Hyperchaos in Wilson–Cowan oscillator circuits
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Wilson–Cowan equations were originally shown to produce limit cycle oscillations for a range of parameters. Others subsequently showed that two coupled Wilson–Cowan oscillators could produce chaos, especially if the oscillator coupling was from inhibitory interneurons of one oscillator to excitatory neurons of the other. Here this is extended to show that chains, grids, and sparse networks of Wilson–Cowan oscillators generate hyperchaos with linearly increasing complexity as the number of oscillators increases. As there is now evidence that humans can voluntarily generate hyperchaotic visuomotor sequences, these results are particularly relevant to the unpredictability of a range of human behaviors. These also include incipient senescence in aging, effects of concussive brain injuries, autism, and perhaps also intelligence and creativity. NEW & NOTEWORTHY This paper represents an exploration of hyperchaos in coupled Wilson–Cowan equations. Results show that hyperchaos (number of positive Lyapunov exponents) grows linearly with the number of oscillators in the array and leads to high levels of unpredictability in the neural response.
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.
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 it