Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Thermodynamic statistics of given names in USA and France

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that given-name frequency distributions in the USA and France are thermodynamic equilibria described by the Rayleigh-Jeans law, stable for over a century.

desk verdict Solid descriptive statistics on 100+ years of name data, but the thermodynamic mechanism is asserted, not derived; the RJE 'agreement' is mostly a two-parameter fit. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06048 v1 pith:CCEFC2XE submitted 2026-08-06 cond-mat.stat-mech nlin.CDphysics.soc-phq-fin.ST

Klaus M. Frahm , Dima L. Shepelyansky This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechnlin.CDphysics.soc-phq-fin.ST
keywords Rayleigh-Jeanscondensationgiven-namestatisticsLorenzcurveParetodistributionGinicoefficientthermalizationinequalityuniversalitynamepopularity
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 claims that the frequency distribution of given names in the USA (1880–2025) and France (1900–2023) is not a product of arbitrary fashion but a thermal equilibrium. Using government records, it builds Lorenz and Pareto curves of name popularity and finds them stable for more than a century, with the Gini coefficient confined to 0.85–0.95. It shows that these curves are reproduced by the Rayleigh-Jeans (RJ) thermal distribution, the same two-integral statistical-mechanics law used for wealth inequality: each name acts as an energy level, and the population of names occupies those levels with the RJ occupation formula. If the claim is right, name popularity belongs to a universal family of inequality phenomena that includes wealth, energy consumption, and voting.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Rayleigh-Jeans occupation formula $\rho_m = T/(E_m - \mu)$ for a system with two conserved integrals of motion (energy and probability norm), together with the extended RJ density-of-states model $\nu(E_k) = dk/dE_k = N(e^a - 1)/[a(1 + (e^a-1)E_k]$ used to build the Lorenz and Pareto curves. The formula produces the characteristic 'condensation' of many agents on low-energy states, which the paper identifies with the observed long tail of rare names; the spectrum parameter $a$ and the rescaled energy $\varepsilon = E/B$ are the two fitting parameters that let the model match the real curves.

What would settle it

Truncate the official data by raising the minimum-frequency cutoff (for example, from 5 to 50 occurrences in the US data) and re-fit the RJE parameters $a$ and $\varepsilon$; if the Rayleigh-Jeans description is real, the fitted parameters and the inferred Gini should stay constant up to sampling noise, whereas a systematic drift with the cutoff would show that the 'thermal' distribution is an artifact of the data's lower bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that name popularity obeys the Rayleigh-Jeans distribution $\rho_m = T/(E_m - \mu)$, where $E_m = w_m = f_m$ is the (shifted) frequency of name $m$, while the temperature $T$ and chemical potential $\mu$ are fixed by conservation of total energy $E = \sum_m E_m \rho_m$ and total norm $\eta = \sum_m \rho_m = 1$. In this picture the most popular names are high-energy states and the long tail of rare names is the low-energy condensate; the two parameters are re-fitted each year, and the resulting Lorenz and Pareto curves agree with the observed curves to a typical geometric distance below $5\times10^{-3}$. The Gini coefficient stays in the narrow band $G \in [0.85, 0.95]$ for both countries for over a century, and the RJ description therefore captures the inequality structure of name choice as a steady-state thermal system.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a society's name-choice process conserves two global quantities—an 'energy' equal to name frequency and a probability norm—so that the Rayleigh-Jeans formula $\rho_m = T/(E_m - \mu)$ is the true distribution rather than just a flexible two-parameter curve.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Name popularity is a predictable statistical-mechanical quantity: once $T$ and $\mu$ (or $a$ and $\varepsilon$) are fixed for a year, the entire Lorenz and Pareto curves follow, so the observed inequality is not a collection of arbitrary choices.
  • The Gini coefficient should remain near 0.85–0.95 as long as the system stays in the same thermal regime, meaning the extreme concentration of popularity among a few names is a stable equilibrium, not a transient fashion.
  • The paper's universality argument places name popularity in the same family as wealth, energy consumption, and voting, for which the same RJ condensation has been reported.
  • The stability of the correlation structure until the mid-20th century and its change afterwards indicates that the thermal analogy tolerates slow drift of the parameters while preserving the equilibrium form.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be an agent-based model in which parents copy or exchange name preferences through pairwise 'collisions'; if it thermalizes to the same $\rho_m \propto 1/(E_m - \mu)$ with the same spectrum, the equilibrium claim would be mechanistically supported rather than only phenomenologically.
  • The paper re-fits $T$ and $\mu$ every year but does not report their time series; tracking the annual drift of the chemical potential could reveal what cultural force corresponds to changing scarcity of names.
  • Because the fit uses the same functional form for every year, a sharper test is whether the fitted parameters vary smoothly in time; a discontinuous jump would mark a cultural phase transition rather than adiabatic thermalization.
  • The mapping $E_m = f_m$ is chosen for analogy, not derived; checking whether an alternative monotone mapping (for example, log-frequency) destroys the parameter stability would isolate which quantity is genuinely conserved.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes official US and French baby-name frequency data over more than a century. It constructs Lorenz curves, computes Gini coefficients, and reports Pareto curves, finding that inequality in name frequencies is stable, with Gini values in the range 0.85–0.95. The authors then fit an extended Rayleigh-Jeans (RJE) model: the parameter epsilon is fixed by matching the model Gini coefficient to the data Gini coefficient, and the parameter a is chosen to minimize the geometric distance between the model and data Lorenz curves. The same fitted distribution is used to produce model Pareto curves. The paper also studies time correlations of top names using Pearson coefficients. The authors conclude that RJ condensation is the driving mechanism for the observed inequality in name frequencies.

Significance. The descriptive part of the paper is a solid empirical contribution: the documented stability of name-frequency Lorenz and Pareto curves over 100+ years, using public administrative data, is a real and interesting observation. The time-correlation analysis adds a useful cultural-historical dimension. If the causal claim were established, the paper would significantly extend the wealth-thermalization hypothesis to a new class of social data. However, the current evidence for the central claim is a two-parameter curve fit to the same data used for fitting; no name-choice dynamics, conserved quantities, or out-of-sample predictions are provided. The manuscript is transparent about the fitting procedure, but the inference in Section VI goes beyond what the evidence can support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV and Section VI] The fitting protocol determines epsilon by the condition that the RJE Lorenz curve has the same Gini coefficient as the real data Lorenz curve, and it determines a by minimizing the geometric distance between the RJE and real Lorenz curves. Therefore the model Lorenz curve is guaranteed to match in one parameter and is optimized in the other, and the Pareto curves shown with the same parameters are a consistency check on the same fitted object rather than an independent prediction. The statement in Section VI that 'the RJ condensation also provides a very good description of Lorenz and Pareto curves' is consequently not independent evidence for the mechanism. To make this load-bearing inference, the paper needs at least one out-of-sample test, such as fitting parameters on one year and predicting another year's curves, or using the fitted parameters to predict a quantity not used in the fit.
  2. [Section II] The physical mapping for names is asserted by analogy: the paper sets f_m = w_m = E_m and invokes the Rayleigh-Jeans form rho_m = T/(E_m - mu) from conservation of total energy and probability norm. No dynamics of name choice is specified that would conserve these two integrals, and T and mu are re-fit separately for each year. As presented, the RJE model is a flexible two-parameter family used to fit empirical Lorenz curves rather than a thermal-equilibrium prediction derived for the name-formation process. A concrete test would be to derive the density of states from a plausible name-choice dynamics, or to show that the fitted parameters satisfy a conservation law across years; without this, the central claim reduces to curve fitting.
  3. [Section VI] The paper itself acknowledges that 'the fact that the RJE model with two parameters fits the real Lorenz and Pareto curves is not a sufficient argument in the full favor of RJ thermalization theory.' The subsequent appeal to universality across many systems as the 'fundamental confirmation' of RJ condensation does not close this gap: the observed stability and similarity of Lorenz curves across systems is an empirical regularity, but it does not by itself identify RJ condensation as the mechanism. The argument would need a mechanism that generates the specific RJE density of states for the name system, or a falsifiable prediction that distinguishes RJE from other two-parameter distribution families with similar Lorenz shapes.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix Fig. A7] The caption and text are inconsistent: the text says 'US M 1880, FR F 1900' while the figure is for FR male names, and the caption lists 'FR M 1900'; this should be corrected.
  2. [Section V] There is a typo in the first sentence: 'deacribed' should be 'described'; in Section VI, 'mecanism' should be 'mechanism'.
  3. [Fig. 3 and Fig. A3 captions] The bottom-panel year list in Fig. 3 begins '1990' but the text and figure cover 1900 to 2023; the same issue appears in Fig. A3, where '1900 to 2022' should likely be '1900 to 2023'.
  4. [Section V] The procedure of assigning frequency zero to names absent in a given year may artificially inflate Pearson correlations; the paper notes this but does not quantify the effect. A sensitivity check using only names present in both years would strengthen the correlation analysis.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Lorenz agreement is a two-parameter fit (Gini matched, distance minimized) and Pareto replays the same fitted distribution; the causal RJ claim then leans on same-author fits.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV (results for RJE model) and Section II (Pareto definition)]
    "For this, we compute an optimal value of the parameter a such that the geometric curve distance between Lorenz RJE curve and data curve is minimized under the constraint that for each value of a the other parameter ε is determined such that the Gini coefficient G is identical for both cases. ... Furthermore, also the Pareto curves (for the same parameters a and ε as for the Lorenz curve) agree very well with some deviations for a few largest values of w_m."

    The RJE Lorenz curve is not an independent prediction: ε is fixed by forcing the model Gini to equal the data Gini, and a is fixed by minimizing the distance to the same data Lorenz curve. The small Lorenz distance reported is therefore the optimization objective, not a test. The Pareto curve is, as the paper states, directly obtained from the Lorenz construction (C(w_m)=1-h(m)), so displaying it with the same fitted parameters is a restatement of the same fitted distribution. With Gini removed by construction, only one shape parameter remains, and any flexible two-parameter family could mimic this agreement; the fit does not single out RJ thermalization as the mechanism.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section VI (Discussion)]
    "Of course, one can argue that the fact that the RJE model with two parameters fits the real Lorenz and Pareto curves is not a sufficient argument in the full favor of RJ thermalization theory. However, we demonstrated in [13–15, 28, 29] and in this work that the condensate and oligarchic phases exist for distributions in variety of systems. ... We consider that these arguments give the fundamental confirmation of the validity of the RJ thermalization and condensation theory in the above systems as it is described in this work and in [13–15, 28, 29]."

    The paper itself concedes that the two-parameter fit is not sufficient, and the following sentence supplies the missing confirmation by citing [13–15, 28, 29], all prior works by the same authors that fit the same RJE model to other empirical distributions. Because those prior works have the same fitted-input structure (parameters matched to the target Lorenz/Gini data), the citation chain does not add independent evidence for the thermalization mechanism; it merely repeats the same analogy across datasets. The fundamental confirmation thus rests on the very RJ framework the fit was meant to establish.

full rationale

The empirical Lorenz/Pareto curves and their stability are direct statistics on public datasets and are not circular. The circularity enters at the interpretive step. In Section IV, the RJE model is adjusted to the data: epsilon is set by requiring identical Gini, and a by minimizing the geometric distance to the data Lorenz curve. Thus the reported Lorenz agreement is a measure of fit quality, not a prediction; the Pareto curves are the same fitted distribution replotted via C(w)=1-h(m), so they add no independent confirmation. Section VI explicitly acknowledges that a two-parameter fit is not a sufficient argument and then supplies the missing confirmation through a chain of same-author citations ([13-15,28,29]) applying the same fitting strategy to other systems. The two conserved integrals of motion are assumed by analogy (we extend this analogy assuming that the name frequencies f_m = w_m = E_m), with no dynamics or relaxation mechanism specified. The claim that RJ condensation is the driving mechanism is therefore underdetermined: the evidence reduces to one free shape parameter after matching Gini, plus a self-referential universality argument. Score 6 reflects partial circularity: the descriptive statistics are sound, but the central mechanism claim is not independently established.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two fitted parameters (epsilon matched to the data Gini, a matched to the data Lorenz curve), the domain analogy that name frequencies are mode energies with two conserved integrals of motion, the RJE spectrum taken from the authors' own [14], the arbitrary f_min shift, and the unexamined truncation of the rare-name tail. The descriptive statistics (Gini series, correlations, Pareto tails) are independent of these assumptions and are the most reliable part of the paper.

free parameters (3)
  • epsilon (rescaled energy w_s/B in the RJE model) = 0.00376 (US F 2025); 0.0071 (FR F 2023); range about 2.7e-3 to 2.4e-2 across years
    Fixed per year so that the RJE Lorenz curve reproduces the data Gini coefficient (Section II and IV). Because the Gini is matched exactly, the model does not predict the overall level of inequality.
  • a (RJE spectral shape parameter) = 5.72 (US F 2025); 5.18 (FR F 2023); range 3 to 8.6 for US F 1880-2020
    Chosen per year to minimize the geometric curve distance between RJE and data Lorenz curves (Section IV). One shape parameter plus the Gini-matched epsilon is enough to approximate a smooth monotone Lorenz curve, so the resulting agreement is weak evidence for the specific RJ form.
  • Exponential growth rate lambda for N(t) = about 0.0183 to 0.0206 per year (Appendix A1)
    Descriptive fit of the number of names over time; not load-bearing for the central claim.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Name selection conserves two integrals of motion: total 'energy' E = sum_m E_m rho_m (mean frequency) and norm eta = sum_m rho_m = 1, so the RJ form rho_m = T/(E_m - mu) applies.
    Stated in the abstract and in Section II after Eq. (1). No name-choice dynamics exhibiting these conservation laws is given; within each year E is just the mean frequency and T, mu are re-fit per year, so thermalization is assumed rather than derived.
  • domain assumption Name frequency maps to mode energy: w_m = f_m = E_m (the wealth-as-energy analogy extended to names).
    Section II: 'Here we extend this analogy assuming that the name frequencies f_m = w_m = E_m.' Inherited from the authors' Wealth Thermalization Hypothesis [13, 14]; not independently derived for names.
  • ad hoc to paper RJE spectrum: density of states nu(E_k) = N(e^a - 1)/[a(1 + (e^a - 1)E_k)] with E_0 = 0, band width B = 1, and analytic Lorenz/Pareto expressions for N to infinity.
    Section II: introduced for 'more refined agreement' at high frequencies and taken from the authors' own [14]. The exponential spacing plus two free parameters makes the family of curves flexible.
  • ad hoc to paper Frequencies are shifted by the minimum value: w_m = f_m - f_min (5 for US, 3 for FR).
    Section III: the shift 'is essentially a shift in the value of chemical potential mu.' It changes the low-frequency tail feeding the condensation phase; its effect on fitted epsilon and a is not analyzed.
  • domain assumption The privacy truncation of rare names (below 5 occurrences for US, below 3 for FR) does not bias the Lorenz/Pareto analysis.
    Section I discloses the truncation; the excluded names sit exactly in the low-popularity phase central to the RJ condensation claim, and no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • standard math Weak nonlinear interactions between names do not affect the conservation relations.
    Section II: 'It is assumed that the nonlinear interactions between classical modes are weak and do not affect these relations.' Standard wave-turbulence assumption, invoked from [18, 19].
  • ad hoc to paper Names absent in a given year are assigned frequency 0 in the Pearson correlation analysis.
    Section V: the authors themselves warn that the zero filling 'may artificially enhance the correlations between these years.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermodynamic statistics of given names in USA and France." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CCEFC2XE

@misc{pith2026260806048,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermodynamic statistics of given names in USA and France},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CCEFC2XE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06048}
}
read the original abstract

Using official government data sets of USA and France we analyze the occurrence/frequency/popularity distributions of given names on a time scale of more than 100 years. These distributions are characterized through the Lorenz and Pareto curves broadly used in the analysis of wealth inequality in the world. These curves remain stable during the considered time period with the Gini coefficient remaining in the narrow range 0.85-0.95. As for the case of wealth inequality, we show that the distributions of names are well described by the Rayleigh-Jeans (RJ) thermalization and condensation phenomenon well studied in various physical systems. The RJ thermalization results from two integrals of motion being analogous to energy and probability norm conservation in physical systems with energy states corresponding to popularity levels of names. Time correlations between names are also determined showing their stability until the middle of the twentieth century and a significant change after that.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06048 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Year dependence of the number of given names in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: FR female name Lorenz and Pareto curves for the 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Comparison of Lorenz curves (left panels) and Pareto [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Density color plot of Lorenz curves for US F for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Lorenz curves (left panels) and Pareto curves [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Year dependence of the Gini coefficient of the name [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Year dependence of the rank of the top name of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Color density plots of Pearson correlator (see text for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wahlberg,The most popular baby names of 2025, November 5, (2025); (Accessed July 24, 2026)

    R. Wahlberg,The most popular baby names of 2025, November 5, (2025); (Accessed July 24, 2026)

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Battenger,Most Popular Baby Names in France in 2025, December 31, (2025); (Accessed July 24, 2026)

    S. Battenger,Most Popular Baby Names in France in 2025, December 31, (2025); (Accessed July 24, 2026)

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Social Security Administration,https://www.ssa.gov/ oact/babynames/names.zip(Accessed July 24, 2026)

    work page 2026

  4. [4]

    anda= 5.26, ε=⟨w m⟩RJE = 0.00592,⟨w m⟩data = 45.5 (FR M 2023). 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 w h US M 1880 RJE 10−3 10−2 10−1 100 10−2 10−1 100 101 102 C(wm) wm/⟨wm⟩ US M 1880 RJE 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 w h FR M 1900 RJE 10−3 10−2 10−1 100 10−2 10−1 100 101 102 C(wm) wm/⟨wm⟩ FR M 1900 RJE FIG. A7: As Fig. 5 for the male name fre...

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Appendix Figs

    anda= 3.62, ε=⟨w m⟩RJE = 0.0104,⟨w m⟩data = 241 (FR M 1900). Appendix Figs. A5-A7 compare RJE and real data (Lorenz and Pareto) curves in the same style as Fig. 5 for additional cases of US F 1880, FR F 1900 (Fig. A5, US M 2025, FR M 2023 (Fig. A6 and US M 1880, FR F

    work page 1900

  6. [6]

    Piketty,Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Belk- nap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA 11 (2014)

    T. Piketty,Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Belk- nap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA 11 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Chancel, T

    L. Chancel, T. Piketty, E. Saez, G. Zucmanet al. World Inequality Report 2022, World Inequality Labhttps:// wir2022.wid.world(Accessed on 8 June 2025)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Roach, P

    B. Roach, P. J. Rajkanikar, N. Goodwin, and J.Harris, Social and Economic Inequality, An ECI Teaching Module on Social and Environmental Issues, Economics in Context Initiative, Global Development Policy Cen- ter, Boston University (2023),https://www.bu.edu/ eci/files/2023/05/Inequality-Module-2023.pdf (Accessed 8 June 2025)

    work page 2023

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Lorenz,Methods of measuring the concentra- tion of wealth, Quarterly Publications of the Ameri- can Statistical Association,9, (New Series, No

    M.O. Lorenz,Methods of measuring the concentra- tion of wealth, Quarterly Publications of the Ameri- can Statistical Association,9, (New Series, No. 70), 209–219 (1905);https://doi.org/10.1080/15225437. 1905.10503443(Accessed 8 June 2025)

    1905 arXiv

  2. [10]

    fr/fr/statistiques/fichier/8595130/ prenoms-2025-liste_csv.zip(Accessed July 24, 2026)

    INSEE France,https://www.insee. fr/fr/statistiques/fichier/8595130/ prenoms-2025-liste_csv.zip(Accessed July 24, 2026)

    2025

  3. [11]

    50% of the population owns only 2% of total wealth while 10% (1%) of population owns 75% (38%) of total wealth [7]

    indicates a huge wealth inequality in the world, i.e. 50% of the population owns only 2% of total wealth while 10% (1%) of population owns 75% (38%) of total wealth [7]. We use the concepts of this wealth inequality approach for the statistical analysis of first name distribut...

    2025

  4. [12]

    Fourquet,L’archipel fran¸ cais : naissance d’une nation multiple et divis´ ee, Seuil, Paris (2019)

    J. Fourquet,L’archipel fran¸ cais : naissance d’une nation multiple et divis´ ee, Seuil, Paris (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    K. M. Frahm, and D. L. Shepelyansky,Wealth thermal- ization hypothesis and social networks, arXiv:2506.17720 [cond-mat.stat-mech] (2025); J. Stat. Phys.193, 64 (2026)

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    K. M. Frahm, L. Ermann and D. L. Shepelyansky,Ther- modynamic description of wealth inequality in the world, arXiv:2606.17965[cond-mat.stat-mech] (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  7. [15]

    K. M. Frahm, and D. L. Shepelyansky,Dynamical ther- malization and turbulence in social stratification models, CHAOS36, 073117 (2026)

    2026

  8. [16]

    C. Gini,Sulla misura della concentrazione e della vari- abilit‘a dei caratteri, Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti,73, 1203–1248 (1914); English translation in Metron - Int. J. Statisrics, 63, 3–38 (2005);https://www.dss.uniroma1.it/RePec/ mtn/articoli/...

    1914

  9. [17]

    Wikipedia contributors,List of sovereign states by wealth inequality, (Accessed July 24, 2026)

    2026

  10. [18]

    Pareto, Manuale di Economia Politica (1906); EGEA – Universit` a Bocconi Editore: Milan, (2006) ISBN 88- 8350-084-9

    V. Pareto, Manuale di Economia Politica (1906); EGEA – Universit` a Bocconi Editore: Milan, (2006) ISBN 88- 8350-084-9

    1906

  11. [19]

    Zakharov, V.S

    V.E. Zakharov, V.S. L’vov, and G. Falkovich,Kol- mogorov spectra of turbulence, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1992)

    1992

  12. [20]

    Krupa, A

    K. Krupa, A. Tonello, A. Barthelemy, B.M. Shalaby, A. Bendahmane, G. Millot and S. Wabnitz,Observation of geometric parametric instability induced by the peri- odic spatial self-imaging of multimode waves, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 183901 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Connaughton, N

    C. Connaughton, N. Josserand, A. Picozzi, Y. Pomeau and S. Rica,Condensation of classical nonlinear waves, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 263901 (2005)

    2005

  14. [22]

    B. M. Boghosian, A. Devitt-Lee, M. Johnson, J. Li, J. A. Marcq, and H. Wang,Oligarchy as a phase transition: the effect of wealth-attained advantage in a Fokker–Planck description of asset exchange, Physica A 476, 15 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    B. M. Boghosian,The inescapable casino, Sci. American, November, 71 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Landau, and E.M

    L.D. Landau, and E.M. Lifshitz,Statistical physics, Wi- ley, New York (1976)

    1976

  17. [25]

    Evans, S.N

    M.R. Evans, S.N. Majumdar, I. Pagonabarraga and E. Trizac,Condensation transition in polydisperse hard rods, J. Chem. Phys.132, 014102 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    Szavits-Nossan, M.R

    J. Szavits-Nossan, M.R. Evans and S.N. Majumdar,Con- straint driven condensation in large fluctuations of linear statistics, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 020602 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Filiasi, G

    M. Filiasi, G. Livan, M. Marsili, M. Peressi, E. Vesselli and E. Zarinelli,On the concentration of large deviations for fat tailed distributions, with application to financial data, J. Stat. Mech. P09030 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Picozzi, J

    A. Picozzi, J. Garnier, T. Hansson, P. Suret, S. Ran- doux, G. Millot and D.N. Christodoulides,Optical wave turbulence: Towards a unified nonequilibrium thermody- namic formulation of statistical nonlinear optics, Phys. Rep.542, 1 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Baudin, A

    K. Baudin, A. Fusaro, K. Krupa, J. Garnier, S. Rica, G. Millot and A. Picozzi,Classical Rayleigh-Jeans con- densation of light waves: observation and thermodynamic characterization, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 244101 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Ermann, A.D

    L. Ermann, A.D. Chepelianskii and D.L. Shepelyan- sky,Dynamical thermalization, Rayleigh-Jeans conden- sate, vortexes and wave collapse in quantum chaos fibers and fluid of light, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.59, 055702 (2026)

    2026

  23. [31]

    Dragulescu and V

    A. Dragulescu and V. Yakovenko,Statistical mechanics of money, Eur. Phys. J. B17, 723 (2000)

    2000

  24. [32]

    Yakovenko and J.B

    V.M. Yakovenko and J.B. Rosser,Colloquium: Statisti- cal mechanics of money, wealth, and income, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1703 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    Wikipedia contributors,Pearson correlation coefficient (Accessed July 24, 2026)

    2026

  26. [34]

    Frahm, and D.L

    K.M. Frahm, and D.L. Shepelyansky,Thermodynamic description of worldwide distribution of energy and car- bon emission, arXiv:2607.07315 [cond-mat.stat-mech] (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Frahm, and D.L

    K.M. Frahm, and D.L. Shepelyansky,Thermodynamic theory of voting and EU elections, arXiv:2607.15119 [cond-mat.stat-mech] (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Frahm and D.L

    K.M. Frahm and D.L. Shepelyansky,Nonlinear pertur- bation of Random Matrix Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 077201 (2023)

    2023

  29. [1880]

    anda= 4.17, ε=⟨w m⟩RJE = 0.00672,⟨w m⟩data = 237 (FR F 1900). 10 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 w h US M 2025 RJE 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 100 10−2 10−1 100 101 102 C(wm) wm/⟨wm⟩ US M 2025 RJE 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 w h FR M 2023 RJE 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 10...

    1900

  30. [1900]

    (Fig. A7. For all these curves, one can observe a very good agreement between the real data and the RJE theory using optimal values ofaandεgiven in the figure captions. 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 year h FIG. A8: As Fig. 6 but for...

    1900

  31. [2025]

    areG= 0.93,0.934,0.925,0.911,0.903,0.894 (G= 0.854,0.895,0.938,0.939,0.931,0.911,0.894).Right:Pareto curvesC(w m) for the same data whereC(w m) represents the fraction of names with a name frequency larger thanw m (analogous to wealth). Thex-axis corresponds to rescaled values...

    1920

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.