abstract: Ties between individuals on a social network can represent different dimensions of interactions, and the spreading of information and innovations on these networks could potentially be driven by some dimensions more than by others. In this paper we investigate this issue by studying the diffusion of microfinance within rural India villages and accounting for the whole multilayer structure of the underlying social networks. We define a new measure of node centrality, diffusion versatility, and show that this is a better predictor of microfinance participation rate than previously introduced measures defined on aggregated single-layer social networks. Moreover, we untangle the role played by each social dimension and find that the most prominent role is played by the nodes that are central on layers concerned with trust, shedding new light on the key triggers of the diffusion of microfinance.
author: Elisa Omodei and Alex Arenas
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Rovira i Virgili University
title: Untangling the role of diverse social dimensions in the diffusion of microfinance

# Introduction

Understanding the mechanisms driving the diffusion of information, behaviours, and innovations is a question of great interest for social and economical sciences .

In his seminal book, Rogers identified four key elements for the diffusion of an innovation: the characteristics of the innovation itself, the communication channels, time, and the social systems within which the diffusion occurs . The role played by the social structure of the system has since then been widely investigated using the mathematical formalism of networks , and a fundamental question has been the identification of the most influential individuals therein . This is especially important in the context of *network interventions*, which is concerned with understanding how social networks influence behaviours and their diffusions . In particular, induction interventions are designed to stimulate peer-to-peer interaction to trigger cascades in information or behavioural diffusion. Studies have shown that their success is critically dependent on the choice of influencers  but also on their position in the network .

In this paper, by taking advantage of the framework of multilayer networks, we investigate how the choice of opinion leaders can be improved in the context of the diffusion of microfinance in rural villages.

Building on the seminal study of Banjeree *et al.* , we rely on a unique dataset on social network structure and participation in microfinance of 43 villages in Karnataka, a state of southern India . In-between 2007 and 2011 a microfinance institution, Bharatha Swamukti Samsthe (BSS), entered these villages, which previously had almost no exposure to any microfinance institution nor other types of formal credit. Before BSS's entrance in the villages, Banjeree and collaborators administered to households detailed surveys covering a wide range of interactions, to reconstruct the structure of the social network. When entering a village, BSS selected a number of pre-defined individuals that they would expect to be well connected within the villages (teachers, shopkeepers, leaders of self-help groups, etc), and had a private meeting with them to introduce the microfinance programme. These individuals, hereafter simply called leaders, then played a fundamental role in spreading the information about microcredit opportunities. Banerjee and collaborators investigate the correlation between the village level of participation in microfinance and the average centrality of its leaders in the social network. Their goal is to find the centrality measure that best predicts participation, so that in future interventions the most central individuals in the network could be selected as leaders to potentially maximise participation. To the best of our knowledge, no study other than  exists on applying the ideas of network interventions in the context of microfinance, the choice of the opinion leaders being left to credit institution criteria such as those just mentioned.

Banerjee and collaborators define, for each village, a social network of households as an undirected unweighted network linking two households if any of their members are in at least one of the relations covered by the survey. They then introduce a new measure, called *diffusion centrality*, to evaluate the importance of households within the network, with the ultimate goal of predicting the rate of village participation in microfinance on the basis of the centrality of the households that were firstly informed about it. Given the network adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}$, a passing probability $q$ and $T$ iterations, the diffusion centrality of node $i$ is the $i^{\text{th}}$ entry of the vector $$DC(\mathbf{A};q,T) := \Big[ \sum_{t=1}^{T} (q\mathbf{A})^t \Big] \cdot \vec{\mathbf{1}}$$ where $q$ is set as the inverse of the first eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix, and $T$ to the number of trimesters during which the village was exposed to BSS (6.6 on average). Essentially, diffusion centrality measures how effective a household would be as injection point of a new piece of information. By means of multivariate linear regression (including 5 village-level controls, i.e. number of households, self-help group participation rate, savings participation rate, caste composition, and fraction of village households designated as leaders), they show that the average diffusion centrality of the pre-selected leaders outperforms other existing measures of centrality in predicting the village eventual rate of participation in microfinance.

The administered surveys, used to reconstruct the social network, cover 8 different dimensions: names of those whose homes the respondent visits or receives visits by, kins in the village, nonrelatives with whom the respondent socializes, those from whom the respondent receives medical help, those from which and to whom the respondent would borrow or lend money, those from which and to whom the respondent would borrow or lend material goods (such as kerosene or rice), those from or to whom the respondent gets or gives advice, and those with whom the respondent goes to pray (at a temple, church, or mosque). In this paper, we show that taking into account the multilayer structure emerging from the different dimensions covered by the surveys leads to an improved prediction of microfinance participation. Moreover we investigate the relative role played by the different kinds of tie. These results can be used in future network interventions in the context of microfinance, and beyond, to select opinion leaders in function of their position in the multilayer network, so to maximise participation in the programme. The study is motivated by the recent growing literature on multiplex networks showing that taking into account the multilayer structure of social networks – which consist of different kinds of ties, from kinship, to friendship and professional relations  – can shed new light into its topological and dynamical properties . Therefore in this paper we reconsider the question of how innovations diffuse by asking: do all kinds of tie play the same role or are some dimensions more influential than others in fostering the adoption of an innovation?

# Materials and Methods

## Data

In each village, about half of the households completed surveys in which each member was asked to list the names of people in the village with whom they had a certain relationship. Households were selected through random sampling and stratification by religion and geographic sub-regions. For further information about data collection we refer the reader to the original paper , and the publicly available dataset . Individuals were asked the following questions:

1.  Name the 4 non-relatives whom you speak to the most.

2.  In your free time, whose house do you visit?

3.  Who visits your house in his or her free time?

4.  If you needed to borrow kerosene or rice, to whom would you go?

5.  Who would come to you if he/she needed to borrow kerosene or rice?

6.  If you suddenly needed to borrow Rs. 50 for a day, whom would you ask?

7.  Who do you trust enough that if he/she needed to borrow Rs. 50 for a day you would lend it to him/her?

8.  Who comes to you for advice?

9.  If you had to make a difficult personal decision, whom would you ask for advice?

10. If you had a medical emergency and were alone at home whom would you ask for help in getting to a hospital?

11. Name any close relatives, aside those in this household, who also live in this village.

12. Do you visit temple/mosque/church? Do you go with anyone else? What are the names of these people?

We observe that some pairs of questions are symmetric, as for instance "In your free time, whose house do you visit?" and "Who visits your house in his or her free time?". The two questions, jointly considered, allow to reconstruct a network describing who visits whom within each village. The same stands for questions 4-5, 6-7 and 8-9, which allow to reconstruct, respectively, the network of potential material good loans, of potential money loans, and of advice relationships. Therefore, from the 12 questions we identify 8 different dimensions: nonrelative socialisation (1), house visits (2-3), material good potential loans (4-5), money potential loans (6-7), advice exchange (8-9), help in a medical emergency (10), kinship (11), and praying company (12).

## Methods

The social network defined by Banerjee and collaborators is the product of an aggregation over different types of social ties, from kinship to medical help. It was recently shown that accounting for the whole multilayer structure of networks that are intrinsically composed of different kinds of relations has important consequences in the definition of the most central nodes, and allows to identify the more versatile ones . We call this extended notion of centrality *versatility*. Here, we are interested in understanding if measuring leaders' versatility in a multilayer network that accounts for all dimensions separately can improve the prediction of microfinance participation. To this end, for each village we build a multilayer network composed of $N$ nodes, corresponding to the number of households in the village, and $L=8$ layers, each encoding one of the dimensions defined above. Moreover, each node on a given layer is connected to its replica on all the other layers. Figure  shows the visualisation of the multilayer social network for one of the villages. Following the mathematical framework introduced in , we describe this network by means of the rank-4 tensor $A^{\alpha\tilde{\gamma}}_{\beta\tilde{\delta}}$. This was shown to be a natural generalisation of the adjacency matrix, and allows for a simple mathematical definition of multilayer networks

, as we will now describe.

Let us first consider a standard network, composed of $N$ nodes and of only one single type of edge. Such graph can be represented by means of the adjacency matrix $$\mathbf{W}=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}w_{ij}\mathbf{E}_{ij}=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}w_{ij}\mathbf{e}_{i}\otimes \mathbf{e}_{j}^{\dag}\,, \quad \mathbf{A}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}\otimes\mathbb{R}^{N}=\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}\,,$$ where $w_{ij}$ indicates the intensity of the relationship between node $i$ and node $j$, $\mathbf{e}_{i}$ is the canonical vector in the vector space $\mathbb{R}^{N}$, that is the $i^{\text{th}}$ component of $\mathbf{e}_{i}$ is 1, and all of its other components are $0$, and $\dag$ is the transposition operator, which transforms the column vector $\mathbf{e}_{j}$ into a row vector. $\mathbf{E}_{ij}=\mathbf{e}_{i}\otimes \mathbf{e}_{j}^{\dag}$ is the $2^{\text{nd}}$-order (i.e. rank-2) canonical tensor defined as the tensor product $\otimes$ of the two canonical vectors.

Let us now introduce the language of tensors, that we need to generalise the notion of adjacency matrix to the more general notion of adjacency tensor needed to describe multilayer networks. We will use the covariant notation, in which a row vector $\mathbf{v}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$ is given by a covariant vector $v_{\alpha}$ (where $\alpha=1,2,\ldots,N$), and the corresponding column vector $\mathbf{v}^{\dag}$ is given by the contravariant vector $v^{\alpha}$. Moreover, we will use Latin letters to denote the $i^{\text{th}}$ vector or the $(ij)^{\text{th}}$ tensor, and Greek letters to indicate the components of a vector or a tensor. Using this notation, $e_{\alpha}(i)$ is the $\alpha^{\text{th}}$ component of the $i^{\text{th}}$ covariant canonical vector $\mathbf{e}_{i}$ in $\mathbb{R}^{N}$, and $e^{\alpha}(j)$ is the $\alpha^{\text{th}}$ component of the $j^{\text{th}}$ contravariant canonical vector in $\mathbb{R}^{N}$. The adjacency matrix $\mathbf{W}$ can now be represented as rank-2 adjacency tensor $W^{\alpha}_{\beta}$ (1-covariant and 1-contravariant) as a linear combination of tensors in the canonical basis $$W^{\alpha}_{\beta}=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}w_{ij}e^{\alpha}(i)e_{\beta}(j)=\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}w_{ij}E^{\alpha}_{\beta}(ij)$$ where $E^{\alpha}_{\beta}(ij)\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$ indicates the tensor in the canonical basis corresponding to the tensor product of the canonical vectors assigned to nodes $i$ and $j$, i.e. it is $\mathbf{E}_{ij}$.

In a multilayer network, each type of relation between nodes is embedded in a different layer $\tilde{k}$ (where $\tilde{k}=1,2,\ldots,L$ and we use the tilda symbol to denote indices that correspond to layers). For each of the layers, we construct the *intra-layer* adjacency tensor $W^{\alpha}_{\beta}(\tilde{k})$ encoding information about relations between nodes within the same layer $\tilde{k}$. Moreover, to encode information about connections between nodes in different layers, we construct the *inter-layer* adjacency tensors $C^{\alpha}_{\beta}(\tilde{h}\tilde{k})$. Note that, when $\tilde{h} = \tilde{k}$, we retrieve the intra-layer adjacency tensors $C^{\alpha}_{\beta}(\tilde{k}\tilde{k})=W^{\alpha}_{\beta}(\tilde{k})$. Following the same approach as above, we define the covariant and contravariant vectors $e_{\tilde{\delta}}(\tilde{k})$ and $e^{\tilde{\gamma}}(\tilde{h})$ (where $\tilde{\delta}$, $\tilde{\gamma}$, $\tilde{k}$,$\tilde{h}$ all range in $(1,2,\ldots,L)$) of the canonical basis in the space $\mathbb{R}^{L}$. From these, we construct the $2^{\text{nd}}$-order tensors $E^{\tilde{\gamma}}_{\tilde{\delta}}(\tilde{h}\tilde{k})=e^{\tilde{\gamma}}(\tilde{h})e_{\tilde{\delta}}(\tilde{k})$ that represent the canonical basis of the space $\mathbb{R}^{L\times L}$. Finally, we can now write the multilayer adjacency tensor as the tensor product between the adjacency tensors $C^{\alpha}_{\beta}(\tilde{h}\tilde{k})$ and the canonical tensors $E^{\tilde{\gamma}}_{\tilde{\delta}}(\tilde{h}\tilde{k})$: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
    A^{\alpha\tilde{\gamma}}_{\beta\tilde{\delta}} &= \sum_{\tilde{h},\tilde{k}=1}^{L}C^{\alpha}_{\beta}(\tilde{h}\tilde{k})E^{\tilde{\gamma}}_{\tilde{\delta}}(\tilde{h}\tilde{k})\\
    &= \sum_{\tilde{h},\tilde{k}=1}^{L} \Bigg[ \sum_{i,j=1}^{N}w_{ij}(\tilde{h}\tilde{k})E^{\alpha}_{\beta}(ij) \Bigg] E^{\tilde{\gamma}}_{\tilde{\delta}}(\tilde{h}\tilde{k})\\
    &= \sum_{\tilde{h},\tilde{k}=1}^{L}\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}w_{ij}(\tilde{h}\tilde{k})\mathcal{E}^{\alpha\tilde{\gamma}}_{\beta\tilde{\delta}}(ij\tilde{h}\tilde{k})
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ where $w_{ij}(\tilde{h}\tilde{k})$ are scalars that indicate the existence or not of a relationship between nodes $i$ and $j$, and $\mathcal{E}^{\alpha\tilde{\gamma}}_{\beta\tilde{\delta}}(ij\tilde{h}\tilde{k})\equiv e^{\alpha}(i)e_{\beta}(j)e^{\tilde{\gamma}}(\tilde{h})e_{\tilde{\delta}}(\tilde{k})$ is the $4^{\text{th}}$-order (i.e., rank-4) tensors of the canonical basis in the space $\mathbb{R}^{N\times N\times L\times L}$.

In our particular case, we define $w_{ij}(\tilde{h}\tilde{k})$ as follows. We set $w_{ij}(\tilde{k}\tilde{k}) = 1$ if there exists at least one member of household $i$ that indicated a relationship of type $\tilde{k}$ with any member of household $j$, or vice-versa, where $\tilde{k}$ refers to any of the socio-economic dimensions defined above. Moreover, to take into account the fact that the $L$ replicas of node $i$, one per layer, represent in fact the same household, we set $w_{ii}(\tilde{h}\tilde{k})=1$ for all $i=1,2,\ldots,N$ and all pairs of layers $(\tilde{h}\tilde{k})$. All others $w_{ij}(\tilde{h}\tilde{k})$ are set equal to 0.

We then generalise the definition of diffusion centrality by considering a diffusion process on the multilayer network, and introduce a new metrics that we call *diffusion versatility*. We define the layer-dependent diffusion versatility of node $\alpha$ in layer $\tilde{\gamma}$ as the $(\alpha\tilde{\gamma})^{\text{th}}$ component of the rank-2 tensor $$\label{eq:diffverslayer}
DV_{\alpha\tilde{\gamma}}(A^{\alpha\tilde{\gamma}}_{\beta\tilde{\delta}};q,T) := \Big[ \sum_{t=1}^{T} q(A^t)^{\alpha\tilde{\gamma}}_{\beta\tilde{\delta}} \Big] u^{\beta\tilde{\delta}}$$ where $(A^t)^{\alpha\tilde{\gamma}}_{\beta\tilde{\delta}}$ is the $t$-th power of the rank-4 tensor, and $u^{\beta\tilde{\delta}}=\sum_{\tilde{h}=1}^{L}\sum_{i=1}^{N}e^\beta(i)e^{\tilde{\delta}}(\tilde{h})$ is the $N \times L$ rank-2 tensor with all components equal to 1. We then obtain the diffusion versatility of node $\alpha$ independently of the layer by contracting the index of the tensor with the contravariant vector $u^{\tilde{\gamma}}$ whose entries are all equal to 1, and normalising by dividing by $L$: $$\label{eq:diffvers}
DV_\alpha(A^{\alpha\tilde{\gamma}}_{\beta\tilde{\delta}};q,T) = \frac{1}{L} DV_{\alpha\tilde{\gamma}}(A^{\alpha\tilde{\gamma}}_{\beta\tilde{\delta}};q,T) u^{\tilde{\gamma}} \mbox{ .}$$

Let us note that the layer-dependent diffusion versatility $DV_{\alpha\tilde{\gamma}}(A^{\alpha\tilde{\gamma}}_{\beta\tilde{\delta}};q,T)$ is not equivalent to computing diffusion centrality on a network composed only by layer $\alpha$, because here we are taking into account the whole multilayer network in its computation. Therefore diffusion versatility $DV_\alpha(A^{\alpha\tilde{\gamma}}_{\beta\tilde{\delta}};q,T)$ is not equivalent to computing diffusion centrality on the single layers separately and then taking their average for each node.

Conceptually, the diffusion versatility of a node measures how far a diffusion process starting on the node can spread on the multilayer network in a given amount of time $T$ (in our case, the number of trimesters during which the village was exposed to the microfinance institution). Accounting for the whole multilayer structure allows to capture along which kind of ties the diffusion is more likely to take place, and to assess whether the importance of nodes in the network as seeds of a diffusion process is more dependent on a dimension or another. For instance, a household that is very central in the aggregated network because it has several kinship ties with other households in the village, might have lower diffusion versatility in the multilayer network than another household that has the same centrality in the aggregated network but whose ties span over different dimensions because there live a very trusted person to whom people go to ask for advice, money and material goods.

# Results

## Comparing centrality and versatility node rankings

First, we show that ranking nodes according to their diffusion versatility is significantly different than ranking them according to their diffusion centrality in the aggregated network. Figure  shows a density map of the two rankings, for the 100 top ranked nodes in each village (i.e. about half of the nodes, on average). We selected the top 100 to avoid biases in the rank comparison due to the fact that pairs or groups of less central (or versatile) nodes might present the same value of centrality (or versatility) and therefore the same rank cardinal number, thus biasing the comparison between two different rankings. We observe that the two rankings are positively correlated as expected (using the multilayer network structure should capture some different aspects but not drastically change the whole ranking), but also that indeed the ranking is significantly different for several nodes. More specifically, $96\%$ of the nodes do not occupy the same position in the two rankings, and $28\%$ of them present a rank difference greater than or equal to 10. This result suggests that diffusion versatility provides different information with respect to diffusion centrality, and in the following sections we explore whether this information can lead to a better prediction of microfinance participation, and, more importantly, to the detection of which kinds of tie play the most important role.

## Improving microfinance participation prediction

We investigate the correlation between the average diffusion versatility of leaders (as defined in Eq. ) and the rate of microfinance participation in the village, and compare the results with those obtained using diffusion centrality. As shown in Table , we find that diffusion versatility is more strongly correlated to microfinance participation rate than diffusion centrality ($R^2=0.470$ for versatility, versus $R^2=0.442$ for centrality). To test the significance of the difference between the two models, we generate 1000 bootstrapped samples of the data, perform the linear regressions on them, and then compare the two resulting distributions of the coefficient of determination using the paired samples t-test. We find that we can accept with a $99\%$ confidence level the alternative hypothesis that the the average $R^2$ of the model that uses versatility is higher than the average $R^2$ of the model that uses centrality. These results show that accounting for the whole multilevel structure of the different dimensions provides a better framework to identify the pre-defined set of leaders that microfinance agencies should initially inform in order to maximise participation. However, given that the improvement in prediction is significant but relatively small, we are interested in understanding if some kinds of tie play a more fundamental role than others in the diffusion, and leaders should therefore be chosen according to their layer-dependent versatility in some particular layers.

```latex
\begin{table*}[h!]\caption{\textbf{Microfinance participation versus centrality and versatility of leaders.} Values shown are coefficients from ordinary least-squares regression. Each column represents a different regression. The dependent variable is the microfinance participation rate of nonleader households in a village. The covariates are diffusion centrality (regression 1) and diffusion versatility (regression 2), averaged over the set of leaders, as well as 5 control variables: number of households, self-help group participation rate, savings participation rate, caste composition, and fraction of village households designated as leaders. Standard errors (in parenthesis) are robust to heteroskedasticity.}
\label{regression}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ l c c }
 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textbf{Regression}} \\
\textbf{Measure} & 1 & 2 \\
\hline
\multirow{ 2}{*}{diffusion centrality} & 0.022 (0.007) & \\
& P=0.002 & \\
\multirow{2}{*}{diffusion versatility} & & 0.030 (0.011) \\
& & P=0.001\\
$R^2$ & 0.442 & 0.470 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
```

## Untangling the importance of the different dimensions

We investigate whether the diverse dimensions contribute evenly, or rather play different roles, by considering the layer-dependent components of the diffusion versatility tensor, i.e. $DV_{\alpha\tilde{\gamma}}(A^{\alpha\tilde{\gamma}}_{\beta\tilde{\delta}};q,T)$. For each dimension, we compute the average leaders' versatility taking into account only the components of the corresponding layer $\tilde{\gamma}$, thus obtaining 8 different average leaders' versatilities, each corresponding to a given dimension. Let us note that this is not the same as computing diffusion centrality on each layer separately, because in this case each versatility value is computed taking into account the whole multilayer structure. We perform 8 linear regressions, each using as covariate one of the 8 versatility measures (as well as the same control variables as above), and microfinance participation as the dependent variable. The results are reported in Table 2, from the least to the most predictive, as indicated by $R^2$ values. To assess the statistical significance of the difference between each of these models and the model based on diffusion centrality, we use paired samples t-test on 1000 bootstrapped samples of the data, as already described in the previous section. We find that we can accept with a $99\%$ confidence level the alternative hypothesis that the average $R^2$ of the the models that use layer-dependent versatility based on the layers *material good*, *kinship*, *praying company*, *advice*, *money* and *medical help* is higher than the average $R^2$ of the model that uses centrality. For the model based on the *nonrelative socialisation* the confidence level is $90\%$. Instead, the average $R^2$ of the the model based on the *visits* layer is smaller than the average $R^2$ of the model that uses centrality ($99\%$ confidence level). Moreover, we find that we can accept with a $99\%$ confidence level the alternative hypothesis that the average $R^2$ of the the models that use layer-dependent versatility based on the layers *money* and *medical help* is also higher than the average $R^2$ of the model that uses overall versatility. The same holds also for the *advice* layer, but with a confidence level of $90\%$. These results indicate that the most predictive dimensions are all related to trust: asking for help in a medical emergency, asking for money if in need, and asking for advice. These results mean that the versatility of leaders in these layers is what best correlates with the final rate of participation in microfinance in the village. This could serve as an indication for microfinance institutions for leader selection, which could be done on the basis of diffusion versatility, but with a particular focus on individuals belonging to households which are particularly versatile on these specific layers.

```latex
\begin{table*}[h!]\caption{\textbf{Microfinance participation versus layer-dependent versatility of leaders.} Values shown are coefficients from ordinary least-squares regression. Each column represents a different regression. The dependent variable is the microfinance participation rate of nonleader households in a village. The covariates are the layer-dependent diffusion versatility of the given layer, averaged over the set of leaders, as well as the 5 control variables.}
\begin{center}
\tiny
\begin{tabular}{ l c c c c c c c c }
 & \multicolumn{8}{c}{\textbf{Regression}} \\
\textbf{Dimension} & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 \\
\hline
\multirow{ 2}{*}{visits} & 0.016(0.007) & & & & & & & \\
& P=0.019 & & & & & & & \\
nonrelative & & 0.021(0.007) & & & & & & \\
socialisation & & P=0.004  & & & & & & \\
\multirow{2}{*}{material goods} & & & 0.031(0.010) & & & & & \\
& & & P=0.004  & & & & & \\
\multirow{2}{*}{kinship} & & & & 0.034(0.010) & & & & \\
& & & & P=0.002  & & & & \\
praying & & & & & 0.044(0.013) & & & \\
company & & & & & P=0.002  & & & \\
\multirow{2}{*}{advice} & & & & & & 0.025(0.008) & & \\
& & & & & & P=0.003  & & \\
\multirow{2}{*}{money} & & & & & & & 0.028(0.009) & \\
& & & & & & & P=0.003 & \\
\multirow{2}{*}{medical help} & & & & & & & & 0.034(0.009) \\
& & & & & & & & P=0.000 \\
$R^2$ & 0.365 & 0.443 & 0.447 & 0.468 & 0.472 & 0.474 & 0.487 & 0.511 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
%\normalsize
\label{regression2}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
```

# Conclusions

In this paper we have shown that taking into account the multilayer structure of social networks of rural India villages allows for a better identification of the individuals who are more likely to help the spreading of microfinance in the community. Firstly, we have introduced a new measure, diffusion versatility, as an extension of diffusion centrality to multilayer networks. We have shown that the diffusion versatility of leaders is a better predictor of the microfinance participation rate in the village than diffusion centrality. Secondly, we have used the layer-dependent components of diffusion versatility to untangle the role played by each dimension in the diffusion of microfinance. We have found that the most predictive dimensions are related with trust: asking for help in a medical emergency or for a money loan if in need.

These results show that diffusion versatility could be used by microfinance institutions to identify opinion leaders so to maximise participation, focusing in particular on those with high versatility in specific layers. Further field research could validate these results, for instance by means of randomised field experiments. Leaders in a set of villages could be chosen according to their layer-dependent diffusion versatility ranking relative to a given dimension, and in another set of villages according to a different dimension, and then compare participation. Moreover, future work should involve sociologists and anthropologists in order to combine methods of multilayer network analysis with detailed investigations of the sociological meaning of the different dimensions in the context of rural India, to gain a deeper understanding of these social systems and how innovations diffuse therein.

# Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Matthew O. Jackson for the fruitful discussions. AA and EO were supported by the James S. McDonnell Foundation through grant 220020325. AA also acknowledges financial support from the European Commission FET-Proactive project MULTIPLEX (Grant No. 317532), the ICREA Academia and by Spanish government grant FIS2015-38266.


abstract: Sperm traverse their microenvironment through viscous fluid by propagating flagellar waves; the waveform emerges as a consequence of elastic structure, internal active moments, and low Reynolds number fluid dynamics. Engineered microchannels have recently been proposed as a method of sorting and manipulating motile cells; the interaction of cells with these artificial environments therefore warrants investigation. A numerical method is presented for large-amplitude elastohydrodynamic interaction of active swimmers with domain features. This method is employed to examine hydrodynamic scattering by a model microchannel backstep feature. Scattering is shown to depend on backstep height and the relative strength of viscous and elastic forces in the flagellum. In a 'high viscosity' parameter regime corresponding to human sperm in cervical mucus analogue, this hydrodynamic contribution to scattering is comparable in magnitude to recent data on contact effects, being of the order of $5$–$10^\circ$. Scattering can be positive or negative depending on the relative strength of viscous and elastic effects, emphasising the importance of viscosity on the interaction of sperm with their microenvironment. The modulation of scattering angle by viscosity is associated with variations in flagellar asymmetry induced by the elastohydrodynamic interaction with the boundary feature.
author: T. D. Montenegro-Johnson^1,2,3^[^1], H. Gadêlha^4,3^ and D. J. Smith^2,3,5^.
bibliography: nl_refs.bib
title: **Spermatozoa scattering by a microchannel feature: an elastohydrodynamic model**

|  |  |
|:---|:---|
|   $^1$ | Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3 0WA, U.K. |
|   $^2$ | School of Mathematics, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, U.K. |
|   $^3$ | Centre for Human Reproductive Science, Birmingham Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TG, U.K. |
|   $^4$ | Wolfson Centre for Mathematical Biology, University of Oxford, Mathematical Institute, Woodstock Road, OX2 6GG, U.K. |
|   $^5$ | School of Engineering and Centre for Scientific Computing, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, U.K. |

Key index words: *Stokesian swimming, fluid-structure interaction, human sperm*

# Introduction

Human sperm propel themselves by propagating a travelling wave along a single, active flagellum; this motility is essential for migration through the female reproductive tract and natural fertilisation. Recent work with microfluidic devices has suggested the ability to direct and sort cells through their own motility, a potentially valuable advance in assisted reproduction therapy and in the livestock industry. Cell scattering at simple geometric features, such as the outside of a corner, appear to be dependent on viscosity and temperature; developing mechanical models to understand, interpret and optimise these effects for their exploitation is therefore of considerable interest. We will develop a mathematical model of a cell interacting with its environment, and its computational implementation, and study the dynamics of a realistic model sperm swimming over a backstep feature to study the effect of elastic, viscous and geometric parameters. The model will combine geometric nonlinearity of the elastic flagellum with nonlocal hydrodynamic interactions, and will be solved numerically via an implicit finite difference method for the elastohydrodynamic equations, combined with a hybrid slender body theory/boundary integral method for the low Reynolds number fluid dynamics.

The motor apparatus driving the flagellar waveform is a remarkably phylogenetically conserved structure known as the axoneme. The axoneme in human sperm comprises $9$ doublet microtubules, linked to each other and a central pair by passive elastic structures, with additional stiffening from outer dense fibres and the fibrous sheath (for recent review focused on mechanically-relevant features, see ref. ). Motor proteins bound to microtubules exert forces on adjacent doublets in a coordinated manner to induce bending moments along the length of the flagellum, causing bending, which is in turn resisted by the surrounding fluid. The fluid mediates interactions with surrounding surfaces and other cells; the flagellar waveform emerges from this nonlinear coupling.

Machin  showed that in order to generate experimentally observed waveforms, the flagellum must actively bend along its length, developing a linearised theory that has formed the basis of many subsequent studies. The theory that bending is produced by relative sliding of internal microtubules was subsequently proposed by Satir , and the sliding mechanism was modelled in early studies by Brokaw , using the formalism of an active internal moment per unit length in an elastic filament. The regulation of the active motor proteins that cause this sliding, and their oscillatory behaviour, is however a subject of continuing enquiry , with modelling playing an important role in comparing regulatory theories . A number of studies since the 1970s have provided significant insights into how potential mechanisms of dynein regulation can produce the types of bending waves observed in nature (see for example ).

The importance of large-amplitude elastohydrodynamic flagellar modelling was established by Gadêlha et al. , who delineated the range of validity of small-amplitude elastic theory and showed that for sufficiently high viscosity relative to flagellar stiffness, a buckling instability can give rise to waveform asymmetry without domain boundaries or asymmetric internal actuation. The numerical implementation of Gadêlha et al.'s study built on a model of passive flexible fibres in shear flow , although replacing the nonlocal hydrodynamics of the latter with a local drag-velocity law. The combination of three-dimensional, time-dependent flow with the hydrodynamic interactions arising from fixed and moving boundaries, with active filament mechanics is computationally demanding; the majority of sperm models until the last decade made similar approximations for the fluid dynamics, or small-amplitude linearisation of the flagellar wave.

Liron, Gueron and colleagues (see for example ) modelled cilia arrays, taking both nonlocal fluid dynamics and geometric nonlinearity into account, building on earlier work by for example Lighthill  and Hines & Blum . However this formalism, expressed in terms of bending angles rather than flagellar position, does not appear to have been generalised to a free-swimming cell with the associated boundary condition resulting from the presence of a head. More recent work using the finite element and finite volume methods and cluster computing has also been focused on cilia ; another successful recent approach is the regularised stokeslet method combined with a generalised immersed boundary method .

While the fluid dynamic interaction of sperm with plane boundaries has received significant attention since the work of Rothschild over 50 years ago , motivating a number of experimental and theoretical studies , the interaction of sperm with 'non-trivial' geometric obstacles involving angles and curves or complex interfaces is a subject of growing recent interest .

Denissenko et al.  showed how sperm scatter at a range of angles when encountering the outside of a corner in an artificial microchannel maze, and that the scattering angle is modulated by viscosity; Kantsler et al.  studied the effect of very close interactions of sperm and the biflagellate algae *Chlamydomonas* with these features. The geometric nature of the female reproductive tract is also highly convoluted, further motivating the need for models which can accommodated complex wall shapes into account. These studies suggest tantalising opportunities to direct and sort motile sperm on passive microdevices, however a better understanding of the subtle nonlinear physics of how flagellated swimmers interact with geometric features must be developed; to aid with this understanding we will develop a mathematical and computational approach which accounts for elasticity, viscosity and their interaction, without the need for large scale computational resources. To this end we will bring together the active elastic formulation of Gadêlha *et al.* with the Lighthill-Gueron-Liron theorem for nonlocal slender body theory and the boundary element and regularised stokeslet methods to capture the influence of a non-trivial nearby surface. We will use this approach to explore how sperm scatter near geometric features due to elastohydrodynamic interaction over hundreds of flagellar beats with a single computer core, and quantify how the balance of viscosity and elasticity modulates this effect via changes to the flagellar waveform.

# Mathematical model

The mathematical model of a sperm interacting with a geometric feature will be derived from, (i) the Stokes flow equations, with a nonlocal hydrodynamic model, and (ii) geometrically nonlinear elasticity for an internally actuated flagellum. We will first derive the equations for the two parts of problem, before describing (iii) the numerical implementation.

## Hydrodynamics

At microscopic scales, fluid dynamics can be modelled by the incompressible Stokes flow equations, $$0=-\boldsymbol{\nabla}p+\mu\nabla^2\mathbf{u} \mbox{,} \quad
\boldsymbol{\nabla}\cdot\mathbf{u} = 0,$$ where $\mathbf{u}$ is velocity, $p$ is pressure and $\mu$ is dynamic viscosity. For our problem, these equations will be augmented with the no-slip, no-penetration condition $\mathbf{u}(\mathbf{X})=\mathbf{X}_t$ for points $\mathbf{X}$ on the solid boundary, where subscript $t$ denotes time derivative.

The linearity of the Stokes flow equations enables the construction of solutions to satisfy boundary conditions via discrete and/or continuous sums of suitably-weighted fundamental solutions. These techniques replace solid surfaces, such as the sperm flagellum, head, and its surrounding microenvironment, by line or surface distributions of immersed forces. A concentrated point force located at $\mathbf{y}$ with strength $\mathbf{F}$, produces a velocity field (the 'stokeslet'), $$u_j(\mathbf{x})=S_{jk}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})F_k \mbox{,} \quad \mbox{where} \quad S_{jk}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})=\frac{1}{8\pi\mu}\left(\frac{\delta_{jk}}{|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}|}+\frac{(x_j-y_j)(x_k-y_k)}{|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}|^3}\right)\mbox{,}\label{eq:stokeslet}$$ the symbol $\delta_{jk}$ being the Kronecker delta tensor and the summation convention being used. The symbol $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{S}}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})$ will be used to denote the 2nd rank tensor in equation . It will also be convenient to make use of the regularised stokeslet $\boldsymbol{\mathsf{S}}^\epsilon$ of Cortez , which corresponds to a spatially smoothed force; a frequently-used implementation in three dimensions takes the form, $$S_{jk}^\epsilon(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})=\frac{1}{8\pi\mu}\frac{\delta_{jk}(|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}|^2+2\epsilon^2)+(x_j-y_j)(x_k-y_k)}{(|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}|^2+\epsilon^2)^{3/2}}.$$ The parameter $\epsilon>0$ defines the length scale over which the point force is smoothed; this smoothness property is particularly convenient for the formulation of boundary integral methods.

The LGL theorem , an extension of the work of Lighthill , derives from a line distribution of singular stokeslets and source dipoles: an approximate expression for the flow field at the surface of a moving slender body, accurate to $O(\sqrt{b/L})$, where $b$ is the radius and $L$ is the flagellar length. Ignoring image systems, which are not required in our formulation, and using the properties of the stokeslet to reorder the source and field points, we have the expression for the approximate velocity field produced by the slender body $\mathbf{v}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{X}(s_0,t)) &= -\frac{1}{\xi_{\parallel}}(\mathbf{f}_{\mathrm{vis}}\cdot \hat{\mathbf{s}})\hat{\mathbf{s}}-\frac{1}{\xi_{\perp}}(\mathbf{f}_{\mathrm{vis}}\cdot \hat{\mathbf{n}})\hat{\mathbf{n}}-\frac{1}{\xi_{\perp}}(\mathbf{f}_{\mathrm{vis}}\cdot \hat{\mathbf{b}})\hat{\mathbf{b}}\nonumber \\
& -\int_{|s-s_0|>q} \boldsymbol{\mathsf{S}}(\mathbf{X}(s_0,t),\mathbf{X}(s,t))\cdot \mathbf{f}_{\mathrm{vis}}(s)\,ds.\label{eq:lgl}
\end{aligned}$$ Here and in what follows, $0\leqslant s \leqslant L$ is an arclength parameterisation for the flagellum, and $\mathbf{f}_{\mathrm{vis}}$ is the viscous force per unit length exerted by the fluid on the flagellum. The coefficients $\xi_{\parallel}$ and $\xi_{\perp}$ are parallel and perpendicular resistance coefficients similar to those of Gray & Hancock  and take the form, $$\xi_{\perp} = \frac{8\pi\mu}{1 + 2 \ln (2q/b)}, \quad \xi_{\parallel} =
\frac{8\pi\mu}{-2 + 4\ln (2q/b)}, \quad \gamma = \frac{\xi_{\perp}}{\xi_{\parallel}}\mbox{,}$$ the parameter $q$ being a length scale chosen intermediate in magnitude between $b$ and $L$. The symbols $\hat{\mathbf{s}}$, $\hat{\mathbf{n}}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{b}}$ are unit tangent, normal and binormal. Whereas Gueron and Liron  considered the dynamics of a cilium projecting from a plane boundary, and hence the associated image systems, in this study we will not require these terms because surfaces will be represented via boundary integrals.

Equation  can be considered a nonlocal extension of resistive force theories, which retain only the first three terms. To couple LGL to the elastohydrodynamic model of Gadêlha et al.  we will rewrite these terms in another commonly-used form, $-(1/\xi_{\perp})(\boldsymbol{\mathbf{I}}+(\gamma-1)\hat{\mathbf{s}}\hat{\mathbf{s}})\cdot
\mathbf{f}_{\mathrm{vis}}$, with $\gamma=\xi_{\perp}/\xi_{\parallel}$ playing a similar role to the drag anisotropy ratio of resistive force theory, but depending on the choice of $q$. The precise value of $q$ is not critical provided that $b\ll q \ll L$ because changes to the resistance coefficients are accompanied by changes to the integrals; for our study with $b=0.01L$, we choose $q=0.1L$, leading to $\gamma\approx 1.4$.

To model a sperm, we will consider a cell with a rigid head as well as a flagellum, swimming near a rigid step-like surface. The linearity of Stokes flow equations means that a solution satisfying the additional no-slip boundary conditions associated with the head and the wall may be constructed by linear superposition. Moreover, the Lorentz reciprocal relation, and its regularised analogue enable the representation of these surfaces by boundary integrals; rigidity of the surfaces enables the use of single layer boundary integral representations . In the present study we will use a hybrid approach, representing the head via a surface distribution of singular stokeslets with stress $\boldsymbol{\phi}^{\mathrm{H}}$, discretised via BEMLIB , and the wall by regularised stokeslets and boundary elements, with stress $\boldsymbol{\phi}^{\mathrm{W}}$ . The full fluid dynamic model for the velocity field on the surface of the flagellum is therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{u}(\mathbf{X}(s_0,t))& = -\frac{1}{\xi_{\perp}}(\boldsymbol{\mathbf{I}}+(\gamma-1)\hat{\mathbf{s}}\hat{\mathbf{s}})\cdot \mathbf{f}_{\mathrm{vis}} -\int_{|s-s_0|>q} \boldsymbol{\mathsf{S}}(\mathbf{X}(s_0,t),\mathbf{X}(s,t))\cdot \mathbf{f}_{\mathrm{vis}}(s)\,ds \nonumber \\
&-\iint_{H(t)} \boldsymbol{\mathsf{S}}(\mathbf{X}(s_0,t),\mathbf{y})\cdot\boldsymbol{\phi}^{\mathrm{H}}(\mathbf{y})\,dS_{\mathbf{y}}-\iint_W \boldsymbol{\mathsf{S}}^\epsilon(\mathbf{y},\mathbf{X}(s_0,t))\cdot\boldsymbol{\phi}^{\mathrm{W}}(\mathbf{y})\,dS_{\mathbf{y}}.\label{eq:fluiddyn}
\end{aligned}$$ Similar equations, but with the first two terms replaced by a single slender body integral $-\int_0^L\boldsymbol{\mathsf{S}}\cdot\mathbf{f}_{\mathrm{vis}}\,ds$, hold on the surface of the head and the wall. In the next section we will discuss the equations of an internally-driven elastic flagellum, and their coupling to the fluid mechanics.

## Elastohydrodynamics

The elastohydrodynamic formulation we will work with was derived by Tornberg & Shelley , and extended to an internally-driven flagellum by Gadêlha et al. ; the central feature of this approach is to formulate the problem in terms of the flagellar position $\mathbf{X}(s,t)$ and line tension $T(s,t)$. Alternative approaches based on bending angles and curvatures have also been pursued, as has complex curvature . The internal elastic contact force $\mathbf{F}_{\mathrm{int}}$ and moment $\mathbf{M}_{\mathrm{int}}$ exerted on the proximal flagellum $[0,s_0)$ by the distal flagellum $(s_0,L)$, respectively are given by, $$\mathbf{F}_{\mathrm{int}}=-E\mathbf{X}_{sss}+m\hat{\mathbf{n}}+T\mathbf{X}_s \mbox{,} \quad \mathbf{M}_{\mathrm{int}}\wedge \mathbf{X}_s = E\mathbf{X}_{ss} \mbox{,} \label{eq:elasticity}$$ where $E$ is constant elastic modulus and $m(s,t)$ is a prescribed active moment density representing the internal flagellar motors. Balancing elastic and viscous forces acting on a segment of flagellum $(s_0,s_0+\delta s)$ and taking the limit as $\delta s\rightarrow 0$ yields, $$\mathbf{f}_{\mathrm{vis}} + \partial_s(-E\mathbf{X}_{sss}+m\hat{\mathbf{n}}+T\mathbf{X}_s) = 0.$$ Noting that $\hat{\mathbf{s}}=\mathbf{X}_s$, the local term of equation  can then be written, $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{1}{\xi_{\perp}}(\boldsymbol{\mathbf{I}}+(\gamma-1)\hat{\mathbf{s}}\hat{\mathbf{s}})\cdot \mathbf{f}_{\mathrm{vis}}
&=
-E(\mathbf{X}_{ssss}+(\gamma-1)(\mathbf{X}_s\cdot\mathbf{X}_{ssss})\mathbf{X}_s)+T\mathbf{X}_{ss}+\gamma T_s\mathbf{X}_s\nonumber \\
& +m_s\hat{\mathbf{n}}+\gamma m \hat{\mathbf{n}}_s.
\end{aligned}$$ For brevity we will write the nonlocal (integral) velocities from equation  as $\mathbf{V}$ (written out explicitly in the appendix, equation ). Nondimensionalising with scales $L$ for position, $1/\omega$ for time, $\omega L$ for velocity and $E/L^2$ for tension and moment density, yields the following dimensionless elastohydrodynamic equation,

$$\mathrm{Sp}^4 (\mathbf{X}_t-\mathbf{V})  =
-\mathbf{X}_{ssss}-(\gamma-1)(\mathbf{X}_s\cdot \mathbf{X}_{ssss})\mathbf{X}_s +
T\mathbf{X}_{ss} + \gamma T_s \mathbf{X}_s  + m_s \hat{\mathbf{n}} + \gamma m \hat{\mathbf{n}}_s.\label{eq:elastohydro}$$ The parameter $\mathrm{Sp}=L(\xi_{\perp}\omega/E)^{1/4}$ is the *sperm number*, which quantifies the relative importance of viscous and elastic effects. This model can be seen as an extension of linear models (such as Camalet et al. ) by the inclusion of the nonlinear terms on the right hand side, and an extension of hydrodynamically local models (such as Gadêlha et al. ) by the inclusion of the $\mathbf{V}$ term on the left hand side.

Similarly to Gadêlha et al. , the inextensibility constraint $\partial_t(\mathbf{X}_s\cdot\mathbf{X}_s)=0$ can be used with the elastohydrodynamic equation  to deduce an ordinary differential equation which must be satisfied by the line tension $T$, $$\begin{aligned}
-\mathrm{Sp}^4\mathbf{V}_s\cdot\mathbf{X}_s &=  \gamma T_{ss} - \mathbf{X}_{ss}\cdot\mathbf{X}_{ss}T + 3\gamma \mathbf{X}_{sss}\cdot\mathbf{X}_{sss}+(1+3\gamma)\mathbf{X}_{ss}\cdot\mathbf{X}_{ssss} \nonumber \\
& +(\gamma +1)m_s\hat{\mathbf{n}}_s\cdot\mathbf{X}_s + m\hat{\mathbf{n}}_{ss}\cdot\mathbf{X}_s.  \label{eq:aux}
\end{aligned}$$ The above equation is derived via the identity $3\mathbf{X}_{ss}\cdot\mathbf{X}_{sss}+\mathbf{X}_s\cdot\mathbf{X}_{ssss}=0$ and its derivative with respect to $s$. As previously we introduce the term $\lambda \mathrm{Sp}^4(1-\mathbf{X}_s\cdot\mathbf{X}_s)$ to the left hand side of equation  to dampen numerical errors in flagellar length. The value used in the present study is $\lambda = 80$, though as found by Gadêlha *et al.* the solution is insensitive to the precise value of $\lambda$.

The final part of the mathematical model is the specification of the boundary conditions for equations  and . The assumption of zero contact force and moment at the distal ($s=1$) tip of the flagellum combined with the elasticity equations  yield (in dimensionless variables), $$0=-\mathbf{X}_{sss}+m\hat{\mathbf{n}}+T\mathbf{X}_s \mbox{,}\quad 0=\mathbf{X}_{ss} \quad \mbox{at} \; s=1. \label{eq:distbc}$$ Taking the dot product of the first equation with $\mathbf{X}_s$, using the identity $\mathbf{X}_s\cdot\mathbf{X}_{sss}=-\mathbf{X}_{ss}\cdot\mathbf{X}_{ss}$ and the second equation yields the distal tension boundary condition, $T=0$.

At the proximal end of the flagellum, the boundary conditions are given by considering the force and moment exerted by the fluid on the head. We denote these quantities $\mathbf{F}^\mathrm{H}$ and $\mathbf{M}^\mathrm{H}$ and nondimensionalise them with the elastic scalings $E/L^2$ and $E/L$ respectively. In the inertialess Stokes flow regime, the total force and moment acting on the head are zero, so by Newton's third law, the force and moment on the flagellum at $s=0$ are also given by $\mathbf{F}^\mathrm{H}$ and $\mathbf{M}^\mathrm{H}$ respectively. With the appropriate scalings, the proximal boundary conditions are then, $$\mathbf{F}^\mathrm{H}=\mathbf{X}_{sss}-m\hat{\mathbf{n}}-T\mathbf{X}_s \quad \mbox{and} \quad \mathbf{M}^\mathrm{H}\wedge\mathbf{X}_s=-\mathbf{X}_{ss}+M\hat{\mathbf{n}} \mbox{,} \quad \mbox{at} \; s=0 \mbox{,} \label{eq:proxbc}$$ where $M=\int_0^1 m \,ds$. From these equations we also derive the tension condition at the proximal end, $\mathbf{F}^\mathrm{H}\cdot \mathbf{X}_s =
-\mathbf{X}_{ss}\cdot \mathbf{X}_{ss} -T$. The calculation of the quantities $\mathbf{F}^\mathrm{H}$ and $\mathbf{M}^\mathbf{H}$ with nonlocal hydrodynamic interaction is described in more detail in the next section and the appendix. Finally we introduce the translational and angular velocity $\mathbf{U}^\mathrm{H}$ and $\boldsymbol{\Omega}^\mathrm{H}$ of the head; while $\mathbf{U}^\mathrm{H}$ and two components of the angular velocity are constrained by knowledge of the function $\mathbf{X}$, there is an independent rotational component of the motion that defines the principal bending plane of the flagellum. These quantities will be determined by kinematic considerations and the implementation of the boundary conditions.

To complete the mathematical model it is necessary to specify the internal active moment $m(s,t)$. Gadêlha et al.  used travelling waves of internal moment, which calculations from experiment confirm are a good model. We therefore specify in dimensionless units, $m(s,t)=m_0\cos(ks- t)$.

## Numerical implementation

The elastohydrodynamic equation  is treated with a Crank-Nicolson type finite difference discretisation, with the second order central differences in the interior, and third order one-sided difference for the boundary conditions, using coefficients taken from Fornberg . The higher-order boundary stencil produced comparable errors to the central stencil on polynomial test functions. Both linear and nonlinear terms are treated implicitly; nonlinearity of these equations is dealt with by performing an iterative process on every timestep, with the operator on the left hand side at $t+dt$ being linearised as, $$-\mathbf{X}_{ssss}-(\gamma-1)(\tilde{\mathbf{X}}_s\cdot\mathbf{X}_{ssss})\tilde{\mathbf{X}}_s+T\tilde{\mathbf{X}}_{ss}+\gamma
T_s\tilde{\mathbf{X}}_s+m_s\tilde{\mathbf{n}}+\gamma m\tilde{\mathbf{n}}_s \mbox{,}$$ variables with tildes denoting that values from the previous iteration are taken.

The nonlocal hydrodynamic term $\mathbf{V}$ in equation  is approximated by forming the slender body/boundary integral problem of determining $\mathbf{f}_{\mathrm{vis}}$, $\boldsymbol{\phi}^\mathrm{H}$ and $\boldsymbol{\phi}^\mathrm{W}$ using the most recent approximations to $\tilde{\mathbf{X}}$ and $\tilde{\mathbf{X}}_t$ available; details are given in the appendix.

At the first iteration of each timestep the converged values from the previous timestep are used as starting guesses for all variables, except for $\mathbf{X}$ which is approximated via linear extrapolation. The nonlinear iteration is terminated when the maximum difference in position between successive iterations relative to the distance travelled by the flagellum over the timestep falls below $0.5\%$. Similarly, the auxiliary equation for the tension at $t+dt$ is linearised as, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Sp}^4(\lambda(1-\tilde{\mathbf{X}}_s\cdot\mathbf{X}_s) -\tilde{\mathbf{V}}_s\cdot\tilde{\mathbf{X}}_s) &=  \gamma T_{ss} - (\tilde{\mathbf{X}}_{ss}\cdot\tilde{\mathbf{X}}_{ss})T + 3\gamma \tilde{\mathbf{X}}_{sss}\cdot\mathbf{X}_{sss}+(1+3\gamma)\tilde{\mathbf{X}}_{ss}\cdot\mathbf{X}_{ssss} \nonumber \\
& +(\gamma +1)(\tilde{\mathbf{n}}_s\cdot\tilde{\mathbf{X}}_s)m_s + (\tilde{\mathbf{n}}_{ss}\cdot\tilde{\mathbf{X}}_s)m.  \label{eq:auxlinearised}
\end{aligned}$$ Each iteration requires the solution of a linear system for the unknown discrete values of $\mathbf{X}(s_l,t_{n+1})$, $T(s_l,t_{n+1})$, $\mathbf{U}^\mathrm{H}$ and $\boldsymbol{\Omega}^\mathrm{H}$, where $l=0,\ldots,N_s$ denotes the spatial grid coordinate and $n=0, 1, \ldots$ the timestep. We found that $N_s=160$ and $200$ time steps per beat were sufficient to yield accurate results. The discrete form of equations  and provide $4(N_s+1) +
6 = 650$ linear equations, the additional $6$ equations arising from the translational and angular velocity of the cell head. The nonlinear correction is then a system of $3(N_s + N_h + N_b)$ linear equations, where $N_h$ and $N_b$ are the number of elements on the head and domain boundary respectively.

To implement the boundary conditions , , the force and moment on the head are *a priori* unknown and need to be determined as part of the coupled problem. The force and moment are decomposed into a linear part, given by the grand resistance matrix associated with rigid body motion in the vicinity of the wall, and an additional subleading correction resulting from the influence of the flagellum. Following nondimensionalisation with the elasticity scalings, the force and moment on the head may then be expressed as, $$\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{F}^\mathrm{H} \\ \mathbf{M}^\mathrm{H}\end{pmatrix} = \mathrm{Sp}^4\left(\frac{\mu}{\xi_\perp}\right)\mathcal{R}\cdot \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{U}^\mathrm{H} \\ \boldsymbol{\Omega}^\mathrm{H} \end{pmatrix}+\begin{pmatrix}\Delta\mathbf{F}^\mathrm{H} \\ \Delta\mathbf{M}^\mathrm{H}\end{pmatrix} \label{eq:forceCorrections}
\mbox{,}$$ where $\Delta\mathbf{F}^\mathrm{H}$, $\Delta\mathbf{M}^\mathrm{H}$ are corrections for the effect of the flagellum. The calculations of $\mathcal{R}$ and the corrections are described in the appendix.

In summary, each timestep requires a number of iterations to solve the nonlinear problem and each iteration involves the solution of a sparse linear system arising from the finite difference discretisation of the elastohydrodynamic equations. The 'right hand side' terms arising from the nonlocal hydrodynamic correction $\mathbf{V}$ and the nonlocal corrections to the force and moment balance $\Delta \mathbf{F}^\mathrm{H}$, $\Delta\boldsymbol{\Omega}^\mathrm{H}$ require the solution of a slender body theory-boundary integral hydrodynamic problem. Calculation of the grand resistance matrix $\mathcal{R}$ requires the separate solution of a boundary integral problem with multiple right hand sides to determine the force and moment resistances associated with the rigid body modes of the head and the wall interaction. The code is implemented in Fortran 90 (gfortran, GNU Compiler Collection); linear systems are equilibriated and solved by LU factorisation with the LAPACK routines `dgeequ` and `dgesv` respectively, and the boundary integrals over the sperm head are calculated with routines from BEMLIB . A typical run of $200$ beats with $500$ boundary elements required approximately 24 hours walltime on a single core of a 2.2 GHz Intel Sandy Bridge E5-2660 node.

# Results

The numerical scheme is applied to predict the trajectory of a sperm-like cell swimming in an unbounded fluid at varying $\mathrm{Sp}$, over a 'backstep' (the latter being shown in figure a), the limiting case of zero backstep height being referred to as a 'strip'. As in Gadêlha et al. , we consider planar waveform actuation, which is appropriate for cells swimming through high viscosity fluids such as cervical mucus . The semi-axes of the ellipsoidal head, modelled with the boundary element method, are $a_x = 0.05L$, $a_y = 0.03L$, $a_z =
0.04L$, which correspond to $5\times3\times4\,\mu m$ for a flagellum of length $L=50$ $\mu$m. The swimmer is initially at rest, with a straight flagellum, and a 'soft start' is applied whereby the internal shear moment is initially low and smoothly increases to its maximum, reaching 99% after 5 beats. The sperm number of a human gamete can be approximated by using bending stiffness $E \approx
5\times10^{-21}$ Nm$^2$, beat frequency $10$–$20$ Hz giving an angular frequency $\omega \approx 100$ rad$/$s . Taking a flagellar radius of $0.5$ $\mu$m, viscosity $\mu \approx 0.14$ Pa$\cdot$s (similar to mucus analogue ) yields the normal resistance coefficient $\xi_\perp\approx 0.503$ and sperm number $\mathrm{Sp}\approx 15.8$. Therefore, we will consider a range of sperm numbers between $13$ and $17$, fixing the magnitude of the internally generated shear-force $m_0=240$ and wavenumber $k=6\pi$. The resulting waveforms are shown in figure (a). As sperm number increases, beat amplitude is suppressed, as is observed for sperm in high viscosity medium , leading to a reduction in side-to-side yaw. All simulations in infinite fluid, i.e. with no nearby boundaries, produced trajectories which were straight overall, once the within-beat yaw was accounted for (data submitted to DRYAD repository ); flagellar waveforms for $\mathrm{Sp}=13$, $15$ and $17$ are shown in figure (b,c).

Figure  shows a planar projection of the trajectories $(X(0,t),Y(0,t))$, and the tangent angle $\theta:=\arctan (dY/dX(s=0))$ (in degrees) of those trajectories, of cells swimming over backsteps of varying height. The derivative $dY/dX$ is calculated numerically by sampling the trajectory at the temporal midpoint of each beat-cycle and taking centred differences. Colour indicates the trajectory over the backstep of the height in figure (a, c, e) with green denoting $h = 0$ and red denoting $h = 0.5$. Simulations were performed over backsteps of height $h = 0.05,0.1,\dots,0.5$, and are displayed up to the time at which $X(0,t)\geqslant 1$.

The results in figure (a, c, e) suggest that the backstep affects swimmers at different sperm numbers differently, producing a range of scattering angles. However, it is important in these results to factor out the effects of the strip from the backstep. Taking the (lightest) green trajectory, representing a strip, as a baseline comparison, it is evident that for all sperm numbers the hydrodynamic effect of the backstep is to deflect the swimmer downwards relative to a strip trajectory. Figure (b, d, f) reveal that this downward deflection is not smooth, rather there is a sharp bump at $x = 0$ where the head initially passes over the backstep, and a further bump at around $x = 0.3$ where the effect of the step itself becomes subleading relative to boundary interactions between the head and the lower wall.

Simulations were also performed comparing the effect of the backstep to a 'cliff' geometry, with the lower portion of the backstep missing (data submitted ). After passing the backstep, cells swam straight as though in an infinite fluid, suggesting that the majority of the angular deflection occurs due to interaction with the lower boundary; boundary forces change suddenly over a step jump, and the cell acts as though it were above a higher boundary. Additionally, simulations over a strip at $\mathrm{Sp}
= 13$ for different starting heights (data submitted ) showed that attraction to the surface initially increased and then decreased as height above the surface increased, which suggests that hydrodynamic boundary attraction is responsible for the behaviour in figure (a, b).

Figure  shows the effect of varying sperm number over finer increments for backstep height zero (a, b) and $h=0.2L$ (c, d), with results summarised in figure (a). Simulations were performed for $\mathrm{Sp} = 13,13.5,\dots,17$ over both a strip geometry and a backstep of height $h = 0.2L$, so that the sperm cells initially start $0.2L$ above the surface, and then increase to around $0.4L$ after the backstep. In figure (a–d), colour is matched to increasing sperm number, so that light green corresponds to $\mathrm{Sp} = 13$ and red to $\mathrm{Sp} = 17$. Figure (a, b) show for a sperm swimming over a strip, the boundary repels the swimmer more at this close distance as sperm number is increased. This effect is to be expected because increasing the sperm number increases the relative strength of viscous to elastic forces, thus the effect of the boundary is likely to be enhanced as $\mathrm{Sp}$ increases. The initial dip in figure (b) is an artifact of the numerical soft start of our system, as the waveform emerges from a straight initial state.

Figure (c, d) show a larger range of scattering angles than for fixed sperm number over various backstep heights, of the order of $10^\circ$. Furthermore, additional simulations (data submitted ) showed that this hydrodynamic deflection was not sensitive to the phase of the waveform as it passed over the backstep, in contrast to scattering due to contact forces (R. Goldstein, personal communication, 2014). Figure (a) shows the effects of changing sperm number, giving the deflection for a strip, a backstep, and their difference. A slight increase in the magnitude of this difference is observed as sperm number is increased, owing to increased hydrodynamic interaction mediated by viscosity.

Figure (b) summarises the effect of varying both backstep height and sperm number simultaneously, quantified by the 'final deflection angle' $\theta_{\mathrm{d}}$, i.e. the value of $\theta$ for which $X=L$. At $\mathrm{Sp}=13$ deflection is always negative, whereas for $\mathrm{Sp}=15$, $17$ deflection is always positive. The relationship between $\theta_\mathrm{d}$ and $h$ is non-monotone at the lower sperm number but is monotonic in the higher range. At $\mathrm{Sp}=13$, the deflection angle initially increases in magnitude, then decreases after the maximum at around $h = 0.15L$. This riser height corresponds to a distance of $0.35L$ between the cell and the boundary, which is where boundary attraction is strongest at this sperm number. For $\mathrm{Sp}=15$, $17$ the deflection angle decreases monotonically with backstep height in the range we have considered. This effect likely occurs because at these sperm numbers, the strip causes the cell to pitch away. However in all cases increasing backstep height to $0.5L$ results in a plateau.

The effects of the backstep on the waveform are summarised in figure , which show the waveform shape with and without the boundary, and quantitative measures of the asymmetry of the waveform. Recall that the flagellar actuation is symmetric; waveform asymmetry is produced due to increased hydrodynamic drag arising from proximity to the wall affecting closer portions of the flagellum more than further portions. Figure (a) shows waveforms at sperm number $\mathrm{Sp} = 13$, $17$ in infinite fluid as well as over a strip. In infinite fluid, the waveform is symmetrical for all sperm numbers considered, while the presence of a boundary gives rise to a waveform asymmetry that increases with $\mathrm{Sp}$.

'Asymmetry' is quantified by sampling the flagellar wave every $41$ numerical timesteps (relative to a beat cycle of $200$ timesteps), projecting into the body frame, and calculating the average lateral position relative to the body frame centreline over a fixed period, in this case beats $82$–$90$. This quantity is plotted as a function of arclength in figure (b); its distal ($s=1$) value is plotted in figure (c).

Figure (b) plots asymmetry versus arclength for sperm numbers in the range $13$–$17$, the effect being largest at higher sperm number. The asymmetry at the tip of the flagellum for a strip versus no boundary is shown in figure (c) as a function of sperm number.

# Discussion

A numerical method for simulating the swimming of monoflagellate cells over geometric features was presented and applied to model sperm interacting with microchannel backstep feature. The scheme incorporates nonlocal hydrodynamics with large-amplitude active filament mechanics. We believe this method to be the simplest generalisation of previous work that is capable of taking into account nonlocal hydrodynamic interaction geometrical features. The linearity of the Stokes flow equations entails that the largest error in our method arises from the LGL slender body theory, which is at worst on the order of the square root of the slenderness ratio. Accuracy of the method of regularised stokeslets is on the order of the regularisation parameter near the boundary, and its square far from the boundary where the swimmer is located. Future work may consider boundary integral modelling of the flagellum also, however we do not expect that this would qualitatively change swimmer trajectories.

The interaction between the cell and the lower boundary involves the competing effects of asymmetric hydrodynamic forces leading to waveform asymmetry and boundary repulsion, and the pitching behaviour associated with swimmer/boundary interaction . At lower sperm number and at greater distances from the boundary, waveform asymmetry is smaller, and the cell pitches towards the boundary. At higher sperm number and closer distances from the boundary, waveform asymmetry is larger and the cell pitches away. The effect of the backstep is a sudden drop in the lower boundary, which changes the relative importance of these effects; waveform asymmetry is reduced relative to hydrodynamic attraction, and the net result is a deflection towards the lower boundary after the backstep relative to the expected trajectory over a strip (figure ).

Analysing sperm scattering over a backstep, we found that hydrodynamic effects may be comparable in magnitude in the relatively high viscosity range considered to the contact interactions found experimentally by Kantsler et al. . A transition is predicted from scattering towards the backstep at lower viscosity to scattering away from the backstep at higher viscosity. Qualitatively this behaviour is similar to the temperature-related transition in Kantsler et al.'s observations (with lower temperature corresponding to higher viscosity); the correspondence is not exact however, with Kantsler et al.'s observations being carried out with bull sperm in low viscosity buffer, and with cells exhibiting very close interaction with the boundary, compared with our longer range interactions and sperm number representative of human cells in mucus analogue that we chose to focus on in the present study. Clearly integrating both surface interactions and hydrodynamics will be necessary to develop a comprehensive model, particularly at higher sperm number/viscosity.

The role of hydrodynamic interactions in determining surface attraction and more complex effects associated with boundary features continues to receive significant theoretical attention and is stimulating novel mathematical approaches . Viscous interactions of course become increasingly important in high viscosity fluids such as mucus and laboratory analogues. Kantsler et al.  noted the need to take both elastic and steric interactions into account; modelling very short length scale or contact interactions, with either glass, epithelium, cumulus, or even ciliated surfaces, and their effect on the flagellar wave, is a topic of importance, though numerical simulation requires taking account of the rapidly varying hydrodynamic force and electrostatic interactions as the swimmer approaches these boundaries. We hope that the numerically implicit method, potentially also combined with adaptive refinement of the boundary element meshes, will enable accurately resolved simulation of sperm-like swimmers in very near surface-contact in future work. Other valuable methods for modelling three-dimensional sperm motility and elastic-fluid interaction include models based exclusively on regularised stokeslets and techniques such as stochastic rotation dynamics .

Whilst we have used our model to examine a swimmer representative of human sperm, the approach is applicable to a much wider range of eukaryotic cells, including the sperm of other species and, with a slight reworking of the head boundary condition, biflagellate organisms such as the green alga *Chlamydomonas*. These species are of particular interest as they have been used as models for flagellar synchronisation and are relevant to energy-producing bioreactors . For these systems, the model may also be extended to include a nonlocal hydrodynamic contribution from other swimmers. Larger swimming organisms, such as *C. elegans*, have also been shown to be significantly affected by interactions with a structured microenvironment .

Another application are is the design and optimisation of biomimetic artificial microswimmers (see for example refs. ). Because the model includes internal periodic actuation via prescribed bending moments, it might be used to optimise actuation for various purposes such as forward progress, subject to constraints such as fixed mechanical energy. Furthermore, the inclusion of geometrical boundary features and the use of sperm number allows such optimisation to be tailored to specific environments. The elastohydrodynamic model can additionally be used to solve the inverse problem of estimating internal moments from observed flagellar data, potentially allowing us to examine how nature has optimised swimming in various environments and informing truly biomimetic design.

Despite the linearity of the Stokes flow equations, the interaction of sperm with their microenvironment presents a subtle nonlinear mechanics problem. Sperm scattering depends nonlinearly on the ratio between viscous and elastic forces, with even a simple backstep feature producing attractive or repulsive scattering of cells depending on parameter values. These scattering effects may be valuable in sorting cells in microdevices, in addition to giving insight into the complexity of how sperm interact with their microenvironment. The combination of mechanical models and experiment will provide the best way to understand and exploit these effects for biomedical applications.

# Data accessibility

Trajectory and waveform data supporting the findings in this paper have been submitted to DRYAD; see reference item .

# Competing interests

None.

# Authors' contributions

TDMJ designed the research, implemented algorithms, analysed results and co-wrote the manuscript. HG designed the research and contributed to the writing of the manuscript. DJS designed the research, helped with algorithmic implementation, co-wrote the manuscript and supervised the project.

# Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr Eamonn Gaffney (University of Oxford), Prof. Ray Goldstein (University of Cambridge), Dr Vasily Kantsler, Dr Petr Denissenko (University of Warwick), Prof. John Blake (University of Birmingham) and Dr Jackson Kirkman-Brown (University of Birmingham/Birmingham Women's NHS Foundation Trust) for continuing valuable discussions.

# Funding

This work was supported by EPSRC grant EP/K007637/1 to DJS, supporting TDMJ. TDMJ is supported by a Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 Research Fellowship. HG acknowledges a Hooke Fellowship held at the University of Oxford. The computations described in this paper were performed using the University of Birmingham's BlueBEAR HPC service, which was purchased through SRIF-3 funds. See http://www.bear.bham.ac.uk for more details.

# Appendix: calculation of hydrodynamic terms

Following nondimensionalisation, the hydrodynamic model yields the following equation for the dimensionless fluid velocity away from the flagellum, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Sp}^4\mathbf{U}(\mathbf{x}) &= \frac{\xi_\perp}{\mu}\left(\int_0^1\boldsymbol{\mathsf{S}}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{X}(s,t))\cdot\mathbf{f}_\mathrm{vis}(s,t) ds + \iint_{H(t)}\boldsymbol{\mathsf{S}}(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{Y})\cdot\boldsymbol{\phi}^\mathrm{H}(\mathbf{Y},t) dS_{\mathbf{Y}}\right.\nonumber \\
&\left.+\iint_W\boldsymbol{\mathsf{S}}^\epsilon(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{Y})\cdot\boldsymbol{\phi}^\mathrm{W}(\mathbf{Y},t) dS_{\mathbf{Y}}\right).
\end{aligned}$$ The nonlocal contribution to the velocity $\mathbf{V}$ on the slender body is similarly given by, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Sp}^4\mathbf{V}(\mathbf{X}(s_0,t)) &=  \frac{\xi_\perp}{\mu}\left(\int_{|s-s_0|>q}\boldsymbol{\mathsf{S}}(\mathbf{X}(s_0,t),\mathbf{X}(s,t))\cdot\mathbf{f}_\mathrm{vis}(s,t) ds \right. \nonumber \\
& + \iint_{H(t)}\boldsymbol{\mathsf{S}}(\mathbf{X}(s_0,t),\mathbf{Y})\cdot\boldsymbol{\phi}^\mathrm{H}(\mathbf{Y},t) dS_{\mathbf{Y}}\nonumber \\
&\left.+\iint_W\boldsymbol{\mathsf{S}}^\epsilon(\mathbf{X}(s_0,t),\mathbf{Y})\cdot\boldsymbol{\phi}^\mathrm{W}(\mathbf{Y},t) dS_{\mathbf{Y}}\right).\label{eq:nonloc}
\end{aligned}$$

At each step of the iterative solution to the nonlinear problem, the collocation code solves the integral equation, $$\mathrm{Sp}^4\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{X}_t\\\mathbf{U}^\mathrm{H}+\boldsymbol{\Omega}^\mathrm{H}\wedge(\mathbf{Y}^\mathrm{H}-\mathbf{X}^\mathrm{c})\\0\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
-(\boldsymbol{\mathsf{I}}+(\gamma-1)\hat{\mathbf{s}}\hat{\mathbf{s}})\cdot \mathbf{f}_{\mathrm{vis}}+\mathrm{Sp}^4\mathbf{V}[\mathbf{f}_{\mathrm{vis}},\boldsymbol{\phi}^\mathrm{H},\boldsymbol{\phi}^\mathrm{W}](\mathbf{X})
\\
\mathrm{Sp}^4\mathbf{U}[\mathbf{f}_{\mathrm{vis}},\boldsymbol{\phi}^\mathrm{H},\boldsymbol{\phi}^\mathrm{W}](\mathbf{Y}^\mathrm{H})
\\
\mathrm{Sp}^4\mathbf{U}[\mathbf{f}_{\mathrm{vis}},\boldsymbol{\phi}^\mathrm{H},\boldsymbol{\phi}^\mathrm{W}](\mathbf{Y}^\mathrm{W})
\end{pmatrix}\mbox{,}$$ for the unknown hydrodynamic force per unit length $\mathbf{f}_{\mathrm{vis}}$ and unknown stresses $\boldsymbol{\phi}^\mathrm{H}$, $\boldsymbol{\phi}^\mathrm{W}$.

The collocation code discretises the flagellum with $160$ elements, with the nonlocal contribution to the LGL slender body theory computed by the midpoint rule with constant force per unit length over each element. The force per unit area on the ellipsoidal head of $32$ mesh elements is calculated using routines from BEMLIB with $20$ point Gauss-Legendre quadrature as described in detail in the appendix. The wall boundary is discretised into elements of width $0.075L$, using regularised stokeslets with $\epsilon = 0.01L$. Integration is performed with repeated Gauss-Legendre quadrature with $4\times 4$ points per element for the near-singular wall integrals, and a $2\times 2$ point rule elsewhere.

To implement the boundary conditions , , Gadêlha et al.  approximated the force and moment on the head by a grand resistance matrix multiplying the velocity and angular velocity. In dimensional variables, the grand resistance matrix expresses the force and moment on a moving rigid body as $$\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{F} \\ \mathbf{M}\end{pmatrix} = \mathcal{R}\cdot \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{U} \\ \boldsymbol{\Omega} \end{pmatrix} , \quad \mbox{where} \quad \mathcal{R} =  \begin{pmatrix} \quad &  \mathcal{R}^\mathrm{F} &  \\ & \mathcal{R}^\mathrm{M} & \end{pmatrix}.$$ The blocks $\mathcal{R}^\mathrm{F}$ and $\mathcal{R}^\mathrm{M}$ are $3\times 6$ matrices yielding the force and moment terms respectively. For example, a sphere of radius $a$ in the absence of hydrodynamic interactions would have dimensionless grand resistance matrix given by $$\mathcal{R}^\mathrm{F}=\begin{pmatrix} \quad & -6\pi \mu a\boldsymbol{\mathsf{I}} &  0 & \quad \end{pmatrix}, \quad \mathcal{R}^\mathrm{M}=\begin{pmatrix}\quad & 0 &  -8\pi \mu a^3\boldsymbol{\mathsf{I}}  & \quad \end{pmatrix}.$$ This approach is convenient because the linearity of the relationship means that the head velocity $\mathbf{U}^\mathrm{H}$ and angular velocity $\boldsymbol{\Omega}^\mathrm{H}$ can be dealt with in the implicit formulation as unknowns in the linear algebra problem. To generalise to a nonlocal hydrodynamic model taking into account the effect of the flagellum and nearby boundary, the force and moment will be decomposed as consisting of part which is linear in velocity and angular velocity via resistance matrices and a remaining contribution from the flagellum. The matrices $\mathcal{R}^\mathrm{F}$ and $\mathcal{R}^\mathrm{M}$ are determined via the boundary integral method, taking into account the potentially highly significant effect of the wall feature, but not the subleading effect of the flagellum, which is accounted for as a correction, as described below.

Elastic scalings are used to nondimensionalise all forces and moments, i.e. $E/L^2, E/L$ for $\mathbf{F}^\mathrm{H}$ and $\mathbf{M}^\mathrm{H}$ respectively, with $E/L^3$ for force per unit length $\mathbf{f}_{\mathrm{vis}}$ and $E/L^4$ for stress $\boldsymbol{\phi}^\mathrm{H}, \boldsymbol{\phi}^\mathrm{W}$. The additional corrections $\Delta\mathbf{F}^\mathrm{H}$ and $\Delta\boldsymbol{M}^\mathrm{H}$ referred to in equation  are determined as part of the iterative process by performing a slender body/boundary integral calculation of $\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_{\mathrm{vis}}$, $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\phi}}^H$ and $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\phi}}^W$ with the most recent approximation to $\tilde{\mathbf{X}}$ available, yielding in dimensionless variables, $$\tilde{\mathbf{F}}^\mathrm{H}=\iint_{H(t)}\tilde{\boldsymbol{\phi}}^\mathrm{H}\,dS, \quad \tilde{\mathbf{M}}^\mathrm{H}=\iint_{H(t)}(\tilde{\mathbf{Y}}-\tilde{\mathbf{X}}^\mathrm{c})\wedge\tilde{\boldsymbol{\phi}}^\mathrm{H}\,dS_{\mathbf{Y}} \mbox{,}$$ where $\tilde{\mathbf{X}}^\mathrm{c}$ is the head centroid. Using also the most recent iterates for $\tilde{\mathbf{U}}^\mathrm{H}$ and $\tilde{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^\mathrm{H}$, the corrections are then given by, $$\Delta\mathbf{F}^\mathrm{H} = \tilde{\mathbf{F}}^\mathrm{H} - \mathrm{Sp}^4\left(\frac{\mu}{\xi_\perp}\right)\mathcal{R}^\mathrm{F} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} \tilde{\mathbf{U}}^\mathrm{H} \\ \tilde{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^\mathrm{H} \end{pmatrix} \mbox{,} \quad
\Delta\boldsymbol{M}^\mathrm{H} =\tilde{\mathbf{M}}^\mathrm{H} - \mathrm{Sp}^4\left(\frac{\mu}{\xi_\perp}\right)\mathcal{R}^\mathrm{M} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} \tilde{\mathbf{U}}^\mathrm{H} \\ \tilde{\boldsymbol{\Omega}}^\mathrm{H} \end{pmatrix}.$$ These corrections appear on the right hand side of the linear system.

**Short title for page headings:** *Scattering of sperm by a microchannel feature*

[^1]: Author for correspondence, email: `email@example.com`