Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 70 references

Dynamic modes of active Potts models with factorizable numbers of states

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 In a six-state active Potts model, dynamics can reorganize into three-state spiral waves, and this factorized-symmetry mode has transition exponents different from equilibrium.

desk verdict New factorized-symmetry modes are the real story; the claimed exponent shift needs stronger FSS evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23687 v2 pith:X77IQK46 submitted 2025-06-30 cond-mat.stat-mech nlin.PS

Hiroshi Noguchi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechnlin.PS
keywords activePottsmodelfactorizedsymmetrydynamicphasetransitionspiralwavescyclicflippingenergyMonteCarlosimulationfinite-sizescalingnonequilibriumdynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper studies the long-time nonequilibrium dynamics of $q$-state Potts models ($q=4,5,6,8$) on a two-dimensional square lattice driven by a cyclic flipping energy $h$. With standard contact energies, every $q$ shows the same two families: cyclic changes among $q$ homogeneous phases at low $h$ and coexisting $q$-state waves at high $h$. The paper's central claim is that when $q$ is factorizable, extra dynamic modes appear in which a subset of states organizes coherently: for $q=6$ in particular, a spiral wave of three states and cyclic changes among three homogeneous phases. It further claims that the transition from the six-state mixed phase to the three-state wave mode has scaling exponents modified from equilibrium values ($1/\nu = 1.12 \pm 0.02$ vs $0.95 \pm 0.02$), while the transition between two static mixed phases does not. This matters because it shows far-from-equilibrium fluctuations can turn equilibrium factorized phases into stable dynamic patterns, indicating a distinct nonequilibrium universality class.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the active Potts model: a $q$-state Potts model on a square lattice in which local single-site flips are biased by a cyclic flipping energy $h$, so detailed balance holds pairwise but not around the full state cycle. Mode selection is governed by the contact energies between non-nearest states: increasing $J_{k,[k+2]}$ (or $J_{k,[k+3]}$) stabilizes contacts between states of the same factor (odd/even, diagonal pairs, or residue classes) and destabilizes full symmetric cycling. The quantitative workhorse is finite-size scaling of the $n$-fold order parameter $R_n$ (which measures $n$-fold rotational symmetry in state space), susceptibility $\chi_n$, and a fourth-order cumulant $U_n$, whose collapse yields the exponents reported for the W3–M6 and HC3–M3 transitions.

What would settle it

Repeat the Pot6a W3–M6 scaling analysis at $L=128$ and $L=256$ with longer sampling: if the fitted $1/\nu$ drifts back toward the equilibrium value $0.95$ as $L$ grows, or if the fourth-order cumulant curves fail to collapse once the crossover to W6 is included, the reported exponent modification is a finite-size artifact. Similarly, extending the Pot6b HC3/M3 runs beyond $10^9$ Monte Carlo steps and finding odd-even switching would show the factorized modes are transient rather than stable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For $q=6$, with $J_{k,[k+3]}=J_{k,[k+2]}$ (Pot6a), the paper finds five modes: homogeneous cycling HC6, intermediate waves WI, six-state waves W6, three-state spiral waves W3, and a six-state mixed phase M6. In W3, only three odd- or even-numbered states form large domains, with the other three states confined to boundary clusters; the waves switch stochastically between odd and even triplets. The W3–M6 transition is continuous, and finite-size scaling gives $J_c = 1.214 \pm 0.001$ and exponents $1/\nu = 1.12 \pm 0.02$, $\gamma/\nu = 1.732 \pm 0.007$, $\beta/\nu = 0.132 \pm 0.002$ at $h=1$, compared with $0.95 \pm 0.02$, $1.742 \pm 0.002$, and $0.1233 \pm 0.0004$ at equilibrium. For $J_{k,[k+3]}=0$ (Pot6b), the factorized modes are homogeneous cycling of three states (HC3) and mixing of three states (M3); their transition exponents are close to the three-state Potts values within error. The same factorization picture appears for $q=4$ (HC2/M2) and $q=8$ (W4), and the paper frames all of these as dynamic symmetry factorization of $q=2\times3$, $2\times2$, and $2\times4$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the finite-size scaling fits on lattices up to $L=90$ are already in the asymptotic regime, despite the imperfect collapse for $(J_{k,[k+2]}-J_c)L^{1/\nu} \gtrsim 10$, and that the factorized modes are true long-time attractors rather than transients persisting only up to about $10^9$ Monte Carlo steps.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Factorizable $q$ Potts models become minimal lattice settings where equilibrium factorized phases turn into dynamic waves and cycling modes under a cyclic nonreciprocal drive.
  • The W3–M6 exponent shift implies the active drive can change the universality class of a continuous transition to a propagating wave mode, not just move its location.
  • The absence of a detectable exponent shift for HC3–M3 suggests only genuinely propagating wave modes, not static mixed phases, feel the nonequilibrium drive.
  • The long-lived factorized modes distinguish these models from cyclic-competition lattice models, which relax to a single absorbing state in the long-time limit.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not simulate composite $q$ beyond 8; a natural extension is to test $q=9$, $10$, or $12$, where tuning the appropriate second-neighbor contact energy should produce residue-class waves analogous to W3 and M2W3.
  • The observed state-skipping suggests a nucleation-rate competition mechanism; measuring nucleation and growth rates of states $k+1$ and $k+2$ directly could turn this qualitative picture into a quantitative prediction.
  • The four-state phase diagram at $J_{k,[k+2]}=-2$ maps onto a nonreciprocal two-spin clock model; probing intermediate $J_{k,[k+2]}$ could reveal whether the HC4/W4 coexistence seen in the symmetric model is generic or special to that line.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports Monte Carlo simulations of q-state active Potts models (q=4, 5, 6, 8) on a two-dimensional square lattice, with cyclic flipping energies h and state-dependent nearest-neighbor contact energies J_{s,s'}. It maps dynamic modes over several parameter slices: homogeneous cycling of q states (HCq), wave modes of q states (Wq), intermediate wave modes (WI), and mixed phases (Mq). For q=6, with factorizable 6 = 2 × 3, the paper identifies additional factorized-symmetry modes: waves of three states (W3), homogeneous cycling of three states (HC3), mixed phases of three states (M3), and mixed two-state variants (M2W3, M2HC3). Using finite-size scaling of the order parameter, susceptibility, and Binder cumulant for the three-fold symmetry, it reports critical exponents for the W3–M6 transition at h=0 and h=1 and for the HC3–M3 transition under a different parameter slice. The principal claims are that factorized-symmetry spatiotemporal modes emerge under cyclic driving and that the W3–M6 transition exponents are modified from equilibrium (1/ν = 1.12 ± 0.02 versus 0.95 ± 0.02 at h=1 versus h=0). The paper also maps four- and eight-state models and discusses connections to the Ashkin–Teller model and lattice Lotka–Volterra models.

Significance. The qualitative phenomenology is valuable: the observation that factorizable q enables modes with reduced state symmetry is a natural but nontrivial extension of the author's earlier work on three- and four-state active Potts models, and the systematic phase diagrams over multiple parameter slices give a useful map. Strengths include extensive Monte Carlo sampling with system-size checks (L=22–256, multiple independent runs), explicit mode-classification metrics, and careful comparison with known equilibrium and nonequilibrium results, including the mapping to the Avni clock model. If the exponent shift is confirmed, it would be an interesting example of nonequilibrium criticality in a lattice model with stable spatiotemporal patterns, distinct from absorbing-state Lotka–Volterra models. The main caveat is that the quantitative exponent claim rests on finite-size scaling fits whose quality is not fully documented, and no code or raw data are provided for independent verification.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III A 1, Fig. 6, Table I] The central quantitative claim is the difference in 1/ν between h=1 (1.12 ± 0.02) and h=0 (0.95 ± 0.02) for the W3–M6 transition in Pot6a. The paper explicitly notes that for (J_{k,[k+2]} − J_c)L^{1/ν} ≳ 10 the scaling curves do not collapse for either h=0 or h=1, and the fits use L ≤ 90. If the quartic fits include this non-collapsing wing, the quoted exponents are effective, L-dependent values rather than asymptotic critical exponents; the difference of about 0.17 is only roughly 8σ of the quoted statistical errors, so a modest contamination could erase it. The h=0 baseline is also not equal to the exact three-state Potts value 1/ν = 6/5, so the comparison cannot be anchored to a known fixed point. I ask the authors to specify the exact fitting window in the scaling variable, to show the stability of Table I when the x ≳ 10 region is excluded and when L=128 is included, and to provide a quantitative collapse criterion or goodness-of-fit measure. Without this, the modified-exponent claim is not established.
  2. [Sec. III A 2, Fig. 8] The stability of the factorized mixed phase M3 is asserted from the absence of odd–even switching in simulation periods up to about 10^9 MC steps. This is a finite-time bound, whereas the Introduction claims dynamics in the long-term limit (t → ∞) that are independent of initial states. Please provide a quantitative lower bound on the switching time, report whether any odd–even switching event is observed in the longest runs, and discuss the system-size dependence of the switching time. Otherwise the M3 mode could be a long-lived metastable state rather than a stable phase of the infinite system.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III C heading] The section heading 'F our-State Potts Model' contains a typo; it should read 'Four-State Potts Model'.
  2. [References] Reference 60, 'J. Zeininger and et al.,' should be 'J. Zeininger et al.'
  3. [Eqs. (2)–(4)] The symbol s_n is used both for the local state index s and for the order-parameter magnitude in Eq. (3); using a different notation, such as ρ_n, would avoid confusion.
  4. [Sec. III A 1 and Sec. III A 2] The mode definitions rely on operational thresholds (N_s/N > 0.95, N_s/N > 0.05, and τ_HC3/τ_1 > 10). It would be helpful to state whether the reported phase boundaries are stable under moderate changes of these thresholds.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all central claims are direct Monte Carlo observations with fitted exponents used as outputs, not fitted inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper makes no analytic derivation that reduces to its inputs. The central claims—emergence of factorizable-state dynamic modes (W3, M6, HC3, M3, M2W3, etc.) and the reported scaling exponents—are obtained by direct Monte Carlo simulation of a defined q-state Potts model. The quantities R_n, chi_n, U_n, p_phase, p_contact, and n_c1 are all measured observables, and the exponents 1/nu, gamma/nu, beta/nu are extracted from finite-size scaling fits of those observables. The fitted parameters (J_c, exponents) are outputs of the analysis, not inputs that are then redisguised as predictions. The only self-citations are to the author's previous three- and four-state active Potts studies (Refs. 34-36), and these are used as background context or for comparison (e.g., Fig. 15(c) reproduces a previous q=4 plot). None of these self-citations carries the load of the new q=6 factorizable-mode results, which are presented with their own phase diagrams, time series, and scaling collapses. The paper also transparently notes the imperfect collapse for (J_k,[k+2]-J_c)L^{1/nu} ≳ 10 and attributes it to crossover; this is a caveat about the asymptotic reliability of the FSS estimates, not a circular step. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggled in by citation, or renaming of a known result as a new derivation is present. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be quoted, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model parameters h and J are scanned control parameters, not fitted. The fitted Jc values and scaling exponents are the quantitative outputs. The main load-bearing axioms are the finite-size scaling ansatz and the assertion that the simulated times are the true long-time limit.

free parameters (6)
  • J_c, Pot6a h=0 = 1.725 +/- 0.002
    Transition point between M3 and M6 at equilibrium, fitted from Binder cumulant and susceptibility crossings.
  • J_c, Pot6a h=1 = 1.214 +/- 0.001
    Transition point between W3 and M6 under active flipping, fitted from the same finite-size analysis.
  • J_c, Pot6b h=0 = 0.992 +/- 0.001
    Transition point between HC3 and M3 at equilibrium, fitted from Binder cumulant data.
  • J_c, Pot6b h=1 = 0.977 +/- 0.001
    Transition point between HC3 and M3 under active flipping, fitted from Binder cumulant data.
  • Scaling exponents Pot6a h=1 = 1/nu = 1.12 +/- 0.02, gamma/nu = 1.732 +/- 0.007, beta/nu = 0.132 +/- 0.002
    Fitted by least-squares to scaling forms; the claimed deviation from equilibrium values is the main quantitative result.
  • Mode classification thresholds = one phase N_s/N > 0.95; n-phase coexistence N_s/N > 0.05; HC3 if tau_HC3/tau1 > 10
    Hand-chosen criteria used to assign dynamic modes in phase diagrams; changing them shifts boundaries.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Metropolis dynamics with cyclically symmetric flipping energies defines a nonequilibrium steady state with pairwise detailed balance but global cyclic imbalance.
    This is the active drive; the paper assumes it yields stable long-time modes rather than absorbing states.
  • standard math For q<=4 the equilibrium standard Potts transition is continuous, for q>4 first-order, with J_{0,c}=ln(1+sqrt(q)); J_{k,k}=2 is deep in the ordered phase.
    Used to justify initial ordered phases and interpret q=4/5/6/8 behavior.
  • ad hoc to paper Finite-size scaling forms R3 L^(beta/nu), chi3 L^(-gamma/nu), U3 hold for the W3-M6 and HC3-M3 transitions with a single set of exponents.
    Central quantitative claim depends on this scaling ansatz, which the paper acknowledges has imperfect collapse at large scaling variable.
  • domain assumption Runs up to about 10^8 to 10^9 MC steps represent the t->infinity long-term limit independent of initial condition.
    The paper asserts long-term limit but cannot prove absence of later transitions, e.g., even-odd switching.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic modes of active Potts models with factorizable numbers of states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X77IQK46

@misc{pith2026250623687,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic modes of active Potts models with factorizable numbers of states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X77IQK46}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23687}
}
abstract

We studied the long-term nonequilibrium dynamics of $q$-state Potts models with $q=4$, $5$, $6$, and $8$ using Monte Carlo simulations on a two-dimensional square lattice. When the contact energies between the nearest neighbors for the standard Potts models are used, cyclic changes in the $q$ homogeneous phases and $q$-state coexisting wave mode appear at low and high flipping energies, respectively, for all values of $q$. However, for a factorizable $q$ value, dynamic modes with skipping states emerge, depending on the contact energies. For $q=6$, a spiral wave mode with three domain types (one state dominant or two states mixed) and cyclic changes in three homogeneous phases are found. Although three states can coexist spatially under thermal equilibrium, the scaling exponents of the transitions to the wave modes are modified from the equilibrium values.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23687 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Six-state Potts model at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Time development of number densities of states in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Time development of number densities of states in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Dependence on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Transition between W3 (M3) and M6 modes at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Six-state Potts model with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Time development of number densities of states in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Transition between HC3 (H) and M3 modes at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Six-state Potts model at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Time development of number densities of states in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Dependence on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Probabilities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Dynamic phase diagram of the five-state Potts model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_16.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Dependence on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_19.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Four-state Potts model at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_18.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Eight-state Potts model at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_20.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    We simulated the dynamics using pa- rameters in three 2D slices (Jk,[k+3] =J k,[k+2],J k,[k+3] = 0, andJ k,[k+2] = 0) to widely survey the parameter space

    Modes forJ k,[k+3] =J k,[k+2] For six-state Potts model (q= 6), we have a 3D param- eter space (h, Jk,[k+2], Jk,[k+3]), while keepingJ k,k = 2 andJ k,[k+1] = 0. We simulated the dynamics using pa- rameters in three 2D slices (Jk,[k+3] =J k,[k+2],J k,[k+3] = 0, andJ k,[k+2] = 0) to widely survey the parameter space. First, we describe the dynamics forJ k,[...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Modes forJ k,[k+3] = 0 Next, we investigate theJ k,[k+2] dependence while keepingJ k,[k+3] = 0 (Figs. 7–10). We refer to this con- dition as Pot6b. Although the dynamics forJ k,[k+2] ≤0 are similar to those forJ k,[k+3] =J k,[k+2], two modes (HC3 and M3) are found forJ k,[k+2] >0, instead of the 6 -1 0 1 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Jk,[k+2] h HC6 W6 M3 WI HC3 (c) FIG. ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Modes forJ k,[k+2] = 0 Next, we investigate theJ k,[k+3] dependence while keepingJ k,[k+2] = 0 (Figs. 11–13). We refer to this con- dition as Pot6c. ForJ k,[k+3] <0, the W3 mode emerges in addition to the HC6, WI, and W6 modes, since the contact between thekand [k+ 2] states becomes more stable than that between thekand [k+ 3] states (see 8 -1 0 1 2 0.8 1...

    work page

  4. [4]

    1(e), 7(c), and 11(c))

    Modes forJ k,[k+2] +J k,[k+3] = 1 Several modes are shown in the three phase diagrams (Figs. 1(e), 7(c), and 11(c)). At the final part of this 9 0 0.5 1 0 5e+07 1e+08 Ns/N t (b) 0 0.5 1 Ns/N (a) FIG. 13. Time development of number densities of states in the six-state Potts model atJ k,[k+2] = 0 andL= 128 (Pot6c). (a) Temporal coexistence of M2W3 and M2HC3...

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    (c) Dynamic phase diagram

    are mixed. (c) Dynamic phase diagram. The red circles, gray crosses, magenta diamonds, blue up-pointing triangles, green down-pointing triangles, and light blue squares repre- sent HC6, M2W3, M2HC3, W6, WI, and W3, respectively. Figs. 11(c) and 12). The transition between the W3 and HC6 modes occurs via the temporal coexistence of the two modes, as shown ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Nicolis and I

    G. Nicolis and I. Prigogine,Self-organization in nonequi- librium systems : From dissipative structures to order through fluctuations(Wiley, New York, 1977)

    1977

  7. [7]

    Haken,Synergetics : Introduction and advanced topics (Springer, Berlin, 2004)

    H. Haken,Synergetics : Introduction and advanced topics (Springer, Berlin, 2004)

    2004

  8. [8]

    Mikhailov,Foundations of synergetics I: Distributed active systems, 2nd ed

    A. Mikhailov,Foundations of synergetics I: Distributed active systems, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, 1994)

    1994

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    M. I. Rabinovich, A. B. Ezersky, and P. D. Weidman, The dynamics of patterns(World Scientific, Singapore, 2000)

    2000

  2. [10]

    Kuramoto,Chemical oscillations, waves, and turbu- lence(Springer, Berlin, 1984)

    Y. Kuramoto,Chemical oscillations, waves, and turbu- lence(Springer, Berlin, 1984)

    1984

  3. [11]

    J. A. Acebr´ on, L. L. Bonilla, C. J. P´ erez Vicente, F. Ri- tort, and R. Spigler, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 137 (2005)

    2005

  4. [12]

    J. D. Murray,Mathematical biology II: Spatial models and biomedical applications, 3rd ed. (Springer, New York, 2003)

    2003

  5. [13]

    Z. You, A. Baskaran, and M. C. Marchetti, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA117, 19767 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Fruchart, R

    M. Fruchart, R. Hanai, P. B. Littlewood, and V. Vitelli, Nature592, 363 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Rana and R

    N. Rana and R. Golestanian, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 078301 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Guislain and E

    L. Guislain and E. Bertin, J. Stat. Mech. , 093210 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Beta and K

    C. Beta and K. Kruse, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.8, 239 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Kondo, M

    S. Kondo, M. Watanabe, and S. Miyazawa, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A379, 20200274 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Bailles, E

    A. Bailles, E. W. Gehrels, and T. Lecuit, Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol.38, 321 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Noguchi, ChemSystemsChem7, e202400042 (2025)

    H. Noguchi, ChemSystemsChem7, e202400042 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    F. Y. Wu, Rev. Mod. Phys.54, 235 (1982)

    1982

  14. [22]

    R. B. Potts, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc.48, 106 (1952)

    1952

  15. [23]

    R. J. Baxter, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.6, L445 (1973)

    1973

  16. [24]

    Binder, J

    K. Binder, J. Stat. Phys.24, 69 (1981)

    1981

  17. [25]

    Binder, Z

    K. Binder, Z. Physik B43, 119 (1981)

    1981

  18. [26]

    R. V. Ditzian, J. R. Banavar, G. S. Grest, and L. P. Kadanoff, Phys. Rev. B22, 2542 (1980)

    1980

  19. [27]

    G. S. Grest and M. Widom, Phys. Rev. B24, 6508 (1981)

    1981

  20. [28]

    J. A. Plascak and F. C. S. Barreto, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.19, 2195 (1986)

    1986

  21. [29]

    Benayad, A

    N. Benayad, A. Benyoussef, N. Boccara, and A. E. Kenz, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.21, 5747 (1988)

    1988

  22. [30]

    Kohmoto, M

    M. Kohmoto, M. den Nijs, and L. P. Kadanoff, Phys. Rev. B24, 5229 (1981)

    1981

  23. [31]

    Fradkin, Phys

    E. Fradkin, Phys. Rev. Lett.53, 1967 (1984)

    1984

  24. [32]

    Okubo, K

    T. Okubo, K. Oshikawa, H. Watanabe, and N. Kawashima, Phys. Rev. B91, 174417 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Nishino and S

    M. Nishino and S. Miyashita, Phys. Rev. B94, 184434 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    S. Iino, S. Morita, N. Kawashima, and A. W. Sandvik, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.88, 034006 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Musia l, D

    G. Musia l, D. Jeziorek-Knio la, and Z. Wojtkowiak, Phys. Rev. E103, 062124 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Akinci, Phys

    U. Akinci, Phys. A469, 740 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Santos, R

    J. Santos, R. Francisco, and D. Rosa, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.538, 168281 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Martynec, S

    T. Martynec, S. H. L. Klapp, and S. A. M. Loos, New J. Phys.22, 093069 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Noguchi, F

    H. Noguchi, F. van Wijland, and J.-B. Fournier, J. Chem. Phys.161, 025101 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Noguchi and J.-B

    H. Noguchi and J.-B. Fournier, New J. Phys.26, 093043 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Noguchi, Sci

    H. Noguchi, Sci. Rep.15, 674 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Manacorda and E

    A. Manacorda and E. Fodor, Phys. Rev. E111, L053401 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    Y. Avni, M. Fruchart, D. Martin, D. Seara, and V. Vitelli, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 117103 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Y. Avni, M. Fruchart, D. Martin, D. Seara, and V. Vitelli, Phys. Rev. E111, 034124 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    Noguchi, Soft Matter21, 1113 (2025)

    H. Noguchi, Soft Matter21, 1113 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    Szolnoki, M

    A. Szolnoki, M. Mobilia, L.-L. Jiang, B. Szczesny, A. M. Rucklidge, and M. Perc, J. R. Soc. Interface11, 20140735 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    Szab´ o and A

    G. Szab´ o and A. Szolnoki, Phys. Rev. E65, 036115 (2002)

    2002

  40. [48]

    Reichenbach, M

    T. Reichenbach, M. Mobilia, and E. Frey, Nature448, 1046 (2007)

    2007

  41. [49]

    Szczesny, M

    B. Szczesny, M. Mobilia, and A. M. Rucklidge, EPL102, 28012 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    E. D. Kelsic, J. Zhao, K. Vetsigian, and R. Kishony, Nature521, 516 (2015)

    2015

  43. [51]

    Dobramysl, M

    U. Dobramysl, M. Mobilia, M. Pleimling, and U. C. T¨ auber, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.51, 063001 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    Szab´ o and G

    G. Szab´ o and G. Arial Sznaider, Phys. Rev. E69, 031911 (2004)

    2004

  45. [53]

    Szab´ o, A

    G. Szab´ o, A. Szolnoki, and I. Borsos, Phys. Rev. E77, 041919 (2008)

    2008

  46. [54]

    Roman, D

    A. Roman, D. Konrad, and M. Pleimling, J. Stat. Mech. , P07014 (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    Rulquin and J

    C. Rulquin and J. J. Arenzon, Phys. Rev. E89, 032133 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    Bazeia, B

    D. Bazeia, B. F. de Oliveira, and A. Szolnoki, Phys. Rev. E99, 052408 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    Zhong, L

    L. Zhong, L. Zhang, H. Li, Q. Dai, and J. Yang, Chaos Soliton. Fract.156, 111806 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    R. K. Yang and J. Park, Chaos Soliton. Fract.175, 113949 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Szolnoki and X

    A. Szolnoki and X. Chen, Sci. Rep.13, 8472 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    Takahashi and A

    J. Takahashi and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033459 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    Ertl, Angew

    G. Ertl, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed.47, 3524 (2008)

    2008

  54. [62]

    Br¨ ar, N

    M. Br¨ ar, N. Gottschalk, M. Eiswirth, and G. Ertl, J. Chem. Phys.100, 1202 (1994)

    1994

  55. [63]

    Gorodetskii, J

    V. Gorodetskii, J. Lauterbach, H.-H. Rotermund, J. H. Block, and G. Ertl, Nature370, 276 (1994)

    1994

  56. [64]

    Barroo, Z.-J

    C. Barroo, Z.-J. Wang, R. Schlr¨ ogl, and M.-G. Willinger, Nat. Catal.3, 30 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    Zeininger and et al., ACS Catal.12, 11974 (2022)

    J. Zeininger and et al., ACS Catal.12, 11974 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    Tabe and H

    Y. Tabe and H. Yokoyama, Nat. Mater.2, 806 (2003)

    2003

  59. [67]

    Miele, Z

    Y. Miele, Z. Medveczky, G. Holl´ o, B. Tegze, I. Der´ enyi, Z. H´ orv¨ olgyi, E. Altamura, I. Lagzi, and F. Rossi, Chem. Sci.11, 3228 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    Holl´ o, Y

    G. Holl´ o, Y. Miele, F. Rossi, and I. Lagzi, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.23, 4262 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    Noguchi, Soft Matter19, 679 (2023)

    H. Noguchi, Soft Matter19, 679 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    Noguchi, in preparation

    H. Noguchi, in preparation

Pith tools

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