Long time dynamics for interacting oscillators on graphs

Fabio Coppini (LPSM (UMR\_8001))

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Long time dynamics for interacting oscillators on graphs

T0 review · 2 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 For oscillators coupled through a graph, one explicit norm condition on the adjacency matrix guarantees the classical mean-field limit and controls long-time behavior up to almost exponential times.

desk verdict New mean-field and long-time results for Kuramoto on graphs, with a real but repairable gap in the stochastic noise bound; the paper deserves serious peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01520 v2 pith:EDOBIYOP submitted 2019-08-05 math.PR

Fabio Coppini (LPSM (UMR_8001)) This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.PR MSC 60K3582C2082C3182C44

keywords interactingoscillatorsKuramotomodelmeanfieldlimitlongtimedynamicsrandomgraphscutnormGrothendieck'sinequalityself-normalizedprocesses

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 studies the stochastic Kuramoto model on a sequence of graphs and asks when the network behaves like the classical all-to-all mean-field model. Its central claim is that a single condition on the graph suffices: after normalizing the adjacency matrix by the average number of neighbors, the matrix must approach the all-ones matrix in the $\ell^\infty\to\ell^1$ (cut) norm, at rate $o(n^2)$. Under this condition the empirical measure of oscillator phases stays close to the solution of the McKean–Vlasov equation on any fixed finite time interval, even when the initial phases are chosen with full knowledge of the network. The paper further shows that on long time scales the same condition keeps the system near its stable stationary states for times that can grow as fast as $\exp(o(n))$: near the uniform state when the coupling $K<1$, and near the manifold of synchronized states when $K>1$. This matters because real oscillator networks are not complete graphs, and the question of whether the mean-field picture survives on long time scales had been open.

What carries the argument

The central object is the normalized adjacency matrix $P^{(n)}=\xi^{(n)}/p_n$ compared with the all-ones matrix $\mathbf{1}^{(n)}$ through the $\ell^\infty\to\ell^1$ norm, a cut-norm-type quantity; the condition $\|P^{(n)}-\mathbf{1}^{(n)}\|_{\infty\to 1}=o(n^2)$ is what makes graph fluctuations vanish as $n\to\infty$. The proofs work with the empirical measure in the dual Sobolev space $H^{-1}$, whose norm controls the bounded-Lipschitz distance between probability measures, and with the mild SPDE satisfied by $\mu^n_t$. The two linearized operators $L_\psi$ and $L_{2\pi}$, around the synchronized states and the uniform state respectively, supply the contraction and spectral gap that turn noise and graph terms into Gronwall-type estimates. Grothendieck's inequality is the device that bounds the graph term by the $\ell^\infty\to\ell^1$ norm.

What would settle it

A numerical falsifier: simulate the finite system on binomial random graphs with average degree $np_n\to\infty$, starting half the vertices at phase $0$ and half at phase $\pi$ so that the initial condition depends on the graph; if for some fixed $T$ the supremum distance $\sup_{t\le T}\|\mu^n_t-\mu_t\|_{-1}$ does not tend to $0$ in probability, then condition (1.16) is not sufficient for Theorem 2.1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that the relevant measure of network distance is not the degree sequence but the $\ell^\infty\to\ell^1$ norm of the normalized adjacency matrix $P^{(n)}=\xi^{(n)}/p_n$ relative to the all-ones matrix. Writing the empirical measure in $H^{-1}$, the graph fluctuation term $g^n_t$ is bounded in norm by $D\sqrt{t}\,\|P^{(n)}-\mathbf{1}^{(n)}\|_{\infty\to 1}/n^2$ in the supercritical calculation and uniformly in the subcritical case, while the Brownian noise $z^n_t$ is controlled by exponential martingale inequalities. The combination yields Theorem 2.1: with only weak convergence of initial empirical measures and no independence from the graph, $\sup_{t\le T}\|\mu^n_t-\mu_t\|_{-1}\to 0$ in probability for every fixed $T$. Theorems 2.3 and 2.4 then propagate this closeness for $T_n=\exp(o(n))$: starting near the manifold of synchronized states ($K>1$) or near the uniform state ($0\le K<1$), the empirical measure stays within $\varepsilon$ of the corresponding stationary manifold. The time scale is set by the Brownian noise, not by the network, and coincides with the expected large-deviation barrier.

Load-bearing premise

The proofs depend on previously established spectral estimates for the linearized Kuramoto dynamics—an assumed decay rate of the semigroup and quadratic growth of eigenvalues—that the paper imports from earlier work and does not reprove; if these failed, the long-time control of the Brownian noise would break down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any graph sequence satisfying the condition $\|P^{(n)}-\mathbf{1}^{(n)}\|_{\infty\to 1}=o(n^2)$, including binomial random graphs with diverging average degree and deterministic expanders, the empirical measure converges to the McKean–Vlasov solution on finite time intervals even when initial conditions are chosen with full knowledge of the graph.
In the subcritical regime $0\le K<1$, the empirical measure remains within $\varepsilon$ of the uniform law for all times up to $\exp(o(n))$; for $K=0$ this yields a maximal inequality with growth $\log(1+T)/n$ for the empirical measure of independent Brownian motions.
In the supercritical regime $K>1$, the empirical measure remains within $\varepsilon$ of the manifold of synchronized stationary states for times up to $\exp(o(n))$, and the escape time is not degraded by the network structure.
The graph condition forces a giant component of size $n-o(n)$, so the mean-field limiting behavior cannot coexist with two macroscopic disconnected communities.

Reading between the lines

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

The proof isolates the graph's role entirely through the $\ell^\infty\to\ell^1$ norm of $P^{(n)}-\mathbf{1}^{(n)}$, which suggests that any sparse graphon sequence converging to the constant graphon in cut distance should inherit the same finite-time and long-time theorems, even if the graph is not homogeneous.
A natural next question is whether condition (1.16) is also necessary: constructing a graph sequence that violates it only on a small set of vertices and measuring whether the escape time from the synchronized manifold changes would test the sharpness of the condition.
Extrapolating from the complete-graph case, the slow motion along the manifold at times of order $n$ should be Brownian with a diffusion coefficient independent of the graph; tracking the phase of the empirical mean for different graph densities would reveal whether the network affects only the fast transient or also the slow manifold dynamics.
The paper notes its techniques adapt to quenched intrinsic frequencies; if so, one would expect a traveling-wave manifold replacing the fixed phase manifold, with the same $\exp(o(n))$ escape barrier, and a phase velocity observable at times of order $\sqrt{n}$.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline first: this is a solid paper with one genuine gap. The main results are new—finite-time mean-field limit for the stochastic Kuramoto model on graphs without independence between initial data and graph, and long-time closeness to the stable manifold up to exp(o(n)) times, which is genuinely beyond the polynomial times in [4]. The abstract says 'exponential of the size,' but the theorems give exp(o(n)), which is subexponential; that's a wording slip, not a mathematical one.

What it does well: the deterministic graph condition (1.16) in the ℓ∞→ℓ1 norm is clean, and the examples (Erdős–Rényi with diverging average degree, Ramanujan graphs) support it. The mild-formulation framework is appropriate, and the subcritical maximal inequality in Corollary 2.5 is a nice byproduct. The paper is honest about what it imports from [4].

Soft spots, in proportion. The Grothendieck step in Lemmas 3.2 and 4.3 does not verify that the chosen vectors Tj lie in the unit ball of H^{-1}; that is a minor constant issue, repairable in a footnote. The bigger problem is Lemma 3.3. The rewriting of z^n_t(f^ψ_l) in (3.45)-(3.46) is algebraically wrong: substituting the displayed A_t into (3.45) does not reproduce the definition (3.44); the powers of n and λ_l are off. Consequently the threshold in (3.49) and the exponential bound (3.51) do not follow as written. Since (3.41) is what produces the exp(o(n)) time scale in Theorems 2.3 and 2.4, that is load-bearing. The result is very likely repairable—a direct exponential martingale bound using the mode's quadratic variation, which is at most c^2(1-e^{-2λt})/(2λn), yields the same nη^2 exponent—but that argument is not in the manuscript.

Bottom line: the finite-time result and the graph condition are likely to be useful regardless; the long-time theorems are the headline but need a corrected noise estimate. This deserves peer review, not a desk rejection. A competent referee should catch the scaling error, and a conditional accept after the fix is realistic. I'd hold off citing the long-time results until a corrected version appears.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the stochastic Kuramoto model on a sequence of graphs with interaction strength normalized by n p_n. It proposes a deterministic condition on the graph sequence, namely that the ℓ∞→ℓ1 norm of P^(n) - 1^(n) is o(n^2) (condition (1.16)), and proves three main results: Theorem 2.1 gives finite-time closeness of the empirical measure to the McKean-Vlasov limit, without requiring independence between initial conditions and the graph; Theorem 2.3 shows that in the supercritical regime K>1 the empirical measure stays close to the stable manifold M of stationary solutions up to times T_n = exp(o(n)); Theorem 2.4 shows that in the subcritical regime K<1 the empirical measure stays close to the uniform measure on the same exponential time scale. The proofs are based on a mild formulation of the empirical measure, control of the graph-induced perturbation through Grothendieck's inequality, and control of the noise through exponential and maximal inequalities for martingales. Appendix A shows that Erdős-Rényi graphs with diverging average degree and sequences of Ramanujan graphs satisfy condition (1.16).

Significance. If the technical gap identified below is repaired, this is a substantial contribution. The paper gives a clean deterministic graph condition, expressed in terms of a well-studied norm, that is sufficient for mean-field behavior without any independence assumption between the initial empirical measure and the graph, and it goes beyond the existing literature by pushing the synchronization statement to nearly exponential time scales in both the subcritical and supercritical regimes. Strengths of the paper include the explicit nature of condition (1.16), the concrete families of graphs covered (ER and Ramanujan), the connection to the cut-norm and graphon framework, and the self-contained treatment of the weighted Sobolev spaces and semigroup estimates in the appendices. The proof architecture is clearly presented and the central claims are plausible, provided the stochastic estimate in Lemma 3.3 is corrected.

major comments (2)

[Section 3.2, Lemma 3.3] The scaling of the stochastic coefficient is inconsistent. From (3.44), z_t^n(f_l^ψ) = e^{-λ_l t} n^{-1} Σ_j ∫_0^t e^{λ_l s} [∂_θ f_l^ψ](θ^{j,n}_s) dB^j_s. Substituting the definition of A_t in (3.46) into (3.45) gives z_t^n(f_l^ψ) = c^2 e^{-λ_l t} A_t / √(2λ_l), not c e^{-λ_l t} √(2λ_l n) A_t as printed. Consequently the event on the right-hand side of (3.49) should be e^{-2λ_l t} A_t^2 > 2λ_l η / c^4, not 2λ_l n η / c^2, and the factor n in the exponent of (3.51), and hence in the global exponential bound (3.41), is not established by the displayed computation. Since (3.41) is used in (3.73)-(3.74) to obtain convergence for N_n = exp(o(n)), this is a load-bearing gap in the proof of Theorem 2.3. The gap appears repairable: each z_t^n(f_l^ψ) is a continuous martingale with quadratic variation bounded by c^2(1-e^{-2λ_l t})/(2λ_l n), so the standard exponential martingale inequality yields a tail of the same form with the factor n; the authors should replace the self-normalized computation by this direct estimate, or correct the normalization consistently. Additionally, with A_t defined as in (3.46), the coefficient in the quadratic variation formula (3.47) should be 2λ_l/(c^4 n^2), not 2λ_l/(c^2 n).
[Section 3.2] Grothendieck's inequality is invoked without verifying that the vectors S_i and T_j lie in the unit ball of the Hilbert space H^{-1}. In particular, for T_j = √(t-s)/C (J*δ_{θ_j}) ∂_θ e^{(t-s)L*_ψ} h / ||h||_1, the required uniform bound ||T_j||_{-1} ≤ 1 is not proved; the same issue occurs in Lemma 4.3 with the T_j defined in (4.13). A verification is possible: using ||δ_θ||_{-1} ≤ C, ||J*δ_θ||_∞ ≤ K, and the semigroup estimates in Propositions B.2-B.3, one obtains ||∂_θ e^{rL*_ψ} h||_2 ≤ C r^{-1/2} ||h||_1 (up to constants), so the constant C in the definition of T_j can be enlarged to ensure the unit-ball condition uniformly in j and in t-s. This step should be stated explicitly, because as written the bound (3.37) is asserted rather than derived.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3.3] The factor 2/3 ε in the displayed bound is not consistent with the initial bound ε/2 in the definition of A_n^1 in (3.58). Applying Lemma B.4 with δ = ε/2 would give a factor 3ε/2 before adding the perturbation terms. The constants should be adjusted, for example by taking the initial bound in A_n^1 to be ε/6, so that the final estimate (3.68) yields sup ||ν^n_t|| ≤ ε.
[Section 4.2] In the statement of the lemma and in the proof, the right-hand side C log(1 + log(1 + ⟨X⟩_t)) depends on t, while the left-hand side is a supremum over t in [0,T]. The bound should be stated with the supremum over t on the right, or with ⟨X⟩_T, and the proof adjusted accordingly.
[Section 5] The mild equation uses the Laplacian Δ/2, and the text says the results about L_{2π} will be used. This is correct because Δ/2 has the same type of semigroup estimates with spectral gap 1/2, but this should be stated explicitly to avoid confusion.
[Throughout] There are minor typographical inconsistencies between 'longtime' and 'long time' in section headings (e.g., Sections 2.2 and 2.3), and a few instances of missing articles or slightly awkward phrasing. These do not affect the mathematics but should be cleaned up in a revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the graph condition is an explicit hypothesis, load-bearing analytic inputs are external, and no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The main theorems are conditional statements under the explicit graph assumption (1.16) and the initial-condition assumptions (2.1)/(2.4); these assumptions are not derived from the desired conclusions. The proof chain is a mild-formulation argument via Itô's formula, followed by separate controls: graph fluctuations are bounded through Grothendieck's inequality and the ℓ∞→ℓ1 norm, while Brownian fluctuations are bounded by maximal inequalities for self-normalized martingales. The spectral inputs used in these controls (semigroup bound (B.7), λ_l = Θ(l^2), and sup_l ‖∂θ f^ψ_l‖∞ < ∞) are imported from [4] (Bertini–Giacomin–Poquet), an external paper with no author overlap with the present paper; Lemma 3.5 is imported from [26] (Luçon–Poquet), also external. The only self-citation, [10] (Coppini–Dietert–Giacomin), appears in Remark 1.1 and Section 2.5 only as historical/expository context and plays no role in the proofs. Thus no step reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own input. I additionally note, for completeness, that the apparent normalization mismatch in Eqs. (3.45)–(3.46) of Lemma 3.3 is a technical correctness concern in the written proof of the noise estimate (3.41), not a circularity, since the intended exponential noise bound is not equivalent to the theorem's conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; the only inputs are the model constants K and p_n and the graph condition (1.16). No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced; all objects are standard. The main imported burden is the spectral theory from [4], which is established elsewhere.

assumptions (4)

standard math Grothendieck's inequality (Theorem 1.2)
Used to control the graph fluctuation terms in Lemmas 3.2 and 4.3; stated in the paper with reference [31].
domain assumption Spectral estimates for the Kuramoto linearized operator from [4]
Propositions B.2 and B.3 provide the semigroup decay, eigenvalue growth lambda_l ~ l^2, and uniform eigenfunction derivative bound; these are cited, not proved, and are load-bearing for the noise control in Lemmas 3.3 and 4.4.
domain assumption Phase transition and stationary solution facts for the McKean-Vlasov equation from [17] and [3]
The subcritical uniqueness of the uniform measure and the supercritical manifold M with spectral properties are taken from prior work; they set up the targets for Theorems 2.3 and 2.4.
standard math Standard stochastic calculus and Itô formula
Used throughout to derive mild formulations of the empirical measure evolution.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Long time dynamics for interacting oscillators on graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EDOBIYOP

@misc{pith2026190801520,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Long time dynamics for interacting oscillators on graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EDOBIYOP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01520}
}

abstract

The stochastic Kuramoto model defined on a sequence of graphs is analyzed: the emphasis is posed on the relationship between the mean field limit, the connectivity of the underlying graph and the long time behavior. We give an explicit deterministic condition on the sequence of graphs such that, for any finite time and any initial condition, even dependent on the network, the empirical measure of the system stays close to the solution of the McKean-Vlasov equation associated to the classical mean field limit. Under this condition, we study the long time behavior in the subcritical and in the supercritical regime: in both regimes, the empirical measure stays close to the (possibly degenerate) manifold of stable stationary solutions, up to times which can diverge as fast as the exponential of the size of the system, before Large Deviation phenomena take over. The condition on the sequence of graphs is derived by means of Grothendieck's Inequality and expressed through a concentration in $\ell\_{\infty}\to \ell\_1$ norm. It is shown to be satisfied by a large class of graphs, random and deterministic, provided that the average number of neighbors per site diverges, as the size of the system tends to infinity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[4]

Bertini, G

L. Bertini, G. Giacomin and C. Poquet, Synchronization and Random Long Time Dynamics for Mean- Field Plane Rotators , Probability Theory and Related Fields 160 (2014), n. 3.4: 593-653

work page 2014
[1]

Acebron, L

J.A. Acebron, L. L. Bonilla, C. J. P´ erez Vicente, F. Rito rt and R. Spigler, The Kuramoto Model: A Simple Paradigm for Synchronization Phenomena , Reviews of Modern Physics 77, no. 1 (2005): 137–85

work page 2005
[2]

Alon and A Naor, Approximating the Cut-Norm via Grothendieck’s Inequality , SIAM Journal on Computing 35 (2006): 787–803

N. Alon and A Naor, Approximating the Cut-Norm via Grothendieck’s Inequality , SIAM Journal on Computing 35 (2006): 787–803

work page 2006
[3]

Bertini, G

L. Bertini, G. Giacomin and K. Pakdaman, Dynamical aspects of mean ﬁeld plane rotators and the Kuramoto model, Journal of Statistical Physics 138, n. 1-3 (2010): 270-90

work page 2010
[5]

Bhamidi, A

S. Bhamidi, A. Budhiraja and R. Wu, Weakly Interacting Particle Systems on Inhomogeneous Rand om Graphs, Stochastic Processes and their Applications 129, n. 6 (2019): 2174–2206

work page 2019
[6]

Boucheron, G

S. Boucheron, G. Lugosi and P. Massart, Concentration Inequalities: A Nonasymptotic Theory of Independence, OUP Oxford (2013)

work page 2013
[7]

Brezis, Analyse fonctionnelle: Th´ eorie et applications, Dunod, Paris (1999)

H. Brezis, Analyse fonctionnelle: Th´ eorie et applications, Dunod, Paris (1999)

work page 1999
[8]

Borgs, J

C. Borgs, J. Chayes, H. Cohn and Y. Zhao, An Lp Theory of Sparse Graph Convergence I: Limits, Sparse Random Graph Models, and Power Law Distributions , Transactions of the American Mathe- matical Society 372, no. 5 (2019): 3019-62

work page 2019

Show all 35 references

[9]

Chiba and G

H. Chiba and G. S. Medvedev, The Mean Field Analysis for the Kuramoto Model on Graphs I. Th e Mean Field Equation and Transition Point Formulas , Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A 39, n. 1 (2019): 131

2019
[10]

Coppini, H

F. Coppini, H. Dietert and Giambattista Giacomin, A Law of Large Numbers and Large Deviations for interacting diﬀusions on Erd˝ os-R´ enyi graphs, Stochastics and Dynamics, appeared online on July 2019, arXiv:1807.10921 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[11]

D. A. Dawson and J. G¨ artner, Large deviations from the mckean-vlasov limit for weakly in teracting diﬀusions , Stochastics 20 (1987): 247–308

1987
[12]

V. H. de la Pena, M. J. Klass and T. L. Lai, Self-normalized processes: exponential inequalities, moment bounds and iterated logarithm laws , The Annals of Probability 32, n. 3A (2004): 1902–33

2004
[13]

Delattre, G

S. Delattre, G. Giacomin and E. Lu¸ con, A note on dynamical models on random graphs and Fokker- Planck equations, Journal of Statistical Physics 165 (2016), no. 4: 785-798

2016
[14]

Montanari, Ising Models on Locally Tree-like Graphs , The Annals of Applied Prob- ability 20, n

A, Dembo and A. Montanari, Ising Models on Locally Tree-like Graphs , The Annals of Applied Prob- ability 20, n. 2 (2010): 565–92

2010
[15]

D¨ orﬂer and F

F. D¨ orﬂer and F. Bullo, Synchronization in complex networks of phase oscillators: A survey , Auto- matica 50, n. 6 (2014): 1539–64

2014
[16]

M. I. Freidlin and A. D. Wentzell, Random Perturbations of Dynamical Systems , Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften Vol. 260, New York, Springer US (1984)

1984
[17]

Giacomin, K

G. Giacomin, K. Pakdaman and X. Pellegrin, Global attractor and asymptotic dynamics in the Ku- ramoto model for coupled noisy phase oscillators , Nonlinearity 25 (2012), n. 5: 1247-73

2012
[18]

S. E. Graversen and G. Peskir. Maximal Inequalities for the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck Process , Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 128, no. 10 (2000): 3035–42

2000
[19]

Gu´ edon and R

O. Gu´ edon and R. Vershynin,Community Detection in Sparse Networks via Grothendieck’s Inequality, Probability Theory and Related Fields 165 (2016), n. 3: 1025–49

2016
[20]

Heiman, G

E. Heiman, G. Schechtman and A. Shraibman, Deterministic Algorithms for Matrix Completion , Random Structures & Algorithms 45 (2014), n. 2: 306–17

2014
[21]

Henry, Geometric Theory of Semilinear Parabolic Equations , Lecture Notes in Mathematics 840, Springer Berlin Heidelberg (1981)

D. Henry, Geometric Theory of Semilinear Parabolic Equations , Lecture Notes in Mathematics 840, Springer Berlin Heidelberg (1981)

1981
[22]

Hoory, N

S. Hoory, N. Linial and A. Wigderson, Expander Graphs and Their Applications , Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 43, no. 04 (2006): 439–562

2006
[23]

Lacker, K

D. Lacker, K. Ramanan and R. Wu, Large sparse networks of interacting diﬀusions , arXiv:1904.02585 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[24]

C. M. Le, E. Levina and R. Vershynin, Concentration and Regularization of Random Graphs , Random Structures & Algorithms 51 (2017), n. 3: 538–61

2017
[25]

Lu¸ con, Quenched asymptotics for interacting diﬀusions on inhomoge neous random graphs , arXiv:1811.09229 (2018)

E. Lu¸ con, Quenched asymptotics for interacting diﬀusions on inhomoge neous random graphs , arXiv:1811.09229 (2018). LONG TIME DYNAMICS FOR INTERACTING OSCILLATORS ON GRAPHS 33

2018 arXiv
[26]

Lu¸ con and C

E. Lu¸ con and C. Poquet, Long time dynamics and disorder-induced traveling waves in the stochastic Kuramoto model , Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilit´ es et Statistiques 53 (2017), n. 3: 1196–1240

2017
[27]

G. S. Medvedev, The continuum limit of the Kuramoto model on sparse random gr aphs, Communica- tions in Mathematical Sciences, vol. 17, no. 4 (2019): 883-898

2019
[28]

R. I. Oliveira, Concentration of the adjacency matrix and of the Laplacian i n random graphs with independent edges, arXiv:0911.0600 [math] (2009)

2009 arXiv
[29]

R. I. Oliveira, G. H. Reis and L. M. Stolerman Interacting diﬀusions on sparse graphs: hydrodynamics from local weak limits , arXiv:1812.11924 (2018). http://arxiv.org/abs/1812.1 1924

2018 arXiv
[30]

Olivieri and M

E. Olivieri and M. E. Vares, Large Deviations and Metastability , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2005)

2005
[31]

Pisier, Grothendieck’s Theorem, Past and Present, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 49 (2012), n

G. Pisier, Grothendieck’s Theorem, Past and Present, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 49 (2012), n. 2: 237–323

2012
[32]

G. H. Reis and R. I. Oliveira, Interacting diﬀusions on random graphs with diverging degre es: hydro- dynamics and large deviations , Journal of Statistical Physics, (2019). https://doi.org /10.1007/s10955- 019-02332-1

2019 doi
[33]

F. A. Rodrigues, T. K. DM. Peron, P. Ji and J. Kurths. The Kuramoto Model in Complex Networks , Physics Reports, 610 (2016): 1-98

2016
[34]

Sznitman, Topics in Propagation of Chaos , Ecole d’Et´ e de Probabilit´ es de Saint-Flour XIX, Springer Berlin Heidelberg (1991), 1464:165-251

A.-S. Sznitman, Topics in Propagation of Chaos , Ecole d’Et´ e de Probabilit´ es de Saint-Flour XIX, Springer Berlin Heidelberg (1991), 1464:165-251

1991
[35]

Yosida, Functional analysis, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften vol

K. Yosida, Functional analysis, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften vol. 123, Springer- Verlag, Berlin-New York, VI ed. (1980). Universit´e P aris Diderot, Sorbonne P aris Cit ´e, Laboratoire de Probabilit ´es Statistique et Mod ´elisation, UMR 8001, F- 75205 P aris,France

1980

Pith tools

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

[1] [4]

Bertini, G

L. Bertini, G. Giacomin and C. Poquet, Synchronization and Random Long Time Dynamics for Mean- Field Plane Rotators , Probability Theory and Related Fields 160 (2014), n. 3.4: 593-653

work page 2014

[2] [1]

Acebron, L

J.A. Acebron, L. L. Bonilla, C. J. P´ erez Vicente, F. Rito rt and R. Spigler, The Kuramoto Model: A Simple Paradigm for Synchronization Phenomena , Reviews of Modern Physics 77, no. 1 (2005): 137–85

work page 2005

[3] [2]

Alon and A Naor, Approximating the Cut-Norm via Grothendieck’s Inequality , SIAM Journal on Computing 35 (2006): 787–803

N. Alon and A Naor, Approximating the Cut-Norm via Grothendieck’s Inequality , SIAM Journal on Computing 35 (2006): 787–803

work page 2006

[4] [3]

Bertini, G

L. Bertini, G. Giacomin and K. Pakdaman, Dynamical aspects of mean ﬁeld plane rotators and the Kuramoto model, Journal of Statistical Physics 138, n. 1-3 (2010): 270-90

work page 2010

[5] [5]

Bhamidi, A

S. Bhamidi, A. Budhiraja and R. Wu, Weakly Interacting Particle Systems on Inhomogeneous Rand om Graphs, Stochastic Processes and their Applications 129, n. 6 (2019): 2174–2206

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Boucheron, G

S. Boucheron, G. Lugosi and P. Massart, Concentration Inequalities: A Nonasymptotic Theory of Independence, OUP Oxford (2013)

work page 2013

[7] [7]

Brezis, Analyse fonctionnelle: Th´ eorie et applications, Dunod, Paris (1999)

H. Brezis, Analyse fonctionnelle: Th´ eorie et applications, Dunod, Paris (1999)

work page 1999

[8] [8]

Borgs, J

C. Borgs, J. Chayes, H. Cohn and Y. Zhao, An Lp Theory of Sparse Graph Convergence I: Limits, Sparse Random Graph Models, and Power Law Distributions , Transactions of the American Mathe- matical Society 372, no. 5 (2019): 3019-62

work page 2019