Symmetrizable and non-symmetrizable deterministic

Boolean networks

Juan A. Aledoa,∗, Eric Golesb , Marco Montalva-Medelb , Pedro Montealegreb ,

Jose C. Valverdea
a Departamento de Matemáticas, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Albacete 02071, Spain
IMACI, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
b Facultad de Ingenierı́a y Ciencias, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez,

Avda. Diagonal las Torres 2700, Peñalolén, Santiago, Chile.

Abstract

In this work, we provide a procedure that allows us to transform some kinds

of deterministic Boolean networks on minterm or maxterm functions into sym-
metric ones, so inferring that such symmetrizable networks can present only
periodic points of periods 1 or 2. In particular, we deal with generalized par-
allel (or synchronous) dynamical systems (GPDS) over undirected graphs, i.e.
discrete parallel dynamical system over undirected graphs where some of the
self-loops may not appear. We also study the class of anti-symmetric GPDS
(which are non-symmetrizable in general), proving that their periodic orbits
have period 4. Besides, we introduce a class of non-symmetrizable systems
which admit periodic orbits with arbitrary large periods.
Keywords: Generalized parallel dynamical system, period structure, limit
cycles, symmetric and antisymmetric networks, symmetrizable and
non-symmetrizable networks

∗ Corresponding author
Email addresses: juanangel.aledo@uclm.es (Juan A. Aledo), eric.chacc@uai.cl (Eric
Goles), marco.montalva@uai.cl (Marco Montalva-Medel), p.montealegre@uai.cl (Pedro
Montealegre), jose.Valverde@uclm.es (Jose C. Valverde)

Preprint submitted to Journal of LATEX Templates December 29, 2021

1. Introduction

Boolean networks (BN) were introduced in [60, 84] and have been applied
to model and study the behaviour of several phenomena coming from physics
[28, 29, 30, 32, 70, 85]; chemistry [63, 64, 83]; biology [1, 5, 6, 35, 37, 79, 71],
particularly in areas like genetics [39, 60, 61, 76, 80, 84], ecology [34, 40, 55,
56, 66] and epidemiology [86, 91]; sociology [3, 62]; and artificial processes as
computer simulation [2, 23, 24, 25, 26, 45, 53, 59, 68, 69, 77, 78, 81, 82, 89, 90]
or encryption [27, 33, 38, 75]; etc.
When modelling by means of BN, different kinds of them can appear [41,
42] depending on the relations among the elements of the model (unilateral or
bilateral), the update schedule of their evolution (synchronous, asynchronous or
a mixture of both of them), and the type of (local) interactions that determine
the evolution of each element of the model (local functions). The elements of the
model are then represented by means of nodes of a network and their relations
by the edges, so giving a directed (dependency) graph for unilateral relations
and an undirected one for bilateral relations. The state value of any element is
formalized by a (state) variable. In this setting, both the states of the elements
and the local functions are Boolean.
For deterministic (finite) BN, the corresponding dynamical systems are usu-
ally denominated Boolean (finite) dynamical systems (BFDS). In particular,
when the updating schedule is synchronous these systems are called parallel
and are denoted by PDS [7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22]. On the
other hand, when the updating schedule is asynchronous (resp. mixed) the
BFDS are named sequential (resp. mixed or block-sequential) and are denoted
by SDS [13, 20, 73, 74] (resp. MDS or BSDS [4, 31, 41, 51, 72, 73, 74]). In this
work, we deal with PDS over undirected graphs where some of the self-loops
may not appear. These more general PDS will be denominated generalized, as
in [10, 11], and denoted by GPDS.
A relevant class of Boolean functions are those known as minterms and

2
maxterms. Remember that a minterm (resp. maxterm) is a Boolean function

F : {0, 1}n −→ {0, 1}n , F (x1 , . . . , xn ) = z1 ∧ · · · ∧ zn (resp. z1 ∨ · · · ∨ zn ),

where zi = xi or x′i . The simplest examples of minterms are those given by

AND (with zi = xi for all i) and NOR (with zi = x′i for all i). Analogously, the
simplest examples of maxterms correspond to those given by OR (with zi = xi
for all i) and NAND (with zi = x′i for all i). The relevance of minterms (resp.
maxterms) comes from the fact that they are (irreductible) functions which
allow to decompose any Boolean function as a disjunction (resp. conjunction)
of them. Thus, the knowledge of the behaviour of BFDS on minterms (resp.
maxterms) may help to know the behaviour of BFDS on any Boolean function.
The case of PDS on minterms and maxterms has been studied by Aledo et
al. in the last decade, and their results have been published in [7, 12, 14, 15,
16, 17, 20, 21, 22]. Recently, they have also obtained some results regarding
GPDS [10, 11] which generalize those in PDS. These results are mainly related
to homogeneous systems, i.e. those for which every local function is a restriction
of a global minterm (or maxterm). However, some of them are related to systems
on independent local minterms and maxterms functions [8, 19].
An important type of Boolean functions is the one of threshold functions.
Remember that a threshold Boolean function

F : {0, 1}n −→ {0, 1}n , F = (F1 , . . . , Fn ),

can be defined as

 0 if Pn a x < 0
j=1 ij j
Fi (x1 , . . . , xn ) =
 1 otherwise.

for certain aij ∈ R. A threshold Boolean function F is said to be symmetrically

threshold or simply symmetric, if aij = aji for each pair {i, j}.
The importance of these networks lies in their multiple applications. The
first of them, to model the nervous system, appeared in the seminal paper
[67]. Subsequently, they have been used in a variety of domains, undoubtedly

3
biology but also physics, neural networks, computer and social sciences [43,
46, 47, 52, 57, 88], etc. The case of PDS on symmetrically threshold (local)
Boolean function has been studied by Goles and his collaborators from the
eighties [36, 44, 48, 49, 50].
When confronting the results by Aledo et al. on (homogenous) PDS on
minterms and maxterms with those by Goles and his collaborators on PDS on
(symmetric) threshold functions, we observe that their periodic structures have
a remarkable similarity: in both cases, only fixed points and 2-periodic orbits
can exist. Certainly, from the results in the celebrated paper [52], it can be
deduced for PDS (and more generally GPDS) on the simplest minterms and
maxterms, namely AND, OR, NOR and NAND. In fact, homogeneous GPDS
on AND, OR, NOR and NAND can be seen as synchronous systems on threshold
functions that result to be symmetric. This symmetry condition is not true when
considering PDS on other minterms and maxterms. However, the same periodic
structure with only fixed and 2-periodic points can be found in homogeneous
PDS on any minterm or maxterm, as demonstrated in [17]; and also for some
kinds of (homogeneous) GPDS on minterms or maxterms, as shown in [11].
Motivated by this similarity regarding the periodic structure of these sys-
tems, in this paper we provide conditions for a large family of (non-symmetric)
GPDS on maxterm and minterm functions (which includes PDS and some of
the GPDS in [11] mentioned above) to be symmetryzable, i.e. to be transformed
into GPDS on symmetric threshold functions. Thus, in this work we provide a
procedure to perform such transformation, which constitutes one of our main
results.
Once we have analyzed symmetrizable (homogeneous) GPDS on minterms
or maxterms, it naturally arises the problem of studying the dynamics of non-
symmetrizable GPDS, i.e. to determine which periods can exist in such systems.
In this sense, in [87] it is shown that GPDS on minterms or maxterms over di-
rected graphs can present periodic orbits of any period. However, these results
cannot be extrapolated to the undirected case, since only fixed and 2-periodic
points can appear in PDS over undirected dependency graphs (see [17]). Actu-

4
ally, fixed and 2-periodic points cannot coexists in such PDS, in contrast to the
directed case where periodic orbits of any period can coexist (see [9, 18]). Re-
garding GPDS on undirected dependency graphs, in [10, 11] some toy-examples
are provided that show that periodic orbits of period greater than 2 can exist
and also coexist, so alerting about the complexity of these systems.
In order to advance in this issue, in this work we study the case of anti-
symmetric (homogeneous) GPDS on minterms and maxterms, which logically
arises when dealing with non-symmetric relations. Anti-symmetric (threshold)
functions
F : {0, 1}n −→ {0, 1}n , F = (F1 , . . . , Fn ),

are such that


 0 Pn
if j=1 aij xj < 0
Fi (x1 , . . . , xn ) =
 1 otherwise,

where aij = −aji for each pair {i, j}. In general, anti-symmetric systems are
not symmetrizable. In fact, although we may think that the second iteration of
an anti-symmetric (threshold) function is symmetrizable and threshold, this is
not the case (see Section 3.1). Nevertheless, we prove that all the limit cycles
of anti-symmetric GPDS on a minterm or a maxterm have period 4.
Moreover, we provided a class of non-symmetrizable systems which admit
periodic orbits with arbitrary large periods. In fact, we introduce the so called
Covid-type systems, due to the similarity between their dependency graph and
the well-known appearance of the virus. It reveals the complexity of GPDS on
minterms and maxterms, even over undirected graphs.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we detail the
procedure to transform a wide family of GPDS on minterms or maxterms into
dynamically equivalent symmetric ones. In Section 3 we tackle two different
classes of non-symmetrizable systems: anti-symmetric systems, proving that
they can only present 4-periodic orbits; and Covid-type systems, which allow us
to find periodic orbits arbitrarily large. Finally, in Section 4, we provide some
conclusions and future research directions.

5
2. Symmetrizable GPDS on minterm or maxterm Boolean functions

Let us consider a generalized parallel dynamical system (GPDS) defined by a

Boolean function F of type minterm or maxterm over an undirected dependency
graph G = (V, E), where some of the self-loops may not appear. We will
represent such a system by means of a single graph G′ = (V ′ , E ′ ), where

• V = V ′ and E = E ′ .

• Each node of G′ is associated with a ⃝ or a □ symbol as follows. Given

i∈V:

– If xi appears as a positive variable in F , then we represent node i

by means of a symbol ⃝ and will say that node i is a ⃝ node or a
positive node.

– If xi appears as a negative variable in F , then we represent node i

by means of a symbol □ and will say that node i is a □ node or a
negative node.

For the sake of simplicity, we will usually refer to minterms, since the same
statements for maxterms can be obtained immediately by duality. In Figure 1
we show an example of the original notation of a GPDS defined by a function
F of type minterm with dependency graph G, and its representation using this
new notation. In particular, note that the same local functions are obtained.
Considering this new notation, in (homogeneous) GPDS on minterms or
maxterms we can find two types of components:

1) Positive component of size k: maximal connected component of G′ com-

posed of k ⃝ nodes.

2) Negative component of size k: maximal connected component of G′ com-

posed of k □ nodes..

As an example, consider the GPDS shown in Figure 2.

This GPDS has:

6
 Fx = y
F (x, y, z) = x ∧ y ∧ z
Fy = x ∧ z
Fz = y ∧ z

y y
G: G′ :

x z x z

Figure 1: An example of the original notation of a GPDS defined by a function F of type

minterm with dependency graph G, and its representation G′ using the new notation.

u v x

w y z

Figure 2: Example of GPDS.

• One positive component of size 1: {z}.

• One positive component of size 2: {u, v}.

• One negative component of size 1: {w}.

• One negative component of size 2: {x, y}.

Remark 1. The property that a positive (resp. negative) component is maximal

means that if one of its ⃝ (resp. □) nodes is connected to another node outside
of this component, then this outer node must be □ (resp. ⃝).
On the other hand, the use of the terms positive and negative for nodes and
components was motivated by a well-known representation of these systems. In
fact, when considering the directed graph associated to G, is usual to label with
+ the arcs that come out from nodes with positive variables in F and with −
the arcs that come out from nodes with negative variables in F .

7
 In this case, it is also usual to associate an adjacency matrix to the system.
For instance, the GPDS defined by the graph G and the function F in Figure 1
can be represented by the digraph with + and − labels shown in Figure 3, where
we also show its adjacency matrix.

 
+ y
− 0 −1 0
+  
− A =  1 0 1 
 
+  
x z 0 −1 1

Figure 3: Associated digraph and adjacency matrix

As previously pointed out, in contrast with PDS where all the self-loops are
considered in the corresponding dependency graph, in GPDS any self-loop may
not appear. In fact, we can reduce our study to the case of GPDS without
self-loops, since, as shown in the next Lemma 1, any GPDS with self-loops is
dynamically equivalent to a GPDS without self-loops.

Lemma 1. Every GPDS on a minterm (resp. maxterm) with any self-loop in

its dependency graph is dynamically equivalent to a GPDS on a minterm (resp.
maxterm) without self-loops, obtained by doubling the number of nodes and, at
most, doubling the number of edges of the original system.

Proof. Let G be the dependency graph associated with a GPDS on a minterm

or a maxterm with at least one loop. The following graph G without self-loops
simulates the dynamics of G:

• In G two copies of G are made.

• If a node i of G has a self-loop, the self-loop is removed from G and an

edge joining the two copies of i in G is added.

In this way, it is easy to check that given a state configuration in G, its evolution
over time can be simulated by considering the same configuration in the two
copies of G in G. In Figure 4 we depicted an example of the construction of G.

8
 G
G

00 01
00 01 00 01

11 10 11 10
11 10

Figure 4: Example of a GPDS G with self-loops and its equivalent GPDS G without self-loops.
In the bottom the state dynamics are depicted .

In view of Lema 1, from now on we will only deal with GPDS without
self-loops, which we will divide into 2 subclasses:

C1) With all its positive components of size greater than or equal to 2.
C2) With at least one positive component of size 1, i.e. which consists of an
isolate ⃝ node.

In particular, PDS on a minterm (resp. maxterm) can be simulated with (i.e.

are dynamically equivalent to) GPDS of subclass C1.
The following result will be useful to study the dynamics of the subclasses
C1 and C2 previously introduced.

Lemma 2. In steady state, any positive component with at least two ⃝ nodes
of a GPDS on a minterm or maxterm behaves as a fixed point or as a limit cycle
of length 2.

9
Proof. Let us consider a positive component that has at least two ⃝ nodes for
a certain GPDS on a minterm. In steady state (that is, when the considered
configuration belongs to a periodic orbit), there are three possibilities:

1. The value 0 never appears in the dynamics of the positive component. In

other words, all its nodes are fixed at 1.

2. In the dynamics of the positive component a 0 appears at some time step.

Then it is easy to check that this component has two possible dynamic
behaviors:

2a. The 0 propagates in the component, fixing all its nodes to 0.

2b. The positive component corresponds to a bipartite graph (therefore,

all its cycles are of even length) with node sets A and B, generating
a 2-length limit cycle of the form 0|A| 1|B| ⇄ 1|A| 0|B| . Here, the
notation α|U | means that all the nodes of the set U ∈ {A, B} take
the value α ∈ {0, 1}.

The proof for GPDS on maxterms could be easily obtained by duality.

Confronting the results by Aledo et al. on (homogenous) PDS on minterms

and maxterms with the ones by Goles and his collaborators on PDS on (sym-
metric) threshold functions, we observe that their periodic structures have a
remarkable similarity: in both cases, only fixed and 2-periodic points can exist.
Certainly, from the results in [52], it could be deduced for the case of the simplest
minterms and maxterms, namely AND, OR, NOR and NAND, even for GPDS.
This is true because homogeneous GPDS on AND, OR, NOR and NAND can
be seen as systems on threshold functions that result to be symmetric. For more
general minterms and maxterms, the symmetry condition is not true. However,
the same periodic structure with only fixed and 2-periodic points, can be found
in homogeneous PDS on any minterm or maxterm, as demonstrated in [17]; and
for some kinds of (homogeneous) GPDS on minterms or maxterms, as shown
in [11]. This similarity regarding the periodic structures suggests that it could

10
exist a relation between such kinds of GPDS on minterms or maxterms and the
ones on symmetric threshold functions.
As a consequence of Lemma 2, in the next theorem we go into this issue by
providing a method to symmetrize a wide family of (in general non-symmetric)
GPDS on maxterm and minterm functions, i.e. a procedure to transform such
GPDS into GPDS on symmetric threshold functions.

Theorem 1. [Symmetrization procedure] GPDS on minterms (or maxterms)

with all its positive components of size greater than or equal to 2 (subclass C1)
are symmetrizable.

Proof. Notice that the GPDS involved can be composed of:

1) Only positive components (actually, an only positive component), i.e. the

evolution function is AND (or OR).

2) Only negative components (actually, an only negative component), i.e.

the evolution function is NOR (or NAND).

3) A combination of both types of components (positive and negative).

As already commented, the cases 1) and 2) are threshold Boolean networks

whose adjacency matrices are symmetric.
In case 3), by Lemma 2 and its proof, we know that the positive components
can have 3 types of dynamic behavior in steady state:

1. all its nodes are fixed at 1.

2a. all its nodes are fixed at 0.

2b. its nodes conform a bipartite graph with sets A and B, generating a 2-
length limit cycle of the form 0|A| 1|B| ⇄ 1|A| 0|B| .

Our procedure of symmetrization of the system (in steady state) consists in:

- Deleting the positive components where all the nodes are fixed at 1 (com-
ponents of type 1), because they do not influence the dynamics of the rest
of the network.

11
- Let S be the set of □ nodes adjacent to a positive component where all the
nodes are fixed at 0 (component of type 2a). Notice that the nodes of S
will remain fixed at 0 and, therefore, they do not affect the dynamics of the
rest of the network. Therefore, we can also delete the positive components
of type 2a, as well as the elements of S.

- Once the two previous steps have been carried out, the system can only
have negative components and positive components whose nodes produce
the limit cycle 0|A| 1|B| ⇄ 1|A| 0|B| (components of type 2b). Then the
following threshold network is constructed, which will have the same dy-
namic behavior than the reduced network:

– Each (bipartite) positive component is collapsed into two nodes, say

a and b, corresponding to the sets A and B respectively.

– Let SA (resp. SB ) be the set of □ nodes connected with nodes of A

(resp. B). Then, for all x ∈ SA and y ∈ SB , the positive arcs x → a,
a → x, y → b and b → y are added.
!
X
– On a and b, the threshold functions xa = H (n + 1)xb + xi − n
! i∈SA
X
and xb = H (n + 1)xa + xi − n are defined, where H(u) = 0
i∈SB
if u < 0, H(u) = 1 in other case, and n is the number of nodes of the
original GPDS.

Note that this constitutes a symmetric threshold network, where

! !
X X
• xb = 0 ⇒ xa = H (n + 1)xb + xi − n = H xi − n = 0,
i∈SA i∈SA
X
because |SA | < n ⇒ xi < n.
i∈SA
! !
X X
• xb = 1 ⇒ xa = H (n + 1)xb + xi − n = H 1+ xi = 1,
i∈SA i∈SA
X
because |SA | ≥ 0 ⇒ xi ≥ 0.
i∈SA

• Analogously, xa = 0 ⇒ xb = 0 and xa = 1 ⇒ xb = 1.

12
 All in all, in steady state, the study of the dynamics of the GPDS can be
carried out by considering this equivalent threshold network with a symmetric
adjacency matrix.

Example 1. In Figure 5 we detail the symmetrization procedure for a GPDS

on a minterm over a graph with n = 16 nodes, one negative component and
three positive components that in steady state have reached the values in red.
Specifically, there is one component of type 1, one of type 2a, and another one
of type 2b. In particular, the last one (of size 4) generates the 2-length limit
cycle 0|A| 1|B| ⇄ 1|A| 0|B| , where A consists of the two nodes at 0 and B consists
of the two nodes at 1, and so SA = {f, h} and SB = {g}. We also show the
(symmetric) threshold network obtained after the symmetrization of the GPDS.
Regarding the threshold functions, we have for the collapsed nodes a and b the
following ones

xa = H (17xb + xf + xh − 16) , xb = H (17xa + xg − 16) .

For the rest of nodes, they are calculated as ussually; for instance

xg = H(−xe + xb − 1) and xu = H(−xc − xd ).

Observe that, by performing the symmetrization procedure described in The-

orem 1, the equivalent threshold network obtained is under the assumptions of
[52, Main Theorem]. As a consequence we obtain the following result previously
obtained in [11] (see Remark 2 below):

Corollary 1. GPDS on minterms (or maxterms) with all its positive compo-
nents of size greater than or equal to 2 (subclass C1) can only have fixed points
or limit cycles of length 2.

As a particular case observe that, from Lemma 1, PDS on minterms (or

maxterms) can be transformed in GPDS with all its positive components with
at least 2 nodes. Therefore, we can also derive [17, Theorems 3 and 4] as a
consequence of the symmetrization procedure and the results in [52]. That is:

13
 0 1

0 1 f 0

x e g 1 1

u d
h 0

− f a
−
+
u −
− d e + +
− +
−
− g b
− − − +
+ +
−
c
−

Figure 5: Example of symmetrization

Corollary 2. PDS on minterms (or maxtems) can only have fixed points or
limit cycles of length 2.

Remark 2. In [11] it is proved the following result for GPDS on minterms (or
maxterms) over an undirected dependency graph G = (V, E). Let us consider
the set of vertices

′
WD = {i ∈ V : i is a □ node adjacent to any ⃝ node}

′
If each vertex in WD is adjacent to

i) a positive connected component of size greater than or equal to 2, or

ii) an isolated positive vertex with a self-loop, or

iii) a negative vertex of degree 1

then the GPDS only have limit cycles of length 1 or 2. In this sense, note that
GPDS where each negative vertex is adjacent to a vertex of types i) or ii) are also

14
under the hypotheses of Corollary 1. Therefore, this characterization of their
orbital structure (i.e., that these GPDS can only have limit cycles of length 1
and 2) can be also obtained as a consequence of our symmetrization procedure.
It remains open, however, to study if we can also apply the symmetrization
procedure to GPDS where each negative vertex is adjacent to a vertex of types
i), ii) or iii).

The following results show that, at a probabilistic level, it is more likely to

find GPDS whose dynamics have short limit cycles (of length at most 2). In
fact, let G = (V, E) be a graph with |V | = n and Gp the subgraph of G in which
we choose a node of V with probability p > 0. Furthermore, we denote by δ the
minimum degree of G.
We say that a connected component of Gp is trivial if only has a single node
(i.e., the component is an isolated node).

Lemma 3. Gp has no trivial components with probability at least 1 − np(1 − p)δ

Proof. Let v ∈ V and E(v) the event in which v is chosen and induces a trivial
component. Then, the probability of choosing v is p, while the probability of
not choosing any of its neighbors is (1 − p)d(v) , where d(v) is the degree of v
(i.e., the number of neighbors of v). Hence, the probability of E(v) is given by
P (E(v)) = p(1 − p)d(v) .
On the other hand, the event “Gp has at least a trivial component” is equiv-
_
alent to the event E(v), whose probability satisfies
v∈V
!
_ X
P E(v) ≤ P (E(v))
v∈V v∈V
X
≤ p(1 − p)δ
v∈V

≤ np(1 − p)δ

Therefore, Gp has no trivial components with probability at least 1 − np(1 −

p)δ .

Theorem 2. Let G be a family of graphs such that if G ∈ G has n nodes, then

15
it has a minimum degree of order ω(log(n)), and let p > 0. If for every G ∈ G
we assign ⃝ to a vertex with probability p and □ with probability 1 − p, then the
corresponding GPDS only admits limit cycles of length at most 2 with probability
at least 1 − n1 .

Proof. Let us take G ∈ G and assign ⃝ and □ to its nodes with probabilities p
and 1 − p, respectively. Notice that the induced graph for the ⃝ nodes is Gp .
By taking G large enough and such its minimum degree satisfies that

log n2 p


δ≥− ,
log(1 − p)

we obtain that Gp has no trivial components (i.e., there is no isolated ⃝ nodes)

1
with probability at least 1 − .
n

3. Non-symmetrizable GPDS on minterm or maxterm Boolean func-

tions

Since symmetrizable systems studied in Section 2 show a simple periodic

structure, in this section we wonder about the periodic structure of non-symmetric
or non-symmetrizable systems. A remarkable class of non-symmetric systems is
the one of anti-symmetric systems, which we treat in Section 3.1. Such GPDS
have a bipartite partition of the network in ⃝ and □ nodes, and the adjacency
matrix associated with the system is anti-symmetric. In particular, we show that
the orbital structure of anti-symmetric systems consists only of limit cycles of
length 4. Finally, in Section 3.2 we introduce a class of non-symmetrizable sys-
tems, that we call Covid-type systems due to the similarity of their dependency
graph with the virus, which present limit cycles of arbitrarily large periods.

3.1. Anti-symmetric GPDS on minterm or maxterm Boolean functions

Recall that anti-symmetric (threshold) functions are those of the form

F : {0, 1}n −→ {0, 1}n , F = (F1 , . . . , Fn ),

16
where 
 0 if Pn aij xj < θi
j=1
Fi (x1 , . . . , xn ) =
 1 otherwise,

for certain θi , aij , ∈ R such as aij = −aji for each pair {i, j}. In this context, we
will call anti-symmetric systems to those GPDS induced by a minterm or max-
term F such that the locally induced functions are anti-symmetric (threshold).
In particular, the undirected dependency graph of an anti-symmetric GPDS is
a bipartite graph regarding the ⃝ and □ nodes.

Remark 3. In [11] it is proved the following result, that here we adapt to the
case of GPDS over undirected graphs without self-loops:

Given a GPDS on a minterm (or maxterm) over an undirected graph

(without self-loops) G = (V, E), let us consider the sets of vertices

• WD
′
= {i ∈ V : i is a □ node adjacent to any ⃝ node}

• T = {i ∈ V : i is a ⃝ node adjacent only to □ nodes}.

′ ′
If there exists i ∈ WD adjacent only to vertices in T ∪ WD , then all
the periodic orbits of the GPDS have period greater than 2.

′
Note that for anti-symmetric GPDS we have WD = {i ∈ V : i is a □ node}
′
and T = {i ∈ V : i is a ⃝ node}, and in particular every node i ∈ WD is
adjacent only to vertices in T . Therefore, anti-symmetric GPDS on minterms
or maxterms can present neither fixed points nor limit cycles of length 2. Thus,
it becomes a challenge to study the orbital structure of such systems.

Let us start by analyzing some toy examples. Let us consider the anti-
symmetric GPDS induced by the minterm F (x1 , x2 , x3 ) = (x2 , x′1 ∧ x′3 , x2 ). It
is straightforward to check that this system has only limit cycles of length 4.
This is equivalent to have only limit cycles of length 2 for the second iteration
F 2 (x1 , x2 , x3 ) = (x′1 ∧x′3 , x′2 , x′1 ∧x′3 ). So, the following question naturally arises:
Is F 2 symmetrizable? It can be checked that F 2 is not only symmetrizable, but
also symmetrically threshold.

17
 Nevertheless, this is not true in general. In fact, let us consider the anti-
symmetric GPDS induced by F (x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ) = (x2 , x′1 ∧ x′3 , x2 ∧ x4 , x′3 ). One
can easily check that the second iteration F 2 (x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ) = (x′1 ∧ x′3 , x′2 , x′1 ∧
x′3 , x′2 ∨ x′4 ) is threshold, but not symmetrically threshold, although it only
presents limit cycles of length 2.
Indeed, we can find examples where the second iteration F 2 is even not
threshold. This is the case of the anti-symmetric GPDS induced by the following
minterm (see Figure 6):

F (x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 , x5 , x6 , x7 ) = (x3 ∧ x4 ∧ x5 , x5 ∧ x6 ∧ x7 , x′1 , x′1 , x′1 ∧ x′2 , x′2 , x′2 )

x3

x4
x1
x5
x2
x6

x7

Figure 6: Example of a GPDS where the second iteration F 2 is not symmetrically threshold.

Observe that F52 (x) = x′5 ∨ ((x′3 ∨ x′4 ) ∧ (x′6 ∨ x′7 )). Now suppose that F 2 is
a threshold function. Then,

F52 (·, ·, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0) = 0 ⇒ a53 + a54 + a55 < θ5

F52 (·, ·, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1) = 0 ⇒ a55 + a56 + a57 < θ5
F52 (·, ·, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1) = 1 ⇒ a54 + a55 + a57 ≥ θ5
F52 (·, ·, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0) = 1 ⇒ a53 + a55 + a56 ≥ θ5

From the first and second inequalities we get that a53 + a54 + 2a55 + a56 + a57 <
2θ5 , whereas from the third and fourth ones it follows that a53 +a54 +2a55 +a56 +
a57 ≥ 2θ5 , which is a contradiction. Consequently, F 2 is not a symmetrically
threshold function.

18
 Nevertheless, all the examples above present only limit cycles of length 4,
what leads us to conjecture that anti-symmetric GPDS have such a periodic
structure. In fact, in the following theorem we prove that this conjecture is
true.

Theorem 3. GPDS with all its positive and negative components of size 1
satisfy:

a) In steady state, a □ node i evolves over time with period 1 or 4. Specifi-

cally, one of the following situation happens:

a1) xei = (0)∗ ≡ 00 · · · (of period 1)

a2) xei = (1100)∗ ≡ 11001100 · · · (of period 4)

a3) xei = (1000)∗ ≡ 10001000 · · · (of period 4)

Here xei = xti xt+1

i · · · stands for the evolution (in steady state) of node i,
∗
and means that the corresponding configuration is maintained over time.

b) In steady state, a ⃝ node i evolves over time with period 1 or 4.

c) Its attractors are only 4-length limit cycles.

Proof. a) Let i be a □ node, and consider N (i) the set of neighbors of i (whose
elements are ⃝ nodes) and N 2 (i) the set of neighbors of the the vertices in N (i)
(whose elements are □ nodes and which includes the node i).
In steady state, the two following situations may occur:

a1) xei = (0)∗ ≡ 00 · · ·

a2) ∀p > 0, ∃t > p such that xti = 1. This generates the following sequence of
implications: at t + 1, all the nodes of N (i) will be worth 0 and xt+1
i =
α1 ∈ {0, 1}; at t + 2, all the nodes of N 2 (i) will be worth 0 (including node
i); at t + 3 all the nodes of N (i) will be worth 1 and xt+3
i = α2 ∈ {0, 1};
at t + 4 node i returns to value 1. From this iteration on, the sequence of
previous implications repeats indefinitely over time, remaining unknown

19
 the values αl corresponding to the values xt+h
i with h an odd number (see
Table 1). Therefore, xei = 1α1 0α2 1α3 0α4 1 · · · and thus:

i) If αl = 1 for some l ∈ N, from the behavior shown in Table 1 it

follows for each h ∈ N that

 0 if h is odd
αl+h =
 1 if h is even

i.e., xei = (1100)∗ .

ii) If αl = 0 for all l ∈ N, then xei = (1000)∗ .

Time step (i, □) (N (i), ⃝) (N 2 (i) − {i}, □)

t 1
t+1 α1 0
t+2 0 0
t+3 α2 1
t+4 1
t+5 α3 0
t+6 0 0
t+7 α4 1
.. .. .. ..
. . . .

Table 1: Evolution of a □ node i that is worth 1 for some time step t in steady state (column
(i, □)). When a 0 (resp. 1) appears in the columns (N (i), ⃝) or (N 2 (i) − {i}, □), it means
that all the nodes that belong to N (i) or N 2 (i) − {i} are worth 0 (resp. 1).

b) Let i be a ⃝ node and take k ∈ N (i). Observe that, now, the elements of
N (i) are □ nodes. If N (i) − {k} = ∅ then, in steady state, the evolution of node
i has period 1 or 4 since its only neighbor k behaves following one of the three
dynamic schemes obtained in a) (see Table 2):
On the other hand, if N (i, k) := N (i) − {k} ̸= ∅, then we analyze the
evolution of node i in steady state according to the three evolutions that node
k can have:

20
 Evol.1 Evol.2 Evol.3
Time step (k, □) (i, ⃝) (k, □) (i, ⃝) (k, □) (i, ⃝)
t 1 1 0
t+1 1 0 0 0 0 1
t+2 0 0 0 1 0 1
t+3 0 1 0 1 0 1
t+4 1 1 1 1 0 1
t+5 1 0 0 0 0 1
t+6 0 0 0 1 0 1
t+7 0 1 0 1 0 1
t+8 1 1 1 1 0 1
.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . .

Table 2: Evolution of a ⃝ node i for some time step t in steady state (columns (i, ⃝)), with a
single neighbor k that is □ and that can evolve as (1100)∗ (column Evol.1), (1000)∗ (column
Evol.2) or (0)∗ (column Evol.3).

b1) If xek = (1100)∗ , then it is easy to check that the evolution of node i has
period 4, as is shown in Table 3.

b2) If xek = (1000)∗ , we depict the values of xti according to the values of
xtN (i,k) ∈ {0, 1}|N (i,k)| in Table 4. As is shown, three scenarios must be
considered:

– Case 1: xt+3
N (i,k) ̸= 0
|N (i,k)|
. That is, there exists a node j ∈ N (i, k)
such that xt+3
j = 1 marked in red in column (N (i, k), □) of Case 1,
Table 4.
Since j is a □ node, from our previous study in a) we know that
(t+3)+4p
xj = 1 for all p ∈ N, colored in green in column (N (i, k), □)
of Case 1, Table 4. As a consequence xt+2h
i = 1 (resp. xt+2h
i = 0)
for all h odd (resp. even), which is marked in green in column (i, ⃝)
of Case 1, Table 4, i.e node i evolves with period 4.

21
 Time step (k, □) (i, ⃝) (N (i, k), □)
t 1
t+1 1 0
t+2 0 0 0
t+3 0 1 0
t+4 1 1
t+5 1 0
t+6 0 0 0
t+7 0 1 0
t+8 1 1
.. .. .. ..
. . . .

Table 3: Evolution of a ⃝ node i for some time step t in steady state (column (i, ⃝)) and
neighbors k and N (i, k) ̸= ∅ such that xek = (1100)∗ . The 0s that appear in column (N (i, k), □)
mean that all the nodes that belong to N (i, k) are worth 0.

– Case 2: xt+5
N (i,k) ̸= 0
|N (i,k)|
. That is, there exists a node j ∈ N (i, k)
such that xt+5
j = 1, marked in red in column (N (i, k), □) of Case
2, Table 4. Similar to the previous case, from xt+5
j = 1 we get the
values marked in green in columns (i, ⃝) and (N (i, k), □) of Case 2,
Table 4. As can be observed, again node i evolves with period 4.

– Case 3: xt+3 t+5

N (i,k) = xN (i,k) = 0
|N (i,k)|
. That is, all the nodes of N (i, k)
are worth 0 at time steps (t+3) and (t+5), marked in red, as a single
number 0, in column (N (i, k), □) of Case 3, Table 4. With the same
arguments of the previous cases, it can be checked the values marked
in green in columns (i, ⃝) and (N (i, k), □) of Case 3, Table 4. Also
in this case, node i evolves with period 4.

b3) If xek = (0)∗ , then the evolution of the node i depends on the evolution of
the nodes in N (i, k). Two situations can occur:

i) If each j ∈ N (i, k) is such that xej = (0)∗ , then xei = (1)∗ , i.e. an

22
 evolution of period 1.

ii) If there is j ∈ N (i, k) such that xej ∈ {(1100)∗ , (1000)∗ }, then the evo-
lution of node i performs like Evol.1 or Evol.2 of Table 2 if N (i, k) =
∅, or like in Tables 3 and 4 otherwise, always presenting an evolution
of period 4.

General Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Time (k, □) (i, ⃝) (N (i, k), □) (i, ⃝) (N (i, k), □) (i, ⃝) (N (i, k), □) (i, ⃝) (N (i, k), □)
t 1
t+1 0 0 0 0 0
t+2 0 xt+2
i 0 1 0 xt+2
i 0 xt+2
i 0
t+3 0 1 xt+3
N (i,k) 1 1 1 xt+3
N (i,k) 1 0
t+4 1 xt+4
i 0 1 1
t+5 0 0 xt+5
N (i,k) 0 xt+5
N (i,k) 0 1 0 0
t+6 0 xt+6
i 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
t+7 0 1 xt+7
N (i,k) 1 1 1 xt+7
N (i,k) 1 0
t+8 1 xt+8
i 0 1 1
t+9 0 0 xt+9
N (i,k) 0 xt+9
N (i,k) 0 1 0 0
t+10 0 xt+10
i 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
t+11 0 1 xt+11
N (i,k) 1 1 1 xt+11
N (i,k) 1 0
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . . . . .

Table 4: Evolution of a ⃝ node i, neighbor k such that xek = (1000)∗ and N (i, k) ̸= ∅. The
0s in columns (N (i, k), □) mean that all the nodes that belong to N (i, k) are worth 0. The 1s
that appear in columns (N (i, k), □) (Cases 1 and 2) mean that there exists a node j ∈ N (i, k)
that is worth 1. The red color indicates the assumptions of each case and the green color the
deductions that are obtained from such assumptions.

c) First, notice that this kind of GPDS have no fixed point (see Remark 3).
Then, since all its nodes in a steady state evolve with periods 1 or 4 as shown
in a) and b), it follows that the only possible limit cycles have length 4.

In Figure 7 we depict a GPDS where there appear the three possible evolu-
tions that a □ node can have (see Theorem 3 a))

23
 t=0 t=1 t=2 t=3

1 0 0 1

1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1

0 0 0 0
1 1 0 0
0 1 1 0

0 0 1 1

0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0

0 0 0 1
0 0 1 1
1 0 0 1

Figure 7: GPDS where there appear the three possible evolutions that a □ node can have.

3.2. Covid-type GPDS on minterms or maxterm Boolean functions

Our aim in this section is to show that GPDS on minterms or maxterm can
have periodic orbits of arbitrarily large period. As we proved in Corollary 1,
GPDS on minterms or maxterms with all its positive components of size greater
than or equal to 2 can only have fixed points or limit cycles of length 2. This
behaviour changes when there exists any positive component of size 1, as we
show in the GPDS on a minterm depicted in Figure 8, which presents a limit
cycle of length 3.
In order to better understand the influence of the negative components in
the dynamics of GPDS on minterms and maxterms, let us consider, given a
negative component C, its interior

C̊ = {i ∈ C : i is adjacent only to nodes in C}

We will call inner □ nodes to those negative nodes which belong to the interior
of a negative component. To illustrate this definition, in Figure 9 we show a

24
 t x y z u v w
u v z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 1
w y x 2 0 0 0 1 1 1
3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 8: Example of a GPDS with a positive component of size 1 and a limit cycle of length 3.

GPDS on a minterm which has two negative components, C1 and C2 , being

˚1 = {x} and C
C ˚2 = ∅.

C2

C1
u

z y x

˚1 = {x} and C
Figure 9: GPDS with two negative components C1 and C2 , being C ˚2 = ∅

The following proposition shows the behaviour of the inner □ nodes:

Proposition 1. Given a GPDS on a minterm (or maxterm), the inner □ nodes

behave as (eventually) periodic points of period 1 or 2.

Proof. Let C be a negative component with C̊ ̸= ∅, and take u ∈ C̊. Note that
all the neighbors of u are □ nodes in C, i.e. N (u) ⊆ C. Let us distinguish the
following cases:

• If xtu = 1 for a given t ∈ N, then xt+1

v = 0 for all v ∈ N (u). Then xt+2
u =
1 and this behavior repeats over time (i.e. u behaves as an eventually
periodic point of period 2).

25
 • If xtu = 0 for a given t ∈ N, then either xt+h
u = 0 for all h ≥ 1 (i.e. u
behaves as an eventually fixed point), or xt+h
u = 1 for any h ≥ 1 (i.e. u
behaves as an eventually periodic point of period 2, as seen above).

Motivated for these results, in order to construct GPDS with periodic orbits
of arbitrary large period, we introduce the following GPDS without inner □
nodes and whose positive components have size 1:

Definition 1. We define a Covid-type GPDS of size n, Cn , as the GPDS on

a minterm over a graph (V, E) such that:

• V = {a1 , . . . an , b1 , . . . , bn } where a1 , . . . an are □ nodes and b1 , . . . , bn are

⃝ nodes.

• E = {{a1 , a2 }, {a2 , a3 }, . . . , {an , a1 }, {a1 , b1 }, {a2 , b2 }, . . . , {an , bn }}. In-

tuitively, the □ nodes form a ring, and each node ai of this ring is adjacent
to a ⃝ node (bi ), so somehow resembling a covid virus.

Thus, Cn has n positive components of size 1, which will be referred as the

crown of the dependency graph, and only one negative component of size n
with an empty inner set. Note that, as a direct consequence of the result in [11]
quoted in Remark 3, it follows that Covid-type GPDS have no periodic points
of period less than or equal to 2.
Let us see that Covid-type GPDS of size n have limit cycles of length O(n).
Later, and by suitable joining several Covid-type GPDS, we will construct GPDS
with limit cycles of period non-polynomial on the number of nodes of the de-
pendence graph.
Let us start by showing some dynamics of Cn

Proposition 2. Let Cn be a Covid-type GPDS with n ≥ 3 an odd number, and

take k such that 1 ≤ k ≤ (n − 1)/2. Let
 2k−1 columns, k ones 
z }| {
0 · · · 0 0 ··· 0
 
C(t) =  1 0 1 ··· 0 1 
0 ··· 0 0 0 0 ··· 0 0 0 ··· 0

26
be a 2 × n matrix representing the state values of the nodes bi (first row) and ai
(second row) for the iteration t where, between bars, we have depicted the 2k − 1
central columns. Then
 
0 ··· 0 1 0 1 0 ··· 1 0 1 0 ··· 0
C(t + 3) =  
0 ··· 0 0 0 0 0 ··· 0 0 0 0 ··· 0

Proof. Next we detail the first three iterations:

 2k−1 columns, k ones 

z }| {
0 ··· 0 0 ··· 0
 
C(t) = 
 1 0 1 ··· 0 1 
0 ··· 0 0 0 0 ··· 0 0 0 ··· 0
 
1 ··· 1 1 1 1 ··· 1 1 1 ··· 1
C(t + 1) =  
0 ··· 0 1 0 1 ··· 0 1 0 ··· 0
 
1 ··· 1 1 0 1 0 ··· 1 0 1 1 ··· 1
C(t + 2) =  
1 ··· 1 0 1 0 1 ··· 0 1 0 1 ··· 1
 
0 ··· 0 1 0 1 0 ··· 1 0 1 0 ··· 0
C(t + 3) =  
0 ··· 0 0 0 0 0 ··· 0 0 0 0 ··· 0

Proposition 3. Given n ≥ 3 an odd number, the Covid-type GPDS Cn has at

least n limit cycles of length 3n − 4.

Proof. Let  
0 ··· 0 1 0 ··· 0
C(0) =  
0 ··· 0 0 0 ··· 0
be an initial configuration at time step t = 0. By Proposition 2 and its proof,
the number of 1s in the crown increases by 1 every 3 iterations, so that at time
step 3(n − 2) the following configuration with n − 1 1s in its crown is obtained:
 
1 ··· 1 0 1 ··· 1
C(3n − 6) =  
0 ··· 0 0 0 ··· 0

27
 Hence, the subsequent iterations are:
 
1 ··· 1 1 1 ··· 1
C(3n − 5) =  
1 ··· 1 0 1 ··· 1

and  
0 ··· 0 1 0 ··· 0
C(3n − 4) =   = C(0)
0 ··· 0 0 0 ··· 0
so obtaining a limit cycle of length 3n − 4.
Since we have n posible initial configurations (one for each ⃝ node), the
result follows.

In Figure 10 we show the Covid-type C3 and one limit cycle of length 5.

a
t a b c u v w
u 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 0 0
w c
2 0 1 1 1 0 0
v 3 0 1 1 0 0 0
4 1 1 1 0 1 1

b 5 1 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 10: Covid-type GPDS C3 .

Corollary 3. Given two different prime numbers p1 , p2 ≥ 3, there exists a

GPDS with a limit cycle of length p1 · p2 . In particular, there are GPDS with
√
limit cycles of length l ≥ eΩ( |V (G)| log(|V (G)|)) .

Proof. Let us take the Covid-type GPDS Cp1 and Cp2 , and denote by G1 =
(V1 , E1 ) and G2 = (V2 , E2 ) their respective dependency graphs.
We construct the following GPDS on a dependency graph G = (V, E) as
follows:

28
 • V = V1 ∪ V2 ∪ {x, y}, where x and y are □ nodes.

• E = E1 ∪ E2 ∪ {{x, y}, {y, α}, {y, β}}, where α is a □ node of Cp1 and β
is a □ node of Cp2 .

For this GPDS, let us take as initial configuration:

• One of the p1 (resp. p2 ) configurations for Cp1 (resp. Cp2 ) described in

Proposition 3.

• The value for the □ node x is chosen as 1, and for the □ node y is chosen
as 0.

Then it can be checked that the values of x and y remain fixed at these values,
whereas Cp1 and Cp2 evolve independently as in Proposition 3, so producing a
limit cycle of length p1 · p2 .
The last inequality of this Corollary is proved by following the arguments of
[65, 54]

Example 2. In Figure 11 we show how to connect C3 and C5 . The network so

constructed has a limit cycle of length 5 ∗ 11 = 55.

Figure 11: GPDS obtained by connecting C3 and C5 .

29
4. Conclusions and future research directions

In this paper we study the dynamics of a particular family of Boolean net-

works over a specific class of signed graphs. The evolution of such networks is
codified by means of a (global) evolution operator which is a conjunction (or a
disjunction) of variables, being the associated local functions a particular type
of threshold functions. We call these systems generalized parallel dynamical sys-
tems (GPDS) on minterms or maxterms, where the term parallel refers to the
synchronous updating of the system.
As is well-known, the symmetry of the dependency graph jointly with thresh-
old local functions allow to establish that those dynamical systems admit only
fixed points and cycles of period two [52]. This result, jointly with a procedure
of symmetrization that we introduce in this paper, allow to totally describe the
orbital structure of a wide family of symmetrizable systems.
When the graph is not symmetric (neither symmetrizable), cycles of large
periods appears; actually, cycles with non polynomial periods on the size of the
graph. As an exception, when the graph is anti-symmetric all the cycles have
period 4.
As a future research line, we think that our symmetrization procedure may
be used to study other classes of threshold functions, for instance a combina-
tion of AND-OR local functions (i.e. some of them disjunctions and others
conjunctions).
Other interesting problem is to determine if there exist non-symmetrizable
systems with an orbital structure consisting only of fixed and 2-periodic points,
that is, if this periodic structure characterizes the symmetrizable systems.

Acknowledgements

Juan A. Aledo has been funded by the Government of Castilla-La Mancha

and “ERDF A way of making Europe” through the project SBPLY/17/180501/000493.
It is also part of the project PID2019–106758GB–C33 funded by MCIN/AEI.

30
Jose C. Valverde was supported by the FEDER OP2014-2020 and the Uni-
versity of Castilla-La Mancha under the Grants 2020-GRIN-29225 and 2021-
GRIN-31241, and by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain
Grant PGC2018-097198-B-I00. Eric Goles and Pedro Montealegre have been
partially funded by the Chilean FONDECYT-ANID project 1200006, by Centro
de Modelamiento Matemático (CMM), FB210005, BASAL funds for centers of
excellence from ANID-Chile and, together with Marco Montalva, by Programa
Regional STIC-AmSud (CoDANet) céd. 19 STIC-03. Pedro Montealegre also
acknowledges the financial support of FONDECYT-ANID project 11190482.

References

[1] W. Abou-Jaoudé, D. Ouattara, M. Kaufman, From structure to dynamics:

frequency tuning in the p53-mdm2 network I. logical approach, J. Theor.
Biol. 258 (2009) 561–577.

[2] N.L. Ackerman, C.E. Freer, Graph Turing Machines, Proceedings of WoL-
LIC 10388 (2017) 1–13.

[3] A. Adiga, C.J. Kuhlman, M.V. Marathe, H.S. Mortveit, S.S. Ravi, A. Vul-
likanti, Graphical dynamical systems and their applications to bio-social
systems, Int. J. Adv. Eng. Sci. Appl. Math. 11 (2019) 153–171.

[4] A. Adiga, C.J. Kuhlman, H.S. Mortveit, S. Wu, Effect of graph structure
on the limit sets of threshold dynamical systems, International Workshop
on Cellular Automata and Discrete Complex Systems, Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg, 2015, p. 59–70.

[5] R. Albert, R. Rodeva, Signaling networks: asychronous Boolean models,

Algebraic and Discrete Mathematical Methods for Modern Biology. Aca-
demic Press, 2015, 65–84.

[6] R. Albert, R.S. Wang, Discrete dynamic modeling of cellular signaling net-
works, Methods Enzymol 467 (2009) 281–306.

31
 [7] J.A. Aledo, A. Barzanouni, G. Malekbala, L. Sharifan, J.C. Valverde,
Counting Periodic Points in Parallel Graph Dynamical Systems, Complex-
ity, Volume 2020, Article ID 9708347, 9 pages.

[8] J.A. Aledo, A. Barzanouni, G. Malekbala, L. Sharifan, J.C. Valverde, On

the Periodic Structure of Parallel Dynamical Systems on Generalized In-
dependent Boolean Functions, Mathematics 8(7) (2020), 1088.

[9] J.A. Aledo, A. Barzanouni, G. Malekbala, L. Sharifan, J.C. Valverde, Ex-

istence, coexistence and uniqueness of fixed points in parallel and sequen-
tial dynamical systems over directed graphs, Communications in Nonlinear
Science and Numerical Simulation 103 (2021), 105966.

[10] J.A. Aledo, A. Barzanouni, G. Malekbala, L. Sharifan, J.C. Valverde, Fixed

points in generalized parallel and sequential dynamical systems induced by
a minterm or maxterm Boolean functions, to appear in J. Comput. Appl.
Math.

[11] J.A. Aledo, A. Barzanouni, G. Malekbala, L. Sharifan, J.C. Valverde, On

the cycle structure of generalized parallel dynamical systems induced by a
minterm or maxterm Boolean function, submitted.

[12] J.A. Aledo, L.G. Diaz, S. Martinez, J.C. Valverde, On the Periods of
Parallel Dynamical Systems, Complexity Volume 2017 (2017) Article ID
7209762, 6 pages.

[13] J.A. Aledo, L.G. Diaz, S. Martinez, J.C. Valverde, On periods and equilib-
ria of computational sequential systems, Info. Sci. 409–410 (2017) 27–34.

[14] J.A. Aledo, L.G. Diaz, S. Martinez, J.C. Valverde, Maximum number of
periodic orbits in parallel dynamical systems, Inf. Sci. 468 (2018) 63–71.

[15] J.A. Aledo, L.G. Diaz, S. Martinez, J.C. Valverde, Predecessors and
Garden-of-Eden configurations in parallel dynamical systems on maxterm
and minterm Boolean functions, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 348 (2019) 26–33.

32
[16] J.A. Aledo, L.G. Diaz, S. Martinez, J.C. Valverde, Dynamical attraction
in parallel network models, Appl. Math. Comput. 361 (2019) 874–888.

[17] J.A. Aledo, S. Martinez, F.L. Pelayo, J.C. Valverde, Parallel dynamical sys-
tems on maxterm and minterm Boolean functions, Math. Comput. Model.
35 (2012) 666–671.

[18] J.A. Aledo, S. Martinez, J.C. Valverde, Parallel dynamical systems over
directed dependency graphs, Appl. Math. Comput. 219 (2012) 1114–1119.

[19] J.A. Aledo, S. Martinez, J.C. Valverde, Parallel discrete dynamical systems
on independent local functions, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 237 (2013) 335–
339.

[20] J.A. Aledo, S. Martinez, J.C. Valverde, Updating method for the computa-
tion of orbits in parallel and sequential dynamical systems, Int. J. Comput.
Math. 90(9) (2013) 1796–1808.

[21] J.A. Aledo, S. Martinez, J.C. Valverde, Parallel dynamical systems over
graphs and related topics: a survey, J. Appl. Maths 2015 (2015) Article ID
594294, 14 pages.

[22] C.L. Barrett, W.Y.C. Chen, M.J. Zheng, Discrete dynamical systems on
graphs and Boolean functions, Math. Comput. Simul. 66 (2004) 487–497.

[23] C.L. Barrett, C.M. Reidys, Elements of a theory of computer simulation I,

Appl. Math. Comput. 98 (1999) 241–259.

[24] C.L. Barrett, H.S. Mortveit, C.M. Reidys, Elements of a theory of computer
simulation II, Appl. Math. Comput. 107 (2002) 121–136.

[25] C.L. Barrett, H.S. Mortveit, C.M. Reidys, Elements of a theory of computer
simulation III, Appl. Math. Comput. 122 (2002) 325–340.

[26] C.L. Barrett, H.S. Mortveit, C.M. Reidys, Elements of a theory of computer
simulation IV: sequential dynamical systems: fixed points, invertibility and
equivalence, Appl. Math. Comput. 134 (2003) 153–171.

33
[27] S.D. Cardell, A. Fúster-Sabater, Binomial Representation of Cryptographic
Binary Sequences and Its Relation to Cellular Automata, Complexity 2019
(2019) Article ID 2108014, 13 pages.

[28] G. Cattaneo, G. Chiaselotti, A. Dennunzio, E. Formenti, L. Manzoni, Non

Uniform Cellular Automata Description of Signed Partition Versions of Ice
and Sand Pile Models, LNCS 8751 (2014) 115–124.

[29] G. Cattaneo, G. Chiaselotti, T. Gentile, P.A. Oliverio, The lattice struc-

ture of equally extended signed partitions. A generalization of the Bry-
lawski approach to integer partitions with two possible models: ice piles
and semiconductors, Fund. Inform. 141 (2015) 1–36.

[30] G. Cattaneo, M. Comito, D. Bianucci, Sand piles: from physics to cellular

automata models, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 436 (2012) 35–53.

[31] R.X.F. Chen, C.M. Reidys, C. M, Linear sequential dynamical systems,

incidence algebras, and Möbius functions, Linear Algebra and its Applica-
tions 553 (2018) 270–291.

[32] B. Chopard, M. Droz, Cellular Automata for Modeling Physics, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, 1998.

[33] C. Defant, Binary codes and periodic 2 orbits of sequential dynamical sys-
tems, Discrete Math. Theor. Comput. Sci. 19(3) (2017).

[34] U. Dieckman, R. Law, J.A.J. Metz, The Geometry of Ecological Interac-

tions. Simplifying Spatial Complexity, Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, 2000.

[35] A. Deutsch, S. Dormann, Cellular Automaton Modelling of Biological Pat-

tern Formation, Birkhäuser, Boston, 2004.

[36] N. G. Domic, E. Goles, S. Rica, Dynamics and complexity of the Schelling

segregation model, Physical Review E 83(5) (2011) 056111.

34
[37] W. Dzwinel, R. Wcislo, D.A. Yuen, S. Miller, PAM: Particle automata in
modeling of multiscale biological systems, ACM Trans. Model. Comput.
Simul. 26 (2016) 1-21.

[38] A. Fuster-Sabater, P. Caballero-Gil, On the use of cellular automata in

symmetric cryptography, Acta Appl. Math. 93 (2006) 215–236.

[39] A. Garg, A.D. Cara, I. Xenarios, L. Mendoza, G. Micheli, Synchronous

versus asynchronous modeling of gene regulatory networks, Bioinformatics
24 (2008) 1917–1925.

[40] C. Gaucherel, H. Théro, A. Puiseux, V. Bonhomme, Understand ecosystem

regime shifts by modelling ecosystem development using Boolean networks,
Ecological Complexity 31 (2017) 104–114.

[41] C. Gershenson, Classification of random Boolean networks, In R.K. Stan-

dish, M. Bedau, H. Abbass (Eds.) Artificial Life VIII 1–8, MIT Press,
Massachusets, 2002.

[42] C. Gershenson, Introduction to random Boolean networks,

http://arxiv.org/pdf/nlin.AO/0408006.pdf.

[43] E. Goles, P. Montealegre-Barba, I. Todinca, The complexity of the boot-

straping percolation and other problems, Theoretical Computer Science
504 (2013) 73–82.

[44] E. Goles, P. Montealegre, Computational complexity of threshold automata

networks under different updating schemes, Theoretical Computer Science
559 (2014) 3–19.

[45] E. Goles, M. Montalva-Medel, S. Maclean, H. Mortveit, Block Invariance in

a Family of Elementary Cellular Automata, Journal of Cellular Automata
13(1-2) (2018) 15–32.

[46] E. Goles, Fixed point behavior of threshold functions on a finite set, SIAM
Journal on Algebraic Discrete Methods 3(4) (1982) 529-531.

35
[47] E. Goles, M. Tchuenté, Iterative behaviour of generalized majority func-
tions, Mathematical Social Sciences 4(3) (1983) 197–204.

[48] E. Goles-Chacc, F. Fogelman-Soulié, D. Pellegrin, Decreasing energy func-

tions as a tool for studying threshold networks, Discrete Applied Mathe-
matics 12(3) (1985) 261–277.

[49] E. Goles, Antisymmetrical neural networks, Discrete Applied Mathematics

13(1) (1986) 97–100.

[50] E. Goles, S. Martinez, Neural and Automata networks, Kluwer Academic

Publishers 1991.

[51] E. Goles, M. Noual, Block-sequential update schedules and Boolean au-

tomata circuits, Discrete Math. Theor. Comput. Sci. (2010) 41–50.

[52] E. Goles, J. Olivos, Periodic behaviour of generalized threshold functions,

Discrete Math 30 (1980) 187–189.

[53] J.L.G. Guirao, F.L. Pelayo, J.C. Valverde, Modeling dynamics of concur-
rent computing systems, Comput. Math. Appl. 61 (2011) 1402–1406.

[54] G. H. Hardy, E. M. Wright, R. Heath-Brown, J. Silverman, An Introduction

to the Theory of Numbers, Oxford Mathematics, 2008.

[55] J. Hofbauer, K. Sigmund, Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.

[56] P. Hogeweg, Cellular automata as a paradigm for ecological modeling, Appl.

Math. Comput. 27(88) 81–100.

[57] J. J. Hopfield, Neural networks and physical systems with emergent col-
lective computational abilities, Proceedings of the national academy of sci-
ences 79(8) (1982) 2554–2558.

[58] A. Jarrah, R. Laubenbacher, A. Veliz-Cuba, The dynamics of conjunctive

and disjunctive Boolean network models. Bull. Math. Biol. 72(6) (2010)
1425–1447.

36
[59] F. Jian, S. Dandan, Complex network theory and its application research
on P2P networks, Appl. Math. Nonlinear Sci. 1 (2016) 45–52.

[60] S.A. Kauffman, Metabolic stability and epigenesis in randomly constructed

genetic nets, J. Theor. Biol. 22 (1969) 437–467.

[61] S.A. Kauffman, Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evo-

lution, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993.

[62] D. Kempe, J. Kleminberg, E. Tardos, Influential nodes in a diffusion model

for social networks, Proceedings of the 32nd International Colloquium on
Automata, Languages and Programming (2005) 1127–1138.

[63] L.B. Kier, P.G. Seybold, Cellular automata modeling of complex biochem-
ical systems, Springer, New York, 2009.

[64] L.B. Kier, P.G. Seybold, C.K. Cheng, Modeling Chemical Systems Using
Cellular Automata, Springer, New York, 2005.

[65] M. A. Kiwi, R. Ndoundam, M. Tchuente, E. Goles, No polynomial bound

for the period of the parallel chip firing game on graphs, Theor. Comput.
Sci. 136 (2) (1994) 527–532.

[66] N.P. Kristensen, R.A. Chisholm, E. McDonald-Madden, Dealing with high

uncertainty in qualitative network models using Boolean analysis, Methods
in Ecology and Evolution 10(7) (2019) 1048–1061.

[67] W. S. McCulloch, W. Pitts, A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in

nervous activity, The bulletin of mathematical biophysics 5(4) (1943) 115–
133.

[68] M. Milano, A. Roli, Solving the safistiablity problem through boolean net-
works, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1792 (2000) 72–93.

[69] M. Montalva-Medel, P. de Oliveira, E. Goles, A portfolio of classification

problems by one-dimensional cellular automata, over cyclic binary config-
urations and parallel update, Natural Computing 17(3) (2018) 663–671.

37
[70] M. Montalva-Medel, S. Rica, F. Urbina, Phase space classification of an
Ising cellular automaton: The Q2R model, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 133
(2020) 109618.

[71] M. Montalva-Medel, T. Ledger, G. A. Ruz, E. Goles, Lac Operon Boolean

Models: Dynamical Robustness and Alternative Improvements, Mathemat-
ics 9(6) (2021) 600.

[72] H.S. Mortveit, Limit cycle structure for block-sequential threshold systems,
In International Conference on Cellular Automata, Springer, Berlin, Hei-
delberg 2012, 672–678.

[73] H.S. Mortveit, C.M. Reidys, Discrete, sequential dynamical systems, Dis-
crete Math. 226 (2002) 281–295.

[74] H.S. Mortveit, C.M. Reidys, An Introduction to Sequential Dynamical Sys-

tems, Springer, New York, 2007.

[75] S. Nandi, B. K. Kar, P.P. Chaudhuri, Theory and applications of cellular

automata in cryptography, IEEE Transactions on Computers 43(12) (1994)
1346–1357.

[76] I. Park, K. Lee, D. Lee, Inference of combinatorial Boolean rules of syn-

ergistic gene sets from cancer microarray datasets, Bioinformatics 26(12)
(2010) 1506–1512.

[77] K. Perrot, M. Montalva-Medel, P. P. De Oliveira, E. L. Ruivo, Maximum

sensitivity to update schedules of elementary cellular automata over peri-
odic configurations, Natural Computing 19(1) (2020) 51-90.

[78] F.L. Pelayo, J.C. Valverde, Notes on modeling dynamics of concurrent com-
puting systems, Comput. Math. Appl. 64 (2012) 61–63.

[79] L. Raeymaekers, Dynamics of Boolean networks controlled by biologically

meaningful functions, J. Theoret. Biol. 218(3) (2002) 331–341.

38
[80] A.S. Ribeiro, S.A. Kauffman, Noisy attractors and ergodic sets in models
of gene regulatory networks, J. Theoret. Biol. 247 (2007) 743–755.

[81] E. Ruivo, M. Montalva-Medel, P. P. de Oliveira, , K. Perrot, Characterisa-

tion of the elementary cellular automata in terms of their maximum sensi-
tivity to all possible asynchronous updates, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 113
(2018) 209–220.

[82] G. Ruz, M. Montalva, E. Goles, On the preservation of limit cycles in

Boolean networks under different updating schemes, ECAL 2013: The
Twelfth European Conference on Artificial Life, MIT Press, 2013.

[83] D. Scalise, R. Schulman, Emulating cellular automata in chemical reaction

diffusion networks, Nat. Comput. 15(2) (2016) 197–214.

[84] R. Thomas, Boolean formalisation of genetic control circuits, J. Theoret.

Biol. 42 (1973) 563–585.

[85] T. Toffoli, Cellular automata as an alternative to (rather than an approxi-

mation of) differential equations in modeling physics, Physica D 10 (1984)
117–127.

[86] Z. Toroczkai, H. Guclu, Proximity networks and epidemics, Physica A 378

(2007) 68-75.

[87] A. Veliz-Cuba, R. Laubenbacher, On computation of fixed points in

Boolean networks, J. Appl. Math. Comput. 39 (2012) 145–153.

[88] A. P. Vieira, E. Goles, H. J. Herrmann, Dynamics of extended Schelling

models, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2020(1)
(2020) 013212.

[89] S. Wolfram, Statistical mechanics of cellular automata, Rev. Mod. Phys.

55(3) (1983) 601–644.

[90] S. Wolfram, Cellular automata as models of complexity, Nature 311(5985)

(1984) 419–424.

39
[91] P. Zhu, X. Song, L. Liu, Z. Wang, J. Han, Stochastic analysis of multiplex
Boolean networks for understanding epidemic propagation, IEEE access 6
(2018) 35292–35304.

40