# 1 Log-log plot of Δ⁢𝑃⁢(Δ) for 𝑐=0.795 (threshold), 𝑐=0.785 (desynchronized), and 𝑐=0.805 (synchronized). The system was disturbed by noise with level 10⁻¹⁴. The straight lines have the theoretically predicted slopes.

Comment on “Intermittent Synchronization in a Pair of Coupled Chaotic Pendula”

In , a number of supposedly novel and surprising features were observed in a system composed of two periodically driven and asymmetrically coupled pendula. In particular it was claimed that ‘permanent synchronization … does not occur except as a numerical artifact’. It was suggested that this might be related to the particular type of coupling. In this comment I want to point out that some of these claims cannot be maintained. The synchronization in this system is precisely of standard blow-out type . The observed intermittency is exactly the on-off intermittency well known from the synchronization of multifractal chaotic attractors .

The system studied in  is described by $`\ddot{\theta }_m+\dot{\theta }_m/Q+\mathrm{sin}\theta _m=\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t),\ddot{\theta }_s+\dot{\theta }_s/Q+\mathrm{sin}\theta _s=\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }t)+c[\mathrm{sin}\theta _s\mathrm{sin}\theta _m].`$ The subscripts $`m`$ and $`s`$ stand for master and slave. When they are nearly synchronous, the difference $`\delta \theta _m\theta _s`$ satisfies the linearized equation $`\ddot{\delta }+\dot{\delta }/Q+(1c)\delta \mathrm{cos}\theta =0`$. My first observation is that the same linearized equation would follw from a symmetric coupling, where master and slave have coupling terms $`\pm c/2[\mathrm{sin}\theta _m\mathrm{sin}\theta _s].`$ Since the behavior near the synchronization threshold is governed by the linearized equation, it follows that any eventual abnormal behavior cannot result from the asymmetry of the coupling.

As shown in , the synchronization threshold is given by the condition that the largest Lyapunov exponent $`\lambda _1(c)`$ of the linearized equation is zero. In the present case this gives $`c_c=0.7948`$ for the parameter values considered in . The eigenvalues of the instantaneous systems given in eq.(9) of  are irrelevant, except that their fluctuations suggest that also the pointwise Lyapunov exponents might fluctuate. This is indeed the case. Let us consider a finite but large time $`T`$ and define by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ the multipliers along the stable resp. unstable manifold of the linearized equation. Of course they depend parametrically on the trajectory $`\theta (t)`$. At the synchronization threshold, we have $`\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1|T\lambda _1(c)=0`$, where the average is taken over all initial conditions $`\theta (t_0),\dot{\theta }(t_0),\delta (t_0),\dot{\delta }(t_0)`$ with $`t_00`$. Generically we expect that $`\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Lambda }_2|/T=\lambda _2(c)<\lambda _1`$, as is verified numerically. Therefore we have only one direction in the space spanned by $`(\delta ,\dot{\delta })`$ along which we must study a possible break up of synchronization.

This break up can occur, even for $`c>c_c`$, if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ fluctuates and if the system is perturbed by noise . More precisely, if this noise is infinitesimal and the fluctuations of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ follow normal central limit behavior, one expects intermittent bursts with power behaved distributions of amplitudes  and of legths of the locked phase .

To describe the fluctuations of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ we use the generating function  $`g(z;c)=T^1\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1|^z`$. The cumulant expansion of $`\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Lambda }_1|`$ corresponds to a Taylor expansion $`g(z;c)=z\lambda _1(c)+z^2\sigma ^2(c)/2+\mathrm{}`$, where $`T\sigma ^2(c)`$ is the variance of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, and contributions of higher order cumulants are straightforward to compute. The arguments of  can now be used straightforwardly to show that amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Delta }=|\delta |`$ of the bursts are distributed according to $`P(\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }^{\kappa 1}`$ with $`g(z=\kappa ;c)=0`$. Neglecting higher order cumulants this gives $`\kappa =2\lambda _1(c)/\sigma ^2(c)`$. For the parameters used in , simulations with $`T=200`$ give $`\sigma ^2(c)=0.89`$ at $`c=c_c`$, while $`\lambda _1(c)6.1(c_cc)`$. The predicted power laws for $`P(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ are compared to numerical simulations in fig.1. In the same Gaussian approximation, the distribution for the locking intervals $`\tau `$ is for $`cc_c`$ given by the distribution of return times to a reflecting wall of a biased 1-d random walk with drift $`\lambda _1(c)`$ and diffusion constant $`\sigma ^2(c)`$, $`P(\tau )\tau ^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}(\tau \lambda _1(c)^2/2\sigma ^2(c))`$ . This disagrees with the fit in fig.2 of  by the prefactor $`\tau ^{3/2}`$ which gives indeed most of the $`\tau `$-dependence seen in that figure.

Peter Grassberger   
HLRZ, c/o Forschungszentrum Jülich   
D-52425 Jülich, Germany

Received

PACS number: 05.45.+b