Local Dissipativity Analysis of Nonlinear Systems

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2511.20838
• Title: Local Dissipativity Analysis of Nonlinear Systems
• Authors: Amy K. Strong, Leila Bridgeman (Duke University)
• Classification: eess.SY (Systems and Control), cs.SY
• Submission Date: November 25, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.20838

Abstract

Dissipativity characterizes the input-output (IO) properties of nonlinear systems and enables compositional robust control through the Vidyasagar network dissipativity theorem. However, determining system dissipativity is a complex and often model-dependent process. This paper proposes a general methodology to determine local dissipativity properties of nonlinear control-affine systems. The approach simultaneously searches for optimal IO properties and synthesizes continuous piecewise affine (CPA) storage functions through convex optimization. To achieve this, the authors reformulate the relationship between Hamilton-Jacobi inequalities and dissipativity inequalities as linear matrix inequalities (LMIs), and develop novel LMI bounds for triangulations. Additionally, methods for synthesizing combined quadratic and CPA storage functions are developed to extend the applicability of the optimization framework. Finally, it is proven that when a system is strictly locally dissipative, the method can always find feasible IO properties and either CPA or quadratic storage functions.

Research Background and Motivation

1. Core Problem

Input-output (IO) stability theory is crucial in robust control, employing compositional approaches for stability analysis—the closed-loop IO stability of a network depends on coarse-grained open-loop IO properties of individual subsystems. However, for nonlinear systems, determining IO properties is a complex and often model-dependent process.

2. Problem Importance

• Compositional Control: IO theory enables flexible handling of different subsystem types (linear, nonlinear, time-varying, etc.)
• Robustness: IO properties can be chosen to be robust against various sources of uncertainty
• Broad Applicability: Local QSR dissipativity encompasses many well-known IO properties, including passivity, L₂ gain, and conic sectors

3. Limitations of Existing Methods

Limitations of Linear System Approaches:

• For linear systems, IO properties can be established through frequency-domain analysis, solving LMIs from HJI, or data-driven analysis
• Via the KYP lemma, dissipativity is equivalent to the existence of a positive semidefinite quadratic storage function, solvable through LMI optimization
• However, nonlinear system storage functions lack fixed functional forms and lack systematic methods

Problems with Existing Nonlinear Methods:

• Dynamic Programming Methods 6,14: Iterative methods require good initialization and lack convergence guarantees
• Transformation Methods 26,33: Valid only in limited state space regions where transformations apply, requiring specific techniques
• SOS Methods 25,27,1: Applicable only to polynomial systems, relying on non-convex optimization that may be overly conservative
• Prior CPA Methods 17: HJI and error terms are polynomials in design variables, leading to conservative non-convex optimization, and excluding linear and control-affine terms

4. Research Motivation

There is a need for a general, systematic method to determine local dissipativity properties of nonlinear control-affine systems that should:

• Apply to broad classes of nonlinear systems
• Be implementable through convex optimization
• Provide feasibility guarantees
• Simultaneously synthesize storage functions and IO properties

Core Contributions

1. Convex Optimization Framework: Proposes a method to simultaneously search for QSR parameters and CPA storage functions through convex optimization, ensuring HJI holds throughout the state space region
2. Novel LMI Error Bounds (Section 3):
   • Develops novel LMI error bounds for imposing LMI constraints on CPA functions over triangulations (Theorem 10)
   • Develops methods for enforcing inequalities on closed balls around the origin, allowing consideration of quadratic storage functions (Theorem 11)
3. LMI Reformulation of HJI (Section 4):
   • Reformulates HJI as LMI, convexifying previous optimization problems
   • Proposes conditions for CPA storage functions to satisfy HJI (Theorem 12)
   • Develops synthesis methods for combined quadratic and CPA storage functions (Theorem 13)
4. Theoretical Guarantees (Section 5):
   • Proves that for strictly locally dissipative nonlinear control-affine systems, the optimization problem can always verify dissipativity properties with CPA or quadratic storage functions (Theorems 15, 16)
5. Numerical Verification (Section 6):
   • Demonstrates method effectiveness on three systems, including comparisons with analytical bounds and existing methods

Methodology Details

Problem Formulation

System Model: Consider the mapping $G(x_0): \mathcal{L}^m_{2e} \to \mathcal{L}^p_{2e}$, where $y = G(x_0)u$ is defined by:

where $\bar{G}(x) = B + G(x)$, $\bar{J}(x) = D + J(x)$, and $f(0)=0, G(0)=0, h(0)=0, J(0)=0$.

Objective: Determine the local QSR dissipativity of the system on a robustly positively invariant set $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^n$, i.e., the existence of a storage function $V: \Omega \to \mathbb{R}_+$ such that:

where the supply rate is:

Model Architecture

1. Continuous Piecewise Affine (CPA) Functions

Triangulation: Partition the state space region $\Omega$ into a finite set of n-simplices $\mathcal{T} = \{\sigma_i\}_{i=1}^{m_T}$

CPA Function Definition: A CPA function on $\Omega$ is uniquely determined by its values at the vertices $\mathcal{E}_\Omega$ of the triangulation. For simplex $\sigma_i = \text{co}\{x_{i,j}\}_{j=0}^n$, the function value is:

where the j-th row of $X_i$ is $x_{i,j} - x_{i,0}$, and the j-th element of $\bar{W}_i$ is $W_{x_{i,j}} - W_{x_{i,0}}$.

2. LMI Error Bounds (Key Innovation)

Theorem 10 (LMI Error Bound on Simplex): For LMI form:

On simplex $\sigma$, if $x = \sum_{j=0}^n \lambda_j x_j$, then:

where the error bound matrix is:

Here $\hat{\phi}_j \geq \max_{j} |H_\phi(x_j, x)|$, $\hat{\zeta}^{(k)} \geq \max_j |H_{\zeta^{(k)}}(x_j, x)|$, and $\Pi$ is a diagonal positive definite matrix.

Theorem 11 (Quadratic Error Bound on Ball): For inequality:

If the Jacobian at $x=0$ satisfies:

then the original inequality holds on $B_\epsilon(0)$.

3. Storage Function Synthesis Conditions

Theorem 12 (Pure CPA Storage Function, B=0, D=0): If CPA function $V = \{V_x\}_{x \in \mathcal{E}_T}$ satisfies:

• $V_x \geq 0, \forall x \in \mathcal{E}_x$ (non-negativity)
• $\|\nabla V_i\|_1 \leq l_i$ (gradient bounds)
• $M(x_{i,j}) + E(x_{i,j}) \preceq 0$ (QSR condition with error bounds)

then $V$ satisfies the dissipativity HJI on $\mathcal{X}^\circ$.

Theorem 13 (Combined Quadratic-CPA Storage Function): For systems with non-zero control-affine terms, define the combined storage function:

where $V_P(x) = x^\top P x$ is quadratic and $V_C$ is CPA. Additional constraints ensure continuity of both functions at boundaries.

Technical Innovations

1. Structured Design of LMI Error Bounds:
   • Utilizes Young's inequality and Schur complement lemma to transform off-diagonal terms into manageable bounds
   • Introduces design variable $\Pi$ allowing optimization to adjust error bound tightness
   • Distinguishes treatment of origin-containing simplices from non-origin simplices
2. Convexification Strategy:
   • Prior work 17 had HJI and error terms as polynomials in design variables (non-convex)
   • This paper transforms the problem into convex optimization through LMI reformulation
   • Key insight: treating $\nabla V$ as linear rather than quadratic terms
3. Combined Storage Functions:
   • Uses quadratic functions near the origin to handle control-affine terms
   • Uses CPA functions away from origin for flexibility
   • Ensures function continuity through constraints (21a-b)
4. Theoretical Completeness:
   • Provides not just numerical methods but proves feasibility guarantees
   • Theorems 15 and 16 show that for strictly locally dissipative systems, the method always finds solutions

Experimental Setup

Numerical Examples

1. One-Dimensional Nonlinear Conic System

System:

Parameters: $k_1=1, k_2=2, B=1, C=1, D=0$

Region: $\mathcal{X} = [-1,1]$, RPI set $\Omega = [-0.8092, 0.8092]$

Analytical Bounds: $a = -5.8 \times 10^{-9}$, $b = 0.50$

2. Two-Dimensional Pendulum System

System:

Input Constraint: $|u| < 0.1942$

Analytical Lyapunov Function: $V(x) = (1-\cos x_1) + \frac{1}{2}x_2^2$, analytical gain bound $\gamma \geq 1$

3. Three-Dimensional Polynomial System

System:

Region: $\mathcal{X} = [-0.5, 0.5]^3$

Evaluation Metrics

• Conic Bounds: Parameters $a, b$ such that $G_\Omega \in \text{cone}(a,b)$
• L₂ Gain: $\gamma$ such that $\|y\|_2 \leq \gamma \|u\|_2$
• Error from Analytical Bounds: Proximity of numerical solution to theoretical bounds
• Convergence: Performance improvement with increasing simplex count

Comparison Methods

• Analytical Methods: Hand-constructed Lyapunov functions (Examples 1 and 2)
• SOS Methods 25: Using SOSAnalysis toolbox (Example 3)
• Different Simplex Densities: $\Delta = 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001$

Implementation Details

• Convex optimization solvers for Problems 1 and 2
• RPI sets determined using existing tools 18,21
• Triangulations use uniform spacing strategy
• For combined storage functions, $\epsilon = 2\Delta$

Experimental Results

Main Results

1. One-Dimensional Conic System (Figure 1)

Key Findings:

• Numerical bounds converge rapidly to analytical bounds with increasing simplex count
• Even with relatively few simplices (100), reasonable approximations are obtained
• Upper bound $b$ converges faster than lower bound $a$

2. Pendulum System (Figure 2)

Key Findings:

• Analytical bound is $\gamma = 1.0$, method finds $\gamma = 2.221$
• Conservatism exists but continuously improves with more simplices
• SOS method inapplicable (non-polynomial system)
• Figure 4 shows synthesized storage function distribution over state space

3. Three-Dimensional Polynomial System

Key Findings:

• This method's gain is more conservative (1.65 vs 1.01)
• But this method provides convex optimization guarantees while SOS relies on non-convex optimization
• This method has broader applicability (not limited to polynomial systems)

Case Analysis

Figures 3 and 4 (Pendulum System):

• Figure 3 shows RPI set $\Omega$ (red line) and triangulation
• Figure 4 displays synthesized CPA storage function smooth and continuous over state space
• Storage function minimized at origin, increasing outward, consistent with physical intuition

Experimental Findings

1. Convergence: All three examples show results converging to tighter bounds as triangulation refines
2. Applicability:
   • Method applies to non-polynomial systems (e.g., pendulum's sine term)
   • Handles different dimensions (1D to 3D)
   • Analyzes various IO properties (conic bounds, L₂ gain)
3. Conservatism Trade-off:
   • Some conservatism compared to hand-crafted analytical methods
   • But provides automated, systematic analysis framework
   • Conservatism reducible by increasing simplex count
4. Computational Feasibility:
   • Even with tens of thousands of simplices, optimization remains solvable
   • Convex optimization guarantees global optimality

Related Work

1. Linear System IO Analysis

• KYP Lemma 5: Provides necessary and sufficient conditions for linear system dissipativity
• Frequency-Domain Analysis 5: Via transfer functions
• Data-Driven Methods 16: Verify dissipativity from data

2. Nonlinear System Storage Function Synthesis

Dynamic Programming Methods:

• 6: Finite-horizon gain determination
• 14: Iterative approximation, but requires good initialization

Transformation Methods:

• 26: Koopman operator approximation
• 33: Input-output operator norm bounds
• Limitations: Valid only in limited regions

Polynomial/SOS Methods:

• 25,27,1: Parameterize polynomial storage functions
• 19: Data-driven SOS
• Limitations: Applicable only to polynomial systems, potentially non-convex

3. CPA Lyapunov Functions

• 8,9: Pioneering work on CPA Lyapunov function synthesis
• 17: CPA storage functions for gain bounds, but non-convex optimization

Advantages of This Work Compared to Related Work

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Methodological Contribution: Proposes the first systematic method to simultaneously synthesize CPA storage functions and determine local QSR dissipativity through convex optimization
2. Theoretical Guarantees: Proves that for strictly locally dissipative systems, the method guarantees finding feasible solutions (Theorems 15-16)
3. Technical Innovations:
   • Novel LMI error bounds enable CPA function constraints to be enforced through finite vertex conditions
   • Combined quadratic-CPA storage functions extend method applicability
4. Practical Value: Numerical experiments verify method effectiveness across different dimensions and system types

Limitations

1. Conservatism:
   • Results are inherently conservative due to error bounds
   • Conservatism depends on triangulation density and function second-derivative bounds
   • Experiments show gaps from analytical bounds (e.g., pendulum: 2.221 vs 1.0)
2. Computational Complexity:
   • Simplex count grows exponentially with dimension (curse of dimensionality)
   • 3D systems already require 24,576 simplices
   • High-dimensional systems may be computationally infeasible
3. Applicability Scope:
   • Requires $f, G, h, J \in C^2$ (twice continuously differentiable)
   • Requires pre-determined RPI set $\Omega$
   • Not applicable for global dissipativity analysis
4. Parameter Selection:
   • Triangulation design (density, shape) affects results
   • Weight matrix $\Pi$ selection may impact conservatism
   • Parameter $\epsilon$ in combined storage functions requires tuning
5. Comparison with SOS:
   • May be more conservative than well-optimized SOS on polynomial systems
   • But SOS lacks global optimality guarantees; this method ensures convexity

Future Directions

1. Reduce Conservatism:
   • Develop tighter error bounds
   • Adaptive triangulation strategies
   • Higher-order interpolation methods
2. Extend Applicability:
   • Time-varying systems
   • Hybrid systems
   • Uncertain systems
3. Computational Efficiency:
   • Distributed/parallel optimization algorithms
   • Exploit system structure sparsity
   • Dimensionality reduction techniques
4. Data-Driven Versions:
   • Learn system dynamics bounds from data
   • Combine learning with optimization

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Methodological Innovation (★★★★★)

• Breakthrough Contribution: First to convexify CPA function synthesis problem, important progress in the field
• LMI Error Bounds: Theorem 10's structured design cleverly exploits matrix structure, avoiding non-convexity of prior work
• Combined Storage Functions: Elegantly solves control-affine term problem at origin

2. Theoretical Rigor (★★★★★)

• Complete Proofs: All theorems have rigorous mathematical proofs
• Feasibility Guarantees: Theorems 15-16 provide theoretical guarantees, not just heuristics
• Continuity Treatment: Combined storage function continuity proof (Theorem 13) is meticulous and rigorous

3. Experimental Sufficiency (★★★★☆)

• Diversity: Covers 1D-3D systems, different IO properties
• Comparisons: Compares with analytical bounds and SOS methods
• Convergence Analysis: Shows improvement trends with increasing simplices
• Shortcomings: Lacks computational time analysis and higher-dimensional system testing

4. Writing Clarity (★★★★★)

• Logical Flow: Background → error bounds → storage function conditions → optimization → guarantees, well-structured
• Symbol Conventions: Detailed symbol explanation section
• Readability: Complex mathematical derivations accompanied by intuitive explanations

Weaknesses

1. Experimental Design Flaws

• Missing Runtime Analysis: No computational time reported for different problem scales
• Parameter Sensitivity: Lacks systematic analysis of $\Pi, \epsilon, \Delta$ parameter effects
• High-Dimension Gap: Only tests up to 3D systems, doesn't explore method's dimensional limits

2. Insufficient Conservatism Analysis

• Missing Quantitative Analysis: No theoretical bounds or empirical formulas for conservatism
• Improvement Strategies: Insufficient discussion of practical conservatism reduction
• Trade-off Unquantified: Computational cost vs. conservatism trade-off not quantified

3. Incomplete Comparisons

• Limited Baselines: SOS comparison only on one example
• Missing Recent Work: Doesn't compare with post-2020 related methods
• Fairness Issues: Different methods use unequal computational resources

4. Limited Practical Discussion

• RPI Set Determination: Depends on external tools, doesn't discuss this step's difficulty
• Initialization: Optimization problem initialization strategy not specified
• Failure Cases: Doesn't discuss when method fails or performs poorly

Impact Assessment

1. Academic Impact (★★★★☆)

• Theoretical Contribution: Convexifying CPA storage function synthesis is important theoretical progress
• Citation Potential: Expected high citations in nonlinear control and robust control
• Pioneering Nature: Provides new tools and ideas for subsequent research

2. Practical Value (★★★☆☆)

• Applicable Scenarios: Low-dimensional nonlinear system IO analysis
• Tool Potential: Systematic method, easily implementable as software tool
• Industrial Application: Requires further computational complexity reduction for widespread adoption

3. Reproducibility (★★★☆☆)

• Strengths: Complete mathematical description, clear algorithms
• Weaknesses:
  • No code provided
  • Some implementation details (e.g., triangulation generation) underspecified
  • Optimization solver choice and settings not specified

Applicable Scenarios

Most Suitable For

1. Low-dimensional nonlinear systems (n ≤ 3) IO property analysis
2. Control-affine systems dissipativity verification
3. Applications requiring theoretical guarantees
4. Non-polynomial systems (where SOS inapplicable)

Not Suitable For

1. High-dimensional systems (n > 5): computationally infeasible
2. Real-time applications: optimization solving time may be excessive
3. Global property analysis: method targets local properties
4. Non-smooth systems: requires $C^2$ continuity

Potential Application Domains

• Robotics: Robotic arm and mobile robot robust control
• Power Systems: Local stability and damping analysis
• Aerospace: Aircraft attitude control
• Process Control: Chemical process stability analysis

Comprehensive Scoring

Selected References

1. 12 Hill & Moylan (1976): "The stability of nonlinear dissipative systems" - Foundational work on dissipativity theory
2. 8,9 Giesl & Hafstein (2012, 2014): Pioneering work on CPA Lyapunov function synthesis, important foundation for this paper
3. 25 Summers et al. (2013): "Quantitative local L₂-gain and reachability analysis" - Representative SOS method work
4. 17 Lavaei & Bridgeman (2022): Prior CPA storage function work, direct predecessor to this paper
5. 28 Van Der Schaft (1992): "L₂-gain analysis of nonlinear systems" - Classical reference on nonlinear system L₂ gain analysis

Summary: This is a high-quality theoretical work making important contributions to nonlinear system dissipativity analysis. Convexifying CPA storage function synthesis is the key innovation, with theoretical guarantees enhancing method reliability. Main limitations are computational complexity for high-dimensional systems and conservatism compared to hand-crafted methods. This work provides valuable systematic tools for nonlinear robust control and is expected to have significant impact in control theory.