Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Microscopic derivation of a field equation for active Brownian particles

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives Active Model B+ for hard-core active Brownian particles from a kinetic equation, with all transport coefficients explicit in the microscopic parameters.

desk verdict A genuine fourth-order Chapman-Enskog derivation of deterministic AMB+ for hard-core ABP, worth refereeing despite an unproved parity cancellation and a hand-fitted pair correlation function. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11184 v1 pith:YNPCUBCD submitted 2026-08-11 cond-mat.soft

Martín Pinto-Goldberg , Rodrigo Soto This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.soft
keywords activeBrownianparticlesModelB+motility-inducedphaseseparationkinetictheoryChapman-EnskogexpansionpaircorrelationfunctionPécletnumberharddisks
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 seeks a first-principles route from the microscopic dynamics of hard-core active Brownian particles (ABP) to Active Model B+ (AMB+), the standard field theory used to describe active phase separation. Starting from an Enskog-like kinetic equation valid in the high-persistence regime, the authors carry out a Chapman–Enskog expansion to fourth order in gradients and obtain a deterministic equation of the AMB+ form for the density. All four transport coefficients—the stiffness $\kappa$, the density-dependent stiffness $\xi$, and the two time-reversal-breaking fluxes $\lambda$ and $\zeta$—are given explicitly in terms of particle speed $V$, diameter $\sigma$, Péclet number $\mathrm{Pe}$, and a proposed effective pair-correlation function. Because $\lambda$ and $\zeta$ come out with opposite signs, the AMB+ phase diagram predicts coarsening and complete phase separation for ABP. The derivation matters because it connects qualitative top-down phenomenology to tunable microscopic parameters.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Enskog-like collision operator (Eq. 6) in which a collision between two high-persistence ABP displaces each particle by an effective vector $\boldsymbol{\Delta}_i$ without changing its director; this operator is expanded in gradients to fourth order. The diffusion-order mobility $D(\rho)=D_0[1-(\rho^2\chi)'/(2\rho^*)]$ sets the spinodal through $D(\rho_s)=0$, and the Chapman–Enskog hierarchy is solved with the normalization $f^{(0)}=\rho/2\pi$ and isotropic-tensor reduction of the angular integrals at each order. To close the theory at the nonlinear level the paper proposes the effective pair-correlation parametrization $\chi_{\mathrm{eff}}(\rho)=1+A\rho-B\rho^2+C\rho^3$ with $A=3.14\sigma^2$, $B=3.7\sigma^4$, $C=3.1\sigma^6$; this object is what makes $D''(\rho_s)>0$ and gives the two-minimum free energy, and the numerical values of the AMB+ coefficients in Eqs. (17)–(20) are outputs of that choice.

What would settle it

Simulate hard-disk active Brownian particles at $\mathrm{Pe}\gg1$, measure the pair correlation at contact $g(\sigma;\rho)$ across densities, and check whether it makes $D''(\rho_s)>0$ with spinodal near $\rho_s\sigma^2\approx0.32$; if it does not, the two-minimum free energy and the coefficient values in Eqs. (17)–(20) do not follow. A complementary check is to measure coarsening or interfacial tension and test the predicted $\lambda>0$, $\zeta<0$ sign pattern.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the deterministic part of AMB+ is not merely a phenomenological fit but follows from the kinetic theory of hard-core ABP when interactions are treated as instantaneous effective displacements at infinite persistence. Working at leading order in $\mathrm{Pe}\gg 1$, the authors solve the kinetic equation by Chapman–Enskog, close it at fourth order in gradients, and linearize around the spinodal density $\rho_s$ fixed by $D(\rho_s)=0$. The resulting equation has the AMB+ structure $\partial_t\phi=-\nabla\cdot\mathbf{J}$ with $\mathbf{J}=-\nabla(\mu_{\mathrm{eq}}+\lambda(\nabla\phi)^2)+\zeta(\nabla^2\phi)\nabla\phi$, and the coefficients take the explicit forms $\kappa$, $\xi$, $\lambda$, $\zeta$ in terms of $V$, $\sigma$, and $\mathrm{Pe}$ (Eqs. 17–20). To obtain a free energy with two minima the paper introduces the effective pair correlation $\chi_{\mathrm{eff}}(\rho)=1+3.14\sigma^2\rho-3.7\sigma^4\rho^2+3.1\sigma^6\rho^3$, which satisfies $\chi(0)=1$, is monotone, puts the spinodal near $\rho_s\sigma^2\approx0.32$, and makes $D''(\rho_s)>0$; with this choice $\lambda>0$ and $\zeta<0$, which the AMB+ phase diagram reads as coarsening and complete phase separation. The paper also checks that the hard-disk closure gives coefficients of similar magnitude near the spinodal.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative content rests on the proposed polynomial pair-correlation function $\chi_{\mathrm{eff}}(\rho)=1+3.14\sigma^2\rho-3.7\sigma^4\rho^2+3.1\sigma^6\rho^3$, whose coefficients are chosen by hand to satisfy four reasonable conditions; the standard Boltzmann and hard-disk closures fail to give the required second derivative, and the paper does not claim $\chi_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is the true ABP correlation function.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The four AMB+ coefficients are no longer free: $\kappa$, $\xi$, $\lambda$, and $\zeta$ are fixed by $V$, $\sigma$, $\mathrm{Pe}$, and the chosen $\chi$, so the coarse-grained model is fully determined from the microscopic parameters.
  • With $\lambda>0$ and $\zeta<0$, the AMB+ parameter map places hard-core ABP in the regime of coarsening and complete phase separation, not microphase separation or reversed Ostwald ripening.
  • Because the leading terms in $\kappa$ and $\zeta$ change sign across the spinodal through their $\epsilon\mathrm{Pe}^3$ contributions, the character of the gradient terms reorganizes exactly at the spinodal density.
  • The negative $\kappa$ would produce infinitely rough short-wavelength states, and the paper attributes this to truncating the gradient expansion at fourth order, with higher-order terms expected to restore stability.
  • Using the hard-disk $\chi_{\mathrm{hd}}$ instead of the effective $\chi$ gives nearly the same coefficient magnitudes near the spinodal, indicating the leading coefficients depend mainly on the pair correlation in the spinodal region.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct simulation test of the sign pattern exists: measure the coarsening exponent or interfacial tension of hard-disk ABP at $\mathrm{Pe}\gg1$ and check that it follows the complete-separation branch of the AMB+ phase diagram rather than the bubbly branch.
  • Measuring $g(\sigma;\rho)$ in ABP simulations and substituting the measured pair correlation would make the prediction parameter-free; agreement or disagreement with the proposed cubic $\chi_{\mathrm{eff}}$ would settle whether the chosen parametrization is the right closure.
  • Because the kinetic theory contains no noise, the stochastic part of AMB+ is not derived; introducing a fluctuating collision operator is the natural next step and could determine whether microphase-separated states in AMB+ require the noise terms.
  • The noncommutation of adiabatic elimination and gradient expansion suggests that lower-order or dynamical-density-functional closures that eliminate the polarization first will systematically miss terms of the $\zeta$ type, which appear only at fourth order in gradients.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Chapman-Enskog expansion of a kinetic equation for hard-core active Brownian particles (ABP) in the high-persistence regime, aiming to derive a fourth-order density field equation with the structure of deterministic Active Model B+ (AMB+). The authors compute explicit expressions for the transport coefficients kappa, xi, lambda, and zeta in terms of the microscopic parameters (V, sigma, Peclet number) to leading order in Pe, using an effective parametrization chi_eff(rho) of the pair correlation function to ensure a double-well free energy. They also provide the resulting free energy and Ginzburg coefficient. The derivation is presented in the main text with extensive algebraic details relegated to the Supplemental Material.

Significance. If the central derivation is correct, this would be an important bottom-up connection between ABP kinetic theory and the phenomenological AMB+ model, giving explicit microscopic expressions for the nonequilibrium transport coefficients and a falsifiable prediction (opposite signs of lambda and zeta, implying coarsening and complete phase separation). The paper is unusually transparent about its limitations: it explicitly flags the ad hoc nature of chi_eff, the missing proof of the parity cancellations, and the discrepancy between the negative kappa and the known short-wavelength stability of the kinetic theory. The detailed Supplemental Material provides many of the intermediate integrals, which is a strength. However, the load-bearing gaps (unproved cancellations and the fitted closure) mean that the 'first-principles derivation' claim is not fully supported as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplemental Material, after Eqs. (A60)-(A63)] The derivation of the fourth-order density equation relies on the equalities I^1_03 + I^1_30 = 0 and I^1_12 + I^1_21 = 0, stated immediately after these equations. The authors explicitly defer the proof, writing that the cancellation 'comes from a parity symmetry... which can probably be proven using the explicit expression for the displacement Δ' and 'falls out of the scope of this article.' This is a load-bearing step: if either cancellation fails, additional terms of order ∇·(χρ ...) survive in Eq. (A59), and the density equation would not reduce to the AMB+ form of Eqs. (1)-(2). Since the central claim of the paper is the derivation of AMB+ from first principles, this omitted proof leaves the conclusion incomplete. I request a rigorous proof of these identities (or a numerical verification using the explicit Δ for the model parameters used), or a reformulation of the derivation that does not require them.
  2. [Main text, paragraph after Eq. (16)] The claim of a first-principles derivation is weakened by the effective pair correlation function chi_eff(rho) = 1 + A rho - B rho^2 + C rho^3 with A = 3.14 sigma^2, B = 3.7 sigma^4, C = 3.1 sigma^6. As the authors state, these coefficients are chosen so that the spinodal density is close to simulation values and so that D''(rho_s) > 0; the explicit expressions for kappa, xi, lambda, and zeta in Eqs. (17)-(20) are therefore outputs of this fitted closure, not of the kinetic theory alone. While the paper is transparent about this, the abstract's phrase 'derive AMB+ from first principles' overstates the result. The authors should either derive chi_eff from a controlled microscopic approximation or clearly qualify the result as a closure-based derivation whose quantitative predictions depend on the choice of chi.
  3. [Main text, paragraph after Eq. (20)] The paper acknowledges that the negative kappa in Eq. (17) would imply infinitely rough states beyond the spinodal, in contrast to the numerical stability of small-wavelength modes found in Ref. [37], attributing this to truncation at fourth order. This is not a minor caveat: it indicates that the derived AMB+ equation does not reproduce the linear stability of the underlying kinetic theory in the regime where it is intended to apply. The authors should provide evidence that higher-order terms indeed restore stability, for example by estimating the next-order contribution to the linearized dispersion relation or by identifying the range of validity of the fourth-order gradient expansion. Without such a check, the predictive content of the derived coefficients, including the predicted sign structure of lambda and zeta, remains to be established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (15)] The text reads 'Ginzbug coefficient'; this should be 'Ginzburg coefficient.'
  2. [Main text, paragraph after Eq. (6)] The sentence 'needing for one colliding particle to to be at r1 - Delta1 and r1, respectively' contains a duplicated 'to' and is ungrammatical; please rephrase.
  3. [Abstract] The accent in 'P\'eclet' appears as an escaped apostrophe; please use the proper Unicode character (Péclet) to avoid typesetting issues.
  4. [Supplemental Material, Eq. (A7)] The notation for the integration measure dH = V sigma |(n2 - n1)·sigma| Theta(...) dn2 dsigma is introduced but the hat notation for unit vectors is not applied consistently in the surrounding text; please standardize.
  5. [End Matter, Eqs. (21)-(28)] The coefficient values for the three closures are quoted with differing numbers of significant digits; a short statement about numerical precision would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the effective pair-correlation parametrization is fitted to produce the two-minimum free energy, so the derived coefficients and coexistence prediction are partly built in; the AMB+ gradient structure itself is a genuine kinetic-theory expansion but rests on an unproved parity cancellation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text after Eq. (16); chi_eff parametrization and Eqs. (17)-(20)]
    "As a third option, we propose an effective parametrization of the pair correlation function. ... Then, the spinodal density is asked to be close to ρsσ2 ≈ 0.32, which matches simulations of ABP with hard disk interactions for infinitely large Pe [43–45]. Finally, to have saturation we need D″(ρs)>0. Several functional forms satisfy these conditions. For simplicity and not suggesting this to be the real form that should be obtained from simulations, we propose an effective correlation function in the form χeff(ρ) = 1 + Aρ − Bρ2 + Cρ3, with A = 3.14σ2, B = 3.7σ4 and C = 3.1σ6."

    The constants A, B and C are free parameters selected to satisfy target conditions: the spinodal at the simulated density and D''(ρs)>0. Since the AMB+ free energy g(phi) in Eq. (15) is constructed from D(rho), which depends on chi, the two-minimum free energy and hence coexistence/phase separation are inputs of the closure, not outputs of the microscopic dynamics. Equations (17)-(20) are explicit functions of these fitted constants, so the advertised 'explicit expressions for all coefficients ... as a function of the microscopic parameters' are not first-principles in the strong sense claimed; the quantitative coefficient values inherit the fitted polynomial.

  2. self definitional [Abstract and main text after Eq. (16), requirement D''(rho_s)>0]
    "For the effective free energy to have two minima, we propose an effective parametrization of the pair correlation function."

    The target result (a free energy with two minima) is used to define the closure chi_eff; the derivation then returns that target as its conclusion. The 'from first principles' claim is therefore valid for the operator structure of AMB+ but not for the thermodynamic part: the coexistence free energy is imposed by construction rather than derived from V, sigma and Pe. The paper is transparent about this, but it means the phase-separation content is not independent of the choice of chi_eff.

full rationale

The Chapman-Enskog expansion itself is largely self-contained: f(0)=rho/2pi, f(1), f(2), f(3) are solved from the kinetic equation, and the fourth-order density equation is assembled from explicit angular integrals (Supplement Eqs. A1-A70). The AMB+ gradient structure in Eqs. (1)-(2) is not a mere renaming of the input; the nonequilibrium fluxes emerge from the kinetic calculation. The main circularity is the closure for chi. Because both the Boltzmann and hard-disk choices give D''(rho_s)<0, the authors introduce chi_eff with A,B,C chosen so that the spinodal sits at the simulated value and, crucially, D''(rho_s)>0. Equation (15) builds g(phi) from D(rho), so the two-minimum shape is imposed rather than derived, and the coefficients in Eqs. (17)-(20) depend on the fitted A,B,C. The sign pattern lambda>0, zeta<0 is partially robust across closures (End Matter), but the quantitative values and the coexistence prediction are still outputs of the fitted polynomial. Separately, the Supplemental Material after Eqs. (A60)-(A63) relies on two unproved cancellations, I^1_03+I^1_30=0 and I^1_12+I^1_21=0, attributed to a parity symmetry, with the proof explicitly left for the reader; this is an omitted-proof correctness gap rather than a circularity, but it weakens confidence that the density equation reduces to AMB+ without extra gradient terms. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: Ref. [37] supplies the collision model, and the present work carries out the expansion independently.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The formal kinetic derivation rests on standard Chapman-Enskog assumptions plus a high-persistence collision model. The quantitative AMB+ coefficients additionally rest on a hand-fitted polynomial chi_eff and on an unproved parity cancellation. These are the main inputs the reader pays for beyond the microscopic parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • A (coefficient of rho in chi_eff) = 3.14 sigma^2
    Chosen by hand with B and C to satisfy the four conditions: chi(0)=1, monotonic increase, spinodal near rho_s sigma^2 about 0.32, and D''(rho_s)>0.
  • B (coefficient of rho^2 in chi_eff) = 3.7 sigma^4
    Same fitting set as A and C; the values determine the density dependence of the effective pair correlation and hence all coefficients.
  • C (coefficient of rho^3 in chi_eff) = 3.1 sigma^6
    Same fitting set as A and B; chosen to make the polynomial produce saturation while keeping the spinodal near the simulation value.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The kinetic equation admits normal solutions and a Chapman-Enskog gradient expansion to fourth order, with timescales t_n=epsilon^n t.
    Invoked in 'First we must assume that the kinetic equation accepts normal solutions...' and Supplemental A3. Fails for short-wavelength modes, as the paper concedes for kappa.
  • domain assumption In the high-persistence limit, collisions are instantaneous positional displacements with directors unchanged.
    Restricts validity to Pe much greater than 1 and ignores reorientations during collisions; noted in Discussion as a possible source of missing physics.
  • ad hoc to paper The effective pair correlation function chi_eff is a valid closure for hard-core ABP at contact.
    Needed to get D''(rho_s)>0; Boltzmann and Enskog choices do not satisfy this, and the authors explicitly say chi_eff is not claimed to be the real form.
  • ad hoc to paper Certain fourth-order angular integrals cancel by a parity symmetry (I^1_03+I^1_30=0, I^1_21+I^1_12=0).
    Stated as 'can probably be proven' in Supplemental A4e; if false, the fourth-order equation changes.
invented entities (1)
  • Effective pair correlation function chi_eff(rho) = 1 + A rho - B rho^2 + C rho^3 with A=3.14 sigma^2, B=3.7 sigma^4, C=3.1 sigma^6.
    purpose: To produce nonlinear saturation (two minima in g(phi)) and a spinodal density near the simulation value; the Boltzmann and Enskog choices fail to give D''(rho_s)>0.
    The authors state this is not suggested to be the real correlation function; it is a fitting device. All explicit coefficient numbers depend on it, and no independent prediction from it is tested outside the construction conditions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Microscopic derivation of a field equation for active Brownian particles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YNPCUBCD

@misc{pith2026260811184,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Microscopic derivation of a field equation for active Brownian particles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YNPCUBCD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11184}
}
read the original abstract

To understand the phenomena displayed in active phase separation, general top-down theories like Active Model B+ (AMB+) add fluxes that break time reversal symmetry. Starting from an Enskog-like kinetic theory of hard-core active Brownian particles in the high persistence regime, we derive AMB+ from first principles. For the effective free energy to have two minima, we propose an effective parametrization of the pair correlation function. Explicit expressions for all coefficients in the model are given as a function of the microscopic parameters to leading order in the P\'eclet number.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11184 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Collision scheme for ABP interaction in the limit of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    R. Soto, M. Pinto, and R. Brito, Kinetic theory of motil- ity induced phase separation for active brownian parti- cles, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 208301 (2024)

    2024

  2. [1]

    Bechinger, R

    C. Bechinger, R. Di Leonardo, H. L¨ owen, C. Reichhardt, G. Volpe, and G. Volpe, Active particles in complex and crowded environments, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 045006 (2016)

    2016

  3. [2]

    Ramaswamy, The mechanics and statistics of active matter, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics1, 323 (2010)

    S. Ramaswamy, The mechanics and statistics of active matter, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics1, 323 (2010)

    2010

  4. [3]

    M. R. Shaebani, A. Wysocki, R. G. Winkler, G. Gomp- per, and H. Rieger, Computational models for active mat- ter, Nature Reviews Physics2, 181 (2020)

    2020

  5. [4]

    Carr` ere, J

    A. Carr` ere, J. d’Alessandro, O. Cochet-Escartin, J. Hes- nard, N. Ghazi, C. Rivi` ere, C. Anjard, F. Detcheverry, and J.-P. Rieu, Microphase separation of living cells, Na- ture Communications14(2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Hannezo and C.-P

    E. Hannezo and C.-P. Heisenberg, Rigidity transitions in development and disease, Trends in Cell Biology32, 433–444 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    D. T. Butcher, T. Alliston, and V. M. Weaver, A tense situation: forcing tumour progression, Nature Reviews Cancer9, 108–122 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [7]

    M. S. Nordentoft, A. Lucchetti, E. Jessen, M. S. Heltberg, and M. H. Jensen, Regulatory out-of-equilibrium pro- cesses in cells. part i: Temporal heterogeneities and oscil- lations, Current Opinion in Systems Biology44, 100574 (2026)

    work page 2026

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    Lenormand, A

    G. Lenormand, A. M. Alencar, X. Trepat, E.-h. Zhou, B. Fabry, J. P. Butler, and J. J. Fredberg, The cytoskele- ton of the living cell as an out-of-equilibrium system, in Phase Transitions in Cell Biology, edited by G. H. Pol- lack and W.-C. Chin (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht,

  2. [9]

    Buttinoni, J

    I. Buttinoni, J. Bialk´ e, F. K¨ ummel, H. L¨ owen, C. Bechinger, and T. Speck, Dynamical clustering and phase separation in suspensions of self-propelled colloidal particles, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 238301 (2013)

    2013

  3. [10]

    M. E. Cates and J. Tailleur, Motility-induced phase sep- aration, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics6, 219 (2015)

    2015

  4. [11]

    M. F. Copeland and D. B. Weibel, Bacterial swarming: a model system for studying dynamic self-assembly, Soft Matter5, 1174 (2009)

    2009

  5. [12]

    G. Liu, A. Patch, F. Bahar, D. Yllanes, R. D. Welch, M. C. Marchetti, S. Thutupalli, and J. W. Shaevitz, Self- driven phase transitions drive myxococcus xanthus fruit- ing body formation, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 248102 (2019)

    2019

  6. [13]

    D. B. Kearns, A field guide to bacterial swarming motil- ity, Nature Reviews Microbiology8, 634–644 (2010)

    2010

  7. [14]

    Fily and M

    Y. Fily and M. C. Marchetti, Athermal phase separation of self-propelled particles with no alignment, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 235702 (2012)

    2012

  8. [15]

    G. S. Redner, M. F. Hagan, and A. Baskaran, Structure and dynamics of a phase-separating active colloidal fluid, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 055701 (2013)

    2013

  9. [16]

    M. E. Cates and J. Tailleur, When are active brown- ian particles and run-and-tumble particles equivalent? consequences for motility-induced phase separation, EPL (Europhysics Letters)101, 20010 (2013)

    2013

  10. [17]

    Theurkauff, C

    I. Theurkauff, C. Cottin-Bizonne, J. Palacci, C. Ybert, and L. Bocquet, Dynamic clustering in active colloidal suspensions with chemical signaling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 268303 (2012)

    2012

  11. [18]

    Stenhammar, D

    J. Stenhammar, D. Marenduzzo, R. J. Allen, and M. E. Cates, Phase behaviour of active brownian particles: the role of dimensionality, Soft Matter10, 1489 (2014)

    2014

  12. [19]

    X.-q. Shi, G. Fausti, H. Chat´ e, C. Nardini, and A. Solon, Self-organized critical coexistence phase in repulsive ac- tive particles, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 168001 (2020)

    2020

  13. [20]

    P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Theory of dynamic critical phenomena, Rev. Mod. Phys.49, 435 (1977)

    1977

  14. [21]

    Meissner and J

    L. Meissner and J. M. Yeomans, An introduction to phase ordering in scalar active matter, The European Physical Journal Special Topics233(2024)

    2024

  15. [22]

    Tjhung, C

    E. Tjhung, C. Nardini, and M. E. Cates, Cluster phases and bubbly phase separation in active fluids: Reversal of the ostwald process, Phys. Rev. X8, 031080 (2018)

    2018

  16. [23]

    M. E. Cates and C. Nardini, Active phase separation: new phenomenology from non-equilibrium physics, Re- ports on Progress in Physics88, 056601 (2025)

    2025

  17. [24]

    Fausti, E

    G. Fausti, E. Tjhung, M. E. Cates, and C. Nardini, Cap- illary interfacial tension in active phase separation, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 068001 (2021)

    2021

  18. [25]

    D. S. Dean, Langevin equation for the density of a system of interacting langevin processes, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General29, L613 (1996)

    1996

  19. [26]

    Burekovi´ c, F

    S. Burekovi´ c, F. D. Luca, M. E. Cates, and C. Nardini, Active cahn–hilliard theory for non-equilibrium phase separation: quantitative macroscopic predictions and a microscopic derivation (2026), arXiv:2601.16539 [cond- mat.stat-mech]

    2026 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Bickmann and R

    J. Bickmann and R. Wittkowski, Collective dynamics of active brownian particles in three spatial dimensions: A predictive field theory, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033241 (2020)

    2020

  21. [28]

    M. t. Vrugt, J. Bickmann, and R. Wittkowski, How to derive a predictive field theory for active brownian par- ticles: a step-by-step tutorial, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter35, 313001 (2023)

    2023

  22. [29]

    Bickmann and R

    J. Bickmann and R. Wittkowski, Predictive local field theory for interacting active brownian spheres in two spa- tial dimensions, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 32, 214001 (2020)

    2020

  23. [30]

    A. K. Omar, H. Row, S. A. Mallory, and J. F. Brady, Mechanical theory of nonequilibrium coexistence and motility-induced phase separation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences120, e2219900120 (2023)

    2023

  24. [31]

    Langford and A

    L. Langford and A. K. Omar, Theory of capillary ten- sion and interfacial dynamics of motility-induced phases, Phys. Rev. E110, 054604 (2024)

    2024

  25. [32]

    Bruna and S

    M. Bruna and S. J. Chapman, Excluded-volume effects in the diffusion of hard spheres, Phys. Rev. E85, 011103 (2012)

    2012

  26. [33]

    Bruna and S

    M. Bruna and S. J. Chapman, Diffusion of multiple species with excluded-volume effects, The Journal of Chemical Physics137, 204116 (2012)

    2012

  27. [34]

    Bruna, M

    M. Bruna, M. Burger, A. Esposito, and S. M. Schulz, Phase separation in systems of interacting active brown- ian particles, SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics82, 1635 (2022)

    2022

  28. [35]

    E. Kalz, A. Sharma, and R. Metzler, Field theory of active chiral hard disks: a first-principles approach to steric interactions, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical57, 265002 (2024)

    2024

  29. [36]

    M. Mayo, L. Caprini, M. I. G. de Soria, U. M. B. Marconi, 6 P. Maynar, L. Pizzoli, and A. Puglisi, Cooling mechanism controls motility-induced phase separation in inertial ac- tive liquids, Physical Review Letters136, 188301 (2026)

    2026

  30. [38]

    Chapman and T

    S. Chapman and T. G. Cowling,The mathematical theory of non-uniform gases: an account of the kinetic theory of viscosity, thermal conduction and diffusion in gases (Cambridge university press, 1990)

    1990

  31. [39]

    Cercignani,The Boltzmann Equation and Its Applica- tions(Springer New York)

    C. Cercignani,The Boltzmann Equation and Its Applica- tions(Springer New York)

  32. [40]

    Pinto-Goldberg and R

    M. Pinto-Goldberg and R. Soto, Hydrodynamic equa- tions for active brownian particles in the high-persistence regime, Phys. Rev. E112, 065413 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Soto,Kinetic Theory and Transport Phenomena(Ox- ford University Press, 2016)

    R. Soto,Kinetic Theory and Transport Phenomena(Ox- ford University Press, 2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Henderson, A simple equation of state for hard discs, Molecular Physics30, 971 (1975)

    D. Henderson, A simple equation of state for hard discs, Molecular Physics30, 971 (1975)

    1975

  35. [43]

    P. Nie, J. Chattoraj, A. Piscitelli, P. Doyle, R. Ni, and M. P. Ciamarra, Stability phase diagram of active brow- nian particles, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023010 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Digregorio, D

    P. Digregorio, D. Levis, A. Suma, L. F. Cugliandolo, G. Gonnella, and I. Pagonabarraga, Full phase diagram of active brownian disks: From melting to motility-induced phase separation, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 098003 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    Levis, J

    D. Levis, J. Codina, and I. Pagonabarraga, Active brow- nian equation of state: metastability and phase coexis- tence, Soft Matter13, 8113 (2017)

    2017

  38. [46]

    Gompper, R

    G. Gompper, R. G. Winkler, T. Speck, A. Solon, C. Nar- dini, F. Peruani, H. L¨ owen, R. Golestanian, U. B. Kaupp, L. Alvarez, T. Kiørboe, E. Lauga, W. C. K. Poon, A. DeSimone, S. Mui˜ nos-Landin, A. Fischer, N. A. S¨ oker, F. Cichos, R. Kapral, P. Gaspard, M. Ripoll, F. Sagues...

    2020

  39. [47]

    For a field theory such as AMB+ we need to expand up to fourth order in gradients

    Gradient expansion of the collision operator The derivation of an equation for the particle density starts by expanding the collision operator J[f, f] = Z χ(r′ 1 +σˆσ/2)f(r′ 1,ˆ n1)f(r ′ 1 +σ ˆσ,ˆ n2)|V σ(ˆ n2 −ˆ n1)· ˆσ|Θ[−(ˆ n2 −ˆ n1)· ˆσ] ×[δ(r 1 −r ′ 1 −∆ 1)−δ(r 1 −r ′ 1)]...

  40. [48]

    Calculation of the integrals For what follows, it is useful to show the general form of the integrals to be calculated in the derivation of AMB+. At each increasing order in the kinetic equation we will have to solve integrals of the form Iαβ...γ (ˆ n1) = Z gαβ...γ (ˆ n1,ˆ n2,...

  41. [49]

    Chapman–Enskog solution As explained in the main text, there are a couple of assumptions needed to be made to apply the Chapman– Enskog method. First we must assume that the kinetic equation accepts normal solutions, meaning that the spa- tiotemporal dependence must be enslave...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.