Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 69 references

rd-spiral: An open-source Python library for learning 2D reaction-diffusion dynamics through pseudo-spectral method

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · 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 its open-source pseudo-spectral solver rd-spiral captures all three regimes of 2D spiral-wave dynamics—stable rotation, spatiotemporal chaos, and pattern decay—and that the simulations reveal extreme non-Gaussian…

desk verdict A transparent educational RD solver, but the headline statistics are artifacts of pseudoreplication and a near-constant time series. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20633 v1 pith:IPVJWUFT submitted 2025-06-25 nlin.PS physics.comp-ph

Sandy H. S. Herho , Iwan P. Anwar , Rusmawan Suwarman This is my paper · ORCID
classification nlin.PSphysics.comp-ph MSC 35K5765M7062G10
keywords reaction-diffusionsystemspseudo-spectralmethodsspiralwavesnonlineardynamicspatternformationspatiotemporalchaosnon-parametricstatisticsinformationtheory
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

rd-spiral is a new open-source Python library for simulating two-dimensional reaction-diffusion systems with a pseudo-spectral method: fast Fourier transforms handle spatial derivatives, and an adaptive Runge–Kutta integrator advances time. The paper sets out to show that this single solver can reproduce the full spectrum of spiral-wave behavior—stable rotating spirals, spatiotemporal turbulence, and complete pattern decay—with simple parameter changes. The authors then use the simulated fields to argue that stable spiral dynamics have strongly non-Gaussian amplitude statistics, with excess kurtosis greater than 96, while turbulent dynamics are much closer to Gaussian. They also find that mutual information between the activator and inhibitor fields declines more sharply in turbulence (10.7%) than in stable regimes (6.5%), which they read as a quantitative marker of pattern breakup. If these claims hold, the library is both a transparent teaching tool and a validated numerical platform for studying pattern formation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing piece is the pseudo-spectral spatial discretization: the periodic domain admits a Fourier expansion, so the Laplacian becomes multiplication by $-k^2$ in spectral space, giving exponential convergence for smooth fields, while the cubic reaction terms are evaluated pointwise in physical space to avoid costly convolutions. The resulting semi-discrete ODE system is integrated by the adaptive Dormand–Prince RK5(4) scheme, which the paper reports handles stiffness ratios above $6{:}1$. The statistical claims rest on the time series of the spatial standard deviations $\sigma_u(t)$ and $\sigma_v(t)$, which are analyzed with normality tests, bootstrap resampling, Cliff's delta, and entropy and mutual information.

What would settle it

Compute the integral autocorrelation time of $\sigma_u(t)$ in the stable run; if it is comparable to the total integration time, the effective independent sample size is tiny, and the reported p-values would not survive. Equivalently, run the stable configuration at the turbulent run's resolution and domain ($256\times256$, $L=50$, $t=500$) and repeat all statistics: if excess kurtosis drops below a few units or the mutual-information decline becomes comparable across regimes, the claimed signatures are artifacts of the single-run setup.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that rd-spiral successfully captures the complete dynamical spectrum of the two-species reaction-diffusion system $\partial_t u = D_1 \nabla^2 u + u - u^3 - uv^2 + \beta(u^2v+v^3)$ and its counterpart for $v$, across three regimes: stable spiral rotation ($D_1=D_2=0.1$, $\beta=1.0$), spatiotemporal chaos ($D_1=0.03$, $D_2=0.20$, $\beta=0.65$), and pattern decay ($D_1=D_2=0.5$). Analyzing the time series of the spatial standard deviations $\sigma_u(t)$ and $\sigma_v(t)$, the authors report extreme leptokurtosis in the stable regime (excess kurtosis $>96$), unanimous rejection of normality across all four tests in all bootstrap samples, and effect sizes of Cliff's $\delta = 0.37$ (for $\sigma_u$) and $\delta = 0.78$ (for $\sigma_v$) that separate the regimes. Information-theoretic analysis shows a $10.7\%$ reduction in activator-inhibitor mutual information during turbulent fragmentation, versus $6.5\%$ in stable spirals, which the paper interprets as a quantitative measure of field decoupling during spiral breakup.

Load-bearing premise

The statistical comparisons treat the consecutive values of $\sigma_u(t)$ and $\sigma_v(t)$ within each run as independent samples, although they come from single, strongly autocorrelated trajectories that also differ in grid size, domain size, integration time, and initial vortex charge between the stable and turbulent runs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single open-source solver, with three documented parameter sets, now covers the three qualitative behaviors of reaction-diffusion spirals, making it a ready-made platform for teaching nonlinear dynamics.
  • Stable spiral amplitude statistics are strongly non-Gaussian; any parametric analysis that assumes Gaussianity for such regimes is likely to be invalid.
  • Cliff's delta of $0.37$ and $0.78$ for $u$ and $v$, together with mutual-information declines of $6.5\%$ and $10.7\%$, provide quantitative separators for classifying a spiral-wave state as stable or turbulent.
  • The method tolerates diffusion-coefficient ratios over $6{:}1$, indicating the pseudo-spectral plus adaptive-integrator approach can handle stiff pattern-forming systems without specialized exponential integrators.
  • Checkpointing and the preserved initial conditions allow long turbulent simulations to be restarted and reproduced exactly, which supports reproducibility claims for extended runs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: because the reported statistics come from single long runs rather than ensembles, the same protocol could be applied to many random initial phases to obtain distribution-based error bars on kurtosis and mutual-information decline.
  • Editorial extension: the mutual-information decline of the turbulent regime suggests a possible early-warning indicator for spiral breakup that could be monitored in cardiac or chemical excitable media, not just in this model.
  • Editorial extension: the analysis pipeline (standard-deviation time series, normality tests, bootstrap, Cliff's delta, mutual information) transfers directly to other two-variable excitable-media models to test whether the reported non-Gaussian and decoupling signatures are generic.
  • Editorial extension: replacing the fixed grid with adaptive spatial resolution could extend the library to regimes where the spiral core develops extremely steep gradients, where spectral accuracy on a uniform grid degrades.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces rd-spiral, an open-source Python library for simulating two-dimensional reaction-diffusion systems using a pseudo-spectral spatial discretization combined with adaptive Dormand-Prince time integration. The authors present three parameter regimes—stable spiral rotation, spatiotemporal chaos, and pattern decay—and use the resulting simulations to make quantitative claims: excess kurtosis above 96 in stable dynamics, non-parametric effect sizes (Cliff's delta 0.37–0.78), and a mutual-information decline of 6.5% in stable versus 10.7% in turbulent regimes. The manuscript also documents software features such as checkpointing, automated equilibrium classification, and archived simulation outputs.

Significance. If the statistical claims were fully supported, the paper would offer a useful pedagogical and research tool plus a quantitative signature separating stable and turbulent spiral regimes. The manuscript has real strengths: the solver design is standard and transparent, the code is open source, the simulation outputs are archived on OSF, and the pedagogical emphasis on code clarity is commendable. However, the headline quantitative claims are currently not supported: the regime comparisons are built on autocorrelated single-run time series, the kurtosis result is an artifact of a nearly constant scalar series, and the reported mutual-information declines are not reproducible from the numbers given in the text. These issues are load-bearing for the abstract and conclusions, so the manuscript needs substantial revision before publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3.1 and Section 3.2] The regime-comparison statistics are computed from single simulations with different numerical setups: the stable spiral uses a 128×128 grid, L=20, t=0–200, and m=1, while the turbulent case uses 256×256, L=50, t=0–500, and m=4. The σu(t) and σv(t) series are strongly autocorrelated—the stable σu series is nearly constant (mean 0.670465, SD 0.001711, CV≈0.0026)—so treating each time sample as an independent observation invalidates the Mann-Whitney U, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, bootstrap confidence interval, and Cliff's delta calculations reported in Section 3.2. The p<0.001 values and δ=0.37–0.78 therefore do not support the claimed quantitative regime distinctions; block bootstrap or ensemble inference over multiple independent initial conditions with matched grids and domains is required.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eqs. (58)–(59)] The claim of 'extreme departures from Gaussian behavior in stable spiral dynamics' rests on excess kurtosis values of 96.2497 and 96.4037 for σu and σv. The stable σu series has mean 0.670465, standard deviation 0.001711, and IQR 0.000255, so its distribution is effectively a point mass. The large kurtosis and the normality-test rejections are dominated by tiny numerical fluctuations rather than by spiral-wave dynamics, making this statistic an artifact rather than a meaningful dynamical signature. Please replace this analysis with characterizations of the field distributions or of variability across independent realizations, or clearly relabel the statistic as a property of the scalar monitoring series.
  3. [Section 3.2 (temporal evolution summary), Abstract, and Conclusions] The stated mutual-information declines are not reproducible from the values in the text. From t=5 to t=100, the stable I(U;V) changes from 4.5867 to 4.3048 bits (−6.1%), while the turbulent I(U;V) changes from 4.6397 to 3.6911 bits (−20.4%); neither matches the claimed −6.5% and −10.7%. If the intended comparison is between t=5 and t=200, the final I(U;V) values are not reported. Please correct the percentages and provide a complete table of H(U), H(V), H(U,V), and I(U;V) at all reported times, or remove the quantitative comparison from the Abstract.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eqs. (34)–(35)] The derivation claims to proceed from conservation laws, but the reduction to the canonical form relies on specific modeling choices—truncation to odd cubic terms, equal linear growth rates, symmetric saturation, and a single coupling β. Please state explicitly that these are assumptions rather than consequences of the conservation-law derivation, and cite the prior source of the canonical model more prominently.
  2. [Section 2.2, 'Error analysis' paragraph] The paper asserts exponential convergence and spectral accuracy, but no numerical convergence experiment (e.g., a manufactured solution or comparison with a known exact solution) is reported. A short convergence study would substantiate this central numerical claim.
  3. [Section 2.3.4, Bootstrap for normality tests] Resampling the original autocorrelated σu and σv series with replacement does not validate the normality-test results, because the bootstrap samples inherit the same non-independence. This point is already implicit in the first major comment, but the text should not describe the bootstrap procedure as providing validation of the reported p-values.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the central statistical claims are measured simulation outputs, not fitted or self-cited quantities; the few self-citations are peripheral and do not support any central result.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are that the rd-spiral library simulates three reaction-diffusion regimes and that measured statistics (excess kurtosis, Shannon entropy, mutual information, Mann-Whitney/KS tests, Cliff's delta) differ between stable and turbulent spirals. These quantities are computed directly from simulation outputs rather than fitted to the very quantities they are said to predict, so there is no input-output circularity. The governing equations (34)-(35) are explicitly adopted from the external reference [7], and the initial conditions (50)-(51) are likewise taken from [7]; neither is a self-citation, and neither is presented as being derived from the paper's own conclusions. The self-citations that do appear (refs. [26], [27], [34]) support only introductory claims about Python performance and are not used to justify the solver, the statistical framework, or the regime classification, so they are not load-bearing. The stability arguments and parameter choices are based on linear stability analysis stated in the paper, not on fitting the reported statistics. The main methodological weaknesses are statistical rather than circular: the time series sigma_u(t) and sigma_v(t) come from single runs with different grid sizes, domain sizes, integration times, and initial charges, and the samples are strongly autocorrelated, so the reported p-values, bootstrap intervals, and effect sizes assume an independence that is not established. Also, the reported mutual-information declines (6.5% and 10.7%) do not match the values tabulated in Section 3.2. These concerns affect the strength of the empirical claims but do not make the derivation circular, because the statistics are not constructed from the conclusions they are used to support.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard conservation-law derivation (divergence theorem, Fick's law), on several hand-imposed modeling assumptions that truncate the reaction terms and impose symmetry, and on hand-chosen regime parameters D1, D2, beta and initial charges. The statistical comparisons further assume that temporally autocorrelated scalar time series can be treated as independent samples, which is not justified in the paper. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • D1, D2, beta for stable spiral = D1=0.1, D2=0.1, beta=1.0
    Hand-picked to produce a stable rotating spiral; these are inputs, not fit to external data, but they are chosen to realize the target behavior.
  • D1, D2, beta for turbulent regime = D1=0.03, D2=0.20, beta=0.65
    Chosen to break activator-inhibitor symmetry and produce spatiotemporal chaos; single run.
  • D1, D2, beta for decay regime = D1=0.5, D2=0.5, beta=1.0
    Chosen so diffusion dominates and pattern decays; not included in statistical comparison.
  • initial topological charge m = m=1 (stable), m=4 (turbulent)
    Initial vortex charge chosen by hand; differs between compared regimes, confounding comparison.
  • equilibrium classification thresholds = 0.01, 0.0001, 0.001, 0.01
    Thresholds in Eq. (53) are chosen ad hoc to label states.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Divergence theorem and Leibniz rule are used to pass from integral conservation to PDE.
    Section 2.1, Eqs. (2)-(8).
  • domain assumption Fick's law with constant isotropic diffusivity models molecular fluxes.
    Section 2.1, Eqs. (10)-(17); standard for dilute solutions.
  • ad hoc to paper Reaction kinetics are truncated to odd cubic terms and assumed symmetric under (U,V) to -(U,V).
    Section 2.1, Eq. (20); this is a modeling choice, not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper The full system reduces to the canonical form with equal linear growth rates, symmetric saturation, and a single coupling beta.
    Section 2.1, final paragraph; the reduction is asserted and the final system is attributed to reference [7].
  • domain assumption Periodic boundary conditions are appropriate for the studied phenomena.
    Section 2.2, domain Omega = [0,L]^2; the paper acknowledges this may suppress boundary-induced instabilities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of rd-spiral: An open-source Python library for learning 2D reaction-diffusion dynamics through pseudo-spectral method." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IPVJWUFT

@misc{pith2026250620633,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: rd-spiral: An open-source Python library for learning 2D reaction-diffusion dynamics through pseudo-spectral method},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IPVJWUFT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20633}
}
abstract

We introduce rd-spiral, an open-source Python library for simulating 2D reaction-diffusion systems using pseudo-spectral methods. The framework combines FFT-based spatial discretization with adaptive Dormand-Prince time integration, achieving exponential convergence while maintaining pedagogical clarity. We analyze three dynamical regimes: stable spirals, spatiotemporal chaos, and pattern decay, revealing extreme non-Gaussian statistics (kurtosis $>96$) in stable states. Information-theoretic metrics show $10.7\%$ reduction in activator-inhibitor coupling during turbulence versus $6.5\%$ in stable regimes. The solver handles stiffness ratios $>6:1$ with features including automated equilibrium classification and checkpointing. Effect sizes ($\delta=0.37$--$0.78$) distinguish regimes, with asymmetric field sensitivities to perturbations. By balancing computational rigor with educational transparency, rd-spiral bridges theoretical and practical nonlinear dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20633 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Temporal evolution of spatial standard deviations for st [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spatiotemporal evolution of spiral wave patterns in stab [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spatial distribution of local Shannon entropy for stable ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and O’Driscoll, K

    Albagli, D. and O’Driscoll, K. F. and Schmitz, R. A. The development of a high-order Taylor expansion solution to the chemical rate equation for the simulation of complex biochemical systems . Comput. Chem., 14(3):185–191, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1016/0097-8485(90)80025-Y

    work page doi:10.1016/0097-8485(90)80025-y 1990

  2. [2]

    T. W. Anderson and D. A. Darling. Asymptotic theory of certain ”goodness of fit” criteria based on stochastic processes . Ann. Math. Stat. , 23(2):193–212, 1952. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729437

    arXiv 1952

  3. [3]

    A model for fast computer simulation of waves in excitable me dia

    Barkley, Dwight. A model for fast computer simulation of waves in excitable me dia. Physica D , 49(1- 3):61–70, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2789(91)90194-E

    work page doi:10.1016/0167-2789(91)90194-e 1991

  4. [4]

    Bastian and M

    P. Bastian and M. Blatt and A. Dedner and N.-A. Dreier and C. Engw er and R. Fritze and C. Gr¨ aser and C. Gr¨ uninger and D. Kempf and R. Kl¨ ofkorn an d others. The DUNE framework: Basic concepts and recent developments . Comput. Math. Appl. , 81:75–112, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2020.06.007

    doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2020.06.007 2021

  5. [5]

    B. P. Belousov. Periodicheski deistvuyushchaya reaktsiya i ee mekhanizm . Sb. Ref. Radiat. Med. , pages 145–147, 1959. Medgiz, Moscow

    work page 1959

  6. [6]

    Chebyshev and Fourier Spectral Methods

    Boyd, John P. Chebyshev and Fourier Spectral Methods . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1989

    work page 1989

  7. [7]

    Bramburger, J. J. Data-Driven Methods for Dynamic Systems . SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611978162

    doi:10.1137/1.9781611978162 2024

  8. [8]

    Yousuff and Quarteroni, Alfio and Zang, Thomas A

    Canuto, Claudio and Hussaini, M. Yousuff and Quarteroni, Alfio and Zang, Thomas A. Spec- tral Methods: Fundamentals in Single Domains . Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30726-6

    doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30726-6 2006

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Castets and E

    V. Castets and E. Dulos and J. Boissonade and P. De Kepper. Experimental evidence of a sus- tained standing Turing-type nonequilibrium chemical patt ern. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 64(24):2953–2956, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.64.2953. 25

    1990 doi

  2. [10]

    N. Cliff. Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyses to answer ordinal q uestions. Psychol. Bull. , 114(3):494– 509, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.494

    1993 doi

  3. [11]

    and Diamond, S

    Collis, J. and Diamond, S. L. and Mangin, P. H. and Neeves, K. B. a nd others. Dimensional analysis and scaling relevant to flow models of thrombus formation: co mmunication from the SSC of the ISTH . J. Thromb. Haemost. , 14(4):882–887, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.13241

    2016 doi

  4. [12]

    Cooley, J. W. and Tukey, J. W. An algorithm for the machine calculation of complex Fourier series. Math. Comput. , 19(90):297–301, 1965. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0025-5718-1965-0178586-1

    1965 doi

  5. [13]

    S. M. Cox and P. C. Matthews. Exponential Time Differencing for Stiff Systems . J. Comput. Phys. , 176(2):430–455, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.2002.6995

    2002

  6. [14]

    M. C. Cross and P. C. Hohenberg. Pattern formation outside of equilibrium . Rev. Mod. Phys., 65(3):851– 1112, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.65.851

    1993 doi

  7. [15]

    R. B. D’Agostino and A. Belanger and R. B. D’Agostino Jr.. A suggestion for us- ing powerful and informative tests of normality . Am. Stat. , 44(4):316–321, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1990.10475751

    1990 arXiv

  8. [16]

    J. M. Davidenko and A. V. Pertsov and R. Salomonsz and W. Baxt er and J. Jalife. Stationary and drifting spiral waves of excitation in isolated cardiac muscle. Nature, 355(6358):349–351, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1038/355349a0

    1992 doi

  9. [17]

    Dormand, J. R. and Prince, P. J. A family of embedded Runge-Kutta formulae . J. Comput. Appl. Math. , 6(1):19–26, 1980. https://doi.org/10.1016/0771-050X(80)90013-3

    1980 doi

  10. [18]

    B. Efron. Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife . Ann. Stat. , 7(1):1–26, 1979. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344552

    1979

  11. [19]

    FitzHugh

    R. FitzHugh. Impulses and physiological states in theoretical models of nerve membrane . Biophys. J. , 1(6):445–466, 1961. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(61)86902-6

    1961 doi

  12. [20]

    The design and implementation of FFTW3

    Frigo, Matteo and Johnson, Steven G. The design and implementation of FFTW3 . Proc. IEEE , 93(2):216–231, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2004.840301

    2005

  13. [21]

    Gottlieb and S

    D. Gottlieb and S. A. Orszag. Numerical Analysis of Spectral Methods: Theory and Appli- cations. SIAM, 1977. CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Math ematics, 26. https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611970425

    1977 doi

  14. [22]

    P. S. Hagan. Spiral waves in reaction-diffusion equations . SIAM J. Appl. Math. , 42(4):762–786, 1982. https://doi.org/10.1137/0142054

    1982 doi

  15. [23]

    and Wanner, Gerhard

    Hairer, Ernst and Nørsett, Syvert P. and Wanner, Gerhard. Solving Ordinary Dif- ferential Equations I: Nonstiff Problems . Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78862-1

    1993 doi

  16. [24]

    and Millman, K

    Harris, Charles R. and Millman, K. Jarrod and van der Walt, St´ efan J. and Gommers, Ralf and Virtanen, Pauli and Cournapeau, David and Wieser, Eric and Taylor, Julian and B erg, Sebastian and Smith, Nathaniel J. and Kern, Robert and Picus, Matti and Hoyer, Steph an and van Ke...

    2020

  17. [25]

    M. P. Hassell and H. N. Comins and R. M. May. Spatial structure and chaos in insect population dynamics. Nature, 353(6341):255–258, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1038/353255a0

    1991 doi

  18. [26]

    COMPARING SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING ENVIRONMENTS FOR SIMULATING 2D NON-BUOYANT FLUI D PARCEL TRA- JECTORY UNDER INERTIAL OSCILLATION: A PRELIMINARY EDUCATI ONAL STUDY

    Herho, S and Anwar, I and Herho, K and Dharma, C and Irawan, D. COMPARING SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING ENVIRONMENTS FOR SIMULATING 2D NON-BUOYANT FLUI D PARCEL TRA- JECTORY UNDER INERTIAL OSCILLATION: A PRELIMINARY EDUCATI ONAL STUDY . In- dones. Phys. Rev. , 7(3):451–468, 2024. https...

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Quantitative Performance Analysis of Spring-Mass-Damper Control Systems

    Herho, S H S and Kaban, S N. Quantitative Performance Analysis of Spring-Mass-Damper Control Systems. Indones. J. Appl. Math. , 5(1):10–26, 2025. https://doi.org/10.35472/indojam.v5i1.2104. 26

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    Reappraising double pendulum dynamics across multiple computational pl atforms

    Herho, S and Fajary, F and Herho, K and Anwar, I and Suwarma n, R and Irawan, Dasapta. Reappraising double pendulum dynamics across multiple computational pl atforms. CLEI Electron. J. , 28(1), 2025. https://doi.org/10.19153/cleiej.28.1.10

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    Hoops and S

    S. Hoops and S. Sahle and R. Gauges and C. Lee and J. Pahle and N . Simus and M. Singhal and L. Xu and P. Mendes and U. Kummer. COPASI—a COmplex PAthway SImulator . Bioinformatics, 22(24):3067–3074, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btl485

    2006 doi

  22. [30]

    and Li, Ruo

    Hou, Thomas Y. and Li, Ruo. Computing nearly singular solutions using pseudo-spectra l methods . J. Comput. Phys. , 226:379–397, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2007.04.014

    2007 doi

  23. [31]

    xarray: N-D labeled Arrays and Datasets in Python

    Hoyer, Stephan and Hamman, Joseph J. xarray: N-D labeled Arrays and Datasets in Python . J. Open Res. Softw. , 5(1):10, 2017. https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.148

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    C. M. Jarque and A. K. Bera. A test for normality of observations and regression residua ls. Int. Stat. Rev., 55(2):163–172, 1987. https://doi.org/10.2307/1403192

    1987 doi

  25. [33]

    E. T. Jaynes. Information theory and statistical mechanics . Phys. Rev. , 106(4):620–630, 1957. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.106.620

    1957 doi

  26. [34]

    Performance Analysis of 1D Linear Kalman Fil- ter in Modern Scientific Computing Environments

    Kaban, S N and Herho, S H S. Performance Analysis of 1D Linear Kalman Fil- ter in Modern Scientific Computing Environments . Int. J. Data Sci. , 5(2):98–111, 2024. https://doi.org/10.18517/ijods.5.2.93

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    and Trefethen, L

    Kassam, A-K. and Trefethen, L. N. Fourth-order time-stepping for stiff PDEs . SIAM J. Sci. Comput. , 26(4):1214–1233, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1137/S1064827502410633

    2005 doi

  28. [36]

    J. P. Keener. The dynamics of three-dimensional scroll waves in excitabl e media. Physica D, 31(2):269– 276, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2789(88)90080-2

    1988 doi

  29. [37]

    and Kowalczyk, P

    Kleiber, M. and Kowalczyk, P. Conservation Laws in Continuum Mechanics . In In- troduction to Nonlinear Thermomechanics of Solids , pages 101–134. Springer, Cham, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33455-4_6

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    Kopell and L

    N. Kopell and L. N. Howard. Plane wave solutions to reaction-diffusion equations . Stud. Appl. Math. , 52(4):291–328, 1973. https://doi.org/10.1002/sapm1973524291

    1973 doi

  31. [39]

    Kuramoto

    Y. Kuramoto. Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Turbulence . Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 2003. Originally published by Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984

    2003

  32. [40]

    On the sesquicentennial of Fick’s laws of diffusion

    la Barrera, E. On the sesquicentennial of Fick’s laws of diffusion . Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. , 12(4):280,

  33. [41]

    Lechleiter, S

    J. Lechleiter, S. Girard, E. Peralta, and D. Clapham. Spiral calcium wave prop- agation and annihilation in Xenopus laevis oocytes . Science, 252(5002):123–126, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2011747

    1991 doi

  34. [42]

    Logg and K.-A

    A. Logg and K.-A. Mardal and G. N. Wells and others. Automated solution of differential equations by the finite element method . Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. Eng. , 84, 2012. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23099-8

    2012 doi

  35. [44]

    Data Structures for Statistical Computing in Python

    McKinney, W. Data Structures for Statistical Computing in Python . In Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference , pages 56–61, 2010. https://doi.org/10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2010 doi

  36. [45]

    I. I. Moraru and J. C. Schaff and B. M. Slepchenko and M. L. Blino v and F. Morgan and A. Laksh- minarayana and F. Gao and Y. Li and L. M. Loew. Virtual Cell modelling and simulation software environment. IET Syst. Biol. , 2(5):352–362, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-syb:20080102

    2008 doi

  37. [46]

    Nagumo and S

    J. Nagumo and S. Arimoto and S. Yoshizawa. An Active Pulse Transmission Line Simulating Nerve Axon. Proc. IRE, 50(10):2061–2070, 1962. https://doi.org/10.1109/JRPROC.1962.288235

    1962

  38. [47]

    Orszag, S. A. Numerical simulation of incompressible flows within simple boundaries: accuracy. J. Fluid Mech., 49(1):75–112, 1971. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112071001940. 27

    1971 doi

  39. [48]

    Stuart and Orszag, S

    Patterson, Jr., G. Stuart and Orszag, S. A. Spectral calculations of isotropic turbu- lence: Efficient removal of aliasing interactions . Phys. Fluids , 14(11):2538–2541, 1971. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1693365

    1971 doi

  40. [49]

    Poirier, D. R. and Geiger, G. H. Fick’s Law and Diffusivity of Materials . In Transport Phenomena in Materials Processing , chapter 12. Springer, Cham, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48090-9_12

    2016 doi

  41. [50]

    Press, W. H. and Teukolsky, S. A. and Vetterling, W. T. and Flan nery, B. P. Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 3rd edition, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811135

    2007 doi

  42. [51]

    Raissi and P

    M. Raissi and P. Perdikaris and G. E. Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involvi ng nonlinear partial differential equations . J. Comput. Phys. , 378:686–707, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045

    2019 doi

  43. [52]

    Reddy, J. N. Principles of Continuum Mechanics: Conservation and Balan ce Laws with Applications . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2nd edition, 2017

    2017

  44. [53]

    Rew, R. K. and Davis, G. P. NetCDF: An Interface for Scientific Data Access . IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl., 10(4):76–82, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1109/38.56302

    1990 doi

  45. [54]

    Romano and J

    J. Romano and J. D. Kromrey and J. Coraggio and J. Skowronek . Appropriate statistics for ordinal level data: Should we really be using t-test and Cohen’s d for evaluating group differences on the NSSE and other surveys? . In Annual Meeting of the Florida Association of Institu...

    2006

  46. [55]

    C. E. Shannon. A mathematical theory of communication . Bell Syst. Tech. J. , 27(3):379–423, 1948. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x

    1948

  47. [56]

    S. S. Shapiro and M. B. Wilk. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete sample s). Biometrika, 52(3-4):591–611, 1965. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591

    1965 doi

  48. [57]

    N. Smirnov. Table for estimating the goodness of fit of empirical distrib utions. Ann. Math. Stat. , 19(2):279–281, 1948. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730256

    1948

  49. [58]

    M. A. Stephens. EDF statistics for goodness of fit and some comparisons . J. Am. Stat. Assoc. , 69(347):730–737, 1974. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1974.10480196

    1974

  50. [59]

    S. H. Strogatz. Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics , Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 2nd edition, 2015

    2015

  51. [60]

    The exponential accuracy of Fourier and Chebyshev differenc ing methods

    Tadmor, E. The exponential accuracy of Fourier and Chebyshev differenc ing methods. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 23(1):1–10, 1986. https://doi.org/10.1137/0723001

    1986 doi

  52. [61]

    Trefethen, L. N. Spectral Methods in MATLAB . SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9780898719598

    2000 doi

  53. [62]

    A. M. Turing. The chemical basis of morphogenesis . Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B , 237(641):37–72,

  54. [63]

    and Gommers, R

    Virtanen, P. and Gommers, R. and Oliphant, T. E. and Haberland , Matt and Reddy, Tyler and Cour- napeau, David and Burovski, Evgeni and Peterson, Pearu and Wec kesser, Warren and Bright, Jonathan and van der Walt, St´ efan J. and Brett, Matthew and Wilson, Joshu a and Millman,...

    2020

  55. [64]

    Wiener and A

    N. Wiener and A. Rosenblueth. The mathematical formulation of the problem of conduction o f impulses in a network of connected excitable elements . Arch. Inst. Cardiol. Mex. , 16(3-4):205–265, 1946

    1946

  56. [65]

    A. T. Winfree. Spiral waves of chemical activity . Science, 175(4022):634–636, 1972. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.175.4022.634. 28

    1972 doi

  57. [66]

    A. T. Winfree. When Time Breaks Down: The Three-Dimensional Dynamics of El ectrochemical Waves and Cardiac Arrhythmias . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1987

    1987

  58. [67]

    Wilson and D

    G. Wilson and D. A. Aruliah and C. T. Brown and N. P. Chue Hong and M. Davis and R. T. Guy and S. H. D. Haddock and K. D. Huff and I. M. Mitchell and M. D. Plumble y and B. Waugh and E. P. White and P. Wilson. Best practices for scientific computing . PLOS Biol. , 12(1):e1001745...

    2014 doi

  59. [68]

    A. M. Zhabotinsky. Periodicheskii khod okisleniya malonovoi kisloty v rastvo re. Biofizika, 9(3):306–311, 1964. 29

    1964

  60. [1952]

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1952.0012

    1952

  61. [2005]

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb0405-280

    doi

Pith tools

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