Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Pattern formation: reactivity is not necessary for chemotaxis--driven instabilities

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Chemotaxis can destabilize a non-reactive homogeneous equilibrium, so the classical reactivity requirement for Turing instability does not extend to taxis-driven pattern formation.

desk verdict The non-necessity claim is true and worth knowing, but the paper proves it with the wrong argument and then leans on a numerical experiment it hasn't validated. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03685 v1 pith:UXS4DAZS submitted 2026-08-04 math.DS cs.NAmath-phmath.MPmath.NA

Angela Monti This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DScs.NAmath-phmath.MPmath.NA MSC 35B3635K5737N2592D25
keywords chemotaxis-driveninstabilityreactivityTuringpatternformationreaction-diffusion-chemotaxisnon-symmetrictransportmatrix-orienteddiscretizationprey-taxispredator-preypatterns
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

Pattern formation theory has a classical necessary condition: a homogeneous equilibrium must be reactive for diffusion alone to destabilize it and create Turing patterns. This paper asks whether that condition survives when directed movement (chemotaxis) is added. It shows it does not: for sufficiently strong chemotaxis, a stable, non-reactive equilibrium can be driven unstable by spatial perturbations even though diffusion alone cannot do it. The proof traces the necessary condition to the reactivity of the shifted operator J*−k²C, with the old reactivity condition recovered only when |β|u* ≤ 2√(DuDv). A predator–prey example with a non-reactive coexistence equilibrium and no Turing instability produces stationary hexagon-to-stripe patterns solely from chemotaxis.

What carries the argument

The linearized wavenumber operator J_k = J* − k²D − k²C carries the argument; the chemotaxis matrix C = [[0,−βu*],[0,0]] breaks symmetry and shifts the Hermitian part. The necessary-condition proof uses the numerical abscissa r(J_k)=λ_max(H(J_k)) and Weyl's inequality, reducing the threshold to positivity of D+H(C), i.e. |β|u*≤2√(DuDv). Numerically, the ECDF-compatible discrete chemotaxis operator C_ECDF(U,V)=U⊙(T_x V+V T_yᵀ)+(P_x U)⊙(P_x V)+(U P_yᵀ)⊙(V P_yᵀ) reduces to the discrete Laplacian for constant mobility, so the implicit diffusion step keeps its Sylvester-equation form with chemotaxis entering only the explicit right-hand side.

What would settle it

Refine the predator–prey simulation on the same domain with N=200, 400 and CFL-adjusted time steps, or repeat with a conservative finite-volume flux for the chemotaxis term, and compare the resulting stationary patterns and their dominant wavelengths with the unstable wavenumber band of J_k for each β below β*. If the hexagon/stripe patterns disappear, change wavelength, or fail to persist under refinement, the claim that chemotaxis alone generates these patterns loses its numerical support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that reactivity of the homogeneous equilibrium is not necessary for chemotaxis-driven instability. For a general two-species model with flux −β∇·(u∇v), the mode-k linearized operator is J_k = J* − k²(D+C), with non-symmetric C = [[0,−βu*],[0,0]]. Since H(J_k)=H(J*−k²C)−k²D, Weyl's inequality gives r(J_k) ≤ r(J*−k²C). Thus a necessary condition for instability is reactivity of J*−k²C, not of J*; reactivity of J* is forced only when |β|u* ≤ 2√(DuDv). Beyond that threshold, a stable, non-reactive equilibrium can be destabilized by chemotaxis alone. The paper shows this in a prey-taxis predator–prey model where the coexistence equilibrium is non-reactive and diffusion-stable, an

Load-bearing premise

The predator–prey patterns shown for β<−11.02 are genuine stationary solutions of the continuous PDE and not artifacts of the non-conservative ECDF discretization combined with the explicit IMEX Euler time step; the paper supplies no grid-convergence study, no flux-conservative comparison, and no check that the discrete unstable wavenumbers are realized on the chosen grid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In systems with strong taxis (|β|u* > 2√(DuDv)), reactivity of the equilibrium can no longer be used to rule out pattern formation; the relevant quantity is reactivity of J* − k²C.
  • The classical Turing necessary condition is the weak-coupling limit of the new condition, so diffusion-driven and chemotaxis-driven instabilities remain genuinely different mechanisms.
  • Repulsive prey-taxis can act as the sole generator of spatial patterns: for the predator–prey model, stationary patterns appear only below β*≈−11.02, in a regime where the equilibrium is stable and non-reactive and diffusion is stable.
  • The ECDF-compatible chemotaxis discretization keeps the implicit diffusion step in Sylvester form, so matrix-oriented time integration remains efficient for taxis-driven pattern simulations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: any non-symmetric transport operator entering the linearized wavenumber matrix should similarly relax the classical reactivity requirement, so cross-diffusion and advective-taxis models may pattern from non-reactive equilibria.
  • Inference: a spectrum check on the predator–prey simulations—matching dominant wavelengths to the unstable band of J_k—would let a reader verify the continuous instability independently of the discretization.
  • Inference: if the mechanism is robust, the same non-reactive pattern-forming regime should appear in a conservative finite-volume discretization or a second-order time integrator, which would extend the numerical evidence beyond the ECDF-IMEX pair used here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a general two-species reaction–diffusion–chemotaxis system and revisits the classical Neubert–Caswell–Murray result that reactivity of the homogeneous equilibrium is necessary for Turing instability. It derives the linear instability condition h(k^2)<0, introduces the mode-dependent matrix J_k = J* - k^2(D+C), and proves in Proposition 3 that a necessary condition for instability is reactivity of J* - k^2 C, with an additional condition under which reactivity of J* itself is forced. The main theoretical claim is that for sufficiently strong chemotaxis (|β|u* > 2√(Du Dv)), reactivity of the local kinetic Jacobian is not necessary for chemotaxis-driven instability. This is illustrated by a predator–prey example in which J* is stable and non-reactive but the chemotaxis threshold β* ≈ -11.02 predicts instability. The paper also extends the matrix-oriented ECDF discretization to chemotactic terms and presents numerical simulations for a Schnakenberg model and the predator–prey model.

Significance. The conceptual point is interesting and the explicit threshold formulas are useful: they clarify that non-symmetric transport can create an instability route that bypasses the classical reactivity condition. The extension of the matrix-oriented Sylvester-equation framework to chemotaxis is a practical contribution, and the paper is transparent about the limitations of its discretization. If the numerical demonstration is made rigorous, the paper would provide a clear counter-example to the expectation that the Neubert–Caswell–Murray result extends to taxis models. However, the logical role of Proposition 3 is overstated, and the predator–prey simulations currently lack the verification needed to support the claim that chemotaxis alone generates continuous-PDE patterns.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Proposition 3] The first necessary condition of Proposition 3, namely that J* - k^2 C is reactive for some k≠0, is vacuous whenever βu* ≠ 0. Indeed, H(J* - k^2 C) = H(J*) + (βu* k^2/2)[[0,1],[1,0]], so its largest eigenvalue grows like |β|u* k^2/2 as k→∞. Thus the proposition does not establish that reactivity of J* can fail to be necessary; it only shows that a certain weak-reactance condition is automatically satisfied for any nonzero chemotactic coupling. The actual non-necessity rests on the parameter example in Section 5.2, where J* is stable and non-reactive and condition (9) holds. The paper should present that example as an explicit existence result and clarify that Proposition 3 alone is not the proof of the main claim.
  2. [Section 5.2, Figure 7] The central numerical demonstration that chemotaxis 'alone' generates patterns is not yet supported. The simulations use the non-conservative ECDF-compatible discretization (20) with explicit IMEX Euler, and no grid-convergence study, no comparison with a flux-conservative or upwind scheme, and no check of the discrete unstable spectrum are provided. For strongly negative β, centered explicit discretizations of taxis fluxes are a known source of spurious stationary structures, and this is precisely the regime used here. The paper itself acknowledges in Section 6 that the analogous qualitative-fidelity question for chemotaxis remains open, and Remark 1 explicitly prioritizes algebraic compatibility over mass conservation and positivity. Consequently, the statement in Section 6 that Figure 7 provides 'direct numerical confirmation' is premature. At minimum, the authors should show that the
  3. [Section 2.1 and Section 5.2] The linear instability condition (9) is derived for continuous wavenumbers k, but the numerical experiments are performed on the finite domain [0,2]^2 with homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions. The paper does not verify that the instability band h(k^2)<0 contains an admissible discrete Neumann wavenumber for the parameters used. Although one can check for the reported values (e.g., for β=-15 and γ=500 the band contains k=(π/2)√(m^2+n^2) with m,n≥1), this verification is absent. The ECDF discrete operator may have a slightly different spectrum, so the simulation could in principle be probing a mode that is not present in the continuous problem. This check is straightforward and should be added.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1.1] The sentence 'gu(Pe) =<0' contains a typo ('=<' should be '<'), and shortly after, the critical threshold is given as 'β* ≈ in (29)', with the value missing.
  2. [Section 5.2] In the sentence listing the simulated β values, the entry '−12.5,∗,−12' contains a stray asterisk that should be removed.
  3. [Section 4, Equation (18)] The first-derivative matrix P_x is not skew-symmetric, which is directly related to the non-conservative character of the chemotaxis discretization. The paper should briefly state the resulting lack of discrete mass conservation, even if Remark 1 already prioritizes algebraic compatibility.
  4. [Section 2.3] The discussion of the 'stability of J* - k^2 C' in the (η,θ) plane is not fully defined, since J* - k^2 C is non-Hermitian and k is a variable. It would help to specify whether 'stability' means spectral abscissa negativity for some/all k, and to state the relevant k-dependence.
  5. [Definition 1] The definition of a reactive matrix family J_k is a bit unusual: reactivity is usually a property of a single matrix. The wording should make clear that the definition applies to the parameterized family and that the adjective is transferred from the homogeneous equilibrium.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: necessary-condition proofs are self-contained matrix algebra; numerical-validation gaps are robustness issues, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The linear-instability condition (9) is obtained directly from the dispersion relation by standard algebra; Propositions 2 and 3 are proved from Weyl's inequalities without fitting any parameter to force the conclusion. The claim that strong chemotaxis removes the requirement of reactivity of J* is essentially a statement that the necessary condition becomes r(J* - k^2 C) > 0 instead of r(J*) > 0. That condition is weak—indeed, for βu* ≠ 0, r(J* - k^2 C) is automatically positive for large k—but the paper does not rest the existence claim on that weakness alone; it supplies the predator–prey simulation with directly computed r(J*) < 0, α(J*) < 0, and β < β* ≈ -11.02. The auxiliary result imported from the author's [15], namely that a stable and non-reactive J* forces η < 0, is a parameter-free sign implication that is separately checkable and does not assume the paper's central conclusion. The ECDF chemotaxis discretization satisfies Prop. 4 by construction, but this algebraic compatibility is a design identity, not a fitted input used to manufacture patterns. The acknowledged absence of grid-convergence and conservative-scheme comparisons, and the Section 6 remark that chemo-taxis-region preservation remains open, are numerical robustness and correctness concerns rather than circular reductions. No fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing claim reduces to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; the free choices are model parameters taken from literature and the β values used to illustrate the instability. The key unstated assumptions are the fidelity of the chemotaxis discretization and the stability of the explicit time step.

free parameters (2)
  • chemotactic sensitivity β
    Chosen values (e.g., β=-15, -13.5, ..., -11.5 for the predator-prey case) are selected to lie below the analytically computed threshold β*≈-11.02; not fitted to data.
  • initial perturbation amplitude = unquantified 'small-amplitude random'
    Controls which modes are excited; no seed or amplitude value is given, affecting reproducibility and possible pattern selection.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Linear stability of the homogeneous equilibrium is determined by eigenvalues of Jk for Fourier modes
    Section 2.1; standard linear stability analysis assuming small perturbations and an unbounded or periodic domain with discrete spectrum.
  • standard math The kinetic equilibrium is asymptotically stable in the absence of spatial transport, fu+gv<0 and det(J*)>0
    Section 2.1, condition (3); used throughout to isolate transport-driven instability.
  • standard math Weyl's inequality for eigenvalues of Hermitian matrices
    Used in Propositions 2 and 3 to bound the numerical abscissa of Jk.
  • ad hoc to paper The ECDF-compatible chemotactic operator CECDF(U,V) in Eq. (20) faithfully approximates ∇·(u∇v)
    Section 4; the operator is not conservative and is chosen for algebraic compatibility with the matrix Laplacian, with no convergence proof for the variable-mobility case.
  • ad hoc to paper IMEX Euler with time step ht=1e-4 is stable and resolves pattern dynamics for the chosen parameters
    Section 5; no stability analysis or convergence check is provided, and the paper itself notes that time discretization can create or suppress patterns.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pattern formation: reactivity is not necessary for chemotaxis--driven instabilities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UXS4DAZS

@misc{pith2026260803685,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pattern formation: reactivity is not necessary for chemotaxis--driven instabilities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UXS4DAZS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03685}
}
read the original abstract

A classical result by Neubert, Caswell and Murray states that reactivity of a spatially homogeneous equilibrium is a necessary condition for diffusion-driven (Turing) instability. In this work, we investigate whether the same conclusion remains valid in the presence of chemotaxis. We consider a general reaction--diffusion system coupled with a chemotactic flux and establish necessary conditions for asymptotic instability. We show that the classical requirement of reactivity can be relaxed when the chemotactic contribution is sufficiently strong. In particular, while reactivity remains necessary for Turing instability, it is not a necessary condition for chemotaxis-driven instability. From a computational viewpoint, we extend the matrix-oriented formulation developed for reaction--diffusion systems to the more general class of reaction--diffusion--chemotaxis models. The chemotactic transport term is discretized in a form compatible with the matrix-oriented approximation of the diffusion operator, yielding an efficient numerical framework for the simulation of chemotaxis-driven pattern formation. A geometric interpretation of the instability region is presented, highlighting the distinct roles played by diffusion and chemotaxis. The theoretical and numerical developments are illustrated through two representative examples: a chemotaxis-extended Schnakenberg model, showing how chemotaxis modifies classical Turing patterns, and a predator--prey model, demonstrating that chemotaxis alone can induce pattern formation in the absence of both reactivity and diffusion-driven instability. These results reveal a fundamental difference between diffusion-driven and chemotaxis-driven mechanisms of spatial self-organization and provide new theoretical and computational insights into the role of non-symmetric transport processes in biological pattern formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03685 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Stability regions for a diffusion-chemotaxis model. Left panel: case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. As already discussed in Section 2.3, increasing the parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Bifurcation diagram in the (a, β)-parameter plane for the chemotaxis-extended Schnakenberg model with Dv = 100. The yellow region corresponds to parameter values for which the homogeneous equilibrium is linearly stable with respect to spatial perturbations, while the blue region denotes diffusion–chemotaxis-driven instability. Since gu(Pe) < 0, positive values of β have a stabilizing effect, whereas negative values … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Effect of the chemotactic sensitivity β on the spot-like Turing pattern of the Schnakenberg model. The panels show u(x, y, Tf ) at Tf = 50 for different values of β. For β = 0, the model reduces to the classical reaction–diffusion Schnakenberg system and produces a reg…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Bifurcation diagram in the (a, β)-parameter plane for the chemotaxis-extended Schnakenberg model with Dv = 30. The yellow region denotes parameter values for which the homogeneous equilibrium is stable with respect to spatial perturbations, while the blue region corres…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of the chemotactic sensitivity β on stripe-like Turing patterns of the Schnakenberg model with Dv = 30. The panels show u(x, y, Tf ) at Tf = 50. For β = 0, the pure reaction–diffusion system produces a stripe-like pattern. Negative values of β enhance the instab…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Bifurcation and reactivity analysis for the predator–prey model (30). Left: bifurcation diagram in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Effect of the chemotactic sensitivity β on the stationary patterns of the predator–prey model (30). The panels show the predator density u(x, y, Tf ) at Tf = 1000 for different values of β, with c = 1 and the remaining parameters fixed as in (32). As β approaches the s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [9]

    CAO ANDJ

    Q. CAO ANDJ. WU,Pattern formation of reaction–diffusion system with chemotaxis terms, Chaos: An Interdis- ciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 31 (2021), p. 113118

    work page 2021

  2. [15]

    DIELE, A

    F. DIELE, A. L. KRAUSE, D. LACITIGNOLA, C. MARANGI, A. MONTI,ANDE. VILLAR-SEPÚLVEDA,Tran- sient instability and patterns of reactivity in diffusive-chemotaxis soil carbon dynamics, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 87 (2025), p. 162

    work page 2025

  3. [1]

    ALSAADI, A

    F. ALSAADI, A. CHAMPNEYS,ANDN. VERSCHUEREN,Localized patterns and semi-strong interaction, a unifying framework for reaction–diffusion systems, IMA Journal of Applied Mathematics, 86 (2021), pp. 1031– 1065

    work page 2021

  4. [2]

    A. ALLA, A. MONTI,ANDI. SGURA,Adaptive POD-DEIM correction for Turing pattern approximation in reaction–diffusion PDE systems, Journal of Numerical Mathematics, 31 (2023), pp. 205–229

    work page 2023

  5. [3]

    A. ALLA, A. MONTI,ANDI. SGURA,Piecewise DMD for oscillatory and Turing spatio-temporal dynamics, Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 160 (2024), pp. 108–124. 18 APREPRINT- AUGUST5, 2026

    work page 2024

  6. [4]

    AMODIO ANDI

    P. AMODIO ANDI. SGURA,High-order finite difference schemes for the solution of second-order BVPs, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 176 (2005), pp. 59–76

    work page 2005

  7. [5]

    BELLOMO, N

    N. BELLOMO, N. OUTADA, J. SOLER, Y. TAO,ANDM. WINKLER,Chemotaxis and cross-diffusion models in complex environments: Models and analytic problems toward a multiscale vision, Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 32 (2022), pp. 713–792

    work page 2022

  8. [6]

    BOZZINI, A

    B. BOZZINI, A. MONTI,ANDI. SGURA,Model-reduction techniques for PDE models with Turing type electro- chemical phase formation dynamics, Applications in Engineering Science, 8 (2021), p. 100074

    work page 2021

Show all 47 references
  1. [7]

    BREÑA-MEDINA ANDA

    V. BREÑA-MEDINA ANDA. CHAMPNEYS,Subcritical Turing bifurcation and the morphogenesis of localized patterns, Physical Review E, 90 (2014), p. 032923

    2014

  2. [8]

    CALIARI ANDF

    M. CALIARI ANDF. CASSINI,A second order directional split exponential integrator for systems of advection– diffusion–reaction equations, Journal of Computational Physics, 498 (2024), p. 112640

    2024

  3. [10]

    CHERTOCK, Y

    A. CHERTOCK, Y. EPSHTEYN, H. HU,ANDA. KURGANOV,High-order positivity-preserving hybrid finite- volume–finite-difference methods for chemotaxis systems, Advances in Computational Mathematics, 44 (2018), pp. 327–350

    2018

  4. [11]

    CONTE, J

    D. CONTE, J. I. MONTIJANO, G. PAGANO, B. PATERNOSTER,ANDL. RÁNDEZ,General Runge–Kutta TASE methods for reaction–diffusion problems, Journal of Scientific Computing, 106 (2026), p. 57

    2026

  5. [12]

    M. C. CROSS ANDP. C. HOHENBERG,Pattern formation outside of equilibrium, Reviews of Modern Physics, 65 (1993), pp. 851–1112

    1993

  6. [13]

    P. H. CROWLEY ANDE. K. MARTIN,Functional responses and interference within and between year classes of a dragonfly population, Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 8 (1989), pp. 211–221

    1989

  7. [14]

    M. C. D’AUTILIA, I. SGURA,ANDV. SIMONCINI,Matrix-oriented discretization methods for reaction– diffusion PDEs: Comparisons and applications, Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 79 (2020), pp. 2067–2085

    2020

  8. [16]

    EPSHTEYN ANDA

    Y. EPSHTEYN ANDA. KURGANOV,New interior penalty discontinuous Galerkin methods for the Keller–Segel chemotaxis model, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 47 (2008), pp. 386–408

    2008

  9. [17]

    FILBET,A finite volume scheme for the Patlak–Keller–Segel chemotaxis model, Numerische Mathematik, 104 (2006), pp

    F. FILBET,A finite volume scheme for the Patlak–Keller–Segel chemotaxis model, Numerische Mathematik, 104 (2006), pp. 457–488

    2006

  10. [18]

    GAMBINO, M

    G. GAMBINO, M. C. LOMBARDO,ANDM. SAMMARTINO,Turing instability and traveling fronts for a non- linear reaction–diffusion system with cross-diffusion, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 82 (2012), pp. 1112–1132

    2012

  11. [19]

    GAMBINO, M

    G. GAMBINO, M. C. LOMBARDO,ANDM. SAMMARTINO,Pattern formation driven by cross-diffusion in a 2D domain, Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications, 14 (2013), pp. 1755–1779

    2013

  12. [20]

    GERISCH ANDM

    A. GERISCH ANDM. A. J. CHAPLAIN,Robust numerical methods for taxis–diffusion–reaction systems: Appli- cations to biomedical problems, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 43 (2006), pp. 49–75

    2006

  13. [21]

    HILLEN ANDK

    T. HILLEN ANDK. PAINTER,A user’s guide to PDE models for chemotaxis, Journal of Mathematical Biology, 58 (2008), pp. 183–217

    2008

  14. [22]

    R. A. HORN ANDC. R. JOHNSON,Matrix Analysis, Cambridge University Press, 1985

    1985

  15. [23]

    J. S. J. WANG, S. WU,Pattern formation in diffusive predator-prey systems with predator-taxis and prey-taxis, Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 26 (2021), pp. 1273–1289

    2021

  16. [24]

    E. F. KELLER ANDL. A. SEGEL,Initiation of slime mold aggregation viewed as an instability, Journal of theoretical biology, 26 (1970), pp. 399–415

    1970

  17. [25]

    E. F. KELLER ANDL. A. SEGEL,Model for chemotaxis, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 30 (1971), pp. 225–234

    1971

  18. [26]

    KIRSTEN ANDV

    G. KIRSTEN ANDV. SIMONCINI,A matrix-oriented POD-DEIM algorithm applied to semilinear matrix differ- ential equations, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    KLIKA,Significance of non-normality-induced patterns: Transient growth versus asymptotic stability, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 27 (2017)

    V. KLIKA,Significance of non-normality-induced patterns: Transient growth versus asymptotic stability, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 27 (2017). 19 APREPRINT- AUGUST5, 2026

    2017

  20. [28]

    A. L. KRAUSE, E. A. GAFFNEY, T. J. JEWELL, V. KLIKA,ANDB. J. WALKER,Turing instabilities are not enough to ensure pattern formation, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 86 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    MADZVAMUSE, E

    A. MADZVAMUSE, E. A. GAFFNEY,ANDP. K. MAINI,Stability analysis of non-autonomous reaction-diffusion systems: the effects of growing domains, Journal of mathematical biology, 61 (2010), pp. 133–164

    2010

  22. [30]

    MAINI, K

    P. MAINI, K. PAINTER,ANDH. P. CHAU,Spatial pattern formation in chemical and biological systems, Journal of the Chemical Society, Faraday Transactions, 93 (1997), pp. 3601–3610

    1997

  23. [31]

    MONTI, F

    A. MONTI, F. DIELE, D. LACITIGNOLA,ANDC. MARANGI,Patterns in soil organic carbon dynamics: Inte- grating microbial activity, chemotaxis and data-driven approaches, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 234 (2025), pp. 86–101

    2025

  24. [32]

    MONTI, F

    A. MONTI, F. DIELE,ANDC. MARANGI,Turing-region preservation in matrix-oriented splitting methods for reaction-diffusion systems, arXiv preprint 2606.23211, (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  25. [33]

    MUOLO, M

    R. MUOLO, M. ASLLANI, D. FANELLI, P. K. MAINI,ANDT. CARLETTI,Patterns of non-normality in net- worked systems, Journal of theoretical biology, 480 (2019), pp. 81–91

    2019

  26. [34]

    J. D. MURRAY,Mathematical biology: II: spatial models and biomedical applications, vol. 18, Springer, 2003

    2003

  27. [35]

    M. G. NEUBERT ANDH. CASWELL,Alternatives to resilience for measuring the responses of ecological systems to perturbations, Ecology, 78 (1997), pp. 653–665

    1997

  28. [36]

    M. G. NEUBERT, H. CASWELL,ANDJ. MURRAY,Transient dynamics and pattern formation: reactivity is necessary for Turing instabilities, Mathematical biosciences, 175 (2002), pp. 1–11

    2002

  29. [37]

    NINOMIYA, Y

    H. NINOMIYA, Y. TANAKA,ANDH. YAMAMOTO,Reaction, diffusion and non-local interaction, Journal of Mathematical Biology, 75 (2017), pp. 1203–1233

    2017

  30. [38]

    C. S. PATLAK,Random walk with persistence and external bias, The bulletin of mathematical biophysics, 15 (1953), pp. 311–338

    1953

  31. [39]

    SAITO,Conservative upwind finite-element method for a simplified Keller–Segel system modelling chemo- taxis, IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 27 (2007), pp

    N. SAITO,Conservative upwind finite-element method for a simplified Keller–Segel system modelling chemo- taxis, IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis, 27 (2007), pp. 332–365

    2007

  32. [40]

    SCHNAKENBERG,Simple chemical reaction systems with limit cycle behaviour, Journal of Theoretical Biol- ogy, 81 (1979), pp

    J. SCHNAKENBERG,Simple chemical reaction systems with limit cycle behaviour, Journal of Theoretical Biol- ogy, 81 (1979), pp. 389–400

    1979

  33. [41]

    SGURA, B

    I. SGURA, B. BOZZINI,ANDD. LACITIGNOLA,Numerical approximation of turing patterns in electrodeposi- tion by ADI methods, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 236 (2012), pp. 4132–4147

    2012

  34. [42]

    L. N. TREFETHEN ANDM. EMBREE,Spectra and Pseudospectra: The Behavior of Nonnormal Matrices and Operators, Princeton University Press, 2005

    2005

  35. [43]

    TURING,A reaction-diffusion model for development, the chemical basis of morphogenesis, Phil Trans

    A. TURING,A reaction-diffusion model for development, the chemical basis of morphogenesis, Phil Trans. Roy. Soc. of London, Series B, (1952), pp. 37–72

    1952

  36. [44]

    V. K. VANAG ANDI. R. EPSTEIN,Localized patterns in reaction-diffusion systems, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 17 (2007), p. 037110

    2007

  37. [45]

    VILLAR-SEPÚLVEDA, A

    E. VILLAR-SEPÚLVEDA, A. R. CHAMPNEYS,ANDA. L. KRAUSE,Designing reaction-cross-diffusion systems with Turing and wave instabilities, Journal of Mathematical Biology, 91 (2025), p. 37

    2025

  38. [46]

    B. J. WALKER, A. K. TOWNSEND, A. K. CHUDASAMA,ANDA. L. KRAUSE,VisualPDE: rapid interactive simulations of partial differential equations, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 85 (2023), p. 113

    2023

  39. [47]

    H. WANG, S. LIU,ANDH. LI,Prey-taxis as a driver of spatial patterns in predator–prey systems: From spots to spirals and chaos, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 36 (2026), p. 013114. 20

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.