1:
2: \documentstyle[twocolumn,aps,pre,graphicx,amssymb,amsbsy,amsfonts]{revtex}
3: %\documentstyle[12pt,preprint,aps,pre]{revtex}
4: %\usepackage{amsmath, amstext, graphicx, amssymb}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \draft
9:
10: \title{SYNCHRONIZATION OF KAUFFMAN NETWORKS}
11:
12: \author{Luis G. Morelli and Dami\'an H. Zanette}
13:
14: \address{Consejo Nacional de
15: Investigaciones Cient\'{\i}ficas y T\'ecnicas\\ Centro At\'omico
16: Bariloche and Instituto Balseiro, 8400 Bariloche, R\'{\i}o Negro,
17: Argentina}
18:
19: \date{\today}
20: \maketitle
21:
22: \begin{abstract}
23: We analyze the synchronization transition for a pair of coupled
24: identical Kauffman networks in the chaotic phase. The annealed model
25: for Kauffman networks shows that synchronization appears through a
26: transcritical bifurcation, and provides an approximate description for
27: the whole dynamics of the coupled networks. We show that these
28: analytical predictions are in good agreement with numerical results
29: for sufficiently large networks, and study finite-size effects in
30: detail. Preliminary analytical and numerical results for partially
31: disordered networks are also presented.
32: \end{abstract}
33:
34: \pacs{PACS: 05.45.Xt, 05.65.+b}
35:
36: \section{Introduction} \label{s1}
37:
38: Synchronization of coupled elements is a form of collective evolution
39: present in a variety of complex real systems and mathematical models.
40: This class of emergent behavior has been observed in biological
41: populations \cite{winfree}, chemical reactions \cite{khrustova},
42: neural networks \cite{golomb}, and human social phenomena
43: \cite{applause}, among other instances. Models that account for
44: synchronization consider, for example, globally coupled logistic maps
45: \cite{logmaps}, chaotic oscillators \cite{rossler}, Hamiltonian
46: systems \cite{hamilton}, and formal neural networks \cite{neural}.
47:
48: In the usual formulation, two identical dynamical systems whose
49: individual dynamics is governed by the equation $\dot{\bf w} = {\bf F}
50: ({\bf w})$ are coupled to each other in the form
51: \begin{equation} \label{introd}
52: \dot{{\bf w}}_{1,2} =
53: {\bf F} ({\bf w}_{1,2}) +
54: {\epsilon} \left( {\bf w}_{2,1} -
55: {\bf w}_{1,2} \right),
56: \end{equation}
57: where $\epsilon$ is the coupling parameter. Full synchronization
58: takes place when both systems converge asymptotically to a common
59: trajectory, ${\bf w}_1(t) = {\bf w}_2(t)$. When the individual
60: dynamics is chaotic---a particularly relevant case in connection with
61: the description of real systems---full synchronization occurs above a
62: critical value $\epsilon_c$ of the coupling intensity. This critical
63: point is determined by the competition between chaos and coupling, and
64: can be calculated in terms of the Lyapunov exponent of the individual
65: dynamics \cite{logmaps}.
66:
67: While globally coupled chaotic elements with a few internal variables
68: have been extensively studied, synchronization of spatially extended
69: systems remains quite unexplored. Recently, synchronization has been
70: reported for a system consisting of two coupled complex
71: Ginzburg-Landau equations \cite{amengual}. Globally coupled neural
72: networks \cite{neural}, stochastically coupled cellular automata
73: \cite{eca,bagnoli,grass}, and nonidentical complex Ginzburg-Landau
74: systems \cite{batistutacitadinoonorario}, are other examples of
75: spatially extended systems that present a critical transition to
76: synchronization.
77:
78: In this paper we study the synchronization dynamics of two coupled
79: identical Kauffman networks, which are discrete extended dynamical
80: systems with quenched disorder. With respect to previous work on
81: coupled extended systems, the interest of Kauffman networks resides in
82: the fact that the transition to synchronization admits an analytical
83: description which results to be in excellent agreement with numerical
84: simulations. In Sect. \ref{kauffman} we briefly review the definition
85: of Kauffman networks and the annealed model for the calculation of
86: their overlaps. Next, in Sect. \ref{coupling}, we introduce a
87: stochastic coupling mechanism for Kauffman networks and propose an
88: analytical approach in the framework of the annealed model, which
89: identifies the transition to synchronization in our system as a
90: transcritical bifurcation. Section \ref{numerical}, where we report
91: our numerical results, is the core of the present paper. There, we
92: study the effects of spurious synchronization in finite-size networks,
93: consider the application of noise to the system to eliminate such
94: effects, and compare the results with the analytical description.
95: Remanent finite-size effects are numerically quantified and their
96: analytical treatment, which requires a formulation beyond the annealed
97: model, is outlined. In Sect. \ref{dca} we discuss the synchronization
98: transition in some subclasses of Kauffman networks, which may be
99: thought of as interpolations between generic Kauffman networks and
100: ordered cellular automata. Finally, in Sect. \ref{summary}, our
101: results are summarized and discussed.
102:
103:
104: \section{Kauffman networks} \label{kauffman}
105:
106: Kauffman networks, also known as random Boolean networks, were
107: introduced as a model for the problem of cell differentiation
108: \cite{k1,kauf}. Since then, they have been the object of many studies
109: concerning their properties \cite{kauf,d+p,d+w,fly,bp}.
110:
111:
112: A Kauffman network (KN) is a disordered deterministic dynamical
113: system. It consists of an $N$-site network, where each site is
114: connected to $K$ randomly chosen sites. The parameter $K$ is known as
115: the \textit{connectivity} of the network. We refer to the set of $K$
116: sites connected to a given site as its \textit{neighborhood}. The
117: state of each site is given by a Boolean variable $\sigma _{i} \in
118: \left\{ 0,1 \right\} $, and evolves according to the inputs coming
119: from the neighbor sites. The evolution rule is chosen independently
120: and randomly for each site. To each possible configuration of the
121: neighborhood---there are $2^{K}$ such configurations---an output is
122: assigned, namely, $1$ with probability $p$, or $0$ with probability
123: $1-p$. The parameter $p\in [ 0,1 ] $ is known as the \textit{bias} of
124: the rule. Then, for each variable $\sigma _{i}$ we have Boolean
125: functions $f_{i}$ such that $\sigma _{i}(t+1)=f_{i}\left[
126: \boldsymbol{\nu}_{i}(t) \right] $, where $\boldsymbol{\nu}_{i} =
127: \left(\sigma_{i_{1}},\dots, \sigma _{i_{K}} \right) $ is the set of
128: inputs of site $i$. The state of all sites is updated simultaneously
129: according to the corresponding functions. We can write an evolution
130: equation for the state vector of the network $\boldsymbol{\sigma} =
131: \left( \sigma_{1},\sigma _{2},\dots,\sigma_{N} \right) $, as
132: \begin{equation} \label{Phi}
133: {\boldsymbol{\sigma}} (t+1) = {\bf f}
134: \left[ \boldsymbol{\sigma} (t) \right] ,
135: \end{equation}
136: with
137: $
138: {\bf f} \left[ \boldsymbol{\sigma} (t) \right] =
139: \left( f_{1} \left[ \boldsymbol{\nu}_{1}(t) \right] ,
140: f_{2} \left[ \boldsymbol{\nu}_{2}(t) \right] ,\dots,
141: f_{N} \left[ \boldsymbol{\nu}_{N}(t) \right] \right)
142: $.
143:
144: The $K$ connections and the evolution rule of each site are chosen at
145: the beginning and kept fixed during the evolution. Thus, the disorder
146: is quenched and the dynamics is deterministic. For a finite number of
147: sites $N$, the number of states in phase space is also finite---it
148: equals $2^N$. Then, for any initial condition, the system will
149: eventually fall into a cycle.
150:
151: In the $(p,K)$ parameter space, Kauffman networks present phases of
152: frozen and chaotic evolution, separated by a critical line. The
153: transition between these phases has been extensively studied, and
154: characterized by means of several order parameters, such as the
155: Hamming distance \cite{d+p,d+w} and the stable core size \cite{fly}.
156: In most of this work we will deal with the case $p=1/2$ and $K=3$,
157: which lies within the chaotic phase.
158:
159: The annealed model (AM) was introduced to study the evolution of
160: overlaps between states in KNs \cite{d+p,d+w}. In this model, the $K$
161: connections $\left\{ i_{1},\dots,i_{K}\right\} $ of each site as well
162: as the Boolean functions $f_{i}$ are randomly changed at each time
163: step. This means that an entirely different realization of the
164: network is used at each step. Note that, while ordinary KNs are
165: deterministic, the annealed model works as a probabilistic automaton.
166: The asymptotic periodic behavior of KNs is absent in the annealed
167: model. The advantage of this model is that it allows for analytical
168: calculations, and it has been shown that its predictions are in good
169: agreement with the behavior of KNs in the limit $N \rightarrow \infty$
170: \cite{d+w}.
171:
172: Suppose that we have two identical KNs with the same connections and
173: rules. We feed them with different initial conditions, and let them
174: evolve in time. We define the \textit{overlap} $a(t)$ between the
175: networks as the fraction of homologous sites that are in the same
176: state at time $t$. In the AM, it is possible to calculate the time
177: evolution of the overlap. At time $t+1$ the connections and the rules
178: $f_{i}$ are reassigned, but the same changes are applied to both
179: networks, keeping them identical. The probability for a site having
180: all its inputs coming from sites in the same state in both networks is
181: $a(t)^{K}$. At the next time step, consequently, such site will be in
182: the same state in both networks, no matter the evolution rule chosen
183: for it. Thus, there is a fraction $a(t)^{K}$ of homologous sites
184: whose state will coincide at $t+1$. The remaining $1-a(t)^{K}$ sites
185: still have a probability of overlapping. Even if the state of the
186: neighborhoods of a given site are different in the two networks, it
187: may happen that the evolution rule assigns the same output to them.
188: The probabilities for $f_{i}\left( \boldsymbol {\nu}_{i}^{1}\right)
189: =f_{i}\left( \boldsymbol {\nu}_{i}^{2}\right) =0$ and for $f_{i}\left(
190: \boldsymbol {\nu}_{i}^{1}\right) =f_{i}\left( \boldsymbol
191: {\nu}_{i}^{2}\right) =1$ are, respectively, $(1-p)^2$ and $p^{2}$.
192: The overlap at time $t+1$ is then
193: \begin{equation} \label{evola}
194: a(t+1) = a(t)^{K}+\left[ 1-a(t)^{K}\right] \left[ p^2+( 1-p )
195: ^2 \right].
196: \end{equation}
197:
198: An alternative way to characterize the difference between two networks
199: is the difference automaton, defined by
200: \begin{equation} \label{difer0}
201: d_{i}(t)=\sigma _{i}^{1}(t)\oplus \sigma _{i}^{2}(t) ,
202: \end{equation}
203: where $\oplus$ denotes Boolean addition. The density of this automaton
204: is given by
205: \begin{equation} \label{difer}
206: D(t)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}d_{i}(t) ,
207: \end{equation}
208: and coincides with the Hamming distance between the networks. Note
209: that $D(t)=1-a(t)$ so that, from Eq. (\ref{evola}), we get
210: \begin{equation}
211: D(t+1)=2p(1-p)\left( 1-[ 1-D(t)]^{K}\right).
212: \label{dda}
213: \end{equation}
214: The Hamming distance has proven to be a suitable order parameter in
215: the study of the synchronization transition in coupled elementary
216: cellular automata \cite{eca,bagnoli,grass}, where the analysis of
217: overlaps between states is a basic tool to define the effects of
218: coupling. In the next section, we adapt the annealed model to the
219: description of coupled KNs.
220:
221: \section{Coupled Kauffman networks} \label{coupling}
222:
223: \subsection{Stochastic coupling}
224:
225: In order to establish a coupling mechanism between two KNs, we first
226: observe that, due to the discrete nature of KNs, the usual
227: deterministic coupling used for maps \cite{logmaps} cannot be applied
228: here. Consequently, we introduce a form of stochastic coupling between
229: networks as previously done for cellular automata \cite{eca}, where
230: the continuous parameter $q$ that controls the strength of the
231: coupling is a probability, as explained in the following.
232:
233: The evolution of the coupled system is implemented by the successive
234: application of two operators. First, the evolution function $\bf f$ is
235: applied to both networks as if they were not coupled [see Eq.
236: (\ref{Phi})], yielding ${\bf f} \left( \boldsymbol{\sigma}^{1} \right)
237: $ and ${\bf f} \left( \boldsymbol{\sigma}^{2} \right) $. Next, the
238: stochastic coupling operator ${\cal S}$ is applied:
239: \begin{equation}
240: \left\{
241: \boldsymbol{\sigma}^{1}(t+1),\boldsymbol{\sigma}^{2}(t+1)\right\} =
242: {\cal S} \left( {\bf f} \left[ \boldsymbol{\sigma}^{1}(t)
243: \right] , {\bf f} \left[ \boldsymbol{\sigma}^{2}(t) \right]
244: \right).
245: \end{equation}
246: The operator ${\cal S}$ compares the states of the networks site by
247: site. If $\sigma_{i}^{1}(t)=\sigma_{i}^{2}(t)$ the state of the site
248: is not modified. If, on the other hand, $\sigma_{i}^{1}(t) \neq
249: \sigma_{i}^{2}(t)$, with probability $q$ the states of the homologous
250: sites in both networks are set to the same value. This value is chosen
251: among $\sigma _{i}^{1}(t)$ and $\sigma_{i}^{2}(t)$, with the same
252: probability $1/2$ for each instance. With probability $1-q$, even if
253: $\sigma _{i}^{1} (t)\neq \sigma _{i}^{2}(t)$, the coupling does not
254: act, leaving the state of that site unchanged in both networks. We
255: call $q$ the \textit{coupling probability}. The whole evolution can
256: be formally expressed as
257: \begin{equation}
258: \left\{ \sigma_i^1 , \sigma_i^2 \right\} \to
259: \left\{
260: \begin{array}{ll}
261: \left\{ f_i \left( \boldsymbol{\nu}_i^1 \right),
262: f_i \left( \boldsymbol{\nu}_i^2 \right) \right\}
263: & \mbox{with probability } 1-q,\\
264: \left\{ f_i \left( \boldsymbol{\nu}_i^1 \right),
265: f_i \left( \boldsymbol{\nu}_i^1 \right) \right\}
266: & \mbox{with probability } q/2,\\
267: \left\{ f_i \left( \boldsymbol{\nu}_i^2 \right),
268: f_i \left( \boldsymbol{\nu}_i^2 \right) \right\}
269: & \mbox{with probability } q/2.\\
270: \end{array}
271: \right.
272: \end{equation}
273:
274: We stress that we are dealing with two identical extended systems, and
275: that the coupling mechanism connects homologous elements of these two
276: systems, namely, the $i$th site of network 1 is connected by coupling
277: with the $i$th site of network 2, as schematically illustrated in Fig.
278: \ref{acop}. The coupling mechanism defined above is symmetric, since
279: each network may influence the other. It could also be possible to
280: consider a biased, non symmetric coupling, in which one network drives
281: the other \cite{bagnoli}.
282:
283: \begin{figure}
284: \centering
285: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=0]{Esquema.eps}}
286: \vspace{0.5cm}
287: \caption{Schematic representation of the coupling mechanism. Coupling
288: links homologous elements of two extended systems---in this case, two
289: networks. Since coupling is symmetric, each network may act on the
290: other.}
291: \label{acop}
292: \end{figure}
293:
294: For $q=0$ the two networks are uncoupled, and evolve independently
295: from each other. For $q=1$, in contrast, the networks synchronize
296: completely at the first time step. From then on, they follow a common
297: trajectory in phase space without further intervention of the coupling
298: mechanism. Our aim in the following is to study the behavior of
299: coupled KNs for intermediate values of the coupling probability,
300: $q\in( 0,1)$.
301:
302: In the frozen phase, were no damage spreading takes place, an
303: arbitrary small coupling intensity $q>0$ leads eventually to
304: synchronization. The situation is different in the chaotic
305: phase. There, we find two competing driving forces acting on the
306: coupled system, namely, the chaotic dynamics which induces the
307: separation between two trajectories to grow \cite{kauf}, and the
308: coupling, by which the Hamming distance between the networks
309: decreases. In this paper, we focus attention on the chaotic phase.
310:
311: \subsection{Annealed model for coupled networks}
312:
313: The annealed model can be used to predict the behavior of the pair of
314: coupled KNs. We recall that the time evolution equation for the
315: Hamming distance in the case of two {\it free} networks is given by
316: Eq. (\ref{dda}). Now suppose that the Hamming distance of two {\it
317: coupled} KNs at time $t$ is $D(t)$. The first substep in the dynamics
318: of this system consists of the free evolution of both networks. The
319: Hamming distance after this substep, $D( t +\delta t)$, is therefore
320: given by Eq. (\ref{dda}). At the second substep, coupling acts on
321: the system, and a fraction $q$ of the homologous sites that were in
322: different states are assigned the same value. This leaves a fraction
323: $(1-q) D( t +\delta t)$ of sites with different states in the two
324: networks. Thus, the evolution of the Hamming distance for coupled
325: networks is given by the map
326: \begin{equation}
327: D(t+1)= F\left[ D(t) \right]=
328: \varphi (p,q) \left( 1- \left[ 1- D(t) \right]^K \right),
329: \label{ddac}
330: \end{equation}
331: with $\varphi (p,q)=2p(1-p)(1-q)$.
332:
333: It can be shown that the map (\ref{ddac}) has a stable fixed point
334: $D^*>0$ for $q<q_c$, with
335: \begin{equation} \label{qc}
336: q_c = 1 - \left[ 2 p (1-p) K \right]^{-1}.
337: \end{equation}
338: At $q=q_c$ the system undergoes a transcritical bifurcation
339: \cite{transcritical}, and $D^* = 0$ becomes a stable fixed point for
340: $q>q_c$. Thus, within the AM approximation, $q_c$ stands for the
341: critical coupling at which synchronization sets on. In this paper we
342: deal mostly with the case $K=3$, for which the stable equilibrium
343: $D^*$ can be given analytically as a function of the coupling
344: probability $q$. In this case, in fact, the map is defined by the
345: cubic function $F(x)= \varphi (p,q) x \left( 3 - 3x + x^2 \right)
346: $. The stable Hamming distance is
347: \begin{equation} \label{dqam}
348: D^*(q)= \left\{
349: \begin{array}{ll}
350: {3 \over 2} -
351: \frac{1}{2} \left[ -3+ \frac{4}{\varphi(p,q)} \right] ^{1/2}
352: & \mbox{for } q < q_c, \\ \\
353: 0 & \mbox{for } q \geq q_c.
354: \end{array}
355: \right.
356: \end{equation}
357: Note that near the critical point, $q\lesssim q_c$, this
358: Hamming distance is approximately given by
359: \begin{equation}
360: D^*(q) = 6 p(1-p) |q-q_c|.
361: \end{equation}
362: Therefore, the corresponding critical exponent is equal to unity.
363:
364: For $q\neq q_c$, the Hamming distance approaches $D^*(q)$
365: exponentially in time. For $q=q_c$, on the other hand,
366: Eq. (\ref{ddac}) can be approximately written, for $D(t) \to 0$, as
367: $D(t+1) = D(t)-(K-1) D(t)^2/2$. This implies a power-law decay for
368: long times, $D(t) \sim t^{-1}$. In the next section, we compare these
369: analytical results with those of extensive numerical simulations.
370:
371: \section{Numerical results} \label{numerical}
372:
373: We have performed numerical simulations of pairs of KNs coupled under
374: the scheme presented above. The results reported in this section
375: correspond to the case of $p=1/2$ and $K=3$. We have recorded the time
376: evolution of the Hamming distance, performing averages over $r$
377: realizations of $N$-site networks. The number of realizations is
378: chosen in such a way that, for different values of $N$, $rN \geq
379: 10^6$. In a typical realization, we start with two identical networks
380: with different random initial conditions. For each realization, new
381: connections and local functions are chosen. The networks are allowed
382: to evolve freely, without coupling, for a transient time $\tau$ of,
383: typically, $10^3$ steps. This is done for the networks to reach their
384: asymptotic dynamics before coupling is allowed to act. After this
385: transient, we turn the coupling on, reset the time to zero, and start
386: measuring $D(t)$.
387:
388:
389: In Fig. \ref{dt1} we show the time evolution of the Hamming distance
390: $D(t)$ for different values of the coupling parameter $q$. The values
391: of $q$ have been chosen to display the three typical behaviors,
392: namely, synchronization for $q > q_c$, critical decay for $q \approx
393: q_c$, and convergence to a finite distance for $q < q_c$.
394:
395: \begin{figure}
396: \centering
397: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{Fig1.ps}}
398: \caption{Hamming distance as a function of time for $10^3$-site
399: networks and three coupling probabilities $q$, averaged over $10^4$
400: realizations. The dashed line, of slope $-1$, is to be compared with
401: the power-law decay observed near the critical coupling.}
402: \label{dt1}
403: \end{figure}
404:
405:
406: For the present values of $p$ and $K$, the annealed model predicts a
407: critical coupling probability $q_c =1/3$ [cf. Eq. (\ref{qc})]. It is
408: however clear from Fig. \ref{dt1} that the power-law decay in $D(t)$
409: is observed for a lower coupling, $q =0.29$. Simulations of the same
410: networks with $q=1/3$, on the other hand, always lead to
411: synchronization. In fact, the annealed model is expected to provide a
412: good approximation to our system in the limit $N \to \infty$
413: \cite{d+w}. Figure \ref{dt2} shows the time evolution of the Hamming
414: distance for a fixed coupling probability, $q=0.29$, and several
415: values of $N$. The AM prediction from Eq. (\ref{ddac}) is also
416: shown. The strong dependence with the size of the network is
417: apparent. In particular, we find that for this coupling strength
418: $10^3$-site networks synchronize whereas $10^4$-site networks do not.
419: The AM result gives a good description for the case of $N=10^4$.
420:
421:
422: \begin{figure}
423: \centering
424: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{Fig2.ps}}
425: \caption{Hamming distance as a function of time for several network
426: sizes $N$, and fixed coupling probability $q=0.29$. Averages were
427: done over $10^3$ realizations for $N<10^4$, and over $10^2$
428: realizations for $N=10^4$. The dashed curve stands for the annealed
429: model prediction.}
430: \label{dt2}
431: \end{figure}
432:
433:
434: The dependence of $D(t)$ on the size of the system can be partially
435: ascribed to the effect of {\it spurious synchronization}. Because of
436: the discrete nature of KNs, two finite-size networks can be brought to
437: the same state by a fluctuation caused by the stochastic coupling. In
438: such case, the two networks will remain synchronized from then
439: on. This event is more frequent for small networks, where the relative
440: size of fluctuations increases. Near the critical point, furthermore,
441: where the Hamming distance vanishes asymptotically, the effect of
442: fluctuations is strongly enhanced. The net result of spurious
443: synchronization is that the effective critical coupling for
444: finite-size networks shifts to lower values as $N$ decreases. As a
445: consequence, the average Hamming distance in our simulations may
446: vanish even for coupling probabilities below $q_c$, as illustrated in
447: Figs. \ref{dt1} and \ref{dt2}.
448:
449: Spurious synchronization can be avoided by adding noise to the system.
450: Such strategy has already been adopted in this field, specifically, in
451: the study of globally coupled chaotic maps
452: \cite{kanekomilnor,manrubia1}, to prevent synchronization due to
453: round-off errors in computer simulations. We implement the addition of
454: noise as a new substep in the dynamics of our system. After the
455: evolution and coupling substeps, we flip the state of each site in one
456: of the networks with a small probability $\eta$. Figure \ref{dt3}
457: illustrates the effect of noise in the evolution of $D(t)$ for
458: $q=0.29$ and $N=10^3$. For this coupling intensity, where the
459: consequences of spurious synchronization are vast, the behavior of the
460: Hamming distance with and without noise changes drastically.
461:
462:
463: \begin{figure}
464: \centering
465: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{Fig3.ps}}
466: \caption{Hamming distance as a function of time for $10^3$-site
467: networks with $q=0.29$ and two values of the noise intensity $\eta$,
468: averaged over $10^3$ realizations. The effects of spurious
469: synchronization for $\eta = 0$ are apparent.}
470: \label{dt3}
471: \end{figure}
472:
473: Note that noise eliminates spurious synchronization for $q<q_c$, but
474: also prevents the KNs to exactly synchronize even for $q>q_c$.
475: Therefore, the critical behavior that characterizes the
476: synchronization transition in the absence of noise disappears as noise
477: is added, and is recovered only for $\eta\to 0$ (but $\eta\neq
478: 0$). The effect of noise can be straightforwardly incorporated to the
479: AM approximation.
480:
481: \begin{figure}
482: \centering
483: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{Map2.ps}}
484: \caption{Analytical results of the annealed model for the asymptotic
485: Hamming distance $D^*_\eta$, for different noise intensities
486: $\eta$. The insert shows the deviation $D^*_{\eta} - D^*_{0}$ from the
487: distance in the absence of noise.}
488: \label{map2}
489: \end{figure}
490:
491: The map that gives the time evolution of the Hamming distance is now
492: \begin{equation} \label{dnoise}
493: D(t+1) = (1-\eta) F\left[ D(t) \right]
494: + \eta \left( 1- F\left[ D(t) \right] \right),
495: \end{equation}
496: with $F\left[ D(t) \right]$ given by Eq. (\ref{ddac}). As for the
497: model without noise, for $K=3$ it is possible to analytically find the
498: asymptotic distance $D^*_\eta$ predicted by Eq. (\ref{dnoise}). Figure
499: \ref{map2} shows $D^*_\eta$ as a function of the coupling probability
500: $q$ for various noise intensities. Note the approximation to the
501: critical behavior as $\eta\to 0$. The insert displays the difference
502: between $D^*_\eta$ and the asymptotic distance in the absence of noise
503: as a function of $q$.
504:
505:
506: \begin{figure}
507: \centering
508: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{Fig4.ps}}
509: \caption{Hamming distance as a function of time for $10^4$-site
510: networks and three values of the coupling probability $q$, averaged
511: over $10^2$ realizations. The noise intensity is $\eta = 10^{-4}$.}
512: \label{dt4}
513: \end{figure}
514:
515:
516: In Fig. \ref{dt4}, we compare the prediction of Eq. (\ref{dnoise})
517: with numerical results for the Hamming distance of two coupled
518: $10^4$-site KNs with noise intensity $\eta = 10^{-4}$, for three
519: values of the coupling intensity. The agreement is excellent during
520: the transients, but some noticeable discrepancies persist in the
521: asymptotic value, especially, for $q\approx q_c$.
522:
523:
524: \begin{figure}
525: \centering
526: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{Fig6.ps}}
527: \caption{ Asymptotic Hamming distance for three network sizes $N$,
528: averaged over $5 \times 10^3$ time steps and $10^3$ realizations. The
529: noise intensity is $\eta = 10^{-4}$. The curve corresponds to the AM
530: prediction.}
531: \label{dq6}
532: \end{figure}
533:
534:
535: To study such discrepancies in detail, and thus test the AM results,
536: we compute from our numerical simulations the average asymptotic value
537: of $D(t)$, defined as
538: \begin{equation} \label{ave}
539: \langle D \rangle =
540: {1 \over T} \sum_{t=t_0}^{t_0+T}{D(t)}.
541: \end{equation}
542: Averages are performed over a time span $T$ of $5 \times 10^3$ time
543: steps, when the asymptotic regime of the coupled system has been
544: reached, i.e. for sufficiently large values of $t_0$. As above, we
545: choose $\eta=10^{-4}$, and determine $\langle D \rangle$ for several
546: values of $N$. Results for $N=2^7$, $2^{10}$, and $2^{14}$ are
547: presented in Fig. \ref{dq6}. The AM prediction for this value of
548: $\eta$ is also shown, as a curve. We see that the AM results
549: systematically overestimate the values of $\langle D\rangle$, and that
550: the agreement improves for larger values of $N$. Therefore, even when
551: noise has been added to avoid spurious synchronization, finite-size
552: effects persist.
553:
554: These remanent finite-size effects are measured by the difference
555: $\delta D^* = D^{*}_\eta - \langle D \rangle$ between the AM
556: prediction and the numerical average defined in Eq. (\ref{ave}). In
557: Fig. \ref{ndepfig} we plot $\delta D^*$ as a function of $N$ for
558: different coupling intensities. The insert shows $D^*_\eta$ and
559: $\langle D\rangle$ as a function of $N$ for the same values of $q$.
560: There are two well-differentiated regimes in the size dependence of
561: $\delta D^*$. For small $N$, the deviation between the AM estimate and
562: numerical results is practically constant. For large values of $N$ the
563: deviation decreases, seemingly as a power-law, $\delta D^* \sim
564: N^{-z}$. Least-square fits for $N>10^2$ yield $z= 1.1 \pm 0.2$ for the
565: exponent.
566:
567:
568:
569: \begin{figure}
570: \centering
571: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{Fig7ins7.ps}}
572: \caption{Difference between numerical results and the AM prediction
573: for the asymptotic Hamming distance as a function of size, for four
574: coupling probabilities $q$. The dashed lines have slope $-1$. The
575: insert shows the asymptotic Hamming distance in semilogarithmic scale,
576: to appreciate the behavior for small values of $N$.}
577: \label{ndepfig}
578: \end{figure}
579:
580:
581: To find an explanation for these finite size effects, it is necessary
582: to go beyond the annealed approximation. In the following, we outline
583: an approach to the calculation of the Hamming distance based on
584: statistical averages over states of the KNs. The density of a state
585: $\boldsymbol{\sigma}=(\sigma_1,\dots,\sigma_N)$ of a single KN is
586: defined as
587: \begin{equation}
588: \rho \left( \boldsymbol{\sigma} \right) =
589: \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N}{\sigma_i}
590: \end{equation}
591: [cf. Eq. (\ref{difer})], whereas the distance between two states
592: $\boldsymbol{\sigma}$ and $\boldsymbol{\sigma}'$ reads
593: \begin{equation} \label{D}
594: D(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{\sigma}') =
595: \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N}{(\sigma_i - \sigma_i')^2}.
596: \end{equation}
597:
598: For fixed $p$, $K$ and $N$, a realization $R$ of the network is
599: defined by the connections and the local rules. We define $\Omega_R$
600: as the set of all the states visited by the KN for this realization,
601: at asymptotically large times and from all the possible initial
602: conditions. In other words, the set $\Omega_R$ contains all the
603: states that belong to the limit cycles of the dynamics. It is possible
604: to introduce a probability distribution ${\cal P}_R \left(
605: \boldsymbol{\sigma} \right)$ over $\Omega_R$, given by the frequency
606: with which a given state $\boldsymbol {\sigma}$ is visited at
607: asymptotically large times averaged over all initial conditions.
608: Averages over $\Omega_R$ will be computed with this distribution. For
609: instance, the average of the density $\rho$ is
610: \begin{equation} \label{dR}
611: d_R = \langle \rho (\boldsymbol{\sigma}) \rangle _{\Omega_R} =
612: \sum_{\boldsymbol{\sigma} \in \Omega_R}
613: {{\cal P}_R (\boldsymbol{\sigma}) \rho (\boldsymbol{\sigma})} .
614: \end{equation}
615: The average of the distance between two states, Eq. (\ref{D}),
616: can be written as
617: \begin{equation} \label{Dav}
618: \langle D(\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{\sigma}')
619: \rangle _{\Omega_R}= 2 d_R (1 - d_R) - \frac{2}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N}
620: \xi_i^2,
621: \end{equation}
622: where $\xi_i = \langle \sigma_i \rangle_{\Omega_R} - d_R= \langle
623: \sigma_i' \rangle_{\Omega_R} - d_R$. Here, we have assumed that the
624: occurrence of states $\boldsymbol{\sigma}$ and $\boldsymbol{\sigma}'$
625: are probabilistically uncorrelated.
626:
627:
628:
629: The quantities $\xi_i$ measure, for each realization of the network,
630: the average deviation of the state of each site from the average
631: density $d_R$ over the whole network. Let us introduce the
632: distribution $\Gamma_R(\xi )$ as the fraction of sites in the KN with
633: deviation $\xi$ for a specific realization $R$. Unfortunately, the
634: explicit form of $\Gamma_R(\xi )$ is not known. It is however known
635: that this is a nontrivial distribution, in particular, due to
636: existence of the so-called stable core \cite{fly}. The stable core is
637: a set of sites that have always the same asymptotic, fixed states,
638: irrespectively of the initial condition. For these sites, $\langle
639: \sigma_i \rangle_{\Omega_R} =0$ or $1$, so that the deviations $\xi_i$
640: adopt their extremal values, $\xi_i = -d_R$ or $1-d_R$, respectively.
641: Using the distribution $\Gamma_R (\xi)$ to replace the sum in
642: Eq. (\ref{Dav}) by an integral, we have
643: \begin{equation} \label{q3}
644: \langle D (\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{\sigma}')
645: \rangle_{\Omega_R} = 2 d_R (1-d_R) -
646: 2 \int_{-d_R}^{1-d_R}{\Gamma_R (\xi) \xi^2 d\xi} .
647: \end{equation}
648: Now, analytical results on the size of the stable core \cite{fly}
649: suggest that, as $N\to \infty$, $\Gamma_R(\xi)$ approaches an
650: asymptotic profile $\Gamma(\xi)$ which depends on $p$ and $K$, but
651: becomes independent of the specific realization of the network. For
652: large sizes, we may assume a dependence of the form
653: \begin{equation} \label{Gamma}
654: \Gamma_R (\xi) \approx \Gamma (\xi) -N^{-1} \Gamma'_R (\xi),
655: \end{equation}
656: where $\Gamma'_R$ is the first (analytical) correction due to finite
657: sizes. Within these assumptions, Eq. (\ref{q3}) takes the form
658: \begin{equation} \label{D0}
659: \langle D (\boldsymbol{\sigma},\boldsymbol{\sigma}')
660: \rangle_{\Omega_R} = D_0
661: - \frac{2}{N} \int_{-d_R}^{1-d_R}{\Gamma'_R (\xi)
662: \xi^2 d\xi} ,
663: \end{equation}
664: where
665: \begin{equation}
666: D_0 = 2 d_R (1-d_R) - 2 \int_{-d_R}^{1-d_R}{\Gamma
667: (\xi) \xi^2 d\xi}
668: \end{equation}
669: is the asymptotic distance for $N \rightarrow \infty$.
670:
671: We now associate $\langle D (\boldsymbol{\sigma}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}
672: ') \rangle_{\Omega_R}$ with the distance between the states of two
673: coupled KNs at a given (long) time. Indeed, in our system both
674: networks have the same connections and rules, and correspond therefore
675: to the same realization $R$ of the network. According to the
676: definition (\ref{difer0}) and (\ref{difer}), after an average over
677: realizations of the network for fixed $p$, $K$, and $N$ is performed,
678: the distance $\langle D (\boldsymbol{\sigma}, \boldsymbol{\sigma}')
679: \rangle_{\Omega_R}$ coincides with the Hamming distance $\langle D
680: \rangle$, Eq. (\ref{ave}), considered above. In Eq. (\ref{D0}),
681: thus, $D_0$ should correspond to the Hamming distance predicted by the
682: AM approximation, valid for $N\to \infty$, and the first correction to
683: the AM estimate is given by the additional term. As found from our
684: simulations, this term depends on the network size as $N^{-1}$. The
685: ansatz (\ref{Gamma}) is therefore supported by numerical results. Note
686: that these conclusions are independent of the strength of coupling,
687: measured by the probability $q$, since the only effect of the coupling
688: dynamics in connection with the above analysis is to change the set of
689: asymptotic states $\Omega_R$ and the profile of the distribution
690: $\Gamma_R(\xi)$.
691:
692: \section{Disordered cellular automata and partially ordered networks}
693: \label{dca}
694:
695: According to the results reported in the previous sections, the
696: synchronization transition of stochastically coupled KNs on the one
697: hand, and of stochastically coupled elementary cellular automata (ECA,
698: \cite{wolf}) on the other, are qualitatively different. Namely, they
699: belong to different universality classes. Whereas we have found that
700: synchronization in KNs appears through a transcritical
701: bifurcation---with a critical exponent equal to unity for the
702: asymptotic Hamming distance---the corresponding transition in ECA has
703: been shown to exhibit nontrivial exponents \cite{eca}, which seem to
704: suggest that it belongs to the universality class of directed
705: percolation \cite{grass}. It is therefore relevant to study a third
706: class of systems, intermediate between ECA and generic KNs.
707:
708: In a generic KN there are two sources of disorder. We have the network
709: topology, determined by the random choice of connections, and the
710: local evolution rules, which are also chosen at random. On the other
711: hand, in cellular automata both the topology and the dynamical rules
712: are fully homogeneous. ECA can indeed be interpreted as a very special
713: subclass of KNs with $K=3$, where the choice of dynamical rules and
714: connections is deterministic. In order to distinguish between the
715: effects of disorder in the topology and in the dynamics on the
716: synchronization transition, we consider now the subclass of KNs where
717: the connections are still chosen at random but the local rule is the
718: same for all sites. We refer to these networks as disordered cellular
719: automata (DCA).
720:
721: We focus here on the elementary rule $22$, which exhibits chaotic
722: evolution \cite{wolf}. This rule is defined by the Boolean function
723: $f(\{0,0,1\} ) = f(\{0,1,0\} )= f(\{1,0,0\} )=1$ and $f=0$ for the
724: remaining five possible neighborhoods (see Table \ref{rule22}). Thus,
725: the bias for rule $22$ is $p=3/8$. This DCA, however, cannot be
726: thought of as a KN with $p=3/8$. In a generic KN with this bias, in
727: fact, the local evolution could be substantially different from the
728: behavior of rule $22$. In particular, the dynamics at some sites may
729: be governed by nonchaotic rules, giving rise to sensible differences
730: in the global behavior. This is clearly illustrated, for instance, by
731: a measurement of the asymptotic density of a rule-$22$ DCA, which
732: yields $d \approx 0.423$, instead of $d=p=0.375$.
733:
734:
735:
736: The formulation of an annealed model of DCA requires a different
737: approach, in order to account for the homogeneity of the dynamical
738: rules. We define the AM by reassigning all the connections at each
739: time step, but keeping the functions $f_i=f$ fixed. Suppose that
740: we have two networks with overlap $a(t)$. The probability for a site
741: to have exactly $K-l$ of its reassigned inputs coming from
742: homologous sites in the same state is
743: \begin{equation}
744: p_{l}(t)= {K \choose l} a(t)^{K-l}\left[ 1-a(t)\right]^{l} .
745: \end{equation}
746: We introduce the quantity $A_{l}$ as the probability for two
747: homologous sites having all but $l$ inputs coming from homologous
748: sites in the same state to give the same output. The overlap at time
749: $t+1$ is then given by
750: \begin{equation}
751: \label{am-dnur}
752: a(t+1)=\sum\limits_{l=0}^{K}A_{l}p_{l}(t).
753: \end{equation}
754: The quantities $A_l$ depend on the evolution rule, and their value is
755: fixed. They can be evaluated within some approximations, as shown in
756: the Appendix. Note that $A_{0}=1$ because, no matter the rule, if the
757: inputs are all equal the outputs will coincide. In the annealed model
758: for KNs we had $A_{0}=1$ and $A_{l}=p^{2}+ (1-p)^{2}$ for $l=1,\dots
759: ,K$. For $K=3$ the map for the Hamming distance can be casted into
760: the form
761: \begin{equation} \label{bbb}
762: D(t+1) = B_1 D(t) + B_2 D(t)^2 + B_3 D(t)^3,
763: \end{equation}
764: with $ B_1= 3 \left( 1-A_1 \right)$, $ B_2= 3 \left( 2 A_1 - A_2 - 1
765: \right)$, $ B_3= -3A_1 + 3A_2 -A_3 + 1$. Coupling enters then the
766: formulation exactly as in Eq. (\ref{ddac}), as an additional factor
767: $1-q$ in the evolution of $D(t)$.
768:
769: In Fig. \ref{figdca}, the curve stands for the asymptotic value $D^*$
770: as a function of the coupling probability predicted from Eq.
771: (\ref{bbb}) for rule $22$. The prediction is qualitatively similar to
772: that for KNs, in particular, in the region close to the
773: synchronization transition. Numerical results on DCA with rule $22$
774: for $N=2^{11}$ are also shown in Fig. \ref{figdca}. To avoid
775: spurious synchronization, a small amount of noise, $\eta=10^{-4}$, has
776: been added. The agreement with the AM is reasonably good, though some
777: systematic deviations are clearly visible in the zone of the
778: transition. As before, these deviations may be attributed to
779: finite-size effects.
780:
781:
782: \begin{figure}
783: \centering
784: \resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics[angle=-90]{Figdca.ps}}
785: \caption{Numerical results for the asymptotic Hamming distance in
786: coupled $2^{11}$-site disordered cellular automata with the evolution
787: rule $22$, for different amounts of disorder. The curve stands for the
788: annealed model prediction for DCA. }
789: \label{figdca}
790: \end{figure}
791:
792:
793: Finally, as an interpolation between DCA and ECA we consider partially
794: ordered topologies (POCA), constructed in the following way. We start
795: with an $N$-site ECA, which consists of a one-dimensional array where
796: each site is connected to itself and to its two nearest neighbors.
797: Then, for each site, each neighbor is redrawn at random from the whole
798: network with probability $\theta$. With the complementary
799: probability, $1-\theta$, the neighbor is preserved. The resulting
800: topological structure of connections is analogous to that of
801: small-world networks \cite{swm}. For $\theta = 1$, we recover the DCA
802: networks discussed above. Results of numerical simulations on POCA
803: with rule $22$ are shown in Fig. \ref{figdca} for $\theta=0.1$ and
804: $\theta=0.3$. Data for ECA with rule $22$ ($\theta=0$) are also shown.
805: We see that, in spite of the relatively low values of $\theta$, the
806: asymptotic Hamming distance of POCA depends on the coupling
807: probability $q$ in a way qualitatively similar to that of KNs. In
808: particular, it does not exhibit the abrupt dependence on $q$ observed
809: in ECA near the critical point. This would be in agreement with the
810: crossover scenario in small-world networks \cite{crossover}, where it
811: is known that even small amounts of disorder induce behaviors which
812: already resemble that of fully random structures.
813:
814: \section{Summary and discussion} \label{summary}
815:
816: We have studied the behavior of two Kauffman networks interacting
817: through a form of symmetric stochastic coupling. As for many other
818: localized or extended, random or deterministic, coupled dynamical
819: systems
820: \cite{logmaps,rossler,hamilton,neural,amengual,eca,bagnoli,grass}, we
821: have found that coupled Kauffman networks can synchronize their
822: evolution if coupling is strong enough. In our case, there is a
823: critical value of the coupling probability $q$ beyond which the two
824: networks converge to the same trajectory as time elapses.
825:
826: In contrast with the situation encountered for other extended systems
827: \cite{neural,amengual,eca,bagnoli,grass,batistutacitadinoonorario},
828: however, for Kauffman networks it has been possible to give an
829: analytical description of the synchronization transition, in excellent
830: agreement with numerical results for large-size systems. This
831: formulation is provided by an extension of the so-called annealed
832: model \cite{d+p,d+w} to the system of coupled networks. The model
833: gives the evolution of the overlap between the two networks---or, in
834: other words, of their Hamming distance---and makes it possible to
835: evaluate its asymptotic value. The asymptotic Hamming distance $D^*$
836: is used as an order parameter for the synchronization transition. For
837: coupled Kauffman networks in the chaotic phase, the annealed model
838: predicts the existence of a critical coupling probability $q_c$, such
839: that $D^*$ is finite for $q<q_c$ and vanishes for $q>q_c$. At the
840: critical point, $D^* \sim |q-q_c|$, and the transition has the
841: character of a transcritical bifurcation.
842:
843:
844: The transition predicted by the annealed model is qualitatively
845: different from that observed in the deterministic version of this kind
846: of systems, more specifically, in cellular automata. For elementary
847: cellular automata, in fact, the critical behavior of the Hamming
848: distance exhibits nontrivial exponents \cite{eca}. It has been
849: suggested that, at least for some evolution rules, the synchronization
850: transition in cellular automata belongs to the class of directed
851: percolation \cite{grass}. On the other hand, by analogy with the
852: problem of damage spreading, synchronization in Kauffman networks
853: could belong to the class of directed percolation in disordered
854: systems \cite{grass2}.
855:
856: Results from extensive numerical simulations of relatively large
857: networks ($10^4$ sites), performed for Kauffman networks in the
858: chaotic regime ($p=1/2$, $K=3$), are in good agreement with the
859: predictions of the annealed model both in the temporal evolution and
860: in the asymptotic behavior of the system. However, for small networks
861: some systematic departures from the analytical results are apparent.
862: These deviations can be partially explained taking into account the
863: occasional events of spurious synchronization for $q<q_c$, due to the
864: effect of suitably large fluctuations on our discrete finite-size
865: system. The effect of these fluctuations becomes more important as the
866: coupling probability approaches its critical value. In any case,
867: spurious synchronization can be successfully eliminated by adding a
868: small amount of noise to the dynamics. Moreover, noise can also be
869: encompassed into the annealed model. We have introduced noise in the
870: simulations and observed that remanent finite-size effects
871: persist. These must now be ascribed to the failure of the annealed
872: model in describing finite networks. By means of a more detailed
873: statistical description of the overlaps between networks, in fact, we
874: have been able to account for such remanent effects, also explaining
875: the dependence of the deviation from the annealed model on the network
876: size.
877:
878: Finally, we have presented preliminary numerical results on disordered
879: and partially ordered stochastically coupled cellular automata. These
880: systems can be seen as providing a kind of interpolation between
881: Kauffman networks, with their completely random connections and
882: dynamical rules, and cellular automata, which are fully ordered. In
883: the case of disordered networks with the same evolution rule on all
884: the sites, it is possible to extend the annealed model, which predicts
885: the same class of synchronization transition as for Kauffman networks.
886: Numerical simulations agree with these predictions. Increasing the
887: order in the connections by means of a scheme analogous to the
888: construction of a small-world network \cite{swm}, we have also
889: considered partially disordered structures. Even for small amounts of
890: structural disorder, the behavior associated with the synchronization
891: transition seems to resemble that of Kauffman networks more than that
892: of cellular automata. This leads us to conjecture that the
893: synchronization transition of partially disordered automata is in the
894: same universality class as for coupled Kauffman networks.
895: Nevertheless, further extensive simulations and a careful
896: determination of the critical exponents are necessary to draw any
897: conclusions on this point.
898:
899:
900:
901: \section*{Acknowledgment}
902:
903: This work has been partially carried out at the Abdus Salam Centre for
904: Theoretical Physics (Trieste, Italy). The authors thank the Centre for
905: hospitality.
906:
907: \appendix
908:
909: \section*{Coefficients for the annealed model}
910:
911: In this Appendix we illustrate the computation of the coefficients
912: $A_l$ in Eq. (\ref{am-dnur}) with an explicit example. We recall that
913: $A_l$ is defined as the probability for two homologous sites having
914: all but $l$ inputs coming from homologous sites in the same state to
915: give the same output.
916:
917: Let us assume that the frequency with which a given neighborhood
918: appears in a state of the whole network is fully determined by the
919: density $d$ of the state. Namely, we neglect the correlations between
920: neighborhood frequencies, associated with the spatial patterns
921: generated by the dynamics. For $K=3$, there are eight possible
922: neighborhoods, which we label from $0$ to $7$ as shown in Table
923: \ref{rule22}. Within the above assumption, the frequency $p_i$ of each
924: neighborhood $i$ can be estimated in terms of the density $d$ as
925: \begin{equation} \label{a1}
926: \begin{array}{l}
927: p_0= (1-d)^3, \\
928: p_1= p_2=p_4= d (1-d)^2 , \\
929: p_3= p_5=p_6= d^2 (1-d) , \\
930: p_7= d^3.
931: \end{array}
932: \end{equation}
933: Moreover, we note that the density $d$ can in turn be written in terms
934: of the frequencies $p_i$ of neighborhoods with nonzero output. For
935: rule $22$ these neighborhoods are $\{1,0,0\}$, $\{0,1,0\}$ and
936: $\{0,0,1\}$ (see Table \ref{rule22}), so that we have
937: \begin{equation} \label{a2}
938: d = p_1 + p_2 + p_4.
939: \end{equation}
940: Combining Eqs. (\ref{a1}) and (\ref{a2}) yields $d=1-\sqrt{3}/3\approx
941: 0.423$, which agrees with the numerical measurement reported in Sect.
942: \ref{dca}. The corresponding values of the frequencies $p_i$ are
943: shown in Table \ref{rule22}. They are in very good agreement with the
944: values obtained from numerical simulations, also shown in the
945: table. This supports our above assumption of uncorrelated neighborhood
946: frequencies.
947:
948:
949:
950: Once the frequencies $p_i$ are known, we are able to calculate the
951: coefficients $A_l$. As a specific example, we discuss $A_3$. By
952: definition, this is the probability for two homologous sites having
953: all but $3$ inputs coming from homologous sites in the same state to
954: give the same output. Thus, we are in the case where the two
955: neighborhoods have all the homologous sites in different states. The
956: pairs of neighborhoods that satisfy this condition are $\{0,7\}$,
957: $\{1,6\}$, $\{2,5\}$, and $\{3,4\}$. Among them, however, only the
958: pair $\{0,7\}$ has the same output for both neighborhoods (see Table
959: \ref{rule22}). The coefficient $A_3$ is therefore given by
960: \begin{equation}
961: A_3 = \frac{p_0 p_7}{p_0 p_7 + p_1 p_6 + p_2 p_5 + p_3 p_4}
962: =\frac{1}{4}.
963: \end{equation}
964: The computation of the other coefficients is accomplished in a similar
965: way, yielding $A_1=4(19-8\sqrt{3})/169$ and $A_2=(9+\sqrt{3})/13$.
966: Moreover, $A_0=1$.
967:
968:
969: \begin{thebibliography}{20}
970:
971: \bibitem{winfree} A.T. Winfree, {\it The Geometry of Biological Time}
972: (Springer, Berlin, 1980).
973:
974: \bibitem{khrustova} N. Khrustova, G. Veser, A. Mikhailov, and
975: R. Imbihl, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 3564 (1995).
976:
977: \bibitem{golomb} H. D. Abarbanel, M. I. Rabinovich, A. Selverston,
978: M. V. Bazhenov, R. Huerta, M. M. Sushchik, and L. L. Rubchinskii,
979: Usp. Fiz. Nauk. {\bf 166}, 363 (1996) [Phys. Usp. {\bf 39}, 337
980: (1996)].
981:
982: \bibitem{applause} Z. N\'eda, E. Ravasz, T. Vicsek, Y. Brechet, and
983: A. L. Barab\'asi, Phys. Rev E {\bf 61}, 6987 (2000).
984:
985: \bibitem{logmaps} K. Kaneko, Physica D {\bf 23}, 436 (1986); {\it
986: ibid.} {\bf 37}, 60 (1989); {\it ibid.} {\bf 54}, 5 (1991).
987:
988: \bibitem{rossler} J. F. Heagy, T. L. Carrol, and L. M. Pecora,
989: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 50}, 1874 (1994).
990:
991: \bibitem{hamilton} D. H. Zanette and A. S. Mikhailov, Phys. Lett. A
992: {\bf 235}, 135 (1997); A. Hampton and D. H. Zanette, Phys. Rev. Lett.
993: {\bf 83}, 2179 (1999).
994:
995: \bibitem{neural} D. H. Zanette and A. S. Mikhailov, Phys. Rev. E
996: {\bf 58}, 872 (1998).
997:
998: \bibitem{amengual} A. Amengual, E. Hern\'andez-Garc\'{\i}a,
999: R. Montagne, and M. San Miguel, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 4379
1000: (1997).
1001:
1002: \bibitem{eca} L. G. Morelli and D. H. Zanette, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 58},
1003: R8 (1998).
1004:
1005: \bibitem{bagnoli} F. Bagnoli and R. Rechtman, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 59},
1006: R1307 (1999).
1007:
1008: \bibitem{grass} P. Grassberger, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 59}, R2520 (1999).
1009:
1010: \bibitem{batistutacitadinoonorario}
1011: S. Boccaletti, J. Bragard, F. T. Arecchi, and H.
1012: Mancini, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 536 (1999).
1013:
1014: \bibitem{k1} S. A. Kauffman, J. Theor. Biol. {\bf 22}, 437 (1969);
1015: Nature {\bf 244}, 177 (1969).
1016:
1017: \bibitem{kauf} S.A. Kauffman, \textit{The Origins of Order} (Oxford
1018: University Press, Cambridge, 1993).
1019:
1020: \bibitem{d+p} B. Derrida and Y. Pomeau, Europhys. Lett. \textbf{1}, 45
1021: (1986).
1022:
1023: \bibitem{d+w} B. Derrida and G. Weisbuch, J. Physique \textbf{47},
1024: 1297 (1986).
1025:
1026: \bibitem{fly} H. Flyvbjerg, J. Phys. A {\bf 21}, L955 (1988).
1027:
1028: \bibitem{bp} U. Bastolla and G. Parisi, Physica D {\bf 98}, 1 (1996);
1029: {\it ibid.} {\bf 115}, 203 (1998); {\it ibid.} {\bf 115}, 219 (1998).
1030:
1031: \bibitem{transcritical} K. T. Alliwood, T. D. Sauer, and J. A. Yorke,
1032: {\it Chaos. An Introduction to Dynamical Systems} (Springer, New York,
1033: 1997).
1034:
1035: \bibitem{kanekomilnor} K. Kaneko, Physica D {\bf 124}, 322 (1998).
1036:
1037: \bibitem{manrubia1} S. C. Manrubia and A. S. Mikhailov,
1038: Europhys. Lett. {\bf 50}, 580 (2000).
1039:
1040:
1041: \bibitem{wolf} S. Wolfram, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 55}, 601 (1983).
1042:
1043: \bibitem{swm} D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, Nature {\bf 393}, 440
1044: (1998).
1045:
1046: \bibitem{crossover} M. Barth\'el\'emy sand L. A. N. Amaral,
1047: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 3180 (1999).
1048:
1049: \bibitem{grass2} P. Grassberger, J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 79}, 13 (1995).
1050:
1051: \end{thebibliography}
1052:
1053:
1054: \begin{table}
1055: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
1056: label & neighborhood & output &
1057: $p_{\rm numerical}$ & $p_{\rm analytical}$ \\
1058: \tableline
1059: 0 & $\{0,0,0\}$ & 0 & 0.19350 & 0.19294 \\
1060: 1 & $\{0,0,1\}$ & 1 & 0.14075 & 0.14096 \\
1061: 2 & $\{0,1,0\}$ & 1 & 0.14071 & 0.14096 \\
1062: 3 & $\{0,1,1\}$ & 0 & 0.10287 & 0.10298 \\
1063: 4 & $\{1,0,0\}$ & 1 & 0.14079 & 0.14096 \\
1064: 5 & $\{1,0,1\}$ & 0 & 0.10290 & 0.10298 \\
1065: 6 & $\{1,1,0\}$ & 0 & 0.10289 & 0.10298 \\
1066: 7 & $\{1,1,1\}$ & 0 & 0.07559 & 0.07524 \\
1067: \end{tabular}
1068: \caption{ Cellular automata neighborhoods and their outputs for the
1069: evolution rule $22$. The frequencies $p$ for each neighborhood
1070: obtained from numerical results and from the analytical approximation
1071: used in the Appendix are also quoted.}
1072: \label{rule22}
1073: \end{table}
1074:
1075:
1076:
1077: \end{document}
1078:
1079:
1080:
1081:
1082:
1083:
1084:
1085:
1086: