Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 68 references

Biological detail and graph structure in network neuroscience

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that generalized network structures—hypergraphs, multilayer and temporal networks among them—face the same fundamental issues of intrinsicality, universality, and functional meaningfulness as standard network models.

desk verdict A broad, thoughtful review whose central 'same problems' claim overreaches: it maps open questions well, but does not demonstrate that all generalized structures fail to resolve intrinsicality. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15789 v1 pith:SCM6DA7D submitted 2025-07-21 q-bio.NC physics.bio-ph

David Papo , Javier M. Buldú This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NCphysics.bio-ph
keywords braindynamicsfunctionalnetworkshypergraphsmultilayerrenormalisationgroupintrinsicalityuniversalitytopologicalexplanations
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

Network neuroscience typically represents the brain as a collection of nodes and edges, simplifying both the biology (neurons as identical point-like units, links as bare pairwise connections) and the graph (simple, undirected, unweighted, static). This review asks whether adding biological detail or moving to generalized structures—directed or weighted graphs, hypergraphs and simplicial complexes, multilayer, multiplex and temporal networks, network ensembles, and renormalisation flows—can overcome the limits of the standard picture. Its central claim is that generalized structures face the same three problems as ordinary networks: whether the structure is intrinsic to the brain rather than imposed by the observer, whether it is universal or only contingent on arbitrary details, and whether it is functionally meaningful. The paper concludes that the right level of detail cannot be chosen from structure alone; it requires gauging models by function, a better catalogue of neurophysiological stylised facts, and a better account of the structure–dynamics–function relationship. If this is right, simply making models more complex or more biologically faithful will not by itself resolve what a brain network representation actually means.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the contrast between a ground-level simple network, $G=(V,E)$ with a finite node set and edge set, and the three ways the paper generalises it: computing different properties of the same connectivity matrix, relaxing constituent properties of nodes and links (direction, weight, self-loops, higher-order interactions), and adopting qualitatively different structures (multilayer and temporal networks, network ensembles, renormalisation flows). The renormalisation group and the notion of universality classes serve as the conceptual filter: they reveal where microscopic detail averages out and where it does not, which is exactly what the intrinsicality and universality questions ask of every generalisation.

What would settle it

Find one brain function that can be implemented by a generalized structure (for example, a simplicial complex or multilayer network) on a given connectome but provably cannot be implemented by any dyadic graph with the same nodes and pairwise couplings; the paper's claim that generalized structures inherit the same limitations would be falsified by such a separation result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that there is no privileged level of biological or network detail: whether one enriches node properties (dendritic compartments, glia, heterogeneity), link properties (delays, directionality, load, density), or replaces the graph with higher-order structures (hypergraphs and simplicial complexes, whose connections can involve more than two nodes), multilayer, temporal, or ensemble structures, the same unresolved questions reappear. Is the structure intrinsic? How universal is it, in the sense of being robust to changes in neurophysiological detail? What aspect of it is functionally meaningful? The paper argues that generalisation changes phenomenology and the available conceptual vocabulary but does not escape those questions, and may sharpen them by adding parameters whose physiological counterparts are unclear. It proposes that progress depends on understanding how network structure performs specific functions, improving the characterisation of neurophysiological stylised facts, and clarifying the structure–dynamics–function relation, including whether renormalisation across scales preserves the properties that matter.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that the brain can adequately be described as a networked system at least at some level; if that premise fails, none of the questions about which network structure is best has a clear target.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Generalized structures such as hypergraphs, simplicial complexes, multilayer and temporal networks will not automatically resolve whether a network description is intrinsic, universal, or functionally meaningful; each must earn these properties.
  • Adding biological realism such as inhibition, delays, glia, or heterogeneous nodes can alter dynamics, but it may also break the statistical-mechanics assumptions (exchangeability, scaling, universality) that justify graph-theoretic analysis in the first place.
  • The appropriate level of detail is to be settled by function: a structure is relevant when it supports a specific computation or function, not merely when it reproduces observed correlations or phenomenology.
  • Renormalisation-based coarse-graining provides a systematic way to ask at what scales structure matters; without it, models with more detail remain under-constrained.
  • Progress requires assembling better neurophysiological stylised facts and a theory of the structure–dynamics–function relationship, not only more sophisticated network tools.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A concrete test follows: on a fixed connectome and task, replacing a simple graph with a hypergraph or multilayer counterpart should not change functional predictions once pairwise couplings are controlled; wherever the extra structure does change predictions, that is where it is doing genuine explanatory work.
  • The intrinsicality question suggests a null model: if a task-relevant property survives randomization over ensembles that preserve the generalized structure's pairwise statistics, that structure is an extrinsic description rather than an intrinsic mechanism.
  • The argument implies that reported higher-order or synergistic neural effects should be tested by perturbation experiments that directly alter triadic or higher-order couplings; otherwise, observed higher-order statistics may be produced by pairwise mechanisms.
  • If brain dynamics fail to converge toward a stable renormalisation fixed point, cross-species or cross-individual comparisons of network metrics should be expected to be fragile; whether coarse-grained brain networks show data collapse is a testable version of the universality question.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper is a perspective/review that asks whether adding neurophysiological detail to brain network models and generalizing network structure (hypergraphs, simplicial complexes, multilayer/temporal networks, network ensembles, renormalisation group models) can resolve conceptual problems in network neuroscience. It surveys biological properties typically omitted (nodal heterogeneity, glia, delays, inhibition, plasticity, neuromodulation), describes several structural generalisations, and concludes in the abstract and Section 6 that generalised structures face the same fundamental issues of intrinsicality, universality, and functional meaningfulness as standard network models. The paper is framed as a discussion, with a provisional assumption that the brain can be treated as a networked system.

Significance. If the thesis were established, the paper would be a useful corrective: it would shift attention from adding structural complexity to clarifying what network structure means for brain function. The manuscript is a broad and mostly careful synthesis, with instructive appendices (A1–A10), an explicit provisional assumption, and a welcome emphasis on structure-dynamics-function interplay. Its main limitation is that the central claim is asserted rather than demonstrated, and at least one class discussed in the paper (nerve-theoretic simplicial complexes from place fields) appears to be a counterexample to the universal formulation. Because the paper is a perspective, the issue is fixable by qualifying the claim and adding a criterion; the current version overstates its conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §6; §4.2.2; Appendix A9] The headline claim that 'generalised structures face the same fundamental issues related to intrinsicality, universality and functional meaningfulness of standard network models' is universal over a heterogeneous class, but the paper's own nerve-theorem example cuts against it. In §4.2.2, following Curto & Itskov (2008), place-field intersections induce a simplicial complex whose homology equals that of the underlying stimulus space 'somehow independent of the specific nature of the place fields'; Appendix A9 states that the nerve theorem guarantees homotopy equivalence for sufficiently fine covers. For this class the structure is derived from data through a canonical topological construction, so the intrinsicality problem is not obviously the same as the arbitrary node/link segmentation of standard graphs. The text neither defines a criterion for 'same fundamental issue' nor explains why the residual choice of cover/place fields is of the same kind as standard node definition. Please either narrow the claim (e.g., 'most generalised structures' or 'generalised structures in the absence of a canonical construction such as the nerve theorem') or supply a concrete argument covering this case.
  2. [§6; Abstract] The three notions on which the central thesis rests—'intrinsicality', 'universality', and 'functional meaningfulness'—are not defined operationally. Appendix A1 defines combinatorial, topological, and geometric properties; Section 5.1.1 discusses universality in a statistical-mechanics sense; but 'intrinsicality' is used informally (e.g., §4.3.3's question 'is structure intrinsic?') and 'functional meaningfulness' is not distinguished from statistical robustness or explanatory relevance. Without definitions, the sameness claim cannot be evaluated, and the central thesis is unfalsifiable as stated. Please add explicit definitions or clearly mark these terms as open questions requiring future work.
  3. [§4.2; §4.3; §6] The conclusion treats at least five distinct generalisation classes—higher-order structures, multiplex/temporal networks, network ensembles, renormalisation models, and geometric embeddings—as facing the same three issues, but no case-by-case analysis is provided. The residual arbitrary choices differ in kind: a hypergraph requires selecting which higher-order interactions to include; a multiplex network requires choosing a layer partition; an ensemble requires choosing constraints; an RG flow requires choosing a coarse-graining scheme. A structured comparison (e.g., a table mapping each class to intrinsicality/universality/functional meaningfulness) would either substantiate the claim or reveal where it fails. As written, the manuscript's own caveats (e.g., §4.2.3's statement that multilayer structure 'is not different from that of a standard network but rather a change in the way the relation matrix is segmented', and §4.3.2's concession that renormalisation involves 'discretionary steps') are not carried into the abstract's strong conclusion.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§4] 'inhere we examine' should read 'here we examine'.
  2. [§3.2.5; §3.3.2] 'perfom' should be 'perform' and 'incoroporate' should be 'incorporate'.
  3. [§4.1.3] 'lobal brain activity' should be 'global brain activity'.
  4. [§4.3.3; §5.1; §5.1.1] 'Morevoer' should be 'Moreover', 'strucutres' should be 'structures', and 'germaine' should be 'germane'.
  5. [Appendix A4] 'sothat' in Eq. [3] and 'is is' in the definition of homology should be corrected.
  6. [Appendix A6] 'netwok' should be 'network'.
  7. [§2; References] The in-text citation 'Chow and Karimipanah, 2019' does not match the reference entry, which is dated 2020; Section 2 also cites 'Golubitsky and Stewart, 2002a', but the reference list contains no such entry (only Golubitsky 2006 is listed).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: this conceptual review makes no fitted predictions and its central thesis is an argued position, not a consequence of its own definitions.

full rationale

This paper is a conceptual review, not a derivation chain: it builds no model, fits no parameters, and makes no quantitative prediction. The central claim that generalized network structures face the same issues of intrinsicality, universality, and functional meaningfulness as standard network models is asserted and argued, but it is not derived from an equation that already contains that conclusion. The paper's own nerve-theorem discussion (Sec. 4.2.2 and Appendix A9) presents a case in which a simplicial complex is canonically induced by place-field intersections, with homology matching the stimulus space, so the claim is contestable as a generalization; however, contestability is a correctness concern, not circularity. Self-citations such as Papo and Buldú (2024) and Papo et al. (2014) provide background and framing for the authors' prior positions, but they are not load-bearing in the sense of forcing any particular result by construction, and the paper does not invoke a self-authored uniqueness theorem to rule out alternatives. The passage in Sec. 5.1 describing a 'circularity of functional brain networks' explicitly identifies a circularity in the field's segmentation practice, not a circularity committed by this paper itself. No specific circular step can be quoted and exhibited, so the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a review and does not introduce new entities or fitted parameters. It relies on existing network formalisms and the assumption that a network representation is meaningful for the brain.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption A brain can be adequately described as a networked system at some level.
    Section 4 states: 'We provisionally assume that the system can adequately be described as a networked system at least at some level.' This is the foundation for the whole discussion.
  • domain assumption Statistical mechanics concepts such as universality and renormalization are applicable to brain networks.
    Section 2 and A7 present these concepts as tools for understanding brain networks, despite noting the brain may lack homogeneity, symmetry, and locality. Their applicability is assumed rather than proven.
  • domain assumption The criteria of intrinsicality, universality, and functional meaningfulness are the correct criteria for evaluating network models.
    These criteria are introduced in the abstract and conclusion as the standard by which generalized structures are judged, but no independent justification is provided for why these three criteria are the right ones.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Biological detail and graph structure in network neuroscience." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SCM6DA7D

@misc{pith2026250715789,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Biological detail and graph structure in network neuroscience},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SCM6DA7D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15789}
}
read the original abstract

Endowing brain anatomy, dynamics, and function with a network structure is becoming standard in neuroscience. In its simplest form, a network is a collection of units and relationships between them. The pattern of relations among the units encodes numerous properties which have been shown to have a profound effect on networked systems' dynamics and function. In an effort to strike a balance between idealization and detail, network neuroscience studies typically involve simplifying assumptions at both neural and network modeling levels. However, the extent to which existing neural models depend on such approximations is as yet poorly understood. Here, we discuss whether and how increasing neurophysiological detail and generalizing the basic simple network structure often adopted in network neuroscience may help improve our understanding of brain phenomenology and function.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Advani, M., Lahiri, S., and Ganguli S. (2013). Statistical mechanics of complex neural systems and high dimensional data. J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. 2013 P03014. Aguirre, J., Papo, D., and Buldú, J.M. (2013). Succ essful strategies for competing networks. Nat. Phys. 9, 230–234. Aguirre, J., Sevilla-Escoboza, R., Gutiérrez, R., P apo, D., and Buldú, J.M. ...

    work page 2013

  2. [10]

    Lambiotte, R., Krapivsky, P.L., Bhat, U., and Redne r, S. (2016). Structural transitions in densifying networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 , 218301. Lambiotte, R., Rosvall, M., and Scholtes, I. (2019) . From networks to optimal higher-order models of complex systems. Nat. Phys. 15 , 313–320. Larkum, M.E., Zhu, J.J., and Sakmann, B. (1999). A new cellular mecha...

    work page 2016

  3. [13]

    Jaynes, E.T. (1957). Information theory and statistical mechanics. Phys. Rev. 106 ,

    work page 1957

  4. [14]

    Goodfellow, M., Andrzejak, R.G., Masoller, C., and Lehnertz, K. (2022). What models and tools can contribute to a better understanding of b rain activity. Front. Netw. Physiol. 2, 907995. Goriely, A., Budday, S., & Kuhl, E. (2015). Neurome chanics: from neurons to brain. In: Bordas, S.P.A., and Balint, D.S. (eds.). Advances in Applied Mechanics , vol

    work page 2022

  5. [38]

    P., Liu, Y.Y., Wang, L., and Barabási, A.L

    Li, A., Cornelius, S. P., Liu, Y.Y., Wang, L., and Barabási, A.L. (2017). The fundamental advantages of temporal networks. Science 358 , 1042–1046. Li, W., Li, J., Li, J., Wei, C., Laviv, T., Dong, M ., Lin, J., Calubag, M., Colgan, L.A., Jin, K. and Zhou, B. (2024). Boosting neuronal activity-driven mitochondrial DNA transcription improves cognition in a...

    work page 2017

  6. [47]

    Allegrini, P., Paradisi, P., Menicucci, D., and Gem ignani, A. (2010). Fractal complexity in spontaneous EEG metastable-state transitions: new vistas on integrated neural dynamics. Fron. Physiol. 1,

    work page 2010

  7. [48]

    pp. 79–139. Grela, J. (2017). What drives transient behavior in complex systems? Phys. Rev. E 96 , 022316. Griffith, J.S. (1963). On the stability of brain-like structures. Biophys. J. 3, 299–308. Grilli, J., Barabás, G., Michalska-Smith, M.J., and Allesina, S. (2017). Higher-order interactions stabilize dynamics in competitive network models. Nature 548 ...

    work page 2017

  8. [51]

    Roberts, J.A., Gollo, L.L., Abeysuriya, R.G., Rober ts, G., Mitchell, P.B., Woolrich, M.W., and Breakspear, M. (2019). Metastable brain waves. Nat. Commun. 10 ,

    work page 2019

Show all 68 references
  1. [53]

    Rosas, F.E., Mediano, P.A.M., Luppi, A.I., Varley, T.F., Lizier, J.T., Stramaglia, S., Jensen, H.J., and Marinazzo, D. (2022). Disentangling high- order mechanisms and high-order behaviours in complex systems. Nat. Phys. 18 , 476–477. Rosen, B.Q., and Halgren E. (2022). An est...

    2022

  2. [54]

    19 Verkhratsky, A., and Nedergaard, M. (2018). Physiol ogy of astroglia. Physiol. Rev. 98 , 239–

    2018

  3. [58]

    Cinardi, N., Rapisarda, A., and Bianconi, G. (2019). Quantum statistics in network geometry with fractional flavor. J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp. 2019(10) , 103403. Cirelli, C. (2017). Sleep, synaptic homeostasis and neuronal firing rates. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 44 , 72–79. Cleme...

    2019

  4. [61]

    Scholtes, I., Wider, N., Pfitzner, R., Garas, A., T essone, C.J., and Schweitzer, F. (2014). Causality-driven slow-down and speed-up of diffusio n in non-Markovian temporal networks. Nat. Commun. 5,

    2014

  5. [67]

    Whitacre, J.M., and Bender, A. (2010). Degeneracy: a design principle for achieving robustness and evolvability. J. Theor. Biol. 263 , 143–153. Williams, N., Ojanpera, A., Siebenhuhner, F., Tosel li, B., Palva, S., Arnulfo, G., Kaski, S., and Palva, J.M. (2023). The influence ...

    2010

  6. [72]

    Pernice, V., Staude, B., Cardanobile, S., and Rotte r, S. (2011). How structure determines correlations in neuronal networks. PLoS Comput. Biol. 7, e1002059. Petkoski, S., and Jirsa, V.K. (2019). Transmission time delays organize the brain network synchronization. Philos. Tran...

    2011

  7. [86]

    Bollobás, B. (1986). Combinatorics: set systems, hypergraphs, families o f vectors, and combinatorial probability . Cambridge University Press. Bonamassa, I., Gross, B., and Havlin, S. (2021). In terdependent couplings map to thermal, higher-order interactions. arXiv:2110.0890...

    1986 arXiv

  8. [102]

    Pulvermuller, F., Tomasello, R., Henningsen ‐Schomers, M.R., and Wennekers, T. (2021). Biological constraints on neural network models of cognitive function. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 22 , 488–502. Radicchi, F., Krioukov, D., Hartle, H., and Bianconi, G. (2020). Classical informatio...

    2021

  9. [106]

    Yger, P., and Gilson, M. (2015). Models of metaplasticity: a review of concepts. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 9,

    2015

  10. [107]

    Papo, D., Zanin, M., Pineda, J.A., Boccaletti, S., and Buldú, J.M. (2014b). Brain networks: great expectations, hard times, and the big leap for ward. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 369 , 20130525 . Peixoto, T.P., and Rosvall, M. (2017). Modelling seq uences and temporal networks wi...

    2014

  11. [120]

    Ghosh, D., Frasca, M., Rizzo, A., Majhi, S., Rakshit, S., Alfaro-Bittner, K., and Boccaletti, S. (2022). The synchronized dynamics of time-varying networks. Phys. Rep. 949 , 1–63. Ghoshal, G., Zlatić, V., Caldarelli, G., and Newman, M E. (2009). Random hypergraphs and their ap...

    2022

  12. [124]

    Papo, D. (2019b). Neurofeedback: principles, apprai sal, and outstanding issues. Eur. J. Neurosci. 49 , 1454–1469. Papo, D., and Buldú, J.M. (2024). Does the brain be have like a (complex) network? I. Dynamics. Phys. Life Rev . 48 , 47–98. 18 Papo, D., and Buldú, J.M. (2025a)....

    2019

  13. [128]

    Alon, U. (2003). Biological networks: the tinkerer as an engineer. Science 301 , 1866–1867. Alon, U. (2007). Network motifs: theory and experime ntal approaches. Nat. Rev. Genet. 8, 450–461. Appeltant, L., Soriano, M.C., Van der Sande, G., Da nckaert, J., Massar, S., Dambre, J...

    2003

  14. [137]

    P., Moreno, Y., and Porter, M.A

    Kivelä, M., Arenas, A., Barthelemy, M., Gleeson, J. P., Moreno, Y., and Porter, M.A. (2014). Multilayer networks. J. Complex Netw. 2, 203–271. 17 Klein, B., and Hoel, E. (2020). The emergence of in formative higher scales in complex networks. Complexity 2020 , 8932526. Koch, C...

    2014

  15. [138]

    Yoshimura, Y., and Callaway, E. (2005). Fine-scale specificity of cortical networks depends on inhibitory cell type and connectivity. Nat. Neurosci. 8, 1552–1559. Zanin, M. (2015). Can we neglect the multi-layer structure of functional networks? Physica A 430 , 184–192. Zanin,...

    2005

  16. [167]

    Holme, P. (2015). Modern temporal network theory: a colloquium. Eur. Phys. J. B 88 ,

    2015

  17. [178]

    Reynolds, J., and Muller, L

    Davis, Z.W., Benigno, G.B., Fletterman, C., Desbord es, T., Steward, C., Sejnowski, T.J., H. Reynolds, J., and Muller, L. (2021). Spontaneous tr aveling waves naturally emerge from horizontal fiber time delays and travel through loc ally asynchronous-irregular states. Nat. Com...

    2021

  18. [184]

    Caputi, L., Pidnebesna, A., and Hlinka, J. (2021). Promises and pitfalls of Topological Data Analysis for brain connectivity analysis. Neuroimage 238 , 118245. Cardillo, A., Gomez-Gardeñes, J., Zanin, M., Romanc e, M., Papo, D., del Pozo, F., and Boccaletti, S. (2013). Emergen...

    2021

  19. [186]

    Cabral, J., Castaldo, F., Vohryzek, J., Litvak, V., Bick, C., Lambiotte, R., et al. (2022). Metastable oscillatory modes emerge from synchroniz ation in the brain spacetime connectome. Nat. Commun. Phys. 5,

    2022

  20. [198]

    Villegas, P., Gili, T., Caldarelli, G., and Gabrielli, A. (2023). Laplacian renormalization group for heterogeneous networks. Nat. Phys. 19 , 445–450. Vogels, T.P., Sprekeler, H., Zenke, F., Clopath, C. , and Gerstner, W. (2011). Inhibitory plasticity balances excitation and i...

    2023

  21. [209]

    Gfeller, D., and De Los Rios, P. (2007). Spectral coarse graining of complex networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 , 038701. Ghavasieh, A., and De Domenico, M. (2024). Diversit y of information pathways drives sparsity in real-world networks. Nat. Phys. 20 , 512–519. Ghavasieh, A., an...

    2007

  22. [234]

    Holme, P., and Saramäki, J. (2012). Temporal networks. Phys. Rep. 519 , 97–125. Huang, X., Xu, K., Chu, C., Jiang, T., and Yu, S. ( 2017). Weak higher-order interactions in macroscopic functional networks of the resting brain. J. Neurosci. 37 , 10481–10497. Huber, L., Finn, E....

    2012 doi arXiv

  23. [272]

    Fino, E., and Yuste, R. (2011). Dense inhibitory connectivity in neocortex. Neuron 69 , 1188–

    2011

  24. [307]

    Françoisse, K., Kivimäki, I., Mantrach, A., Rossi, F., and Saerens, M. (2017). A bag-of-paths framework for network data analysis. Neural Netw. 90 , 90–111. Friedman, N., Ito, S., Brinkman, B.A., Shimono, M., DeVille, R.L., Dahmen, K.A., Beggs, J.M., and Butler, T.C. (2012). U...

    2017

  25. [326]

    De Domenico, M., Solé-Ribalta, A., Cozzo, E., Kivelä, M., Moreno, Y., Porter, M.A., Gómez, S., and Arenas, A. (2013). Mathematical formulation of multilayer networks. Phys. Rev. X 3, 041022. De Domenico, M., Solé-Ribalta, A., Gómez, S., and A renas, A. (2014). Navigability of ...

    2013

  26. [376]

    Pernice, V., Deger, M., Cardanobile, S., and Rotter , S. (2013). The relevance of network micro-structure for neural dynamics. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 7,

    2013

  27. [383]

    Haken, H. (2006a). Brain dynamics: synchronization and activity patter ns in pulse-coupled neural nets with delays and noise . Springer, Berlin. Haken, H. (2006b). Synergetics of brain function. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 60 , 110–124. Hatcher, A. (2001). Algebraic topology . Camb...

    2006

  28. [389]

    Vértes, P.E., Alexander-Bloch, A.F., Gogtay, N., Gi edd, J.N., Rapoport, J.L., and Bullmore, E.T. (2012). Simple models of human brain functiona l networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109 , 5868–5873. Vetter, P., Roth, A., and Häusser M. (2001). Propag ation of action poten...

    2012

  29. [396]

    Häusser, M., and Mel, B. (2003). Dendrites: bug or feature? Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 13 , 372–

    2003

  30. [405]

    Tozzi, A., and Papo, D. (2020). Projective mechanis ms subtending real world phenomena wipe away cause effect relationships. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 151 , 1–13. Treves, A., and Rolls, E.T. (1992). Computational c onstraints suggest the need for two distinct input systems to ...

    2020

  31. [458]

    Kadanoff, L.P. (1971). Critical behavior, universal ity and scaling. Proceedings of the 1970 Varenna summer school on critical phenomena , M.S. Green (ed.). Academic Press, New York, pp. 1–11. Kahle, M. (2014). Topology of random simplicial com plexes: a survey. AMS Contemp. M...

    1971

  32. [468]

    Araque, A., Carmignoto, G., Haydon, P.G., Oliet, S.H., Robitaille, R., and Volterra, A. (2014). Gliotransmitters travel in time and space. Neuron 81 , 728–739. Atay, F.M., Jost, J., and Wende, A. (2004). Delays, connection topology, and synchronization of coupled chaotic maps....

    2014

  33. [478]

    Presigny, C., and De Vico Fallani, F. (2022). Collo quium: Multiscale modeling of brain network organization. Rev. Mod. Phys. 94 , 031002. Pretel, J., Buendía, V., Torres, J.J., and Muñoz, M .A. (2024). From asynchronous states to Griffiths phases and back: structural heteroge...

    2022

  34. [532]

    Loos, S.A., and Klapp, S.H. (2020). Irreversibility , heat and information flows induced by non-reciprocal interactions. New J. Phys. 22 , 123051. Lovász, L., and Szegedy. B. (2006). Limits of dense graph sequences. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 96 , 933–957 . Lubenov, E.V., and Si...

    2020

  35. [570]

    Goldenfeld, N., Martin, O., and Oono, Y. (1989). In termediate asymptotics and renormalization group theory. J. Sci. Comput. 4, 355–372. Gollo, L.L., and Breakspear, M. (2014). The frustra ted brain: from dynamics on motifs to communities and networks. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B...

    1989

  36. [574]

    Papo, D. (2013). Brain temperature: what it means a nd what it can do for (cognitive) neuroscientists. arXiv:1310.2906 . Papo, D. (2014a). Functional significance of comple x fluctuations in brain activity: from resting state to cognitive neuroscience. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 8,

    2013 arXiv

  37. [582]

    Pennec, X. (2006). Intrinsic statistics on Riemanni an manifolds: basic tools for geometric measurements. J. Math. Imaging Vis. 25 , 127–154. Perea, G., Navarrete, M., and Araque, A. (2009). Tr ipartite synapses: astrocytes process and control synaptic information. Trends Neur...

    2006

  38. [620]

    Ji, P., Wang, Y., Peron, T., Li, C., Nagler, J., an d Du, J. (2023). Structure and function in artificial, zebrafish and human neural networks. Phys. Life Rev . 45 , 74–111. Jirsa, V.K., and Kelso, J.A.S. (2000). Spatiotemporal pattern formation in neural systems with heteroge...

    2023

  39. [702]

    Bastos, A.M., Vezoli, J., and Fries, P. (2015). Com munication through coherence with interareal delays. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 31 , 173–180. Battiston, F., Amico, E., Barrat, A., Bianconi, G., Ferraz de Arruda, G., Franceschiello, B., Iacopini, I., Kéfi, S., Latora, V., Moren...

    2015

  40. [857]

    Hilgetag, C.C., and Zikopoulos, B. (2022). The highways and byways of the brain. PLoS Biol. 20 , e3001612. Hoel, E.P., Albantakis, L., and Tononi, G. (2013). Quantifying causal emergence shows that macro can beat micro. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110 , 19790–19795. Hoffman,...

    2022

  41. [1056]

    , Battiston, F., Lucas, M., and Petri, G

    Robiglio, T., Neri, M., Coppes, D., Agostinelli, C. , Battiston, F., Lucas, M., and Petri, G. (2025). Synergistic signatures of group mechanisms in higher-order systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 , 137401. Rosas, F., Ntranos, V., Ellison, C. J., Pollin, S., and Verhelst, M. (2016)....

    2025

  42. [1191]

    Mikaberidze, G., Artime, O., Díaz-Guilera, A., and D’Souza, R.M. (2025). Multiscale field theory for network flows. Phys. Rev. X 15 , 021044. Millán, A.P., Gori, G., Battiston, F., Enss, T., an d Defenu, N. (2021 a). Complex networks with tuneable spectral dimension as a unive...

    2025

  43. [1203]

    Fischer, I., Vicente, R., Buldú, J.M., Peil, M., Mi rasso, C.R., Torrent, M.C., and García- Ojalvo, J. (2006). Zero-lag long-range synchronizat ion via dynamical relaying. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 , 123902. Fraiman, D., Chialvo, D.R. (2012). What kind of noi se is brain noise: anom...

    2006

  44. [1275]

    Douglas, R.J., and Martin, K.A. (2007). Recurrent n euronal circuits in the neocortex. Curr. Biol. 17 , R496–R500. Doyle, J.C., and Csete, M. (2011). Architecture, co nstraints, and behavior. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108 , 15624–15630. Echegoyen, I., López-Sanz, D., Maest...

    2007

  45. [1308]

    Tanaka, G., Yamane, T., Héroux, J.B., Nakane, R., K anazawa, N., Takeda, S., Numata, H., Nakano, D., and Hirose, A. (2019). Recent advances in physical reservoir computing: a review. Neural Netw. 115 , 100–123. Tannenbaum, N.R., and Burak, Y. (2016). Shaping neu ral circuits b...

    2019

  46. [1344]

    Cavagna, A., Giardina, I., Jelic, A., Melillo, S., Parisi, L., Silvestri, E., and Viale, M. (2017). Nonsymmetric interactions trigger collective swings in globally ordered systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 , 138003. Cavagna, A., Giardina, I., Mora, T., and Walczak, A .M. (2018). P...

    2017 arXiv

  47. [1358]

    Balbinot, G., Milosevic, M., Morshead, C.M., Iwasa, S.N., Zariffa, J., Milosevic, L., Valiante, T.A., Hoffer, J.A., and Popovic, M.R. (2025). The m echanisms of electrical neuromodulation. J. Physiol. 603 , 247–284. Barak, O. (2017). Recurrent neural networks as versatile tool...

    2025

  48. [1569]

    Voges, N., and Perrinet, L. (2010). Phase space ana lysis of networks based on biologically realistic parameters. J. Physiol. Paris 104 , 51–60. Wagner, A. (2008). Robustness and evolvability: a paradox resolved. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. 275 , 91–100. Wang, X.J., and Kennedy, H....

    2010

  49. [1570]

    Estrada, E., Hatano, N., and Benzi, M. (2012). The physics of communicability in complex networks. Phys. Rep. 514 , 89–119. 16 Faci-Lázaro, S., Lor, T., Ródenas, G., Mazo, J.J., Soriano, J., and Gómez-Gardeñes, J. (2022). Dynamical robustness of collective neuronal activit y u...

    2012

  50. [2325]

    Wigstrom, H., and Gustafsson, B. (1985). Facilitati on of hippocampal long ‐lasting potentiation by GABA antagonists. Acta Physiol. Scand. 125 , 159–172. Wilson, K.G., and Kogut, J. (1974). The renormaliza tion group and the ϵ expansion. Phys. Rep. 12 , 75–199. Witthaut, D., R...

    1985

  51. [2531]

    Machta, B.B., Chachra, R., Transtrum, M.K., and Set hna, J.P. (2013). Parameter space compression underlies emergent theories and predictive models. Science 342 , 604–607. Magee, J.C., and Johnston, D. (1997). A synapticall y controlled, associative signal for Hebbian plastici...

    2013 doi arXiv

  52. [2562]

    Zanin, M., Ivanoska, I., Güntekin, B., Yener, G., Loncar-Turukalo, T., Jakovljevic, N., Sveljo, O., and Papo, D. (2021). A fast transform for brain connectivity difference evaluation. Neuroinformatics 20 , 285–299. Zañudo, J.G., and Albert, R. (2013). An effective n etwork red...

    2021

  53. [4630]

    Rozenfeld, H.D., Song, C., and Makse, H.A. (2010). Small-world to fractal transition in complex networks: a renormalization group approach. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 , 025701. Ruiz-García, M., and Katifori, E. (2020). Topologically controlled emergent dynamics in flow networks. arX...

    2010 arXiv

  54. [4754]

    Ganmor, E., Segev, R., and Schneidman, E. (2011). S parse low-order interaction network underlies a highly correlated and learnable neural population code. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108 , 9679–9684. Gao, J., Buldyrev, S.V., Havlin, S., and Stanley, H .E. (2011). Robustness...

    2011

  55. [4961]

    top-down modulation :

    Morrell, M.C., Sederberg, A.J., and Nemenman, I. (2021). Latent dynamical variables produce signatures of spatiotemporal criticality in large b iological systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 , 118302. Morrison, K., and Curto, C. (2019). Predicting neur al network dynamics via graphic...

    2021

  56. [5024]

    Schwarze, A.C., Jiang, J., Wray, J., and Porter, M. A. (2024). Structural robustness and vulnerability of networks. arXiv:2409.07498 . Shine, J.M., Breakspear, M., Bell, P.T., Ehgoetz Martens, K.A., Shine, R., Koyejo, O., Sporns, O., and Poldrack, R.A. (2019). Human cognition ...

    2024 arXiv

  57. [5170]

    Stadler, P.F., and Stadler, B.M. (2006). Genotype-phenotype maps. Biol. Theory 1, 268–279. Sterling, P., and Laughlin, S. (2015). Principles of neural design . MIT Press. Stuart, G., Spruston, N., Sakmann, B., and Häusser, M. (1997). Action potential initiation and backpropaga...

    2006

  58. [6057]

    Deco, G., Jirsa, V.K., and McIntosh, A.R., Sporns O , and Kötter, R. (2009). Key role of coupling, delay, and noise in resting brain fluctua tions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106 ,10302–10307. De Domenico, M. (2017). Multilayer modeling and ana lysis of human brain networks...

    2009

  59. [8356]

    Dehmamy, N., Milanlouei, S., and Barabási, A.L. (20 18). A structural transition in physical networks. Nature 563 , 676–680. del Genio, C.I., Gómez-Gardeñes, J., Bonamassa, I., and Boccaletti, S. (2016). Synchronization in networks with multiple interaction layers. Sci. Adv. 2...

    2016 arXiv

  60. [8462]

    Jona-Lasinio, G. (2001). Renormalization group and probability theory. Phys. Rep. 352 , 439–

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.