Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Effect of phase-lag on synchronization in adaptive multilayer networks with higher-order interactions

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The phase-frustration parameter $\beta$ plays opposite roles in a two-layer adaptive oscillator network: it suppresses abrupt synchronization transitions when pairwise coupling is scanned, and promotes them when triadic coupling is scanned.

desk verdict A competent OA-based extension of this group's adaptive multilayer program: the beta dual-role claim is plausible, but the paper never states the A,B values it uses, and the whole bifurcation story is only shown for A=2, B=1. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01640 v1 pith:3RGPK42W submitted 2025-07-02 nlin.AO math.DSnlin.CDphysics.soc-ph

Anath Bandhu Das , Sangita Dutta , Pinaki Pal This is my paper · ORCID
classification nlin.AOmath.DSnlin.CDphysics.soc-ph MSC 34C1534D0637G1005C82 PACS 05.45.Xt89.75.Fb
keywords synchronizationtransitionmultilayernetworkshigher-orderinteractionsphasefrustrationOtt-Antonsenansatzexplosiveadaptivecouplingbifurcationanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper studies how phase frustration (a phase lag in the coupling) reshapes the routes to synchronization in an adaptive two-layer network of phase oscillators with both pairwise and three-body interactions. It claims that the phase-lag parameter $\beta$ has a dual, direction-dependent effect: for fixed triadic coupling and varying pairwise coupling $K_1$, increasing $\beta$ suppresses tiered and explosive transitions and shrinks hysteresis, whereas for fixed pairwise coupling and varying triadic coupling $K_2$, increasing $\beta$ promotes discontinuous transitions and bistability. The adaptation exponents act in opposite directions: the pairwise exponent $p$ narrows hysteresis while the higher-order exponent $h$ widens it. These conclusions rest on a two-dimensional order-parameter model derived from the Ott-Antonsen ansatz, whose bifurcation analysis matches direct simulations of the full $N$-oscillator system. If correct, the results give controllability principles: frustration and adaptation exponents are knobs that can suppress or encourage abrupt synchronization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-dimensional reduced order-parameter system for $\dot{r}_1$ and $\dot{r}_2$ in Eq. (13), obtained by applying the Ott-Antonsen ansatz to the continuity equation in the thermodynamic limit. The system encodes the global order parameters of the two layers with power-law cross-adaptation functions $(A+B r_{\text{other}})^{p}$ and $(A+B r_{\text{other}})^{h}$ multiplying the pairwise and triadic coupling terms. Its fixed points and their saddle-node and pitchfork bifurcations, traced by numerical continuation, explain the full system's synchronized, weakly synchronized, and incoherent states, and yield the stability condition for incoherence $K_1<\min\{2\Delta/(A^p \cos\beta)\}$.

What would settle it

Simulate the full $N$-oscillator system with a Gaussian or bimodal frequency distribution and compare the hysteresis width and the locations of the saddle-node bifurcations with the predictions of Eq. (13); if the dual role of $\beta$ disappears or the reduced model fails to track the simulations, the central claim is falsified. A second check is to measure order-parameter distributions over random initial conditions in the multistable regime and compare the observed fractions with the basin fractions of the reduced model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that phase frustration reverses its qualitative effect depending on which coupling is varied. When $K_1$ is varied at fixed $K_2$, increasing $\beta$ shifts all bifurcations to larger $K_1$, shrinks the interval where a weak partially synchronized branch exists between two saddle-node and pitchfork bifurcations, and eventually eliminates the tiered transition, leaving only explosive synchronization. When $K_2$ is varied at fixed $K_1$, the opposite happens: for small $\beta$ the transition is continuous, but past a critical $\beta$ the incoherent state regains stability and saddle-node bifurcations create coexisting coherent and incoherent branches, so frustration induces explosive transitions and multistability. The paper further establishes that the pairwise adaptation exponent $p$ reduces hysteresis width while the higher-order exponent $h$ promotes bistability, even though increasing these exponents reduces the corresponding effective coupling strengths, a counterintuitive effect attributed to the multilayer cross-adaptation structure. All these transitions are reproduced quantitatively by the Ott-Antonsen-derived system of two ODEs for the layer order parameters $r_1$ and $r_2$, validated against simulations with $N=10000$ oscillators per layer.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the intrinsic frequencies are exactly Lorentzian and the phase density stays on the Ott-Antonsen manifold, with identical parameters across the two layers; if the frequency distribution departs from Lorentzian, the reduced two-ODE model is no longer exact and the reported bifurcation scenarios are not guaranteed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The reduced two-dimensional model in Eq. (13) can locate synchronization-transition boundaries and hysteresis widths at negligible computational cost, replacing direct simulation of the full $N$-oscillator system.
  • Phase frustration can act as a control parameter: in the $K_1$-scan regime it suppresses abrupt transitions, while in the $K_2$-scan regime it creates them, so the same network can be pushed between continuous and explosive synchronization by choosing which coupling is tuned.
  • The pairwise adaptation exponent $p$ is a hysteresis-reducing knob even when higher-order coupling dominates, and the higher-order exponent $h$ is a bistability-promoting knob even when pairwise coupling dominates.
  • The coexistence of incoherent, weakly coherent, and strongly coherent states means initial conditions can select the final synchronization level, and the paper's basin diagrams map which initializations reach which state.
  • As the authors state, the framework generalizes to more than two layers and to interactions beyond triadic simplices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the reduced model is structurally stable, its predictions should survive moderate deviations from the Lorentzian frequency distribution, but the bifurcation points will shift quantitatively; a systematic comparison with Gaussian or bimodal distributions would test the robustness of the dual role of $\beta$.
  • The counterintuitive exponent effects suggest a design principle for engineered oscillator networks: adaptation exponents and phase lag can tune hysteresis without changing nominal coupling strengths, which may matter for power-grid or neuronal models where abrupt synchronization is undesirable.
  • Because the two layers are coupled only through order-parameter adaptation, varying the baseline $A$ and feedback strength $B$ could produce transition types not classified in the current four-regime diagrams, a directly testable extension of the parameter-space maps.
  • A concrete experimental test: in the multistable regime, measuring the order parameters after many random initial conditions should yield a trimodal distribution matching the basin fractions from the reduced model, which could be checked with electronic or optoelectronic oscillator arrays.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a two-layer adaptive network of Sakaguchi-Kuramoto oscillators with pairwise and triadic interactions, where the coupling strengths are modulated by power-law functions of the other layer's order parameter. Using the Ott-Antonsen ansatz for Lorentzian frequency distributions, the authors derive a two-dimensional reduced system for the order-parameter amplitudes, Eq. (13), and analyze its bifurcations. They report that the phase-frustration parameter β suppresses tiered and explosive transitions when the pairwise coupling K1 is varied with K2 fixed, but promotes discontinuous transitions when the higher-order coupling K2 is varied with K1 fixed. They further identify opposite effects of the adaptation exponents p and h on the width of the hysteresis. Numerical simulations of the full N-dimensional system are superimposed on the analytical bifurcation diagrams and are claimed to agree.

Significance. The theoretical reduction is the main contribution: starting from the microscale equations, the authors obtain a closed low-dimensional model in a transparent way, and the bifurcation analysis is extensive and internally consistent. The reported numerical data do visually track the stable and unstable branches obtained from the reduced model, which strengthens confidence in the reduction. If the results survive a proper specification of all model parameters, they would provide a useful map of synchronization-transition types in adaptive higher-order multilayer networks and extend recent findings on phase frustration in such systems. However, the omission of the adaptation constants A and B, and the lack of a quantitative error assessment, currently limit the reproducibility and generality of the central claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (13), and throughout Section IV] The adaptation constants A and B are never assigned numerical values, even though every quantitative result in the manuscript depends on them. Equation (17) gives the incoherence threshold K1* = 2Δ/(A^p cosβ); the reported pitchfork PB1 at K1 = 1 for p = 1, Δ = 1, β = 0 implies A = 2, and comparison with all figures implies B = 1, but these values are stated nowhere. If A were 0, the case the text calls the 'well-known power-law form' in Section II, the linear term in Eq. (13) would vanish and the incoherent state would remain linearly stable for all K1, so the pitchfork scenario that underlies the tiered and explosive transitions in Figs. 1 and 5 would not exist. The central claims about the dual role of β and the effects of p and h are therefore only demonstrated for one unstated parameter choice. Please state the values used and test the robustness of the reported scenarios to variation of A and B.
  2. [Section IV, 'Synchronization profile' paragraphs] The numerical validation of the explosive and tiered routes depends on what the text calls 'proper choice of initial condition,' but the manuscript never specifies which initial conditions produce the dashed and dash-dotted curves in Figs. 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, and 13, nor how the forward/backward sweeps were initialized in those cases. Without this information, the numerical results are not reproducible and the claimed agreement between the full N-dimensional system and the reduced model cannot be independently checked.
  3. [Section IV, first paragraph] The agreement between the N-dimensional simulations and the reduced-order model is presented only through visual superposition of data points on bifurcation curves; no error bars, ensemble statistics, or quantitative mismatch measures are provided. Since the paper's central validation claim is that the reduced model faithfully reproduces the full system, I ask for a quantitative assessment, for example the rms deviation of the numerical order parameter from the analytically stable branch over a range of K1 or K2.
  4. [Section IV, symmetry assumption; Section V] The assumption p1=p2, h1=h2, and β1=β2, stated in Section IV, makes the two layers dynamically identical, so the 'multilayer' aspect enters only through the symmetric cross-adaptation. The concluding claim in Section V that the counterintuitive exponent effects arise 'due to the multilayer configuration' is not supported by a comparison with a single-layer version or with asymmetric layer parameters; a brief numerical test of at least one asymmetric case would substantiate that attribution.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section V] In both the abstract and the conclusion, 'tired' should read 'tiered' in the phrase about inhibiting tiered transitions.
  2. [Figure captions] The panels in Figs. 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, and 13 are not explicitly associated with the parameter values in the captions; please add the parameter values to the panel labels or caption for readability.
  3. [Eq. (17)] Equation (17) should specify the range of β for which the condition is meaningful; for cosβ_l ≤ 0 the incoherent state is always stable, and the inequality with a negative threshold is trivially satisfied only for negative K1.
  4. [Eq. (16)] The Jacobian derivative ∂G1/∂r2 contains factors B p1 (A+B r2)^{p1-1}; for negative or non-integer exponents, the domain of definition requires A+B r2 > 0. Since A is positive but not specified, the paper should state the admissible parameter ranges used in the bifurcation analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the low-dimensional model is derived from the original equations by an explicit Ott-Antonsen reduction, and the reported bifurcations are read off from that derived system and checked against independent simulations of the full network.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The governing equations (1) define the adaptive multilayer higher-order network, and the reduced order-parameter model (13) is obtained from those equations by the standard Ott-Antonsen ansatz with an explicitly stated Lorentzian frequency distribution and the thermodynamic limit. No parameter appearing in the reduced model is fitted to the target synchronization diagrams; in particular, the adaptation exponents p and h and the phase lag beta are model inputs, and the claimed effects—beta suppressing tiered/explosive transitions for K1 variation and promoting discontinuous transitions for K2 variation, as well as the opposite hysteresis effects of p and h—are inferred from bifurcation analysis (MATCONT) of Eq. (13) and then compared with numerical integration of the full N-dimensional system (1). That numerical comparison is an independent check rather than a restatement of the inputs. The citation to the authors' prior work [62] for the statement that phase lag has opposite effects for K1 and K2 is used only as motivation; the effect is re-derived and verified in this paper's own model and simulations, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The lack of explicit numerical values for A and B in the adaptation functions (A,B in R+ are only stated symbolically) is a reproducibility and parameter-reporting concern, but it is not circularity: the reduced model and the full simulations use the same underlying parameters, and no prediction is constructed by definition from the quantity it is meant to explain. Therefore, no step of the derivation reduces to its own inputs, and the circularity score is 0.

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

The reduction is analytic and no constants are fitted to data, so the circularity burden is low. The main unstated inputs are the numeric values A=2 and B=1 used in the adaptation functions, which are inferred from the bifurcation threshold rather than reported. The analytical claims rest on the Lorentzian frequency assumption, the Ott-Antonsen manifold, and the symmetric two-layer setup. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • A (offset in adaptation functions) = 2 (inferred; not stated in text)
    All figures appear to use A=2 because the first pitchfork PB1 occurs at K1=1 for Delta=1, p=1, beta=0 in Eq. (17). The paper never reports A; this value is a modeling choice that shifts all bifurcation thresholds.
  • B (scale in adaptation functions) = 1 (likely; not stated)
    B is introduced in Eq. (13) but its numerical value is not given. The power-law limit A=0,B=1 is mentioned, but A=0 would make A^p undefined for negative exponents, so the simulations must use A>0.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Natural frequencies are sampled from a Lorentzian distribution g_l(omega) = Delta/[pi(Delta^2 + (omega - omega0)^2)] (Eq. 6)
    Enables the Cauchy residue computation and the closed Ott-Antonsen reduction; Gaussian or other unimodal distributions would break the exact reduction.
  • domain assumption Ott-Antonsen ansatz: Fourier coefficients take the form a_n,l = alpha_l^n with |alpha_l| < 1 (Section III)
    This restricts the density to the OA manifold; it is exact for the infinite-N Lorentzian case only when the phase dynamics is of the required sinusoidal form.
  • domain assumption Thermodynamic limit N to infinity and all-to-all mean-field coupling within each layer
    The continuum density formulation (Eqs. 4-5) and the self-consistent order parameters require this limit; finite-size effects are not analyzed.
  • ad hoc to paper Symmetric setup p1=p2, h1=h2, beta1=beta2
    The authors assume identical adaptation and phase-lag in both layers (Section IV) to reduce the analysis; all reported regimes are for this symmetric case.
  • domain assumption Interlayer coupling is mediated only by the adaptation functions (A + B r1,2)^p and (A + B r1,2)^h
    There is no direct phase coupling between layers; the cross-adaptation functional form is a modeling choice, not derived from data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effect of phase-lag on synchronization in adaptive multilayer networks with higher-order interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3RGPK42W

@misc{pith2026250701640,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effect of phase-lag on synchronization in adaptive multilayer networks with higher-order interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3RGPK42W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01640}
}
abstract

We investigate the transition to synchronization in adaptive multilayer networks with higher-order interactions both analytically and numerically in the presence of phase frustration ($\beta$). The higher order topology consists of pairwise and triadic couplings. The analytical framework for the investigation is based on the Ott-Antonsen ansatz which leads to a convenient low-dimensional model. Extensive bifurcation analysis of the low-dimensional model and the numerical simulation of the full networks are performed to explore the paths to synchronization. The combined analysis shows a complex dependence of the transition to synchronization on adaptation exponents, coupling strengths, phase lag parameter, and multilayer configuration. Various types of transitions to synchronization, namely continuous, tiered, and explosive, are exhibited by the system in different regions of the parameter space. In all the cases, a satisfactory match between the low-dimensional model and the numerical simulation results is observed. The origin of different transitions to synchronization is clearly understood using the low-dimensional model. Exploration of a wide region of the parameter space suggests that the phase frustration parameter inhibits tired as well as explosive synchronization transitions for fixed triadic coupling strength ($K_2$). On the other hand, discontinuous transition is promoted by the phase frustration parameter for fixed pairwise coupling strength ($K_1$). Moreover, the exponent of the adaptation function with the pairwise coupling decreases the width of the hysteresis, despite the dominance of the higher-order coupling for fixed $\beta$ and $K_2$. While, the exponent of the function adapted with higher-order coupling shows the opposite effect, it promotes bistability in spite of dominance of pairwise coupling strength for fixed $\beta$, and $K_1$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01640 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Synchronization profile with the variation of pairwi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Synchronization profile with the variation of higher [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Basins of attraction for several stable synchronize [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Stability diagram in (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: We have taken three values from the K1−β space, namely (K1 − β) = (0, 0), (0, 0.4), and (0.5, 0.8), where the system exhibits multistability among three distinct states: a stable incoherent state, a weakly coherent state, and a strongly coherent state. Note that, low (…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Stability diagram in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Synchronization profile with the variation of pairwi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Stability diagram in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Synchronization profile with the variation of pairwi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: We observed that β expanded the bistable and multistable regimes and shrinks the regime for continu￾ous transition. In a similar manner, we have checked the role of h on synchronization transition with variation of K2. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Stability diagram in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Stability diagram in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Synchronization profile with the variation of highe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Stability diagram in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Synchronization profile with the variation of highe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Stability diagram in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Macroscopic dynamics of oscillator ensembles with communities, higher-order interactions, and phase lags

    nlin.AO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a two-community oscillator network with triadic interactions, equal phase lags are sufficient to create periodic and chaotic order-parameter dynamics as well as multistability.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    cosβ1 2 [ K1(A +Br2)p1 +K2(A +Br2)h1r2 1 ] , ˙r2 = −∆ 2r2 + r2(1 −r2

  2. [2]

    (13) Now we conduct the linear stability analysis of Eq

    cosβ2 2 [ K1(A +Br1)p2 +K2(A +Br1)h2r2 2 ] . (13) Now we conduct the linear stability analysis of Eq. (13). In the steady state, ˙r1 = ˙r2 = 0 results in G1 = ˙r1 = − ∆ 1r1 + r1(1 −r2

  3. [3]

    cosβ1 2 [ K1(A +Br2)p1 +K2(A +Br2)h1r2 1 ] = 0, G2 = ˙r2 = − ∆ 2r2 + r2(1 −r2

  4. [4]

    (14) From Eq

    cosβ2 2 [ K1(A +Br1)p2 +K2(A +Br1)h2r2 2 ] = 0. (14) From Eq. (14), it follows that ( r1,r 2) = (0 , 0), (r∗ 1, 0), and (0,r ∗

  5. [5]

    (15) Beyond the aforementioned trivial steady states, one can also identify steady states of the form ( r∗ 1,r ∗

    constitute three trivial steady-state solutions of the two-dimensional reduced system (13), where r∗ l is given by, r∗ l = √ [ (K2Ahl −K1Apl) cosβl ] ± √ cos2βl(K2Ahl +K1Apl )2 − 8∆ lK2Ahl cosβl 2K2Ahl cosβl , l = 1, 2. (15) Beyond the aforementioned trivial steady states, one can also identify steady states of the form ( r∗ 1,r ∗

  6. [6]

    These non-trivial steady states, which depend on all system parameters, are generally not amenable to an- alytical solutions

    ⁄= (0, 0). These non-trivial steady states, which depend on all system parameters, are generally not amenable to an- alytical solutions. Consequently, we determine them by numerically solving the coupled equations G1 = 0 and G2 = 0, as given in Eq. (14). Now, to examine the stability of all steady-state solu- tions, we compute the Jacobian matrix associat...

  7. [7]

    +K2(A +Br2)h1(3r2 1 − 5r4 1) ] , ∂G1 ∂r2 = r1(1 −r2

  8. [8]

    cosβ1 2 [ K1p1B(A +Br2)p1− 1 +K2h1B(A +Br2)h1− 1] , ∂G2 ∂r1 = r2(1 −r2

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    cosβ2 2 [ K1p2B(A +Br1)p2− 1 +K2h2B(A +Br1)h2− 1] , ∂G2 ∂r2 = −∆ 2 + cosβ2 2 [ K1(A +Br1)p2 (1 − 3r2

  2. [10]

    +K2(A +Br1)h2(3r2 2 − 5r4 2) ] . (16) For the trivial steady state (0 , 0), the Jacobian matrix becomes diagonal, and hence, its eigenvalues are given directly by the diagonal elements, λl = −∆ l +K1Apl cosβ l 2 for l = 1, 2. The incoherent state remains stable as long as both...

  3. [11]

    which undergoes a saddle-node bifurcation (SN1) at K1 = −1.6881 (cyan star) and from there it contin- ues as a stable strongly coherent branch. On the other hand, the second unstable branch generated from the PB1 point is associated with the asymmetric state ( r∗ 1, 0), which ...

  4. [12]

    Numerically calculated points reveal the type of transition as explosive, shown in Fig

    undergoes a saddle-node bi- furcation (SN1) at K2 = 0.9195, beyond which it per- sists as a stable coherent branch for higher values of K2 and another two branches remain unstable in the range of their existence. Numerically calculated points reveal the type of transition as e...

  5. [13]

    Interestingly, the asymmetric branch (r∗ 1, 0) becomes stable through a saddle-node bifurcation (SN2) at K2 = 6.1856 (cyan square) and persists un- til a subcritical pitchfork bifurcation (PB2) occurs at K2 = 8 .8031 (blue square), beyond which the branch loses its stability. ...

  6. [14]

    S. H. Strogatz, Nature (London) 410, 268 (2001)

    2001

  7. [15]

    Boccaletti, V

    S. Boccaletti, V. Latora, Y. Moreno, M. Chavez, and D.- U. Hwang, Physics Reports 424, 175 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    X. F. Wang and G. Chen, IEEE Circuits and Systems Magazine 3, 6 (2003)

    2003

  9. [17]

    Boccaletti, G

    S. Boccaletti, G. Bianconi, R. Criado, C. I. Del Ge- nio, J. G´ omez-Gardenes, M. Romance, I. Sendina-Nadal, Z. Wang, and M. Zanin, Physics Reports 544, 1 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Bianconi, Multilayer Networks: Structure and Func- tion (Oxford University Press, 2018)

    G. Bianconi, Multilayer Networks: Structure and Func- tion (Oxford University Press, 2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Cardillo, M

    A. Cardillo, M. Zanin, J. G´ omez-Gardenes, M. Romance, A. J. Garc ´ ıa del Amo, and S. Boccaletti, The European Physical Journal Special Topics 215, 23 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Majhi, B

    S. Majhi, B. K. Bera, D. Ghosh, and M. Perc, Physics of Life Reviews 28, 100 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Rakshit, B

    S. Rakshit, B. K. Bera, and D. Ghosh, Physical Review E 98, 032305 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Frolov, V

    N. Frolov, V. Maksimenko, and A. Hramov, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 30, 121108 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Szell, R

    M. Szell, R. Lambiotte, and S. Thurner, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107, 13636 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    Y. Lu, X. Wang, L. Su, and H. Zhao, Mathematics 11, 4412 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Battiston, G

    F. Battiston, G. Cencetti, I. Iacopini, V. Latora, M. Lu - cas, A. Patania, J.-G. Young, and G. Petri, Physics Re- ports 874, 1 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Boccaletti, P

    S. Boccaletti, P. De Lellis, C. Del Genio, K. Alfaro- Bittner, R. Criado, S. Jalan, and M. Romance, Physics Reports 1018, 1 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Petri, P

    G. Petri, P. Expert, F. Turkheimer, R. Carhart-Harris, D. Nutt, P. J. Hellyer, and F. Vaccarino, Journal of The Royal Society Interface 11, 20140873 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    H. Lee, H. Kang, M. K. Chung, B.-N. Kim, and D. S. Lee, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 31, 2267 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    A. E. Sizemore, C. Giusti, A. Kahn, J. M. Vettel, R. F. Betzel, and D. S. Bassett, Journal of Computational Neu- roscience 44, 115 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Estrada and G

    E. Estrada and G. J. Ross, Journal of Theoretical Biolog y 438, 46 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    A. E. Sizemore, E. A. Karuza, C. Giusti, and D. S. Bas- sett, Nature Human Behaviour 2, 682 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Chitra and B

    U. Chitra and B. Raphael, in International Conference on Machine Learning (PMLR, 2019) pp. 1172–1181

    2019

  25. [33]

    Carletti, F

    T. Carletti, F. Battiston, G. Cencetti, and D. Fanelli, Physical Review E 101, 022308 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Di Gaetano, G

    L. Di Gaetano, G. Carugno, F. Battiston, and F. Coghi, 13 FIG. 12: Stability diagram in K2 − p parameter space for (a) β = 0. 4 and (b) β = 1 plotted using the reduced-order model. Other parameters are fixed at K1 = 1. 2 and h = 1. Solid cyan and solid black curves represent th...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Patania, G

    A. Patania, G. Petri, and F. Vaccarino, EPJ Data Science 6, 1 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Vasilyeva, A

    E. Vasilyeva, A. Kozlov, K. Alfaro-Bittner, D. Musatov , A. Raigorodskii, M. Perc, and S. Boccaletti, Scientific Reports 11, 5666 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Iacopini, G

    I. Iacopini, G. Petri, A. Barrat, and V. Latora, Nature Communications 10, 2485 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Kim and K.-I

    J.-H. Kim and K.-I. Goh, Physical Review Letters 132, 087401 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    W. Wang, Y. Nie, W. Li, T. Lin, M.-S. Shang, S. Su, Y. Tang, Y.-C. Zhang, and G.-Q. Sun, Physics Reports 1056, 1 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Grilli, G

    J. Grilli, G. Barab´ as, M. J. Michalska-Smith, and S. Allesina, Nature 548, 210 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Alvarez-Rodriguez, F

    U. Alvarez-Rodriguez, F. Battiston, G. F. de Arruda, Y. Moreno, M. Perc, and V. Latora, Nature Human Be- haviour 5, 586 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Jonsson, Simplicial Complexes of Graphs , Vol

    J. Jonsson, Simplicial Complexes of Graphs , Vol. 1928 (Springer, 2008)

    1928

  35. [43]

    Battiston, E

    F. Battiston, E. Amico, A. Barrat, G. Bianconi, G. Fer- raz de Arruda, B. Franceschiello, I. Iacopini, S. K´ efi, V. Latora, Y. Moreno, et al. , Nature Physics 17, 1093 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Bianconi, Higher-Order Networks (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2021)

    G. Bianconi, Higher-Order Networks (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Zhao and S

    Y. Zhao and S. Maleti´ c,Simplicial Complexes in Complex Systems: In Search for Alternatives (World Scientific, 2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Berge, Graphs and Hypergraphs (North-Holland Pub- lishing Company, Amsterdam, 1973)

    C. Berge, Graphs and Hypergraphs (North-Holland Pub- lishing Company, Amsterdam, 1973)

    1973

  39. [47]

    Ghoshal, V

    G. Ghoshal, V. Zlati´ c, G. Caldarelli, and M. E. Newman, Physical Review E 79, 066118 (2009)

    2009

  40. [48]

    Adhikari, J

    S. Adhikari, J. G. Restrepo, and P. S. Skardal, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 33, 033116 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Boccaletti, J

    S. Boccaletti, J. Kurths, G. Osipov, D. Valladares, and C. Zhou, Physics Reports 366, 1 (2002)

    2002

  42. [50]

    Pikovsky, M

    A. Pikovsky, M. Rosenblum, and J. Kurths, Synchroniza- tion: A Universal Concept in Nonlinear Sciences , Vol. 12 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003)

    2003

  43. [51]

    Strogatz, Sync: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order (Penguin, London, 2004)

    S. Strogatz, Sync: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order (Penguin, London, 2004)

    2004

  44. [52]

    Boccaletti, A

    S. Boccaletti, A. N. Pisarchik, C. I. Del Genio, and A. Amann, Synchronization: From Coupled Systems to Complex Networks (Cambridge University Press, 2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    X. Wu, X. Wu, C.-Y. Wang, B. Mao, J.-a. Lu, J. L¨ u, Y.- C. Zhang, and L. L¨ u, Physics Reports 1060, 1 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Buck, The Quarterly Review of Biology 63, 265 (1988)

    J. Buck, The Quarterly Review of Biology 63, 265 (1988)

    1988

  47. [55]

    N´ eda, E

    Z. N´ eda, E. Ravasz, Y. Brechet, T. Vicsek, and A.-L. Barab´ asi, Nature403, 849 (2000)

    2000

  48. [56]

    Y. Penn, M. Segal, and E. Moses, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 3341 (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    K. Pal, D. Ghosh, and G. Gangopadhyay, Neurocomput- ing 422, 222 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    De Monte, F

    S. De Monte, F. d’Ovidio, S. Danø, and P. G. Sørensen, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 18377 (2007)

    2007

  51. [59]

    A. E. Motter, S. A. Myers, M. Anghel, and T. Nishikawa, Nature Physics 9, 191 (2013)

    2013

  52. [60]

    Kuramoto, Chemical Oscillations, Waves and Turbu- lence (Dover, Mineola, NY, 2003)

    Y. Kuramoto, Chemical Oscillations, Waves and Turbu- lence (Dover, Mineola, NY, 2003)

    2003

  53. [61]

    Ichinomiya, Physical Review E 70, 026116 (2004)

    T. Ichinomiya, Physical Review E 70, 026116 (2004)

    2004

  54. [62]

    G´ omez-Gardenes, Y

    J. G´ omez-Gardenes, Y. Moreno, and A. Arenas, Physical Review Letters 98, 034101 (2007)

    2007

  55. [63]

    G´ omez-Gardenes, S

    J. G´ omez-Gardenes, S. G´ omez, A. Arenas, and Y. Moreno, Physical Review Letters 106, 128701 (2011)

    2011

  56. [64]

    F. A. Rodrigues, T. K. D. Peron, P. Ji, and J. Kurths, Physics Reports 610, 1 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    Zhang, S

    X. Zhang, S. Boccaletti, S. Guan, and Z. Liu, Physical Review Letters 114, 038701 (2015)

    2015

  58. [66]

    Manoranjani, V

    M. Manoranjani, V. Saiprasad, R. Gopal, D. Senthilku- mar, and V. Chandrasekar, Physical Review E 108, 044307 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    Biswas and S

    D. Biswas and S. Gupta, Physical Review E 109, 024221 (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    Z. Chen, Z. Zheng, and C. Xu, Chaos: An Interdisci- plinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 34, 063106 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    Rajwani, A

    P. Rajwani, A. Suman, and S. Jalan, Chaos: An Interdis- ciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 33, 061102 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    Dutta, P

    S. Dutta, P. Kundu, P. Khanra, L. Minati, S. Boc- caletti, P. Pal, and C. Hens, Physical Review Research 7, L022049 (2025)

    2025

  63. [71]

    O. E. Omel’chenko and M. Wolfrum, Chaos: An Interdis- ciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 26, 094806 (2016). 14 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 0.5 1 0 6 12-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 (a) (b) (c) SN1 SN1SN2 SN2 SN1 / SN2 FIG. 13: Synchronization profile with the variation of highe r...

    2016

  64. [72]

    Sakaguchi and Y

    H. Sakaguchi and Y. Kuramoto, Progress of Theoretical Physics 76, 576 (1986)

    1986

  65. [73]

    Dutta, A

    S. Dutta, A. Mondal, P. Kundu, P. Khanra, P. Pal, and C. Hens, Physical Review E 108, 034208 (2023)

    2023

  66. [74]

    Sharma, P

    A. Sharma, P. Rajwani, and S. Jalan, Chaos: An In- terdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 34, 081103 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    Dutta, P

    S. Dutta, P. Kundu, P. Khanra, C. Hens, and P. Pal, Physical Review E 110, 064317 (2024)

    2024

  68. [76]

    T. Li, Y. Xie, Z. Ye, J. Zeng, Y. Liu, L. Liu, and Y. Jia, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 199, 116749 (2025)

    2025

  69. [77]

    T. Wu, S. Huo, K. Alfaro-Bittner, S. Boccaletti, and Z. Liu, Physical Review Research 4, 033009 (2022)

    2022

  70. [78]

    A. D. Kachhvah and S. Jalan, Physical Review E 104, L042301 (2021)

    2021

  71. [79]

    Khanra, P

    P. Khanra, P. Kundu, C. Hens, and P. Pal, Physical Re- view E 98, 052315 (2018)

    2018

  72. [80]

    Khanra and P

    P. Khanra and P. Pal, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 143, 110621 (2021)

    2021

  73. [81]

    Kumar, S

    A. Kumar, S. Jalan, and A. D. Kachhvah, Physical Re- view Research 2, 023259 (2020)

    2020

  74. [82]

    Ghosh, M

    R. Ghosh, M. S. Anwar, D. Ghosh, J. Kurths, and M. D. Shrimali, Physical Review E 111, 064219 (2025)

    2025

  75. [83]

    Ott and T

    E. Ott and T. M. Antonsen, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 18, 037113 (2008)

    2008

  76. [84]

    S. V. Buldyrev, R. Parshani, G. Paul, H. E. Stanley, and S. Havlin, Nature 464, 1025 (2010)

    2010

  77. [85]

    L. N. Zumeta, X. Oriol, S. Telletxea, A. Amutio, and N. Basabe, Frontiers in Psychology 6, 1960 (2016)

    2016

  78. [86]

    Filatrella, N

    G. Filatrella, N. F. Pedersen, and K. Wiesenfeld, Physi cal Review E 75, 017201 (2007)

    2007

  79. [87]

    Zou and J

    W. Zou and J. Wang, Physical Review E 102, 012219 (2020)

    2020

  80. [88]

    Z. Cai, Z. Zheng, and C. Xu, Communications in Non- linear Science and Numerical Simulation 107, 106129 (2022)

    2022

  81. [89]

    Dhooge, W

    A. Dhooge, W. Govaerts, and Y. A. Kuznetsov, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS) 29, 141 (2003)

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.