Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 186 references

Machine Learning Analysis of Anomalous Diffusion

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review argues that machine learning methods now outperform traditional statistical techniques at inferring diffusion parameters and segmenting heterogeneous trajectories, and organizes the field around two tasks and three…

desk verdict A competent review with a genuinely useful taxonomy, but the concluding superiority claim outruns the evidence, especially for segmentation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01393 v2 pith:6OKXAKET submitted 2024-12-02 cs.LG cond-mat.softphysics.bio-phphysics.data-an

Wenjie Cai , Yi Hu , Xiang Qu , Hui Zhao , Gongyi Wang , Jing Li , Zihan Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcond-mat.softphysics.bio-phphysics.data-an
keywords anomalousdiffusionmachinelearningsingle-particletrackingtrajectorysegmentationrepresentationChallengeparameterinferencedeep
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

Anomalous diffusion appears throughout physics, chemistry, biology, and finance, but traditional statistics-heavy tools struggle with short, noisy, heterogeneous trajectories from single-particle tracking. This review makes the case that machine learning has become the more effective toolkit for the two central tasks in this area: inferring diffusion parameters such as the diffusion coefficient, exponent, and underlying model, and segmenting trajectories that switch between diffusion states. It organizes the literature by two tasks and three representation strategies: handcrafted feature combinations (often called “diffusion fingerprints”), feature vectors taken from the penultimate layer of a neural network, and latent codes from autoencoders. The review also points to the Anomalous Diffusion Challenge as the emerging benchmark that lets methods compete under uniform conditions, and argues that simulation-trained ML models can transfer to real experimental settings. A sympathetic reader comes away with a map of the field and a concrete set of tools to choose among.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the two-axis categorization: single-trajectory characterization is split into parameter inference and trajectory segmentation, and representation learning into three strategies—the “diffusion fingerprint” of predefined features, the penultimate-layer feature vector of a trained network, and the autoencoder's latent representation. The Anomalous Diffusion Challenge serves as the benchmarking mechanism that standardizes comparisons and supplies the evidence that simulation-trained models generalize to experimental data.

What would settle it

Take a corpus of real single-particle trajectories whose diffusion coefficients and exponents are known by an independent physical control, such as microspheres in a calibrated optical trap with known viscosity, feed them to the best simulation-trained models from the Anomalous Diffusion Challenge, and compare the resulting error against the reported AnDi test-set error; a substantial degradation would contradict the review's robustness claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated in its conclusions, is that machine learning techniques demonstrate superior performance compared to traditional methods in inferring diffusion parameters and segmenting trajectories. The review supports this by comparing classical feature-based methods (random forests, gradient boosting, extreme learning machines) with deep networks (CNN, RNN/LSTM, GNN, and hybrid architectures) on both synthetic and experimental data, and by tracing how the Anomalous Diffusion competitions have driven standardized evaluation. On representation learning, it claims the field divides into three principal strategies—predefined features, penultimate-layer feature vectors, and autoencoder latent representations—each with a distinct trade-off between interpretability, representational power, dependence on labels, and computational cost. The message to a fair reader is that ML-based analysis is no longer one option among many but the organizing framework for anomalous-diffusion research going forward.

Load-bearing premise

The whole positive verdict depends on simulated training data standing in for real experimental trajectories; if real trajectories are substantially noisier and more complex than the Anomalous Diffusion Challenge benchmarks, the claimed robustness of ML methods is not licensed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Simulation-trained ML models, rather than hand-fitted statistical estimators, become the default first tool for extracting diffusion coefficients, exponents, and models from single-particle tracking data.
  • Anomalous Diffusion Challenge–style competitions become the standard evaluation protocol for new trajectory-analysis methods, in the way ImageNet and COCO standardize computer vision.
  • The three-strategy taxonomy gives practitioners a decision rule: choose predefined features when interpretability matters, penultimate-layer vectors for strong discriminative power on complex data, and autoencoder latents for label-free representation and denoising.
  • Hybrid models that combine engineered physical features with data-driven representations are a directly motivated next step for improving performance on experimental noise.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The review leaves implicit that the same two-task, three-strategy taxonomy could organize other stochastic time-series problems, such as financial market switching or animal movement, where separating regimes and representing dynamics are equally central.
  • A testable extension the review does not pursue is to use the autoencoder latent space as a prior for Bayesian changepoint detection, combining the label-free denoising it praises with the uncertainty quantification it identifies as missing in deep models.
  • If experimental data sharing becomes standardized as the review urges, simulation-trained models could be fine-tuned on real trajectories, which would make the claim that ML works “across different experimental settings” directly testable and likely stronger.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review of machine-learning (ML) methods for the analysis of anomalous diffusion. It organizes the literature around two tasks—inference of diffusion parameters and segmentation of heterogeneous trajectories—and around three representation strategies: combinations of predefined features, feature vectors extracted from the penultimate layer of neural networks, and latent representations from autoencoders. The review surveys classical ML and deep learning approaches, describes the two editions of the Anomalous Diffusion (AnDi) Challenge as benchmarks, and concludes in Section 4 that ML techniques are superior to traditional methods for both parameter inference and trajectory segmentation. It also discusses simulation-based training, the gap between simulated and experimental data, and future directions such as data sharing and interpretability.

Significance. If its central comparative claim were fully supported, this review would serve as a useful roadmap for applying ML to single-particle tracking data. The proposed taxonomy—two tasks and three representation strategies—is coherent and likely to be adopted by researchers entering the field. The reference coverage is broad, and the paper usefully collects tools, benchmarks, and feature sets in tabulated form. However, the review's utility is currently limited by the uneven evidence base: parameter inference is supported by published AnDi 2020 comparisons, but the segmentation claim rests on unpublished second-challenge results and on qualitative descriptions rather than head-to-head quantitative comparisons. The representation-learning section is more descriptive and is a genuine contribution, though it would benefit from more explicit criteria for comparing the three strategies.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4] The conclusion states that 'machine learning techniques demonstrate superior performance compared to traditional methods in inferring diffusion parameters and segmenting trajectories.' The parameter-inference half is reasonably supported by the published AnDi 2020 results summarized in Section 2.3, but the segmentation half is not. Section 2.2 surveys ML segmentation methods alongside traditional methods (DC-MSS, HMM-based approaches) without reporting any quantitative head-to-head comparison. The only published benchmark with segmentation scores, AnDi 2020 Task 3, is described in Section 2.3 as a 'simplistic design' and attracted only four teams, while the second AnDi segmentation results are not reported (see next comment). The evidence therefore supports, at most, a statement that ML segmentation is 'competitive' or 'promising', not a blanket claim of superiority. Please either temper the conclusion or add a dedicated evidence summary, such as a table of available segmentation scores from AnDi 2020 and any other comparative studies, before claiming superiority.
  2. [Section 2.3 / Table 2] The second AnDi Challenge is introduced as the benchmark that addresses the realism gap in segmentation, but its results are not actually given: the text says the final results are summarized in Ref. [152] and 'will be officially published soon,' and Table 2 lists only task descriptions, metrics, and team counts. Because this challenge is the primary evidence cited for the segmentation half of the conclusion, the missing scores are a load-bearing gap. Please either include the available results from the preprint (arXiv:2311.18100) or explicitly frame the second-challenge discussion as a preview of ongoing work, and adjust the conclusions to state that segmentation claims are provisional pending publication of those results.
  3. [Section 2.1.3 / Section 4] The review itself acknowledges a substantial simulation-to-experiment gap: experimental trajectories 'often exhibit higher levels of noise, stochasticity, and complexity compared to their simulated counterparts,' and 'many characteristics of experimental trajectories cannot be fully captured and simulated by known diffusion models.' Yet the conclusions assert robust and superior ML performance without conditioning on this caveat. Since the AnDi Challenge test sets are simulated (with a limited amount of real-data validation), the conclusion should be qualified to refer to performance on simulated benchmarks and the specific experimental datasets tested, rather than a general superiority across experimental settings. This would align the final claims with the evidence presented in the body of the review.
  4. [Section 2.1.2 / Section 2.2.2] Sections 2.1.2 and 2.2.2 highlight WADNet (Ref. [125]) and U-AnDi (Ref. [143]) as exemplary methods, describing WADNet as 'surpassing the first places' in the AnDi leaderboard and U-AnDi as showing 'excellent segmentation performance.' These are the authors' own papers (the corresponding author Z. Huang appears on both, and several co-authors of this review are also co-authors of U-AnDi). The review does not disclose this relationship at the points of description. For a review article, this is a transparency issue that affects the perceived neutrality of the exemplar selection and of the qualitative praise. Please add a disclosure statement or use more neutral, evidence-based phrasing when discussing these two works.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3] The text reads 'The 2 st AnDi Challenge' where it should read 'The 2nd AnDi Challenge.'
  2. [Section 3.2.2] The phrase 'As show in figure 10(a)' should read 'As shown in figure 10(a).'
  3. [Table 1] The superscripts a, b, and c attached to the three recurrent-neural-network rows are not defined in the table note; please either explain them or replace them with explicit reference numbers.
  4. [Data Availability Statement] The sentence 'No data associated in the manuscript' should be rephrased to 'No data are associated with this manuscript' or equivalent, for grammatical correctness.
  5. [Throughout] The paper contains several instances of inconsistent spacing and hyphenation in model names (e.g., 'W ADNet' vs. 'WADNet'). Please standardize the spelling of all model and method names.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the review is a synthesis, and its self-cited examples are tied to external benchmarks.

full rationale

This manuscript is a literature review, not an original derivation; there is no chain of equations, fitted parameters, or first-principles predictions whose outputs are equivalent to their inputs. The central claims in Sections 2 and 4 (ML methods infer diffusion parameters and segment trajectories well) are survey-level generalizations supported by citations to many independent groups, including Muñoz-Gil et al. [29], Granik et al. [122], Bo et al. [130], Verdier et al. [134], Requena et al. [151], and Pineda et al. [136]. The self-citations to WADNet [125], U-AnDi [143], and GenML [138] are used as illustrative examples: WADNet's leaderboard performance is anchored to the external AnDi Challenge benchmark [91], and U-AnDi's segmentation results were published in a peer-reviewed venue with experimental validation. These are not inputs that force the review's conclusions by construction. The weakest evidentiary point is the Section 4 claim that ML is 'superior' for trajectory segmentation: Section 2.2 presents no direct head-to-head quantitative comparison with traditional methods, and Section 2.3 concedes that the 1st AnDi segmentation task was 'simplistic' in design and that the 2nd AnDi results will be 'officially published soon.' This under-support is a correctness and rigor concern, not a circularity concern, because the claim is not derived from the self-citations alone. No self-definitional, fitted-input, uniqueness-import, ansatz-smuggling, or renaming pattern is present. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

As a review, the paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. Its conclusions rest on trust in the cited literature, on the representativeness of the AnDi Challenge, and on its own three-strategy taxonomy as an organizing scheme.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The performance numbers and qualitative results reported in the cited papers are accurate and representative of the state of the art.
    The review's comparative conclusions (e.g., deep learning excels, no feature set wins universally) are built on trust in the cited reports; Section 2.1.2 repeats the WADNet claim from [125] without independent audit.
  • domain assumption The AnDi Challenge benchmark is a valid and representative evaluation of real-world anomalous diffusion analysis.
    Section 2.3 treats the AnDi Challenge as the field's ImageNet-like standard, and Section 2.1.3 uses its results to conclude that simulation-based methods produce robust predictions on experimental data.
  • domain assumption The three-way taxonomy of representation strategies (predefined features, penultimate-layer vectors, autoencoder latents) is exhaustive and separable.
    Section 3 organizes the representation-learning literature into exactly these three strategies and Table 4 compares them as fixed categories; hybrid forms (e.g., CONDOR [156], DL-MSS [157]) are listed only under segmentation methods and are not incorporated into the taxonomy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Machine Learning Analysis of Anomalous Diffusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6OKXAKET

@misc{pith2026241201393,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Machine Learning Analysis of Anomalous Diffusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6OKXAKET}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01393}
}
read the original abstract

The rapid advancements in machine learning have made its application to anomalous diffusion analysis both essential and inevitable. This review systematically introduces the integration of machine learning techniques for enhanced analysis of anomalous diffusion, focusing on two pivotal aspects: single trajectory characterization via machine learning and representation learning of anomalous diffusion. We extensively compare various machine learning methods, including both classical machine learning and deep learning, used for the inference of diffusion parameters and trajectory segmentation. Additionally, platforms such as the Anomalous Diffusion Challenge that serve as benchmarks for evaluating these methods are highlighted. On the other hand, we outline three primary strategies for representing anomalous diffusion: the combination of predefined features, the feature vector from the penultimate layer of neural network, and the latent representation from the autoencoder, analyzing their applicability across various scenarios. This investigation paves the way for future research, offering valuable perspectives that can further enrich the study of anomalous diffusion and advance the application of artificial intelligence in statistical physics and biophysics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

186 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages

  1. [152]

    Mu˜ noz-Gil, H

    G. Mu˜ noz-Gil, H. Bachimanchi, J. Pineda, B. Midtvedt, M. Lewenstein, R. Met- zler, D. Krapf, G. Volpe, C. Manzo, Quantitative evaluation of methods to analyze motion changes in single-particle experiments. arXiv:2311.18100 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  2. [125]

    D. Li, Q. Yao, Z. Huang, WaveNet-based deep neural networks for the charac- terization of anomalous diffusion (W ADNet). J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 54(40), 404003 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [143]

    X. Qu, Y. Hu, W. Cai, Y. Xu, H. Ke, G. Zhu, Z. Huang, Semantic segmentation of anomalous diffusion using deep convolutional networks. Phys. Rev. Res. 6(1), 013054 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [1]

    Metzler, J.H

    R. Metzler, J.H. Jeon, A.G. Cherstvy, E. Barkai, Anomalous diffusion models and their properties: non-stationarity, non-ergodicity, and ageing at the cente- nary of single particle tracking. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16(44), 24128–24164 (2014)

    2014

  5. [2]

    Klafter, I.M

    J. Klafter, I.M. Sokolov, Anomalous diffusion spreads its wings. Phys. World 18(8), 29 (2005)

    2005

  6. [3]

    Manzo, G

    C. Manzo, G. Mu˜ noz-Gil, G. Volpe, M.A. Garcia-March, M. Lewenstein, R. Met- zler, Preface: characterisation of physical processes from anomalous diffusion data. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 56(1), 010401 (2023)

    2023

  7. [4]

    Mason, D.A

    T.G. Mason, D.A. Weitz, Optical measurements of frequency-dependent linear viscoelastic moduli of complex fluids. Phys. Rev. Lett. 74(7), 1250 (1995)

    1995

  8. [5]

    Aar˜ ao Reis, Scaling relations in the diffusive infiltration in fractals

    F.D.A. Aar˜ ao Reis, Scaling relations in the diffusive infiltration in fractals. Phys. Rev. E 94(5), 052124 (2016)

    2016

Show all 186 references
  1. [6]

    Volpe, G

    G. Volpe, G. Volpe, The topography of the environment alters the optimal search strategy for active particles. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114(43), 11350–11355 (2017)

    2017

  2. [7]

    Barbosa, M

    S. Barbosa, M. Kiefer-Emmanouilidis, F. Lang, J. Koch, A. Widera, Charac- terizing localization effects in an ultracold disordered Fermi gas by diffusion analysis. Phys. Rev. Res. 6(3), 033039 (2024)

    2024

  3. [8]

    K. Iida, A. Dechant, T. Akimoto, Universality of giant diffusion in tilted periodic potentials. arXiv:2404.12761 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  4. [9]

    Hegde, C.M

    A.S. Hegde, C.M. Chandrashekar, Characterization of anomalous diffusion in one-dimensional quantum walks. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.55(23), 234006 (2022)

    2022

  5. [10]

    Vitali, P

    S. Vitali, P. Paradisi, G. Pagnini, Anomalous diffusion originated by two Marko- vian hopping-trap mechanisms. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 55(22), 224012 (2022)

    2022

  6. [11]

    H. Shi, L. Du, F. Huang, W. Guo, Weak ergodicity breaking and anomalous diffusion in collective motion of active particles under spatiotemporal disorder. Phys. Rev. E 107(2), 024114 (2023) 30

    2023

  7. [12]

    Zheng, R

    C. Zheng, R. T¨ onjes, Noise-induced swarming of active particles. Phys. Rev. E 106(6), 064601 (2022)

    2022

  8. [13]

    Z. Xu, X. Dai, X. Bu, Y. Yang, X. Zhang, X. Man, X. Zhang, M. Doi, L.T. Yan, Enhanced heterogeneous diffusion of nanoparticles in semiflexible networks. ACS Nano 15(3), 4608–4616 (2021)

    2021

  9. [14]

    X. Dai, X. Zhang, L. Gao, Z. Xu, L.T. Yan, Topology mediates transport of nanoparticles in macromolecular networks. Nat. Commun. 13(1), 4094 (2022)

    2022

  10. [15]

    M¨ uller-Plathe, S.C

    F. M¨ uller-Plathe, S.C. Rogers, W.F. van Gunsteren, Computational evidence for anomalous diffusion of small molecules in amorphous polymers. Chem. Phys. Lett. 199(3-4), 237–243 (1992)

    1992

  11. [16]

    Ding, A.A

    Y. Ding, A.A. Hassanali, M. Parrinello, Anomalous water diffusion in salt solutions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111(9), 3310–3315 (2014)

    2014

  12. [17]

    Barkai, Y

    E. Barkai, Y. Garini, R. Metzler, Strange kinetics of single molecules in living cells. Phys. Today 65(8), 29–35 (2012)

    2012

  13. [18]

    X.L. Wu, A. Libchaber, Particle diffusion in a quasi-two-dimensional bacterial bath. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84(13), 3017 (2000)

    2000

  14. [19]

    Illukkumbura, T

    R. Illukkumbura, T. Bland, N.W. Goehring, Patterning and polarization of cells by intracellular flows. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 62, 123–134 (2020)

    2020

  15. [20]

    Gonz´ alez, C.A

    M.C. Gonz´ alez, C.A. Hidalgo, A.L. Barab´ asi, Understanding individual human mobility patterns. Nature 453(7196), 779–782 (2008)

    2008

  16. [21]

    B. Wang, J. Kuo, S. Granick, Bursts of active transport in living cells. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111(20), 208102 (2013)

    2013

  17. [22]

    P. Chen, Z. Huang, J. Liang, T. Cui, X. Zhang, B. Miao, L.T. Yan, Diffusion and directionality of charged nanoparticles on lipid bilayer membrane. ACS Nano 10(12), 11541–11547 (2016)

    2016

  18. [23]

    H¨ ofling, T

    F. H¨ ofling, T. Franosch, Anomalous transport in the crowded world of biological cells. Rep. Prog. Phys. 76(4), 046602 (2013)

    2013

  19. [24]

    Zhang, H.Y

    M.L. Zhang, H.Y. Ti, P.Y. Wang, H. Li, Intracellular transport dynamics revealed by single-particle tracking. Biophys. Rep. 7(5), 413 (2021)

    2021

  20. [25]

    Plerou, P

    V. Plerou, P. Gopikrishnan, L.A.N. Amaral, X. Gabaix, H.E. Stanley, Economic fluctuations and anomalous diffusion. Phys. Rev. E 62(3), R3023 (2000)

    2000

  21. [26]

    Masoliver, M

    J. Masoliver, M. Montero, G.H. Weiss, Continuous-time random-walk model for financial distributions. Phys. Rev. E 67(2), 021112 (2003) 31

    2003

  22. [27]

    Jiang, W.J

    Z.Q. Jiang, W.J. Xie, W.X. Zhou, D. Sornette, Multifractal analysis of financial markets: a review. Rep. Prog. Phys. 82(12), 125901 (2019)

    2019

  23. [28]

    Meyer, A.G

    P.G. Meyer, A.G. Cherstvy, H. Seckler, R. Hering, N. Blaum, F. Jeltsch, R. Met- zler, Directedeness, correlations, and daily cycles in springbok motion: from data via stochastic models to movement prediction. Phys. Rev. Res. 5(4), 043129 (2023)

    2023

  24. [29]

    Mu˜ noz-Gil, G

    G. Mu˜ noz-Gil, G. Volpe, M.A. Garcia-March, E. Aghion, A. Argun, C.B. Hong, T. Bland, S. Bo, J.A. Conejero, N. Firbas et al., Objective comparison of methods to decode anomalous diffusion. Nat. Commun. 12(1), 6253 (2021)

    2021

  25. [30]

    Sposini, D

    V. Sposini, D. Krapf, E. Marinari, R. Sunyer, F. Ritort, F. Taheri, C. Selhuber- Unkel, R. Benelli, M. Weiss, R. Metzler, G. Oshanin, Towards a robust criterion of anomalous diffusion. Commun. Phys. 5(1), 305 (2022)

    2022

  26. [31]

    O. Vilk, E. Aghion, T. Avgar, C. Beta, O. Nagel, A. Sabri, R. Sarfati, D.K. Schwartz, M. Weiss, D. Krapf et al., Unravelling the origins of anomalous diffusion: from molecules to migrating storks. Phys. Rev. Res. 4(3), 033055 (2022)

    2022

  27. [32]

    Wang, A.G

    W. Wang, A.G. Cherstvy, R. Metzler, I.M. Sokolov, Restoring ergodicity of stochastically reset anomalous-diffusion processes. Phys. Rev. Res. 4(1), 013161 (2022)

    2022

  28. [33]

    Timashev, Y.S

    S.F. Timashev, Y.S. Polyakov, P.I. Misurkin, S.G. Lakeev, Anomalous diffusion as a stochastic component in the dynamics of complex processes. Phys. Rev. E 81(4), 041128 (2010)

    2010

  29. [34]

    K. Chen, B. Wang, J. Guan, S. Granick, Diagnosing heterogeneous dynamics in single-molecule/particle trajectories with multiscale wavelets. Acs Nano 7(10), 8634–8644 (2013)

    2013

  30. [35]

    Wang, S.M

    B. Wang, S.M. Anthony, S.C. Bae, S. Granick, Anomalous yet Brownian. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106(36), 15160–15164 (2009)

    2009

  31. [36]

    Chubynsky, G.W

    M.V. Chubynsky, G.W. Slater, Diffusing diffusivity: a model for anomalous, yet Brownian, diffusion. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113(9), 098302 (2014)

    2014

  32. [37]

    Ribeiro, A.A

    H.V. Ribeiro, A.A. Tateishi, E.K. Lenzi, R.L. Magin, M. Perc, Interplay between particle trapping and heterogeneity in anomalous diffusion. Commun. Phys. 6(1), 244 (2023)

    2023

  33. [38]

    Ribeiro, A.A

    H.V. Ribeiro, A.A. Tateishi, L.G. Alves, R.S. Zola, E.K. Lenzi, Investigating the interplay between mechanisms of anomalous diffusion via fractional Brownian walks on a comb-like structure. New J. Phys. 16(9), 093050 (2014) 32

    2014

  34. [39]

    Meroz, I.M

    Y. Meroz, I.M. Sokolov, J. Klafter, Unequal twins: probability distributions do not determine everything. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107(26), 260601 (2011)

    2011

  35. [40]

    B. Wang, J. Kuo, S.C. Bae, S. Granick, When Brownian diffusion is not Gaussian. Nat. Mater. 11(6), 481–485 (2012)

    2012

  36. [41]

    Scher, E.W

    H. Scher, E.W. Montroll, Anomalous transit-time dispersion in amorphous solids. Phys. Rev. B 12(6), 2455 (1975)

    1975

  37. [42]

    Dechant, F

    A. Dechant, F. Kindermann, A. Widera, E. Lutz, Continuous-time random walk for a particle in a periodic potential. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123(7), 070602 (2019)

    2019

  38. [43]

    Mandelbrot, J.W

    B.B. Mandelbrot, J.W. Van Ness, Fractional Brownian motions, fractional noises and applications. SIAM Rev. 10(4), 422–437 (1968)

    1968

  39. [44]

    K. Chen, B. Wang, S. Granick, Memoryless self-reinforcing directionality in endosomal active transport within living cells. Nat. Mater.14(6), 589–593 (2015)

    2015

  40. [45]

    Persson, M

    F. Persson, M. Lind´ en, C. Unoson, J. Elf, Extracting intracellular diffusive states and transition rates from single-molecule tracking data. Nat. Meth. 10(3), 265– 269 (2013)

    2013

  41. [46]

    Monnier, Z

    N. Monnier, Z. Barry, H.Y. Park, K.C. Su, Z. Katz, B.P. English, A. Dey, K. Pan, I.M. Cheeseman, R.H. Singer, M. Bathe, Inferring transient particle transport dynamics in live cells. Nat. Meth. 12(9), 838–840 (2015)

    2015

  42. [47]

    Johnson, J.A

    A.R. Johnson, J.A. Wiens, B.T. Milne, T.O. Crist, Animal movements and population dynamics in heterogeneous landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 7, 63–75 (1992)

    1992

  43. [48]

    Cicerone, F.R

    M.T. Cicerone, F.R. Blackburn, M.D. Ediger, Anomalous diffusion of probe molecules in polystyrene: evidence for spatially heterogeneous segmental dynam- ics. Macromolecules 28(24), 8224–8232 (1995)

    1995

  44. [49]

    Yamamoto, A

    R. Yamamoto, A. Onuki, Dynamics of highly supercooled liquids: heterogeneity, rheology, and diffusion. Phys. Rev. E 58(3), 3515 (1998)

    1998

  45. [50]

    Chepizhko, F

    O. Chepizhko, F. Peruani, Diffusion, subdiffusion, and trapping of active particles in heterogeneous media. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111(16), 160604 (2013)

    2013

  46. [51]

    Yamamoto, A

    R. Yamamoto, A. Onuki, Heterogeneous diffusion in highly supercooled liquids. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81(22), 4915 (1998)

    1998

  47. [52]

    Lanoisel´ ee, N

    Y. Lanoisel´ ee, N. Moutal, D.S. Grebenkov, Diffusion-limited reactions in dynamic heterogeneous media. Nat. Commun. 9(1), 4398 (2018)

    2018

  48. [53]

    Hurtado, L

    P.I. Hurtado, L. Berthier, W. Kob, Heterogeneous diffusion in a reversible gel. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98(13), 135503 (2007) 33

    2007

  49. [54]

    Cicerone, P.A

    M.T. Cicerone, P.A. Wagner, M.D. Ediger, Translational diffusion on heteroge- neous lattices: a model for dynamics in glass forming materials. J. Phys. Chem. B 101(43), 8727–8734 (1997)

    1997

  50. [55]

    Cherstvy, A.V

    A.G. Cherstvy, A.V. Chechkin, R. Metzler, Anomalous diffusion and ergodicity breaking in heterogeneous diffusion processes. New J. Phys.15(8), 083039 (2013)

    2013

  51. [56]

    Weigel, B

    A.V. Weigel, B. Simon, M.M. Tamkun, D. Krapf, Ergodic and nonergodic pro- cesses coexist in the plasma membrane as observed by single-molecule tracking. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108(16), 6438–6443 (2011)

    2011

  52. [57]

    Manzo, J.A

    C. Manzo, J.A. Torreno-Pina, P. Massignan, G.J. Lapeyre, M. Lewenstein, M.F. Garcia Parajo, Weak ergodicity breaking of receptor motion in living cells stemming from random diffusivity. Phys. Rev. X 5(1), 011021 (2015)

    2015

  53. [58]

    Klafter, G

    J. Klafter, G. Zumofen, L´ evy statistics in a Hamiltonian system. Phys. Rev. E 49(6), 4873 (1994)

    1994

  54. [59]

    Metzler, Brownian motion and beyond: first-passage, power spectrum, non- Gaussianity, and anomalous diffusion

    R. Metzler, Brownian motion and beyond: first-passage, power spectrum, non- Gaussianity, and anomalous diffusion. J. Stat. Mech. 2019(11), 114003 (2019)

    2019

  55. [60]

    O. Vilk, E. Aghion, R. Nathan, S. Toledo, R. Metzler, M. Assaf, Classification of anomalous diffusion in animal movement data using power spectral analysis. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 55(33), 334004 (2022)

    2022

  56. [61]

    Krapf, N

    D. Krapf, N. Lukat, E. Marinari, R. Metzler, G. Oshanin, C. Selhuber-Unkel, A. Squarcini, L. Stadler, M. Weiss, X. Xu, Spectral content of a single non- Brownian trajectory. Phys. Rev. X 9(1), 011019 (2019)

    2019

  57. [62]

    Burov, J.H

    S. Burov, J.H. Jeon, R. Metzler, E. Barkai, Single particle tracking in systems showing anomalous diffusion: the role of weak ergodicity breaking. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 13(5), 1800–1812 (2011)

    2011

  58. [63]

    Sabzikar, J

    F. Sabzikar, J. Kabala, K. Burnecki, Tempered fractionally integrated process with stable noise as a transient anomalous diffusion model. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 55(17), 174002 (2022)

    2022

  59. [64]

    K. Liu, Y. Chen, X. Zhang, An evaluation of ARFIMA (autoregressive fractional integral moving average) programs. Axioms 6(2), 16 (2017)

    2017

  60. [65]

    Burnecki, E

    K. Burnecki, E. Kepten, Y. Garini, G. Sikora, A. Weron, Estimating the anoma- lous diffusion exponent for single particle tracking data with measurement errors-an alternative approach. Sci. Rep. 5(1), 11306 (2015)

    2015

  61. [66]

    Magdziarz, A

    M. Magdziarz, A. Weron, K. Burnecki, J. Klafter, Fractional Brownian motion versus the continuous-time random walk: a simple test for subdiffusive dynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103(18), 180602 (2009) 34

    2009

  62. [67]

    Meyer, E

    P.G. Meyer, E. Aghion, H. Kantz, Decomposing the effect of anomalous diffusion enables direct calculation of the Hurst exponent and model classification for single random paths. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 55(27), 274001 (2022)

    2022

  63. [68]

    Maraj, D

    K. Maraj, D. Szarek, G. Sikora, A. Wy loma´ nska, Empirical anomaly measure for finite-variance processes. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 54(2), 024001 (2020)

    2020

  64. [69]

    Magdziarz, T

    M. Magdziarz, T. Zorawik, Limit properties of L´ evy walks. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 53(50), 504001 (2020)

    2020

  65. [70]

    Wang, A.G

    W. Wang, A.G. Cherstvy, A.V. Chechkin, S. Thapa, F. Seno, X. Liu, R. Metzler, Fractional Brownian motion with random diffusivity: emerging residual noner- godicity below the correlation time. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 53(47), 474001 (2020)

    2020

  66. [71]

    Bhowmik, I

    B.P. Bhowmik, I. Tah, S. Karmakar, Non-Gaussianity of the van Hove function and dynamic-heterogeneity length scale. Phys. Rev. E 98(2), 022122 (2018)

    2018

  67. [72]

    Katz, E.B

    M.J. Katz, E.B. George, Fractals and the analysis of growth paths. Bull. Math. Biol. 47(2), 273–286 (1985)

    1985

  68. [73]

    Tejedor, O

    V. Tejedor, O. B´ enichou, R. Voituriez, R. Jungmann, F. Simmel, C. Selhuber- Unkel, L.B. Oddershede, R. Metzler, Quantitative analysis of single particle trajectories: mean maximal excursion method. Biophys. J. 98(7), 1364–1372 (2010)

    2010

  69. [74]

    Ernst, J

    D. Ernst, J. K¨ ohler, M. Weiss, Probing the type of anomalous diffusion with single-particle tracking. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16(17), 7686–7691 (2014)

    2014

  70. [75]

    Seckler, J

    H. Seckler, J. Szwabinski, R. Metzler, Machine-learning solutions for the analysis of single-particle diffusion trajectories. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 14(35), 7910–7923 (2023)

    2023

  71. [76]

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, J. Sun, Deep residual learning for image recognition. Proc. of the IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition pp. 770– 778 (2016)

    2016

  72. [77]

    Szegedy, W

    C. Szegedy, W. Liu, Y. Jia, P. Sermanet, S. Reed, D. Anguelov, D. Erhan, V. Vanhoucke, A. Rabinovich, Going deeper with convolutions. Proc. of the IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition pp. 1–9 (2015)

    2015

  73. [78]

    Kiranyaz, O

    S. Kiranyaz, O. Avci, O. Abdeljaber, T. Ince, M. Gabbouj, D.J. Inman, 1D convolutional neural networks and applications: a survey. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 151, 107398 (2021)

    2021

  74. [79]

    Hochreiter, J

    S. Hochreiter, J. Schmidhuber, Long short-term memory. Neural Comput. (1997) 35

    1997

  75. [80]

    J. Zhai, S. Zhang, J. Chen, Q. He, Autoencoder and its various variants. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Syst. Man Cybern. (SMC) pp. 415–419 (2018)

    2018

  76. [81]

    T. Chen, C. Guestrin, XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. Proc. 22nd ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowl. Discov. Data Min. pp. 785–794 (2016)

    2016

  77. [82]

    van den Oord, S

    A. van den Oord, S. Dieleman, H. Zen, K. Simonyan, O. Vinyals, A. Graves, N. Kalchbrenner, A. Senior, K. Kavukcuoglu, WaveNet: a generative model for raw audio. arXiv:1609.03499 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  78. [83]

    Vaswani et al., Attention is all you need

    A. Vaswani et al., Attention is all you need. Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Neural Information Processing Systems (2017)

    2017

  79. [84]

    Z. Li, F. Liu, W. Yang, S. Peng, J. Zhou, A survey of convolutional neural net- works: analysis, applications, and prospects. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 33(12), 6999–7019 (2021)

    2021

  80. [85]

    Y. Yu, X. Si, C. Hu, J. Zhang, A review of recurrent neural networks: LSTM cells and network architectures. Neural Comput. 31(7), 1235–1270 (2019)

    2019

  81. [86]

    Scarselli, M

    F. Scarselli, M. Gori, A.C. Tsoi, M. Hagenbuchner, G. Monfardini, The graph neural network model. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 20(1), 61–80 (2008)

    2008

  82. [87]

    Tavenard, J

    R. Tavenard, J. Faouzi, G. Vandewiele, F. Divo, G. Androz, C. Holtz, M. Payne, R. Yurchak, M. Rußwurm, K. Kolar et al., Tslearn, a machine learning toolkit for time series data. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 21(118), 1–6 (2020)

    2020

  83. [88]

    Gruver, M

    N. Gruver, M. Finzi, S. Qiu, A.G. Wilson, Large language models are zero-shot time series forecasters. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 36 (2024)

    2024

  84. [89]

    Worden, G

    K. Worden, G. Manson, The application of machine learning to structural health monitoring. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 365(1851), 515–537 (2007)

    2007

  85. [90]

    Ballard, C

    Z. Ballard, C. Brown, A.M. Madni, A. Ozcan, Machine learning and computation-enabled intelligent sensor design. Nat. Mach. Intell. 3(7), 556–565 (2021)

    2021

  86. [91]

    http://andi-challenge.org

    AnDi: the anomalous diffusion challenge. http://andi-challenge.org

  87. [92]

    Thapa, M.A

    S. Thapa, M.A. Lomholt, J. Krog, A.G. Cherstvy, R. Metzler, Bayesian analysis of single-particle tracking data using the nested-sampling algorithm: maximum- likelihood model selection applied to stochastic-diffusivity data. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 20(46), 29018–29037 (2018)

    2018

  88. [93]

    S. Park, S. Thapa, Y. Kim, M.A. Lomholt, J.H. Jeon, Bayesian inference of L´ evy walks via hidden Markov models. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.54(48), 484001 (2021) 36

    2021

  89. [94]

    Thapa, S

    S. Thapa, S. Park, Y. Kim, J.H. Jeon, R. Metzler, M.A. Lomholt, Bayesian inference of scaled versus fractional Brownian motion. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 55(19), 194003 (2022)

    2022

  90. [95]

    Z. Chen, L. Geffroy, J. Biteen, NOBIAS: analyzing anomalous diffusion in single- molecule tracks with nonparametric Bayesian inference. Biophys. J. 121(3), 20a (2022)

    2022

  91. [96]

    Krog, M.A

    J. Krog, M.A. Lomholt, Bayesian inference with information content model check for Langevin equations. Phys. Rev.E 96(6), 062106 (2017)

    2017

  92. [97]

    Krog, L.H

    J. Krog, L.H. Jacobsen, F.W. Lund, D. W¨ ustner, M.A. Lomholt, Bayesian model selection with fractional Brownian motion. J. Stat. Mech. 2018(9), 093501 (2018)

    2018

  93. [98]

    Manzo, M.F

    C. Manzo, M.F. Garcia-Parajo, A review of progress in single particle tracking: from methods to biophysical insights. Rep. Prog. Phys. 78(12), 124601 (2015)

    2015

  94. [99]

    Shen, L.J

    H. Shen, L.J. Tauzin, R. Baiyasi, W. Wang, N. Moringo, B. Shuang, C.F. Landes, Single particle tracking: from theory to biophysical applications. Chem. Rev. 117(11), 7331–7376 (2017)

    2017

  95. [100]

    Qian, M.P

    H. Qian, M.P. Sheetz, E.L. Elson, Single particle tracking. Analysis of diffusion and flow in two-dimensional systems. Biophys. J. 60(4), 910–921 (1991)

    1991

  96. [101]

    Saxton, Single-particle tracking: connecting the dots

    M.J. Saxton, Single-particle tracking: connecting the dots. Nat. Meth. 5(8), 671–672 (2008)

    2008

  97. [102]

    Torreno-Pina, C

    J.A. Torreno-Pina, C. Manzo, M.F. Garcia-Parajo, Uncovering homo-and hetero-interactions on the cell membrane using single particle tracking approaches. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 49(10), 104002 (2016)

    2016

  98. [103]

    J. Elf, I. Barkefors, Single-molecule kinetics in living cells. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 88(1), 635–659 (2019)

    2019

  99. [104]

    Cherstvy, S

    A.G. Cherstvy, S. Thapa, C.E. Wagner, R. Metzler, Non-Gaussian, non-ergodic, and non-Fickian diffusion of tracers in mucin hydrogels. Soft Matter 15(12), 2526–2551 (2019)

    2019

  100. [105]

    Horton, F

    M.R. Horton, F. H¨ ofling, J.O. R¨ adler, T. Franosch, Development of anomalous diffusion among crowding proteins. Soft Matter 6(12), 2648–2656 (2010)

    2010

  101. [106]

    J.H. Jeon, V. Tejedor, S. Burov, E. Barkai, C. Selhuber-Unkel, K. Berg-Sørensen, L. Oddershede, R. Metzler, In vivo anomalous diffusion and weak ergodicity breaking of lipid granules. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106(4), 048103 (2011)

    2011

  102. [107]

    Leijnse, J.H

    N. Leijnse, J.H. Jeon, S. Loft, R. Metzler, L.B. Oddershede, Diffusion inside living human cells. Biophys. J. 102(3), 377a (2012) 37

    2012

  103. [108]

    Codling, M.J

    E.A. Codling, M.J. Plank, S. Benhamou, Random walk models in biology. J. R. Soc. Interface 5(25), 813–834 (2008)

    2008

  104. [109]

    Gurtovenko, M

    A.A. Gurtovenko, M. Javanainen, F. Lolicato, I. Vattulainen, The devil is in the details: what do we really track in single-particle tracking experiments of diffusion in biological membranes? J. Phys. Chem. Lett.10(5), 1005–1011 (2019)

    2019

  105. [110]

    I. Smal, M. Loog, W. Niessen, E. Meijering, Quantitative comparison of spot detection methods in fluorescence microscopy. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging29(2), 282–301 (2009)

    2009

  106. [111]

    Roberts, R

    T.D. Roberts, R. Yuan, L. Xiang, M. Delor, R. Pokhrel, K. Yang, E. Aqad, T. Marangoni, P. Trefonas, K. Xu et al., Direct correlation of single-particle motion to amorphous microstructural components of semicrystalline poly (ethy- lene oxide) electrolytic films. J. Phys. Chem. ...

    2020

  107. [112]

    Z. Ye, C. Hu, J. Wang, H. Liu, L. Li, J. Yuan, J.W. Ha, Z. Li, L. Xiao, Burst of hopping trafficking correlated reversible dynamic interactions between lipid droplets and mitochondria under starvation. Exploration 3(5), 20230002 (2023)

    2023

  108. [113]

    Erimban, S

    S. Erimban, S. Daschakraborty, Fickian yet non-Gaussian nanoscopic lipid dif- fusion in the raft-mimetic membrane. J. Phys. Chem. B 127(22), 4939–4951 (2023)

    2023

  109. [114]

    Javanainen, H

    M. Javanainen, H. Martinez-Seara, R. Metzler, I. Vattulainen, Diffusion of inte- gral membrane proteins in protein-rich membranes. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 8(17), 4308–4313 (2017)

    2017

  110. [115]

    Winkler, R

    P.M. Winkler, R. Regmi, V. Flauraud, J. Brugger, H. Rigneault, J. Wenger, M.F. Garc ´ ıa-Parajo, Optical antenna-based fluorescence correlation spectroscopy to probe the nanoscale dynamics of biological membranes. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 9(1), 110–119 (2018)

    2018

  111. [116]

    Simon, L.E

    F. Simon, L.E. Weiss, S. van Teeffelen, A guide to single-particle tracking. Nat. Rev. Methods Primers 4(1), 66 (2024)

    2024

  112. [117]

    Mu˜ noz-Gil, M.A

    G. Mu˜ noz-Gil, M.A. Garcia-March, C. Manzo, J.D. Mart ´ ın-Guerrero, M. Lewen- stein, Single trajectory characterization via machine learning. New J. Phys. 22(1), 013010 (2020)

    2020

  113. [118]

    Kowalek, H

    P. Kowalek, H. Loch-Olszewska, L. Laszczuk, J. Opa la, J. Szwabi´ nski, Boost- ing the performance of anomalous diffusion classifiers with the proper choice of features. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 55(24), 244005 (2022)

    2022

  114. [119]

    Manzo, Extreme learning machine for the characterization of anomalous dif- fusion from single trajectories (AnDi-ELM)

    C. Manzo, Extreme learning machine for the characterization of anomalous dif- fusion from single trajectories (AnDi-ELM). J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 54(33), 334002 (2021) 38

    2021

  115. [120]

    Loch-Olszewska, J

    H. Loch-Olszewska, J. Szwabi´ nski, Impact of feature choice on machine learning classification of fractional anomalous diffusion. Entropy 22(12), 1436 (2020)

    2020

  116. [121]

    Gajowczyk, J

    M. Gajowczyk, J. Szwabi´ nski, Detection of anomalous diffusion with deep residual networks. Entropy 23(6), 649 (2021)

    2021

  117. [122]

    Granik, L.E

    N. Granik, L.E. Weiss, E. Nehme, M. Levin, M. Chein, E. Perlson, Y. Roich- man, Y. Shechtman, Single-particle diffusion characterization by deep learning. Biophys. J. 117(2), 185–192 (2019)

    2019

  118. [123]

    AL-hada, X

    E.A. AL-hada, X. Tang, W. Deng, Classification of stochastic processes by convolutional neural networks. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 55(27), 274006 (2022)

    2022

  119. [124]

    Conejero, `O

    J.A. Conejero, `O. Garibo-i-Orts, C. Lizama, Inferring the fractional nature of Wu Baleanu trajectories. Nonlinear Dyn. 111(13), 12421–12431 (2023)

    2023

  120. [126]

    T. Song. DeepSPT. (2020). https://github.com/AnDiChallenge/AnDi2020 TeamD DeepSPT

    2020

  121. [127]

    N. Firbas. NOA. (2020). https://github.com/AnDiChallenge/AnDi2020 TeamH NOA

    2020

  122. [128]

    Firbas, `O

    N. Firbas, `O. Garibo-i-Orts, M. ´A. Garcia-March, J.A. Conejero, Characteriza- tion of anomalous diffusion through convolutional transformers. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 56(1), 014001 (2023)

    2023

  123. [129]

    X. Feng, H. Sha, Y. Zhang, Y. Su, S. Liu, Y. Jiang, S. Hou, S. Han, X. Ji, Reliable deep learning in anomalous diffusion against out-of-distribution dynamics. Nat. Comput. Sci pp. 1–12 (2024)

    2024

  124. [130]

    S. Bo, F. Schmidt, R. Eichhorn, G. Volpe, Measurement of anomalous diffusion using recurrent neural networks. Phys. Rev. E 100(1), 010102 (2019)

    2019

  125. [131]

    Argun, G

    A. Argun, G. Volpe, S. Bo, Classification, inference and segmentation of anoma- lous diffusion with recurrent neural networks. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 54(29), 294003 (2021)

    2021

  126. [132]

    Garibo-i-Orts, A

    `O. Garibo-i-Orts, A. Baeza-Bosca, M.A. Garcia-March, J.A. Conejero, Efficient recurrent neural network methods for anomalously diffusing single particle short and noisy trajectories. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 54(50), 504002 (2021)

    2021

  127. [133]

    Kabbech, I

    H. Kabbech, I. Smal, TrackSegNet: a tool for trajectory segmentation into dif- fusive states using supervised deep learning. J. Open Source Softw. 9(98), 6157 (2024) 39

    2024

  128. [134]

    Verdier, M

    H. Verdier, M. Duval, F. Laurent, A. Cass´ e, C.L. Vestergaard, J.B. Masson, Learning physical properties of anomalous random walks using graph neural networks. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 54(23), 234001 (2021)

    2021

  129. [135]

    Verdier, F

    H. Verdier, F. Laurent, A. Cass´ e, C.L. Vestergaard, J.B. Masson, Variational inference of fractional Brownian motion with linear computational complexity. Phys. Rev. E 106(5), 055311 (2022)

    2022

  130. [136]

    Pineda, B

    J. Pineda, B. Midtvedt, H. Bachimanchi, S. No´ e, D. Midtvedt, G. Volpe, C. Manzo, Geometric deep learning reveals the spatiotemporal features of microscopic motion. Nat. Mach. Intell. 5(1), 71–82 (2023)

    2023

  131. [137]

    Seckler, R

    H. Seckler, R. Metzler, Bayesian deep learning for error estimation in the analysis of anomalous diffusion. Nat. Commun. 13(1), 6717 (2022)

    2022

  132. [138]

    X. Qu, H. Zhao, W. Cai, G. Wang, Z. Huang, GenML: a Python library to generate the Mittag-Leffler correlated noise. arXiv:2403.04273 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  133. [139]

    Golding, E.C

    I. Golding, E.C. Cox, Physical nature of bacterial cytoplasm. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96(9), 098102 (2006)

    2006

  134. [140]

    Stadler, M

    L. Stadler, M. Weiss, Non-equilibrium forces drive the anomalous diffusion of telomeres in the nucleus of mammalian cells. New J. Phys.19(11), 113048 (2017)

    2017

  135. [141]

    Kindermann, A

    F. Kindermann, A. Dechant, M. Hohmann, T. Lausch, D. Mayer, F. Schmidt, E. Lutz, A. Widera, Nonergodic diffusion of single atoms in a periodic potential. Nat. Phys. 13(2), 137–141 (2017)

    2017

  136. [142]

    Meyes, M

    R. Meyes, M. Lu, C.W. de Puiseau, T. Meisen, Ablation studies in artificial neural networks. arXiv:1901.08644 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  137. [144]

    Vega, S.A

    A.R. Vega, S.A. Freeman, S. Grinstein, K. Jaqaman, Multistep track segmenta- tion and motion classification for transient mobility analysis. Biophys. J.114(5), 1018–1025 (2018)

    2018

  138. [145]

    Dosset, P

    P. Dosset, P. Rassam, L. Fernandez, C. Espenel, E. Rubinstein, E. Margeat, P.E. Milhiet, Automatic detection of diffusion modes within biological membranes using back-propagation neural network. BMC Bioinform. 17, 1–12 (2016)

    2016

  139. [146]

    Zhang, F

    Y. Zhang, F. Ge, X. Lin, J. Xue, Y. Song, H. Xie, Y. He, Extract latent features of single-particle trajectories with historical experience learning. Biophys. J. 122(22), 4451–4466 (2023) 40

    2023

  140. [147]

    Y. Yu, Y. Zhu, S. Li, D. Wan, Time series outlier detection based on sliding window prediction. Math. Probl. Eng. 2014(1), 879736 (2014)

    2014

  141. [148]

    Helmuth, C.J

    J.A. Helmuth, C.J. Burckhardt, P. Koumoutsakos, U.F. Greber, I.F. Sbalzarini, A novel supervised trajectory segmentation algorithm identifies distinct types of human adenovirus motion in host cells. J. Struct. Biol. 159(3), 347–358 (2007)

    2007

  142. [149]

    Weron, K

    A. Weron, K. Burnecki, E.J. Akin, L. Sol´ e, M. Balcerek, M.M. Tamkun, D. Krapf, Ergodicity breaking on the neuronal surface emerges from random switching between diffusive states. Sci. Rep. 7(1), 5404 (2017)

    2017

  143. [150]

    Sikora, A

    G. Sikora, A. Wy loma´ nska, J. Gajda, L. Sol´ e, E.J. Akin, M.M. Tamkun, D. Krapf, Elucidating distinct ion channel populations on the surface of hip- pocampal neurons via single-particle tracking recurrence analysis. Phys. Rev. E 96(6), 062404 (2017)

    2017

  144. [151]

    Requena, S

    B. Requena, S. Mas´ o-Orriols, J. Bertran, M. Lewenstein, C. Manzo, G. Mu˜ noz- Gil, Inferring pointwise diffusion properties of single trajectories with deep learning. Biophys. J. 122(22), 4360–4369 (2023)

    2023

  145. [153]

    Matsuoka, T

    S. Matsuoka, T. Shibata, M. Ueda, Statistical analysis of lateral diffusion and multistate kinetics in single-molecule imaging. Biophys. J. 97(4), 1115–1124 (2009)

    2009

  146. [154]

    Wagner, A

    T. Wagner, A. Kroll, C.R. Haramagatti, H.G. Lipinski, M. Wiemann, Classifi- cation and segmentation of nanoparticle diffusion trajectories in cellular micro environments. PloS One 12(1), e0170165 (2017)

    2017

  147. [155]

    Matsuda, I

    Y. Matsuda, I. Hanasaki, R. Iwao, H. Yamaguchi, T. Niimi, Estimation of diffusive states from single-particle trajectory in heterogeneous medium using machine-learning methods. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 20(37), 24099–24108 (2018)

    2018

  148. [156]

    Gentili, G

    A. Gentili, G. Volpe, Characterization of anomalous diffusion classical statistics powered by deep learning (CONDOR). J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 54(31), 314003 (2021)

    2021

  149. [157]

    M. Arts, I. Smal, M.W. Paul, C. Wyman, E. Meijering, Particle mobility analysis using deep learning and the moment scaling spectrum. Sci. Rep. 9(1), 17160 (2019) 41

    2019

  150. [158]

    Martinez, C

    Q. Martinez, C. Chen, J. Xia, H. Bahai, Sequence-to-sequence change-point detection in single-particle trajectories via recurrent neural network for measur- ing self-diffusion. Transp. Porous Med. 147(3), 679–701 (2023)

    2023

  151. [159]

    Seckler, R

    H. Seckler, R. Metzler, Change-point detection in anomalous-diffusion trajecto- ries utilising machine-learning-based uncertainty estimates. J. Phys. Photonics 6(4), 045025 (2024)

    2024

  152. [160]

    Y. Mo, Y. Wu, X. Yang, F. Liu, Y. Liao, Review the state-of-the-art technologies of semantic segmentation based on deep learning. Neurocomputing493, 626–646 (2022)

    2022

  153. [161]

    J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.J. Li, K. Li, L. Fei-Fei, Imagenet: a large-scale hierarchical image database. Proc. IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition pp. 248–255 (2009)

    2009

  154. [162]

    T.Y. Lin, M. Maire, S. Belongie, J. Hays, P. Perona, D. Ramanan, P. Doll´ ar, C.L. Zitnick, Microsoft coco: common objects in context. Proc. Eur. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ECCV) pp. 740–755 (2014)

    2014

  155. [163]

    https://www.kaggle.com

    Kaggle. https://www.kaggle.com

  156. [164]

    Mu˜ noz-Gil, G

    G. Mu˜ noz-Gil, G. Volpe, M.A. Garc ´ ıa-March, R. Metzler, M. Lewenstein, C. Manzo, The anomalous diffusion challenge: single trajectory characterisation as a competition , in Emerging Topics in Artificial Intelligence 2020 , vol. 11469 (SPIE, 2020), pp. 42–51

    2020

  157. [165]

    Pavao, I

    A. Pavao, I. Guyon, A.C. Letournel, D.T. Tran, X. Baro, H.J. Escalante, S. Escalera, T. Thomas, Z. Xu, Codalab competitions: An open source plat- form to organize scientific challenges. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 24(198), 1–6 (2023). http://jmlr.org/papers/v24/21-1436.html

    2023

  158. [166]

    B. Requena. Anomalous Unicorns. (2020). https://github.com/AnDiChallenge/ AnDi2020 TeamA AnomalousUnicorns

    2020

  159. [167]

    H. Kabbech. Erasmus MC. (2020). https://github.com/AnDiChallenge/ AnDi2020 TeamF ErasmusMC

    2020

  160. [168]

    T. Bland. FCI. (2020). https://github.com/AnDiChallenge/AnDi2020 TeamJ FCI

    2020

  161. [169]

    Aghion, P.G

    E. Aghion, P.G. Meyer, V. Adlakha, H. Kantz, K.E. Bassler, Moses, Noah and Joseph effects in L´ evy walks. New J. Phys.23(2), 023002 (2021)

    2021

  162. [170]

    Szwabi´ nski

    J. Szwabi´ nski. Wust ML A. (2020). https://github.com/AnDiChallenge/ AnDi2020 TeamN WustMLA 42

    2020

  163. [171]

    Loch-Olszewska, P

    H. Loch-Olszewska, P. Kowalek. Wust ML B. (2020). https://github.com/ AnDiChallenge/AnDi2020 TeamO WustMLB1

    2020

  164. [172]

    Mu˜ noz Gil, C

    G. Mu˜ noz Gil, C. Manzo, G. Volpe, M.A. Garcia-March, R. Metzler, M. Lewen- stein. The anomalous diffusion challenge dataset (2020). https://zenodo.org/ record/3707702

    2020

  165. [173]

    Massignan, C

    P. Massignan, C. Manzo, J.A. Torreno-Pina, M.F. Garc ´ ıa-Parajo, M. Lewen- stein, G.J. Lapeyre Jr, Nonergodic subdiffusion from Brownian motion in an inhomogeneous medium. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112(15), 150603 (2014)

    2014

  166. [174]

    Lim, S.V

    S.C. Lim, S.V. Muniandy, Self-similar Gaussian processes for modeling anoma- lous diffusion. Phys. Rev. E 66(2), 021114 (2002)

    2002

  167. [175]

    Pinholt, S.S.R

    H.D. Pinholt, S.S.R. Bohr, J.F. Iversen, W. Boomsma, N.S. Hatzakis, Single- particle diffusional fingerprinting: a machine-learning framework for quantitative analysis of heterogeneous diffusion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118(31), e2104624118 (2021)

    2021

  168. [176]

    Mangalam, R

    M. Mangalam, R. Metzler, D.G. Kelty-Stephen, Ergodic characterization of nonergodic anomalous diffusion processes. Phys. Rev. Res. 5(2), 023144 (2023)

    2023

  169. [177]

    Chhabra, R.V

    A. Chhabra, R.V. Jensen, Direct determination of the f (α) singularity spectrum. Phys. Rev. Lett. 62(12), 1327 (1989)

    1989

  170. [178]

    Seckler, R

    H. Seckler, R. Metzler, D.G. Kelty-Stephen, M. Mangalam, Multifractal spectral features enhance classification of anomalous diffusion. Phys. Rev. E 109(4), 044133 (2024)

    2024

  171. [179]

    Bengio, A

    Y. Bengio, A. Courville, P. Vincent, Representation learning: a review and new perspectives. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 35(8), 1798–1828 (2013)

    2013

  172. [180]

    Zhong, L.N

    G. Zhong, L.N. Wang, X. Ling, J. Dong, An overview on data representation learning: from traditional feature learning to recent deep learning. J. Finance Data Sci. 2(4), 265–278 (2016)

    2016

  173. [181]

    van der Maaten, G

    L. van der Maaten, G. Hinton, Visualizing data using t-SNE. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 9(11) (2008)

    2008

  174. [182]

    McInnes, J

    L. McInnes, J. Healy, J. Melville, UMAP: uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction. arXiv:1802.03426 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  175. [183]

    Gardiner, Handbook of stochastic methods for physics, chemistry, and the natural sciences springer

    C.W. Gardiner, Handbook of stochastic methods for physics, chemistry, and the natural sciences springer. Berlin (4th Ed) (2009)

    2009

  176. [184]

    Fern´ andez-Fern´ andez, C

    G. Fern´ andez-Fern´ andez, C. Manzo, M. Lewenstein, A. Dauphin, G. Mu˜ noz- Gil, Learning minimal representations of stochastic processes with variational autoencoders. Phys. Rev. E 110(1), L012102 (2024) 43

    2024

  177. [185]

    Mu˜ noz-Gil, G.G

    G. Mu˜ noz-Gil, G.G. i Corominas, M. Lewenstein, Unsupervised learning of anomalous diffusion data: an anomaly detection approach. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 54(50), 504001 (2021)

    2021

  178. [186]

    Mu˜ noz-Gil, B

    G. Mu˜ noz-Gil, B. Requena, G. Fern´ andez-Fern´ andez, H. Bachimanchi, J. Pineda, C. Manzo. Andichallenge/andi datasets: Andi challenge 2 (2023). https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo.10259556 44

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.