Tuning collective actuation of active solids by optimizing activity localization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".