Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Delay engineered solitary states in complex networks

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 This paper claims that installing time delays on selected links in a synchronized network creates solitary states at exactly the delayed nodes, and that the delay values control how far each solitary node is displaced from the…

desk verdict A useful engineering-style demonstration that placing delays on selected nodes' links induces solitary states in FHN rings and logistic maps, but the 'complete control' claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01295 v1 pith:AJ3GNJ4Z submitted 2019-08-04 nlin.AO nlin.CD

Leonhard Schülen , Saptarshi Ghosh , Ajay Deep Kachhvah , Anna Zakharova , Sarika Jalan This is my paper · ORCID
classification nlin.AOnlin.CD PACS 05.45.-a05.45.Xt
keywords solitarystatestimedelaysynchronizationFitzHugh-Nagumochaoticmapspartialcomplexnetworksengineering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that a synchronized network of identical oscillators can be reshaped into a chosen partial synchronization pattern—solitary states—simply by putting time delays on all links of selected nodes. The position of each delayed node determines where a solitary node appears, and the delay value sets how far that node is displaced from the synchronized cluster. The claim is demonstrated in FitzHugh-Nagumo neural oscillators and in coupled chaotic logistic maps, with both homogeneous delays (equal displacement) and heterogeneous delays (unequal displacement). If true, this gives a practical control handle for desynchronizing a network at prescribed locations without changing coupling strengths or node parameters.

What carries the argument

The central object is the delayed node: a network node whose links to its neighbors all carry a time delay, either a common value (homogeneous) or randomly distributed values (heterogeneous). The delay acts as a perturbation that shifts the node's phase relative to the synchronized cluster, and the selective placement of these delayed nodes is what carves the solitary pattern out of a synchronized state. In FitzHugh-Nagumo networks the delay changes the limit cycle of the delayed node; in logistic maps it displaces the delayed node's state from the cluster. The paper uses the delay matrix to encode which links are delayed and by how much.

What would settle it

Run the protocol for many random choices of delayed nodes and delay values in the FitzHugh-Nagumo network, and count how often the nodes that actually leave the synchronized cluster (identified by a deviation in mean phase velocity) coincide with the delayed nodes. A single realization in which a non-delayed node leaves the cluster, or a delayed node stays synchronized, would disprove the claim of complete control.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors induce solitary states in networks that were originally fully synchronized. Delaying every ingoing and outgoing link of a chosen node perturbs that node out of the coherent cluster, producing the characteristic solitary state: a synchronized cluster coexists with individual nodes displaced in phase and mean velocity. With homogeneous delays, all solitary nodes are displaced by roughly the same amount; with heterogeneous delays, displacements differ. The same technique works in reverse, starting from an all-delayed synchronized network and changing the delay on a few nodes. The authors conclude that the number, position, and displacement of solitary states can be fully controlled by the positions and values of the delays.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every node whose links are delayed becomes a solitary node and every non-delayed node remains in the synchronized cluster, so the delay pattern exactly marks the solitary-state pattern.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A desired number of solitary nodes can be placed at desired locations by installing delays on that many selected nodes at those locations.
  • Homogeneous delays give equally displaced solitary states; heterogeneous delays give unequally displaced ones, allowing tailored spatial patterns.
  • Starting from an all-delayed synchronized network, changing the delay on a few nodes (or removing it) creates solitary states in the same way, so the control works in both directions.
  • The same delay-engineering scheme produces solitary states in both continuous FitzHugh-Nagumo oscillators and discrete chaotic maps, suggesting a mechanism that does not depend on the specific node dynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A stronger, quantitatively testable version of the claim would be that the set of delayed nodes exactly equals the set of solitary nodes; the paper demonstrates this in examples but does not measure the match over many random delay placements, so a follow-up could check this one-to-one correspondence statistically.
  • If the one-to-one mapping holds, the method becomes a design primitive for network control: any prescribed solitary-state pattern can be written as a delay pattern, with implications for targeted desynchronization in power grids or neural stimulation protocols.
  • Since the delay value appears to set displacement, mapping displacement versus delay across a range (rather than the few values shown) would yield a calibration curve for how far a node can be pushed out of the cluster.
  • The reverse scheme suggests that delay patterns can be edited incrementally, so a network's solitary-state pattern can be trimmed or extended without resetting the whole system.
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. The manuscript proposes a technique for engineering solitary states in networks of identical oscillators by introducing time delays on all links of selected nodes. The authors study two systems: a ring of FitzHugh-Nagumo oscillators described by Eq. (1) and a ring of coupled logistic maps described by Eq. (3). They show, through phase portraits, time series, snapshots, mean-phase-velocity profiles, and spatial profiles, that placing homogeneous or heterogeneous delays on a subset of nodes can make those nodes leave the synchronized cluster while the rest remain synchronized. They further demonstrate a reverse scheme in which a fully delayed network is perturbed by altering delays on a few nodes. Based on these examples, the abstract and Section 6 claim that the position and displacement extent of solitary elements can be completely controlled by the positions and values of the incorporated delays.

Significance. If the central claim were quantitatively established, this would be a useful contribution to the control of partial synchronization patterns, particularly because the technique is demonstrated in two very different dynamical systems (FHN oscillators and chaotic maps), suggesting a potentially general mechanism. The paper also connects delay engineering of chimera states to the less studied solitary states. However, the current evidence is largely qualitative and illustrative: no quantitative definition of solitary state is given, no systematic parameter scans are provided, and no statistical verification over random realizations is reported. The claimed "complete control" therefore goes beyond what the presented data support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Figs. 2-4, Eq. (1)] The central positional-control claim requires demonstrating that, for arbitrary selections and parameter values, exactly the delayed nodes become solitary nodes and all non-delayed nodes remain in the synchronized cluster. The manuscript provides no quantitative definition of a solitary node, no measure of displacement from the cluster, and no statistics over random selections. Fig. 2 shows only 1, 5, and 25 delayed nodes, while Fig. 4 already shows a 125-delayed-node case where the solitary node exhibits irregular spiking and a smeared limit cycle, suggesting that the correspondence between delayed nodes and solitary nodes may break down as the delayed fraction grows. Please define a threshold-based measure (e.g., time-averaged deviation from the synchronized manifold or a phase-velocity difference), and report, over many random realizations and a range of delay values and delayed-node counts, the fraction of delayed nodes that are solitary and the fraction of non-delayed nodes that leave the cluster.
  2. [Section 6 and Figs. 9-10] The claim that the extent of displacement is completely controlled by the delay value is not supported by the data. Figs. 9 and 10 show only a few selected delay values, with no quantitative measure of displacement on the vertical axis and no error bars or repeated realizations. No functional relationship between the delay time and the solitary-node displacement is derived, fitted, or systematically scanned. Please provide quantitative displacement-versus-delay curves for both homogeneous and heterogeneous delays, with multiple random realizations and statistical measures, and state whether the displacement is a single-valued and monotone function of the delay in the studied regime.
  3. [Sections 2 and 4] Eq. (1) delays both the incoming and outgoing links of a selected node, so non-delayed neighbors also receive delayed signals and could in principle leave the synchronized cluster; conversely, a delayed node could remain effectively synchronized for small delay values or strong coupling. The manuscript does not analyze the parameter window in which exactly the delayed nodes become solitary nodes. The reverse scheme in Section 4 concludes that "the mechanism works in both directions" based only on qualitative snapshots in Fig. 6, without testing whether the number of solitary nodes equals the number of modified nodes. Please provide a regime analysis that identifies where the delayed-node-to-solitary-node correspondence holds, including boundary cases such as small delays and large numbers of delayed nodes.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3] In the sentence "we choose the delay times randomly in the interval τij. ∈ [1, 10]" there is an extra period after τij; it should read τij ∈ [1, 10].
  2. [Section 5] In the model description for the maps, "takes vale 1" should be "takes value 1".
  3. [Sections 2 and 5] The notation for the coupling range is inconsistent: Section 2 uses P/N with N=300 and r=0.35, while Section 5 uses K/N with r=0.32. Please unify the notation.
  4. [Throughout] The paper does not report the numerical integration scheme, time step, or transient length used for the FHN simulations, nor the number of iterations and transient for the maps, which makes reproduction difficult. Please add these details.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: delays are inputs, solitary-state displacement is emergent simulation output, and self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted parameters, no equation derived from the data it claims to predict, and no uniqueness theorem imported from prior work. The delay values and positions are inputs to the dynamical systems in Eqs. (1) and (3), and the solitary states are reported as emergent simulation results. The central claim that the number, position, and displacement of solitary nodes can be controlled by choosing delayed nodes and delay values is an empirical demonstration based on numerical integration and maps, not a reduction of the output to the input by construction. The self-citations, notably to Ghosh and Jalan (2018), are used explicitly to motivate the delay-engineering scheme, but the present paper's results are new simulations and are not derived from that citation. The absence of quantitative measures or exhaustive validation is a correctness/robustness concern, not a circularity concern. Under the stated criteria, there is no circular step to report.

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

The central claim rests on a handful of hand-chosen model parameters (delays, coupling radius, coupling phase) and standard dynamical models. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main free parameters are the delay values and the number of delayed nodes, which are exactly the claimed control knobs.

free parameters (7)
  • Homogeneous delay value (FHN) = 1
    Chosen to induce solitary states; the central claim of control by delay value uses this as the control knob.
  • Heterogeneous delay range (FHN, forward scheme) = 1 to 10
    Random uniform delay values selected to demonstrate delay-dependent phase shifts and uneven displacements.
  • Heterogeneous delay range (FHN, reverse scheme) = 2 to 10
    Chosen for the reverse scheme where all nodes start with delay 1 and a few are changed to values in this range.
  • Coupling phase phi = pi/2 - 0.35
    Taken from prior chimera work; for this value the undelayed FHN network is perfectly synchronized, which is the starting state for the technique.
  • Coupling radius r (FHN) and K/N (maps) = 0.35 and 0.32
    Nonlocal coupling range on a ring, chosen to match prior chimera and solitary state studies.
  • Number of delayed nodes = 1, 5, 25, 75, 125 (FHN); 5, 10, 20 (maps)
    Selected to demonstrate that the number of solitary nodes scales with the number of delayed nodes.
  • Coupling strength (maps) = 0.9
    Chosen to make the undelayed logistic map network fully synchronized so that delays act as a perturbation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption FitzHugh-Nagumo equations with rotational coupling adequately model neural oscillators in the oscillatory regime.
    Standard model used in prior chimera and solitary state studies; no derivation is given in this paper.
  • domain assumption The logistic map with mu = 4 is chaotic and is a valid local dynamics for coupled map networks.
    Standard chaotic map, widely used in complex network studies; assumed without proof.
  • domain assumption Nonlocal ring topology with 2R neighbors per node is the network structure.
    The paper fixes this topology in both models; results may depend on this choice.
  • domain assumption For phi = pi/2 - 0.35, the undelayed FHN network is completely synchronized.
    Shown numerically in Fig. 1, not proved; used as the starting point for the delay perturbation.
  • domain assumption Random initial conditions on the circle u^2 + v^2 = 4 for FHN and uniform [0,1] for maps do not affect the asymptotic state.
    The paper uses one set of initial conditions without statistical validation; the attractor may depend on them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Delay engineered solitary states in complex networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AJ3GNJ4Z

@misc{pith2026190801295,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Delay engineered solitary states in complex networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AJ3GNJ4Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01295}
}
read the original abstract

We present a technique to engineer solitary states by means of delayed links in a network of neural oscillators and in coupled chaotic maps. Solitary states are intriguing partial synchronization patterns, where a synchronized cluster coexists with solitary nodes displaced from this cluster and distributed randomly over the network. We induce solitary states in the originally synchronized network of identical nodes by introducing delays in the links for a certain number of selected network elements. It is shown that the extent of displacement and the position of solitary elements can be completely controlled by the choice (values) and positions (locations) of the incorporated delays, reshaping the delay engineered solitary states in the network.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01295 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Color online) Comparison of a network Eq. 1 with no [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Color Online) Snapshots (left column), mean phas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Color online) Phase portrait for one selected nod [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Color online) a) Comparison of the dynamics for on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Color online) Snapshots of variable ui (left column), mean phase velocity profiles (middle col￾umn) and space-time plots (right column) for system Eq. 1, where randomly selected 10 (top panel) and 25 (bottom panel) nodes have delays randomly distributed over the inter…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Color online) Snapshots of variable ui (left column), mean phase velocity profiles (middle col￾umn) and space-time plots (right column) for system Eq. 1 where all nodes are delayed homogeneously with τij = 1, except for randomly selected 5 (top panels) and 25 (bottom …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Color Online) Diagram depicts the composite-adj [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Color Online) Snapshots (left column) and spatia [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (Color Online) Spatial profiles of the solitary sta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (Color Online) Snapshots (top panels) and spatia [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pikovsky , author M

    author A. Pikovsky , author M. G. Rosenblum , and author J. Kurths , title Synchronization: a universal concept in nonlinear sciences ( publisher Cambridge University Press , address Cambridge , year 2001 )

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    Boccaletti , author A

    author S. Boccaletti , author A. N. Pisarchik , author C. I. del Genio , and author A. Amann , title Synchronization: F rom Coupled Systems to Complex Networks ( publisher Cambridge University Press , address Cambridge , year 2018 ), ISBN isbn 9781107056268

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Rothkegel and author K

    author A. Rothkegel and author K. Lehnertz , journal New J. Phys. volume 16 , pages 055006 ( year 2014 )

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    author R. G. Andrzejak , author C. Rummel , author F. Mormann , and author K. Schindler , journal Sci. Rep. volume 6 , pages 23000 ( year 2016 )

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Tass , author M

    author P. Tass , author M. G. Rosenblum , author J. Weule , author J. Kurths , author A. Pikovsky , author J. Volkmann , author A. Schnitzler , and author H. J. Freund , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 81 , pages 3291 ( year 1998 )

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Kuramoto and author D

    author Y. Kuramoto and author D. Battogtokh , journal Nonlin. Phen. in Complex Sys. volume 5 , pages 380 ( year 2002 )

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    author D. M. Abrams and author S. H. Strogatz , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 93 , pages 174102 ( year 2004 )

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Maistrenko , author B

    author Y. Maistrenko , author B. Penkovsky , and author M. Rosenblum , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 89 , pages 060901 ( year 2014 )

    work page 2014

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Jaros , author Y

    author P. Jaros , author Y. Maistrenko , and author T. Kapitaniak , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 91 , pages 022907 ( year 2015 )

    2015

  2. [10]

    Mikhaylenko , author L

    author M. Mikhaylenko , author L. Ramlow , author S. Jalan , and author A. Zakharova , journal C haos volume 29 , pages 023122 ( year 2019 )

    2019

  3. [11]

    Hellmann , author P

    author F. Hellmann , author P. Schultz , author P. Jaros , author R. Levchenko , author T. Kapitaniak , author J. Kurths , and author Y. Maistrenko , journal arXiv ( year 2018 )

    2018

  4. [12]

    Jaros , author S

    author P. Jaros , author S. Brezetsky , author R. Levchenko , author D. Dudkowski , author T. Kapitaniak , and author Y. Maistrenko , journal Chaos volume 28 , pages 011103 ( year 2018 )

    2018

  5. [13]

    Rybalova , author N

    author E. Rybalova , author N. Semenova , author G. Strelkova , and author V. Anishchenko , journal Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. volume 226 , pages 1857 ( year 2017 )

    2017

  6. [14]

    Rybalova , author G

    author E. Rybalova , author G. I. Strelkova , and author V. S. Anishchenko , journal Chaos Solitons Fractals volume 115 , pages 300 ( year 2018 )

    2018

  7. [15]

    Semenova , author T

    author N. Semenova , author T. Vadivasova , and author V. Anishchenko , journal Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. volume 227 , pages 1173 ( year 2018 )

    2018

  8. [16]

    Poel , author A

    author W. Poel , author A. Zakharova , and author E. Sch \"o ll , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 91 , pages 022915 ( year 2015 )

    2015

  9. [17]

    Krishnagopal , author J

    author S. Krishnagopal , author J. Lehnert , author W. Poel , author A. Zakharova , and author E. Sch \"o ll , journal Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A volume 375 , pages 20160216 ( year 2017 )

    2017

  10. [18]

    author A. L. Do , author J. M. H\"ofener , and author T. Gross , journal New J. Phys. volume 14 , pages 115022 ( year 2012 )

    2012

  11. [19]

    Haken , title Brain Dynamics: Synchronization and Activity Patterns in Pulse-Coupled Neural Nets with Delays and Noise ( publisher Springer , address Berlin , year 2007 )

    author H. Haken , title Brain Dynamics: Synchronization and Activity Patterns in Pulse-Coupled Neural Nets with Delays and Noise ( publisher Springer , address Berlin , year 2007 )

    2007

  12. [20]

    Zakharova , author I

    author A. Zakharova , author I. Schneider , author Y. N. Kyrychko , author K. B. Blyuss , author A. Koseska , author B. Fiedler , and author E. Sch \"o ll , journal Europhys. Lett. volume 104 , pages 50004 ( year 2013 )

    2013

  13. [21]

    Gjurchinovski , author A

    author A. Gjurchinovski , author A. Zakharova , and author E. Sch \"o ll , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 89 , pages 032915 ( year 2014 )

    2014

  14. [22]

    Gjurchinovski , author E

    author A. Gjurchinovski , author E. Sch \"o ll , and author A. Zakharova , journal Phys. Rev. E volume 95 , pages 042218 ( year 2017 )

    2017

  15. [23]

    Sawicki , author I

    author J. Sawicki , author I. Omelchenko , author A. Zakharova , and author E. Sch \"o ll , journal Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. volume 226 , pages 1883 ( year 2017 )

    2017

  16. [24]

    Semenov , author A

    author V. Semenov , author A. Zakharova , author Y. Maistrenko , and author E. Sch \"o ll , journal Europhys. Lett. volume 115 , pages 10005 ( year 2016 )

    2016

  17. [25]

    Zakharova , author N

    author A. Zakharova , author N. Semenova , author V. S. Anishchenko , and author E. Sch \"o ll , journal Chaos volume 27 , pages 114320 ( year 2017 )

    2017

  18. [26]

    editor F. M. Atay , ed., title Complex Time-Delay Systems , Understanding Complex Systems ( publisher Springer , address Berlin Heidelberg , year 2010 )

    2010

  19. [27]

    author A. D. Kachhvah and author S. Jalan , journal New J. Phys. volume 21 , pages 015006 ( year 2019 )

    2019

  20. [28]

    Popovych , author S

    author O. Popovych , author S. Yanchuk , and author P. Tass , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 107 , pages 228102 ( year 2011 )

    2011

  21. [29]

    Yanchuk , author P

    author S. Yanchuk , author P. Perlikowski , author O. Popovych , and author P. Tass , journal Chaos volume 21 , eid 047511 (pages numpages 11 ) ( year 2011 )

    2011

  22. [30]

    Kantner , author E

    author M. Kantner , author E. Sch \"o ll , and author S. Yanchuk , journal Sci. Rep. volume 5 , pages 8522 ( year 2015 )

    2015

  23. [31]

    Ghosh and author S

    author S. Ghosh and author S. Jalan , journal Chaos volume 28 , pages 071103 ( year 2018 )

    2018

  24. [32]

    Masoliver , author N

    author M. Masoliver , author N. Malik , author E. Sch \"o ll , and author A. Zakharova , journal Chaos volume 27 , pages 101102 ( year 2017 )

    2017

  25. [33]

    o vel , and author E. Sch \

    author I. Omelchenko , author O. E. Omel'chenko , author P. H\" o vel , and author E. Sch \"o ll , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 110 , pages 224101 ( year 2013 )

    2013

  26. [34]

    Chouzouris , author I

    author T. Chouzouris , author I. Omelchenko , author A. Zakharova , author J. Hlinka , author P. Jiruska , and author E. Sch \"o ll , journal Chaos volume 28 , pages 045112 ( year 2018 )

    2018

  27. [35]

    Semenova , author A

    author N. Semenova , author A. Zakharova , author V. S. Anishchenko , and author E. Sch \"o ll , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 117 , pages 014102 ( year 2016 )

    2016

  28. [36]

    Semenova and author A

    author N. Semenova and author A. Zakharova , journal Chaos volume 28 , pages 051104 ( year 2018 )

    2018

  29. [37]

    Sawicki , author I

    author J. Sawicki , author I. Omelchenko , author A. Zakharova , and author E. Sch \"o ll , journal Eur. Phys. J. B volume 92 , pages 54 ( year 2019 a )

    2019

  30. [38]

    Nikitin , author I

    author D. Nikitin , author I. Omelchenko , author A. Zakharova , author M. Avetyan , author A. L. Fradkov , and author E. Sch \"o ll , journal Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A ( year 2019 )

    2019

  31. [39]

    Sawicki , author S

    author J. Sawicki , author S. Ghosh , author S. Jalan , and author A. Zakharova , journal Front. Appl. Math. Stat. volume 5 , pages 19 ( year 2019 b )

    2019

  32. [40]

    Ghosh and author S

    author S. Ghosh and author S. Jalan , journal Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos volume 26 , pages 1650120 ( year 2016 )

    2016

  33. [41]

    Ghosh , author A

    author S. Ghosh , author A. Kumar , author A. Zakharova , and author S. Jalan , journal Europhys. Lett. volume 115 , pages 60005 ( year 2016 )

    2016

  34. [42]

    Ghosh , author A

    author S. Ghosh , author A. Zakharova , and author S. Jalan , journal Chaos Solitons Fractals volume 106 , pages 56 ( year 2018 )

    2018

Pith tools

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