ArticleArXiv2025
Phase transitions in
Article in ArXiv, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The "critical brain hypothesis" posits that neural circuitry may be tuned close to a "critical point" or "phase transition"-a boundary between different operating regimes of the circuit. The renormalization group and theory of critical phenomena explain how systems tuned to a critical point display scale invariance due to fluctuations in activity spanning a wide range of time or spatial scales. In the brain this scale invariance has been hypothesized to have several computational benefits, including increased collective sensitivity to changes in input and robust propagation of information across a circuit. However, our theoretical understanding of critical phenomena in neural circuitry is limited because standard renormalization group methods apply to systems with either highly organized or completely random connections. Connections between neurons lie between these extremes, and may be either excitatory (positive) or inhibitory (negative), but not both. In this work we develop a renormalization group method that applies to models of spiking neural populations with some realistic biological constraints on connectivity, and derive a scaling theory for the statistics of neural activity when the population is tuned to a critical point. We show that the scaling theories differ for models of
Identifiers
40463702PMC12133079What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.