2016 American Control Conference (ACC)
Boston Marriott Copley Place
July 6-8, 2016. Boston, MA, USA
Analytical Solutions of Equilibrium Points of
the Standard Kuramoto Model: 3 and 4 Oscillators
Xin Xin, Takanori Kikkawa, and Yannian Liu
Abstract— This paper concerns the problem of how to obtain
analytically all equilibrium points of the standard Kuramoto
model (with all-to-all uniform coupling) having any natural
frequencies and coupling gain. As an initial effort to solve
this challenging problem, for the Kuramoto model with 3
(respectively 4) oscillators, to obtain analytically all equilibrium
points, we show that we need to solve a polynomial equation of
the sine of the phase of an oscillator with the highest order of
6 (respectively 14). For 3 oscillators, this polynomial equation
with numerical examples shows that the maximal number
of distinct equilibrium points for any natural frequencies
and coupling gain is 6. For 4 oscillators, this paper shows
theoretically that the maximal number of distinct equilibrium
points is not greater than 14, and presents two numerical
examples to show the existence of 10 distinct equilibrium
points. From the numerical investigation carried out in this
study, it is a conjecture that the maximal number of distinct
equilibrium points of 4 oscillators for all natural frequencies
and coupling gain is 10. This paper also presents numerical
examples to investigate the synchronization of the oscillators
and convergence to stable equilibrium points.
I. INTRODUCTION
Synchronization means that the oscillators with different
natural frequencies converge to a common frequency under
weak coupling interaction. A famous model to characterize
the synchronization phenomena of coupled phase oscillators
is the standard Kuramoto model with all-to-all uniform
coupling [1]. Many research results have been published
on studying the Kuramoto model with many applications in
different disciplines, see [2]–[7] and references therein.
When all n Kuramoto oscillators synchronize, taking for
example the nth oscillator as a reference, one can see that
the phase difference between each of other n − 1 oscillators
and this referenced oscillator is a constant, We call the point
determined by these n − 1 phase differences of synchroniza-
tion equilibrium point of the Kuramoto model. To understand
fundamental behaviour of the Kuramoto oscillators, it is
crucial to study all equilibrium points of the Kuramoto model
and the stability of each equilibrium point.
The equilibrium points for 2 and 3 oscillators have been
characterized, with details of the stability and bifurcations
in [8]. For 3 oscillators having the same natural frequen-
cies, Maistrenko et al. [8] showed that there are 6 distinct
This work was supported in part by a Grant-in-aid Scientific Research
(C) under grant no. 22560452.
X. Xin and T. Kikkawa are with Faculty of Computer Science and
Systems Engineering, Okayama Prefectural University, 111 Kuboki, Soja,
Okayama 719-1197, Japan, xxin@cse.oka-pu.ac.jp.
Y. Liu is with Graduate School of Natural Science and
Technology, Okayama University, Okayama 700-8530, Japan,
ynliujp@yahoo.co.jp.
978-1-4673-8682-1/$31.00 ©2016 AACC
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KANPUR. Downloaded on May 09,2020 at 17:26:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
equilibrium points. Mehta et al. [9] stated that finding
equilibrium points of the Kuramoto model is equivalent to
solving equations containing trigonometric functions, which
is an important yet challenging problem. They translated
this problem into an algebraic geometry problem and used
parametric homotopies [10] to solve numerically polynomial
equations. For given natural frequencies with different cou-
pling gains, numerical investigation in [10] shows that the
maximal numbers of distinct equilibrium points of 3 and 4
oscillators are 6 and 8, respectively. It remains open whether
there is a greater number of equilibrium points of 3 or 4
oscillators for any natural frequencies and coupling gain.
We aim to study how to obtain analytically the equilib-
rium points of the Kuramoto model and how to determine
the maximal number of distinct equilibrium points of the
Kuramoto model with any natural frequencies and coupling
gain. The larger goal of understanding the behaviour of the
Kuramoto model is of immense importance in power systems
and control areas [11], [12]. The paper, though limited in
the number of oscillators to only 3 and 4, is an initial step
towards achieving the larger goal.
Using the result of [9] as a stepping stone, our idea is to
obtain a polynomial equation in terms of only the sine of
the phase of an oscillator by eliminating the phases of the
other oscillators in the Kuramoto model. For 3 (respectively
4) oscillators, we present a polynomial equation of the sine
of the phase of an oscillator with the highest order of 6
(respectively 14) to obtain analytically all equilibrium points.
For 3 oscillators, this polynomial equation with numerical
examples enables us to show that the maximal number of
distinct equilibrium points for any natural frequencies and
coupling gain is 6. For 4 oscillators, this paper shows theoret-
ically that the maximal number of distinct equilibrium points
is not greater than 14, and presents two numerical examples
to show the existence of 10 distinct equilibrium points. This
paper also presents numerical examples to investigate the
synchronization of the oscillators and convergence to stable
equilibrium points.
II. KURAMOTO MODEL AND ITS EQUILIBRIUM
POINTS
A. Kuramoto Model
The Kuramoto model consists of n oscillators whose
dynamics is described as follows:
K∑
n
θ̇i (t) = ωi − sin(θi (t) − θj (t)), i = 1, ..., n, (1)
n j=1
2447
 where real θi and real ωi are the phase and natural frequency
of oscillator i, and K > 0 is the coupling gain. The
oscillators are said to synchronize [5] if
θ̇i (t) − θ̇j (t) → 0 as t → ∞, ∀i, j = 1, . . . , n.
B. Equilibrium Points
When the oscillators synchronize, since all θ̇i (t) are the
same, by summing all n equations in (1), we have
We call ϕi in (8) as phase difference of synchroniza-
tion, which takes value in (−π, π] under a modulo op-
eration of mod 2π. Let (ϕ1 , ϕ2 , . . . , ϕn−1 ) be a real so-
lution of[ (9). We define an equilibrium point of] (1) to
(2) T
be θ = ϕ1 + γ, ϕ2 + γ, . . . , ϕn−1 + γ, γ with
arbitrary real γ. The number of equilibrium points of (1) is
defined to be the number of all distinct real solutions of (9).
Below, for brevity, we use short hand notations:

1∑
n
si := sin ϕi , ci := cos ϕi . (13)
lim θ̇i (t) = ωsync := ωi . (3)
t→∞ n i=1
To determine a phase ϕi , we obtain si and ci and use
Define
ϕi = atan2 (si , ci ) , (14)
θei (t) := θi (t) − ωsync t, ei := ωi − ωsync .
ω (4)
where atan2(y, x) is the angle in radians between the positive
We obtain x-axis of a plane and the point with the coordinates (x, y).
K∑
n
ė ei −
θi (t) = ω sin(θei (t) − θej (t)), i = 1, ..., n. (5)
n j=1 III. PROBLEM FORMULATION
We investigate the equilibrium points of (1) by studying
Therefore, without loss of generality, we assume how to solve (9). To start, (9) with n = 2 is
∑
n
ωi = 0; that is, ωsync = 0. (6) s1 = b1 . (15)
i=1 √
If |b1 | ≤ 1, then c1 = ± 1 − b21 , and all solutions of (15)
Otherwise, we just need to use θei (t) and ω ei in (4) instead of are
θi (t) and ωi , respectively. ( √ )
Under (6), from (3), as t approaches ∞, each θ̇i (t) ϕ1 = atan2 b1 , ± 1 − b1 ,
2 (16)
converges to 0 and θi (t) approaches a constant denoted as
θi∗ . Putting θ̇i (t) = 0 and θi (t) = θi∗ into (1) yield
which are two distinct real solutions when |b1 | < 1, and is
K∑ a single real solution when |b1 | = 1. If |b1 | > 1, then (15)
n
ωi − sin (θi∗ − θj∗ ) = 0, i = 1, ..., n. (7) does not have any real solution.
n j=1
For n ≥ 3, it becomes a difficult problem to solve (9)
Since θi∗ − θj∗ appears in the left-hand side term of (7), as analytically since there are trigonometric functions of ϕi in
indicated in [9], if (θ1∗ , θ2∗ , . . . , θn∗ ) is a solution of (7), then (9). Instead of solving (9) for ϕi contained in trigonometric
(θ1∗ + γ, θ2∗ + γ, . . . , θn∗ + γ) is also a solution (7) for any functions, Mehta et al. [9] proposed to solve si and ci from
arbitrary real γ. To remove this freedom, [9] takes θn (t) = 0, the following polynomial equations in terms of si and ci :
and removes the nth equation related to θ̇n (t). Below we
clarify such an idea of [9] further. First, we define ∑
n−1
si + (si cj − sj ci ) = bi , (17)
ϕi := θi∗ − θn∗ , i = 1, ..., n − 1. (8) j=1

si + c2i −
2
1 = 0, i = 1, ..., n − 1. (18)
Using (8), we rewrite (7) as
∑
n−1 They used parametric homotopies [10] to solve numerically
sin ϕi + sin(ϕi − ϕj ) = bi , i = 1, ..., n − 1, (9) (17) and (18). Indeed, they took
j=1
2i − 1
∑
n−1 ωi = −1 + , i = 1, ..., n, (19)
− sin ϕj = bn , (10) n
j=1 where ωi satisfy (6), and investigated the number of equi-
where librium points with respect to various K > 0. Numerical
nωi investigation in [9] shows that the maximal numbers of
bi :=, i = 1, ..., n. (11) distinct real solutions of (9) with n = 3 and n = 4 are
K
6 and 8, respectively,
We need not to consider (10) since summing all n − 1
In this paper, we aim to study how to obtain analytically
equations in (9) yields (10) due to
these equilibrium points and how to determine the maximal
∑
n−1
number of distinct equilibrium points of the Kuramoto model
bn = − bi , (12) for all natural frequencies and coupling gain. Since this is
j=1
a challenging problem, as an initial effort, we tackle this
which is a direct consequence of (6). problem with n = 3 and n = 4 by solving (9) analytically.

2448

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KANPUR. Downloaded on May 09,2020 at 17:26:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 IV. ANALYTICAL SOLUTIONS OF with c2i = 1 − s2i (i = 1, 2) and (25) to obtain:
EQUILIBRIUM POINTS
U1 c1 = U0 , (27)
Without loss of generality, in this paper, we assume that
where
ω1 ≥ ω2 ≥ · · · ≥ ωn ; (20)
U0 := (s1 − b2 )2 − 2b1 (2s1 − b2 ) + 2b21 , (28)
otherwise, we just need to renumber the order of all oscilla- U1 := −2(s1 − b1 )(s1 − b1 − b2 ). (29)
tors. Under (20), we have
Finally, we eliminate c1 by squaring (27); that is,
b1 ≥ b2 ≥ · · · ≥ bn . (21)
U02 − U12 c21 = 0, with c21 = 1 − s21 ,
The idea to solve (9) analytically is to obtain a poly-
which yields directly (22).
nomial equation of s1 in terms of independent param-
Clearly, there are at most 6 real roots of (22) satisfying
eters b1 , b2 , ..., and bn−1 due to (12) by eliminating
|s1 | ≤ 1. Using one of such real solutions, from (25), we
(sn−1 , cn−1 , . . . , s2 , c2 , c1 ). We show below in detail for
obtain s2 . From (27), if U1 ̸= 0, we obtain c1 ; and from
n = 3 and n = 4, and some algebraic computations are
(26), if s1 ̸= 0, we obtain c2 . Thus, if U1 ̸= 0 and s1 ̸= 0
carried out with the aid of Mathematica.
for a real solution of (22) satisfying |s1 | ≤ 1, we can obtain
A. 3 Oscillators a solution of (ϕ1 , ϕ2 ); and we can see that the maximal
number of distinct real solutions satisfying (23) and (24) is
We present the following theorem. 6.
Theorem 1: Consider the Kuramoto model (1) satisfying For a real solution of (22) satisfying |s1 | ≤ 1 such that
assumptions (6) and (20). When n = 3, if letting (ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) be U1 = 0 and/or s1 = 0, we can not obtain c1 from (27)
a real solution of (9), then s1 (sin ϕ1 ) satisfies the following and/or we can not obtain c2 from (26). We discuss the case
6th-order polynomial equation: of U1 = 0 and the case of s1 = 0 below.
∑
6 If U1 = 0; that is, s1 = b1 or s1 = b1 + b2 , then from
ζk sk1 = 0, (22) (27), we obtain U0 = 0. Regarding s1 = b1 and U0 = 0, we
k=0 have U0 = b22 − b21 = 0. Thus, with b1 = b2 or b1 = −b2 ,
where we can show that the number of distinct real solutions of
(23) and (24) is not greater than 6, and the detail is omitted.
ζ0 := b22 (2b1 + b2 )2 , Similarly, regarding s1 = b1 + b2 and U0 = 0, we have
ζ1 := −4b22 (2b1 + b2 ), U0 = −b1 (b1 + 2b2 ) = 0. Thus, with b1 = 0 or b1 = −2b2 ,
we can show that the number of distinct real solutions of
ζ2 := 2(2b41 − 2b1 b2 + 4b31 b2 + b22 + 2b21 (b22 − 1)),
(23) and (24) is not greater than 6 either, and the detail is
ζ3 := −4(2b1 + b2 )(2b1 (b1 + b2 ) − 1), omitted.
ζ4 := 4(6b21 + 6b1 b2 + b22 ) − 3, If s1 = 0, from (22), we obtain ζ0 = 0 which yields b2 = 0
ζ5 := −8(2b1 + b2 ), or b2 = −2b1 . Regarding s1 = 0 and b2 = 0, or regarding
s1 = 0 and b2 = −2b1 , we can show that the number of
ζ6 := 4,
distinct real solutions of (23) and (24) is not greater than 6,
where b1 and b2 are defined in (11). Moreover, (9) has at either, and the detail is omitted.
most 6 distinct real solutions for all possible real b1 and b2 . When b1 = 1/3 and b2 = −2/5, (23) and (24) have
Proof: Using (17) with n = 3 yields 6 distinct real solutions Thus, together with this numerical
example, we complete the proof of Theorem 1.
s1 + s1 c2 − s2 c1 = b1 , (23)
B. 4 Oscillators
s2 − s1 c2 + s2 c1 = b2 . (24)
We present the following theorem:
We can eliminate terms related to s2 , c2 , and c1 to obtain Theorem 2: Consider the Kuramoto model (1) satisfying
(22). assumptions (6) and (20). When n = 4, if letting (ϕ1 , ϕ2 , ϕ3 )
First, summing (23) and (24) yields be a real solution of (9), then s1 (sin ϕ1 ) satisfies the
following 14th-order polynomial equation:
s2 = −s1 + b1 + b2 . (25)
∑
14
From (23), we obtain ηk sk1 = 0, (30)
k=0
s1 c2 = −s1 + s2 c1 + b1 . (26)
where η0 , η1 , η12 , η13 , and η14 are expressed below and
Next, we eliminate c2 by squaring the above equation; that other ηi are omitted:
is, 6
η0 := (b2 + b3 ) (2b1 + b2 + b3 ) ,
6

6 5
(s1 c2 )2 − (−s1 + s2 c1 + b1 )2 = 0, η1 := −8 (b2 + b3 ) (2b1 + b2 + b3 ) ,

2449

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KANPUR. Downloaded on May 09,2020 at 17:26:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 (
η12 := 64 b41 + b22 b23 − (b1 + b2 ) 2 (b1 + b3 ) 2 To eliminate s2 from (43), we need to obtain another
equation described below. Computing the difference between
+ 2b31 (b2 + b3 ) + b21 (b2 + b3 ) 2
the square of the left-hand side term of (39) and using s1 c2
+ 2b1 b2 b3 (b1 + b2 + b3 ) + (2b1 + b2 + b3 ) 2 in (42) yield
× (2b1 (b1 + b2 ) (2b1 + b2 ) b3 ) 2
H1 s2 = H0 , (44)
+ 2b1 (b1 + b2 ) (b1 + b3 ) (b1 + b2 + b3 )
( )) where Hk (k = 0, 1) are functions of s1 and/or c1 described
× 6b21 + b22 + 3b2 b3 + b23 + 6b1 (b2 + b3 ) , (31)
as:
η13 := −128 (b1 + b2 ) (b1 + b3 ) (2b1 + b2 + b3 ) (32) (
2
H0 := (b1 + b2 + b3 ) (b2 + b3 ) + 2b21 (1 + c1 )
(2b1 (b1 + b2 ) + (2b1 + b2 ) b3 ) , (33) )
2
η14 := 64 (b1 + b2 ) (b1 + b3 ) ,
2
(34) + 2b1 (b2 + b3 ) (1 + c1 )
(
where b1 , b2 , and b3 are defined in (11). Moreover, the − 2 2b21 (1 + c1 ) + b1 (2b2 + 3b3 ) (1 + c1 )
number of distinct real solutions of (9) for all possible real )
b1 , b2 , and b3 is not greater than 14. + (b2 + b3 ) (b2 + b3 (1 + c1 )) s1
Proof: Using (17) with n = 4 yields + 2 (b1 + b3 ) (1 + c1 ) s21 , (45)
(
s1 + s1 c2 − s2 c1 + s1 c3 − s3 c1 = b1 , (35) H1 := 2 2b1 (1 + c1 ) + 2b1 (1 + c1 ) (b2 + b3 − s1 )
2

s2 − s1 c2 + s2 c1 + s2 c3 − s3 c2 = b2 , (36) )
+ (b2 + b3 ) (b2 + b3 − (1 + c1 ) s1 ) . (46)
s3 − s1 c3 + s3 c1 − s2 c3 + s3 c2 = b3 . (37)
From (35)–(37), we can eliminate terms related to s3 , c3 , c2 , To eliminate s2 from (43) and (44), we multiply (43) by
s2 , and c1 to obtain (30). H12 and use (44) to obtain
First, summing (35)–(37) yields
H02 Q2 + H0 H1 Q1 + H12 Q0 = 0, (47)
s3 = −s1 − s2 + b1 + b2 + b3 . (38)
which can be rewritten as
Next, to eliminate c3 , we obtain the following two equa-
tions from (35) and (36), respectively, W1 c 1 = W0 , (48)

s1 c3 = −s1 − s1 c2 + s2 c1 + s3 c1 + b1 , (39) where W0 and W1 are 6th order polynomials in terms of s1

s2 c3 = −s2 + s1 c2 − s2 c1 + s3 c2 + b2 , (40) and their detail expressions are omitted. Finally, eliminating
c1 from (48) by computing W02 −W12 c21 = 0 with c21 = 1−s21
then computing (39)×s2 −(40)×s1 and using (38) yield: yields directly (30).
(b1 + b2 + b3 ) s1 c2 = (b1 + (b1 + b2 + b3 ) c1 ) s2 − b2 s1 . Clearly, there are at most 14 distinct real roots of (30)
(41) satisfying |s1 | ≤ 1. Using s1 which is one of such real so-
lutions, we can show that (35)–(37) have at most 14 distinct
If b1 + b2 + b3 = 0, together with b1 + b2 + b3 + b4 = 0 real solutions of (ϕ1 , ϕ2 , ϕ3 ), and the detail is omitted.
from (12) and b1 ≥ b2 ≥ b3 ≥ b4 from (21), we have b4 = 0
and b1 = b2 = b3 = 0; we can show that the number of V. DISCUSSION
distinct real solutions of (35)–(37) is 6, which is not greater
Mehta et al. [9] reported the existence of 8 distinct real
than 14.
solutions of (35)–(37) for some particular (b1 , b2 , b3 ) which
Below we consider the case of b1 +b2 +b3 ̸= 0. We obtain
can be determined from K and ωi in (19). Since we showed
s1 c2 from (41) as follows:
that (35)–(37) have at most 14 distinct real solutions of
(b1 + (b1 + b2 + b3 ) c1 ) s2 − b2 s1 (ϕ1 , ϕ2 , ϕ3 ), we aim to study whether we can find some
s1 c2 = . (42)
b1 + b2 + b3 (b1 , b2 , b3 ) such that the number of real solutions of (35)–
Next, to eliminate c2 from (42), computing the difference (37) is greater than 8.
between the square of the left-hand side term of (41) and To this end, by changing b1 , b2 , and b3 , we investigate
that of its right-hand term yields the change of the number of equilibrium points with respect
to these 3 parameters. From (9) with n = 4, we can see
Q2 s22 + Q1 s2 + Q0 = 0, (43) that |bi | ≤ 3. Instead of searching (b1 , b2 , b3 ) in a cube of
where Qk (k = 0, 1, 2) are functions of s1 and/or c1 [−3, 3] × [−3, 3] × [−3, 3], we can search in a much smaller
described as: region described by

Q0 := (b1 + b3 ) (b1 + 2b2 + b3 ) s21 ,  0 ≤ b1 ≤ 3,


Q1 := 2b2 (b1 + (b1 + b2 + b3 ) c1 ) s1 ,  b1
− ≤ b2 ≤ b1 , (49)
2
Q2 := − (b2 + b3 ) − 2b1 (b1 + b2 + b3 )  3


 − b1 + b 2
≤ b3 ≤ b2 .
− 2b1 (b1 + b2 + b3 )c1 . 2

2450

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KANPUR. Downloaded on May 09,2020 at 17:26:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE I
when s1 = 0, we obtain
N UMBERS OF EP S AND SEP FOR n = 4.
( √ )
1 3
Case b1 b2 b3 EPs SEP (s1 , c1 , s2 , c2 , s3 , c3 ) = 0, −1, , , 0, 1 ,
2 2
11 19 2 ( √ )
2 − 2 1 1 3
6 12 3 (s1 , c1 , s2 , c2 , s3 , c3 ) = 0, −1, , − , 0, 1 ,
4
3
0 0 4 1
2 2
2 ( √ )
1 1 1 1 3
6
2 2 5
6 1 (s1 , c1 , s2 , c2 , s3 , c3 ) = 0, −1, 0, −1, , ,
2 2
8 1 −
1
-1 8 1 ( √ )
2 1 3
10a
1 1
−
1
10 1
(s1 , c1 , s2 , c2 , s3 , c3 ) = 0, −1, 0, −1, , − ,
2 2 2 2 2
53 21 13
10b − 10 1 when s1 = 1/4, we obtain
100 40 25
( √ √ )
1 15 1 15
(s1 , c1 , s2 , c2 , s3 , c3 ) = , , , , 0, 1 ,
4 4 4 4
( √ √ )
To show (49), under assumptions (6) and (20), we have 1 15 1 15
b1 + b2 + b3 + b4 = 0 and b1 ≥ b2 ≥ b3 ≥ b4 . Clearly, 0 ≤ b1 (s1 , c1 , s2 , c2 , s3 , c3 ) = ,− , ,− , 0, 1 ,
4 4 4 4
due to 0 = b1 + b2 + b3 + b4 ≤ 4b1 . Next, −b1 /3 ≤ b2 due to
0 = b1 +b2 +b3 +b4 ≤ b1 +3b2 . Moreover, −(b1 +b2 )/2 ≤ b3
due to 0 = b1 + b2 + b3 + b4 ≤ b1 + b2 + 2b3 .
when s1 = 1/2, we obtain
We vary (b1 , b2 , b3 ) according to (49) and solve (35)–(37) ( √ √ √ )
by obtaining s1 , c1 , s2 , c2 , s3 , c3 from (30), (48), (44), 1 3 1 3 1 3
(42), (38), and (39), respectively. We find that the Kuramoto (s1 , c1 , s2 , c2 , s3 , c3 ) = , , , ,− ,− ,
2 2 2 2 2 2
model with n = 4 has 10 distinct equilibrium points for ( √ √ √ )
certain natural frequencies and coupling gain, see a detailed 1 3 1 3 1 3
(s1 , c1 , s2 , c2 , s3 , c3 ) = ,− , ,− ,− , ,
report in Section VI. We swept (b1 , b2 , b3 ) according to (49) 2 2 2 2 2 2
with an increment of 1/2000 of each bi ; however, we have ( √ )
1 3
not found an example of (b1 , b2 , b3 ) such that the number of (s1 , c1 , s2 , c2 , s3 , c3 ) = , , 0, −1, 0, 1 ,
distinct equilibrium points is greater than 10. Thus, it is our 2 2
( √ )
conjecture that the maximal number of distinct equilibrium 1 3
points of 4 oscillators for all natural frequencies and coupling (s1 , c1 , s2 , c2 , s3 , c3 ) = ,− , 0, −1, 0, 1 .
2 2
gain is 10.
Thus, we obtain
( ) ( π )
ϕ1 , ϕ2 , ϕ3 = π, , 0 , (51)
VI. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES AND SIMULATION ( 6 )
RESULTS ( ) 5π
ϕ1 , ϕ2 , ϕ3 = π, , 0 , (52)
6
( ) ( π )
Due to page limitation, we present numerical examples and ϕ1 , ϕ2 , ϕ3 = π, π, , (53)
simulation results for 4 oscillators to validate the developed ( 6 )
( ) 5π
theoretical results. By changing b1 , b2 , and b3 according to ϕ1 , ϕ2 , ϕ3 = π, π, , (54)
6
(49), we investigate the change of the number of equilibrium ( ) ( )
points with respect to these 3 parameters. We summarize ϕ1 , ϕ2 , ϕ3 = 0.2527, 0.2527, 0 , (55)
( ) ( )
some results of numerical investigation in Table I, where ϕ1 , ϕ2 , ϕ3 = 2.8889, 2.8889, 0 , (56)
( )
EP and SEP denote equilibrium point and stable equilibrium ( ) π π 5π
point, respectively. ϕ1 , ϕ2 , ϕ3 = , , − , (57)
6 6 6
For Case 10a in Table I, calculating (30) yields ( )
( ) 5π 5π π
ϕ1 , ϕ2 , ϕ3 = , , − , (58)
( )2 ( )4 6 6 6
1 1 ( ) ( π )
s1 s1 −
6
s1 − = 0. (50) ϕ1 , ϕ2 , ϕ3 = , π, 0 , (59)
4 2 ( 6 )
( ) 5π
ϕ1 , ϕ2 , ϕ3 = , π, 0 . (60)
We obtain s1 = 0, s1 = 1/4, and s1 = 1/2. We obtain the 6
following 10 distinct real solutions of (35)–(37) described Only the equilibrium point determined by (55) is stable, and
as: the others are unstable. Indeed, the non-zero eigenvalues of

2451

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KANPUR. Downloaded on May 09,2020 at 17:26:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 the Jacobian matrix of (1) evaluated at the stable equilibrium VII. CONCLUSION
point are This paper investigated the equilibrium points of the Ku-
( ) ( ) ramoto model. For the Kuramoto model with 3 (respectively
λ1 , λ2 , λ3 = −3.9365, −3.8942, −0.9788 .
4) oscillators, to obtain analytically all equilibrium points,
For Case 10a in Table I, we take K = 1. From ωi = we showed that we need to solve a polynomial equation of
Kbi /4, we obtain the sine of the phase of an oscillator with the highest order of
6 (respectively 14). We showed that the maximal number of
[ ]T
1 1 1 1 equilibrium points of 3 oscillators for all natural frequencies
ω= , , − , − . (61) and coupling gain is 6. Different from the previous result of
8 8 8 8
the existence of 8 distinct equilibrium points of 4 oscillators,
For an initial state we showed theoretically that the maximal number of distinct
[ ]T equilibrium points is not greater than 14, and we presented
θ(0) = 0.3, −0.6, −0.2, 0.6 , (62) two numerical examples to show the existence of 10 distinct
equilibrium points. From our numerical investigation, our
the simulation results are shown in Fig. 1, each θ̇i (t) con-
conjecture is that the maximal number of distinct equilibrium
verges exponentially to 0, and θ(t) approaches
points of 4 Kuramoto oscillators for all natural frequencies
[ ]T and coupling gain is 10. We validated the synchronization
θ ∗ = 0.1513, 0.1513, −0.1013, −0.1013 . (63)
and convergence to stable equilibrium points by numerical
This shows (θ1∗ − θ4∗ , θ2∗ − θ4∗ , θ3∗ − θ4∗ ) = (0.2527, 0.2527, 0) simulation.
(rounded at the fourth decimal place) which is the same as A future research subject is to extend the results obtained
(ϕ1 , ϕ2 , ϕ3 ) in (55). in this paper to n greater than 4 with possible applications
to power networks in [13], [14].
0.8 0.6 R EFERENCES
θ̇1
[1] Y. Kuramoto, “Self-entrainment of a population of coupled non-linear
0.6 θ̇2 0.4 oscillators,” in International Symposium on Mathematical Problems
θ̇3 in Theoretical Physics, ser. Lecture Notes in Physics, H. Araki, Ed.
0.4 θ̇4 Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1975, vol. 39, pp. 420–422.
0.2 [2] S. H. Strogatz, “From Kuramoto to Crawford: Exploring the onset
of synchronization in populations of coupled oscillators,” Physica D:
0.2 Nonlinear Phenomena, vol. 143, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2000.
θ̇[rad/s]

0
θ[rad]

[3] A. Jadbabaie, N. Motee, and M. Barahona, “On the stability of the

0 Kuramoto model of coupled nonlinear oscillators,” in Proceedings of
the American Control Conference, 2004, pp. 4296 –4301.
−0.2 [4] R. Sepulchre, D. A. Paley, and N. E. Leonard, “Stabilization of planar
−0.2 θ1 collective motion: All-to-all communication,” IEEE Transactions on
−0.4 θ2 Automatic Control, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 811–824, 2007.
−0.4 θ3 [5] N. Chopra and M. Spong, “On exponential synchronization of Ku-
ramoto oscillators,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 54,
−0.6 θ4 no. 2, pp. 353 –357, 2009.
−0.6 [6] F. Dörfler and F. Bullo, “On the critical coupling for Kuramoto
oscillators,” SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, vol. 10,
−0.8 −0.8 no. 3, pp. 1070–1099, 2011.
0 5 10 0 5 10 [7] F. Dörfler and F. Bullo, “Synchronization in complex networks of
time [s] time [s] phase oscillators: A survey,” vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 1539–1564, 2014.
[8] Y. L. Maistrenko, O. Popovych, and P. Tass, “Desynchronization and
chaos in the Kuramoto model,” in Dynamics of Coupled Map Lattices
Fig. 1. Time responses of θ̇ and θ for Case 10a in Table I. and of Related Spatially Extended Systems. Springer, 2005, pp. 285–
306.
[9] D. Mehta, N. Daleo, F. Dörfler, and J. D. Hauenstein, “Algebraic ge-
For Case 10b in Table I, calculating (30) yields a 14th- ometrization of the kuramoto model: Equilibria and stability analysis,”
order polynomial equation with the following 10 distinct real arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.0666, 2014.
[10] A. P. Morgan and A. J. Sommese, “Coefficient-parameter polynomial
solutions: continuation,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 29, no. 2,
pp. 123–160, 1989.
s1 = −0.0407, s1 = −0.0027, s1 = 0.0027, [11] A. Araposthatis, S. Sastry, and P. Varaiya, “Analysis of power-
flow equation,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy
s1 = 0.0709, s1 = 0.0997, s1 = 0.2662, Systems, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 115–126, 1981.
s1 = 0.5070, s1 = 0.5323, s1 = 0.5327, s1 = 0.5561 [12] J. Baillieul and C. I. Byrnes, “Geometric critical point analysis of
lossless power system models,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and
Systems, vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 724–737, 1982.
and 4 complex solutions [13] F. Dorfler and F. Bullo, “Synchronization and transient stability in
power networks and nonuniform Kuramoto oscillators,” SIAM Journal
s1 = −0.000165 ± 0.00938i, s1 = 28.4269 ± 2.0128i. on Control and Optimization, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 1616–1642, 2012.
[14] H. D. Chiang, Direct Methods for Stability Analysis of Electric
Using the results in the proof of Theorem 2, we can find 10 Power Systems: Theoretical Foundation, BCU Methodologies, and
Applications. John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
distinct equilibrium points, and the detail is omitted.

2452

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KANPUR. Downloaded on May 09,2020 at 17:26:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.