1: \documentclass[twocolumn,pre,showpacs,showkeys]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{hyperref}
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{bm}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \begin{document}
7: \title{Steady-state stabilization due to random delays in maps with
8: self-feedback loops and in globally delayed-coupled maps}
9:
10: \author {Arturo C. Mart\'{\i}$^a$}
11: %\email{marti@fisica.edu.uy}
12: \author{ Marcelo Ponce$^a$}
13: %\email{mponce@fisica.edu.uy},
14: \author{C. Masoller$^{a,b}$}
15: %\email{cris@fisica.edu.uy}
16:
17: \affiliation{$^a$Instituto de F\'{\i}sica, Facultad de
18: Ciencias, Universidad de la Rep\'ublica, Igu\'a 4225, Montevideo
19: 11400, Uruguay} \affiliation{$^b$Departament de Fisica i Enginyeria
20: Nuclear, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Colom 11, E-08222
21: Terrassa, Spain}
22:
23: \date{\today}
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: We study the stability of the fixed-point solution of an array of
27: mutually coupled logistic maps, focusing on the influence of the
28: delay times, $\tau_{ij}$, of the interaction between the $i$th and
29: $j$th maps. Two of us recently reported [Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94},
30: 134102 (2005)] that if $\tau_{ij}$ are random enough the array
31: synchronizes in a spatially homogeneous steady state. Here we study
32: this behavior by comparing the dynamics of a map of an array of $N$
33: delayed-coupled maps with the dynamics of a map with $N$
34: self-feedback delayed loops. If $N$ is sufficiently large, the
35: dynamics of a map of the array is similar to the dynamics of a map
36: with self-feedback loops with the same delay times. Several delayed
37: loops stabilize the fixed point, when the delays are not the same;
38: however, the distribution of delays plays a key role: if the delays
39: are all odd a periodic orbit (and not the fixed point) is
40: stabilized. We present a linear stability analysis and apply some
41: mathematical theorems that explain the numerical results.
42: \end{abstract}
43:
44: \pacs{05.45.Xt, 05.65.+b, 05.45.Ra} \keywords{Random delays;
45: synchronization; coupled maps; logistic map}
46:
47: \maketitle
48:
49: \section{Introduction}
50: Cooperative behavior arises in many fields of science and classical
51: examples include the onset of rhythmic activity in the brain, the
52: flashing on and off in unison of populations of fireflies, and the
53: emission of chirps by populations of crickets \cite{review}. Of
54: important practical applications are the synchronization of laser
55: arrays and Josephson junctions. Coupled map lattices (CMLs)
56: \cite{kaneko} are excellent tools for understanding the mechanisms
57: of emergency of synchrony in complex systems composed of interacting
58: nonlinear units, because, by simplifying the dynamics of the
59: individual units, CMLs allow the simulation of large ensembles of
60: coupled units.
61:
62: The effects of time delays arising from the finite propagation time
63: of signals have received considerable attention. Classical examples
64: are the Mackey-Glass model in physiology \cite{mackey} (that
65: describes anomalies in the regeneration of white blood cells due to
66: the finite time of propagation of chemical substances in the blood),
67: and the Ikeda model \cite{ikeda} in optics (that accounts for the
68: finite velocity of light in optical bistable devices).
69:
70: Three common consequences of time-delays are multistability, which
71: typically arises for delays longer than the intrinsic oscillation
72: period \cite{longtin,yeung}, chaotic dynamics, which arises for
73: strong coupling and/or long delays, and oscillation death, which
74: refers to the existence of stability islands in the parameter space
75: (coupling strength, delay time) where the amplitude of coupled
76: limit-cycle oscillators is zero \cite{od}. It is also well-known
77: that time-delayed feedback can stabilize unstable orbits embedded in
78: chaotic attractors \cite{pyragas} and enhance the coherence of
79: chaotic \cite{coherence,boccaletti} and stochastic motions
80: \cite{scholl}.
81:
82: Most studies of delayed coupling have considered uniform delays,
83: i.e., the interactions between the different elements of a network
84: occur all with the same delay time (instantaneous coupling is a
85: particular case of ``fixed delay coupling''). To the best of our
86: knowledge, the first study of a system of mutually coupled units
87: interacting with different, randomly chosen delay times was done by
88: Otsuka and Chern \cite{otsuka} in the early 90's. In Ref.
89: \cite{otsuka} an array of semiconductor lasers with incoherent
90: optical coupling was studied numerically, and it was shown that
91: different dynamic regimes occur, including synchronization,
92: clustering and steady-state behavior, depending on the average delay
93: and the delay distribution. Distributed (or random) delays have been
94: the object of recent attention since several authors have reported
95: that non-uniform delays can have a stabilizing effect. Atay et al.
96: \cite{atay_PRL_2003} studied ensembles of limit-cycle oscillators
97: and showed that distributed delays can enlarge the stability islands
98: where oscillator death occurs. Huber and Tsimring \cite{lev} studied
99: networks of globally coupled, noise-activated, bistable elements and
100: found that increasing the non-uniformity of the delays enhanced the
101: stability of the trivial equilibrium. Eurich et al. \cite{eurich}
102: showed that distributed delays increase the stability of
103: predator-prey systems including two-species systems, food chains,
104: and food webs.
105:
106: Two of us recently studied an array of logistic maps coupled with
107: randomly distributed delay times \cite{prl},
108: \begin{equation}
109: \label{array}
110: x_i(t+1)= f[x_i(t)] + \frac {\epsilon} N \sum_{j=1}^N \left(
111: f[x_j(t-\tau_{ij})] - f[x_i(t)] \right),
112: \end{equation}
113: where $t\ge 0$ is an integer-valued time index, $i=1,\dots,N$ is a
114: space index, $f(x)=ax(1-x)$ is the logistic map ($a \in (0,4]$),
115: $\epsilon$ is the coupling strength ($\epsilon \in [0,1]$) and
116: $\tau_{ij} \ge 0$ is an integer that represents the delay time in
117: the interaction between the $i$th and $j$th maps. For $\tau_{ij}$
118: random enough the array synchronizes in the spatially homogeneous
119: steady-state, $x_i(t)=x_0$ for all $i$, where $x_0$ is the
120: nontrivial fixed point ($x_0=1-1/a$). This synchronization behavior
121: is in contrast with the synchronization with fixed and
122: distant-dependent delays. For fixed delays ($\tau_{ij}=\tau_0$
123: $\forall$ $i$, $j$) the array synchronizes in a spatially
124: homogeneous time-dependent state, $x_i(t)=x(t)$ $\forall$ $i$, $t$,
125: where the dynamics of an element of the array is either periodic or
126: chaotic depending on $\tau_0$ \cite{atay_PRL_2004}. For
127: distant-dependent delays ($\tau_{ij}=k|i-j|$ where $k$ is the
128: inverse of the velocity of transmission of information) a
129: one-dimensional linear array synchronizes in a state in which the
130: elements of the array evolve along a periodic orbit of the uncoupled
131: map (i.e., $x_i(t)$ is a solution of $x_i(t+1)=f[x_i(t)]$), while
132: the spatial correlation along the array is such that $x_i(t) =
133: x_j(t-\tau_{ij})$ $\forall$ $i$, $j$ (i.e., a map sees all other
134: maps in his present, current, state) \cite{marti}.
135:
136: In Ref.\cite{prl} the stabilization of the fixed-point solution due
137: to random interaction delay times was interpreted as a ``discrete
138: time'' version of the control method for stabilizing a fixed point
139: recently proposed by Ahlborn and Parlitz \cite{parlitz}. In
140: Ref.\cite{parlitz} the fixed point of a dynamical system
141: $\dot{x}=f(x)$ was stabilized with the addition of several feedback
142: terms that satisfy: (i) the feedback terms vanish in the steady
143: state and (ii) the delay times are not an integer multiple of each
144: other (with these conditions the control terms vanish only at the
145: fixed points and not at the periodic orbits). Simulations of a
146: single logistic map with $N$ self-feedback time-delayed loops,
147: \begin{equation}
148: \label{un_mapa}
149: x(t+1)= f[x(t)] + \frac {\epsilon} N\sum_{j=1}^N
150: \left(f[x(t-\tau_{j})] - f[x(t)]\right),
151: \end{equation}
152: show that several terms with different delays lead to the
153: stabilization of the fixed point after transients.
154:
155: The behavior of a single unit often helps understanding the behavior
156: of an ensemble of coupled units, and in particular the "chaos
157: suppression by random delays" in an ensemble of coupled logistic
158: maps can be interpreted in terms of the suppression of chaos and the
159: stabilization of the fixed point in a single logistic map with
160: several delayed self-feedback loops. The aim of this paper is to
161: further investigate this point, by comparing the dynamics of an
162: element $x_i$ of an array of globally coupled $N$ logistic maps
163: [Eq.~(\ref{array})] with the dynamics of a logistic map with $N$
164: self-feedback loops [Eq.~(\ref{un_mapa})].
165:
166: This paper is organized as follows. Section II presents a linear
167: stability analysis of the fixed point solution of
168: Eq.~(\ref{un_mapa}) and discusses the stability in the parameter
169: space (local nonlinearity, $a$, feedback strength, $\epsilon$). We
170: find an analytical (sufficient) instability condition,
171: Eq.(\ref{inestable_seguro}), that holds for large $a$ and low
172: $\epsilon$, regardless of the number of feedback terms and/or the
173: values of the delay times. We find a second (sufficient) instability
174: condition, Eq.(\ref{inestable_seguro2}), that holds for one feedback
175: loop, independently of the delay time. Section III presents a
176: comparison of the dynamics of a logistic map with $N$ self-feedback
177: delayed loops, with the dynamics of a map of an array of $N$
178: delayed-coupled logistic maps. The numerical simulations show that
179: if $N$ is sufficiently large, the dynamics of a map of the array is
180: remarkably similar to the dynamics of a map with $N$ feedback loops
181: and the same delay times. The similarities are explored by analyzing
182: the regions in the parameter space ($a$, $\epsilon$) where the
183: fixed-point solution is stable, and comparing with the analytic
184: results of Sec. II. We also present bifurcation diagrams that
185: demonstrate similar types of instability scenarios. Section IV
186: presents an interpretation of these results based on the analogy
187: between globally coupled maps and a single map with external
188: driving, studied by Parravano and Cosenza in
189: Refs.\cite{cosenza1,cosenza2}. Section V presents a summary and the
190: conclusions.
191:
192:
193: \section{Stability Analysis}
194:
195: To analyze the stability of the nontrivial fixed point solution of
196: Eq.~(\ref{un_mapa}), $x_0=f(x_0)$ (for the logistic map $x_0=1-1/a$),
197: we define a new set of variables,
198: \begin{equation}
199: y_{m}(t)=x(t-m),
200: \end{equation}
201: with $m=0, ..., M$ and $M=\max(\tau_{j})$, that describe the present
202: and past state of the map. We can re-write Eq.(\ref{un_mapa}) in
203: terms of these new variables as:
204: \begin{eqnarray}
205: y_m(t+1)=
206: \begin{cases}
207: y_{m-1}(t)& \text{if $m \ne 0$},\\
208: (1-\epsilon)f[y_{0}(t)]+\frac{\epsilon}{N}
209: \sum_{i=1}^N f[y_{ \tau_{i}}] & \text{if $m=0$}.
210: \end{cases}
211: \end{eqnarray}
212:
213: The fixed-point solution is
214: \begin{equation}
215: y_0(t)=x_0; \dots ; y_M(t)=x_0.
216: \end{equation}
217:
218: To study the stability of this solution we linearize,
219: \begin{equation}
220: \delta y_{m} (t+1) = \sum_{n=0}^M A_{mn} \delta y_{n} (t),
221: \end{equation}
222: where
223: \begin{equation}
224: A=
225: \begin{pmatrix}
226: (1-\epsilon)f'(x_{0})+\alpha_0 & \alpha_{1} & \alpha_{2} & \hdots &
227: \alpha_{M-1}&
228: \alpha_{M} \\
229: 1 & 0 & 0 & \hdots &0 & 0 \\
230: 0 & 1 &0 & \hdots &0 & 0 \\
231: \vdots & & & &\vdots \\
232: 0 & 0& 0& \hdots &0 & 0 \\
233: 0 & 0& 0& \hdots & 1 & 0
234: \end{pmatrix}.
235: \end{equation}
236: Here
237: \begin{equation}
238: \alpha_{n}= \frac \epsilon N
239: \sum_{i=1}^N f'[y_{\tau_i}(t)]\delta_{\tau_i n}
240: = l_n \frac \epsilon N
241: f'(x_0),
242: \label{suma}
243: \end{equation}
244: where $l_n$ is the number of times the value $\tau=n$ appears in the
245: sequence $\tau_1$, $\tau_2$,... $\tau_N$: $\sum_{n=1}^M l_n=N$.
246: %For simplicity we assume that $\tau_j \ne 0$ $\forall$ $j$ (the analysis
247: %can be extended to account for instantaneous feedback loops).
248: The term $\alpha_0$ accounts for the instantaneous feedback loops.
249: Notice that some of the $\alpha_{n}$ coefficients will be zero
250: ($\alpha_{n}=0$ if $\tau_i\ne n$ $\forall i$); however, the
251: coefficient corresponding to the maximum delay, $M=\tau_{max}$, is
252: different from zero and is given by
253: \begin{equation}
254: \alpha_{M}= l_M \frac \epsilon N f'(x_0).
255: \end{equation}
256: The next step for the derivation of analytic stability conditions is
257: the study the eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ (with $i=0\dots M$) of the
258: matrix $A$. The Gershgorin theorem \cite{teorema} states that all
259: eigenvalues of a complex square matrix are located in a set of disks
260: centered at the diagonal elements $a_{ii}$ with radius equal to the
261: sum of the norms of the other elements on the same row:
262: \begin{eqnarray}
263: \label{gershgorin} |\lambda_i - a_{ii}| &\le& \sum_{j\ne i}
264: |a_{ij}|.
265: \end{eqnarray}
266: For $i\ne0$ Eq.~(\ref{gershgorin}) gives $|\lambda_i| \le 1$ and for
267: $i=0$ gives
268: \begin{eqnarray}
269: |\lambda_i - (1-\epsilon)f'(x_{0})-\alpha_0| &\le&
270: %\sum_{j=1}^M |\alpha_{j}|
271: \epsilon |f'(x_0)| - | \alpha_0 |,
272: \end{eqnarray}
273: where we used Eq.~(\ref{suma}), $\sum_{j=0}^M
274: l_j=N$ and $\sum_{j=0}^M \alpha_{j}=\epsilon
275: f'(x_{0})$. Therefore, the eigenvalues are in the region of the
276: complex plane defined by the two disks:
277: \begin{eqnarray}
278: |\lambda| &\le& 1 \\
279: |\lambda - (1-\epsilon)f'(x_{0})- \alpha_0| &\le& \epsilon |f'(x_0)|
280: - |\alpha_0| .
281: \end{eqnarray}
282: From here we derive a sufficient stability condition and a
283: sufficient instability condition. If the disc of radius $\epsilon
284: |f'(x_0)|- |\alpha_0|$ centered at $(1-\epsilon)f'(x_{0})+ \alpha_0$
285: is completely inside the disc of radius 1 centered at 0, then all
286: the eigenvalues will have $|\lambda|<1$. Therefore, a sufficient
287: stability condition is $|(1-\epsilon)f'(x_{0})+\alpha_0|+\epsilon
288: |f'(x_0)|-|\alpha_0|<1$, and taking into account Eq.~(\ref{suma})
289: all the $\alpha_n$ and $f'(x_0)$ have the same sign, the sufficient
290: stability condition read as
291: \begin{equation}
292: \label{estable_seguro}
293: |f'(x_0)|<1.
294: \end{equation}
295: This stability condition is trivial because if
296: Eq.(\ref{estable_seguro}) holds, then the fixed point of the
297: ``solitary map'' (the map without feedback loops, $\epsilon=0$) is
298: stable.
299:
300: Let us consider the region where $|f^{'}(x_0)|>1$ (for the logistic
301: map $|f^{'}(x_0)|>1$ for $a>3$). In this region we have the
302: following sufficient instability condition: if
303: \begin{eqnarray}
304: \label{inestable_seguro}
305: |(1-\epsilon)f'(x_{0})|-\epsilon |f'(x_0)|+ 2 |\alpha_0| &>&1,
306: \end{eqnarray}
307: then the disc centered at $(1-\epsilon)f'(x_{0})+ \alpha_0$ of
308: radius $\epsilon |f'(x_0)|- |\alpha_0|$ is completely outside of the
309: disc centered at zero of radius 1, and therefore there is at least
310: one eigenvalue with $|\lambda| > 1$. We remark that this instability
311: condition holds, regardless of the number of feedback terms, and
312: regardless the values of the delay times.
313:
314: The stability and instability regions are displayed in Fig. 1(a).
315: The trivial stability condition holds for $a \le 3$, the instability
316: condition holds for large $a$ and small $\epsilon$ (there is a
317: second instability region, in the corner of large $a$ and $\epsilon$
318: which is discussed below). For comparison, we show in Figs.
319: 1(b)-1(d) the stability regions calculated from numerical
320: simulations of Eq.(\ref{un_mapa}) with one delayed feedback loop
321: (and different delay times), which agree well with the analytic
322: predictions.
323: \begin{figure}
324: \center
325: \resizebox{0.8\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig1_amc.eps}}
326: \caption{(a) Analytically calculated stability regions for the
327: logistic map with one delay term. The trivial stability region
328: defined by Eq. (\ref{estable_seguro}) is displayed in black (blue
329: online), the instability regions defined by Eqs.
330: (\ref{inestable_seguro}) and (\ref{inestable_seguro2}) are displayed
331: in dark grey (red online). (b)-(d) Stability regions calculated
332: numerically, by simulation of Eq. (\ref{un_mapa}) with one delay
333: term and different initial conditions. The parameter regions where
334: the fixed point is stable for all initial conditions are displayed
335: in black (blue online). The black solid lines indicate the borders
336: of the instability regions defined by Eqs.(\ref{inestable_seguro})
337: and (\ref{inestable_seguro2}). Near these boundaries there is
338: sensitivity to the initial conditions: some trajectories evolve
339: towards the fixed point, while others evolve to periodic or chaotic
340: orbits. The delay times are (b) $\tau_1=1$, (c) $\tau_1=2$, (d)
341: $\tau_1=3$.}
342: \end{figure}
343:
344: Additional information can be obtained by calculating explicitly the
345: eigenvalues of $A$. The roots of the characteristic equation
346: \begin{equation}
347: \det \begin{pmatrix} (1-\epsilon)f'(x_{0})+ \alpha_0 -\lambda & \alpha_{1} &
348: \alpha_{2} & \hdots & \alpha_{M-1}&
349: \alpha_{M} \\
350: 1 & -\lambda & 0 & \hdots &0 & 0 \\
351: 0 & 1 &-\lambda & \hdots &0 & 0 \\
352: \vdots & & & &\vdots \\
353: 0 & 0& 0& \hdots &-\lambda & 0 \\
354: 0 & 0& 0& \hdots & 1 & -\lambda
355: \end{pmatrix}=0,
356: \end{equation}
357: can be written in terms of the determinant of two $M\times M$
358: matrices:
359: \begin{eqnarray}
360: \label{a0}
361: [(1-\epsilon)f'(x_{0})+ \alpha_0 -\lambda] \det C - \det B=0,
362: \end{eqnarray}
363: where
364: \begin{eqnarray}
365: C=
366: \begin{pmatrix}
367: -\lambda & 0 & \hdots &0 & 0 \\
368: 1 &-\lambda & \hdots &0 & 0 \\
369: \vdots & & & &\vdots \\
370: 0& 0& \hdots &-\lambda & 0 \\
371: 0& 0& \hdots & 1 & -\lambda
372: \end{pmatrix}
373: \end{eqnarray}
374: and
375: \begin{eqnarray}
376: B=
377: \begin{pmatrix}
378: \alpha_{1} & \alpha_{2} & \hdots &
379: \alpha_{M-1}&
380: \alpha_{M} \\
381: 1 &-\lambda & \hdots &0 & 0 \\
382: \vdots & & & &\vdots \\
383: 0& 0& \hdots &-\lambda & 0 \\
384: 0& 0& \hdots & 1 & -\lambda
385: \end{pmatrix}.
386: \end{eqnarray}
387: We calculated the determinant of each matrix recursively (details
388: are presented in the appendix) obtaining:
389: \begin{eqnarray}
390: \label{polinomio} \lambda^{M+1} - [(1-\epsilon) f'(x_{0})+ \alpha_0
391: ]\lambda^M - \sum_{j=1}^M \alpha_{j}\lambda^{M-j} =0.
392: \end{eqnarray}
393: The roots of Eq.(\ref{polinomio}) satisfy $\prod_{i=0}^{M}
394: |\lambda_i| = |\alpha_M|$. Thus, if
395: \begin{equation}
396: \label{inestable_seguro2}
397: |\alpha_M|=|l_M \epsilon f'(x_0)/N|>1
398: \end{equation}
399: at least one eigenvalue has $|\lambda|>1$, i.e., this gives another
400: analytic (sufficient) instability condition. For $l_M/N=1$
401: Eq.(\ref{inestable_seguro2}) holds in the right-bottom corner of
402: Fig. 1(a) (large $a$ , large $\epsilon$); for $l_M/N<1$
403: Eq.(\ref{inestable_seguro2}) is not satisfied in the parameter
404: region of interest ($a$ $\in$ [0,4], $\epsilon$ $\in$ [0,1]). Notice
405: that if $l_M/N=1$, then the map has only one feedback loop (because
406: the multiplicity of the feedback terms with maximum delay is equal
407: to the total number of feedback terms); therefore,
408: Eq.(\ref{inestable_seguro2}) indicates that when a logistic map has
409: a single feedback term, the fixed-point solution can not be stable
410: in the parameter region (large $a$, large $\epsilon$), regardless of
411: the delay time. In other words, a single feedback term can not
412: stabilize the fixed point in the (large $a$, large $\epsilon$)
413: parameter region. Numerical simulations of Eq.(\ref{un_mapa}) with
414: $N=1$ and different delays confirm these analytical predictions, see
415: Figs. 1(b)-(d).
416:
417: Further analytical insight can be gained by considering two special
418: cases: all-even and all-odds delays. First, let us show that if the
419: delays are all even (and therefore, $M$ is even), $\lambda=-1$ is a
420: solution of Eq. (\ref{polinomio}) when $f'(x_{0})=-1$, i.e., at the
421: border of the stability region, Eq.(\ref{estable_seguro}).
422: Substituting $\lambda=-1$ in Eq.(\ref{polinomio}) and taking into
423: account that $M-j$ is even (since in the sum only terms with $j$
424: even are different from zero) gives
425: \begin{eqnarray}
426: -1 - [(1-\epsilon) f'(x_{0})+ \alpha_0] - \sum_{j=1}^M \alpha_{j} =0.
427: \end{eqnarray}
428: Using $\sum_{j=0}^M \alpha_{j}=\epsilon f'(x_{0})$ we obtain
429: $f'(x_{0})=-1$. Therefore, when the delays are all-even there is an
430: eigenvalue $\lambda=-1$ if and only if $a=3$, regardless of
431: $\epsilon$.
432:
433: Next, let's see what happens if the delay times are all odd,
434: therefore, $M$ is odd and, in addition, $\alpha_0=0$. Taking into
435: account that $M-j$ is even (since in the sum only terms with $j$ odd
436: are different from zero) for $\lambda=-1$ Eq. (\ref{polinomio})
437: gives
438: \begin{eqnarray}
439: 1 + [(1-\epsilon) f'(x_{0})] - \sum_{j=1}^M \alpha_{j} =0.
440: \end{eqnarray}
441: Using $\sum_{j=1}^M \alpha_{j}=\epsilon f'(x_{0})$ we obtain
442: $f'(x_{0})=-1/(1-2\epsilon)$. For the logistic map this gives
443: $a=(3-4\epsilon)/(1-2\epsilon)$ a condition which is satisfied for
444: $\epsilon \in [0,1]$ only for values of $a$ inside the stability
445: region $a<3$.
446:
447: The above analysis allows as to draw some additional conclusions
448: about the stability of the fixed point in the special cases of
449: all-even and all-odd delays. For all-even delays an eigenvalue is
450: real and negative and equal to $-1$ for $a=3$. For larger $a$ this
451: eigenvalue can in principle become $\lambda<-1$ rendering the fixed
452: point unstable due to a period-doubling bifurcation. For all-odd
453: delays this instability scenario is not possible, as $\lambda=-1$ in
454: a parameter region where we know that all eigenvalues must have
455: $|\lambda| \le 1$.
456:
457: We verified these predictions by calculating numerically the
458: eigenvalues of $A$. Figure 2 displays results for all-odd and
459: all-even delays, varying $a$ while keeping $\epsilon$ constant. It
460: can be observed that for all-even delays one real eigenvalue becomes
461: less than $-1$ for $a>3$; for all-odd delays a pair of
462: complex-conjugate eigenvalues have modulus greater than $1$ for
463: $a>3.8$.
464: \begin{figure}
465: \center
466: \resizebox{0.80\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig2_amc.eps}}
467: \caption{Eigenvalues in the complex plane for a map with $N=3$
468: feedback loops with all-odd delays (left column: $\tau_j=$1, 3, 5)
469: and all-even delays (right column: $\tau_j=$2, 4, 6). $\epsilon=0.5$
470: and (a), (e) $a=2.5$; (b), (f) $a=2.7$; (c), (g) $a=3.0$ and (d),
471: (h) $a=3.8$. The circles indicate the Gershgorin disks.}
472: \end{figure}
473:
474: \section{Numerical Results}
475:
476: In this section we compare the dynamics of a logistic map with $N$
477: self-feedback loops, Eq. (\ref{un_mapa}), with the dynamics of a map
478: of an array of $N$ globally delayed-coupled logistic maps, Eq.
479: (\ref{array}).
480:
481: We consider Gaussian distributed delays: $\tau_{ij} = \tau_0 +
482: \mathrm{Near} (c \xi)$, where $c$ is a parameter that allows varying
483: the width of the delay distribution (for $c=0$ the delays are all
484: equal, $\tau_{ij}=\tau_0$, for $c\ne 0$ the delays are distributed
485: around $\tau_0$); $\xi$ is Gaussian distributed with zero mean and
486: standard deviation one; $\mathrm{Near}$ denotes the nearest integer
487: (we use $\mathrm{Near}$ instead of $\mathrm{Int}$ to have a
488: distribution that is symmetric with respect to $\tau_0$; however,
489: the results are largely independent of the precise form of the delay
490: distribution). Depending on $\tau_0$ and $c$ the distribution of
491: delays has to be truncated to avoid negative delays.
492:
493: We begin by showing that if $N$ is large enough, the parameter
494: region where the fixed point is stable for the array is remarkably
495: similar to the parameter region where the fixed point is stable for
496: the map with feedback loops. Figure 3 displays results for three
497: values of $N$, the upper row shows the stability region of the
498: homogeneous steady-state solution of the array [$x_i(t)=x_j(t)=x_0$
499: $\forall$ $i$, $j$, $t$], while the lower row shows the stability
500: region of the fixed point solution the map with feedback loops. The
501: delays of the self-feedback terms, $\tau_j$ with $j=1\dots N$, were
502: taken equal to the delay times of the interaction of the $i$th and
503: $j$th maps of the array; this gives $N$ sets of delay times
504: ($\tau_j=\tau_{ij}$ with $i=1\dots N$). In the lower row of Fig. 3,
505: the parameter region where the fixed point is stable for all sets of
506: delays is displayed in black (blue online), and the regions where is
507: unstable for all sets of delays are displayed in dark gray (red
508: online). Outside the trivial stability region ($a\le3$) and outside
509: the instability region defined by the sufficient condition Eq.
510: (\ref{inestable_seguro}), if $N$ is small the fixed point of the map
511: with self-feedback loops can be stable or unstable depending on
512: $\tau_j$ (i.e., the fixed point can be stable for the $i$th set of
513: delays and not for the $k$th set of delays); however, if $N$ is
514: sufficiently large the stability of the fixed point is the same for
515: all sets of delays (there is sensitivity to the precise values of
516: $\tau_j$ near the boundaries of the instability regions). It can be
517: observed that for both, the single map and the array, the fixed
518: point is unstable in the left-bottom corner (large $a$, low
519: $\epsilon$), in agreement with the results of the previous section
520: (where we showed that in this region the sufficient instability
521: condition, Eq.(\ref{inestable_seguro}), holds).
522: \begin{figure}
523: \center
524: \resizebox{1.0\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig3_amc.eps}}
525: \caption{Stability region of the fixed point solution of an array of
526: $N$ maps (upper row) and of a map with $N$ feedback loops (lower
527: row). The delays are Gaussian distributed with $\tau_0=3$, $c=1$.
528: The dynamics of the map with feedback loops was simulated for
529: various sets of delays $\tau_j$: the fixed point was found to be
530: stable for all sets in the black region (blue online) and unstable
531: for all sets in the dark gray regions (red online). The solid line
532: indicates the borders of the instability region defined by Eq.
533: (\ref{inestable_seguro}). (a) $N=10$, (b) $N=20$, (c) $N=100$.}
534: \end{figure}
535:
536: The stability of the fixed point depends on the distribution of
537: delays, and again, the similarities between a map of the array and a
538: map with self-feedback loops, for $N$ large enough, are remarkable.
539: As the width of the delay distribution, $c$, increases, the
540: parameter region where the fixed point is stable grows (see Fig. 4),
541: and this occurs for both, the array and the map with self-feedback
542: loops.
543: \begin{figure}
544: \center
545: \resizebox{1.0\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig4_amc.eps}}
546: \caption{Influence of the width of the delay distribution on the
547: stability of the fixed point solution of an array of $N$ maps (upper
548: row) and of a map with $N$ feedback loops (middle row). The delays
549: (lower row) are Gaussian distributed with $\tau_0=3$, (a) $c=0.5$,
550: (b) $c=1$ , (c) $c=2$. $N=100$. }
551: \end{figure}
552:
553: For the array of coupled maps, the parameter that quantifies the
554: influence of the delays is not the mean delay, $<\tau>$, or the
555: standard deviation of the distribution, $D_\tau$, but is the
556: normalized disorder parameter, $c^\ast=D_\tau/<\tau>$ \cite{prl}
557: ($<\tau>=\tau_0$, $D_\tau=c$, and $c^\ast=c/\tau_0$ if the Gaussian
558: distribution is not truncated). Figure 5 shows that this is also the
559: case for the map with self-feedback loops, as it can be noticed that
560: the stability region of the fixed point is the same for
561: distributions that have different $<\tau>$ and $D_\tau$, but the
562: same normalized width, $c^\ast$.
563: \begin{figure}
564: \center
565: \resizebox{1.0\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig5_amc.eps}}
566: \caption{Influence of the normalized disorder parameter on the
567: stability of the fixed point solution of an array of $N$ maps (upper
568: row) and of a map with $N$ feedback loops (middle row). The delays
569: (lower row) are Gaussian distributed with different mean and
570: different standard deviation but with the same normalized width,
571: $c^\ast \sim c/\tau_0$ (a) $\tau_0=3$, $c=1$, (b) $\tau_0=6$, $c=2$
572: , (c) $\tau_0=10$, $c=3.33$. $N=100$.}
573: \end{figure}
574:
575: Figure 6(a) displays the stability region of the fixed point
576: solution for the array (upper row) and for the map with
577: self-feedback loops (lower row), in the parameter space [$\tau_0$
578: ($\sim <\tau>$), $c$ ($\sim D_\tau$)]. It can be observed that the
579: fixed point is stable if the delays are random enough (i.e., if the
580: width of the distribution, $c$, is larger than a certain value that
581: increases with $\tau_0$). When the stability region is plotted vs.
582: the normalized width, $c^\ast$ [Fig. 6(b)], it can be observed than
583: the value of $c^\ast$ above which the fixed point is stable is
584: independent of $\tau_0$ [but depends on $\epsilon$, as shown in Fig.
585: 6(c)]. This occurs for both, the map of the array and the map with
586: self-feedback loops.
587: \begin{figure}
588: \center
589: \resizebox{1.0\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig6_amc.eps}}
590: \caption{(a) Stability region of the fixed point solution of an
591: array of $N$ maps (upper row) and of a map with $N$ feedback loops
592: (lower row) in the parameter space (mean delay, standard deviation).
593: (b) Same as (a) but plotted vs. the normalized disorder parameter,
594: see text. (c) Same as (a) but in parameter space ($\epsilon$,
595: disorder parameter). $N=100$, $a=4$, in (a),(b) $\epsilon=1$; in (c)
596: $\tau_0=5$.}
597: \end{figure}
598:
599: While the above observation of enhanced fixed-point stability with
600: increasing randomness of delays is generic, independent of the
601: precise form of the delay distribution, there is an exception which
602: is the case of all-even delays. For all-even delays the fixed point
603: of the map with self-feedback terms is stable only in the region
604: defined by the sufficient trivial stability condition,
605: Eq.(\ref{estable_seguro}). Because the fixed point becomes unstable
606: due to a period-doubling bifurcation when one real eigenvalue
607: becomes $\lambda<-1$ (as discussed in the previous section),
608: all-even delays tend to stabilize an orbit of period 2. The same
609: effect is observed in the array of $N$ logistic maps: for all even
610: delays the fixed point is stable only in the trivial region $a \le
611: 3$.
612:
613: If $N$ is sufficiently large, a map with $N$ self-feedback loops and
614: a map of an array of $N$ maps follow very similar instabilities
615: scenarios when $\epsilon$ or $a$ are varied (see below for a
616: discussion of the limit in which the similarities are not only
617: qualitative but also quantitative). As an example, Figs. 7-9 display
618: bifurcation diagrams for varying $\epsilon$ while keeping $a$ fixed.
619: The delays are ``mixed'' (even and odd) in Fig. 7, all-odd in Fig.
620: 8, and all-even in Fig. 9. The parameters correspond to a scan of
621: $\epsilon$ along the horizontal axis of Fig. 4(b): for ``mixed''
622: delays the fixed point is stable in a range of $\epsilon$ for both,
623: the map with feedback loops and the array. Figures 7(a)-9(a)
624: [7(b)-9(b)] display the time evolution of one element of the array,
625: $i=1$ ($i=2$), by plotting 100 consecutive interactions of $x_1$
626: ($x_2$) after transients die away vs. $\epsilon$. Figures 7(c)-9(c)
627: display the array configuration at time $t=T$ (large enough to let
628: transients die away). Figures 7(d)-9(d) [7(e)-9(e)] display the time
629: evolution of the map with feedback loops with delays
630: $\tau_j=\tau_{1j}$ ($\tau_j=\tau_{2j}$), by plotting 100 consecutive
631: interactions of $x$ (after transients die away) vs. $\epsilon$.
632: \begin{figure}
633: \center
634: \resizebox{1.0\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig7_amc.eps}}
635: \caption{Bifurcation diagrams for increasing $\epsilon$. (a) $i=1$
636: map of the array. (b) $i=2$ map of the array. (c) Array
637: configuration, $x_i$ with $i=1,\dots,N$ at time $t=T$. (d) A map
638: with feedback loops with delays $\tau_j=\tau_{1j}$. (e) A map with
639: feedback loops with delays $\tau_j=\tau_{2j}$. $a=4$, $N=100$, the
640: delays are Gaussian distributed with $\tau_0=3$, $c=1$.}
641: \end{figure}
642: \begin{figure}
643: \center
644: \resizebox{1.0\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig8_amc.eps}}
645: \caption{As Fig. 7 but with all-odd delays.}
646: \end{figure}
647: \begin{figure}
648: \center
649: \resizebox{1.0\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig9_amc.eps}}
650: \caption{As Fig. 7 but with all-even delays.}
651: \end{figure}
652:
653: Above a certain coupling strength the array synchronizes in a single
654: cluster that displays either steady-state or time-dependent dynamics
655: [in Figs. 7(c)-9(c) there is a single cloud of points for
656: $\epsilon>\approx 0.5$]; below this coupling strength the array
657: splits into clusters and the elements of each cluster evolve along
658: similar time-dependent orbits (the bifurcation diagrams for the
659: elements $i=1$ and $i=2$ of the array are similar, even for low
660: $\epsilon$).
661:
662: For a map with self-feedback loops with ``mixed'' delays, the fixed
663: point is stabilized for increasing $\epsilon$ after a
664: period-doubling bifurcation [Fig. 7(d),(e)]. In contrast, for
665: feedback loops with all-odd delays the fixed point is stabilized
666: after a Hopf bifurcation [Fig. 8(d),(e)]. For all-even delays the
667: fixed point is not stable for any $\epsilon$ [but the period-two
668: orbit is stable in a certain range of $\epsilon$, Fig. 9(d),(e)].
669: These results are in agreement with the analysis of the previous
670: section, where we found that for all-odd delays the fixed point
671: changes stability when a pair of complex eigenvalues cross the unit
672: circle, and for all-even delays the fixed point changes stability
673: when a real eigenvalue crosses the unit circle at $\lambda=-1$. The
674: bifurcation diagrams of the $i=1$ and $i=2$ maps of the array
675: display similar features [Figs. 7-9(a), 7-9(b)]: the fixed point is
676: stable in a range of $\epsilon$ for ``mixed'' and all-odd delays,
677: while the period-two orbit is stable in a range of $\epsilon$ in the
678: case of all-even delays.
679:
680: Exponentially distributed delays [$\tau_{ij} = \tau_0 + \mathrm{Int}
681: (c \xi)$, where $\xi$ is exponentially distributed, positive, with
682: unit mean] yield similar bifurcation diagrams, shown in Fig. 10.
683: Furthermore, the instability scenario for fixed $\epsilon$ and
684: increasing $a$ (i.e., a scan along a vertical line in Fig. 4) is
685: also very similar, as shown in Fig. 11.
686: \begin{figure}
687: \center
688: \resizebox{1.0\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig10_amc.eps}}
689: \caption{As Fig. 7 but with exponentially distributed delays
690: ($\tau_0=1$, $c=1$).}
691: \end{figure}
692: \begin{figure}
693: \center
694: \resizebox{1.0\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig11_amc.eps}}
695: \caption{As Fig. 7 but varying $a$ while keeping $\epsilon=0.3$
696: fixed.}
697: \end{figure}
698:
699: \section{Discussion}
700:
701: The similarities between a map of the array and a map with
702: self-feedback loops can be interpreted in the framework of the
703: analogy between globally coupled maps (with instantaneous coupling),
704: and a single map subjected to an external drive, studied by Cosenza
705: and Parravano in Refs.\cite{cosenza1,cosenza2}. The authors
706: considered
707: \begin{equation}
708: \label{cosenza}
709: x_i(t+1)= (1-\epsilon) f[x_i(t)] + \epsilon H(x_1(t) \dots x_N(t)),
710: \end{equation}
711: where $H$ is a global coupling function that is invariant to
712: argument permutations [$H(x_1, \dots, x_i, \dots, x_j, \dots
713: x_N)=H(x_1, \dots, x_j, \dots, x_i, \dots, x_N)$ $\forall$ $i$ and
714: $j$], and showed that the clustering behavior of the array can be
715: analyzed through the analogy with the driven map,
716: \begin{equation}
717: \label{cosenza2}
718: x(t+1)= (1-\epsilon) f[x(t)] + \epsilon F(t),
719: \end{equation}
720: where $F(t)$ is a external forcing (assumed to be periodic). The
721: analogy holds because in Eq.(\ref{cosenza}) all the elements of the
722: array are affected by the coupling function $H$ in exactly the same
723: way at all times, and therefore the behavior of any element of the
724: array is equivalent to the behavior of the driven map, Eq.
725: (\ref{cosenza2}).
726:
727: To analyze whether this analogy can be extended to the case of {\it
728: delayed}-coupling, we calculated the mean field coupling term at
729: site $i$ of the array,
730: \begin{equation}
731: \label{mean_field}
732: H_i(t)= \frac {1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N f[x_j(t-\tau_{ij})],
733: \end{equation}
734: and compared with the driving term of the map,
735: \begin{equation}
736: F(t) = \frac {1}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N f[x(t-\tau_{j})].
737: \end{equation}
738: We found that for $N$ large, $H_i(t)$ is nearly the same for all the
739: elements of the array, regardless of the array dynamics, and its
740: time evolution is similar to that of the driving term of the map,
741: $F$. As an example, Fig. 12 displays the mean field coupling term
742: and the driving term, for parameters corresponding to the
743: bifurcation diagrams shown in Fig. 7. In Fig. 12(a) we plot 100
744: consecutive values of the mean field at one element of the array,
745: $H_1$ (after transients die away). Figure 12(b) displays the mean
746: field at all elements, $H_i$ with $i=1\dots N$, at time $t=T$ (large
747: enough to let transients die away). It can be seen that $H_i \simeq
748: H_j$ even for low values of $\epsilon$. Figure 12(c) displays 100
749: consecutive values of the driving term of the map with feedback
750: loops, $F(t)$ (after transients die away), and it is observed that
751: above a certain value of $\epsilon$ ($\epsilon \approx 0.2$) $F
752: \simeq H_1$.
753: \begin{figure}
754: \center
755: \resizebox{0.70\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig12_amc.eps}}
756: \caption{(a) Mean field for the $i=1$ map of the array vs.
757: $\epsilon$. (b) Mean field for each map of the array, $H_i$ with
758: $i=1\dots N$, vs. $\epsilon$. (c) Driving term of the map with
759: feedback loops, $F$, vs. $\epsilon$. $N=100$, $a=4$, the delays are
760: the same as in Fig. 7.}
761: \end{figure}
762:
763: We speculate that the analogy with the single map has its roots in
764: the fact that the elements of the array display similar temporal
765: variation, i.e., they evolve along equal (or similar) orbits, even
766: when the array splits into clusters. Therefore, a map of the array
767: ''perceives'' signals coming from other maps as nearly
768: indistinguishable from signals coming from self-feedback loops. This
769: can also be thought as an ergodic property of the dynamics, since
770: the average over the ensemble, $H_i$, is nearly equal to the average
771: over time, $F$.
772:
773: The analogy holds even if the delays are all equal, $c=0$, as shown
774: in Fig. 13. Above a certain coupling strength ($\epsilon \approx
775: 0.45$) the array synchronizes in-phase, $x_i(t)=x_j(t)$ $\forall$
776: $i$, $j$, and therefore the analogy is mathematically trivial since
777: in the synchronization manifold the evolution equation of one
778: element of the array and the evolution equation for a map with a
779: single self-feedback loop are exactly the same. However,
780: multistability in the delayed map (i.e., the coexistence of
781: different stable orbits) might lead to competition phenomena in the
782: array of coupled maps, as different elements might tend to evolve
783: along different orbits, depending on the initial conditions. The
784: investigation of this type of dynamics is the object of future work.
785: \begin{figure}
786: \center
787: \resizebox{0.70\columnwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{fig13_amc.eps}}
788: \caption{As Fig. 7 but with fixed delays ($\tau_0=1$, $c=0$).}
789: \end{figure}
790:
791:
792: \section{Summary and Conclusions}
793:
794: We investigated the dynamics of mutually coupled logistic maps
795: focusing on the influence of the delay times of the interactions
796: between the maps, and comparing with the dynamics of a map with
797: several time-delayed self-feedback loops. By using some mathematical
798: tools such as the Gershgorin theorem we derived analytic stability
799: and instability conditions for the fixed point solution of the map
800: with feedback loops. We found that the stabilization of the array in
801: the fixed-point solution can be well understood in terms of the
802: dynamics of the map. Specifically, for randomly distributed delay
803: times, if $N$ and $\epsilon$ are large enough the fixed-point is
804: stable for both, the map with self-feedback loops and the array.
805: Also, if the delay times are all even, for both, the single map with
806: $N$ delayed loops and the array of $N$ delayed-coupled maps, we
807: observed that the stability region of the fixed-point is reduced to
808: the ``trivial'' region ($a \le 3$) regardless of the coupling
809: strength. The results presented here provide another example of an
810: ensemble of mutually coupled interacting units, where understanding
811: the dynamics of a single unit with self-feedback loops is relevant
812: for understanding the macroscopic behavior of the ensemble.
813: \section{Acknowledgments}
814: CM acknowledges support from the ``Ramon and Cajal'' Program (MCyT
815: of Spain).
816: \section{Appendix}
817: In this appendix we demonstrate Eq. (\ref{polinomio}). We start from
818: Eq. (\ref{a0}),
819: \begin{eqnarray}
820: \label{a0_apendix}
821: [(1-\epsilon)f'(x_{0})+ \alpha_0 -\lambda] \det C - \det B=0,
822: \end{eqnarray}
823: and calculate the determinant of matrix $C$ recursively:
824: \begin{eqnarray}
825: \det C = \det\begin{pmatrix}
826: -\lambda & 0 & 0& \hdots &0 & 0 \\
827: 1 &-\lambda & 0 & \hdots &0 & 0 \\
828: 0 & 1 & -\lambda & \hdots &0 & 0 \\
829: \vdots & & & &\vdots \\
830: 0& 0& 0 & \hdots &-\lambda & 0 \\
831: 0& 0& 0& \hdots & 1 & -\lambda
832: \end{pmatrix}\nonumber \\
833: = -\lambda \det\begin{pmatrix}
834: -\lambda & 0 & \hdots &0 & 0 \\
835: 1 & -\lambda & \hdots &0 & 0 \\
836: \vdots & & & &\vdots \\
837: 0& 0 & \hdots &-\lambda & 0 \\
838: 0& 0& \hdots & 1 & -\lambda
839: \end{pmatrix} \nonumber \\
840: -\det\begin{pmatrix}
841: 0 & 0& \hdots &0 & 0 \\
842: 1 & -\lambda & \hdots &0 & 0 \\
843: \vdots & & & &\vdots \\
844: 0& 0 & \hdots &-\lambda & 0 \\
845: 0& 0& \hdots & 1 & -\lambda
846: \end{pmatrix}
847: \end{eqnarray}
848: The second determinant is zero because the elements of the first row
849: are all zero. We obtain
850: \begin{equation}
851: \label{detC} \det C(M) = -\lambda \det C(M-1) = \dots =
852: (-\lambda)^M.
853: \end{equation}
854: The determinant of matrix $B$ can also be calculated recursively:
855: \begin{eqnarray}
856: \det B =\det \begin{pmatrix} \alpha_{1} & \alpha_{2} & \alpha_{3}
857: & \hdots & \alpha_{M-1}&
858: \alpha_{M} \\
859: 1 &-\lambda & 0& \hdots &0 & 0 \\
860: 0 & 1 & -\lambda & \hdots &0 & 0 \\
861: \vdots & & & &\vdots \\
862: 0& 0& 0&\hdots &-\lambda & 0 \\
863: 0& 0& 0&\hdots & 1 & -\lambda
864: \end{pmatrix} \nonumber \\
865: =\alpha_{1}\det
866: \begin{pmatrix}
867: -\lambda & 0& \hdots &0 & 0 \\
868: 1 & -\lambda & \hdots &0 & 0 \\
869: \vdots & & & &\vdots \\
870: 0& 0&\hdots &-\lambda & 0 \\
871: 0& 0&\hdots & 1 & -\lambda
872: \end{pmatrix} \nonumber \\
873: - \det
874: \begin{pmatrix}
875: \alpha_{2} & \alpha_{3} & \hdots & \alpha_{M-1}&
876: \alpha_{M} \\
877: 1 & -\lambda & \hdots &0 & 0 \\
878: \vdots & & & &\vdots \\
879: 0& 0&\hdots &-\lambda & 0 \\
880: 0& 0&\hdots & 1 & -\lambda
881: \end{pmatrix}
882: \end{eqnarray}
883: It can be noticed that the first matrix is $C(M-1)$ while the
884: determinant of the second matrix can be calculated recursively,
885: \begin{eqnarray}
886: \label{detB} \det B(M) = \alpha_{1} \det C(M-1) -\det B(M-1),
887: \end{eqnarray}
888: where
889: \begin{eqnarray}
890: B(M-1) =
891: \begin{pmatrix} \alpha_{2} & \hdots & \alpha_{M-1}&
892: \alpha_{M} \\
893: \vdots & & &\vdots \\
894: 0&\hdots &-\lambda & 0 \\
895: 0&\hdots & 1 & -\lambda
896: \end{pmatrix}.
897: \end{eqnarray}
898: Substituting in (\ref{a0_apendix})
899: \begin{eqnarray}
900: [(1-\epsilon)f'(x_{0})+ \alpha_0 &-&\lambda] \det C(M) - [\alpha_{1} \det
901: C(M-1) \nonumber\\ - \alpha_{2} \det C(M-2) &+& \det B(M-2)] =0
902: \end{eqnarray}
903: Using Eqs.(\ref{detC}) and(\ref{detB}) we obtain
904: \begin{eqnarray}
905: [(1-\epsilon)f'(x_{0})+ \alpha_0&-&\lambda] (-\lambda)^M - \alpha_{1}
906: (-\lambda)^{M-1} \nonumber\\ + \alpha_{2} (-\lambda)^{M-2} &-& \dots
907: =0
908: \end{eqnarray}
909: which gives
910: \begin{eqnarray}
911: (-\lambda)^{M+1} +[(1-\epsilon) f'(x_{0})+\alpha_0](-\lambda)^M
912: \nonumber\\+\sum_{j=1}^M (-1)^j \alpha_{j} (-\lambda)^{M-j} =0,
913: \end{eqnarray}
914: that can be simplified to
915: \begin{eqnarray}
916: -\lambda^{M+1} +[(1-\epsilon) f'(x_{0})+ \alpha_0]\lambda^M +\sum_{j=1}^M
917: \alpha_{j} \lambda^{M-j} =0.
918: \end{eqnarray}
919: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
920: \bibitem{review} A.S. Pikovsky, M.G. Rosenblum, and J. Kurths,
921: {\it Synchronization-A Universal Concept in Nonlinear Sciences}
922: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2001).
923:
924: \bibitem {kaneko} K. Kaneko, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 63}, 219 (1989); K.
925: Kaneko, I. Tsuda, {\it Complex Systems: Chaos and Beyond, A
926: Constructive Approach with Applications in Life Sciences}
927: (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 2000).
928:
929: \bibitem{mackey} M. C. Mackey and L. Glass, Science {\bf 197}, 287 (1977).
930:
931: \bibitem{ikeda} K. Ikeda, Opt. Commun. {\bf 30}, 257 (1979).
932:
933: \bibitem{longtin} J. Foss, A. Longtin, B. Mensour, and J. Milton, Phys.
934: Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}, 708 (1996) .
935:
936: \bibitem{yeung} M. K. Stephen Yeung and S. H. Strogatz, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 648
937: (1999).
938:
939: \bibitem{od} D. V. Ramana Reddy, A. Sen, and G. L. Johnston, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 5109 (1998).
940:
941: \bibitem{pyragas} K. Pyragas, Phys. Lett. A {\bf 170}, 421 (1992).
942:
943: \bibitem{coherence} D. Goldobin, M. Rosenblum, A. Pikovsky, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 67}, 061119 (2003).
944:
945: \bibitem{boccaletti} S. Boccaletti, E. Allaria, R. Meucci, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 69}, 066211 (2004).
946:
947: \bibitem{scholl} N. B. Janson, A.G. Balanov, E. Scholl, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 010601
948: (2004); A. G. Balanov et al., Physica D {\bf 199}, 1 (2004).
949:
950: \bibitem{otsuka} K. Otsuka and J-L. Chern, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 45},
951: 5052 (1992).
952:
953: \bibitem{atay_PRL_2003} F. M. Atay, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 094101 (2003).
954:
955: \bibitem{lev} D. Huber and L. S. Tsimring, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 71}, 036150
956: (2005).
957:
958: \bibitem{eurich} C. W. Eurich, A. Thiel, and L. Fahse, Phys. Rev.
959: Lett. {\bf 94}, 158104 (2005).
960:
961: \bibitem{prl} C. Masoller and A. C. Marti, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 134102
962: (2005).
963:
964: \bibitem{atay_PRL_2004} F. M. Atay, J. Jost and A. Wende, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 144101 (2004).
965:
966: \bibitem{marti} A. C. Marti and C. Masoller, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 67}, 056219 (2003);
967: C. Masoller, A. C. Marti and D. H. Zanette, Physica A {\bf 325}, 186
968: (2003); A. C. Marti and C. Masoller, Physica A {\bf 342}, 344
969: (2004).
970:
971: \bibitem{parlitz} A. Ahlborn and U. Parlitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 264101 (2004); Phys. Rev. E {\bf 72} 016206 (2005).
972:
973: \bibitem{cosenza1} A. Parravano and M. G. Cosenza, Phys. Rev. E {\bf
974: 58} 1665 (1998).
975: \bibitem{cosenza2} M. G. Cosenza and A. Parravano, Phys. Rev. E {\bf
976: 64} 036224 (2001).
977:
978: \bibitem{teorema} J. Stoer and R. Burlisch, Introduction to Numerical
979: Analysis (Springer, Berlin, 1992); P.A. Horn and C.R. Jonhson, {\it
980: Matrix Analysis} (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1985). For
981: a recent application of the Gershgorin theorem see: M.
982: Timme et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 074101 (2004).
983: \end{thebibliography}
984:
985: \end{document}
986:
987:
988: !DSPAM:42838f4c167624915682623!
989: