Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Maximum entropy models of neuronal populations at and off criticality

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Static maximum-entropy models of neural populations show equally strong thermodynamic criticality signatures for critical and supercritical cortical cultures, so static thermodynamics alone cannot certify avalanche criticality.

desk verdict The qualitative point is solid and useful, but the central 'equally strong' claim is undercut by the paper's own scaling exponents. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.14872 v3 pith:KNADLBOW submitted 2025-11-18 q-bio.NC

T. S. A. N. Simões , F. Lombardi , D. Plenz , H. J. Herrmann , L. de Arcangelis This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NC
keywords maximumentropymodelsneuronalavalanchescriticalityspecificheatK-pairwiseIsingmodelsynchronydistributioncorticalsliceculturesintegrate-and-firenetwork
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 whether the thermodynamic signatures of criticality seen in maximum-entropy (ME) models of neural populations track dynamical criticality as defined by neuronal avalanches. Using organotypic rat cortex cultures in baseline, hypo-excitable, and disinhibited states, plus an integrate-and-fire network model that can be tuned to and away from criticality, the authors infer K-pairwise Ising-like models from every condition. They find that models inferred from critical and supercritical cultures both show pronounced specific-heat and susceptibility peaks near the model's unit temperature, with the peaks growing superlinearly with system size, whereas models from subcritical cultures show no such peaks. The paper concludes that static ME thermodynamics separates subcritical systems from critical/supercritical ones but cannot discriminate avalanche criticality from supercriticality; dynamical information is needed for that distinction.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the K-pairwise Ising-like model, a maximum-entropy distribution of the form P(σ) ∝ exp[Σ_i h_i σ_i + ½Σ_{i≠j} J_ij σ_i σ_j + Σ_K V_K δ_{K,K'(σ)}], where σ_i is the binary spiking state of neuron or electrode i, h_i are local fields setting firing rates, J_ij are pairwise couplings fixing correlations, and the potentials V_K constrain the probability that exactly K units fire together. Parameters are learned from data by iterative gradient descent that matches model averages to data averages; a temperature T rescales all parameters, and at T = 1 the model reproduces the measured statistics. The argument is carried by the temperature dependence of the specific heat C_v a

What would settle it

A decisive test: in the tunable integrate-and-fire network, set the recovery parameter to a supercritical value while holding firing rates and pairwise correlations at subcritical levels; if the inferred K-pairwise model still shows a specific-heat maximum near T = 1, the thermodynamic signature is not merely an artifact of firing-rate levels, whereas if the peak vanishes, the paper's main conclusion fails to generalize beyond correlated-activity level. Independently, an avalanche-classified supercritical culture whose inferred model shows no peak near T = 1 would directly refute the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central discovery: a mismatch between static and dynamic criticality signatures. ME models fitted to time-averaged firing rates, pairwise correlations, and synchrony distribution reproduce avalanche classifications only partially: subcritical systems give flat, weak specific heat and susceptibility, while critical and supercritical systems both give strong maxima near T = 1 that grow faster than linearly with population size. Because supercritical cultures were independently classified by avalanche statistics and showed poor dynamic range, the thermodynamic peak cannot be evidence of dynamical criticality. The same pattern appears in an integrate-and-fire network tuned below, at, and above c

Load-bearing premise

The results assume that the three-way division of the 15 recordings into critical, subcritical, and supercritical states, taken from a previous avalanche-based study, is correct; if some cultures are mislabeled—as the single AP5-treated culture suggests—then the claim that static ME models cannot distinguish critical from supercritical is only established for that particular labeling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Static ME thermodynamics is not a standalone biomarker for brain criticality: a pronounced specific-heat peak near T = 1 can arise from supercritical, functionally degraded cultures just as from critical ones.
  • The subcritical versus critical/supercritical divide is thermodynamically visible, so ME models remain useful for detecting strong reductions in excitability.
  • Among the fitted parameters, the high-synchrony potentials V_K at large K separate supercritical from critical states in most datasets, suggesting a static observable that may partly encode the dynamical regime.
  • Adding the synchrony distribution P(K) as a constraint improves the models' prediction of unconstrained three-point correlations, strengthening the case for K-pairwise over purely pairwise ME models.
  • Distinguishing true criticality from supercriticality requires dynamic signatures, such as avalanche size and duration scaling or ME constraints that include temporal information.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The thermodynamic peak is likely a generic property of strongly correlated binary models with sufficiently high firing rates and correlations, not a marker of critical dynamics; if so, reports of ME 'criticality' in other neural datasets may need re-examination unless they also check avalanche scaling.
  • The one AP5-treated culture labeled subcritical but thermodynamically critical suggests that the subcritical label depends on which excitatory receptors are blocked; a graded pharmacology experiment varying NMDA versus AMPA receptor blockade could trace where the thermodynamic signature disappears.
  • The V_K large-K signal could be turned into an explicit static discriminator (for instance, a threshold on V_K for K/N > 0.75) and validated against avalanche classification on an independent set of cultures.
  • Because the integrate-and-fire model reproduces the effect while allowing full control of the tuning parameter, it offers a direct platform to test whether any static statistic can separate critical from supercritical states, or whether that separation is information-theoretically impossible from time-averaged data.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper investigates whether static maximum-entropy (ME) models of neuronal populations can distinguish avalanche criticality from subcritical and supercritical dynamics. Using K-pairwise ME models (fields, pairwise couplings, and a synchrony potential) inferred from organotypic cortex slice cultures classified by avalanche metrics, and from a tunable integrate-and-fire (IF) network model, the authors compute specific heat and susceptibility as functions of a temperature-like parameter. They report pronounced maxima near T=1 for critical and supercritical systems, but not for subcritical systems, and conclude that ME thermodynamics separates subcritical from critical/supercritical states but cannot discriminate between criticality and supercriticality. The IF model provides independent support, and an unconstrained three-point correlation check is included.

Significance. If correct, the result is significant: it challenges the use of static ME thermodynamic signatures as a unique marker of avalanche criticality and underscores the need for dynamical measures. The paper's strengths include a tunable IF model that reproduces the experimental observations, explicit discussion of prior work on inference-induced criticality, and a validation against unconstrained three-point correlations. However, the quantitative support for the stronger claim of 'equally strong' signatures is incomplete, and the experimental sample description is ambiguous. The qualitative distinction between subcritical and critical/supercritical systems is convincing, but the stronger indiscriminability claim requires additional statistical support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.D and Fig. 5] The abstract and conclusions state that critical and supercritical models show 'equally strong' thermodynamic signatures, but the paper's own finite-size scaling for the specific heat gives max[Cv] ∝ N^a with a=1.41±0.06 (critical) and a=1.70±0.06 (supercritical). The difference is ~3.4 standard errors, so the growth rates are significantly different. Thus, at least for the IF model, a finite-size scaling analysis can distinguish critical from supercritical, directly contradicting the indiscriminability claim. For the experimental data (5 per condition, N=60), no statistical test is reported for the comparison; error bars alone do not establish 'equally strong.' The qualitative claim about subcritical vs critical/supercritical is convincing, but the stronger claim needs to be reformulated or supported by a formal equivalence test (e.g., confidence intervals on the ratio of maxima, or a B
  2. [Sec. II.B and Fig. 6 caption] The text states that 15 recordings were analyzed, 5 for each condition, and Fig. 1 indicates different neuronal cultures. However, the Fig. 6 caption says the shaded areas are 'the standard error obtained from 5 experimental subsamples of the same cortical culture.' These statements are inconsistent. If the five datasets per condition are subsamples of a single culture, then the effective sample size is one per condition, and the error bars do not reflect across-culture variability; the conclusions about 'cultures' are then not generalizable. The authors must clarify the experimental design and, if the data are indeed from five different cultures, correct the caption.
  3. [Sec. III.B and Fig. S12] The analysis inherits the critical/subcritical/supercritical classification from Shew et al. [28] without re-deriving or validating it for these recordings. One of the five 'subcritical' cultures (AP5-only) behaves thermodynamically like the critical cultures, and the authors treat this as an exception, arguing that only combined AP5/DNQX treatment truly drives cultures subcritical. This is a post hoc reinterpretation of the label. If the avalanche-based label is the ground truth, then this culture is a counterexample to the claim that ME thermodynamics 'correctly distinguishes' subcritical systems; if the label is not reliable, then the three-way comparison itself is called into question. Please provide a sensitivity analysis excluding the AP5-only culture, or an independent validation of the labels (e.g., re-computing avalanche exponents for all 15 recordings).
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] No code or data availability statement is provided. The Boltzmann Machine learning procedure and Monte Carlo sampling are central to the results; releasing code/data would substantially aid reproducibility.
  2. [Sec. III.A] The threshold for fitting VK (P(K)>1e-4 for experimental data, >1e-5 for numerical data) is described as heuristic. Please report the sensitivity of the thermodynamic quantities (Cv, χ) and the inferred VK to this threshold.
  3. [Sec. III.D] The spin-glass-like low-temperature region (T<T*) is identified by initial-configuration dependence. Please clarify how T* is determined, and whether the reported maxima near T=1 are affected by the finite sampling at temperatures close to T*.
  4. [Miscellaneous] Typographical and notation issues: 'In constrast' (p.10), inconsistent use of 'Vk' vs 'VK', and Tijk is sometimes written without subscript formatting. The allometric scaling subsection (II.C.1) appears tangential to the main argument and could be shortened or moved to the SI.
  5. [References] Reference [40] is a preprint; please update if it has been published in the interim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: thermodynamic signatures are computed from fitted ME models and interpreted comparatively, not presented as free predictions; the classification input is an external avalanche-based dataset.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that K-pairwise maximum-entropy models inferred from critical and supercritical cultures both show Cv/chi peaks near T=1, whereas subcritical models do not. This is a statement about fitted models, but the paper does not disguise it as a first-principles prediction: Eqs. (15)-(17) explicitly fit {hi, Jij, VK} to time-averaged data, and the thermodynamic functions in Eqs. (20)-(21) are then evaluated from the inferred Hamiltonian. Because the Cv/chi peak is not one of the fitted constraints, its state dependence is a nontrivial model property rather than an identity. The avalanche-based classification of cultures is inherited from Shew et al. 2009 [28] and is independent of the ME inference; overlapping authorship of the present paper does not make that empirical classification circular. Self-citations to [22] and [27] are used for model lineage and comparison (e.g., Fig. 4b vs Fig. 6 of [22]) and are not load-bearing for the main conclusion. The paper also includes an unconstrained predictive check, the three-point correlations Tijk (Eq. 18, Fig. 4), which shows genuine out-of-sample content. Concerns that the abstract's 'equally strong' phrasing is undermined by the reported max[Cv] scaling exponents (1.41±0.06 vs 1.70±0.06) are statistical/correctness issues, not circularity; they do not reduce a claimed derivation to its inputs. No specific circular step can be quoted, so no circularity is flagged.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on fitted ME parameters and on the validity of the avalanche-based labels from [28]. The model confirmation shares the same ME inference procedure, so it is not fully independent of the method being tested.

free parameters (6)
  • Maximum-entropy parameters {h_i, J_ij, V_K} = not listed individually; distributions in Figs. 2-3
    All thermodynamic quantities are computed from these fitted parameters; they are fit to data rather than derived, so the Cv/chi signatures are properties of the fitted model.
  • P(K) fitting threshold = 10^-4 (experimental), 10^-5 (numerical)
    V_K for P(K) below threshold are set to zero; this data-dependent truncation affects the inferred potentials, especially large-K tails in supercritical data.
  • Time bin Δt_b = 25 ms experimental; 5 timesteps model
    The binary spiking representation, P(K), firing rates and correlations all depend on this choice; while within typical ME ranges, it is a modeling choice.
  • BM learning rate schedule θ(n) and exponent α = α per dataset/state, Table S2
    Affects convergence of the inferred Hamiltonian but not the qualitative state separation.
  • δu_rec offsets for off-critical IF simulations = 0.1 δu_crit_rec and 10 δu_crit_rec
    Defines subcritical/supercritical dynamics in the model; ME inference then uses the resulting spike trains.
  • Critical recovery δu_crit_rec(N) = Table S1
    Tuned per N to place IF network at avalanche criticality; the classification of model states used for comparison depends on it.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Boltzmann maximum-entropy solution (Jaynes 1957) is the least-biased distribution matching constraints.
    Eqs. (8)-(10); standard derivation of ME distribution.
  • standard math Fluctuation-dissipation relations (Eqs. 20-21) give thermodynamic response of the inferred model.
    Used to compute chi and Cv from fluctuations of magnetization and energy.
  • domain assumption Metropolis Monte Carlo sampling is converged for T in the reported range, except low-T region identified as spin-glass artifact.
    Section III.D gray-shaded T<T* region excluded from interpretation.
  • domain assumption Avalanche-based classification of cultures from [28] is the correct ground truth.
    Central comparison inherits labels; one AP5-only culture shows thermodynamic criticality despite being labeled subcritical, so the labels are not unanimously consistent with ME thermodynamics.
  • domain assumption Thresholded LFP negative peaks represent neuronal firing events.
    Section II.B: events are negative LFP peaks exceeding 4 SD; all binary statistics depend on this event definition.
  • domain assumption Uniform rescaling of the inferred Hamiltonian by 1/T is a meaningful probe of static criticality.
    Eq. (19) and Section III.D; standard in ME criticality literature but an ad hoc thermodynamic analogy for non-equilibrium data.
  • domain assumption Time-binned binary activity at Δt_b preserves the statistics relevant to thermodynamics.
    Section II.C; binning choice affects all inferred quantities and P(K).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Maximum entropy models of neuronal populations at and off criticality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KNADLBOW

@misc{pith2026251114872,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Maximum entropy models of neuronal populations at and off criticality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KNADLBOW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.14872}
}
read the original abstract

Empirical evidence of scaling behaviors in neuronal avalanches suggests that neuronal populations in the brain operate near criticality. Departure from scaling in neuronal avalanches has been used as a measure of distance to criticality and linked to brain disorders. A distinct line of evidence for brain criticality has come from thermodynamic signatures in maximum entropy (ME) models. Both of these approaches have been widely applied to the analysis of neuronal data. However, the relationship between deviations from avalanche criticality and thermodynamics of ME models of neuronal populations remains poorly understood. To address this question, we study spontaneous activity of organotypic rat cortex slice cultures in physiological and drug-induced hypo- or hyper-excitable conditions, which are classified as critical, subcritical and supercritical based on avalanche dynamics. We find that static ME models inferred from critical cultures show signatures of criticality in thermodynamic quantities, e.g. specific heat. However, such signatures are also present and equally strong in models inferred from supercritical cultures -- despite their altered dynamics and poor functional performance. On the contrary, ME models inferred from subcritical cultures do not show thermodynamic hints of criticality. Importantly, we confirm these results using an interpretable neural network model that can be tuned to and away from avalanche criticality. Our findings indicate that static maximum entropy models, although not constraining dynamical features, correctly distinguish subcritical from critical/supercritical systems. However, they may not be able to discriminate between avalanche criticality and supercriticality, suggesting that dynamics is relevant to capture the supercritical behavior and distinguish it from criticality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.14872 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [28]

    X. Chen, F. Randi, A. M. Leifer, and W. Bialek, Search- ing for collective behavior in a small brain, Physical Re- view E 99, 052418 (2019)

    2019

  2. [1]

    In the IF model, even if the network operates off criticality, ⟨na⟩ scales sublinearly with N (SI, Fig

    Allometry of firing rates The firing rates ri = ( ⟨σi⟩ + 1)/2∆tb define the to- tal firing rate ⟨na⟩ = PN i=1 ri, an interesting quan- tity that exhibits allometric scaling—a non-trivial scaling relationship—with the number of neurons, ⟨na⟩ ∝N η, with an allometric exponent η <1 [40, 41], which can be derived from the finite-size scaling of neuronal avala...

  3. [2]

    1, we present the distributions of P (K), Eq

    Population firing rates In Fig. 1, we present the distributions of P (K), Eq. (7), for both data from the IF model and experimental recordings in the subcritical, critical, and supercritical regimes. In the IF model data, we observe that P (K) exhibits distinctive features depending on the dynami- cal state (Figs. 1a–c). For subcritical networks (Fig. 1a)...

    2022

  4. [3]

    B. G. Cragg and H. N. V. Temperley, The organisation of neurones: A co-operative analogy, Electroencephalog- raphy and Clinical Neurophysiology 6, 85 (1954)

    1954

  5. [4]

    Kinouchi and M

    O. Kinouchi and M. Copelli, Optimal dynamical range of excitable networks at criticality, Nature Physics2, 348 (2006)

    2006

  6. [5]

    W. L. Shew, H. Yang, S. Yu, R. Roy, and D. Plenz, In- formation Capacity and Transmission Are Maximized in Balanced Cortical Networks with Neuronal Avalanches, Journal of Neuroscience 31, 55 (2011)

    2011

  7. [6]

    J. M. Beggs and D. Plenz, Neuronal Avalanches in Neo- cortical Circuits, The Journal of Neuroscience 23, 11167 (2003)

    2003

  8. [7]

    E. D. Gireesh and D. Plenz, Neuronal avalanches orga- nize as nested theta- and beta/gamma-oscillations during development of cortical layer 2/3, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences 105, 7576 (2008)

    2008

Show all 58 references
  1. [8]

    Petermann, T

    T. Petermann, T. C. Thiagarajan, M. A. Lebedev, M. A. L. Nicolelis, D. R. Chialvo, and D. Plenz, Spon- taneous cortical activity in awake monkeys composed of neuronal avalanches, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 15921 (2009)

    2009

  2. [9]

    G. Hahn, A. Ponce-Alvarez, C. Monier, G. Benvenuti, A. Kumar, F. Chavane, G. Deco, and Y. Fr´ egnac, Spon- taneous cortical activity is transiently poised close to criticality, PLOS Computational Biology 13, e1005543 (2017)

    2017

  3. [10]

    Ponce-Alvarez, A

    A. Ponce-Alvarez, A. Jouary, M. Privat, G. Deco, and G. Sumbre, Whole-Brain Neuronal Activity Displays Crackling Noise Dynamics, Neuron 100, 1446 (2018)

    2018

  4. [11]

    Shriki, J

    O. Shriki, J. Alstott, F. Carver, T. Holroyd, R. N. A. Henson, M. L. Smith, R. Coppola, E. Bullmore, and D. Plenz, Neuronal Avalanches in the Resting MEG of the Human Brain, Journal of Neuroscience 33, 7079 (2013)

    2013

  5. [12]

    Lombardi, O

    F. Lombardi, O. Shriki, H. J. Herrmann, and L. de Ar- cangelis, Long-range temporal correlations in the broad- band resting state activity of the human brain revealed by neuronal avalanches, Neurocomputing 461, 657 (2021)

    2021

  6. [13]

    Scarpetta, N

    S. Scarpetta, N. Morisi, C. Mutti, N. Azzi, I. Trippi, R. Ciliento, I. Apicella, G. Messuti, M. Angiolelli, F. Lombardi, L. Parrino, and A. E. Vaudano, Criticality of neuronal avalanches in human sleep and their relation- ship with sleep macro- and micro-architecture, iScience...

    2023

  7. [14]

    Tkaˇ cik, T

    G. Tkaˇ cik, T. Mora, O. Marre, D. Amodei, S. E. Palmer, M. J. Berry, and W. Bialek, Thermodynamics and signa- tures of criticality in a network of neurons, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 11508 (2015)

    2015

  8. [15]

    T. Mora, S. Deny, and O. Marre, Dynamical Critical- ity in the Collective Activity of a Population of Retinal Neurons, Physical Review Letters 114, 078105 (2015)

    2015

  9. [16]

    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, Signatures of brain criticality unveiled by maximum en- tropy analysis across cortical states, Physical Rev...

    2020

  10. [17]

    C. I. N. Sampaio Filho, L. de Arcangelis, H. J. Her- rmann, D. Plenz, P. Kells, T. L. Ribeiro, and J. S. An- drade, Ising-like model replicating time-averaged spiking behaviour of in vitro neuronal networks, Scientific Re- ports 14, 7002 (2024)

    2024

  11. [18]

    Schneidman, M

    E. Schneidman, M. J. Berry, R. Segev, and W. Bialek, Weak pairwise correlations imply strongly correlated net- work states in a neural population, Nature 440, 1007 (2006)

    2006

  12. [19]

    Tkacik, E

    G. Tkacik, E. Schneidman, M. J. Berry II, and W. Bialek, Spin glass models for a network of real neurons, arXiv:0912.5409 [q-bio] (2009), arXiv:0912.5409 [q-bio]

    2009 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Tkaˇ cik, O

    G. Tkaˇ cik, O. Marre, D. Amodei, E. Schneidman, W. Bialek, and M. J. B. Ii, Searching for Collective Be- havior in a Large Network of Sensory Neurons, PLOS Computational Biology 10, e1003408 (2014)

    2014

  14. [21]

    Rieke, D

    F. Rieke, D. Warland, R. de Ruyter van Steveninck, and W. Bialek, Spikes: Exploring the Neural Code (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999)

    1999

  15. [22]

    Mora and W

    T. Mora and W. Bialek, Are Biological Systems Poised at Criticality?, Journal of Statistical Physics 144, 268 (2011)

    2011

  16. [23]

    Gardella, O

    C. Gardella, O. Marre, and T. Mora, Modeling the Corre- lated Activity of Neural Populations: A Review, Neural Computation 31, 233 (2019)

    2019

  17. [24]

    T. S. a. N. Sim˜ oes, C. I. N. S. Filho, H. J. Herrmann, J. S. Andrade, and L. de Arcangelis, Thermodynamic analog of integrate-and-fire neuronal networks by maximum en- tropy modelling, Scientific Reports 14, 9480 (2024)

    2024

  18. [25]

    Hansen, E

    A. Hansen, E. G. Flekkøy, S. Sinha, and P. A. Slotte, A statistical mechanics framework for immiscible and in- compressible two-phase flow in porous media, Advances in Water Resources 171, 104336 (2023)

    2023

  19. [26]

    Hansen and S

    A. Hansen and S. Sinha, Thermodynamics-like Formal- ism for Immiscible and Incompressible Two-Phase Flow in Porous Media, Entropy 27, 121 (2025)

    2025

  20. [27]

    Humplik and G

    J. Humplik and G. Tkaˇ cik, Probabilistic models for neural populations that naturally capture global cou- pling and criticality, PLOS Computational Biology 13, e1005763 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Michiels van Kessenich, M

    L. Michiels van Kessenich, M. Lukovi´ c, L. de Arcangelis, and H. J. Herrmann, Critical neural networks with short- and long-term plasticity, Physical Review E 97, 032312 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    W. L. Shew, H. Yang, T. Petermann, R. Roy, and D. Plenz, Neuronal Avalanches Imply Maximum Dy- namic Range in Cortical Networks at Criticality, Journal of Neuroscience 29, 15595 (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    M. K. Nandi, A. Sarracino, H. J. Herrmann, and L. de Arcangelis, Scaling of avalanche shape and activity power spectrum in neuronal networks, Physical Review E 106, 024304 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Zeraati, V

    R. Zeraati, V. Priesemann, and A. Levina, Self- 16 Organization Toward Criticality by Synaptic Plasticity, Frontiers in Physics 9 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Roerig and B

    B. Roerig and B. Chen, Relationships of Local Inhibitory and Excitatory Circuits to Orientation Preference Maps in Ferret Visual Cortex, Cerebral Cortex 12, 187 (2002)

    2002

  26. [34]

    Ikeda and J

    K. Ikeda and J. M. Bekkers, Counting the number of re- leasable synaptic vesicles in a presynaptic terminal, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 2945 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Das and A

    A. Das and A. Levina, Critical Neuronal Models with Re- laxed Timescale Separation, Physical Review X9, 021062 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Benayoun, J

    M. Benayoun, J. D. Cowan, W. van Drongelen, and E. Wallace, Avalanches in a Stochastic Model of Spik- ing Neurons, PLOS Computational Biology 6, e1000846 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    Boudkkazi, E

    S. Boudkkazi, E. Carlier, N. Ankri, O. Caillard, P. Gi- raud, L. Fronzaroli-Molinieres, and D. Debanne, Release- Dependent Variations in Synaptic Latency: A Puta- tive Code for Short- and Long-Term Synaptic Dynamics, Neuron 56, 1048 (2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    J. E. Lisman, S. Raghavachari, and R. W. Tsien, The sequence of events that underlie quantal transmission at central glutamatergic synapses, Nature Reviews Neuro- science 8, 597 (2007)

    2007

  31. [39]

    Bi and M.-m

    G.-q. Bi and M.-m. Poo, Synaptic Modifications in Cul- tured Hippocampal Neurons: Dependence on Spike Tim- ing, Synaptic Strength, and Postsynaptic Cell Type, Journal of Neuroscience 18, 10464 (1998)

    1998

  32. [40]

    D. O. Hebb, The Organization of Behavior (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1949)

    1949

  33. [41]

    Meshulam, J

    L. Meshulam, J. L. Gauthier, C. D. Brody, D. W. Tank, and W. Bialek, Successes and failures of simple statisti- cal physics models for a network of real neurons (2023), arXiv:2112.14735 [physics, q-bio]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    T. S. A. N. Sim˜ oes, J. S. Andrade, H. J. Herrmann, S. Zapperi, and L. de Arcangelis, Allometric scal- ing of brain activity explained by avalanche criticality (preprint) (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    Karbowski, Thermodynamic constraints on neural di- mensions, firing rates, brain temperature and size, Jour- nal of Computational Neuroscience 27, 415 (2009)

    J. Karbowski, Thermodynamic constraints on neural di- mensions, firing rates, brain temperature and size, Jour- nal of Computational Neuroscience 27, 415 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    H. C. Nguyen, R. Zecchina, and J. Berg, Inverse statis- tical problems: From the inverse Ising problem to data science, Advances in Physics 66, 197 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    E. T. Jaynes, Information Theory and Statistical Me- chanics, Physical Review 106, 62 (1957)

    1957

  38. [46]

    D. H. Ackley, G. E. Hinton, and T. J. Sejnowski, A learn- ing algorithm for boltzmann machines, Cognitive Science 9, 147 (1985)

    1985

  39. [47]

    Metropolis, A

    N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines, The Journal of Chemical Physics 21, 1087 (1953)

    1953

  40. [48]

    B¨ ottcher and H

    L. B¨ ottcher and H. J. Herrmann, Computational Statis- tical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Lombardi, H

    F. Lombardi, H. J. Herrmann, D. Plenz, and L. de Ar- cangelis, Temporal correlations in neuronal avalanche oc- currence, Scientific Reports 6, 24690 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    Sherrington and S

    D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass, Physical Review Letters 35, 1792 (1975)

    1975

  43. [51]

    M. E. J. Newman, G. T. Barkema, M. E. J. Newman, and G. T. Barkema, Monte Carlo Methods in Statisti- cal Physics (Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 1999)

    1999

  44. [52]

    V. K. Olsen, J. R. Whitlock, and Y. Roudi, The quality and complexity of pairwise maximum entropy models for large cortical populations, PLOS Computational Biology 20, e1012074 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Aspelmeier, R

    T. Aspelmeier, R. A. Blythe, A. J. Bray, and M. A. Moore, Free-energy landscapes, dynamics, and the edge of chaos in mean-field models of spin glasses, Physical Review B 74, 184411 (2006)

    2006

  46. [54]

    Lombardi, H

    F. Lombardi, H. J. Herrmann, and L. de Arcangelis, Avalanche Dynamics and Correlations in Neural Sys- tems, in The Functional Role of Critical Dynamics in Neural Systems , edited by N. Tomen, J. M. Herrmann, and U. Ernst (Springer International Publishing, Cham,

  47. [55]

    C. I. N. Sampaio Filho, H. A. Carmona, L. De Arcangelis, H. J. Herrmann, D. Plenz, P. Kells, T. Lins Ribeiro, and J. S. Andrade Jr., K-Pairwise Ising-like model replicat- ing time-averaged spiking behaviour of in vivo neuronal networks (preprint) (2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    Mastromatteo and M

    I. Mastromatteo and M. Marsili, On the criticality of in- ferred models, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2011, P10012 (2011)

    2011

  49. [57]

    Nonnenmacher, C

    M. Nonnenmacher, C. Behrens, P. Berens, M. Bethge, and J. H. Macke, Signatures of criticality arise from ran- dom subsampling in simple population models, PLOS Computational Biology 13, e1005718 (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    Serafim, T

    F. Serafim, T. T. A. Carvalho, M. Copelli, and P. V. Carelli, Maximum-entropy-based metrics for quantifying critical dynamics in spiking neuron data, Physical Review E 110, 024401 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.