Abstract:Visual models play a crucial role in both science and science communication. However, the distinction between mere analogies and mathematically sound graphical representations is not easy and can be misunderstood not only by laypeople but also within academic literature itself. Moreover, even when the graphical representation exactly corresponds to the mathematical model, its interpretation is often far from obvious. In this paper we discuss the "potential landscape" visualization commonly used for tipping points in the context of nonlinear dynamics and reveal potential pitfalls, in particular when distinguishing bifurcation induced tipping (B-tipping) from noise-induced tipping (N-tipping). We propose new visualization techniques for tipping dynamics, carefully distinguishing between B- and N-tipping as well as between single systems and ensembles of systems. Explicitly, we apply these visualizations both to molecular cell biology and to climate science in order to reveal the crucial differences in the interpretation of the visual models. We find that it is crucial to explicitly discuss the assumptions made within the visual model and to be aware of the risk of misinterpretation. Based on these findings, we propose as a next step to investigate individual mental models induced by these visualizations in the framework of empirical research.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve lies in the potential misunderstandings of visual models in science and scientific communication, especially regarding the "potential landscape", a visualization technique often used for critical points in non - linear dynamics. The author points out that while these visual models are very useful for understanding complex physical processes, they can also lead to misunderstandings, especially when distinguishing between critical points caused by bifurcation (B - tipping) and those caused by noise (N - tipping). Moreover, even if the graphical representation corresponds exactly to the mathematical model, its interpretation is often not obvious.
### Specific problems include:
1. **Misunderstanding of visual models**: Visual models may be misidentified as the true shape of actual physical objects (i.e., Fidelity of Gestalt), rather than as abstract functional objects (i.e., Functional Fidelity). For example, misinterpreting the "potential landscape" as a real mountain landscape may lead to a wrong understanding of the system's behavior.
2. **Distinction between bifurcation - induced critical points and noise - induced critical points**: In non - linear dynamics, critical points can be caused by bifurcation (B - tipping) or noise (N - tipping). These two mechanisms have different visual manifestations but are easily confused.
3. **Difference between single systems and ensemble systems**: When dealing with deterministic and stochastic systems, the trajectory of a single system and the state - density distribution of an ensemble system have different interpretation methods.
4. **Accuracy in scientific communication**: When communicating scientific results to the public, the accuracy and clarity of visual models are crucial, especially in fields such as climate science and molecular cell biology, where the complexity makes correct interpretation particularly important.
### Solutions:
The author proposes a series of new visualization techniques aimed at more clearly distinguishing between different types of critical points and the differences between single systems and ensemble systems. Specific measures include:
- **Clearly distinguish between single systems and ensemble systems**: In deterministic and stochastic systems, use different visualization methods to represent the trajectory of a single system and the state - density distribution of an ensemble system respectively.
- **Introduce quasi - potential**: By introducing the quasi - potential \( V_q(x,\eta,t) \), represent the probability distribution of the system state, thereby better reflecting the influence of randomness.
- **Apply to specific fields**: Apply these new visualization techniques to molecular cell biology and climate science to reveal the key differences in the interpretation of visual models in different fields.
### Formula explanations:
- **Relationship between quasi - potential and probability density**:
\[
V_q(x,\eta,t)\sim-\ln p(x,\eta,t)
\]
\[
p(x,\eta,t)=\frac{C}{\sigma^2}\exp\left(-\frac{2V(x,\eta,t)}{\sigma^2}\right)
\]
\[
V_q(x,\eta,t)=\frac{2}{\sigma^2}V(x,\eta,t)+\tilde{C}
\]
These formulas indicate that as the noise amplitude \(\sigma\) increases, the quasi - potential \(V_q\) will flatten, which reflects an increased probability of the system state crossing the potential threshold.
Through these improvements, the author hopes to reduce misunderstandings of visual models in scientific communication and improve the public's understanding of complex scientific concepts.