1: %\documentstyle[aps,epsf,multicol]{revtex}
2: \documentstyle[aps,manuscript,epsf,multicol]{revtex}
3:
4: \begin{document}
5: \draft
6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
7: \title{Signal estimation and threshold optimization using an array of
8: bithreshold elements}
9: \author{Aki-Hiro Sato}
10: \address{Department of Applied Mathematics and Physics, Graduate
11: School of Informatics, \\ Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan}
12: \author{Michihito Ueda}
13: \address{Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd. \\ 3-4, Hikaridai,
14: Soraku-gun, Kyoto 619-0237, Japan }
15: \author{Toyonori Munakata}
16: \address{Department of Applied Mathematics and Physics, Graduate
17: School of Informatics, \\ Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan}
18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
19: \maketitle
20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21: \begin{abstract}
22: We consider the problem of optimizing signal transmission through
23: multi-channel noisy devices. We investigate an array of bithreshold
24: noisy devices which are connected in parallel and convergent on a summing
25: center. Utilizing the concept of noise-induced linearization we
26: derive an analytical approximation of the normalized power norm and clarify
27: the relation between the optimum threshold and the standard deviation of
28: noises. We show that the optimum threshold value is 0.63 times the
29: standard deviation of the noises. This relation is applicable to both
30: subthreshold and suprathreshold inputs.
31: \end{abstract}
32: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
33: \pacs{PACS numbers: 05.40.Ca,02.50.Ey}
34: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
35: %\begin{multicols}{2}
36: \section{Introduction}
37: Stochastic resonance (SR) has attracted considerable attention of
38: many researchers during the last quarter
39: century~\cite{Benzi:81,McNamara:89,Wiesenfeld:94,Eichwald:97,Gammaitoni:98,Stocks,Duan:03}.
40: At first SR was proposed to explain the observed periodicities in
41: global climate dynamics~\cite{Benzi:81}. SR occurs when the
42: signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for the response of a single nonlinear system to a
43: subthreshold sinusoidal input signal has its maximum at a nonzero
44: noise strength $D$. As well-known, the SR effect is understood as
45: enhancement of the system input to a subthreshold input signal by
46: addition of noise.
47:
48: There are many studies on SR for a single element. For
49: example Gammaitoni {\it et al.} showed with SNR that a subthreshold
50: sinusoidal signal to a single threshold element is optimally
51: transduced by appropriate additive noise~\cite{Gammaitoni}. Collins
52: {\it et al.} also reported that a single neuron can optimally
53: transmit a slowly varying subthreshold aperiodic signal with the aid of
54: appropriate additive noise~\cite{Collins:95-a}. They proposed the
55: power norm $C_0$ and the normalized power norm $C_1$ in
56: order to measure a correlation between the input signal and the output
57: signal and showed that both $C_0$ and $C_1$ monmonotonically vary with
58: increasing the noise strength. It is known as {\it aperiodic
59: stochastic resonance} (ASR).
60:
61: Many researchers have both experimentally and numerically studied the
62: symmetrical stochastic resonator such as the Schmitt
63: trigger~\cite{Marchesoni:98,Rowe:99,Apostolico:97,Litong:01}. In
64: recent years, the central attention of SR seems to move to a
65: network of the stochastic resonators, instead of a single stochastic
66: resonator, such as the global coupled networks and linear
67: chains~\cite{Marchesoni:96,Lindner:01}. In more recent years a
68: parallel array of nonlinear elements gathers a lot of attention, where the
69: parallel array means that the nonlinear elements are connected in
70: parallel and convergent on a summing
71: center~\cite{Stocks,Collins:95-b,Chialvo:97}.
72:
73: Recently Stocks studied the parallel array of the nonlinear
74: devices and reported that the suprathreshold stochastic resonance (SSR) can
75: be observed on these array motivated by applications to
76: signal processing~\cite{Stocks}. Also from the standpoint of
77: neurophysiology Collins {\it et al.} and Chialvo {\it et al.} studied
78: an parallel array of noisy neurons can exhibit ASR for
79: slowly varying signal~\cite{Collins:95-b,Chialvo:97}. Consequently it
80: is important to consider the parallel array in both signal processing
81: and neurophysiology.
82:
83: The main focus of the article is to find an optimal threshold to transmit
84: an arbitrary signal on the parallel array of the bithreshold elements.
85: According to the assumption that the amplitude of the input
86: signal is smaller than the standard deviation of the noises we derive
87: an analytical approximation of the normalized power norm. Under this
88: assumption it is not necessary to distinguish between
89: subthreshold and suprathreshold. Furthermore we apply the
90: linear response theory to the system that we consider in the
91: article. The fundamental idea is the noise-induced linearization,
92: which is an effect that an ensemble average of output from a nonlinear
93: system is linearized due to noise~\cite{Dykman:94}. From the
94: theoretical approximation of the normalized power norm we show that
95: there exists the optimal threshold to maximize it.
96:
97: In fact Stocks and Mannella numerically showed that for a summing
98: network of FitzHugh-Nagumo equations adjusting the threshold to
99: maximize information transmission does not remove SR effects. They
100: pointed out that there is a optimal threshold to maximize the mutual
101: information~\cite{Stocks:01}. Our result is consistent with their
102: indication.
103:
104: The article is organized as follows. In Sec. \ref{sec:model}
105: we show the array of bithreshold units. It is well-known that Schmitt
106: trigger is a prototype of bithreshold devices~\cite{Marchesoni:98}. In
107: Sec. \ref{sec:theory} we theoretically derive an approximation of the
108: normalized power norm under the assumption that the norm of the input
109: signal is smaller than the additive noise. Utilizing the approximation
110: we find an optimal threshold where the normalized power norm is maximized. In
111: Sec. \ref{sec:simulation} we perform numerical simulations for the
112: model and show that the threshold value at the maximum normalized
113: power norm depends on the variance of the additive
114: noises. Sec. \ref{sec:conclusion} is devoted to concluding remarks.
115:
116: \section{Model}
117: \label{sec:model}
118: Figure \ref{fig:N-array} displays noisy bithreshold elements connected in
119: parallel and convergent on a summing center. $s(t_j)$, which is
120: sampled with a sampling period $T$, namely, $t_j = j T$ ($j = 0, 1,
121: 2, \ldots$), represents a weak aperiodic signal fluctuating around
122: 0 with $x_i(t_j)$ and $y_i(t_j)$ denoting the input to and output from
123: the $i$th subsystem, respectively. The input to the bithreshold element
124: is transmitted over noisy channel. Hence the input to the subsystem
125: is expressed as
126: \begin{equation}
127: x_i(t_j) = s(t_j) + \xi_i(t_j),
128: \end{equation}
129: where $\xi_i(t_j)$ ($j = 0, 1, 2, \ldots$) is independently sampled
130: from the Gaussian distribution,
131: \begin{equation}
132: p_i(\xi) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi D_i}} \exp\Bigl(-\frac{\xi^2}{2D_i}\Bigr),
133: \label{eq:gauss}
134: \end{equation}
135: where $D_i>0$ are the variance of $\xi_i(t_j)$. Each bithreshold
136: element is symmetric and has three output values. It is formalized by
137: \begin{equation}
138: y_i(t_j) = \left\{
139: \begin{array}{ll}
140: 1 & \mbox{($x_i(t_j) > \Lambda_i$)} \\
141: 0 & \mbox{($-\Lambda_i \leq x_i(t_j) \leq \Lambda_i$)} \\
142: -1 & \mbox{($x_i(t_j) < -\Lambda_i$)}
143: \end{array}
144: \right.,
145: \end{equation}
146: where $\Lambda_i>0$ are threshold values.
147:
148: The system output through the summing center $Y_N(t_j)$ is defined as,
149: \begin{equation}
150: Y_N(t_j) = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N y_i(t_j),
151: \label{eq:system-output}
152: \end{equation}
153: where $N$ is the number of the subsystems. Without noises, each
154: input $x_i(t_j)$ cannot cross the threshold value, leading to the system
155: output $Y_N(t_j) = 0$. With noises having an appropriate
156: variance, $x_i(t_j)$ can cross the threshold value.
157:
158: \section{Theoretical analysis}
159: \label{sec:theory}
160: We consider the $i$th bithreshold subsystem. Let $P_+(t_j)$, $P_-(t_j)$
161: and $P_0(t_j)$ be probabilities that $y_i(t_j)$ takes $1$,
162: $-1$ and $0$, respectively. For an arbitrary input signal $s(t_j)$
163: these probabilities are given by,
164: \begin{eqnarray}
165: P_+(t_j) &=&
166: \frac{1}{2}\mbox{erfc}\Bigl(\frac{\Lambda_i-s(t_j)}{\sqrt{2D_i}}\Bigr),
167: \label{eq:probability1}
168: \\
169: P_-(t_j) &=&
170: \frac{1}{2}\mbox{erfc}\Bigl(\frac{\Lambda_i+s(t_j)}{\sqrt{2D_i}}\Bigr),
171: \label{eq:probability2}
172: \\
173: P_0(t_j) &=& 1 - P_+(t_j) - P_-(t_j),
174: \label{eq:probability3}
175: \end{eqnarray}
176: where $\mbox{erfc}(x)$ is the complementary error function, which is
177: defined as,
178: \begin{equation}
179: \mbox{erfc}(x) = \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{x}^{\infty}e^{-u^2}du.
180: \end{equation}
181:
182: For simplicity we set $\Lambda_i = \Lambda$ and $D_i = D$ for all the
183: subsystems. From Eqs. (\ref{eq:probability1}), (\ref{eq:probability2})
184: and (\ref{eq:probability3}) we introduce $\lambda =
185: \frac{\Lambda}{\sqrt{D}}$ and $\zeta(t_j) =
186: \frac{s(t_j)}{\sqrt{D}}$. The input signal is subthreshold when
187: $\zeta(t_j) < \lambda$ and suprathreshold when $\zeta(t_j) > \lambda$.
188:
189: From Eqs. (\ref{eq:system-output}), (\ref{eq:probability1}),
190: (\ref{eq:probability2}) and (\ref{eq:probability3}) the ensemble
191: average of $Y_N(t_j)$ is calculated as
192: \begin{equation}
193: \langle Y_N(t_j) \rangle =
194: \frac{1}{2}\Bigl\{\mbox{erfc}\bigl(\frac{\lambda-\zeta(t_j)}{\sqrt{2}}\bigr) -\mbox{erfc}\bigl(\frac{\lambda+\zeta(t_j)}{\sqrt{2}}\bigr)\Bigr\}.
195: \label{eq:ensemble}
196: \end{equation}
197: Taylor expansion of Eq. (\ref{eq:ensemble}) around $\zeta(t_j)=0$ yields
198: \begin{equation}
199: \langle Y_N(t_j) \rangle \approx G(\lambda) \zeta(t_j)
200: + O\Bigl(\zeta(t_j)^3\Bigr),
201: \label{eq:linearization}
202: \end{equation}
203: where $G(\lambda)$ represents the first order coefficient, which is
204: given by
205: \begin{equation}
206: G(\lambda) = \frac{\partial}{\partial \zeta}\langle Y_N(t_j)
207: \rangle|_{\zeta(t_j)=0} = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}
208: e^{-\frac{\lambda^2}{2}}.
209: \label{eq:G}
210: \end{equation}
211: Thus Eq. (\ref{eq:linearization}) shows that $\langle Y_N(t_j) \rangle$
212: is a linear function of the input signal $\zeta(t_j)$ for $\langle
213: |\zeta| \rangle \ll 1$, where $\langle |\zeta| \rangle$ is the norm of
214: the input signal, measured by the average of the amplitude of the signal.
215: We call $G(\lambda)$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:linearization}) ``gain''.
216:
217: Now in order to measure correlation between the input signal $s(t_j)$
218: and the output signal $Y_N(t_j)$ we introduce the normalized power
219: norm~\cite{Collins:95-a}
220: \begin{equation}
221: C_1 = \frac{C_0}{[{\overline{s(t_j)^2}}]^{1/2}[\overline{(Y_N(t_j) -
222: \overline{Y_N(t_j)})^2}]^{1/2}},
223: \label{eq:def-C1}
224: \end{equation}
225: where $C_0$ is defined as
226: \begin{equation}
227: C_0 = \overline{s(t_j) Y_N(t_j)},
228: \label{eq:power-norm}
229: \end{equation}
230: with the overbar denoting an average over time,
231: \begin{equation}
232: \overline{s(t_j) Y_N(t_j)} =
233: \lim_{M\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{M}\sum_{j=1}^M s(t_j) Y_N(t_j).
234: \end{equation}
235: Maximizing $C_1$ corresponds to maximizing the coherence between
236: $s(t_j)$ and $Y_N(t_j)$, namely, it is equivalent to maximizing
237: information transmission through the devices in Fig. \ref{fig:N-array}.
238:
239: At first we discuss the numerator of Eq. (\ref{eq:def-C1}).
240: For large $N$ $Y_N(t_j)$ asymptotically tends to $\langle Y_N(t_j)
241: \rangle$ according to the law of large number. From
242: Eq. (\ref{eq:linearization}) the power norm $C_0$ is calculated as,
243: \begin{equation}
244: C_0 \approx \frac{G(\lambda)}{\sqrt{D}}||s||^2,
245: \label{eq:gain}
246: \end{equation}
247: where $||s||$ is define as $\sqrt{\overline{s(t_j)^2}}$, namely, the
248: power norm is proportional to the gain $G(\lambda)$ for a given input
249: signal.
250:
251: Next we consider the denominator of Eq. (\ref{eq:def-C1}). For the
252: purpose we introduce
253: $\eta(t_j) \equiv \langle Y_N(t_j) \rangle - Y_N(t_j)$ we have
254: $\langle \eta(t_j) \rangle = 0$ and
255: \begin{eqnarray}
256: \nonumber
257: \Delta_j \equiv \langle \eta^2(t_j) \rangle =
258: &=& \langle [Y_N(t_j) - \langle Y_N(t_j) \rangle]^2 \rangle \\
259: \nonumber
260: &=& \langle Y_N^2(t_j) \rangle - \langle Y_N(t_j) \rangle^2 \\
261: &=& \frac{1}{N}\Bigl\{P_+(t_j)+P_-(t_j) - \bigl(P_+(t_j)-P_-(t_j)\bigr)^2 \Bigr\}.
262: \label{eq:Delta}
263: \end{eqnarray}
264: $Y_N(t_j)$ is distributed around the ensemble average
265: $\langle Y_N(t_j) \rangle$, and $\sqrt{\Delta_j}$ is of order of
266: $N^{-1/2}$. Substituting Eqs. (\ref{eq:probability1}),
267: (\ref{eq:probability2}) and (\ref{eq:probability3}) into
268: Eq. (\ref{eq:Delta}) yields
269: \begin{eqnarray}
270: \nonumber
271: \lefteqn{\Delta_j(N,\lambda)} \\
272: \nonumber
273: &=& \frac{1}{N}\Bigl\{
274: \frac{1}{2}\Bigl(
275: \mbox{erfc}\bigl(\frac{\lambda-\zeta(t_j)}{\sqrt{2}}\bigr)
276: +\mbox{erfc}\bigl(\frac{\lambda+\zeta(t_j)}{\sqrt{2}}\bigr)
277: \Bigr) \\
278: &&-\frac{1}{4}\Bigl(
279: \mbox{erfc}\bigl(\frac{\lambda-\zeta(t_j)}{\sqrt{2}}\bigr)
280: -\mbox{erfc}\bigl(\frac{\lambda+\zeta(t_j)}{\sqrt{2}}\bigr)
281: \Bigr)^2
282: \Bigr\}.
283: \end{eqnarray}
284: Expanding the variance $\Delta_j$ around $\zeta(t_j)=0$ we have
285: \begin{eqnarray}
286: \nonumber
287: \lefteqn{\Delta_j(N,\lambda)}\\
288: &=& \frac{1}{N}\Bigl\{\mbox{erfc}\Bigl(\frac{\lambda}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigr)-
289: \frac{1}{\pi}\exp(-\lambda^2)\zeta(t_j)^2\Bigr\} +
290: O\Bigl(\zeta(t_j)^4\Bigl).
291: \label{eq:delta}
292: \end{eqnarray}
293: The first term of Eq. (\ref{eq:delta}) results from a fluctuation of the
294: output signal $Y_N(t_j)$ without the input signal.
295:
296: Now we consider $\overline{(Y_N(t_j) - \overline{Y_N(t_j)})^2}$,
297: calculated as follows~\cite{Chialvo:97}. We have
298: $\overline{(Y_N(t_j) - \overline{Y_N(t_j)})^2} = \overline{Y_N(t_j)^2}
299: \overline{Y_N(t_j)}^2$.
300: Since we consider a zero-mean input signal $\overline{Y_N(t_j)} =
301: 0$. From $Y_N(t_j) = \langle Y_N(t_j) \rangle + \eta(t_j)$ we have
302: \begin{eqnarray}
303: \nonumber
304: \overline{Y_N(t_j)^2}
305: &=& \overline{\langle Y_N(t_j) \rangle^2} + 2\overline{\langle
306: Y_N(t_j) \rangle \eta(t_j)} + \overline{\eta(t_j)^2} \\
307: &=& \overline{\langle Y_N(t_j) \rangle^2} + \overline{\Delta_j},
308: \label{eq:overbar-YN2}
309: \end{eqnarray}
310: where we use $\overline{\langle Y_N(t_j) \rangle
311: \eta(t_j)}=0$, which is proven by employing an ergodic assumption.
312: Hence from Eqs. (\ref{eq:power-norm}) and
313: (\ref{eq:overbar-YN2}) $C_1$ is expressed by
314: \begin{eqnarray}
315: \nonumber
316: C_1 &=&
317: \frac{G(\lambda)||s||^2}
318: {||s||\sqrt{D(\overline{\langle Y_N(t_j) \rangle^2} +
319: \overline{\Delta_j})}} \\
320: \nonumber
321: &=&
322: \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\frac{\overline{\Delta_j}}{\overline{\langle Y_N(t_j) \rangle^2}}}} \\
323: &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+c_1^{-1}}},
324: \label{eq:C1}
325: \end{eqnarray}
326: where $c_1$ denotes the ratio between $\overline{\langle Y_N(t_j)
327: \rangle^2}$ and the variance $\overline{\Delta_j}$:
328: \begin{equation}
329: c_1 = \frac{\overline{\langle
330: Y_N(t_j)\rangle^2}}{\overline{\Delta_j}}.
331: \end{equation}
332: This statistical measure, which is dimensionless and independent of
333: scale, is the squared reciprocal of the coefficient of variation.
334: High $c_1$ indicates low variability of the output signal.
335: If $\langle Y_N(t_j) \rangle$ is approximated by the first term of
336: Eq. (\ref{eq:linearization}), and $\overline{\Delta_j}$ the first term of
337: Eq. (\ref{eq:delta}), we obtain
338: \begin{equation}
339: c_1 = \frac{2N}{\pi}\frac{\exp(-\lambda^2)}{\mbox{erfc}\Bigl(\frac{\lambda}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigr)}||\zeta||^2,
340: \label{eq:c1}
341: \end{equation}
342: where $||\zeta|| = ||s||/\sqrt{D}$. From Eq. (\ref{eq:C1})
343: it is clear that $C_1$ is maximized when $c_1$ is maximize.
344: Moreover from Eq. (\ref{eq:c1}) it is easily confirmed that $c_1$ is
345: maximized at $\lambda \approx 0.63$, so that $0.63$ is the optimal
346: threshold.
347:
348: In order to infer the input signal $s(t_j)$ from the output signal
349: $Y_N(t_j)$ it is necessary that $\langle Y_N(t_j) \rangle$ is
350: sufficiently larger than the fluctuation of $Y_N(t_j)$. If we impose
351: the condition $c_1>1$, i.e., $C_1 > 1/\sqrt{2}$ we have
352: \begin{equation}
353: ||\zeta|| > \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2N}}\sqrt{\mbox{erfc}\Bigl(\frac{\lambda}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigr)}\exp\Bigl(\frac{\lambda^2}{2}\Bigr).
354: \label{eq:low}
355: \end{equation}
356: This inequality assures that we can infer the input signal $s(t_j)$ from
357: $\frac{\sqrt{D}Y_N(t_j)}{G(\lambda)}$ for $C_1 > 1\sqrt{2}$.
358:
359: \section{Numerical simulations}
360: \label{sec:simulation}
361: Figure \ref{fig:C1} displays the normalized power norm $C_1$ drawn as a
362: function of $\lambda$ at fixed
363: $||\zeta||$ from direct numerical simulations of the array of the bithreshold
364: elements at $N=100$. The input signal is given by $s(t_j) = 0.5
365: A\sin(2\pi f t_j) + A\cos(4\pi f t_j) + 0.25 A\sin(8\pi f t_j)$ at $f
366: = 10.0$ and $T=0.001$, where $||\zeta||$ is given by
367: $\sqrt{\frac{21}{32}}A/\sqrt{D}$. The points are obtained from the
368: numerical simulations for various $\lambda$ at $||\zeta||=1$, $0.1$
369: and $0.01$, respectively. The curves represent Eq. (\ref{eq:C1}) at
370: the same parameters as the numerical simulations. It is found that the
371: results from the numerical simulations is well fitted by the theoretical
372: relation for $||\zeta||=0.1$ and $0.01$. $C_1$ has it maximum at
373: $\lambda=0.63$.
374:
375: However for $||\zeta||=1$ it differs from the theoretical
376: equation. The reason is because the output signal $Y_N(t_j)$ is not
377: well approximated by the linear response of the input signal $s(t_j)$
378: due to the limit of applying the linear response theory. This
379: disagreement is originated from difference between the nonlinear
380: response of the system and the linear response assumed in
381: Sec. \ref{sec:theory}.
382:
383: We demonstrate the output signal $Y_N(t_j)$ for various $\lambda =
384: 0.63$, $1.5$ and $3.0$ as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:output}. The output
385: signal $Y_N(t_j)$ is similar to the input signal $s(t_j)$ in the
386: order for $\lambda$ shown. In this demonstration the input signal is
387: given by a periodic signal. Naturally the theoretical equation of $C_1$
388: which we obtained is applicable to any input signal (of course
389: an aperiodic signal) satisfied with $||\zeta|| < 1$. Specifically when
390: the input signal is satisfied with Eq. (\ref{eq:low}) the output
391: signal gives a good approximation of the input signal at $\lambda = 0.63$.
392:
393: \section{Conclusion}
394: \label{sec:conclusion}
395: We have investigated the parallel array of bithreshold elements
396: both theoretically and numerically. We give an analytical
397: approximation of the normalized power norm $C_1$ under the assumption
398: that the norm of the input signal $s(t_j)$ is smaller than the
399: standard deviation of the additive noises without distinguishing
400: between subthreshold input and suprathreshold input. We confirmed that the
401: theoretical approximation of $C_1$ is consistent with the results
402: obtained from the direct numerical simulations of the array of the
403: bithreshold elements when the norm of the input signal is smaller than
404: the standard deviation of the additive noises. While for the larger
405: norm than the standard deviation the difference between the
406: approximation and the numerical results appears. This disagreement is
407: originated from the nonlinear response of the system. We demonstrated
408: that the output signal gives a good approximation of the input signal
409: at an appropriate threshold. We clarify that the optimal threshold,
410: where the normalized power norm has a maximum value, is given by 0.63
411: times the standard deviation of the noises.
412:
413: Our study may be applied to a sophisticated array of amplifiers. Moreover
414: the result shows that a collection of simple bithreshold sensors can
415: detect a weak signal under an independently noisy environment.
416:
417: \begin{references}
418: \bibitem{Benzi:81} R. Benzi, S. Sutera, and A. Vulpiani, J. Phys. A
419: {\bf 14}, L453 (1981).
420: \bibitem{McNamara:89} B. McNamara and K. Wiesenfeld, Phys. Rev. A {\bf
421: 39}, 4854 (1989).
422: \bibitem{Wiesenfeld:94} K. Wiesenfeld, D. Pierson, E. Pantazelou,
423: C. Dames and F. Moss, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72}, 2125 (1994).
424: \bibitem{Eichwald:97} C. Eichwald and J. Walleczek, Phys. Rev. E
425: {\bf 55}, 6315 (1997).
426: \bibitem{Gammaitoni:98} L. Gammaitoni, P. H\"anggi, P. Jung and F. Marchesoni,
427: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 70} 223 (1998)
428: \bibitem{Stocks} N.G. Stocks, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 2310
429: (2000); Phys. Rev. E {\bf 63}, 041114 (2001); Phys. Lett. A {\bf 279},
430: 308 (2001).
431: \bibitem{Duan:03} F. Duan and B. Xu, Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos
432: {\bf 13}, 411 (2003).
433: \bibitem{Gammaitoni} L. Gammaitoni, F. Marchesoni,
434: E. Menichella-Saetta and S. Santucci, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62}, 349
435: (1989); L. Gammaitoni, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 52},
436: 4691 (1995).
437: \bibitem{Collins:95-a} J.J. Collins, C.C. Chow and T.T. Imhoff,
438: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 52}, 3321 (1995).
439: \bibitem{Marchesoni:98} F. Marchesoni, F. Apostolico, L. Gammaitoni and
440: S. Santucci, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 58}, 7079 (1998).
441: \bibitem{Rowe:99} A.C.H Rowe and P. Etchegoin, Phys. Rev. E
442: {\bf 64}, 031106 (2001).
443: \bibitem{Apostolico:97} F. Apostolico, L. Gammaitoni, F. Marchesoni
444: and S. Santucci, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 55}, 36 (1997)
445: \bibitem{Litong:01} M. Litong, Y. Hayakawa and Y. Sawada, Phys. Rev. E
446: {\bf 64} 026117 (2001).
447: \bibitem{Marchesoni:96} F. Marchesoni, L. Gammaitoni and A.R. Bulsara,
448: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}, 2609 (1996).
449: \bibitem{Lindner:01} J.F. Lindner, B.J. Breen, M.E. Wills, A.R. Bulsara
450: and W.L. Ditto, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 63}, 051107 (2001).
451: \bibitem{Collins:95-b} J.J. Collins, C.C. Chow and T.T Imhoff, Nature
452: {\bf 376}, 236 (1995).
453: \bibitem{Chialvo:97} D.R. Chialvo, A. Longtin and J. M\"uller-Gerking,
454: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 55}, 1798 (1997).
455: \bibitem{Stocks:01} N.G. Stocks and R. Mannella, Phys. Rev. E {\bf
456: 64}, 030902 (2001).
457: \bibitem{Dykman:94} M.I. Dykman, D.G. Luchinsky, R. Mannella,
458: P.V.E. McClintock, H.E. Short, N.D. Stein and N.G. Stocks,
459: Phys. Lett. A {\bf 193}, 61 (1994).
460: \end{references}
461:
462: %=============================================================================
463: \begin{figure}[htb]
464: \centering
465: \epsfxsize=250pt
466: \epsfbox{fig1.ps}
467: \caption{The array of bithreshold elements with a summing
468: center. $s(t_j)$ exhibits the input of the system. Each subsystem is
469: a bithreshold element, which has three output values. $x_i(t_j)$,
470: $y_i(t_j)$ and $\Lambda_i$ represent the input, the output and the
471: threshold value in the $i$th subsystem, respectively. All the output
472: of subsystems are summed by the summing center and divided by
473: $N$. $Y_N(t_j)$ shows the system output.}
474: \label{fig:N-array}
475: \end{figure}
476: %=============================================================================
477: \newpage
478: %==============================================================================
479: \begin{figure}[htb]
480: \centering
481: \epsfxsize=250pt
482: \epsfbox{fig2.ps}
483: \caption{The normalized power norm $C_1$, drawn as a
484: function of the threshold value $\lambda$ at $N=100$ and a fixed
485: amplitude of the input signal. We performed numerical simulations
486: using the input signal given by $s(t_j)
487: = 0.5 A\sin(2\pi f t_j) + A\cos(4\pi f t_j) + 0.25 A\sin(8\pi f
488: t_j)$ at $f = 1.0$ and $T=0.001$. Then we have
489: $\frac{||s||}{\sqrt{D}} = ||\zeta|| =
490: \sqrt{\frac{21}{32}}A/\sqrt{D}$. We calculate $C_1$ for various $\lambda$ at
491: $||\zeta||=1$, $0.1$ and $0.01$. A solid curve represents the
492: theoretical relation, Eq. (\ref{eq:C1}) at $||\zeta||=1$, a dashed
493: curve at $D=0.1$, a dotted curve at $0.1$ and a dashed curve at $0.01$.
494: Filled squares are results of the numerical simulations at
495: $||\zeta||=1$, unfilled circles at $0.1$, and
496: filled circles at $0.01$. It is found that for $||\zeta||=0.1$ and
497: $0.01$ the value of $\lambda$ maximizing $C_1$ is $0.63$.
498: }
499: \label{fig:C1}
500: \end{figure}
501: %==============================================================================
502: \newpage
503: %==============================================================================
504: \begin{figure}[htb]
505: \centering
506: (a)
507: \epsfxsize=120pt
508: \epsfbox{fig3a.ps}
509: (b)
510: \epsfxsize=120pt
511: \epsfbox{fig3b.ps}\\
512: (c)
513: \epsfxsize=120pt
514: \epsfbox{fig3c.ps}
515: (d)
516: \epsfxsize=120pt
517: \epsfbox{fig3d.ps}
518: \caption{Time series of the input signal $s(t_j)$, of which the
519: waveform is the same as Fig. \ref{fig:C1} (a). We performed
520: the numerical simulation at $N=100$, $D=0.1$ and $||\zeta||=0.1$.
521: The output signal $Y_N(t_j)$ at $\lambda = 0.63$ ($C_1=0.669$) (b),
522: at $\lambda = 1.5$ ($C_1=0.577$) (c) and $\lambda = 3.0$
523: ($C_1=0.166$) (d).}
524: \label{fig:output}
525: \end{figure}
526: %=============================================================================
527:
528: %\end{multicols}
529: \end{document}
530: