Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Hyperuniformity at the Absorbing State Transition: Perturbative RG for Random Organization

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Random organization, the universality class of absorbing transitions in sheared suspensions, has hyperuniformity exponent $\varsigma=2\epsilon/9$ in $d=4-\epsilon$, computed here by a one-loop renormalization group on a Doi-Peliti action.

desk verdict A careful one-loop perturbative RG gives a new hyperuniformity exponent ς=2ε/9 for the random-organization class, but the result is explicitly conditional on an unproven cancellation of problematic vertices at the fixed point. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07793 v1 pith:4PZTBHJS submitted 2025-07-10 cond-mat.stat-mech

Xiao Ma , Johannes Pausch , Gunnar Pruessner , Michael E. Cates This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mech PACS 05.70.Ln64.60.Ht
keywords hyperuniformityrandomorganizationabsorbingstatetransitionsDoi-PelitifieldtheoryperturbativerenormalizationgroupconserveddirectedpercolationdangerouslyirrelevantnoisequenchedEdwards-Wilkinsonmodel
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

Random organization (RO) is the universality class of absorbing-state transitions, seen in periodically sheared suspensions and driven granular media, in which the total density becomes hyperuniform at criticality: the static structure factor vanishes as $S(q)\sim q^{\varsigma}$ at small wavenumber. This paper derives $\varsigma$ from a field-theoretic calculation where no analytic value existed before, obtaining $\varsigma=0^+$ above four dimensions and $\varsigma=2\epsilon/9+O(\epsilon^2)$ in $d=4-\epsilon$ from a one-loop renormalization group applied to a Doi-Peliti action. That value differs from the exponent $\varsigma=\epsilon/3$ obtained by mapping RO to the quenched Edwards-Wilkinson model, and the paper explains the difference instead of treating it as a contradiction: the mapping drops a diffusive conserved noise that is dangerously irrelevant, so the noise changes density-fluctuation scaling while leaving the ordinary critical exponents and the upper critical dimension $d_c=4$ intact. If the paper is right, RO and conserved directed percolation share the order-parameter, correlation-length, and dynamic exponents but belong to two different sub-classes for hyperuniformity, and density fluctuations near the transition are less suppressed than the earlier mapping-based estimate implied.

What carries the argument

The machine that carries the argument is a Doi-Peliti coherent-state action for a two-species reaction-diffusion model, an active species that hops and decays coupled to an immobile passive species, shifted about the mean-field state so that particle-number conservation locks the bare vertices $\alpha_i$, $\sigma_i$, $\lambda_i$, $\chi_i$ into the symmetry relations that keep the theory on the RO manifold. Loop counting shows that only three combinations of these vertices appear in one-loop diagrams, so the RG is reduced to three renormalized effective couplings $u_R$, $v_R$, $w_R$ whose $\beta$ functions have the fixed point $u_R^*=v_R^*=-2\epsilon/9$, $w_R^*=2\epsilon/3$. A second piece of machinery is the assumed cancellation of the three 'problematic' vertices $\alpha_3$, $\sigma_5$, $\sigma_6$ that would otherwise generate algebraic, non-logarithmic divergences and drag the theory toward upper critical dimension $d_c=6$; the paper models this on the long-established cancellations near the tricritical Ising fixed point. The final piece is the use of the hyperuniformity assumption itself: the requirement that the separately divergent active and passive pieces of $S(q)$ cancel at low wavenumber fixes the split of anomalous dimensions $\eta_{\breve a}=\eta_{\breve p}=\eta_{\tilde p}=-\epsilon/18$, $\eta_{\tilde a}=5\epsilon/18$, converting the fixed-point data into the exponent $\varsigma=2\epsilon/9$.

What would settle it

A two-loop computation of the $\beta$ functions that assigns any of the vertices $\alpha_3$, $\sigma_5$, $\sigma_6$ a non-zero value at the fixed point would break the assumed cancellation pattern and settle the matter. On the numerical side, a measurement of the static structure factor $S(q)\sim q^{\varsigma}$ at criticality in $d=2$ for the minimal RO reaction model would discriminate sharply, because the paper predicts $\varsigma\simeq0.44$ while the q-EW mapping predicts $\simeq0.49$ to $0.66$; a result in the upper range would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the central finding is a first-principles value for the hyperuniformity exponent of the random organization class, $\varsigma=0^+$ for $d>d_c=4$ and $\varsigma=2\epsilon/9+O(\epsilon^2)$ for $d=4-\epsilon$, obtained with a perturbative renormalization group in the Doi-Peliti formalism rather than by functional methods. The calculation uses a minimal two-species reaction-diffusion realization of RO, in which active particles diffuse and convert to passive particles while encounters of active with passive particles reactivate the passive ones, so that total particle number is conserved. At one loop the fixed point of the three effective couplings is $u_R^*=v_R^*=-2\epsilon/9$, $w_R^*=2\epsilon/3$, which reproduces the known C-DP/q-EW exponents $\beta=1-\epsilon/9$, $\nu_\perp^{-1}=2-\epsilon/3$, and $z=2-2\epsilon/9$ to order $\epsilon$. The anomalous dimensions of the four fields are then fixed uniquely by requiring that the divergent active and passive contributions to the equal-time structure factor cancel, which yields $\varsigma=2\epsilon/9$ and shows that hyperuniformity in RO is a property of the anticorrelated sum of active and passive densities, not of either species separately. The paper further argues that the conservative diffusive noise carried by the active species is dangerously irrelevant: it does not affect $\beta$, $\nu_\perp$, $z$, or $d_c$, but it breaks a mass-moment conservation law and thereby changes $\varsigma$ away from the value $\epsilon/3$ predicted by the q-EW mapping.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation stands on the assumption that the Doi-Peliti theory is perturbatively renormalizable at $d_c=4$ in a specific pattern: all strongly divergent loop corrections to the three 'problematic' vertices $\alpha_3$, $\sigma_5$, $\sigma_6$ must cancel exactly at the fixed point, just as analogous cancellations protect the tricritical Ising fixed point, and if those cancellations fail the fixed point leaves the RO manifold and every derived exponent, including $\varsigma=2\epsilon/9$, is invalid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the RO critical point the static structure factor is predicted to scale as $S(q)\sim q^{2\epsilon/9}$, giving $\varsigma\simeq0.44$ in $d=2$ and $\varsigma\simeq0.22$ in $d=3$ at one-loop order and setting a direct quantitative target for simulations and experiments on sheared suspensions.
  • RO and conserved directed percolation (including the Manna sandpile class and the quenched Edwards-Wilkinson model) share $\beta$, $\nu_\perp$, $z$, and $d_c=4$ but acquire different hyperuniformity exponents, so the two classes split only on density-fluctuation scaling.
  • The dividing line is the conserved diffusive noise: models that rigorously conserve the centre of mass of the total density fall in the $\varsigma=\epsilon/3$ sub-class, while models with the noise, including the minimal RO reaction scheme, fall in the $\varsigma=2\epsilon/9$ sub-class.
  • A one-loop perturbative calculation succeeds where functional RG had been thought necessary, suggesting that Doi-Peliti methods can reach universality classes previously believed to have infinitely many relevant operators.
  • Hyperuniformity persists above the upper critical dimension in the singular form $\varsigma=0^+$ (the structure factor vanishes only exactly at $q=0$), answering the open question of whether RO hyperuniformity survives for $d>4$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The dangerously-irrelevant-noise mechanism is likely generic: any absorbing-state or active-matter model in which a conserved noise is formally irrelevant but breaks a conservation law deserves the same check for a sub-class split in density-fluctuation exponents, even when its standard critical exponents match a noiseless class.
  • The sharpest numerical discriminator is $d=2$, where the two predictions ($\varsigma\simeq0.44$ for the paper's sub-class versus $\simeq0.49$ to $0.66$ for the conserved sub-class) are separated far more than in $d=3$; a simulation with error bars below about $0.05$ could settle which sub-class a given microscopic model belongs to.
  • Because the assumed cancellation of $\alpha_3$, $\sigma_5$, $\sigma_6$ must persist to all orders for the fixed point to remain on the RO manifold, a two-loop beta-function calculation would test the paper's central assumption directly, rather than merely refine its exponents.
  • The paper's definition of the RO class deliberately excludes centre-of-mass-conserving models, which reclassifies part of the earlier numerical literature: simulations reporting hyperuniformity throughout the active phase are probing the conserved sub-class, not the RO class as defined here.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a one-loop perturbative renormalisation group analysis of a Doi-Peliti field theory for the random organization (RO) universality class in d=4−ε. It derives beta functions for three effective couplings, finds a fixed point u*=v*=−2ε/9, w*=2ε/3, recovers the known C-DP exponents β=1−ε/9, 1/ν⊥=2−ε/3, z=2−2ε/9, and obtains a hyperuniformity exponent ς=2ε/9 for d<4 and ς=0^+ for d>4. The paper attributes the difference from the q-EW value ς=ε/3 to a dangerously irrelevant conserved noise that breaks centre-of-mass conservation, thereby splitting the RO/C-DP/q-EW class into two subclasses for hyperuniformity.

Significance. If the assumptions hold, the result solves a long-standing problem by providing the first analytic prediction for the RO hyperuniformity exponent and sharpens the distinction between RO and C-DP/q-EW subclasses. The paper is unusually explicit about its assumptions, and the Gaussian-level analysis of hyperuniformity via anticorrelation of active and passive densities is illuminating. The one-loop calculation is detailed and internally consistent, and the reproduction of β, ν⊥, and z is a nontrivial consistency check. However, the central new exponent is conditional on unproven cancellations of the problematic vertices α3, σ5, σ6 and on a hyperuniformity assumption used to fix field anomalous dimensions; these points need substantial strengthening before the result can be considered fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2 (Assumptions 2a, 2c, 2d); §4.3.3, Eq. (46); Appendix B] The one-loop correction to the α3 vertex is computed and found nonzero (Eq. (46)), and is then absorbed into Zα2 as a bookkeeping choice (§4.3.3) rather than shown to vanish at the fixed point. The beta functions (69)–(71) are obtained in the truncated space of u, v, w after the problematic vertices α3, σ5, σ6 have been removed by assumption (Assumptions 2a/2c/2d). If any of these vertices is generated with nonzero fixed-point value, the flow leaves the RO manifold and the fixed point u*=v*=−2ε/9, w*=2ε/3 — and hence ς=2ε/9 — would not describe the RO class. The agreement with known C-DP exponents tests the truncated flow, not the stability of the truncation. The paper should either supply a symmetry/Ward-identity argument that forces the cancellations, or explicitly present the result as conjectural.
  2. [§5.1, Eq. (74)] The individual field anomalous dimensions η_â, η_p̂, η_p̃ are not determined by the beta functions alone; they are fixed by requiring that the negative powers of q in the six terms of S(q) cancel, i.e., by Assumption 3 (hyperuniformity). The claimed exponent ς=2ε/9 is then read off from the residual q^{2ε/9} scaling of the S1 term. The derivation is therefore conditional on the very phenomenon it is designed to predict. This is acknowledged in Assumption 3, but the paper should state explicitly that ς is not a direct output of the RG flow, and should discuss whether the result is robust to a different form of the hyperuniformity assumption, for example S(q)∼q^a with a≠2ε/9.
  3. [§5.2] The claim that the diffusive conserved noise is dangerously irrelevant at the interacting RO fixed point is supported by a Gaussian-level calculation (§3.3) and by analogy with other models, but the paper does not compute the scaling dimension or RG flow of the noise operator in d=4−ε. Since the distinction between ς=2ε/9 (RO) and ς=ε/3 (C-DP/q-EW) is the paper's central physical message, this is a load-bearing point. A calculation of the noise operator's flow, or at least its scaling dimension at the fixed point, is needed to substantiate the dangerously-irrelevant scenario.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (19)] The statement that S(q) is 'zero at the origin but p0 elsewhere' describes a discontinuous limit; please clarify the sense in which this corresponds to an exponent ς=0^+, and how it relates to the usual definition S(q)∼q^ς.
  2. [Table 1] The notation '0.29{0.33}' is unexplained; please indicate which value is the O(ε) result and which is the O(ε^3) result, and similarly for the d=2 entries.
  3. [§2.1 and Appendix B] The analogy with tricritical Ising is suggestive, but Table 2 would benefit from a precise statement of which divergences are analogous and which are not; in particular, the RO case has non-renormalisable UV divergences, which are not present in the tricritical Ising IR problem.
  4. [Eq. (30)] The diagrammatic notation for the vertices αi, σi, λi is introduced, but the correspondence between the diagrams and the algebraic terms in the action (28) is not fully spelled out; please add explicit expressions or a table linking the two.
  5. [§3.2, Eq. (6)] The symbol δ¯d(0) is used without definition at first occurrence; a footnote stating that it represents the system volume would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ς=2ε/9 follows from the one-loop beta functions; the unproven cancellation of α3,σ5,σ6 is an explicitly stated assumption, not a fitted input or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The central exponent ς=2ε/9 is not equivalent to any input by construction. The one-loop beta functions (69)–(71) yield the fixed point u*=v*=−2ε/9, w*=2ε/3, which fixes the RG dimensions [a˘ã]=d+2ε/9 and [p˘p˜]=d−ε/9. The hyperuniformity exponent is then read off from the q-scaling of the S1 term, 2ε/9, which is set by these RG dimensions, not by the hyperuniformity assumption itself. Assumption 3 (Sec. 2.2) only asserts S(q→0)=0, i.e. ς>0; it is used to split the field anomalous dimensions by requiring the divergent S6 contribution to cancel against S2–5, but it does not prescribe the specific power 2ε/9. The paper states this dependence explicitly in Sec. 5.1, and also gives an alternative route via the known q-EW value of β. The main limitation—renormalisability sustained by cancellation of the problematic vertices α3, σ5, σ6 (Secs. 2.1, 2.2, Appendix B)—is an unproven assumption, and the paper is transparent that proving this cancellation is beyond its scope. This is a correctness risk, not circularity: no equation is shown to be equivalent to its input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Recovering the known β,ν⊥,z from the same calculation provides an independent benchmark, and the self-citations present ([12], [13], [18], [40]) are background or provenance references, not load-bearing evidence for the central result. The derivation is conditional on stated assumptions, but not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim carries no fitted parameters, but it rests on several explicitly stated assumptions, principally the unproven renormalizability of the Doi-Peliti action with cancellations of non-renormalisable divergences, and the dangerously irrelevant nature of the diffusive noise. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (8)
  • ad hoc to paper The Doi-Peliti field theory for RO is perturbatively renormalisable around d_c=4, with non-renormalisable UV divergences cancelling.
    Assumption 2a/2c in Sec. 2.2; the paper states that proving this cancellation is beyond its scope, yet the beta functions and fixed point depend on it.
  • ad hoc to paper Non-renormalisable divergences cancel in a pattern similar to the tricritical Ising model.
    Assumption 2d and Appendix B; used to justify suppressing the problematic vertices α3, σ5, σ6 at the fixed point.
  • ad hoc to paper The diffusive conserved noise is dangerously irrelevant: RG-irrelevant yet able to change the hyperuniformity exponent.
    Assumption 1c and Sec. 5.2; argued via Gaussian-level analysis and analogy to known dangerously irrelevant operators, not derived in the interacting RG framework.
  • domain assumption RO shares β, ν⊥, z and d_c=4 with C-DP/Manna/q-EW despite the extra noise.
    Assumption 1b; supported in the paper by the one-loop recovery of the known exponents.
  • domain assumption Total density correlations are hyperuniform at criticality in RO.
    Assumption 3 in Sec. 2.2; supported by simulations [8,9], used to fix field anomalous dimensions and extract β and ς.
  • ad hoc to paper A fixed-point manifold exists and the chosen microscopic action flows to the RO fixed point within O(ε) of the Gaussian FPM.
    Assumptions 1d and 2b with Appendix A; needed to justify the choice of starting action.
  • standard math Coherent-state path integral representation of the master equation (Doi-Peliti formalism) is valid.
    Foundation for action (2), Sec. 3.1, standard in the field.
  • standard math Dimensional regularization and minimal subtraction are valid for the loop integrals.
    Used throughout Sec. 4 and Appendix D.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hyperuniformity at the Absorbing State Transition: Perturbative RG for Random Organization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4PZTBHJS

@misc{pith2026250707793,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hyperuniformity at the Absorbing State Transition: Perturbative RG for Random Organization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4PZTBHJS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07793}
}
abstract

Hyperuniformity, where the static structure factor obeys $S(q)\sim q^{\varsigma}$ with $\varsigma> 0$, emerges at criticality in systems having multiple, symmetry-unrelated, absorbing states. Important examples arise in periodically sheared suspensions and amorphous solids; these lie in the random organisation (RO) universality class, for which analytic results for $\varsigma$ are lacking. Here, using Doi-Peliti field theory and perturbative RG about a Gaussian model, we find $\varsigma = 0^+$ and $\varsigma= 2\epsilon/9 + O(\epsilon^2)$ in dimension $d>d_c=4$ and $d=4-\epsilon$ respectively. Our calculations assume that renormalizability is sustained via a certain pattern of cancellation of strongly divergent terms. These cancellations allow the upper critical dimension to remain $d_c = 4$, as is known for RO, while generic perturbations (e.g., those violating particle conservation) would typically flow to a fixed point with $d_c=6$. The assumed cancellation pattern is closely reminiscent of a long-established one near the tricritical Ising fixed point. (This has $d_c=3$, although generic perturbations flow towards the Wilson-Fisher fixed point with $d_c = 4$.) We show how hyperuniformity in RO emerges from anticorrelation of strongly fluctuating active and passive densities. Our calculations also yield the remaining exponents to order $\epsilon$, surprisingly without recourse to functional RG. These exponents coincide as expected with the Conserved Directed Percolation (C-DP) class which also contains the Manna Model and the quenched Edwards-Wilkinson (q-EW) model. Importantly however, our $\varsigma$ differs from one found via a mapping to q-EW. That mapping neglects a conserved noise in the RO action, which we argue to be dangerously irrelevant. Thus, although other exponents are common to both, the RO and C-DP universality classes have different exponents for hyperuniformity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07793 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Plot of structure factors S(q), SAA(q), SPP (q) vs q for a0 = 0.01, p0 = κ = D = 1 (giving ξ = 10) showing at low q the cancellation-induced suppression of total density fluctuations. Blue dashed line (horizontal) passive; red dotted line (decreasing) active; black solid line (increasing) total density. (b) Sample of spatial density statistics for the Gaussian model in d = 1. Parameters as for (a); bold black li… view at source ↗

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. Yielding versus random organization: convex absorbing transitions in soft matter

    cond-mat.soft 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Two soft matter models with long-range interactions both display convex absorbing transitions, crossing over from concave to convex regimes as interaction range increases, with critical exponents unified parametricall...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block =

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := #2 'af...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Hinrichsen, Nonequilibrium critical phenomena and phase transitions into absorbing states, Adv

    H. Hinrichsen, Nonequilibrium critical phenomena and phase transitions into absorbing states, Adv. Phys. 49, 815 (2000)

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Lubeck, Universal scaling behaviour of non-equilibrium phase-transitions, Int

    S. Lubeck, Universal scaling behaviour of non-equilibrium phase-transitions, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 18, 3977 (2004)

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    D. J. Pine, J. P. Gollub, J. F. Brady and A. M. Leshansky, Chaos and irreversibility in sheared suspensions, Nature 438, 997 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Corte, P

    L. Corte, P. M. Chaikin, J. P. Gollub and D. J. Pine, Random organization in periodically driven systems, Nat. Phys. 4, 420 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Corte, S

    L. Corte, S. J. Gerbode, W. Man and D. J. Pine, Self-organized criticality in sheared suspensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 248301 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    G. I. Menon and S. Ramaswamy, Universality class of the reversible-irreversible transition in sheared suspensions, Phys. Rev. E 790, 061109 (2009)

    work page 2009

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Torquato, Hyperuniform states of matter, Phys

    S. Torquato, Hyperuniform states of matter, Phys. Repts. 745, 1 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Hexner and D

    D. Hexner and D. Levine, Hyperuniformity of critical absorbing states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 110602 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Tjhung and L

    E. Tjhung and L. Berthier, Hyperuniform density fluctuations and diverging correlations in periodically driven colloidal suspensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 148301 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    S. S. Manna, Two-state model of self-organized criticality, J. Phys. A 24, L363 (1991)

    1991

  5. [13]

    Pruessner, Self-Organised Criticality: Theory, Models and Characterisation, Cambridge University Press (2012)

    G. Pruessner, Self-Organised Criticality: Theory, Models and Characterisation, Cambridge University Press (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    Willis and G

    G. Willis and G. Pruessner, Spatio-temporal correlations in the Manna model in one, three and five dimensions , International Journal of Modern Physics B 32(05), 1830002 (2018), doi:10.1142/S0217979218300025, https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979218300025

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Pruessner, Oslo rice pile model is a quenched edwards-wilkinson equation, Phys

    G. Pruessner, Oslo rice pile model is a quenched edwards-wilkinson equation, Phys. Rev. E 67, 030301 (2003), doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.67.030301

    2003 doi

  8. [16]

    P. L. Doussal and K. J. Wiese, Exact mapping of the stochastic field theory for manna sandpiles to interfaces in random media, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 110601 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    H. K. Janssen and O. Stenull, Directed percolation with a conserved field and the depinning transition, Phys. Rev. E 94, 042138 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    P. L. Doussal, K. J. Wiese and P. Chauve, Two-loop functional renormalization group theory of the depinning transition, Phys. Rev. B 66, 174201 (2002)

    2002

  11. [19]

    Wiese, Hyperuniformity in the Manna model, conserved directed percolation and depinning , Phys

    K. Wiese, Hyperuniformity in the Manna model, conserved directed percolation and depinning , Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 067103 (2024), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.067103

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    X. Ma, J. Pausch and M. E. Cates, Theory of hyperuniformity at the absorbing state transition, ArXiv:2310.17391 (2023), 2310.17391

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    U. C. Tauber, Critical Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Pausch and G

    J. Pausch and G. Pruessner, Is actin filament and microtubule growth reaction- or diffusion-limited?, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2019(5), 053501 (2019), doi:10.1088/1742-5468/ab081c

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Garcia-Millan, J

    R. Garcia-Millan, J. Pausch and B. W. G. Pruessner, Field-theoretic approach to the universality of branching processes, Phys. Rev. E 98, 062107 (2018), doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.98.062107

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    K. J. Wiese, Coherent-state path integral versus coarse-grained effective stochastic equation of motion: From reaction diffusion to stochastic sandpiles, Phys. Rev. E 93, 042117 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    P. M. Chaikin and T. C. Lubensky, Principles of Condensed Matter Physics, Cambridge University Press (1995)

    1995

  18. [26]

    R. Mari, E. Bertin and C. Nardini, Absorbing phase transitions in systems with mediated interactions, Phys. Rev. E 105, L032602 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Wilken, A

    S. Wilken, A. Z. Guo, D. Levine and P. M. Chaikin, Dynamical approach to the jamming problem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 238202 (2023), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.238202

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Hexner and D

    D. Hexner and D. Levine, Noise, diffusion, and hyperuniformity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 020601 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    U. C. Täuber, Renormalization group: Applications in statistical physics, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 228, 7–34 (2012), doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2012.06.002

    2012 doi

  22. [30]

    Bothe, L

    M. Bothe, L. Cocconi, Z. Zhen and G. Pruessner, Particle entity in the doi–peliti and response field formalisms, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 56(17), 175002 (2023), doi:10.1088/1751-8121/acc498

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Pruessner and R

    G. Pruessner and R. Garcia-Millan, Field theories of active particle systems and their entropy production, ArXiv:2211.11906 (2022), 2211.11906

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    D. S. Dean, Langevin equation for the density of a system of interacting langevin processes, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 29(24), L613 (1996), doi:10.1088/0305-4470/29/24/001

    1996 doi

  25. [33]

    Benitez, C

    F. Benitez, C. Duclut, H. Chat\'e, B. Delamotte, I. Dornic and M. A. Mu\ noz, Langevin equations for reaction-diffusion processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 100601 (2016), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.100601

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    Cardy, G

    J. Cardy, G. Falkovich and K. Gawedzki, Contents, p. v–viii, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series. Cambridge University Press (2008)

    2008

  27. [35]

    H. K. Janssen, Renormalized field theory of dynamical percolation, Z. Physik B - Condensed Matter 58, 311 (1985), doi:10.1007/BF01303673

    1985 doi

  28. [36]

    van Wijland, Universality class of nonequilibrium phase transitions with infinitely many absorbing states, Phys

    F. van Wijland, Universality class of nonequilibrium phase transitions with infinitely many absorbing states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 190602 (2002)

    2002

  29. [37]

    A. L. Lewis and F. W. Adams, Tricritical behavior in two dimensions. ii. universal quantities from the expansion , Phys. Rev. B 18, 5099 (1978), doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.18.5099

    1978 doi

  30. [38]

    Whitelam, L

    S. Whitelam, L. Berthier and J. P. Garrahan, Dynamic criticality in glass-forming liquids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 185705 (2004), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.185705

    2004 doi

  31. [39]

    R. Jack, P. Meyer and P. Sollich, Mappings between reaction-diffusion and kinetically constrained systems: A+A A and the FA model have upper critical dimension d_c = 2 , Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2006, P03006 (2006), doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2006/03/P03006

    2006 doi

  32. [40]

    Lefevre and G

    A. Lefevre and G. Biroli, Dynamics of interacting particle systems: stochastic process and field theory, JSTAT p. P07024 (2007)

    2007

  33. [41]

    Tomita, Preservation of isotropy at the mesoscopic stage of phase separation processes, Prog

    H. Tomita, Preservation of isotropy at the mesoscopic stage of phase separation processes, Prog. Theor. Phys. 85, 47 (1991)

    1991

  34. [42]

    F. D. Luca, X. Ma, C. Nardini and M. E. Cates, Hyperuniformity in phase ordering: the roles of activity, noise, and non-constant mobility, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 36(40), 405101 (2024), doi:10.1088/1361-648X/ad5b45, Focus Issue on Hyperuniformity: Exploring Hidden...

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    H. K. Janssen and U. C. Tauber, The field theory approach to percolation processes, Annals of Physics 315, 147 (2005)

    2005

  36. [44]

    Krinsky and D

    S. Krinsky and D. Furman, Exact renormalization group exhibiting a tricritical fixed point for a spin-1 ising model in one dimension, Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 731 (1974), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.32.731

    1974 doi

  37. [45]

    Nienhuis and M

    B. Nienhuis and M. Nauenberg, Renormalization-group theory and calculations of tricritical behavior, Phys. Rev. B 13, 2021 (1976), doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.13.2021

    1976 doi

  38. [46]

    van Wijland , K

    F. van Wijland , K. Oerding and H. Hilhorst, Wilson renormalization of a reaction–diffusion process, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 251(1), 179 (1998), doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4371(97)00603-1

    1998 doi

  39. [47]

    Amit, Field theory, the Renormalization Group, and Critical Phenomena, World Scientific, Singapore, 2nd edn

    D. Amit, Field theory, the Renormalization Group, and Critical Phenomena, World Scientific, Singapore, 2nd edn. (1984)

    1984

  40. [48]

    Shankar, S

    S. Shankar, S. Ramaswamy and M. C. Marchetti, Low-noise phase of a two-dimensional active nematic system, Phys. Rev. E 97, 012707 (2018), doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.97.012707

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    Hwa and D

    T. Hwa and D. S. Fisher, Anomalous fluctuations of directed polymers in random media, Phys. Rev. B 49, 3136 (1994), doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.49.3136

    1994 doi

  42. [50]

    Dickman and S

    R. Dickman and S. D. da Cunha, Particle-density fluctuations and universality in the conserved stochastic sandpile, Phys. Rev. E 92, 020104 (2015), doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.92.020104

    2015 doi

  43. [51]

    Reichhardt and C

    C. Reichhardt and C. J. O. Reichhardt, Random organization and plastic depinning, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 168301 (2009), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.168301

    2009 doi

  44. [52]

    Wilken, R

    S. Wilken, R. E. Guerra, D. Levine and P. M. Chaikin, Random close packing as a dynamical phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 038002 (2021), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.038002

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    K. H. Nagamanasa, S. Gokhale, A. K. Sood and R. Ganapathy, Experimental signatures of a nonequilibrium phase transition governing the yielding of a soft glass, Phys. Rev. E 89, 062308 (2014)

    2014

  46. [54]

    J. R. Royer and P. M. Chaikin, Precisely cyclic sand: Self-organization of periodically sheared frictional grains, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 112, 49 (2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    Ness and M

    C. Ness and M. E. Cates, Absorbing-state transitions in granular materials close to jamming, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 088004 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.