A study of inter-arrival times between tail conflict events finds that no particular trend can be asserted.

True: the 2015 study by Cirillo and Taleb on the statistical properties of violent conflict did analyse inter-arrival times between tail (large) conflict events and reported that no particular trend can be asserted. Mostly true: the study reports this finding with a minor difference in wording or scope (for example, only for certain casualty thresholds). Mixed: the study analyses inter-arrival times but its conclusion is substantially different or qualified. Mostly false: the study addresses tail events but does not analyse inter-arrival times, or reports a trend. False: no such analysis or finding appears in the study.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 Changepoint analysis of historical battle deaths ar5iv (arXiv 1909.02626)

   “Cirillo and Taleb 2016a applied techniques from extreme value theory to an unpublished dataset covering 60 CE until 2015 CE and failed to find evidence for any change in arrival time or distribution.”

2. E2 Taleb and Pinker squabble mesokurtosis.com (personal blog) · 29 May 2015

   “Memorylessness of onset of conflicts, for those with death toll above 50,000”

E3 is a later independent academic paper. It says the Cirillo and Taleb analysis of conflicts from 60 CE to 2015 CE "failed to find evidence for any change in arrival time or distribution", which matches a no-trend finding on the timing of events. E4, a contemporary blog post, describes the study's result as "memorylessness of onset of conflicts" with death tolls above 50,000. That means the study did look at when large conflicts arrive, and the finding applies at a casualty threshold. Neither source quotes the study's own "no particular trend" wording, and E3 cites the 2016 published version, so the verdict is mostly true rather than true.