Micro-heterogeneity metrics for diffusion in soft matter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Passive particle tracking of diffusive paths in soft matter, coupled with analysis of the path data, is firmly established as a fundamental methodology for characterization of both diffusive transport properties (the focus here) and linear viscoelasticity. For either focus, particle time series are typically analyzed by ensemble averaging over paths, a perfectly natural protocol for homogeneous materials or for applications where mean properties are sufficient. Many biological materials, however, are heterogeneous over length scales above the probe diameter, and the implications of heterogeneity for biologically relevant transport properties (e.g. diffusive passage times through a complex fluid layer) motivate this paper. Our goals are three-fold: first, to detect heterogeneity as reflected by the ensemble path data; second, to further decompose the ensemble of particle paths into statistically distinct clusters; and third, to fit the path data in each cluster to a model for the underlying stochastic process. After reviewing current best practices for detection and assessment of heterogeneity in diffusive processes, we introduce our strategy toward the first two goals with methods from the statistics and machine learning literature that have not found application thus far to passive particle tracking data. We apply an analysis based solely on the path data that detects heterogeneity and yields a decomposition of particle paths into statistically distinct clusters. After these two goals are achieved, one can then pursue model-fitting. We illustrate these heterogeneity metrics on diverse datasets: for numerically generated and experimental particle paths, with tunable and unknown heterogeneity, on numerical models for simple diffusion and anomalous sub-diffusion, and experimentally on sucrose, hyaluronic acid, agarose, and human lung culture mucus solutions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".