Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 8 minor 26 references

Stability and Synchronization of Kuramoto Oscillators

T0 review · 5 major / 8 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 derives a sharper necessary coupling threshold for phase locking in the Kuramoto model, claiming that with all-to-all coupling no synchronization is possible below the critical gain $K_c$.

desk verdict A student survey with a small new threshold that is actually valid, but the paper's proofs are riddled with errors that sink it as a research contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17925 v2 pith:OVEBRL4J submitted 2024-11-26 math.DS cs.SYeess.SY

Abhiram Gorle This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DScs.SYeess.SY MSC 34C1534D0605C5034D20
keywords KuramotomodelsynchronizationphaselockingcriticalcouplinggraphLaplacianLyapunovstabilityorderparameterall-to-all
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 the classical Kuramoto model of coupled oscillators and asks when a population with different natural frequencies can lock into synchronized motion. Its central new claim is a necessary condition: for non-identical oscillators coupled all-to-all, phase-locked synchronization cannot occur unless the coupling gain $K$ is at least $K_c = N(\omega_{\max}-\omega_{\min})/E_{\max}$, where $E_{\max}$ is a constant that depends only on the number of oscillators $N$. Because $E_{\max}$ is claimed to be smaller than the denominator in the previously known bound $K_L = N(\omega_{\max}-\omega_{\min})/(2(N-1))$, the paper concludes that synchronization is impossible for all coupling gains in the range $K_L \leq K < K_c$. If this bound is right, it tightens the hard threshold below which phase locking is ruled out, which matters for networks like power grids and biological oscillators. The paper also assembles stability and synchronization criteria using graph Laplacians and Lyapunov functions, and illustrates the behavior with simulations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the trigonometric expression $E$ defined on the phase torus; its claimed maximum $E_{\max}$ sets the critical gain $K_c$. The paper evaluates this maximum by imposing $\theta_k = (\theta_i+\theta_j)/2$ for every other oscillator, solving the resulting quadratic in $\cos((\theta_j-\theta_i)/2)$, and converting the value into the threshold $K_c$. Around this, the paper uses the incidence-matrix formulation $\dot\theta = \omega - (K/N)B\sin(B^T\theta)$ with the graph Laplacian $L=BB^T$, its pseudoinverse, and the Lyapunov functions $U_1 = 1-r^2$, $U_2 = \theta^T L_c\theta$, and $S = \tfrac12 \dot\theta^T\dot\theta$ to establish stability, sufficient coupling bounds, and exponential synchronization at rate no worse than $\sqrt{K\sin(2\epsilon)}$.

What would settle it

Take a small all-to-all network (for example $N=10$), choose natural frequencies uniformly spread in $[-1,1]$, and compute both $K_L$ and $K_c$ from the paper's formulas. Numerically search for a fixed point of the Kuramoto equations at a coupling strength $K$ strictly between $K_L$ and $K_c$, using many random initial phase vectors; finding any fixed point would disprove the claimed necessity. A more direct test is to grid-sample the expression $E$ over a fine mesh of the phase torus for $N=4$ or $N=5$ and see whether any sampled value exceeds the paper's $E_{\max}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims to improve the known necessary coupling threshold for phase locking in the classical Kuramoto model with all-to-all coupling. Starting from the pairwise phase-difference equation, it defines the trigonometric expression $E = 2\sin(\theta_j-\theta_i) + \sum_{k\neq i,j} [\sin(\theta_k-\theta_i)+\sin(\theta_j-\theta_k)]$ and maximizes it over the phases of the remaining oscillators. The maximization step sets $\partial E/\partial\theta_k = 0$, which gives $\theta_k = (\theta_i+\theta_j)/2$ for every other oscillator, leading to a quadratic equation for $\cos((\theta_j-\theta_i)/2)$ and a closed-form value of $E_{\max}$. The paper then defines the critical gain $K_c = N(\omega_{\max}-\omega_{\min})/E_{\max}$ and states that since $E_{\max} < 2(N-1)$, the new threshold is strictly larger than the prior bound $K_L = N(\omega_{\max}-\omega_{\min})/(2(N-1))$. Consequently it claims that synchronization is impossible for every coupling gain $K$ satisfying $K_L \le K < K_c$.

Load-bearing premise

The threshold $K_c$ is derived by assuming that the trigonometric expression $E$ is maximized when every other oscillator sits exactly halfway between the two oscillators being compared, that this local maximum is the global maximum over the whole torus, and that the coupling is all-to-all; if that maximization is only local, the bound is not a valid necessary condition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the bound is valid, any coupling gain $K < K_c$ is a hard no-go region: no phase-locked solution exists, so full synchronization is impossible regardless of initial conditions.
  • Because $K_c$ lies strictly above the older $K_L$, the gap $[K_L, K_c)$ is a newly identified range of gains where earlier theory allowed synchronization but the paper rules it out under the all-to-all assumption.
  • Network designers can use $K_c$ as a conservative minimum coupling for phase-locking feasibility, complementing the paper's sufficient condition $K > N|\omega_{\max}-\omega_{\min}|/(2\cos 2\epsilon)$ for initial phases inside the set $D$.
  • Under the paper's sufficient condition, oscillators synchronize and the convergence is exponential with rate at least $\sqrt{K\sin(2\epsilon)}$, giving a quantitative design margin beyond the mere existence of a fixed point.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct numerical check could settle the global-maximum step: for small $N$, grid-sample $E$ over the phase torus and compare the largest value with $E_{\max}$; a sample exceeding $E_{\max}$ would break the claimed necessary bound, so the formula would then only be a sufficient threshold.
  • The same maximization strategy can be formulated for arbitrary graphs by restricting the sums in $E$ to neighbors, which would yield topology-dependent critical gains and could show how the no-sync region shrinks as connectivity is added.
  • The paper's assumption of all-to-all coupling is stronger than the graph-theoretic framing used elsewhere in the same text; reconciling the two would either extend $K_c$ to general graphs or reveal that the bound is specific to complete networks.
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

5 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the Kuramoto model of coupled phase oscillators in a graph-theoretic formulation. It claims to establish (i) a Lyapunov-based convergence result for identical oscillators on arbitrary connected graphs, (ii) existence and uniqueness conditions for phase-locked fixed points, (iii) a new necessary condition Kc = N(omega_max - omega_min)/Emax for the onset of synchronization, (iv) sufficient conditions for phase cohesiveness and exponential synchronization, and (v) illustrative applications to power networks, spring-coupled rotors, and vehicle coordination. Section 3.3 derives Kc by maximizing a trigonometric expression over phase differences. The paper also includes simulations of the order parameter and sample trajectories.

Significance. If all claims were correct, the paper would contribute a modest improvement to known necessary bounds for the onset of phase locking in the all-to-all Kuramoto model and a graph-theoretic Lyapunov treatment of synchronization. However, the manuscript contains multiple load-bearing mathematical errors. The order parameter identity in Section 2.1 is wrong, the Lyapunov function in Section 2.2 is only valid for complete graphs, the key spectral inequality is false, and the sufficient-condition proofs in Sections 3.4-3.5 rely on incorrect bounds. The paper provides no machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or parameter-free derivations that would compensate for these issues. The simulations are qualitative and do not validate the analytical claims. The significance of the work is therefore limited, and in its current form the paper cannot be recommended for publication.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1] The formula for the order parameter is incorrect. For a general connected graph G with Laplacian L, r^2 cannot be expressed as 1 - (1/N) z^* L z with z = e^{j theta}, because L only sums over edges. Even for the complete graph, the correct identity is r^2 = 1 - (1/N^2) z^* L z, since z^* L z = N^2(1 - r^2) when L = N I - 11^T. The displayed expression is therefore off by a factor N and invalid for arbitrary graphs. This error propagates to the definition of U1 in Section 2.2.
  2. [Section 2.2, Result 2] The proof of convergence to equilibrium for 'arbitrarily connected graph' relies on the Lyapunov function U1(theta) = 1 - r^2 = (4/N^2) ||sin(B^T theta / 2)||^2. This identity holds only for the complete graph with the correct normalization; for a general graph the order parameter is not a function of edge phase differences alone. Hence the derivative computation does not apply to general graphs, and the claimed convergence for every connected graph and every K > 0 is not established. Furthermore, the synchronized state is not locally asymptotically stable in the usual sense because the system is rotationally symmetric; the best one can claim is stability modulo S^1.
  3. [Section 2.2 and Section 3.5] The estimate lambda_2(B W(phi) B^T) <= (2/pi) lambda_2(B B^T) used to obtain the exponential rate is false. If all phase differences are zero, W = I and lambda_2(B W B^T) = lambda_2(B B^T), which is greater than (2/pi) lambda_2(B B^T). The subsequent claim that the synchronized state is approached at rate at least e^{-(2K/(pi N)) lambda_2(L) t} is therefore unsupported. The same inequality reappears in Section 3.5 in the proof of Result 3.
  4. [Sections 3.4 and 3.5] The positive-invariance argument in Section 3.4 rests on the assertion that C_k = 1 - cos(theta_k - (theta_i + theta_j)/2) / cos((theta_i - theta_j)/2) lies in [0,1). This is false: for theta_k at distance pi from the midpoint, C_k = 1 + 1/cos((theta_i - theta_j)/2) > 1, and for other values C_k can be negative. The bound 1 - (1/N) sum_k C_k >= 2/N is therefore not valid, and the sufficient condition K > N |omega_i - omega_j| / (2 cos 2epsilon) is not proven. In Section 3.5, the claimed exponential rate sqrt(K sin 2epsilon) is dimensionally inconsistent (a rate must have units of 1/time), and the derivation uses lambda_2(B B^T) = N, i.e., an all-to-all topology, even though the theorem is stated for the general graph model (1).
  5. [Sections 2.3 and 2.4] The existence and uniqueness conditions for fixed points are not proven. The fixed-point equation is written as theta = (B W(B^T theta) B^T)^# N omega / K, but the Brouwer argument requires demonstrating that this map sends a compact convex set into itself; the paper jumps from that equation to a norm inequality without the necessary steps. The bound K_L = 2 sqrt(N) ||omega||_2 / lambda_2(L) is asserted using 'a lower bound on the minimum value of lambda_2 occurs for the minimum value of the weight which is 2/pi', which is unjustified and appears to confuse weights with the 2/pi factor appearing in sine inequalities. The uniqueness threshold in item 2 is stated with no derivation.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains grammatical errors and missing words, such as 'We then at a graph theoretic formulation' and 'it's broader applications'; these should be corrected.
  2. [General] The notation is inconsistent: N and n are used interchangeably for the number of oscillators, and the labels 'Result 1', 'Res. 1', and 'Result 1' are used in different sections without a unified numbering.
  3. [Section 3.4] The cross-references are incorrect: 'Result 1' refers to 'the system dynamics as described by (3)', but equation (3) is in Section 3.3, while the system studied here is equation (4).
  4. [Section 3.3] The analysis in this section uses the all-to-all coupling expression for the phase-difference dynamics, but the paper does not state this restriction explicitly; as written it appears to claim validity for the general graph model of Section 2.1.
  5. [Section 3.3] The sentence 'Emax equals to 2(N-1) is not possible in our case' is unclear, and the comparison with the bound K_L should be made with explicit inequalities rather than this informal phrasing.
  6. [Section 4] Several placeholders remain in the text, such as 'all parameters used: here' and 'Code for the slider tool: here'; these should be replaced with actual parameter values and code references.
  7. [Section 2.2] There are typographical errors such as 'infact' and 'LeSalle' (for LaSalle); also, 'wj' should be 'omega_j' in Section 3.3.
  8. [References] Reference [11] is incomplete, and several references lack full bibliographic information; the reference list should be checked against the citation style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the Kc derivation in Section 3.3 is a self-contained first-principles optimization, and the paper contains no load-bearing self-citations or fitted parameters.

full rationale

The paper derives its central claimed bound Kc = N(omega_max - omega_min)/Emax directly from the Kuramoto fixed-point equations by maximizing the trigonometric expression E defined in Section 3.3. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction; Emax is computed from the phase variables and the frequency spread enters only through the necessary fixed-point condition. The comparison with the literature bound KL from reference [4] is an external comparison, not an input to the derivation. The paper contains no self-citations by the author and no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior work by the same authors. The possible mathematical gaps noted by a reader, such as whether the identified stationary point is the global maximum and whether the graph is all-to-all, concern correctness and rigor rather than circularity; even if the bound were wrong, it would not be circular. The stability and synchronization results are derived from Lyapunov functions, Jacobian calculations, and Laplacian properties, all stated within the paper. Accordingly, no circular step can be quoted or exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's claims rest on standard results from algebraic graph theory and Lyapunov theory, plus two domain assumptions: the validity of the order parameter expression for the coupling graph, and the global nature of the trigonometric maximization in Section 3.3. Both assumptions are unsupported or false, which undermines the derived criteria.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The order parameter identity r^2 = 1 - (1/N) [e^{jθ}]^* L [e^{jθ}] holds for the graph Laplacian L of the coupling graph G.
    Used in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2 for the Lyapunov function U1; false for arbitrary graphs and dimensionally incorrect even for complete graphs.
  • domain assumption The function U1 = 1 - r^2 is a Lyapunov function for the Kuramoto system on any connected graph.
    Result 2 in Section 2.2 claims global convergence for arbitrary connected graphs using U1, but its derivative is non-increasing only for complete graphs.
  • standard math LaSalle's invariance principle and Brouwer's fixed point theorem are applied to establish convergence and existence.
    Used in Sections 2.2 and 2.3; standard results, but their application requires the preceding assumptions to hold.
  • domain assumption The maximization of E in Section 3.3 over phase differences is unconstrained and the critical point is the global maximum.
    The proof of the claimed stronger lower bound depends on this; only local stationarity is checked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stability and Synchronization of Kuramoto Oscillators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OVEBRL4J

@misc{pith2026241117925,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stability and Synchronization of Kuramoto Oscillators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OVEBRL4J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17925}
}
read the original abstract

Imagine a group of oscillators, each endowed with their own rhythm or frequency, be it the ticking of a biological clock, the swing of a pendulum, or the glowing of fireflies. While these individual oscillators may seem independent of one another at first glance, the true magic lies in their ability to influence and synchronize with one another, like a group of fireflies glowing in unison. The Kuramoto model was motivated by this phenomenon of collective synchronization, when a group of a large number of oscillators spontaneously lock to a common frequency, despite vast differences in their individual frequencies. Inspired by Kuramoto's groundbreaking work in the 1970s, this model captures the essence of how interconnected systems, ranging from biological networks to power grids, can achieve a state of synchronization. This work aims to study the stability and synchronization of Kuramoto oscillators, starting off with an introduction to Kuramoto Oscillators and it's broader applications. We then at a graph theoretic formulation for the same and establish various criterion for the stability, synchronization of Kuramoto Oscillators. Finally, we broadly analyze and experiment with various physical systems that tend to behave like Kuramoto oscillators followed by further simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17925 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evolution of r(t) • For intermediate values of r ∈ (0, 1), the system exhibits partial synchronization, with greater values of r corresponding to higher levels of cohesiveness. Expressing the original oscillator equations in terms of r and ψ can help us analyze how the system’s synchronization evolves over time. Using this formulation, we get: ˙θi = ωi + Kr sin (ψ − θi) If we assume our critical coupling constant fo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. for a 2-node generator-load net 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Springs on a ring We assume that pairs of interacting particles i and j are coupled through elastic springs with stiffness kij > 0; we set kij = 0 if the particles are not interconnected. The elastic energy stored by the spring between particles at angles θi and θj is Uij (θi , θj ) = kij 2 (distance)2 = kij 2  (cos θi − cos θj ) 2 + (sin θi − sin θj ) 2  = kij (1 − cos (θi) cos (θj ) − sin (θi) sin (θj )) = kij (… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of r(t) with time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Showing Phase Coherence for increasing K So, we can see that at 0.5, the order parameter is quite low and also hits zero at some point. For coupling constant of 1, the order parameter is still low but has some increasing behaviour after it hits zero. For 2, there is pa…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of trajectories Now, looking plotting all the oscillators in the complex plane at different times, we get [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: How the oscillators come together with time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: To plug and play [Code for the slider tool: here] 4.6 Manim Animations In this section, we first start out by simulating the dynamics for a given set of initial phases, and adjacency matrix A. Consider n = 5. 4.6.1 Case A: When A is zero x0 = [0, 0.4, 0.8, 1.2, 1.6], w…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: For A = O5X5 4.6.2 Case B: for a Cycle Graph x0 = [0, 2 * np.pi/5 + 1/2, 4 * np.pi/5, 6 * np.pi/5 + 1/10, 8 * np.pi/5], w = np.array([5, 5, 5, 5, 5]) A = np.array([ [0, 3, 0, 0, 3], [3, 0, 3, 0, 0], [0, 3, 0, 3, 0], [0, 0, 3, 0, 3], [3, 0, 0, 3, 0],]) In this case, the…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: For a cycle graph 4.6.3 Case C: for a Line Graph x0 = [0, 0.4, 0.8, 1.2, 1.6], w = np.array([1, 1, 1, 2.5, 2.5]) A = np.array([ [0, 10, 0, 0, 0], [10, 0, 10, 0, 0], [0, 10, 0, 1, 0], [0, 0, 1, 0, 10], [0, 0, 0, 10, 0],]) As the first three oscillators have the same fr…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: For a line graph 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    For K ≥ KL, there exists at least one fixed point θ∗ with θ∗ i < π 4 or BT θ∗ i < π 2

    work page

  2. [2]

    In essence, sufficiently strong coupling ensures the existence (and, at an even higher threshold, unique- ness) of a stable phase-locked solution

    For K ≥ π2 4 N λmax(L) ∥ω∥2 λ2(L)2 , there is a unique stable fixed point (up to adding any vector in the span of 1N ), and the order parameter is strictly increasing under this stronger coupling condition, implying a unique synchronized cluster in phase. In essence, sufficiently strong coupling ensures the existence (and, at an even higher threshold, uni...

    work page

  3. [3]

    F requency synchrony:A solution θ : R≥0 → Tn is frequency synchronized if ˙θi(t) = ˙θj(t) ∀ t and ∀ i and j

    work page

  4. [4]

    Before moving to the next notion of synchronization, let us look at a few mathematical preliminaries

    Phase synchrony: A solution θ : R≥0 → Tn is phase synchronized if θi(t) = θj(t) ∀ t and ∀ i and j. Before moving to the next notion of synchronization, let us look at a few mathematical preliminaries. A torus Tn is the set consisting of n-copies of the circle. Let G be an undirected, weighted graph, with γ ∈ [0, π]. Then: • The arc subset ¯Γarc (γ) ⊂ Tn i...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Phase cohesiveness: A solution θ : R≥0 → Tn is phase cohesive with respect to γ >0 if one of the following conditions holds ∀ t : • θ(t) ∈ Γarc (γ); or • θ(t) ∈ ∆G(γ), for the graph G

    work page

  6. [6]

    For example, a solution θ : R≥0 → Tn achieves phase synchronization if limι→∞ |θi(t) − θj(t)| = 0

    Asymptotic Synchronization : This happens in cases where one of the above criterion is asymptotically achieved. For example, a solution θ : R≥0 → Tn achieves phase synchronization if limι→∞ |θi(t) − θj(t)| = 0. 3.2 Results based on above notions: Res. 1 (Synchronization frequency). Consider the coupled oscillator model as defined originally with frequenci...

    work page

  7. [7]

    (Jacobian:) the Jacobian of the coupled oscillator model at θ ∈ Tn is J(θ) = −B diag {aij cos (θi − θj)}{i,j}⊂E B⊤

    work page

  8. [8]

    (local stability:) if there exists an equilibrium θ∗ ∈ ∆G(γ), γ < π/2, then • −J (θ∗) is a Laplacian matrix; and • the equilibrium set [ θ∗] (the rotation set for an equilibrium point obtained during rotation by a certain angle) is locally exponentially stable

    work page

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Proof: Given θ ∈ Tn, we define the undirected graph Gcosine (θ) with the same nodes and edges as G and with edge weights aij cos (θi − θj)

    ((frequency synchronization:) if a solution θ(t) is phase cohesive in the sense that θ(t) ∈ ∆G(γ), γ < π/2, for all t ≥ 0, then there exists a phase cohesive equilibrium θ∗ ∈ ∆G(γ) and θ(t) achieves exponential frequency synchronization converging to [ θ∗]. Proof: Given θ ∈ Tn...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Strogatz, ”From Kuramoto to Crawford: exploring the onset of synchronization in populations of coupled oscillators”, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, Volume 143, Issues 1–4, 2000

    Steven H. Strogatz, ”From Kuramoto to Crawford: exploring the onset of synchronization in populations of coupled oscillators”, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, Volume 143, Issues 1–4, 2000

    2000

  3. [11]

    Godsil and G

    C. Godsil and G. Royle, Algebraic Graph Theory, Springer, 2001

    2001

  4. [12]

    Biggs, Algebraic Graph Theory, Cambridge University Press, 1993

    N. Biggs, Algebraic Graph Theory, Cambridge University Press, 1993

    1993

  5. [13]

    Ali Jadbabaie, Nader Motee, Mauricio Barahona, ”On the stability of the Kuramoto model of coupled nonlinear oscillators”, 2005

    2005

  6. [14]

    Chopra and M

    N. Chopra and M. W. Spong, ”On Synchronization of Kuramoto Oscillators,” Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Seville, Spain, 2005, pp. 3916-3922, doi: 10.1109/CDC.2005.1582773

    2005

  7. [15]

    Florian D¨ orfler, Francesco Bullo, Synchronization in complex networks of phase oscillators: A survey, Automatica, Volume 50, Issue 6, 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    D¨ orfler, M

    F. D¨ orfler, M. Chertkov, F. Bullo, Synchronization in complex oscillator networks and smart grids Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 110 (6) (2013), pp. 2005-2010

    2013

  9. [17]

    F.Bullo, Lectures on Networks and Systems, 2022, url: https://fbullo.github.io/lns

    2022

  10. [18]

    Chepizhko, V.L

    A.A. Chepizhko, V.L. Kulinskii, ”On the relation between Vicsek and Kuramoto models of spontaneous synchro- nization”, 2010

    2010

  11. [19]

    The Kuramoto Model

    Cooray, Gerald. The Kuramoto Model. 2008

    2008

  12. [20]

    Dirk Brockman and Steven Strogatz, ”Ride my Kuramotocycle”,

  13. [21]

    Cleve Moler, ”Experiments With Kuramoto Oscillators”, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Strogatz

    S. Strogatz. Sync: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order (Hyperion, New York, 2003)

    2003

  15. [23]

    Synchronization: From Simple to Complex

    Balanov et al. Synchronization: From Simple to Complex. Springer-Verlag, 2009

    2009

  16. [24]

    Acebr, L.L

    J.A. Acebr, L.L. Bonilla, C.J.P. Vicente, F. Ritort, and R. Spigler, The Kuramoto model: A simple paradigm for synchronization phenomena, Rev. Modern Phys., 77, 137–185, 2005

    2005

  17. [25]

    Kuramoto, Yoshiki (1975). H. Araki (ed.). Lecture Notes in Physics, International Symposium on Mathematical Problems in Theoretical Physics. Vol. 39. Springer-Verlag, New York. p. 420

    1975

  18. [26]

    optimal,” (1994) 21

    C Huygens Oeuvres Compl` etes de Christiaan Huygens (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, The Netherlands, 1893). optimal,” (1994) 21

    1994

Pith tools

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