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
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Predicting the response of structurally altered and asymmetrical networks

Melvyn Tyloo

  • Living Systems Institute, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QD,United Kingdom and Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Environment, Science, and Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QD, United Kingdom

Phys. Rev. E 112, L042301 – Published 10 October, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/3s3d-qr4l

Abstract

We investigate how the response of coupled dynamical systems is modified due to a structural alteration of the interaction. The majority of the literature focuses on additive perturbations and symmetrical interaction networks. Here, we consider the challenging problem of multiplicative structural alterations and asymmetrical interaction coupling. We introduce a framework to approximate the averaged response at each network node for general structural alterations, including non-normal and asymmetrical ones. Our findings indicate that both the asymmetry and non-normality of the structural alterations impact the global and local responses at different orders in time. We propose a set of matrices to identify the nodes whose response is affected the most by the structural alteration.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (39)

  1. C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 85, 808 (1952).
  2. T. Vicsek, A. Czirók, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen, and O. Shochet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1226 (1995).
  3. L. M. Pecora and T. L. Carroll, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2109 (1998).
  4. F. Baumann, P. Lorenz-Spreen, I. M. Sokolov, and M. Starnini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 048301 (2020).
  5. P. J. Menck, J. Heitzig, N. Marwan, and J. Kurths, Nat. Phys. 9, 89 (2013).
  6. H. Ronellenfitsch, J. Dunkel, and M. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 208301 (2018).
  7. M. Tyloo, T. Coletta, and P. Jacquod, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 084101 (2018).
  8. X. Zhang, S. Hallerberg, M. Matthiae, D. Witthaut, and M. Timme, Sci. Adv. 5, eaav1027 (2019).
  9. M. Tyloo, L. Pagnier, and P. Jacquod, Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw8359 (2019).
  10. M. Newman, Networks (Oxford university press, Oxford, U.K., 2018).
  11. M. Pósfai and A.-L. Barabási, Network Science (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2016).
  12. R. Pastor-Satorras and A. Vespignani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3200 (2001).
  13. F. Baumann, I. M. Sokolov, and M. Tyloo, Phys. Rev. E 102, 052313 (2020).
  14. M. Tyloo, J. Phys. Complex. 3, 03LT01 (2022).
  15. M. Asllani, R. Lambiotte, and T. Carletti, Sci. Adv. 4, eaau9403 (2018).
  16. J. Gao, B. Barzel, and A.-L. Barabási, Nature (London) 530, 307 (2016).
  17. Y. Ashida, Z. Gong, and M. Ueda, Adv. Phys. 69, 249 (2020).
  18. H. Ronellenfitsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 038101 (2021).
  19. X. Liu, D. Li, M. Ma, B. K. Szymanski, H. E. Stanley, and J. Gao, Phys. Rep. 971, 1 (2022).
  20. P. Clusella, B. Pietras, and E. Montbrió, Chaos 32, 013105 (2022).
  21. M. Tyloo, J. Phys.: Complex. 4, 045005 (2023).
  22. R. Succar and M. Porfiri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 077401 (2025).
  23. P. Martinez-Azcona, A. Kundu, A. Saxena, A. del Campo, and A. Chenu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 010402 (2025).
  24. J. Sun, E. M. Bollt, and T. Nishikawa, Europhys. Lett. 85, 60011 (2009).
  25. F. Sorrentino and M. Porfiri, Europhys. Lett. 93, 50002 (2011).
  26. F. Sorrentino and L. Pecora, Chaos 26, 094823 (2016).
  27. O. Mason and R. Shorten, in Proceedings of the 2003 American Control Conference, 2003 (IEEE, New York, 2003), Vol. 5, pp. 4469–4470.
  28. M. Porfiri, D. G. Roberson, and D. J. Stilwell, SIAM J. Control Optim. 47, 2582 (2008).
  29. L. Fainshil, M. Margaliot, and P. Chigansky, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 54, 897 (2009).
  30. The system can be linear by nature, or nonlinear, but its response is small enough such that the dynamics remains inside the initial basin of attraction, close to the stable fixed point, where the linear approximation holds.
  31. S. H. Strogatz, Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering (Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York, 2024).
  32. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/3s3d-qr4l for additional information where we show how the framework can be applied to specific perturbations; we further discuss the error made by the approximation of the response; we provide an instance of structural perturbation that results in a faster decay of the response compared to the unaltered network; and we also illustrate numerically that the short-time response is independent of the asymmetry of Δ.
  33. K. Zhou and J. Doyle, Essentials of Robust Control (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998).
  34. M. R. Jovanović and M. Fardad, Automatica 44, 2090 (2008).
  35. B. K. Poolla, S. Bolognani, and F. Dörfler, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 62, 6209 (2017).
  36. F. Paganini and E. Mallada, in 2017 55th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton) (IEEE, New York, 2017), pp. 324–331.
  37. D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, Nature (London) 393, 440 (1998).
  38. One can easily check that up to the fourth order in t, no contribution comes from the higher-order terms in Eq. (3).
  39. M. K. Fan and B. Nekooie, Linear Algebra Appl. 214, 225 (1995).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation