pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.17027 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-18 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Trapping Regions for Quadratic Systems with Generalized Lossless Nonlinearities

Diganta Bhattacharjee , Shih-Chi Liao , Peter J. Seiler , Maziar S. Hemati This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 06:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY
keywords trapping regionsquadratic systemsgeneralized lossless nonlinearitiesforward invarianceellipsoidal trapping regionsbounded trajectoriesultimate boundsstability certification
0
0 comments X

The pith

A parameterization exploiting generalized lossless nonlinearities enables optimal trapping region computation for more quadratic systems and supports ellipsoidal shapes.

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

The paper develops a method to find trapping regions in quadratic dynamical systems where the nonlinear terms satisfy a relaxed version of the energy-preserving property. This generalization allows an efficient parameterization that computes the smallest such regions for a larger set of systems than before. Trapping regions prove that all trajectories stay bounded within a compact set, which is useful for analyzing long-term behavior and stability in control applications. The approach also gives conditions for using ellipsoids instead of spheres as these regions, often producing tighter bounds. Examples demonstrate success on a four-dimensional system unreachable by prior methods, smaller regions for an aerodynamics model, and detection of global stability.

Core claim

Quadratic systems with nonlinearities obeying the generalized lossless property admit an efficient parameterization for computing optimal trapping regions. This parameterization ensures the sets are forward invariant, certifying bounded trajectories, and extends to ellipsoidal trapping regions that can be smaller than spherical alternatives used previously.

What carries the argument

The parameterization of trapping regions based on the generalized lossless property of the nonlinearities, which enforces forward invariance through quadratic form conditions.

If this is right

  • Trapping regions can now be found for certain four-dimensional quadratic systems where previous methods could not identify any.
  • Trapping regions approximately an order of magnitude smaller are obtained for a low-order unsteady aerodynamics model.
  • The method identifies a globally asymptotically stable equilibrium in a two-state example.
  • Ellipsoidal trapping regions provide improved estimates of ultimate bounds compared to spherical ones.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This could enable tighter safety bounds in the design of controllers for systems like aircraft or fluid flows.
  • Extensions might allow application to systems with time-varying or uncertain parameters while preserving the invariance guarantees.
  • The approach suggests a path toward optimized bounds in nonlinear analysis for broader classes beyond the quadratic case.

Load-bearing premise

The nonlinearities in the quadratic system must satisfy the generalized lossless property, otherwise the computed sets may fail to be forward invariant.

What would settle it

Numerical integration of trajectories in the four-dimensional example starting inside the computed region that exit the set would show the parameterization does not guarantee forward invariance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.17027 by Diganta Bhattacharjee, Maziar S. Hemati, Peter J. Seiler, Shih-Chi Liao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Radii α over χ grid for the MLS system (11). The trend is qualitatively similar for the unsteady aerodynamics model (Sec IV-B) and the academic example (Sec IV-C). The spherical trapping radii on the χ grid are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A trapping region is a compact set that is forward invariant with respect to the dynamics. Existence of a trapping region certifies boundedness of trajectories, and the size of the set provides an estimate of the ultimate bound. Prior work on trapping region analysis has focused on quadratic systems with energy-preserving (lossless) nonlinearities. In this work, we focus on a generalization of the lossless property and present an efficient parameterization that enables optimal trapping region computation for a broader class of quadratic systems than afforded by existing methods. We also formulate conditions for ellipsoidal trapping regions, whereas spherical regions have been the focus of prior works. Three numerical examples are used to demonstrate the proposed framework: (1) a four dimensional system for which the prior state-of-the art is incapable of identifying a trapping region; (2) a low-order unsteady aerodynamics model for which the proposed approach yields trapping regions approximately an order of magnitude smaller than prevailing methods; and (3) a two-state academic example in which the proposed approach correctly identifies a globally asymptotically stable equilibrium point.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an efficient parameterization of trapping regions for quadratic systems whose nonlinearities satisfy a generalized lossless condition. This extends prior work limited to energy-preserving (lossless) nonlinearities, enables computation of optimal regions for a broader class, and supplies explicit conditions for ellipsoidal (rather than spherical) trapping regions. Forward invariance is certified via the parameterization; three numerical examples illustrate the claims, including a 4-D system where prior methods fail, an unsteady aerodynamics model yielding regions an order of magnitude smaller, and a 2-D example that correctly detects global asymptotic stability.

Significance. If the central parameterization is shown to guarantee invariance under the stated generalized lossless assumption, the work meaningfully enlarges the set of quadratic systems for which explicit, computable trapping regions are available. The shift from spherical to ellipsoidal regions and the reported size reductions in the aerodynamics example are practically relevant for ultimate-bound estimation and boundedness certification. The 4-D counter-example to prior methods supplies concrete evidence of expanded scope. These contributions are directly useful in systems-and-control applications where quadratic models arise.

major comments (2)
  1. §3.2, the statement of the generalized lossless condition and its use in the invariance proof: the derivation that the parameterized set is forward invariant appears to rest on this property, yet the manuscript does not supply an explicit algebraic test or numerical verification procedure that a reader can apply to a new system. Without this, it is difficult to assess how broadly the method applies beyond the three examples.
  2. §4.1, Eq. (18) and the subsequent SDP formulation: the claim that the parameterization yields an 'optimal' trapping region is made without a comparison to the globally optimal (non-parameterized) region; the reported improvements are therefore relative to prior parameterized methods rather than absolute optimality.
minor comments (3)
  1. Figure 2 caption: the legend does not distinguish the three different initial conditions shown; this obscures the forward-invariance demonstration.
  2. §5.3: the two-state academic example would benefit from an explicit statement of the equilibrium location and the eigenvalues of the linearization to support the global-stability claim.
  3. References: the citation list omits several recent works on ellipsoidal invariant sets for quadratic systems that appeared after the cited lossless papers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment and constructive comments. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3.2, the statement of the generalized lossless condition and its use in the invariance proof: the derivation that the parameterized set is forward invariant appears to rest on this property, yet the manuscript does not supply an explicit algebraic test or numerical verification procedure that a reader can apply to a new system. Without this, it is difficult to assess how broadly the method applies beyond the three examples.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit verification procedure would improve the manuscript. The generalized lossless condition is an algebraic property on the nonlinear vector field. In the revision we will add a remark providing the direct algebraic test (vanishing of the relevant quadratic form) together with a numerical verification procedure based on semidefinite programming or symbolic computation, and we will apply the test explicitly to the three examples. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §4.1, Eq. (18) and the subsequent SDP formulation: the claim that the parameterization yields an 'optimal' trapping region is made without a comparison to the globally optimal (non-parameterized) region; the reported improvements are therefore relative to prior parameterized methods rather than absolute optimality.

    Authors: The referee is correct that optimality holds only within the parameterized family; a comparison to the globally optimal (non-parameterized) region is not provided because the latter problem is non-convex and intractable in general. We will revise the wording in §4.1 and the abstract to state explicitly that the SDP yields the optimal region inside the proposed parameterization, while the numerical improvements remain relative to existing parameterized methods. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in parameterization or conditions

full rationale

The derivation introduces a direct parameterization of trapping regions for quadratic systems satisfying the generalized lossless nonlinearity property, then states explicit conditions for ellipsoidal regions. These steps are presented as algebraic consequences of the system dynamics and the stated property rather than reductions to internally fitted quantities or self-referential definitions. The three numerical examples function as external demonstrations of applicability and improved bounds, not as inputs that define the claimed results. No load-bearing premise is justified solely by self-citation chains, and the central claims remain independent of any renaming or ansatz smuggling from prior author work. The approach is therefore self-contained against the stated assumptions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be extracted. The generalized lossless property functions as a domain assumption that enables the parameterization.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5493 in / 1078 out tokens · 35512 ms · 2026-05-10T06:49:20.210605+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    On long-term boundedness of Galerkin models,

    M. Schlegel and B. R. Noack, “On long-term boundedness of Galerkin models,”J. Fluid Mech., vol. 765, pp. 325–352, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    A convex optimization approach to compute trapping regions for lossless quadratic systems,

    S.-C. Liao, A. Leonid Heide, M. S. Hemati, and P. J. Seiler, “A convex optimization approach to compute trapping regions for lossless quadratic systems,”Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 2425–2436, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Extending the trapping theorem to provide local stability guarantees for quadratically nonlinear models,

    M. Peng, A. A. Kaptanoglu, C. J. Hansen, J. Stevens-Haas, K. Manohar, and S. L. Brunton, “Extending the trapping theorem to provide local stability guarantees for quadratically nonlinear models,”Phys. Fluids, vol. 37, no. 10, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    On boundedness of quadratic dynamics with energy-preserving nonlinearity,

    S.-C. Liao, M. S. Hemati, and P. Seiler, “On boundedness of quadratic dynamics with energy-preserving nonlinearity,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.12758, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    H. K. Khalil,Nonlinear systems. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    Data-driven nonlinear aerody- namics models with certifiably optimal boundedness properties,

    A. L. Heide, S.-C. Liao, S. Castiblanco-Ballesteros, G. B. Jacobs, P. Seiler, and M. S. Hemati, “Data-driven nonlinear aerody- namics models with certifiably optimal boundedness properties,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.16800, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Estimat- ing regions of attraction for transitional flows using quadratic constraints,

    A. Kalur, T. Mushtaq, P. Seiler, and M. S. Hemati, “Estimat- ing regions of attraction for transitional flows using quadratic constraints,”IEEE Contr. Syst. Lett., vol. 6, pp. 482–487, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Promoting global stability in data-driven models of quadratic nonlinear dynamics,

    A. A. Kaptanoglu, J. L. Callaham, A. Aravkin, C. J. Hansen, and S. L. Brunton, “Promoting global stability in data-driven models of quadratic nonlinear dynamics,”Phys. Rev. Fluids, vol. 6, no. 9, p. 094401, 2021

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Guaranteed stable quadratic models and their applications in sindy and operator inference,

    P. Goyal, I. P. Duff, and P. Benner, “Guaranteed stable quadratic models and their applications in sindy and operator inference,” Phys. D: Nonlinear Phenom., p. 134893, 2025

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Control barrier functions: Theory and applications,

    A. D. Ames, S. Coogan, M. Egerstedt, G. Notomista, K. Sreenath, and P. Tabuada, “Control barrier functions: Theory and applications,” inEur. Contr. Conf., 2019, pp. 3420–3431

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    Method of centers for minimizing generalized eigenvalues,

    S. Boyd and L. El Ghaoui, “Method of centers for minimizing generalized eigenvalues,”Linear Algebra Appl., vol. 188, pp. 63– 111, 1993

    work page 1993

  12. [12]

    Papachristodoulou, J

    A. Papachristodoulou, J. Anderson, G. Valmorbida, S. Prajna, P. Seiler, and P. A. Parrilo,SOSTOOLS: Sum of squares opti- mization toolbox for MATLAB, 2013

    work page 2013

  13. [13]

    Algorithms for ellipsoids,

    S. B. Pope, “Algorithms for ellipsoids,” Cornell University, FDA- 08-01, Tech. Rep., 2008. 6

    work page 2008