Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Synchronization Induced by Ultralight Dark Matter

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that ultralight dark matter, via the coupling $K = g_\omega m_\phi c^2/\hbar$, can synchronize a population of independent oscillators, with projected reach $g_\omega \in [10^{-13}, 10]$ for masses $10^{-14}$--$1$ eV/c²…

desk verdict A clean Kuramoto exercise wrapped in an unjustified identification between the UlDM Compton frequency and the Kuramoto coupling; the physics claim doesn't survive contact with the time-dependence of the field. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11144 v1 pith:TXGXRRSY submitted 2025-07-15 hep-ph

Chrisna Setyo Nugroho This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 95.35.+d05.45.Xt
keywords ultralightdarkmatterKuramotomodelsynchronizationorderparameterphasetransitiondetectionComptonfrequencywhitenoise
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

This paper proposes that ultralight dark matter (UlDM), which behaves as a classical coherent wave, can act as the global coupling in the Kuramoto model and drive a population of otherwise independent oscillators into synchronized motion. The author identifies the Kuramoto coupling $K$ with the UlDM Compton frequency times a dimensionless coupling, $K = g_\omega m_\phi c^2/\hbar$, and then applies known Kuramoto critical-coupling results to derive when synchronization occurs. For oscillators with mean natural frequency 1 Hz and standard deviation 0.1 Hz, the projected sensitivity covers UlDM masses from $10^{-14}$ to $1$ eV/c² and couplings $10 \ge g_\omega \ge 10^{-13}$ in the presence of white noise below 0.01 Hz. If correct, a synchronized collective of oscillators would serve as a new, tabletop-scale probe of ultralight dark matter complementing existing experiments.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Kuramoto model equipped with the identification in Eq. (2.4), $K = g_\omega m_\phi c^2/\hbar$, which converts the ultralight-dark-matter Compton frequency into a phase-coupling constant. The order parameter $r$ measures the degree of phase coherence, and the critical couplings in Eqs. (2.7) and (3.3) translate the known Kuramoto synchronization threshold into a projected sensitivity curve in the $(m_\phi, g_\omega)$ plane. The machinery is analytic: take a Gaussian frequency distribution, add Gaussian white noise, and read off the coupling at which the disordered state becomes unstable.

What would settle it

Simulate the 100-oscillator system of Section 2 with the coupling replaced by an explicitly oscillating term, e.g., $K(t) = g_\omega (m_\phi c^2/\hbar) \cos(\omega_\phi t)$ with $\omega_\phi = m_\phi c^2/\hbar$, for $m_\phi = 0.01$ eV/c²; if the order parameter $r$ does not rise toward 1 for $g_\omega \ge 10^{-13}$, the static-coupling reduction fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that the wave nature of ultralight dark matter induces a phase transition from a disordered to an ordered state in a population of phase oscillators. Writing the Kuramoto coupling as $K = g_\omega m_\phi c^2/\hbar$, the paper shows that the standard critical coupling for a Gaussian frequency distribution, $K_C = \sigma \sqrt{8/\pi}$, translates into the dimensionless critical coupling $g_C = (\hbar \sigma / m_\phi c^2) \sqrt{8/\pi}$ without noise, and a larger threshold when Gaussian white noise is present. For a distribution with $\mu = 1$ Hz and $\sigma = 0.1$ Hz, this yields synchronization for $m_\phi$ between $10^{-14}$ eV/c² and $1$ eV/c² when $g_\omega$ lies in $10^{-13} \le g_\omega \le 10$ (with $D = 0.01$ Hz), and down to $g_\omega \sim 10^{-16}$ without noise. The author presents this as an alternative method to unveil the nature of UlDM.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the rapidly oscillating ultralight-dark-matter field can be represented as a static coupling $K = g_\omega m_\phi c^2/\hbar$, even though the field's Compton frequency lies orders of magnitude above the oscillator frequencies for the entire mass range considered.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A population of oscillators with mean frequency 1 Hz and spread 0.1 Hz can act as a probe of ultralight dark matter across masses $10^{-14}$ eV/c² to $1$ eV/c².
  • Reducing the frequency spread $\sigma$ or the white-noise strength $D$ pushes the critical coupling $g_C$ down, improving sensitivity.
  • The order parameter $r$ provides a direct observable: synchronization is signalled by $r$ rising from near zero to a saturated value.
  • With no noise, the projected reach extends down to $g_\omega \approx 10^{-16}$; with $D = 0.01$ Hz, the reach is $g_\omega \approx 10^{-13}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The mapping $K = g_\omega m_\phi c^2/\hbar$ treats the dark-matter field as effectively static; because a real coherent UlDM field oscillates at $\omega_\phi$, the paper's sensitivity projection implicitly assumes a time-averaging or rotating-wave approximation that is not derived.
  • If such an averaging were justified, the same framework could be applied to higher-frequency oscillator arrays, such as mechanical resonators or spin ensembles, which would relax the static-field assumption and potentially extend the mass reach.
  • A natural experimental test would be to drive a Kuramoto-type oscillator array with a high-frequency sinusoidal coupling and check whether entrainment occurs at the predicted $g_\omega$; a null result would bound the validity of the static reduction.
  • The paper's numerical example uses $N = 100$ oscillators; finite-size fluctuations of order $1/\sqrt{N}$ will smear the critical transition, so an experiment would need larger populations or repeated trials to resolve the threshold.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that ultralight bosonic dark matter (UlDM), treated as a coherent wave oscillating at its Compton frequency, can synchronize an ensemble of Kuramoto oscillators. The author introduces a frequency coupling g_omega through the identification K = g_omega m_phi c^2 / hbar (Eq. 2.4), substitutes this into the Kuramoto equation, and derives critical couplings for synchronization with and without Gaussian white noise (Eqs. 2.7 and 3.3). A projected sensitivity in the (m_phi, g_omega) plane is presented, claiming that for m_phi in [10^-14, 1] eV/c^2 and noise below 0.01 Hz, synchronization occurs for 10 >= g_omega >= 10^-13.

Significance. If the central interaction were properly derived, the idea of using synchronization as a UlDM detection channel would be genuinely novel and potentially interesting. The paper correctly reproduces standard Kuramoto results, and the numerical simulations in Figs. 2-5 are consistent with the known behavior of the Kuramoto model, which is a strength. However, the claimed connection to UlDM rests entirely on an ad hoc dimensional identification in Eq. (2.4) and on an unjustified neglect of the time dependence of the UlDM field. The projected sensitivity is therefore a reparametrization of established Kuramoto theory, not an independent prediction about dark matter. As presented, the paper does not establish that UlDM can induce synchronization.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2.4)] The identification K = g_omega m_phi c^2 / hbar is introduced with the phrase 'it is natural to take', based only on dimensionality. No Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, or other derivation is given for how an UlDM background couples to the oscillator phases, nor for why the coupling should take the mean-field form r sin(Psi - theta_i) appearing in Eq. (2.5). In the Kuramoto model this term arises from explicit pairwise oscillator-oscillator interactions; a coherent external field does not automatically produce such a population-dependent torque. Without a derivation, Eq. (2.5) is an invented model, not a description of UlDM.
  2. [Sections 1 and 2, Eqs. (2.4)-(2.5)] The paper states that UlDM oscillates at the Compton frequency omega_phi = m_phi c^2 / hbar, but Eq. (2.5) contains no time-dependent drive. For m_phi = 1 eV, omega_phi is about 1.5e15 rad/s, far above the ~1 Hz oscillator frequencies; even at m_phi = 10^-14 eV, omega_phi ~ 15 rad/s, which is comparable to or above the oscillator frequencies. The manuscript never specifies a rotating-wave approximation, time-averaging, or any other procedure that would justify replacing the rapidly oscillating field by a static coupling. This is a load-bearing gap in the physical argument.
  3. [Sections 2 and 3, Eqs. (2.7) and (3.3), Fig. 6] Given Eq. (2.4), the critical couplings (2.7) and (3.3) are precisely the standard Kuramoto results of refs. [38] and [40] with K replaced by g_omega omega_phi. Consequently, the projected sensitivity in Fig. 6 is a re-expression of known Kuramoto theory, and the numerical simulations in Figs. 2-5 validate the Kuramoto model rather than a specific UlDM coupling. The conclusion that UlDM can synchronize the oscillators is therefore not supported by independent evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical errors, including 'occurence' (abstract), 'particluar' (Sec. 1), 'dsitribution' (p. 3), and 'distibuted' (p. 4); the manuscript would benefit from a careful proofreading pass.
  2. [Section 3 and Abstract] The abstract and conclusion quote the synchronization range for D < 0.01 Hz as 10 >= g_omega >= 10^-13, while the noiseless curve in Fig. 6 corresponds to 10^-2 >= g_omega >= 10^-16. The text should clarify that these are different noise scenarios, as the current wording could be misread as a single range.
  3. [References] An isolated line 'Damicelli, Fabrizio' appears before ref. [11]; this looks like a stray text insertion and should be removed.
  4. [Fig. 5] The horizontal axis label 'g /10^13' is ambiguous; please specify clearly whether the axis shows g_omega in units of 10^-13 or something else.
  5. [Eq. (3.2)] The parameter D has units of frequency, but the text refers to 'white noise strength lower than 0.01 Hz' without defining the conversion between D and the quoted noise strength; this should be clarified.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The projected sensitivity reduces to the known Kuramoto/Sakaguchi critical couplings rescaled by the Compton frequency via the definitional identification in Eq. (2.4); no UlDM-specific dynamics is derived.

  1. self definitional [Section 2, Eq. (2.4)]
    "Since UlDM oscillates at the Compton frequency ωϕ and it has the same dimension with K appearing in Kuramoto model, it is natural to take K = gω mϕ c^2/ℏ, where gω stands for the dimensionless frequency coupling between oscillators and UlDM."

    This equation defines gω through K ≡ gωωϕ, where ωϕ = mϕc^2/ℏ. Because the Kuramoto coupling K already has units of frequency, setting K equal to the Compton frequency times a dimensionless constant is a unit reparameterization, not a derivation of a new interaction. Once this definition is accepted, every later critical value of gω is, by construction, the known critical value of K divided by ωϕ. The phrase 'it is natural' is the only justification offered; no Lagrangian or equation of motion connects the oscillating UlDM field to the mean-field term r sin(Ψ−θ_i).

  2. renaming known result [Section 2, Eq. (2.7) and footnote; Section 3, Eq. (3.3) and footnote]
    "gC = ℏσ/(mϕc^2) sqrt(8/π) ... In terms of the original coupling K, the critical coupling is given by KC = σ sqrt(8/π) [38]. ... gC = 2ℏ/(mϕc^2) / ∫_{-∞}^{∞} dω G(ω) D/(D^2+ω^2) ... The critical coupling in the presence of noise written in terms of original coupling is KC = 2/∫_{-∞}^{∞} dω G(ω) D/(D^2+ω^2) [40]."

    Both quoted formulas are exactly the Kuramoto thresholds from refs. [38] and [40] with K divided by mϕc^2/ℏ, which is precisely the substitution K = gωmϕc^2/ℏ made in Eq. (2.4). Thus Eq. (2.7) is KC/(mϕc^2/ℏ) and Eq. (3.3) is KC,noise/(mϕc^2/ℏ). The 1/mϕ mass dependence in Fig. 6 is therefore the Compton-frequency unit conversion, not a dynamical calculation of how UlDM entrains oscillators. The projected sensitivity is the known Kuramoto/Sakaguchi result renamed as a function of gω and mϕ.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: Kuramoto model (2.1)-(2.3); identification K = gωmϕc^2/ℏ (2.4) justified only by dimensional analogy; then critical couplings (2.7) and (3.3) quoted from the external references [38] and [40] and re-expressed in gω. Because gω is defined through K = gωωϕ, every 'prediction' of gC is exactly the literature KC divided by ωϕ; no step derives the UlDM coupling from the scalar field dynamics. The numerical simulations in Figs. 2-5 validate the finite-N Kuramoto model, but not the identification with UlDM. There is no fitted parameter and no self-citation is load-bearing; the circularity is definitional and consists of renaming known Kuramoto thresholds as a new UlDM sensitivity curve. The unsupported step is visible in the paper's own phrase 'it is natural to take', which the rest of the paper then treats as established. Accordingly, the central projected sensitivity reduces by construction, yielding a score of 7.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on known Kuramoto threshold formulas plus an ad hoc coupling. No microscopic Lagrangian is given. The oscillator distribution and noise level are chosen for illustration. The only invented entity is the gω interaction. All critical coupling expressions reduce to literature results divided by mφ c^2/ℏ.

free parameters (4)
  • gω (frequency coupling) = 3e-14 (simulation); sensitivity band 1e-13 to 10
    Chosen by hand to demonstrate synchronization; its value is not derived from any underlying theory. The sensitivity projection scans over it.
  • μ (mean natural frequency) = 1 Hz
    Chosen as a representative oscillator population for the projected sensitivity.
  • σ (standard deviation of natural frequencies) = 0.1 Hz
    Chosen for the demonstration; the critical coupling depends linearly on σ.
  • D (noise strength) = 0.01 Hz
    Assumed background noise value used to set the red sensitivity boundary.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Kuramoto model (Eq. 2.1) describes oscillator synchronization.
    Taken from refs [36,37] as the starting point.
  • standard math Known Kuramoto critical coupling for Gaussian distribution: K_C = σ sqrt(8/π).
    Used to obtain Eq. (2.7).
  • standard math Known Kuramoto critical coupling with white noise: K_C = 2 / ∫ dω G(ω) D/(D^2+ω^2).
    Used to obtain Eq. (3.3).
  • ad hoc to paper A new interaction exists between UlDM and oscillators such that K = gω mφ c^2/ℏ.
    Introduced in Eq. (2.4) as natural without derivation from a Lagrangian or experimental motivation.
  • ad hoc to paper The UlDM field can be treated as a static coupling despite oscillating at the Compton frequency.
    The paper does not include the time dependence cos(ωφ t) of the DM field; this assumption is structural and unstated.
  • domain assumption Natural frequencies are Gaussian distributed with mean 1 Hz and std 0.1 Hz.
    Eq. (2.6) specifies the oscillator population used for the sensitivity projection.
invented entities (1)
  • gω interaction (frequency coupling between UlDM and oscillators)
    purpose: To make UlDM act as the Kuramoto coupling K in Eq. (2.5).
    No Lagrangian, no force carrier, and no experimental signature are provided beyond the synchronization threshold itself. The entity is invented to map a DM field onto the Kuramoto coupling.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Synchronization Induced by Ultralight Dark Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TXGXRRSY

@misc{pith2026250711144,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Synchronization Induced by Ultralight Dark Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TXGXRRSY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11144}
}
abstract

We study the possibility of ultralight bosonic dark matter (UlDM) to induce a synchronized behaviour on randomly evolving oscillators. We introduce a new interaction between UlDM and the oscillators and further demonstrate the occurence of the phase transition from disordered oscillators state into ordered state. For UlDM within the mass range of $10^{-14}\,\text{eV}/c^{2} \leq m_{\phi} \leq 1 \,\text{eV}/c^{2}$ as well as the white noise strength lower than 0.01 Hz, the synchronization of randomly distributed oscillators with the mean angular frequency $1$ Hz and the corresponding standard deviation 0.1 Hz occurs when the coupling strength between UlDM and oscillators lies within $10 \geq g_{\omega} \geq 10^{-13}$. This offers an alternative method to unveil the nature of UlDM with respect to the established experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11144 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The distribution of 100 oscillators with the mean frequency µ = 1 Hz and standard deviation σ = 0.1 Hz. The appearance of N in the denominator guarantees that the model is well behaved in the limit of N → ∞. When K > 0, the interactions between oscillators are attractive. To see this, one may consider two oscillators i and j, with oscillator j evolves slightly ahead of oscillator i. Consequently, the phase differenc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The phase evolution of 100 oscillators with respect to time. equation can be written as [37, 38] ˙θi = ωi + K r sin(Ψ − θi). (2.3) Here, the problem originally viewed as one oscillator interacts with every other oscillators can be reinterpreted as one oscillator coupled to the mean field produce by all oscillators encoded in r and Ψ. Ultralight dark matter may induce synchronization on independent non￾interacting os… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The snapshot of 100 oscillators in (cos θ,sin θ) plane at 3 different time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time evolution of the order parameter r for 100 oscilators under consideration. be seen clearly when we plot the oscillators evolution in (cos θ,sin θ) plane as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The behaviour of r as function of gω. It indicates the phase transition with critical coupling gC as depicted by vertical dashed line. ordered state with the value of critical coupling2 gC = ℏ σ mϕ c 2 r 8 π , (2.7) where σ is the standard deviation of Gaussian dsitrib…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Projected sensitivites of the oscillators synchronized by UlDM. The blue region indicates the entrained oscillators without the noise while the red area displays the synchro￾nization with Gaussian noise in the background. synchronization process. In this case, the crit…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    S. H. Strogatz, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 143, 1-20 (2000), https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2789(00)00094-4

    doi:10.1016/s0167-2789(00)00094-4 2000

  2. [40]

    Sakaguchi Progr

    H. Sakaguchi Progr. Theoret. Phys., 79 (1988), p. 39. 9

    work page 1988

  3. [1]

    and Buck E, Synchronous fireflies

    Buck J. and Buck E, Synchronous fireflies. Sci Am. 1976 May;234(5):74-9, 82-5. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0576-74. PMID: 1273569

    work page doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0576-74 1976

  4. [2]

    T. J. Walker, Acoustic Synchrony: Two Mechanisms in the Snowy Tree Cricket.Science166,891-894(1969).DOI:10.1126/science.166.3907.891

    work page doi:10.1126/science.166.3907.891 1969

  5. [3]

    York, R.C

    R.A. York, R.C. Compton IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., 39 (1991), p. 1000

    work page 1991

  6. [4]

    Wiesenfeld, P

    K. Wiesenfeld, P. Colet, S.H. Strogatz Phys. Rev. Lett., 76 (1996), p. 404

    work page 1996

  7. [5]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. [XENON], Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, no.11, 111302 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.111302 [arXiv:1805.12562 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [6]

    Albert et al

    A. Albert et al. [Fermi-LAT and DES], Astrophys. J. 834, no.2, 110 (2017) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/110 [arXiv:1611.03184 [astro-ph.HE]]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 40 references
  1. [7]

    Aaboud et al

    M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS], JHEP 01, 126 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2018)126 [arXiv:1711.03301 [hep-ex]]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Tsuchida, N

    S. Tsuchida, N. Kanda, Y. Itoh and M. Mori, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.2, 023005 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.023005 [arXiv:1909.00654 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [9]

    C. H. Lee, C. S. Nugroho and M. Spinrath, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.12, 1125 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08692-3 [arXiv:2007.07908 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [10]

    C. R. Chen and C. S. Nugroho, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.8, 083001 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.083001 [arXiv:2111.11014 [hep-ph]]. Damicelli, Fabrizio 7

    2022 arXiv

  5. [11]

    M. A. Ismail, C. S. Nugroho and H. T. K. Wong, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.8, 082002 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.082002 [arXiv:2211.13384 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [12]

    C. H. Lee, R. Primulando and M. Spinrath, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.3, 035029 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.035029 [arXiv:2208.06232 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Y. V. Stadnik and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 161301 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.161301 [arXiv:1412.7801 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos and K. Van Tilburg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, no.3, 031102 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.031102 [arXiv:1508.01798 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [15]

    E. D. Hall, R. X. Adhikari, V. V. Frolov, H. M¨ uller, M. Pospelov and R. X. Ad- hikari, Phys. Rev. D 98, no.8, 083019 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083019 [arXiv:1605.01103 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [16]

    C. R. Chen, B. H. Nhung and C. S. Nugroho, Phys. Lett. B 839, 137764 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137764 [arXiv:2212.13017 [hep-ph]]

    2023

  11. [17]

    C. S. Nugroho, Phys. Dark Univ. 46, 101557 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101557 [arXiv:2302.08246 [hep-ph]]

    2024

  12. [18]

    C. S. Nugroho, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, no.3, 226 (2025) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13985-6 [arXiv:2406.04788 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [19]

    C. R. Chen, C. S. Nugroho and V. G. L. Otero, [arXiv:2506.04621 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  14. [20]

    D. A. Camargo, M. D. Campos, T. B. de Melo and F. S. Queiroz, Phys. Lett. B 795, 319-326 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.06.020 [arXiv:1901.05476 [hep-ph]]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Belyaev, G

    A. Belyaev, G. Cacciapaglia, I. P. Ivanov, F. Rojas-Abatte and M. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.3, 035011 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.035011 [arXiv:1612.00511 [hep-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Alves, D

    A. Alves, D. A. Camargo, A. G. Dias, R. Longas, C. C. Nishi and F. S. Queiroz, JHEP 10, 015 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2016)015 [arXiv:1606.07086 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [23]

    C. R. Chen, Y. X. Lin, C. S. Nugroho, R. Ramos, Y. L. S. Tsai and T. C. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.3, 035037 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.035037 [arXiv:1910.13138 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Dirgantara and C

    B. Dirgantara and C. S. Nugroho, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.2, 142 (2022) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10051-3 [arXiv:2012.13170 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [25]

    C. R. Chen, Y. F. Hsieh and C. S. Nugroho, [arXiv:2405.19087 [hep-ph]]

  20. [26]

    M. A. Ismail, C. S. Nugroho and Q. M. B. Soesanto, Phys. Lett. B 866, 139531 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2025.139531 [arXiv:2409.17498 [hep-ph]]

    2025

  21. [27]

    D. F. J. Kimball and K. van Bibber, Springer, 2023, ISBN 978-3-030-95851-0, 978-3-030- 95854-1, 978-3-030-95852-7 doi:10.1007/978-3-030-95852-7

    2023 doi

  22. [28]

    Hagmann, P

    C. Hagmann, P. Sikivie, N. S. Sullivan and D. B. Tanner, Phys. Rev. D 42, 1297-1300 (1990) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.42.1297 8

    1990 doi

  23. [29]

    De Panfilis, A

    S. De Panfilis, A. C. Melissinos, B. E. Moskowitz, J. T. Rogers, Y. K. Semertzidis, W. Wuensch, H. J. Halama, A. G. Prodell, W. B. Fowler and F. A. Nezrick, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 839 (1987) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.839

    1987 doi

  24. [30]

    Budker, P

    D. Budker, P. W. Graham, M. Ledbetter, S. Rajendran and A. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. X 4, no.2, 021030 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.4.021030 [arXiv:1306.6089 [hep-ph]]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Chaudhuri, P

    S. Chaudhuri, P. W. Graham, K. Irwin, J. Mardon, S. Rajendran and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 92, no.7, 075012 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.075012 [arXiv:1411.7382 [hep- ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [32]

    A. A. Geraci et al. [ARIADNE], Springer Proc. Phys. 211, 151-161 (2018) doi:10.1007/978-3-319-92726-8 18 [arXiv:1710.05413 [astro-ph.IM]]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Ehret, M

    K. Ehret, M. Frede, S. Ghazaryan, M. Hildebrandt, E. A. Knabbe, D. Kracht, A. Lind- ner, J. List, T. Meier and N. Meyer, et al. Phys. Lett. B 689, 149-155 (2010) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.04.066 [arXiv:1004.1313 [hep-ex]]

    2010 arXiv

  28. [34]

    M. D. Ortiz, J. Gleason, H. Grote, A. Hallal, M. T. Hartman, H. Hollis, K. S. Isleif, A. James, K. Karan and T. Kozlowski, et al. Phys. Dark Univ. 35, 100968 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2022.100968 [arXiv:2009.14294 [physics.optics]]

    2022

  29. [35]

    Afach, D

    S. Afach, D. Budker, G. Decamp, V. Dumont, Z. D. Gruji´ c, H. Guo, D. F. Jackson Kimball, T. W. Kornack, V. Lebedev and W. Li, et al. Phys. Dark Univ. 22, 162-180 (2018) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2018.10.002 [arXiv:1807.09391 [physics.ins-det]]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Kuramoto, in: H

    Y. Kuramoto, in: H. Arakai (Ed.), International Symposium on Mathematical Problems in Theoretical Physics, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 39, Springer, New York, 1975, p. 420

    1975

  31. [37]

    Kuramoto, Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Turbulence, Springer, Berlin, 1984

    Y. Kuramoto, Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Turbulence, Springer, Berlin, 1984

    1984

  32. [39]

    Fabrizio, Python implementation of the Kuramoto model (2019), https://github.com/fabridamicelli/kuramoto

    D. Fabrizio, Python implementation of the Kuramoto model (2019), https://github.com/fabridamicelli/kuramoto

    2019

Pith tools

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