Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 64 references

Adaptive dynamics of Ising spins in one dimension leveraging Reinforcement Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Q-learning produces four phases in one-dimensional active Ising spins.

desk verdict A plausible 1D RL flocking model with a promising phase diagram, but the printed Q-update is not standard and the new oscillatory/chaos claims depend on details the paper does not report. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19602 v1 pith:AL2FSRG3 submitted 2024-11-29 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.stat-mech

Anish Kumar , Pawan Kumar Mishra , Riya Singh , Shradha Mishra , Debaprasad Giri This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords activeIsingmodelQ-learningflockingone-dimensionalmatterdirectionalswitchingchaoticphaseLyapunovexponentreinforcementlearning
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 argues that a one-dimensional flock of Ising spins can organize into collective motion without any explicit interaction between spins, purely through each spin's learned response to losing neighbors. Using Q-learning with a cost that penalizes a drop in local neighbor count, the authors map a phase diagram in the plane of mean self-propulsion speed and exploration probability ε. They identify four phases: a disordered one, a flocking phase, a flipping phase in which a condensed flock stochastically reverses direction, and a newly reported oscillatory phase in which magnetization flips at every time step. The reversal time in the flipping phase decays exponentially with ε and obeys a scaling collapse. The oscillatory phase is characterized as chaotic through a continuous power spectrum and a positive Lyapunov exponent.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a per-spin Q-learning scheme in which each Ising spin maintains a 2×2 Q-table mapping its state (aligned or anti-aligned with the majority of neighbors within a range δx) to two actions (flip or keep orientation). The action is chosen by an ε-greedy rule: with probability ε a random action is taken, otherwise the action with minimum Q-value is chosen; ε therefore acts like thermal noise. The Q-table is updated using the cost function Eq. (2), which returns 1 if the spin loses neighbors after moving and 0 otherwise, with learning rate α=0.001. Position updates are taken from a uniform speed distribution, and the absence of any explicit inter-spin interaction is the feature that makes the learned dynamics the sole ordering mechanism.

What would settle it

Run the same model with the standard Q-learning update Qi ← Qi + α(Ci − Qi) at the same parameters and check whether the four phases, the exponential reversal-time law, and the positive Lyapunov exponent persist; a second decisive check is to record the converged Q-table and test whether its entries alternate sign under the printed update.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that reinforcement learning alone—specifically Q-learning with a two-state, two-action table and a cost that is 1 when a spin's neighbor count drops and 0 otherwise—reproduces the known phenomenology of the one-dimensional active Ising model and adds a new phase. No spin-spin coupling term is put in by hand: the only feedback is cohesion, measured by neighbor retention. In the (speed, ε) plane the system exhibits disorder, partial flocking, a flipping phase where the whole condensed flock reverses its direction, and an oscillatory phase where the order parameter changes sign every time step. The flipping phase's mean reversal time decays exponentially with ε and the data collapse under power-law rescalings of both axes. The oscillatory phase shows a continuous Fourier spectrum with a dominant peak at frequency 0.5, and the largest Lyapunov exponent computed from the order-parameter time series is positive, indicating chaos.

Load-bearing premise

The simulation's Q-learning update, Eq. (3), has a negative sign on the previous Q-value instead of the standard Bellman temporal-difference term, so the reported phases would be artifacts if the code follows the printed equation and undocumented if the code corrects it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The known disorder–flocking–flipping sequence of the 1D active Ising model is obtained without an interaction Hamiltonian, suggesting that cohesion feedback can replace explicit alignment forces.
  • The exponential decay of the flipping-phase reversal time with ε, together with the power-law collapse, implies a noise-tunable switching clock for the condensed flock.
  • The newly reported oscillatory phase, with period-2 magnetization flips and a positive Lyapunov exponent, is a candidate for a genuinely learned chaotic collective state.
  • The same RL framework can be extended to higher dimensions and to learnable hopping step sizes, as the authors note.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's logic suggests that cohesion cost alone is a sufficient learning signal for polar order, which would connect RL-driven flocking to contact- and entropy-based explanations of collective motion.
  • A direct testable extension would be to record the learned Q-values in the oscillatory phase: the period-2 peak suggests the policy settles into a deterministic alternation rule, a limit cycle in policy space rather than in physical coordinates.
  • Applying the same neighbor-retention cost to agents with continuous orientations should produce a similar disordered-to-flipping crossover as the exploration rate is lowered.
  • The ratio of hopping step to interaction range appears to control the boundary between flipping and oscillatory behavior, so varying δx at fixed v0 should shift the phase boundaries in a predictable way.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies a one-dimensional active Ising model in which each spin updates its orientation via Q-learning: the state is whether the spin is aligned with the local majority, the action is to flip or keep its orientation, and the cost penalizes losing neighbours. Positions are updated by random self-propulsion steps drawn from a uniform distribution. The authors report four phases in the (\bar{v}, \varepsilon) plane: disorder, flocking, flipping, and oscillatory. They further characterize the flipping phase by an exponential decay of the mean reversal time with \varepsilon and a power-law decay with v0, including a data-collapse with fitted exponents. The oscillatory phase is claimed to be chaotic on the basis of a continuous FFT spectrum and a positive largest Lyapunov exponent computed from the order-parameter time series. The abstract states that the RL approach reproduces known 1D flocking phenomena without explicit spin-spin interactions.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper would show that a genuinely local learning rule, based only on neighbour retention, can generate collective flocking and direction reversals in 1D, and would report a new oscillatory (possibly chaotic) phase. The study is relevant to the growing use of reinforcement learning in active matter. The paper is clearly written and includes a useful visual description of the reversal mechanism (Fig. 6), and the scaling analyses of the reversal time are concrete and falsifiable. However, the central claims rest on the correctness of the nonstandard Q-learning update in Eq. (3) and on the interpretation of the Lyapunov exponent in a stochastic system; both need to be addressed before the conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [II, Eq. (3)] The Q-learning update as written is not the standard Bellman update. For a cost-minimizing agent with zero discount, the usual update is Q \leftarrow (1-\alpha)Q + \alpha C, whereas Eq. (3) has Q \leftarrow -Q(1-\alpha) + \alpha C. The negative sign causes Q values to alternate in sign on successive visits, and because exploitation in Eq. (4) selects the action with the minimum Q, the policy can artificially switch actions at a frequency set by the visit rate. This could produce the flipping and oscillatory phases without any physical mechanism. If the minus sign is a typo, the published equation does not describe the simulations; if it is not, the learning rule is unconventional and must be justified. In either case, the reproducibility of the entire phase diagram and of the reversal-time scaling is compromised. The authors must clarify or correct Eq. (3) and confirm that all reported results are unaffected.
  2. [III C, Table I] The claim that the oscillatory phase is chaotic is not convincingly supported. The largest Lyapunov exponent is extracted from a single scalar observable (the order parameter) of a many-particle stochastic dynamics via time-delay embedding, but no embedding dimension, delay, or evolution time is reported, and no surrogate-data or other null-hypothesis test is performed. A continuous FFT spectrum and its finite-size dependence are also consistent with stochastic noise, so they do not by themselves establish deterministic chaos. Furthermore, the values in Table I (0.0385\pm0.0049, 0.0376\pm0.0082, 0.0368\pm0.0095) are statistically indistinguishable across the three speeds shown. Please provide a more complete nonlinear time-series analysis, including a discussion of the embedding parameters and a test against surrogate data.
  3. [III A, Fig. 3] The phase diagram is constructed by visual inspection of order-parameter time series and neighbour distributions, with no quantitative criterion defining the phase boundaries and no error estimates. The boundaries are therefore not reproducible from the text. The authors should define explicit classification rules (for example, thresholds on the time-averaged absolute magnetization, cluster-size statistics, or switching frequency) and demonstrate that the diagram is stable under changes in these criteria, in system size, and in the number of realizations.
  4. [III B] The mean reversal time \langle T\rangle is not defined operationally. The paper does not specify how a reversal event is detected from the order-parameter time series, such as a sign change or a threshold crossing, nor whether a dwell-time criterion is used. Different detection algorithms can lead to different fitted exponents in the scaling laws of Figs. 7 and 8. Please give the exact procedure used to extract \langle T\rangle.
minor comments (6)
  1. [II] The definition of the state S_i(t) does not state how ties are broken when the numbers of neighbouring + and - spins within \delta x are exactly equal, or what happens if there are no neighbours in the range. Please clarify the convention.
  2. [II] The notation for the self-propulsion speed is inconsistent: the text defines v1 and v2, then v0 as the mean, while Fig. 3 uses \bar{v}=v1\Delta t/\delta x and Fig. 7 uses v0. The paper should explicitly relate these quantities and state the precise values or ranges used for v2/v1 in all simulations, since this ratio affects the distribution of step sizes.
  3. [III B, Fig. 7] The data collapse in the inset of Fig. 7 is presented without a quantitative measure of collapse quality or error bars on the collapsed points. The exponents \delta and \lambda are obtained from separate fits of \beta and \gamma; please state the fits' ranges and uncertainties and show the collapse with residuals or a collapse metric.
  4. [III C, Fig. 10] The text says the FFT spectrum shows a 'power law decay' at intermediate frequencies and Fig. 10 labels a slope of approximately 1.0, but the fitted exponent and the frequency range of the fit are not given. Please provide the fit details.
  5. [V] The data availability statement mentions data 'upon reasonable request' but does not mention code. Given the ambiguity surrounding Eq. (3) and the simulation-based nature of the results, releasing the source code would substantially improve reproducibility and is strongly recommended.
  6. [Throughout] There are typographical and formatting issues, for example 'Spatiotemporal intermittency (SPI)' in Fig. 9 versus 'STI' in the text, and inconsistent spacing in several equations. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase diagram and scaling laws are direct characterizations of the authors' own simulation output, with no fitted parameter or self-citation masquerading as a derived prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical classifications of its own Q-learning simulations. The four phases (disorder, flocking, flipping, oscillatory) are read off order-parameter time series and neighbor distributions (Figs. 2-3), not derived from the cost function or Q update by construction. The mean reversal time and the subsequent data collapse are fits to simulated data and are presented as such, so they are not fitted inputs renamed as predictions. The cost function (Eq. 2) encodes local cohesion, but global flocking, intermittent flipping, and period-2 oscillation are emergent outcomes of the many-spin dynamics, not equalities built into the update rule. Self-citations (Refs. 31, 32, 53-55, 58) support peripheral modeling choices and prior 1D flocking context; none is used as a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternative explanations. The anomalous minus sign in Eq. (3) relative to the standard Bellman update is a serious reproducibility and correctness risk, but it is not a circularity: it does not define the target results in terms of themselves. No circular step can be exhibited, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the learning rule, the steady-state assumption, and the chaos diagnostics. No new physical entity is introduced. The fitted scaling exponents are descriptors of the simulation output, not independent inputs.

free parameters (3)
  • Exponential fit coefficients beta and gamma = beta ~ v0^{-2.10}, gamma ~ v0^{0.76}
    Fitted to the reversal-time data in Fig. 7 to claim <T> = beta exp(-gamma epsilon) and the data collapse; these are outputs of the characterization, not independent inputs.
  • Collapse exponents delta and lambda = delta = 2.10 +/- 0.09, lambda = 0.76 +/- 0.03
    Obtained from power-law fits of beta and gamma versus v0 and used to collapse the reversal-time curves; the collapse is a data-organization claim, not a prediction.
  • Power-law exponent zeta = fitted from <T> versus v0
    Used to describe <T> = B v0^zeta; zeta depends exponentially on epsilon, also a fit to the simulation data.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The Q-learning update in Eq. (3) as written is a valid learning rule.
    The minus sign on the previous Q value is nonstandard and no Bellman derivation or convergence argument is given; all phase results depend on this update.
  • domain assumption The system is in a steady state after 2e5 steps and block averaging over 1.5e5 steps gives stationary statistics.
    Used to identify phases; no convergence diagnostics are shown.
  • ad hoc to paper The largest Lyapunov exponent computed via time-delay embedding of the order-parameter time series is meaningful for a stochastic dynamics.
    The model has explicit random hop sizes and random exploration; positive Lambda_max from noisy data can be a false indicator of chaos.
  • domain assumption Uniform random speed distribution with nonzero lower bound prevents lattice artifacts while preserving active motion.
    The authors justify the random speed by avoiding constant-speed lattice motion; the phase boundaries may depend on this choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Adaptive dynamics of Ising spins in one dimension leveraging Reinforcement Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AL2FSRG3

@misc{pith2026241119602,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Adaptive dynamics of Ising spins in one dimension leveraging Reinforcement Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AL2FSRG3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19602}
}
abstract

A one-dimensional flocking model using active Ising spins is studied, where the system evolves through the reinforcement learning approach \textit{via} defining state, action, and cost function for each spin. The orientation of spin with respect to its neighbouring spins defines its state. The state of spin is updated by altering its spin orientation in accordance with the $\varepsilon$-greedy algorithm (action) and selecting a finite step from a uniform distribution to update position. The $\varepsilon$ parameter is analogous to the thermal noise in the system. The cost function addresses cohesion among the spins. By exploring the system in the plane of the self-propulsion speed and $\varepsilon$ parameter, four distinct phases are found: disorder, flocking, flipping, and oscillatory. In the flipping phase, a condensed flock reverses its direction of motion stochastically. The mean reversal time $\langle T \rangle $ exponentially decays with $\varepsilon$. A new phase, an oscillatory phase, is also found, which is a chaotic phase with a positive Lyapunov exponent. The findings obtained from the reinforcement learning approach for the active Ising model system exhibit similarities with the outcomes of other conventional techniques, even without defining any explicit interaction among the spins.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19602 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic representation of one dimensional active Ising Model with spin up and down with solid triangles filled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (color online) Plot (a-d) illustrates the time series of order parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (color online) This diagram illustrates the phase di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (color online) Plot (a, c) shows the time series of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (color online) The local density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (color online) Plot (a-l) shows the local magnetization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (color online) Plot (a) shows the variation in mean reversal time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (color online) Plot shows the variation of mean rever [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (color online) Plot (a) shows the periodic oscillation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (color online) Plot shows the FFT spectrum of order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (color online) Plot (a) shows the stationarity of the Fourier spectrum for four different segments of the order parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The dashed line shows exponential fit for all data points

    In the inset, the decrease of the slope ζ with respect to ε is shown on a semi-log y scale. The dashed line shows exponential fit for all data points. Unlike the dependence of exponents in the previous plot 7(b-c) with respect to v0 is a power law, here we find the ζ dependence on ε as exponential. 7 -100 -50 0 50 100 m(x) to = 0 to = 24 to = 30 -100 -50 ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Cichos, K

    F. Cichos, K. Gustavsson, B. Mehlig, and G. Volpe, Na- ture Machine Intelligence 2, 94 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    dos Santos Mignon and R

    A. dos Santos Mignon and R. L. d. A. da Rocha, Procedia Computer Science 109, 1146 (2017). 10 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 f 10 -6 10 -4 F(f) Segment = 1 Segment = 2 Segment = 3 Segment = 4 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 f 10 -4 F(f)2 a dl = 2 12 dl = 2 14 dl = 2 16 dl = 2 18 (a) (b) Slope ≈ 1.0 FIG. 11. (color online) Plot (a) shows the stationarity of the...

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Canese, G

    L. Canese, G. C. Cardarilli, L. Di Nunzio, R. Fazzolari, D. Giardino, M. Re, and S. Span` o, Applied Sciences 11, 4948 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    J. Hook, S. El-Sedky, V. De Silva, and A. Kondoz, Cog- nitive Systems Research 65, 40 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto, Reinforcement learning: An introduction (MIT press, 2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    C. J. Watkins and P. Dayan, Machine learning 8, 279 (1992)

    work page 1992

  8. [8]

    Mohan, L

    P. Mohan, L. Sharma, and P. Narayan, in 2021 5th Inter- national Conference on Intelligent Computing and Con- trol Systems (ICICCS) (IEEE, 2021) pp. 811–817

    work page 2021

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Schulman, F

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Pin¸ ce, S

    E. Pin¸ ce, S. K. Velu, A. Callegari, P. Elahi, S. Gigan, G. Volpe, and G. Volpe, Nature communications7, 10907 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Walther and A

    A. Walther and A. H. M¨ uller, Soft matter4, 663 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    J. Hu, S. Zhou, Y. Sun, X. Fang, and L. Wu, Chemical Society Reviews 41, 4356 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Zhang, B

    J. Zhang, B. A. Grzybowski, and S. Granick, Langmuir 33, 6964 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    W. Wang, W. Duan, S. Ahmed, A. Sen, and T. E. Mal- louk, Accounts of chemical research 48, 1938 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Palacci, S

    J. Palacci, S. Sacanna, S.-H. Kim, G.-R. Yi, D. J. Pine, and P. M. Chaikin, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineer- ing Sciences 372, 20130372 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    Buttinoni, J

    I. Buttinoni, J. Bialk´ e, F. K¨ ummel, H. L¨ owen, C. Bechinger, and T. Speck, Physical review letters 110, 238301 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Brambilla, E

    M. Brambilla, E. Ferrante, M. Birattari, and M. Dorigo, Swarm Intelligence 7, 1 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Vicsek, A

    T. Vicsek, A. Czir´ ok, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen, and O. Shochet, Physical review letters 75, 1226 (1995)

    1995

  11. [19]

    Collective motion,

    T. Vicsek, “Collective motion,” (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    S. Das, M. Ciarchi, Z. Zhou, J. Yan, J. Zhang, and R. Alert, Physical Review X 14, 031008 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Chat´ e, F

    H. Chat´ e, F. Ginelli, G. Gr´ egoire, and F. Raynaud, Phys- ical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 77, 046113 (2008)

    2008

  14. [22]

    O’Loan and M

    O. O’Loan and M. Evans, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and General 32, L99 (1999)

    1999

  15. [23]

    Czir´ ok, A.-L

    A. Czir´ ok, A.-L. Barab´ asi, and T. Vicsek, Physical Re- view Letters 82, 209 (1999)

    1999

  16. [24]

    Raymond and M

    J. Raymond and M. Evans, Physical Review E73, 036112 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    J. Buhl, D. J. Sumpter, I. D. Couzin, J. J. Hale, E. Desp- land, E. R. Miller, and S. J. Simpson, Science 312, 1402 (2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    C. A. Yates, R. Erban, C. Escudero, I. D. Couzin, J. Buhl, I. G. Kevrekidis, P. K. Maini, and D. J. Sumpter, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 5464 (2009)

    2009

  19. [27]

    N. W. Bode, D. W. Franks, and A. J. Wood, Journal of theoretical biology 267, 292 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    Dossetti, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- oretical 45, 035003 (2011)

    V. Dossetti, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- oretical 45, 035003 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    A. P. Solon and J. Tailleur, Physical review letters 111, 078101 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    Sakaguchi and K

    H. Sakaguchi and K. Ishibashi, Physical Review E 100, 052113 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Benvegnen, H

    B. Benvegnen, H. Chat´ e, P. L. Krapivsky, J. Tailleur, and A. Solon, Physical Review E 106, 054608 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Kumar, S

    A. Kumar, S. Pattanayak, R. Singh, and S. Mishra, Physics Letters A 523, 129773 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    P. K. Mishra, A. Puitandy, and S. Mishra, Europhysics Letters (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    E. ´O. Laighl´ eis, M. R. Evans, and R. A. Blythe, Physical Review E 98, 062127 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Durve, F

    M. Durve, F. Peruani, and A. Celani, Physical Review E 102, 012601 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Khlif, N

    N. Khlif, N. Khraief, and S. Belghith, 2022 IEEE Infor- mation Technologies & Smart Industrial Systems (ITSIS) , 1 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    G. Pan, Y. Xiang, X. Wang, Z. Yu, and X. Zhou, Soft Computing 26, 8961 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Gharbi, Applied Computing and Informatics (2024)

    A. Gharbi, Applied Computing and Informatics (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Colabrese, K

    S. Colabrese, K. Gustavsson, A. Celani, and L. Biferale, Physical review letters 118, 158004 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Nasiri, E

    M. Nasiri, E. Loran, and B. Liebchen, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121, e2317618121 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Schneider and H

    E. Schneider and H. Stark, Europhysics Letters 127, 64003 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Putzke and H

    M. Putzke and H. Stark, The European Physical Journal E 46, 48 (2023). 11

    2023

  35. [43]

    Nasiri, H

    M. Nasiri, H. L¨ owen, and B. Liebchen, Europhysics Let- ters 142, 17001 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Nasiri and B

    M. Nasiri and B. Liebchen, New Journal of Physics 24, 073042 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    P. A. Monderkamp, F. J. Schwarzendahl, M. A. Klatt, and H. L¨ owen, Machine Learning: Science and Technol- ogy 3, 045024 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Biferale, F

    L. Biferale, F. Bonaccorso, M. Buzzicotti, P. Clark Di Leoni, and K. Gustavsson, Chaos: An Interdisci- plinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 29 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    J. K. Alageshan, A. K. Verma, J. Bec, and R. Pandit, Physical Review E 101, 043110 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Buzzicotti, L

    M. Buzzicotti, L. Biferale, F. Bonaccorso, P. Clark di Leoni, and K. Gustavsson, in International Confer- ence of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence (Springer, 2020) pp. 223–234

    2020

  41. [49]

    Z. Zou, Y. Liu, Y.-N. Young, O. S. Pak, and A. C. Tsang, Communications Physics 5, 158 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    M. J. Falk, V. Alizadehyazdi, H. Jaeger, and A. Muru- gan, Physical Review Research 3, 033291 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Gerhard, A

    M. Gerhard, A. Jayaram, A. Fischer, and T. Speck, Phys- ical Review E 104, 054614 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Y. Yang, M. A. Bevan, and B. Li, Advanced Theory and Simulations 3, 2000034 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    Mui˜ nos-Landin, A

    S. Mui˜ nos-Landin, A. Fischer, V. Holubec, and F. Ci- chos, Science Robotics 6, eabd9285 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Pattanayak and S

    S. Pattanayak and S. Mishra, Journal of Physics Com- munications 2, 045007 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    J. P. Singh, S. Pattanayak, and S. Mishra, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 54, 115001 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    J. P. Singh, S. Kumar, and S. Mishra, Journal of Statis- tical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2021, 083217 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    Y. Katz, K. Tunstrøm, C. C. Ioannou, C. Huepe, and I. D. Couzin, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 18720 (2011)

    2011

  50. [58]

    L. H. Cisneros, J. O. Kessler, S. Ganguly, and R. E. Gold- stein, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 83, 061907 (2011)

    2011

  51. [59]

    P. B. Sampat, A. Verma, R. Gupta, and S. Mishra, Phys- ical Review E 106, 054149 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    Valsakumar, S

    M. Valsakumar, S. Satyanarayana, and V. Sridhar, Pra- mana 48, 69 (1997)

    1997

  53. [61]

    Maryshev, A

    I. Maryshev, A. B. Goryachev, D. Marenduzzo, and A. Morozov, Soft Matter 15, 6038 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    S. H. Strogatz, Nonlinear dynamics and chaos: with ap- plications to physics, biology, chemistry, and engineering (CRC press, 2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    A. Wolf, J. B. Swift, H. L. Swinney, and J. A. Vastano, Physica D: nonlinear phenomena 16, 285 (1985)

    1985

  56. [64]

    Kodba, M

    S. Kodba, M. Perc, and M. Marhl, European journal of physics 26, 205 (2004)

    2004

Pith tools

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