Alberto P´erez-Cervera
Center for Cognition and Decision Making, Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia.
Benjamin Lindner
Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin, Berlin, Germany & Department of Physics, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
Peter J. Thomas
Department of Mathematics, Applied Mathematics, and Statistics, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
(Dated: May 25, 2021)
Thomas and Lindner (2014, Phys. Rev. Lett.) defined an asymptotic phase for stochastic oscil-lators as the angle in the complex plane made by the eigenfunction, having complex eigenvalue with least negative real part, of the backward Kolmogorov (or stochastic Koopman) operator. We complete the phase-amplitude description of noisy oscillators by defining the stochastic isostable coordinate as the eigenfunction with the least negative nontrivial real eigenvalue. This framework provides a physically well-founded definition of “stochastic limit cycle” that includes noise-induced oscillations.
Introduction - Nonlinear stochastic oscillations occur throughout natural and engineered systems. Examples include the membrane potential of nerve cells [1, 2], the deflection of sensory organelles [3], the concentration of intracellular calcium [4], the populations of predators and prey [5], chemical reactions [6], climate systems [7] and the intensity of lasers [8]. For a system described by deterministic ordinary differential equations,
dx
dt = f (x), x ∈ R
n (1)
robust oscillations arise from orbitally stable limit cycle (LC) solutions x = γ(t) = γ(t + T ) with finite period T . The analysis of limit cycle systems through phase-amplitude reduction provides an essentially complete un-derstanding of oscillatory dynamics [9, 10]. By trans-forming to a phase variable θ, together with n − 1 am-plitude variables σ that decay at rates given by the non-trivial Floquet exponents λi, (i = 1, . . . , n), the system
eq. (1) becomes
˙
θ = 2π/T, ˙σ = Λσ (2)
with Λ = diag(λ1, . . . , λn) [11, 12]. This transformation
facilitates understanding of synchronization, entrainment and control in a broad range of scenarios [13–17].
In contrast, in stochastic systems, oscillatory behavior can arise not only from an underlying limit cycle, but in a noise-perturbed spiral–fixed-point system (quasicy-cle) (see the early example [18]), in systems with an un-derlying stable heteroclinic orbit driven by random fluc-tuations [19], or in noisy excitable systems [20]. Incor-porating stochastic dynamics fundamentally changes the conceptual foundations underlying the phase-amplitude construction.
Consider the Langevin equation dX
dt = f (X) + g(X)ξ(t) (3)
where f is an n-dimensional vector, g is an n × k matrix, ξ is k-dimensional white noise with uncorrelated compo-nents [21], hξi(t)ξj(t0)i = δ(t − t0)δi,j, and we interpret
the stochastic differential equation in the sense of Ito. For this system, orbits are no longer periodic. The tran-sit times between isochrons or other Poincar´e sections are random variables [22]. The classical notion of a “limit cy-cle”, as a closed, isolated periodic orbit, is no longer well defined, and a shift in perspective is required.
By considering the evolution of ensembles of trajec-tories, two of us [23] established a generalization of the asymptotic phase to stochastic oscillators, in terms of the slowest decaying complex eigenfunction of the generator L† of the Markov process eq. (3) [24]. In this Letter we
generalize the amplitude coordinate for a planar stochas-tic oscillator, which we define to be the slowest decaying real eigenfunction of L†. By putting the notion of phase and amplitude on a common basis, we complete the foun-dation for the study of stochastic oscillatory systems, and provide a physically grounded definition for a “stochastic limit cycle”.
Mathematical Preliminaries - As in [23, 25], we de-scribe an ensemble of trajectories through the density
ρ(y, t | x, s) = 1
|dy|Pr {X(t) ∈ [y, y + dy) | X(s) = x}
for s < t. The density satisfies Kolmogorov’s equations
∂ ∂tρ(y, t | x, s) = Ly[ρ] = −∇y· (f (y)ρ) + ∂2 ∂yiyj (Dij(y)ρ) −∂ ∂sρ(y, t | x, s) = L † x[ρ] = f (x) · ∇x(ρ) + Dij(x) ∂2 ∂xixj (ρ)
where D = 12gg|. We assume the operators L, L† admit a complete biorthogonal eigenfunction expansion with respect to the standard inner product hu | vi = R
Rnu
∗(x)v(x) dx
L[Pλ] = λPλ, L†[Q∗λ] = λQ∗λ, hQλ| Pλ0i = δλλ0 (4)
with P0suitably normalized, representing the unique
sta-tionary probability distribution, and Q0≡ 1. The
eigen-function expansion allows us to write the density as
ρ(y, t|x, s) = P0(y) +
X
λ6=0
eλ(t−s)Pλ(y)Q∗λ(x). (5)
As in [23] we assume that the system is “robustly oscillatory”, meaning (i) the nontrivial eigenvalue with least negative real part λ± = µ ± iω is complex (with
ω > 0), (ii) |ω/µ| 1, and (iii) for all other eigenval-ues λ0, <[λ0] ≤ 2µ. These conditions guarantee that we can extract the “stochastic asymptotic phase” ψ(x) from the eigenfunctions Q∗± corresponding to λ± by writing
Q∗±(x) = |Q∗±|e±iψ(x), so ψ(x) = ± arg(Q∗
±(x)). Along
trajectories, the eigenfunctions Q∗±(X(t)) evolve in the mean as dtdE[Q∗±] = λ±E[Q∗±], so they behave as a linear
focus, oscillating with a period of 2π/ω and decaying as 1/|µ| as the density approaches the steady state P0.
We now turn to the special case of planar systems. In order to establish the amplitude part of the phase-amplitude reduction, we assume that L† has a unique, real, least negative eigenvalue, λFloq< 0. We denote the
corresponding eigenfunction by Σ(x) ≡ QFloq(x), which
will decay in the mean as d
dtE[Σ] = λFloqE[Σ], (6) cf. eq. (2). We interpret Σ(x) as the generalization of the amplitude (or isostable) coordinate for the stochastic system eq. (3). For an ODE system eq. (1), the limit cycle coincides with the set of points {x | σ(x) = 0}. We propose to regard Σ0≡ {x | Σ(x) = 0} as the
generaliza-tion of the limit cycle to a stochastic system.
Together, the slowest decaying complex eigenfunctions Q∗± and the slowest decaying real eigenfunction Σ define an effective vector field F(x) satisfying
∇Q∗±(x) · F(x) = λ±Q∗±(x), ∇Σ(x) · F(x) = λFloqΣ(x) (7)
Equations (7) determine a unique vector field F provided the gradients of Σ and Q∗± are linearly independent at each point x. While the underlying vector field f of the stochastic system eq. (3) need not support a limit cy-cle solution, the effective vector field <[F] obtained from eq. (7) in general will have a limit cycle solution. This periodic orbit corresponds to the stochastic limit cycle in that it coincides with the isostable null curve Σ0. In the
remainder of the paper we illustrate the construction of Σ, Q∗± and Σ0 for a system arising from an underlying
limit cycle as well as for noise-induced oscillations.
FIG. 1. Phase-amplitude analysis of a noisy linear focus eq. (8) with coefficients A = [0.1598, −0.52; 0.7227, −0.319] (taken from [26]), and isotropic noise B =√2D · [1, 0; 0, 1]. D = 1.25 × 10−3 for all panels. (a) Eigenvalue spectrum of L†
. λ±and λFloqare the complex and real eigenvalues having
least negative real part. (b) ln (E [Σ(X(t))/Σ(X(0))]) versus time, showing exponential decay of the mean isostable co-ordinate. (c) Deterministic vector field (black) and effective vector field F(x) (blue) computed from Q∗±(x) and Σ(x). (d)
Isostable function and ten trajectories. Black oval marks the level curve Σ0. (e) Stationary probability distribution (color
coded), eight isochrons (straight lines) and Σ0 (closed line).
Phase–Amplitude description of a spiral sink - The cri-teria (i–iii) above defining robustly oscillatory systems in-clude the case of a two-dimensional Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process with complex eigenvalues at the origin. This sys-tem would not oscillate in the absence of noise, and it is easy to show that one cannot define an unambigu-ous phase reduction for the ODE system [25]. Surpris-ingly, however, phase reduction via the spectral decom-position eq. (4) is well defined. As a first illustration of the isostable construction for a stochastic oscillator, we now explicitly calculate the isostable eigenfunction Σ(x) in this case and show that it has properties comporting well with physical intuition (cf. Fig. 1).
We consider a Langevin equation in the form: ˙
X = AX + Bξ(t) (8)
and assume that the two eigenvalues of A form a complex conjugate pair, λ±= µ ± iω (cf. Fig. 1a)
A =µ −ω ω µ , B =B11 B12 B21 B22 (9)
with Bij arbitrary. The eigenfunctions of L and L† read
L[Pλ] = −∂i(AijxjPλ) + Dij∂ij2Pλ= λPλ, (10)
L†[Q∗
where we have used Einstein’s summation convention and Dij corresponds to the symmetric diffusion matrix
D = BB > 2 = 1 2 B112 + B 2 12 B11B21+ B12B22 B11B21+ B12B22 B222+ B221 .
The stationary probability density P0 of eq. (8) has a
planar Gaussian shape (Fig. 1e) [25]. Moreover, we can define an asymptotic phase ψ(x) using the eigenfunctions Q∗±(x) associated to the smallest complex eigenvalue λ±
of L† which, for the planar sink in eq. (8), are given by
Q∗±(x) = x1± ix2 λ±= µ ± iω (12)
so the asymptotic phase function reads (Fig.1e)
ψ(x) = arctan(x2/x1). (13)
The eigenfunction Σ(x) of L†, associated with the least negative nontrivial real eigenvalue λFloq, is given by
Σ(x) = 2 +µ (x 2 1+ x 2 2), λFloq= 2µ, (14)
depicted in Fig. 1d, with = (B2
11+ B212+ B212 + B222 )/4.
Using the functions Q∗±and Σ we obtain an analytical expression for the effective vector field F(x) in eq. (7),
F1(x) = µx1− ωx2+ 2 x1− ix2 x2 1+ x22 , F2(x) = ωx1+ µx2+ 2 x2+ ix1 x2 1+ x22 . (15)
The real part of F, plotted in Fig. 1c, shows how the dissipative effect of the dynamics (µ < 0) combines with the expansive effects of the noise ( > 0) to give a finite effective radius, corresponding to the zero level curve of the isostable function Σ(x), i.e.
Σ0(x) = x21+ x22=
2
|µ| (16)
This set corresponds to the stochastic limit cycle for eq. (8) (see Fig. 1e). Stochastic trajectories converge ex-ponentially in the mean to Σ0(Fig. 1b).
Noisy Stuart-Landau Oscillator - The Stuart-Landau (SL) equations capture universal dynamics near a Hopf bifurcation
˙
X = bX(1 − (X2+ Y2)) − Y(1 + ba(X2+ Y2)) +√2Dxξx(t),
˙
Y = bY(1 − (X2+ Y2)) + X(1 + ba(X2+ Y2)) +p2Dyξy(t)
with a, b ∈ R. In the absence of noise (Dx,y = 0) this
system has a LC of period T = 2π/(1 + ba) and a Flo-quet exponent λ = −2b. To see how isostables capture the effects of noise, in Fig. 2 we study both an isotropic (Dx= Dy= 0.1) and an anisotropic (Dx= 0.1, Dy = 0)
noise case.
The isotropic case has larger total noise than the anisotropic case. Under reduced total noise, the real part
FIG. 2. Stuart-Landau oscillator with isotropic noise (Dx=
Dy = 0.1, blue symbols) and anisotropic noise (Dx =
0.1, Dy = 0, orange symbols). (a) Eigenvalue spectra of
L†
for isotropic and anisotropic noise. Reducing the to-tal noise shifts <[λ±] to the right and λFloq to the left.
(b) ln (E [Σ(X(t))/Σ(X(0))]) versus time, showing exponen-tial decay of the mean isostable coordinate. (c) Determinis-tic vector field (black) and effective vector fields F(x) com-puted from its respective eigenfunctions Q∗±(x) and Σ(x).
(d-e) Isostable functions and ten trajectories for isotropic (d) and anisotropic (e) noise. Rotational symmetry vanishes for anisotropic noise. (f-g) Stationary probability distribution (color coded), with seven isochrons (straight lines) and Σ0
(closed line) for isotropic (f) and anisotropic (g) noise.
of the smallest complex eigenvalue pair increases, indi-cating slower decay of coherent oscillation to the steady-state distribution. At the same time, <[λFloq] becomes
more negative, indicating a faster decay of the isostable coordinate (cf. 2(a,b)). As in the spiral focus system, the slowest decaying real and complex eigenfunctions of the noisy SL system lead to an effective vector field F(x) that exhibits a stable limit cycle, Σ0 (panel c). Note the
rotational symmetry of Σ0in the isotropic case (blue
cir-cle in c) versus the lack of symmetry of the anisotropic case (orange ellipse in c); the dashed black curve shows the deterministic SL limit cycle, for comparison. In both cases, the noise reduces the effective radius of the LC. The asymmetry of the anisotropic case appears in all level sets of Σ, as well as in the stationary distribution and isochrons (panel e,g).
Noisy Heteroclinic Oscillator - The underlying vector field of a heteroclinic oscillator creates a closed loop of trajectories connecting a sequence of saddle equilibria [27–29]. Fig. 3 shows the phase-amplitude analysis of the heteroclinic oscillator system
˙
X = cos(X) sin(Y) + α sin(2X) +√2Dξ1(t)
˙
Y = − sin(X) cos(Y) + α sin(2Y) +√2Dξ2(t)
(17)
with α = 0.1 and reflecting boundary conditions on the domain −π/2 ≤ {X, Y} ≤ π/2. Without noise the sys-tem has an attracting heteroclinic cycle. Therefore, it can only sustain robust oscillations in the presence of noise [23]. We study this oscillator for a lower (D = 0.01125) and for a higher level of noise (D = 0.1). For the lower level of noise we observe a rightward shift of both the smallest complex eigenvalue, indicating a longer persis-tence time of the oscillation, and also the smallest real eigenvalue, indicating slower convergence to the station-ary state and slower decay of the isostable coordinate towards Σ0(cf. 3(a,b)) [30]. At the same time, the mean
period increases logarithmically in D (not shown) [19]. The effective vector fields F(x) differ significantly from the deterministic system f (x) (panel c), especially near the domain boundaries. Noise causes the effective di-rection of flow to change, from paralleling the walls, to pointing inwards towards the origin. Consequently, al-though f does not support a limit cycle, F does.
For smaller noise, the stationary distribution (panel f) is pressed tightly against the domain boundaries, and trajectories rarely visit the interior of the domain (panel d). Hence, the zeroth isostable Σ0 remains close to the
domain walls (panel d). For larger noise, the stationary distribution spreads farther from the walls, trajectories visit all regions of the domain, and Σ0contracts partway
into the domain interior (panel e). Note also that the increase of the noise amplitude reduces significantly the curvature of the isochrons (panel f, g).
Discussion - Many investigations have approached stochastic oscillations by using deterministic notions of phase and amplitude variables [31, 32], but these meth-ods are restricted to systems in which the noiseless dy-namics support an underlying limit cycle. In this Let-ter we complete the work begun in [23] towards a self-consistent phase-amplitude description of stochastic os-cillations. As our examples show, our methodology ap-plies to stochastic oscillations regardless of whether they are noise induced. By providing an analog of both phase and amplitude, our setup establishes a unified description of deterministic and stochastic oscillations. The zeroth isostable Σ0 acts as the key link between the
determin-istic setting, in which the amplitude coordinate obeys ˙σ ∝ −σ, and the stochastic setting, in which ˙hΣi ∝ −hΣi. Thus, for a stochastic LC, trajectories approach Σ0 “in
the mean”. In addition to unifying noise-perturbed de-terministic LCs and noise-induced oscillations in hete-roclinic systems, our new definition of “stochastic limit cycle” even encompasses the case of quasicycles [33–36].
FIG. 3. Heteroclinic oscillator with lower (D = 0.01125, or-ange symbols) and higher (D = 0.1, blue symbols) noise. (a) Eigenvalue spectra of L†for lower and higher noise levels. In this case, reducing D shifts both <[λ±] and λFloqto the right.
(b) ln (E [Σ(X(t))/Σ(X(0))]) versus time, showing exponen-tial decay of the mean isostable coordinate. (c) Deterministic vector field f (x) (black) and effective vector fields F(x). F and f differ, especially near the borders. (d-e) Isostable func-tions and ten trajectories for lower (d) and higher (e) noise. As noise increases, trajectories spread across the phase space, and Σ0 moves away from the boundaries. (f-g) Stationary
probability distribution (color coded), five isochrons (straight lines) and Σ0 (closed line) for lower (f) and higher (g) noise
level. Note the increased isochron curvature at lower noise.
Our construction of the stochastic phase-amplitude representation is closely related to the construction of de-terministic phase-amplitude coordinates in terms of the eigenfunctions of the Koopman operator [37, 38]. The connection between the asymptotic phase for stochas-tic oscillators introduced in [23] and the Koopman op-erator has been noted [39, 40]. This connection is not coincidental: the backward Kolmogorov operator at the heart of our analysis, L†, is also the generator of the
Markov process, as well as the stochastic Koopman oper-ator [41]. Therefore, beyond its theoretical interest, since our phase-amplitude functions are encoded in the Koop-man operator, modern methods for extracting KoopKoop-man eigenfunctions from data may lead to practical methods for establishing phase-amplitude coordinates for noisy os-cillatory systems in medicine, biology, engineering, eco-nomics, control, or other areas [42–45].
Acknowledgments - APC gratefully acknowledges the support from the Basic Research Program of the National Research University Higher School of Economics as well as IFISC-UIB for hosting him. This work was supported
in part by NSF grant DMS-2052109 and by NIH BRAIN Initiative grant R01-NS118606. PT thanks the Oberlin College Department of Mathematics for research support.
[1] H. Bryant Jr, A. R. Marcos, and J. Segundo, J. Neuro-physiol 36, 205 (1973).
[2] J. T. Walter, K. Alvina, M. D. Womack, C. Chevez, and K. Khodakhah, Nat. Neurosci 9, 389 (2006).
[3] P. Martin, D. Bozovic, Y. Choe, and A. J. Hudspeth, J. Neurosci. 23, 4533 (2003).
[4] A. Skupin, H. Kettenmann, U. Winkler, M. Wartenberg, H. Sauer, S. C. Tovey, C. W. Taylor, and M. Falcke, Biophys. J. 94, 2404 (2008).
[5] A. J. McKane and T. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 218102 (2005).
[6] R. Feistel and W. Ebeling, Physica A 93, 114 (1978). [7] A. Ganopolski and S. Rahmstorf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88,
038501 (2002).
[8] B. McNamara, K. Wiesenfeld, and R. Roy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2626 (1988).
[9] A. Guillamon and G. Huguet, SIADS 8, 1005 (2009). [10] D. Wilson and B. Ermentrout, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123,
164101 (2019).
[11] D. Wilson, PRE 101 (2020).
[12] A. P´erez-Cervera, T. M-Seara, and G. Huguet, Chaos 30, 083117 (2020).
[13] A. Pikovsky, J. Kurths, M. Rosenblum, and J. Kurths, Synchronization: a universal concept in nonlinear sci-ences, 12 (Cambridge university press, 2003).
[14] O. Castej´on, A. Guillamon, and G. Huguet, J. Math. Neurosci. 3, 13 (2013).
[15] S. Shirasaka, W. Kurebayashi, and H. Nakao, Chaos 27, 023119 (2017).
[16] D. Wilson and B. Ermentrout, J. Math. Biol. 76, 37 (2018).
[17] B. Monga, D. Wilson, T. Matchen, and J. Moehlis, Biol. Cybern 113, 11 (2019).
[18] G. E. Uhlenbeck and L. S. Ornstein, Phys. Rev. 36, 823 (1930).
[19] J. Giner-Bald´o, P. J. Thomas, and B. Lindner, J. Stat. Phys. 168, 447 (2017).
[20] B. Lindner, J. Garcıa-Ojalvo, A. Neiman, and L. Schimansky-Geier, Phys. Rep. 392, 321 (2004). [21] For an example in which k 6= n, see [46, 47].
[22] J. T. Schwabedal and A. Pikovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 204102 (2013).
[23] P. J. Thomas and B. Lindner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 254101 (2014).
[24] For an alternative approach to phase reduction for stochastic oscillators see [22, 48].
[25] P. J. Thomas and B. Lindner, PRE 99, 062221 (2019). [26] A. S. Powanwe and A. Longtin, Sci. Rep 9, 1 (2019). [27] V. S. Afraimovich, M. I. Rabinovich, and P. Varona,
IJBC 14, 1195 (2004).
[28] D. Armbruster, E. Stone, and V. Kirk, Chaos 13, 71 (2003).
[29] R. M. May and W. J. Leonard, SIAM J. Appl. Math 29, 243 (1975).
[30] In [23] Thomas and Lindner numerically solved the eigen-value problem eq. (4) for the heteroclinic system eq. (17) using a Fourier mode decomposition method. Due to a subtle error in our treatment of the boundary conditions, the slowest decaying real eigenvalue plotted in Fig. 2(c) of [23] was incorrect. It has been corrected in Fig. 3(a) of this Letter. This error had no effect on the analysis or conclusions in [23], which concerned only the complex-valued eigenvalue and its eigenfunction.
[31] K. Yoshimura and K. Arai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 154101 (2008).
[32] M. Bonnin, Int J Circ Theor Appl 45, 636 (2017). [33] C. A. Lugo and A. J. McKane, PRE 78, 051911 (2008). [34] H. A. Brooks and P. C. Bressloff, PRE 92, 012704 (2015). [35] P. C. Bressloff, PRE 82, 051903 (2010).
[36] B. Duchet, G. Weerasinghe, C. Bick, and R. Bogacz, J. Neural Eng. 18, 046023 (2021).
[37] A. Mauroy and I. Mezi´c, Chaos 28, 073108 (2018). [38] S. Shirasaka, W. Kurebayashi, and H. Nakao, in The
Koopman Operator in Systems and Control (Springer, 2020) pp. 383–417.
[39] Y. Kato and H. Nakao, arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.00760 (2020).
[40] M. Engel and C. Kuehn, Commun. Math. Phys. , 1 (2021).
[41] N. ˇCrnjari´c-ˇZic, S. Ma´ceˇsi´c, and I. Mezi´c, J Nonlinear Sci , 1 (2019).
[42] M. Budiˇsi´c, R. Mohr, and I. Mezi´c, Chaos 22, 047510 (2012).
[43] A. Mauroy, Y. Susuki, and I. Mezi´c, The Koopman Op-erator in Systems and Control (Springer, 2020).
[44] J. L. Proctor, S. L. Brunton, and J. N. Kutz, SIADS 15, 142 (2016).
[45] P. J. Schmid, J. Fluid Mech. 656, 5 (2010).
[46] S. Pu and P. J. Thomas, Biol. Cybern (In press) (2021). [47] S. Pu and P. J. Thomas, Neural Comput. 32, 1775 (2020). [48] A. Cao, B. Lindner, and P. J. Thomas, SIAM J. Appl.
