Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Phenomenological renormalization group in neuronal models near criticality

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 When time bins are set by the network's own average interspike interval, the phenomenological renormalization group detects scale-invariant behavior only in a narrow window around the known critical point of two neuronal models.

desk verdict Useful PRG methods paper with a convincing fixed-bin warning and an adaptive binning fix; missing sensitivity analysis on the binning rule before the narrow-criticality claim is fully supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14053 v2 pith:YGB2VBIF submitted 2025-06-16 cond-mat.dis-nn cond-mat.stat-mechnlin.AOphysics.data-an

Kaio F. R. Nascimento , Daniel M. Castro , Gustavo G. Cambrainha , Mauro Copelli This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mechnlin.AOphysics.data-an
keywords phenomenologicalrenormalizationgroupcriticalbrainhypothesisdirectedpercolationmean-fielduniversalityclasskurtosistimebinningneuronalavalanchesscaleinvariance
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 asks how close to a phase transition a spiking network must be before the phenomenological renormalization group (PRG), a model-free coarse-graining method, reports genuine scale invariance. Simulating two neuronal models whose critical points are known exactly, the authors sweep the control parameter across the absorbing-to-active transition and apply PRG in momentum space. They find that fixed time bins produce spurious non-Gaussian signatures in both the sparse subcritical and saturated supercritical regimes. They introduce a data-driven binning rule, Δt proportional to the mean interspike interval, that keeps the active-bin density nearly constant; under this rule the kurtosis of the coarse-grained activity peaks sharply at the known critical point and scale invariance appears only within a narrow window around it. If this holds, PRG scaling signatures in experimental data can be read as indicators of near-critical dynamics, provided preprocessing follows the system's own timescale.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing method is the momentum-space PRG: compute the covariance matrix of binarized spiking activity, project the data onto the top N_cutoff eigenmodes, and measure the kurtosis κ = ⟨$ψ^{4}$⟩/⟨$ψ^{2}$⟩^2 of the normalized coarse-grained variable as the cut-off is reduced. The supporting mechanism is the adaptive binning rule Δt = f⟨ISI⟩, which fixes the average fraction of occupied bins near 0.15 across all dynamical phases and prevents sparse- or saturation-induced distortions from masquerading as scale invariance. A secondary observable is the real-space exponent α from the intracluster mean variance M_2 ∝ C_size^α; it also distinguishes critical from trivial dynamics but with a broader peak.

What would settle it

Repeat the two parameter sweeps while varying f in Eq. (9), such as f ∈ {0.25, 0.5, 1, 2}, or varying the target active-bin density around 0.15, and locate the kurtosis maximum in each sweep; if the maximum shifts appreciably away from σ=1 or g=1.5, or if a broad plateau appears for some f, the claim that adaptive binning reveals a narrow genuine critical window would be falsified. A second check is to apply the same protocol to a system that is provably subcritical with slow oscillations: a persistent high kurtosis peak there would signal a binning artifact rather than criticality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that PRG detects genuine scale invariance in neuronal models only in a narrow vicinity of the critical point, and that a sharp kurtosis peak centered precisely on the critical value is the reliable signature. The authors show this for two mean-field directed percolation models: an excitable cellular automaton with branching ratio σ (critical at σ_c=1) and a stochastic integrate-and-fire network with inhibition strength g (critical at g_c=1.5). Fixed time bins corrupt the measurement: small bins inflate kurtosis in the quiet subcritical phase because many zeros create spurious correlations; large bins inflate it in the active phase through saturation. With bins chosen adaptively as a fixed fraction of the mean interspike interval, the active-bin density is nearly constant, and the kurtosis rises only near criticality, staying close to the Gaussian baseline elsewhere; shuffled surrogate data remain trivial throughout. The real-space exponent α also peaks near criticality but more broadly, making kurtosis the sharper diagnostic.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that choosing Δt as a fixed fraction of the mean interspike interval, with the fraction set so that about 15% of bins are active, is a neutral preprocessing choice that does not itself create or hide scale invariance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the two models studied, a sharp kurtosis peak centered at the known critical point is a reliable PRG signature, while shuffled surrogate data stays near the Gaussian baseline throughout.
  • Fixed time bins can produce misleading PRG signatures in both the subcritical and supercritical phases, so PRG studies should avoid a single bin size when activity rates vary.
  • Adaptive binning based on the mean interspike interval keeps the active-bin density roughly constant and makes PRG results consistent even with heavy subsampling.
  • The real-space exponent α is a less precise criticality diagnostic than kurtosis; its nontrivial region extends further into the subcritical phase in the inhibitory network.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the kurtosis peak remains narrow under a full sweep of f and of the target active-bin density, the method could be used as a parameter-free localizer of unknown critical points in neural data, not just a confirmatory tool.
  • Because both models belong to the mean-field directed percolation universality class, testing a model with finite-dimensional critical exponents would reveal whether the narrow critical window is a property of the PRG method or of this universality class.
  • The hand-selected target density near 0.15 could be replaced by an automatic rule that maximizes the kurtosis contrast between real and surrogate data; the paper does not investigate such an optimization.
  • The adaptive-binning rule could be combined with other criticality diagnostics, such as avalanche shape collapse, to cross-validate criticality identification in a single dataset.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies how phenomenological renormalization group (PRG) scale-invariance signatures behave when two neuronal models with known mean-field directed-percolation critical points are tuned across their phase transitions. It first demonstrates that fixed time-binning produces spurious kurtosis peaks in the PRG coarse-grained activity because of extreme occupancy (too few or too many active bins), then proposes an adaptive binning rule, \Delta t = f \langle ISI \rangle, tuned to keep the active-bin density near 0.15. With this rule, the paper reports that the PRG kurtosis peaks sharply at the known critical point and that the real-space exponent \alpha peaks more gradually, while shuffled surrogate data remains near the Gaussian baseline. The authors argue that these results validate PRG applications to experimental data provided that preprocessing respects the intrinsic timescale of the dynamics.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a useful calibration result: it would show that PRG's scale-invariance signatures are specific to a narrow vicinity of a true critical point in models with exactly known criticality, thereby strengthening the interpretation of kurtosis peaks in experimental neural data. The paper has clear strengths: it uses two mechanistically different models with exactly known MF-DP critical points, it demonstrates the fixed-bin artifacts concretely, and it includes shuffled surrogate controls throughout. The main risk is that the central 'narrow critical window' claim rests on a hand-picked binning target and on curves shown without uncertainty quantification, so the claimed robustness is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III B, Eq. (9), Fig. 4] The adaptive binning rule is anchored to a target active-bin density of \rho_bin \approx 0.15, but this target is set by hand and no sensitivity analysis over f or \rho_bin is reported. Since the fixed-bin artifacts are themselves driven by occupancy extremes, the rule effectively selects an intermediate occupancy, and without a sweep over that intermediate value one cannot exclude that the sharp kurtosis peak at criticality is a property of the chosen operating point rather than of PRG itself. A demonstration that the peak location and narrowness survive over a range of f and target densities is load-bearing for the paper's central claim.
  2. [Section III B and Discussion] The abstract and Discussion state that genuine scale-invariant behavior emerges only within a narrow range around the known critical point, but the adaptive-binning parameter sweeps are explicitly limited to within ten percent of the critical values. No adaptive-binning data are shown for control-parameter distances larger than 10%, so the 'only' claim is not supported by the measurements as presented; the authors should either extend the sweeps or reword the claim to match the range actually explored.
  3. [Fig. 4 and Section II D 1] The kurtosis and exponent curves are presented without error bars or replicate statistics, and the manuscript does not state how many independent simulations or trials were used to produce the PRG estimators. Kurtosis estimates from binned binary data with 256 subsampled neurons can have sizable finite-sample fluctuations, so the statements that the peak is 'sharp' and 'centered precisely at criticality' and that surrogate data remain 'consistently close' to the Gaussian baseline are not quantitatively established without uncertainty quantification.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The normalization factor Z_i(N_cutoff) is introduced but its explicit form is not given; please provide it so the reader can verify that var(\psi)=1 is enforced.
  2. [Eq. (8)] The definition of the step function is unclear as written ('\Theta(x>1)=0 (null otherwise)'); please define \Theta with the standard convention or with an explicit piecewise expression.
  3. [Section II D 1] The simulation section specifies 10^4 neurons and trials of 5\times 10^3 time steps but does not state the number of trials used; please report this number, as it is needed to assess the statistical reliability of the kurtosis and exponent estimates.
  4. [Discussion] The Discussion claims that the results remain unaffected by heavy subsampling, but no comparison across different subsampled neuron counts is shown; please support this statement or qualify it.
  5. [Fig. 3] The text does not describe the parameter values, axis ranges, or line styles in panels C and D in enough detail for the reader to reproduce the 'nearly constant active bin density' claim; please clarify the figure contents.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PRG kurtosis peak is an empirical simulation result anchored to external model critical points, not forced by the binning construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that with adaptive binning the PRG kurtosis peaks narrowly at criticality — is not derived from its own inputs by construction. Both models have critical points fixed by external model definitions: σ_c = 1 for the excitable cellular automaton (from the Kinouchi–Copelli branching-ratio criterion) and g_c = 1.5 for the stochastic integrate-and-fire network (from Girardi-Schappo et al.). These critical values are independent of the PRG analysis performed in the paper. The adaptive binning rule of Eq. (9), Δt = f·⟨ISI⟩, uses only the mean interspike interval and a user-chosen multiplier f; the active-bin density ρ_bin ≈ 0.15 is selected to avoid the occupancy extremes that produce spurious kurtosis, but it is not fitted to the kurtosis peak or to the known critical point. The demonstration that fixed bins create spurious signatures, while adaptive bins yield a sharp kurtosis peak at the known critical point in two distinct models, is an empirical simulation result rather than a circular reduction. The self-citations [48,49] are invoked only to reinforce the interpretation of kurtosis as a 'distance to triviality' and are not load-bearing for the novel finding. The absence of a systematic sweep over f or ρ_bin is a legitimate robustness concern, but under the given rules it is a correctness risk rather than evidence of circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The conclusion that kurtosis peaks only near criticality rests on the PRG methodology from prior work, on the choice of adaptive binning with a manually set target density, and on the models' exactly known critical points. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • f (bin-size multiplier) = not stated; selected so that ρ_bin ≈ 0.15
    In Eq. (9), Δt=f⟨ISI⟩; f is called 'tuneable' and fixed by the choice of active bin density for Figs. 4, so it is a hand-chosen parameter affecting the central result.
  • target active bin density ρ_bin = 0.15
    Figure 4 caption states active bin density fixed at ≈0.15; no sensitivity analysis over this target is shown, and it controls the width and height of the kurtosis peak.
  • subsampled neuron count N_sub = 256
    Section II.D.1: 256 of 10^4 neurons are randomly selected for PRG analysis, an analysis choice that can alter apparent correlations.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption PRG coarse-graining detects criticality through convergence to non-Gaussian fixed points and power-law cluster growth.
    The kurtosis and alpha indicators inherit this property from Meshulam and Bialek (Refs. [43,44]) without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption The two models have exactly known critical points (σ_c=1, g_c=1.5) in the mean-field directed percolation universality class.
    Used as ground truth; taken from Kinouchi and Copelli [12] and Girardi-Schappo et al. [56].
  • domain assumption Mean interspike interval is a valid intrinsic timescale for binning across all dynamical phases.
    The adaptive binning rule Eq. (9) assumes ⟨ISI⟩ captures the relevant timescale in both absorbing and active phases.
  • ad hoc to paper Keeping ρ_bin ≈ 0.15 yields unbiased PRG results.
    No derivation or sensitivity analysis justifies this specific target; it is introduced to make consistent comparisons.
  • standard math Central limit theorem: uncorrelated units give α=1 and Gaussian coarse-grained distributions.
    Used to define trivial baselines in Section II.A.2 and Fig. 4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phenomenological renormalization group in neuronal models near criticality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YGB2VBIF

@misc{pith2026250614053,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phenomenological renormalization group in neuronal models near criticality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YGB2VBIF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14053}
}
read the original abstract

The phenomenological renormalization group (PRG) has been applied to the study of scaleinvariant phenomena in neuronal data, providing evidence for critical phenomena in the brain. However, it remains unclear how reliably these observed signatures indicate genuine critical behavior, as it is not well established how close to criticality a system must be for them to emerge. Here, we rely on neuronal models with known critical points to investigate under which conditions the PRG procedure yields consistent results. We show that the PRG method detects scaling behavior in neuronal models only within a narrow vicinity of the critical point, reinforcing the interpretations drawn from PRG results in experimental data. We also demonstrate that time-binning choices can substantially affect the results and introduce a data-driven adaptive binning procedure to circumvent this issue.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14053 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (A) Raster plot of spiking activity recorded from urethane-anesthetized rat visual cortex (∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. PRG analysis of the excitable cellular automaton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (A) Illustration of the effect of choosing a time bin on a raster plot. Spiking activity is discretized using different bin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Critical signatures of both neuronal models as their control parameters are swept across the critical point, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    This transformation relies on the spectrum of the covariance matrix to define a coarse graining procedure in terms of its dominant eigenmodes

    Momentum space coarse graining A key aspect of the PRG framework is the momen- tum space transformation. This transformation relies on the spectrum of the covariance matrix to define a coarse graining procedure in terms of its dominant eigenmodes. We begin with the covariance matrix: Cij =⟨φ iφj⟩−⟨φ i⟩⟨φj⟩,(1) whereφ i is a binary array representing the a...

    work page

  2. [2]

    This process involves successively combining the most correlated pair of neurons until no neuron is left unpaired

    Real space coarse graining We can also detect critical behavior by analyzing the PRG exponents, obtained through a real-space coarse- graining procedure. This process involves successively combining the most correlated pair of neurons until no neuron is left unpaired. Initially, we haveNneurons, each represented by a binary variableσ (1) i ∈{0,1}. At each...

    work page

  3. [3]

    For the sake of comparison with experimen- tal data, we consider each time step to represent 1 ms (in both models)

    Simulation Parameters We simulate both models using networks of 10 4 neu- rons, dividing the resulting activity into trials of 5×10 3 time steps. For the sake of comparison with experimen- tal data, we consider each time step to represent 1 ms (in both models). Each simulation begins with all neu- rons in a quiescent state, except for a single neuron that...

    work page

  4. [4]

    For each time bin,φ i = 1 if neuronispiked at least once within the bin (φ i = 0 otherwise, see Fig

    Binning the data We bin the data by taking the time series and dividing it into intervals of width ∆t. For each time bin,φ i = 1 if neuronispiked at least once within the bin (φ i = 0 otherwise, see Fig. 3A). The average active bin density isρ bin = (TN) −1PN i PT t φi(t), and naturally increases with ∆t(Fig. 3C). This will be important, since the PRG met...

    work page

  5. [5]

    distance to triviality

    Surrogate data To test the robustness of our results, we compared them with surrogate data generated by shuffling the in- terspike intervals (ISI) of each unit within each time win- dow (Fig. 1B). This process effectively breaks the cor- relations between units, producing trivial results with gaussian-distributed coarse-grained variables (Fig. 1D). A B C ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Linkenkaer-Hansen, V

    K. Linkenkaer-Hansen, V. V. Nikouline, J. M. Palva, and R. J. Ilmoniemi, J. Neurosci.21, 1370 (2001)

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    J. M. Beggs and D. Plenz, J. Neurosci.23, 11167 (2003)

    2003

  8. [8]

    D. R. Chialvo, Nat. Phys.6, 744 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Shew and D

    W. Shew and D. Plenz, Neuroscientist19, 88 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    J. M. Beggs, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A366, 329 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    M. A. Mu˜ noz, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 031001 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Plenz and E

    D. Plenz and E. Niebur, eds.,Criticality in Neural Sys- tems(Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    Tomen, M

    N. Tomen, M. J. Herrmann, and U. Ernst,The Func- tional Role of Critical Dynamics in Neural Systems (Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    O’Byrne and K

    J. O’Byrne and K. Jerbi, Trends Neurosci.45, 820 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    K. B. Hengen and W. L. Shew, Is criticality a uni- fied set-point of brain function? (2024), bioRxiv 2024.09.02.610815

    2024

  8. [16]

    de Arcangelis, C

    L. de Arcangelis, C. Perrone-Capano, and H. J. Her- rmann, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 028107 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    Kinouchi and M

    O. Kinouchi and M. Copelli, Nat. Phys.2, 348 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    Levina, J

    A. Levina, J. M. Herrmann, and T. Geisel, Nat. Phys.3, 857 (2007)

    2007

  11. [19]

    Levina, J

    A. Levina, J. M. Herrmann, and T. Geisel, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 118110 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    Fraiman, P

    D. Fraiman, P. Balenzuela, J. Foss, and D. R. Chialvo, Phys. Rev. E79, 061922 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    J. A. Bonachela and M. A. Mu˜ noz, J. Stat. Mech.: The- ory Exp.2009, P09009

    2009

  14. [22]

    J. A. Bonachela, S. de Franciscis, J. J. Torres, and M. A. Mu˜ noz, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp.2010, P02015

    2010

  15. [23]

    Larremore, W

    D. Larremore, W. Shew, and J. Restrepo, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 058101 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    de Andrade Costa, M

    A. de Andrade Costa, M. Copelli, and O. Kinouchi, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp.2015(6), P06004

    2015

  17. [25]

    J. G. Ferreira Campos, A. de Andrade Costa, M. Copelli, and O. Kinouchi, Phys. Rev. E95, 042303 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    J. M. Beggs and D. Plenz, J. Neurosci.24, 5216 (2004)

    2004

  19. [27]

    Haldeman and J

    C. Haldeman and J. M. Beggs, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 058101 (2005)

    2005

  20. [28]

    C. V. Stewart and D. Plenz, J. Neurosci.26, 8148 (2006)

    2006

  21. [29]

    Plenz and T

    D. Plenz and T. C. Thiagarajan, Trends Neurosci.30, 101 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    Pasquale, P

    V. Pasquale, P. Massobrio, L. L. Bologna, M. Chiap- palone, and S. Martinoia, Neuroscience153, 1354 (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    W. Shew, H. Yang, T. Petermann, R. Roy, and D. Plenz, J. Neurosci.29, 15595 (2009)

    2009

  24. [32]

    Petermann, T

    T. Petermann, T. C. Thiagarajan, M. A. Lebedev, M. A. L. Nicolelis, D. R. Chialvo, and D. Plenz, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA106, 15921 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    T. L. Ribeiro, M. Copelli, F. Caixeta, H. Belchior, D. R. Chialvo, M. A. L. Nicolelis, and S. Ribeiro, PLoS ONE 5, e14129 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    Lombardi, H

    F. Lombardi, H. J. Herrmann, C. Perrone-Capano, D. Plenz, and L. de Arcangelis, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 228703 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    Tagliazucchi, P

    E. Tagliazucchi, P. Balenzuela, D. Fraiman, and D. R. Chialvo, Front. Physiol.3, 15 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    H. Yang, W. L. Shew, R. Roy, and D. Plenz, J. Neurosci. 32, 1061 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    J. M. Palva, A. Zhigalov, J. Hirvonen, O. Korhonen, K. Linkenkaer-Hansen, and S. Palva, Proc. Natl. Acad. 8 Sci. U.S.A110, 3585 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Shriki, J

    O. Shriki, J. Alstott, F. Carver, T. Holroyd, R. N. Hen- son, M. L. Smith, R. Coppola, E. Bullmore, and D. Plenz, J. Neurosci.33, 7079 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    S. H. Gautam, T. T. Hoang, K. McClanahan, S. K. Grady, and W. L. Shew, PLoS Comput. Biol.11, e1004576 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    W. L. Shew, W. P. Clawson, J. Pobst, Y. Karimipanah, N. C. Wright, and R. Wessel, Nat. Phys.11, 659 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    Zhigalov, G

    A. Zhigalov, G. Arnulfo, L. Nobili, S. Palva, and J. M. Palva, J. Neurosci.35, 5385 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    A. J. Fontenele, N. A. P. de Vasconcelos, T. Feli- ciano, L. A. A. Aguiar, C. Soares-Cunha, B. Coimbra, L. Dalla Porta, S. Ribeiro, A. J. Rodrigues, N. Sousa, P. Carelli, and M. Copelli, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 208101 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Lotfi, A

    N. Lotfi, A. J. Fontenele, T. Feliciano, L. A. A. Aguiar, N. A. P. de Vasconcelos, C. Soares-Cunha, B. Coimbra, A. J. Rodrigues, N. Sousa, M. Copelli, and P. V. Carelli, Phys. Rev. E102, 012408 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Lotfi, T

    N. Lotfi, T. Feliciano, L. A. A. Aguiar, T. P. L. Silva, T. T. A. Carvalho, O. A. Rosso, M. Copelli, F. S. Matias, and P. V. Carelli, Phys. Rev. E103, 012415 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Dahmen, S

    D. Dahmen, S. Gr¨ un, M. Diesmann, and M. Helias, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.116, 13051 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Hu and H

    Y. Hu and H. Sompolinsky, PLoS Comput. Biol.18, e1010327 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Calvo, C

    R. Calvo, C. Martorell, G. B. Morales, S. Di Santo, and M. A. Mu˜ noz, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 208401 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Bradde and W

    S. Bradde and W. Bialek, J. Stat. Phys.167, 462 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Meshulam, J

    L. Meshulam, J. L. Gauthier, C. D. Brody, D. W. Tank, and W. Bialek, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 178103 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    Meshulam and W

    L. Meshulam and W. Bialek, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00412 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    B. R. Munn, E. J. M¨ uller, I. Favre-Bulle, E. Scott, J. T. Lizier, M. Breakspear, and J. M. Shine,Cell187, 7303 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Morales, S

    G. Morales, S. Di Santo, and M. Mu˜ noz, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.120, e2208998120 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    D. M. Castro, T. Feliciano, N. A. P. De Vasconcelos, C. Soares-Cunha, B. Coimbra, A. J. Rodrigues, P. V. Carelli, and M. Copelli, PRX Life2, 023008 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    G. G. Cambrainha, D. M. Castro, N. A. de Vas- concelos, P. Carelli, and M. Copelli, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23508 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Ponce-Alvarez, M

    A. Ponce-Alvarez, M. L. Kringelbach, and G. Deco, Com- mun. Biol.6, 627 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    D. M. Castro, E. P. Raposo, M. Copelli, and F. A. Santos, arXiv:2411.09098 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Nicoletti, S

    G. Nicoletti, S. Suweis, and A. Maritan, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023144 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    Capek, T

    E. Capek, T. L. Ribeiro, P. Kells, K. Srinivasan, S. R. Miller, E. Geist, M. Victor, A. Vakili, S. Pajevic, D. R. Chialvo,et al., Nat. Commun.14, 2555 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Srinivasan, T

    K. Srinivasan, T. L. Ribeiro, P. Kells, and D. Plenz, Sci. Rep.14, 19329 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    T. T. A. Carvalho, A. J. Fontenele, M. Girardi-Schappo, T. Feliciano, L. A. A. Aguiar, T. P. L. Silva, N. A. P. de Vasconcelos, P. V. Carelli, and M. Copelli, Front. Neu- ral Circuits14, 83 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    Girardi-Schappo, L

    M. Girardi-Schappo, L. Brochini, A. Costa, T. Carvalho, and O. Kinouchi, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 012042 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Somogyi, G

    P. Somogyi, G. Tam´ as, R. Lujan, and E. H. Buhl, Brain Res. Brain Res. Rev.26, 113 (1998)

    1998

Pith tools

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