Epidemic Phase Transitions in the Zero-Range Process

Ian Ornelas; Marcelo R. Hilario; Rangel Baldasso

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Epidemic Phase Transitions in the Zero-Range Process

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a zero-range crowd of particles, an infection that spreads on contact undergoes a sharp extinction-to-survival phase transition as particle density crosses a critical value, for every recovery rate including infinitely fast healing.

desk verdict Genuine first phase diagram for infection in a ZRP, with a real gap in the seeding lemma that blocks the survival theorems as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.22908 v1 pith:3GW4OJ4G submitted 2026-07-24 math.PR

Rangel Baldasso , Marcelo R. Hilario , Ian Ornelas This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.PR MSC 60K3560K37

keywords infectionprocesseszero-rangeprocessphasetransitioncriticaldensityhealingratemulti-scalerenormalizationdecouplinginequalitiesorientedpercolation

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 proves that an infection spreading on contact inside a moving crowd of particles—the zero-range process—has a phase transition in density: for any fixed healing rate δ, there is a critical density ρc(δ) below which the infection dies out almost surely and above which it survives with positive probability. This holds even when healing is instantaneous, provided the crowd is dense enough. It also shows that at any positive density, a sufficiently slow healing rate still allows survival. The results cover the full (ρ, δ) phase diagram and establish non-trivial critical thresholds in both directions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a pair of space-time decoupling inequalities for the zero-range process: a horizontal (spatial-separation) covariance bound proved via a slot-priority representation in which high-priority particles ignore low-priority ones, and a vertical (temporal-separation) decoupling with sprinkling proved by coupling the density-ρ process to one at density ρ(1+ε) and matching particles block by block. Around these, the paper builds a multi-scale renormalization: for extinction, 'bad' half-crossing events cascade into two well-separated smaller bad events, yielding a recursion pk+1≤Cpk²+error; for survival, good space-time blocks form an oriented percolation cluster whose failure probabilities contract at the same quadratic rate, triggered by a seeding lemma that turns a local accumulation of infected particles into successful crossings of base-scale blocks.

What would settle it

In one dimension with the linear rate function g(n)=n (where the zero-range process is simply a system of independent random walks), simulate the epidemic for a fixed healing rate such as δ=1 on a large periodic lattice, and estimate the survival probability over very long time windows across a range of densities: if the extinction/survival boundary vanishes, moves with system size, or sits at density 0 or ∞, the phase-transition claim fails. Alternatively, compare the measured probability that a seeded target box is hit in the full interacting model with the independent-walk estimate used in Lemma 6.16; a systematic and persistent gap would invalidate the seeding domination.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from a single infected origin in an equilibrium zero-range process of density ρ, with infection transmitted instantaneously on contact and recovery effective only at isolated particles, the paper establishes an extinction–survival dichotomy. It proves low-density extinction and high-density survival for every recovery rate δ, including δ=∞ (instantaneous healing), and concludes that for each fixed δ there is a finite positive critical density ρc(δ) separating almost-sure extinction from survival with positive probability. It further proves that every positive density supports survival once the healing rate is small enough, and that below the density threshold ρc(∞−) there is a well-defined critical healing rate δc(ρ). The argument rests on new space-time decoupling inequalities for the zero-range process whose constants are uniform in density, embedded in a multi-scale renormalization scheme.

Load-bearing premise

The proof's weakest spot is the seeding lemma's assumption that infected 'messenger' particles act as independent random walks with bounded jump rates, with a hit in that independent picture guaranteeing a genuine infection path in the interacting zero-range process.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every healing rate, including instantaneous healing, the epidemic on the zero-range process has a well-defined critical density, so the interacting system and the independent-walk system studied earlier share the same qualitative phase diagram.
Above a fixed finite density the infection survives regardless of how fast particles heal, because crowded sites are almost never isolated; the survival region is therefore unbounded in the healing-rate direction.
At any positive density the healing rate can be made small enough to guarantee survival, so the extinction region in the (ρ, δ)-plane is bounded below by a positive critical healing curve.
The density-uniform decoupling inequalities are stated for general conservative particle systems, so the same renormalization machinery should transfer to other environments such as the symmetric exclusion process.
The main open questions—whether the critical curve is continuous and strictly increasing, whether the two infinite-healing thresholds coincide, and whether a shape theorem holds—are now explicitly posed and accessible to the same methods.

Reading between the lines

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

If the seeding domination can be replaced by a rigorous coupling, the critical density should be approximable from single-particle hitting data, turning the phase-transition theorem into a quantitative prediction.
The same two decoupling inequalities, being density-uniform, are likely to yield analogous extinction-survival phase transitions for the symmetric exclusion process and other conservative particle systems; testing that would separate the zero-range-specific content from the general mechanism.
The model's rule that recovery is overridden whenever another particle is present is what permits survival at infinite healing; adopting the alternative rule from the independent-walk literature (where healing can occur even in groups) would plausibly destroy the high-density survival theorem, so the phase diagram is genuinely sensitive to this microscopic detail.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Serious paper, worth a referee's time. The core content is new: Theorems 1.1–1.5 give the first extinction–survival phase diagram for an infection spreading on a zero-range process, and the uniform-in-density decoupling inequalities (Theorems 1.6 and 1.7) are reusable tools that go beyond [7]. The extinction side (Theorem 1.1) is detailed and self-contained; the renormalization recursions and the decoupling proofs are careful. I see no circularity and the critical density is obtained by monotonicity, not by fitting. The citation pattern is healthy: self-references are background/technique, not inputs.

The soft spot is real and it is exactly where the stress test points: Lemma 6.16. The proof asserts a coupling in which each green messenger is assigned an independent random walk and independent Poisson clocks, with the actual jump count sandwiched between the two Poisson counts. That sandwich is not a consequence of the rate bounds alone. In the slot representation a tagged particle's jump intensity is driven by slot clocks that are reassigned on interaction, so its jump process is a state-dependent time change; you need an explicit coupling, and none is given. More importantly, even if each messenger's jump count could be sandwiched, the events tilde A_{m,i} are defined in terms of the auxiliary random walks, and the paper does not show that tilde A_{m,i} implies the actual event A_{m,i}. The independence of the auxiliary walks therefore does not give independence of the events that matter, and the Hoeffding bound (6.35) does not follow. Without that exponential decay, the union bound only gives N(1−p_hit), which cannot produce p0 ≤ L0^{−5d}. Both Theorem 1.2 (after (6.43)) and Theorem 1.4 (after (6.49)) lean on Lemma 6.17, so the survival regime is not closed as written.

Everything else in the paper looks credible to me, and I would be surprised if the main theorems are false. But this is a proof gap in a load-bearing step, not a cosmetic issue. My recommendation: send it to a serious referee, and ask the authors to replace the asserted coupling in Lemma 6.16 with an explicit construction or a rigorous domination argument. Until then, the survival theorems are conditional.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies an SIS-type infection process on top of a zero-range process (ZRP) in equilibrium at density ρ on Z^d. Transmission is instantaneous whenever an infected and a healthy particle co-occupy a site, infected particles heal at rate δ when isolated, and the infection starts from the particles at the origin. The main results are: low-density a.s. extinction for every fixed δ (Theorem 1.1); high-density survival with positive probability for every δ, including δ=∞ (Theorem 1.2); existence of a nontrivial critical density ρ_c(δ) (Theorem 1.3); survival at every positive density for sufficiently small δ (Theorem 1.4); and the derived critical healing threshold (Theorem 1.5). The proofs combine a slot-priority graphical representation for the ZRP with new horizontal and vertical decoupling inequalities, and then use multi-scale renormalization: an immunity-regime contraction argument for extinction and an oriented-percolation argument for survival. The survival side depends on a seeding lemma (Lemma 6.17) whose stochastic content is the independent-diffusion lemma (Lemma 6.16).

Significance. If the proof is completed, this would be the first survival-extinction phase transition result for an epidemic spreading in a ZRP environment, extending the Kesten--Sidoravicius framework beyond independent random walks. The paper's horizontal decoupling (Theorem 1.6), uniform-in-density vertical decoupling (Theorem 1.7), and the extinction-side renormalization are substantial contributions in their own right, and the estimates are mostly carried out in a careful and self-contained way. The decoupling theorems are stated in a reusable form and are likely to be useful for other models with ZRP dynamic environments. However, the survival theorems all pass through Lemma 6.16, and the current proof of that lemma contains a load-bearing unsupported independence/coupling assertion. Because Theorems 1.2, 1.4, and hence the survival half of Theorem 1.3 rest on that lemma, the main phase-diagram claim is not yet established as written.

major comments (2)

[Section 6.3, proof of Lemma 6.16, Eqs. (6.31)--(6.35)] The proof asserts, after Eq. (6.31), that each green messenger can be assigned an independent simple random walk Y^(m) and independent Poisson processes Π^-_m and Π^+_m with rates Γ^- and Γ^+ such that the actual jump count J_m satisfies J^-_m ≤ J_m ≤ J^+_m, and then concludes from the independence of these auxiliary objects that the events tilde A_{m,i} are independent, justifying the Hoeffding bound (6.35). Neither step follows from the preceding construction. In the slot representation, the clock governing a tagged particle is tied to a slot and is reassigned on interactions; a per-particle jump-rate bound Γ^- ≤ individual rate ≤ Γ^+ does not by itself produce a coupling of the tagged ZRP trajectory with an independent random walk with the sandwich property (6.32). Moreover, even conditional on E1, the actual jump counts J_m of distinct messengers are correlated through the shared environment, so independence of the auxiliary walks does not imply independence of the actual events tilde A_{m,i}. Without (6.35), the union bound gives only N(1 - p_hit), which does not yield the exp{-c ρ̄0 L0^{1/4}} decay needed for (6.31). Since Lemma 6.17 is used in Eq. (6.43) for Theorem 1.2 and in Eq. (6.49) for Theorem 1.4, this missing coupling is load-bearing for the survival side of the phase diagram.
[Section 4.2, matching coupling in the proof of Theorem 1.7] The vertical decoupling proof couples two ZRP evolutions by declaring that matched particles at the same site 'jump together' and then applies Proposition 2.12 to their relative displacement, asserting that the relative motion is a continuous-time random walk with jump rate at least 2Γ^-. This is not justified: in the ZRP, when two tagged particles occupy the same site, only one particle jumps at rate g(n), and the motion of each tagged particle depends on the local occupancies; the 'jump together' rule appears to modify the single-particle jump mechanism of the ZRP generator rather than to couple two copies of it. The bounded-below-rate condition needed for Proposition 2.12 is therefore not established. This issue affects the bound of the third term in Eq. (4.13), and hence the proof of Theorem 1.7. Since Theorem 1.7 is invoked in the recursive estimates (5.16) and (6.15) on both the extinction and survival sides, the vertical decoupling theorem is another load-bearing point that needs a rigorous argument.

minor comments (4)

[Section 4.3, Eq. (4.17)] There is a typographical error in the display: 'P((ξ,ξ′)∈D^c)' contains an extra parenthesis; it should read P((ξ,ξ′)∈D^c) or, more simply, P(D^c).
[Section 5, Eqs. (5.9)--(5.11)] The symbol ρ∞ is used for the limiting density ℓ0^{-s} in the immunity regime, while the same symbol later denotes a target density in the contagion regime; since ℓ0 is ultimately chosen as a large constant, the notation is confusing and should be adjusted to avoid an apparent circular dependence.
[Section 6.3, proof of Lemma 6.15] In the recruitment argument, the stochastic domination in Eq. (6.28) includes the indicator of Elocal ∩ Edense, but the stopping rule is described as 'abort' when either event fails; the reader must check that the strong Markov property is applied at stopping times that do not depend on future coin flips. A short formal sentence specifying the stopping times would improve readability.
[Remark 6.12] The sentence 'By translation invariance and stationarity, the probability that an infinite genealogical path starts from (0,0) is therefore positive' is imprecise: the a.s. chain constructed in Theorem 6.11 is already rooted at the origin, so the desired positivity follows directly from intersecting that almost-sure event with the positive-probability event that the origin is initially occupied; the appeal to translation invariance is unnecessary and potentially misleading.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular steps: the phase transition follows from independently proved extinction and survival bounds via monotonicity, with no fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

No load-bearing circularity identified. The derivation chain is: Theorem 1.1 proves low-density extinction and Theorem 1.2 proves high-density survival by separate multi-scale renormalization arguments; these rely on the decoupling inequalities of Theorems 1.6 and 1.7, which are proved in-house in Sections 3 and 4 using the elementary ZRP bounds of Propositions 2.9-2.13, whose proofs are given in Appendices A and B. Theorem 1.3 then defines the critical density rho_c(delta) by monotonicity after those two regimes are established, rather than fitting the threshold to a subset of data and renaming it a prediction. The later critical-healing statements (Theorems 1.4-1.5) are likewise derived from the proved survival/extinction bounds and monotonicity. Self-citations [5,7] are used for background, for the earlier slot representation, and for inherited proof strategies, but the load-bearing decoupling estimates are re-derived and generalized within the paper; no central premise is justified solely by a self-citation. The only notable weakness in the derivation is the unproved domination/independence assertion in Lemma 6.16, where interacting zero-range messengers are replaced by independent random walks with sandwiched jump counts; that is a correctness gap or missing coupling, not a circular reduction, because the auxiliary random walks are not defined in terms of the target survival event and the target event is not used to license their independence.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central results depend on standard probabilistic machinery (Chernoff, Donsker, Borel-Cantelli, König), on the ZRP well-posedness and invariant-measure theory of Andjel, and on the specific model assumptions (rate function g with bounded increments, instantaneous transmission, healing only when isolated). The paper's own slot representation is proved equivalent and is not an extra postulate. Proof-tuning parameters (s, α, m, β, ℓ0, L0) are chosen by hand, but their existence is sufficient; they are not fitted to data.

free parameters (6)

sprinkling exponent s = 1/10
Used in both regimes to define density increments δ_k = ℓ_k^{-s} (Eq. 5.9) and ρ_{k+1} = ρ_k(1 + L_k^{-s}) (Eq. 6.4). Chosen so 1/3 - 2s > 0 and the decoupling errors decay.
immunity-regime scale multiplier α = 8
Chosen large enough (any larger even integer works) for the cascading geometry in Section 5.1; α=8 fixes box aspect ratios.
cluster capacity m = 40
Chosen with β=1/40 to make the triggering exponent 2+(m-1)β - ms negative in Lemma 5.11.
cluster connectivity exponent β = 1/40
Part of the same triggering choice; ensures clusters are small at base scale.
base scale ℓ0 (immunity regime) = chosen sufficiently large depending on δ
Free parameter selected in the proof of Theorem 1.1 so p0 is small and the recursive contraction holds.
base scale L0 (contagion regime) = chosen sufficiently large
Free parameter selected in the proofs of Theorems 1.2 and 1.4 to make p0 ≤ L0^{-5d} and the decoupling error small.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Rate function g satisfies g(0)=0 and Γ− ≤ g(k)-g(k-1) ≤ Γ+ for constants 0<Γ−≤1≤Γ+ (Eq. 2.3)
This defines the class of zero-range processes studied and is used throughout for jump rate bounds.
standard math ZRP infinite-volume well-posedness and existence of invariant product measures µρ (Andjel [2])
Used to justify the graphical construction and stationary initial conditions in Section 2.
standard math Standard probabilistic tools: Chernoff bounds, Donsker's theorem, Borel-Cantelli, König's lemma, random walk hitting estimates from Lawler-Limic
Used in tail bounds (Appendices A/B), diffusion stage (Lemma 6.16), and percolation construction (Theorem 6.11).
domain assumption Infection model assumptions: instantaneous transmission upon co-occupancy and healing effective only when a site is occupied by exactly one infected particle; δ=∞ corresponds to all healing marks being present
This is the microscopic rule defining the process (Section 2.3) and drives the high-density survival mechanism.

invented entities (2)

Healing marks (independent Poisson processes R_x of rate δ) independent evidence
purpose: Represent the healing mechanism in the graphical construction; genealogical paths must avoid effective healing marks.
These are standard Poisson processes defining the model, not an extra physical postulate; they are coupled across δ to allow monotonicity.
Slot-priority representation independent evidence
purpose: Graphical device assigning priorities to particles so higher-priority dynamics are independent of lower-priority ones; used to prove horizontal decoupling.
Proven equivalent to the ZRP in Proposition 3.4 and Corollary 3.5, so it is a proof device rather than a postulated new entity.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Epidemic Phase Transitions in the Zero-Range Process." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3GW4OJ4G

@misc{pith2026260722908,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Epidemic Phase Transitions in the Zero-Range Process},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3GW4OJ4G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22908}
}

abstract

We consider a model for the spread of an infection within an interacting particle system on $\mathbb{Z}^d$, generalizing a framework introduced by Kesten and Sidoravicius to a zero-range process in equilibrium with density $\rho > 0$. In our model, at any time, individuals are either healthy or infected. The infection spreads instantaneously whenever infected and healthy particles occupy the same site, while infected particles heal independently at rate $\delta > 0$. We investigate the extinction-survival phase diagram of this process starting from a configuration where only the particles at the origin are infected. For every fixed positive healing rate, we prove that the infection becomes extinct almost surely if the density $\rho$ is sufficiently small and survives with positive probability if $\rho$ is sufficiently large, establishing the existence of a non-trivial critical density. At sufficiently high densities, survival occurs even under instantaneous healing. We also show that, for every positive density, the infection survives when the healing rate is sufficiently small.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22908 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** We illustrate two possible phase diagrams compatible with our results. Blue and red indicate, respectively, the extinction and survival phases. Darker shades represent the extinction and survival regions established by our theorems; the lighter shades illustrate possible extrapolations up to the critical curve ρc(δ). We expect that the actual phase diagram should resemble the one illustrated on the left panel, with … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Graphical representation for the zero-range process with particles depicted as solid gray lines, effective healing marks as blue horizontal lines and ineffective healing marks as gray horizontal lines. In particular, when δ = ∞, the set of healing marks is R+ × Z d . Thus, the infection can only be sustained if the path strictly avoids isolated particles, resulting in the requirement that ηt(γ(t)) ≥ 2 for all t. Def… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Illustration of the horizontal decoupling scheme. The boundaries M1 and M2 divide the space to prevent information from propagating between the regions containing B 1 and B 2 . On the event S, the priority-1 particles never leave V1, the priority-2 particles never leave V2, and the priority-3 particles never reach the base regions S1 and S2. Proposition 3.8. There exists a constant C8 = C8(Γ+, d) > 0 such that, fo… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Illustration of the three half-crossing events (a) and the cascading decomposition (b). 5.1. Multi-scale geometry and half-crossing events. We start by introducing a base-scale parameter ℓ0 ∈ N and a scaling parameter α = 8. This value is simply chosen to be large eno…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Cluster structure and the triggering event at the base-scale. • m ∈ N, a cluster capacity threshold; Definition 5.9 (Clusters and triggering event). Given an initial configuration η0, we partition the occupied sites into clusters. Two occupied sites x and x ′ belong to…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: For two successive good blocks B 1 k+1 and B 2 k+1, the transitivity property guarantees that most sub-interfaces of In(B 1 k+1) are connected to most sub-interfaces of Out(B 2 k+1, v) by a chain of good scale-k blocks. Here we construct such a chain by first choosing…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The two stages of the seeding event. (a) A single seed particle locally spreads the infection, rapidly accumulating a large population of green particles. (b) These particles act as independent messengers, diffusing over a long time window to successfully reach all req…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[7]

Spread of an infection on the zero range process

Rangel Baldasso and Augusto Teixeira. Spread of an infection on the zero range process. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques, 56(3):1898–1928, 2020

work page 1928
[1]

O. S. M. Alves, F. P. Machado, and S. Yu. Popov. The shape theorem for the frog model.The Annals of Applied Probability, 12(2):533 – 546, 2002

work page 2002
[2]

Invariant Measures for the Zero Range Process.The Annals of Probability, 10(3):525 – 547, 1982

Enrique Daniel Andjel. Invariant Measures for the Zero Range Process.The Annals of Probability, 10(3):525 – 547, 1982

work page 1982
[3]

Arcanjo, Rangel Baldasso, Marcelo R

Weberson S. Arcanjo, Rangel Baldasso, Marcelo R. Hil´ ario, and Renato S. dos Santos. Law of large numbers for ballistic random walks in dynamic random environments un- der lateral decoupling.Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques, 61(2):822 – 849, 2025

work page 2025
[4]

Local survival of spread of infection among biased random walks.Electronic Journal of Probability, 27:1–28, 2022

Rangel Baldasso and Alexandre Stauffer. Local survival of spread of infection among biased random walks.Electronic Journal of Probability, 27:1–28, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Local and global survival for infections with recovery.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 160:161–173, 2023

Rangel Baldasso and Alexandre Stauffer. Local and global survival for infections with recovery.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 160:161–173, 2023

work page 2023
[6]

How can a clairvoyant particle escape the exclusion process?Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques, 54(4):2177–2202, 2018

Rangel Baldasso and Augusto Teixeira. How can a clairvoyant particle escape the exclusion process?Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques, 54(4):2177–2202, 2018

work page 2018
[8]

Bramson, P

M. Bramson, P. Calderoni, A. De Masi, P. Ferrari, J. Lebowitz, and R. H. Schonmann. Microscopic selection principle for a diffusion-reaction equation.Journal of Statistical Physics, 45(5):905–920, 1986

work page 1986

Show all 37 references

[9]

Ram´ ırez

Jean B´ erard and Alejandro F. Ram´ ırez. Large deviations of the front in a one- dimensional model of X +Y→ 2X.The Annals of Probability, 38(3):955–1018, 2010

2010
[10]

Fluctuations of the front in a one dimensional model of X +Y→ 2X.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 359(4):1561–1581, 2007

Francis Comets, Jeremy Quastel, and Alejandro F Ram´ ırez. Fluctuations of the front in a one dimensional model of X +Y→ 2X.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 359(4):1561–1581, 2007

2007
[11]

The SIR model in a moving population: propagation of infection and herd immunity, 2022

Duncan Dauvergne and Allan Sly. The SIR model in a moving population: propagation of infection and herd immunity, 2022

2022
[12]

Spread of infections in a heterogeneous moving population.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 187(1):73–131, 2023

Duncan Dauvergne and Allan Sly. Spread of infections in a heterogeneous moving population.Probability Theory and Related Fields, 187(1):73–131, 2023

2023
[13]

Lipschitz cutset for fractal graphs and applications to the spread of infections.Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques, 62(2):830 – 878, 2026

Alexander Drewitz, Gioele Gallo, and Peter Gracar. Lipschitz cutset for fractal graphs and applications to the spread of infections.Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques, 62(2):830 – 878, 2026

2026
[14]

Mountford, Daniel Ungaretti, and Maria Eul´ alia Vares

Luiz Renato Fontes, Thomas S. Mountford, Daniel Ungaretti, and Maria Eul´ alia Vares. Renewal contact processes: Phase transition and survival.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 161:102–136, 2023

2023
[15]

A new proof of superadditivity and of the density conjecture for activated random walks on the line, 2025

Nicolas Forien. A new proof of superadditivity and of the density conjecture for activated random walks on the line, 2025

2025
[16]

Gracar and A

P. Gracar and A. Stauffer. Random walks in random conductances: Decoupling and spread of infection.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 129(9):3547–3569, 2019

2019
[17]

Multi-scale Lipschitz percolation of increasing events for Poisson random walks.The Annals of Applied Probability, 29(1):376 – 433, 2019

Peter Gracar and Alexandre Stauffer. Multi-scale Lipschitz percolation of increasing events for Poisson random walks.The Annals of Applied Probability, 29(1):376 – 433, 2019

2019
[18]

Grimmett and Zhongyang Li

Geoffrey R. Grimmett and Zhongyang Li. Brownian snails with removal: epidemics in diffusing populations.Electronic Journal of Probability, 27(none):1 – 31, 2022

2022
[19]

Results on the contact process with dynamic edges or under renewals.Electronic Journal of Probability, 27(none):1 – 31, 2022

Marcelo Hil´ ario, Daniel Ungaretti, Daniel Valesin, and Maria Eul´ alia Vares. Results on the contact process with dynamic edges or under renewals.Electronic Journal of Probability, 27(none):1 – 31, 2022

2022
[20]

Contact process on interchange process.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.02747, 2025

Marcelo Hil´ ario, Daniel Ungaretti, Daniel Valesin, and Maria Eul´ alia Vares. Contact process on interchange process.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.02747, 2025

2025 arXiv
[21]

The density conjecture for activated random walk, 2024

Christopher Hoffman, Tobias Johnson, and Matthew Junge. The density conjecture for activated random walk, 2024. 60 EPIDEMIC PHASE TRANSITIONS IN THE ZERO-RANGE PROCESS

2024
[22]

The spread of a rumor or infection in a moving population.Annals of Probability, pages 2402–2462, 2005

Harry Kesten and Vladas Sidoravicius. The spread of a rumor or infection in a moving population.Annals of Probability, pages 2402–2462, 2005

2005
[23]

A phase transition in a model for the spread of an infection.Illinois Journal of Mathematics, 50(1-4):547–634, 2006

Harry Kesten and Vladas Sidoravicius. A phase transition in a model for the spread of an infection.Illinois Journal of Mathematics, 50(1-4):547–634, 2006

2006
[24]

A problem in one-dimensional diffusion-limited aggregation (DLA) and positive recurrence of Markov chains.The Annals of Probability, 36(5):1838–1879, 2008

Harry Kesten and Vladas Sidoravicius. A problem in one-dimensional diffusion-limited aggregation (DLA) and positive recurrence of Markov chains.The Annals of Probability, 36(5):1838–1879, 2008

2008
[25]

A shape theorem for the spread of an infection

Harry Kesten and Vladas Sidoravicius. A shape theorem for the spread of an infection. Annals of Mathematics, pages 701–766, 2008

2008
[26]

Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1999

Claude Kipnis and Claudio Landim.Scaling Limits of Interacting Particle Systems, volume 320 ofGrundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1999

1999
[27]

Gregory F Lawler and Vlada Limic.Random walk: a modern introduction, volume
[28]

Asymptotic behavior of a stochastic growth process associated with a system of interacting branching random walks

Alejandro F Ram´ ırez and Vladas Sidoravicius. Asymptotic behavior of a stochastic growth process associated with a system of interacting branching random walks. Comptes Rendus Mathematique. Acad´ emie des Sciences. Paris, 335(10):821–826, 2002

2002
[29]

Asymptotic behavior of a stochastic combustion growth process.Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 6(3):293– 334, 2004

Alejandro F Ram´ ırez and Vladas Sidoravicius. Asymptotic behavior of a stochastic combustion growth process.Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 6(3):293– 334, 2004

2004
[30]

Leonardo T. Rolla. Activated Random Walks on Zd.Probability Surveys, 17(none):478 – 544, 2020

2020
[31]

Rolla and Vladas Sidoravicius

Leonardo T. Rolla and Vladas Sidoravicius. Absorbing-state phase transition for driven-dissipative stochastic dynamics on Z.Inventiones mathematicae, 188(1):127– 150, 2012

2012
[32]

George Shanthikumar.Stochastic orders

Moshe Shaked and J. George Shanthikumar.Stochastic orders. Springer series in statistics. Springer, 2007

2007
[33]

Multi-particle diffusion limited aggrega- tion.Inventiones mathematicae, 218(2):491–571, 2019

Vladas Sidoravicius and Alexandre Stauffer. Multi-particle diffusion limited aggrega- tion.Inventiones mathematicae, 218(2):491–571, 2019

2019
[34]

On one-dimensional multi-particle diffusion limited aggregation

Allan Sly. On one-dimensional multi-particle diffusion limited aggregation. InIn and Out of Equilibrium 3: Celebrating Vladas Sidoravicius, pages 755–774. Springer, 2021

2021
[35]

Interaction of Markov processes.Advances in Mathematics, 5(2):246– 290, 1970

Frank Spitzer. Interaction of Markov processes.Advances in Mathematics, 5(2):246– 290, 1970

1970
[36]

Richard F. Voss. Multiparticle fractal aggregation.Journal of Statistical Physics, 36(5):861–872, 1984

1984
[123]

Cambridge University Press, 2010

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [7]

Spread of an infection on the zero range process

Rangel Baldasso and Augusto Teixeira. Spread of an infection on the zero range process. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques, 56(3):1898–1928, 2020

work page 1928

[2] [1]

O. S. M. Alves, F. P. Machado, and S. Yu. Popov. The shape theorem for the frog model.The Annals of Applied Probability, 12(2):533 – 546, 2002

work page 2002

[3] [2]

Invariant Measures for the Zero Range Process.The Annals of Probability, 10(3):525 – 547, 1982

Enrique Daniel Andjel. Invariant Measures for the Zero Range Process.The Annals of Probability, 10(3):525 – 547, 1982

work page 1982

[4] [3]

Arcanjo, Rangel Baldasso, Marcelo R

Weberson S. Arcanjo, Rangel Baldasso, Marcelo R. Hil´ ario, and Renato S. dos Santos. Law of large numbers for ballistic random walks in dynamic random environments un- der lateral decoupling.Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques, 61(2):822 – 849, 2025

work page 2025

[5] [4]

Local survival of spread of infection among biased random walks.Electronic Journal of Probability, 27:1–28, 2022

Rangel Baldasso and Alexandre Stauffer. Local survival of spread of infection among biased random walks.Electronic Journal of Probability, 27:1–28, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [5]

Local and global survival for infections with recovery.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 160:161–173, 2023

Rangel Baldasso and Alexandre Stauffer. Local and global survival for infections with recovery.Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 160:161–173, 2023

work page 2023

[7] [6]

How can a clairvoyant particle escape the exclusion process?Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques, 54(4):2177–2202, 2018

Rangel Baldasso and Augusto Teixeira. How can a clairvoyant particle escape the exclusion process?Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques, 54(4):2177–2202, 2018

work page 2018

[8] [8]

Bramson, P

M. Bramson, P. Calderoni, A. De Masi, P. Ferrari, J. Lebowitz, and R. H. Schonmann. Microscopic selection principle for a diffusion-reaction equation.Journal of Statistical Physics, 45(5):905–920, 1986

work page 1986