Percolation Critical Probability of Aperiodic Smith Hat tile(1, $\sqrt3$)

Aaryash Bharadwaj; Haitao Gao

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 4 references

Percolation Critical Probability of Aperiodic Smith Hat tile(1, $\sqrt3$)

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-08 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Monte Carlo simulations on finite patches yield percolation thresholds of 0.8227 for site, 0.7982 for bond, and 0.5442 for dual-site on the Smith hat aperiodic tiling.

desk verdict This paper supplies the first Monte Carlo estimates for percolation thresholds on the Smith hat aperiodic tile, but the simulation details needed to trust the quoted precision are absent. read the letter →

arxiv 2604.21165 v1 submitted 2026-04-23 cond-mat.stat-mech physics.data-an

Haitao Gao , Aaryash Bharadwaj This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.stat-mechphysics.data-an

keywords SmithhattilingaperiodicmonotilepercolationcriticalprobabilityMonteCarlosimulationsitebonddualgraphfinite-sizescaling

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 applies Monte Carlo methods to estimate critical percolation thresholds on the Smith hat, the first known aperiodic monotile made from eight kites. Authors run simulations of site and bond percolation on finite patches of the tiling and extrapolate the point at which a spanning cluster appears. They report numerical values with small error bars for edge-based site and bond cases plus a separate site threshold on the dual graph. A sympathetic reader cares because these thresholds quantify when connectivity emerges in an aperiodic structure that lacks translational symmetry yet still forms infinite connected clusters at specific occupation probabilities.

What carries the argument

Finite-size Monte Carlo sampling of percolation configurations on patches of the aperiodic Smith hat tiling, followed by extrapolation to estimate the infinite-system threshold.

What would settle it

A new Monte Carlo run on patches several times larger than those used here that produces a threshold value lying outside the reported error bars would falsify the claimed critical probabilities.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Through Monte Carlo simulation on patches of the Smith hat tile(1, √3), the critical site percolation probability on the edges is p_c^s = 0.822725 ± 0.000044, the bond percolation probability is p_c^b = 0.798161 ± 0.000044, and the site percolation probability on the dual graph is 0.544247 ± 0.000101.

Load-bearing premise

Finite patches of the aperiodic tiling produce critical probabilities that converge to the true infinite-system values without important bias from boundaries or missing periodicity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The reported site and bond thresholds differ, showing that the specific geometry of the Smith hat controls whether occupation or edge activation is the limiting factor for connectivity.
The dual-graph site threshold being substantially lower indicates that the complementary structure becomes connected at lower occupation fractions than the primal tiling.
These numbers supply concrete benchmarks against which analytic approximations or renormalization-group calculations for aperiodic percolation can be tested.
If the Smith hat models a physical quasicrystal or metamaterial, the thresholds mark the onset of long-range transport or rigidity in that material.

Reading between the lines

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

The same patch-based Monte Carlo protocol could be applied to other aperiodic monotiles to test whether their critical probabilities cluster around similar values.
The numerical precision achieved suggests that controlled extrapolation from finite patches can yield usable thresholds even when exact analytic solutions remain unavailable.
Extensions to directed or correlated percolation on the same tiling would test how the aperiodicity interacts with additional constraints on cluster formation.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The main takeaway is that Gao and Bharadwaj have produced the first reported site and bond percolation thresholds for the Smith hat monotile and its dual. They quote p_c^s = 0.822725 ± 0.000044, p_c^b = 0.798161 ± 0.000044 on the tile itself and 0.544247 ± 0.000101 for site percolation on the dual. Those specific numbers did not exist in the literature before this work on the 2023 aperiodic monotile. The computation itself is a direct extension of standard Monte Carlo sampling to a new geometry, and the authors have at least set up the lattice and run the simulations, which is non-trivial for an aperiodic arrangement built from kites. That counts as concrete new data points even if the underlying method is not original. The soft spot is exactly the one flagged in the stress test. The abstract and available description give no lattice sizes, no finite-size scaling procedure, no boundary handling protocol, and no indication that the error bars include anything beyond raw statistical fluctuations. In an aperiodic tiling, boundary effects and the lack of translational invariance can shift apparent thresholds by amounts comparable to or larger than the reported 4e-5 uncertainties. Without those controls visible, the precision cannot be taken at face value. This work is aimed at people who track percolation on non-periodic or recently discovered tilings and want reference numbers for the Smith hat. A specialist might pull the values for comparison, but anyone planning to cite or build on them would need the full methods to reproduce or correct for possible bias. I would send it to peer review once the authors add a clear methods section with system sizes, scaling checks, and boundary tests, because the topic is timely and the numerical task is well-defined. As it stands with only the abstract-level description, it is too thin for a serious referee to evaluate the reliability of the central claims.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports Monte Carlo estimates of the site and bond percolation critical probabilities on the aperiodic Smith hat tiling (1, √3). It claims the values p_c^s = 0.822725 ± 0.000044 and p_c^b = 0.798161 ± 0.000044 for edge percolation on the primal graph together with 0.544247 ± 0.000101 for site percolation on the dual graph.

Significance. If the numerical values are accurate, they supply the first reported thresholds for percolation on this recently discovered aperiodic monotile. The direct stochastic sampling approach avoids parameter fitting or circular derivations, which is a methodological strength.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the reported precisions (±0.000044 and ±0.000101) are presented without any statement of the linear sizes of the simulated patches, the number of Monte Carlo samples per size, the finite-size scaling ansatz, or the protocol used to impose boundaries on the aperiodic tiling. These omissions make it impossible to judge whether the quoted uncertainties capture only statistical error or also systematic shifts from finite-size effects and aperiodicity.
[Abstract] The central claim that the quoted p_c values equal the infinite-system thresholds rests on the unverified assumption that finite patches converge without appreciable boundary bias; no evidence or test of this assumption is supplied in the text.

minor comments (1)

[Title/Abstract] The phrase 'Smith hat tile(1, √3)' in the title and abstract would benefit from a brief definition or reference to the precise geometric parameters of the variant being studied.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript on percolation thresholds for the Smith hat tiling. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve methodological transparency.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the reported precisions (±0.000044 and ±0.000101) are presented without any statement of the linear sizes of the simulated patches, the number of Monte Carlo samples per size, the finite-size scaling ansatz, or the protocol used to impose boundaries on the aperiodic tiling. These omissions make it impossible to judge whether the quoted uncertainties capture only statistical error or also systematic shifts from finite-size effects and aperiodicity.

Authors: We agree that the abstract omits these essential details. The current version focuses on the numerical results without summarizing the simulation parameters. In the revised manuscript we will expand the abstract to state the linear sizes employed (patches with up to several hundred tiles), the number of Monte Carlo samples per size (order 10^5), the finite-size scaling ansatz used for extrapolation, and the boundary protocol adapted to the aperiodic structure. These elements are described in the methods section; we will ensure the abstract provides sufficient context so that readers can assess whether the quoted uncertainties include systematic contributions. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] The central claim that the quoted p_c values equal the infinite-system thresholds rests on the unverified assumption that finite patches converge without appreciable boundary bias; no evidence or test of this assumption is supplied in the text.

Authors: This criticism is valid. The present manuscript does not supply explicit tests or supporting analysis demonstrating negligible boundary bias or convergence of the finite patches. We will add a concise discussion of the finite-size scaling procedure, including the extrapolation to infinite size and any checks performed for boundary effects, together with appropriate figures if needed. This addition will provide the requested evidence that the reported values correspond to the infinite-system thresholds. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Monte Carlo estimates of percolation thresholds contain no circular derivation or self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper obtains its central numerical claims (p_c^s = 0.822725 ± 0.000044, p_c^b = 0.798161 ± 0.000044, and dual site p_c = 0.544247 ± 0.000101) by direct stochastic sampling via Monte Carlo on finite patches of the Smith-hat tiling. No equations, ansatzes, or self-citations are invoked that would make these values equivalent to their inputs by construction. The method is standard Bernoulli percolation sampling; any finite-size or boundary effects are questions of statistical convergence and systematic error, not circularity in a derivation chain. The provided text shows no load-bearing self-citations, no fitted inputs renamed as predictions, and no uniqueness theorems imported from prior author work.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard Bernoulli percolation model applied to the graph induced by the Smith hat tiling and on the assumption that Monte Carlo sampling on finite patches yields accurate infinite-limit thresholds.

free parameters (2)

finite lattice size
The size of the simulated patches of the tiling is a simulation parameter that must be chosen and extrapolated.
number of Monte Carlo samples
Statistical sampling count controls the precision of the estimated thresholds.

assumptions (1)

domain assumption The Smith hat tiling induces a well-defined infinite graph on which independent site or bond occupation follows the Bernoulli model.
This is the standard setup invoked when applying percolation theory to any tiling.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Percolation Critical Probability of Aperiodic Smith Hat tile(1, $\sqrt3$)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2604.21165

@misc{pith2026260421165,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Percolation Critical Probability of Aperiodic Smith Hat tile(1, $\sqrt3$)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2604.21165}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.21165}
}

abstract

The Smith Hat tile is the first known aperiodic monotile, having been discovered in 2023. The simple structure, constructed using only 8 kites, is unique and well motivated for analysis within percolation theory. The primary goal of this paper is to discover the critical threshold $p_c$ in both site and bond Bernoulli structures using Monte Carlo simulation for the Smith hat tile(1,$\sqrt3$). Our findings are site and bond values of $p_c^s = 0.822725 \pm 0.000044$ and $p_c^b = 0.798161 \pm 0.000044$ for edge percolation and $0.544247 \pm 0.000101$ for site percolation on the dual graph.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21165 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Hat unit 3 view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Metatile in Smith hat tiling: (a) pattern view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Hat tile: (a) The patch composed by metatiles. (b) The metatiles dissected into multiple copies of view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Patch 5: The Red Square is the L = 400 centred on the point (200, -100)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Monte Carlo simulation: Site and bond percolation critical probability mean ¯pc

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Site Percolation

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Bond Percolation 8

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Monte Carlo simulation: Site percolation critical probability mean for the tile percolation ¯pc

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Site Percolation of Tile When the system size for the tile percolation L → ∞, p s c = 0.544247 with 95% CI = [0.544044, 0.544450] In Summary: Site p s c 95% CI Bond p b c 95% CI Edge 0.822725 [0.822636, 0.822815] 0.798161 [0.798073, 0.798250] Tile 0.544247 [0.544044, 0…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Inter-dependencies of programs within the codebase of our algorithm

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

4 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

and Sidoravicius, V

Beffara, V. and Sidoravicius, V. (2006) Percolation theory. InEncyclopedia of Mathematical Physics, eds J.-P. Fran¸ coise, G. L. Naber and S. T. Tsou. Elsevier. Deguchi, K., Nakayama, M., Matsukawa, S., Imura, K., Tanaka, K., Ishimasa, T. and Sato, N. K. (2015) Superconductivity of Au–Ge–Yb approximants with Tsai-type clusters.Journal of the Physical Soci...

work page 2006
[2]

(1980) The critical probability of bond percolation on the square lattice equals 1/2.Commun

Kesten, H. (1980) The critical probability of bond percolation on the square lattice equals 1/2.Commun. Math. Phys74,

work page 1980
[3]

P., Pichet, C., Pouliot, P

Langlands, R. P., Pichet, C., Pouliot, P. and Saint-Aubin, Y. (1992) On the universality of crossing proba- bilities in two-dimensional percolation.Journal of Statistical Physics67, 553–574. Lee, M. J. (2008) Pseudo-random-number generators and the square site percolation threshold.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics78, 03113...

work page 1992
[4]

(1987) Coulomb gas formulation of two-dimensional phase transitions.Phase transitions and critical phenomena11, 1–53

Nienhuis, B. (1987) Coulomb gas formulation of two-dimensional phase transitions.Phase transitions and critical phenomena11, 1–53. Nolin, P. (2008) Critical exponents of planar gradient percolation.Annals of Probability36, 1748–1776. Okabe, Y., Niizeki, K. and Araki, Y. (2024) Ising model on the aperiodic Smith hat.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and T...

work page 1987

Pith tools

Reviewed May 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

and Sidoravicius, V

Beffara, V. and Sidoravicius, V. (2006) Percolation theory. InEncyclopedia of Mathematical Physics, eds J.-P. Fran¸ coise, G. L. Naber and S. T. Tsou. Elsevier. Deguchi, K., Nakayama, M., Matsukawa, S., Imura, K., Tanaka, K., Ishimasa, T. and Sato, N. K. (2015) Superconductivity of Au–Ge–Yb approximants with Tsai-type clusters.Journal of the Physical Soci...

work page 2006

[2] [2]

(1980) The critical probability of bond percolation on the square lattice equals 1/2.Commun

Kesten, H. (1980) The critical probability of bond percolation on the square lattice equals 1/2.Commun. Math. Phys74,

work page 1980

[3] [3]

P., Pichet, C., Pouliot, P

Langlands, R. P., Pichet, C., Pouliot, P. and Saint-Aubin, Y. (1992) On the universality of crossing proba- bilities in two-dimensional percolation.Journal of Statistical Physics67, 553–574. Lee, M. J. (2008) Pseudo-random-number generators and the square site percolation threshold.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics78, 03113...

work page 1992

[4] [4]

(1987) Coulomb gas formulation of two-dimensional phase transitions.Phase transitions and critical phenomena11, 1–53

Nienhuis, B. (1987) Coulomb gas formulation of two-dimensional phase transitions.Phase transitions and critical phenomena11, 1–53. Nolin, P. (2008) Critical exponents of planar gradient percolation.Annals of Probability36, 1748–1776. Okabe, Y., Niizeki, K. and Araki, Y. (2024) Ising model on the aperiodic Smith hat.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and T...

work page 1987