An Extension to the Gusić-Tadić Specialization Criterion

Abstract: Let $E/\mathbb Q(t)$ be an elliptic curve and let $t_0 \in \mathbb Q$ be a rational number for which the specialization $E_{t_0}$ is an elliptic curve. In 2015, Gusić and Tadić gave an easy-to-check criterion, based only on a Weierstrass equation for $E/\mathbb Q(t)$, that is sufficient to conclude that the specialization map at $t_0$ is injective. The criterion critically requires that $E$ has nontrivial $\mathbb Q(t)$-rational 2-torsion points. In this article, we explain how the criterion can be used in some cases where this requirement is not satisfied and provide some examples.

\section{Introduction}

Let $C$ be a (complete nonsingular) curve defined over a number field $k$ with function field $k(C)$. Let $E/k(C)$ be an elliptic curve defined by the Weierstrass equation $$y^2 = x^3 +A(t)x+B(t), \qquad A(t), B(t) \in k(C).$$ For any $t_0 \in C(k)$ such that the discriminant $4A(t)^3+27B(t)^2$ of $E$ does not vanish or have a pole at $t_0$, we define the elliptic curve $E_{0}/k$ using the Weierstrass equation $y^2 = x^3 + A(t_0)x+B(t_0)$. The specialization map at $t_0$ is the map
$$\sigma_{t_0} : E(k(C)) \to E_{t_0}(k).$$
which takes the point $(x(t), y(t)) \in E(k(C))$ to $(x(t_0),y(t_0)) \in E_{t_0}(k)$. It is in fact a group homomorphism; that is, it respects the standard chord-and-tangent group laws on the domain and codomain. It is natural to ask what information can be extracted about the relationship between $E(k(C))$ and $E_{t_0}(k)$ through this homomorphism.

In 1952, N\'eron proved (a more general version of) the following theorem.
\begin{theorem} \cite{Neron-Spec} Let $C$ be a curve defined over a number field $k$ with function field $k(C)$. Let $E/k(C)$ be an elliptic curve. Then for infinitely many $t_0 \in C$, the specialization map
$$\sigma_{t_0} : E(k(C)) \to E_{t_0}(k)$$
is injective.
\end{theorem}
Thirty years later, Silverman \cite{Silverman-Spec} improved on N\'eron's result by proving that all but finitely many specialization maps are injective. Despite this, the author knows of no nontrivial examples (that is, no examples of non-split elliptic curves) for which these finitely many non-injective specialization maps have been identified. Methods which allow us to work concretely and effectively with specialization maps allow us to inch closer to computing such an example.

In 2021 \cite{Billingsley-algorithm}, the author discussed an algorithm, based on the proof of Theorem 1, which allows one to effectively check when (most) specialization maps are injective on a given subgroup of the Mordell-Weil group. While this algorithm works nicely, one downfall is that one requires explicit generators of a subgroup in order to apply it. If $C = \mathbb P^1$, one may use the criteria of Gusi\'c and Tadi\'c \cite{GusicTadic} to check if specialization is injective without knowing generators of the Mordell-Weil group. The method, based on 2-descent, only works as long as your elliptic curve has a $k(C)$-rational 2-torsion point, so it leaves the question open for how to work with the situation with unknown generators and no $k(C)$-rational 2-torsion.

The aim of the present article is twofold. First, we will expand on the work of Stoll \cite{Stoll-Spec} in making explicit the connection between Gusi\'c and Tadi\'c's methods and 2-descent. In doing so, we will characterize their work in terms of calculating a concrete ``bounding group" containing a certain subgroup coming from group cohomology. From this perspective, we generalize Gusi\'c and Tadi\'c's criteria to apply in some cases where there is no $k(t)$-rational 2-torsion. We apply this to an example that the previous criterion could not address, then we combine the methods of \cite{Billingsley-algorithm} and Gusi\'c-Tadi\'c to address another example which neither method could work with originally.

The calculations in this article were greatly aided by Sage \cite{sagemath}.

\section{Motivation and Preliminaries} \label{sec:weakmw}

We begin with a review of the proof of the the Weak Mordell-Weil Theorem for Function Fields. The reason for doing this is twofold. First, the proof uses a 2-descent argument, something we will immediately return to when discussing the Gusi\'c-Tadi\'c criteria. Second, the proof here highlights a key difference between employing 2-descent arguments for elliptic curves defined over curves with algebraically closed base fields versus those with, say, base fields which are number fields. The theorem is stated below.

\begin{theorem}[Weak Mordell-Weil Theorem for Function Fields] \label{thm:wmwt} Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field, $C/k$ a smooth projective curve with function field $K = k(C)$ and $E/K$ an elliptic curve. Then the group $E(K)/2E(K)$ is finite.
\end{theorem}

As discussed in \cite{Silverman2}, once one has justified the full Mordell-Weil Theorem for Function Fields, one knows that the statement of Theorem \ref{thm:wmwt} remains true with $k$ replaced by any field of characteristic 0 (when $E$ is nonsplit). However, the proof below critically uses that $k$ is algebraically closed, as we will see shortly. Fix a Weierstrass equation $y^2 = p(x)$ for $E/K$. By replacing $C$ with the smooth projective curve corresponding to the splitting field of $p(x)$, we may assume that
$$p(x) = (x-e_1)(x-e_2)(x-e_3)$$
with $e_i \in K$ (see \cite[Chapter VIII Lemma 1.1.1]{Silverman1}). Taking Gal$(\bar K/K)$-cohomology of the exact sequence

\begin{center}\begin{tikzcd} 0 \arrow[r] & E[2](\bar K) \arrow[r] & E(\bar K)  \arrow[r, "\text{[2]}"] & E(\bar K) \arrow[r] & 0 \end{tikzcd}\end{center}
yields the usual connecting homomorphism
$$c: E(K) \to H^1(\text{Gal}(\bar K/K), E[2](\bar K))$$
with kernel $2E(K)$. Fixing a $\mathbb Z/2 \mathbb Z$-basis $\{(e_1,0), (e_2,0)\}$ of $E[2](K)$, we obtain an isomorphism
$$H^1(\text{Gal}(\bar K/K), E[2](\bar K)) \cong K^*/(K^*)^2 \times K^*/(K^*)^2.$$
Composing $c$ with this isomorphism and factoring out the kernel yields the injective homomorphism
$$\delta : E(K)/2E(K) \to  K^*/(K^*)^2 \times K^*/(K^*)^2$$
where
$$\delta(P) = \begin{cases}
(x(P)-e_1,x(P)-e_2) & \text{ if } x(P) \neq e_1,e_2, \\
((e_1-e_3)(e_1-e_2),e_1-e_2) & \text{ if } x(P) = e_1,\\
(e_2-e_1,(e_2-e_3)(e_2-e_1)) & \text{ if } x(P) = e_2, \\
(1,1) & \text{ if } P = O.
\end{cases}$$

Let $S$ be the set of points of $C(k)$ such that for each $t_0$ in $S$ we have that either $e_1, e_2$ or $e_3$ has a pole or the discriminant of $E$ vanishes. Then
$$\text{im } \delta \subset K(S,2) \times K(S,2)$$
where $K(S,2) = \{ f \in K^*/(K^*)^2 \mid \text{ord}_{t_0}(f) \equiv 0 \text{ mod } 2 \text{ for every } t_0 \notin S \}.$ Assuming that $k$ is algebraically closed, one can show that $K(S,2)$ is finite by showing that it is an extension of a finite group by a subgroup of Pic$(C)[2]$ (which is also finite), completing the proof. For more details about these arguments, see \cite[Chapter 3 \S 2]{Silverman2}.

Notice that it is certainly not always true that $K(S,2)$ is finite when $k$ fails to be algebraically closed. For instance, take $k = \mathbb Q$, $C = \mathbb P^1$ and $S = \emptyset$. Then
$$K(S,2) = \{ f \in \mathbb Q(t)^*/(\mathbb Q(t)^*)^2 \mid \text{ord}_v(f) \equiv 0 \text{ mod } 2 \text{ for every place } v \text{ of } \mathbb Q(t)\}.$$
Now $K(S,2)$ contains the set of squarefree integers, so $K(S,2)$ isn't even finitely generated. The difference highlighted here is critical to the following discussion.

We now recall some effective specialization results that will be needed in \S \ref{sec:2divcurves}. For details, see \cite{Billingsley-algorithm} or \cite{thesis}. First, we will need the following group-theoretic criterion to show that specialization maps are injective.

\begin{proposition} \label{prop:grouptheory}
Let $n$ be a positive integer and let $\phi: M \to N$ be a homomorphism of abelian groups with the following properties.
	\begin{enumerate}
	\item $M$ is finitely generated.
	\item The induced map $\bar\phi: M/nM \to N/nN$ is injective.
	\item $\phi|_{M[n]}$ gives an isomorphism $M[n] \cong N[n]$.
	\item $\phi|_{M_\text{tors}}$ is injective.
	\end{enumerate}
Then $\phi$ is injective.
\end{proposition}

For our applications, fix an elliptic curve $E$ over $\mathbb Q(t)$. Set $\phi = \sigma_{t_0}$ to be the specialization homomorphism for a fixed $t_0 \in \mathbb Q$, $M = E(\mathbb Q(t))$, $N = E_{t_0}(\mathbb Q)$ and $n \geq 2$ a positive integer. In this case, conditions 1 and 4 above are always true; indeed, condition 1 is the function field version of the Mordell-Weil Theorem \cite[Chapter III \S 6]{Silverman2}, and condition 4 follows from basic results on formal groups of elliptic curves and their relationship to reduction mod $p$ found in Silverman \cite[Chapter VII \S 3]{Silverman1}. So checking conditions 2 and 3 suffice to show that a given specialization map is injective. We provide two examples below that show that neither of the two conditions imply the other in general, then we provide a third example that shows that condition 2 is not necessary for specialization to be injective.

\begin{example} \label{ex:torsion_needed} (2 holds, but not 3)
Let $E: y^2 = x^3-(t^2+27)x+(10t^2+48t+90)$, $\phi = \sigma_{30}$, $M = E(\mathbb Q(t))$, $N = E_{30}(\mathbb Q)$ and $n = 2$. In \cite{Shioda-Examples}, this elliptic curve is shown to have Mordell-Weil rank 4 and to have no nontrivial torsion points over $\mathbb{Q}(t)$. The Mordell-Weil group is generated by the four points $P_1 = (9, t+24), P_2 = (6,2t+12), P_3 = (1,3t+8)$ and $P_4 = (t+3,4t+6)$, so a complete set of representatives for the nonidentity cosets of $2E(\mathbb Q(t))$ in $E(\mathbb Q(t))$ is
$$\left\{\sum_{i \in C} P_i \mid C \subset \{1,2,3,4\}, C \neq \emptyset\right\}.$$
One can check (for instance, using the {\upshape \texttt{EllipticCurve}} method {\upshape \texttt{division\_points(2)}} in Sage) that for $t=30$ the specialization of each of these 15 points is not divisible by 2 in $E_{30}$. Thus
$$\closure[1]{\sigma_{30}}: E(\mathbb Q(t))/2E(\mathbb Q(t)) \to E_{30}(\mathbb Q)/2E_{30}(\mathbb Q)$$
 is injective. However, the Mordell-Weil group of $E_{30}$ is $\mathbb{Z}^3 \times \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$, so $\sigma_{30}$ cannot be injective. In particular, condition 3 of Proposition \ref{prop:grouptheory} does not hold, but condition 2 does hold.
\end{example}

\begin{example} (3 holds, but not 2)
Let $E: y^2 = x^3-t^2x+t^2, \phi = \sigma_{2}$, $M = E(\mathbb Q(t))$, $N = E_{2}(\mathbb Q)$ and $n = 2$. One can check that $E(\mathbb Q(t)) \cong \mathbb Z^2$ with generators
$$P = (t,t), Q = (0,t).$$
Then, using Sage, one can check that the specialization $E_2$ has $E_2(\mathbb Q) \cong \mathbb Z$. Hence $\closure[1]{\sigma_2}$ is a map from a group of order 4 to a group of order 2, so $\closure[1]{\sigma_2}$ cannot be injective.
\end{example}

\begin{example} \label{ex:linear_algebra}
Let $t_0 = 27$. On the elliptic curve $E_{27}: y^2 = x^3 - 729x + 729$, notice that
$$[2](-9,81) = (27,27) = P_{27},$$
so condition 2 of Proposition \ref{prop:grouptheory} fails. A check using Sage shows that $E_{27}(\mathbb Q) \cong \mathbb Z^2$ with generators $R_1 = (-9,81)$ and $R_2 = (-27,27)$. Now $P_{27} = 2R_1$ and $Q_{27} = -(2R_1+R_2)$, meaning the matrix of the specialization map $\sigma_{27}$ with respect to the ordered bases $\{P,Q\}$ and $\{R_1,R_2\}$ is
$$\begin{bmatrix}
2 & -2 \\
0 & -1
\end{bmatrix}.$$
The determinant of this matrix is $-2 \neq 0$, so $\sigma_{27}$ is injective.
\end{example}

Proposition \ref{prop:grouptheory} can be applied to yield an algorithm for checking if a specialization map is injective.

\begin{algorithm} \label{algorithm}
Let $E/\mathbb Q(t)$ be an elliptic curve given by a Weierstrass equation and let $M < E(\mathbb Q(t))$ be a subgroup such that the inclusion $M \subset E(\mathbb Q(t))$ satisfies the hypotheses of Proposition \ref{prop:grouptheory}. Then for all $t_0 \in \mathbb Q$ except those contained in a certain Hilbert subset of $\mathbb Q$, there is an algorithm which shows that the specialization map $\sigma_{t_0}|_M$ is injective.
\end{algorithm}

The details of this algorithm are not important for our purposes, but we highlight two requirements to use it that will be relevant later.

\begin{enumerate}
	\item The fact that $M \subset E(\mathbb Q(t))$ satisfies Proposition \ref{prop:grouptheory} forces $M$ to have the property that whenever $2P \in M$ for some $P \in E(\mathbb Q(t))$, we must have $P \in M$ as well.
	\item The algorithm requires computing generators of $E(\mathbb Q(t))/nE(\mathbb Q(t))$ for some $n$. In practice, this is often $n=2$.
\end{enumerate}

\section{The Gusi\'c-Tadi\'c Criterion for Full 2-Torsion}

Let $k$ be a number field, $C/k$ a smooth projective curve with function field $K = k(C)$ and $E/K$ an elliptic curve. In this section, it is critical to (and we do) assume that
$$E[2](\bar K) \subset E(K).$$
Let $t_0 \in C(k)$, and let $\mathcal O_{t_0} \subset K$ denote the subring of functions $f$ with ord$_{t_0}(f) \geq 0$. Evaluation at $t_0$ induces a ring map
\begin{align*}
s_{t_0}: \mathcal O_{t_0} &\to k \\
f &\mapsto f(t_0).
\end{align*}
This map is precisely what the specialization map $\sigma_{t_0}$ does to the coordinates of points in $E(K)$ once we've fixed a Weierstrass equation (even when a coordinate has a pole at $t_0$, this remains true after appropriate scaling if we view the points in $\mathbb P^2$). Using this map, we can view specialization of $E(K)/2E(K)$ as specialization of im$(\delta)$ (as defined in the previous section). Thus, as implied by Stoll's conceptual proof \cite{Stoll-Spec} of the results of Gusi\'c and Tadi\'c  \cite{GusicTadic} (for $C = \mathbb P^1$ and $k = \mathbb Q$) and motivated by the proof of the Weak Mordell-Weil Theorem, we have the following procedure for determining injectivity of a specialization map.

\begin{algorithm} \label{alg:Stoll_2-descent} Let $\delta$ be the 2-descent map as defined above, and let $t_0 \in C(k)$ be a $k$-rational point of $C$ such that the specialization $E_{t_0}$ is an elliptic curve. \begin{enumerate}
\item Find a finitely generated group $G \subset \mathcal O_{t_0}^*/(\mathcal O_{t_0}^*)^2 \times \mathcal O_{t_0}^*/(\mathcal O_{t_0}^*)^2$ containing im$(\delta).$
\item For each of the (finitely many) nonzero $(f,g) \in G$, evaluate $f$ and $g$ at $t_0$ and determine whether or not $f(t_0)$ and $g(t_0)$ are squares in $k$.
\item If each tuple from step 2 has an entry which is not a square in $k$, the specialization map $\sigma_{t_0}$ is injective.
\end{enumerate}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{proof}
First, since $G$ is finitely generated from Step 1 and $2G = 0$, we know that $G$ is actually finite, making Step 2 make sense. It remains to verify that Step 3 follows from Steps 1 and 2. To do this, we will show that the conditions of Proposition \ref{prop:grouptheory} hold for $n=2$, $\phi = \sigma_{t_0}$, $M = E(K)$ and $N = E_{t_0}(k)$. We have a commutative diagram
\begin{center}\begin{tikzcd}
E(K)/2E(K) \arrow[r,"\delta"] \arrow[d, "{\closure[1]{\sigma_{t_0}}}"] & G \arrow[d,"{\closure[1]{s_{t_0}} \times \closure[1]{s_{t_0}}}"] \\
E_{t_0}(k)/2E_{t_0}(k) \arrow[r,"\delta_{t_0}"] & k^*/(k^*)^2 \times k^*/(k^*)^2.
\end{tikzcd}\end{center}
Recall that the vertical maps evaluate functions at $t_0$ (so that the evaluation in Step 2 is the same as plugging tuples into $\closure[1]{s_{t_0}} \times \closure[1]{s_{t_0}}$)  and the horizontal maps are the 2-descent maps defined above. Thus the check in Step 3 shows that no tuple from Step 2 is in the kernel of $\closure[1]{s_{t_0}} \times \closure[1]{s_{t_0}}$. Hence $\closure[1]{s_{t_0}} \times \closure[1]{s_{t_0}}$ is injective. Since $\delta$ is always injective, following the diagram we see that $\closure[1]{\sigma_{t_0}}$ is also injective. Thus condition 2 of Proposition \ref{prop:grouptheory} is satisfied. Since $E(K)$ has full 2-torsion and $\sigma_{t_0}$ is injective on torsion, $E_{t_0}(k)$ also has full 2-torsion. Thus condition 3 is also satisfied. Hence $\sigma_{t_0}$ is injective (recall that the other two conditions of Proposition \ref{prop:grouptheory} are always satisfied under our assumptions).
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} Note that we cannot use $G = K(S,2) \times K(S,2)$ for any set of places $S$, because $K(S,2)$ fails to be finitely generated. Additionally, if one tries to resolve this by replacing $k$ with $\bar k$, notice that this results in $s_{t_0}$ becoming the zero map.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
If one already knows $E(K)/2E(K)$, such as in the situation of Algorithm \ref{algorithm}, this approach gives an alternative way to check that $\closure[1]{\sigma_{t_0}}$ is injective. Indeed, in this case we simply take $G = \text{im } \delta$.
\end{remark}

Of course, the difficulty in applying Algorithm \ref{alg:Stoll_2-descent} is finding the ``bounding group" $G$. In 2015, Gusi\'c and Tadi\'c \cite{GusicTadic} found an effectively computable bounding group $G$, independent of any points in $E(K)$, in the case of $C = \mathbb P^1$. Before stating and proving their result from this perspective, we recall a fact from algebraic number theory.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:ufd} Let $k$ be a number field. There exists a unique factorization domain $R$ containing the ring of integers $\mathcal O_k$ with a finitely generated unit group.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Dirichlet's Unit Theorem guarantees that $\mathcal O_k$ has a finitely generated unit group, so take $R = \mathcal O_k$ if $k$ has class number 1. Otherwise, let $\mathfrak a_1, ... , \mathfrak a_k$ be a set of generators for Cl$(\mathcal O_k)$, and let $R$ be the ring of $S$-integers of $k$ where $S$ contains the prime factors of all $\mathfrak a_i$'s. Then $R$ has trivial class group, and Dirichlet's $S$-unit theorem says $R^*$ is finitely generated.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem} \cite{GusicTadic} \label{thm:GT_2-descent} Let $k$ be a number field and let $R$ be as in the lemma. Let $E/k(t)$ be an elliptic curve given by a Weierstrass equation
$$E: y^2 = (x-e_1)(x-e_2)(x-e_3)$$
with $e_i \in R[t]$ for each $i$. Let $G$ be the subgroup of $k(t)^*/(k(t)^*)^2 \times k(t)^*/(k(t)^*)^2$ generated by tuples with coordinates coming from the irreducible factors of
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:disc_factors} e_1-e_2, \qquad e_2-e_3, \qquad e_1-e_3 \end{equation}
in (the UFD) $R[t]$ and the units of $R$. Then $G$ is finitely generated and the connecting homomorphism $\delta$ has im$(\delta) \subset G$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since our tuples include units of $R$, any choice of irreducible factors of $e_i-e_j$ works. Additionally, since $R^*$ is finitely generated, there are only finitely many units of $R^*$ modulo squares. Hence $G$ is finitely generated. It remains to show that im$(\delta) \subset G$. From the definition of $\delta$ given in Section \ref{sec:weakmw}, it suffices to show that, for any nonidentity $P \in E(k(t))$, if $f$ is a prime of $R[t]$ with
$$\text{ord}_f(x(P)-e_i) \equiv 1 \text{ mod } 2$$
 for $i = 1,2$, then $f$ divides some polynomial in \eqref{eqn:disc_factors}. Suppose there is some $f$ for which $\text{ord}_f(x(P)-e_i)$ is odd. WLOG assume $i = 1$. Recall that
$$y(P)^2 = (x(P)-e_1)(x(P)-e_2)(x(P)-e_3).$$
By setting $X = x(P)-e_1$ and $Y = y(P)$, we have
$$Y^2 = X(X-(e_2-e_1))(X-(e_3-e_1)) = X(X^2-(2e_1-e_2-e_3)X + (e_2-e_1)(e_3-e_1)).$$
Now $\text{ord}_f(X)$ is odd, so $\text{ord}_f(X^2-(2e_1-e_2-e_3)X + (e_1-e_2)(e_1-e_3))$ is odd (otherwise $Y^2$ cannot be a square). Thus $\text{ord}_f((e_1-e_2)(e_1-e_3))$ is nonzero, hence positive since $(e_1-e_2)(e_1-e_3) \in R[t]$. Since $f$ is prime, we have that $f$ divides $e_1-e_2$ or $e_1-e_3$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark} Note that the finite generation of $R^*$ is critical in establishing that $G$ is finitely generated. In particular, one cannot replace $R$ by $k$ and have a similar result. Even if one were willing to accept that $G$ would not be finitely generated in this case, notice that for any $t_0$ such that $G \subset \mathcal O_{t_0}^*/(\mathcal O_{t_0}^*)^2 \times \mathcal O_{t_0}^*/(\mathcal O_{t_0}^*)^2$, Step 3 of Algorithm \ref{alg:Stoll_2-descent} is never satisfied. Indeed, say $f$ is a prime factor of $e_i-e_j$. Recall that $f \in \mathcal O_{t_0}^*$ means that $f(t_0) \neq 0$, so that $f(t_0) \in k^*$. Then the tuple $(f(t_0)f,1) \in G$ specializes to $(f(t_0)^2,1)$ .

\end{remark}

\section{The Gusi\'c Criterion for a Single 2-Torsion Point}

In this section, we recast the criterion of Gusi\'c \cite{GusicTadic} in terms of bounding groups. We first briefly review the basics of descent by 2-isogeny; for the full details, see \cite[Chapter 10 \S 4]{Silverman1} (and note that the relevant facts do not require $E$ to be defined over a number field). Let $k$ be a number field, $C/k$ a smooth projective curve with function field $K = k(C)$ and $E/K$ an elliptic curve. While one can do descent by 2-isogeny when $E(K)$ has full 2-torsion, the results we establish later will require exactly one nontrivial 2-torsion point. Hence, in this section, it is critical to (and we do) assume that
$$E(K) \text{ has exactly one nontrivial 2-torsion point.}$$
Any elliptic curve satisfying these assumptions has a Weierstrass equation of the form
$$y^2 = x^3+ax^2+bx$$
with $2$-torsion point (0,0) and $a^2-4b$ not a square in $K$. We have a 2-isogeny $\phi$ with kernel $\{O,(0,0)\}$ defined by the formula
\begin{align*}
\phi: E &\to E', \\
 (x,y) &\mapsto \left( \frac{y^2}{x^2}, \frac{y(b-x^2)}{x^2} \right),
\end{align*}
where the dual curve $E'$ is defined by
$$E' : Y^2 = X^3-2aX^2+(a^2-4b)X$$
with dual isogeny
\begin{align*}
\hat \phi: E' &\to E, \\
(X,Y) &\mapsto \left( \frac{Y^2}{4X^2}, \frac{Y(a^2-4b-X^2)}{8X^2}\right)
\end{align*}
that has kernel $\{O',(0,0)\}$. We have an exact sequence
\begin{center}\begin{tikzcd} 0 \arrow[r] & E[\phi](\bar K) \arrow[r] & E(\bar K)  \arrow[r, "\phi"] & E'(\bar K) \arrow[r] & 0, \end{tikzcd}\end{center}
and taking Gal$(\bar K/K)$-cohomology yields the connecting homomorphism
$$c_{\phi} : E'(K) \to H^1(\text{Gal}(\bar K/K), E[\phi](\bar K)).$$
Here,
$$H^1(\text{Gal}(\bar K/K), E[\phi](\bar K)) \cong K^*/(K^*)^2,$$
so factoring out the kernel $E[\phi](K)$ and composing with this isomorphism gives a map
$$\delta_\phi : E'(K)/\phi(E(K)) \to K^*/(K^*)^2$$
such that
$$\delta_\phi(P) = \begin{cases}
X(P) & \text{ if } P \neq O',(0,0), \\
a^2-4b & \text{ if } P = (0,0),\\
1 & \text{ if } P = O'.
\end{cases}$$
We similarly obtain
$$\delta_{\hat \phi} : E(K)/\hat\phi(E'(K)) \to K^*/(K^*)^2$$
where
$$\delta_{\hat\phi}(P) = \begin{cases}
x(P) & \text{ if } P \neq O,(0,0), \\
b & \text{ if } P = (0,0),\\
1 & \text{ if } P = O.
\end{cases}$$

We have a specialization algorithm similar to Algorithm \ref{alg:Stoll_2-descent} in this case. The main ideas for the proof can be found in \cite{GusicTadic}.

\begin{algorithm}\label{alg:Stoll_2-isogeny} Let $\delta_\phi$ and $\delta_{\hat\phi}$ be the descent maps as defined above, and let $t_0 \in C(k)$ be a $k$-rational point of $C$ such that the specialization $E_{t_0}$ is an elliptic curve and $a,b \in \mathcal O_{t_0}$.
 \begin{enumerate}
\item Find finitely generated groups $G_\phi, G_{\hat\phi} \subset \mathcal O_{t_0}^*/(\mathcal O_{t_0}^*)^2$ containing im$(\delta_\phi)$ and im$(\delta_{\hat\phi})$, respectively.
\item For each of the (finitely many) nonzero $f \in G_\phi$ and $g \in G_{\hat\phi}$, evaluate $f$ and $g$ at $t_0$ and determine whether or not $f(t_0)$ and $g(t_0)$ are squares in $k$.
\item If no values in step 2 are squares, the specialization map $\sigma_{t_0}$ is injective.
\end{enumerate}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{proof} As with the proof of Algorithm \ref{alg:Stoll_2-descent}, we verify the conditions of Proposition \ref{prop:grouptheory} for $n=2, \phi = \sigma_{t_0}$, $M = E(K)$ and $N = E_{t_0}(k)$ (of which conditions 1 and 4 are clearly satisfied). For condition 3, since ${a^2-4b \in \,\text{im}(\delta_\phi)} \setminus \{1\}$ (recall our assumptions at the start of this section), we know that $a(t_0)^2-4b(t_0)$ is not a square in $k$. The specialized curve $E_{t_0}$ has the 2-torsion point (0,0) and has additional $k$-rational 2-torsion points if and only if $x^2+a(t_0)x+b(t_0)$ has roots in $k$; that is, if its discriminant $a^2-4b$ is a square in $k$. Hence $E_{t_0}$ does not gain additional $k$-rational 2-torsion, so condition 3 holds. To see that condition 2 holds, let $P \in E(K)$ and suppose that $P_{t_0}$ is divisible by 2 in $E_{t_0}(k)$, say
$$P_{t_0} = 2p = (\hat\phi_{t_0} \circ \phi_{t_0})(p)$$
where $p \in E_{t_0}(k)$. Then $P_{t_0} \in \,\text{im}(\hat\phi_{t_0}).$ Using the commutative diagram

\begin{center}\begin{tikzcd}
E(K)/\hat\phi(E'(K)) \arrow[r,"\delta_{\hat\phi}"] \arrow[d, "{\closure[1]{\sigma_{t_0}}}"] & G_{\hat\phi} \arrow[d,"{\closure[1]{s_{t_0}}}"] \\
E_{t_0}(k)/\hat\phi_{t_0}(E'_{t_0}(k)) \arrow[r,"\delta_{\hat\phi_{t_0}}"] & k^*/(k^*)^2,
\end{tikzcd}\end{center}
we see that that going down then right takes $P$ to zero. Hence going right then down also maps to zero. From Step 3, we have that $\closure[1]{s_{t_0}}$ is injective on $G_{\hat\phi}.$ Since $\delta_{\hat\phi}$ is also (always) injective, we must have that $P \in \hat\phi(E'(K)).$ Say $P = \hat\phi(Q)$ where $Q \in E'(K)$. Then
$$\hat\phi_{t_0}(Q_{t_0}) = P_{t_0} =  \hat\phi_{t_0}(\phi_{t_0}(p)),$$
so that $\hat\phi(Q_{t_0}-\phi_{t_0}(p)) = O$. So by possibly replacing $Q$ by $Q+(0,0)$ (which still will map to $P$), we may assume that $Q_{t_0} = \phi_{t_0}(p).$ Repeating the same argument as above using $Q$ instead of $P$ and the appropriate duals, we find a point $R \in E(K)$ with $\phi(R) = Q$. Then $P = \hat\phi(Q) = \hat\phi(\phi(R)) = [2]R,$ so $P$ is divisible by $2$ in $E(K)$. This means that $P$ is zero in $E(K)/2E(K),$ so this shows that $\closure[1]{\sigma_{t_0}}$ is injective. Hence condition 2 holds.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
Based on the definition of the map $\delta_\phi$, notice that we will not be able to show that a specialization map is injective using this algorithm if $a^2-4b$ is a square. Hence our assumption that $E(K)$ has exactly one nontrivial $K$-rational 2-torsion point is required. However, if $a^2-4b$ is a square then $E(K)$ has full 2-torsion, putting us back in the case of Algorithm \ref{alg:Stoll_2-descent}.
\end{remark}

\begin{theorem} \cite{GusicTadic} \label{thm:GT_2-isogeny} Let $k$ be a number field and let $R$ be as in Lemma \ref{lem:ufd}. Let $E/k(t)$ be an elliptic curve given by the Weierstrass equation
$$E: y^2 = x^3+ax^2+bx$$
with $a,b \in R[t]$. Let $G_\phi, G_{\hat\phi}$ be the subgroups of $k(t)^*/(k(t)^*)^2$ generated by the irreducible factors of
$$ b \text{ and } a^2-4b$$
in $R[t]$, respectively, and the units of $R$. Then $G_\phi, G_{\hat\phi}$ are finitely generated with im$(\delta_\phi) \subset G_\phi$ and im$(\delta_{\hat\phi}) \subset G_{\hat\phi}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Exactly as in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:GT_2-descent}, $G_\phi$ and $G_{\hat\phi}$ are finitely generated. To show the inclusion im$(\delta_{\hat\phi}) \subset G_{\hat\phi}$, let $P \in E(K)$. We need to show that, for any prime $f \in R[t]$ with ord$_f(x(P))$ odd,  $f$ must be a factor of $a^2-4b$. But our Weierstrass equation is of the same form as the transformed equation in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:GT_2-descent}, so the same argument works here. Similarly, using the Weierstrass equation for $E'$ we obtain the corresponding statement for $\delta$ and $b$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark} \label{rem:discriminant} In Theorem \ref{thm:GT_2-descent}, note that the discriminant of $E$ is
$$16((e_3-e_1)(e_3-e_2)(e_2-e_1))^2.$$
Hence the factors considered there are a subset of those of the discriminant of $E$.

Additionally, in Theorem \ref{thm:GT_2-isogeny}, $E$ has discriminant $-16b^2(a^2-4b)$ and the dual curve $E'$ referenced above has discriminant $2^{10}b(a^2-4b)^2$. Hence the factors considered there are a subset of those of either discriminant. In particular, recall that, for an elliptic curve with a 2-torsion point that is not $(0,0)$, moving the 2-torsion point to $(0,0)$ does not change the discriminant. Thus we can apply Theorem \ref{thm:GT_2-isogeny} to any elliptic curve with exactly one nontrivial 2-torsion point by considering factors of the discriminant. Further, since we have demonstrated that what matters is the factors of $b$ and $a^2-4b$, we may ignore the $16$ in front of the discriminant of $E$; that is, we can take the factors of $\Delta_E$/16 and still obtain a bounding group.

\end{remark}

\section{Rational 2-division Curves} \label{sec:2divcurves}

Notice that all methods discussed previously show that a specialization map is injective by ultimately showing that the induced map on $E(K)/2E(K)$ is injective. As Example \ref{ex:torsion_needed} shows, this alone does not imply that specialization is injective. Additionally, Example \ref{ex:linear_algebra} shows that specialization can be injective without this condition holding true. Provided that certain polynomials define a rational curve over $\mathbb Q$, we provide a way to get around this for certain specializations. In particular, if the 2-torsion curve is rational, this approach allows us to apply the criterion of Gusi\'c to certain specializations of elliptic curves without rational 2-torsion points. The following Proposition provides the setup to apply Gusi\'c's criterion in this new way.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:torsion_division} Let $k$ be a number field. Let $E/k(t)$ be an elliptic curve given by the Weierstrass equation
$$y^2 = x^3+A(t)x+B(t)$$
such that the 2-torsion curve
$$C_2: a^3+A(t)a+B(t)=0$$
is irreducible and rational over $k$. Fix an isomorphism of function fields
\begin{align*}
k(C_2) &\cong k(\alpha) \\
t &\mapsto u(\alpha) \\
a &\mapsto v(\alpha).
\end{align*}
Then the elliptic curve
$$E': y^2 = x^3+A(u(\alpha))x+B(u(\alpha))$$
defined over $k(\alpha)$ has the following properties.
\begin{enumerate}
	\item $E'(k(\alpha))$ has the nontrivial 2-torsion point $(v(\alpha),0)$.
	\item The function field isomorphism gives an embedding $E(k(t)) \subset E'(k(\alpha)).$
	\item Let $\alpha_0 \in k$ and set $t_0 = u(\alpha_0)$. Let $M < E(k(t))$ be a subgroup. If the specialization map $\sigma'_{\alpha_0}$ for $E'$ is injective on the image of $M$ via the embedding above, then the specialization map $\sigma_{t_0}|_M$ for $E$ is injective.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Note that $x^3+A(t)x+B(t)$ vanishes at $x = a$. By applying the isomorphism of function fields above, we see that $x^3+A(u(\alpha))x+B(u(\alpha))$ vanishes at $x = v(\alpha)$. However, $v(\alpha) \in k(\alpha)$, so $E'$ has the $k(\alpha)$-rational 2-torsion point $(v(\alpha),0)$.
\item The map $t \mapsto u(\alpha)$ gives an injection of function fields $k(t) \to k(\alpha)$. Now if $Q = (x_Q(t),y_Q(t)) \in E(k(t)) \setminus \{O\}$, then
	$$Q' = (x_Q(u(\alpha)),y_Q(u(\alpha))) \in E'(k(\alpha)),$$
	since $E'$ was obtained from $E$ by the same substitution. It's now clear from the injection of function fields that if $Q_1' = Q_2'$ then $Q_1 = Q_2$. Indeed if $f(t) = x_{Q_1}(t) - x_{Q_2}(t)$ evaluates to 0 under the map $t \mapsto u(\alpha)$ then $f(t)$ is identically zero; we can argue similarly for the $y$-coordinates.

	\item From the formulas above and claim 2, we have a commutative diagram

	\begin{center}\begin{tikzcd}
E(k(t)) \arrow[r] \arrow[d, "\sigma_{t_0}"] & E'(k(\alpha)) \arrow[d, "\sigma_{\alpha_0}"] \\
E_{t_0}(k) \arrow[r, "\sim"] & E'_{\alpha_0}(k)
\end{tikzcd}\end{center}
where the top arrow is an injection and the bottom arrow is the identity map. Hence if $\sigma_{t_0}(Q) = O_{t_0}$, then $Q$ maps to $O'_{\alpha_0}$ going both ways on the diagram. But going right then down is an injection, so $Q = O$.

\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
You can change variables on $E'$ (preserving Weierstrass form) and still preserve the statements above. For the commutative diagram in the proof of statement 3, instead of the bottom arrow being equality it becomes an isomorphism, and the top arrow is also changed by an isomorphism.
\end{remark}

The benefit of Proposition \ref{prop:torsion_division} is that one always has a 2-torsion point in $E'(\mathbb Q(\alpha))$. Thus one can use Theorem \ref{thm:GT_2-isogeny} (or, in the unlikely case that the polynomial defining $C_2$ is a cyclic cubic over $k(t)$, Theorem \ref{thm:GT_2-descent}) on $E'$ to make statements about the injectivity of specialization maps for $E$ despite the fact that $E$ has no nontrivial $\mathbb Q(t)$-rational 2-torsion points. In particular, in contrast with Algorithm $\ref{algorithm}$, generators of $E(\mathbb Q(t))$ do not need to be known to do this. We illustrate this with the example
$$E: y^2 = x^3-t^2x+t^2.$$
Set
$$C_2 : a^3-t^2a+t^2 = 0.$$
Using Sage, we obtain the isomorphism of function fields
\begin{align*}
\mathbb Q(C) &\cong \mathbb Q(\alpha) \\
t &\mapsto \frac{1}{\alpha-\alpha^3} \\
a &\mapsto \frac{1}{1-\alpha^2}.
\end{align*}
Via this isomorphism, we obtain the new elliptic curve
$$E': y^2 = x^3-\frac{1}{(\alpha-\alpha^3)^2}x+\frac{1}{(\alpha-\alpha^3)^2}.$$
Setting $x = (\alpha-\alpha^3)^{-2}X$ and $y = (\alpha-\alpha^3)^{-3}Y$, we obtain
$$E'': Y^2 = X^3-(\alpha-\alpha^3)^2X+(\alpha-\alpha^3)^4$$
with $2$-torsion point $(\alpha^4-\alpha^2,0)$. This elliptic curve has discriminant
$$-16\alpha^6(\alpha-1)^6(\alpha+1)^6(3\alpha^2-4)(3\alpha^2-1)^2.$$
Applying Theorem \ref{thm:GT_2-isogeny} to $E''$ now yields the following statement.

\begin{proposition} \label{prop:GT_example_notorsion}
Let $E$ be as above and $t_0$ be a rational number of the form \break $t_0 = 1/(\alpha_0-\alpha_0^3)$ for some rational number $\alpha_0$. Let $\Phi$ be the set of irreducible factors of
$$-\alpha^6(\alpha-1)^6(\alpha+1)^6(3\alpha^2-4)(3\alpha^2-1)^2$$
in $\mathbb Z[\alpha]$. Suppose that, for each product $h(\alpha)$ of some nonempty subset of the elements of $\Phi$, the rational number $h(\alpha_0)$ is not a square. Then the specialization map $\sigma_{t_0}$ is injective.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Theorem \ref{thm:GT_2-isogeny}, Remark \ref{rem:discriminant}, Proposition \ref{prop:torsion_division}.
\end{proof}
For example, this can be used to show that specialization at $t_0 = 8/15$ (corresponding to $\alpha_0 = -3/2$) is injective. Indeed, the relevant factors here are
$$3/2 = -\alpha_0, 5/2 = -(\alpha_0-1), 1/2 = -(\alpha_0+1), 23/4 = 3\alpha_0^2-1, 11/4 = 3\alpha_0^2-4$$
and no product of these is a square. On the other hand, we cannot use this to decide whether or not specialization at $t_0 = 1/6$ (corresponding to $\alpha_0 = -2$) is injective because one of the factors is $1 = -(\alpha_0+1)$.

Next, we generalize Proposition \ref{prop:torsion_division} to give a method of introducing a $k(\alpha)$-rational 2-division point of any $P \in E(k(t)) \setminus E[2](k(t))$ which has no $k(t)$-rational 2-division points. This is a generalization in the sense that the 2-torsion points are precisely the 2-division points of $O$. We will need the ``2-division polynomial of $P$" for this; that is, the polynomial $d_{2,P}$ with the property that $d_{2,P}$ has a root in $k(t)$ if and only if $P$ is divisible by 2 in $E(k(t))$. For details on where this polynomial comes from, see \cite{Billingsley-algorithm}.

\begin{proposition} \label{prop:rational_division} Let $k$ be a number field. Let $E/k(t)$ be an elliptic curve given by the Weierstrass equation
$$y^2 = x^3+A(t)x+B(t),$$
and fix $P = (x_P(t), y_P(t)) \in E(k(t))\setminus E[2](k(t))$ such that $P$ is not divisible by 2 in $E(K)$. Let $\phi(t,x)$ be an irreducible factor of $d_{2,P}(t,x)$ such that
$$C_P: \phi(t,a) =0$$
is rational over $k$. Fix an isomorphism of function fields
\begin{align*}
k(C_P) &\cong k(\alpha) \\
t &\mapsto u(\alpha) \\
a &\mapsto v(\alpha).
\end{align*}
Then the elliptic curve
$$E': y^2 = x^3+A(u(\alpha))x+B(u(\alpha))$$
defined over $k(\alpha)$ has the following properties.
\begin{enumerate}
	\item $P' = (x_P(u(\alpha)),y_P(u(\alpha))) \in E'(k(\alpha))$ is divisible by 2 in $E'(k(\alpha))$.
	\item The function field isomorphism gives an embedding $E(k(t)) \subset E'(k(\alpha)).$
	\item Let $\alpha_0 \in k$ and set $t_0 = u(\alpha_0)$. Let $M < E(k(t))$ be a subgroup. If the specialization map $\sigma'_{\alpha_0}$ for $E'$ is injective on the image of $M$ via the embedding above, then the specialization map $\sigma_{t_0}|_M$ for $E$ is injective.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
	\begin{enumerate}
	\item Since $\phi(t,x) \in k(t)$ vanishes at $x = a$, we have that $\phi(u(\alpha),x)$ vanishes at $x = v(\alpha)$. Notice that $y_P(u(\alpha)) \neq 0$ since $y_P(t) \neq 0.$ Hence $P'$ is not 2-torsion, and its 2-division polynomial has the root $x = v(\alpha)$. Hence $P'$ is divisible by 2 in $k(\alpha)$.
	\end{enumerate}
Mutatis mutandis, the proof for statements 2 and 3 follows from that of Proposition \ref{prop:torsion_division}.
\end{proof}

To illustrate why this can be useful, let's return to the example
$$E: y^2 = x^3-t^2x+t^2.$$
We reproduce the result of the calculation in Example \ref{ex:linear_algebra}; that is, that the specialization map for $t_0 = 27$ is injective, but this time without using generators of $E_{27}(\mathbb Q)$. In this example, we cannot use any methods from earlier sections of this article due to a lack of 2-torsion. Additionally, because $P = (t,t)$ specializes to $(27,27) = [2](-9,81)$ (and thus $\closure[1]{\sigma_{27}}$ is not injective), we can use neither Algorithm \ref{algorithm} nor the method just discussed above which combines Theorem \ref{thm:GT_2-isogeny} with Proposition \ref{prop:torsion_division}. We use Proposition \ref{prop:rational_division} as follows. We first find an elliptic curve $E'$ and a point $R' \in E(\mathbb Q(\alpha))$ such that $2R' = P'$. Then, by replacing $P'$ by $R'$, we examine a subgroup $M$ of $E'(\mathbb Q(\alpha))$ which contains a copy of $E(\mathbb Q(t))$. We then hope that the inclusion $M \to E'(\mathbb Q(\alpha))$ satisfies the conditions of Proposition \ref{prop:grouptheory}. If this is true, we may attempt to show that specialization is injective on $M$ using Algorithm \ref{algorithm}, thereby showing that $\sigma_{27}$ is injective. To begin, recall that we have the curve
$$C_P : f_P(t,a) = a^4+2t^2a^2-8t^2a+t^4-t(4a^3-4t^2a+4t^2) = 0.$$
View $E$ as an elliptic curve over the function field $\mathbb Q(C_P)$ of $C_P$ (which contains $\mathbb Q(t)$). Now, after a bit of searching with Sage, $E(\mathbb Q(C_P))$ has the point
$$R = \left(a,\frac{a^3-3a^2t+at^2+t^3-2t^2}{2t}\right)$$
such that $[2]R = P$. Sage gives the isomorphism of function fields
\begin{align*}
\mathbb Q(C_P) &\cong \mathbb Q(\alpha) \\
t &\mapsto \frac{4\alpha^3(\alpha + 2)}{(\alpha^2+2\alpha-1)^2} = u(\alpha)\\
a &\mapsto \frac{4\alpha^2(\alpha + 2)}{(\alpha^2+2\alpha-1)^2} = v(\alpha)
\end{align*}
from which we obtain the new elliptic curve
$$E' : y^2 = x^3 - \left( \frac{4\alpha^3(\alpha + 2)}{(\alpha^2+2\alpha-1)^2}\right)^2x + \left( \frac{4\alpha^3(\alpha + 2)}{(\alpha^2+2\alpha-1)^2}\right)^2.$$
Set $Q = (0,t)$ (and recall that $E(\mathbb Q(t))$ is generated by $P$ and $Q$; see the discussion at the start of \S 4.3.1.). Through this change of variables, we have
\begin{align*}
P' &= \left( \frac{4\alpha^3(\alpha + 2)}{(\alpha^2+2\alpha-1)^2}, \frac{4\alpha^3(\alpha + 2)}{(\alpha^2+2\alpha-1)^2} \right), \\
Q' &= \left( 0,  \frac{4\alpha^3(\alpha + 2)}{(\alpha^2+2\alpha-1)^2} \right), \\
R' &= \left( \frac{4\alpha^2(\alpha + 2)}{(\alpha^2+2\alpha-1)^2}, \frac{4\alpha^3(\alpha+2)(\alpha^2-3)}{(\alpha^2+2\alpha-1)^3} \right).
\end{align*}
In particular, in $E'(\mathbb Q(\alpha))$ we have $2R' = P'$, and $E'$ is an elliptic curve defined over a rational function field over $\mathbb Q$.

We can now use Algorithm \ref{algorithm} on the subgroup $M$ of $E'(\mathbb Q(\alpha))$ generated by $R'$ and $Q'$. We omit the details (which are easily verified using Sage) of showing that the inclusion $M \to E'(\mathbb Q(\alpha))$ satisfies the conditions of Proposition \ref{prop:grouptheory}. Since $2R' = P'$, $M$ contains a copy of $E(\mathbb Q(t))$ by statement 3 of Proposition \ref{prop:rational_division}. We set $\alpha_0 = -3$, because $u(-3) = 27.$ Now, using Sage, we see that the points $R'_{\alpha_0}, Q'_{\alpha_0},$ and $(R'+Q')_{\alpha_0}$ are not divisible by 2 in $E'_{\alpha_0}(\mathbb Q)$. Additionally, the curve $E'_{\alpha_0}$ has no $\mathbb Q$-rational 2-torsion. Hence we conclude that the specialization map $\sigma'_{\alpha_0}$ is injective, so that the specialization map $\sigma_{27}$ is injective.

\begin{remark} The specialization at $t_0 = 7$ can be shown to be injective using the same method as Example \ref{ex:linear_algebra}. Despite this, the method we just outlined (using specialization at $\alpha_0 = -1$) still fails to show that the map is injective. Indeed, in $E'_{-1}(\mathbb Q)$ we have
$$[2](1,1) = (R'+Q')_{-1},$$
so that $\closure[1]{\sigma'_{-1}}$ fails to be injective on $M$.
\end{remark}

\section{Acknowledgments}

I would like to thank Edray Goins and Donu Arapura for their insightful discussions regarding the contents of this paper. I also would like to thank Kenji Matsuki for contributing significant revisions and clarifications for an early draft.


Kuramoto Networks with Infinitely Many Stable Equilibria

Abstract: We prove that the Kuramoto model on a graph can contain infinitely many non-equivalent stable equilibria. More precisely, we prove that for every positive integer d there is a connected graph such that the set of stable equilibria contains a manifold of dimension d. In particular, we solve a conjecture of R. Delabays, T. Coletta and P. Jacquod about the number of equilibria on planar graphs. Our results are based on the analysis of balanced configurations, which correspond to equilateral polygon linkages in topology. In order to analyze the stability of manifolds of equilibria we apply topological bifurcation theory.

\section{Introduction.}
Consider a connected graph~$\G$ with vertices~$1,\ldots,n$ and
to each vertex~$j$ associate a \emph{phase}~$\theta_j$
in the $1$-dimensional torus~$\T=\R/2\pi\Z$.
Let~$\mathbf N(j)$ denote the set of neighbors of~$j$ and consider
the coupled dynamical system
\begin{equation} \label{eq:main}
	\dot \theta_j = \sum_{k\in \mathbf N(j)} \sin(\theta_k - \theta_j),
	\qquad \text{for all } j=1,\ldots,n.
\end{equation}

In the paper \emph{stable} always means Lyapunov stable.
For every graph~$\G$ the synchronized state, in which all the phases are equal,
is a stable equilibrium. It is known that other stable equilibria are present in
cycles~\cite{canale2009, Wiley2006},
planar graphs~\cite{delabays2017multistability},
sparse graphs~\cite{sokolov2019sync},
$3$-regular graphs~\cite{DeVille2016}.
Two equilibria are \emph{equivalent} if they differ by a constant.
The number of non-equivalent stable equilibria is typically understood to be finite,
and explicit bounds are known in some cases~\cite{delabays2017multistability}.

On the other hand, it is known that some graphs support infinitely many
non-equivalent unstable equilibria.
Indeed, unstable equilibria form a manifold with singularities in the case of
complete graphs~\cite{brown2003globally, watanabe1997stability, ashwin2016identical}.

This leads to the question motivating the paper:
is the number of non-equivalent stable equilibria on a connected graph
always finite? Can stable equilibria form a manifold?
Our main result answers these question:

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:main}
For every~$d\geq 1$ there is a connected
graph~$\G$ such that~\eqref{eq:main} contains a manifold of stable equilibria
of dimension~$d$.
\end{theorem}

In~\cite{delabays2017multistability} R.~Delabays, T.~Coletta and P.~Jacquod
conjecture an upper bound on the number of non-equivalent stable equilibria
in connected, planar graphs. In this paper we show that no such bound is possible,
and in fact a connected,
planar graph can support infinitely many non-equivalent stable equilibria:

\begin{corollary}
The graph of Figure~\ref{fig:main} supports infinitely many non-equivalent
stable equilibria.
\end{corollary}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.14, angle=0]{noice.png}\label{fig:zero}
\caption{The \emph{eye graph}
supports infinitely many non-equivalent stable equilibria.
A cyclic colormap
is used to represent phases on vertices.
The phases of the outer cycle are~$(2k\pi/6)_{k=1,\ldots,6}$,
starting from the rightmost vertex and proceeding counterclockwise.
The phases of the inner cycle are~$(2k\pi/6 + \beta)_{k=1,\ldots,6}$ with~$\beta=\pi/2$,
starting from the topmost vertex and proceeding counterclockwise.
In Section~\ref{sec:balanced} we prove that
a curve of non-equivalent stable equilibria is obtained by varying~$\beta$ in a
neighborhood of~$\pi/2$.
}
\label{fig:main}
\end{figure}

In Section~\ref{sec:tools} we recall a known technique: algebraic geometrization.
Up to a change of coordinates, the set of equilibria of~\eqref{eq:main} turns into an algebraic set.
Every algebraic set is the finite union of irreducible algebraic sets; in particular, this
implies that infinitely many equilibria can only appear inside a continuum of equilibria.
Moreover, the system has a gradient structure:
every solution is either an equilibrium or a curve joining two
algebraic sets of equilibria, in the direction that makes some energy function decrease.
We return to this topological/heteroclinic structure in Section~\ref{sec:heteroclinic},
in which we analyze explicitly two examples of small cardinality.

Section~\ref{sec:balanced} concerns~\emph{balanced configurations},
the main topic of the paper.
We say that a subset of vertices~$\K$ is \emph{balanced} if~$\sum_{k\in \K} e^{i\theta_k} = 0$.
As we will see, balanced configurations are able to ``effectively disconnects'' the network,
leading to manifolds of equilibria of arbitrarily large dimension on connected graphs.
The main challenge we will face is designing graphs for which
these manifolds are transversally stable.

It is interesting to notice that balanced configurations appear in several areas of mathematics,
although with different names.
First, the quantity~$\sum_{k=1}^n e^{i\theta_k}$, known as~\emph{order parameter},
is widely used as a measure of
synchronization in phase oscillator networks~\cite{mirollo2012asymptotic, pazo2005thermodynamic, bick2011chaos, kuramoto1987statistical}.
Second, balanced configurations of are known as balanced graph representations
in algebraic graph theory~\cite{godsil2001algebraic}.
Third, balanced configurations are in $1$-to-$1$ correspondence
with equilateral polygon linkages in
topology~\cite{kamiyama1996topology, kamiyama1992elementary, kapovich1996symplectic, mandini2014duistermaat}.

In Section~\ref{sec:aligned} we discuss
\emph{aligned} configurations, those in which any two phases differ by~$0$ or~$\pi$.
They are appear in literature with different names~\cite{park2016weakly, martens2016chimera, kopell1995anti, vathakkattil2020limits, markdahl2021counterexamples, hendrickx2012convergence, ren2005consensus}.
In this paper we are mainly interested in the interplay between aligned configurations
and balanced configurations.
We prove that every equilibrium of a complete bipartite graph is a combination of these.

Our insights raise a number of questions.
We know that the set of equilibria can be written as a finite union of algebraic varieties.
Algebraic varieties are not necessarily manifolds, due to the presence of singular points.
However:

\begin{conjecture}
For every graph the set of equilibria of~\eqref{eq:main}
is a finite union of manifolds.
\end{conjecture}

Our analysis may extend to
Kuramoto networks on weighted graphs, hypergraphs, or with intrinsic frequencies.
A connection between the analysis of
balanced configurations on weighted graph and the theory of moduli spaces
in topology~\cite{kapovich1995moduli, mandini2014duistermaat, shimamoto2005spaces}
is outlined in Section~\ref{sec:balanced}.

Finally, manifolds of stable equilibria may appear on graphs
that are close to the global synchronization
constant~\cite{Ling2019, lu2020, Taylor2012, Yoneda2021}, thus
limiting the effectiveness of linear stability analysis as predicted in~\cite{Kassabov2021}.

\section*{Acknowledgements.}
The author would like to thank Christian Bick for many helpful discussions.

\section{A System Rich in Structure.} \label{sec:tools}
The combinatorial structure of the underlying graph,
together with the algebraic properties of the sine function,
give the coupled dynamical system~\eqref{eq:main} some known,
peculiar properties, which we review in detail in this section.

\subsection{Phase-Shift Symmetry and Connectivity.}
The equations~\eqref{eq:main} remain invariant if the same constant
is added to each phase. This (dynamical) symmetry is known as~\emph{phase shift} and
defines an action of the group~$\T$ on the phase space~$\T^n$.
The phase space~$\T^n$ is foliated into~$(n-1)$-dimensional dynamically
invariant tori. Each leaf supports the same dynamics and
the group~$\T$ acts freely on the leaves.

As a consequence, equilibria are never isolated:
every equilibrium is contained in a $1$-dimensional
torus of equilibria, its orbit under the group action.
We say that two equilibria are \emph{equivalent} if they belong to the same orbit.

If a graph is disconnected, distinct components have independent dynamics.
If every connected component is endowed with a stable equilibrium,
infinitely many non-equivalent stable equilibria
can be obtained by phase-shifting the phases of one component. In this way we can obtain
a torus of stable equilibria of dimension the number of connected components.
This is a non-interesting solution to the question motivating the paper.
For this reason, we will always require connectivity.

\subsection{Gradient Descent.}
It is well known that~\eqref{eq:main} is a gradient
dynamical system~\cite{van1993lyapunov, Ling2019, jadbabaie2004stability}.
We can write~\eqref{eq:main} as~$\dot \theta = -\nabla E(\theta)$ where~$E:\T^N\to \R$
is the \emph{energy function}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:energy}
	E(\theta) = \sum_{jk \in \E(\G)} \p{1-\cos(\theta_j-\theta_k)}.
\end{equation}
Here~$\E(\G)$ denotes the set of edges and each edge is counted exactly once.

The identity~$\dot \theta = -\nabla E(\theta)$ tells that
a solution always evolves in the direction where the energy~\eqref{eq:energy}
decreases maximally. Equilibria are exactly the critical points of the energy
and the only periodic trajectories.
A solution is either an equilibrium
or a curve joining two equilibria, traveled in the direction in which the energy decreases.

The energy function~\eqref{eq:energy} is real analytic.
In any real analytic gradient system the Lyapunov stable equilibria are exactly
the local minima of the energy function~\cite{Absil2006}.
It is interesting to notice that in a smooth (but not real analytic)
gradient system this statement can fail in both ways~\cite{Absil2006}.

\subsection{Algebraic Geometry.}
The set of equilibria of~\eqref{eq:main} is best understood in the language of algebraic
geometry. For basic definitions and results we refer
the reader to~\cite{hartshorne2013algebraic, lang2019introduction, shafarevich1994basic}.
Let us identify the phase space~$\T^n$ with the subset of~$\R^{2n}$ defined by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ag_torus}
	x_j^2 + y_j^2 = 1, \qquad \text{for all } j=1,\ldots,n
\end{equation}
where~$x_k = \cos(\theta_k)$ and~$y_k = \sin(\theta_k)$.
Then the equilibria of the system are
the common solutions of~\eqref{eq:ag_torus} and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ag_equilibria}
	\sum_{k\in \N(j)} x_k y_j - x_j y_k = 0, \qquad \text{for all } j=1,\ldots,n.
\end{equation}
Therefore, the set of equilibria~$X$ is an algebraic set.
As such, it has a unique decomposition into irreducible components:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ag_decomp}
	X = X_1 \cup \ldots \cup X_ m.
\end{equation}
Each~$X_i$ is an irreducible algebraic set (also known as algebraic variety)
and none of the~$X_i$ is contained in the union of
the others. Each~$X_i$ has a well defined dimension and tangent space at every point,
except for singular points, if any.

The $1$-dimensional components in~\eqref{eq:ag_decomp} are orbits of equivalent equilibria,
topologically they are $1$-dimensional tori.
Since the decomposition~\eqref{eq:ag_decomp} is finite, we immediately learn
something important about the equilibria.
Either there are finitely many non-equivalent equilibria,
or there is a component of dimension greater than~$1$.
In particular, the number of equilibria that are isolated up to phase-shift is finite.

Algebraic geometry does not prevent the existence of infinitely many non-equivalent equilibria.
By contrast, it helps us understanding their geometry.
The methods used in~\cite{baillieul1982geometric, Chen2018}
to prove the finiteness of the equilibria
apply to a (related but) different system and only work for a generic choice of coupling
coefficients.

\subsection{Stability.}
Every solution of~\eqref{eq:main} is either an equilibrium
or a curve joining two irreducible components.
A complete understanding of the system~\eqref{eq:main} requires understanding
the components~\eqref{eq:ag_decomp} and how they are connected by
solutions.

In order to do so, we need to analyze the stability of each component.
In this section we briefly review the analysis of $1$-components,
which is the case already known in literature.
Components of larger dimension will be analyzed in Section~\ref{sec:balanced}.

Since there are no isolated equilibria,
throughout the paper \emph{stable} will always mean Lyapunov stable.

Let~$(a_{jk})_{j,k}$ denote the adjacency matrix of the graph.
Fix any~$\theta = (\theta_j)_{j=1,\ldots,n}$.
The component~$(j,k)$ of the Jacobian matrix of the system at~$\theta$ is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:jacobian}
\begin{cases}
a_{jk} \cos(\theta_k-\theta_j) & \text{if } j\neq k \\
-\sum_{h,\, h\neq j} a_{jk} \cos(\theta_h-\theta_j) & \text{if } j=k.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
For every~$\theta$ at least one Jacobian eigenvalue is zero;
it corresponds to the direction of phase-shift~$(1,\ldots,1)$.

Suppose now that~$\theta$ is an equilibrium, and that
exactly one eigenvalue is~$0$ and the others are strictly negative.
The zero eigenvalue corresponds to the direction tangent to the
$1$-dimensional torus of equilibria
\[
	\Gamma = \{(\theta_j + \alpha)_{j=1,\ldots,n} \mid \alpha\in\T \}.
\]
The zero eigenvalue disappears by restricting dynamics to the leaf containing~$\theta$,
in which the equilibrium is isolated.
In particular~$\theta$ is asymptotically stable in its leaf.

By phase shift symmetry, each equilibrium in~$\Gamma$ is asymptotically stable in its leaf.
The leaf locally coincides with the stable manifold of the equilibrium.
These manifolds foliates the space around~$\Gamma$
and intersect~$\Gamma$ orthogonally (since the Jacobian~\eqref{eq:jacobian} is symmetric).

\section{Balanced Configurations and Manifolds of Equilibria.} \label{sec:balanced}
This is the main section of the paper. For us, balanced configurations are a tool
to understand manifolds of equilibria. For their role in other branches of mathematics and science
we refer the reader to the introduction.

It is convenient for us to expand the notions of equilibrium and balanced configuration
to a proper subset of vertices.

\begin{definition} \label{def:equilibrium_balanced}
A \emph{configuration}
is a pair consisting of a set of vertices~$\K\subseteq \V(\G)$
and a vector of phases~$\theta_\K = (\theta_k)_{k\in \K}$.
An~\emph{equilibrium} of~$\K$ is a configuration satisfying
\begin{equation} \label{eq:equilibrium}
	\sum_{k\in \N(j)\cap \K} \sin(\theta_k - \theta_j) = 0, \qquad \text{for all } j\in \K.
\end{equation}
A configuration of~$\K$ is \emph{balanced} if
\begin{equation} \label{eq:balanced}
	\sum_{k\in \K} e^{i\theta_k} = 0.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}

The following lemma collects some elementary properties. The proof is omitted.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:basic} Let~$(\K, \theta_\K)$ be a configuration.
The following facts are true:
\begin{enumerate} [label = (\roman*)]
\item The equilibria of~$\V(\G)$ according to Definition~\ref{def:equilibrium_balanced}
are exactly the equilibria of the dynamical system~\eqref{eq:main};
\item For every~$\alpha\in\T$ the configuration~$\theta_\K$ is an equilibrium if and only
if the configuration~$\theta_\K+\alpha = (\theta_k+\alpha)_{k\in \K}$
is an equilibrium; \label{lem:basic:2}
\item For every~$\alpha\in\T$ the configuration~$\theta_\K$ is balanced if and only
if the configuration~$\theta_\K+\alpha = (\theta_k+\alpha)_{k\in \K}$
is balanced; \label{lem:basic:3}
\item Let~$j$ be any vertex and suppose that~$(\K, \theta_\K)$ is balanced. Then
\begin{align}
	& \sum_{k\in \K} \cos(\theta_k - \theta_j) = 0, \label{eq:cosine} \\
	& \sum_{k\in \K} \sin(\theta_k - \theta_j) = 0. \label{eq:sine}
\end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Parts~$(i)$, $(ii)$, and~$(iii)$ are trivial.
In order to obtain~$(iv)$, multiply~\eqref{eq:balanced} by~$e^{-i\theta_j}$
and take real and imaginary part. This gives~\eqref{eq:cosine} and~\eqref{eq:sine}
respectively.
\end{proof}

Equation~\eqref{eq:sine} tells us that
the net input received by~$j$ from a balanced set of neighbors is zero.
This suggests how to obtain manifolds of equilibria of arbitrarily large dimension.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:balanced}
Suppose that there is a partition of the vertices of~$\G$
into non-empty parts $\J_1,\ldots,\J_d$
and a configuration~$\theta=(\theta_j)_{j=1,\ldots,n}$ such that
\begin{enumerate} [label = (\roman*)]
\item every~$(\J_p, \theta_{\J_p})$ is an equilibrium; \label{lem:balanced:1}
\item for every~$\J_p$,~$\J_q$ distinct and for every~$j\in \J_p$
the set of neighbors of~$j$ in~$\J_q$ is balanced. \label{lem:balanced:2}
\end{enumerate}
Then for every~$\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_d\in \T$ the configuration
\begin{equation} \label{eq:d-shift}
	(\theta_{\J_1} + \alpha_1, \ldots, \theta_{\J_d} + \alpha_1)
\end{equation}
is an equilibrium of~$\G$. In particular, the set of equilibria of~$\G$
contains a torus of dimension~$d$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Take any vertex~$j$. Suppose that~$j\in \J_p$. We have
\[
	\dot\theta_j = \sum_{k\in \N(j) \cap \J_p} \sin(\theta_j-\theta_k)
		+ \sum_{q\neq p} \sum_{k\in \N(j) \cap  \J_q} \sin(\theta_j-\theta_k).
\]
Since~$\theta_{\J_p}$ is an equilibrium of~$\J_p$, the first term is zero.
Since~$\N(j) \cap  \J_q$ is balanced for every~$q\neq p$, by~\eqref{eq:sine}
the second term is zero.
This shows that~$\theta$ is an equilibrium of~$\G$.
The statement now follows from
Lemma~\ref{lem:basic}\ref{lem:basic:2} and Lemma~\ref{lem:basic}\ref{lem:basic:3}.
\end{proof}

Let~$\Gamma \subseteq \T^n$ be the $d$-dimensional torus of equilibria~\eqref{eq:d-shift}.
In general, not all the equilibria in~$\Gamma$
have the same stability. As we will see, by
varying~$\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_d$ some Jacobian eigenvalues can change sign.
This phenomenon is a particular case of topological bifurcation~\cite{liebscher2015bifurcation}.
In the following proof we construct graphs
for which a non-empty open subset of~$\Gamma$ is transversally stable.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture} [scale=0.8, rotate=0]
\draw [shift={(0,0)}]
	(1,0) -- (0.5,0.866) -- (-0.5,0.866) -- (-1,0) -- (-0.5,-0.866) -- (0.5,-0.866) -- (1,0);
\draw [shift={(4,4)}]
	(1,0) -- (0.5,0.866) -- (-0.5,0.866) -- (-1,0) -- (-0.5,-0.866) -- (0.5,-0.866) -- (1,0);
\draw [shift={(-4,4)}]
	(1,0) -- (0.5,0.866) -- (-0.5,0.866) -- (-1,0) -- (-0.5,-0.866) -- (0.5,-0.866) -- (1,0);
\draw [shift={(4,-4)}]
	(1,0) -- (0.5,0.866) -- (-0.5,0.866) -- (-1,0) -- (-0.5,-0.866) -- (0.5,-0.866) -- (1,0);
\draw [shift={(-4,-4)}]
	(1,0) -- (0.5,0.866) -- (-0.5,0.866) -- (-1,0) -- (-0.5,-0.866) -- (0.5,-0.866) -- (1,0);
\draw (1,0) to [out=15, in=-70, distance=60pt] (5,4);
\draw (1,0) to [out=30, in=-100, distance=60pt] (3,4);
\draw (-1,0) to [out=180-60, in=-90+10, distance=80pt] (5,4);
\draw (-1,0) to [out=180-45, in=180, distance=80pt] (3,4);
\draw (1,0) to [out=60, in=-100, distance=80pt] (-5,4);
\draw (1,0) to [out=45, in=0, distance=80pt] (-3,4);
\draw (-1,0) to [out=180-15, in=-110, distance=60pt] (-5,4);
\draw (-1,0) to [out=180-30, in=-90+10, distance=60pt] (-3,4);
\draw (1,0) to [out=-15, in=70, distance=60pt] (5,-4);
\draw (1,0) to [out=-30, in=100, distance=60pt] (3,-4);
\draw (-1,0) to [out=180+60, in=+90-10, distance=80pt] (5,-4);
\draw (-1,0) to [out=180+45, in=180, distance=80pt] (3,-4);
\draw (1,0) to [out=-60, in=100, distance=80pt] (-5,-4);
\draw (1,0) to [out=-45, in=0, distance=80pt] (-3,-4);
\draw (-1,0) to [out=180+15, in=+110, distance=60pt] (-5,-4);
\draw (-1,0) to [out=180+30, in=90-10, distance=60pt] (-3,-4);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{This figure illustrates the graph~$\G_5$.}
\label{fig:cycles}
\end{figure}

\begin{proof} [Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}]
The idea is connecting a family of stable $6$-cycle configurations in a way that they only
interact through balanced subsets.
Let us begin with a~$6$-cycle and phases~$(2k\pi/6+\alpha)_{k=1,\ldots,6}$.
Since~$\cos(2\pi/6) = 1/2$ the Jacobian matrix~\eqref{eq:jacobian} is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:circulant_matrix}
\small
\begin{pmatrix}
-1 &\frac{1}{2} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{2} \\
\frac{1}{2} & -1 &  \frac{1}{2} & 0 &  0 &  0\\
0 & \frac{1}{2} & -1 & \frac{1}{2} & 0 & 0  \\
0 &  0  & \frac{1}{2} & -1  & \frac{1}{2} & 0 \\
0  & 0 & 0  & \frac{1}{2} & -1  & \frac{1}{2}\\
\frac{1}{2} & 0 & 0 & 0  & \frac{1}{2} & -1
\end{pmatrix}.
\normalsize
\end{equation}
Notice that it is independent of~$\alpha$.
Moreover, notice that the matrix is circulant. The eigenvalues of circulant
matrices are easy to compute~\cite{varga1954eigenvalues, gray2006toeplitz}.
In this case the characteristic polynomial is
\[
	p(\lambda) = \lambda (\lambda+1/2)^2 (\lambda+3/2)^2 (\lambda+2).
\]
Exactly one eigenvalue is zero and the others are strictly negative.
As~$\alpha$ can vary in~$\T$ we obtain a $1$-dimensional torus of stable equilibria.
The zero eigenvalue corresponds to the tangent space of this torus.

Notice that, in this configuration,
any pair of opposite vertices of the $6$-cycle is a balanced configuration.
This suggests how to connect several $6$-cycles together.

Consider~$d$ disjoint $6$-cycles and
add an edge between the first and fourth vertex of the first cycle with the first
and fourth vertex of every other cycle.
This amounts to adding~$4(d-1)$ edges.
Let~$\G_d$ denote the resulting graph.
The graph~$\G_2$ is the eye graph of Figure~\ref{fig:main} of the introduction.
The graph~$\G_5$ is given in Figure~\ref{fig:cycles}.

Let~$\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_d\in \T$ and
let~$(2k\pi/6+\alpha_i)_{k=1,\ldots,6}$ be the phases of the~$i$-th cycle.
The $6$-cycles only interact with each other through balanced pair of vertices.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:balanced} as~$\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_d$ vary in~$\T$
these configurations form a $d$-dimensional torus of equilibria~$\Gamma$.

In order to analyze stability, we look at Jacobian eigenvalues.
We want to show that there is an open set of~$(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_d) \in \T^d$
for which exactly~$d$ Jacobian eigenvalues are~$0$ and the others strictly are negative.

In order to do so, we choose~$\alpha_1=0$ and~$\alpha_2=\ldots,\alpha_d = \pi/2$.
Every edge between two $6$-cycles
has phase difference~$\pi/2$, and since~$\cos(\pi/2)=0$ it follows that the Jacobian matrix
is a block diagonal matrix with~$d$ blocks all equal to~\eqref{eq:circulant_matrix}.
In particular the characteristic polynomial is
\[
	p(\lambda)^d = \lambda^d (\lambda+1/2)^{2d} (\lambda+3/2)^{2d} (\lambda+2)^d.
\]
Notice that~$0$ has multiplicity~$d$ and every other eigenvalue is strictly negative.

Since~$d$ is the dimension of the tangent space of~$\Gamma$, it follows that
there is a neighborhood of~$(0,\pi/2,\ldots,\pi/2) \in \T^d$ in which exactly~$d$
eigenvalues are zero and all the others are strictly negative.

Let us summarize what we have. There is a non-empty open subset~$V$ of~$\Gamma$
with the following properties: $V$ is a $d$-dimensional manifold,
every point in~$V$ is an equilibrium,
the stable manifold of every such equilibrium has codimension~$d$
and is orthogonal to~$V$.
The last statement holds since the Jacobian matrix~\eqref{eq:jacobian} is symmetric.

By Shoshitaishvili Theorem~\cite{liebscher2015bifurcation, shoshitaishvili1972bifurcations}
the stable manifolds form a foliation of the space near~$V$.
It follows that every~$\theta\in V$ is a Lyapunov stable equilibrium.
Indeed, a point near~$\theta$ lies in either the stable manifold of~$\theta$
or the stable manifold of a nearby equilibrium.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Stable Tori.}
In the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} we obtain a torus of equilibria~$\Gamma$,
but only a proper subset is stable. Indeed, for~$d=2$ we can see in Figure~\ref{fig:eigenvalues}
that as the phase difference between the two cycles vary, an eigenvalue crosses zero;
stability is only guaranteed in a neighborhood of~$\pi/2$.
We now provide several graphs in which the set of stable equilibria contain
an entire $2$-dimensional torus.
Due to the size of the graphs, the eigenvalues
are computed numerically.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{subfigure}{0.33\columnwidth}
	\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{noice.png}
    \caption{}
\end{subfigure} \qquad
\begin{subfigure}{0.33\columnwidth}
	\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{eigenvalues.png}
    \caption{}
\end{subfigure}\\[0.1cm]
\begin{subfigure}{0.33\columnwidth}
	\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{36.png}
    \caption{}
\end{subfigure} \qquad
\begin{subfigure}{0.33\columnwidth}
	\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{36_eigen.png}
    \caption{}
\end{subfigure}\\[0.1cm]
\begin{subfigure}{0.33\columnwidth}
	\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{60.png}
    \caption{}
\end{subfigure} \qquad
\begin{subfigure}{0.33\columnwidth}
	\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{60_eigen.png}
    \caption{}
\end{subfigure}\\[0.1cm]
\begin{subfigure}{0.33\columnwidth}
	\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{90.png}
    \caption{}
\end{subfigure} \qquad
\begin{subfigure}{0.33\columnwidth}
	\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{90_eigen.png}
    \caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{On the left, graphs supporting $2$-dimensional manifold of stable equilibria.
On the right, eigenvalues as the phase-shift difference~$\beta-\alpha$ vary.}
\label{fig:eigenvalues}
\end{figure}

Let us denote by~$\H_{36}$, $\H_{60}$ and~$\H_{90}$ the graphs (C), (E), and~(G)
of Figure~\ref{fig:eigenvalues}, according to the number of vertices.
The vertices have been positioned so as to highlight the division into two subsets.
Each~$\H_{36}$, $\H_{60}$,~$\H_{90}$ supports a $2$-dimensional torus of stable equilibria.
The torus is obtained by phase-shifting the two parts.

Let us describe the configurations in more detail.
The graph $\H_{36}$ is obtained from the eye graph~$\G_2$ by taking of each
$6$-cycle~$3$ copies of itself and glueing them at the pair of vertices constituting
the balanced configuration.
One part has phases~$(2k\pi/6+\alpha)_{k=1,\ldots,6}$,
the other part~$(2k\pi/6+\beta)_{k=1,\ldots,6}$. Due to phase shift symmetry, stability
only depends on the phase difference~$\beta-\alpha$. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:eigenvalues},
for every~$\alpha,\beta\in\T$ all non-zero eigenvalues are strictly negative.
As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, by Shoshitaishvili Theorem
it follows that for every~$\alpha,\beta\in \T$ this is a stable equilibrium.

Similarly~$\H_{60}$ is obtained from~$\G_2$
by substituting each vertex with a tetrahedron and connecting the tetrahedra in parallel
along the $6$-cycles.

By contrast, the graph~$\H_{90}$ is a bit different. It is obtained by fully connecting
two $5$-cycles with phases~$(2k\pi/5+\alpha)_{k=1,\ldots,5}$
and~$(2k\pi/5+\beta)_{k=1,\ldots,5}$ respectively. Notice that each cycle is a balanced
configuration. In order to make the configuration stable,
each cycle is copied~$8$ times and connected in parallel to its copies.
It is interesting to notice that in this case the eigenvalues do not depend on~$\alpha, \beta$,
see (H).

\subsection{Symmetry is not Necessary.}
Although the graphs discussed in this article are symmetric, symmetry is not necessary
for manifolds of stable equilibria.
Instead, it is useful for keeping the discussion as self-contained as possible,
as symmetric graphs can be described more easily in words.

We can enlarge a stable configuration of a graph
by connecting by an edge each vertex to an asymmetric graph whose phases
are synchronized with that vertex.
The enlarged configuration is stable. We can choose the auxiliary graphs so that
the enlarged graph is asymmetric.
If the original graph supports a $d$-dimensional manifolds
of stable equilibria, so does the enlarged one.

\subsection{The Geometry of Balanced Configurations.}
We are interested in the geometry of the set of balanced configurations of~$n$ vertices.

Two vertices are balanced if and only if the phases differ by~$\pi$. Therefore, balanced
configurations of two vertices form a $1$-dimensional torus.

There are two balanced
configurations with~$3$ vertices up to phase shift, corresponding to two non-equivalent
labeling of the vertices of an equilateral triangle,
thus leading to two disjoint $1$-dimensional tori.

Balanced configurations of~$4$ vertices are given by three non-equivalent
relabeling of the family~$(\alpha,\beta,\alpha+\pi,\beta+\pi)_{\alpha,\beta\in\T}$:
\begin{align*}
B_1&=\{(\alpha,\alpha+\pi,\beta,\beta+\pi) \mid \alpha,\beta\in\T\}, \\
B_2&=\{(\alpha,\beta,\alpha+\pi,\beta+\pi) \mid \alpha,\beta\in\T\}, \\
B_3&=\{(\alpha,\beta,\beta+\pi,\alpha+\pi) \mid \alpha,\beta\in\T\}.
\end{align*}
These $2$-dimensional tori intersect at aligned configurations.
Up to phase shift, the set of balanced configurations is homeomorphic to
three mutually tangent circles.

Until now, every balanced configuration is somewhat symmetric.
For~$n\geq 5$ the situation is far more complicated,
as the symmetry is lost.
Using Morse Theory it has been shown that,
up to phase shift, balanced configurations of~$5$
vertices form a surface of genus~$4$~\cite{havel1991use, kamiyama1992elementary}.
It is interesting that the separation between
the case~$n\leq 4$ and the case~$n\geq 5$ in terms of symmetry
becomes evident in terms of dynamics if the sine function is replaced by
a generic function~\cite[Proposition 2]{ashwin2016identical}.

In topology, balanced configurations appear in a different but equivalent form.
As noticed in~\cite{ashwin2008bifurcation}, we can associate to any balanced configuration
an equilateral polygon.
Let~$(\theta_k)_{k=1,\ldots,n}$ be a balanced configuration
and~$u_m = \sum_{k=1}^m e^{i\theta_k}$.
Then the sequence~$u_1,\ldots,u_n$ defines an equilateral polygon.
Here the term polygon must be taken somewhat loosely, since we allow vertices to
coincide and edges to intersect.

The space of equilateral polygons is studied, for example, in~\cite{kamiyama1996topology}.
Translating the results of~\cite{kamiyama1996topology} back into our language,
we can rephrase Theorem~A as follows:

\begin{theorem} [Y.Kamiyama] \label{thm:Y.Kamiyama}
Let~$n\geq 3$.
For an odd~$n$ the set of balanced configurations
is a smooth manifold of dimension~$n-2$.
For an even~$n$ the set of balanced configurations
is a manifold with singular points,
the generic dimension is~$n-2$ and the singular points are exactly the aligned configurations.
\end{theorem}

Recall that aligned configurations are those in which any two phases differ by~$0$ or~$\pi$.
Notice that configuration that are both balanced and aligned are only possible if~$n$ is even.
The presence of singular points for an even~$n$ is already evident
for~$n=4$, at the aforementioned tori~$B_1$, $B_2$, $B_3$ intersect.
We conjecture that for every~$n\geq 3$ the set of balanced configurations is a branched manifold
and can be written as a union of smooth manifolds.

As already noticed, balanced configurations correspond to equilateral polygons.
In the theory of
moduli spaces~\cite{kapovich1995moduli, mandini2014duistermaat, shimamoto2005spaces}
non-equilateral polygons are considered, usually with generic edge lengths.
This may be useful in better understanding the Kuramoto model on weighted graphs.

\section{Aligned Configurations and Complete Bipartite Graphs.} \label{sec:aligned}
In this section we discuss synchronized and aligned equilibria.
We are mainly interested in the case of complete bipartite graphs, where balanced
and aligned configurations characterize all the equilibria.
For our purposes, it is convenient to expand these notions to a proper subset of vertices.

\begin{definition} \label{def:aligned}
A configuration of~$\K$ is \emph{aligned} if the points~$\{e^{i\theta_k}\}_{k\in \K}$
belong to a line passing through the origin of~$\C$, that is,
any two phases differ by~$0$ or~$\pi$. If all the phases are equal
we say that~$\K$ is~\emph{synchronized}.
\end{definition}

Unlike balanced configurations,
the aligned configuration of~$\V(\G)$ is an equilibrium for every~$\G$.
We refer to these configurations as aligned equilibria.
There are~$2^{n-1}$ non-equivalent aligned equilibria,
each corresponding to a~$1$-dimensional torus.
As we will see in a later section, some of them may be part of larger component.
Notice that there is only one synchronized equilibrium up to phase-shift.

\begin{proposition}
Let~$\G$ be connected. Then the only stable aligned equilibria of~$\G$
are the synchronized equilibria.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let~$\theta$ be an aligned equilibrium. The vertices~$\V(\G)$ can be partitioned into
two subsets~$\J$ and~$\K$ such that every vertex in~$\J$ have phase~$\alpha$
and every vertex in~$\K$ have phase~$\alpha+\pi$, for some~$\alpha\in\T$.
Let~$\E(\J,\K)$ denote
the set of edges between~$\J$ and~$\K$ and~$\abs{\E(\J,\K)}$ the cardinality of this set.

Suppose that~$\theta$ is not a synchronized equilibrium, then~$\J$ and~$\K$ are non-empty.
Since~$\G$ is connected the set~$\E(\J,\K)$ is non-empty.
Perturb~$\theta$ as~$\tilde\theta_k = \theta_k + x$
for~$k\in \K$ and~$\tilde\theta_j = \theta_j$ for~$j\in \J$. We claim that
that the energy~\eqref{eq:energy} decreases in the direction of the perturbation.
Indeed
\begin{align*}
	E(\theta) - E(\tilde\theta) & =
		\sum_{jk \in \E(\G)}
		\cos(\tilde\theta_j - \tilde\theta_k) - \cos(\theta_j - \theta_k) \\
		& = \sum_{jk \in \E(\J,\K)}
		\cos(\tilde\theta_j - \tilde\theta_k) - \cos(\theta_j - \theta_k) \\
		& = \abs{\E(\J,\K)} (\cos(\pi + x) - \cos(\pi))
\end{align*}
and since~$\abs{\mathcal E(\J,\K)}$ is positive
the difference~$E(\theta) - E(\tilde\theta)$ is positive for every~$x$ small enough.
The equilibrium~$\theta$ is not a local minimum, and thus it is not stable.

It remains to prove that the synchronized equilibria are stable. This follows from the fact that,
for every graph~$\G$, synchronized equilibria
are exactly the global minima of the energy~\eqref{eq:energy}.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Complete Bipartite Graphs.} \label{sec:bipartite}
In order to show how balanced configurations and aligned configurations may interplay,
we discuss complete bipartite graphs.
In~\cite{canale2009characterization} it is shown that the synchronized configurations
are the only stable equilibria in complete bipartite graph.
Here we complete the analysis by classifying all the possible equilibria, with a focus
on their geometric structure.
In particular, we see that balanced configurations lead to manifolds of unstable equilibria
of arbitrarily large dimension.

\begin{proposition}~\label{prop:bipartite}
Let~$\G$ be complete bipartite with non-empty parts~$\J$ and~$\K$.
The equilibria of~$\G$ have the following form:
\begin{enumerate} [label = (\roman*)]
\item $\theta_\J$~is balanced,~$\theta_\K$ is balanced; \label{prop:bipartite:1}
\item $\theta_\J$~is not balanced, $\theta_\K$ is balanced
and aligned to~$\sum_{j\in\J} e^{i\theta_j}$; \label{prop:bipartite:2}
\item $\theta_\K$~is not balanced, $\theta_\J$ is balanced
and aligned to~$\sum_{j\in\K} e^{i\theta_k}$; \label{prop:bipartite:3}
\item $\theta$ is aligned. \label{prop:bipartite:4}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
It is easy to see that every configuration of~$\V(\G)$ satisfying
any of the conditions~\ref{prop:bipartite:1} through~\ref{prop:bipartite:4}
is an equilibrium.

Conversely, let~$\theta$ be an equilibrium. We prove that~$\theta$ satisfies at least one
of the conditions. We have
\begin{align}
	& \Im \p{\sum_{k\in \K} e^{i\theta_k} e^{-i\theta_j}} = 0,
		\qquad \text{for all } j\in\J; \label{prop:bipartite:5} \\
	& \Im \p{\sum_{j\in \J} e^{i\theta_j} e^{-i\theta_k}} = 0,
		\qquad \text{for all } k\in\K . \label{prop:bipartite:6}
\end{align}

If~$\J$ and~$\K$ are both balanced we are in case~\ref{prop:bipartite:1}.
Suppose that~$\J$ is not balanced. Due to the phase-shift symmetry, we can assume
that~$\sum_{j\in \J} e^{i\theta_j}$ is
real and strictly positive. From~\eqref{prop:bipartite:6}
it follows that~$\theta_k\in\{0,\pi\}$ for every~$k\in \K$.
Then from~\eqref{prop:bipartite:5} it follows that either~$\K$ has an even number of vertices,
half with phase~$0$ and half with phase~$\pi$, and we are in case~\ref{prop:bipartite:2},
or~$\theta_j\in\{0,\pi\}$ for every~$j\in \J$, and we are in case~\ref{prop:bipartite:4}.
Similarly, if~$\K$ is not balanced
we are in case~\ref{prop:bipartite:3} or in case~\ref{prop:bipartite:4}.
\end{proof}

Let~$\abs{\J} = n$ and $\abs{\K} = m$. Suppose that~$n,m\geq 3$.
By Theorem~\ref{thm:Y.Kamiyama}
the set of equilibria of the form~\ref{prop:bipartite:1} has dimension~$(n-2)(m-2)$.
The set of equilibria of the form~\ref{prop:bipartite:2} has dimension~$n$ if~$m$ is even
and is empty otherwise. Similarly,
the set of equilibria of the form~\ref{prop:bipartite:3} has dimension~$m$ if~$n$ is even
and is empty otherwise. The aligned configurations~\ref{prop:bipartite:2}
form a set of dimension~$1$.

Notice that the cases~\ref{prop:bipartite:1} through~\ref{prop:bipartite:4} are not disjoint
and the conditions~\ref{prop:bipartite:2} and~\ref{prop:bipartite:3} are not closed.
Therefore, in order to obtain the decomposition in irreducible components
some more work is needed. In the next section we give an explicit example.

\section{Manifolds Connected by Heteroclinic Orbits}~\label{sec:heteroclinic}
A \emph{heteroclinic orbit} is a solution joining two equilibria.
We know from Section~\ref{sec:tools} that every solution of~\eqref{eq:main}
is either an equilibrium or a heteroclinic orbit
connecting two irreducible sets of equilibria.
Given a graph, we are led to the following program:
\begin{itemize}
\item computing the irreducible decomposition
of the set of equilibria;
\item establishing how the components are connected by solutions.
\end{itemize}
As we will see by two examples, even for small graphs this program may lead to some
intricate topological structures.

\subsection{Complete graph with $4$ vertices.}
Consider a complete graphs with vertices $\V(\G) = \{1, 2, 3, 4\}$.
The only equilibria are
the balanced configurations of~$\V(\G)$ and the aligned
configurations of~$\V(\G)$. As explained in Section~\ref{sec:balanced}
the balanced configurations of four vertices are arranged into three
$2$-dimensional tori:
\begin{align*}
B_1&=\{(\alpha,\alpha+\pi,\beta,\beta+\pi) \mid \alpha,\beta\in\T\}, \\
B_2&=\{(\alpha,\beta,\alpha+\pi,\beta+\pi) \mid \alpha,\beta\in\T\}, \\
B_3&=\{(\alpha,\beta,\beta+\pi,\alpha+\pi) \mid \alpha,\beta\in\T\}.
\end{align*}
These tori mutually intersect at aligned balanced configurations. Up to phase-shift
the balanced configurations form three mutually tangent circles.
There are only three aligned balanced configurations up to phase-shift.
The energy of the balanced configurations is~$E=8$, which is the maximum of the system.

The aligned configurations that are not balanced are
\begin{align*}
& A_1 = \{(\alpha, \alpha+\pi, \alpha+\pi, \alpha+\pi) \mid \alpha \in \T\}, \\
& A_2 = \{(\alpha +\pi, \alpha, \alpha+\pi, \alpha+\pi) \mid \alpha \in \T\}, \\
& A_3 = \{(\alpha +\pi, \alpha+\pi, \alpha, \alpha+\pi) \mid \alpha \in \T\}, \\
& A_4 = \{(\alpha +\pi, \alpha+\pi, \alpha+\pi, \alpha) \mid \alpha \in \T\},
\end{align*}
with energy~$E=6$, and the synchronized state
\[
	S = \{(\alpha, \alpha, \alpha, \alpha) \mid \alpha \in \T\}
\]
with energy~$E=0$. By perturbing the phase of one vertex,
it is easy to see that the equilibria in~$A_1$, $A_2$, $A_3$, and~$A_4$ are not
local maxima nor local minima.

A heteroclinic connection is only possible from a set with higher
energy to a set with lower energy. Numerically, we see that any connection
allowed by the energy actually exists. The existence of an orbit between~$A_i$
and~$S$ is trivial since~$S$ is the global minimum of
the energy. In order to establish the existence of an orbit between~$A_i$
and~$B_j$,
we perturbed an equilibrium of~$A_i$ and applied the Runge–Kutta method RK4 with reversed time.
We obtain the heteroclinic structure
of Figure~\ref{fig:heteroclinic_complete}.

\begin{figure} [h]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture} [scale=1]
\draw[] (-2,0) ellipse (2 and 1);
\draw[] (2,0) ellipse (2 and 1);
\draw[] (0,0) ellipse (4 and 1.6);
\fill (-3,-3) circle (0.05);
\fill (-1,-3) circle (0.05);
\fill (+1,-3) circle (0.05);
\fill (+3,-3) circle (0.05);
\fill (0,-4) circle (0.05);
\fill (0,0) circle (0.05);
\fill (-4,0) circle (0.05);
\fill (+4,0) circle (0.05);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 5pt, shorten <= 0pt, line width = 0.1]
	(-2,-1) to [] (-3,-3);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 3pt, shorten <= 0pt, line width = 0.1]
	(-2,-1) to [] (-1,-3);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 2pt, shorten <= 0pt, line width = 0.1]
	(-2,-1) to [] (+1,-3);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 3pt, shorten <= 0pt, line width = 0.1]
	(-2,-1) to [] (+3,-3);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 3pt, shorten <= 0pt, line width = 0.1]
	(0,-1.6) to [] (-3,-3);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 5pt, shorten <= 0pt, line width = 0.1]
	(0,-1.6) to [] (-1,-3);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 5pt, shorten <= 0pt, line width = 0.1]
	(0,-1.6) to [] (+1,-3);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 3pt, shorten <= 0pt, line width = 0.1]
	(0,-1.6) to [] (+3,-3);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 3pt, shorten <= 0pt, line width = 0.1]
	(+2,-1) to [] (-3,-3);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 2pt, shorten <= 0pt, line width = 0.1]
	(+2,-1) to [] (-1,-3);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 3pt, shorten <= 0pt, line width = 0.1]
	(+2,-1) to [] (+1,-3);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 5pt, shorten <= 0pt, line width = 0.1]
	(+2,-1) to [] (+3,-3);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 3pt, shorten <= 0pt, line width = 0.1]
	(-2,-1) to [out = -90-45, in = 180, distance=120pt] (0,-4);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 3pt, shorten <= 0pt, line width = 0.1]
	(0,-1.6) to [] (0,-4);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 3pt, shorten <= 0pt, line width = 0.1]
	(+2,-1) to [out = -45, in = 0, distance=120pt] (0,-4);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 3pt, shorten <= 3pt, line width = 0.1]
	(-3,-3) to [out = -45, in = 90, distance=10pt] (0,-4);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 3pt, shorten <= 3pt, line width = 0.1]
	(-1,-3) to [out = -45, in = 90, distance=10pt] (0,-4);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 3pt, shorten <= 3pt, line width = 0.1]
	(+1,-3) to [out = -90-45, in = 90, distance=10pt] (0,-4);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 3pt, shorten <= 3pt, line width = 0.1]
	(+3,-3) to [out = -90-45, in = 90, distance=10pt] (0,-4);
\node [fill=white] at (-2, -1+0.1) {$B_1$};
\node [fill=white] at (+0, -1.6+0.2) {$B_2$};
\node [fill=white] at (+2, -1+0.1) {$B_3$};
\node [] at (-3-0.3, -3) {$A_1$};
\node [] at (-1-0.3, -3) {$A_2$};
\node [] at (+1+0.3, -3) {$A_3$};
\node [] at (+3+0.3, -3) {$A_3$};
\node [] at (0, -4-0.3) {$S$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Topology of the set of equilibria up to phase shift of the complete
graph with $4$~vertices.
A dotted arrow represents the existence of a heteroclinic orbit.}
\label{fig:heteroclinic_complete}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Cycle with $4$ vertices.}
A cycle graph with vertices~$1$, $2$, $3$, $4$
is a complete bipartite graph with parts~$\J=\{1,3\}$
and~$\K=\{2,4\}$. Therefore, we can apply Proposition~\ref{prop:bipartite}.
Equilibria of the form~\ref{prop:bipartite:1}, in which each part is balanced,
constitute a $2$-dimensional torus
\[
	B_2 = \{(\alpha,\beta,\alpha+\pi,\beta+\pi) \mid \alpha,\beta\in \T\}
\]
with energy~$E=4$.
Equilibria of the form~\ref{prop:bipartite:2} and~\ref{prop:bipartite:3},
in which one part is generic and the other is balanced and aligned give
the $2$-dimensional tori
\begin{align*}
	C_1 &= \{(\beta-\delta, \beta, \beta+\delta , \beta+\pi)
		\mid \beta, \delta\in \T \}, \\
	C_2 &= \{(\alpha, \alpha+\delta , \alpha+\pi, \alpha-\delta)
		\mid \alpha, \delta\in \T \},
\end{align*}
with energy~$E=4$.
Notice that the conditions~\ref{prop:bipartite:2} and~\ref{prop:bipartite:3} are not closed,
here we are taking closures. It is easy to see that the equilibria in~$B_2$, $C_1$ and~$C_2$
are not local maxima nor local minima.

Notice that~$B_2$, $C_1$ and~$C_2$ contain two aligned equilibria each.
The remaining aligned equilibria are
\begin{align*}
	A_5 &= \{ (\alpha, \alpha+\pi, \alpha, \alpha+\pi) \mid \alpha \in \T\}, \\
	S &= \{ (\alpha, \alpha, \alpha, \alpha) \mid \alpha \in \T\},
\end{align*}
with energy~$E=8$ and~$E=0$ respectively.
Therefore, we obtain the heteroclinic network of Figure~\ref{fig:heteroclinic_cycle}.

Notice that~$B_2$, $C_1$ and~$C_2$ intersect in two $1$-dimensional tori.
The equilibria in the intersection have the property that all Jacobian eigenvalues are zero.
Equilibria with this property, known as completely degenerate, correspond to the Eulerian
circuits in the graph~\cite{sclosa2021completely}. In this case, the intersections
correspond to the two ways of traveling around the cycle.

\begin{figure} [h]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture} [scale=1]
\draw (0,0) ellipse (1.5 and 1.5);
\draw (0,0) ellipse (2.5 and 1.5);
\draw (0,0) ellipse (3.5 and 1.5);
\fill (0,+2.5) circle (0.05);
\fill (0,-2.5) circle (0.05);
\fill (0,+1.5) circle (0.05);
\fill (0,-1.5) circle (0.05);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 10pt, shorten <= 5pt, line width = 0.1]
	(0,2.5) to [out=-10, in=80, distance=30pt] (1.5,0);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 10pt, shorten <= 5pt, line width = 0.1]
	(0,2.5) to [out=-10, in=80, distance=30pt] (2.5,0);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 10pt, shorten <= 5pt, line width = 0.1]
	(0,2.5) to [out=-10, in=80, distance=30pt] (3.5,0);
\draw[->, dashed, shorten >= 5pt, shorten <= 5pt, line width = 0.1]
	(0,2.5) to [out=-170, in=170, distance=150pt] (0,-2.5);
\draw[<-, dashed, shorten <= 5pt, line width = 0.1]
	(0,-2.5) to [out=10, in=-90, distance=30pt] (1.5,0);
\draw[<-, dashed, shorten <= 5pt, line width = 0.1]
	(0,-2.5) to [out=10, in=-90, distance=30pt] (2.5,0);
\draw[<-, dashed, shorten <= 5pt, line width = 0.1]
	(0,-2.5) to [out=10, in=-90, distance=30pt] (3.5,0);
\node at (0.1, 2.8) {$A_5$};
\node at (0.1, -2.9) {$S$};
\node [{fill=white}] at (3.5, 0) {$C_2$};
\node [{fill=white}] at (2.5, 0) {$C_1$};
\node [{fill=white}] at (1.5, 0) {$B_2$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Topology of the set of equilibria up to phase shift of the cycle graph with $4$~vertices.
A dotted arrow represents the existence of a heteroclinic orbit.}
\label{fig:heteroclinic_cycle}
\end{figure}

\bibliographystyle{siam}