Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Irrelevance of linear controllability to nonlinear dynamical networks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 nonlinear biological networks, linear controllability produces opposite, and therefore useless, node rankings.

desk verdict Empirical opposite-trend result that deserves peer review, but its linear-control measure rests on unweighted adjacency and may not survive weighting by the actual Jacobian. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01288 v1 pith:KNX4IA4A submitted 2019-09-03 math.DS cs.SYeess.SYphysics.data-anq-bio.PE

Junjie Jiang , Ying-Cheng Lai This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DScs.SYeess.SYphysics.data-anq-bio.PE MSC 93B0505C82
keywords linearcontrollabilitynonlineardynamicalnetworksnodalimportancetippingpointcontrolminimumdriversetmutualisticgeneregulatoryC.elegansconnectome
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 asks whether linear controllability theory, which assumes nodes obey linear time-invariant dynamics, can say anything useful about real networks whose dynamics are nonlinear. It answers by comparing how individual nodes rank in importance for the two kinds of control. For nonlinear control, importance is measured by how well a single managed node can pull a system back from a tipping-point collapse. For linear control, importance is the probability that a node appears in a minimum driver set. Across many empirical mutualistic networks and the yeast gene regulatory network, the two rankings move in opposite directions: nonlinear control favors high-degree nodes, while linear control favors low-degree nodes. The paper concludes that linear controllability generates information that is not useful for controlling tipping-point dynamics in these nonlinear systems.

What carries the argument

The key object is the linear control importance measure of Eq. (7): for a network with many equivalent minimum driver sets, the importance of node i is the fraction of those sets in which it appears. The minimum driver sets themselves are built from the PBH rank condition of exact controllability, which says that the control rank deficiency equals the maximum geometric multiplicity of an eigenvalue of the adjacency matrix; the linearly dependent rows of the matrix give the candidate driver nodes. This is compared against the nonlinear control importance of Eq. (1), defined by the normalized recovery threshold when a single node is externally maintained. The comparison produces the paper's Pearson-correlation and cosine-distance evidence for opposite ranking trends.

What would settle it

Take a small network for which every minimum driver set can be enumerated exhaustively, compute the exact linear importance for every node, and compare it with the nonlinear recovery-based importance; if the exact correlation turns out positive rather than negative, the reported opposite trend would be an artifact of sampling a limited number of driver sets.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that nodal importance rankings from linear and nonlinear control are characteristically opposite for empirical biological networks. In nonlinear control of tipping points, the paper defines importance by the recovery point: a node is more important if holding its abundance or activity at a fixed level lets the whole system recover at a harsher parameter value. For linear control, importance is defined as the frequency with which a node appears among equivalent minimum driver sets, computed with the exact controllability theory. In most of the 43 mutualistic networks tested and in two subnetworks of the S. cerevisiae gene regulatory network, nonlinear importance correlates positively with degree while linear importance correlates negatively with degree. The paper also finds that, for the C. elegans connectome treated as a linear network, the minimum driver set is not unique and nodal importance is nearly uniform, with muscle cells appearing about twice as often as motor neurons, a result it argues is biologically meaningless and contradicts the claim that linear control principles predict neuron function.

Load-bearing premise

The linear importance ranking rests on the assumption that the 1000 randomly sampled minimum driver sets fairly represent the full ensemble of equivalent sets, so that a node's appearance frequency is its true linear-control importance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the ranking is accepted, linear controllability should not be used to select driver nodes for controlling tipping points in mutualistic or gene regulatory networks, because the nodes it favors are often exactly the ones that cannot trigger recovery in the nonlinear system.
  • For networks with many equivalent minimum driver sets, any single minimum driver set is nearly arbitrary, so linear controllability cannot serve as a reliable centrality or node-importance ranking.
  • The C. elegans analysis implies that linear structural controllability cannot single out special neurons for function prediction when the linear importance distribution is approximatively uniform across all neurons.
  • The negative correlation between nonlinear and linear importance suggests that using network structure alone, as linear controllability does, will typically miss the nodes that matter for nonlinear resilience and recovery.
  • For the gene regulatory network, genes with zero nonlinear control importance can have very high linear importance, so a linear-theory-based intervention could be completely ineffective or even harmful.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's opposite-trend result likely extends beyond tipping-point recovery: because high-degree nodes dominate nonlinear resilience in many dynamical models, any linear controllability measure that systematically avoids hubs will tend to mismatch nonlinear control objectives in general.
  • A natural testable extension is to compute linear importance with the structural controllability maximum-matching method instead of exact controllability; the paper's argument suggests the same low-degree bias should appear, since unmatched nodes in maximum matchings tend to be low-degree.
  • One could also test whether the negative correlation persists for weighted networks, since exact controllability's eigenvalue degeneracy, and hence the set of minimum drivers, depends on the weight values rather than only on topology.
  • The implicit deeper claim, that nonlinear nodal importance is generically heterogeneous while linear importance is often nearly uniform, could be probed with other nonlinear control goals such as synchronization or resilience maintenance to see whether heterogeneity is a common feature.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compares nodal importance under two control paradigms for a set of empirical mutualistic networks, the S. cerevisiae gene regulatory network, and the C. elegans connectome. Nonlinear importance is defined by the recovery point of the system after a tipping-point collapse when a single species or gene is maintained at a fixed abundance or activity level (Eqs. 1 and 2). Linear importance is defined as the frequency with which a node appears in randomly sampled minimum driver sets of the unweighted adjacency matrix under the exact controllability framework (Eq. 7). The authors report that the two importance rankings exhibit opposite degree trends, with nonlinear importance favoring high-degree nodes and linear importance favoring low-degree nodes, and that Pearson correlations are negative and cosine distances are large for most of the 43 mutualistic networks and for the two yeast subnetworks. They also argue that a previous linear-controllability analysis of the C. elegans connectome cannot predict neuron function because the driver-set importance is approximately uniform and muscle cells appear more important than neurons.

Significance. If the central empirical finding is robust, the paper would make an important contribution by providing a quantitative, network-based argument against applying linear controllability rankings to nonlinear biological networks, and by drawing explicit attention to the non-uniqueness of minimum driver sets. The comparison metric is concrete and falsifiable: nonlinear importance is tied to a specific tipping-point recovery protocol, and linear importance is measured by driver-set frequency. The breadth of empirical networks and the inclusion of a gene regulatory network are strengths, as is the explicit use of Pearson correlation and cosine distance to summarize the disagreement between the two rankings. The paper is less strong on methodology: the equal-weight adjacency assumption, the asymmetry between the node sets used for the two importance measures, and the unspecified driver-set sampling algorithm leave the main claim not fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods, 'Linear control importance ranking', Eqs. (3)-(7)] The central comparison is not yet established because the linear importance measure R_L in Eq. (7) is computed from the unweighted adjacency matrix of each network. For the bipartite mutualistic networks, the large zero-eigenvalue multiplicity of the binary matrix is precisely what creates the vast number of equivalent minimum controller sets that produces the degree-dependent driver frequencies in Figs. 2(e-h) and 3(e). If the adjacency matrix were replaced by the Jacobian of the nonlinear mutualistic dynamics evaluated at the stable high-abundance state, the eigenvalue degeneracy would generically be broken, and for a connected network Eq. (6) would give N_D=1, making the driver-set-frequency measure R_L uniform or nearly so. The reported negative correlation between R_NL and R_L could therefore be an artifact of the equal-weight structural assumption rather than a property of linear controllability of the actual nonlinear system. The authors should either justify the unweighted choice as the intended linear model or repeat the analysis using Jacobian-based and generically weighted adjacency matrices and show that the opposite-trend finding survives.
  2. [Results, 'Nonlinear and linear control importance', Fig. 2 and Fig. 5] Nonlinear importance in Eq. (1) is defined only for pollinator species, while linear importance in Eq. (7) is computed for all nodes, including plants. The text reports correlations for 'the five mutualistic networks' and then for 43 networks in Fig. 5 without stating whether the Pearson correlation and cosine distance are computed only over the intersecting node set (pollinators) or over all nodes. If the latter, the comparison mixes nodes for which R_NL is defined with nodes for which it is not, and this asymmetry alone could produce the negative correlations. The authors should specify the node sets used for every correlation and, if necessary, recompute Fig. 5 on the common pollinator subset.
  3. [Methods, Eq. (7) and Fig. 6] The driver-set sampling underlying Eq. (7) is not specified. The paper states that 1000 random minimum controller sets are used and illustrates the row-dependence criterion with a 10-node example, but it does not provide the algorithm for enumerating or sampling the minimum controller sets, nor a test that 1000 samples are representative when the total number of sets is of order 10^12 for network E. Without this information, R_L cannot be reproduced, and it is unclear whether the reported frequencies are unbiased estimates of the true driver-set probabilities. The authors should specify the sampling algorithm and provide convergence diagnostics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'suggesting strongly irrelevance of linear controllability' is ungrammatical; it should be 'suggesting the strong irrelevance of linear controllability' or 'suggesting that linear controllability is irrelevant'.
  2. [Appendix A, Fig. 7] The text refers to 'Figures 7(b) and 7(c)' as two realizations of the minimum controller set and to Fig. 7(d) as the importance ranking, whereas the caption labels the importance ranking as (b) and the realizations as (c,d). The labeling should be made consistent.
  3. [Methods, Eq. (2)] The word 'Where' at the start of the sentence defining the gene regulatory importance should be lowercase 'where'.
  4. [Fig. 6 caption] The sentence 'the number of ways to choose the latter is 54' appears without a superscript and the relation between linearly dependent rows and admissible driver nodes is described only cryptically; please clarify the counting and the criterion for choosing driver rows.
  5. [Appendix B and Table II] Table II contains typographical errors such as 'Greenladn' and 'Aores Island', and the species names in Table I are formatted inconsistently; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No meaningful circularity: nonlinear and linear nodal importance measures are independently defined and the negative correlation is an empirical result.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is between two independently constructed quantities: nonlinear control importance, defined from tipping-point recovery thresholds (Eq. 1 and Eq. 2), and linear control importance, defined from the frequency with which a node appears in minimum driver sets of an artificial linear system (Eq. 7). Neither definition references the other, and the negative correlation between the two rankings is a computed outcome rather than a consequence of either definition. The paper relies on the exact controllability theory from prior work [9], but that theory is a published mathematical result based on the PBH rank condition and does not depend on the present paper's conclusions; the same holds for the mutualistic and gene-regulatory models taken from earlier studies. The analysis of C. elegans similarly computes driver-set statistics and path counts from the connectome rather than assuming the conclusion. While the choice to use an unweighted adjacency matrix for the linear part may raise robustness concerns, that is a modeling assumption and not a circularity: the linear importance ranking is not fitted to reproduce the nonlinear importance ranking, nor is any parameter renamed as a prediction. No step in the derivation reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to the paper's own inputs.

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

The central claim rests on model parameters chosen from prior work and on the assumption that minimum-driver-set membership frequency is a valid linear importance measure. No new physical entities are introduced. The main fragility is the unverified sampling of minimum controller sets.

free parameters (4)
  • Maintained pollinator abundance A_S = 1.5
    The recovery point gamma_i^c in Eq. (1) depends on the chosen constant abundance of the controlled pollinator. The value is chosen by hand, and no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Mutualistic model parameters h, t, beta, alpha, mu = h=0.2, t=0.5, beta_ii=1, beta_ij=0, alpha=-0.3, mu=0.0001
    These parameters define the Holling-type mutualistic dynamics used to compute nonlinear control importance. They are taken as representative values from prior work, but the rankings depend on them.
  • Gene regulatory model parameters B, f, h = B=1, f=1, h=2
    These parameters for the S. cerevisiae network are adopted from Ref. [51] and affect the recovery-point values in Eq. (2).
  • Number of sampled minimum controller sets F = 1000
    The linear importance ranking in Eq. (7) uses F=1000 random minimum controller sets. The sampling method is not described, and the precision of the resulting probabilities is not assessed.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Exact controllability theory, including the PBH rank condition and N_D = max geometric multiplicity, correctly determines minimum driver sets for the artificial linear networks.
    Used in Eqs. (5)-(7) to compute the linear control importance ranking. This is a standard result in linear control theory.
  • domain assumption The mutualistic network dynamics are adequately described by the Holling-type coupled ODEs from prior literature, and the gene regulatory network by Michaelis-Menten-type dynamics.
    The nonlinear importance measure R_NL depends entirely on these models. The equations are not included in the paper and are taken from Refs. [45, 49, 51].
  • domain assumption Restoring a system from the aftermath of a tipping point by maintaining a single node's abundance or activity is a meaningful form of nonlinear control and a valid basis for ranking nodal importance.
    This assumption underlies the definition of R_NL in Eqs. (1) and (2). The paper acknowledges this is one specific type of nonlinear control.
  • domain assumption For the C. elegans connectome, the absence of a detailed nonlinear model does not prevent a meaningful assessment of linear controllability claims.
    The critique in Appendix A relies on treating the connectome as a linear network and comparing the resulting driver importance with biological expectations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Irrelevance of linear controllability to nonlinear dynamical networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KNX4IA4A

@misc{pith2026190901288,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Irrelevance of linear controllability to nonlinear dynamical networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KNX4IA4A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01288}
}
read the original abstract

There has been tremendous development of linear controllability of complex networks. Real-world systems are fundamentally nonlinear. Is linear controllability relevant to nonlinear dynamical networks? We identify a common trait underlying both types of control: the nodal "importance." For nonlinear and linear control, the importance is determined, respectively, by physical/biological considerations and the probability for a node to be in the minimum driver set. We study empirical mutualistic networks and a gene regulatory network, for which the nonlinear nodal importance can be quantified by the ability of individual nodes to restore the system from the aftermath of a tipping-point transition. We find that the nodal importance ranking for nonlinear and linear control exhibits opposite trends: for the former large-degree nodes are more important but for the latter, the importance scale is tilted towards the small-degree nodes, suggesting strongly irrelevance of linear controllability to these systems. The recent claim of successful application of linear controllability to C. elegans connectome is examined and discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01288 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    control enabled recovery

    When γ0 is increased from a value in the extinction region (e.g., in an attempt to restore the species abundances through improvement of the environment), recovery is not possible without control. A realistic control strategy was articulated, in which the abundance of a single pollinator species is maintained at a constant value, sayAS, through external m...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Controlling chaos,

    E. Ott, C. Grebogi, and J. A. Yorke, “Controlling chaos,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1196 (1990)

    work page 1990

  3. [3]

    Controllability analysis of networks,

    A. Lombardi and M. H ¨ornquist, “Controllability analysis of networks,” Phys. Rev. E 75, 056110 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Controllability of multi-agent systems from a graph-theoretic perspective,

    A. Rahmani, M. Ji, M. Mesbahi, and M. Egerstedt, “Controllability of multi-agent systems from a graph-theoretic perspective,” SIAM J. Contr. Optim.48, 162 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Controllability of complex networks,

    Y .-Y . Liu, J.-J. Slotine, and A.-L. Barab´asi, “Controllability of complex networks,” Nature 473, 167 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Optimizing controllability of complex networks by minimum structural perturbations,

    W.-X. Wang, X. Ni, Y .-C. Lai, and C. Grebogi, “Optimizing controllability of complex networks by minimum structural perturbations,” Phys. Rev. E85, 026115 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Dominating scale-free networks with variable scaling exponent: hetero- geneous networks are not difficult to control,

    J. C. Nacher and T. Akutsu, “Dominating scale-free networks with variable scaling exponent: hetero- geneous networks are not difficult to control,” New J. Phys. 14, 073005 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Controlling complex networks: How much energy is needed?

    G. Yan, J. Ren, Y .-C. Lai, C.-H. Lai, and B. Li, “Controlling complex networks: How much energy is needed?” Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 218703 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Controlling edge dynamics in complex networks,

    T. Nepusz and T. Vicsek, “Controlling edge dynamics in complex networks,” Nat. Phys.8, 568 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Exact controllability of complex networks,

    Z. Yuan, C. Zhao, Z. Di, W.-X. Wang, and Y .-C. Lai, “Exact controllability of complex networks,” Nat. Commun. 4, 2447 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Network controllability is determined by the density of low in-degree and out-degree nodes,

    G. Menichetti, L. Dall’Asta, and G. Bianconi, “Network controllability is determined by the density of low in-degree and out-degree nodes,” Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 078701 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Control profiles of complex networks,

    J. Ruths and D. Ruths, “Control profiles of complex networks,” Science 343, 1373 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    Controllability in protein interaction networks,

    S. Wuchty, “Controllability in protein interaction networks,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 111, 7156 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    Exact controllability of multiplex net- works,

    Z.-Z. Yuan, C. Zhao, W.-X. Wang, Z.-R. Di, and Y .-C. Lai, “Exact controllability of multiplex net- works,” New J. Phys.16, 103036 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Observability and controllability of nonlinear networks: The role of symmetry,

    A. J. Whalen, S. N. Brennan, T. D. Sauer, and S. J. Schiff, “Observability and controllability of nonlinear networks: The role of symmetry,” Phys. Rev. X5, 011005 (2015). 23

    2015

  8. [16]

    Structurally robust control of complex networks,

    J. C. Nacher and T. Akutsu, “Structurally robust control of complex networks,” Phys. Rev. E 91, 012826 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    On submodularity and controllability in complex dynamical networks,

    T. H. Summers, F. L. Cortesi, and J. Lygeros, “On submodularity and controllability in complex dynamical networks,” IEEE Trans. Cont. Net. Syst.3, 91 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Structural permeability of complex networks to control signals,

    F. L. Iudice, F. Garofalo, and F. Sorrentino, “Structural permeability of complex networks to control signals,” Nat. Comm. 6, 8349 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Energy scaling and reduction in controlling complex networks,

    Y .-Z. Chen, L.-Z. Wang, W.-X. Wang, and Y .-C. Lai, “Energy scaling and reduction in controlling complex networks,” Roy. Soc. Open Sci.3, 160064 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Physical controllability of complex networks,

    L.-Z. Wang, Y .-Z. Chen, W.-X. Wang, and Y .-C. Lai, “Physical controllability of complex networks,” Sci. Rep. 7, 40198 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Energy scaling of targeted optimal control of complex networks,

    I. Klickstein, A. Shirin, and F. Sorrentino, “Energy scaling of targeted optimal control of complex networks,” Nat. Comm. 8, 15145 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Locally optimal control of complex networks,

    I. Klickstein, A. Shirin, and F. Sorrentino, “Locally optimal control of complex networks,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 268301 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Mathematical description of linear dynamical systems,

    R. E. Kalman, “Mathematical description of linear dynamical systems,” J. Soc. Indus. Appl. Math. Ser. A 1, 152 (1963)

    1963

  16. [24]

    Structural controllability,

    C.-T. Lin, “Structural controllability,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. 19, 201 (1974)

    1974

  17. [25]

    An n5/2 algorithm for maximum matchings in bipartite graphs,

    J. E. Hopcroft and R. M. Karp, “An n5/2 algorithm for maximum matchings in bipartite graphs,” SIAM J. Comput. 2, 225 (1973)

    1973

  18. [26]

    Maximum matching on random graphs,

    H.-J. Zhou and Z.-C. Ou-Yang, “Maximum matching on random graphs,” arXiv:cond-mat/0309348 (2003)

    2003 arXiv

  19. [27]

    The number of matchings in random graphs,

    L. Zdeborov ´a and M. M´ezard, “The number of matchings in random graphs,” J. Stat. Mech. 5, 05003 (2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    Controllability and observability conditions of linear autonomous systems,

    M. L. J. Hautus, “Controllability and observability conditions of linear autonomous systems,” Ned. Akad. Wetenschappen, Proc. Ser. A 72, 443 (1969)

    1969

  21. [29]

    Control principles of complex systems,

    Y .-Y . Liu and A.-L. Barab´asi, “Control principles of complex systems,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 035006 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Introduction to the special issue on approaches to control biological and biologically inspired networks,

    R. Albert, J. Baillieul, and A. E. Motter, “Introduction to the special issue on approaches to control biological and biologically inspired networks,” IEEE Trans. Control Netw. Syst.5, 690 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Nijmeijer and A

    H. Nijmeijer and A. Van der Schaft, Nonlinear Dynamical Control Systems, 1st ed. (Springer, 1990)

    1990

  24. [32]

    Network control principles predict neuron function in the caenorhabditis elegans connectome,

    G. Yan, P. E. V ´ertes, E. K. Towlson, Y . L. Chew, D. S. Walker, W. R. Schafer, and A.-L. Barab ´asi, “Network control principles predict neuron function in the caenorhabditis elegans connectome,” Na- ture 550, 519 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Pinning control of scale-free dynamical networks,

    X. F. Wang and G. Chen, “Pinning control of scale-free dynamical networks,” Physica A 310, 521 (2002)

    2002

  26. [34]

    Pinning a complex dynamical network to its equilibrium,

    X. Li, X. F. Wang, and G. Chen, “Pinning a complex dynamical network to its equilibrium,” IEEE Trans. Circ. Syst. I 51, 2074 (2004)

    2004

  27. [35]

    Controllability of complex networks via pinning,

    F. Sorrentino, M. di Bernardo, F. Garofalo, and G. Chen, “Controllability of complex networks via pinning,” Phys. Rev. E75, 046103 (2007)

    2007

  28. [36]

    On pinning synchronization of complex dynamical networks,

    W. Yu, G. Chen, and J. L ¨u, “On pinning synchronization of complex dynamical networks,” Automat- ica 45, 429 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    Dynamics and control at feedback vertex sets. I: Informative and determining nodes in regulatory networks,

    B. Fiedler, A. Mochizuki, G. Kurosawa, and D. Saito, “Dynamics and control at feedback vertex sets. I: Informative and determining nodes in regulatory networks,” J. Dyn. Diff. Eq.25, 563 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Dynamics and control at feedback vertex 24 sets. II: A faithful monitor to determine the diversity of molecular activities in regulatory networks,

    A. Mochizuki, B. Fiedler, G. Kurosawa, and D. Saito, “Dynamics and control at feedback vertex 24 sets. II: A faithful monitor to determine the diversity of molecular activities in regulatory networks,” J. Theo. Biol. 335, 130 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Structure-based control of complex networks with nonlinear dynamics,

    J. G. T. Za ˜nudo, G. Yang, and R. Albert, “Structure-based control of complex networks with nonlinear dynamics,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 114, 7234 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    A geometrical approach to control and controllability of nonlinear dynamical networks,

    L.-Z. Wang, R.-Q. Su, Z.-G. Huang, X. Wang, W.-X. Wang, C. Grebogi, and Y .-C. Lai, “A geometrical approach to control and controllability of nonlinear dynamical networks,” Nat. Commun. 7 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Closed-loop control of complex networks: A trade-off between time and energy,

    Y .-Z. Sun, S.-Y . Leng, Y .-C. Lai, C. Grebogi, and W. Lin, “Closed-loop control of complex networks: A trade-off between time and energy,” Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 198301 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Multiagent decision-making dynamics inspired by honeybees,

    R. Gray, A. Franci, V . Srivastava, and N. E. Leonard, “Multiagent decision-making dynamics inspired by honeybees,” IEEE Trans. Control Netw. Syst.5, 793 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    The nested assembly of plant-animal mutualistic networks,

    J. Bascompte, P. Jordano, C. J. Meli ´an, and J. M. Olesen, “The nested assembly of plant-animal mutualistic networks,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 100, 9383 (2003)

    2003

  36. [44]

    Evolution and coevolution in mutualistic net- works,

    P. R. Guimaraes, P. Jordano, and J. N. Thompson, “Evolution and coevolution in mutualistic net- works,” Ecol. Lett. 14, 877 (2011)

    2011

  37. [45]

    Coevolution and the architecture of mutualistic net- works,

    S. L. Nuismer, P. Jordano, and J. Bascompte, “Coevolution and the architecture of mutualistic net- works,” Evolution67, 338 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    The sudden collapse of pollinator communi- ties,

    J. J. Lever, E. H. Nes, M. Scheffer, and J. Bascompte, “The sudden collapse of pollinator communi- ties,” Ecol. Lett. 17, 350 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    On the structural stability of mutualistic systems,

    R. P. Rohr, S. Saavedra, and J. Bascompte, “On the structural stability of mutualistic systems,” Science 345, 1253497 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Critical slowing down as early warning for the onset of collapse in mutualistic communities,

    V . Dakos and J. Bascompte, “Critical slowing down as early warning for the onset of collapse in mutualistic communities,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 111, 17546 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Indirect effects drive coevolution in mutualistic networks,

    P. R. Guimaraes, M. M. Pires, P. Jordano, J. Bascompte, and J. N. Thompson, “Indirect effects drive coevolution in mutualistic networks,” Nature550, 511 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    Predicting tipping points in mutualistic networks through dimension reduction,

    J. Jiang, Z.-G. Huang, T. P. Seager, W. Lin, C. Grebogi, A. Hastings, and Y .-C. Lai, “Predicting tipping points in mutualistic networks through dimension reduction,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) , 201714958 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Alon, An Introduction to Systems Biology: Design Principles of Biological Circuits (CRC press, 2006)

    U. Alon, An Introduction to Systems Biology: Design Principles of Biological Circuits (CRC press, 2006)

    2006

  44. [52]

    Comprehensive analysis of combinatorial regulation using the transcriptional regulatory network of yeast,

    S. Balaji, M. M. Babu, L. M. Iyer, N. M. Luscombe, and L. Aravind, “Comprehensive analysis of combinatorial regulation using the transcriptional regulatory network of yeast,” J. Mol. Biol 360, 213 (2006)

    2006

  45. [53]

    Universal resilience patterns in complex networks,

    J. Gao, B. Barzel, and A.-L. Barab ´asi, “Universal resilience patterns in complex networks,” Nature 530, 307 (2016)

    2016

  46. [54]

    Early-warning signals for critical transitions,

    M. Scheffer, J. Bascompte, W. A. Brock, V . Brovkin, S. R. Carpenter, V . Dakos, H. Held, E. H. Van Nes, M. Rietkerk, and G. Sugihara, “Early-warning signals for critical transitions,” Nature 461, 53 (2009)

    2009

  47. [55]

    Complex systems: foreseeing tipping points,

    M. Scheffer, “Complex systems: foreseeing tipping points,” Nature 467, 411 (2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

    Regime shifts in ecological systems can occur with no warning,

    D. B. Wysham and A. Hastings, “Regime shifts in ecological systems can occur with no warning,” Ecol. Lett. 13, 464 (2010)

    2010

  49. [57]

    Early warning signals of extinction in deteriorating environments,

    J. M. Drake and B. D. Griffen, “Early warning signals of extinction in deteriorating environments,” Nature 467, 456 (2010)

    2010

  50. [58]

    Generic indicators for loss of resilience before a tipping point leading to population collapse,

    L. Dai, D. V orselen, K. S. Korolev, and J. Gore, “Generic indicators for loss of resilience before a tipping point leading to population collapse,” Science 336, 1175 (2012). 25

    2012

  51. [59]

    Tipping points: From patterns to predictions,

    C. Boettiger and A. Hastings, “Tipping points: From patterns to predictions,” Nature 493, 157 (2013)

    2013

  52. [60]

    Tipping points in ecological networks,

    J. M. Tylianakis and C. Coux, “Tipping points in ecological networks,” Trends. Plant. Sci. 19, 281 (2014)

    2014

  53. [61]

    Correlations in the degeneracy of structurally control lable topologies for networks,

    C. Campbell, S. Aucott, J. Ruths, D. Ruths, K. Shea, and R. Albert, “Correlations in the degeneracy of structurally control lable topologies for networks,” Sci. Rep. 7, 46251 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Structure of a plant–flower-visitor network in the high-altitude sub-alpine desert of Tenerife, Canary Islands,

    Y . L. Dupont, D. M. Hansen, and J. M. Olesen, “Structure of a plant–flower-visitor network in the high-altitude sub-alpine desert of Tenerife, Canary Islands,” Ecography26, 301 (2003)

    2003

  55. [63]

    Controllability of structural brain networks,

    S. Gu, F. Pasqualetti, M. Cieslak, Q. K. Telesford, B. Y . Alfred, A. E. Kahn, J. D. Medaglia, J. M. Vettel, M. B. Miller, S. T. Grafton,et al., “Controllability of structural brain networks,” Nat. Commun. 6, 8414 (2015)

    2015

  56. [64]

    Stimulation-based control of dynamic brain networks,

    S. F. Muldoon, F. Pasqualetti, S. Gu, M. Cieslak, S. T. Grafton, J. M. Vettel, and D. S. Bassett, “Stimulation-based control of dynamic brain networks,” PLOS Comput. Biol.12, e1005076 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    Developmental increases in white matter network controllability support a growing diversity of brain dynamics,

    E. Tang, G. Chad, L. B. Graham, S. Gu, E. Pollock, A. E. Kahn, D. R. Roalf, T. M. Moore, K. Ruparel, R. C. Gur, R. E. Gur, T. D. Satterthwaite, and D. S. Bassett, “Developmental increases in white matter network controllability support a growing diversity of brain dynamics,” N...

    2017

  58. [66]

    Colloquium: Control of dynamics in brain networks,

    E. Tang and D. S. Bassett, “Colloquium: Control of dynamics in brain networks,” Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 031003 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism,

    C. S. Holling, “Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism,” Can. Entomol. 91, 385 (1959)

    1959

  60. [68]

    Resilience and stability of ecological systems,

    C. S. Holling, “Resilience and stability of ecological systems,” Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4, 1 (1973)

    1973

  61. [69]

    The structure of a plant-pollinator food web,

    J. Memmott, “The structure of a plant-pollinator food web,” Ecol. Lett. 2, 276 (1999)

    1999

  62. [70]

    Floral ecology of coastal scrub in southeast jamaica,

    M. Percival, “Floral ecology of coastal scrub in southeast jamaica,” Biotropica , 104 (1974)

    1974

  63. [71]

    W. J. Rugh, Linear Systems Theory, 2nd ed. (Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1996). 26

    1996

Pith tools

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