Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 75 references

Predicting mosquito flight behavior using Bayesian dynamical systems learning

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a stochastic dynamical model of mosquito flight, inferred from more than 20 million tracking data points collected around simple visual and carbon dioxide stimuli, quantitatively predicts how Aedes aegypti mosquitoes…

desk verdict A strong data-and-inference paper whose headline transfer to human targets rests on an untested rescaling; the single-cue models and synthetic validation are the solid core. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13615 v2 pith:EC24XZAF submitted 2025-05-19 physics.bio-ph

Christopher Zuo , Chenyi Fei , Alexander E. Cohen , Soohwan Kim , Ring T. Carde , Jörn Dunkel , David L. Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-ph
keywords Aedesaegyptihost-seekingbehaviorBayesianinferenceLangevindynamics3Dflighttrackingcarbondioxidecuesvisualdynamicalsystems
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 sets out to show that mosquito host-seeking flight, which has resisted quantitative prediction, can be captured by a stochastic dynamical model learned directly from tracking data. Using 3D infrared tracking of female Aedes aegypti flying around a black sphere, a carbon dioxide source, and their combination, the authors infer the forces steering mosquito flight through sparse Bayesian inference on more than 20 million trajectory data points. The learned model reproduces the measured flight densities around each stimulus and, rescaled to head size, quantitatively replicates the mosquito density measured around a real human head. If the claim holds, host-seeking behavior becomes a force field that can be simulated, giving trap design and bite-risk assessment a predictive tool where current capture devices are only 10 to 50 percent effective.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the force-field representation of the Langevin dynamics $dv/dt = f(r,v) + \xi$. The behavioral force is decomposed as $f = f_\parallel \hat{v} + f_\perp (I - \hat{v}\hat{v})\cdot\hat{d}$, splitting it into a longitudinal 'throttle' $f_\parallel$ (acceleration or braking along the flight direction) and a transverse 'turning' force $f_\perp$ (steering toward or away from the target), each expanded in a tensor-product basis of Laguerre polynomials in speed $v$ and distance $d$ and Legendre polynomials in the alignment $\hat{v}\cdot\hat{d}$. Sparse Bayesian regression — a sparsity-promoting Gaussian prior, expectation-maximization updates of coefficients and noise, sequential thresholding, and Bayesian-information-criterion model selection — condenses tens of millions of tracking data points into a few nonzero coefficients. The learned force fields are the mechanism: once inferred they can be simulated forward to generate whole trajectory ensembles whose density statistics are compared with experiment, and they are what gets rescaled through the distance scale $d_0$ to move from an 8-inch training sphere to a 12-inch human head.

What would settle it

Re-run the tracking and inference pipeline on a 12-inch black sphere releasing CO2 at 0.24 L/min and compare the empirically inferred force field and density with the prediction obtained by rescaling the 8-inch-sphere model; if the rescaled model does not reproduce the 12-inch-sphere data, the transfer to the human head is unsupported. Separately, repeat the human-head experiment with the body's heat and skin odors blocked, for instance with a heat-reflective suit under the white outfit: if the measured head density changes when those cues are removed, the sphere-only model is missing cues that matter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that the full repertoire of mosquito host-seeking flight in windless conditions — free flight, visual attraction, carbon-dioxide-induced tumbling, and orbiting around combined cues — is described by a single stochastic Langevin equation $dv/dt = f(r,v) + \xi$, in which the behavioral force splits into a longitudinal throttle $f_\parallel$ along the flight direction and a transverse turning force $f_\perp$ perpendicular to it, both depending only on flight speed, distance from the target, and flight direction relative to the target. Sparse Bayesian inference extracts these forces from the tracking data and reveals cue-specific mechanisms: visual cues act through a speed potential that lowers the preferred speed near the target plus a taxis-then-repulsion turning force; carbon dioxide acts through a kinesis-like deceleration from about 0.7 m/s to 0.2 m/s within 0.4 m; combined cues produce an amplified visual turning force and sustained orbiting. The combined-cue response is not a linear superposition of the individual responses, and the combined-cue model, rescaled to head size, quantitatively reproduces the measured mosquito density around a real head wearing a black hood.

Load-bearing premise

The head prediction assumes a mosquito treats a human head as a black CO2-emitting sphere that differs from the 8-inch training sphere only in size, so that one distance rescaling transfers the learned forces, and that the rest of the human body, its heat, and skin odors add no cues that change the flight pattern.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Simulated trajectories of the learned models match the experimental density distributions around targets for no cue, visual, CO$_2$, and combined cues, with small Kolmogorov–Smirnov distances, and the validation statistics (mean squared displacement, directional and speed correlations) were not used during inference.
  • Bite risk, quantified as the radius $d_{50}$ containing 50 percent of trajectories, shrinks from about 0.65 m with no cues, to 0.4 m with a visual target, to 0.25 m with CO$_2$, and to 0.2 m with combined cues, so combined stimuli concentrate mosquitoes in a tighter zone around the host.
  • The response to combined cues is not additive: the best non-negative linear superposition of the single-cue forces ($f_{\parallel,\mathrm{lin}} = 0.63 f_{\parallel,\mathrm{visual}} + 0.39 f_{\parallel,\mathrm{CO}_2}$; $f_{\perp,\mathrm{lin}} = 1.63 f_{\perp,\mathrm{visual}}$) leaves large residuals near the target and fails to reproduce the combined-cue density, implying nonlinear integration of s
  • Because the combined-cue sphere model, rescaled to head size, reproduces the density around a human head, the framework transfers from artificial stimuli to a realistic human target under windless conditions.
  • The inference pipeline requires no human-defined behavioral labels and is presented as directly applicable to other stimuli, such as odor and heat, and to other vector species.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the force-field picture holds, the inferred $f_\perp$ field can be read as a sensory map: its turning wall near 0.4 m coincides with the visual range estimated from the eye's 12.3° minimum resolvable angle, so the model could measure perception ranges directly from flight behavior alone.
  • The non-additivity of combined cues suggests a testable gating hypothesis: CO$_2$ may amplify visual steering rather than act as an independent attractant, which would predict a visual turning force in the combined model that is strongest exactly where CO$_2$ is detectable; the paper documents that pattern but leaves the amplification unquantified.
  • Because the learned models are cheap to simulate, the $d_{50}$ metric could be inverted into a design loop — optimizing trap geometry, bait strength, and multi-target layouts in simulation before field trials — an application the paper lists as future work rather than demonstrating.
  • The windless chamber makes the CO$_2$ zone static; advecting the plume and re-inferring the forces would test whether the same kinesis-and-taxis fields simply acquire an upwind bias, or whether the inferred forces are wind-conditional rather than universal stimulus responses.
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 manuscript combines 3D infrared tracking of freely flying Aedes aegypti mosquitoes with sparse Bayesian dynamical-systems inference to learn stochastic Langevin models of host-seeking flight. The authors record trajectories in an empty chamber and around visual (black sphere), CO2 (white sphere with 0.24 L/min CO2), and combined visual+CO2 targets, then infer spatially resolved longitudinal and transverse behavioral forces. The learned models reproduce trajectory-density statistics for the fitted sphere conditions and are invoked to predict mosquito densities around a human subject approximated as a 12-inch black sphere emitting CO2. The paper also reports that combined-cue responses are not a linear superposition of single-cue responses, and it provides a web application for interactive simulation.

Significance. If the central transfer claim holds, the framework would provide a quantitative, mechanistic description of mosquito host-seeking in windless conditions and demonstrate an advance over trajectory-statistics-only studies. The paper's strengths include the unprecedented size of the 3D tracking dataset, synthetic-data validation of the inference pipeline (Supp. Figs. 3-4), publicly archived data and code, a sparsity-selected model with explicit BIC comparison, and an independent out-of-sample test in the human-head experiment. The careful Bayesian formulation with posterior uncertainties and the non-additivity analysis are valuable contributions. However, the headline prediction of human-head densities rests on an untested target-size rescaling, so the significance of the transfer claim is currently uncertain.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplementary Materials III.B; main Fig. 4E-H] The central predictive claim that the model "quantitatively replicate[s]" mosquito densities around the human head (Fig. 4F,H) depends on transferring the combined-cue force learned for an 8-inch sphere to a 12-inch human head by rescaling the distance scale d0. This rescaling is not validated for the combined cue: Supplementary Fig. 11 tests size scaling only for the visual cue (4-inch and 12-inch spheres), and no 12-inch combined-cue experiment is reported. Moreover, d0 bundles the visual detection range, which could plausibly scale with target radius, and the CO2 detection range, which for a fixed flow rate is set by plume advection and diffusion and should be nearly independent of the mounting sphere's radius; rescaling both by the same factor is therefore not physically justified. The supplementary statement "we can rescale the d0 parameters" does not specify the functional form of the rescaling or quantify its uncertainty.
  2. [Main Fig. 4F,H] The human-head comparison, which is the only out-of-sample test of the model, is presented only as side-by-side density heatmaps. Unlike the sphere-condition comparisons, which report Kolmogorov-Smirnov distances (Fig. 5O), no KS distance, error bars, or other quantitative metric is given for Fig. 4F,H. The word "quantitatively" in the claim is therefore not supported by any reported statistic; the authors should provide a quantitative comparison such as a KS distance or a distributional discrepancy measure between the experimental and predicted human-head densities.
  3. [Main Figs. 3E, 3H, 4D and Fig. 5M-O] The sphere-condition validations are in-sample checks: the simulated densities and CDFs are generated from models fitted to the same trajectories with which they are compared. They establish self-consistency of the inference pipeline but not predictive power. The paper's wording that simulations "quantitatively match" these data (Figs. 3E,H and 4D) and that the KS distances "highlight the accuracy of our model in predicting mosquito behavior" (Fig. 5O) overstates the evidence; the predictive claim should be restricted to the human-head transfer, and the in-sample nature of the sphere-condition comparisons should be explicitly acknowledged.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Main text, paragraph after Fig. 5] The phrase "Kolmogorov–Smirno (KS) distance" should read "Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) distance."
  2. [Abstract and Results] The abstract states that the model was trained on "more than 20,000,000 data points," while the Results and Supplementary Table 2 report 53,669,795 data points across all experiments; please clarify which subset is used for training the sensory-response models.
  3. [Supplementary Materials III.B] The rescaling sentence "we can rescale the d0 parameters" is the only methodological description of how the 8-inch-sphere model is adapted to the 12-inch human head; a precise equation (e.g., d0_new = d0_old * R_new/R_old) and a test of sensitivity to this choice should be added.
  4. [Main Fig. 4E] The photographic inset of the human subject is useful, but the matching between the photograph and the schematic "black sphere emitting CO2" is not self-evident; a dimensioned overlay or annotation would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the human-head prediction uses a force fitted to sphere trajectories and is compared against a separate human-subject experiment; the d0 rescaling is an explicit geometric assumption, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) fit a sparse Bayesian Langevin force f(v,r) to 3D trajectories around an 8-inch sphere for visual, CO2, and combined cues; (ii) simulate the learned SDE; (iii) compare ensemble statistics and density heatmaps with the same experiments; (iv) transfer the combined-cue force to a 12-inch 'spherical human' by rescaling the d0 length scale and compare with an independent human-subject experiment. Step (iv) is the central predictive claim and is not circular: the force coefficients are fixed by sphere data, the d0 rescale is set by the size ratio between the 8-inch sphere and 12-inch head approximation, and the human-head trajectories are separate data not used in inference. The in-sample agreement for the sphere conditions (Figs. 3E,H; 4D; 5M-O) is standard model checking, not a prediction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The Bayesian inference machinery is cited from external literature ([36-44], [52-54]); the only self-references are to the authors' own data/code and web application, which are not load-bearing. The unvalidated linear d0 rescaling for the combined cue is a correctness/robustness concern, not a circularity: nothing in the paper indicates that d0 was tuned to the human-head data, and Supplementary Fig. 11 provides partial size-scaling support for the visual cue. Since no specific reduction of a claimed prediction to its fitted inputs or to a self-citation chain can be exhibited, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central model pulls from the data: the force field is a fitted expansion, the noise is fitted, and the human-head prediction requires a geometric rescaling rule stated without derivation. No new physical entities are introduced; the main assumptions are Markovian Langevin dynamics, radial point-source symmetry, and scale-similarity of target responses.

free parameters (5)
  • Basis-function coefficients w_mu = Not enumerated; learned force maps shown in Figs. 3D, 3G, 4C and Supp. Fig. 8
    The behavioral force is an expansion in Laguerre and Legendre basis functions (Eqs. 2, S2-S4); all coefficients are fitted to trajectory data by EM maximization of the marginal likelihood.
  • Noise magnitude Delta = e.g., D = 0.248 m2/s3 in the synthetic test; experimental values per flight mode and condition
    The diffusion coefficient of the Gaussian white noise in Eq. 1 is estimated from data via Eq. S12.
  • Scale parameters v0 and d0 = Chosen to minimize residuals; d0 rescaled for the 12-inch human-head prediction
    These set the units of the basis functions and are optimized outside EM; the rescaling of d0 for the human head is the key assumption for out-of-sample prediction.
  • Sparsity threshold and model order = Selected by BIC after sequential thresholding
    The number of nonzero basis terms is chosen by model selection rather than derived from physics; it controls the smoothness of the force field.
  • Linear superposition coefficients alpha1 and alpha2 = f_parallel: 0.63 visual + 0.39 CO2; f_perp: 1.63 visual + 0.00 CO2
    Used only for the additivity test (Fig. 4G), these are fits of the combined force to the individual cue forces.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Langevin dynamics with Gaussian white noise: dv/dt = f(r,v) + xi (Eq. 1)
    Assumes the flight decision process is Markovian in (v, r) with white noise; the 0.125 s oscillation in the speed correlation (Fig. 2J) hints at sensory feedback that this model cannot represent.
  • domain assumption Trajectories are independent and mosquito-mosquito interactions are negligible
    Stated in the main text; the authors report only 1-10 near-coincident pairs out of tens of thousands of trajectories (Supp. Fig. 1).
  • domain assumption For stimulus response, the force depends only on speed v, distance d, and direction v dot d (radial point-source symmetry)
    The force decomposition in Eq. 3 ignores azimuth, target shape, and the spatial structure of the CO2 plume; this legitimizes using spheres as stand-ins for humans.
  • ad hoc to paper Geometric similarity: learned forces for an 8-inch sphere apply to other target sizes by rescaling d0
    Supplementary Materials III.A says 'we can rescale the d0 parameters to approximate the response to a larger or smaller target.' This rule is asserted, not derived, and is what transfers the model to a human head.
  • domain assumption Levitation force exactly balances gravity with fz = g, independent of height and velocity
    Inferred in Supp. Fig. 2 and then imposed exactly in all subsequent models; fine for level flight but could mask vertical preference.
  • standard math The basis expansions (weighted Laguerre and Legendre polynomials) are complete enough to represent true behavioral forces
    The method relies on polynomial approximation; synthetic tests (Supp. Figs. 3-4) support adequacy for the chosen ground truths.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predicting mosquito flight behavior using Bayesian dynamical systems learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EC24XZAF

@misc{pith2026250513615,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predicting mosquito flight behavior using Bayesian dynamical systems learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EC24XZAF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13615}
}
read the original abstract

Mosquito-borne diseases cause several hundred thousand deaths every year. Deciphering mosquito host-seeking behavior is essential to prevent disease transmission through mosquito capture and surveillance. Despite recent substantial progress, we currently lack a comprehensive quantitative understanding of how visual and other sensory cues guide mosquitoes to their targets. Here, we combined 3D infrared tracking of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes with Bayesian dynamical systems inference to learn a quantitative biophysical model of mosquito host-seeking behavior. Trained on more than 20,000,000 data points from mosquito free-flight trajectories recorded in the presence of visual and carbon dioxide cues, the model accurately predicts how mosquitoes respond to human targets. Our results provide a quantitative foundation for optimizing mosquito capture and control strategies, a key step towards mitigating the impact of mosquito-borne diseases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13615 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 3D tracking of individual mosquitos enables dynamical inference of mosquito flight behaviors. (A) Schematics of the experimental setup. (B) 3D views of mosquito trajectories around a standing human subject wearing a normal outfit (left), colored by flight speed. (C) 3D views of mosquito trajectories around a standing human subject wearing a half-black, half-white outfit (left), colored by flight speed. (D) Inference… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Free flying mosquitos exhibits two distinct behaviors. (A) (Top) Representative mosquito trajectories from experiments and (Bottom) simulations of the learned model. Scale bars labeled with x, y, and z: 25 cm. For visual clarity, only 10 % of total trajectories are shown. (B) 2D histogram of learned decomposition coefficients shows two groups of trajectories, an active group (green) and an idle group (blue). (C, D) … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. * [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: * Best non-negative linear superposition: f∥,lin = 0.63 f∥,visual + 0.39 f∥,CO2 f⊥,lin = 1.63 f⊥,visual + 0.00 f⊥,CO2 0.5 0 -0.5 0 0.3 0.6 0 0.5 1 Direction v· ˆ d ˆ Speed v (m/s) Distance d (m) -4 4 0 0.5 0 -0.5 0 0.3 0.6 0 0.5 1 Direction v· ˆ d ˆ Speed v (m/s) Dista…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: * CDF Distance r (m) Experiment None Visual CO2 Visual + CO2 Speed v (m/s) 0 1 0.5 B C E F H I K L M N Experiment Simulation 0 0.4 0.8 Distance r (m) Simulation 0 0.4 0.8 0.5 1 0 Simulation Experiment None CO2 Visual Vis+CO2 0.5 1 0 O 0 0.4 0.8 KS distance A D G J [PI…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Omodior, M

    O. Omodior, M. C. Luetke, and E. J. Nelson, Preventive Medicine Reports 12, 336 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Wang and Z

    J. Wang and Z. Zhu, Frontiers in Public Health 11, 1115000 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    C. S. McBride, F. Baier, A. B. Omondi, S. A. Spitzer, J. Lutomiah, R. Sang, R. Ignell, and L. B. Vosshall, Nature 515, 222 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    D. A. Yee, C. Dean Bermond, L. J. Reyes-Torres, N. S. Fijman, N. A. Scavo, J. Nelsen, and S. H. Yee, Parasites & Vectors 15, 216 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Hinze, S

    A. Hinze, S. Hill, and R. Ignell, in Sensory ecology of disease vectors (Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2022) pp. 253–276

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Van Breugel, J

    F. Van Breugel, J. Riffell, A. Fairhall, and M. H. Dick- inson, Current Biology 25, 2123 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    T. D. De and R. Dixit, in Sino-Nasal and Olfactory Sys- tem Disorders (IntechOpen, 2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Cribellier, J

    A. Cribellier, J. A. van Erp, A. Hiscox, M. J. Lankheet, J. L. van Leeuwen, J. Spitzen, and F. T. Muijres, Royal Society Open Science 5, 180246 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    M. Z. Liu and L. B. Vosshall, Current Biology 29, 2250 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Warrant and M

    E. Warrant and M. Dacke, Annual Review of Entomol- ogy 56, 239 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    Alonso San Alberto, C

    D. Alonso San Alberto, C. Rusch, Y. Zhan, A. D. Straw, C. Montell, and J. A. Riffell, Nature Communications 13, 555 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Gillies and T

    M. Gillies and T. Wilkes, Bulletin of Entomological Re- search 71, 65 (1981)

    1981

  5. [13]

    Gillies and T

    M. Gillies and T. Wilkes, Nature 252, 388 (1974)

    1974

  6. [14]

    B. D. Sumner and R. T. Card´ e, Journal of Insect Behav- ior 35, 31 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    M. F. Cooperband and R. T. Card´ e, Medical and Vet- erinary Entomology 20, 1 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    W. J. Laursen, G. Budelli, R. Tang, E. C. Chang, R. Busby, S. Shankar, R. Gerber, C. Greppi, R. Albu- querque, and P. A. Garrity, Neuron 111, 874 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Choumet, T

    V. Choumet, T. Attout, L. Chartier, H. Khun, J. Sautereau, A. Robbe-Vincent, P. Brey, M. Huerre, and O. Bain, PLoS One 7, e50464 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    B. A. Amos, K. M. Staunton, S. A. Ritchie, and R. T. Card´ e, Journal of Medical Entomology57, 884 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Cooperband and R

    M. Cooperband and R. Card´ e, Medical and Veterinary Entomology 20, 11 (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    Jatta, M

    E. Jatta, M. Carrasco-Tenezaca, M. Jawara, J. Bradley, S. Ceesay, U. D’Alessandro, D. Jeffries, B. Kandeh, D. S.-H. Lee, M. Pinder, A. L. Wilson, J. Knudsen, and S. W. Lindsay, Journal of the Royal Society Interface18, 20201030 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Majeed, S

    S. Majeed, S. R. Hill, T. Dekker, and R. Ignell, Royal Society Open Science 4, 170189 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    de Jong and B

    R. de Jong and B. G. Knols, in Ciba Foundation Sympo- sium 200: Olfaction in Mosquito-Host Interactions (Wi- ley Online Library, 2007) pp. 89–108

    2007

  15. [23]

    Dekker, W

    T. Dekker, W. Takken, B. G. Knols, E. Bouman, S. van de Laak, A. de Bever, and P. W. Huisman, En- tomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 87, 295 (1998)

    1998

  16. [24]

    Hawkes and G

    F. Hawkes and G. Gibson, Parasites & Vectors 9, 320 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Sinhuber, K

    M. Sinhuber, K. Van Der Vaart, R. Ni, J. G. Puckett, D. H. Kelley, and N. T. Ouellette, Scientific Data 6, 190036 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Spitzen, C

    J. Spitzen, C. W. Spoor, F. Grieco, C. ter Braak, J. Beeuwkes, S. P. van Brugge, S. Kranenbarg, L. P. Noldus, J. L. van Leeuwen, and W. Takken, PLoS One 8, e62995 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    L. E. Muir, M. J. Thorne, and B. H. Kay, Journal of Medical Entomology 29, 278 (1992)

    1992

  20. [28]

    L. E. Muir, B. H. Kay, and M. J. Thorne, Journal of Medical Entomology 29, 445 (1992)

    1992

  21. [29]

    Hawkes, J

    F. Hawkes, J. Zeil, and G. Gibson, in Sensory ecology of disease vectors (Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2022) pp. 511–533

    2022

  22. [30]

    N. J. Mlot, C. A. Tovey, and D. L. Hu, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 7669 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    Peleg, J

    O. Peleg, J. M. Peters, M. K. Salcedo, and L. Mahade- van, Nature Physics 14, 1193 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    G. J. Berman, D. M. Choi, W. Bialek, and J. W. Shae- vitz, Journal of The Royal Society Interface11, 20140672 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    J. F. M´ endez-Valderrama, Y. A. Kinkhabwala, J. Silver, I. Cohen, and T. Arias, Nature Communications 9, 3538 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Attanasi, A

    A. Attanasi, A. Cavagna, L. Del Castello, I. Giardina, T. S. Grigera, A. Jeli´ c, S. Melillo, L. Parisi, O. Pohl, E. Shen, et al., Nature Physics 10, 691 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Bozek, L

    K. Bozek, L. Hebert, Y. Portugal, A. S. Mikheyev, and G. J. Stephens, Nature Communications 12, 1733 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    M. E. Tipping, Journal of Machine Learning Research 1, 211 (2001)

    2001

  29. [37]

    D. P. Wipf and B. D. Rao, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 52, 2153 (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    W. Pan, Y. Yuan, J. Gon¸ calves, and G.-B. Stan, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 61, 182 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Y. Yuan, X. Tang, W. Zhou, W. Pan, X. Li, H.-T. Zhang, H. Ding, and J. Goncalves, Nature Communications 10, 4894 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Fuentes, R

    R. Fuentes, R. Nayek, P. Gardner, N. Dervilis, T. Rogers, K. Worden, and E. J. Cross, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 154, 107528 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Huang, Y

    Y. Huang, Y. Mabrouk, G. Gompper, and B. Sabass, Scientific Reports 12, 21691 (2022). 9

    2022

  34. [42]

    S. M. Hirsh, D. A. Barajas-Solano, and J. N. Kutz, Royal Society Open Science 9, 211823 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    N. M. Mangan, S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, and J. N. Kutz, IEEE Transactions on Molecular, Biological, and Multi-Scale Communications 2, 52 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    D. B. Br¨ uckner, P. Ronceray, and C. P. Broedersz, Phys- ical Review Letters 125, 058103 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    M. D. Keller, B. J. Norton, D. J. Farrar, P. Rutschman, M. Marvit, and A. Makagon, Scientific Reports 10, 14795 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    J. M. Patt, A. Makagon, B. Norton, M. Marvit, P. Rutschman, M. Neligeorge, and J. Salesin, Scientific Reports 14, 8174 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    J. S. Kennedy, in Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, Vol. 109-4 (London, 1940) pp. 221–242

    1940

  40. [48]

    Geier, O

    M. Geier, O. J. Bosch, and J. Boeckh, Journal of Ex- perimental Biology 202, 1639 (1999)

    1999

  41. [49]

    Cribellier, J

    A. Cribellier, J. Spitzen, H. Fairbairn, C. Van De Geer, J. L. Van Leeuwen, and F. T. Muijres, Malaria Journal 19, 357 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    B. A. Amos, S. A. Ritchie, and R. T. Card´ e, Journal of Medical Entomology 57, 1539 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Hinze, J

    A. Hinze, J. Lantz, S. R. Hill, and R. Ignell, Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 15, 643693 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Frishman and P

    A. Frishman and P. Ronceray, Physical Review X 10, 021009 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    Ronceray, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02363 (2024)

    P. Ronceray, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02363 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    D. B. Br¨ uckner, N. Arlt, A. Fink, P. Ronceray, J. O. R¨ adler, and C. P. Broedersz, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences 118, e2016602118 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    S. L. Brunton, J. L. Proctor, and J. N. Kutz, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 3932 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    N. M. Mangan, J. N. Kutz, S. L. Brunton, and J. L. Proctor, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathemat- ical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 473, 20170009 (2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    N. M. Mangan, T. Askham, S. L. Brunton, J. N. Kutz, and J. L. Proctor, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 475, 20180534 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    A. A. Neath and J. E. Cavanaugh, Wiley Interdis- ciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics 4, 199 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    M. H. Dickinson and F. T. Muijres, Philosophical Trans- actions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371, 20150388 (2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    Ristroph, G

    L. Ristroph, G. Ristroph, S. Morozova, A. J. Bergou, S. Chang, J. Guckenheimer, Z. J. Wang, and I. Co- hen, Journal of The Royal Society Interface10, 20130237 (2013)

    2013

  53. [61]

    L.-G. Liu, G. Du, and M. Sun, Journal of Fluid Me- chanics 898, A19 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    J. D. Pleil, M. A. G. Wallace, M. D. Davis, and C. M. Matty, Journal of Breath Research 15, 042002 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    A. J. Grant and R. J. O’Connell, Journal of Medical Entomology 44, 617 (2007)

    2007

  56. [64]

    Farrell, J

    F. Farrell, J. Tailleur, D. Marenduzzo, and M. C. Marchetti, Physical Review Letters 108, 248101 (2012)

    2012

  57. [65]

    C. J. McMeniman, R. A. Corfas, B. J. Matthews, S. A. Ritchie, and L. B. Vosshall, Cell 156, 1060 (2014)

    2014

  58. [66]

    Mosquito website simulation,

    “Mosquito website simulation,” https:// mosquitoapp-production.up.railway.app/ (2025)

    2025

  59. [67]

    Huang, J

    W. Huang, J. Rodrigues, E. Bilgo, J. R. Tormo, J. D. Challenger, C. De Cozar-Gallardo, I. P´ erez-Victoria, F. Reyes, P. Casta˜ neda-Casado, E. J. Gnambani, D. F. de Sales Hien, M. Konkobo, B. Urones, I. Coppens, A. Mendoza-Losana, L. Ballell, A. Diabate, T. S. Churcher, and M...

    2023

  60. [68]

    J. D. Rivera-Duarte, I. J. May-Concha, R. Vargas- Abasolo, M. X. Mart´ ınez-Castaneira, M. E. Farf´ an- Beltr´ an, B. Mendoza-Garfias, A. L. Flores-Villegas, and A. C´ ordoba-Aguilar, Ecology and Evolution15, e71164 (2025)

    2025

  61. [69]

    Original Data of “Pre- dicting mosquito flight behavior using Bayesian dynam- ical systems learning

    C. Zuo, C. Fei, A. E. Cohen, S. Kim, R. T. Carde, J. Dunkel, and D. L. Hu, “Original Data of “Pre- dicting mosquito flight behavior using Bayesian dynam- ical systems learning”,” https://zenodo.org/records/ 15277051 (2025)

    2025

  62. [70]

    Code for “Predicting mosquito flight behavior using Bayesian dynamical systems learning

    C. Zuo, C. Fei, A. E. Cohen, S. Kim, R. T. Carde, J. Dunkel, and D. L. Hu, “Code for “Predicting mosquito flight behavior using Bayesian dynamical systems learning”,” https://github.com/ f-chenyi/MosquitoProject (2025)

    2025

  63. [71]

    Krogh and J

    A. Krogh and J. Hertz, in Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems , Vol. 4, edited by J. Moody, S. Hanson, and R. Lippmann (Morgan-Kaufmann, Burlington, MA, 1991)

    1991

  64. [72]

    D. J. MacKay, Neural Computation 4, 448 (1992)

    1992

  65. [73]

    D. J. MacKay, Neural Computation 4, 415 (1992)

    1992

  66. [74]

    J. K. Ghosh, M. Delampady, and T. Samanta, An intro- duction to Bayesian analysis: theory and methods , Vol. 725 (Springer, New York, NY, 2006)

    2006

  67. [75]

    Rackauckas and Q

    C. Rackauckas and Q. Nie, The Journal of Open Re- search Software 5 (2017). 10 Fig. 1. 3D tracking of individual mosquitos enables dynamical inference of mosquito flight behaviors. (A) Schematics of the experimental setup. ( B) 3D views of mosquito trajectories around a standi...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.