Symmetry breaking dynamics induced by mean-field density and low-pass filter

Symmetry breaking dynamics induced by mean-field density and low-pass

This is the author’s peer reviewed, accepted manuscript. However, the online version of record will be different from this version once it has been copyedited and typeset.
filter
K. Ponrasu,1 Uday singh,2 K. Sathiyadevi,2 D. V. Senthilkumar,2, a) and V. K. Chandrasekar1, b)
1) Centre for Nonlinear Science & Engineering, School of Electrical & Electronics Engineering, SASTRA Deemed University,
Thanjavur - 613 401, Tamil Nadu, India.
2) School of Physics, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Thiruvananthapuram - 695551, Kerala,
India.
(Dated: 4 April 2020)
The phenomenon of spontaneous symmetry breaking facilitates the onset of a plethora of nontrivial dynamical
states/patterns in a wide variety of dynamical systems. Spontaneous symmetry breaking results in amplitude and phase
variations in a coupled identical oscillator due to the breaking of prevailing the permutational/translational symmetry
of the coupled system. Nevertheless, the role and the competing interaction of the low-pass filter and the mean-field
density parameter on the symmetry breaking dynamical states are unclear and yet to explored explicitly. The effect
of low pass filtering along with the mean-field parameter is explored in conjugately coupled Stuart-Landau oscillators.
The dynamical transitions are examined via bifurcation analysis. We show the emergence of spontaneous symmetry
breaking (asymmetric) oscillatory state, which coexists with nontrivial amplitude death state. Through the basin of at-
traction multi-stable nature of the spontaneous symmetry breaking state is examined, which reveals that the asymmetric
distribution of initial state favors the spontaneous symmetry breaking dynamics while the symmetric distribution of
initial states give rise to the nontrivial amplitude death state. In addition, the trade-off between the cut-off frequency
PLEASE CITE THIS ARTICLE AS DOI: 10.1063/1.5142234

of the low-pass filter along with the mean-field density induces and enhances the symmetry breaking dynamical states.
Global dynamical transitions are discussed as a function of various system parameters. Analytical stability curves
corresponding to the nontrivial amplitude death and oscillation death states are deduced.

Several asymmetrical dynamical states/patterns such as
Turing patterns, clusters, oscillation death, chimera states
arises in natural and dynamical systems by breaking the
prevailing symmetry of the system due to the phenomenon
of spontaneous symmetry breaking. Further, it is know
that low-pass filters has prominent engineering applica-
tions such as image processing techniques. However, re-
cent studies revealed that low-pass filters plays a nontriv-
ial role in dynamical systems in inducing a wide variety
of dynamical behaviors. In addition, the mean-field cou-
pling is well know because of its physical relevance and
applications. Nevertheless, the effect of the low-pass filters
and the mean-field density on the symmetry breaking dy-
namical states remains a mystery. In this work, we have
investigate the trade-off between both of them on their ef-
fects on the symmetry breaking dynamical states. We have
found that the cut-off frequency of the low-pass filter and
the mean-field density has the tendency to enhance the ex-
isting symmetry breaking states and also induce symmetry
breaking dynamical states in the absence of the latter.
Emergence of symmetry breaking phenomenon, facilitat-
ing the onset of nontrivial patterns and dynamical states, is
omnipresent present in nature and in various fields ranging
from particle physics to biology1. For instance, symmetry
breaking is ubiquitous in the condensed matter physics, it is
often found when there is a phase transition between a high-
temperature, symmetric phase and a low-temperature one in
which the symmetry is spontaneously broken2, chiral amplifi-
a) Electronic mail: skumarusnld@gmail.com
b) Electronic mail: chandru25nld@gmail.com
cation in the formation of chiral inorganic nano-crystals leads
to spontaneous breakdown of mirror symmetry below a crit-
ical temperature3. It is also well understood that the sym-
metry breaking phenomenon plays a vital role in the Turing
pattern formation (such as in tiger and zebra) in animals4,5 .
Spontaneous symmetry breaking is responsible for the com-
plex spatio-temporal excitation patterns in the brain network
during information processing6. Breaking the prevailing sym-
metries facilitate the onset of a plethora of complex spatio-
temporal patterns/dynamics, which is a natural gateway to nu-
merous nontrivial dynamical states responsible for an appro-
priate function/task. Hence, unveling and understanding the
dynamical states due to symmetry breaking phenomenon is
an everlasting area of research in all areas of science and tech-
nology1–6 .
In coupled oscillators, symmetry breaking usually occurs
by breaking either the permutational or translational symme-
try through which the uniformity in the dynamical states is lost
leading to the onset of asymmetric dynamical states. Recent
studies revealed that breaking the permutational translational
symmetry facilitates the onset of distinct collective dynamical
behaviors including solitary state, chimera, and clustering in a
network of coupled oscillators7–11 , each of which has a strong
resemblance with many real-life instances. It has been shown
that breaking the prevailing rotational symmetry results in di-
verse oscillation quenching states namely, amplitude death,
oscillation death, cluster, and chimera death7,12–14 . In partic-
ular, transition from amplitude to oscillation death via Turing
bifurcation was shown to mediated by the spontaneous sym-
metry breaking phenomenon15.
A low-pass filter (LPF) have been traditionally used for
filtering high frequency signals in engineering applications.
However, recent burst of research activities employed LPF
 Symmetry breaking dynamics induced by mean-field density and low-pass filter
This is the author’s peer reviewed, accepted manuscript. However, the online version of record will be different from this version once it has been copyedited and typeset.
to introduce an unstable degree of freedom to track and sta-
bilize even unknown steady states of dynamical systems16 ,
to obtain action potential by filtering out the local potential
in the electrode recording of an electroencephalogram17, to
realize the symmetry breaking inhomogeneous limit cycles
from the homogenous limit cycle18 , to mediate the transition
from second-order to first-order phase transition19, to facili-
tate the quenching and revival of oscillations in coupled oscil-
lators20,21 and so on.
Further, mean-field coupling have been widely employed
in networks of coupled oscillators due to its physical rele-
vance. The density of the mean-field plays a most promi-
nent role in deciding dynamical features, in particular in
biological systems. For example, in synthetic genetic os-
cillator, such parameter referred as cell density in cellu-
lar population facilitates diverse nontrivial dynamical behav-
iors including multi-stability and clustering during cell-to-cell
communication22,23 . Analogously, in the ecological context,
the mean-field density indicates the dispersal rate during the
migration among the different patches. The variation of dis-
PLEASE CITE THIS ARTICLE AS DOI: 10.1063/1.5142234
persal rate results in spatial synchrony, amplitude and oscilla-
tion death states24 . Thus the LPF and the mean-field density
plays a nontrivial role in bringing out various dynamical as-
pects of several natural/dynamical systems. However, their
effect on the onset of symmetry breaking dynamical states are
unclear and not yet dealt explicitly any where else to the best
of our knowledge. Hence, in this paper, we plan to investigate
whether the LPF and the mean-field density can facilitate the
onset of symmetry breaking dynamics in coupled oscillators.
A recent report, with mean-field conjugate coupling among
the Stuart-Landau oscillators, has shown the spontaneous
symmetry breaking (SSB) dynamics due to breaking the per-
mutational/translational symmetry of the coupled oscillators
spontaneously25. We consider the same coupling configura-
tion along with an adaptive variable corresponding to the low-
pass filter to investigate the effect of the mean-field density
and the cut-off frequency of the LPF. Primarily, the dynami-
cal transitions are exhibited through bifurcation diagrams elu-
cidating the emergence of spontaneous symmetry breaking
(SSB) dynamics as a function of the mean-field density and
the cut-off frequency of the LPF. The asymmetric amplitude
effects in SSB state decreases while increasing the mean-field
density and finally emerge as an out-of-phase (OPS) synchro-
nized state. Non-trivial amplitude death (NAD) state coexists
with SSB and OPS states, which is illustrated using the basin
of attraction. Subsequently, the global dynamical behaviors
are analyzed by fixing various parameters such as system fre-
quency, cut-off frequency of the LPF as well as the coupling
strength. Interestingly, the spread of the SSB region is en-
hanced as a function of the cut-off frequency of the LPF for
the systems parameters within the SSB region. The interplay
of the cut-off frequency and the mean-field density is found to
induce the SSB state even for the parameters away from the
SSB region. It is to be noted that we have employed a sin-
gle filtering in the conjugate coupling to unravel the effect of
the LPF along with the mean-field density parameter on the
SSB states, where as two filtering is employed in the intrinsic
and extrinsic variable of the mean-field diffusive coupling in
2
Ref. 21 unveiling their effects on the phenomenon of quench-
ing and reviving of oscillations.
The rest of the sections in the manuscript are structured as
follows. In Sec. I, we introduce the model of conjugately cou-
pled Stuart-Landau oscillators with the low-pass filter and the
mean-field density. The emergence of spontaneous symmetry
breaking and their dynamical transitions are discussed in Sec.
III. The global dynamical behaviors exhibited by the system
of conjugately coupled Stuart-Landau oscillators as a function
of various parameters will be elucidated in Sec. IV. Finally, we
summarize the obtained results in Sec V.
I. MODEL
Stuart-Landau oscillator is a general, paradigmatic model,
which can be used to approximate a variety of weakly non-
linear systems near the Hopf bifurcation26–28 . Coupling via
dissimilar variable (conjugate) found to play a vital role in
many theoretical and experimental contexts including optical,
electrical and ecological systems where the output of the one
subsystem is feedback to the other29,30 . To elucidate the im-
pact of LPF with the mean-field density on the SSB states,
we consider a conjugately coupled Stuart-Landau oscillators,
whose governing equation of motion can be expressed as
ż j = (1 + iω − |z j |2 )z j + ε (QIm(z̄) − v j ),
v̇ j = α (−v j + Re(z j )), (1)
where z j = reiθ j = x j + iy j ∈ C, j = 1, 2 (N = 2). x j and y j
are the state variables of the Stuart-Landau oscillator. Here, ω
is the system frequency and Q (0 ≤ Q ≤ 1) is the mean-field
density parameter, Im(z̄) = 1/N ∑Nj=1 y j . α is the cut-off fre-
quency of the low-pass filter; smaller values of α implies the
strong filtering which allows lower frequency signals and at-
tenuates frequencies higher than α 20,31 . v j is the output of the
low-pass filter. In the limit α → ∞, the system becomes un-
filtered case with v j = Re(z j ). The numerical simulations are
carried out using the Runge-Kutta fourth order scheme with
step size of 0.01.
II. DYNAMICAL TRANSITIONS AND SYMMETRY
BREAKING DYNAMICS
In order to appreciate the effect of the LPF and the
mean-field density, at first we have depicted the dynami-
cal transitions as one-parameter bifurcation diagram (using
XPPAUT,32 ) in Fig. 1. The dynamical transition as a func-
tion of the system frequency ω is depicted in Fig. 1(a) for
ε = 0.55 and Q = 1 without any filtering. The oscillation
death state (OD) (dashed line) coexists with NAD state (solid
line) in the range of ω ∈ (0, 0.23). The time traces of OD and
NAD states are shown in Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) for ω = 0.2 but
for different initial conditions. The oscillators x1 and x2 in the
OD state populating the different branches of the inhomoge-
neous steady state is evident from Fig. 2(a) whereas the oscil-
lators in the NAD state populate the nontrivial homogeneous
 Symmetry breaking dynamics induced by mean-field density and low-pass filter 3

This is the author’s peer reviewed, accepted manuscript. However, the online version of record will be different from this version once it has been copyedited and typeset.
1 1
SSB OPS (a) (b)
➝

➝
PF2 OPS
IPS PF2 SSB
OD PF1 SN
NAD

x1,2

x1,2
0 0
NAD

R4 R1 R2 R3 R2 R1
-1 -1
0 0.5 1 0 2 4 6 8
ω α
1 1
(c) (d)

➝
➝
OPS OPS
PF2 SSB PF2 SSB

NAD NAD
x1,2

x1,2
0 0

R2 R1 R2 R1
-1 -1
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
PLEASE CITE THIS ARTICLE AS DOI: 10.1063/1.5142234

α α
FIG. 1. One parameter bifurcation (using XPPAUT) diagrams as a function of (a) system frequency ω without filtering (α = ∞) and Q = 1,
(b) α for ω = 0.4, Q = 1.0, (c) α for ω = 4.0, Q = 0.95, and (d) α for ω = 0.48, Q = 0.85. IPS, OPS, SSB, OD and NAD are the stable
in-phase synchronized (filled circles) state, out-of-phase synchronized (filled diamonds) state, spontaneous symmetry breaking oscillatory
(filled triangles) state, oscillation death (dashed line) and nontrivial amplitude death (solid line) state, respectively. SN and PF are the saddle-
node (unfilled diamonds) and pitchfork (filled squares) bifurcation points, respectively. The dotted line connected by the unfilled circles
correspond to the unstable limit-cycle oscillations, while the dotted lines correspond to the unstable steady states. R1 , R2 , and R3 represents
the multi-stability regions of SSB-NAD, OPS-NAD and IPS-OPS states, respectively. Other parameters are ε = 0.55, λ = 1.0 and N = 2.

1
(a)
1
(b)
1
(c)
cillators spontaneously breaks the permutational/translational
symmetry (z1 → ±z2 ) at ω = 0.38 resulting in the symme-
x1
x1,2

x1,2

x1,2

try breaking oscillatory state. Such spontaneous symme-

x2 try breaking causes asymmetry in the symmetric dynamics,
-1 -1 -1
thereby rendering both the oscillators (x1 and x2 ) oscillat-
0 time 100 0 time 100 0 time 100 ing with different amplitudes and phases. Such asymmetric
1 1 state can be called as spontaneous symmetry breaking oscil-
(d) (e)
latory (SSB) state. The filled triangles in the region between
0.38 ≤ ω ≤ 0.46 in Fig. 2(a) corresponds to the SSB region.
x1,2

x1,2

-1 -1
0 time 100 0 time
FIG. 2. The time evolution of the (a) OD state (ω = 0.2), (b) NAD
state (ω = 0.2), (c) SSB (ω = 0.4), (d) OPS (ω = 0.55), and (e) IPS
(ω = 0.8), in the absence of filtering and mean-field density Q = 1.0.
Other parameters are ε = 0.55, λ = 1.0 and N = 2.
steady state (see Fig. 2(b)) by breaking the rotational symme-
try and the NAD state is stable in the range of ω ∈ (0, 0.66).
Through the saddle-node bifurcation (represented by unfilled
diamonds) at ωSN = 0.66, the NAD state gets destabilized ac-
companied by the stabilization of the IPS state (represented
by filled circles). The OD state is destabilized via subcritical
pitchfork bifurcation (PF1) at ωPF1 = 0.23.
In addition, increasing the the natural frequency of the os-
The time evolution of the SSB state is shown in Fig. 2(c) for
ω = 0.4, which clearly elucidates the amplitude and phase
100 variations among both the oscillators. Further, the amplitude
difference between the oscillators in the SSB state decreases
while increasing the natural frequency, which then manifests
as an out-of-phase synchronized state where the amplitude
difference becomes null value (i.e. amplitude of both the os-
cillator attains the same value). We have also observed that
the SSB state is destabilized via the inverse pitchfork bifurca-
tion at ωPF2 = 0.46, with the stabilization of the OPS state,
where the oscillators x1 and x2 oscillates with the same am-
plitude but with π phase difference as evident from Fig. 2(d)
for ω = 0.55. The OPS state (filled diamond) is found to be
stable for ω > 0.46. It is also identified that the observed SSB
and OPS states coexist with NAD state in the region R1 and
R2 , respectively, where as the IPS and OPS states coexist in
the region R3 . The oscillators x1 and x2 exhibiting in-phase
oscillations are evident from Fig. 2(e) for ω = 0.8. The dotted
 Symmetry breaking dynamics induced by mean-field density and low-pass filter
This is the author’s peer reviewed, accepted manuscript. However, the online version of record will be different from this version once it has been copyedited and typeset.
4
(a)
4
(b)
x2(0)
x2(0)
0 0
NAD SSB NAD OPS
-4 -4
-4 0 4 -4 0 4
x1(0) x1(0)
FIG. 3. Basin of attraction in the multi-stability regions (a) R1 for
α = 2.0 and (b) R2 for α = 6.0 by fixing y1 (0) = −0.45 and y2 (0) =
0.5, when varying x1 (0) and x2 (0). Other parameters are the same as
in Fig. 2.
lines correspond to the unstable steady states, while the open
circles correspond to the unstable limit-cycle oscillations.
Further, the dynamical transitions as a function of the cut-
off frequency of the LPF is depicted in Figs. 1(b)- 1(d) for
different values of ω and Q in order to unveil the effect of the
PLEASE CITE THIS ARTICLE AS DOI: 10.1063/1.5142234
cut-off frequency and the mean-field density on the symme-
try breaking oscillatory state. In all these figures, there is a
transition from OPS to SSB state via a supercritical pitchfork
bifurcation. NAD state coexists with OPS(SSB) state in the
region R2 (R1 ). However, it is to be noted that the SSB state
extend to a large range of the cut-off frequency α ∈ (3.1, 8)
in Fig. 1(b) for Q = 1 (so that there is no change in mean-
field density) and for ω = 0.4, where the natural frequency is
taken within the SSB state in Fig. 1(a). Upon including the
effect of the mean-field density by decreasing it to Q = 0.95,
the SSB state extend to further larger range of α ∈ (1.97, 8) for
ω = 0.4 elucidating that both α and Q facilitate the emergence
of the SSB state to rather larger parameter space as function
of the cut-off frequency α of the LPF. However, the cut-off
frequency of the LPF and the mean-field density parameter is
found to not only enhance the spread of SSB state but also
induce the SSB state when the value of the natural frequency
is chosen outside the SSB state (non SSB parameter space) in
Fig. 1(a). For instance, the spread of SSB state depicted as a
function of α in Fig. 1(d) for ω = 0.48 and Q = 0.85 clearly
corroborates the influence of the cut-off frequency of the LPF
and the mean-field density in inducing the SSB state.
Furthermore, to understand the multi-stable nature of the
SSB-NAD and OPS-NAD, we have depicted the basin of at-
traction by fixing y1 (0) = −0.45 and y2 (0) = 0.5 while vary-
ing x1 (0) and x2 (0) for ε = 0.55, Q = 0.85 and ω = 0.48. We
have fixed the parameter α in the region R1 initially to inspect
the multi-stability between the SSB and NAD, and the corre-
sponding basin of attraction is shown in Fig. 3(a) for α = 2.0.
The basin of attraction clearly depicts that for symmetric dis-
tribution of initial states, both x1 (0) and x2 (0) are either pos-
itive or negative, the system attains the nontrivial steady state
whereas in the asymmetric distribution of initial conditions
(either x1 (0) is positive and x2 (0) is negative or vice versa),
the system reaches the symmetry breaking oscillatory state.
Analogously, the basin of attraction in Fig. 3(b) is depicted for
α = 6.0 to show the multi-stable nature of OPS and NAD in
the region R2 . Comparing with Fig. 3(a), the asymmetric dis-
4
tribution of initial states favor the out-of-phase synchronized
state replacing the SSB state while the NAD basin remains
the same (see Fig. 3(b)). Thus, Figs. 3(a) and 3(b) clearly il-
lustrates the coexistence of NAD with OPS and SSB states,
respectively. Further, it is evident that SSB or OPS emerges
only for asymmetric distribution of initial states and it does
not appear for the symmetry distribution of initial conditions
as of NAD state. Further, to understand the global dynamical
transitions facilitated by the competing interaction of the cut-
off frequency of the LPF along with the mean-field density, in
inducing and enhancing the spontaneous symmetry breaking
dynamics, we will discuss the global dynamical behavior of
the system (1) in the following.
III. GLOBAL DYNAMICAL BEHAVIORS
To exemplify the role of the LPF and the mean-field den-
sity, we have depicted the two parameter diagrams in (Q, α )
space in Fig. 4 for ε = 0.55 and for different values of the sys-
tem frequency. We have fixed the parameters (ε = 0.55 and
ω = 0.4) in the region of symmetry breaking oscillatory state
in Fig. 1 to examine the impact of the LPF and the mean-field
density on it as a function of Q and α (see Fig. 4(a)). It is to
be noted that lower values of Q facilitates the emergence of
IPS state in the entire explored range of the cut-off frequency.
However, for very low values of α , the IPS state extend until
Q = 0.8 and there is a transition from IPS to OPS states lead-
ing to the multi-stability between them in the parameter space
denoted by R3 . There is a transition from IPS state to NAD
states as a function of Q even for α = 0.01, which extends
upto Q = 1 in the entire range of α . The critical curve (solid
black line) in Fig. 4 is the analytical critical curve demarcat-
ing IPS and NAD states deduced using the stability analysis
(see Appendix A). SSB state onsets for sufficient values of the
mean-field density in the large range of the cut-off frequency
thereby leading to the multi-stability between SSB and NAD
states in the parameter space denoted by R1 . It is also to be
noted that for Q = 1, even the cut-off frequency of the LPF
alone can facilitate the existence of the SSB state. NAD and
OPS coexists in the parameter space denoted by R2 . Interest-
ing point to note is that, the spread of the SSB is rather large
in the (α , Q) parameter space when compared to that in Fig. 1,
which corroborates that both α and Q favors the SSB state to
a large extent.
The global dynamical transitions are also depicted in
Figs 4(b)-4(d) for large values of ω away from the SSB state
in Fig. 1. For ω = 0.44, near the boundary of SSB state in
Fig. 1, the spread of the IPS and OPS states is increased with
decrease in the spread of the NAD and SSB states as the func-
tion of Q and α (see Fig. 4(b)). Similar dynamical transitions
are also observed in Figs 4(c) and 4(d) for ω = 0.48 and 0.51,
respectively. Nevertheless, important point to emphasize is
that the SSB state persists in a rather large range of Q and
α despite that ω is chosen away from the SSB state in Fig. 1,
which elucidates that both the mean-field intensity and the cut-
off frequency of the LPF favours the onset of the SSB state.
 Symmetry breaking dynamics induced by mean-field density and low-pass filter 5

This is the author’s peer reviewed, accepted manuscript. However, the online version of record will be different from this version once it has been copyedited and typeset.
8
(a)
8
(b)
frequency of the low-pass filter.
In order to further enunciate the role of LPF in facilitat-
NAD NAD
ing the onset of the SSB state, we have also depicted the
4 R1 4 R1
two parameter diagram in (Q, ε ) space in Fig. 6 for four dif-

α
IPS IPS

ferent values of the cut-off frequency α = 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and

R3 R2 R2 7.0. IPS state is facilitated by the low values of Q and ε for

➝
0 0 R3
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 α = 1.0. IPS manifests as NAD state through saddle-node
Q Q bifurcation as a function of Q(ε ) for a wide range of ε (Q).
8 8
(c) (d) The fixed point corresponding to the NAD state is given by
R1 R1
FNHSS = (x∗ , y∗ , x∗ , x∗ , y∗ , x∗ ), where

NAD

NAD
4 4 1
α

α
IPS IPS
x∗ = (∆1 − ε )y∗ ,
R2 R2
2ω s
0 R3 0
R3 1 2ω (Q − ω ) + ε̂ (1 + Qω )
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 y∗ = √ , (2)
Q Q 2 (1 + Q2)ε
p
FIG. 4. Two parameter diagrams in (Q, α ) space for different values where ∆1 = ε 2 + 4Qωε − 4ω 2 and ε̂ = ε + ∆1 . Further, the
of system frequency, (a) ω = 0.4, (b) ω = 0.44, (c) ω = 0.48, and stability of the observed NAD state is obtained by substituting
(d) ω = 0.51. Other parameters are the same as in Fig. 2. the fixed point, Eq. (2), in the Jacobian matrix33 . Then the
stability condition for the NAD state can be deduced as (see
PLEASE CITE THIS ARTICLE AS DOI: 10.1063/1.5142234

Appendix A)
8 8
(a) (b)
4ω 2 − ε 2
R1 R1
QSN = . (3)
4ωε
NAD

4 4 NAD
α

IPS IPS
The solid (black) line in Fig. 6 represents the stable bound-
R2 R2
aries for NAD state obtained using Eq. (3). However, IPS
0 R3 0 R3 state is also followed by OPS state in an appreciable range
0 0.5
Q
1 0 0.5
Q
1 of ε as a function of Q with some overlap leading to the co-
8 8 existence of OPS state with IPS(NAD) state in the parame-
(c) (d)
ter space denoted by R3 (R2 ). For large values of the cou-
R1 NAD R1 NAD
pling strength ε , the oscillation death (OD) state emerges
IPS

4 4 by breaking the rotational symmetry of the coupled system

α

IPS

R2
leading to the multi-stability with NAD state in the parame-
R3
R2 ter space denoted by R4 . In the OD state, the oscillator x1
0 0 R3
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
and x2 populate the upper and lower branches of the inho-
Q Q mogeneous steady states. The fixed point corresponding to
the inhomogeneous steady state (OD) can be represented as,
FIG. 5. Two parameter diagrams for ω = 0.5 in (Q, α ) space for FIHSS = (x† , y† , x† , −x† , −y† , −x† ), where
different values of the coupling strength (a) ε = 0.55, (b) ε = 0.65, r
(c) ε = 0.75, and (d) ε = 0.9. † 1 2ω 2
x =√ 1+ − ε + ∆2 ,
2 ε
∆2
  
1
We have also depicted the two parameter bifurcation dia- y† = ω2 + ε2 + ε 1 − 2 x† , (4)
ω (ε − 1) 2
gram in (Q, α ) space for four different values of the coupling p
strength (see Fig. 5) by fixing ω = 0.5, out of the SSB parame- where ∆2 = (ε − 1)2 ε 2 (ε 2 − 4ω 2). Then the stability con-
ter space in Fig. 1. The dynamical transitions in Fig. 5 are sim- dition for OD can be deduced by substituting the above fixed
ilar to that in Fig. 4. However, the spread of IPS(NAD) state points in the Jacobian33 as
decreases(increases) upon increasing the coupling strength
(see Figs. 5(a)- 5(d) for ε = 0.55, 0.65, 0.75 and 0.9, re- ε 4 − ε 3 − 4ω 2(ε − 1)ε + γ (2 − ε )
QPF = , (5)
spectively. The critical curve (solid black line) in Fig. 5 is ω (2ε 2 − 2ε + γ )
the analytical critical curve demarcating IPS and NAD states p
deduced using the stability analysis (see Appendix A). Fur- where γ1 = (ε − 1)2 ε 2 (ε 2 − 4ω 2). Using Eq. (5), we have
ther, the spread of the SSB(OPS) state increases for a range of plotted analytical boundary corresponding to the OD state (de-
the coupling strength (compare Figs. 5(a)- 5(c)) and then de- noted by dashed line) in Fig. 6, which is in good agreement
creases for higher values of ε (compare Figs. 5(c) and 5(d)). with its numerical boundary. Further, it is also evident that in-
Thus, the above results corroborate that spontaneous sym- creasing the mean-field intensity parameter increases the OD
metry breaking states can indeed facilitated by the sufficient region as a function of Q (see Fig. 6(a)). Nevertheless, SSB
strength mean-field intensity in a wide range of the cut-off state does not found to exist in the explored range of Q and ε
 Symmetry breaking dynamics induced by mean-field density and low-pass filter
This is the author’s peer reviewed, accepted manuscript. However, the online version of record will be different from this version once it has been copyedited and typeset.
1.2 1.2
(a)
R4
0.9 0.9
ε
NAD
IPS R3 R2 IPS
0.6 0.6
0 0.5 1 0
Q Q
1.2 1.2
(c)
R4
0.9 0.9
ε
ε
NAD
R1
R2
IPS IPS
0.6 0.6
0 0.5 1 0
Q Q
FIG. 6. Two parameter diagrams for ω = 0.5 in (ε , Q) space for
different values of the cut-off frequency of the LPF, (a) α = 1.0, (b)
α = 2.0, (c) α = 3.0, and (d) α = 7.0. The stable critical curves
corresponding to the NAD and OD states are, respectively, denoted
PLEASE CITE THIS ARTICLE AS DOI: 10.1063/1.5142234
by the solid and dashed lines in Fig. (a)-(d).
for α = 1.0. Upon increasing the cut-off frequency to α = 2.0,
we find that the stable OPS region is decreased and as a result
the multi-stability between the IPS and OPS states (i.e. re-
gion R3 ) is completely suppressed (see Fig. 6(b)). However,
there is an onset of SSB state, which precedes that of the OPS
state for sufficient strength of the mean-field density in a wide
range of the coupling strength and hence the SSB(OPS) state
coexists with the NAD state in the parameter space denoted
by R1 (R2 ). It is also evident from Figs. 6(c) and 6(d) that the
spread of the SSB(OPS) state increases(decreases) upon in-
creasing the cut-off frequency corroborating the fact that the
LPF facilitate the onset of spontaneous symmetry breaking
states in a wide range of the system parameters.
IV. CONCLUSION
We have investigated the competing interaction of the cut-
off frequency of the low-pass filter along with the mean-field
density in conjugately (dissimilar) coupled Stuart-Landau os-
cillators. Initially, the dynamical transitions have been ana-
lyzed through bifurcation analysis and found the emergence
of spontaneous symmetry breaking state with amplitude and
phase variations. The amplitude variations in the symme-
try breaking region decreased while increasing the mean-field
density parameter and finally manifest as OPS state with π
phase difference with identical amplitude. The observed SSB
state further coexists with the NAD state. The multi-stable na-
ture of the symmetry breaking dynamical state is further an-
alyzed using the basin of attraction and found that asymmet-
ric distribution of initial states favor the SSB and OPS states,
whereas the symmetric distribution of initial conditions favour
the NAD state. Interestingly, we have identified that the cut-
off frequency of the low-pass filter and the mean-field density
6
enhances existing symmetry breaking oscillatory region. Sur-
(b)
R4 prisingly, we found that the interplay of the LPF with mean-
field density can also induce the SSB state even for the other
system parameters away from the SSB state. Critical stability
NAD
R1
curves corresponding to the NAD and OD states are deduced
R2
using the linear stability analysis and found to matches very
well with the numerical boundaries. Thus the competing in-
0.5 1
teraction between the LPF and the mean-field density induces
(d) and enhances the spontaneous symmetry breaking dynamical
R4
states in conjugately coupled oscillators. As the mean-field
density and phenomenon of spontaneous symmetry breaking
NAD
R1
are ubiquitous in many natural processes, in particular in bi-
ological systems, our results will shed more light on the the
R2
trade-off between the cut-off frequency and the mean-field
0.5 1 density, and their effects on the symmetry breaking dynam-
ical states/patterns in such systems.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
KP wishes to thank SASTRA Deemed University for re-
search fund and extending infrastructure support to carry out
this work. KS and DVS is supported by the CSIR EMR Grant
No. 03(1400)/17/EMR-II. The work of VKC forms part of
a research project sponsored by CSIR Project under Grant
No. 03(1444)/18/EMR-II.
Appendix A: Nontrivial amplitude death
The characteristic equation corresponding to the nontrivial
amplitude death state (nontrivial homogeneous steady state)
FNHSS = (x∗ , y∗ , x∗ , x∗ , y∗ , x∗ ) can be obtained as,
λ 6 + β5λ 5 + β4 λ 4 + β3λ 3 + β2λ 2 + β1 λ + β0 = 0, (A1)
where the coefficients β0 , β1 , β2 , β3 , β4 , and β5 are
β0 = α 2 (ω 2 + 3x∗4 + (3y∗2 − 1)(y∗2 + ε − 1) + x∗2(6y∗2 + ε
−4))(ω 2 + 3x∗4 − Qωε + 2Qxyε + (3y∗2 − 1)(y∗2 + ε
−1) + x∗2(6y∗2 + ε − 4)),
β1 = α (2ω 4 − 2Qω 3ε − Qωε (6(x∗4 + y∗4 ) + (α − 1)(ε − 2)
+x∗2 (12y∗2 + 4α + ε − 8) + y∗2(−8 + 4α + 3ε )) + 2ω 2
(6(x∗4 + y∗4) + (α − 1)(ε − 2) + 2Qx∗y∗ ε + x∗2 (12y∗2
+4α + ε − 8) + y∗2(4α + 3ε − 8)) + 2(9x∗8 + 6Qx∗5y∗
ε + (3y∗2 − 1)(1 + 3y∗4 + 4y∗2(α − 1) + α (ε − 2))(y∗2
+ε − 1) + 3x∗6(12y∗2 + 4α + ε − 8) + Qx∗3y∗ ε (12y∗2
+4α + ε − 8) + Qx∗y∗ ε (6y∗4 + (α − 1)(ε − 2) + y∗2
(4α + 3ε − 8)) + x∗4(54y∗4 + 3y∗2(−24 + 12α + 5ε )
+(α − 1)(7ε − 22)) + x∗2(36y∗6 + 22y∗2 − 8(α − 1)
(ε − 2) + 5ε + 3y∗4(12α + 7ε − 24) + α (12 − 10ε + ε 2 )))),
 Symmetry breaking dynamics induced by mean-field density and low-pass filter
β2 = 1 + ω 4 + 9x∗8 − 8y∗2 + 22y∗4 − 24y∗6 + 9y∗8 − 8α +
This is the author’s peer reviewed, accepted manuscript. However, the online version of record will be different from this version once it has been copyedited and typeset.
48y∗2α − 88y∗4α + 48y∗6α + 6α 2 − 24y∗2α 2 + 22y∗4
α 2 + 12x∗6(3y∗2 + 4α − 2) − Qω 3ε + 6Qx∗5y∗ ε + 6αε −
28y∗2αε + 30y∗4αε − 6α 2 ε + 14y∗2α 2 ε + 4Qx∗3y∗ (3y∗2
+4α − 2)ε + 2Qx∗ y∗ (1 + 3y∗4 + α 2 + y∗2(8α − 4) + α
(ε − 4))ε + α 2 ε 2 − Qωε (1 + 3x4 + 3y4 − 4α + α 2 + y∗2
(8α − 4) + x∗2(6y∗2 + 8α − 4) + αε ) + 2ω 2(1 + 3x∗4 +
3y∗4 − 4α + α 2 + y∗2 (−4 + 8α ) + x∗2(6y∗2 + 8α − 4) +
Qx∗ y∗ ε + αε ) + 2x∗2(18y∗6 + 36y∗4 − 4(2α − 1) + 22y∗2
(1 + α 2 + α (ε − 4)) + α (24 − 10ε ) + α 2(5ε − 12)) +
2x∗4 (11 + 27y∗4 + 11α 2 + 36y∗2(2α − 1) + α (7ε − 44)),
β3 = 2(−2 + 12x∗6 + 12y∗2 − 22y∗4 + 12y∗6 + x∗4(36y∗2
+22(α − 1)) + 6α − 24y∗2α + 22y∗4α − 2α 2 + 4y∗2
α 2 + 2ω 2(2x∗2 + 2y∗2 + α − 1) + 4Qx∗3y∗ ε − 3αε
+7y∗2αε + α 2 ε + 2Qx∗y∗ (2y∗2 + α − 1)ε − Qω (2
(x∗2 + y∗2 ) − 1 + α )ε + x∗2 (12 + 36y∗4 + 44y∗2
PLEASE CITE THIS ARTICLE AS DOI: 10.1063/1.5142234
(α − 1) − 24α + 4α 2 + 5αε )),
β4 = 16 + 2ω 2 + 22(x∗4 + y∗4) − 24y∗2 − 8α + 16y∗2α +
α 2 + 4x∗2(11y∗2 + 4α − 6) − Qωε + 2Qxyε + 2αε ,
β5 = 8(x∗2 + y∗2) + 2α − 4
The stability condition for the nontrivial homogeneous
steady state can be expressed, using the Routh-Hurwitz cri-
terion, as
β13 + β12 c1 + β1 c2 + β0 c3
> 0, (A2)
(β12 + β1c1 + c4 )
where, c1 = ((β42 − 2β2 )β5 − β3 β4 ), c2 = (β22 β52 + β0 β5 (3β3 −
2β4 β5 ) + β2 β3 (β3 − β4 β5 )), c3 = (β32 β4 β5 − β33 − β2 β3 β52 +
β0 β53 ), and c4 = β22 β52 + (β2 β3 + β0 β5 )(β3 − β4 β5 ), and
β0 > 0. (A3)
The stability condition (3) is obtained by solving β0 > 0. Note
that deducing explicit relation between the parameters using
(A2) is extremely difficult. However, one can obtain the crit-
ical curve as a function of the parameters satisfying Eq. (A2)
as depicted in Figs. 4 and 5.
1 H. Arodz, J. Dziarmaga and W. H. Zurek, Patterns of Symmetry Breaking
127 (Berlin: Springer) (2003).
2 T. W. B. Kibble, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373 20140033 (2015).
7
3 U. Hananela, A. Ben-Moshea, H. Diamanta, and G. Markovich, Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. 116, 11159-11164 (2019).
4 S. Sawai, Y. Maeda, and Y. Sawada, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2212-2215 (2000).
5
K. Dutta, J. appl. nonlinear dyn. 6(4), 547-564 (2017).
6 R. Singh, S. N. Menon and S. Sinha, Sci. Rep. 6, 22074 (2016).
7 A. Zakharova, M. Kapeller, and E. Schöll, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 154101
(2014).
8 X. Jiang and D. M. Abrams, Phys. Rev E 93, 052202 (2016).
9 K. Sathiyadevi, V. K. Chandrasekar, D. V. Senthilkumar, M. Lakshmanan
Phys. Rev. E 97 (3), 032207 (2018).
10 Ryong-Son Kim and Chol-Ung Choe, Phys. Rev. E 98, 042207 (2018).
11
D. V. Senthilkumar and V. K. Chandrasekar, Phys. Rev. E 100, 032211
(2019).
12 G. Saxena, A. Prasad, and R. Ramaswamy, Phys. Rep. 521, 205-228 (2012).
13 A. Koseska, E. Volkov, and J. Kurths, Phys. Rep. 531, 173-199 (2013).
14 I. Schneider, M. Kapeller, S. Loos, A. Zakharova, B. Fiedler, and E. Schöll,
Phys. Rev. E 92, 052915 (2015).
15 A. Koseska, E. Volkov, and J. Kurths, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 024103 (2013).
16 K. Pyragas, V. Pyragas, I. Z. Kiss and J. L. Hudson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89,
244103 (2002).
17 C. Bédard, H. Kröger, and A. Destexhe, Phys. Rev. E 73, 051911 (2006).
18 T. Banerjee, D. Biswas, D. Ghosh, B. Bandyopadhyay and J. Kurths, Phys.
Rev. E 97, 042218 (2018).
19 W. Zou, M. Zhan, and J. Kurths, Phys. Rev. E 100, 012209 (2019).
20 W. Zou, J. L. Ocampo-Espindola, D. V. Senthilkumar, I. Z. Kiss, M. Zhan,
J. Kurths, Phys. Rev. E 99 (3), 032214 (2019).
21 K. Kumar, D. Biswas, T. Banerjee, W. Zou, J. Kurths, and D. V. Senthilku-
mar, Phys. Rev. E 100, 052212 (2019).
22 J. Garcia-Ojalvo, M. B. Elowitz, and S. H. Strogatz, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
101, 10955-10960 (2004).
23 E. Ullner, A. Zaikin, E. I. Volkov, and J. Garcia-Ojalvo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99,
148103 (2007); E. Ullner, A. Koseska, J. Kurths, E. Volkov, H. Kantz, and
J. Garcia-Ojalvo, Phys. Rev. E 78, 031904 (2008).
24 T. Banerjee, P. S. Dutta and A. Gupta, Phys. Rev. E 91, 052919 (2015).
25
K. Ponrasu ,K.Sathiyadevi, V. K. Chandrasekar, and M. Lakshmanan, Eu-
rophys. Lett. 124, 20007 (2018).
26 J-Y Moon, U. Lee, S. Blain-Moraes, and G. A. Mashour, PLoS Comput.
Biol. 11 e1004225 (2015).
27 M. C. Thompson and P. L. Gal, Eur. J. Mech. B 23 219-228 (2004).
28 M. Frasca, A. Bergner, J. Kurths, and L. Fortuna, Int. J. Bifur. Chaos 22,
1250173 (2012).
29 M. Y. Kim, R. Roy, J. L. Aron, T. W. Carr and I. B. Schwartz, Phys. Rev.
Lett., 94, 088101 (2005) .
30 R. Karnatak, R. Ramaswamy, and U. Feudel, Chaos, Solitons Fractals, 68,
48 (2014).
31 X. Lei, W. Liu, W. Zou, and J. Kurths, Chaos 29, 073110 (2019).
32 B. Ermentrout, Simulating, Analyzing and Animating Dynamical Systems:
A Guide to Xppaut for Researchers and Students (Software, Environments,
Tools) (SIAM Press, Philadelphia, PA, 2002).
33 The Jacobian matrix for determining the stability of NAD and OD states of
the coupled system (1) is given by,
β11 β12 −ε 0 K 0
 
 β13 β14 0 0 0 0 
 α 0 −α 0 0 0 
 
J=
 0 K 0 β11 β12 −ε 
,
 0 0 0 β13 β14 0 
0 0 0 α 0 −α
where β11 = 1 − 3x♦2 − y♦2 , β12 = −2x♦ y♦ − ω + K, β13 = −2x♦ y♦ + ω ,
β14 = 1 − x♦2 − 3y♦2 (♦ = ∗ or † ) and K = ε Q/2.
This is the author’s peer reviewed, accepted manuscript. However, the online version of record will be different from this version once it has been copyedited and typeset.
PLEASE CITE THIS ARTICLE AS DOI: 10.1063/1.5142234
x1,2 x1,2

-1
0
1
-1
0
1

0
0
OD

OPS

R2
R4

NAD

2
➝
PF1

PF2
R1
SSB

NAD
➝

4
ω

α
0.5
PF2

R2
SN

SSB

R1
6
OPS

IPS

R3

(c)
(a)

8
1

x1,2 x1,2
-1
0
1
-1
0
1

0
0
R2

NAD
NAD

2
2

OPS
OPS

R2

➝ ➝
PF2

4
4

PF2

α
α

R1
SSB
SSB

R1

6
6

(d)
(b)

8
8
This is the author’s peer reviewed, accepted manuscript. However, the online version of record will be different from this version once it has been copyedited and typeset.
PLEASE CITE THIS ARTICLE AS DOI: 10.1063/1.5142234
-1
1

x1,2
0
(a)

-1
1

x1,2
time

0
(d)
x2
x1

100
-1
1

x1,2
0

time
(b)

100
-1
1

x1,2
time

0
(e)
100
-1
1

x1,2
0

time
(c)

100
time
100
This is the author’s peer reviewed, accepted manuscript. However, the online version of record will be different from this version once it has been copyedited and typeset.
PLEASE CITE THIS ARTICLE AS DOI: 10.1063/1.5142234
x2(0)
-4
0
4

-4
(a)

NAD

0
x1(0)
SSB

x2(0)
-4
0
4

-4
(b)

NAD

0
x1(0)
OPS

4
This is the author’s peer reviewed, accepted manuscript. However, the online version of record will be different from this version once it has been copyedited and typeset.
PLEASE CITE THIS ARTICLE AS DOI: 10.1063/1.5142234 α α

0
4
8
0
4
8

0
0

(c)
(a)

IPS

R3

IPS
➝

Q
Q

0.5
0.5

R3
NAD

NAD
R1

R2
R2
R1

1
1

α α
0
4
8
0
4
8

0
0

(d)
(b)

IPS

IPS
R3

Q
Q

0.5
0.5

R3
NAD

NAD
R1
R1

R2
R2

1
1
This is the author’s peer reviewed, accepted manuscript. However, the online version of record will be different from this version once it has been copyedited and typeset.
PLEASE CITE THIS ARTICLE AS DOI: 10.1063/1.5142234 α α

0
4
8
0
4
8

0
0

(c)
(a)

IPS

R3
IPS

R1

Q
Q

0.5
0.5

R2
R3

NAD
R1

R2

NAD

1
1

α α
0
4
8
0
4
8

0
0

IPS
(d)

R3
(b)

R2
IPS

R1
R3

NAD
Q
Q

0.5
0.5
R1

NAD
R2

1
1
This is the author’s peer reviewed, accepted manuscript. However, the online version of record will be different from this version once it has been copyedited and typeset.
PLEASE CITE THIS ARTICLE AS DOI: 10.1063/1.5142234
ε ε

0.6
0.9
1.2
0.6
0.9
1.2

0
0
IPS

IPS
R4
R4

R3

R1

Q
Q

0.5
0.5
R2

R2
NAD
NAD
(a)

(c)

1
1

ε ε
0.6
0.9
1.2
0.6
0.9
1.2

0
0
IPS

IPS
R4
R4

R1

R1

Q
Q

0.5
0.5
R2

R2
NAD
NAD

(d)
(b)

1
1