Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Weighted Point Configurations with Hyperuniformity: An Ecological Example and Models

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Desert bush masses, not just their positions, carry hyperuniform order, and a simple thinning-coalescing process reproduces it.

desk verdict A first ecological marked-point hyperuniformity claim plus a simple generative model, but the single-sample estimator needs a shuffled-mark null before I'd take the exponent seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12807 v3 pith:3NHIBQRL submitted 2025-01-22 cond-mat.stat-mech nlin.AOphysics.bio-phq-bio.PE

Ayana Ezoe , Makoto Katori , Tomoyuki Shirai This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechnlin.AOphysics.bio-phq-bio.PE
keywords hyperuniformitymarkedpointprocessesmass-weighteddensityfluctuationsrandomthinningcoalescencedesertvegetationClassIIIPoissonprocess
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

This paper tries to establish that the spatial arrangement of desert bushes carries a hidden form of order: when each bush is weighted by its size (called its mass), the resulting marked point process is hyperuniform—large-scale fluctuations in total mass are anomalously suppressed—whereas the same positions treated as unmarked points fluctuate like a Poisson process. The authors demonstrate this in satellite-image data from Argentina, Australia, and Kenya, estimating a Class III exponent around 0.65 for the Argentina samples. They then show that a simple non-equilibrium mechanism—repeatedly deleting random points and merging their masses into nearby survivors—turns an initially uncorrelated Poisson configuration into marked point processes with hyperuniformity. The paper's point is that hyperuniform states can arise even when nothing about the bare point positions looks ordered, provided positions and masses are strongly correlated.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the marked point process $\Pi(B)=\sum M(X)\delta_X(B)$ together with its variance-to-mean ratio $R^{\mathrm{mass}}_{\ell}=\operatorname{Var}[\Pi(\Lambda_{\ell})]/\langle\Pi(\Lambda_{\ell})\rangle$; hyperuniformity means this ratio tends to zero as the window $\Lambda_{\ell}$ grows, and the exponent in its power-law decay fixes the class. The generative mechanism is the transformation $T$: choose a point at random, delete every point within a random-radius disk around it, and add the deleted points' masses to the chosen point, then repeat. The paper's analysis isolates the correlation between the spatial configuration and the mass field as the ingredient that makes the marked process hyperuniform while the unmarked process is not.

What would settle it

Compute the mass-weighted variance ratio for many independent plots of the same desert type and see whether it still decays as a power law; alternatively, re-segment the same satellite images with a different threshold or with a biomass proxy such as canopy volume: if the ratio stops decaying, the claimed Class III hyperuniformity is an artifact of the single-sample estimator or of the pixel-cluster mass definition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that hyperuniformity of an ecological point configuration can be invisible when marks are ignored and visible only when marks are included. For each bush the authors record a center-of-mass coordinate $X_j$ and a mass $M(X_j)$ equal to the number of dark pixels in its image cluster, and they study the mass-weighted measure $\Pi(B)=\sum_{X:X\in P} M(X)\delta_X(B)$. The variance ratio $R^{\mathrm{mass}}_{\ell}=\operatorname{Var}[\Pi(\Lambda_{\ell})]/\langle\Pi(\Lambda_{\ell})\rangle$ decays as a power law $\ell^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha \approx 0.65$ for the five Argentina samples, placing them in Class III hyperuniformity, while the unmarked point ratio behaves like that of a Poisson point process. The paper further claims that iterating random thinning and mass coalescence transforms a Poisson initial condition into hyperuniform marked point processes with mass exponent $\alpha\approx 1$, and that the persistence of this result across different distributions of the thinning area shows the mechanism is generic, not tuned.

Load-bearing premise

The key assumption is that splitting one satellite image into subregions and averaging over those subregions reproduces what would be seen across many independent desert realizations, so the measured power-law decay reflects true ensemble hyperuniformity and not an artifact of a single finite sample.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In any data set where points carry sizes, ignoring the marks can misclassify a system as Poisson-like when the mass-weighted configuration is actually hyperuniform.
  • The thinning–coalescing iteration provides an explicit nonequilibrium route from uncorrelated initial conditions to hyperuniform marked patterns, without needing long-range repulsive potentials.
  • For the model, the mass-weighted exponent is robust near $1$ across different choices of the coalescence-area distribution, while the unmarked exponent stays near $0.4$, so the phenomenon is tied to the marks, not to a particular probability law.
  • Applying the same mass-weighted variance-ratio test to the Algeria Wadi samples gives exponents near zero, suggesting that habitat geometry such as dry stream beds can destroy the hyperuniform signal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test left implicit by the paper is to apply the mass-weighted ratio to other patchy vegetation maps; if the pattern holds, hyperuniformity of biomass may be a generic property of water-limited ecosystems, not a peculiarity of these deserts.
  • The model's slow convergence with fixed-area thinning suggests a measurable prediction: ecosystems whose resource-competition zones are more variable should reach hyperuniform mass order faster, which could be compared with the observed range of exponents across deserts.
  • The mass distribution produced by the model is sample-dependent and non-universal, so the paper's hyperuniformity claim concerns fluctuations rather than the detailed histogram of bush sizes; a biologically grounded model would need a separate mechanism for the exponential size distribution seen in Argentina.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes satellite images of desert vegetation to extract bush centroids and pixel-based bush sizes ("masses"), forming marked point processes. Using a single-sample variance estimator over m×m subwindows, it reports that the unmarked point process is Poisson-like, while the marked process has R_mass(ℓx) ≈ ℓx^{−0.65} for five Argentine samples (and smaller exponents for Australia and Kenya), i.e., Class III hyperuniformity. The paper then proposes a non-equilibrium model that iterates random thinning and mass coalescing, starting from a PPP, and reports numerical evidence that the marked process becomes hyperuniform (α≈1) while the unmarked process retains only a small exponent (α≈0.27–0.4). The conclusion is that marked hyperuniformity arises from strong position–mass correlations.

Significance. The central idea — that a configuration can be non-hyperuniform as an unmarked process yet hyperuniform once marks are included — is novel and potentially relevant to ecology, spatial statistics, and non-equilibrium statistical mechanics. The paper provides a concrete, transparently specified thinning–coalescing algorithm and tests it across several parameter values. It also uses multiple real datasets from different deserts, which is a strength. The model's convergence behavior and exponent predictions are falsifiable and clearly stated. However, the empirical result is not yet rigorously established: the estimator lacks a null control and the fits lack uncertainty quantification, and the model's unmarked processes are themselves weakly hyperuniform. If the shuffled-mark control confirms the effect, this would be a valuable contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3–3.4, Eqs. (8)–(11) and Fig. 5] The central empirical claim that the marked bush configurations are hyperuniform (Eq. (13)) is not supported without a null-model control. R_mass is estimated from a single realization, normalized by the sample's own mean mass density ρ_mass, and the paper never tests the same estimator on a configuration in which the marks are independent of the points. A natural control is a random permutation of the observed masses among the observed centroids, preserving both the point configuration and the mass histogram. This isolates whether the observed decay of R_mass over the fitted interval (log ℓx ∈ [2.8, 4.0]) is due to position–mass correlations or to the estimator's finite-total-mass and spatial-averaging properties. Without this control, the Class III exponent α≈0.65 cannot be distinguished from a finite-sample crossover artifact.
  2. [§3.4, Fig. 5(b)] The power-law fits used to extract α (Eq. (12)) are performed over post-hoc selected intervals (2.8 ≤ log ℓx ≤ 4.0 for bush 1–3 and 5, ≤ 3.8 for bush 4) with no reported standard errors, confidence intervals, or goodness-of-fit statistics, and each exponent is derived from a single sample. With five samples, the spread 0.61–0.71 could easily be within sampling noise; moreover, the upper cutoff is chosen to exclude "scattered" large-scale points, which introduces a selection bias. The authors should plot the full R(ℓx) curves, report fit uncertainties, and demonstrate stability of α under reasonable variation of the fitting interval.
  3. [§4.2.1, Eqs. (19)–(22) and Fig. 10] The model section gives two different values for the unmarked exponent: Eq. (20) reports α_model_point ≈ 0.27 for L=4000, a0=4000, while Eq. (22) and Fig. 10 state α_model_point ≈ 0.4 across k0. Please resolve this discrepancy. More importantly, a nonzero α_model_point means the unmarked process generated by the model is already weakly hyperuniform (Class III with a small exponent), which is in tension with the abstract's framing that the model produces hyperuniformity only when marks are taken into account. This partial hyperuniformity of the unmarked process should be acknowledged and discussed, and ideally the model should be modified or analyzed to show whether α_model_point tends to zero in the thermodynamic limit.
  4. [§3.1] The entire mass field is derived from an automated image-processing pipeline: gray-scale conversion, Otsu thresholding, and connected-component labeling. No validation against ground-truth bush counts or sizes is reported, and the threshold level is a free parameter that directly controls both the number of points and their masses. Because the marked-process hyperuniformity claim depends on these masses, a systematic threshold error (for example, merging adjacent bushes or splitting canopies into many clusters) could create or destroy the measured effect. The authors should test the sensitivity of the fitted α to the threshold value (e.g., varying the Otsu threshold by ±10–20%) and, if feasible, validate a subset of the detections against manual labeling.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.4] There is a typo: "log Rpass_ℓx" should read "log R_mass_ℓx".
  2. [§3.6 / Table 1] The text says Nos.5 and 6 are the Algeria samples, but Table 1 lists Nos.6 and 7 as Algeria; please correct this inconsistency.
  3. [§3.5, Eq. (14)] The exponential density in Eq. (14) should include the normalization factor 1/m0 so that it integrates to unity; the current expression is dimensionally incomplete.
  4. [Fig. 7] The x-axis label "log(1/m)" is confusing; since ℓx = Lx/m, plotting log ℓx would allow direct comparison with Fig. 5 and make the fitted exponent convention transparent.
  5. [§4.2.2, Fig. 12] The fitted Gamma parameters (kG, θG) are only given in the text; adding them to the figure caption would improve readability.
  6. [General] The paper does not state whether the processed bush data or simulation code will be made available; providing them would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity: the empirical exponents are measured outputs, and the model's marked hyperuniformity is not reduced to fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim (marked bush configurations in Argentina, Australia, Kenya are hyperuniform, Eq. (13) and Fig. 7) is a measured output of the single-sample estimator of Section 3.3, not an input to any derivation: the exponents are obtained by linear fits to log R versus log lx, and no fitted parameter is later relabeled as a prediction. The model section chooses p, a0, and the area distribution before measuring hyperuniformity, and Fig. 10 shows the marked-process exponent is insensitive to the choice of Gamma area distribution, so the exponential ansatz motivated by the observed mass histogram is not load-bearing. The random thinning/coalescing algorithm is an openly presented construction; its marked hyperuniformity is demonstrated by simulation over a range of L and a0 rather than imported from an author-claimed uniqueness theorem. Self-citations (e.g., refs. [11], [12], [31]) support standard background results such as GPP hyperuniformity and DPP correlation functions and do not carry the paper's main claim. The single-sample variance estimator and the absence of a shuffled-mark null are statistical validity concerns about whether the fitted alpha reflects true asymptotic hyperuniformity, but they are not circularity: Eq. (10) is not defined in terms of the conclusion, and no result is equivalent to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on measured exponents, image processing choices, and the model's free parameters (p, a0, k0). The single-sample variance estimator and the thresholding pipeline are unvalidated assumptions. The invented entity is the algorithm itself, which is a model, not an observed mechanism.

free parameters (6)
  • Otsu threshold = automatic
    Binarization of satellite images in Section 3.1 steps (ii)-(iii) determines which pixels count as bush; this choice affects masses and positions.
  • p = 0.1
    Thinning rate in the model, fixed by hand in Section 4.1.
  • a0 = 1000, 4000
    Mean area of coalescing disks, chosen for simulation in Section 4.2.
  • k0 = 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5
    Shape parameter of Gamma distribution for A, varied in Section 4.2.1.
  • m0 = ~77
    Exponential mass distribution fit parameter for Argentina data in Section 3.5, Eq. (14).
  • kG, thetaG = (2.15, 39.3), etc.
    Gamma fits to simulated mass distributions in Section 4.2.2, not central to the hyperuniformity claim.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Image-derived connected components correspond one-to-one to individual bushes and mass is proportional to bush size.
    Section 3.1 steps (ii)-(iv); if thresholding merges or splits bushes, the mass-weighted measure changes.
  • domain assumption The variance over m^2 subregions of one sample approximates the ensemble variance
    Section 3.3 Eqs. (8)-(10); the paper uses a single realization rather than an ensemble average.
  • domain assumption Survival competition causes long-ranged repulsive interactions among bushes
    Introduction motivation; not tested in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Power-law fitting intervals are chosen to exclude finite-size and boundary effects
    Section 3.4: different upper limits (4.4 for GPP, 4.0 for bushes 1-3 and 5, 3.8 for bush 4) are selected post hoc.
invented entities (1)
  • Thinning-coalescing transformation T
    purpose: Generate marked hyperuniform point processes from uncorrelated initial points by iterating random removal of points and adding their masses to survivors.
    The model is proposed as a statistical-mechanics construction, not documented in nature. Section 5 states: 'We have no evidence that similar types of thinning and coalescing processes have been iterated in continuous survival competitions of bushes in real deserts.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weighted Point Configurations with Hyperuniformity: An Ecological Example and Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3NHIBQRL

@misc{pith2026250112807,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weighted Point Configurations with Hyperuniformity: An Ecological Example and Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3NHIBQRL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12807}
}
read the original abstract

Random point configurations are said to be in hyperuniform states, if density fluctuations are anomalously suppressed in large-scale. Typical examples are found in Coulomb gas systems in two dimensions especially called log-gases in random matrix theory, in which points are repulsively correlated by long-range potentials. In infertile lands like deserts continuous survival competitions for water and nutrition will cause long-ranged repulsive interactions among plants. We have prepared digital data of spatial configurations of center-of-masses for bushes weighted by bush sizes which we call masses. Data analysis shows that such ecological point configurations do not show hyperuniformity as unmarked point processes, but are in hyperuniform states as marked point processes in which mass distributions are taken into account. We propose the non-equilibrium statistical-mechanics models to generate marked point processes having hyperuniformity, in which iterations of random thinning of points and coalescing of masses transform initial uncorrelated point processes into non-trivial point processes with hyperuniformity. Combination of data analysis and computer simulations shows the importance of strong correlations in probability law between spatial point configurations and mass distributions of individual points to realize hyperuniform marked point processes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12807 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A sample of point configuration of center-of-masses of bushes in a desert. The sizes of area are indicated not by real lengths in meters but by numbers of pixels for the digital data; Lx = 1626, Ly = 895. The total number of points is N = 9853 and the density is ρ ≒ 6.77 × 10−3 . The bush-size (mass) distribution is represented by colors of each points; the points with masses 1 ≤ M(Xj ) ≤ 49 are green, the points wi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Image processing. The Google Maps satellite image (a) was converted to a gray-scale image (b) by the software Image J, and then the digital data (c) was produced by Matlab. The center-of-mass coordinates and sizes were obtained for bushes in deserts by the following procedure: Here we explain the procedure using the example of a desert in the Talampaya Natural Park in Argentina. (i) A rectangular area was cut out fr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Numerically obtained samples of (a) Poisson point process (PPP) ΞPPP and (b) Ginibre point process (GPP) ΞGPP. Both are prepared in the region Lx × Ly = 1626 × 895 with density ρ ≒ 6.77 × 10−3 matched with the digital data for bush 1 shown by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The region Lx × Ly on which a sample of point process is given is divided into m × m subregions. Each subregion is a similar rectangular ℓx × ℓy denoted by Λj ℓx , j = 1, 2, . . . , m2 . The case with m = 5 is shown. First we consider an unmarked point process Ξ(ΛLx ).…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Numerical measurements of hyperuniformity using finite-size data. (a) Log-log plots of Rℓx versus ℓx for various unmarked and marked point processes. The bush config￾uration not taking into account of mass information does not show hyperuniformity similarly to PPP, whi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Semi-log plots of bush-mass distributions in bush 1–5. The dots are shifted in the direction of log(distribution) by −0.7(n − 1) for each bush n, n = 1, 2, . . . , 5, respec￾tively, to avoid overlaps of plots and fitting lines. The linear fitting to (14) works well in …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Logarithms of Rmass are plotted as functions of log(1/m) for a variety of samples from different deserts. Linear fitting gives the exponent α. 4 Models 4.1 Random thinning-coalescing processes For a rectangular region with aspect ratio λ, ΛLx = {(x, y) ∈ R 2 : 0 ≤ x ≤ …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dependence on the number of iteration-terms T is shown in the log Rℓx versus log ℓx plots, where L = Lx = Ly = 4000 and a0 = θ0 = 1000 for (18). in (15) is assumed to be given by p(a) = p(a; θ0) = 1 θ0 e −a/θ0 , (18) where θ0 is the scale parameter. It is easy to verif…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: log Rℓx versus log ℓx of the point processes obtained by numerical simulation of the model with variety of system sizes L = Lx = Ly and a0. (a) For the marked point processes. As L and a0 increase, the linear region extends systematically. The linear fitting to (12) fo…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The estimated values of α for marked (mass) and unmarked (point) configura￾tions obtained by the present algorithms with different shape parameters k0 of the Gamma distribution for A. We see that α model mass ≒ 1 and α model point ≒ 0.4. shifted also in the Y ≡ log Rℓ…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Two samples of mass distributions obtained by numerical simulations with L = 2000 and a0 = 4000. The example (a) shows a peak around 40 in the histogram, but the sample (b) shows a plateau under 50. The mass distributions depend on samples. For Figs. 9 (a) and (b), we…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The mass distributions averaged over the 20 samples are calculated for several values of k0 of the distribution (21). Here L = 2000 and a0 = k0θ0 = 4000. They are well-approximated by (23) with appropriate values of (kG, θG). 5 Discussions and Concluding Remarks In th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Invariant transports of stationary random measures: asymptotic variance, hyperuniformity, and examples

    math.PR 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A general mixing criterion shows which random transports preserve asymptotic variance, yielding a procedure that turns any ergodic point process into a hyperuniform one.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    D. J. Daley and D. Vere-Jones, An Introduction to the Theory of Point Processes, Vol.1: Elementary Theory and Methods (Springer, New York, 2003) 2nd ed. 21

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Baccelli and B

    F. Baccelli and B. Blaszczyszyn, Stochastic Geometry and Wireless Networks, Vol- ume 1 – Theory, Foundations and Trends in Networking, Vol. 3, Nos. 3–4 (Now Publishers, 2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    P. J. Forrester, Log-gases and Random Matrices, London Mathematical Society Monographs (Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 2010)

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Ginibre, J

    J. Ginibre, J. Math. Phys. 6 (1965) 440–449

    work page 1965

  5. [5]

    Costin and J

    O. Costin and J. L. Lebowitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 69 (1995)

    work page 1995

  6. [6]

    M. L. Mehta, Random Matrices, Pure and Applied Mathematics 142 (Elsevier, Am- sterdam, 2004) 3rd ed

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Katori, Bessel Processes, Schramm–Loewner Evolution, and the Dyson Model

    M. Katori, Bessel Processes, Schramm–Loewner Evolution, and the Dyson Model. SpringerBriefs in Mathematical Physic, Vol. 11 (Springer, Singapore, 2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    J. B. Hough, M. Krishnapur, Y. Peres, and B. Vir´ ag, Zeros of Gaussian Analytic Functions and Determinantal Point Processes, University Lecture Series (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI., 2009)

    work page 2009

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Katori and T

    M. Katori and T. Shirai, Commun. Math. Phys. 392, 1099 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Torquato, Phys

    S. Torquato, Phys. Rep. 745, 1 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Shirai, J

    T. Shirai, J. Stat. Phys. 123, 615 (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    Matsui, M

    T. Matsui, M. Katori, and T. Shirai, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 54, 165201 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Shirai and Y

    T. Shirai and Y. Takahashi, J. Funct. Anal. 205, 414 (2003)

    2003

  6. [14]

    Ashida, Z

    Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Adv. Phy. 69, 249 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    L. N. Trefethen and M. Embree, Spectra and Pseudospectra: the Behavior of Non- normal Matrices and Operators (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2005)

    2005

  8. [16]

    Byun and P

    S.-S. Byun and P. J. Forrester, Progress on the Study of the Ginibre Ensembles, KIAS Springer Series in Mathematics 3 (Springer, 2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Kulesza and B

    A. Kulesza and B. Taskar, Determinantal Point Processes for Machine Learning, Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, Vol.5, Nos. 2–3 (Now Publishers,

  10. [18]

    Miyoshi and T

    N. Miyoshi and T. Shirai, Adv. Appl. Probab. 46, 832 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Miyoshi and T

    N. Miyoshi and T. Shirai, IEICE Trans. Commun. E99.B, 2247 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Katori and M

    M. Katori and M. Katori, Physica A 581, 126191 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Mat´ ern, Medd

    B. Mat´ ern, Medd. Statens Skogsforskningsinst.59, 144 (1960). 22

    1960

  14. [22]

    Mat´ ern, Spatial Variation, Lecture Notes in Statistics 36 (Springer, New York, 1986)

    B. Mat´ ern, Spatial Variation, Lecture Notes in Statistics 36 (Springer, New York, 1986)

    1986

  15. [23]

    Teichmann, F

    J. Teichmann, F. Ballani, and K. G. van den Boogaart, Spatial Statistics3, 33 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    A. E. Scheidegger, International Association of Scientific Hydrology. Bulletin 12, 15 (1967)

    1967

  17. [25]

    Nakayama, A

    T. Nakayama, A. Nakahara, and M. Matsushita, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 64, 1114 (1995)

    1995

  18. [26]

    Hashimoto, K

    T. Hashimoto, K. Sato, G. Ichinose, R. Miyazaki, and K. Tainaka, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 87, 014801 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Osada and T

    H. Osada and T. Shirai, Kˆ okyˆ uroku BessatsuB6, 193 (2008)

    2008

  20. [28]

    Shirai, J

    T. Shirai, J. Math. Soc. Japan 67, 763 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    A. B. Soshnikov, J. Stat. Phys. 100, 491 (2000)

    2000

  22. [30]

    Soshnikov, Ann

    A. Soshnikov, Ann. Probab. 30, 171 (2002)

    2002

  23. [31]

    Katori, P

    M. Katori, P. Lazag, and T. Shirai, Accumulated spectrograms for hyperuniform determinantal point processes, arXiv:math.PR/2403.16325

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    C. A. Klausmeier, Science 284, 1826 (1999)

    1999

  25. [33]

    Nishimori and H

    H. Nishimori and H. Tanaka, Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 26, 1143 (2001)

    2001

  26. [34]

    von Hardenberg, E

    J. von Hardenberg, E. Meron, M. Shachak, and Y. Zarmi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 198101 (2001)

    2001

  27. [35]

    Tokita and A

    K. Tokita and A. Yasutomi, Theor. Popul. Biol. 63, 131 (2003). 23

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.