Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Rigidity control of general origami structures

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 single formula predicts the critical density of rigidity in general origami structures.

desk verdict Useful numerical survey and a correct hypergeometric bound, but the unified predictive model is a fit to its own data and cannot account for the Miura-ori resolution trend. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16934 v1 pith:5WMWOKYM submitted 2025-07-22 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.stat-mech

Rongxuan Li , Gary P. T. Choi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.stat-mech MSC 74K99 PACS 46.70.-p
keywords origamirigiditypercolationdegreesoffreedomhypergeometricmodeltriangularfacetratiopower-of-choicesmechanicalmetamaterialsplanarityconstraint
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 reports that the critical transition density of rigidity percolation in a wide range of origami structures—periodic, rotational, and perforated—is controlled by only three quantities: the selection rule, the number of candidate facets considered at each step, and the fraction of triangular facets in the pattern. Starting from a floppy state where all facets may bend, the authors enforce facet planarity one facet at a time and track the degrees of freedom. Their hypergeometric analysis bounds the probability of a DOF-decreasing step at any density in terms of the triangular facet ratio, and their numerical simulations identify a smooth dependence of the critical density on the rule and the number of choices. They propose a five-parameter hyperbolic-tangent-plus-linear model that reproduces the simulated critical density for each pattern and resolution, and they argue this allows prediction and design of high-resolution origami rigidity without expensive simulation.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the hypergeometric model of facet selection, which bounds the probability $P_1(\rho)$ that a DOF-decreasing step occurs at density $\rho$ by $(1-t(\rho))^k$ under the Least Efficient rule and by $1-t(\rho)^k$ under the Most Efficient rule, where $t(\rho)$ is the fraction of triangular facets remaining. This bounds the rigidity percolation process in terms of $t$ and $k$, making the triangular facet ratio a structural control parameter. The unified tanh-plus-linear fit in Eq. (21) then connects this to the critical density $\rho^*$.

What would settle it

Take a pattern not among the nine studied, compute its triangular facet ratio $t$, predict $\rho^*$ from the fitted constants of the closest family, and run rigidity-percolation simulations at high resolution; a systematic deviation beyond the reported RMSE would show the tanh-plus-linear form or the $t$-transfer assumption does not generalize.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the rigidity percolation transition in general origami structures is governed by the ratio of triangular facets and the power-of-choices selection process. By defining the critical density $\rho^*$ as the smallest planarity constraint density at which at least half of the simulations reach the minimum DOF, the authors show that the simulated $\rho^*$ values for nine origami patterns across three resolutions each collapse onto a tanh-based functional form $\rho^*_{\text{fit}} = a \tanh(b \cdot (-1)^r \log(k) + c) + d t + f$, where $r$ distinguishes the Most Efficient from the Least Efficient selection rule, $k$ is the number of candidate facets, and $t$ is the initial triangular facet ratio. They also prove that $n-3$ sub-planarity constraints are necessary and sufficient to enforce the planarity of an $n$-sided polygonal facet, generalizing earlier Miura-ori-specific treatments to arbitrary polygonal facets.

Load-bearing premise

The five fitted parameters in Eq. (21) are trained on all 33 simulated points per pattern and are then assumed to transfer to other resolutions and patterns of the same family through the single variable $t$, with no held-out test to confirm that transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any given origami pattern and resolution, the critical transition density can be predicted directly from the triangular facet ratio $t$, the rule $r$, and the number of choices $k$, without running high-resolution simulations.
  • Designers can invert the model to choose the rule $r$ and number of choices $k$ needed to reach a target critical density, effectively programming a desired floppy-to-rigid transition in a physical origami structure.
  • The $n-3$ sub-planarity constraint result extends the rigidity-control framework to facets with any number of edges, lifting the earlier quadrilateral-only limitation.
  • The simulations show that resolution affects the critical density only when it changes the triangular facet ratio; patterns whose facet composition is scale-invariant have resolution-independent transitions.
  • The study highlights that the Most Efficient and Least Efficient rules act as near-mirror controls, with the power of choices affecting each in opposite but complementary ways.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the tanh-form transfer to unobserved patterns holds, one could extend the same fitted constants to any pattern that shares the same $t$, a transfer the paper does not explicitly test with held-out data.
  • The hypergeometric bounds suggest that a more refined stochastic differential equation model of the selection process could yield an analytic mean and variance for $\rho^*$, a direction the authors propose but do not carry out.
  • A direct experimental test would rigidify facets in paper or sheet prototypes of the studied patterns and compare the measured transition density to the predicted value, something the paper does not include.
  • The identification of $t$ as a master variable may extend to other structural assemblies that reduce to a percolation of local geometric constraints, though the paper does not claim this.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies rigidity control of nine general origami structures by sequentially imposing facet-planarity constraints under two stochastic selection rules (Most Efficient and Least Efficient) with varying numbers of candidates k. The authors formulate a rigidity matrix for arbitrary polygonal facets, simulate DOF evolution at three resolutions per pattern, define a critical transition density rho*, derive hypergeometric bounds that identify the initial triangular facet ratio t as a key structural variable, and fit a tanh-based model (Eq. 21) to rho* as a function of (-1)^r log(k) and t. They claim this model enables efficient prediction of rho* for high-resolution origami structures without direct simulation.

Significance. If the predictive claim were supported, the paper would offer a practical design tool for choosing selection rules and candidate-set sizes to achieve a target rigidity in large origami structures. The hypergeometric bounds in Section II.C are a concise and useful formalization of why triangular facets matter under the two selection rules, and the numerical study is broad, covering periodic, rotational, and perforated patterns at multiple resolutions. The paper also includes physical paper models and a sensitivity check over folding percentages, which strengthen the empirical part. However, the central high-resolution prediction claim is not currently supported: the model is fit in-sample to the same data it is claimed to predict, and the paper's own tables contain resolution trends that Eq. (21) cannot represent.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II.A, Eq. (9)] Equation (9) states d = 3E - rank(A) - 6, but the rigidity matrix A has 3V columns, so the nullity of A is 3V - rank(A) and the correct expression after removing the six trivial motions is d = 3V - rank(A) - 6. The subsequent Eq. (10) uses 3V, confirming that Eq. (9) is internally inconsistent. Since the DOF computation underpins all simulation results, please correct the formula and verify that the numerical implementation used 3V rather than E.
  2. [Section III.C, Eq. (21), Table S1] The central predictive claim for high-resolution structures is not supported by the evidence presented. Eq. (21) depends only on r, k, and t, with per-structure fitted constants a, b, c, d, f. For Miura-ori, t = 0.00 at all three resolutions, yet Table S1 shows that rho* under the Most Efficient rule at k = 16 changes from 0.3900 (100 facets) to 0.3111 (225 facets) to 0.2550 (400 facets). The model therefore cannot reproduce this resolution dependence, and fitting it jointly to all 33 points per structure averages over the trend rather than explaining it. No held-out or out-of-sample test is reported, so the claim that one can use the fitted model to predict rho* for high-resolution structures is unjustified. A resolution-aware variable (e.g., number of facets or a t-resolution interaction) and a validation protocol that excludes a target resolution from the fit are needed.
  3. [Section III, rank estimation] The rank of the rigidity matrix A is described as approximated by counting non-zero diagonal entries of the upper triangular matrix R from a QR factorization, but no numerical tolerance is specified. The resulting DOF values, and hence all critical densities rho*, depend on this threshold. Please report the exact rank-revealing criterion used, demonstrate that the results are insensitive to reasonable threshold choices, or replace the heuristic with a documented rank-revealing decomposition. This is also necessary for reproducibility.
  4. [Appendix C, Tables S1-S3] Several entries in the critical-density tables appear inconsistent with the paper's own definitions and warrant verification. At k = 1 the Most Efficient and Least Efficient rules are identical, and in every other row of Tables S1-S3 their rho* values are close; however, in the Kirigami Honeycomb 276-facet row the reported values are 0.8711 and 0.4200, a discrepancy of about 0.45 that cannot be explained by the rules being identical. In addition, the Perforated Triangle 225-facet row reports t = 0.00 while the 49- and 106-facet rows report t = 0.46 and t = 0.43; this abrupt change in the central structural variable would strongly affect the fitting in Eq. (21). Please check these entries and correct any transcription errors.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (7)] The indexing in the description of the edge constraints reads {g_ej}_{i=1}^E; the summation index should be j = 1, ..., E.
  2. [Section III.C and Appendix C] The main text says the model is fit 'to each origami structure and resolution,' while Appendix C states that the five parameters are fit to all 33 points (3 resolutions x 11 selection parameters) for each structure. Please make this consistent.
  3. [Section III.C, Eq. (21)] Calling Eq. (21) a 'unified model' is potentially misleading because the five parameters are structure-specific (Table S4). The functional form is unified, but the parameters are not. Please clarify this in the text.
  4. [Appendix A] The phrase 'the 3 x 4 plots on the right' in the discussion of Fig. S2 is unclear; please specify the number of panels and what each panel shows.
  5. [Supplementary captions] There is a typographical spacing error in the caption of Fig. S2 ('Huffman W aterbombs' in the following figure caption as well); please correct it.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Eq. (21) is trained on the 33 simulated rho* values it is then used to "predict", and because the model has no resolution variable, the claimed high-resolution prediction reduces to the in-sample fit.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III.C, Eq. (21); Appendix C, curve fitting and Table S4.]
    "By fitting this model to each origami structure and resolution, we see that the fitted result rho*_fit matches the simulated values rho* both qualitatively and quantitatively (see Fig. 6(b) and the detailed results in Appendix C). Thus, for any given origami pattern and resolution, we can predict the critical transition density using the corresponding fitted parameters. ... For high-resolution structures, direct simulation is computationally expensive."

    Appendix C states that the parameters a,b,c,d,f are obtained by fitting all 33 simulated rho* values for each structure (11 values of (-1)^r log(k) at 3 resolutions), so every reported match between rho*_fit and rho* is an in-sample goodness-of-fit rather than a prediction. Moreover, Eq. (21) depends only on r, k, and t, with no resolution argument. For Miura-ori, Table S1 gives t=0.00 at resolutions of 100, 225, and 400 facets, while rho* under the Most Efficient rule at k=16 is 0.3900, 0.3111, and 0.2550 respectively; the fitted formula must therefore return one value for all three resolutions.

full rationale

Most of the paper is not circular. The rigidity-matrix formulation, the proof that n-3 sub-planarity constraints are needed for an n-sided facet, the numerical DOF simulations, and the hypergeometric bounds in Eqs. (12)-(18) are derived from explicit assumptions and are independently testable. The self-citations to Chen and Mahadevan [19] and Li and Choi [20] provide background and methodology for Miura-ori rigidity percolation, but they are not the load-bearing content of the unified model. The circularity is confined to the predictive use of the tanh model in Eq. (21). The constants a,b,c,d,f are fit to all simulated critical densities for each pattern (Appendix C, Table S4), and the paper's evidence is that the fitted curve matches those same simulated values. When the paper then proposes to predict rho* for high-resolution origami from the triangular facet ratio t, the model has no resolution variable, so for patterns whose t is resolution-independent (e.g., Miura-ori with t=0.00 at all three resolutions in Table S1), the prediction is insensitive to the very resolution differences visible in the simulated data. The hypergeometric analysis supports t as an important variable, but it does not determine the tanh functional form or the fitted constants, and no held-out test validates transfer to unobserved resolutions. Therefore the central predictive claim is a fitted-input-called-prediction: it reproduces the training data rather than independently predicting new structures. This is partial circularity, not complete self-definition, because the DOF simulations and hypergeometric bounds are genuine independent content, so the score is 6 rather than 8 or 10.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central quantitative claim rests on structure-specific fitted parameters and on the transfer of those parameters to unseen resolutions. The hypergeometric bounds are elementary and provide only partial, inequality-level support; the predictive model itself is an ad hoc empirical fit.

free parameters (2)
  • tanh model parameters a,b,c,d,f per structure = Vary per structure; see Table S4 (e.g., Miura-Ori: a=0.353314, b=0.615089, c=0.766633, d=0.000000, f=0.647008)
    Five parameters per origami structure fitted to 33 simulated rho* values in Appendix C and used in Eq (21) to predict rho*.
  • QR rank threshold = Not reported
    DOF is computed by counting nonzero diagonal entries of R after QR; the tolerance for nonzero is unspecified, and computed DOF values are further clamped into [1,dinitial], so an implicit numerical cutoff is part of the method.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The infinitesimal rigidity of an origami sheet is fully captured by the rank of matrix A containing edge, no-shear, and facet planarity constraints.
    Section II.A Eqs (7)-(9); this follows Chen-Mahadevan [19] and Guest [37] but is a modeling assumption about what constitutes rigidity.
  • domain assumption Triangulating an n-gon by any valid set of internal diagonals and fixing internal edge lengths prevents shear without changing the DOF count.
    Section II.A Eq (2) and the remark after it; no numerical verification of triangulation invariance is provided for all patterns.
  • standard math The n-3 sub-planarity constraints are independent and minimal at the folded configurations used.
    Appendix A proves the theorem by rank counting under a generic-configuration assumption; the proof assumes the stated edge and no-shear rows have the claimed rank.
  • ad hoc to paper The tanh functional form in Eq (21) is an appropriate model for rho* across all structures and resolutions.
    No derivation is given; the form is chosen by visual inspection of the apparent symmetry in the simulated rho* data, Section III.C.
  • ad hoc to paper Fitted parameters from three lower resolutions transfer to unobserved high-resolution structures through the triangular facet ratio t.
    Implicit in the prediction claim in Section III.C; no out-of-sample validation is provided.
  • domain assumption Folding percentage does not affect rigidity behavior for all general origami structures.
    Concluded in Appendix A from two structures (Huffman Rectangular Weave and Huffman Waterbombs) tested at 25%, 50%, and 75% folding; this is an overgeneralization.
  • domain assumption DOF is non-increasing throughout the process, and clamping numerical DOF values into [1,dinitial] does not distort the statistics.
    Section III states that rank approximation may be affected by numerical errors and that computed DOF values are restricted to [1,dinitial].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rigidity control of general origami structures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5WMWOKYM

@misc{pith2026250716934,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rigidity control of general origami structures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5WMWOKYM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16934}
}
read the original abstract

Origami, the traditional paper-folding art, has inspired the modern design of numerous flexible structures in science and engineering. In particular, origami structures with different physical properties have been studied and utilized for various applications. More recently, several deterministic and stochastic approaches have been developed for controlling the rigidity or softness of the Miura-ori structures. However, the rigidity control of other origami structures is much less understood. In this work, we study the rigidity control of general origami structures via enforcing or relaxing the planarity condition of their polygonal facets. Specifically, by performing numerical simulations on a large variety of origami structures with different facet selection rules, we systematically analyze how the geometry and topology of different origami structures affect their degrees of freedom (DOF). We also propose a hypergeometric model based on the selection process to derive theoretical bounds for the probabilistic properties of the rigidity change, which allows us to identify key origami structural variables that theoretically govern the DOF evolution and thereby the critical rigidity percolation transition in general origami structures. Moreover, we develop a simple unified model that describes the relationship between the critical percolation density, the origami facet geometry, and the facet selection rules, which enables efficient prediction of the critical transition density for high-resolution origami structures. Altogether, our work highlights the intricate similarities and differences in the rigidity control of general origami structures, shedding light on the design of flexible mechanical metamaterials for practical applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16934 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_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_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Explosive connectivity and mechanical rigidity in cubic lattice structures

    cond-mat.stat-mech 2025-11 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    For 3D cubic lattices, the paper claims first-order finite-size signatures of explosive percolation for k≥2 and monotone rigidification efficiency with k, but the proof of the central theorem is arithmetically impossi...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    History of origami in the east and the west be- fore interfusion,

    K. Hatori, “History of origami in the east and the west be- fore interfusion,” Origami 5: Fifth International Meeting of Origami Science, Mathematics, and Education, vol. 5, pp. 1–10, 2011

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Curvature and creases: A primer on paper,

    Huffman, “Curvature and creases: A primer on paper,” IEEE Trans. Comput., vol. 100, no. 10, pp. 1010–1019, 1976

    work page 1976

  3. [3]

    On the mathematics of flat origamis,

    T. Hull, “On the mathematics of flat origamis,” Congr. Numer., pp. 215–224, 1994

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    A computational algorithm for origami de- sign,

    R. J. Lang, “A computational algorithm for origami de- sign,” in Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Symposium on Computational Geometry, pp. 98–105, 1996

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    Kawasaki, Roses, origami & math

    T. Kawasaki, Roses, origami & math. Japan Publications Trading, 2005

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    E. D. Demaine and J. O’Rourke, Geometric folding algo- rithms: linkages, origami, polyhedra. Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2007

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Origamizing polyhedral surfaces,

    T. Tachi, “Origamizing polyhedral surfaces,” IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 298–311, 2009

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    R. J. Lang, Origami design secrets: mathematical methods for an ancient art. CRC Press, 2012

    work page 2012

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Design, fabrication and control of origami robots,

    D. Rus and M. T. Tolley, “Design, fabrication and control of origami robots,” Nat. Rev. Mater., vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 101– 112, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Soft robotic origami crawler,

    Q. Ze, S. Wu, J. Nishikawa, J. Dai, Y. Sun, S. Leanza, C. Zemelka, L. S. Novelino, G. H. Paulino, and R. R. Zhao, “Soft robotic origami crawler,” Sci. Adv., vol. 8, no. 13, p. eabm7834, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Origami mechanologic,

    B. Treml, A. Gillman, P. Buskohl, and R. Vaia, “Origami mechanologic,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 115, no. 27, pp. 6916–6921, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Bistability-based foldable origami mechanical logic gates,

    Z. Meng, W. Chen, T. Mei, Y. Lai, Y. Li, and C. Q. Chen, “Bistability-based foldable origami mechanical logic gates,” Extreme Mech. Lett., vol. 43, p. 101180, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Miura folding: Applying origami to space exploration,

    Y. Nishiyama, “Miura folding: Applying origami to space exploration,” Int. J. Pure Appl. Math., vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 269–279, 2012

    2012

  6. [14]

    Method of packaging and deployment of large membranes in space,

    K. Miura, “Method of packaging and deployment of large membranes in space,” The Institute of Space and Astro- nautical Science Report, no. 618, pp. 1–9, 1985

    1985

  7. [15]

    Geometric mechanics of periodic pleated origami,

    Z. Y. Wei, Z. V. Guo, L. Dudte, H. Y. Liang, and L. Mahadevan, “Geometric mechanics of periodic pleated origami,” Phy. Rev. Lett., vol. 110, no. 21, p. 215501, 2013

    2013

  8. [16]

    Geometry of Miura-folded metamaterials,

    M. Schenk and S. D. Guest, “Geometry of Miura-folded metamaterials,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 110, no. 9, pp. 3276–3281, 2013

    2013

  9. [17]

    Programming curvature using origami tessellations,

    L. H. Dudte, E. Vouga, T. Tachi, and L. Mahadevan, “Programming curvature using origami tessellations,” Nat. Mater., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 583–588, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    An additive algorithm for origami design,

    L. H. Dudte, G. P. T. Choi, and L. Mahadevan, “An additive algorithm for origami design,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 118, no. 21, p. e2019241118, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Rigidity percolation and geometric information in floppy origami,

    S. Chen and L. Mahadevan, “Rigidity percolation and geometric information in floppy origami,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 116, no. 17, pp. 8119–8124, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Explosive rigidity percolation in origami,

    R. Li and G. P. T. Choi, “Explosive rigidity percolation in origami,” Proc. R. Soc. A, vol. 481, no. 2316, p. 20240826, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Explo- sive percolation in random networks,

    D. Achlioptas, R. M. D’Souza, and J. Spencer, “Explo- sive percolation in random networks,” Science, vol. 323, no. 5920, pp. 1453–1455, 2009

    2009

  14. [22]

    Explosive perco- lation via control of the largest cluster,

    N. A. M. Araujo and H. J. Herrmann, “Explosive perco- lation via control of the largest cluster,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 105, no. 3, p. 035701, 2010

    2010

  15. [23]

    Explosive percolation is continuous,

    O. Riordan and L. Warnke, “Explosive percolation is continuous,” Science, vol. 333, no. 6040, pp. 322–324, 2011

    2011

  16. [24]

    Branches of trian- gulated origami near the unfolded state,

    B. G.-g. Chen and C. D. Santangelo, “Branches of trian- gulated origami near the unfolded state,” Phys. Rev. X, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 011034, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    On rigid origami I: piecewise- planar paper with straight-line creases,

    Z. He and S. D. Guest, “On rigid origami I: piecewise- planar paper with straight-line creases,” Proc. R. Soc. A, vol. 475, no. 2232, p. 20190215, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    On rigid origami II: quadrilateral creased papers,

    Z. He and S. D. Guest, “On rigid origami II: quadrilateral creased papers,” Proc. R. Soc. A, vol. 476, no. 2237, p. 20200020, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    On rigid origami III: local rigidity analysis,

    Z. He and S. D. Guest, “On rigid origami III: local rigidity analysis,” Proc. R. Soc. A, vol. 478, no. 2258, p. 20210589, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Rigidity analysis and mechanical properties of programmable origami tubes,

    H. Zhang, Q. Zhang, X. Liang, K. Yao, A. B. Kueh, and J. Cai, “Rigidity analysis and mechanical properties of programmable origami tubes,” Mech. Res. Commun., vol. 132, p. 104182, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Reconstructing david huffman’s origami tessellations,

    E. Davis, E. D. Demaine, M. L. Demaine, and J. Ramseyer, “Reconstructing david huffman’s origami tessellations,” J. Mech. Des., vol. 135, no. 11, p. 111010, 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    Origami Simulator

    “Origami Simulator.” https://origamisimulator.org/, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Fast, interactive origami simulation using GPU computation,

    A. Ghassaei, E. D. Demaine, and N. Gershenfeld, “Fast, interactive origami simulation using GPU computation,” in Origami7: Proceedings of the 7th International Meet- ing on Origami in Science, Mathematics and Education (OSME 2018), vol. 7, pp. 1151–1166, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Early-warning signals for critical transitions,

    M. Scheffer, J. Bascompte, W. A. Brock, V. Brovkin, S. R. Carpenter, V. Dakos, H. Held, E. H. Van Nes, M. Rietkerk, and G. Sugihara, “Early-warning signals for critical transitions,” Nature, vol. 461, no. 7260, pp. 53–59, 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    Anticipating critical transitions,

    M. Scheffer, S. R. Carpenter, T. M. Lenton, J. Bascompte, 11 W. Brock, V. Dakos, J. Van de Koppel, I. A. Van de Leemput, S. A. Levin, E. H. Van Nes, et al., “Anticipating critical transitions,” Science, vol. 338, no. 6105, pp. 344– 348, 2012

    2012

  26. [34]

    Ma- chine learning prediction of critical transition and system collapse,

    L.-W. Kong, H.-W. Fan, C. Grebogi, and Y.-C. Lai, “Ma- chine learning prediction of critical transition and system collapse,” Phys. Rev. Research, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 013090, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Origami- based tunable mechanical memory metamaterial for vi- bration attenuation,

    H. Han, V. Sorokin, L. Tang, and D. Cao, “Origami- based tunable mechanical memory metamaterial for vi- bration attenuation,” Mech. Syst. Signal Process., vol. 188, p. 110033, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Kres- ling origami mechanics explained: Experiments and the- ory,

    S. Zang, D. Misseroni, T. Zhao, and G. H. Paulino, “Kres- ling origami mechanics explained: Experiments and the- ory,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, vol. 188, p. 105630, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    The stiffness of prestressed frameworks: a unifying approach,

    S. Guest, “The stiffness of prestressed frameworks: a unifying approach,” Int. J. Solids Struct., vol. 43, no. 3-4, pp. 842–854, 2006

    2006

  30. [38]

    Explosive percolation in scale-free networks,

    F. Radicchi and S. Fortunato, “Explosive percolation in scale-free networks,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 103, no. 16, p. 168701, 2009

    2009

  31. [39]

    Deterministic and stochastic control of kirigami topology,

    S. Chen, G. P. T. Choi, and L. Mahadevan, “Deterministic and stochastic control of kirigami topology,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., vol. 117, no. 9, pp. 4511–4517, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    The shape and mechan- ics of curved-fold origami structures,

    M. A. Dias and C. D. Santangelo, “The shape and mechan- ics of curved-fold origami structures,” Europhys. Lett., vol. 100, no. 5, p. 54005, 2012

    2012

  33. [41]

    Design of origami structures with curved tiles between the creases,

    H. Liu and R. D. James, “Design of origami structures with curved tiles between the creases,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, vol. 185, p. 105559, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    Pro- grammable multi-stability of curved-crease origami struc- tures with travelling folds,

    S. Chai, Z. Hu, Y. Chen, Z. You, and J. Ma, “Pro- grammable multi-stability of curved-crease origami struc- tures with travelling folds,”J. Mech. Phys. Solids, vol. 193, p. 105877, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    A review of curved crease origami: design, analysis, and applications,

    K. Song, H. Li, Y. Li, J. Ma, and X. Zhou, “A review of curved crease origami: design, analysis, and applications,” Frontiers in Physics, vol. 12, p. 1393435, 2024

    2024

  36. [44]

    Excess floppy modes and multibranched mechanisms in metamaterials with symmetries,

    L. A. Lubbers and M. van Hecke, “Excess floppy modes and multibranched mechanisms in metamaterials with symmetries,” Phys. Rev. E, vol. 100, no. 2, p. 021001, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    Rational design of reconfigurable prismatic architected materials,

    J. T. B. Overvelde, J. C. Weaver, C. Hoberman, and K. Bertoldi, “Rational design of reconfigurable prismatic architected materials,” Nature, vol. 541, no. 7637, pp. 347– 352, 2017

    2017

  38. [46]

    Control of connectivity and rigidity in prismatic assemblies,

    G. P. T. Choi, S. Chen, and L. Mahadevan, “Control of connectivity and rigidity in prismatic assemblies,” Proc. R. Soc. A, vol. 476, no. 2244, p. 20200485, 2020. 12 Supplementary Information Appendix A: The geometry of different origami structures In the main text, we provided...

    2020

Pith tools

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