arxiv: 2604.28003 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · ❄️ cond-mat.dis-nn · cond-mat.stat-mech· nlin.AO· physics.soc-ph

Recognition: unknown

The Synergistic Route to Stretched Criticality

Lorenzo Lucarini, Pablo Villegas, Sandro Meloni

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 07:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.dis-nn cond-mat.stat-mechnlin.AOphysics.soc-ph

keywords synergistic interactionsextended criticalityGriffiths phasesspreading processesrelaxation rateshigher-order interactionsnonlinear dynamicscomplex networks

0 comments

The pith

Synergistic interactions create extended criticality and slow dynamics without quenched disorder.

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

The paper shows that synergistic interactions, in which activity spreads through mutually reinforcing complementary pathways, generate a wide distribution of relaxation rates. This distribution produces Griffiths-like slow dynamics and stretches the critical regime across an interval of parameters rather than confining it to a single point. The mechanism operates whether the synergy is introduced explicitly through higher-order terms or implicitly through nonlinear pairwise update rules. It remains stable when the underlying network topology is varied. A reader would care because it identifies a disorder-independent route to non-conventional critical behavior in spreading processes.

Core claim

Synergistic interactions provide a distinct route to non-conventional critical phenomena. By combining spreading mechanisms that reinforce activity through complementary pathways, we uncover a broad distribution of relaxation rates, leading to Griffiths-like slow dynamics and extended criticality. This mechanism is robust across networks and emerges both in systems with explicit higher-order interactions and in purely pairwise systems with nonlinear dynamics.

What carries the argument

Synergistic reinforcement of spreading activity through complementary pathways, which produces a broad distribution of relaxation rates.

Load-bearing premise

The observed broad distribution of relaxation rates arises solely from the synergistic reinforcement and is not caused by hidden effective disorder or by artifacts of the specific network topologies and update rules employed.

What would settle it

A simulation on a perfectly homogeneous lattice or complete graph, with synergy introduced but all other parameters fixed, that yields a narrow rather than broad distribution of relaxation rates would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.28003 by Lorenzo Lucarini, Pablo Villegas, Sandro Meloni.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Partial activation of cooperative units generates additional slow relaxation modes. (a) Triangular lattice with an active fraction p of 2-simplices (triangles, teal) superimposed on the pairwise backbone. Node colors represent SIS states: susceptible (white) and infected (red). (b) Spreading dynamics combining pairwise infection (β), cooperative simplicial infection (β∆), and recovery (µ). (c),(d) Spectral… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Extended region of slow relaxation induced by synergistic interactions. Temporal evolution of the infection density ρ(t) for two values of the cooperative fraction, p = 0.05 and p = 0.25. (a,b) Simplicial SIS dynamics: (a) β ∈ (0.220, 0.238) with βc = 0.233; (b) β ∈ (0.150, 0.165) with β low c ≡ β l c = 0.152 and β high c ≡ β h c = 0.163. (c,d) Pairwise quadratic contact process: (c) β ∈ (0.220, 0.242) wi… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Robustness across network structures. Temporal evolution of the infection density ρ(t) for the pairwise cooperative model on different network topologies for strong synergy and absent synergy (insets, p = 0). Blue curves correspond to the absorbing phase and red curves to the active one, while the greenish ones highlight algebraic decay. (a) Erdős–Rényi network (N = 104 , ⟨κ⟩ = 3, p = 0.10), with β ∈ (0.31… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Griffiths phases are typically associated with quenched disorder, while frustration gives rise to multistability and spin-glass behavior. Whether extended criticality can arise in other contexts remains an open question. Here, we show that synergistic interactions provide a distinct route to non-conventional critical phenomena. By combining spreading mechanisms that reinforce activity through complementary pathways, we uncover a broad distribution of relaxation rates, leading to Griffiths-like slow dynamics and extended criticality. We demonstrate that this mechanism is robust across networks and emerges both in systems with explicit higher-order interactions and in purely pairwise systems with nonlinear dynamics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Synergistic interactions probably just generate effective heterogeneity that mimics standard disorder mechanisms rather than offering a genuinely distinct route.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this paper frames synergistic reinforcement through complementary pathways as a new way to produce broad relaxation-rate distributions and Griffiths-like slow dynamics without quenched disorder. They implement this in both explicit higher-order interaction models and in pairwise networks with nonlinear update rules, then claim the effect is robust across different network topologies. That dual-setup approach is the part that actually adds something concrete, because it tries to show the outcome is not locked to one modeling trick. If the numerics are clean, it gives people working on spreading processes a different angle to consider for extended criticality in systems like neural or social networks. The robustness checks across networks are a reasonable step and worth noting as a positive. The soft spot is the one the stress-test flags. Complementary pathways on a finite network can easily create local differences in activation frequency or recovery times that depend on position and connectivity. Those differences function as effective quenched disorder in the relaxation rates, which is exactly the ingredient known to produce Griffiths phases in conventional models. The abstract asserts the mechanism is distinct and robust, but without an analytical argument that the rate distribution survives in the thermodynamic limit or explicit controls showing no position-dependent biases, the claim reduces to a simulation result that may be explained by known effects. Overlap with prior nonlinear spreading models also needs clearer separation in the citations. This is for readers already thinking about alternative mechanisms for criticality in complex systems. Someone in statistical mechanics or network dynamics would get value from the proposed setup even if they end up rejecting the interpretation. It deserves peer review because the claim is specific enough for referees to test the effective-disorder issue directly and ask for tighter comparisons to existing work.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that synergistic interactions provide a distinct route to non-conventional critical phenomena. By combining spreading mechanisms that reinforce activity through complementary pathways, the authors uncover a broad distribution of relaxation rates, leading to Griffiths-like slow dynamics and extended criticality. This mechanism is reported to be robust across networks and to emerge both in systems with explicit higher-order interactions and in purely pairwise systems with nonlinear dynamics.

Significance. If the central claim holds and the broad relaxation-rate distribution is shown to arise purely from synergy without reducing to effective disorder, the result would be significant for the study of critical phenomena beyond quenched disorder. It offers a potential new mechanism for slow dynamics and extended criticality with possible relevance to neural, epidemic, and social spreading processes. The reported robustness across network types and interaction classes would strengthen its generality if supported by systematic controls.

major comments (2)

[§2 (Model definitions)] §2 (Model definitions): The synergistic reinforcement rules must be shown not to generate implicit position-dependent effective rates or local activity biases. If the complementary pathways induce even mild heterogeneity in recovery times or local fields on finite networks, the observed broad relaxation-rate distribution would be explained by standard Griffiths mechanisms rather than a distinct synergistic route. Explicit computation of the effective rate distribution (e.g., in the inactive state) or a comparison to a linear non-synergistic control is required to substantiate the 'distinct route' claim.
[§4 (Relaxation-rate results)] §4 (Relaxation-rate results): The central evidence is the reported broad distribution of relaxation rates. Without a parameter-free derivation or a control simulation that disables synergy while preserving network structure and update rules, it remains unclear whether the distribution follows directly from the synergistic rules or arises as an artifact of the chosen network or nonlinear implementation. This is load-bearing for the claim of a new mechanism.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The claim of robustness 'across networks' would be more informative if the abstract briefly indicated the classes of networks tested (e.g., random, scale-free, or lattice).
[Introduction / Model] Notation: Define the synergistic interaction terms and the precise form of the nonlinear pairwise dynamics at first use to improve readability for readers outside the immediate subfield.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. The points raised help sharpen the distinction between the synergistic mechanism and conventional disorder-induced Griffiths phases. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the requested controls and clarifications.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: §2 (Model definitions): The synergistic reinforcement rules must be shown not to generate implicit position-dependent effective rates or local activity biases. If the complementary pathways induce even mild heterogeneity in recovery times or local fields on finite networks, the observed broad relaxation-rate distribution would be explained by standard Griffiths mechanisms rather than a distinct synergistic route. Explicit computation of the effective rate distribution (e.g., in the inactive state) or a comparison to a linear non-synergistic control is required to substantiate the 'distinct route' claim.

Authors: In the model definitions of §2, the synergistic reinforcement rules are formulated with uniform parameters applied identically to every node and interaction; no position-dependent rates or local activity biases are introduced by construction. The complementary pathways arise solely from the network topology, but the recovery and reinforcement strengths remain homogeneous across the system. To address the concern directly, we will add an explicit computation of the effective recovery-rate distribution sampled in the inactive state, confirming that it remains a delta function (uniform) with no emergent heterogeneity. We will also include a comparison to a linear non-synergistic control that preserves the network and update rules while disabling synergy, showing that the broad relaxation-rate distribution is absent in that case. revision: yes
Referee: §4 (Relaxation-rate results): The central evidence is the reported broad distribution of relaxation rates. Without a parameter-free derivation or a control simulation that disables synergy while preserving network structure and update rules, it remains unclear whether the distribution follows directly from the synergistic rules or arises as an artifact of the chosen network or nonlinear implementation. This is load-bearing for the claim of a new mechanism.

Authors: We agree that isolating the role of synergy is essential. An exact parameter-free analytical derivation of the full relaxation-rate distribution is not currently available owing to the nonlinear character of the synergistic terms. However, we will add control simulations in the revised §4 that disable synergy by linearizing the interaction functions while exactly preserving network structure, node degrees, and all other update rules. These controls will demonstrate that the broad distribution collapses to a narrow peak when synergy is removed, confirming that the effect originates from the synergistic reinforcement rather than network artifacts or implementation details. The existing robustness results across network ensembles will be retained and cross-referenced with the new controls. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation introduces synergistic mechanism independently of inputs

full rationale

The paper defines synergistic interactions via explicit higher-order terms or nonlinear pairwise rules on networks, then derives broad relaxation-rate distributions and Griffiths-like dynamics from those definitions. No equations, fitting procedures, or self-citations are shown that reduce the central result to a renamed input or prior author result by construction. The abstract and context present the outcome as an emergent consequence of the new interaction class, with robustness checks across networks serving as external validation rather than tautological repetition. This is the expected non-circular case for a mechanism-discovery paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the central claim rests on unspecified network models and spreading rules whose details are not provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5397 in / 1137 out tokens · 77299 ms · 2026-05-07T07:08:01.691543+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[1]

Henkel and M

M. Henkel and M. Pleimling,Non-Equilibrium Phase Transitions: Volume 2: Ageing and Dynamical Scaling Far from Equilibrium(Springer, Bristol, 2011)

2011
[2]

R. B. Griffiths, Phys. Rev. Lett.23, 17 (1969)

1969
[3]

Vojta, J

T. Vojta, J. Phys. A39, R143 (2006)

2006
[4]

M. A. Muñoz, R. Juhász, C. Castellano, and G. Ódor, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 128701 (2010)

2010
[5]

Moretti and M

P. Moretti and M. A. Muñoz, Nat. Commun.4, 2521 (2013)

2013
[6]

M. A. Muñoz, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 031001 (2018)

2018
[7]

Ódor and R

G. Ódor and R. Dickman, Sci. Rep.5, 14451 (2015)

2015
[8]

Mézard, G

M. Mézard, G. Parisi, and M. A. Virasoro,Spin Glass Theory and Beyond(World Scientific, Singapore, 1987)

1987
[9]

Facchetti, G

G. Facchetti, G. Iacono, and C. Altafini, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.108, 20953 (2011)

2011
[10]

Binder and A

K. Binder and A. P. Young, Rev. Mod. Phys.58, 801 (1986)

1986
[11]

S. A. Levin, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.111, 10838 (2014)

2014
[12]

Sagan, J

L. Sagan, J. Theor. Biol.14, 255 (1967)

1967
[13]

Petri, M

G. Petri, M. Scolamiero, I. Donato, and F. Vaccarino, J. R. Soc. Interface11, 20140873 (2014)

2014
[14]

Centola, Science329, 1194 (2010)

D. Centola, Science329, 1194 (2010)

2010
[15]

Sanjuán, Curr

R. Sanjuán, Curr. Opin. Virol.33, 1 (2018)

2018
[16]

Lucía-Sanz and S

A. Lucía-Sanz and S. Manrubia, npj Syst. Biol. Appl.3, 34 (2017)

2017
[17]

Andreu-Moreno and R

I. Andreu-Moreno and R. Sanjuán, Sci. Adv.6, eabd4942 (2020)

2020
[18]

Sanz, C.-Y

J. Sanz, C.-Y. Xia, S. Meloni, and Y. Moreno, Phys. Rev. X4, 041005 (2014)

2014
[19]

W. Cai, L. Chen, F. Ghanbarnejad, and P. Grassberger, Nat. Phys.11, 936 (2015)

2015
[20]

P.-B. Cui, F. Colaiori, and C. Castellano, Phys. Rev. E 99, 022301 (2019)

2019
[21]

G. S. Costa, M. M. de Oliveira, and S. C. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. E106, 024302 (2022)

2022
[22]

Ghanbarnejad, K

F. Ghanbarnejad, K. Seegers, A. Cardillo, and P. Hövel, Phys. Rev. E105, 034308 (2022)

2022
[23]

Lamata-Otín, J

S. Lamata-Otín, J. Gómez-Gardeñes, and D. Soriano- Paños, J. Phys.: Complex.5, 015015 (2024)

2024
[24]

Iacopini, G

I. Iacopini, G. Petri, A. Barrat, and V. Latora, Nat. Commun.10, 2485 (2019)

2019
[25]

Granovetter, Am

M. Granovetter, Am. J. Sociol.83, 1420 (1978)

1978
[26]

Soriano-Paños, F

D. Soriano-Paños, F. Ghanbarnejad, S. Meloni, and J. Gómez-Gardeñes, Phys. Rev. E100, 062308 (2019)

2019
[27]

Bizhani, M

G. Bizhani, M. Paczuski, and P. Grassberger, Phys. Rev. E86, 011128 (2012)

2012
[28]

Grassberger, L

P. Grassberger, L. Chen, F. Ghanbarnejad, and W. Cai, Phys. Rev. E93, 042316 (2016)

2016
[29]

Lucas, G

M. Lucas, G. Cencetti, and F. Battiston, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033410 (2020)

2020
[30]

De Domenico and J

M. De Domenico and J. Biamonte, Phys. Rev. X6, 041062 (2016)

2016
[31]

Villegas, A

P. Villegas, A. Gabrielli, F. Santucci, G. Caldarelli, and T. Gili, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033196 (2022)

2022
[32]

Villegas, T

P. Villegas, T. Gili, G. Caldarelli, and A. Gabrielli, Nat. Phys.19, 445 (2023)

2023
[33]

Poggialini, P

A. Poggialini, P. Villegas, M. A. Muñoz, and A. Gabrielli, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 057401 (2025)

2025
[34]

See Supplemental Material at [] for further details
[35]

Higher- order contagion processes in 3.99 dimensions,

S. Meloni, A. Gabrielli, and P. Villegas, “Higher- order contagion processes in 3.99 dimensions,” (2025), arXiv:2502.18004 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

work page arXiv 2025
[36]

Böttcher, J

L. Böttcher, J. Nagler, and H. J. Herrmann, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 088301 (2017)

2017
[37]

Ohtsuki and T

T. Ohtsuki and T. Keyes, Phys. Rev. A35, 2697 (1987)

1987
[38]

Villa Martín, J

P. Villa Martín, J. A. Bonachela, and M. A. Muñoz, Phys. Rev. E89, 012145 (2014)

2014
[39]

Elgart and A

V. Elgart and A. Kamenev, Phys. Rev. E74, 041101 (2006)

2006
[40]

M. E. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. E74, 036104 (2006)

2006
[41]

Colizza, R

V. Colizza, R. Pastor-Satorras, and A. Vespignani, Nat. Phys.3, 276 (2007)

2007
[42]

Falsi, P

L. Falsi, P. Villegas, T. Gili, A. J. Agranat, and E. DelRe, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 043038 (2025)

2025
[43]

Lansbury, B

L. Lansbury, B. Lim, V. Baskaran, and W. S. Lim, J. Infect.81, 266 (2020)

2020
[44]

T. J. Henrich, C. P. Montgomery, J. Graf, N. Ismail, S. Mohandas, M. S. Suthar, H. Brim, J. M. Coffin, A. Pa- garia, J. Guzmán Rivera, U. Vudali, P. Keim, G. Zhong, R. McGrath, B. Edwards, A. García-Sastre, and M. L. Gennaro, eLife14, e106308 (2025)

2025
[45]

Kussell and S

E. Kussell and S. Leibler, Science309, 2075 (2005). Supplementary Information: The Synergistic Route to Stretched Criticality CONTENTS I. Activity decay for different cooperative densities and couplings 2 A. High sinergy region 2 B. Low cooperative-coupling regime 3 2 I. ACTIVITY DECA Y FOR DIFFERENT COOPERA TIVE DENSITIES AND COUPLINGS To characterize ho...

2075