NeuroSync: Intent-Aware Code-Based Problem Solving via Direct LLM Understanding Modification

Huamin Qu; Jian Zhao; Jindu Wang; Leixian Shen; Linping Yuan; Shuchang Xu; Wenshuo Zhang

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 41 references

NeuroSync: Intent-Aware Code-Based Problem Solving via Direct LLM Understanding Modification

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 ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that letting users inspect and edit the LLM's inferred task graph before code generation aligns intents, cuts clarification rounds, and improves coding efficiency.

desk verdict The submission is a different paper; the HCI idea in the abstract is worth a look, but nothing here is reviewable as submitted. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.02823 v1 pith:ZVT3VSM3 submitted 2025-08-05 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CLcs.SE

Wenshuo Zhang , Leixian Shen , Shuchang Xu , Jindu Wang , Jian Zhao , Huamin Qu , Linping Yuan This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.CLcs.SE

keywords directintent-taskmatchinghuman-LLMinteractionLLMunderstandingknowledgedistillationtaskgraphcodegenerationintentalignmentinteractivevisualization

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the main cause of misalignment between a user's intent and the code an LLM generates is bidirectional ambiguity: user intents and the coding tasks are inherently nonlinear, yet they must be expressed and interpreted through linear prompts and code sequences. To fix this, the authors propose a new human-LLM interaction paradigm called direct intent-task matching, which externalizes the LLM's pre-code understanding of the coding tasks and their relationships so users can inspect and edit them directly. As a proof of concept, they build NeuroSync, which uses a knowledge distillation pipeline to extract this understanding and presents it through visualizations. The paper reports technical experiments on the algorithmic components and a user study with 12 participants showing enhanced intent-task alignment, lower cognitive effort, and improved coding efficiency. If this central claim holds, domain users without programming experience could shift from iterating on natural-language prompts to directly correcting the LLM's task model before any code is written.

What carries the argument

The key object is the task understanding graph, a structured representation of the coding tasks the LLM infers from a user's request and the relationships among them, extracted by a knowledge distillation pipeline before code generation. The work it does is to convert the LLM's implicit, internal task decomposition into an explicit, editable form that users can inspect and alter, thereby bridging the nonlinear space of user intents and the linear output of code. Direct intent-task matching is the overarching paradigm name, and the visualization layer is what makes the graph directly manipulable.

What would settle it

In a controlled experiment, have users edit the task graph to add a specific task or change a relationship, then check whether the LLM's generated code reflects that edit; if outputs remain unchanged across many such edits, the central claim that direct manipulation of understanding drives the alignment improvement would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the mismatch between user intent and generated code stems from a representational bottleneck: both intents and coding tasks are nonlinear structures, whereas prompts and code are linear sequences, so the LLM's inferred task graph is the right place to intervene. The discovery is that making the LLM's understanding of coding tasks and their relationships explicit, and allowing users to manipulate that understanding directly through interactive visualizations, is a workable interaction paradigm that improves alignment, reduces cognitive effort, and increases coding efficiency. This is a new control point for human-LLM collaboration, distinct from the usual approach of rewriting prompts or giving feedback on generated code.

Load-bearing premise

The distilled task graph faithfully represents what the LLM actually understands, and user edits to that graph genuinely change the code the LLM generates; if either fails, the whole intervention loses its mechanism.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Users could see and correct the LLM's task decomposition before code is written, reducing the number of clarification rounds needed per request.
The interaction pattern gives domain users a concrete locus for diagnosing and repairing misunderstandings without having to rephrase their original goal.
If the paradigm works beyond the code domain, it could change how users supervise any LLM task where nonlinear goals must be flattened into linear outputs.
The technical experiments on the distillation and mapping components imply that the extracted understanding is faithful enough to support user editing.
The user-study results suggest measurable gains in alignment, perceived cognitive effort, and coding efficiency for users with limited programming experience.

Reading between the lines

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

The central mechanism is only as strong as the coupling between the distilled task graph and the LLM's actual generation process; if user edits do not change the generated code, the intervention would be a facade, and that coupling is the key risk to test.
The nonlinearity framing suggests a testable extension: prompts with more interdependent, multi-part goals should benefit more from graph editing than simple, linear requests, since the representational bottleneck is more severe there.
The approach could be paired with automated graph-suggestion systems that propose task decompositions for users to approve, extending the control point beyond manual editing.
With only 12 user-study participants, replication with larger and more diverse domain-user populations would be needed to confirm the reported effect sizes before generalizing.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

The short version: the arXiv deposit for 2508.02823 contains the wrong full text. The abstract describes NeuroSync, an HCI tool for intent-aware code generation; the deposited PDF is a cond-mat paper on nonreciprocal Model B. So there is no manuscript to review, only the abstract.

What the abstract offers, if the real paper matches it, is a genuinely different interaction paradigm: instead of prompt tweaking or conversational clarification, users inspect and edit the LLM's inferred task graph before code generation. That's a plausible and testable idea, and the knowledge-distillation pipeline to extract that graph is a substantive technical claim. I'd be interested to see how it handles the fidelity question — whether the extracted graph reflects the LLM's actual computations or just a plausible paraphrase.

But none of that is in front of us. The full text is a physics paper with no connection to NeuroSync. There are no methods, no technical experiments, no user study protocol or results. The abstract's claims about intent-task alignment, cognitive effort, and coding efficiency rest on an N=12 user study we cannot inspect. That isn't a fixable soft spot in the argument; it's the absence of the argument.

I'm not attributing this to authorial misconduct — it looks like a submission-pipeline error. But as a reviewer, I have nothing to evaluate. The correct response is to desk reject this version and invite a corrected submission.

If the corrected manuscript appears and matches the abstract, it deserves a serious referee — the paradigm is new enough, and the evaluation route (technical experiments plus user study) is standard for HCI. I just can't sign off on that assessment from what we have.

For the record: I would not cite this version, and I wouldn't bring it to reading group.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript as submitted consists of an abstract describing NeuroSync, a proposed human-LLM interaction paradigm called 'direct intent-task matching' that externalizes and permits direct manipulation of an LLM's inferred coding tasks, plus a full text that is an unrelated condensed-matter physics paper on nonreciprocal Model B. The abstract claims an implementation using a knowledge distillation pipeline, technical experiments, and a user study (N=12) that show enhanced intent-task alignment, lower cognitive effort, and improved coding efficiency. The submitted full text contains none of these elements; it is arXiv:2508.02814v1, a paper by Sahoo, Mandal, and Sollich. Accordingly, the claims in the abstract cannot be checked against any methods, equations, tables, or figures in the submitted manuscript.

Significance. Should the NeuroSync system work as described, the contribution would be noteworthy: an interaction paradigm that lets non-programmers inspect and edit the LLM's inferred task structure before code generation is a testable and potentially useful idea for human-LLM interaction. The abstract's claim of reducing clarification rounds and improving coding efficiency is empirically checkable. However, the submitted full text provides no evidence, no algorithm specification, no evaluation protocol, and no data. No machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or parameter-free derivations are present. The significance of the work therefore cannot be assessed on the basis of this submission.

major comments (3)

[Full Text (entire submission)] The submitted full text is arXiv:2508.02814v1, 'Nonreciprocal Model B: The role of mobilities and nonreciprocal interfacial forces,' which is a physics paper completely unrelated to the title and abstract of this submission. The manuscript is therefore internally inconsistent: the abstract describes NeuroSync and the full text describes phase-separation dynamics. This is a load-bearing defect because it leaves the central claims of the abstract entirely unsupported.
[Abstract (evaluation claims)] The abstract states that the authors 'evaluate the algorithmic components of NeuroSync via technical experiments, and assess its overall usability and effectiveness via a user study (N=12)' and that results 'show that it enhances intent-task alignment, lowers cognitive effort, and improves coding efficiency.' None of these experiments, the knowledge distillation pipeline, the visualization interface, or any quantitative results appear in the submitted full text, so the claims are unverifiable.
[Abstract (causal claim)] The abstract asserts that intent-code misalignment is caused by 'bidirectional ambiguity' because user intents and coding tasks are 'inherently nonlinear' while prompts and code are 'linear.' This causal mechanism is asserted without supporting evidence or a reference, and the submitted text does not contain the investigation that would substantiate it. This weakens the motivation for the proposed paradigm.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] The phrase 'which dues to' should read 'which is due to'.
[Abstract] The term 'direct intent-task matching' is introduced without a precise definition; a formal definition would be needed in any resubmission.
[Abstract] The term 'intent-task alignment' is not operationally defined; the reader cannot tell whether this is a measured quantity or a qualitative construct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found in the available abstract; the deposited full text is an unrelated physics manuscript, so no derivation chain is checkable.

full rationale

The abstract for arXiv:2508.02823 describes an intent-aware code-based problem-solving system, but the submitted full text is actually arXiv:2508.02814v1, a cond-mat.soft paper on nonreciprocal Model B by Sahoo, Mandal, and Sollich. There is therefore no NeuroSync methods section, equations, experimental protocol, or user-study details against which to check for a self-definitional or fitted-input circularity. Examining the abstract alone, its central claim is an empirical one about a proposed interaction paradigm and evaluation results; it contains no derivation that reduces to its inputs, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation that forces the conclusion. The full-text mismatch is a serious verifiability problem, but it is not a circularity: the abstract's claims are not shown to be equivalent to their premises by construction. The correct circularity finding is therefore a non-finding, with score 0 and no specific circular steps identified.

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

The abstract alone provides no free parameters and no invented physical or conceptual entities. The main assumptions are the causal explanation of misalignment and the fidelity of the distillation-and-editing loop. None of these can be validated without the full manuscript.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Both user intents and coding tasks are inherently nonlinear and must be expressed through linear prompts and code sequences.
This causal diagnosis is stated in the abstract and motivates the whole design; if misalignment has other roots, the intervention may miss the target.
domain assumption LLM understanding of coding tasks can be faithfully extracted and edited by users.
The claimed improvement depends on the fidelity of the distilled task graph and the user's ability to edit it effectively; this is asserted rather than demonstrated in the abstract.
domain assumption A user study with N=12 can support the efficiency and cognitive-effort claims.
The abstract gives N=12 without effect sizes or significance, so any generalization assumes this sample is representative and the measured effects are large enough to be meaningful.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NeuroSync: Intent-Aware Code-Based Problem Solving via Direct LLM Understanding Modification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZVT3VSM3

@misc{pith2026250802823,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NeuroSync: Intent-Aware Code-Based Problem Solving via Direct LLM Understanding Modification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZVT3VSM3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.02823}
}

read the original abstract

Conversational LLMs have been widely adopted by domain users with limited programming experience to solve domain problems. However, these users often face misalignment between their intent and generated code, resulting in frustration and rounds of clarification. This work first investigates the cause of this misalignment, which dues to bidirectional ambiguity: both user intents and coding tasks are inherently nonlinear, yet must be expressed and interpreted through linear prompts and code sequences. To address this, we propose direct intent-task matching, a new human-LLM interaction paradigm that externalizes and enables direct manipulation of the LLM understanding, i.e., the coding tasks and their relationships inferred by the LLM prior to code generation. As a proof-of-concept, this paradigm is then implemented in NeuroSync, which employs a knowledge distillation pipeline to extract LLM understanding, user intents, and their mappings, and enhances the alignment by allowing users to intuitively inspect and edit them via visualizations. We evaluate the algorithmic components of NeuroSync via technical experiments, and assess its overall usability and effectiveness via a user study (N=12). The results show that it enhances intent-task alignment, lowers cognitive effort, and improves coding efficiency.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[1]

We observe in Fig. 2(b) that the transition is first order : the fastest growing mode that dominates the spinodal decomposition changes discon- tinuously, from qmax ≈ 0.26 and an associated real eigen- value of the rate matrix, to qmax ≈ 0.34 with a complex eigenvalue. An exceptional point lying between these two values of q, which in other models is freq...

work page
[2]

This region is absent in Fig. 1(b). The implication is that the kinetics of phase separation, as encoded in the mobility matrix L, can determine whether a non-reciprocal system is un- stable or not. This striking effect would be impossible in equilibrium, where stability is determined by properties of the free energy alone, without reference to the kineti...

work page
[3]

In white regions the homogeneous state is stable to small density fluctuations

(a) Mobility Lij = ϕiδij, (b) mobil- ity Lij = ϕiδij − ϕiϕj. In white regions the homogeneous state is stable to small density fluctuations. Orange regions indicate a static instability (real λ1/2), blue regions a travel- ing instability (complex λ1/2). Parameter values: T = 0 .1, ϵ11 = ϵ22 = −1, ϵ12 = ¯ϵ + α = 0, ϵ21 = ¯ϵ − α = −1, Kij = δij. eigenvector...

work page
[4]

Coexistence of stable and transient domains We simulate the system starting from a homogeneous state with parent density ( ϕ0 1, ϕ0

work page
[5]

chases” species 2, causing it to invade domains rich in species 2 (blue), while species 2 “runs away

= (0 .15, 0.15), with added small fluctuations (see App. A 3). The system pa- rameters are the same as in Fig. 1(a). At long times, well beyond the spinodal regime, we observe the appear- ance of patterns where one phase forms one or several stable domains; in Fig. 6 this phase contains mainly par- ticles of species 1 so appears red. A second phase also o...

work page
[6]

Long time chase-and-run behavior along interfaces With the same parameters as above but a different initial composition of ( ϕ0 1, ϕ0

work page
[7]

These look essentially indistinguishable from those in standard reciprocal Model B (Fig

≡ (0.05, 0.4), our analysis correctly predicts that, initially, static spinodal patterns appear. These look essentially indistinguishable from those in standard reciprocal Model B (Fig. 7). How- ever, at late times, the (bulk) non-reciprocity becomes manifest as can be seen from Fig. 7. We observe again a single domain containing predominantly species 1 p...

work page
[8]

= (0.15, 0.15). The later snapshots show formation of stable domains of one phase (red, consisting mainly of particles of species 1) and transient domains of a second phase (blue/purple, mainly species 2). The latter keep breaking up after being “invaded” by the first phase. Figure 7. Long-time behavior for system parameters as in Fig. 1 and homogeneous p...

work page

Show all 41 references

[9]

= (0 .05, 0.4). A single domain of mainly species 1 forms (red); species 2 particles are concentrated in domains moving along the interface of the species 1 domain and locally deforming its interface. 13 Figure 10. (a) Real and imaginary part of (projected) density Fourier mod...
[10]

As a concrete example, we consider the set of highly non- reciprocal interfacial coefficients K = 0.34 0 −80 0 .34 (C1) and otherwise choose the same system parameters as in Fig

Spinodal phase diagram In section III E, we predict the maximal region in the spinodal phase diagram where we can get travelling spin- odal waves in the presence of interfacial non-reciprocity. As a concrete example, we consider the set of highly non- reciprocal interfacial co...
[11]

Numerical simulations To illustrate the occurrence of travelling spinodal waves due to interfacial non-reciprocity, we perform nu- merical simulations at composition (ϕ0 1, ϕ0
[12]

With interfacial coefficients Kij = δij as in Fig

= (0.05, 0.4). With interfacial coefficients Kij = δij as in Fig. 2, i.e. without interfacial non-reciprocity, the spinodal dynam- ics then produces static patterns ( cf. Fig. 2(a)). With interfacial non-reciprocity defined by (C1), how- ever, we predict a travelling instabili...
[13]

Langer, Theory of spinodal decomposition in alloys, Annals of Physics 65, 53 (1971)

J. Langer, Theory of spinodal decomposition in alloys, Annals of Physics 65, 53 (1971)

1971
[14]

A. J. Bray, Theory of phase-ordering kinetics, Advances in Physics 51, 481 (2002)

2002
[15]

A. P. Solon, H. Chat´ e, and J. Tailleur, From phase to microphase separation in flocking models: The essential role of nonequilibrium fluctuations, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 068101 (2015)

2015
[16]

A. A. Hyman, C. A. Weber, and F. J¨ ulicher, Liquid-liquid phase separation in biology, Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology 30, 39 (2014)

2014
[17]

Alberti, A

S. Alberti, A. Gladfelter, and T. Mittag, Considerations and challenges in studying liquid-liquid phase separation and biomolecular condensates, Cell 176, 419 (2019)

2019
[18]

B. A. Gibson, L. K. Doolittle, M. W. Schneider, L. E. Jensen, N. Gamarra, L. Henry, D. W. Gerlich, S. Red- ding, and M. K. Rosen, Organization of Chromatin by Intrinsic and Regulated Phase Separation, Cell 179, 470 (2019)

2019
[19]

Q. Xiao, C. K. McAtee, and X. Su, Phase separation in immune signalling, Nature Reviews Immunology 22, 188 (2022)

2022
[20]

Du and Z

M. Du and Z. J. Chen, Dna-induced liquid phase condensation of cgas activates innate immune signaling, Science 361, 704 (2018), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aat1022

2018 doi
[21]

Zbinden, M

A. Zbinden, M. P´ erez-Berlanga, P. De Rossi, and M. Polymenidou, Phase Separation and Neurodegenera- tive Diseases: A Disturbance in the Force, Developmental Cell 55, 45 (2020)

2020
[22]

Aguzzi and M

A. Aguzzi and M. Altmeyer, Phase Separation: Linking Cellular Compartmentalization to Disease, Trends in Cell Biology 26, 547 (2016)

2016
[23]

B. Wang, L. Zhang, T. Dai, Z. Qin, H. Lu, L. Zhang, and F. Zhou, Liquid–liquid phase separation in human health and diseases, Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy 6 (2021)

2021
[24]

J. W. Cahn, On spinodal decomposition, Acta Metallur- gica 9, 795 (1961)

1961
[25]

A. V. Ivlev, J. Bartnick, M. Heinen, C.-R. Du, V. Nosenko, and H. L¨ owen, Statistical mechanics where newton’s third law is broken, Phys. Rev. X 5, 011035 (2015)

2015
[26]

J. P. Banerjee, R. Mandal, D. S. Banerjee, S. Thutupalli, and M. Rao, Unjamming and emergent nonreciprocity in active ploughing through a compressible viscoelastic fluid, Nature Communications 13, 4533 (2022)

2022
[27]

Soto and R

R. Soto and R. Golestanian, Self-assembly of catalytically active colloidal molecules: Tailoring activity through sur- face chemistry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 068301 (2014)

2014
[28]

Mandal, S

R. Mandal, S. S. Jaramillo, and P. Sollich, Robustness of traveling states in generic nonreciprocal mixtures, Phys. Rev. E 109, L062602 (2024)

2024
[29]

Fruchart, R

M. Fruchart, R. Hanai, P. B. Littlewood, and V. Vitelli, Non-reciprocal phase transitions, Nature 592, 363–369 (2021)

2021
[30]

S. A. M. Loos and S. H. L. Klapp, Irreversibility, heat and information flows induced by non-reciprocal interactions, New Journal of Physics 22, 123051 (2020)

2020
[31]

Suchanek, K

T. Suchanek, K. Kroy, and S. A. M. Loos, Entropy pro- duction in the nonreciprocal Cahn-Hilliard model, Phys. Rev. E 108, 064610 (2023)

2023
[32]

Mandal, R

R. Mandal, R. Huang, M. Fruchart, P. G. Moerman, S. Vaikuntanathan, A. Murugan, and V. Vitelli, Learn- ing dynamical behaviors in physical systems (2024), arXiv:2406.07856 [cond-mat.soft]

2024 arXiv
[33]

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

2025
[34]

Guillet, A

S. Guillet, A. Poncet, M. L. Blay, W. T. M. Irvine, V. Vitelli, and D. Bartolo, Melting of nonrecip- rocal solids: How dislocations propel and fission in flowing crystals, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122, e2412993122 (2025), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10....

2025 doi
[35]

S. Saha, J. Agudo-Canalejo, and R. Golestanian, Scalar active mixtures: The nonreciprocal Cahn-Hilliard model, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041009 (2020)

2020
[36]

Frohoff-H¨ ulsmann and U

T. Frohoff-H¨ ulsmann and U. Thiele, Nonreciprocal Cahn- Hilliard model emerges as a universal amplitude equa- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 107201 (2023)

2023
[37]

Y. Duan, J. Agudo-Canalejo, R. Golestanian, and B. Mahault, Dynamical pattern formation without self- attraction in quorum-sensing active matter: The inter- play between nonreciprocity and motility, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 148301 (2023)

2023
[38]

M. K. Johnsrud and R. Golestanian, Fluctuation dissipa- tion relations for the non-reciprocal Cahn-Hilliard model (2025), arXiv:2502.02524 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

2025
[39]

Brauns and M

F. Brauns and M. C. Marchetti, Nonreciprocal pattern formation of conserved fields, Phys. Rev. X 14, 021014 (2024)

2024
[40]

Z. You, A. Baskaran, and M. C. Marchetti, Nonreciproc- ity as a generic route to traveling states, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, 19767 (2020)

2020
[41]

Frohoff-H¨ ulsmann, J

T. Frohoff-H¨ ulsmann, J. Wrembel, and U. Thiele, Sup- pression of coarsening and emergence of oscillatory be- havior in a Cahn-Hilliard model with nonvariational cou-

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

We observe in Fig. 2(b) that the transition is first order : the fastest growing mode that dominates the spinodal decomposition changes discon- tinuously, from qmax ≈ 0.26 and an associated real eigen- value of the rate matrix, to qmax ≈ 0.34 with a complex eigenvalue. An exceptional point lying between these two values of q, which in other models is freq...

work page

[2] [2]

This region is absent in Fig. 1(b). The implication is that the kinetics of phase separation, as encoded in the mobility matrix L, can determine whether a non-reciprocal system is un- stable or not. This striking effect would be impossible in equilibrium, where stability is determined by properties of the free energy alone, without reference to the kineti...

work page

[3] [3]

In white regions the homogeneous state is stable to small density fluctuations

(a) Mobility Lij = ϕiδij, (b) mobil- ity Lij = ϕiδij − ϕiϕj. In white regions the homogeneous state is stable to small density fluctuations. Orange regions indicate a static instability (real λ1/2), blue regions a travel- ing instability (complex λ1/2). Parameter values: T = 0 .1, ϵ11 = ϵ22 = −1, ϵ12 = ¯ϵ + α = 0, ϵ21 = ¯ϵ − α = −1, Kij = δij. eigenvector...

work page

[4] [4]

Coexistence of stable and transient domains We simulate the system starting from a homogeneous state with parent density ( ϕ0 1, ϕ0

work page

[5] [5]

chases” species 2, causing it to invade domains rich in species 2 (blue), while species 2 “runs away

= (0 .15, 0.15), with added small fluctuations (see App. A 3). The system pa- rameters are the same as in Fig. 1(a). At long times, well beyond the spinodal regime, we observe the appear- ance of patterns where one phase forms one or several stable domains; in Fig. 6 this phase contains mainly par- ticles of species 1 so appears red. A second phase also o...

work page

[6] [6]

Long time chase-and-run behavior along interfaces With the same parameters as above but a different initial composition of ( ϕ0 1, ϕ0

work page

[7] [7]

These look essentially indistinguishable from those in standard reciprocal Model B (Fig

≡ (0.05, 0.4), our analysis correctly predicts that, initially, static spinodal patterns appear. These look essentially indistinguishable from those in standard reciprocal Model B (Fig. 7). How- ever, at late times, the (bulk) non-reciprocity becomes manifest as can be seen from Fig. 7. We observe again a single domain containing predominantly species 1 p...

work page

[8] [8]

= (0.15, 0.15). The later snapshots show formation of stable domains of one phase (red, consisting mainly of particles of species 1) and transient domains of a second phase (blue/purple, mainly species 2). The latter keep breaking up after being “invaded” by the first phase. Figure 7. Long-time behavior for system parameters as in Fig. 1 and homogeneous p...

work page