Correlated random walks in heterogeneous landscapes: Derivation, homogenization, and invasion fronts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many models for the movement of particles and individuals are based on the diffusion equation, which, in turn, can be derived from an uncorrelated random walk or a position-jump process. In those models, individuals have a location but no well-defined velocity. An alternative, and sometimes more accurate, model is based on a correlated random walk or a velocity-jump process, where individuals have a well defined location and velocity. The latter approach leads to hyperbolic equations for the density of individuals, rather than parabolic equations that result from the diffusion process. Almost all previous work on correlated random walks considers a homogeneous landscape, whereas diffusion models for uncorrelated walks have been extended to spatially varying environments. In this work, we first derive the equations for a correlated random walk in a one-dimensional spatially varying environment with either smooth variation or piecewise constant variation. Then we show how to derive the so-called parabolic limit from the resulting hyperbolic equations. We develop homogenization theory for the hyperbolic equations, and show that taking the parabolic limit and homogenization are commuting actions. We illustrate our results with two examples from ecology: the persistence and spread of a population in a patchy heterogeneous landscape.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".