Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 49 references

In the inertial Kuramoto model, frequency-distribution shape alone sets whether synchronized clusters form by central entrainment or by peripheral mergers.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 04:55 UTC pith:Q44BTI4C

load-bearing objection Solid numerical dichotomy: matched-variance Gaussian vs uniform g(ω) select opposite multi-cluster pathways and robustness ranges in the inertial Kuramoto model; publishable and useful once thresholds and code are tightened. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09171 v1 pith:Q44BTI4C submitted 2026-07-10 nlin.AO math-phmath.MP

Paths to synchronization in the Kuramoto model with inertia

Cook Hyun Kim , Yeomoon Kim , Stefano Boccaletti , B. Kahng This is my paper
classification nlin.AO math-phmath.MP
keywords inertial Kuramoto modelsynchronized clustersDevil's staircasefrequency distribution shapeentrainment versus mergerorder parameter jumpspower-grid synchronizationMelnikov boundary
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Most work on coupled oscillators studies the inertia-free Kuramoto model and tracks only a single macroscopic order parameter. This paper instead studies the second-order (inertial) model and resolves the kinetics of individual synchronized clusters that coexist with different rotational frequencies. Comparing a unimodal Gaussian frequency distribution with a uniform distribution of matched variance, the authors show that the presence or absence of a central peak decides everything that follows: how clusters are organized, how the order parameter grows, how the giant cluster is assembled, and how robust the synchronized state is under peripheral perturbations. A Gaussian produces a hierarchical Devil's staircase around one dominant central cluster that grows by entraining oscillators one by one, so the order parameter rises smoothly. A uniform distribution produces clusters of comparable size with equal 1:1 gaps; the giant cluster forms by successive mergers that begin at the high-frequency periphery, so the order parameter climbs in discrete jumps. The same contrast appears in recovery after peripheral resets: entrainment-driven recovery is robust at weak-to-intermediate coupling, while merger-driven recovery is robust only at strong coupling. The claim matters because modern power grids, as renewables replace conventional generators, are shifting their effective frequency distributions toward more uniform shapes and therefore toward the merger-driven pathway.

Core claim

In the underdamped second-order Kuramoto model with large enough inertia and frequency variance, the shape of g(ω) fully determines cluster organization, assembly pathway, and robustness: a Gaussian yields hierarchical central entrainment and smooth growth of the order parameter, while a uniform distribution yields homogeneous peripheral mergers, stepwise growth that traces the Devil's staircase, and opposite-range stability under peripheral perturbation.

What carries the argument

Cluster-level kinetics: seed clusters identified at an intermediate seeding time ts, many-to-many mapping by shared-oscillator threshold, transient capture probability Pts(Δω) relative to the Melnikov boundary, and equal-gap fraction f1:1 of the Devil's staircase. These objects convert the macroscopic order-parameter curves into an explicit central-versus-peripheral assembly route.

Load-bearing premise

The qualitative contrast is assumed to live in the multi-cluster interaction regime that appears only when both inertia and frequency variance are large enough, and the operational thresholds used to label clusters and seeds do not themselves create the hierarchical-versus-homogeneous distinction.

What would settle it

At the same large m and matched variance, replace the uniform distribution by another flat-topped but non-rectangular density (or a truncated Gaussian of identical variance) and check whether the order-parameter jumps, the peripheral migration of Pts, and the opposite-range robustness under peripheral reset all disappear; if they do, the claimed shape dependence fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the second-order (inertial) Kuramoto model on the complete graph and compares two intrinsic-frequency distributions of matched variance: unimodal Gaussian and flat uniform. Through large ensembles (N=1024, hundreds of realizations) and both forward and backward protocols, it argues that the shape of g(ω) controls the entire post-transition dynamics: Gaussian yields hierarchical cluster organization around a dominant central cluster, smooth growth of the order parameter R(K), and an entrainment-driven pathway; uniform yields clusters of comparable size with equal-gap (homogeneous) Devil’s-staircase ratios, stepwise jumps in R(K) with susceptibility peaks at each jump, and a merger-driven pathway seeded at the high-frequency periphery. The same shape contrast is shown to reverse the coupling range in which the largest cluster is robust to peripheral perturbations. Self-consistency and single-cluster Melnikov descriptions are shown to locate Kc but to fail once multi-cluster interactions dominate; initial energy is identified (mainly in the SM) as the primary capture determinant. Implications for renewable-integrated power grids are sketched.

Significance. If the reported pathway switch is robust, the work supplies a concrete, distribution-shape-based organizing principle for multi-cluster synchronization in underdamped oscillator systems, going beyond the usual focus on the order of the transition at Kc. The contrast between hierarchical central entrainment and homogeneous peripheral merger, the associated opposite-range robustness, and the explicit link to Devil’s-staircase structure are of genuine interest for nlin.AO and for swing-equation models of grids with increasingly non-Gaussian injected-power distributions. Strengths that should be credited include: systematic SM sweeps over inertia and variance (Secs. S5, S9–S13) that recover the same qualitative dichotomies; operational, uniformly applied definitions of clusters, seeds, Pts, and staircase statistics; the energy-based capture diagnostics and the reduced probabilistic model of SM Sec. S8 that match numerics; and the clear summary Table I. The study is simulation-driven rather than theorem-driven, but the phenomenology is carefully documented and falsifiable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Materials and Methods; Fig. 1; Main Results (i)] Materials and Methods and Fig. 1(c,d): the central claim (i) that uniform g(ω) produces discrete jumps in R(K) (with matching susceptibility peaks) is established only at fixed N=1024. No finite-size scan is reported for the height, width, or number of these jumps, nor for the multistable window quantified by ΔR. Because the jumps are attributed to mergers of O(1) macroscopic clusters, they may survive as N o∞, but they may also densify or smooth. A brief N-dependence check (or a clear statement that the stepwise structure is a finite-N multistability signature whose qualitative contrast with the Gaussian remains) is needed for the thermodynamic status of claim (i).
  2. [Figs. 5, 8, 9; SM Secs. S7–S8] Figs. 5, 8, 9 and SM Secs. S7–S8: the main-text figures continue to shade Melnikov half-widths ±ω_M as reference boundaries for seed location and capture, while SM S7–S8 show that once comparable clusters interact the single-cluster Melnikov step fails and initial energy becomes the primary determinant. The main text should state explicitly, near those figures, the regime in which the shaded Melnikov regions remain only a leading-order reference and not a membership criterion; otherwise the visual emphasis on ω_M undercuts the paper’s own multi-cluster message.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract; Introduction] Abstract and Introduction: the uniform distribution is repeatedly called “multimodal uniform.” A flat uniform density on [−w,w] is not multimodal; the operative contrast in the paper is peaked (Gaussian) versus flat (uniform). Correct the terminology to avoid confusion with genuinely multimodal g(ω).
  2. [Abstract] Abstract phrasing “trace out the size of the Devil’s staircase (DS)” is unclear; the body discusses equal-gap fractions and modal staircase number Ns, not a single “size.” Rephrase to match the quantities actually measured (Ns, f_{1:1}).
  3. [Eq. (2); SM Sec. S1] Eq. (2) and SM S1: the empirical subleading coefficient α≈−0.3056 is taken from prior work; a one-sentence statement of the fitting protocol (or a pointer to the exact reference figure) would help reproducibility.
  4. [SM Sec. S4] SM Sec. S4: cluster tolerances ϵ1=10^{-4}, ϵ2=10^{-2} and size cut-offs √N, s_max/2, 2√N are conventional and applied uniformly, but a short sensitivity check (or a sentence that results are stable under modest changes of these thresholds) would further reassure readers that the hierarchical-versus-homogeneous dichotomy is not threshold-manufactured.
  5. [Summary and Discussion] Power-grid discussion (Summary and Discussion): the all-to-all topology is a strong idealization relative to sparse transmission networks. A brief caveat that the pathway switch is demonstrated for mean-field coupling, with network structure left for future work, would keep the applied claim proportionate.
  6. [Fig. 5] Figure panels that overlay many thin oscillator trajectories (e.g., Fig. 5) are dense; increasing contrast of the red switchers or providing a zoomed inset would improve readability in print.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Simulation-driven comparative study: no load-bearing circular derivation; SCE/Melnikov are external references shown to fail, and cluster labels are operational definitions applied uniformly.

full rationale

The paper’s central claims—that matched-variance Gaussian vs uniform g(ω) produce hierarchical central entrainment with smooth R(K) versus homogeneous peripheral mergers with stepwise R(K) and opposite-range robustness—are numerical observations from direct integration of the second-order Kuramoto model, not first-principles predictions forced by their inputs. The self-consistency equation and Melnikov entrainment boundary are taken from the external literature (Tanaka et al.; Gao & Efstathiou) and used as reference curves that the authors then show break down beyond Kc once multi-cluster interactions dominate; that failure is an independent numerical finding, not a tautology. Cluster identification (ϵ1, ϵ2, √N, s_max/2, 2√N) and seed-mapping rules are operational conventions applied identically to both distributions; they do not encode hierarchical vs homogeneous organization by construction—the contrast emerges from the measured ⟨θ̇i⟩ plateaus, ρL/ρS, f1:1, Pts(Δω), and perturbation recovery. Self-citations to the authors’ prior Devil’s-staircase and power-grid work supply context but are not load-bearing uniqueness theorems that force the pathway dichotomy. The SM S8 reconstruction of Rc from measured capture probabilities a,b is a secondary model-consistency check, not the main claim. Overall the derivation chain is self-contained simulation evidence with only minor, non-circular self-reference.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim is a numerical observation inside the standard second-order Kuramoto model. Free parameters are the usual simulation choices (m, N, thresholds, empirical Melnikov correction) plus the matched-variance pair used for the main figures. Axioms are the model equation itself and the operational cluster definitions. No new physical entities are postulated; ‘homogeneous Devil’s staircase’ and ‘seed clusters’ are descriptive labels for observed structures.

free parameters (5)
  • inertia m (main analysis) = 10
    Fixed at m=10 for the primary figures; smaller values (m=2,5) are checked in SM but the multi-cluster regime of interest requires large m.
  • empirical Melnikov correction α = ≈ −0.3056
    Sub-leading term in ωM fitted to numerics (α≈−0.3056); used only as a reference boundary, not to force the pathway claim.
  • cluster velocity tolerances ϵ1, ϵ2 and size cut-offs = ϵ1=1e-4, ϵ2=1e-2, √N=32
    ϵ1=10^{-4}, ϵ2=10^{-2}, min size √N=32, large-seed 2√N=64, large-cluster s≥s_max/2; conventional choices that define the objects whose statistics are reported.
  • matched variance pair (σ,w) = σ=5.774 / w=10
    Main analysis uses σ=5.774 (w=10); smaller widths checked in SM. Choice selects the multi-cluster interaction regime.
  • system size N and ensemble size = N=1024
    N=1024 oscillators, 256–512 realizations; finite-size effects discussed but not extrapolated to N→∞.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Second-order Kuramoto equation mθ̈i + γθ̇i = ωi + (K/N)Σ sin(θj−θi) with all-to-all coupling and γ=1.
    Standard model for inertial oscillators and swing equations; invoked from the Introduction onward.
  • domain assumption Intrinsic frequencies drawn i.i.d. from zero-mean Gaussian or uniform g(ω) of matched variance.
    Defines the two cases being compared; Materials and Methods.
  • domain assumption Melnikov-derived leading entrainment boundary ωM=(4γ/π)√(KR/m) plus empirical correction.
    Taken from prior literature (Tanaka, Gao & Efstathiou) and used as a reference; SM Sec. S1.
  • ad hoc to paper Operational definition of synchronized clusters via sorted angular-velocity gaps and size thresholds.
    SM Sec. S4; necessary to extract mesoscopic statistics but not derived from first principles.
invented entities (2)
  • homogeneous Devil’s staircase (equal-gap 1:1:… pattern) no independent evidence
    purpose: Descriptive label for the evenly spaced, comparable-size clusters observed under uniform g(ω).
    Not a new dynamical object; merely the observed ratio structure contrasted with the hierarchical Gaussian case.
  • seed clusters at time ts and transient capture probability Pts(Δω) no independent evidence
    purpose: Operational constructs used to locate where final clusters originate in frequency space.
    Defined by kernel-density peaks and oscillator-overlap mapping (SM Sec. S4); useful diagnostics but paper-specific.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 34826 in / 3508 out tokens · 34017 ms · 2026-07-13T04:55:30.405218+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Synchronization is ubiquitous across natural and synthetic systems, yet most prior studies focus on the inertia-free Kuramoto model and do so at the macroscopic level. In this study, we instead investigate the inertial Kuramoto model and analyze the kinetics of individual synchronized clusters that emerge in the underdamped dynamics, driven by the interactions among multiple synchronized clusters with different frequencies. Specifically, we explore two forms of intrinsic frequency distribution -- unimodal Gaussian and multimodal uniform -- and show that they give rise to qualitatively different synchronized clusters: a hierarchical organization for the Gaussian distribution and a homogeneous organization for the uniform distribution. This contrast leads to qualitatively different behaviors of the order parameter: for the Gaussian distribution, it increases smoothly with increasing coupling strength, while for the uniform distribution, it grows through a series of discrete jumps that trace out the size of the Devil's staircase (DS). By resolving the kinetics at the cluster level, we further find that the route to synchronization also depends on the distribution type: with a Gaussian distribution, a single dominant cluster forms and gradually entrains the remaining oscillators, whereas with a uniform distribution, synchronization proceeds via successive cluster mergers initiated from peripheral seeds associated with the high-frequency periphery. Taken together, these findings provide a new perspective on collective synchronization dynamics in inertial complex systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09171 by B. Kahng, Cook Hyun Kim, Stefano Boccaletti, Yeomoon Kim.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    In the forward process, 10 Gaussian Uniform Macroscopic Dynamics Order parameter Smooth growth, single susceptibility peak Stepwise growth, peak at every jump Self-consistency Locates Kc; fails beyond transition point Locates Kc; fails beyond transition point Multistability Wide window for both; width set by variance and inertia Cluster Organization Struc...

    2023

  2. [2]

    J. B. Buck, The Quarterly Review of Biology 13, 301 (1938)

    1938

  3. [3]

    Buck and E

    J. Buck and E. Buck, Biology of synchronous flashing of fireflies (1966)

    1966

  4. [4]

    Buck and E

    J. Buck and E. Buck, Scientific American 234, 74 (1976)

    1976

  5. [5]

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

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

    1988

  6. [6]

    Cumin and C

    D. Cumin and C. P. Unsworth, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 226, 181 (2007)

    2007

  7. [7]

    Breakspear, S

    M. Breakspear, S. Heitmann, and A. Daffertshofer, Fron- tiers in Human Neuroscience 4, 190 (2010)

    2010

  8. [8]

    C. Bick, M. Goodfellow, C. R. Laing, and E. A. Martens, The Journal of Mathematical Neuroscience 10, 9 (2020)

    2020

  9. [9]

    J. J. Grainger and W. D. Stevenson, Power System Anal- ysis (McGraw-Hill, 1999)

    1999

  10. [10]

    Anvari, F

    M. Anvari, F. Hellmann, and X. Zhang, Chaos: An Inter- disciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 30 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    Y. Guo, D. Zhang, Z. Li, Q. Wang, and D. Yu, Interna- tional Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 129, 106804 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    Witthaut, F

    D. Witthaut, F. Hellmann, J. Kurths, S. Kettemann, H. Meyer-Ortmanns, and M. Timme, Reviews of Modern Physics 94, 015005 (2022)

    2022

  13. [13]

    D. M. Forrester, Scientific Reports 5, 16994 (2015)

    2015

  14. [14]

    Boccaletti, A

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

    2018

  15. [15]

    Kuramoto, Lecture Notes in Physics 30, 420 (1975)

    Y. Kuramoto, Lecture Notes in Physics 30, 420 (1975)

    1975

  16. [16]

    Kuramoto, Chemical turbulence (Springer, 1984)

    Y. Kuramoto, Chemical turbulence (Springer, 1984)

    1984

  17. [17]

    S. H. Strogatz, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 143, 1 (2000)

    2000

  18. [18]

    J. A. Acebr´ on, L. L. Bonilla, C. J. P´ erez Vicente, F. Ritort, and R. Spigler, Reviews of Modern Physics 77, 137 (2005)

    2005

  19. [19]

    S. H. Strogatz, Nonlinear dynamics and chaos: with ap- plications to physics, biology, chemistry, and engineering (CRC press, 2018)

    2018

  20. [20]

    Tanaka, A

    H.-A. Tanaka, A. J. Lichtenberg, and S. Oishi, Physical Review Letters 78, 2104 (1997)

    1997

  21. [21]

    Tanaka, A

    H.-A. Tanaka, A. J. Lichtenberg, and S. Oishi, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 100, 279 (1997)

    1997

  22. [22]

    Gao and K

    J. Gao and K. Efstathiou, Physical Review E 98, 042201 (2018)

    2018

  23. [23]

    S. Olmi, A. Navas, S. Boccaletti, and A. Torcini, Physical Review E 90, 042905 (2014)

    2014

  24. [24]

    Gao and K

    J. Gao and K. Efstathiou, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 31 (2021)

    2021

  25. [25]

    C. H. Kim, J. Park, Y. J. Kim, S. Park, S. Boccaletti, and B. Kahng, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 196, 116281 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    G. Y. Kim, M. J. Lee, and S.-W. Son, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 208, 118285 (2026)

    2026

  27. [27]

    S. Yi, C. H. Kim, H. Kim, and B. Kahng, arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.07002 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    B. D. Josephson, Physics Letters 1, 251 (1962)

    1962

  29. [29]

    P. W. Anderson and J. M. Rowell, Physical Review Letters 10, 230 (1963)

    1963

  30. [30]

    B. D. Josephson, Reviews of Modern Physics 46, 251 (1974)

    1974

  31. [31]

    S. Park, C. H. Kim, and B. Kahng, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 199, 116768 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    Y. Lee, H. Choi, L. Pagnier, C. H. Kim, J. Lee, B. Jhun, H. Kim, J. Kurths, and B. Kahng, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 186, 115293 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    S. Park, H. Choi, Y. Lee, S. Jo, J. Kurths, and B. Kahng, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.02114 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    Paz´ o, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 72, 046211 (2005)

    D. Paz´ o, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 72, 046211 (2005)

    2005

  35. [35]

    J. U. Song, J. Um, J. Park, and B. Kahng, Physical Review E 101, 052313 (2020)

    2020

  36. [36]

    A. N. Pisarchik and A. E. Hramov, Multistability in Physi- cal and Living Systems: Characterization and Applications, Springer Series in Synergetics (Springer, Cham, 2022)

    2022

  37. [37]

    Melnikov, Trans

    V. Melnikov, Trans. Moscow Math. Soc 12, 3 (1963)

    1963

  38. [38]

    Guckenheimer and P

    J. Guckenheimer and P. Holmes, Nonlinear oscillations, dynamical systems, and bifurcations of vector fields, Vol. 42 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  39. [39]

    Kang and S

    K. Kang and S. Redner, Physical Review Letters 52, 955 (1984)

    1984

  40. [40]

    G´ omez-Gardenes, Y

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

    2007

  41. [41]

    I. V. Belykh, B. N. Brister, and V. N. Belykh, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 26 (2016)

    2016

  42. [42]

    B. Jhun, M. Jo, and B. Kahng, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 160, 112262 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    S. Jang, J. Lee, S. Hwang, and B. Kahng, Physical Review E 92, 022110 (2015)

    2015

  44. [44]

    C. H. Kim, D.-S. Lee, and B. Kahng, Physical Review E 110, 024133 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    C. H. Kim and B. Kahng, Physical Review E 113, 055410 (2026). 1 Supplementary Material for Paths to synchronization in the Kuramoto model with inertia Appendix S1: Melnikov Derivation of the Entrainment Boundary Here we derive the leading term of the entrainment boundary ωM that enters the self-consistency equation, Eq. (2) of the main text. The leading t...

    2026

  46. [46]

    1 make this multistability concrete

    Multistability and the susceptibility ∆R Two signatures in Fig. 1 make this multistability concrete. The first is the spread of R across realizations [shaded band, Fig. 1(a–d)]: within the multistable window, the interquartile range stays wide, the defining feature of coexisting stable fixed points into which nearly identical initial states settle apart. ...

  47. [47]

    Dynamical origin We trace the origin of this sensitivity by following the time evolution of the ensemble rather than only its final state. Figures S5 and S6 show the spread across realizations of the time-averaged order parameter ⟨R⟩t and the total energy Esys, respectively, for the matched Gaussian ( σ = 5.774) and uniform ( w = 10) distributions at seve...

  48. [48]

    Intrinsic ratios across inertia and variance 0 10 20 0 2 4Ns (a) m = 10 σ = 1 .155 0 10 20 0 2 4Ns (b) m = 10 w = 2 0 10 20 0.0 0.5 1.0 f1:1 (c) m = 10 σ = 1 .155 0 10 20 0.0 0.5 1.0 f1:1 (d) m = 10 w = 2 0 100 200 0 2 4Ns (e) m = 10 σ = 2 .887 0 100 200 0 2 4Ns (f ) m = 10 w = 5 0 100 200 0.0 0.5 1.0 f1:1 (g) m = 10 σ = 2 .887 0 100 200 0.0 0.5 1.0 f1:1 ...

  49. [49]

    Precision and participation of the locking 0 200 400 K 10□9 10□5 V∆ ˙θ (a) m = 10 , σ = 5 .774 0 200 400 K 0.0 0.5 1.0 fstair (b) m = 10 , σ = 5 .774 0 200 400 K 10□9 10□5 V∆ ˙θ (c) m = 10 , w = 10 0 200 400 K 0.0 0.5 1.0 fstair (d) m = 10 , w = 10 FIG. S12. Precision and participation of the rational locking. Normalized gap variance V∆ ˙θ [(a,c)] and sta...