Study on nonlinear characteristics of two synchronizing uncoupled Hindmarsh-Rose neurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modulating the current input of two uncoupled Hindmarsh-Rose neurons by using the membrane potential of Hindmarsh-Rose neuron under different initial conditions, the evolution mechanism of synchronization process of the two neurons is revealed by analyzing interspike interval sequences. When periodic stimulation is u sed, the full synchronization is realized in two identical neurons, and the sync hronized response of modulated neurons can be different from the stimulation sig nal; and phase synchronization can be obtained in two neurons with different par ameters:two neurons with small parameter mismatch can be synchronized to the per iodic response different from the stimulation signal, and two neurons with big p arameter mismatch can only be synchronized to the response in phase synchronizat ion with stimulation signal. When chaotic stimulation is used, two systems can o nly be synchronized to the response being in phase synchronization with stimulat ion signal. Obviously, chaotic stimulation is more helpful in encoding and deco ding information. Analyzing the relation between the largest condition Lyapunov exponents and the stimulation strength shows that when the largest condition Lya punov exponents of the two systems are both negative is the necessary condition for synchronization. The chaotic stimulation signal can more easily synchronize two neurons than periodic stimulation signal, implying that the effect of chaoti c stimulation is stronger than periodic one, and the experiments also confirm th is conclusion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".