Approximate reduction of dynamical systems
ABSTRACT The reduction of dynamical systems has a rich history, with many important applications related to stability, control and verification. Reduction of nonlinear systems is typically performed in an exact manner  as is the case with mechanical systems with symmetrywhich, unfortunately, limits the type of systems to which it can be applied. The goal of this paper is to consider a more general form of reduction, termed approximate reduction, in order to extend the class of systems that can be reduced. Using notions related to incremental stability, we give conditions on when a dynamical system can be projected to a lower dimensional space while providing hard bounds on the induced errors, i.e., when it is behaviorally similar to a dynamical system on a lower dimensional space. These concepts are illustrated on a series of examples.

Dataset: paper conference version
 SourceAvailable from: Danielle C. Tarraf[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In this note, we demonstrate the use of a control oriented notion of finite state input/output approximation to synthesize correctbydesign controllers for hybrid plants under sensor limitations. Specifically, we consider the problem of designing stabilizing switching controllers for a pair of unstable homogeneous second order systems with binary output feedback. In addition to yielding a deterministic finite state approximate model of the hybrid plant, our approach allows one to efficiently establish a useable upper bound on the quality of approximation, and leads to a discrete optimization problem whose solution immediately provides a certified finite state controller for the plant. The resulting controller consists of a deterministic finite state observer and a corresponding full state feedback control law.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 06/2011; · 2.72 Impact Factor  SourceAvailable from: Danielle C. Tarraf[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We consider the problem of approximating discretetime plants with finitevalued sensors and actuators by deterministic finite memory systems for the purpose of certifiedbydesign controller synthesis. Building on ideas from robust control, we propose a controloriented notion of finite state approximation for these systems, demonstrate its relevance to the control synthesis problem, and discuss its key features.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 01/2012; 57(12):31973202. · 2.72 Impact Factor
Page 1
APPROXIMATE REDUCTION OF DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS
PAULO TABUADA, AARON D. AMES, AGUNG JULIUS, AND GEORGE J. PAPPAS
Abstract. The reduction of dynamical systems has a rich history, with many important applications related
to stability, control and verification. Reduction of nonlinear systems is typically performed in an “exact”
manner—as is the case with mechanical systems with symmetry—which, unfortunately, limits the type of
systems to which it can be applied. The goal of this paper is to consider a more general form of reduction,
termed approximate reduction, in order to extend the class of systems that can be reduced. Using notions
related to incremental stability, we give conditions on when a dynamical system can be projected to a lower
dimensional space while providing hard bounds on the induced errors, i.e., when it is behaviorally similar to
a dynamical system on a lower dimensional space. These concepts are illustrated on a series of examples.
1. Introduction
Modeling is an essential part of many engineering disciplines and often a key ingredient for successful designs.
Although it is widely recognized that models are only approximate descriptions of reality, their value lies
precisely on the ability to describe, within certain bounds, the modeled phenomena. In this paper we consider
modeling of closedloop nonlinear control systems, i.e., differential equations, with the purpose of simplifying
the analysis of these systems. The goal of this paper is to reduce the dimensionality of the differential
equations being analyzed while providing hard bounds on the introduced errors. One promising application
of these techniques is to the verification of hybrid systems, which is currently constrained by the complexity
of high dimensional differential equations.
Reducing differential equations—and in particular mechanical systems—is a subject with a long and rich
history. The first form of reduction was discovered by Routh in the 1860’s; over the years, geometric reduction
has become an academic field in itself. One begins with a differential equation with certain symmetries, i.e.,
it is invariant under the action of a Lie group on the phase space. Using these symmetries, one can reduce
the dimensionality of the phase space (by “dividing” out by the symmetry group) and define a corresponding
differential equation on this reduced phase space. The main result of geometric reduction is that one can
understand the behavior of the fullorder system in terms of the behavior of the reduced system and vice
versa [MW74, vdS81, BKMM96]. While this form of “exact” reduction is very elegant, the class of systems
for which this procedure can be applied is actually quite small. This indicates the need for a form of reduction
that is applicable to a wider class of systems and, while not being exact, is “close enough”.
In systems theory, reduced order modeling has also been extensively studied under the name of model re
duction [BDG96, ASG00]. Contrary to model reduction where approximation is measured using L2norms
we are interested in L∞norms. The guarantees provided by L∞norms are more natural when applica
tions to safety verification are of interest. More recent work considered the exact reduction of control sys
tems [vdS04, TP04] based on the notion of bisimulation which was later generalized to approximate bisimu
lation [GP05, Tab07, GP07].
We develop our results in the framework of incremental stability and our main result is in the spirit of existing
stability results for cascade systems that proliferate the InputtoState Stability (ISS) literature. See for
example [Son06] and the references therein. A preliminary version of our results appeared in the conference
paper [TAJP06].
This research was partially supported by the National Science Foundation, EHS award 0712502.
1
arXiv:0707.3804v1 [math.OC] 25 Jul 2007
Page 2
2PAULO TABUADA, AARON D. AMES, AGUNG JULIUS, AND GEORGE J. PAPPAS
2. Preliminaries
A continuous function γ : R+
γ(r) → ∞ as r → ∞. A continuous function β : R+
s, the map β(r,s) belongs to class K∞with respect to r and, for each fixed r, the map β(r,s) is decreasing
with respect to s and β(r,s) → 0 as s → ∞.
For a smooth function φ : Rn→ Rmwe denote by Tφ the tangent map to φ and by Txφ the tangent map to
φ at x ∈ Rn. We will say that φ is a submersion at x ∈ Rnif Txφ is surjective and that Tφ is a submersion if
it is a submersion at every x ∈ Rn. When φ is a submersion we will also use the notation ker(Tφ) to denote
the distribution:
ker(Tφ) = {X : Rn→ Rn Tφ · X = 0}.
The Lie bracket of vector fields X and Y will be denotes by [X,Y ].
0→ R+
0, is said to belong to class K∞if it is strictly increasing, γ(0) = 0 and
0×R+
0→ R+
0is said to belong to class KL if, for each fixed
Given a point x ∈ Rn, x will denote the usual Euclidean norm while f will denote esssupt∈[0,τ]f(t) for
any given function f : [0,τ] → Rn, τ ∈ R+.
2.1. Dynamical and control systems. In this paper we shall restrict our attention to dynamical and control
systems defined on Euclidean spaces.
Definition 2.1. A vector field is a pair (Rn,X) where X is a smooth map X : Rn→ Rn. A smooth curve
x(·,x) : I → Rn, defined on an open subset I of R including the origin, is said to be a trajectory of (Rn,X)
if the following two conditions hold:
(1) x(0,x) = x;
(2)
d
dtx(t,x) = X(x(t,x)) for all t ∈ I.
A control system can be seen as an underdetermined vector field.
Definition 2.2. A control system is a triple (Rn,Rm,F) where F is a smooth map F : Rn× Rm→ Rn. A
smooth curve xu(·,x) : I → Rn, defined on an open subset I of R including the origin, is said to be a trajectory
of (Rn,Rm,F) if there exists a smooth curve u : I → Rmsuch that the following two conditions hold:
(1) xu(0,x) = x;
(2)
d
dtxu(t,x) = F(xu(t,x),u(t)) for all t ∈ I.
We have defined trajectories based on smooth input curves mainly for simplicity since the presented results
hold under weaker regularity assumptions.
3. Exact reduction
For some dynamical systems described by a vector field X on Rnit is possible to replace X by a vector
field Y describing the dynamics of the system on a lower dimensional space, Rm, while retaining much of the
information in X. When this is the case we say that X can be reduced to Y . This idea of (exact) reduction
is captured by the notion of φrelated vector fields.
Definition 3.1. Let φ : Rn→ Rmbe a smooth map. The vector field (Rn,X) is said to be φrelated to the
vector field (Rm,Y ) if for every x ∈ Rnwe have:
(3.1)
Txφ · X(x) = Y ◦ φ(x).
The following proposition, proved in [AMR88], characterizes φrelated vector fields in terms of their trajecto
ries.
Page 3
APPROXIMATE REDUCTION OF DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS3
Proposition 3.2. The vector field (Rn,X) is φrelated to the vector field (Rm,Y ) for some smooth map
φ : Rn→ Rmiff for every x ∈ Rnwe have:
(3.2)
φ ◦ x(t,x) = y(t,φ(x)),
where x(t,x) and y(t,y) are the trajectories of vector fields X and Y , respectively.
For φrelated vector fields, we can replace the study of trajectories x(·,x) with the study of trajectories
y(·,φ(x)) living on the lower dimension space Rm. In particular, formal verification of X can be performed
on Y whenever the relevant sets describing the verification problem can also be reduced to Rm.
If a vector field and a submersion φ are given we can use the following result, proved in [MSVS85], to determine
the existence of φrelated vector fields.
Proposition 3.3. Let (Rn,X) be a vector field and let φ : Rn→ Rmbe a smooth submersion. There exists a
vector field (Rm,Y ) that is φrelated to (Rn,X) iff:
[ker(Tφ),X] ⊆ ker(Tφ).
In an attempt to enlarge the class of vector fields that can be reduced we introduce, in the next section, an
approximate notion of reduction.
4. Approximate Reduction
The generalization of Definition 3.1 proposed in this section requires a decomposition of Rnof the form
Rn= Rm× Rk. Associated with this decomposition are the canonical projections πm: Rn→ Rmand πk :
Rn→ Rktaking Rn? x = (y,z) ∈ Rm× Rkto πm(x) = y and πk(x) = z, respectively.
Definition 4.1. The vector field (Rn,X) is said to be approximately πmrelated to the vector field (Rm,Y )
if there exist a class K∞function γ and a constant c ∈ R+
x ∈ Rn:
(4.1)
πm◦ x(t,x) − y(t,πm(x)) ≤ γ(πk(x)) + c.
0such that the following estimate holds for every
Note that when X and Y are πmrelated we have:
πm◦ x(t,x) − y(t,πm(x)) = 0,
which implies (4.1).
Definition 3.1. Similar ideas have been used in the context of approximate notions of equivalence for control
systems [GP07].
Definition 4.1 can thus be seen as a generalization of exact reduction captured by
Although the bound on the gap between the projection of the original trajectory x and the trajectory y of
the approximate reduced system is a function of x, in concrete applications the initial conditions are typically
restricted to a bounded set of interest. The following result has interesting implications in these situations.
Proposition 4.2. If (Rn,X) is approximately πmrelated to (Rm,Y ) then for any compact set S ⊆ Rnthere
exists a δ ∈ R+such that for all x ∈ S the following estimate holds:
(4.2)
πm◦ x(t,x) − y(t,πm(x)) ≤ δ.
Proof: Let δ = maxx∈Cγ(πk(x)) + c. The scalar δ is well defined since γ(πk( · )) + c is a continuous map
and C is compact.
?
From a practical point of view, approximate reduction is only a useful concept if it admits characterizations
that are simple to check. In order to derive such characterizations we need to review several notions of
incremental stability.
Page 4
4PAULO TABUADA, AARON D. AMES, AGUNG JULIUS, AND GEORGE J. PAPPAS
4.1. Incremental stability. In this subsection we review two notions of incremental stability which will be
fundamental in proving the main contribution of this paper. We follow [BM00] and [Ang02].
Definition 4.3. A control system (Rn,Rm,F) is said to be incrementally uniformly boundedinputbounded
state stable (IUBIBSS) if there exist two class K∞functions γ1and γ2such that for each x1,x2∈ Rnand for
each pair of smooth curves u1,u2: I → Rmthe following estimate holds:
(4.3)
xu1(t,x1) − xu2(t,x2) ≤ γ1(x1− x2) + γ2(?u1− u2?)
for all t ∈ I.
In general it is difficult to establish IUBIBSS directly. A sufficient condition is given by the existence of an
IUBIBSS Lyapunov function. Note, however, that IUBIBSS only implies the existence of a IUBIBSS Lyapunov
function with very weak regularity conditions [BM00].
Definition 4.4. A C1function V : Rn× Rn→ R+
system (Rn,Rm,F) if there exist a ξ ∈ R+and class K∞functions α,α, and µ such that for every x1,x2∈ Rn
and u1,u2∈ Rmthe following holds:
(1) x1− x2 ≥ ξ
(2) µ(r) ≥ r + ξ for r ∈ R+
(3) x1− x2 ≥ µ(u1− u2)
A stronger notion than IUBIBSS is incremental inputtostate stability.
0is said to be an IUBIBSS Lyapunov function for control
=⇒
α(x1− x2) ≤ V (x1,x2) ≤ α(x1− x2);
0;
=⇒
˙V ≤ 0.
Definition 4.5. A control system (Rn,Rm,F) is said to be incrementally inputtostate stable (IISS) if there
exist a class KL function β and a class K∞function γ such that for each x1,x2∈ Rnand for each pair of
smooth curves u1,u2: I → Rmthe following estimate holds:
(4.4)
xu1(t,x1) − xu2(t,x2) ≤ β(x1− x2,t) + γ(?u1− u2?)
Since β is a decreasing function of t we immediately see that (4.4) implies (4.3) with γ1(r) = β(r,0) and
γ2(r) = γ(r), r ∈ R+
for a converse result when the inputs take values in a compact set.
0. Once again, IISS is implied by the existence of an IISS Lyapunov function. See [Ang02]
Definition 4.6. A C1function V : Rn× Rn→ R+
system (Rn,Rm,F) if there exist class K∞functions α,α,α, and µ such that:
(1) α(x1− x2) ≤ V (x1,x2) ≤ α(x1− x2);
(2) x1− x2 ≥ µ(u1− u2)
4.2. Fiberwise stability. In addition to incremental stability we will also need a notion of partial practical
stability.
0is said to be an IISS Lyapunov function for the control
=⇒
˙V ≤ −α(x1− x2).
Definition 4.7. A vector field (Rn,X) is said to be fiberwise practically stable with respect to πkif there
exist a class K∞function γ and a constant c ∈ R+
?πk(x(·,x))? ≤ γ(πk(x)) + c.
Fiberwise practical stability can be checked with the help of the following result.
0such that the following estimate holds:
Lemma 4.8. A vector field (Rn,X) is fiberwise practically stable with respect to πk if there exist two K∞
functions, α and α, a constant d ∈ R+
πk(x) ≥ d we have:
(1) α(πk(x)) ≤ V (x) ≤ α(πk(x)),
(2)˙V ≤ 0.
0, and a function V : Rn→ R such that for every x ∈ Rnsatisfying
Page 5
APPROXIMATE REDUCTION OF DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS5
4.3. Existence of approximate reductions. In this subsection we prove the main result providing sufficient
conditions for the existence of approximate reductions.
Theorem 4.9. Let (Rn,X) be a fiberwise practically stable vector field with respect to πkand let F = Tπm·X :
Rm×Rk→ Rm, viewed as a control system with state space Rm, be IUBIBSS. Then, the vector field (Rm,Y )
defined by:
Y (y) = T(y,0)πm· X(y,0) = F(y,0)
for every y ∈ Rmis approximately πmrelated to (Rn,X).
Proof: By assumption, control system (Rm,Rk,F = Tπm◦X) is IUBIBSS. If we denote by y a trajectory of
F we have:
yv1(t,y1) − yv2(t,y2) ≤ γ1(y1− y2) + γ2(?v1− v2?).
In particular, we can take:
y1= y2= πm(x),
v1= πk◦ x(·,x),
to get:
v2= 0,
πm◦ x(t,x) − y(t,πm(x))
=
=
≤
yπk◦x(t,x)(t,πm(x)) − y0(t,πm(x))
yv1(t,πm(x)) − y0(t,πm(x))
γ2(?v1?) = γ2(?πk◦ x(·,x)?).
But it follows from fiber practical stability of X with respect to πkthat:
?πk◦ x(·,x)? ≤ γ(πk(x)) + c.
We thus have:
πm◦ x(t,x) − y(t,πm(x))≤
≤
γ2
?γ(πk(x)) + c?
γ2
?λ1γ(πk(x))?+ γ2
?λ2c?,
for some constants λ1,λ2 ∈ R+
γ2(λ2c) ∈ R+
Theorem 4.9 shows that sufficient conditions for approximate reduction can be given in terms of ISSlike
Lyapunov functions and how reduced system can be constructed. Before illustrating Theorem 4.9 with several
examples in the next section we present an important corollary.
0. This concludes the proof since γ2(λ1γ( · )) is a class K∞ function and
0.
?
Corollary 4.10. Let (Rn,X) and (Rm,Y ) be vector fields satisfying the assumptions of Theorem 4.9. Then,
for any compact set S ⊆ Rnthere exists a δ > 0 such that for any x ∈ S and y ∈ πm(S) the following estimate
holds:
πm◦ x(t,x) − y(t,y) ≤ δ
Proof: Using the same proof as for Theorem 4.9, except picking y1= πm(x) and y2= y, it follows that:
πm◦ x(t,x) − y(t,y) ≤ γ1(πm(x) − y) + γ2
The bound δ is now given by:
?λ1γ(πk(x))?+ γ2
?λ1γ(πk(x))?+ γ2
?λ2c?.
?λ2c?
δ =max
(x,y)∈S×πm(S)γ1(πm(x) − y) + γ2
which is well defined since S × πm(S) is compact.
?
Page 6
6PAULO TABUADA, AARON D. AMES, AGUNG JULIUS, AND GEORGE J. PAPPAS
Figure 1. Ball in a rotating hoop.
02
4
6
8
10
0
5
10
15
20
02
4
6
8
10
0
5
10
15
20
02
4
6
8
10
0
5
10
15
20
02
4
6
8
10
0
5
10
15
20
Figure 2. A trajectory of the full order system (red) vs. a trajectory for the reduced system
(blue) for R = 5,10,20,40 (from left to right and top to bottom, respectively).
5. Examples
In this section, we consider examples that illustrate the usefulness of approximate reduction.
Page 7
APPROXIMATE REDUCTION OF DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS7
Example 5.1. As a first example we consider the ball in a rotating hoop with friction, as described in Chapter
2 of [MR99] and displayed in Figure 1. For this example, there are the following parameters:
= mass of the ball,
= Radius of the hoop,
= acceleration due to gravity,
= friction constant for the ball.
The equations of motion are given by:
−µ
˙θ
=
ω
(5.1)
where θ is the angular position of the ball and ω is its angular velocity.
m
R
g
µ
˙ ω
=
mω + ξ2sinθcosθ −g
Rsinθ
If πω: R2→ R is the projection πω(ω,θ) = ω, then according to Proposition 3.3 there exists no vector field Y
on R which is πωrelated to X (as defined by (5.1)). However, we will show that Y (ω) = T(ω,0)πω· X(ω,0) is
approximate πωrelated to X.
First, we use:
V =1
2mR2ω2+ mgR(1 − cosθ) −1
2mR2ξ2sin2θ
as a Lyapunov function to show that (5.1) is stable. Note that V (ω,θ) = 0 for (ω,θ) = (0,0) and V (ω,θ) > 0
for (ω,θ) ?= (0,0) provided that Rξ2< g, which we assume. Computing the time derivative of V we obtain:
˙V = −µR2ω2≤ 0,
thus showing stability of (5.1). We now consider a compact set C invariant under the dynamics and restrict
our analysis to initial conditions in this set. Such a set can be constructed, for example, by taking {x ∈
R2 V (x) ≤ c} for some positive constant c. Note that stability of (5.1) implies fiberwise stability on C since
πm(C) is compact.
To apply Theorem 4.9 we only need to show that:
T(ω,θ)πω· X(ω,θ) = −µ
is IUBIBSS on C with θ seen as an input. We will conclude IUBIBSS by proving the stronger property of
IISS. Consider the function:
U =1
2(ω1− ω2)2.
Its time derivative is given by:
˙U
=(ω1− ω2)
−g
−µ
−g
≤
=
2m(ω1− ω2)2
+
−
where the second inequality follows from the fact that ξ2sinθcosθ −
the compact set πθ(C) and is thus globally Lipschitz on πθ(C) (since its derivative is continuous and thus
mω + ξ2sinθcosθ −g
Rsinθ
?
−µ
m(ω1− ω2) + ξ2sinθ1cosθ1
Rsinθ1− ξ2sinθ2cosθ2+g
m(ω1− ω2)2+ ω1− ω2
Rsinθ1− ξ2sinθ2cosθ2+g
−µ
−µ
?
Rsinθ2
???ξ2sinθ1cosθ1
?
≤
Rsinθ2
???
m(ω1− ω2)2+ ω1− ω2Lθ1− θ2
(5.2)
µ
2m(ω1− ω2)2+ ω1− ω2Lθ1− θ2
?
,
g
Rsinθ is a smooth function defined on
Page 8
8PAULO TABUADA, AARON D. AMES, AGUNG JULIUS, AND GEORGE J. PAPPAS
Figure 3. A graphical representation of the pendulum on a cart mounted to a spring.
bounded on any compact convex set containing πθ(C)) with Lipschitz constant L. We now note that the
condition:
ω1− ω2 >2mL
µ
θ1− θ2
makes the second term in (5.2) negative from which we conclude the following implication:
ω1− ω2 >2mL
µ
θ1− θ2
=⇒
˙U ≤ −µ
2m(ω1− ω2)2
showing that U is an IISS Lyapunov function. We can thus reduce (5.1) to:
˙ ω = −µ
mω.
Projected trajectories of the fullorder system as compared with trajectories of the reduced system can be
seen in Figure 2; here µ = m = 1 and ξ = 0.1. Note that as R → ∞, the reduced system converges to the
fullorder system (or the fullorder system effectively becomes decoupled).
Example 5.2. We now consider a pendulum attached to a cart which is mounted to a spring (see Figure 3).
For this example, there are the following parameters:
M
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
mass of the cart,
mass of the pendulum,
length of the rod,
spring stiffness,
acceleration due to gravity,
friction constant for the cart,
friction constant for the pendulum.
m
R
k
g
d
b
Page 9
APPROXIMATE REDUCTION OF DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS9
21012
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2 1012
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
21012
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2 1012
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Figure 4. A projected trajectory of the fullorder system (red) and a trajectory for the
reduced system (blue) for d = 0.001,0.01,0.1,1 (from left to right and top to bottom, respec
tively).
The equations of motion are given by:
˙ x
˙θ
=
=
v
ω
˙ v
=
1
M + msin2θ
?
mRω2sinθ + mg sinθcosθ − kx − dv +b
?
−(m + M)g sinθ + kxcosθ + dv cosθ −
Rcosθ
?
˙ ω
=
1
R(M + msin2θ)
− mRω2sinθcosθ
?
1 +M
m
?b
Rω
?
(5.3)
where x is the position of the cart, v its velocity, θ is the angular position of the pendulum and ω its angular
velocity.
If π(x,v): R4→ R2is the projection π(x,v)(x,θ,v,ω) = (x,v) and X is the vector field as defined in (5.3), the
goal is to reduce X to R2by eliminating the θ and ω variables and thus obtaining Y defined by:
?
˙ x
˙ v
?
=
Y (x,v) = T(x,θ,v,ω)π(x,v)· X(x,0,v,0) =
?
v
−1
M(dv + kx)
?
.
Page 10
10PAULO TABUADA, AARON D. AMES, AGUNG JULIUS, AND GEORGE J. PAPPAS
The objective is now to show that X and Y are approximately π(x,v)related. In particular, note that the
reduced system, Y , is linear while the fullorder system, X, is very nonlinear. This will be discussed in more
detail after proving that they are in fact approximately related.
Stability of X, and in particular fiberwise stability, can be proven as in the previous example by noting that
X is Hamiltonian for d = b = 0 and using the Hamiltonian as a Lyapunov function V . Consider now the
control system:
F ((x,v),(θ,ω))=
Tπ(x,v)· X(x,θ,v,ω)
1
M + msin2θ
+mg sinθcosθ − dv +b
(5.4)
=
?
mRω2sinθ − kx
Rcosθ
?
with θ and ω regarded as inputs. To show that F is IUBIBSS we first rewrite (5.4) in the form:
1
M + m
and consider the following IISS candidate Lyapunov function:
1
2(m + M)(x1− x2)2+1
F ((x,v),(θ,ω)) =
?
mRω2sinθ − kx − dv − mR˙ ω cosθ
?
U =
2(v1− v2)2.
Its time derivative is given by:
˙U
=
−
d
m + M(v1− v2)2
mR
m + M
+
?
ω2
1sinθ1− ˙ ω1cosθ1− ω2
2sinθ2+ ˙ ω2cosθ2
?
(v1− v2).
Using an argument similar to the one used for the previous example, we conclude that:
v1− v2 ≥2mRL
with L the Lipschitz constant of the function ω2sinθ − ˙ ω cosθ, implies:
˙U ≤ −
d
(θ1,ω1, ˙ ω1) − (θ2,ω2, ˙ ω2),
d
2(m + M)(v1− v2)2,
thus showing that X is IISS and in particular also IUBIBSS. That is, we have established that X and Y are
approximately π(x,v)related.
In order to illustrate some of the interesting implications of approximate reduction, we will compare the
reduced system, Y , and the fullorder system, X, in the case when R = m = k = b = 1 and M = 2. It follows
that the equations of motion for the reduced system are given by the linear system:
?
so we can completely characterize the dynamics of the reduced system: every solution spirals into the origin.
This is in stark contrast to the dynamics of X (see (5.3)) which are very complex. The fact that X and Y are
approximately related, and more specifically Theorem 4.9, allows us to understand the dynamics of X through
the simple dynamics of Y . To be more specific, because the distance between the projected trajectories of X
and the trajectories of Y is bounded, we know that the projected trajectories of X will “essentially” be spirals.
Moreover, the friction constant d will directly affect the rate of convergence of these spirals. Examples of this
can be seen in Figure 4 where d is varied to affect the convergence of the reduced system, and hence the full
order system.
˙ x
˙ v
?
=
?
01
d
−1
2
??
x
v
?
,
Page 11
APPROXIMATE REDUCTION OF DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS 11
References
[AMR88] R. Abraham, J. Marsden, and T. Ratiu. Manifolds, Tensor Analysis and Applications. Applied Mathematical Sci
ences. SpringerVerlag, 1988.
D. Angeli. A Lyapunov approach to incremental stability properties. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
47(3):410–421, 2002.
A. C. Antoulas, D. C. Sorensen, and S. Gugercin. A survey of model reduction methods for largescale systems.
Contemporary Mathematics, 280:193–219, 2000.
C. L. Beck, J. Doyle, and K. Glover. Model reduction of multidimensional and uncertain systems. IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, 41(10):1466–1477, 1996.
[BKMM96] A.M. Bloch, P.S. Krishnaprasad, J.E. Marsden, and R. Murray. Nonholonomic mechanical systems with symmetry.
Archive for Rational Mechanichs and Analysis, 136(1):21–99, 1996.
[BM00]A. Bacciotti and L. Mazzi. A necessary and sufficient condition for boundedinput boundedstate stability of nonlinear
systems. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 39(2):478–491, 2000.
[GP05] A. Girard and G. J. Pappas. Approximate bisimulations for nonlinear dynamical systems. In Proceedings of the 44th
IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Seville, Spain, 2005.
[GP07] A. Girard and G. J. Pappas. Approximate bisimulation relations for constrained linear systems. Automatica,
43(8):1307–1317, 2007.
[MR99] Jerrold E. Marsden and Tudor S. Ratiu. Introduction to Mechanics and Symmetry. Number 17 in Texts in Applied
Mathematics. SpringerVerlag, 2nd edition, 1999.
[MSVS85]Giuseppe Marmo, Alberto Simoni, Bruno Vitale, and Eugene J. Saletan. Dynamical Systems. John Wiley & Sons,
1985.
[MW74] J. E. Marsden and A. Weinstein. Reduction of symplectic manifolds with symmetry. Reports on Mathematical Physics,
5:121–120, 1974.
[Son06] E.D. Sontag. Input to State Stability: Basic concepts and results. In P. Nistri and G. Stefani, editors, Nonlinear and
Optimal Control Theory, pages 163–220. 2006. Electronically available at http://www.math.rutgers.edu/∼sontag/.
[Tab07]P. Tabuada. Approximate simulation relations and finite abstractions of quantized control systems. In A. Bemporad,
A. Bicchi, and G. Buttazzo, editors, Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control 2006, volume 4416 of Lecture Notes
in Computer Science, pages 529–542. SpringerVerlag, Pisa, Italy, 2007.
[TAJP06] P. Tabuada, A. Ames, A. Julius, and G. J. Pappas. Approximate reduction of dynamical systems. In Proceedings of
the 45th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, San Diego, CA, December 2006.
[TP04]P. Tabuada and G. J. Pappas. Bisimilar control affine systems. Systems and Control Letters, 52(1):49–58, 2004.
[vdS81] A. van der Schaft. Symmetries and conservation laws for Hamiltonian systems with inputs and outputs: A general
ization of Noether’s theorem. Systems and Control Letters, 1:108–115, 1981.
[vdS04] A. van der Schaft. Equivalence of dynamical systems by bisimulation. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
49(12):2160–2172, 2004.
[Ang02]
[ASG00]
[BDG96]
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of California at Los Angeles,, Los Angeles, CA 90095
Email address: tabuada@ee.ucla.edu
Control and Dynamical Systems Department, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125
Email address: ames@cds.caltech.edu
Department of Electrical and Systems Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104
Email address: agung@seas.upenn.edu
Department of Electrical and Systems Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104
Email address: pappasg@ee.upenn.edu
View other sources
Hide other sources
 Available from Agung Julius · Jun 3, 2014
 Available from ArXiv