Swarm behavior of self-propelled rods and swimming flagella
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systems of self-propelled particles are known for their tendency to aggregate and to display swarm behavior. We investigate two model systems: self-propelled rods interacting via volume exclusion and sinusoidally beating flagella embedded in a fluid with hydrodynamic interactions. In the flagella system, beating frequencies are gaussian distributed with a nonzero average. These systems are studied by brownian-dynamics simulations and by mesoscale hydrodynamics simulations, respectively. The clustering behavior is analyzed as the particle density and the environmental or internal noise are varied. By distinguishing three types of cluster-size probability density functions, we obtain a phase diagram of different swarm behaviors. The properties of clusters such as their configuration, lifetime, and average size are analyzed. We find that the swarm behavior of the two systems, characterized by several effective power laws, is very similar. However, a more careful analysis reveals several differences. Clusters of self-propelled rods form due to partially blocked forward motion and are therefore typically wedge shaped. At higher rod density and low noise, a giant mobile cluster appears, in which most rods are mostly oriented toward the center. In contrast, flagella become hydrodynamically synchronized and attract each other; their clusters are therefore more elongated. Furthermore, the lifetime of flagella clusters decays more quickly with cluster size than of rod clusters.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".