Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Noise stabilizes insect swarms by breaking up pairs, a numerical model argues.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 00:44 UTC pith:XRE7VOKK

load-bearing objection A genuinely new noise-stabilization mechanism in a pure-attraction swarm model, with a plausible but overclaimed mapping to Anopheles swarms; worth refereeing after robustness checks. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00314 v1 pith:XRE7VOKK submitted 2026-07-31 physics.bio-ph cond-mat.softnlin.AO

Noise-induced stability of insect swarms

Justin Faber , Annabelle Boots , Dolores Bozovic This is my paper
classification physics.bio-ph cond-mat.softnlin.AO
keywords insect swarmscollective motionnoise-induced stabilitypair formationweighted mean field attractionacoustic communicationAnopheles coluzziiphase transition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that a swarm of flying insects can be explained by one simple rule: each insect turns toward the weighted center of mass of its neighbors, with nearer neighbors counted more heavily. The authors argue that this rule alone—no repulsion, no velocity alignment—reproduces stable swarms, Gaussian density profiles, and the observed phenomenon of pairs of insects spiraling away from the swarm. Their central surprise is that random noise helps: in an intermediate regime (roughly 2<γ<4), adding jitter breaks up these escape pairs and holds the swarm together, so a noisy swarm is more stable than a deterministic one. They back this with a two-body calculation that balances pair formation against noise-driven pair breakup, producing a bifurcation curve that matches numerical phase diagrams. Fitted to six Anopheles mosquito swarms, the model returns γ=2.4 and low noise, placing the swarms on the stable side of a transition to instability—an edge position the authors speculate is biologically useful.

Core claim

The paper claims that a swarm of insects can be held together by nothing but mutual attraction to a weighted mean field of neighbors, with signal strength falling off as 1/r^γ. At γ>2, nearest-neighbor attraction pulls insects into tight orbiting pairs that peel away from the swarm; added stochastic noise randomly kicks pair members apart, letting them rejoin the swarm. Balancing the rate at which pairs form against the rate at which noise annihilates them yields a bifurcation curve (Eq. 20) that separates stable from unstable swarming and matches numerical phase diagrams. Fitting the model to recordings of six Anopheles coluzzii swarms gives γ=2.4±0.1 and η=0.08±0.01, placing the swarms jus

What carries the argument

The central object is the weighted mean-field vector (Eq. 1): each insect accelerates toward the density-weighted centroid of all other insects, with the exponent γ controlling how strongly near neighbors dominate. Constant-speed, planar equations of motion (Eqs. 3-4) reduce the dynamics to heading angles. The paper's analytic core is a two-body pair-formation rate (Eq. 16) and a noise-driven pair-annihilation rate (Eq. 19); equating them gives the critical noise strength (Eq. 20) that marks the lower stability boundary. Pair escape is governed by the critical angle (Eq. 13) where attraction to the partner equals attraction to the rest of the swarm.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes insects respond only by turning toward a weighted mean field of all neighbors, with no short-range repulsion, no velocity alignment, and no delay; if real swarms have a meaningful short-range repulsion or vertical escape route, the phase diagram and the noise-stabilization mechanism could change.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to add broadband random acoustic noise to a laboratory Anopheles swarm and measure the pair-escape rate and swarm variance: if stable swarms require noise to break pairs, an intermediate noise level should reduce pair escapes relative to silence; if instead noise monotonically destabilizes the swarm or pair escapes increase, the central claim fails. A second, cheaper falsifier is to repeat the 0-1 cm nearest-neighbor acceleration analysis with far more than 100 samples; a clear negative bias (repulsion) at short range would invalidate the no-repulsion assumption that t

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If correct, swarming requires no velocity alignment or short-range repulsion; attraction to a weighted mean field with inertia is enough.
  • Random noise can be a stabilizing force: in the intermediate regime 2<γ<4, adding heading jitter keeps swarms bound by disrupting pair formation.
  • Pair formation (helical orbiting pairs) is predicted to occur transiently whenever γ>2, matching observed midge behavior.
  • Mapping experimental data to the model yields γ≈2.4, consistent with acoustic near-field signals decaying as 1/r^3 with monopole/dipole contributions; real swarms sit near the stability boundary.
  • Broadband acoustic noise is predicted to be ineffective at disrupting mosquito swarms; tonal or narrowband signals are a better candidate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct, testable prediction follows from the pair-breaking mechanism: adding controlled heading noise to a laboratory swarm should reduce the rate of pair-escape events, which can be checked against existing tracking data.
  • The balance-of-rates argument suggests a generic criterion for any aggregation model with local attraction: stability is set by the ratio of pair-escape probability to pair-mixing rate, so other taxa with similar acoustic or visual attraction may also show noise-enhanced cohesion.
  • The fitted edge-of-instability position hints that swarms may exploit criticality; an editor-level extension is that perturbation response (e.g., to a passing female or a tone) should be anomalously large and long-range if the swarm is truly at the edge, which is testable.
  • The 2D reduction assumes the vertical direction is passive; in real swarms, vertical escape could alter pair trajectories, so extending the model to 2.5D would test whether noise stabilization survives.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-dimensional agent-based model of insect swarming in which each individual moves at constant speed and is attracted to a weighted mean field of neighbors, with the weighting falling off as 1/r^γ, plus a uniform random heading noise of strength η. The authors report numerical phase diagrams showing stable swarms over a broad parameter region, and the counterintuitive result that for roughly 2<γ<4 the swarm is stable only in the presence of noise, because noise destabilizes the bound pairs of insects that would otherwise escape and disintegrate the swarm. An analytic calculation in the Appendix equates pair-formation and pair-annihilation rates to derive the lower stability boundary (Eq. 20), which agrees with the numerical simulations. The paper further maps six experimental swarms of Anopheles mosquitoes onto the model, obtaining γ=2.4±0.1 and η=0.08±0.01, and argues that these swarms sit near the predicted stability boundary, speculating on the biological advantages of edge-of-instability dynamics. The code is publicly available.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would show that a very simple local interaction rule—attraction to a weighted mean field with no alignment and no repulsion—can reproduce three key features of insect swarms: cohesion, pair formation, and noise-enhanced stability. The analytic bifurcation calculation (Eq. 20) is a genuine mechanistic derivation rather than a phenomenological fit, and the paper makes a falsifiable prediction about the ineffectiveness of broadband acoustic noise for swarm disruption. The open-code policy and the attempt to connect the model to publicly available experimental data are additional strengths. However, the strength of the experimental claim is tempered by the model's restrictive assumptions and by the lack of uncertainty quantification on the phase boundaries.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplementary Material I, Fig. 9; main text p.2] The absence of short-range repulsion is load-bearing for the pair-formation instability that noise is claimed to stabilize. The only direct evidence against repulsion is Supp. Fig. 9, which the authors themselves state contains fewer than 100 samples in the 0–1 cm range; such sparse data cannot resolve a modest repulsive bias. Reference [36] also documents visual and acoustic collision-avoidance behaviors in mosquitoes. Please add a sensitivity analysis with a plausible short-range repulsive interaction (e.g., a soft-core repulsion with variable strength and range) and show that the 2<γ<4 noise-stabilized region and the analytic lower boundary (Eq. 20) remain qualitatively unchanged, or obtain additional near-field data. Without this, the core mechanism is not robust to a plausible alternative interaction.
  2. [Swarm stability analysis and Fig. 3; Appendix, Eq. (20)] The phase boundaries in Fig. 3 are drawn without confidence intervals or sensitivity analysis. The classification of a swarm as stable relies on fitting the exponent α in Eq. (5) over finite time, but no threshold or statistical uncertainty is given. The analytic lower boundary additionally uses hand-set scales a≈1.18R_s and r0≈2R_s (Appendix, p.8), and the sensitivity of η_c to these choices is not reported. This matters because the claim that the experimental swarms reside 'on the edge of a transition to instability' depends on the location of this boundary relative to the fitted (γ,η) values. Please provide a sensitivity analysis of Eq. (20) to a and r0, and indicate the uncertainty in the phase boundary.
  3. [Comparison to experimental data; Supplementary Figs. 13–14] The parameter mapping uses the intersection of two 10% agreement bands in the dimensionless correlation length and angular diffusion constant. When multiple intersection points exist, the mean is taken, but the spread and the number of intersections are not reported. The reported γ=2.4±0.1 and η=0.08±0.01 therefore do not include the systematic uncertainty of the mapping procedure, and the distance of the fitted parameters to the phase boundary is not quantified. Please report the full intersection regions and the resulting uncertainty in the edge distance; without this, the 'edge of instability' claim is not quantitatively supported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (5)] Please specify the time window over which α is fitted and the criteria used to classify α≈0, α≈1, and α≈2. In Fig. 2, add error bars or the number of independent realizations.
  2. [Eq. (14)] Typo: 'We my express' should be 'We may express'.
  3. [Pair stability near a swarm, Eq. (13)] The variables x(t) and y(t) are introduced informally. A short definition of the geometry would improve readability.
  4. [Conclusion and Discussion] The term 'helical orbit' in the abstract and introduction conflicts with the two-dimensional model; the simulated pair orbits are planar circles. Consider clarifying that the helical appearance arises only when the vertical dimension is included.
  5. [Supplementary Fig. 10] The velocity-alignment plot includes each individual's alignment with itself, which is identically 1. State whether the self-pair is excluded from the plotted average or discuss its effect on the short-distance bias.
  6. [Eq. (22)] The notation D_eff is used for angular diffusion, but the relation between D_eff and the model parameter η is only given later in Eq. (23). Please define all symbols at first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the analytic phase boundary is model-derived, the data fitting uses independent statistics, and self-citations are only interpretive.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The lower bifurcation curve (Eq. 20) is obtained analytically from the model equations (Eqs. 12-19), with length scales a≈1.18Rs and r0≈2Rs taken from the model's own orbit calculation (Eq. 6), and then compared with the numerical phase diagram (Fig. 3); no fitted experimental quantity enters the phase-boundary calculation. The data mapping (Supplementary Sec. II) fits γ and η by matching two dimensionless statistics—correlation length and angular diffusion constant—which are distinct from the variance-exponent criterion α (Eq. 5) used to define the phase diagram. Fitting these statistics does not force the fitted (γ,η) point onto the phase boundary; the claim that the experimental swarms lie 'near the edge' is a comparison between independently fitted parameters and an independently derived curve, not an identity. The self-citations [21,35,38] supply interpretive context (expected γ range, acoustic explanation, speculative control strategies) and are not load-bearing for the derivation. The weak statistical support for excluding short-range repulsion (fewer than 100 samples in the 0–1 cm range, as stated in Supp. Fig. 9) is a limitation and a correctness risk, but not a circularity. Therefore no circular step is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model's output rests primarily on four stated modeling choices (constant speed, 2D dynamics, attraction-only interaction, single power-law acoustic decay), plus several hand-set analytic scales used in the stability calculation (a≈1.18Rs, r0≈2Rs, pi/2 pair-breakup angle). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • gamma (mean-field weighting exponent) = 2.4 ± 0.1 (fit to six Anopheles swarms)
    Controls how strongly nearer neighbors dominate the weighted mean field; inferred by matching dimensionless correlation length and angular diffusion constant to experimental data (Supplementary Figs. 13-14).
  • eta (noise strength) = 0.08 ± 0.01
    Amplitude of uniform heading noise; same fitting procedure as gamma.
  • L (upper length scale) = 100 (with ell=1)
    Hand-set model scale controlling time step and swarm radius; authors argue larger L only rescales and over-samples trajectories.
  • a (pair interaction radius) = 1.18 Rs
    Set by choosing theta_max=pi/4 in Eq. 11; used in the analytic pair-formation rate; not independently measured.
  • r0 (swarm radius in analytic boundary) = 2 Rs ≈ 11.28
    Approximation used in Eq. 16/20 to evaluate the bifurcation curve.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Insects fly at a constant speed v0 at all times
    Invoked in Eq. 2 to drop the parallel component of the mean-field force; supplementary Fig. 5 shows speed variation is small but nonzero.
  • domain assumption Swarm dynamics are two-dimensional (horizontal plane only)
    Used in Eqs. 3-4; justified by velocity/acceleration histograms (Figs. 5-6) but position histograms (Fig. 4) show substantial vertical spread.
  • domain assumption Interactions are purely attractive to the weighted mean field, with no repulsion and no velocity alignment
    Central interaction rule (Eq. 1); supplementary Figs. 9-11 show no strong repulsion and only weak alignment, but the 0-1 cm bin has fewer than 100 samples and collision-avoidance cues exist in the cited literature [36].
  • domain assumption Acoustic signal strength falls off as a single power law 1/r^gamma with constant gamma
    Underpins the gamma parameter; real mosquito near-field acoustics are more complex (multipole terms, near/far-field crossovers), as the paper notes.
  • domain assumption Stochastic noise acts as a uniform random heading kick each time step
    Eq. 4; other noise colors or mechanisms are not tested, so the noise-stabilization result may be specific to this noise type.
  • ad hoc to paper A pair breaks up when its angular separation reaches pi/2
    Used in first-passage calculation (Eq. 17); no empirical justification is given for this threshold.
  • ad hoc to paper In the analytic boundary, swarm radius r0=2Rs and interaction radius a=1.18Rs
    Used to evaluate Eq. 16/20; the factor 2 for r0 is not derived.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17106 in / 18091 out tokens · 168971 ms · 2026-08-04T00:44:34.123890+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Noise-induced stability of insect swarms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XRE7VOKK

@misc{pith2026260800314,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Noise-induced stability of insect swarms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XRE7VOKK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00314}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Flying insect swarms exhibit cohesion without the local velocity alignment observed in flocks of birds or schools of fish. The interaction rules and channels of communication between insects that lead to collective behavior have not yet been determined. We propose a theoretical model based on acoustic communication between swarm members, where each individual is attracted to a weighted mean field of its neighbors. We demonstrate that this simple framework can describe a wide range of swarming dynamics, including a phenomenon where pairs of insects break free from the swarm in a helical orbit around each other. Counterintuitively, our numerical model suggests that stochastic noise enhances the stability of an insect swarm, as it interferes with pair formation. Finally, we demonstrate that a specific species of malarial mosquito produces swarms that reside on the edge of a transition to instability. Our study shows that fairly simple local interaction rules can be sufficient to describe the collective behavior of swarming biological systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00314 by Annabelle Boots, Dolores Bozovic, Justin Faber.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Illustration of how the weighted mean-field vec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Positional variance growth as a function of time for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Phase diagrams in ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Velocity histograms over all time and all insects for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Positional histograms over all time and all insects for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Magnitude of measured acceleration vectors as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Dot product between the predicted direction of ac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Time-average velocity alignment between all pairs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Histograms of experimentally measured acceleration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Histograms of velocity alignment between each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. (a) mean swarm radius of the numerical model as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Parameter values of agreement between data and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Parameter values of agreement between data and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Mean swarm size as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Mean swarm size as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Surface relating mean swarm size, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_19.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Garnier, J

    S. Garnier, J. Gautrais, and G. Theraulaz, The biolog- ical principles of swarm intelligence, Swarm Intell.1, 3 (2007)

    2007

  2. [2]

    Sumpter, The principles of collective animal be- haviour, Philos

    D. Sumpter, The principles of collective animal be- haviour, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B361, 5 (2005)

    2005

  3. [3]

    A. J. Bernoff and C. M. Topaz, Nonlocal Aggregation Models: A Primer of Swarm Equilibria, SIAM Rev.55, 709 (2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    N. T. Ouellette, A physics perspective on collective ani- mal behavior, Phys. Biol.19, 021004 (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    C. W. Reynolds, Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model, inProceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Tech- niques, SIGGRAPH ’87 (Association for Computing Ma- chinery, 1987) pp. 25–34

    1987

  6. [6]

    Vicsek, A

    T. Vicsek, A. Czir´ ok, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen, and O. Shochet, Novel Type of Phase Transition in a Sys- tem of Self-Driven Particles, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 1226 (1995)

    1995

  7. [7]

    Ginelli, The Physics of the Vicsek model, Eur

    F. Ginelli, The Physics of the Vicsek model, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top.225, 2099 (2016)

    2099

  8. [8]

    Carruitero, A

    S. Carruitero, A. C. Duran, G. Pisegna, M. B. Sturla, and T. S. Grigera, Inertial spin model of flocking with position-dependent forces, Phys. Rev. E110, 014408 (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    Gonz´ alez-Albaladejo and L

    R. Gonz´ alez-Albaladejo and L. L. Bonilla, Mean-field theory of chaotic insect swarms, Phys. Rev. E107, L062601 (2023)

    2023

  10. [10]

    M. R. D’Orsogna, Y. L. Chuang, A. L. Bertozzi, and L. S. Chayes, Self-Propelled Particles with Soft-Core Interac- tions: Patterns, Stability, and Collapse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 104302 (2006)

    2006

  11. [11]

    Ballerini, N

    M. Ballerini, N. Cabibbo, R. Candelier, A. Cavagna, E. Cisbani, I. Giardina, V. Lecomte, A. Orlandi, G. Parisi, A. Procaccini, M. Viale, and V. Zdravkovic, Interaction ruling animal collective behavior depends on topological rather than metric distance: Evidence from a field study, PNAS105, 1232 (2008)

    2008

  12. [12]

    Huth and C

    A. Huth and C. Wissel, The simulation of the movement of fish schools, J. Theor. Biol.156, 365 (1992). 6

    1992

  13. [13]

    Gorbonos, R

    D. Gorbonos, R. Ianconescu, J. G. Puckett, R. Ni, N. T. Ouellette, and N. S. Gov, Long-range acoustic interac- tions in insect swarms: An adaptive gravity model, New J. Phys.18, 073042 (2016)

    2016

  14. [14]

    Vicsek and A

    T. Vicsek and A. Zafeiris, Collective motion, Physics Re- ports Collective Motion,517, 71 (2012)

    2012

  15. [15]

    W. H. Organization, Global report on insecticide resis- tance in malaria vectors: 2010–2016 (2018)

    2010

  16. [16]

    W. H. Organization, Vector-borne diseases (2020)

    2020

  17. [17]

    J. P. Messina, O. J. Brady, D. M. Pigott, N. Golding, M. U. G. Kraemer, T. W. Scott, G. R. W. Wint, D. L. Smith, and S. I. Hay, The many projected futures of dengue, Nat. Rev. Microbiol.13, 230 (2015)

    2015

  18. [18]

    M. P. Su, M. Georgiades, J. Bagi, K. Kyrou, A. Crisanti, and J. T. Albert, Assessing the acoustic behaviour of Anopheles gambiae (s.l.) dsxF mutants: implications for vector control, Parasit. Vectors13, 507 (2020)

    2020

  19. [19]

    Andr´ es, M

    M. Andr´ es, M. P. Su, J. Albert, and L. J. Cator, Buzzkill: Targeting the mosquito auditory system, Curr. Opin. In- sect Sci.40, 11 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    J.-H. Seo, T. L. Hedrick, and R. Mittal, Mechanism and scaling of wing tone generation in mosquitoes, Bioinspir. Biomim.15, 016008 (2019)

    2019

  21. [21]

    Faber, A

    J. Faber, A. C. Alampounti, M. Georgiades, J. T. Albert, and D. Bozovic, Localization and frequency resolution in antennal hearing of insects, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013145 (2026)

    2026

  22. [22]

    Sueur, E

    J. Sueur, E. J. Tuck, and D. Robert, Sound radiation around a flying fly, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.118, 530 (2005)

    2005

  23. [23]

    Cribellier, B

    A. Cribellier, B. S. Poda, R. K. Dabir´ e, A. Di- abat´ e, O. Roux, and F. T. Muijres, The complex swarming dynamics of malaria mosquitoes emerges from simple minimally-interactive behavioral rules, bioRxiv 10.1101/2024.08.31.610631 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1101/2024.08.31.610631 2024

  24. [24]

    J. G. Puckett, R. Ni, and N. T. Ouellette, Time- Frequency Analysis Reveals Pairwise Interactions in In- sect Swarms, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 258103 (2015)

    2015

  25. [25]

    B. S. Poda, A. Cribellier, L. Feug` ere, M. Fatou, C. Nig- nan, D. F. d. S. Hien, P. M¨ uller, O. Gnankin´ e, R. K. Dabir´ e, A. Diabat´ e, F. T. Muijres, and O. Roux, Spa- tial and temporal characteristics of laboratory-induced Anopheles coluzzii swarms: Shape, structure, and flight kinematics, iScience27, 10.1016/j.isci.2024.111164 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    H. C. Bennet-Clark, Size and Scale Effects as Constraints in Insect Sound Communication, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci.353, 407 (1998)

    1998

  27. [27]

    M. C. G¨ opfert and R. M. Hennig, Hearing in Insects, Ann. Rev. Entomol.61, 257 (2016)

    2016

  28. [28]

    R¨ omer, Directional hearing in insects: Biophysical, physiological and ecological challenges, J

    H. R¨ omer, Directional hearing in insects: Biophysical, physiological and ecological challenges, J. Exp. Biol.223, jeb203224 (2020)

    2020

  29. [29]

    Cavagna, I

    A. Cavagna, I. Giardina, M. A. Gucciardino, G. Ia- comelli, M. Lombardi, S. Melillo, G. Monacchia, L. Parisi, M. J. Peirce, and R. Spaccapelo, Charac- terization of lab-based swarms of Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes using 3D-video tracking, Sci. Rep.13, 8745 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    Gorbonos, J

    D. Gorbonos, J. G. Puckett, K. van der Vaart, M. Sin- huber, N. T. Ouellette, and N. S. Gov, Pair formation in insect swarms driven by adaptive long-range interactions, J. Roy. Soc. Int.17, 20200367 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    D. H. Kelley and N. T. Ouellette, Emergent dynamics of laboratory insect swarms, Sci. Rep.3, 1073 (2013)

    2013

  32. [32]

    Wellens, V

    T. Wellens, V. Shatokhin, and A. Buchleitner, Stochastic resonance, Rep. Prog. Phys.67, 45 (2003)

    2003

  33. [33]

    A. M. Reynolds, Stochasticity may generate coherent mo- tion in bird flocks, Phys. Biol.20, 025002 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    B. J. Arthur, K. S. Emr, R. A. Wyttenbach, and R. R. Hoy, Mosquito ( Aedes aegypti ) flight tones: Frequency, harmonicity, spherical spreading, and phase relation- ships, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.135, 933 (2014)

    2014

  35. [35]

    Faber, A

    J. Faber, A. C. Alampounti, M. Georgiades, J. T. Albert, and D. Bozovic, Sound masking strategies for interfer- ence with mosquito hearing, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science36, 073137 (2026)

    2026

  36. [36]

    Gupta, A

    S. Gupta, A. Cribellier, S. B. Poda, O. Roux, F. T. Muijres, and J. A. Riffell, Mosquitoes integrate visual and acoustic cues to mediate conspecific interactions in swarms, Curr. Biol.34, 4091 (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    S. B. Poda, B. Buatois, B. Lapeyre, L. Dormont, A. Di- abat´ e, O. Gnankin´ e, R. K. Dabir´ e, and O. Roux, No evi- dence for long-range male sex pheromones in two malaria mosquitoes, Nat. Ecol. Evol.6, 1676 (2022)

    2022

  38. [38]

    Faber, A

    J. Faber, A. C. Alampounti, M. Georgiades, J. T. Al- bert, and D. Bozovic, A mosquito-inspired theoretical framework for acoustic signal detection, PNAS122, e2500938122 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    J. G. Puckett, D. H. Kelley, and N. T. Ouellette, Search- ing for effective forces in laboratory insect swarms, Sci. Rep.4, 4766 (2014)

    2014

  40. [40]

    O’Byrne and K

    J. O’Byrne and K. Jerbi, How critical is brain criticality?, Trends Neurosci.45, 820 (2022)

    2022

  41. [41]

    Paschen and Q

    S. Paschen and Q. Si, Quantum phases driven by strong correlations, Nat. Rev. Phys.3, 9 (2021)

    2021

  42. [42]

    Bahri, J

    Y. Bahri, J. Kadmon, J. Pennington, S. S. Schoenholz, J. Sohl-Dickstein, and S. Ganguli, Statistical Mechanics of Deep Learning, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.11, 501 (2020)

    2020

  43. [43]

    N. W. Watkins, G. Pruessner, S. C. Chapman, N. B. Crosby, and H. J. Jensen, 25 Years of Self-organized Crit- icality: Concepts and Controversies, Space Sci. Rev.198, 3 (2016)

    2016

  44. [44]

    Faber, A

    J. Faber, A. Boots, and D. Bozovic, Python code for all analysis and figure generation, Available on GitHub (2026). END MA TTER Length scale of swarm—Consider a single insect orbit- ing a swarm that is concentrated at one point and sta- tionary. For simplicity, we consider a circular orbit with radius,R s. The circumference of the circle that the tra- jec...

    2026

  45. [45]

    Forθ max =π/4 (which corresponds to aπ/2 angle between the pair), we finda= 2y max = 2 v0 ω0 p log(2) = Rs p 2 log(2)≈1.18R s. With these conditions, we may now set up the integral over space to compute the pair formation rate, λf = 1 4 Z 2π 0 Z ∞ 0 ρ(r)2 8v0a π q2 2 − 3q4 8 + 5q6 16 rdrdθ, whereρ(r) = N 2πr2 0 e − r2 2r2 0 is the swarm density. Since we ...