pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.21806 · v1 · pith:NAH34Q3Snew · submitted 2026-05-20 · 🌊 nlin.AO

GDP-Driven Structural and Dynamical Heterogeneity in the Synchronization of Chaotic Macroeconomic Networks

Thierry Njougouo , Fernando Fagundes Ferreira , Diego Garlaschelli This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 08:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌊 nlin.AO
keywords synchronizationchaotic networksmacroeconomic modelsbusiness cyclesintermittencynetwork heterogeneityGDP dynamics
0
0 comments X

The pith

Global business cycle synchronization is fragile because strong integration produces only temporary coordination broken by structural and dynamical disparities.

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

This paper models economies as networks of coupled chaotic oscillators whose links form according to a fitness probability based on potential GDP. It finds that uniform networks reach collective synchronization well described by mean-field theory, while heterogeneous networks produce partial synchronization interrupted by abrupt desynchronization bursts. These bursts occur in coherent phases whose durations follow a power-law distribution. The results indicate that real global economic cycles remain prone to repeated coordination failures even when coupling is strong.

Core claim

In a network of chaotic macroeconomic systems with variables for savings, GDP, and foreign capital inflows, coupling via a GDP-dependent fitness probability generates both structural and dynamical heterogeneity; under this setup, heterogeneous networks exhibit on-off intermittency with power-law scaling of laminar phase durations, while mean-field approximations capture the dynamics accurately only in homogeneous or fully connected cases.

What carries the argument

The fitness-based probability that depends on potential GDP and determines both the network connections and the interaction strength among the chaotic oscillators at each node.

Load-bearing premise

The premise that macroeconomic variables behave as coupled chaotic oscillators whose interactions are governed by a fitness probability depending on potential GDP directly produces the reported intermittency and synchronization patterns.

What would settle it

Collecting historical GDP series from many countries, identifying intervals of synchronized business cycles, and testing whether the distribution of their durations follows a power law would confirm or refute the intermittency prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.21806 by Diego Garlaschelli, Fernando Fagundes Ferreira, Thierry Njougouo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Dynamic of a single macroeconomical system as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Relationship between the time-averaged squared GDP, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Evolution of the network topology with the fit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Degree distribution of the network for three values of the potential GDP, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Synchronization transitions for a homogeneous net [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Network degree distribution and collective dynamics in a network of 100 identical oscillators. (a) Degree distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Synchronization transitions in a heterogeneous net [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Variation of the network topology with the parame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Formation of the giant component as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Phase portraits of four selected oscillators from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Degree distribution of the network for different po [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Relationship between the time-averaged squared GDP, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Synchronization transitions in a heterogeneous net [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: (a) Time series of the GDP variable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Snapshots showing (a–c) the pairwise distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: Synchronization transitions in a heterogeneous net [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19: Synchronization transitions in a heterogeneous net [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20: Synchronization transitions in a heterogeneous net [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_20.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the emergence of synchronization in a network of coupled chaotic macroeconomic systems. Each node represents an economy characterized by three key variables savings, gross domestic product (GDP), and foreign capital inflows. These economies interact or are connected through a fitness-based probability that depends on the potential GDP of each node. This formulation allows both structural heterogeneity, arising from uneven network connectivity, and dynamical heterogeneity, due to differences in local parameters, to be explored within a unified framework. Using both numerical simulations and a mean-field approximation, by varying the coupling strength and the degree of heterogeneity of both network topology and dynamical behavior of the nodes, we analyze synchronization transitions. Our results show that the mean-field approach accurately captures the collective dynamics in homogeneous and fully connected networks even with heterogeneity within the intrinsic dynamic of the nodes but fails when strong heterogeneity in the structure of the network is introduced. In heterogeneous networks, the system exhibits partial synchronization and on--off intermittency, where coherent phases of global synchronization alternate with abrupt desynchronization bursts. The distribution of laminar phase durations follows a power-law scaling, consistent with theoretical predictions for intermittent synchronization. From an economic perspective, these results suggest that global business cycle synchronization is inherently fragile: strong integration can promote temporary coordination among economies, but structural and dynamical disparities inevitably lead to intermittent breakdowns of collective behavior.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript models economies as nodes in a network of coupled chaotic oscillators with state variables for savings, GDP, and foreign capital inflows. Links are generated by a fitness probability proportional to potential GDP, introducing both structural heterogeneity (uneven connectivity) and dynamical heterogeneity (local parameter variation). Numerical simulations and a mean-field approximation are used to study synchronization as coupling strength and heterogeneity are varied. The central results are that mean-field theory holds for homogeneous or fully connected cases but breaks down under strong structural heterogeneity, where the system instead shows partial synchronization interrupted by on-off intermittency whose laminar-phase durations obey power-law statistics. The authors interpret this as evidence that global business-cycle synchronization is inherently fragile.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions are accepted, the work supplies a concrete dynamical-systems mechanism for the observed intermittency of global economic coordination and yields a specific, testable prediction in the form of power-law laminar-phase statistics. The unified treatment of structural and dynamical heterogeneity together with the direct comparison of simulations against mean-field theory constitutes a technical strength. The results could inform discussions of globalization and macroeconomic stability, provided the chaotic-oscillator representation of macro variables can be justified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Modeling framework] Modeling framework: the decision to represent savings, GDP, and foreign capital inflows as chaotic oscillators whose interactions are governed by a fitness probability depending on potential GDP simultaneously fixes both the heterogeneous topology and the source of local parameter variation that produces the reported on-off intermittency. This modeling premise is load-bearing for the fragility claim; without robustness checks against alternative (non-chaotic or differently coupled) dynamics, the intermittency and power-law scaling may be artifacts of the chosen oscillator family rather than generic consequences of integration plus disparity.
  2. [Results section on mean-field approximation] Results section on mean-field approximation: the text states that the mean-field description accurately captures collective dynamics only for homogeneous or fully connected networks and fails under strong structural heterogeneity, yet the economic conclusion that disparities 'inevitably lead to intermittent breakdowns' is drawn directly from the heterogeneous-network simulations. This creates an analytical gap; the manuscript should clarify how the simulation-based intermittency generalizes or what additional analytical support can be provided for the heterogeneous case.
  3. [Simulation and statistical analysis] Simulation and statistical analysis: the abstract and results report power-law scaling of laminar phases and the fragility conclusion, but supply no explicit equations for the local chaotic maps, no numerical values or ranges for coupling strength and heterogeneity parameters, and no description of the synchronization-detection threshold or data-exclusion rules. These omissions make independent verification of the power-law exponent and the robustness of the intermittency claim difficult.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions should explicitly state the heterogeneity parameters and number of realizations used for each panel so that the transition from mean-field agreement to failure can be reproduced.
  2. [Notation] Notation for the fitness probability and the local oscillator parameters should be introduced once and used consistently in both the text and any supplementary material.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable suggestions. We have carefully considered each comment and provide point-by-point responses below. Where appropriate, we have revised the manuscript to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Modeling framework] Modeling framework: the decision to represent savings, GDP, and foreign capital inflows as chaotic oscillators whose interactions are governed by a fitness probability depending on potential GDP simultaneously fixes both the heterogeneous topology and the source of local parameter variation that produces the reported on-off intermittency. This modeling premise is load-bearing for the fragility claim; without robustness checks against alternative (non-chaotic or differently coupled) dynamics, the intermittency and power-law scaling may be artifacts of the chosen oscillator family rather than generic consequences of integration plus disparity.

    Authors: We acknowledge the referee's concern regarding the specificity of the chaotic oscillator model. Our framework is designed to capture the nonlinear and irregular nature of macroeconomic time series, which chaotic maps are well-suited to represent. The structural heterogeneity is introduced via the fitness model based on potential GDP, which is independent of the local dynamics. While we have not performed exhaustive robustness checks with non-chaotic dynamics in the current version, similar intermittent synchronization has been reported in various coupled oscillator systems in the literature. We will add a discussion section addressing the potential generality of the results and note the limitations of the current modeling choice. This will clarify that the fragility conclusion is tied to the presence of chaos and heterogeneity but is not claimed to be universal without further investigation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results section on mean-field approximation] Results section on mean-field approximation: the text states that the mean-field description accurately captures collective dynamics only for homogeneous or fully connected networks and fails under strong structural heterogeneity, yet the economic conclusion that disparities 'inevitably lead to intermittent breakdowns' is drawn directly from the heterogeneous-network simulations. This creates an analytical gap; the manuscript should clarify how the simulation-based intermittency generalizes or what additional analytical support can be provided for the heterogeneous case.

    Authors: We agree that there is a distinction between the mean-field results and the heterogeneous simulations. The manuscript intends to show that mean-field works well only in the homogeneous limit, while in heterogeneous networks, simulations reveal the partial synchronization and intermittency. To address the analytical gap, we will revise the text to explicitly state that the intermittency is a numerical observation supported by the power-law statistics, and that a full analytical treatment for arbitrary heterogeneous topologies remains an open challenge in the field. We will also include a brief comparison with existing analytical results for simpler heterogeneous networks to provide additional support. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Simulation and statistical analysis] Simulation and statistical analysis: the abstract and results report power-law scaling of laminar phases and the fragility conclusion, but supply no explicit equations for the local chaotic maps, no numerical values or ranges for coupling strength and heterogeneity parameters, and no description of the synchronization-detection threshold or data-exclusion rules. These omissions make independent verification of the power-law exponent and the robustness of the intermittency claim difficult.

    Authors: We apologize for these omissions, which were due to space constraints in the initial submission. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated Methods section that includes: (1) the explicit equations for the local chaotic maps used for savings, GDP, and capital inflows; (2) the specific ranges and values for the coupling strength and heterogeneity parameters; (3) the definition of the synchronization order parameter and the threshold used to identify laminar phases; and (4) the criteria for data exclusion, such as discarding initial transients. This will enable independent verification and strengthen the statistical analysis section. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results emerge from explicit simulations of an independently specified model

full rationale

The paper defines a network of chaotic oscillators whose topology is generated by a fitness rule proportional to potential GDP and whose local parameters are allowed to vary; it then runs direct numerical simulations and compares them to a mean-field approximation. The reported on-off intermittency, power-law laminar phases, and partial synchronization are outputs of those simulations under controlled heterogeneity, not quantities that are fitted or defined in terms of the target economic claim. No step reduces the fragility conclusion to a self-referential fit, a self-citation chain, or an ansatz smuggled from prior work by the same authors. The modeling choices are explicit premises whose consequences are tested rather than presupposed.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions from complex-systems modeling of economies as chaotic oscillators and on the choice of fitness-based coupling; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • coupling strength
    Varied parametrically to locate synchronization transitions; value not reported in abstract.
  • degree of heterogeneity
    Parameter controlling spread in network topology and node dynamics; used to contrast homogeneous vs heterogeneous regimes.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Macroeconomic variables (savings, GDP, foreign capital inflows) evolve according to chaotic dynamics that can be coupled through a fitness probability based on potential GDP.
    Invoked to define both node equations and network construction; stated in the model description.
  • domain assumption Mean-field approximation is valid for homogeneous and fully connected networks but fails under strong structural heterogeneity.
    Used to interpret when the averaged description matches simulations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5774 in / 1519 out tokens · 31285 ms · 2026-05-22T08:21:09.142874+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    We fo- cus here on the caseδ→+∞andd j =dfor allj

    Homogeneous mean-field (HMF) approximation: δ→+∞ To gain analytical insight into the collective dynam- ics of the system, we first examine the idealized limit of a fully connected and homogeneous network. We fo- cus here on the caseδ→+∞andd j =dfor allj. This configuration allows for a mean-field approximation using theHomogeneous Mean-Field Theory[31, 32...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Limit of the homogeneous mean-field approximation The objective of this subsection is to examine the limits of the homogeneous mean-field (HMF) model presented in Sec. III B. To this end, we consider a heterogeneous network structure by adjusting the fitness parameterδ, which controls the connection density and thus modu- lates the network topology. In co...

    work page

  3. [3]

    5), in which all economies are uniformly connected and heterogeneity arises solely from their intrinsic dynamics, without any structural asym- metry in connectivity

    Homogeneous mean-field approximation in the fully connected heterogeneous economic network We now examine the case of a fully connected net- work (δ= 10 5, as in Fig. 5), in which all economies are uniformly connected and heterogeneity arises solely from their intrinsic dynamics, without any structural asym- metry in connectivity. The main goal here is to...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Reconstruction, Resilience and Recovery of Socio-Economic Networks

    Heterogeneous mean-field approximationδ→1 Here we focus on the case of a structurally and dynami- cally heterogeneous network in which the fitness parame- ter satisfiesδ > δ c, ensuring that the system remains con- nected but exhibits nontrivial degree variability. In this regime, the connection probability between two nodesj andkcan be approximated asP j...

    work page

  5. [5]

    D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, nature393, 440 (1998)

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Barab´ asi and E

    A.-L. Barab´ asi and E. Bonabeau, Scientific American 288, 60 (2003)

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    ERDdS and A

    P. ERDdS and A. R&wi, Publ. math. debrecen6, 18 17 FIG. 20: Synchronization transitions in a heterogeneous net- work forδ= 35×10 −3, composed of nonidentical oscillators, as a function of the coupling strengthσ. Top row (a–c): aver- age order parameterR. Bottom row (d–f): average synchro- nization error⟨e⟩. The values of ¯dare the same as those used in Fi...

    work page 1959

  8. [8]

    A. W. Rives and T. Galitski, Proceedings of the national Academy of sciences100, 1128 (2003)

    work page 2003

  9. [9]

    Reina, T

    A. Reina, T. Njougouo, E. Tuci, and T. Carletti, Physical Review E109, 054307 (2024)

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Njougouo, T

    T. Njougouo, T. Carletti, A. Reina, and E. Tuci, in Italian Workshop on Artificial Life and Evolutionary Computation (Springer, 2023), pp. 339–351

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    B. V. Meylahn and C. Searle, Network Science12, 339 (2024)

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    B. K. Bera, S. Majhi, D. Ghosh, and M. Perc, Euro- physics Letters118, 10001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    G. R. Simo, T. Njougouo, R. Aristides, P. Louodop, R. Tchitnga, and H. A. Cerdeira, Physical Review E103, 062304 (2021)

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Muolo, T

    R. Muolo, T. Njougouo, L. V. Gambuzza, T. Carletti, and M. Frasca, Physical Review E109, L022201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    P´ erez-Ortiz, P

    M. P´ erez-Ortiz, P. Manescu, F. Caccioli, D. Fern´ andez- Reyes, P. Nachev, and J. Shawe-Taylor, Scientific Re- ports12, 7692 (2022)

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    Cencetti, D

    G. Cencetti, D. A. Contreras, M. Mancastroppa, and A. Barrat, Physical Review Letters130, 247401 (2023)

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Saberi, H

    M. Saberi, H. Hamedmoghadam, M. Ashfaq, S. A. Hos- seini, Z. Gu, S. Shafiei, D. J. Nair, V. Dixit, L. Gardner, S. T. Waller, et al., Nature communications11, 1616 (2020)

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Arola-Fern´ andez, S

    L. Arola-Fern´ andez, S. Faci-L´ azaro, P. S. Skardal, E.-C. Boghiu, J. G´ omez-Garde˜ nes, and A. Arenas, Communi- cations Physics5, 264 (2022)

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    Njougouo, G

    T. Njougouo, G. R. Simo, P. Louodop, H. Fotsin, and P. K. Talla, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals139, 110082 (2020)

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Njougouo, V

    T. Njougouo, V. Camargo, P. Louodop, F. Fagundes Fer- reira, P. K. Talla, and H. A. Cerdeira, Chaos: An Inter- disciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science30(2020)

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Zheng and G

    Z. Zheng and G. Hu, Physical Review E62, 7882 (2000)

    work page 2000

  22. [22]

    Schweitzer, G

    F. Schweitzer, G. Fagiolo, D. Sornette, F. Vega-Redondo, A. Vespignani, and D. R. White, science325, 422 (2009)

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    Battiston, J

    S. Battiston, J. D. Farmer, A. Flache, D. Garlaschelli, A. G. Haldane, H. Heesterbeek, C. Hommes, C. Jaeger, R. May, and M. Scheffer, Science351, 818 (2016)

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    A. G. Haldane and R. M. May, Nature469, 351 (2011)

    work page 2011

  25. [25]

    Acemoglu, V

    D. Acemoglu, V. M. Carvalho, A. Ozdaglar, and A. Tahbaz-Salehi, Econometrica80, 1977 (2012)

    work page 1977

  26. [26]

    Fagiolo, J

    G. Fagiolo, J. Reyes, and S. Schiavo, Journal of Evolu- tionary Economics20, 479 (2010)

    work page 2010

  27. [27]

    Bardoscia, P

    M. Bardoscia, P. Barucca, S. Battiston, F. Caccioli, G. Cimini, D. Garlaschelli, F. Saracco, T. Squartini, and G. Caldarelli, Nature Reviews Physics3, 490 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Bouali, International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos 9, 745 (1999)

    S. Bouali, International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos 9, 745 (1999)

    work page 1999

  29. [29]

    Colon and M

    C. Colon and M. Ghil, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Jour- nal of Nonlinear Science27(2017)

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    V. E. Camargo, A. S. Amaral, A. F. Crepaldi, and F. F. Ferreira, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlin- ear Science32(2022)

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    Garlaschelli and M

    D. Garlaschelli and M. I. Loffredo, Physical Review Let- ters93, 188701 (2004)

    work page 2004

  32. [32]

    A. Wolf, J. B. Swift, H. L. Swinney, and J. A. Vastano, Physica D: nonlinear phenomena16, 285 (1985)

    work page 1985

  33. [33]

    Fiedler, Czechoslovak mathematical journal23, 298 (1973)

    M. Fiedler, Czechoslovak mathematical journal23, 298 (1973)

    work page 1973

  34. [34]

    M. O. Jackson and A. Wolinsky, A strategic model of social and economic networks (Springer, 2003)

    work page 2003

  35. [35]

    Montbri´ o and D

    E. Montbri´ o and D. Paz´ o, Physical Review Letters125, 248101 (2020)

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    R. E. Mirollo and S. H. Strogatz, Journal of Statistical Physics60, 245 (1990)

    work page 1990

  37. [37]

    Kuramoto and D

    Y. Kuramoto and D. Battogtokh, arXiv preprint cond- mat/0210694 (2002)

    work page arXiv 2002

  38. [38]

    M. G. Rosenblum, A. S. Pikovsky, and J. Kurths, Phys- ical Review Letters76, 1804 (1996)

    work page 1996

  39. [39]

    Imbs, Review of economics and statistics86, 723 (2004)

    J. Imbs, Review of economics and statistics86, 723 (2004)

    work page 2004

  40. [40]

    Pikovsky, M

    A. Pikovsky, M. Rosenblum, and J. Kurths, Cambridge university press12(2001)

    work page 2001

  41. [41]

    Ikeda, H

    Y. Ikeda, H. Aoyama, and H. Yoshikawa, Tech. Rep., RIETI Discussion Paper October 13-E (2013)

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    Molloy and B

    M. Molloy and B. Reed, Random structures & algorithms 6, 161 (1995)

    work page 1995

  43. [43]

    Boccaletti, J

    S. Boccaletti, J. Kurths, G. Osipov, D. L. Valladares, and C. Zhou, Physics Reports366, 1 (2002)

    work page 2002

  44. [44]

    Platt, E

    N. Platt, E. Spiegel, and C. Tresser, Physical Review Letters70, 279 (1993)

    work page 1993

  45. [45]

    A. A. Koronovskii, O. I. Moskalenko, and A. O. Selskii, Physical Review E109, 064217 (2024)

    work page 2024

  46. [46]

    Caprioglio and L

    E. Caprioglio and L. Berthouze, Frontiers in Network Physiology4, 1436046 (2024)

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    Caldarelli, A

    G. Caldarelli, A. Capocci, P. De Los Rios, and M. A. Munoz, Physical review letters89, 258702 (2002)

    work page 2002

  48. [48]

    Bogun´ a, R

    M. Bogun´ a, R. Pastor-Satorras, and A. Vespignani, Phys- ical review letters90, 028701 (2003)

    work page 2003

  49. [49]

    Battiston, D

    S. Battiston, D. D. Gatti, M. Gallegati, B. Greenwald, and J. E. Stiglitz, Journal of economic dynamics and con- trol36, 1121 (2012)

    work page 2012