Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Bayesian estimation of coupling strength and heterogeneity in a coupled oscillator model from macroscopic quantities

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Bayesian framework using the Ott-Antonsen solution and exchange Monte Carlo estimates the coupling strength and heterogeneity of a Kuramoto population from time series of a single macroscopic quantity, the order parameter.

desk verdict A competent, honest method paper: novel use of the Ott-Antonsen solution as a Bayesian forward model, but the white-noise observation model makes the posterior intervals overconfident and the K-gamma degeneracy limits separate identifiability. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07977 v2 pith:LSKVO2HO submitted 2025-01-14 physics.data-an nlin.AO

Yusuke Kato , Shuhei Kashiwamura , Emiri Watanabe , Masato Okada , Hiroshi Kori This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.data-annlin.AO PACS 05.45.Xt
keywords KuramotomodelOtt-AntonsenansatzBayesianinferenceexchangeMonteCarloorderparameterestimationmarginallikelihoodsynchronization
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

This paper claims that Bayesian inference can recover two key parameters of a synchronizing population—the coupling strength K and the frequency heterogeneity γ—using only the time series of the Kuramoto order parameter R(t), without data on individual oscillators. The forward model is the exact Ott-Antonsen solution for the order parameter in the thermodynamic limit, and the posterior and marginal likelihood are computed by exchange Monte Carlo. In benchmark data generated from the same model, estimates converge to the truth as observational noise shrinks, with calibrated posterior intervals. In finite-size Kuramoto simulations, the maximum a posteriori estimates converge to the true values as the number of oscillators grows, but the posterior intervals are too narrow because the residual fluctuations are not white noise. The paper diagnoses this mismatch with an autocorrelation analysis and proposes an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck observation model as the next step.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the Ott-Antonsen ansatz: in the thermodynamic limit with a Lorentzian frequency distribution, the order parameter obeys the closed ODE $\dot{R} = -\lambda R + (\lambda - \gamma)R^3$ with $\lambda = \gamma - K/2$, whose non-constant solution $R_{\mathrm{sol}}(t; \theta)$ becomes the deterministic backbone of the likelihood. Around it sits a Gaussian likelihood with precision $b$, exchange Monte Carlo over replicas at inverse temperatures $b_l$ to sample the posterior and compute the marginal likelihood by chaining of importance sampling, and empirical Bayes to pick $b$. The same machinery reveals a near-ridge direction in $(K, \gamma)$ along which the solution shape barely changes, explaining the strong positive correlation in the posterior samples.

What would settle it

Re-run the exchange Monte Carlo inference on a long finite-Kuramoto trajectory using the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck observation model of Eq. (38) and measure the empirical coverage of the 68% posterior intervals; if the coverage remains below the nominal level for $N \geq 10^4$, the macroscopic-only identification strategy has not yet achieved calibrated uncertainty.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that parameter estimation of the Kuramoto model can be performed from macroscopic quantities alone by attaching a Gaussian likelihood to the Ott-Antonsen analytical solution of the order parameter. Under the assumption $y_i = R_{\mathrm{sol}}(t_i; \theta) + \xi_i$ with $\xi_i$ independent Gaussian noise, the authors set the noise precision $b = 1/\sigma^2$ as an unknown hyperparameter, select it by empirical Bayes (maximizing the marginal likelihood over a ladder of inverse temperatures), and take the MAP estimate of $\theta = (\gamma, \lambda)$ from the selected replica. Exchange Monte Carlo supplies both the posterior samples and, via chaining of importance sampling, the marginal likelihood. In the benchmark case the method is internally consistent, and in the Kuramoto-model case the MAP estimates approach the true $(K, \gamma)$ as $N$ increases. The paper also demonstrates that the residual $R(t) - R_{\mathrm{sol}}(t)$ is not white noise but has an exponentially decaying autocorrelation, so the white-noise likelihood understates uncertainty; this is not treated as a failure of the estimation approach but as evidence that the observation model should be upgraded to an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process.

Load-bearing premise

The whole uncertainty calculus rests on the assumption that the observed order parameter equals the thermodynamic-limit Ott-Antonsen solution plus independent Gaussian white noise; the paper's own finite-size simulations show the residuals are correlated, so the posterior intervals are overconfident.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the method is right, coupling strength and heterogeneity of a Kuramoto-like population can be monitored from population-level observables such as the averaged macroscopic signal, without resolving individual oscillators.
  • The empirical-Bayes selection of the noise precision $b$ yields an automatic estimate of observational noise, so the framework can in principle be applied to noisy experimental desynchronization curves.
  • Because the marginal likelihood is computed, the same machinery can compare competing coupled-oscillator models (for instance Kuramoto versus Sakaguchi-Kuramoto) on a given dataset.
  • The failure of the white-noise model at finite $N$ is a concrete diagnostic: uncertainty from the current observation model is optimistic, and the proposed Ornstein-Uhlenbeck noise model is the natural follow-up.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The near-linear ridge in the posterior means that $K$ and $\gamma$ are individually identifiable only up to the combination preserving $R_{\mathrm{sol}}(t)$; a single desynchronization curve is unlikely to separate them unless the prior breaks the ridge or the observable is changed.
  • The exponentially decaying autocorrelation of residuals suggests that a two-dimensional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck reduction of finite-size Kuramoto dynamics could act as an explicit stochastic forward model, turning the proposed Eq. (38) into a principled likelihood rather than a heuristic fix.
  • The same estimation design could be tested on real collective oscillations where only population-level signals are available, such as leaf circadian luminescence, with the caveat that the observation noise must first be characterized to reach calibrated uncertainties.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Bayesian framework for estimating the coupling strength K and heterogeneity γ of a Kuramoto model from time series of the macroscopic order parameter R(t) alone. The forward model is the Ott-Antonsen analytical solution R_sol(t;θ) (Eq. 29) under a Lorentzian frequency distribution, and the observation model is R(t) = R_sol(t;θ) plus Gaussian white noise (Eq. 8). Parameters are estimated by exchange Monte Carlo (EMC); the noise scale b is selected by empirical Bayes via the marginal likelihood (Eqs. 24–25), and K and γ are obtained as MAP estimates. The paper validates the approach in a benchmark where data are generated from Eq. (8), showing convergence to truth as σ→0, and then tests it on Kuramoto-model data with N = 100–10^5, reporting point estimates that approach the true values as N grows but posterior intervals that miss the true parameters at all N. The authors diagnose the latter as a violation of the white-noise assumption and propose an OU-process observation model as future work.

Significance. The paper contributes an original combination of the OA analytical solution with EMC-based Bayesian inference for macroscopic observables, and the implementation is supported by open code and a careful benchmark. The distinction between benchmark consistency and model-mismatch behavior is clearly drawn, and the autocorrelation analysis in Fig. 5 is a valuable diagnostic. However, the central advantage of Bayesian inference — calibrated posterior uncertainties — is not achieved for the actual Kuramoto model: Figs. 4(g,h) show systematic overconfidence at all system sizes, a direct consequence of the white-noise assumption in Eq. (8). The identifiability ridge between K and γ (Eq. 33) further limits the practical significance of separate point estimates. If the observation model is repaired or the claims are restricted accordingly, the method could have real utility for biological and physical synchrony data.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III C, Figs. 4(g,h) and Fig. 5(b)] The observation model y_i = R_sol(t_i;θ) + ξ_i with i.i.d. Gaussian ξ_i (Eq. 8) is contradicted by the paper's own autocorrelation results: Fig. 5(b) shows C(τ) decaying exponentially over τ ≲ 20, not a delta function. Because Eq. (8) enters the likelihood (Eq. 10), the posterior widths and the empirical-Bayes selection of b via F(b) (Eqs. 24–25) are miscalibrated for data generated from Eq. (1). The consequence is visible in Figs. 4(g,h): the ratio |error|/SD exceeds 1 on average for every N, including N=10^5, so the reported ±1 SD intervals are systematically overconfident. Since the central advantage of the Bayesian framework is reliable uncertainty quantification, this model mismatch is load-bearing. The proposed OU replacement (Eqs. 38–39) is presented only as future work and is not evaluated; the main text should either implement and test such a model (or an equivalent correction) or explicitly restrict the claims to point estimation with the caveat that posterior uncertainties are not trustworthy for finite-N Kuramoto data.
  2. [§III B and §III C] The benchmark in Sec. III B validates internal consistency, but it is self-referential: the same model (Eq. 8) is used for both data generation and inference, so it does not validate the forward model against the Kuramoto dynamics. The real-data experiments in Sec. III C show that point estimates of K and γ converge toward the true values as N increases, but the systematic overconfidence identified above is not captured by the benchmark. The paper should add a test of posterior calibration under model mismatch — e.g., a probability-integral-transform histogram or coverage curve across many simulated datasets — or clearly state that the reported credible intervals apply only to the white-noise observation model.
  3. [§III C and Appendix C] The strong posterior correlation γ ≈ 0.33K + 0.0635 (Eq. 33) and the local flat-direction analysis in Appendix C indicate that K and γ are not separately identifiable from a single R(t) trajectory: the data constrain a particular combination much more strongly than the individual parameters. The paper analyzes this as a property of the forward model, but it does not discuss what it implies for the reported MAP values of K and γ, which are determined along the ridge largely by the prior and by the exact location of the ridge. Please add an explicit identifiability statement and report credible intervals for the identified combination (e.g., γ − 0.33K or the projection along the flat direction), not only marginal intervals for K and γ.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'flushing of fireflies' should be 'flashing of fireflies' (both occurrences).
  2. [§III C 3] The text refers to 'Figs. 3 (C-3), (D-3)' but Fig. 3 has no panel D; this appears to be a typo for panels (A-3)–(C-3).
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The definition 'ˆσ := 1/b2\,_l' is dimensionally incorrect; since b = 1/σ², it should be 1/√b_l.
  4. [Algorithm 1] The condition 'i/nθ is an integer' should be stated as 'i is a multiple of nθ' to avoid ambiguity about integer division.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Ott-Antonsen forward model is an external theoretical result, the estimated parameters are genuine unknowns, and the same-model benchmark is explicitly labeled an internal-consistency check rather than an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's estimation chain is not circular. The forward model Rsol(t;θ) in Eq. (6) is the Ott-Antonsen analytical solution, adopted as an external theoretical result from Refs. [22,23], not derived from or fitted to the data used for validation. The unknown parameters θ={γ,λ} (with R0 fixed and K reconstructed as K=2(γ−λ)) enter the likelihood via Eq. (10) and are estimated by maximizing the marginal likelihood (Eqs. 24-25) and then taking the MAP estimate (Eq. 26). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no result used as evidence is defined in terms of the target estimate. The benchmark experiment in Sec. III B generates data from Eq. (8) and infers with the same model; the paper explicitly calls this a check of 'internal consistency' and separately tests the method on data generated from the Kuramoto model (Sec. III C), which provides an external, model-mismatch check. The discrepancy between the white-noise assumption and the autocorrelated residuals shown in Fig. 5 is acknowledged and analyzed, leading to a proposed OU-based modification (Eqs. 38-39); this is a correctness and model-misspecification concern, not circular reasoning. Self-citations to EMC methodology (Refs. [27-31]) are background algorithmic references and are not load-bearing for the core inference result. The correlation between K and γ (Eq. 33) is independently explained in Appendix C via a sensitivity analysis of the forward model. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on the OA forward model, the Lorentzian frequency assumption, and the white-noise likelihood; the finite-N experiments demonstrate the white-noise assumption is false. The uniform priors and algorithmic hyperparameters are chosen by hand. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • EMC hyperparameters (L, Q, eta, S, B, rtarget, rtol) = L=50, Q=1.5e6, eta=1.5, S=100000, B=50000, rtarget=0.6, rtol=0.05
    Computational settings chosen by hand and listed in Table I; they affect sampling accuracy but are not the scientific target.
  • Prior bounds (u_gamma, v_gamma, u_lambda, v_lambda) = 0 to 1 for both parameters
    Uniform prior ranges chosen by hand; with a nearly degenerate likelihood these bounds influence posterior mass and are not derived from data.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Ott-Antonsen ansatz gives exact order-parameter dynamics in the thermodynamic limit for Lorentzian frequency distributions (Eq. 4).
    Used as the forward model in Eq. (6)/(29); valid only as N approaches infinity and on the OA manifold, so finite-N use is approximate.
  • domain assumption Natural frequencies are Lorentzian with width gamma (Eq. 3).
    Required for the closed-form OA solution; real oscillator populations may have other frequency distributions.
  • domain assumption Observational noise xi_i is independent and Gaussian with variance 1/b (Eq. 8).
    Used to derive the likelihood in Eq. (10); the paper's own Fig. 5 shows it is violated for finite-N Kuramoto data.
  • domain assumption Initial order parameter R0=1 is known.
    Section III A 2 assumes R0=1 and removes it from the parameter set; in real measurements the initial synchronization level may be unknown.
  • domain assumption Desynchronizing regime lambda > 0.
    Section III A 2 restricts to monotonically decreasing R(t); synchronized or partially synchronized regimes are not covered.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bayesian estimation of coupling strength and heterogeneity in a coupled oscillator model from macroscopic quantities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LSKVO2HO

@misc{pith2026250107977,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bayesian estimation of coupling strength and heterogeneity in a coupled oscillator model from macroscopic quantities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LSKVO2HO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07977}
}
read the original abstract

Various macroscopic oscillations, such as the heartbeat and the flashing of fireflies, are created by synchronizing oscillatory units (oscillators). To elucidate the mechanism of synchronization, several coupled oscillator models have been devised and extensively analyzed. Although parameter estimation of these models has also been actively investigated, most of the proposed methods are based on the data from individual oscillators, not from macroscopic quantities. In the present study, we propose a Bayesian framework to estimate the model parameters of coupled oscillator models, using the time series data of the Kuramoto order parameter as the only given data. We adopt the exchange Monte Carlo method for the efficient estimation of the posterior distribution and marginal likelihood. Numerical experiments are performed to confirm the validity of our method and examine the dependence of the estimation error on the observational noise and system size.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07977 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. This discrepancy arises because the inverse tem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The EMC estimation results from the datasets generated from Eq. (8). For each column, we create a single dataset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Dependence of inference accuracy on the noise intensity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The EMC estimation results from the datasets generated from the Kuramoto model (1). For each column, we create [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Dependence of inference accuracy on the number of oscillators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Long-time behavior of the order parameter. For [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The estimation error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Shapes of the analytical solution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kuramoto model and Kuramoto order parameter We consider the following Kuramoto model: ˙ϕi := dϕi dt = ωi + K N NX j=1 sin(ϕj − ϕi), (1) for i = 1, 2, . . . , N. Here, ϕi(t) and ωi denote the phase and the natural frequency of the i-th oscillator, K the strength of the coupling among oscillators, and N the number of oscillators, respectively. We assume tha...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (1) is con- fined to an invariant manifold (the Ott-Antonsen man- ifold) under certain assumptions on g(ω) [22, 23]

    Analytical solution by Ott-Antonsen Ansatz Ott and Antonsen found that, in the thermodynamic limit of N → ∞, the long-time behavior of Eq. (1) is con- fined to an invariant manifold (the Ott-Antonsen man- ifold) under certain assumptions on g(ω) [22, 23]. In addition, if g(ω) is Lorentzian, they found that the time- evolution of the order parameter R on t...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Model for estimation Let D := {ti, yi}M i=1 represent the observed dataset of the order parameter yi at time ti, where M is the number of data points. To incorporate the analytical expression of the order parameter dynamics in the thermodynamic limit into the estimation framework, we assume that the observed data yi can be modeled as the sum of the ex- ac...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Bayesian formulation According to Eq. (8), the conditional probability of the observed data set D for a given set of parameters θ and noise-variance 1/b is calculated as p(D|θ, b) = MY i=1 p(yi|ti, θ, b) = b 2π M 2 exp [−M bE(θ)] , (10) where the function E(θ) given by E(θ) := 1 2M MX i=1 [yi − Rsol(ti; θ)]2, (11) denotes the error between the observed da...

    work page

  5. [5]

    We first prepare L different replicas of the system [26]

    Exchange Monte Carlo method Here we describe the algorithm of the EMC method, by which we numerically obtain the posterior distribution p(θ|D, b) and the marginal likelihood Z(b). We first prepare L different replicas of the system [26]. For each of these L replica layers, we associate a corre- sponding set of model parameters {θl}L l=1 and inverse temper...

    work page

  6. [6]

    (14) can be calculated by the chaining of importance sampling [36]

    Calculation of marginal likelihood The marginal likelihood Z(b) given by Eq. (14) can be calculated by the chaining of importance sampling [36]. Noting that b1 = 0, we have ˜Z(bl) = l−1Y k=1 ˜Z(bk+1) ˜Z(bk) = l−1Y k=1 Z dθk+1 exp[−M bk+1E(θk+1)]p(θk+1) Z dθk exp[−M bkE(θk)]p(θk) = l−1Y k=1 Z dθ exp[−M bk+1E(θ)]p(θ) Z dθ exp[−M bkE(θ)]p(θ) = l−1Y k=1 Z dθ ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Parameter estimation We adopt the empirical Bayes method (also known as the type II maximum likelihood approach) [37] to esti- mate the two unknown parameters θ and b. We first determine the optimal value of bl, denoted by bˆl, by max- imizing p(D|bl), the likelihood function with respect to bl, i.e., ˆl = arg max l p(D|bl) = arg max l Z dθp(D|θ, bl)p(θ) ...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Thus, we use the time series data where the order parameter monotonically decreases

    Property of time series data In the present study, we focus on the desynchronizing process from the complete synchrony state (i.e., R0 = 1), motivated by several experiments in plant biology where oscillating units (e.g., the circadian clock in cells) desyn- chronize without the entrainment by the light-dark cycle [39–41]. Thus, we use the time series dat...

    work page

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    (4) decreases with time

    Assumption on model parameter and initial condition Since we address the desynchronizing process, we as- sume λ >0, (27) so that the order parameter R(t) that follows Eq. (4) decreases with time. We also assume that the initial value of the order pa- rameter ( R0 = 1) is given...

  2. [10]

    Assumption on prior distribution We assume that the prior probability p(θ) can be writ- ten as the product of the prior probabilities of each pa- rameter, i.e., p(θ) = p(γ)p(λ). (30) We also assume that both of p(γ) and p(λ) are subject to uniform distribution, i.e., p(γ) = ( ...

  3. [11]

    III B) and second (Sec

    Values of fixed parameters When generating the artificial datasets, we use the dif- ferent values of noise strength σ and oscillator number N in the first (Sec. III B) and second (Sec. III C) exper- iments, respectively. We fix the values of the remaining parameters, which are...

  4. [12]

    Each column in the figure corresponds to the estimation results using a dataset generated from Eq

    Typical estimation results Figure 1 shows the results of the EMC simulation per- formed under different noise strengths σ. Each column in the figure corresponds to the estimation results using a dataset generated from Eq. (8), with noise strength set to σ = 0 .1 [column (A)], ...

  5. [13]

    Dependence of estimation accuracy on noise intensity To quantitatively examine the effect of noise strength on estimation results, we repeat EMC simulations on datasets generated with six different values of noise inten- sity (σ), as shown in Fig. 2. For each σ, we generate 10...

  6. [14]

    The datasets used in columns (A), (B), and (C) are generated from Eq

    Typical estimation results Figure 3 presents the estimation results for three dif- ferent datasets. The datasets used in columns (A), (B), and (C) are generated from Eq. (1) with N = 100, 1000, and 10 5, respectively, and are shown as scatter plots in the first row of Fig. 3 [...

  7. [15]

    Dependence of estimation accuracy on the number of oscillators To quantitatively examine how the oscillator number N affects the estimation results, we repeat EMC simula- tions on datasets generated with five different values of N , as shown in Fig. 4. For each N , we generate...

  8. [16]

    3 (C-3), (D-3) and Figs

    Difference between Kuramoto model dynamics and analytical solution As shown in Figs. 3 (C-3), (D-3) and Figs. 4 (g), (h), the true parameter values lie outside the ±1 SD range of the corresponding posterior disributions, even for the large system sizes (e.g., N = 10 5). This o...

  9. [17]

    Pikovsky, M

    A. Pikovsky, M. Rosenblum, and J. Kurths, Synchro- nization: a universal concept in nonlinear science (Cam- bridge University Press, 2002)

    2002

  10. [18]

    H. M. Smith, Synchronous flashing of fireflies, Science 82, 151 (1935)

    1935

  11. [19]

    P. J. Uhlhaas and W. Singer, Neural synchrony in brain disorders: relevance for cognitive dysfunctions and pathophysiology, Neuron 52, 155 (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    Hammond, H

    C. Hammond, H. Bergman, and P. Brown, Pathological synchronization in Parkinson’s disease: networks, models and treatments, Trends in Neurosciences 30, 357 (2007)

    2007

  13. [21]

    Jiruska, M

    P. Jiruska, M. De Curtis, J. G. Jefferys, C. A. Schevon, S. J. Schiff, and K. Schindler, Synchronization and desyn- chronization in epilepsy: controversies and hypotheses, The Journal of Physiology 591, 787 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    S. H. Strogatz, D. M. Abrams, A. McRobie, B. Eckhardt, and E. Ott, Crowd synchrony on the millennium bridge, Nature 438, 43 (2005)

    2005

  15. [23]

    Kuramoto, Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Turbu- lence (Springer, New York, 1984)

    Y. Kuramoto, Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Turbu- lence (Springer, New York, 1984)

    1984

  16. [24]

    J. A. Acebr´ on, L. L. Bonilla, C. J. P´ erez Vicente, F. Ri- tort, and R. Spigler, The Kuramoto model: A simple paradigm for synchronization phenomena, Reviews of Modern Physics 77, 137 (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    F. A. Rodrigues, T. K. D. Peron, P. Ji, and J. Kurths, The Kuramoto model in complex networks, Physics Re- ports 610, 1 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Pietras and A

    B. Pietras and A. Daffertshofer, Network dynamics of coupled oscillators and phase reduction techniques, Physics Reports 819, 1 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Cumin and C

    D. Cumin and C. Unsworth, Generalising the Kuramoto model for the study of neuronal synchronisation in the brain, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 226, 181 (2007)

    2007

  20. [28]

    Filatrella, A

    G. Filatrella, A. H. Nielsen, and N. F. Pedersen, Anal- ysis of a power grid using a Kuramoto-like model, The European Physical Journal B 61, 485 (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    Potratzki, T

    M. Potratzki, T. Br¨ ohl, T. Rings, and K. Lehnertz, Syn- chronization dynamics of phase oscillators on power grid models, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlin- ear Science 34 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Wang and J

    T. Wang and J. Roychowdhury, Oscillator-based ising machine, arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.08102 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Smelyanskiy, D

    V. Smelyanskiy, D. G. Luchinsky, D. Timucin, and A. Bandrivskyy, Reconstruction of stochastic nonlinear dynamical models from trajectory measurements, Physi- cal Review E 72, 026202 (2005)

    2005

  24. [32]

    Stankovski, V

    T. Stankovski, V. Ticcinelli, P. V. McClintock, and A. Stefanovska, Coupling functions in networks of oscil- lators, New Journal of Physics 17, 035002 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Stankovski, T

    T. Stankovski, T. Pereira, P. V. McClintock, and A. Ste- fanovska, Coupling functions: universal insights into dynamical interaction mechanisms, Reviews of Modern Physics 89, 045001 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    I. T. Tokuda, Z. Levnajic, and K. Ishimura, A practical method for estimating coupling functions in complex dy- namical systems, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 377, 20190015 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Matsuki, H

    A. Matsuki, H. Kori, and R. Kobayashi, Network infer- ence from oscillatory signals based on circle map, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07445 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    W. Su, S. Hata, H. Kori, H. Nakao, and R. Kobayashi, Pairwise vs higher-order interactions: Can we identify the interaction type in coupled oscillators from time se- ries?, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13244 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Ozawa and H

    A. Ozawa and H. Kori, Two distinct transitions in a pop- ulation of coupled oscillators with turnover: desynchro- nization and stochastic oscillation quenching, Physical Review Letters 133, 047201 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Ott and T

    E. Ott and T. M. Antonsen, Low dimensional behavior of large systems of globally coupled oscillators, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 18, 037113 (2008)

    2008

  31. [39]

    Ott and T

    E. Ott and T. M. Antonsen, Long time evolution of phase oscillator systems, Chaos: An interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 19 (2009)

    2009

  32. [40]

    Y. Y. Yamaguchi and Y. Terada, Reconstruction of phase dynamics from macroscopic observations based on linear and nonlinear response theories, Physical Review E 109, 024217 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Daido, Order function and macroscopic mutual en- trainment in uniformly coupled limit-cycle oscillators, Progress of Theoretical Physics 88, 1213 (1992)

    H. Daido, Order function and macroscopic mutual en- trainment in uniformly coupled limit-cycle oscillators, Progress of Theoretical Physics 88, 1213 (1992)

    1992

  34. [42]

    Hukushima and K

    K. Hukushima and K. Nemoto, Exchange Monte Carlo method and application to spin glass simulations, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 65, 1604 (1996)

    1996

  35. [43]

    Nagata, S

    K. Nagata, S. Sugita, and M. Okada, Bayesian spectral deconvolution with the exchange Monte Carlo method, Neural Networks 28, 82 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    Tokuda, K

    S. Tokuda, K. Nagata, and M. Okada, Simultaneous esti- mation of noise variance and number of peaks in Bayesian spectral deconvolution, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 86, 024001 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    Kashiwamura, S

    S. Kashiwamura, S. Katakami, R. Yamagami, K. Iwamitsu, H. Kumazoe, K. Nagata, T. Okajima, I. Akai, and M. Okada, Bayesian spectral deconvolution of X-ray absorption near edge structure discriminating between high-and low-energy domains, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan...

    2022

  38. [46]

    H. Ueda, S. Katakami, S. Yoshida, T. Koyama, Y. Nakai, T. Mito, M. Mizumaki, and M. Okada, Bayesian ap- proach to t 1 analysis in nmr spectroscopy with appli- cations to solid state physics, Journal of the Physical So- ciety of Japan 92, 054002 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Kashiwamura, S

    S. Kashiwamura, S. Katakami, T. Yamasaki, K. Iwamitsu, H. Kumazoe, K. Nagata, T. Oka- jima, I. Akai, and M. Okada, Noise-robust analysis of x-ray absorption near-edge structure based on poisson distribution, Science and Technology of Advanced Materials: Methods 4, 2397939 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Yanagita and A

    T. Yanagita and A. S. Mikhailov, Design of easily syn- chronizable oscillator networks using the Monte Carlo op- timization method, Physical Review E81, 056204 (2010)

    2010

  41. [49]

    Nagata and S

    K. Nagata and S. Watanabe, Asymptotic behavior of ex- change ratio in exchange Monte Carlo method, Neural Networks 21, 980 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    Iwamitsu, Y

    K. Iwamitsu, Y. Nishi, T. Yamasaki, M. Kamezaki, K. Higashiyama, S. Yakura, H. Kumazoe, S. Aihara, K. Nagata, M. Okada, et al. , Replica-exchange Monte Carlo method incorporating auto-tuning algorithm based on acceptance ratios for effective Bayesian spectroscopy, Journal of t...

    2021

  43. [51]

    Metropolis, A

    N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines, The Journal of Chemical Physics 21, 1087 (1953)

    1953

  44. [52]

    C. M. Bishop and N. M. Nasrabadi, Pattern recognition and machine learning (Springer, 2006) p. 555

    2006

  45. [53]

    J. M. Bernardo and A. F. Smith, Bayesian theory (John Wiley & Sons, 1994)

    1994

  46. [54]

    Gelman, J

    A. Gelman, J. B. Carlin, H. S. Stern, and D. B. Ru- bin, Bayesian data analysis , 3rd ed. (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    Wenden, D

    B. Wenden, D. L. Toner, S. K. Hodge, R. Grima, and A. J. Millar, Spontaneous spatiotemporal waves of gene expression from biological clocks in the leaf, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 6757 (2012)

    2012

  48. [56]

    Muranaka and T

    T. Muranaka and T. Oyama, Heterogeneity of cellular circadian clocks in intact plants and its correction under light-dark cycles, Science Advances 2, e1600500 (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    Watanabe, T

    E. Watanabe, T. Muranaka, S. Nakamura, M. Isoda, Y. Horikawa, T. Aiso, S. Ito, and T. Oyama, A non- cell-autonomous circadian rhythm of bioluminescence re- porter activities in individual duckweed cells, Plant Phys- iology 193, 677 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    Gardiner, Stochastic methods, 4th ed

    C. Gardiner, Stochastic methods, 4th ed. (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009)

    2009

  51. [59]

    Yue and G

    W. Yue and G. A. Gottwald, A stochastic approximation for the finite-size Kuramoto–Sakaguchi model, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 468, 134292 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Sakaguchi and Y

    H. Sakaguchi and Y. Kuramoto, A soluble active rotater model showing phase transitions via mutual entertain- ment, Progress of Theoretical Physics 76, 576 (1986)

    1986

  53. [61]

    Snyder, J

    J. Snyder, J. L. Callaham, S. L. Brunton, and J. N. Kutz, Data-driven stochastic modeling of coarse-grained dy- namics with finite-size effects using Langevin regression, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 427, 133004 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.