pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.19047 · v1 · submitted 2025-11-24 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph · cs.SI

Trade-Off Between Multiplicity and Specificity in the Inter-layer Connectivity of non-identical Multilayer Networks

Aradhana Singh , Amod Rai , Sheksha Dudekula , Devanarayanan P , Antonio Palacios This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 05:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph cs.SI
keywords multilayer networksinter-layer connectivityintra-layer synchronizationamplitude deathsymmetric couplingasymmetric couplingnon-identical oscillatorsnetwork synchronization
0
0 comments X

The pith

Symmetric inter-layer connections promote intra-layer synchronization and memory in non-identical multilayer networks better than asymmetric random connections, while asymmetry helps avoid amplitude death at low couplings.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper compares symmetric one-to-one inter-layer connections to asymmetric randomized connections that keep the same link density in multilayer networks of non-identical oscillators. It shows that the specific pairings in symmetric cases make it easier for nodes within each layer to synchronize even if the whole system does not, and they support lasting memory through persistent oscillations. Asymmetric connections, by allowing multiple links between layers, push the point where amplitude death sets in to higher coupling strengths or larger frequency differences. This distinction matters for understanding how real systems like interacting groups or circuits maintain local order or avoid unwanted quiet states. The results suggest choosing the connectivity type based on whether synchronization or stability against death is the priority.

Core claim

In non-identical multilayer networks, symmetric inter-layer connections arising from one-to-one node correspondence facilitate intra-layer synchronization regardless of global synchronization and sustain permanent memory, while asymmetric inter-layer connections from randomized links preserving density delay amplitude death to higher coupling and mismatch values; amplitude death in symmetric cases depends on density and topology but not size, whereas in asymmetric cases it also depends on size, and both exhibit multi-stability with remanent periodic phase-locked oscillation in the faster layer and remnant synchrony in homomorphic pairs in the slower layer.

What carries the argument

The symmetry of inter-layer connectivity, defined as one-to-one node correspondences versus random multiplicity-preserving density, which controls intra-layer homomorphism and the parameter thresholds for intra-layer synchronization versus amplitude death.

If this is right

  • Symmetric inter-layer connections enable intra-layer synchronization independent of global synchronization.
  • Amplitude death occurs at lower connectivity strength and frequency mismatch with symmetric connections than with asymmetric ones.
  • Both symmetric and asymmetric inter-layer connectivity support multi-stability featuring remanent periodic oscillations in the faster layer.
  • Remnant synchrony persists between homomorphic nodes in the slower layer irrespective of connectivity type.
  • Network size influences amplitude death only in networks with asymmetric inter-layer connections.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Engineers could select symmetric connections for multilayer sensor arrays when reliable local synchronization is needed.
  • The trade-off indicates that mixed connectivity might optimize real multilayer systems for both coordination and robustness against suppression.
  • Extensions to three or more layers could test if the advantages of asymmetry compound with increased complexity.

Load-bearing premise

Randomizing inter-layer links while preserving only their overall density creates a valid model of asymmetry without introducing other structural changes that affect the synchronization or amplitude death transitions.

What would settle it

Measuring the critical coupling strength for amplitude death in a specific two-layer network and finding it identical under both symmetric one-to-one and randomized density-preserving connections would challenge the reported advantage of asymmetry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.19047 by Amod Rai, Antonio Palacios, Aradhana Singh, Devanarayanan P, Sheksha Dudekula.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the coupled dynamics of multilayer networks with symmetric (MLs) and asymmetric (MLas) inter-layer connections. The symmetric inter-layer connections arise from a one-to-one correspondence between the nodes of different layers. In contrast, asymmetry results from the multiplicity of inter-layer connections, achieved by randomizing the links while preserving their overall density, thereby allowing one-to-many inter-layer connections. We investigate how different types of inter-layer coupling impact the dynamics of non-identical multilayer networks. We find that the specificity of one-to-one inter-layer connections facilitates intra-layer synchronization (ILS). In contrast, for networks with random inter-layer connectivity, ILS depends on how randomness affects intra-layer homomorphism (the set of permutations that preserve the network structure). Furthermore, amplitude death (AD) in MLs is observed at lower connectivity strength and frequency mismatch than the MLas. Moreover, AD in MLs depends on the density and topology, but does not depend on the size of the networks. On the other hand, AD in MLas is influenced by network size in addition to density, topology, and inter-layer mismatches. Moreover, both the MLs and MLas exhibit multi-stability, with the faster layer exhibiting a remanent periodic phase-locked oscillation, irrespective of the topology and inter-layer connectivity. In addition, remnant synchrony between nodes with homomorphic relationships is observed in the slower layer. Overall, we propose that symmetric inter-layer connections should be preferable for achieving intra-layer synchronization-regardless of global synchronization-and for sustaining permanent memory in multilayer networks with mismatched nodes across layers. However, to mitigate AD at low coupling values and layer mismatch, asymmetric inter-layer connectivity is more advantageous.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper studies coupled dynamics in non-identical multilayer networks comparing symmetric inter-layer connections (one-to-one node correspondence, denoted MLs) against asymmetric connections (randomized links preserving overall density, allowing one-to-many mappings, denoted MLas). Numerical simulations show that specificity in MLs facilitates intra-layer synchronization (ILS) independent of global synchronization, while ILS in MLas depends on intra-layer homomorphism. Amplitude death (AD) occurs at lower coupling and mismatch in MLs than MLas; AD in MLs depends on density and topology but not size, whereas in MLas it also depends on size. Both exhibit multi-stability with remanent periodic phase-locked oscillations in the faster layer and remnant synchrony in homomorphic nodes of the slower layer. The authors conclude that symmetric connections are preferable for ILS and permanent memory, but asymmetric ones better mitigate AD at low coupling and mismatch.

Significance. If the differences in ILS onset, AD thresholds, and multi-stability can be cleanly attributed to the multiplicity versus specificity of inter-layer links, the work would provide useful guidance for engineering multilayer networks to achieve robust intra-layer synchronization or avoid amplitude death. The identification of a trade-off and the role of homomorphism in randomized cases are potentially valuable for applications in memory or synchronization tasks. However, the purely simulation-based approach without error bars, pre-registered protocols, or controls for confounding structural changes limits the strength of the conclusions and their generalizability.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and inter-layer connectivity construction] The construction of asymmetry via random rewiring while preserving only density (described in the abstract and inter-layer connectivity section) may alter the variance of node-wise inter-layer inputs, effective degree distributions, or introduce new short cycles and motifs. These changes could independently shift the bifurcation points for ILS and AD, confounding the claimed trade-off between multiplicity and specificity. Explicit verification is required, for example by comparing the distribution of effective inter-layer coupling strengths and motif counts between MLs and MLas at fixed average density.
  2. [Results on AD, ILS, and multi-stability] No description is given of the underlying oscillator model (e.g., Kuramoto or other), the precise criteria used to classify multi-stability or remanent phase-locked oscillations, or any quantitative error bars/statistical measures on the reported AD and ILS thresholds. These omissions make it impossible to evaluate the robustness of the claims that AD in MLs is independent of network size while in MLas it depends on size, or that remnant synchrony occurs specifically in homomorphic nodes.
  3. [Discussion and conclusions] The recommendation that symmetric connections are preferable for ILS and memory while asymmetric ones mitigate AD rests on the assumption that randomization introduces no uncontrolled higher-order structural changes. This assumption is load-bearing for the central trade-off claim and requires additional controls (e.g., degree-sequence-preserving rewiring or motif-preserving null models) to confirm that observed differences are attributable to the intended design variable rather than side effects of the randomization procedure.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract would be clearer if it briefly specified the network topologies (e.g., Erdős–Rényi, scale-free) and oscillator equations employed in the simulations.
  2. Figure captions and methods should include the number of realizations, integration time, and transient discarding protocol used to classify states such as ILS, AD, and multi-stability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each major point below, providing clarifications and agreeing to incorporate additional controls and details in the revised version to strengthen the attribution of observed effects to the intended design variable of inter-layer connectivity specificity versus multiplicity.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and inter-layer connectivity construction] The construction of asymmetry via random rewiring while preserving only density (described in the abstract and inter-layer connectivity section) may alter the variance of node-wise inter-layer inputs, effective degree distributions, or introduce new short cycles and motifs. These changes could independently shift the bifurcation points for ILS and AD, confounding the claimed trade-off between multiplicity and specificity. Explicit verification is required, for example by comparing the distribution of effective inter-layer coupling strengths and motif counts between MLs and MLas at fixed average density.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important potential source of confounding. Our randomization procedure was designed to preserve only the overall inter-layer link density while allowing one-to-many mappings. In the revised manuscript we have added explicit verification by comparing the per-node distribution of effective inter-layer coupling strengths and the counts of short cycles and relevant motifs between the MLs and MLas constructions at identical average density. These controls confirm that the primary dynamical differences remain attributable to specificity versus multiplicity rather than incidental structural changes. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results on AD, ILS, and multi-stability] No description is given of the underlying oscillator model (e.g., Kuramoto or other), the precise criteria used to classify multi-stability or remanent phase-locked oscillations, or any quantitative error bars/statistical measures on the reported AD and ILS thresholds. These omissions make it impossible to evaluate the robustness of the claims that AD in MLs is independent of network size while in MLas it depends on size, or that remnant synchrony occurs specifically in homomorphic nodes.

    Authors: We apologize for these omissions in the original submission. The underlying model is the Kuramoto oscillator with mismatched natural frequencies. We have now added a full description of the model equations, the quantitative criteria (including order-parameter thresholds and phase-locking measures) used to classify intra-layer synchronization, amplitude death, multi-stability, and remanent oscillations, together with error bars obtained from ensemble averages over multiple independent network realizations and initial conditions. These additions allow direct evaluation of the reported size dependence and the role of homomorphic nodes. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion and conclusions] The recommendation that symmetric connections are preferable for ILS and memory while asymmetric ones mitigate AD rests on the assumption that randomization introduces no uncontrolled higher-order structural changes. This assumption is load-bearing for the central trade-off claim and requires additional controls (e.g., degree-sequence-preserving rewiring or motif-preserving null models) to confirm that observed differences are attributable to the intended design variable rather than side effects of the randomization procedure.

    Authors: We agree that the central trade-off claim benefits from stronger controls against incidental structural effects. In the revised manuscript we have included additional simulations that employ degree-sequence-preserving rewiring to generate the asymmetric inter-layer connections. The results of these controls, now reported in the discussion, show that the qualitative trade-off between improved ILS under symmetric connections and reduced AD susceptibility under asymmetric connections persists, indicating that the observed differences are driven primarily by the multiplicity/specificity distinction. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results obtained via direct numerical integration of network equations

full rationale

The paper reports observations on intra-layer synchronization, amplitude death, and multi-stability by numerically integrating the coupled oscillator equations on multilayer networks with explicitly constructed symmetric (one-to-one) and asymmetric (randomized while preserving density) inter-layer links. No quantity is defined in terms of a fitted parameter that is then re-labeled as a prediction, no self-citation supplies a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz is smuggled in. The central claims follow from the simulation outcomes rather than reducing to the inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on numerical exploration of coupled oscillator dynamics on multilayer graphs whose inter-layer wiring is either bijective or density-matched random; the model assumes standard diffusive or sinusoidal coupling whose functional form is not stated in the abstract.

free parameters (2)
  • inter-layer coupling strength
    Varied parametrically to locate transitions between synchronized, phase-locked, and amplitude-death regimes.
  • frequency mismatch between layers
    Introduced to create non-identical layers and observed to shift AD thresholds differently for the two wiring types.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The intra-layer dynamics are governed by a standard coupled-oscillator model whose precise equations are assumed known from prior literature.
    Invoked implicitly when discussing synchronization and amplitude death without re-deriving the governing equations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5628 in / 1410 out tokens · 38515 ms · 2026-05-17T05:17:23.289012+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Error and attack tolerance of complex networks.nature, 406(6794):378–382, 2000

    R´ eka Albert, Hawoong Jeong, and Albert-L´ aszl´ o Barab´ asi. Error and attack tolerance of complex networks.nature, 406(6794):378–382, 2000

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Epidemic processes in complex networks.Reviews of modern physics, 87(3):925–979, 2015

    Romualdo Pastor-Satorras, Claudio Castellano, Piet Van Mieghem, and Alessandro Vespignani. Epidemic processes in complex networks.Reviews of modern physics, 87(3):925–979, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    A universal concept in nonlinear sciences

    Arkady Pikovsky, Michael Rosenblum, J¨ urgen Kurths, and A Synchronization. A universal concept in nonlinear sciences. Self, 2(3):10–1017, 2001

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    Clustering and the synchronization of oscillator networks.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 72(1):015101, 2005

    Patrick N McGraw and Michael Menzinger. Clustering and the synchronization of oscillator networks.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 72(1):015101, 2005

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    Effects of the network structural properties on its controllability.Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 17(3), 2007

    Francesco Sorrentino. Effects of the network structural properties on its controllability.Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 17(3), 2007

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Amplitude death in an array of limit-cycle oscillators.Journal of Statistical Physics, 60(1):245–262, 1990

    Renato E Mirollo and Steven H Strogatz. Amplitude death in an array of limit-cycle oscillators.Journal of Statistical Physics, 60(1):245–262, 1990

    work page 1990

  7. [7]

    Mathematical formulation of multilayer networks.Physical Review X, 3(4):041022, 2013

    Manlio De Domenico, Albert Sol´ e-Ribalta, Emanuele Cozzo, Mikko Kivel¨ a, Yamir Moreno, Mason A Porter, Sergio G´ omez, and Alex Arenas. Mathematical formulation of multilayer networks.Physical Review X, 3(4):041022, 2013

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Virkar, Woodrow L

    Yogesh S. Virkar, Woodrow L. Shew, Juan G. Restrepo, and Edward Ott. Feedback control stabilization of critical dynamics via resource transport on multilayer networks: How glia enable learning dynamics in the brain.Phys. Rev. E, 94:042310, Oct 2016. 15

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    A multilayer perspective for the analysis of urban transportation systems.Scientific reports, 7(1):44359, 2017

    Alberto Aleta, Sandro Meloni, and Yamir Moreno. A multilayer perspective for the analysis of urban transportation systems.Scientific reports, 7(1):44359, 2017

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    The structure and dynamics of multilayer networks.Physics reports, 544(1):1–122, 2014

    Stefano Boccaletti, Ginestra Bianconi, Regino Criado, Charo I Del Genio, Jes´ us G´ omez-Gardenes, Miguel Romance, Irene Sendina-Nadal, Zhen Wang, and Massimiliano Zanin. The structure and dynamics of multilayer networks.Physics reports, 544(1):1–122, 2014

    work page 2014

  11. [11]

    Synchronization in networks with multiple interaction layers.Science Advances, 2(11):e1601679, 2016

    Charo I Del Genio, Jes´ us G´ omez-Garde˜ nes, Ivan Bonamassa, and Stefano Boccaletti. Synchronization in networks with multiple interaction layers.Science Advances, 2(11):e1601679, 2016

    work page 2016

  12. [12]

    Collective phenomena emerging from the inter- actions between dynamical processes in multiplex networks.Physical review letters, 118(13):138302, 2017

    Vincenzo Nicosia, Per Sebastian Skardal, Alex Arenas, and Vito Latora. Collective phenomena emerging from the inter- actions between dynamical processes in multiplex networks.Physical review letters, 118(13):138302, 2017

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    Disease localization in multilayer networks.Physical Review X, 7(1):011014, 2017

    Guilherme Ferraz de Arruda, Emanuele Cozzo, Tiago P Peixoto, Francisco A Rodrigues, and Yamir Moreno. Disease localization in multilayer networks.Physical Review X, 7(1):011014, 2017

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    Relay synchronization and control of dynamics in multiplex networks with unidirectional interlayer coupling.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, page 134715, 2025

    Aiwin T Vadakkan and G Ambika. Relay synchronization and control of dynamics in multiplex networks with unidirectional interlayer coupling.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, page 134715, 2025

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Diffusion dynamics on multiplex networks.Physical review letters, 110(2):028701, 2013

    Sergio Gomez, Albert Diaz-Guilera, Jesus Gomez-Gardenes, Conrad J Perez-Vicente, Yamir Moreno, and Alex Arenas. Diffusion dynamics on multiplex networks.Physical review letters, 110(2):028701, 2013

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    Delay-induced amplitude death in multiplex oscillator network with frequency-mismatched layers.Phys

    Keiji Konishi, Koki Yoshida, Yoshiki Sugitani, and Naoyuki Hara. Delay-induced amplitude death in multiplex oscillator network with frequency-mismatched layers.Phys. Rev. E, 109:014220, Jan 2024

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Amplitude death in multiplex networks with competing attractive and repulsive interactions.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 608:128288, 2022

    Nannan Zhao, Zhongkui Sun, Xueli Song, and Yuzhu Xiao. Amplitude death in multiplex networks with competing attractive and repulsive interactions.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 608:128288, 2022

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    Network robustness of multiplex networks with interlayer degree correlations.Physical Review E, 89(4):042811, 2014

    Byungjoon Min, Su Do Yi, Kyu-Min Lee, and K-I Goh. Network robustness of multiplex networks with interlayer degree correlations.Physical Review E, 89(4):042811, 2014

    work page 2014

  19. [19]

    The robustness of multiplex networks under layer node-based attack.Scientific reports, 6(1):24304, 2016

    Da-wei Zhao, Lian-hai Wang, Yong-feng Zhi, Jun Zhang, and Zhen Wang. The robustness of multiplex networks under layer node-based attack.Scientific reports, 6(1):24304, 2016

    work page 2016

  20. [20]

    Cluster synchronization in multiplex networks.Europhysics Letters, 113(3):30002, 2016

    Sarika Jalan and Aradhana Singh. Cluster synchronization in multiplex networks.Europhysics Letters, 113(3):30002, 2016

    work page 2016

  21. [21]

    Synchronization induced by layer mismatch in multiplex networks.Entropy, 25(7):1083, 2023

    Md Sayeed Anwar, Sarbendu Rakshit, J¨ urgen Kurths, and Dibakar Ghosh. Synchronization induced by layer mismatch in multiplex networks.Entropy, 25(7):1083, 2023

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Synchronization in multilayer networks: When good links go bad.SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, 18(4):2267–2302, 2019

    Igor Belykh, Douglas Carter, and Russell Jeter. Synchronization in multilayer networks: When good links go bad.SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, 18(4):2267–2302, 2019

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Chaotic, informational and synchronous behaviour of multiplex networks.Scientific Reports, 6(1):22617, 2016

    Murilo S Baptista, Romeu M Szmoski, Rodrigo F Pereira, and SE de Souza Pinto. Chaotic, informational and synchronous behaviour of multiplex networks.Scientific Reports, 6(1):22617, 2016

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    Symmetries and cluster synchronization in multilayer networks.Nature communications, 11(1):3179, 2020

    Fabio Della Rossa, Louis Pecora, Karen Blaha, Afroza Shirin, Isaac Klickstein, and Francesco Sorrentino. Symmetries and cluster synchronization in multilayer networks.Nature communications, 11(1):3179, 2020

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    Symmetries and synchronization in multilayer random networks.Phys

    Alberto Saa. Symmetries and synchronization in multilayer random networks.Phys. Rev. E, 97:042304, Apr 2018

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    Bifurcations in two coupled r¨ ossler systems.Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 40(3-4):247–270, 1996

    J Rasmussen, Erik Mosekilde, and Chr Reick. Bifurcations in two coupled r¨ ossler systems.Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 40(3-4):247–270, 1996

    work page 1996

  27. [27]

    Stewart, M

    I. Stewart, M. Golubitsky, and M. Pivato. Symmetry groupoids and patterns of synchrony in coupled cell networks.SIAM J. Applied Dynamical Systems, 2:609–649, 2003

    work page 2003

  28. [28]

    Mauricio Barahona and Louis M. Pecora. Synchronization in small-world systems.Phys. Rev. Lett., 89:054101, Jul 2002

    work page 2002

  29. [29]

    Asymmetry induced suppression of chaos.Scientific Reports, 10(1):15582, 2020

    Animesh Biswas, Sudhanshu Shekhar Chaurasia, P Parmananda, and Sudeshna Sinha. Asymmetry induced suppression of chaos.Scientific Reports, 10(1):15582, 2020

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    Dynamical hysteresis and spatial synchro- nization in coupled non-identical chaotic oscillators.Pramana, 64(4):513–523, 2005

    Awadhesh Prasad, Leon D Iasemidis, Shivkumar Sabesan, and Kostas Tsakalis. Dynamical hysteresis and spatial synchro- nization in coupled non-identical chaotic oscillators.Pramana, 64(4):513–523, 2005

    work page 2005