MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403303305 · doi:10.1039/d4sm00868e

Tuning collective actuation of active solids by optimizing activity localization

2024· article· en· W4403303305 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Davi Lazzari, Olivier Dauchot, Carolina Brito

Bibliographic record

VenueSoft Matter · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMicro and Nano Robotics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorYork University
KeywordsChemistryNanotechnologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Active solids, more specifically elastic lattices embedded with polar active units, exhibit collective actuation when the elasto-active feedback, generically present in such systems, exceeds some critical value. The dynamics then condensates on a small fraction of the vibrational modes, the selection of which obeys non trivial rules rooted in the nonlinear part of the dynamics. So far, the complexity of the selection mechanism has limited the design of specific actuation. Here, we investigate numerically how localizing activity to a fraction of modes enables the selection of non-trivial collective actuation. We perform numerical simulations of an agent-based model on triangular and disordered lattices and vary the concentration and the localization of the active agents on the lattice nodes. Both contribute to the distribution of the elastic energy across the modes. We then introduce an algorithm, which, for a given fraction of active nodes, evolves the localization of the activity in such a way that the energy distribution on a few targeted modes is maximized - or minimized. We illustrate on a specific targeted actuation, how the algorithm performs as compared to manually chosen localization of the activity. While, in the case of the ordered lattice, a well-educated guess performs better than the algorithm, and the latter outperform the manual trials in the case of the disordered lattice. Finally, the analysis of the results in the case of the ordered lattice leads us to introduce a design principle based on a measure of the susceptibility of the modes to be activated along certain activation paths.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.817

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoft MatterSame topicMicro and Nano RoboticsFrench-language works237,207