Observing scale-invariance in non-critical dynamical systems
Claudius Gros, Dimitrije Markovic

TL;DR
This paper clarifies that observed scale invariance in neural systems may not indicate true criticality, emphasizing the importance of sampling biases and distinguishing between critical states and critical systems.
Contribution
It distinguishes between critical states and critical systems, introduces the concept of observational criticality, and analyzes models showing scale invariance without being critical.
Findings
Scale invariance can arise from sampling biases in non-critical systems.
Critical dynamical systems can appear scale-invariant under certain observational conditions.
The paper clarifies the difference between criticality and critical states in neural dynamics.
Abstract
Recent observation for scale invariant neural avalanches in the brain have been discussed in details in the scientific literature. We point out, that these results do not necessarily imply that the properties of the underlying neural dynamics are also scale invariant. The reason for this discrepancy lies in the fact that the sampling statistics of observations and experiments is generically biased by the size of the basins of attraction of the processes to be studied. One has hence to precisely define what one means with statements like `the brain is critical'. We recapitulate the notion of criticality, as originally introduced in statistical physics for second order phase transitions, turning then to the discussion of critical dynamical systems. We elucidate in detail the difference between a 'critical system', viz a system on the verge of a phase transition, and a 'critical state',…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
