Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 80 references

Ubiquity of Uncertainty in Neuron Systems

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 paper argues that final-state uncertainty, in which tiny changes in initial conditions decide between chaotic and nonchaotic outcomes, is a generic property of coupled neuron maps rather than a product of noise or high-dimensional…

desk verdict Solid numerics on five specific neuron-map systems, but the ubiquity claim and 'chance synchronization' mechanism overreach; deserves review with major revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15702 v1 pith:6RS433AX submitted 2025-07-21 q-bio.NC math.DSnlin.CDphysics.bio-ph

Brandon B. Le , Bennett Lamb , Luke Benfer , Sriharsha Sambangi , Nisal Geemal Vismith , Akshaj Jagarapu This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NCmath.DSnlin.CDphysics.bio-ph MSC 37D4537N2537C70
keywords final-stateuncertaintycoupledneuronmapsfractalbasinboundariesexponententropychancesynchronizationmultistabilitydiscrete-timemodels
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 tries to establish that final-state uncertainty is ubiquitous in multistable systems of coupled neuron maps: even in simple, low-dimensional, deterministic models, predicting whether the system will end up chaotic or synchronized is often almost impossible. It checks five discrete-time neuron systems spanning different neuron models and coupling schemes, and in every one the basin boundary between chaotic and nonchaotic attractors is fractal, with uncertainty exponents below one. The authors propose that a "chance synchronization" mechanism drives this behavior: when initially nonchaotic neurons are coupled, most misaligned initial conditions generate chaos, but some accidentally lock the neurons into synchronization, making the final state extremely sensitive to initial conditions. If correct, this means unpredictability is a fundamental property of neuronal dynamics rather than a byproduct of noise or high-dimensional complexity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing quantity is the uncertainty exponent $u$, defined by the power law $\varrho(\epsilon) \sim \epsilon^{u}$, where $\varrho$ is the probability that an $\epsilon$-perturbation of a random initial condition changes which attractor the system reaches; $u < 1$ means the basin boundary is fractal, with dimension $d = n - u$, and smaller $u$ means more extreme final-state uncertainty. The analysis also uses basin classification, which sorts basins by how their relative occupancy scales with distance from the attractor, and basin entropy, which measures how thoroughly different basins are intermingled at resolution $\epsilon$. The explanatory mechanism proposed is chance synchronization: individually nonchaotic neurons that start close enough lock into a synchronized nonchaotic state, while most other initial conditions interact through the coupling and fall into a chaotic state, with a fractal set of initial conditions marking the switch between these outcomes.

What would settle it

Compute the uncertainty exponent for the same five models across a grid of coupling strengths and neuron parameters where chaotic and nonchaotic attractors coexist; if any biologically plausible setting yields $u \geq 1$, the claim that final-state uncertainty is ubiquitous in coupled neuronal maps would be refuted. A complementary test is to build a continuous-time neuron pair with coexisting synchronized and chaotic attractors and measure whether initial-condition perturbations flip the final state with the power-law signature $\varrho(\epsilon) \sim \epsilon^u$ with $u<1$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that qualitative final-state uncertainty—the inability to tell whether a coupled neuron system will converge to a chaotic or unsynchronized attractor versus a nonchaotic or synchronized one—is generic across simple discrete-time neuron models. In all five models studied, the uncertainty exponent $u$ is less than 1, so the basin boundary has fractal dimension $d = n - u > n - 1$; in the most extreme cases, Models 1 and 4, $u$ is about 0.04 and 0.03, so cutting initial-state uncertainty tenfold barely moves final-state uncertainty, and reducing final-state uncertainty tenfold would require extreme repeated improvements in initial precision. The paper interprets this as evidence that neuron systems are fundamentally unpredictable even at low dimensionality and without noise.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the five models, each evaluated at a single fixed parameter set, represent the broad class of coupled neuronal maps well enough that observing $u<1$ in all five demonstrates ubiquity; if other biologically plausible parameter choices frequently give smooth basin boundaries, the ubiquity claim weakens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In Models 1 and 4, the near-zero uncertainty exponents mean that improvements in initial-condition precision on the order of $10^{25}$ and $10^{33}$ are needed to reduce final-state uncertainty tenfold, so these simple systems are effectively unpredictable.
  • Across the homogeneous models, final-state uncertainty increases as the neuron model becomes less abstract and more biophysically realistic, suggesting extreme unpredictability is not an artifact of simplification.
  • Basin entropy reveals information the uncertainty exponent misses: Models 1 and 4 have similar $u$ values, but Model 4's higher basin entropy reflects a more balanced mix of chaotic and nonchaotic outcomes.
  • The chance synchronization mechanism and the tripartite basin analysis are presented as tools that transfer directly to other multistable systems, including climate, celestial mechanics, lasers, chemical networks, and agent-based models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If final-state uncertainty is generic, then tightly controlled stimulation of small neuron networks should produce trial-to-trial variability in whether synchronization occurs, even with nominally identical initial states; this is a testable electrophysiological prediction that the paper does not itself run.
  • The chance synchronization mechanism suggests a testable scaling hypothesis: across a parameter sweep in coupling strength, the fraction of initial conditions leading to synchronization should rise while the basin boundary stays fractal; running such sweeps would show whether $u<1$ holds away from the single parameter point tested per model.
  • Because basin-boundary fractal dimension controls sensitivity to initial conditions, analogous unpredictability may appear in artificial neural networks and machine-learning models that have multistable fixed points, where adversarial perturbations could be governed by the same kind of fractal separatrix.
  • The paper's five models are all discrete-time; if the mechanism is truly about chance synchronization, continuous-time neuron models should also show $u<1$ in some regimes, so the authors' planned extension to biophysically grounded continuous-time systems is a direct check of the claim.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that final-state uncertainty is ubiquitous in multistable systems of coupled neuronal maps. It analyzes five discrete-time neuron-map models (Rulkov, Chialvo, Nagumo-Sato, Izhikevich, and a heterogeneous memristor-coupled system), and for a single parameter set per model computes basin classifications, uncertainty exponents u, and basin entropy regressions. All five models have u < 1 in a chosen region Ω, indicating fractal basin boundaries between chaotic/unsynchronized and nonchaotic/synchronized attractors. The paper proposes a verbal "chance synchronization" mechanism to explain the generality of this behavior and discusses implications for neuroscience and other fields.

Significance. If the ubiquity claim were established, this would be a notable contribution to the study of final-state sensitivity in low-dimensional deterministic neuron models, with implications for predictability in neuroscience. The paper's strengths include the use of established quantitative tools (uncertainty exponent, basin entropy, basin classification), the variety of coupling schemes and model types, and the fact that the measurements in Table I are specific enough to be reproduced. The main limitation is that the evidence supports existence of final-state uncertainty in five particular systems, not ubiquity over a class; the proposed mechanism is not derived or tested.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / Table I / Results and discussion] The central claim that final-state uncertainty is "ubiquitous" is not supported by the evidence presented. Table I reports one parameter set per model, one region Ω per model, and no parameter sweeps or random sampling over the model class. The five systems show u < 1 for those specific configurations, but this is an existence result, not a prevalence result. The Conclusions generalize to "many neuron systems are fundamentally unpredictable" without a robustness analysis. A parameter sweep or a statistical sample of the model family (varying coupling strengths, model parameters, and Ω) is needed before the ubiquity claim can be sustained.
  2. [Results and discussion / Eq. (5)] The proposed "chance synchronization" mechanism is verbal and not derived from the equations, and it is not consistently applicable to the five models. The mechanism assumes "individually nonchaotic" neurons, but Model 5 explicitly contains a chaotic Rulkov neuron in Eq. (5) (the x1, y1 subsystem). The mechanism also does not generate a testable prediction that distinguishes it from the generic statement that coexisting chaotic and nonchaotic attractors have fractal boundaries. Either the mechanism should be formalized (e.g., as a condition on coupling and individual dynamics that implies u < 1) or the ubiquity claim should be restricted to the systems for which the mechanism applies.
  3. [Methodology / Table I] The quantitative evidence for u < 1 lacks statistical support. The paper does not report the number of initial conditions used for the uncertainty-exponent regressions, the range of ε values, the fitting procedure, or error bars on u; Table I gives point estimates to two decimals (e.g., u = 0.04, 0.13, 0.45). Without these details or error estimates, the asserted values and even the sign of u − 1 cannot be assessed with confidence. Please provide convergence checks, confidence intervals, or at least the full regression details for the uncertainty exponents.
  4. [Results and discussion / Conclusions and outlook] The inference from the "abstraction trend" among the homogeneous models to real biological neurons is not warranted by the data. The statement that the trend "strongly suggests that extreme final-state uncertainty emerges in real biological neurons" is based on three discrete-time map models, not on biophysically grounded continuous-time models or experimental data. This should be labeled explicitly as speculation, or supported by additional continuous-time models, before being used in the paper's broader conclusions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Models / Model 1] The word "asymetrically" in the Model 1 description should be corrected to "asymmetrically."
  2. [Acknowledgements / footnote] The corresponding author email address in the footnote contains "virignia.edu", which appears to be a typo for "virginia.edu."
  3. [Table I] The entries under "Attractors" (e.g., "Chaotic 2", "Nonchaotic 2") are potentially confusing; the table should clarify whether the numbers denote the number of distinct attractors of each type.
  4. [Methodology / basin entropy] The manuscript states that 25 initial states per box are sampled for the basin entropy computation, but it does not provide similar details for the uncertainty-exponent and basin-classification Monte Carlo calculations; adding those details would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the uncertainty exponents are computed directly from the map dynamics, and the central claim is supported by numerical experiments rather than by fitted or self-referential reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central quantity, the uncertainty exponent u, is obtained by Monte Carlo sampling of initial conditions and regressing the probability of final-state change against perturbation size; it is not fitted to the conclusion of ubiquity. The proposed 'chance synchronization' mechanism is an interpretive narrative invoked after the numerical results, and it is not used to derive or predict the u values, so it cannot be a circular input. Self-citations appear, most notably Ref. [16] for the benchmark Model 1 and Ref. [29] for a shell method used in computing P(ξ), but neither is load-bearing in a way that reduces the paper's claim to its own prior results: Model 1 is redefined fully in the text, and the shell method is a numerical technique rather than the target conclusion. The broad 'ubiquity' claim rests on five handpicked models with a single parameter set each; this is a generalization weakness, not a circularity, and the paper itself concedes that future work is needed to explore 'many complex dynamical regimes.' No equation in the paper is shown to be equivalent to another by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The finding is therefore one of no significant circularity, with any concerns about representativeness belonging to correctness risk rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim of ubiquity rests on model and parameter choices that are not systematically varied; these are enumerated as free parameters. The proposed 'chance synchronization' mechanism is an ad hoc narrative rather than a derived result. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • Model 1 parameters = alpha=4.5, sigma=-0.5, g1=0.05, g2=0.25, mu small
    Chosen by hand to produce nonchaotic individual dynamics; the reported u=0.04 depends on this choice.
  • Model 2 parameters = a=1.0, b=2.2, c=0.26, I=0.04, g1=0.05, g2=0.3
    Fixed parameter set; no sensitivity analysis provided.
  • Model 3 parameters = a=0.18, b=1.15, kappa1=0.005, kappa2=0.01, kappa3=0.02
    Chosen for pulse coupling; the synchronization threshold E0=0.2 is also a hand-set cutoff.
  • Model 4 parameters = c=-55, d=8, I=15, gamma=0.5
    Single parameter set; higher coupling is said to increase synchronization probability.
  • Model 5 parameters = xi=-0.2, g=0.4
    Taken from Ref [24]; the paper does not explore how u depends on these.
  • State-space region Omega = Varies per model (Table I)
    u and Sb are computed over a chosen finite region; different regions would give different exponents. The choice is not justified beyond computational convenience.
  • Synchronization cutoff E0 = 0.2
    Used in Model 3 to classify synchronized vs unsynchronized; justified by a gap in the error distribution, but still a free threshold.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Lyapunov exponents computed via QR factorization are reliable indicators of chaos/nonchaos in these maps
    Invoked in Results; standard but not proven for these systems.
  • domain assumption The uncertainty exponent power law rho(epsilon) ~ epsilon^u holds in the epsilon range sampled
    Assumed in Methodology; no verification of the scaling range.
  • domain assumption Discrete-time neuron maps (Rulkov, Chialvo, etc.) are appropriate models for the claimed neuroscience implications
    The conclusion of 'fundamentally unpredictable' brains relies on this mapping, which is not established.
  • ad hoc to paper The 'chance synchronization' mechanism is the correct explanation for the observed uncertainty
    Stated in Results; it is a qualitative narrative without a formal derivation.
  • standard math The basin classification method of Sprott and Xiong applies correctly
    Used in Methodology; standard in the literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ubiquity of Uncertainty in Neuron Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6RS433AX

@misc{pith2026250715702,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ubiquity of Uncertainty in Neuron Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6RS433AX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15702}
}
read the original abstract

We demonstrate that final-state uncertainty is ubiquitous in multistable systems of coupled neuronal maps, meaning that predicting whether one such system will eventually be chaotic or nonchaotic is often nearly impossible. We propose a "chance synchronization" mechanism that governs the emergence of unpredictability in neuron systems and support it by using basin classification, uncertainty exponent, and basin entropy techniques to analyze five simple discrete-time systems, each consisting of a different neuron model. Our results illustrate that uncertainty in neuron systems is not just a product of noise or high-dimensional complexity; it is also a fundamental property of low-dimensional, deterministic models, which has profound implications for understanding brain function, modeling cognition, and interpreting unpredictability in general multistable systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15702 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Basins of attraction corresponding to the chaotic/unsynchronized (white) and nonchaotic/synchronized (black) attrac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Grebogi, S

    C. Grebogi, S. W. McDonald, E. Ott, and J. A. Yorke, Final state sensitivity: an obstruction to predictability, Phys. Lett. A 99, 415 (1983)

    work page 1983

  2. [2]

    In the literature, the terms final-state uncertainty, final- state sensitivity, and final-state unpredictability all refer to the same phenomenon and can be used interchange- ably

    work page

  3. [3]

    S. W. McDonald, C. Grebogi, E. Ott, and J. A. Yorke, Fractal basin boundaries, Physica D 17, 125 (1985)

    work page 1985

  4. [4]

    J. C. Alexander, J. A. Yorke, Z. You, and I. Kan, Riddled basins, Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 2, 795 (1992)

    work page 1992

  5. [5]

    A. L. Hodgkin and A. F. Huxley, A quantitative descrip- tion of membrane current and its application to conduc- tion and excitation in nerve, J. Physiol. 117, 500 (1952)

    1952

  6. [6]

    T. R. Chay, Chaos in a three-variable model of an ex- citable cell, Physica D 16, 233 (1985)

    work page 1985

  7. [7]

    Buchholtz, J

    F. Buchholtz, J. Golowasch, I. R. Epstein, and E. Marder, Mathematical model of an identified stomatogastric gan- glion neuron, J. Neurophysiol. 67, 332 (1992)

    work page 1992

  8. [8]

    E. M. Izhikevich, Simple model of spiking neurons, IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 14, 1569 (2003)

    work page 2003

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    J. L. Hindmarsh and R. M. Rose, A model of neuronal bursting using three coupled first order differential equa- 6 tions, Proc. R. Soc. B 221, 87 (1984)

    1984

  2. [10]

    Courbage, V

    M. Courbage, V. I. Nekorkin, and L. V. Vdovin, Chaotic oscillations in a map-based model of neural activity, Chaos 17, 043109 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    Ibarz, J

    B. Ibarz, J. M. Casado, and M. A. F. Sanju´ an, Map- based models in neuronal dynamics, Phys. Rep. 501, 1 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    M. I. Rabinovich, P. Varona, A. I. Selverston, and H. D. I. Abarbanel, Dynamical principles in neuroscience, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 1213 (2006)

    2006

  5. [13]

    P. So, T. B. Luke, and E. Barreto, Networks of theta neu- rons with time-varying excitability: Macroscopic chaos, multistability, and final-state uncertainty, Physica D 267, 16 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    H. Bao, J. Zhang, N. Wang, N. V. Kuznetsov, and B. C. Bao, Adaptive synapse-based neuron model with het- erogeneous multistability and riddled basins, Chaos 32, 123101 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    R. P. Aristides and H. A. Cerdeira, Master stability func- tions of networks of Izhikevich neurons, Phys. Rev. E 109, 044213 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    B. B. Le, Asymmetric coupling of nonchaotic Rulkov neu- rons: Fractal attractors, quasimultistability, and final state sensitivity, Phys. Rev. E 111, 034201 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    J. C. Sprott and A. Xiong, Classifying and quantifying basins of attraction, Chaos 25, 083101 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    A. Daza, A. Wagemakers, B. Georgeot, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, and M. A. F. Sanju´ an, Basin entropy: A new tool to analyze uncertainty in dynamical systems, Sci. Rep. 6, 31416 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    N. F. Rulkov, Modeling of spiking-bursting neural behav- ior using two-dimensional map, Phys. Rev. E 65, 041922 (2002)

    2002

  12. [20]

    D. R. Chialvo, Generic excitable dynamics on a two- dimensional map, Chaos Solit. Fractals 5, 461 (1995)

    1995

  13. [21]

    Masuda and K

    N. Masuda and K. Aihara, Synchronization of pulse- coupled excitable neurons, Phys. Rev. E 64, 051906 (2001)

    2001

  14. [22]

    Nagumo and S

    J. Nagumo and S. Sato, On a response characteristic of a mathematical neuron model, Biol. Cybern. 10, 155 (1972)

    1972

  15. [23]

    E. M. Izhikevich and F. Hoppensteadt, Classification of bursting mappings, Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 14, 3847 (2004)

    2004

  16. [24]

    normalized distance

    consisting of a chaotic Rulkov neuron ( x1 and y1) [25], a FitzHugh-Nagumo neuron ( x2 and y2) [26], and a Hindmarsh-Rose neuron ( x3 and y3) [27] coupled via a memristor [28]:    x1(k + 1) = 4.5/[1 + x1(k)2] + y1(k) − Cmem(k) y1(k + 1) = y...

  17. [25]

    D. Luo, C. Wang, Q. Deng, and Y. Sun, Dynamics in a memristive neural network with three discrete heteroge- neous neurons and its application, Nonlinear Dyn. , 5811 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    N. F. Rulkov, Regularization of synchronized chaotic bursts, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 183 (2001)

    2001

  19. [27]

    FitzHugh, Impulses and physiological states in the- oretical models of nerve membrane, Biophys

    R. FitzHugh, Impulses and physiological states in the- oretical models of nerve membrane, Biophys. J. 1, 445 (1961)

    1961

  20. [28]

    Hindmarsh and R

    J. Hindmarsh and R. Rose, A model of the nerve impulse using two first-order differential equations, Nature 296, 162 (1982)

    1982

  21. [29]

    Chua, Memristor-The missing circuit element, IEEE Trans

    L. Chua, Memristor-The missing circuit element, IEEE Trans. Circuit Theory 18, 507 (1971)

    1971

  22. [30]

    B. B. Le and N. A. Gandhi, Exploring geometrical prop- erties of chaotic systems through an analysis of the Rulkov neuron maps, arXiv:2406.08385 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    P. J. Menck, J. Heitzig, N. Marwan, and J. Kurths, How basin stability complements the linear-stability paradigm, Nat. Phys. 9, 89 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    In practice, we compute this probability by sampling 25 initial states per box, which is standard

  25. [33]

    Eckmann and D

    J.-P. Eckmann and D. Ruelle, Ergodic theory of chaos and strange attractors, Reviews of Modern Physics 57, 617 (1985)

    1985

  26. [34]

    Therefore, it makes sense to call orbits with E < 0.2 synchronized, and vice versa

    This choice of synchronization cutoff is reasonable be- cause we find that no orbits with synchronization error between 0 .15 < E < 0.22. Therefore, it makes sense to call orbits with E < 0.2 synchronized, and vice versa

  27. [35]

    The levels of abstraction of the neuron models are sum- marized in Ref. [11]

  28. [36]

    A. A. Faisal, L. P. Selen, and D. M. Wolpert, Noise in the nervous system, Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 9, 292 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    M. M. Churchland, M. Y. Byron, S. I. Ryu, G. San- thanam, and K. V. Shenoy, Neural variability in premo- tor cortex provides a signature of motor preparation, J. Neurosci. 26, 3697 (2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    Ratcliff and G

    R. Ratcliff and G. McKoon, The diffusion decision model: theory and data for two-choice decision tasks, Neural Comput. 20, 873 (2008)

    2008

  31. [39]

    Ranganath and M

    C. Ranganath and M. Ritchey, Two cortical systems for memory-guided behaviour, Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 13, 713 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    J. J. Palop and L. Mucke, Amyloid- β–induced neuronal dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease: from synapses toward neural networks, Nat. Neurosci. 13, 812 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    C. R. Jack, D. S. Knopman, W. J. Jagust, L. M. Shaw, P. S. Aisen, M. W. Weiner, R. C. Petersen, and J. Q. Trojanowski, Hypothetical model of dynamic biomarkers of the Alzheimer’s pathological cascade, Lancet Neurol. 9, 119 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    Hammond, H

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

    2007

  35. [43]

    A. Dadu, V. Satone, R. Kaur, S. H. Hashemi, H. Leonard, H. Iwaki, M. B. Makarious, K. J. Billingsley, S. Bandres- Ciga, L. J. Sargent, et al., Identification and prediction of Parkinson’s disease subtypes and progression using ma- chine learning in two cohorts, npj Parkinsons ...

    2022

  36. [44]

    J. G. Milton, Epilepsy as a dynamic disease: a tutorial of the past with an eye to the future, Epilepsy Behav. 18, 33 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    V. K. Jirsa, W. C. Stacey, P. P. Quilichini, A. I. Ivanov, and C. Bernard, On the nature of seizure dynamics, Brain 137, 2210 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    N. S. Ara´ ujo, S. Z. Reyes-Garcia, J. A. Brogin, D. D. Bueno, E. A. Cavalheiro, C. A. Scorza, and J. Faber, Chaotic and stochastic dynamics of epileptiform-like ac- tivities in sclerotic hippocampus resected from patients with pharmacoresistant epilepsy, PLOS Comput. Biol. 18...

    2022

  39. [47]

    G. Deco, V. K. Jirsa, and A. R. McIntosh, Emerging concepts for the dynamical organization of resting-state activity in the brain, Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 12, 43 (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    Breakspear, Dynamic models of large-scale brain ac- tivity, Nat

    M. Breakspear, Dynamic models of large-scale brain ac- tivity, Nat. Neurosci. 20, 340 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Wunderling, M

    N. Wunderling, M. Gelbrecht, R. Winkelmann, J. Kurths, and J. F. Donges, Basin stability and limit cycles in a conceptual model for climate tipping cascades, New J. Phys. 22, 123031 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Margazoglou, T

    G. Margazoglou, T. Grafke, A. Laio, and V. Lucarini, Dy- namical landscape and multistability of a climate model, Proc. R. Soc. A 477, 20210019 (2021). 7

    2021

  43. [51]

    S. C. de Assis and M. O. Terra, Escape dynamics and fractal basin boundaries in the planar Earth–Moon sys- tem, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 120, 105 (2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    Valade, N

    A. Valade, N. I. Libeskind, D. Pomarede, R. B. Tully, Y. Hoffman, S. Pfeifer, and E. Kourkchi, Identification of basins of attraction in the local universe, Nat. Astron. 8, 1610 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    M. Peil, T. Heil, I. Fischer, and W. Els¨ aßer, Synchroniza- tion of chaotic semiconductor laser systems: A vectorial coupling-dependent scenario, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 174101 (2002)

    2002

  46. [54]

    Flunkert and E

    V. Flunkert and E. Sch¨ oll, Chaos synchronization in net- works of delay-coupled lasers: role of the coupling phases, New J. Phys. 14, 033039 (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    Meucci, J

    R. Meucci, J. Marc Ginoux, M. Mehrabbeik, S. Jafari, and J. Clinton Sprott, Generalized multistability and its control in a laser, Chaos 32 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    S. M. Mousavi and M. Mahmoudi, Intrinsic optical bista- bility via switching between saturable and reverse sat- urable absorption, Sci. Rep. 15, 12985 (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    Tang and H

    X. Tang and H. Xu, Multistability of small reaction net- works, SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 20, 608 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Z. G. Nicolaou, S. B. Nicholson, A. E. Motter, and J. R. Green, Prevalence of multistability and nonstationarity in driven chemical networks, J. Chem. Phys. 158 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    R. V. Mendes, Structure-generating mechanisms in agent-based models, Physica A 295, 537 (2001)

    2001

  52. [60]

    Bertolotti, A

    F. Bertolotti, A. Locoro, and L. Mari, Sensitivity to ini- tial conditions in agent-based models, in European Con- ference on Multi-Agent Systems(Springer, 2020) pp. 501– 508

    2020

  53. [61]

    J. G. Lee, S. Trenn, and H. Shim, Synchronization with prescribed transient behavior: Heterogeneous multi- agent systems under funnel coupling, Automatica 141, 110276 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    G. V. Osipov, M. V. Ivanchenko, J. Kurths, and B. Hu, Synchronized chaotic intermittent and spiking behavior in coupled map chains, Phys. Rev. E 71, 056209 (2005)

    2005

  55. [63]

    Wang and H

    C. Wang and H. Cao, Stability and chaos of Rulkov map- based neuron network with electrical synapse, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 20, 536 (2015)

    2015

  56. [64]

    G. M. Ram ´ ırez-´Avila, S. Depick` ere, I. M. J´ anosi, and J. A. C. Gallas, Distribution of spiking and bursting in Rulkov’s neuron model, Eur. Phys. J.: Spec. Top. 231, 319 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    L´ opez, M

    J. L´ opez, M. Coccolo, R. Cape´ ans, and M. A. Sanju´ an, Controlling the bursting size in the two-dimensional Rulkov model, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 120, 107184 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    B. B. Le, Chaotic dynamics and fractal geometry in ring lattice systems of nonchaotic Rulkov neurons, arXiv:2412.12134 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    B. B. Le and D. Watkins, Hyperchaos and complex dy- namical regimes in N -dimensional neuron lattices, Eur. Phys. J.: Spec. Top. (2025)

    2025

  60. [68]

    M. P. K. Jampa, A. R. Sonawane, P. M. Gade, and S. Sinha, Synchronization in a network of model neurons, Phys. Rev. E 75, 026215 (2007)

    2007

  61. [69]

    J. Used, J. M. Seoane, I. Bashkirtseva, L. Ryashko, and M. A. Sanju´ an, Synchronization of two non-identical Chialvo neurons, Chaos Solit. Fractals 183, 114888 (2024)

    2024

  62. [70]

    G. M. Ram ´ ırez-´Avila, S. S. Muni, and T. Kapitaniak, Unfolding the distribution of periodicity regions and di- versity of chaotic attractors in the Chialvo neuron map, Chaos 34, 083134 (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    Kuznetsov, Y

    A. Kuznetsov, Y. Sedova, and N. Stankevich, Dynam- ics of non–identical coupled Chialvo neuron maps, Chaos Solit. Fractals 186, 115237 (2024)

    2024

  64. [72]

    L. Wang, H. Gao, C. Li, Q. Tang, and D. Chialvo, Com- plex synchronization in memristor-coupled Chialvo neu- rons, Eur. Phys. J.: Spec. Top. (2025)

    2025

  65. [73]

    Nakagawa and M

    M. Nakagawa and M. Okabe, On the chaos region of the modified Nagumo-Sato model, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn 61, 1121 (1992)

    1992

  66. [74]

    Oku and K

    M. Oku and K. Aihara, Numerical analysis of transient and periodic dynamics in single and coupled Nagumo- Sato models, Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 22, 1230021 (2012)

    2012

  67. [75]

    D. Ito, T. Ueta, T. Kousaka, and K. Aihara, Bifurca- tion analysis of the Nagumo-Sato model and its coupled systems, Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 26, 1630006 (2016)

    2016

  68. [76]

    E. M. Izhikevich, Neural excitability, spiking and burst- ing, Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 10, 1171 (1999)

    1999

  69. [77]

    E. M. Izhikevich, Polychronization: computation with spikes, Neural Comput. 18, 245 (2006)

    2006

  70. [78]

    Shanahan, Dynamical complexity in small-world net- works of spiking neurons, Phys

    M. Shanahan, Dynamical complexity in small-world net- works of spiking neurons, Phys. Rev. E 78, 041924 (2008)

    2008

  71. [79]

    M. Wang, J. Mou, L. Qin, and H. Jahanshahi, A memristor-coupled heterogeneous discrete neural net- works with infinite multi-structure hyperchaotic attrac- tors, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 138, 1137 (2023)

    2023

  72. [80]

    Kennedy and J

    J. Kennedy and J. A. Yorke, Basins of Wada, Physica D 51, 213 (1991)

    1991

Pith tools

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