Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Coupling-Induced Synchronized Motion and Stochastic Resonance in Overdamped Dimers

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that for a weakly coupled dimer in a bistable potential, the fraction of successful synchronized crossings peaks at the temperature where stochastic resonance occurs, while stronger coupling makes each crossing more…

desk verdict A clearly written SR-dimer simulation whose new successful-transition-ratio metric is interesting but needs a threshold sweep and error bars before the central claim is established. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17355 v1 pith:YZSE4WAU submitted 2024-11-26 cond-mat.stat-mech nlin.CD

Dhruv Agrawal , W.L. Reenbohn This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechnlin.CD PACS 05.40.-a05.45.-a
keywords stochasticresonanceoverdampeddimerbistablepotentialLennard-Jonescoupledoscillatorssynchronizedtransitionshysteresisloopareainputenergy
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 studies an overdamped dimer — two monomers in a bistable potential, coupled by a spring plus a Lennard-Jones repulsion — driven by thermal noise and a weak periodic force. It introduces a new diagnostic, the successful transition ratio: the fraction of barrier-crossing attempts in which both monomers end up in the opposite well. The central claim is that this ratio peaks at the temperature where stochastic resonance occurs only when the dimer is weakly coupled; for intermediate and strong coupling, the ratio is high but the number of attempts is so low that resonance no longer matters. The authors argue this distinction matters for energy harvesters and other coupled noisy systems, where the useful quantity is not just whether a transition succeeds but whether noise and coupling cooperate to produce synchronized motion.

What carries the argument

The central object is the overdamped dimer described by two coupled Langevin equations in a quartic bistable potential, with the monomers interacting through a harmonic spring plus a Lennard-Jones potential (the LJ term supplies the short-range repulsion that keeps the monomers from collapsing together). The paper's new diagnostic is the successful transition ratio: a crossing attempt is counted as successful only if both monomers pass the threshold position $x_c = 0.85$ and settle in the opposite well during that excursion. This ratio, placed alongside standard stochastic-resonance quantifiers (hysteresis loop area, input energy per period, phase lag, and average maximum amplitude), is what separates resonance-driven synchronization from coupling-driven synchronization.

What would settle it

Repeat the simulations with success thresholds of 0.6, 0.75, and 0.95; if the weak-coupling peak in the successful transition ratio no longer coincides with the noise strength at which input energy and hysteresis loop area peak, then the central claim is an artifact of the threshold choice.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the coupling strength of the dimer decides whether stochastic resonance improves the quality of its inter-well transitions. For the soft dimer (coupling $k = 0.05$), the successful transition ratio rises to a maximum at the same noise strength where the input energy and hysteresis loop area signal stochastic resonance. For intermediate and strong coupling, the ratio is dominated by coupling-induced synchronized motion: strong coupling makes nearly every attempt succeed (ratio close to unity) but suppresses the attempt rate, so no separate resonance peak appears. The paper concludes that the beneficial effect of stochastic resonance on synchronized transitions shows up only when the coupling is weak.

Load-bearing premise

Everything hinges on the hand-picked success threshold $x_c = 0.85$; moving that boundary would change the counts of successful transitions, and the paper does not test whether its main claim survives such a change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A weakly coupled dimer is the regime where added noise most improves the success rate of synchronized barrier crossings, so energy harvesters should be designed near that coupling.
  • For strong coupling, near-unit success ratios coexist with very few attempts, so the success ratio alone is a misleading figure of merit.
  • The temperature of maximum average amplitude shifts upward as coupling increases, so coupled harvesters need re-tuning of temperature when coupling is changed.
  • The successful transition ratio offers a clean way to separate noise-assisted synchronization from coupling-induced synchronization in two-particle bistable systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The threshold $x_c = 0.85$ was never varied; a natural extension is to scan thresholds and test whether the weak-coupling peak tracks the resonance temperature for all of them.
  • An alternative definition of success — for example, requiring only the dimer's center of mass to cross the barrier — would likely produce different ratios and might reveal a synchronization measure independent of individual monomer positions.
  • The Lennard-Jones term is mainly a non-collision constraint; replacing it with a hard-core repulsion should preserve the qualitative picture, a testable robustness check.
  • A practical efficiency metric, such as successful transitions per unit time, would combine the ratio and the attempt rate into one number more relevant for energy harvesting than the ratio alone.
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. This manuscript numerically studies an overdamped dimer in a one-dimensional bistable potential, with monomers coupled by a harmonic spring plus a Lennard-Jones repulsion, driven by a weak periodic force and Gaussian noise. Three coupling regimes are simulated (k=0.05, 0.2, 1.0) and stochastic resonance is characterized through hysteresis loop area, ensemble-averaged maximum amplitude, phase lag, input energy per period, and the probability distribution of the input energy. The paper's new contribution is a 'successful transition ratio,' defined by requiring both monomers to cross a threshold x_c=±0.85 for a transition to count as successful. The central claim is that this ratio peaks at the stochastic-resonance temperature only for the weakly coupled dimer, indicating that SR enhances synchronized transitions only when coupling is weak.

Significance. If the central claim survives scrutiny, the successful transition ratio is a useful new quantifier linking stochastic resonance to cooperative two-particle barrier crossing, and the model's inclusion of a short-range Lennard-Jones repulsion is physically motivated. The standard SR indicators (input energy, hysteresis loop area, amplitude, phase lag) show the expected non-monotonic behavior, and the dimensionless Langevin equations are internally consistent, with all model parameters fixed a priori and no fitting to the reported peaks. However, the headline result currently rests on a single arbitrarily chosen threshold and on statistics without reported uncertainties, so the paper's main claim is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, before Fig. 10] The successful transition ratio is defined with the threshold x_c=0.85, but no justification or sensitivity analysis is provided. Both the numerator and denominator of the ratio depend on this threshold: lowering x_c would count many additional early crossings as attempts, while raising it would make attempts rarer. The abstract claim that the ratio is maximum near the SR temperature only for weak coupling therefore requires a threshold sweep (for example, x_c values from 0.5 to 0.95) demonstrating that the weak-coupling peak near DSR persists. Without such a test, the central claim may be an artifact of the hand-picked value.
  2. [Fig. 10 and surrounding text] The ratio is computed from only 100 ensembles and no error bars or confidence intervals are reported. For a binary success indicator, statistical uncertainty depends on the number of attempted transitions, and the text reports that for strong coupling at low temperature the number of attempts per trajectory is 'usually below 30.' Please clarify whether the quoted attempt counts are per trajectory or pooled over ensembles, and report bootstrap or binomial confidence intervals for every (k,D) point. It is also necessary to show that the second peak near D=0.185 for k=0.05 is statistically distinct from the flat region near D=0.1; otherwise the statement that the ratio is 'maximum' around the SR temperature is not supported.
  3. [Section III, before Fig. 10] The counting algorithm for the successful transition ratio is under-specified. The text says an attempt begins when one monomer crosses +x_c and succeeds if the second monomer crosses before the first returns, but it does not define how an attempt is terminated after the initiating monomer returns, whether a re-crossing by the same monomer starts a new attempt, whether crossings in the negative direction are counted symmetrically, or how events are assigned to a given drive period. A precise, reproducible algorithm (ideally with a pseudocode statement of the counting rules) is necessary for the central quantity of the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eqs. (13)-(14)] The factor of 4 in the dimensionless equations follows from the choice τ=γx_m^2/V_B, but the derivation is not shown; a short explanation or a statement that x_m=1 and ω_B^2=1 in the scaled units would help readers verify the equations.
  2. [Section III B] There is a typo in 'different coupling coupling strengths and temperature'; please correct it.
  3. [Fig. 10 caption] The caption should define x_c explicitly and state the counting convention for attempts and successful transitions, so that the figure is self-contained.
  4. [Eq. (20)] The subscript 'as' in ⟨x(t)⟩_as is not defined; please specify that this is the asymptotic or long-time phase-averaged response.
  5. [Parameter list, Section III] The simulation time is listed as t=10^6 without units; please state the number of drive periods and the total integration time in units of the dimensionless relaxation time, since this affects the statistical quality of the results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims are numerical observations from a defined model; the arbitrary threshold is a definitional choice, not a fitted parameter.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation chain in which an output is defined in terms of the target result, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation. The model parameters (l0, eps, A0, Omega) are set a priori, and the observables (HLA, average maximum amplitude, phase lag, Wp, successful transition ratio) are computed from simulated trajectories. The SR temperature DSR is read off from the peak of the average maximum amplitude, while the successful transition ratio is defined independently by counting transitions in which both monomers cross the threshold xc = +/-0.85 before returning. The abstract's claim that the ratio peaks near DSR only for weak coupling is a descriptive comparison between two independently defined statistical quantities extracted from the same trajectories; it is not a prediction forced by construction. The choice xc = 0.85 is arbitrary and the paper does not test sensitivity to it, which is a robustness concern rather than a circularity: no parameter is tuned to reproduce the claimed peak, and there is no equation-level reduction of the claim to its definition. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [15, 38, 39]) are used only for peripheral context about SR in periodic potentials and work fluctuations, and do not carry the central argument. Overall, the analysis is self-contained numerical observation, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results come purely from simulation. The model uses standard stochastic thermodynamics assumptions, plus hand-chosen interaction parameters and an arbitrary threshold for the new success ratio. No parameters are fitted to reproduce a known result, so the circularity burden is low. The main fragility is the untested threshold and the lack of uncertainty quantification.

free parameters (9)
  • threshold position x_c = 0.85
    Hand-chosen threshold for defining successful dimer transitions; no sensitivity analysis, directly controls the successful transition ratio.
  • coupling strengths k = 0.05, 0.2, 1.0
    Three representative values chosen to label soft, intermediate, and hard dimers; no systematic scan or error bars, central to the coupling dependence claim.
  • Lennard-Jones depth epsilon = 0.1
    Chosen model parameter for the LJ interaction; not fitted to a target, but affects the 'physical' interaction claim.
  • equilibrium length l0 = 0.4
    Chosen model parameter; sets the preferred monomer separation and thus the LJ/harmonic balance.
  • drive amplitude A0 = 0.1
    Chosen weak forcing amplitude typical of SR studies; not fitted.
  • drive frequency Omega = 0.018
    Chosen low frequency; one of the parameters controlling the SR condition.
  • simulation time t = 10^6
    Total integration time in dimensionless units; chosen large but no steady-state check.
  • time step dt = 10^-3
    Integration step; chosen for stability, but no convergence test.
  • number of ensembles = 100
    Number of noise realizations; no error bars, so convergence is not demonstrated.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The thermal bath is modeled by additive Gaussian white noise with intensity 2D and the fluctuation-dissipation relation holds.
    Invoked in Eqs. (7)-(8) and (15)-(16); standard for overdamped Brownian dynamics.
  • domain assumption The overdamped limit neglects inertia, so the dynamics is first order in time.
    The paper starts with overdamped Langevin equations (Eqs. 9-14); this is a modeling choice appropriate for small particles but not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper The monomer interaction is fully captured by the sum of harmonic and Lennard-Jones potentials with the given parameters.
    The LJ plus spring coupling is introduced for physical plausibility (Section I) but is not validated against any reference interaction.
  • domain assumption The external periodic force acts identically on both monomers.
    Eqns. (13)-(14) add +A0 sin(Omega t) to both equations; this is a reasonable but unstated modeling choice.
  • domain assumption The system is in steady state and 100 ensembles suffice for the reported statistics.
    No transient discard, convergence checks, or error bars are reported (Section III).
  • ad hoc to paper The threshold x_c=0.85 defines a physically meaningful successful transition.
    The central new metric is defined by this threshold; its value is not derived from the potential or any physical argument.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coupling-Induced Synchronized Motion and Stochastic Resonance in Overdamped Dimers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YZSE4WAU

@misc{pith2026241117355,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coupling-Induced Synchronized Motion and Stochastic Resonance in Overdamped Dimers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YZSE4WAU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17355}
}
abstract

In this study, we explore an overdamped system of a dimer in a bistable potential immersed in a heat bath. The monomers interact via the combination of the Lennard-Jones potential and the harmonic potential. We have introduced a short-range interaction in our model making it more physical. Such a classical system can be used as a model for stochastic resonance (SR) based energy harvesters where the interplay between the noise, coupling and a periodic perturbation leads to a rich class of dynamical behaviours. A key distinction between observing SR in single and coupled particle studies is that a transition between the two wells is only considered successful if both the particles cross a certain threshold position. Although we observe qualitatively a similar peaking behaviour in different quantifiers of SR (like input energy ($W_p$) and hysteresis loop area (HLA)), the effects of the above-mentioned condition on the dynamics of the system remain unaddressed to the best of our knowledge. We study SR using different measures like the input energy per period of the external forcing, the hysteresis loop area as well as quantities like phase lag between the response and the external forcing and the maximum average amplitude of the response. Additionally, we have defined a new quantity called the successful transition ratio. This ratio helps us understand the effects of the dimer's coupling on the number of successful transitions out of the total attempted transitions. The successful transition ratio is almost unity for strongly coupled dimer suggesting most of the transition attempts end up successfully however few they are in numbers. On the other hand, the ratio shows a peaking behaviour with respect to noise for weak and intermediate couplings. We show that only for the weakly coupled dimer, the ratio is maximum around the temperature where SR takes place.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17355 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The phenomena of SR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Hysteresis loops for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Comparison of Hysteresis loops for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Ensemble averaged trajectories of center of mass of the dimer having coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Ensemble averaged trajectories of center of mass of the dimer having coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Ensemble averaged trajectories of center of mass of the dimer having coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: At the optimum temperature, this movement becomes more likely to occur and hence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Ensemble averaged trajectories of center of mass of the dimer at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Comparison of average maximum amplitudes of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Phase lag ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Successful transition ratio vs D for different values of k. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Average work done per period of the drive ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: a and 14b, we observe a large peak around Wp = 0 for a hard dimer. The strong restoring forces in a hard dimer restrict its motion around the bottom of a single well and it does not get enough time to absorb sufficient energy from the thermal fluctuations to make even…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    − 4k(r − l0) + 4ϵ 12 σ12 r13 − 6 σ6 r7 + A0 sin Ωt + η1(t) (13) dx2 dt = 4(x2 − x3

    work page

  2. [2]

    + 4k(r − l0) − 4ϵ 12 σ12 r13 − 6 σ6 r7 + A0 sin Ωt + η2(t) (14) The properties of Gaussian white noise in dimensionless units are, ⟨ηi(t)⟩ = 0 (15) ⟨ηi(t)ηj(t′)⟩ = 2Dδijδ(t − t′) (16) 1 The bar over each dimensionless quantity is ignored for simplicity. 7 III. NUMERICAL RESUL TS Three regimes of coupling between the individual units of the dimer are consi...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Benzi, A

    R. Benzi, A. Sutera, and A. Vulpiani, The mechanism of stochastic resonance, Journal of Physics A: mathematical and general 14, L453 (1981)

    1981

  4. [4]

    Wiesenfeld and F

    K. Wiesenfeld and F. Moss, Stochastic resonance and the benefits of noise: from ice ages to crayfish and squids, Nature 373, 33 (1995)

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    Gammaitoni, P

    L. Gammaitoni, P. H¨ anggi, P. Jung, and F. Marchesoni, Stochastic resonance, Reviews of modern physics 70, 223 (1998)

    1998

  6. [6]

    Hysteresis loops are trajectories in the average position- force (⟨x⟩− F ) space

    Ω = 0 .018 The data of different trajectories is plotted with the corresponding values of the external drive to obtain the hysteresis loops. Hysteresis loops are trajectories in the average position- force (⟨x⟩− F ) space. The area enclosed within these loops (HLA) corresponds to the energy lost by the system to the environment per period of the external ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Benzi, G

    R. Benzi, G. Parisi, A. Sutera, and A. Vulpiani, Stochastic resonance in climatic change, Tellus 34, 10 (1982)

    1982

  8. [8]

    Benzi, G

    R. Benzi, G. Parisi, A. Sutera, and A. Vulpiani, A theory of stochastic resonance in climatic change, SIAM Journal on applied mathematics 43, 565 (1983)

    work page 1983

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Fauve and F

    S. Fauve and F. Heslot, Stochastic resonance in a bistable system, Physics Letters A 97, 5 (1983)

    1983

  2. [10]

    Simon and A

    A. Simon and A. Libchaber, Escape and synchronization of a brownian particle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3375 (1992)

    1992

  3. [11]

    J. K. Douglass, L. Wilkens, E. Pantazelou, and F. Moss, Noise enhancement of information transfer in crayfish mechanoreceptors by stochastic resonance, Nature 365, 337 (1993)

    1993

  4. [12]

    H. E. Plesser and S. Tanaka, Stochastic resonance in a model neuron with reset, Physics Letters A 225, 228 (1997)

    1997

  5. [13]

    Q. Lu, H. Gu, Z. Yang, X. Shi, L. Duan, and Y. Zheng, Dynamics of firing patterns, syn- chronization and resonances in neuronal electrical activities: experiments and analysis, Acta 25 Mechanica Sinica 24, 593 (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    Y. Xu, Y. Guo, G. Ren, and J. Ma, Dynamics and stochastic resonance in a thermosensitive neuron, Applied Mathematics and Computation 385, 125427 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    R. Peng, H. Chen, P. K. Varshney, and J. H. Michels, Stochastic resonance: An approach for enhanced medical image processing, in 2007 IEEE/NIH Life Science Systems and Applications Workshop (IEEE, 2007) pp. 253–256

    2007

  8. [16]

    Z. Qiao, Y. Lei, and N. Li, Applications of stochastic resonance to machinery fault detection: A review and tutorial, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 122, 502 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Zheng, K

    R. Zheng, K. Nakano, H. Hu, D. Su, and M. P. Cartmell, An application of stochastic resonance for energy harvesting in a bistable vibrating system, Journal of Sound and Vibration333, 2568 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    W. L. Reenbohn, S. S. Pohlong, and M. C. Mahato, Periodically driven underdamped periodic and washboard potential systems: Dynamical states and stochastic resonance, Phys. Rev. E 85, 031144 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Xu and Y

    P. Xu and Y. Jin, Stochastic resonance in multi-stable coupled systems driven by two driving signals, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 492, 1281 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    P. Xu, Y. Jin, and Y. Zhang, Stochastic resonance in an underdamped triple-well potential system, Applied Mathematics and Computation 346, 352 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    R. Mei, Y. Xu, Y. Li, and J. Kurths, Characterizing stochastic resonance in a triple cavity, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 379, 20200230 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    P. Xu, X. Gong, H. Wang, Y. Li, and D. Liu, A study of stochastic resonance in tri-stable generalized langevin system, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications626, 129020 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Gammaitoni, F

    L. Gammaitoni, F. Marchesoni, E. Menichella-Saetta, and S. Santucci, Stochastic resonance in bistable systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 349 (1989)

    1989

  16. [24]

    P. Jung, U. Behn, E. Pantazelou, and F. Moss, Collective response in globally coupled bistable systems, Phys. Rev. A 46, R1709 (1992)

    1992

  17. [25]

    A. R. Bulsara and G. Schmera, Stochastic resonance in globally coupled nonlinear oscillators, Phys. Rev. E 47, 3734 (1993)

    1993

  18. [26]

    Neiman and L

    A. Neiman and L. Schimansky-Geier, Stochastic resonance in two coupled bistable systems, Physics Letters A 197, 379 (1995). 26

    1995

  19. [27]

    Gandhimathi, S

    V. Gandhimathi, S. Rajasekar, and J. Kurths, Vibrational and stochastic resonances in two coupled overdamped anharmonic oscillators, Physics Letters A 360, 279 (2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    Gandhimathi and S

    V. Gandhimathi and S. Rajasekar, Vibrational and stochastic resonances in two coupled over- damped anharmonic oscillators driven by an amplitude modulated force, Physica Scripta 76, 693 (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    S.-B. Shim, M. Imboden, and P. Mohanty, Synchronized oscillation in coupled nanomechanical oscillators, science 316, 95 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    Kenfack and K

    A. Kenfack and K. P. Singh, Stochastic resonance in coupled underdamped bistable systems, Phys. Rev. E 82, 046224 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    J. Li, J. Zhang, M. Li, and Y. Zhang, A novel adaptive stochastic resonance method based on coupled bistable systems and its application in rolling bearing fault diagnosis, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 114, 128 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Aravindan and S

    M. Aravindan and S. F. Ali, Array enhanced stochastic resonance for augmented energy harvesting, Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation 111, 106476 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Evstigneev, P

    M. Evstigneev, P. Reimann, C. Schmitt, and C. Bechinger, Quantifying stochastic resonance: theory versus experiment, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 17, S3795 (2005)

    2005

  26. [34]

    Sekimoto, Stochastic Energetics, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol

    K. Sekimoto, Stochastic Energetics, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 799 (Springer Berlin Hei- delberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    Ray and S

    R. Ray and S. Sengupta, Stochastic resonance in underdamped, bistable systems, Physics Letters A 353, 364 (2006)

    2006

  28. [36]

    Heinsalu, M

    E. Heinsalu, M. Patriarca, and F. Marchesoni, Stochastic resonance in bistable confining potentials: On the role of confinement, The European Physical Journal B 69, 19 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    M. I. Dykman, R. Mannella, P. V. E. McClintock, and N. G. Stocks, Phase shifts in stochastic resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2985 (1992)

    1992

  30. [38]

    Iwai, Study of stochastic resonance by method of stochastic energetics, Physica A: Statis- tical Mechanics and its Applications 300, 350 (2001)

    T. Iwai, Study of stochastic resonance by method of stochastic energetics, Physica A: Statis- tical Mechanics and its Applications 300, 350 (2001)

    2001

  31. [39]

    Saikia, R

    S. Saikia, R. Roy, and A. Jayannavar, Work fluctuations and stochastic resonance, Physics Letters A 369, 367 (2007)

    2007

  32. [40]

    Dan and A

    D. Dan and A. Jayannavar, Bona fide stochastic resonance: a view point from stochastic energetics, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 345, 404 (2005). 27

    2005

  33. [41]

    Saikia, A

    S. Saikia, A. M. Jayannavar, and M. C. Mahato, Stochastic resonance in periodic potentials, Phys. Rev. E 83, 061121 (2011)

    2011

  34. [42]

    Saikia, The role of damping on stochastic resonance in a periodic potential, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 416, 411 (2014)

    S. Saikia, The role of damping on stochastic resonance in a periodic potential, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 416, 411 (2014). 28

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.