Stability
From Scholarpedia
| Philip Holmes and Eric T. Shea-Brown (2006), Scholarpedia, 1(10):1838. | revision #60388 [link to/cite this article] | |||||||||||||||||||
(Redirected from Unstable)
Curator: Dr. Philip Holmes, Princeton University, NJ, USA
Curator: Dr. Eric T. Shea-Brown, Courant Institute, New York University
The stability of an orbit of a dynamical system characterizes whether nearby (i.e., perturbed) orbits will remain in a neighborhood of that orbit or be repelled away from it. Asymptotic stability additionally characterizes attraction of nearby orbits to this orbit in the long-time limit. The distinct concept of structural stability is treated elsewhere, and concerns changes in the family of all solutions due to perturbations to the functions defining the dynamical system.
Contents |
Setup
We mainly consider autonomous ordinary differential equations (ODEs), written in vector notation as:
- (1)
where
We denote a solution to (1) by
, with initial conditions
.
Equilibria
(sometimes called equilibrium points or
fixed points), are special constant solutions:
where
, which is equivalent to requiring
for all
.
Below, we treat the stability of equilibria in detail, and then
mention extensions to the stability of more general solutions
. We also give some analogous results
for maps.
Definitions: Stability of an Equilibrium
Lyapunov stability
is a stable equilibrium if for every
neighborhood
of
there is a neighborhood
of
such that every solution
starting in
remains in
for all
. Notice that
need not approach
.
If
is not stable, it is unstable.
Asymptotic stability
An equilibrium
is asymptotically stable if it is Lyapunov stable and additionally
can be chosen so that
as
for all
.
An equilibrium that is Lyapunov stable but not asymptotically stable is sometimes called neutrally stable. See Figs. 1 and 2 for illustrations.
Exponential stability
An equilibrium
is exponentially stable if there is a neighborhood
of
and a constant
such that
as
for all
. Exponentially stable equilibria are also asymptotically stable, and hence Lyapunov stable.
Linearization and Stability of Equilibria
Linearization
Suppose that
is an equilibrium, so that if
, then
. Let
, where
is a small
perturbation:
. Substitute
into (1) and expand
in a
multivariable, vector-valued Taylor series to obtain:
- (2)
.
(We assume that
is sufficiently
differentiable so that Taylor's Theorem with remainder applies to
each component.) Here,
denotes the
Jacobian matrix of partial derivatives
, evaluated at the equilibrium
,
and
denotes terms of quadratic and higher
order in the components
.
Specifically, if
then
.
Thus, for small enough
, the first
order term
dominates. Taking into account that
and
vanish and ignoring the
small term
, we get the linear
system:
- (3)
.
This is called the linearization of (1). It can be solved by standard methods (Boyce and DiPrima, 1997).
The general solution
of Eqn.
(3) is determined by the eigenvalues and
eigenvectors of the Jacobian matrix
.
Here we are concerned with qualitative properties rather than complete
solutions. In particular, in studying stability we want to know
whether the size of solutions grows, stays constant, or shrinks as
. This can usually be answered just by
examining the eigenvalues.
Recall that, if
is a real eigenvalue with
eigenvector
, then there is a solution to the
linearized equation of the form:
If
is a complex conjugate
pair with eigenvectors
(where
are
real) then
and
are two linearly-independent solutions. In both cases the real part of
(almost) determines stability. Since any solution of the linearized equation can be written as a linear superposition of terms of these forms (except in the case of
multiple eigenvalues), we can deduce that
- If all eigenvalues of
have strictly negative real parts, then
as
for all solutions.
- If at least one eigenvalue of
has a positive real part, then there is a solution
with
as
.
- If some pairs of complex-conjugate eigenvalues have zero real parts with distinct imaginary parts, then the corresponding solutions for
oscillate and neither decay nor grow as
.
Note: The eigenvalues of the linearization are preserved under (smooth) changes of coordinates (Arnold, 1973).
Note: When multiple eigenvalues exist and there are not enough
linearly-independent eigenvectors to span
,
solutions behave like
, so that they still decay for sufficiently long times if
and grow if
.
Note: The form
implies that transient growth occurs over initial times even if
. This can also occur in the case of distinct eigenvalues. See (Trefethen and Embree, 2005) for more on this, but consider the example
for large
. This system has eigenvalues
and
. However, taking
, the first coordinate
initially grows from zero to a maximum value of
. For sufficiently large
, the growth of
will initially overwhelm the decay of
so that the trajectory transiently moves farther from the fixed point before approaching it as
. This also illustrates the need for the two neighborhoods
and
in the definitions of stability.
This motivates the concept of:
Hyperbolic equilibria
Definition:
is a hyperbolic
or non-degenerate equilibrium if all the eigenvalues of
have non-zero real parts.
Equipped with the linear analysis sketched above, and recognizing
that the remainder terms ignored in passing from Eqn.
(2) to (3) can be made as
small as we wish by selecting a sufficiently small neighborhood of
, we can determine the stability of
hyperbolic equilibria from their linearization:
Proposition: If
is an equilibrium of
and all the eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix
have strictly negative real parts, then
is exponentially (and hence asymptotically) stable. If at least one eigenvalue has strictly positive real part, then
is unstable.
Moreover, the Hartman-Grobman Theorem says that the full nonlinear system (1) is topologically equivalent to the linearized system (3) in a small neighborhood of a hyperbolic equilibrium.
Borrowing from fluid mechanics, we say that if all nearby solutions approach an equilibrium (e.g. all eigenvalues have negative real parts), it is a sink; if all nearby solutions recede from it, it is a source, and if some approach and some recede, it is a saddle point. When the equilibrium is surrounded by nested closed orbits, we call it a center.
Degenerate Equilibria
One might hope to claim that Lyapunov stability (per the definition above) holds even if (some) eigenvalues have zero real part, but the following counter examples demonstrates that this is not the case:
Example 1
Consider
- (4)
.
Here
is the equilibrium and the linearization at 0 is
- (5)
with solution
, so
certainly
is Lyapunov stable for Eqn. (5), but not asymptotically stable.
The exact solution of the nonlinear ODE (4) may be found by separating variables:
We therefore deduce that
The linearized system (5) is degenerate and the
nonlinear "remainder terms", ignored in our linearized analysis,
determine the outcome in this case. Here it is obvious, at least in
retrospect, that ignoring these terms is perilous, since while they
are indeed
(in fact,
), the linear
term is identically zero!
Example 2
Consider the two-dimensional system
Note that the linearization is simply a harmonic oscillator with
eigenvalues
. Is the equilibrium
of this system stable or unstable? To answer this, it
is convenient to transform to polar coordinates
, which gives the uncoupled system:
The first equation is as in the example above, so we conclude:
unstable;
stable;
asymptotically stable. The linearization gives no information if
.
How can we prove stability in such degenerate cases, in which one or more eigenvalues has zero real part? One method requires construction of a function, often called a Lyapunov function, which remains constant, or decreases, along solutions. For mechanical systems the total (kinetic plus potential) energy is often a good candidate. This allows one to prove stability and even asymptotic stability in certain cases, via describe Lyapunov's second method or direct method:
Theorem: Suppose that
has an isolated equilibrium at
(without loss of generality one can move an equilibrium
to
by letting
). If there exists a differentiable function
, which is positive definite in a neighborhood of
(in the sense that
and
for
) and for which
is negative definite on some domain
, then
is asymptotically stable. If
is negative semidefinite (i.e.,
is allowed), then
is Lyapunov-stable.
For a proof, see, e.g., (Hirsch, Smale, and Devaney (2004)).
Linearized stability for maps
Analogous results exist for stability of maps of the form
- (6)
.
but here the magnitude rather than the sign of the eigenvalues
is important. A solution
is called a fixed point if
.
Definition:
is a hyperbolic or
non-degenerate fixed point of the map
if no eigenvalue of
has magnitude 1.
Proposition: If
is a fixed point of the map
and all the eigenvalues of
have magnitudes strictly strictly less than 1, then
is asymptotically stable. If at least one eigenvalue has magnitude greater than 1, then
is unstable.
Example: Logistic map
The following one-dimensional example illustrates this. Consider the logistic map
which has two fixed points:
and
. The linearization at
is
which may be solved to give
.
Clearly,
grows without bound if
, and decays to 0 if
.
Similarly, we linearize at
and obtain
so that this fixed point is asymptotically stable if
.
Stability of General Orbits
The notions of stability may be generalized to non-constant orbits (periodic, quasiperiodic or non-periodic) of ODEs.
First, we give some definitions and notation. Let
, given the initial value
Then, the (forward) orbit
is the set of all values that this
trajectory obtains:
. Next, we have
Definition: Two orbits
and
are
-close if there is a reparameterization of
time (a smooth, monotonic function)
such that
.
We say that an orbit is orbitally stable if all orbits with nearby initial points remain close in this sense:
Definition: An orbit
is
orbitally stable if, for any
, there is a
neighborhood
of
so that, for all
in
,
and
are
-close.
Definition: If additionally
may be chosen so
that, for all
, there exists a
constant
so that
then
is asymptotically stable.
See Figures 3-4, which show (a segment of) the
orbit
as well as a
neighboring orbit
. The black lines indicate the boundary of an
-neighborhood of
.
We note that the linearization techniques discussed above for
equilibria and fixed points can be extended to apply to asymptotic
stability of Periodic Orbits, as described in the corresponding
article.
Example: The nonlinear pendulum
Consider the pendulum equations
Orbits lie on the energy level sets shown in Fig
5. Neighboring orbits have different periods. However, the two orbits animated in the
figure are
-close, as the corresponding trajectories
remain close under a reparameterization of time (under which their periods
would become equal). As this is true for all orbits in a neighborhood of either of the animated trajectories, they are both orbitally stable. In fact, all orbits are orbitally stable for this
system, except for the saddle points and their connections.
Example: Linear flows on the torus
The flow on the two-torus
is similar to the pendulum example above: here, all orbits are orbitally
stable, as their neighbors are
-close under reparameterization of time.
However, upon adding a third coordinate with constant velocity
the situation changes dramatically. Consider two neighboring orbits
with sightly different initial values of
. These
two orbits are linear flows on invariant two-tori with different, fixed
values of
. Generically, the two flows are
irrational, so that each orbit is dense on its two-torus. Therefore,
the two orbits are close as sets. However, time
cannot be reparameterized so that the orbits will be
close under the definition above, because the flows
have different slopes: see Fig. 6.
Example: The two-body problem
Consider the following equations, written in polar coordinates for
, which describe a limiting case of the
gravitational dynamics of two bodies:
As for the last example above, orbits with different initial points are linear flows on invariant two-tori which generally have different frequency ratios (i.e., different slopes). Therefore, no orbits (except for the equilibrium at the origin) are orbitally stable.
References
We thank both referees for their careful reading and suggestions, and one in in particular for her/his correction of our definition of orbital stability and for providing one of the examples above.
- W.E. Boyce and R.C. DiPrima (1997). Elementary Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems. Wiley, New York.
- M.W. Hirsch, S. Smale, and R.L. Devaney (2004). Differential Equations, Dynamical Systems and an Introduction to Chaos. Academic Press/Elsevier, San Diego.
- V.I. Arnold (1973). Ordinary Differential Equations. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
- L.N. Trefethen and M. Embree (2005). Spectra and Pseudospectra: The Behavior of Nonnormal Matrices and Operators. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
Internal references
- John W. Milnor (2006) Attractor. Scholarpedia, 1(11):1815.
- Edward Ott (2006) Basin of attraction. Scholarpedia, 1(8):1701.
- Jeff Moehlis, Kresimir Josic, Eric T. Shea-Brown (2006) Periodic orbit. Scholarpedia, 1(7):1358.
External Links
See also
Attractor, Basin of Attraction, Bifurcations, Chaos, Equilibrium, Fixed Point, Periodic Orbit, Unstable Periodic Orbits, Structural Stability
| Philip Holmes, Eric T. Shea-Brown (2006) Stability. Scholarpedia, 1(10):1838, (go to the first approved version) Created: 6 August 2006, reviewed: 9 October 2006, accepted: 11 October 2006 |






