Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Criticality governs response dynamics and entrainment of periodically forced ghost cycles

Daniel Koch1,*, Ulrike Feudel2, and Aneta Koseska1,†

  • *Contact author: dkoch.research@protonmail.com
  • †Contact author: aneta.koseska@mpinb.mpg.de

Phys. Rev. E 112, 014205 – Published 8 July, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/3d9z-qrb1

Abstract

Many natural and engineered systems display oscillations that are characterized by multiple timescales. Typically, such systems are described as slow-fast systems, where the slow dynamics result from a hyperbolic slow manifold that guides the movement of the system's trajectories. Recently, we have provided an alternative description in which the slow timescale results from Lyapunov-unstable transient dynamics of connected dynamical ghosts that form a closed orbit termed ghost cycle. Here, we investigate the response properties of both types of systems to external forcing. Using the classical Van der Pol oscillator and modified versions of this model that correspond to a one-ghost and a two-ghost cycle, respectively, we find significant differences in the responses of slow-fast systems and ghost cycles, including increased entrainment regions of the latter. Nonautonomous model analysis reveals that the differences stem from a continuous remodeling of the attractor landscape of the ghost cycle models, enabled by being organized close to saddle-node on invariant cycle bifurcations, in contrast to a qualitatively unaltered attractor landscape of the slow-fast system. We further demonstrate that the observed features occur in various systems with ghost cycles regardless of the exact mathematical model formulation leading to those ghost cycles, making them likely to apply to many other models with ghost cycles across different disciplines and contexts. We thus propose that systems containing ghost cycles display increased flexibility and responsiveness to continuous environmental changes.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (58)

  1. T. Roenneberg and M. Merrow, Curr. Biol. 26, R432 (2016).
  2. G. Brabant, K. Prank, and C. Schofl, Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 3, 183 (1992).
  3. L. Glass, Nature (London) 410, 277 (2001).
  4. E. Izhikevich, Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience: The Geometry of Excitability and Bursting (The MIT Press, 2006).
  5. R. Noyes and R. Field, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 25, 95 (1974).
  6. A. Goldbeter, FEBS Lett. 587, 2778 (2013).
  7. V. Volterra, Nature (London) 118, 558 (1926).
  8. C. Elton and M. Nicholson, J. Anim. Ecol. 11, 215 (1942).
  9. B. Blasius, L. Rudolf, G. Weithoff, U. Gaedke, and G. Fussmann, Nature (London) 577, 226 (2020).
  10. A. Liebhold, W. Koenig, and O. Bjørnstad, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35, 467 (2004).
  11. C. Wang, C. Deser, J.-Y. Yu, P. DiNezio, and A. Clement, El niño and southern oscillation (ENSO): A review, in Coral Reefs of the Eastern Pacific, edited by P. Glymn, D. Manzello, and I. Enochs (Springer Science Publisher, 2016), pp. 85–106.
  12. H. Dijkstra and M. Ghil, Rev. Geophys. 43, 2002RG000122 (2005).
  13. G. Vettoretti and W. Peltier, J. Clim. 31, 3423 (2018).
  14. N. G. I. C. P. members, Nature (London) 431, 147 (2004).
  15. J.-M. Liu, Laser oscillation, Principles of Photonics (Cambridge University Press, 2016), pp. 274–296.
  16. C. Kuehn, Multiple Time Scale Dynamics (Springer International Publishing, 2015).
  17. R. Bertram and J. Rubin, Math. Biosci. 287, 105 (2017).
  18. N. Fenichel, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 21, 193 (1971).
  19. N. Fenichel, J. Diff. Equ. 31, 53 (1979).
  20. K. Rossi, R. Budzinski, E. Medeiros, B. Boaretto, L. Muller, and U. Feudel, Phys. Rev. E 111, 021001 (2025).
  21. P. beim Graben, A. Jimenez-Marin, I. Diez, J. Cortes, M. Desroches, and S. Rodrigues, Front. Comput. Neurosci. 13, 62 (2019).
  22. S. Kato, H. Kaplan, T. Schrödel, S. Skora, T. Lindsay, E. Yemini, S. Lockery, and M. Zimmer, Cell 163, 656 (2015).
  23. T. Woo, X. Liang, D. Evans, O. Fernandez, F. Kretschmer, S. Reiter, and G. Laurent, Nature (London) 619, 122 (2023).
  24. P. Sanchez, V. Mochulska, C. Denis, G. Mönke, T. Tomita, N. Tsuchida-Straeten, Y. Petersen, K. Sonnen, P. François, and A. Aulehla, eLife 11, e79575 (2022).
  25. M. Meeuse, Y. Hauser, L. Moya, G.-J. Hendriks, J. Eglinger, G. Bogaarts, C. Tsiairis, and H. Großhans, Mol. Syst. Biol. 16, e9498 (2020).
  26. C. Bieg, H. Vallès, A. Tewfik, B. Lapointe, and K. McCann, Ecosystems 27, 310 (2024).
  27. A. Hastings, K. Abbott, K. Cuddington, T. Francis, G. Gellner, Y. Lai, A. Morozov, S. Petrovskii, K. Scranton, and M. Zeeman, Science 361, eaat6412 (2018).
  28. M. Rabinovich, A. Volkovskii, P. Lecanda, R. Huerta, H. D. I. Abarbanel, and G. Laurent, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 068102 (2001).
  29. V. Afraimovich, V. Zhigulin, and M. Rabinovich, Chaos 14, 1123 (2004).
  30. P. Ashwin and C. Postlethwaite, Physica D 265, 26 (2013).
  31. D. Koch, A. Nandan, G. Ramesan, I. Tyukin, A. Gorban, and A. Koseska, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 047202 (2024).
  32. A. Gorban, Electron. J. Differ. Equ. 1, 05 (2004).
  33. A. Gorban, I. Tyukin, E. Steur, and H. Nijmeijer, SIAM J. Control Optim. 51, 2306 (2013).
  34. B. van der Pol and J. van der Mark, Lond. Edinb. Dubl. Phil. Mag. J. Sci. 6, 763 (1928).
  35. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/3d9z-qrb1 for details on methods and Supplemental figures.
  36. A. Pikovsky, M. Rosenblum, and J. Kurths, Synchronization: A Universal Concept in Nonlinear Sciences (Cambridge University Press, 2001).
  37. B. Verd, A. Crombach, and J. Jaeger, BMC Syst. Biol. 8, 43 (2014).
  38. A. Stanoev, A. Nandan, and A. Koseska, Mol. Syst. Biol. 16, e8870 (2020).
  39. U. Feudel, Nonlinear Processes Geophys. 30, 481 (2023).
  40. A. Basak, K. Dana, N. Bairagi, and U. Feudel, Chaos 34, 093105 (2024).
  41. P. Ashwin, S. Wieczorek, R. Vitolo, and P. Cox, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 370, 1166 (2012).
  42. P. D. L. Ritchie, H. Alkhayuon, P. M. Cox, and S. Wieczorek, Earth Syst. Dyn. 14, 669 (2023).
  43. C. Morris and H. Lecar, Biophys. J. 35, 193 (1981).
  44. K. Tsumoto, H. Kitajima, T. Yoshinaga, K. Aihara, and H. Kawakami, Neurocomputing 69, 293 (2006).
  45. E. van Nes, W. Rip, and M. Scheffer, Ecosystems 10, 17 (2007).
  46. J. Shapiro and D. Wright, Freshwater Biol. 14, 371 (1984).
  47. M. Scheffer, Ecology of Shallow Lakes (Chapman and Hall, London, 1998).
  48. M. Perrow, B. Moss, and J. Stansfield, Hydrobiologia 275-276, 43 (1994).
  49. W. Rip, M. Ouboter, E. van Nes, and B. Beltman, Arch. Hydrobiol. 164, 387 (2005).
  50. L. Lijklema, in Interactions Between Sediments and Freshwater, edited by H. L. Golterman (W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, 1977), pp. 313–317.
  51. L. Jutras-Dubé, E. El-Sherif, and P. François, eLife 9, e55778 (2020).
  52. S. Farjami, K. Sosa, J. Dawes, R. Kelsh, and A. Rocco, J. R. Soc. Interface 18, 20210442 (2021).
  53. L. Yang, A. Jia, W. Sun, and M. Turcotte, Nonlinear Dyn. 109, 1081 (2022).
  54. I. Jordan, P. Sokół, and I. Park, Front. Comput. Neurosci. 15, 678158 (2021).
  55. K. Choi, W. Rosenbluth, I. R. Graf, N. Kadakia, and T. Emonet, PRX Life 2, 043011 (2024).
  56. D. Durstewitz, J. Neurosci. 23, 5342 (2003).
  57. I. Graf and B. Machta, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 121, e2308215121 (2024).
  58. https://github.com/KochLabCode/2025_GhostCycles.

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation