Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 38 references

Spontaneous stochasticity in a 3d Weierstrass-ABC flow

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that Lagrangian particles in a rough three-dimensional WABC flow remain stochastic in the vanishing-noise limit, with a limit law independent of the regularisation; this is spontaneous stochasticity in a tunable 3D model.

desk verdict A genuinely new 3D toy model for spontaneous stochasticity with solid numerical evidence per regularization, but the cross-regularization universality claim is weakened by a fitted noise exponent. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07581 v1 pith:X73NIR2X submitted 2025-02-11 nlin.CD

Antoine Barlet (1) , Adam Cheminet (1) , Bérengère Dubrulle (1) , Alexei A. Mailybaev (2) ((1) SPEC/IRAMIS/DSM , CEA , CNRS , University Paris-Saclay , France
show 4 more authors
(2) Instituto de Matemática Pura e Aplicada IMPA Rio de Janeiro Brazil)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nlin.CD MSC 37N1076F2560H10
keywords spontaneousstochasticityWABCflowLagrangianchaosroughvelocityfieldsHölderregularityanomalousdissipationstochasticregularisationturbulenttransport
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper builds a three-dimensional velocity field, the WABC flow, by superposing infinitely many rescaled ABC flows with Hölder exponent h = 1/3. It asks whether fluid particles advected by this rough field remain randomly spread even when all regularisation noise is removed. Through Monte-Carlo simulations of about a million trajectories under two different stochastic regularisations, it finds that one-point and two-point statistics converge to nontrivial limits as the cutoff N grows. The paper concludes that the WABC model exhibits spontaneous stochasticity: the limiting ideal equation is deterministic, yet the vanishing-noise limit selects a genuinely stochastic distribution of trajectories. This matters because spontaneous stochasticity is a candidate mechanism for finite-time randomness in turbulence, and the WABC model is tunable enough to test whether chaos is needed for it.

What carries the argument

The central object is the WABC velocity field, defined as $u_W(x) = \sum_{i=1}^\infty \lambda^{-hi} U(\lambda^i x)$ with $\lambda = 2$, a superposition of ABC flows at scales $\lambda^i$; it is incompressible and $h$-Hölder continuous. The exponent $h = 1/3$ places the flow at the critical value where the Duchon-Robert energy-transfer term tends to a finite nonzero limit as the mollification scale vanishes, mimicking the dissipation anomaly of turbulence. The two stochastic regularisations — white noise of amplitude $\kappa_N$ and random initial data of radius $\eta_N$, both vanishing with N — are the selection mechanism whose limit defines the spontaneously stochastic law.

What would settle it

Compute the limit of deterministic regularisations — spectral truncations of the WABC flow without noise and without initial spread — for the same initial point and h = 1/3: if the trajectories converge to a single deterministic solution of $dx/dt = u_W(x)$ as N → ∞, the central claim fails. Alternatively, prove uniqueness for the ideal WABC ODE at this initial data, which would rule out spontaneous stochasticity by definition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the WABC flow with h = 1/3, the paper claims that regularised Lagrangian trajectories converge in distribution to a nontrivial stochastic process solving the ideal deterministic equation $dx/dt = u_W(x)$. The convergence is shown numerically through Kullback-Leibler divergences between one-point and two-point marginals for increasing numbers of modes N, reaching plateaus for N ≥ 14. The same limit is obtained whether the regularisation is additive white noise (Langevin-WABC) or random initial conditions (Cauchy-WABC), indicating that the limiting law is insensitive to the regularisation. The authors frame this as spontaneous stochasticity, possible because the ideal problem is formally deterministic but generally ill-posed.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ideal equation $dx/dt = u_W(x)$ is ill-posed for the chosen data — the paper states in Section 3.2 that it is “formally deterministic but generally ill-posed” but does not prove non-uniqueness — because if the ODE were well-posed, the zero-noise limit would be deterministic and the claimed spontaneous stochasticity could not occur.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For N ≥ 14 the one-point and two-point marginal distributions stop changing within statistical error, so the spontaneously stochastic regime is numerically accessible in this model.
  • The same limiting distributions appear under Langevin white-noise and random-initial-condition regularisations, so the result is not an artifact of one noise choice.
  • With ABC parameters that can be tuned to break Lagrangian chaos, the model gives a direct way to test whether positive Lyapunov exponents are necessary for spontaneous stochasticity.
  • The WABC construction provides a family of rough incompressible three-dimensional fields with tunable regularity h and tunable chaos, extending the study of spontaneous stochasticity beyond one-dimensional toy models.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: a direct test it does not run is varying the ABC parameters between known chaotic and integrable regimes and measuring whether the limiting distribution collapses to a Dirac; that experiment would isolate the role of chaos.
  • Beyond the paper: the regularisation-independence shown for two noise types suggests the limiting law is an intrinsic property of the WABC field itself, but a convergence theorem would be needed to establish that rigorously.
  • Beyond the paper: the use of finite-dimensional marginals leaves open whether the limit is a genuine stochastic process on path space; checking two-time correlations or exit-time statistics would strengthen the identification.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a three-dimensional incompressible velocity field, the 'WABC flow', built from a Weierstrass-type superposition of ABC flows with Hölder exponent h=1/3. The authors study Lagrangian particle trajectories in this rough flow under two stochastic regularizations: a Langevin white-noise forcing (Eq. 10) and a random-initial-condition (Cauchy) regularization (Eq. 11), both of which vanish as the number of modes N increases. They report that, as N→∞, one-point and two-point statistics converge to non-trivial, non-Dirac limit distributions, which they interpret as spontaneous stochasticity. They further claim that this limit is independent of the chosen stochastic regularization. The numerical evidence is based on Monte-Carlo simulations with Np=2^20 particles, KL-divergence convergence diagnostics, and an accuracy analysis in Appendix B.

Significance. If the conclusions are robust, the WABC model would provide a valuable tunable 3D testbed for spontaneous stochasticity, linking singular Eulerian flows to Lagrangian randomness and allowing future studies of the role of chaos. The paper has clear strengths: the construction of the WABC flow is novel and well-motivated; the numerical methodology is careful, with explicit treatment of time-step scaling, finite-particle-number effects, and a reproducibility-friendly fixed-parameter setup; and the convergence plots (Figs. 5–8, 10) give credible visual and quantitative evidence of non-Dirac limits within each regularization. The honest discussion of computational limits is also a positive feature. However, the claim of regularization independence is not fully supported by the presented experiments, because one of the two regularizations is calibrated against the other at the single comparison point used to demonstrate agreement.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (14); Appendix C, Eq. (15), Fig. 15] The exponent p in the Langevin noise scaling κ_N = b^2 ω_N^2 / k_N^p is selected by minimizing the Kullback-Leibler divergence H_KL(p_C, p_L) between the Cauchy and Langevin one-point distributions at N=16 and t=0.875 (Fig. 15). Consequently, the agreement shown in Fig. 9 is a check at the fitting point, not an independent test of regularization independence. The paper does not report a cross-regularization KL divergence as a function of N (e.g., H_KL(P_C^N, P_L^N) for N=10, 12, 14, 16, 18), and it does not test how sensitive the limiting Langevin distribution is to the choice of p around the fitted value 2.4. As a result, the abstract's claim that the observed spontaneous stochasticity 'does not depend on the chosen stochastic regularisations' is stronger than the evidence supports. Please add a cross-regularization convergence study in N, and if the two regularized distributions do not become progressively closer as N increases, the universality claim should be softened accordingly.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (12)] The definition of spontaneous stochasticity requires that the limiting process x(t) solve the ideal problem dx/dt = u_W(x) with x(0)=x0, which in turn requires that this problem be ill-posed, i.e., that solutions be non-unique. The paper states that this problem is 'formally deterministic but generally ill-posed' but provides no proof and no reference establishing non-uniqueness for the specific WABC field with h=1/3. Without such a proof (or at least strong evidence, such as verification that the numerically observed limiting trajectories satisfy (12) in a weak sense), the non-Dirac limits could in principle arise from residual regularization effects rather than from a genuine selection of non-unique solutions. This point is load-bearing because the central claim—that the WABC model 'can build spontaneous stochasticity'—is explicitly tied to the ill-posedness of (12). The authors should either prove non-uniqueness (e.g., via the Osgood criterion for Hölder-continuous vector fields) or clearly state that the interpretation depends on this unproven assumption.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains two typos: 'Richardon's regime' should be 'Richardson's regime', and 'fractal Brownian motion' should be 'fractional Brownian motion' (the standard term).
  2. [Section 3.2, after Eq. (12)] The sentence 'Though the limiting equation (10) is deterministic' should refer to the limiting ideal problem (12), not to the regularized Langevin equation (10).
  3. [Section 4, paragraph after Eq. (12)] The phrase 'finite-dimentional marginals' should be 'finite-dimensional marginals'.
  4. [Section 6.1] The sentence 'Computational burdens limits us to Np = 2^20' should be 'Computational burden limits us to Np = 2^20' (singular noun and verb agreement).
  5. [Figure 9] The figure compares Cauchy and Langevin one-point distributions at N=16, but no error bars or shaded uncertainty regions are shown; adding them would help the reader judge whether the differences are statistically significant.
  6. [Appendix C, Fig. 15] The second-order polynomial fit used to locate the minimum at p ≃ 2.4 is not described in the text; please specify the fit range, the data points included, and the uncertainty of the fitted minimum.
  7. [Section 6.2] The sentence 'In this paper we neither review the influence of the Hölder exponent nor the initial position' should use 'investigate' rather than 'review' to match the intended meaning.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Regularization-independence claim is partly by construction: the Langevin noise exponent p=2.4 was fitted to minimize the Cauchy-vs-Langevin KL divergence at N=16, and Fig. 9 reports agreement at that same point.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, Eq. (14); Appendix C.2, Fig. 15; Section 6.2, Fig. 9]
    "κN = b2 ω2N / k2.4N ... This particular noise scaling is the result of an optimisation procedure in which we compared probability distributions from simulations of Cauchy-W ABC and Langevin-W ABC with h = 1/3. ... Switching regularisation to the Cauchy-W ABC does not change the results. We indeed show in Figure 9 a comparison between the Cauchy-W ABC and the Langevin-W ABC one-point distributions."

    The exponent p=2.4 in the Langevin noise scaling is selected by minimizing H_KL(p_C, p_L) between the Cauchy and Langevin one-point distributions at N=16, t=0.875 (Appendix C, Fig. 15). The paper then presents Fig. 9 as evidence that the two regularizations give identical limit distributions; but Fig. 9 is a comparison at N=16, the same point used for the fit. Agreement at the fitting point is enforced by the optimization, not independently predicted. No cross-regularization KL divergence is reported as a function of N beyond that single fitted comparison, so the abstract's claim that the observed spontaneous stochasticity 'does not depend on the chosen stochastic regularisations' is not independently established.

full rationale

The only substantial circularity is the regularization-independence component. The within-regularization convergence (Figs. 5-8 and 10) is an independent numerical observation: statistics converge as N grows and the limit distributions are not Dirac deltas, and no parameter is fitted to force that behavior. The ill-posedness of Eq. (12) is asserted rather than proved, but that is an unsupported assumption, not a circular derivation. Self-citations to Mailybaev's earlier work on spontaneous stochasticity are contextual and do not carry the present argument. However, the universality claim is weakened by construction: p=2.4 in Eq. (14) is chosen to make Langevin and Cauchy one-point distributions close at N=16, so Fig. 9 checks the model at its fitting point. The score of 6 reflects partial circularity of one central claim, not a fully circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central numerical claim rests on the rough nature of the WABC field (Hölder continuity), the assumed ill-posedness of the limiting ODE, and the choice of stochastic regularizations. The noise-scaling exponent p is fitted to data, which is a free parameter, not an axiom. The WABC model itself is a new construction, listed as an invented entity with testable predictions.

free parameters (3)
  • p (Langevin noise scaling exponent) = p ≈ 2.4
    Determined in Appendix C by polynomial fit minimizing H_KL(p_C, p_L) between Cauchy and Langevin one-point distributions at t=0.875, N=16. This directly tunes the Langevin regularization to match the Cauchy one, affecting the regularization-independence claim.
  • a (time-step coefficient) = a = 0.012
    Time step dt = a/k_N; chosen from weak-convergence analysis in Appendix B. Not fitted to the central result but affects integration accuracy.
  • η_N coefficient (10) = 10
    Initial cloud radius η_N = 10/k_N in Cauchy regularization; chosen by hand as '10 elementary cells' (Appendix C.1). Not fitted to data but arbitrary.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The WABC flow is h-Hölder continuous for h<1.
    Standard property of Weierstrass-type series; used to characterize roughness and to derive Π_ℓ = O(ℓ^{3h-1}) in Section 2.3.
  • domain assumption The limiting initial-value problem (12) is ill-posed (non-unique solutions).
    Stated in Section 3.2 without proof for the WABC field; required for the vanishing-noise limit to be stochastic.
  • domain assumption Deterministic regularisation would lead to ill-defined limits.
    Invoked in Section 3.1, citing Drivas et al. [7]; justifies the use of stochastic regularizations.
  • standard math Stochastic regularized problems (10) and (11) are well-posed.
    For (10) additive Gaussian noise gives a well-posed SDE; for (11) the truncated flow is Lipschitz. Assumed implicitly in the numerical method.
invented entities (1)
  • WABC flow independent evidence
    purpose: 3D rough tunable velocity field for studying spontaneous stochasticity in Lagrangian particles
    Defined in Eq. (4); makes testable predictions: Eulerian structure functions with ζ_p = p/3, anomalous dissipation plateau at h=1/3, and non-Dirac Lagrangian limit distributions. These can be checked in independent simulations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spontaneous stochasticity in a 3d Weierstrass-ABC flow." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X73NIR2X

@misc{pith2026250207581,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spontaneous stochasticity in a 3d Weierstrass-ABC flow},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X73NIR2X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07581}
}
read the original abstract

Chaotic systems are characterised by exponential separation between close-by trajectories, which in particular leads to deterministic unpredictability over an infinite time-window. It is now believed, that such butterfly effect is not fully relevant to account for the type of randomness observed in turbulence. For example, tracers in homogeneous isotropic flows are observed to separate algebraically, following a universal cubic growth, independent from the initial separation. This regime, known as Richardon's regime, suggests that at the level of trajectories, and unlike in chaos theory, randomness may in fact emerge in finite-time. This phenomenon called 'spontaneous stochasticity' originates from the singular nature of the underlying dynamics, and provides a candidate framework for turbulent randomness and transport. While spontaneous stochasticity has been mathematically formalised in simplified turbulence models, a precise and systematic tool for quantifying the various facets of this phenomenon is to this day missing. In particular, it is still unclear whether chaos is important for that behaviour to appear. In this paper we introduce a 3d rough flow that can be tuned to present Lagrangian chaos. The flow is inspired by the Weierstrass function and is entitled 'the WABC model'. After analysing its properties, we define what is spontaneous stochasticity in this context. The provided formal definition is then adapted to better suit for numerical analysis. We present the results from Monte-Carlo simulations of Lagrangian particles in this flow. Within the numerical precision, we quantitatively observe the appearance of spontaneous stochasticity in this model. We investigate the influence of noise type and find that the observed spontaneous stochasticity does not depend on the chosen stochastic regularisations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07581 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ||uW ||2 slices of the WABC flow for increasing number of modes N. over the space x and the directions r/r at a fixed distance r = |r|. Their numerical computation for the WABC flow with h = 1/3 is presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Eulerian structure functions Sp(r) = ⟨|δu∥| p ⟩ as a function of distance r, not normalised (a) and normalised by S3(r) p/3 (b) for the WABC flow with h = 1/3 and N = 14. Increasing p are displayed by colours, ranging from p = 1 (dark purple) to p = 10 (light orange). The dotted lines have the slope p/3. Robert (2000) for the Navier-Stokes equations [9]. It is defined as: Π ℓ = 1 4 Z ∇ψ ℓ (r) · δru||δru||2 2 dr, (7)… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of mean Duchon-Robert coefficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Probability distribution of Duchon-Robert coefficient Π [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of one-point statistics through the number of modes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The other two slices are given in Appendix A. Both one-point and two-points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of two-points statistics through the number of modes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of the Kullback-Leibler divergence between one-point statistics of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the Kullback-Leibler divergence between two-points statistics of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of one point statistics between Cauchy-WABC (black) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evolution of the Kullback-Leibler divergence between one-point statistics of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evolution of two-points statistics through the number of modes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Evolution of two-points statistics through the number of modes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: One-point statistics of the Langevin-WABC model where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Kullback-Leibler divergence between one-point distributions of increasing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Kullback-Leibler divergence between Langevin and Cauchy one-point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sur une proprietes topologique des applications globalment canonique de la mechanique classique

    Vladimir Arnold. “Sur une proprietes topologique des applications globalment canonique de la mechanique classique”. In: CR. Acad. Sci. Paris 261 (1965), pp. 3719–3722. REFERENCES 21 Figure 15: Kullback-Leibler divergence between Langevin and Cauchy one-point statistics’ (at time t = 0 .875) for different exponents p in the case of N = 16 and h = 1 /3. Axe...

    work page 1965

  2. [2]

    Zero-noise solutions of linear transport equations without uniqueness: an example

    Stefano Attanasio and Franco Flandoli. “Zero-noise solutions of linear transport equations without uniqueness: an example”. In: Comptes Rendus. Math´ ematique 347.13 (2009), pp. 753–756. issn: 1778-3569

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Spontaneous Stochasticity Amplifies Even Thermal Noise to the Largest Scales of Turbulence in a Few Eddy Turnover Times

    Dmytro Bandak et al. “Spontaneous Stochasticity Amplifies Even Thermal Noise to the Largest Scales of Turbulence in a Few Eddy Turnover Times”. In: Physical Review Letters 132.10 (Mar. 6, 2024), p. 104002. issn: 0031-9007, 1079-7114

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Rayleigh-Taylor turbulence with singular nonuniform initial conditions

    Luca Biferale et al. “Rayleigh-Taylor turbulence with singular nonuniform initial conditions”. In: Physical Review Fluids 3.9 (2018), p. 092601

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Time scales of turbulent relative dispersion

    Rehab Bitane, Holger Homann, and J´ er´ emie Bec. “Time scales of turbulent relative dispersion”. In: Physical Review E 86.4 (Oct. 31, 2012), p. 045302.issn: 1539-3755, 1550-2376

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Chaotic streamlines in the ABC flows

    T. Dombre et al. “Chaotic streamlines in the ABC flows”. In: Journal of Fluid Mechanics 167.-1 (June 1986), p. 353. issn: 0022-1120, 1469-7645

    work page 1986

  7. [7]

    Statistical determinism in non-Lipschitz dynamical systems

    Theodore D. Drivas, Alexei A. Mailybaev, and Artem Raibekas. “Statistical determinism in non-Lipschitz dynamical systems”. In: Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems 44.7 (July 2024), pp. 1856–1884. issn: 0143-3857, 1469-4417

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Beyond Kolmogorov cascades

    B´ ereng` ere Dubrulle. “Beyond Kolmogorov cascades”. In: Journal of Fluid Mechanics 867 (May 25, 2019), P1. issn: 0022-1120, 1469-7645

    work page 2019

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Inertial energy dissipation for weak solutions of incompressible Euler and Navier-Stokes equations

    Jean Duchon and Raoul Robert. “Inertial energy dissipation for weak solutions of incompressible Euler and Navier-Stokes equations”. In: Nonlinearity 13.1 (Jan. 1, 2000), pp. 249–255. issn: 0951-7715, 1361-6544. REFERENCES 22

    2000

  2. [10]

    Pair dispersion over an inertial range spanning many decades

    Frank W. Elliott and Andrew J. Majda. “Pair dispersion over an inertial range spanning many decades”. In: Physics of Fluids 8.4 (Apr. 1, 1996), pp. 1052–1060. issn: 1070-6631, 1089-7666

    1996

  3. [11]

    Turbulence noise

    Gregory L Eyink. “Turbulence noise”. In: Journal of statistical physics 83 (1996), pp. 955–1019

    1996

  4. [12]

    Energy dissipation without viscosity in ideal hydrodynamics I. Fourier analysis and local energy transfer

    Gregory L. Eyink. “Energy dissipation without viscosity in ideal hydrodynamics I. Fourier analysis and local energy transfer”. In: Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 78.3 (Nov. 15, 1994), pp. 222–240. issn: 0167-2789

    1994

  5. [13]

    Renormalization group approach to spontaneous stochasticity

    Gregory L. Eyink and Dmytro Bandak. “Renormalization group approach to spontaneous stochasticity”. In: Physical Review Research 2.4 (Oct. 30, 2020). Publisher: American Physical Society, p. 043161

    2020

  6. [14]

    Suppression of particle dispersion by sweeping effects in synthetic turbulence

    Gregory L. Eyink and Damien Benveniste. “Suppression of particle dispersion by sweeping effects in synthetic turbulence”. In: Physical Review E 87.2 (Feb. 19, 2013), p. 023011. issn: 1539-3755, 1550-2376

    2013

  7. [15]

    Particles and fields in fluid turbulence

    G. Falkovich, K. Gawedzki, and M. Vergassola. “Particles and fields in fluid turbulence”. In: Reviews of Modern Physics 73.4 (Nov. 19, 2001), pp. 913–975. issn: 0034-6861, 1539-0756

    2001

  8. [16]

    Topics on regularization by noise

    Franco Flandoli. Topics on regularization by noise . University of Pisa, 2013

    2013

  9. [17]

    A singular large deviations phenomenon

    Mihai Gradinaru, Samuel Herrmann, and Bernard Roynette. “A singular large deviations phenomenon”. In: Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincare (B) Probability and Statistics 37.5 (Sept. 1, 2001), pp. 555–580. issn: 0246-0203

    2001

  10. [18]

    Sur la topologie des lignes de courant dans un cas particulier

    Michel H´ enon. “Sur la topologie des lignes de courant dans un cas particulier”. In: Sur la topologie des lignes de courant dans un cas particulier 262 (1966), pp. 312– 314

    1966

  11. [19]

    Nondeterministic dynamics and turbulent transport

    Antti Kupiainen. “Nondeterministic dynamics and turbulent transport”. In: Annales Henri Poincar´ e. Vol. 4. Springer. 2003, pp. 713–726

    2003

  12. [20]

    Predictability of turbulent flows

    CE Leith and RH Kraichnan. “Predictability of turbulent flows”. In: Journal of Atmospheric Sciences 29.6 (1972), pp. 1041–1058

    1972

  13. [21]

    The predictability of a flow which possesses many scales of motion

    Edward N. Lorenz. “The predictability of a flow which possesses many scales of motion”. In: Tellus 21.3 (June 1969), pp. 289–307. issn: 00402826, 21533490

    1969

  14. [22]

    RG analysis of spontaneous stochasticity on a fractal lattice: linearization and bifurcations

    Alexei A Mailybaev. “RG analysis of spontaneous stochasticity on a fractal lattice: linearization and bifurcations”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14903 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Spontaneously stochastic solutions in one-dimensional inviscid systems

    Alexei A Mailybaev. “Spontaneously stochastic solutions in one-dimensional inviscid systems”. In: Nonlinearity 29.8 (2016), p. 2238

    2016

  16. [24]

    Toward analytic theory of the Rayleigh–Taylor instability: lessons from a toy model

    Alexei A Mailybaev. “Toward analytic theory of the Rayleigh–Taylor instability: lessons from a toy model”. In: Nonlinearity 30.6 (2017), p. 2466

    2017

  17. [25]

    Spontaneous stochasticity and renormalization group in discrete multi-scale dynamics

    Alexei A Mailybaev and Artem Raibekas. “Spontaneous stochasticity and renormalization group in discrete multi-scale dynamics”. In: Communications in Mathematical Physics 401.3 (2023), pp. 2643–2671. REFERENCES 23

    2023

  18. [26]

    Spontaneously Stochastic Arnold’s Cat

    Alexei A. Mailybaev and Artem Raibekas. “Spontaneously Stochastic Arnold’s Cat”. In: Arnold Mathematical Journal 9.3 (Sept. 1, 2023), pp. 339–357. issn: 2199-6806

    2023

  19. [27]

    Finite-time Lyapunov exponents in the instantaneous limit and material transport

    Peter J. Nolan, Mattia Serra, and Shane D. Ross. “Finite-time Lyapunov exponents in the instantaneous limit and material transport”. In: Nonlinear Dynamics 100.4 (June 1, 2020), pp. 3825–3852. issn: 1573-269X

    2020

  20. [28]

    Statistical hydrodynamics

    L. Onsager. “Statistical hydrodynamics”. In: Il Nuovo Cimento 6 (S2 Mar. 1949), pp. 279–287. issn: 0029-6341, 1827-6121

    1949

  21. [29]

    Adaptive methods for stochastic differential equations via natural embeddings and rejection sampling with memory

    Christopher Rackauckas, Qing Nie, and ,Department of Mathematics, Center for Complex Biological Systems, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA. “Adaptive methods for stochastic differential equations via natural embeddings and rejection sampling with memory”. In: Dis...

    2017

  22. [30]

    Atmospheric diffusion shown on a distance-neighbour graph

    Lewis F. Richardson. “Atmospheric diffusion shown on a distance-neighbour graph”. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character 110.756 (Apr. 1926), pp. 709–

    1926

  23. [31]

    Microscopic fluctuations and turbulence

    D. Ruelle. “Microscopic fluctuations and turbulence”. In: Physics Letters A 72.2 (1979), pp. 81–82

    1979

  24. [32]

    Extreme Events in the Dispersions of Two Neighboring Particles Under the Influence of Fluid Turbulence

    R. Scatamacchia, L. Biferale, and F. Toschi. “Extreme Events in the Dispersions of Two Neighboring Particles Under the Influence of Fluid Turbulence”. In: Physical Review Letters 109.14 (Oct. 5, 2012), p. 144501. issn: 0031-9007, 1079-7114

    2012

  25. [33]

    From the butterfly effect to spontaneous stochasticity in singular shear flows

    Simon Thalabard, J´ er´ emie Bec, and Alexei A. Mailybaev. “From the butterfly effect to spontaneous stochasticity in singular shear flows”. In: Communications Physics 3.1 (July 6, 2020), p. 122. issn: 2399-3650

    2020

  26. [34]

    Turbulent pair dispersion as a continuous-time random walk

    Simon Thalabard, Giorgio Krstulovic, and J´ er´ emie Bec. “Turbulent pair dispersion as a continuous-time random walk”. In: Journal of Fluid Mechanics 755 (Sept. 25, 2014), R4. issn: 0022-1120, 1469-7645

    2014

  27. [35]

    Particle pair separation in kinematic simulations

    D. J. Thomson and B. J. Devenish. “Particle pair separation in kinematic simulations”. In: Journal of Fluid Mechanics 526 (Mar. 10, 2005), pp. 277–302. issn: 0022-1120, 1469-7645

    2005

  28. [36]

    Generalized flows, intrinsic stochasticity, and turbulent transport

    Weinan E Vanden Eijnden and Eric Vanden Eijnden. “Generalized flows, intrinsic stochasticity, and turbulent transport”. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97.15 (July 18, 2000), pp. 8200–8205. issn: 0027-8424, 1091-6490

    2000

  29. [37]

    On Lagrangian properties of turbulent Rayleigh–B´ enard convection

    Stephan Weiss et al. “On Lagrangian properties of turbulent Rayleigh–B´ enard convection”. In: Journal of Fluid Mechanics 999 (Nov. 2024), A90. issn: 0022- 1120, 1469-7645

    2024

  30. [737]

    issn: 0950-1207, 2053-9150

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.