Amplitude-phase description of stochastic neural oscillators across the Hopf bifurcation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We derive a unified amplitude-phase decomposition for both noisy limit cycles and quasicycles; in the latter case, the oscillatory motion has no deterministic counterpart. We extend a previous amplitude-phase decomposition approach using the stochastic averaging method (SAM) for quasicycles by taking into account nonlinear terms up to order 3. We further take into account the case of coupled networks where each isolated network can be in a quasi- or noisy limit-cycle regime. The method is illustrated on two models which exhibit a deterministic supercritical Hopf bifurcation: the Stochastic Wilson-Cowan model of neural rhythms, and the Stochastic Stuart-Landau model in physics. At the level of a single oscillatory module, the amplitude process of each of these models decouples from the phase process to the lowest order, allowing a Fokker-Planck estimate of the amplitude probability density. The peak of this density captures well the transition between the two regimes. The model describes accurately the effect of Gaussian white noise as well as of correlated noise. Bursting epochs in the limit-cycle regime are in fact favored by noise with shorter correlation time or stronger intensity. Quasicycle and noisy limit-cycle dynamics are associated with, respectively, Rayleigh-type and Gaussian-like amplitude densities. This provides an additional tool to distinguish quasicycle from limit-cycle origins of bursty rhythms. The case of multiple oscillatory modules with excitatory all-to-all delayed coupling results in a system of stochastic coupled amplitude-phase equations that keeps all the biophysical parameters of the initial networks and again works across the Hopf bifurcation. The theory is illustrated for small heterogeneous networks of oscillatory modules. Numerical simulations of the amplitude-phase dynamics obtained through the SAM are in good agreement with those of the original oscillatory networks. In the deterministic and nearly identical oscillators limits, the stochastic Stuart-Landau model leads to the stochastic Kuramoto model of interacting phases. The approach can be tailored to networks with different frequency, topology, and stochastic inputs, thus providing a general and flexible framework to analyze noisy oscillations continuously across the underlying deterministic bifurcation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".