Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Analysing contrarian behaviour using nonlinear biased $q$-voter model

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the biased q-voter model with contrarians, the final state is polarized — a clear majority — everywhere except the two lines p = 1/2 and α = 1/2, where opinions are evenly split.

desk verdict Clean mean-field result on contrarians in the biased q-voter model; central phase diagram is credible for the q values examined, but the 'any q' claim is asserted, not proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01982 v1 pith:7O22OZS6 submitted 2025-09-02 physics.soc-ph cond-mat.stat-mech

Amit Pradhan , Pratik Mullick , Parongama Sen This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.soc-phcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords contrariansq-votermodelweightedinfluenceopiniondynamicsphasediagrammean-fieldtheorypolarizationrelaxationtimescales
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 tries to establish that contrarians—agents who always take the opposite of the influence they receive—do not produce the 'hung' 50-50 outcome familiar from earlier contrarian models when added to the biased q-voter model. According to the paper's mean-field analysis and Monte Carlo simulations, the population always settles into a polarized steady state with one opinion in the majority, except when the bias is perfectly neutral (p = 1/2) or when exactly half of the agents are contrarians (α = 1/2). These two conditions define the only lines in the (p, α) phase diagram on which the fractions of the two opinions are equal; everywhere else a clear majority emerges, with the sign of the majority reversing as α crosses 1/2. The paper also shows that higher contrarian fractions drive the system closer to balance and speed up relaxation, without ever allowing exact parity when p ≠ 1/2. The result matters because it identifies a mechanism—contrarians opposing both unanimous and weighted non-unanimous influence—that preserves diversity while still making a biased majority robust.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the mean-field rate equation for f+(t), Eq. (6): df+/dt = (1−2α)⟨p_q^+(n)⟩_binomial + α − f+, where p_q^+(n) = np/[np + (q−n)(1−p)] is the weighted probability that a non-contrarian adopts the positive view when n members of the q-agent panel are positive. The dynamics is carried by the fixed points of this equation: the paper shows there is exactly one stable fixed point in [0,1] for every α, p and q it analyses, and that it is 1/2 precisely when α = 1/2 or p = 1/2. Two simplifications do much of the work: α = 1/2 makes the equation linear with relaxation e^{−t}; p = 1/2 reduces it to the mean-field voter model with contrarians, df+/dt = α(1 − 2f+), whose fixed po

What would settle it

Numerically integrate the paper's rate equation for an untested intermediate q (for example q = 7, 13, or 27) on a fine grid of (α, p), starting from two far-apart initial fractions. A discovery of two attracting final fractions for any off-line parameter point—or a Monte Carlo run with many realizations converging to f+* = 1/2 away from α = 1/2 and p = 1/2—would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the final state of this contrarian-weighted q-voter model is governed by a single stable interior fixed point f+* of the fraction of positive-opinion agents. For any nonzero contrarian density α and any bias p, the system loses the consensus fixed points f+ = 0 and f+ = 1; instead, f+* is a unique value strictly between 0 and 1. This value equals 1/2—the perfectly mixed, 'hung' state—only on the lines α = 1/2 (for any p) and p = 1/2 (for any nonzero α). For α < 1/2, the majority tracks the bias: p > 1/2 produces a positive majority, p < 1/2 a negative one. For α > 1/2, the majority is the opposite of what the bias would select, because contrarians dominate t

Load-bearing premise

The whole phase diagram rests on the unproved assertion that for every panel size q and every bias p and contrarian fraction α the dynamics has exactly one stable final outcome; it is demonstrated for q = 2, q = 3, and q → ∞ and checked numerically up to q = 50, but if some intermediate q allowed two stable outcomes, the claimed two-line diagram could fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claimed phase diagram is correct, a biased influence process with contrarians never ends in exact opinion balance: even at contrarian fractions close to 1, the minority retains a small but nonzero presence and a stable majority always wins.
  • The only ways to engineer a perfectly mixed outcome are to remove the influence bias (p = 1/2) or to make exactly half the agents contrarians (α = 1/2); small deviations from either line immediately produce a majority.
  • For α < 1/2, increasing the bias strength saturates the majority; for α > 1/2, increasing bias moves the majority in the opposite direction, so contrarian density inverts the effect of bias.
  • Steady-state fractions are nearly independent of q for large q and only weakly q-dependent for small q, so the two-line phase structure is not an artifact of a particular panel size.
  • Relaxation to the polarized steady state is faster for larger contrarian fractions, with explicit timescales (τ = 1 along α = 1/2, τ = 1/(2α) along p = 1/2 for q = 2), so contrarians also change the transient dynamics, not only the final outcome.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the exact two-line structure probably depends on the specific weighted-average form of p_q^+(n); a testable extension is to replace the weighted average with a different aggregation rule and check whether the α = 1/2 and p = 1/2 boundaries survive or open into a coexistence region.
  • Editorial inference: an empirical reading is that a systematic opposition minority should not be expected to create a hung election unless its size is exactly half the population or the population is unbiased; otherwise it only narrows the majority or flips it.
  • Editorial extension: because the q → ∞ limit is derived by replacing n by its mean, the same two-line phase diagram is predicted for a deterministic mean-influence rule; a direct simulation of that rule would provide a clean independent test.
  • Editorial inference: the unique-fixed-point assumption is the real crux; if an intermediate q (say q = 10 or q = 20) admitted two stable fixed points for some (α, p), the claimed phase diagram would be replaced by a hysteresis/coexistence region, qualitatively closer to the earlier contrarian models this paper contrasts.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends the biased q-voter model of Ref. [27], in which non-unanimous influence groups exert weighted influence through a parameter p, by adding a fraction α of contrarians who oppose the prescribed influence in both unanimous and non-unanimous panels. Using a mean-field master equation (Eq. (6)) and Monte Carlo simulations on a complete graph, the authors argue that the final fraction f+* of positive opinions is always a single stable fixed point in (0,1), except at the special lines α=1/2 and p=1/2 where f+*=1/2. The resulting phase diagram (Fig. 5) thus has negative-majority and positive-majority regions separated by the two mixed lines, independent of q. The paper gives a closed-form solution for q=2, a numerical treatment for q=3, a simplified q→∞ mean-field limit, and relaxation timescales.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, this is a useful counterpoint to earlier contrarian q-voter models [13,15,17] in which sufficiently many contrarians produce a hung state; here bias p prevents exact parity except on the two special lines. The paper has real strengths: the mean-field equation (6) is derived correctly from the update rules; the q=2 solution is analytic; the p↔1-p, f+↔1-f+ symmetry is exact; the q→∞ O(1/q) reduction is documented; and Monte Carlo results for q=2,3,50 agree well with the theoretical curves. However, the headline claim is made for all q, and the proof of uniqueness of the fixed point of Eq. (6) is missing for general q. This is a load-bearing gap, not a cosmetic one.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. III A, Eq. (6)] The statement 'Remarkably, for any q, there is only one fixed point for f+ in general, for any α and p' is unproved and is load-bearing. For fixed q, Eq. (6) is a degree-q polynomial equation in f+, so a root-count argument is needed. The manuscript supplies a closed-form proof for q=2, a numerical treatment for q=3, a q→∞ limit, and numerical checks to q=50, but no argument covers all q≥4. If an intermediate q had an additional stable root in [0,1], the final state could become initial-condition dependent and f+*=1/2 could occur off the lines α=1/2, p=1/2, contradicting Fig. 5 and the abstract. Please add a proof of uniqueness/stability for all q, or explicitly restrict the phase diagram to the analyzed cases.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III A] After Eq. (4), the text says ω+→− expresses the transition rate 'from a negative state to a positive state'; it should read 'from a positive state to a negative state.'
  2. [Sec. III D, Fig. 8] The caption labels the first panel '(a) α = 0.9', but the text and the second panel indicate that (a) is α=0.1 and (b) is α=0.9. Please correct.
  3. [Sec. III A.1, Fig. 2(a)] The claim that all f+*(p) curves intersect at (0.5,0.5) needs qualification for α=0: at p=0.5 and α=0 every f+ is a fixed point, not a single intersection point.
  4. [Sec. III A.2] For q=3, the assertion of a single stable fixed point is based on numerical solution of Eq. (13). Please state this explicitly in the main text and report the root-finding method used.
  5. [Sec. II, Figs. 1–4] Monte Carlo results are averaged over 102 realizations at N=1024, but no error bars are shown. Reporting standard errors would strengthen the q=50 vs q→∞ comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: phase boundaries follow analytically from the model rules; the only self-citation supplies the baseline model, not the conclusion.

full rationale

The central phase diagram is derived from the model's own update rules. Equation (6), the mean-field master equation, is obtained directly from the transition rates in Eqs. (3)–(4), and the special lines p=1/2 and alpha=1/2 are obtained by direct substitution into that equation (yielding df_+/dt = 1/2 - f_+ and df_+/dt = alpha(1-2f_+), respectively). The fixed-point analysis is analytical for q=2, numerical for q=3, and a controlled q→∞ limit with corrections that vanish as 1/q (Appendix D). Monte Carlo simulations provide an independent check rather than an input. Reference [27] is self-cited, but it is used only to identify the non-contrarian baseline model; the dynamical rules are restated in full in Section II, so the present derivation does not depend on the cited paper's results. The relaxation timescale tau for q=3 and q→∞ is obtained by explicitly stated fitting, and it is not used to determine f_+* or the phase boundaries. The unproved assertion that Eq. (6) has exactly one stable fixed point for all q, alpha, and p is a correctness gap, not circularity: it is an additional mathematical claim, not the target conclusion assumed as input. Therefore the paper's derivation is self-contained and not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters enter the phase diagram calculation; p, alpha and q are model control parameters. The only fitted quantity, the relaxation time tau for q=3 and q to infinity, is used to describe dynamics, not to set fixed points. The key assumptions are the binomial mean-field decoupling, the q to infinity replacement of n by its mean, and the unproved uniqueness of the fixed point for general q.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption q-panel composition is drawn without replacement from a well-mixed population, so the probability of n positive agents in the panel is Binomial(q, f+), independent of the focal agent's state.
    Used to write Eqs. (3)-(6); valid for N to infinity fully connected network, but ignores correlations that could matter at finite N. Monte Carlo at N=2^10 supports it.
  • domain assumption For any q, alpha and p, Eq. (6) has exactly one stable fixed point in [0,1] for f+.
    Stated in Section III A as 'Remarkably, for any q, there is only one fixed point...'; proven only for q=2, q=3 and q to infinity, and used to infer the q-independent phase diagram.
  • domain assumption In the limit q to infinity, n inside the weighted influence probability may be replaced by its average q f+, and the O(1/q) fluctuation correction may be neglected.
    Appendix D provides a Taylor expansion with O(1/q) remainder; this drives the simplified mean-field equation (17).
  • domain assumption Contrarians oppose the influence prescription for both unanimous and non-unanimous q-panels, and a fraction alpha are contrarians, acting in either a quenched or annealed manner.
    Model definition in Section II. The central result depends on this rule: with unanimous-only anti-conformists the outcome would differ, as in references [13,15,17].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analysing contrarian behaviour using nonlinear biased $q$-voter model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7O22OZS6

@misc{pith2026250901982,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analysing contrarian behaviour using nonlinear biased $q$-voter model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7O22OZS6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01982}
}
abstract

We investigate the role of contrarians in a recently proposed weighted-influence variant of the $q$-voter model. In this framework, non-unanimous influence groups affect the focal agent through weighted contributions governed by a bias parameter $p$. We extend this setting by introducing a fraction $\alpha$ ($\alpha> 0$) of contrarians, defined as agents who systematically oppose the prevailing influence irrespective of whether the group is unanimous or divided. Analytical mean-field calculations and Monte Carlo simulations reveal that the final states of the system are governed by simple phase boundaries: regions of positive and negative majority separated by the lines $p=1/2$ and $\alpha=1/2$, with equally-mixed states confined to these boundaries. While low contrarian densities are insufficient to overturn the bias, higher values of $\alpha$ systematically drive the system closer to a balanced coexistence of opinions, though exact parity is prevented by the presence of bias $p$. We further analyze the temporal relaxation of opinions and extract the characteristic timescales of convergence. Our findings highlight how contrarians, acting as structured non-conformists, can suppress consensus and maintain opinion diversity, while internal biases ultimately hinder a perfectly even split.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01982 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Variations of fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Variations of the stable fixed point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Variation of stable fixed points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Heatmaps of the fixed point density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Phase diagram in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Plots of the global relaxation time scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (a) Plot of global time scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Variation of the local timescale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: (a) Plot of the global time scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Group Decision Making and Beyond 2. Distorted Polarization and Vulnerability

    physics.soc-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    In a zero-temperature Ising-like model of opinion dynamics, a single well-placed local field, or two opposed fields at the right sites, can override the random spontaneous consensus and force a predetermined majority.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [27]

    Mobilia, Physical Review E 92, 012803 (2015)

    M. Mobilia, Physical Review E 92, 012803 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [1]

    For q = 2, Eq

    q = 2 case We discuss the q = 2 case in greater detail as it can be handled analytically to get a number of interesting results. For q = 2, Eq. (6), reduces to d f+ dt = Af 2 + + Bf+ + α, (11) where A = 4 αp − 2α − 2p + 1 , B = 2 p − 1 − 4αp and we define ∆ = B2 − 4Aα . Upon solving the differential equation given by Eq. (11) analytically subjected to the i...

    work page

  3. [2]

    q = 3 case Now for q = 3 , the master equation for f+(t), i.e. Eq. (6), reduces to d f+ dt = [ 3p 2 − p − 6p 1 + p − 6αp 2 − p + 12αp 1 + p + 1 − 2α ] f 3 + + [ 6p 1 + p − 6p 2 − p + 12αp 2 − p − 12αp 1 + p ] f 2 + + [ 3p 2 − p − 6αp 2 − p − 1 ] f+ + α (13) Unlike the case q = 2 , where a closed form solution of f+(t) is available, for q = 3 this cubic di...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Sen and B

    P. Sen and B. K. Chakrabarti, Sociophysics: an intro- duction (OUP Oxford, 2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [4]

    5 all the fixed points are < 0

    5 and p, α > 0. 5 all the fixed points are < 0. 5, but they are > 0. 5 when p < 0. 5, α > 0. 5 and p > 0. 5, α < 0. 5. The value of f ∗ + being either greater than 0. 5 or less than

    work page

  6. [5]

    hung election

    5 indicates that the final state of the system has one of the opinions as the majority, even in the presence of contrarians. However, (i) for α = 0. 5, i.e., when half the population are contrarians, and (ii) for p = 0. 5, i.e., when the population is unbiased, we get f ∗ + = 0 . 5, indicating a situation where both the opinions have equal fractions in the...

    work page

  7. [6]

    q = 2 For q = 2 we have an explicit closed form solution for f+(t) given in Eq. (12). However, extracting a well defined relaxation timescale directly from this so- lution is not straightforward. At the same time f+(t) (see Fig. 1), can be fitted quite accurately to the func- tional form f+(t) = f ∗ +(p)(1 − exp(−t/τ (p))) starting from the initial conditio...

    work page

  8. [7]

    All the plots are for q = 2

    5 < α ≤ 1. All the plots are for q = 2. The global relaxation timescale τ depends explicitly on the initial condition f0, whereas the local timescale τL does not, since it follows directly from the stability analysis of the fixed point. The local timescale is thus universal in the sense that it is governed solely by the fixed point, which determines the ste...

    work page

Show all 66 references
  1. [8]

    hung election scenario

    q = 3 and q → ∞ Unlike the case q = 2 , where closed form expres- sions exist for the solution f+(t) and both local and global timescales, no such closed forms are available for q = 3 . For q → ∞ , the complete solution f+(t) is not analytically accessible, and therefore a clo...

  2. [9]

    Galam, International Journal of Modern Physics C 19, 409 (2008)

    S. Galam, International Journal of Modern Physics C 19, 409 (2008)

    2008

  3. [10]

    Castellano, S

    C. Castellano, S. Fortunato, and V. Loreto, Reviews of modern physics 81, 591 (2009)

    2009

  4. [11]

    Redner, Comptes Rendus

    S. Redner, Comptes Rendus. Physique 20, 275 (2019)

    2019

  5. [12]

    Sznajd-Weron, J

    K. Sznajd-Weron, J. Sznajd, and T. Weron, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 565, 125537 (2021)

    2021

  6. [13]

    Jusup, P

    M. Jusup, P. Holme, K. Kanazawa, M. Takayasu, I. Romić, Z. Wang, S. Geček, T. Lipić, B. Podobnik, L. Wang, et al., Physics Reports 948, 1 (2022)

    2022

  7. [14]

    Gsänger, V

    M. Gsänger, V. Hösel, C. Mohamad-Klotzbach, and J. Müller, Entropy 26, 212 (2024)

    2024

  8. [15]

    Q. Zha, G. Kou, H. Zhang, H. Liang, X. Chen, C.-C. Li, and Y. Dong, Financial Innovation 6, 44 (2020)

    2020

  9. [16]

    A. C. Martins, C. d. B. Pereira, and R. Vicente, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 388, 3225 (2009)

    2009

  10. [17]

    R. A. Holley and T. M. Liggett, The annals of probability pp. 643–663 (1975)

    1975

  11. [18]

    T. M. Liggett and T. M. Liggett, Interacting particle sys- tems, vol. 2 (Springer, 1985)

    1985

  12. [19]

    A. M. Timpanaro and C. P. Prado, Physical Review E 89, 052808 (2014)

    2014

  13. [20]

    tit-for-tat

    and scale-free networks [17, 23]. Another variant, namely the threshold q-voter model [23–25], relax the unanimity condition. In this case unanimity among min- imum q0 number of agents in the q-panel (0 < q 0 ≤ q) is considered enough to sway the focal agent. In the case of a ...

    2004 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Castellano, M

    C. Castellano, M. A. Muñoz, and R. Pastor-Satorras, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Mat- ter Physics 80, 041129 (2009)

    2009

  15. [22]

    Nyczka, K

    P. Nyczka, K. Sznajd-Weron, and J. Cisło, Physical Re- view E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 86, 011105 (2012)

    2012

  16. [23]

    Byrka, A

    K. Byrka, A. Jędrzejewski, K. Sznajd-Weron, and R. Weron, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 62, 723 (2016)

    2016

  17. [24]

    Nyczka and K

    P. Nyczka and K. Sznajd-Weron, Journal of Statistical Physics 151, 174 (2013)

    2013

  18. [25]

    M. A. Javarone and T. Squartini, Journal of Statisti- cal Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2015, P10002 (2015)

    2015

  19. [26]

    N. R. Anugraha, R. Muslim, H. H. Lugo, F. Nugroho, I. S. Alam, and M. A. Khalif, Physica D: Nonlinear Phe- nomena 472, 134508 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Gradowski and A

    T. Gradowski and A. Krawiecki, Physical Review E 102, 022314 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Fardela, Z

    R. Fardela, Z. Abdullah, and R. Muslim, International Journal of Modern Physics C 36, 2450211 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Chmiel and K

    A. Chmiel and K. Sznajd-Weron, Physical Review E 92, 052812 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    A. R. Vieira, A. F. Peralta, R. Toral, M. S. Miguel, and C. Anteneodo, Physical Review E 101, 052131 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    A. R. Vieira and C. Anteneodo, Physical Review E 97, 052106 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Nyczka, K

    P. Nyczka, K. Byrka, P. R. Nail, and K. Sznajd-Weron, PLoS One 13, e0209620 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Muslim, R

    R. Muslim, R. A. Nqz, and M. A. Khalif, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 633, 129358 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Mullick and P

    P. Mullick and P. Sen, PLoS One 20, e0316889 (2025). 15

    2025

  28. [36]

    Civitarese, Physical Review E 103, 012303 (2021)

    J. Civitarese, Physical Review E 103, 012303 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    A. W. Lo and A. C. MacKinlay, The review of financial studies 3, 175 (1990)

    1990

  30. [38]

    Corcos, J.-P

    A. Corcos, J.-P. Eckmann, A. Malaspinas, Y. Malev- ergne, and D. Sornette, Quantitative Finance 2, 264 (2002)

    2002

  31. [39]

    Park and H

    A. Park and H. Sabourian, Econometrica 79, 973 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    Zhang, S

    X. Zhang, S. Guan, Y. Zou, X. Chen, and Z. Liu, Euro- physics Letters 113, 28005 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Galam, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Ap- plications 333, 453 (2004)

    S. Galam, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Ap- plications 333, 453 (2004)

    2004

  34. [42]

    Stauffer and J

    D. Stauffer and J. S. Martins, Physica A: Statistical Me- chanics and its Applications 334, 558 (2004)

    2004

  35. [43]

    Borghesi and S

    C. Borghesi and S. Galam, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 73, 066118 (2006)

    2006

  36. [44]

    K. E. Kürten, International Journal of Modern Physics B 22, 4674 (2008)

    2008

  37. [45]

    J. J. Schneider, International Journal of Modern Physi cs C 15, 659 (2004)

    2004

  38. [46]

    M. S. de La Lama, J. M. López, and H. S. Wio, Euro- physics Letters 72, 851 (2005)

    2005

  39. [47]

    de La Lama, I

    M. de La Lama, I. Szendro, J. Iglesias, and H. Wio, The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems 51, 435 (2006)

    2006

  40. [48]

    H. F. de Arruda, A. Benatti, F. N. Silva, C. H. Comin, and L. da Fontoura Costa, Journal of Physics: Complex- ity 2, 025010 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Zhong, D.-F

    L.-X. Zhong, D.-F. Zheng, B. Zheng, and P. Hui, Phys- ical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 72, 026134 (2005)

    2005

  42. [50]

    Hong and S

    H. Hong and S. H. Strogatz, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 84, 046202 (2011)

    2011

  43. [51]

    Manoranjani, D

    M. Manoranjani, D. Senthilkumar, and V. Chandrasekar, Physical Review E 110, 064207 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    A. C. Martins and C. D. Kuba, Advances in Complex Systems 13, 621 (2010)

    2010

  45. [53]

    Bagnoli and R

    F. Bagnoli and R. Rechtman, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 88, 062914 (2013)

    2013

  46. [54]

    Crokidakis, V

    N. Crokidakis, V. H. Blanco, and C. Anteneodo, Physical Review E 89, 013310 (2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    J. P. Gambaro and N. Crokidakis, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 486, 465 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    L. Guo, Y. Cheng, and Z. Luo, Complexity 20, 43 (2015)

    2015

  49. [57]

    Jacobs and S

    F. Jacobs and S. Galam, Advances in Complex Systems 22, 1950008 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    M. C. Gimenez, L. Reinaudi, S. Galam, and F. Vazquez, Entropy 25, 1402 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Galam, Entropy 27, 306 (2025)

    S. Galam, Entropy 27, 306 (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    Zhang, Z

    X. Zhang, Z. Ruan, and Z. Liu, Chaos: An Interdisci- plinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 23 (2013)

    2013

  53. [61]

    Masuda, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 88, 052803 (2013)

    N. Masuda, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 88, 052803 (2013)

    2013

  54. [62]

    Tanabe and N

    S. Tanabe and N. Masuda, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 23 (2013)

    2013

  55. [63]

    S. D. Yi, S. K. Baek, C.-P. Zhu, and B. J. Kim, Phys- ical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 87, 012806 (2013)

    2013

  56. [64]

    Banisch, Advances in Complex Systems 17, 1450025 (2014)

    S. Banisch, Advances in Complex Systems 17, 1450025 (2014)

    2014

  57. [65]

    Khalil and R

    N. Khalil and R. Toral, Physica A: Statistical Mechanic s and its Applications 515, 81 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    R. A. Fisher and F. Yates, Statistical tables for biologi- cal, agricultural and medical research (Hafner Publishing Company, 1953)

    1953

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.