Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Elephant-Reinforced Galves--L\"ocherbach Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An infinite spiking-neuron network with Elephant-type reinforcement is non-explosive, contracts exponentially in a fixed environment, and satisfies a replica mean-field equation under Poisson assumptions.

desk verdict Solid non-explosion and quenched contraction results for a genuinely new elephant-type GL network; the replica mean-field section is a well-labeled conditional derivation, not a theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10183 v1 pith:G2PMKGHN submitted 2026-08-10 math.PR

Ioannis Papageorgiou This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PR MSC 60J2560K3560J7592B20
keywords Galves–LöcherbachmodelElephantrandomwalkreinforcementpiecewise-deterministicMarkovprocessesnon-explosionWassersteincontractionreplicameanfieldinteractingspikingneurons
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper introduces a spiking-neuron network in which the sign of each synaptic event, excitatory or inhibitory, is chosen by a complete-memory reinforcement rule borrowed from the Elephant random walk, while the event's amplitude stays bounded. It proves three types of results: the full Markovian lift of the process never explodes and has finite expected spike count on compact time intervals; two membrane-potential systems sharing the same reinforcement profile converge exponentially in a weighted 1-Wasserstein distance; and, under the Poisson Hypothesis together with assumed stationary replica laws, the stationary law of a frozen-environment system satisfies an explicit functional equation. A sympathetic reader would care because the reinforcement mechanism is a minimal way to give neurons history-dependent synaptic plasticity while preserving the analytical tools of piecewise-deterministic Markov processes and mean-field approximations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the lifted piecewise-deterministic Markov process $Y_t=(X_t,N_t,S_t)$ with generator (2.2), where the reinforcement law is $Q_i(+1)=\frac12+\frac{2p-1}{2}\frac{S_i}{N_i}$ for $N_i\ge1$—the sign-probability analogue of the Elephant random walk's drift. Non-explosion is carried by the Lyapunov function $h(x)=\sum_i \ell_i x_i$ and a localized Dynkin argument; contraction is carried by a maximal coupling of firing clocks that uses identical reinforced signs at simultaneous spikes, measured in $H(x,y)=\sum_i q_i|x_i-y_i|$, with the dissipativity condition $d=k_1\inf_i(a_i-c_i/q_i)>0$; and the mean-field identity is carried by the moment-generating transform $\Lambda_i^\eta(u)=E^\eta[e^{u(X_i+z_i)}]$ together with the truncated transform $\Theta_i^\eta(u,v)$ for inhibitory jumps through the positive-part map. These three mechanisms are what make the infinite-dimensional system finite, contractive, and self-consistent.

What would settle it

Run two coupled copies of a small network with rates $g(x)=x$, $\phi_i(x)=x+z_i$, and weights satisfying (5.4)–(5.7) in a common reinforcement profile; if the measured $H(X_t,\tilde X_t)$ ever exceeds $e^{-dt}H(X_0,\tilde X_0)$, the contraction theorem's hypotheses are insufficient or misstated. Alternatively, simulate the frozen $M$-replica system and test whether the left-hand side of (7.1), evaluated at the empirical stationary transform, converges to zero as $M$ grows; a persistent discrepancy would falsify the Poisson Hypothesis or the assumed convergence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that adding Elephant-type complete-memory reinforcement to the Galves–Löcherbach model does not destroy its tractability. Theorem 3.8 proves non-explosion of the minimal cadlag solution and $E[N^{\mathrm{sp}}[0,T]]<\infty$ under assumptions (3.1)–(3.2). Theorem 4.2 gives exact first-moment equations for the reinforcement counter $N^j$ and signed balance $S^j$, namely $\frac{d}{dt}E[N^j_t]=E[\Lambda_j(X_t)]$ and $\frac{d}{dt}E[S^j_t]=(2p-1)E[r_j(N_t,S_t)\Lambda_j(X_t)]$, the continuous-time analogue of the Elephant drift. Theorem 5.5 proves that, in a fixed reinforcement environment, $W_{1,H}(\mu P^{\eta}_{0,t},\nu P^{\eta}_{0,t})\le e^{-dt}W_{1,H}(\mu,\nu)$ under conditions (5.4)–(5.7). Theorem 6.3 extends this to two different environments with an integrated discrepancy term. Finally, Proposition 7.2 identifies the conditional stationary replica mean-field equation (7.1) satisfied by the limiting transform under the Poisson Hypothesis and the existence of invariant replica laws.

Load-bearing premise

The replica mean-field equation stands on two unproved assumptions: the Poisson Hypothesis and the existence and convergence of invariant measures for the finite-replica system; if either fails, the equation need not describe the stationary behaviour of the infinite network.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The minimal cadlag process is globally well defined and has finite expected spike count on bounded time intervals, so the model supports simulation and further statistical analysis.
  • In a fixed reinforcement environment, two membrane-potential systems with the same initial distance converge exponentially at rate $d$, giving a quantitative synchronization time scale conditional on the shared history.
  • For two different reinforcement environments with uniformly bounded rates and bounded discrepancy, the Wasserstein distance is controlled by an exponentially decaying initial term plus an accumulated discrepancy term, so the potential dynamics depend continuously on the excitation–inhibition environment.
  • Under the Poisson Hypothesis and the assumed invariant replica measures, the stationary transform of the infinite network satisfies equation (7.1), which can be used to compute rate functions and moment relations.
  • The exact moment identities (4.5)–(4.6) show that the mean reinforcement balance evolves like a continuous-time Elephant random walk with state-dependent incoming rate $\Lambda_j(X_t)$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Poisson Hypothesis is eventually proved in this setting, equation (7.1) would become a genuine closed mean-field description; however the presence of $\Theta_i^\eta$ shows that inhibitory truncation prevents closure in the transform alone, so a full solution would require an additional boundary distribution.
  • The quenched contraction result suggests a separation of time scales: conditional on a frozen synaptic history, potentials mix at rate $d$, while the reinforcement variables evolve on a slower incoming-spike scale; the paper does not establish this two-scale property.
  • The bounded-amplitude reinforcement can be read as a minimal plasticity rule that changes only sign bias, and the non-explosion proof relies essentially on this boundedness; relaxing to unbounded amplitudes would require a new Lyapunov argument.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces an infinite-dimensional Galves–Löcherbach neuronal network in which the signs of synaptic interactions are reinforced by an Elephant-random-walk-type memory mechanism. The state is the lifted PDMP Y_t = (X_t, N_t, S_t), where X_t are membrane potentials and (N_t, S_t) are reinforcement counters. The main results are: Theorem 3.8, non-explosion and finite expected total spike count under assumptions (3.1)–(3.2); Theorem 4.2, exact first-moment identities for the reinforcement variables; Theorem 5.5, a quenched Wasserstein contraction for two membrane-potential processes sharing a prescribed reinforcement profile under conditions (5.4)–(5.7); Theorem 6.3, a quantitative stability estimate when the two profiles differ under an additional bounded-rate assumption; and Proposition 7.2, a stationary replica mean-field identity (7.1) in a frozen environment, conditional on the Poisson Hypothesis and on the existence and convergence of invariant replica laws.

Significance. If the main results hold, the paper provides a rigorous infinite-dimensional model with complete-memory reinforcement in synaptic signs. The Lyapunov non-explosion argument and the maximal-coupling contraction estimates are detailed and internally coherent, and the paper is explicit that the Wasserstein contraction is quenched and does not apply to the full endogenous process (X, N, S). These proven parts are genuine contributions. The replica mean-field section is not a theorem about the actual infinite network: Proposition 7.2 is conditional on the Poisson Hypothesis and on unproved existence, exchangeability, and convergence assumptions for the finite-replica invariant laws, as the paper's own Remarks 7.3–7.4 acknowledge. The contribution should therefore be assessed as a rigorous non-explosion and quenched-stability analysis together with a conditional RMF calculation, not as a derivation of the stationary behavior of the infinite reinforced network.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 7, Proposition 7.2 and Remarks 7.3–7.4] The advertised replica mean-field identity is conditional on several unproved premises: existence of the invariant measures pi^eta_M, replica exchangeability, the Poisson Hypothesis, and convergence of Lambda_M, Theta_M, and beta_M. In particular, the key limiting step in the proof, E_{pi^eta_M}[(X_j^n+z_j)e^{u(X_i^m+z_i)}] -> beta_j Lambda_i^eta(u), is exactly the asymptotic-independence assertion of the Poisson Hypothesis and is not proved. Without a decorrelation mechanism, the limiting stationary equation could contain additional covariance terms, so Eq. (7.1) need not describe the stationary behavior of the infinite network. This is load-bearing for one of the three advertised contributions. The abstract and introduction should either state all these hypotheses explicitly or present Section 7 as a conditional identification/calculation rather than as a derivation of the replica mean-field equation.
  2. [Section 7, paragraph defining pi^eta_M] The existence of the invariant probability measures pi^eta_M is assumed for the finite-replica system, but under Section 7 the firing rates are linear, phi_i(x)=x+z_i, and the global summability assumptions (3.1)–(3.2) are explicitly not required. Since the M-replica system is still infinite-dimensional, existence of an invariant measure is a nontrivial statement and is not a consequence of the non-explosion theorem proved earlier. The paper acknowledges this in Remarks 7.3–7.4, but the lack of any well-posedness or existence result means the finite-M generators and expectations used in the proof of Proposition 7.2 are only defined under an additional, unverified hypothesis. This should be stated as an open problem or addressed directly.
  3. [Section 7, Poisson Hypothesis paragraph] The Poisson Hypothesis is used without any supporting argument specific to this Elephant-reinforced model. The replica construction routes interactions uniformly among the M replicas, but the states of different replicas remain dependent through the shared routing mechanism and through the common frozen environment. The paper does not quantify how M to infinity kills these correlations, nor does it cite a propagation-of-chaos theorem for this class of processes. Because this is the step that turns the finite-M stationary equations into the closed self-consistent equation (7.1), the authors should either provide a proof attempt, a precise conjecture with the missing estimates, or a clear statement that the derivation is formal.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'we derive the corresponding replica mean-field equation under the Poisson hypothesis' should mention the additional assumed existence and convergence of invariant replica laws; otherwise the abstract overstates the status of Eq. (7.1).
  2. [Section 2, after Eq. (2.1)] The sentence 'if the initial state is admissible, then for every time for which the process is defined as in (2.1)' is grammatically incomplete; it should say that the admissibility conditions (2.1) hold at all times for which the process is defined.
  3. [Throughout] There are many typographical artifacts, including 'Galves–L\"ocherbach', 'c\` adl\` ag', and inconsistent spacing in displayed formulas; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
  4. [References] Reference [53] is listed as 'arXiv, 2026' without an arXiv number or further publication data; it should be completed or cited as a preprint with an identifier.
  5. [Lemma 5.4] The constant C_c is defined in Lemma 5.4 but never used afterward; either use it in the integrability estimate or remove it to avoid confusion.
  6. [Theorem 6.3, proof] In the step after applying the stopped Dynkin formula, the text writes 'Since the environments are prescribed, the function D is deterministic' and then replaces the expectation of the integral up to t wedge tau_R by the full integral up to t; this is only an upper bound, not an equality, and the wording should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central estimates are proved from stated assumptions, and the replica mean-field identity is an explicitly conditional identification rather than a disguised input.

full rationale

The non-explosion argument (Theorem 3.8) is self-contained: it uses the Lyapunov function h and assumptions (3.1)-(3.2) to obtain Gronwall bounds, with no reliance on the author's prior results. The Wasserstein contraction (Theorem 5.5) and the environment-stability estimate (Theorem 6.3) are derived from the coupling construction and hypotheses (5.4)-(5.7); the contraction constant d is expressed in terms of model parameters, not fitted from the target inequality. The moment identities (Section 4) are direct generator computations. The only potentially load-bearing premise is the Poisson Hypothesis and the assumed existence and convergence of the replica invariant measures in Section 7; however, the paper states this conditionality explicitly in Remarks 7.3 and 7.4, and Proposition 7.2 is framed as an identity satisfied by any limiting stationary transform, not as a prediction derived from the hypothesis. The factorization E[(X_j^n+z_j)e^{u(X_i^m+z_i)}] -> beta_j Lambda_i^eta(u) is an assumption, and its appearance in (7.1) is the stated Poisson Hypothesis applied to the incoming interaction terms, not a hidden circular step. Self-citations [21], [55], and [56] are used for background and methodology, not to supply the theorems proved here. Hence there is no circularity score above zero, and the caveats about the RMF section are limitations, not circular reductions.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central non-explosion and contraction theorems are derived rather than imported. The assumptions a reader must buy are standard stochastic calculus, explicit summability and dissipativity hypotheses, and the conditional Poisson/invariant-measure hypotheses in Section 7. No new physical entity is postulated, and no parameter is fitted to data; p is an exogenous memory parameter.

free parameters (1)
  • p = not fitted, exogenous in [0,1]
    Elephant memory parameter controlling persistence (p > 1/2) or reversal (p < 1/2); it enters the sign law and all results, but no value is fitted to data.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Marked point process and PDMP calculus: generator, Dynkin formula, compensation formula, localization before applying Dynkin.
    Used throughout Sections 3-6 without proof.
  • domain assumption Summability assumptions (3.1) and (3.2): sum_i phi_i(0) < infinity, sum_i lip(phi_i) < infinity, sup_k sum_j l_j c_kj < infinity.
    Needed for the Lyapunov estimate and non-explosion in Section 3.
  • domain assumption Contraction conditions (5.4)-(5.7), including d = k_1 inf_i (a_i - c_i/q_i) > 0, with q comparable to l.
    Needed for the Wasserstein contraction Lemma 5.3 and Theorem 5.5.
  • domain assumption Section 7 assumes existence of invariant replica measures pi^eta_M, replica exchangeability, the Poisson Hypothesis, and convergence of transforms and mean rates.
    These are unproved and make the RMF identity conditional; see Remarks 7.3-7.4.
  • domain assumption Finite presynaptic sets P_i for each fixed neuron i in Section 7.
    Allows a coordinatewise RMF calculation without global Lipschitz-summability assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Elephant-Reinforced Galves--L\"ocherbach Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G2PMKGHN

@misc{pith2026260810183,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Elephant-Reinforced Galves--L\"ocherbach Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G2PMKGHN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10183}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce an infinite-dimensional Galves--L\"ocherbach system with bounded Elephant-type reinforced synaptic interactions. The reinforcement mechanism modifies the probabilities of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic updates while keeping their amplitudes uniformly bounded. We prove non-explosion by means of a Lyapunov estimate and establish a conditional Wasserstein contraction for the membrane-potential dynamics when the coupled systems share the same reinforcement profile. Finally, we derive the corresponding replica mean-field equation under the Poisson hypothesis.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbott, G.B

    L.F. Abbott, G.B. Ermentrout, C. van Vreeswijk,When inhibition not excitation synchro- nizes neural firing. Journal of Computational Neuroscience, 1 (1994), 313–321

    work page 1994

  2. [2]

    Abeles,Corticonics: Neural Circuits of the Cerebral Cortex

    M. Abeles,Corticonics: Neural Circuits of the Cerebral Cortex. Cambridge University Press, 1991

    work page 1991

  3. [3]

    D.J. Amit, N. Brunel,Dynamics of a recurrent network of spiking neurons before and fol- lowing learning. Network, 8 (1997), 373–404

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    D.J. Amit, N. Brunel,Model of global spontaneous activity and local structured activity during delay periods in the cerebral cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 7 (1997), 237–252

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    Aza ¨ ıs, J.B

    R. Aza ¨ ıs, J.B. Bardet, A. Genadot, N. Krell, P.A. Zitt,Piecewise deterministic Markov processes (PDMPs): Recent results. Proceedings, 44 (2014), 276–290

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Baccelli, T

    F. Baccelli, T. Taillefumier,Replica Mean Field limits for intensity-based networks. SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, 18 (2019), 1756–1797

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Baccelli, T

    F. Baccelli, T. Taillefumier,The Pair-Replica-Mean-Field Limit for Intensity-based Neural Networks. SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, 20 (2021), 165–207

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    E. Baur, J. Bertoin, Elephant random walks and their connection to P´ olya-type urns,Phys. Rev. E, 94 (2016), 052134

    work page 2016

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Bercu, On the elephant random walk with stops playing hide and seek with the Mittag– Leffler distribution,J

    B. Bercu, On the elephant random walk with stops playing hide and seek with the Mittag– Leffler distribution,J. Stat. Phys., 189 (2022), 52

    2022

  2. [10]

    Bercu, A martingale approach for the elephant random walk,J

    B. Bercu, A martingale approach for the elephant random walk,J. Phys. A, 51 (2018), 015201

    2018

  3. [11]

    Bercu, L

    B. Bercu, L. Laulin, How to estimate the memory of the elephant random walk,Commun. Stat. Theory Methods, 53 (2024), 8186–8206

    2024

  4. [12]

    Bertenghi, Asymptotic normality of superdiffusive step-reinforced random walks, arXiv:2101.00906, 2021

    M. Bertenghi, Asymptotic normality of superdiffusive step-reinforced random walks, arXiv:2101.00906, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Bertenghi, A

    M. Bertenghi, A. Rosales-Ortiz, Joint invariance principles for random walks with positively and negatively reinforced steps,J. Stat. Phys., 188 (2022), 27. 52 IOANNIS PAPAGEORGIOU

    2022

  6. [14]

    Brunel,Dynamics of Sparsely Connected Networks of Excitatory and Inhibitory Spiking Neurons

    N. Brunel,Dynamics of Sparsely Connected Networks of Excitatory and Inhibitory Spiking Neurons. Journal of Computational Neuroscience, 8 (2000), 183–208

    2000

  7. [15]

    Brunel, V

    N. Brunel, V. Hakim,Fast global oscillations in networks of integrate-and-fire neurons with low firing rates. Neural Computation, 11 (1999), 1621–1671

    1999

  8. [16]

    Chauvin, N

    B. Chauvin, N. Pouyanne, R. Sahnoun, Limit distributions for large P´ olya urns,Ann. Appl. Probab., 21 (2011), 1–32

    2011

  9. [17]

    Chevallier,Mean-field limit of generalized Hawkes processes

    J. Chevallier,Mean-field limit of generalized Hawkes processes. SPA, 127 (2017), 3870–3912

    2017

  10. [18]

    Chevallier, A

    J. Chevallier, A. Duarte, E. L¨ ocherbach, G. Ost,Mean field limit for nonlinear spatially extended Hawkes processes. SPA, 129 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    C. F. Coletti, R. Gava, G. M. Sch¨ utz, Central limit theorem for the elephant random walk, J. Math. Phys., 58 (2017), 053303

    2017

  12. [20]

    C. F. Coletti, R. Gava, G. M. Sch¨ utz, A strong invariance principle for the elephant random walk,J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp., 2017 (2017), 123207

    2017

  13. [21]

    C. F. Coletti, R. M. Grisi, I. Papageorgiou, A Poincar´ e Inequality and Exponential Decay for the Elephant Random Walk, arXiv:2606.08884, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  14. [22]

    C. F. Coletti, I. Papageorgiou, Asymptotic analysis of the elephant random walk,J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp., 2021 (2021), 013205

    2021

  15. [23]

    Cottrell,Mathematical analysis of a neural network with inhibitory coupling

    M. Cottrell,Mathematical analysis of a neural network with inhibitory coupling. Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 40 (1992), 103–126

    1992

  16. [24]

    Crudu, A

    A. Crudu, A. Debussche, A. Muller, O. Radulescu,Convergence of stochastic gene networks to hybrid piecewise deterministic processes. Annals of Applied Probability, 22 (2012), 1822– 1859

    2012

  17. [25]

    Davis,Markov Models and Optimization

    M.H.A. Davis,Markov Models and Optimization. Chapman & Hall, 1993

    1993

  18. [26]

    Davis,Piecewise-deterministic Markov processes: a general class of non-diffusion stochastic models

    M.H.A. Davis,Piecewise-deterministic Markov processes: a general class of non-diffusion stochastic models. JRSS B, 46 (1984), 353–388

    1984

  19. [27]

    Ditlevsen, E

    S. Ditlevsen, E. L¨ ocherbach,Multi-class oscillating systems of interacting neurons. SPA, 127 (2017), 1840–1869

    2017

  20. [28]

    Duarte, E

    A. Duarte, E. L¨ ocherbach, G. Ost,Stability and convergence to equilibrium for nonlinear Hawkes processes. ESAIM PS, 23 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Ferrari, A

    P.A. Ferrari, A. Galves, I. Grigorescu, E. L¨ ocherbach,Phase transition for infinite systems of spiking neurons. Journal of Statistical Physics, 172 (2018), 1564–1575

    2018

  22. [30]

    Galves, E

    A. Galves, E. L¨ ocherbach,Infinite systems of interacting chains with memory of variable length: A stochastic model for biological neural nets. Journal of Statistical Physics, 151 (2013), 896–921

    2013

  23. [31]

    Gu´ erin, L

    H. Gu´ erin, L. Laulin, K. Raschel, Fixed-point equation for the superdiffusive elephant ran- dom walk,arXiv:2308.14630, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Gu´ erin, L

    H. Gu´ erin, L. Laulin, K. Raschel, On the limit law of the superdiffusive elephant random walk,Electron. J. Probab., 30 (2025), Paper No. 54

    2025

  25. [33]

    A. Gut, U. Stadtm¨ uller, Elephant random walks with delays,Statist. Probab. Lett., 174 (2021), 109105

    2021

  26. [34]

    A. Gut, U. Stadtm¨ uller, Variations of the elephant random walk,Mod. Stoch. Theory Appl., 5 (2018), 1–17

    2018

  27. [35]

    A. Gut, U. Stadtm¨ uller, Elephant random walks: a review,Ann. Univ. Sci. Budapest. Sect. Comput., 54 (2023), 171–198

    2023

  28. [36]

    V. V. Guevara, On the almost sure central limit theorem for the elephant random walk,J. Phys. A, 52 (2019), 475201

    2019

  29. [37]

    Hansen, P

    N. Hansen, P. Reynaud-Bouret, V. Rivoirard,Lasso and probabilistic inequalities for multi- variate point processes. Bernoulli, 21 (2015), 83–143. ELEPHANT-REINFORCED NEURAL NETWORKS 53

    2015

  30. [38]

    Hodara, N

    P. Hodara, N. Krell, E. L¨ ocherbach,Non-parametric estimation of the spiking rate in systems of interacting neurons. 2016

    2016

  31. [39]

    Hodara, E

    P. Hodara, E. L¨ ocherbach,Hawkes processes with variable length memory and an infinite number of components. Advances in Applied Probability, 49 (2017), 84–107

    2017

  32. [40]

    Hodara, I

    P. Hodara, I. Papageorgiou, Concentration and Poincare type inequalities for a degenerate pure jump Markov process.Matem´ atica, 20 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Hodara, I

    P. Hodara, I. Papageorgiou, Poincar´ e-type inequalities for compact degenerate pure jump Markov processes,Mathematics, 7 (2019), Article No. 518

    2019

  34. [42]

    Jefferys, R.D

    J.G. Jefferys, R.D. Traub, M.A. Whittington,Synchronized oscillations in interneuron net- works driven by metabotropic glutamate receptor activation. Nature, 373 (1995), 612–615

    1995

  35. [43]

    Karpelevich, V.A

    F.I. Karpelevich, V.A. Malyshev, A.N. Rybko,Stochastic Evolution of Neural Networks. Markov Processes Relat. Fields, 1 (1995), 141–161

    1995

  36. [44]

    Laulin, Introducing smooth amnesia to the memory of the elephant random walk,Elec- tron

    L. Laulin, Introducing smooth amnesia to the memory of the elephant random walk,Elec- tron. Commun. Probab., 27 (2022), Paper No. 66

    2022

  37. [45]

    Laulin, New insights on the reinforced elephant random walk using a martingale approach, J

    L. Laulin, New insights on the reinforced elephant random walk using a martingale approach, J. Stat. Phys., 186 (2022), 31

    2022

  38. [46]

    Laulin,About the Elephant Random Walk, Ph.D

    L. Laulin,About the Elephant Random Walk, Ph.D. Thesis, Universit´ e de Bordeaux, 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Laurent, K

    G. Laurent, K. MacLeod,Distinct mechanisms for synchronization and temporal patterning of odor-encoding neural assemblies. Science, 274 (1996), 976–979

    1996

  40. [48]

    L¨ ocherbach, P

    E. L¨ ocherbach, P. Monmarch´ e,Metastability for systems of interacting neurons. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques, 58 (2022), 343–378

    2022

  41. [49]

    L¨ ocherbach,Convergence to equilibrium for time-inhomogeneous jump diffusions with state-dependent jump intensity

    E. L¨ ocherbach,Convergence to equilibrium for time-inhomogeneous jump diffusions with state-dependent jump intensity. Journal of Theoretical Probability, 33 (2020), 2280–2314

    2020

  42. [50]

    L¨ ocherbach,Absolute continuity of the invariant measure in piecewise deterministic Markov processes having degenerate jumps

    E. L¨ ocherbach,Absolute continuity of the invariant measure in piecewise deterministic Markov processes having degenerate jumps. SPA, 2017

    2017

  43. [51]

    Maulik, P

    K. Maulik, P. Roy, T. Sadhukhan, Phase transitions for elephant random walks with two memory channels,arXiv:2509.10225, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Mukherjee, Elephant random walks on infinite Cayley trees,arXiv:2509.03048, 2025

    S. Mukherjee, Elephant random walks on infinite Cayley trees,arXiv:2509.03048, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Najman, I

    F.A. Najman, I. Papageorgiou, S.C.A. da Silva,Spiking Neural Networks with Elephant Reinforcement.arXiv, 2026

    2026

  46. [54]

    Pakdaman, M

    K. Pakdaman, M. Thieullen, G. Wainrib,Fluid limit theorems for stochastic hybrid systems with application to neuron models. Advances in Applied Probability, 42 (2010), 761–794

    2010

  47. [55]

    Papageorgiou,Replica Mean Field limits for neural networks with excitatory and inhibitory activity

    I. Papageorgiou,Replica Mean Field limits for neural networks with excitatory and inhibitory activity. Probability and Mathematical Statistics, 45 (2025), 33–51

    2025

  48. [56]

    Papageorgiou,Interacting systems of infinite spiking neurons with weights beyond uniform summability

    I. Papageorgiou,Interacting systems of infinite spiking neurons with weights beyond uniform summability. Markov Processes and Related Fields, 29 (2023), 435–456

    2023

  49. [57]

    Papageorgiou, Modified log-Sobolev inequality for a compact pure jump Markov process with degenerate jumps,Journal of Statistical Physics, 178 (2020), 1293–1318

    I. Papageorgiou, Modified log-Sobolev inequality for a compact pure jump Markov process with degenerate jumps,Journal of Statistical Physics, 178 (2020), 1293–1318

    2020

  50. [58]

    Qin, Recurrence and transience of multidimensional elephant random walks,Ann

    S. Qin, Recurrence and transience of multidimensional elephant random walks,Ann. Probab., 53 (2025), 1049–1078

    2025

  51. [59]

    Qin, Recurrence–transience phase transition of the step-reinforced random walk at one- half,Probab

    S. Qin, Recurrence–transience phase transition of the step-reinforced random walk at one- half,Probab. Theory Related Fields, 2025

    2025

  52. [60]

    Qin, Step-reinforced random walks and one-half,arXiv:2402.16396, 2024

    S. Qin, Step-reinforced random walks and one-half,arXiv:2402.16396, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Romaro, F

    C. Romaro, F. A. Najman, M. Andr´ e,A numerical study of the time of extinction in a class of systems of spiking neurons,Journal of Statistical Physics, 190 (2023), Article No. 41

    2023

  54. [62]

    G. M. Sch¨ utz, S. Trimper, Elephants can always remember,Phys. Rev. E, 70 (2004), 045101

    2004

  55. [63]

    Stein,A Theoretical Analysis of Neuronal Variability

    R.B. Stein,A Theoretical Analysis of Neuronal Variability. Biophysical Journal, 5 (1965), 173–194. 54 IOANNIS PAPAGEORGIOU

    1965

  56. [64]

    Sompolinsky, C

    H. Sompolinsky, C. van Vreeswijk,Chaos in neuronal networks with balanced excitatory and inhibitory activity. Science, 274 (1996), 1724–1726

    1996

  57. [65]

    Tuckwell,Stochastic Processes in the Neurosciences

    H.C. Tuckwell,Stochastic Processes in the Neurosciences. SIAM, 1989

    1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.