Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 85 references

The Origins of Transient Bimodality

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Transient bimodality appears when the spread of the initial-state waiting time is at least as large as the mean time in the transient state; this simple criterion is shown to hold in a minimal model and a death chain.

desk verdict New transient-bimodality regime with real support, but the headline criterion is too loose and the death-chain illustration has an unsupported arbitrary choice. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16531 v1 pith:L4HWXR2Q submitted 2026-07-17 q-bio.SC physics.app-phphysics.bio-phq-bio.PE

Kaan Öcal , Augustinas Sukys , Aanjaneya Kumar , James Holehouse This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.SCphysics.app-phphysics.bio-phq-bio.PE
keywords transientbimodalitystochasticdynamicsfirst-passagetimeMarkovdeathprocessFanofactorpower-lawratescellfatewaiting-timedistributions
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

Transient bimodality—a system temporarily splitting into two probability modes as it moves between well-defined initial and final states—has been observed in optics, chemistry, ecology, and cell biology but lacked a simple predictive rule. This paper argues that the phenomenon is intrinsically stochastic and reduces to a timing comparison: bimodality appears when the standard deviation of the time individuals spend in the initial state is comparable to or larger than the mean time they spend in the transient state (σ(τ1) ≳ τ2). The authors build a minimal three-state model, verify the criterion numerically with Gamma-distributed waiting times, then apply it to a power-law Markov death chain where it predicts a phase transition into transient bimodality at α ≈ 0.6 (theory α = 1/2). The result overturns the assumption that only 'slow-to-fast' dynamics produce transient bimodality: processes that start fast and end slow can do so as well. The practical payoff is a parameter-free screening rule: measure dwell-time variability and a single mean, then predict whether a transient split will occur.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Eq. (6), the criterion σ(τ1) ≳ τ2, where σ(τ1) is the standard deviation of the initial-state waiting time and τ2 is the mean transient-state waiting time. Around it the paper builds: (i) a minimal three-state Markov model with independent waiting times whose exact state probabilities are convolution integrals; (ii) the bimodality coefficient κ = (h−v)/H and its maximum κmax over time as an order parameter; (iii) an exact solution for the power-law death chain P(n,t) and a WKB/Gaussian approximation for its mean and variance; (iv) the Fano factor, which diverges for α ≤ 1/2 and thereby flags transient bimodality; and (v) a first-passage-time analysis showing Var(τ1

What would settle it

For a fixed pair of waiting-time distributions in the minimal model with σ(τ1) clearly below τ2 (e.g., Erlang(4,1) vs Erlang(3,0.5)), compute κmax numerically; if κmax exceeds a standard bimodality threshold, the criterion fails. Alternatively, repeat the death-chain phase diagram with the transient state defined at n* = ⌊N/2⌋ instead of n = 1: if the boundary in α moves appreciably or bimodality vanishes for 0 < α < 1/2, the τ2 = 1 convention is load-bearing and the quantitative claim is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that transient bimodality in a system moving from a well-defined initial state to a well-defined final state is caused by intrinsic noise in the waiting time of the first stage, not by deterministic bistability or environmental noise. In the minimal model, individuals wait a random time τ1 in the initial state then a random time τ2 in the transient state; the probability distribution over states is bimodal at some intermediate time when the spread of τ1 is large compared to the mean of τ2, σ(τ1) ≳ τ2. The criterion is translation-invariant in τ1 and scale-invariant in both times, so it predicts whether, not when, bimodality occurs. For the power-law death chain w

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative phase boundary for the death chain rests on identifying the transient state with the single final state n = 1, whose mean sojourn time is 1 by construction; the paper asserts but does not systematically test that the results are insensitive to this choice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Processes that start fast and slow down (0 < α < 1/2) can show transient bimodality, a case the literature had not previously identified.
  • No deterministic bistability or environmental noise is needed: intrinsic stochasticity of the first-stage waiting time is sufficient.
  • For large systems in the bimodal regime, the transient split becomes sharper (higher κmax) but occupies a shrinking fraction of the overall time evolution.
  • A Fano factor that rises well above 1 and diverges as the final state approaches is a practical early-warning signature of transient bimodality.
  • Rate-limiting steps near the end of a process suppress transient bimodality, which helps explain why it is seen less often in single-cell biology.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Testable extension: if the criterion is general, one could screen longitudinal single-cell or population data by estimating the two waiting-time distributions and computing σ(τ1)/⟨τ2⟩; a ratio near or above 1 flags a transiently bimodal window without solving the full dynamics.
  • The death-chain application identifies the transient state with the single final state n = 1, which fixes τ2 = 1 by construction. A useful robustness test would repeat the phase diagram with the transient state defined at n* > 1, where τ2 = n*^{−α}; if the boundary in α shifts appreciably, the quantitative part of the claim depends on that convention.
  • The 'critical numerosity' analogy suggests a finite-size effect worth probing experimentally: in the bimodal regime, changing the initial population or cell count N alone may switch a system between monomodal and bimodal transients, so experiments varying initial counts could test the predicted boundary.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper asks when a stochastic system that starts in one well-defined state and ends in another transiently develops two probability modes. The authors introduce a three-state 'minimal model' with random waiting times τ1 and τ2 and propose Eq. (6): transient bimodality is expected when the standard deviation of τ1 is comparable to (or larger than) the mean of τ2. They further analyze a Markov death process with power-law rates n^α, derive the exact snapshot distribution (Eq. 11), a WKB Gaussian approximation and Fano-factor asymptotics (Eqs. 16-18), and first-passage-time moment asymptotics (Eqs. 21-22). They report a numerical phase transition at α*≈0.6, against a theoretical prediction α*=1/2, and claim that fast-to-slow dynamics (0<α<1/2) can also yield transient bimodality.

Significance. If the criterion in Eq. (6) held as stated, it would be a simple, translation- and scale-invariant predictor of a noise-induced phenomenon relevant to cell biology and ecology, and the identification of a fast-to-slow transient-bimodality regime would correct the common slow-to-fast emphasis. The paper contains valuable analytic tools: a closed-form solution of the power-law death chain, a transparent Fano-factor argument, and asymptotic first-passage-time moments, supported by publicly available numerical code. However, the quantitative content of the central criterion is currently under-specified, and its application to the death chain relies on an unsupported choice of the 'transient state'. The qualitative fast-to-slow finding appears robust, but the paper's stronger claim of a general criterion is not yet established to the claimed precision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. D, Eq. (21), and Fig. 4] The quantitative phase boundary in the death chain depends on an arbitrary choice of transient state, despite the assertion that 'our results do not strongly depend on the exact choice'. Taking n*=10 rather than n=1 and interpreting τ2 as the sojourn in that state gives, for N=100 and α=0.7, σ(τ1→10)≈0.77 and τ2=10^{-0.7}≈0.20, so σ/τ2≈3.8; Eq. (6) with any O(1) prefactor would then predict transient bimodality, while Fig. 4(a) shows essentially none at α=0.7. If τ2 is instead interpreted as the remaining total time to 0, the predicted boundary still shifts with k. The authors need either to define a canonical mapping from the three-state model to the chain, or to provide a systematic sensitivity analysis over k; as written, the claim of robustness is contradicted by these estimates.
  2. [Eq. (6) and surrounding text] Eq. (6) is introduced as 'this suggests a criterion of the form' and contains an unspecified constant factor ('≳'). In the minimal model the comparison is made only with the particular curve σ(τ1)=τ2; without fixing the threshold, the criterion is not a falsifiable quantitative predictor. The paper should either derive or calibrate the constant against a defined bimodality threshold, or explicitly present Eq. (6) as a qualitative heuristic and soften the abstract's 'derive a general criterion'. As written, the free constant plus the free transient-state choice in Sec. D mean the death-chain application cannot be tested quantitatively.
  3. [Sec. A, Eqs. (1)-(6)] The criterion uses only σ(τ1) and the mean of τ2, while transient bimodality, as defined through κmax, depends on the full shapes of p1 and p2 via Eqs. (2)-(3). Distributions with identical σ(τ1) and mean τ2 but different higher cumulants will generally produce different pT(t) and pF(t) and hence different κmax. The paper only tests Gamma-distributed waiting times in the minimal model and exponential waiting times in the death chain. A general criterion therefore requires either a proof that only these two summary statistics matter, or a broadened numerical/analytic demonstration across distribution families.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] There are typographical spacing errors, e.g., 'andtheabsorbing-stateprobability' and 'acrossthescientificliterature'.
  2. [Sec. D, Eq. (21)] The notation τ1 is introduced as the time to reach state 1, but Eq. (21) labels it 'Var(τ1)' without specifying whether this is the first-passage time to state 1 or to the absorbing state 0. Please clarify.
  3. [Figs. 3-5] The definition of the bimodality coefficient κ for a discrete distribution with a point mass at the absorbing state n=0 should be stated explicitly in the main text; the figure captions currently leave this implicit.
  4. [References] Ref. [2] is a self-citation to an in-press paper; providing a DOI or preprint identifier would help the reader verify context.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: Eq. (6) is checked against independent numerical solutions of the master equation; self-citations are background. The death-chain's n*=1 choice is a robustness caveat, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central criterion (Eq. 6) is presented as a heuristic consequence of the three-state model's definition of transient bimodality and is then tested against independently computed bimodality coefficients (Eq. 8) and against exact/Krylov solutions of the death-chain master equation (Eq. 11, Fig. 4). No parameter is fitted to the target: the paper explicitly states that the theoretical transition alpha*_theory=0.5 underestimates the numerical alpha*≈0.6, so the criterion is not being tuned to the data. In the death-chain application, setting state 1 as the transient state makes tau2=1 by construction, and the paper's claim that the exact choice is unimportant is not systematically tested; this is a limitation of the quantitative boundary, but the numerical bimodality is computed independently of Eq. (6), so the theory is not equivalent to its input. Self-citations (refs 2, 5, 55) are used for background, for the bimodality-coefficient definition, and for excluding reverse transitions; they do not carry the derivation. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' earlier work. Thus the derivation chain is self-contained apart from a minor robustness caveat.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a heuristic criterion with an unspecified constant, a specific but untested choice of transient state in the death chain, and standard stochastic-process tools. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Constant factor in Eq. (6) (≳) = Unspecified; implicitly 1 in Fig. 2(d)
    The criterion is stated as σ(τ1) ≳ τ2 'up to some constant factor'; no value is derived or fitted, yet all numerical comparisons use the implicit choice of constant = 1. This undetermined constant is load-bearing for the quantitative boundary.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Transient bimodality is equated with the existence of times at which more probability is in the initial and final states than in the transient state (three-state model).
    This operational definition (text around Fig. 2(b)) underlies the criterion; it is a modeling choice about what counts as bimodality.
  • domain assumption Waiting times τ1 and τ2 are independent in the minimal model.
    Assumed in Eqs. (1)-(3); independence is required for the convolution structure.
  • domain assumption The death chain has no back-transitions (birth events).
    Stated in Section A after Eq. (9): 'We exclude back-transitions (birth events) in (9) as these unnecessarily complicate the mathematical analysis.' This restricts generality.
  • ad hoc to paper Eq. (6) criterion is a valid sufficient/necessary condition for transient bimodality.
    Introduced as 'this suggests a criterion of the form' and used as the central predictive claim without a formal derivation; the unspecified constant factor makes it a heuristic.
  • ad hoc to paper The transient state in the death chain can be taken as state 1, with mean sojourn time τ2 = 1.
    Section D: 'Heuristically, we define 1 as the transient state, although our results do not strongly depend on the exact choice.' This choice sets the criterion's right-hand side to 1 and is not systematically tested.
  • standard math First-passage time to state n in a sequential death chain is hypoexponentially distributed (Eq. S1).
    Standard result for sums of independent exponential waiting times; used in S1 for the exact solution.
  • standard math WKB/eikonal approximation with a Gaussian ansatz is valid for the mean-field variance (Eqs. S4-S17).
    Approximation from refs [17, 79]; used to derive Eq. (17) and the Fano factor.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Origins of Transient Bimodality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L4HWXR2Q

@misc{pith2026260716531,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Origins of Transient Bimodality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L4HWXR2Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16531}
}
read the original abstract

Many dynamical systems exhibit diverse modes of behavior. In biology, such modes can represent individual or cell fates. While the emergence of multimodality is commonly studied, transient bimodality is much less well understood. Under transient bimodality, a system moving from a well-defined initial to a final state transiently undergoes a bifurcation into multiple probability modes. This noise-driven phenomenon can significantly impact processes such as cell differentiation and speciation in the presence of changing environmental conditions. We detail a theoretical approach for understanding transient bimodality connecting results from ecology, optics, chemical reaction networks and cell biology, propose a ``minimal model'' of transient bimodality and derive a general criterion for its presence. We show that fast-to-slow dynamics can lead to transient bimodality in addition to the well-known case of slow-to-fast dynamics. Finally, we discuss the role of transient bimodality across the scientific literature, with emphasis on biochemical kinetics and gene regulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16531 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_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_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (b), we replicate the plot of Hathcock and Stro￾gatz’s first-passage time skewness [56, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Larger systems have the potential to express 9 greater transient bimodality, albeit over a smaller fractionofthetimeevolutiontowardsthefinalstate (see Fig. 4(e))

  2. [2]

    4), al- though processes that start fast and end slow can still admit transient bimodality in the range0< α≲0.6(theoretically predicted for0< α <0.5)

    Processes that start slow and end fast (α <0) ex- press greater transient bimodality (see Fig. 4), al- though processes that start fast and end slow can still admit transient bimodality in the range0< α≲0.6(theoretically predicted for0< α <0.5)

  3. [3]

    A process with a strong rate-limiting step towards the end of its time evolution will generally not ad- mit transient bimodality (see Fig. 6(a))

  4. [4]

    Ifthe Fano factor increases substantially and mean-field theories break down as the transient evolves, this indicates a transition into a transiently bimodal regime (see Fig

    A significant indicator of transient bimodality lies intheFanofactorofthenumberdistribution. Ifthe Fano factor increases substantially and mean-field theories break down as the transient evolves, this indicates a transition into a transiently bimodal regime (see Fig. 5)

  5. [5]

    The Origins of Transient Bimodality

    On the level of first-passage times, the conditions for transient bimodality require that the average time to leave the transient state should be less than the standard deviation of the time to reach the transient state (see Eq. (6)). We pause to make several comments. First, points 1 and 3 above explain why transient bimodality is empir- ically rarer tha...

  6. [6]

    & Wang, J

    Qian, H., Ao, P., Tu, Y. & Wang, J. A framework towards understanding mesoscopic phenomena: Emer- gent unpredictability, symmetry breaking and dynamics across scales.Chemical Physics Letters665, 153–161 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    Do distinct subpopulations signify modes of behaviour in a noisy single cell?Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences293(2026)

    Holehouse, J. Do distinct subpopulations signify modes of behaviour in a noisy single cell?Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences293(2026)

    2026

  8. [8]

    Keizer, J.Statistical thermodynamics of nonequilibrium processes(Springer-Verlag, 1987)

    1987

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    & Qian, H

    Vellela, M. & Qian, H. A quasistationary analysis of a stochastic chemical reaction: Keizer’s paradox.Bulletin of Mathematical Biology69, 1727–1746 (2007)

    2007

  2. [10]

    & Grima, R

    Holehouse, J., Sukys, A. & Grima, R. Stochastic time- dependent enzyme kinetics: Closed-form solution and transient bimodality.The Journal of Chemical Physics 153, 164113 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    & Weiner, M

    Novick, A. & Weiner, M. Enzyme induction as an all-or- none phenomenon.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences43, 553–566 (1957)

    1957

  4. [12]

    J.et al.Phenotypic consequences of promoter- mediated transcriptional noise.Molecular Cell24, 853– 865 (2006)

    Blake, W. J.et al.Phenotypic consequences of promoter- mediated transcriptional noise.Molecular Cell24, 853– 865 (2006)

    2006

  5. [13]

    & Xing, J

    Wang, W., Ni, K., Poe, D. & Xing, J. Transiently in- creased coordination in gene regulation during cell phe- notypic transitions.PRX Life2, 043009 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    P., Huynh, L

    Levien, E., Teuber Carvalho, J. P., Huynh, L. & Schultz, D. Slow trajectories generate divergent cell fates follow- ing antibiotic stress.bioRxiv2025–09 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    S.et al.Bimodality inE

    Baptista, I. S.et al.Bimodality inE. coligene expres- sion: Sources and robustness to genome-wide stresses. PLoS Computational Biology21, e1012817 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    B.et al.Bacterial quorum sensing allows graded and bimodal cellular responses to variations in population density.MBio13, e00745–22 (2022)

    Rattray, J. B.et al.Bacterial quorum sensing allows graded and bimodal cellular responses to variations in population density.MBio13, e00745–22 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Fucho-Rius, M.et al.Local nearby bifurcations lead to synergies in critical slowing down: The case of mushroom bifurcations.Physical Review E111, 024213 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Noise-inducedsta- bilization of saddle-node ghosts.New Journal of Physics 22, 093064 (2020)

    Sardanyés, J., Raich, C.&Alarcon, T. Noise-inducedsta- bilization of saddle-node ghosts.New Journal of Physics 22, 093064 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Tomás Lázaro, J., Alarcón, T., Garay, C. P. & Sardanyés, J. Semiclassical theory predicts stochastic ghosts scaling. Proceedings of the Royal Society A479, 20220621 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    & Toju, H

    Hayashi, I., Fujita, H. & Toju, H. Deterministic and stochastic processes generating alternative states of mi- crobiomes.ISME communications4, ycae007 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    J., Witt, M., Rohwer, F

    Cobo-López, S., Carbajal, L. J., Witt, M., Rohwer, F. L. & Luque, A. Emergence of tipping points and transient dynamics in finite observations.bioRxiv2023–12 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Baras, F., Nicolis, G., Mansour, M. M. & Turner, J. W. Stochastic theory of adiabatic explosion.Journal of Sta- tistical Physics32, 1–23 (1983)

    1983

  15. [23]

    Transient multimodality for the decay of unstable states.Physical Review A45, 8436 (1992)

    Iwaniszewski, J. Transient multimodality for the decay of unstable states.Physical Review A45, 8436 (1992)

    1992

  16. [24]

    Iwaniszewski, J., McClintock, P. V. E. & Stein, N. D. Transient multimodality in relaxation from an unstable state.Physical Review E50, 3538–3545 (1994)

    1994

  17. [25]

    Stochastic resonance and transient bi- modality.Il Nuovo Cimento D17, 819–825 (1995)

    Iwaniszewski, J. Stochastic resonance and transient bi- modality.Il Nuovo Cimento D17, 819–825 (1995)

    1995

  18. [26]

    & Lugiato, L

    Broggi, G. & Lugiato, L. Transient noise-induced optical bistability.Physical Review A29, 2949 (1984)

    1984

  19. [27]

    & Colombo, A

    Broggi, G., Lugiato, L. & Colombo, A. Transient bi- modality in optically bistable systems.Physical Review A32, 2803 (1985)

    1985

  20. [28]

    & Mecozzi, A

    de Pasquale, F. & Mecozzi, A. Theory of chemical fluc- tuations in thermal explosions.Physical Review A31, 2454–2459 (1985)

    1985

  21. [29]

    & Lente, G

    Érdi, P. & Lente, G. Stochastic chemical kinetics.Theory and (Mostly) Systems Biological Applications.p. 56–58 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    & Lemarchand, A

    Nowakowski, B. & Lemarchand, A. Thermal explosion near bifurcation: stochastic features of ignition.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications311, 80–96 (2002)

    2002

  23. [31]

    & Malakhov, A

    Agudov, N. & Malakhov, A. Decay of unstable equilib- rium and nonequilibrium states with inverse probability 11 current taken into account.Physical Review E60, 6333 (1999)

    1999

  24. [32]

    Study of fluctuations in transient optical bistability.Physical Review A32, 1271 (1985)

    Lange, W., Mitschke, F., Deserno, R.&Mlynek, J. Study of fluctuations in transient optical bistability.Physical Review A32, 1271 (1985)

    1985

  25. [33]

    Intrinsic fluctuations in explosive reac- tions.Journal of Statistical Physics46, 933–948 (1987)

    van Kampen, N. Intrinsic fluctuations in explosive reac- tions.Journal of Statistical Physics46, 933–948 (1987)

    1987

  26. [34]

    Lemarchand, A., Aim, R. B. & Nicolis, G. Experimen- tal study of sensitivity of thermal explosion.Chemical Physics Letters162, 92–98 (1989)

    1989

  27. [35]

    & Lente, G

    Dóka, É. & Lente, G. Stochastic mapping of the Michaelis-Menten mechanism.The Journal of Chemical Physics136(2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    & Nicolis, G

    Frankowicz, M. & Nicolis, G. Transient evolution to- wards a unique stable state: Stochastic analysis of explo- sive behavior in a chemical system.Journal of Statistical Physics33, 595–609 (1983)

    1983

  29. [37]

    & Prigogine, I

    Nicolis, G. & Prigogine, I. Exploring Complexity: An Introduction (1989)

    1989

  30. [38]

    Frankowicz, M., Mansour, M. M. & Nicolis, G. Stochas- tic analysis of explosive behaviour: A qualitative ap- proach.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Appli- cations125, 237–246 (1984)

    1984

  31. [39]

    Fernandes, G.et al.Synthetic reconstruction of the hunchback promoter specifies the role of Bicoid, Zelda and Hunchback in the dynamics of its transcription.Elife 11, e74509 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Chen, W.et al.Live-seq enables temporal transcriptomic recording of single cells.Nature608, 733–740 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Stockwell, S. R. & Rifkin, S. A. A living vector field re- veals constraints on galactose network induction in yeast. Molecular Systems Biology13, 908 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    & Sarkar, C

    Palani, S. & Sarkar, C. A. Transient noise amplification and gene expression synchronization in a bistable mam- malian cell-fate switch.Cell Reports1, 215–224 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    R., Parnaik, V

    Maithreye, R., Sarkar, R. R., Parnaik, V. K. & Sinha, S. Delay-induced transient increase and heterogeneity in gene expression in negatively auto-regulated gene cir- cuits.PLoS One3, e2972 (2008)

    2008

  36. [44]

    J., Kærn, M., Cantor, C

    Blake, W. J., Kærn, M., Cantor, C. R. & Collins, J. J. Noiseineukaryoticgeneexpression.Nature422, 633–637 (2003)

    2003

  37. [45]

    S., Zuleta, I., Murray, R

    Venturelli, O. S., Zuleta, I., Murray, R. M. & El- Samad, H. Populationdiversificationinayeastmetabolic program promotes anticipation of environmental shifts. PLoS Biology13, e1002042 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    Transients in ecology: stochasticity, management, and understand- ing.Theoretical Ecology14, 623–624 (2021)

    Abbott, K.C., Cuddington, K.&Hastings, A. Transients in ecology: stochasticity, management, and understand- ing.Theoretical Ecology14, 623–624 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    & Solé, R

    Vidiella, B., Sardanyés, J. & Solé, R. Exploiting delayed transitions to sustain semiarid ecosystems after catas- trophic shifts.Journal of The Royal Society Interface 15, 20180083 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Hastings, A.et al.Transient phenomena in ecology.Sci- ence361, eaat6412 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Hastings, A.et al.Effects of stochasticity on the length and behaviour of ecological transients.Journal of the Royal Society Interface18, 20210257 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Abbott, K. C. & Dakos, V. Mapping the distinct origins of bimodality in a classic model with alternative stable states.Theoretical Ecology14, 673–684 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    & Sardanyés, J

    Vidiella, B., Fontich, E., Valverde, S. & Sardanyés, J. Habitat loss causes long extinction transients in small trophic chains.Theoretical Ecology14, 641–661 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    & Koseska, A

    Koch, D., Nandan, A., Ramesan, G. & Koseska, A. Bi- ological computations: Limitations of attractor-based formalisms and the need for transients.Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications720, 150069 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    R., Zenklusen, D., Wu, B., Chao, J

    Larson, D. R., Zenklusen, D., Wu, B., Chao, J. A. & Singer, R. H. Real-time observation of transcription ini- tiation and elongation on an endogenous yeast gene.Sci- ence332, 475–478 (2011)

    2011

  46. [54]

    C., Kim, Y

    Lammers, N. C., Kim, Y. J., Zhao, J. & Garcia, H. G. A matter of time: Using dynamics and theory to uncover mechanisms of transcriptional bursting.Current Opinion in Cell Biology67, 147–157 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Pomp, W., Meeussen, J. V. & Lenstra, T. L. Transcrip- tion factor exchange enables prolonged transcriptional bursts.Molecular Cell84, 1036–1048 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Zhang, C., Mapes, B. E. & Soden, B. J. Bimodality in tropical water vapour.Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society: A journal of the atmospheric sciences, applied meteorology and physical oceanography 129, 2847–2866 (2003)

    2003

  49. [57]

    & Grima, R

    Jia, C. & Grima, R. Dynamical phase diagram of an auto-regulating gene in fast switching conditions.The Journal of Chemical Physics152, 174110 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    Springer Series in Synergetics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1983), revised, en- larged ed

    Haken, H.Synergetics: An Introduction: Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions and Self-Organization in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Springer Series in Synergetics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1983), revised, en- larged ed. edn

    1983

  51. [59]

    Goldenfeld, N.Lectures on phase transitions and the renormalization group(CRC Press, 2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    & Redner, S

    Holehouse, J. & Redner, S. First passage on disordered intervals.Physical Review E109, L032102 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    & Strogatz, S

    Hathcock, D. & Strogatz, S. H. Asymptotic absorption- time distributions in extinction-prone markov processes. Physical Review Letters128, 218301 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    & Shahrezaei, V

    Smith, S. & Shahrezaei, V. General transient solution of the one-step master equation in one dimension.Physical Review E91, 062119 (2015)

    2015

  55. [63]

    A., Ford, M

    Yates, C. A., Ford, M. J. & Mort, R. L. A multi-stage representation of cell proliferation as a markov process. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology79, 2905–2928 (2017)

    2017

  56. [64]

    & Grima, R

    Perez-Carrasco, R., Beentjes, C. & Grima, R. Effects of cell cycle variability on lineage and population mea- surements of messenger RNA abundance.Journal of the Royal Society Interface17, 20200360 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    & Ycart, B

    Peccoud, J. & Ycart, B. Markovian modeling of gene- product synthesis.Theoretical Population Biology48, 222–234 (1995)

    1995

  58. [66]

    & Grima, R

    Schnoerr, D., Sanguinetti, G. & Grima, R. Approxima- tion and inference methods for stochastic biochemical ki- netics—a tutorial review.Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and Theoretical50, 093001 (2017)

    2017

  59. [67]

    & Koshland Jr, D

    Levitzki, A. & Koshland Jr, D. E. Negative cooperativ- ity in regulatory enzymes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences62, 1121–1128 (1969)

    1969

  60. [68]

    Zhao, H.et al.Reversible trapping and reaction acceler- ation within dynamically self-assembling nanoflasks.Na- ture nanotechnology11, 82–88 (2016)

    2016

  61. [69]

    & Grenfell, B

    Courchamp, F., Clutton-Brock, T. & Grenfell, B. In- verse density dependence and the allee effect.Trends in Ecology & Evolution14, 405–410 (1999)

    1999

  62. [70]

    G.Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry(Elsevier, 2007), 3 edn

    van Kampen, N. G.Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry(Elsevier, 2007), 3 edn. 12

    2007

  63. [71]

    Banerjee, K., Patra, P., Kolomeisky, A. B. & Das, B. Fano factor as the key measure of sensitivity in biological networks.The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters16, 10174–10179 (2025)

    2025

  64. [72]

    coliproteome and transcriptome with single-molecule sensitivity in single cells.Science329, 533–538 (2010)

    Taniguchi, Y.et al.QuantifyingE. coliproteome and transcriptome with single-molecule sensitivity in single cells.Science329, 533–538 (2010)

    2010

  65. [73]

    McClure, W. R. Rate-limiting steps in RNA chain initi- ation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 77, 5634–5638 (1980)

    1980

  66. [74]

    & Sanchez, A

    Choubey, S., Kondev, J. & Sanchez, A. Deciphering tran- scriptional dynamicsin vivoby counting nascent RNA molecules.PLoS Computational Biology11, e1004345 (2015)

    2015

  67. [75]

    E., Holehouse, J., Singh, A., Grima, R

    Weidemann, D. E., Holehouse, J., Singh, A., Grima, R. & Hauf, S. The minimal intrinsic stochasticity of con- stitutively expressed eukaryotic genes is sub-Poissonian. Science Advances9, eadh5138 (2023)

    2023

  68. [76]

    Critical numerosity in collective behavior

    Calvert, J. Critical numerosity in collective behavior. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.01919(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Calvert, J., Richa, A. W. & Randall, D. How many more is different?arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.06011(2025)

    2025

  70. [78]

    Anderson, P. W. More is different: broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science. Science177, 393–396 (1972)

    1972

  71. [79]

    M., Jabłońska, J., Milo, R

    Davidi, D., Longo, L. M., Jabłońska, J., Milo, R. & Taw- fik, D. S. A bird’s-eye view of enzyme evolution: chem- ical, physicochemical, and physiological considerations. Chemical reviews118, 8786–8797 (2018)

    2018

  72. [80]

    & Nicolis, S

    Calvo Martín, M., Rodriguez Palacio, E., Deneubourg, J.-L. & Nicolis, S. C. Emergence and retention of a col- lective memory in cockroaches.PloS One18, e0287845 (2023)

    2023

  73. [81]

    H.Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engi- neering(Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 2024)

    Strogatz, S. H.Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engi- neering(Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 2024)

    2024

  74. [82]

    T., Humke, E

    Barakat, M. T., Humke, E. W. & Scott, M. P. Learn- ing from Jekyll to control Hyde: Hedgehog signaling in development and cancer.Trends in Molecular Medicine 16, 337–348 (2010)

    2010

  75. [83]

    R., Zhang, Y

    Mortus, J. R., Zhang, Y. & Hughes, D. P. Developmental pathways hijacked by osteosarcoma.Current Advances in Osteosarcoma93–118 (2014)

    2014

  76. [84]

    Fluctuationandre- laxation of macrovariables.Journal of Statistical Physics 9, 51–96 (1973)

    Kubo, R., Matsuo, K.&Kitahara, K. Fluctuationandre- laxation of macrovariables.Journal of Statistical Physics 9, 51–96 (1973). 1 Supplementary Information S1. SNAPSHOT DISTRIBUTION Here we derive the solution of the master equation reported in Eq. (11). While it is possible to...

    1973

  77. [85]

    emergence of a macroscopic law

    + 2a2µ′(z)]ζ 2 +· · ·,(S7) where the dot indicates a time derivative. We can now proceed by matching orders ofζon each side of Eq. (S5). To orderζ0 = 1, we find˙a0 = 0, implying thata 0 is constant in time. This is not surprising, sincea0 is determined by the normalization ofP...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.