agreement in Figs. 2(f) and 3 would not by itself confirm the specific self-alignment mechanism. A concrete test would be to check whether the extracted l_a is independent of V (and of the robot's vibration amplitude), or to compare the model's transient relaxation prediction with data without re-fitting l_a. As written, this is a correctness risk for the claim that the model is mechanism-specific and parameter-free.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (7) and Fig. 2(e)] The text calls T the 'escape time' and also the 'mean first passage time'; please use one term consistently and clarify that Eq. (7) is an approximation that may fail as Omega approaches 1, where the barrier vanishes.
  2. [Fig. 2(f) caption] The caption says continuous lines are 'analytic results using the stationary distribution' for the mean angular velocity; please specify whether these lines come from Eq. (9) integrated over theta (as suggested by the main text) or from an additional approximation, and state the corresponding parameter values.
  3. [Parameter statistics] The paper reports broad distributions for v_0, D_R, omega_0, and l_a across 20 robots but does not show these distributions in the main text. A table or histogram of the measured parameters, and a statement of how many robots were used for each figure, would help the reader judge the variability and the robustness of the comparisons.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The central model is calibrated by fitting l_a to forced theta(t) data, so the 'no fitting parameters' agreement for P_st and escape times is a consistency check rather than an independent prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Model and parameter measurement, around Eqs. (3)-(4); steady-state and escape-time results, Eqs. (7)-(9) and Fig. 3.]
    "The self-aligning characteristic length l_a, cannot be simply extracted from free trajectories. To measure it, we drive the system externally. ... Then, having fixed ω0 from the robots' free trajectories, one can use Eq. (4) to fit the experimental time series of θ(t) under forcing at different values of V to extract ωa as a function of V, and then l_a = V/ωa ... In both cases, the analytic solution Eq. 9 reproduces the data by just setting the parameters of the model to the values previously measured in the experiments."

    l_a is the only parameter that cannot be obtained from free trajectories; it is obtained by fitting Eq. (4), the deterministic solution of Eq. (3), to forced θ(t) time series. The same fitted ω_a = V/l_a is then inserted into the Fokker-Planck solution Eq. (9) and Kramers formula Eq. (7) to generate the 'with no fitting parameters' agreement for P_st and escape times. The fit and the predictions are therefore not independent: the predicted observables are derived from a model whose key coupling is calibrated on the same driven experiment. If the wire/shell adds unmodeled torques, l_a absorbs them as an effective parameter, so the agreement does not independently validate the assumed sin(φ−θ) self-alignment form or the no-extra-torque assumption.

full rationale

The main derivation chain — SACAP equations (1)-(3), mapping to the tilted washboard potential U(θ) = −ω0θ − ωa cosθ, the exact stationary Fokker-Planck solution Eq. (9), and the Kramers escape-time estimate Eq. (7) — is internally self-contained and mathematically consistent given the model. The depinning exponent β = 1/2 and the creep rounding are generic properties of a tilted periodic potential, and the paper explicitly cites standard references (Risken; Kolton/Jagla; Ferrero et al.) rather than presenting them as new discoveries. There is no load-bearing self-citation: the authors' earlier chiral-active-matter papers are background, not the validation machinery. The genuine issue is that l_a is fitted from forced θ(t) data using Eq. (4), which is itself the noiseless solution of the model being tested. The subsequent 'no fitting parameters' statement for Fig. 3 and the escape-time comparisons is therefore too strong: those comparisons test the internal consistency of the calibrated equation, not a parameter-free prediction. Because the predicted observables are not the same function as the fitted relaxation curve, this is a calibration loop rather than a full identity, so a score of 3 is appropriate rather than 6+. Separately, the abstract says escape times 'can be computed exactly within the model', while Eq. (7) is a Kramers approximation valid for |Ω| ≪ 1; this is an overstatement/accuracy concern, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on three measured parameters (omega_0, D_R, l_a), of which l_a is calibrated by fitting the model's deterministic solution to the driven trajectories. The mechanical assumptions about the shell and the form of the self-alignment torque are adopted from prior active matter models rather than derived from the robot's construction.

free parameters (3)
  • l_a (self-alignment length) = 5.8 to 13.9 cm per robot
    Measured by fitting the deterministic solution Eq. (4) to the experimental time series of theta(t) under forcing at different V. It enters the driven dynamics through omega_a = V/l_a in Eq. (3).
  • omega_0 (intrinsic chirality) = -1.72 to 1.06 s^-1
    Measured from the free-trajectory orientation autocorrelation function via the fit e^{-D_R t} cos(omega_0 t). Sets the tilt in the effective potential U(theta).
  • D_R (rotational diffusion) = 0.01 to 0.16 s^-1
    Measured from the free-trajectory orientation autocorrelation function. Acts as the temperature in the Kramers escape time and in the stationary distribution.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Angular dynamics is a Markovian overdamped Langevin equation with additive Gaussian white noise.
    Eq. (3) and the Fokker-Planck equation Eq. (8) rely on this standard stochastic modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption Self-alignment torque has the form (|rdot|/l_a) sin(phi - theta).
    Eq. (2), second term. This form is taken from the self-aligning active particle literature, not derived from the mechanics of Hexbugs.
  • domain assumption The circular shell imposes rdot = V e_x and leaves the orientation unconstrained.
    Paragraph following Eq. (2). Assumes the wire and shell exert no torque on the robot's orientation and that the robot's self-propulsion does not affect translation in the driven setup.
  • domain assumption Rotational noise amplitude D_R is independent of the drive V and unchanged from free motion.
    The value of D_R measured in free trajectories is used for all driven simulations and analytical predictions.
  • domain assumption Kramers' approximation for the mean first passage time is valid in the |Omega| << 1 limit.
    Eq. (7) and the text state the approximation is valid for |Omega| << 1 and 'provides a very good approximation of T for |Omega| << 1'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Depinning and activated motion of chiral self-propelled robots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IRMZ7HSC

@misc{pith2026250620610,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Depinning and activated motion of chiral self-propelled robots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IRMZ7HSC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20610}
}
read the original abstract

We study experimentally, numerically and analytically, the dynamics of a chiral active particle (cm-sized robots), pulled at a constant translational velocity. We show that the system can be mapped to a Brownian particle driven across a periodic potential landscape, and thus exhibits a rotational depinning transition in the noiseless limit, giving rise to a creep regime in the presence of rotational diffusion. We show that a simple model of chiral, self-aligning, active particles accurately describes such dynamics. The steady-state distribution and escape times from local potential barriers, corresponding to long-lived orientations of the particles, can be computed exactly within the model and is in excellent agreement with both experiments and particle-based simulations, with no fitting parameters. Our work thus consolidates such self-propelled robots as a model system for the study of chiral active matter, and highlights the interesting dynamics arising from the interplay between external and internal driving forces in the presence of a self-aligning torque.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20610 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) A self-propelled robot with a director [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Experimental snapshots at different times showing (a) the relaxation of a robot’s orientation towards a stationary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Stationary distributions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. C. Marchetti, J.-F. Joanny, S. Ramaswamy, T. B. Liverpool, J. Prost, M. Rao, and R. A. Simha, Hydrody- namics of soft active matter, Reviews of Modern Physics 85, 1143 (2013)

    2013

  2. [2]

    O´ Byrne, Y

    J. O´ Byrne, Y. Kafri, J. Tailleur, and F. van Wij- land, Time irreversibility in active matter, from micro to macro, Nature Reviews Physics4, 167 (2022). 5

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Poon, From clarkia to escherichia and janus: The physics of natural and synthetic active colloids, inPhysics of Complex Colloids(IOS Press, 2013) pp

    W. Poon, From clarkia to escherichia and janus: The physics of natural and synthetic active colloids, inPhysics of Complex Colloids(IOS Press, 2013) pp. 317–386

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Bechinger, R

    C. Bechinger, R. Di Leonardo, H. L¨ owen, C. Reichhardt, G. Volpe, and G. Volpe, Active particles in complex and crowded environments, Reviews of Modern Physics88, 045006 (2016)

    2016

  5. [5]

    Baconnier, O

    P. Baconnier, O. Dauchot, V. D´ emery, G. D¨ uring, S. Henkes, C. Huepe, and A. Shee, Self-aligning polar active matter, Reviews of Modern Physics97, 015007 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    Romanczuk, M

    P. Romanczuk, M. B¨ ar, W. Ebeling, B. Lindner, and L. Schimansky-Geier, Active brownian particles: From individual to collective stochastic dynamics, The Euro- pean Physical Journal Special Topics202, 1 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    Liebchen and D

    B. Liebchen and D. Levis, Chiral active matter, Euro- physics Letters139, 67001 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Lauga, W

    E. Lauga, W. R. DiLuzio, G. M. Whitesides, and H. A. Stone, Swimming in circles: motion of bacteria near solid boundaries, Biophysical Journal90, 400 (2006)

    2006

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    K¨ ummel, B

    F. K¨ ummel, B. Ten Hagen, R. Wittkowski, I. Buttinoni, R. Eichhorn, G. Volpe, H. L¨ owen, and C. Bechinger, Circular motion of asymmetric self-propelling particles, Physical Review Letters110, 198302 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    Barona Balda, A

    A. Barona Balda, A. Argun, A. Callegari, and G. Volpe, Playing with active matter, American Journal of Physics 92, 847 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Deblais, T

    A. Deblais, T. Barois, T. Guerin, P.-H. Delville, R. Vau- daine, J. S. Lintuvuori, J.-F. Boudet, J.-C. Baret, and H. Kellay, Boundaries control collective dynamics of in- ertial self-propelled robots, Physical Review Letters120, 188002 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Boudet, J

    J.-F. Boudet, J. Lintuvuori, C. Lacouture, T. Barois, A. Deblais, K. Xie, S. Cassagnere, B. Tregon, D. B. Br¨ uckner, J.-C. Baret,et al., From collections of indepen- dent, mindless robots to flexible, mobile, and directional superstructures, Science Robotics6, eabd0272 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Baconnier, D

    P. Baconnier, D. Shohat, C. H. L´ opez, C. Coulais, V. D´ emery, G. D¨ uring, and O. Dauchot, Selective and collective actuation in active solids, Nature Physics18, 1234 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Baconnier, D

    P. Baconnier, D. Shohat, and O. Dauchot, Discontinu- ous tension-controlled transition between collective ac- tuations in active solids, Physical Review Letters130, 028201 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Baconnier, V

    P. Baconnier, V. D´ emery, and O. Dauchot, Noise-induced collective actuation in active solids, Physical Review E 109, 024606 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Lazzari, O

    D. Lazzari, O. Dauchot, and C. Brito, Tuning collective actuation of active solids by optimizing activity localiza- tion, Soft Matter20, 8570 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    F. Gu, B. Guiselin, N. Bain, I. Zuriguel, and D. Bar- tolo, Emergence of collective oscillations in massive hu- man crowds, Nature638, 112 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Deseigne, O

    J. Deseigne, O. Dauchot, and H. Chat´ e, Collective mo- tion of vibrated polar disks, Physical Review Letters105, 098001 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Szabo, G

    B. Szabo, G. Sz¨ oll¨ osi, B. G¨ onci, Z. Jur´ anyi, D. Selmeczi, and T. Vicsek, Phase transition in the collective migra- tion of tissue cells: experiment and model, Physical Re- view E74, 061908 (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    Malinverno, S

    C. Malinverno, S. Corallino, F. Giavazzi, M. Bergert, Q. Li, M. Leoni, A. Disanza, E. Frittoli, A. Oldani, E. Martini,et al., Endocytic reawakening of motility in jammed epithelia, Nature Materials16, 587 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    K.-D. N. T. Lam, M. Schindler, and O. Dauchot, Self- propelled hard disks: implicit alignment and transition to collective motion, New Journal of Physics17, 113056 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Dauchot and V

    O. Dauchot and V. D´ emery, Dynamics of a self-propelled particle in a harmonic trap, Physical Review Letters122, 068002 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    M. Y. Ben Zion, J. Fersula, N. Bredeche, and O. Dauchot, Morphological computation and decentralized learning in a swarm of sterically interacting robots, Science Robotics 8, eabo6140 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Hexbug®is a toy automat brand developed and dis- tributed by innovation first,https://www.hexbug.com

  17. [25]

    Giomi, N

    L. Giomi, N. Hawley-Weld, and L. Mahadevan, Swarm- ing, swirling and stasis in sequestered bristle-bots, Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences469, 20120637 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    L´ evay, A

    S. L´ evay, A. Katona, H. L¨ owen, R. C. Hidalgo, and I. Zuriguel, Cluster dynamics in macroscopic photoactive particles, arXiv preprint: 2412.14419 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Barois, J.-F

    T. Barois, J.-F. Boudet, N. Lanchon, J. S. Lintu- vuori, and H. Kellay, Characterization and control of a bottleneck-induced traffic-jam transition for self- propelled particles in a track, Physical Review E99, 052605 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    G. A. Patterson, P. I. Fierens, F. Sangiuliano Jimka, P. K¨ onig,´A. Garcimart ´ ın, I. Zuriguel, L. A. Pugnaloni, and D. R. Parisi, Clogging transition of vibration-driven vehicles passing through constrictions, Physical Review Letters119, 248301 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Sep´ ulveda, F

    N. Sep´ ulveda, F. Guzm´ an-Lastra, M. Carrasco, B. Gonz´ alez, E. Hamm, and A. Concha, Bioinspired mag- netic active matter and the physical limits of magneto- taxis, arXiv preprint: 2111.04889 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Altshuler, O

    A. Altshuler, O. L. Bonomo, N. Gorohovsky, S. Mar- chini, E. Rosen, O. Tal-Friedman, S. Reuveni, and Y. Roichman, Environmental memory facilitates search with home returns, Physical Review Research6, 023255 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Barois, J.-F

    T. Barois, J.-F. Boudet, J. S. Lintuvuori, and H. Kellay, Sorting and extraction of self-propelled chiral particles by polarized wall currents, Physical Review Letters125, 238003 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    W. Li, L. Li, Q. Shi, M. Yang, and N. Zheng, Chiral sepa- ration of rotating robots through obstacle arrays, Powder Technology407, 117671 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Y. Xia, Z. Hu, D. Wei, K. Chen, Y. Peng, and M. Yang, Biomimetic synchronization in biciliated robots, Physical Review Letters133, 048302 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Zheng, M

    E. Zheng, M. Brandenbourger, L. Robinet, P. Schall, E. Lerner, and C. Coulais, Self-oscillation and synchro- nization transitions in elastoactive structures, Physical Review Letters130, 178202 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Xu, C.-R

    T.-L. Xu, C.-R. Qin, B. Tang, J.-C. Gao, J. Zhou, K. Chen, T. H. Zhang, and W.-D. Tian, Constrained mo- tion of self-propelling eccentric disks linked by a spring, The Journal of Chemical Physics161(2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Y. Xi, T. Marzin, R. B. Huang, T. J. Jones, and P.- T. Brun, Emergent behaviors of buckling-driven elasto- active structures, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121, e2410654121 (2024). 6

    2024

  29. [37]

    S´ anchez and P

    R. S´ anchez and P. D ´ ıaz-Leyva, Self-assembly and speed distributions of active granular particles, Physica A: Sta- tistical Mechanics and its Applications499, 11 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    P. M. Obreque, O. Garrido, D. Romero, H. L¨ owen, and F. Guzm´ an-Lastra, Dynamics of magnetic self-propelled particles in a harmonic trap, arXiv preprint: 2403.02569 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Chauve, T

    P. Chauve, T. Giamarchi, and P. Le Doussal, Creep and depinning in disordered media, Physical Review B62, 6241 (2000)

    2000

  32. [40]

    Reichhardt and C

    C. Reichhardt and C. O. Reichhardt, Depinning and nonequilibrium dynamic phases of particle assemblies driven over random and ordered substrates: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 026501 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    V. H. Purrello, J. L. Iguain, V. Lecomte, and A. B. Kolton, Hysteretic depinning of a particle in a periodic potential: Phase diagram and criticality, Physical Review E102, 022131 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    A. B. Kolton and E. A. Jagla, Thermally rounded de- pinning of an elastic interface on a washboard potential, Physical Review E102, 052120 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    E. E. Ferrero, A. B. Kolton, and E. A. Jagla, Yielding of amorphous solids at finite temperatures, Physical Review Materials5, 115602 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Risken, Brownian motion in periodic potentials, in The Fokker-Planck Equation: Methods of Solution and Applications(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 1996) pp

    H. Risken, Brownian motion in periodic potentials, in The Fokker-Planck Equation: Methods of Solution and Applications(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 1996) pp. 276–373

    1996

  37. [45]

    A. V. Straube and F. H¨ ofling, Depinning transition of self-propelled particles, Physical Review E110, L062601 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Young, G

    E. Young, G. Melaugh, and R. J. Allen, Active layer dynamics drives a transition to biofilm fingering, npj Biofilms and Microbiomes9, 17 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Su and B

    M. Su and B. Lindner, Active brownian particles in a biased periodic potential, The European Physical Journal E46, 22 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    VanSaders and S

    B. VanSaders and S. C. Glotzer, Pinning dislocations in colloidal crystals with active particles that seek stacking faults, Soft Matter16, 4182 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    S´ andor, A

    C. S´ andor, A. Libal, C. Reichhardt, and C. J. Olson Re- ichhardt, Dynamic phases of active matter systems with quenched disorder, Physical Review E95, 032606 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    Reichhardt and C

    C. Reichhardt and C. J. O. Reichhardt, Clogging and depinning of ballistic active matter systems in disordered media, Physical Review E97, 052613 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Van Teeffelen and H

    S. Van Teeffelen and H. L¨ owen, Dynamics of a brownian circle swimmer, Physical Review E78, 020101 (2008)

    2008

  44. [52]

    Liebchen and D

    B. Liebchen and D. Levis, Collective behavior of chiral active matter: Pattern formation and enhanced flocking, Physical Review Letters119, 058002 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    See supplemental material at for experimental videos, details on the experimental setup and particle character- ization, mathematical derivations and additional results complementing those shown in the main text

  46. [54]

    E. E. Ferrero, L. Foini, T. Giamarchi, A. B. Kolton, and A. Rosso, Creep motion of elastic interfaces driven in a disordered landscape, Annual Review of Condensed Mat- ter Physics12, 111 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    (see SM [53] for the details of the derivation). In the |Ω| ≪1 limit, it can be estimated from Kramers’ theory [57] T= 2π ωa(1−Ω 2) exp ∆U(Ω) DR ,(7) where, ∆U(Ω) =ω a Ω (2 arcsin Ω−π) + 2 √ 1−Ω 2 is the associated energy barrier (see Fig. 2(c)), a decreasing function of|Ω|suc...

    2023

  48. [56]

    Baron, Diffusion over barriers, inReaction Rate The- ory and Rare Events Simulations(Elsevier, Amsterdam,

    P. Baron, Diffusion over barriers, inReaction Rate The- ory and Rare Events Simulations(Elsevier, Amsterdam,

  49. [57]

    H. A. Kramers, Brownian motion in a field of force and the diffusion model of chemical reactions, Physica7, 284 (1940)

    1940

  50. [58]

    H¨ anggi, P

    P. H¨ anggi, P. Talkner, and M. Borkovec, Reaction-rate theory: fifty years after kramers, Reviews of Modern Physics62, 251 (1990)

    1990

  51. [59]

    R. L. Stratonovich, Synchronization of an oscillator in the presence of noise, inTopics in the theory of random noise, Vol. 2 (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1967) pp. 222–276

    1967

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.