A geometric approach for stability analysis of delay systems: Applications to network dynamics

Consider a linear time-invariant system with a discrete time-delay as

where L is a complex-valued parameter. The TCE for this system is F(\lambda,L)\triangleq \lambda-1-L{\rm e}^{-\frac{\lambda}{2}}=0. As usual, we substitute \lambda={\rm i}\beta into the equation. Different from the traditional method, we focus the SCCs, parameterizing it as L=L(\beta)={\rm e}^{{\rm i}\beta/2}({\rm i}\beta-1). As seen in Fig. ?, the SCCs separate the complex plane of L into several regions. According to Theorem 3.2, NU sustains its value as constant within each of these regions. When L=0 (whose loci is highlighted by the red dot in Fig. ?), the TCE becomes \lambda-1=0, from which we obtain {\rm NU}(0)=1. Consequently, we have {\rm NU}({\rm Region}~A)=1, in which the connected Region A indicated in Fig.  ?.

Consider a complex-valued and linear time-delay system as

The TCE for system (3.8) becomes \lambda=0.1(1+{\rm i})+L({\rm e}^{-\lambda}-1). The SCCs, obtained by taking \lambda={\rm i}\beta into the equation, are

As shown in Fig. ?, the SCCs separate complex plane into a few number of regions. Clearly, {\rm NU}(0)=1. According to Theorem 3.2, we have {\rm NU}({\rm Region}~A)=1. Using Theorem 3.6, we obtain that {\rm NU}({\rm Region}~B)={\rm NU}({\rm Region}~D)={\rm NU}({\rm Region}~C)=2, {\rm NU}({\rm Region}~E)=3, and {\rm NU}({\rm Region}~G)=0. The stability region \Omega for the complex-valued L is Region G, which is highlighted by green in Fig. ?.\square

Consider a system with a discrete delay as

where a>0, d\in\mathbb{R}, and \tau>0 is the time delay. For this particular scenario, the stability regions, denoted by \Omega_{a,d,\tau}, have been completely investigated in [b10, b11]. However, to test the efficacy of the developed approach, we still investigate this problem. Correspondingly, the TCE is given by

The SCCs, obtained by taking \lambda={\rm i}\beta into the equation, are L=L(\beta)=-{\rm e}^{{\rm i}\beta\tau}[a-{\rm i}(\beta-d)]=r(\beta){\rm e}^{{\rm i}\theta(\beta)}, where

It follows that \theta'(\beta)=\tau-{a}/{[a^2+(\beta-d)^2]}, where \theta'(\beta) achieves its minimum \tau-{1}/{a} at \beta=d. As seen in Fig. ?, the SCCs have different directions at \beta=d for a\tau<1 and a\tau>1.

When a\tau<1, as seen in Fig. ?, the SCCs undergo self-intersection at \beta=d\pm\beta^*, where \beta^*>0 denotes the smallest positive root such that \beta^*\tau-\arctan({\beta^*}/{a})=0. This segment of the curve, L=L(\beta),\beta\in[d-\beta^*,d+\beta^*], forms a stability region (depicted by a green shaded region in Fig. ?). Here, L(d-\beta^*)=L(d+\beta^*) represents the inflection point of the SCCs (highlighted by the brown dot in Fig. ?). By performing a parameter transformation \hat{\beta}=\beta-d, the contours of the stability regions are expressed as

From (?), it is inferred that, when the parameters \tau and a are fixed, the stability regions \Omega_{a,d,\tau} appear rotationally around the origin as d increases, with a rotation period of {2\pi}/{d}. Additionally, Figure ? shows these counterclockwise rotating and leaf-shaped regions, along with the consistent numerical results obtained from system (4.1).

When a\tau>1, as seen in Fig. ?, there is no stability region in the whole complex plane. \square

Consider a system with distributed delay as

where a>0. We suppose that the distribution of the delay obeys Gamma’s distribution

where parameter n\in N^* and T>0 represents the mean value of the distribution. In the following, we investigate the stability region \Omega_T^n for different values of n and T. Correspondingly, the TCE for system (4.2) becomes \lambda=a+L \int_0^{+\infty} {\rm e}^{-\lambda\tau}h^n_T(\tau){\rm d}\tau, where

The SCCs, obtained by taking \lambda={\rm i}\beta into the equation, are

Thus, the SCCs can be written as L^n_T(\beta)=r^n_T(\beta){\rm e}^{{\rm i}\theta^n_T(\beta)}, where

and

Consequently, we obtain {\theta^n_T}'(0)=T-{1}/{a}.

Case I: n=1. As shown in Figs. ?-?, the SCCs separate the complex plane into two regions. They have different directions dependent on different groups of parameters. The critical value is determined by {\theta^n_T}'(0)=0. Clearly, {\rm NU}(0)=1, and thus {\rm NU}({\rm Region}~A)=1. According to Theorem 3.9, {\rm NU}({\rm Region}~B)-{\rm NU}({\rm Region}~A)={\rm Sgn}[{\theta^n_T}'(0)]. As a result, for aT<1, {\rm NU}({\rm Region}~B)=0, which implies that the stability set \Omega_T^n for the complex-valued L is Region B, the green shaded region shown in Fig. ?. In addition, Figure ? shows the unbounded stability region, along with the consistent numerical results obtained from system (4.2). Conversely for aT>1, {\rm NU}({\rm Region~B})=2, so that there is no stability region for L (see Fig. ?).

Case II: n\geq 2. As shown in Fig. ?, for aT<1, the SCCs separate the complex plane into three regions. The SCCs through self-encirclement result in a formation of an additional region, referred to as Region C which is the stability region \Omega_T^n (highlighted by the green shaded area in Fig. ?). The contours of this region are expressed as L=L_T^n(\beta) for \beta\in [-\beta^*,\beta^*]. Here, \beta^*>0 denotes the smallest positive root satisfying n\arctan({\beta^* T}/{n})-\arctan({\beta^*}/{a})=0. Moreover, as shown in Fig. ?, for aT>1, the SCCs separate the complex plane into two regions. Analogous to the situation for n=1, there is no stability region. \square

We investigate the consensus problem of a class of car-following systems with distributed delays, which reads

with i=1,\cdots,N and x_{N+1}=x_1. Here, x_i(t) is the velocity of the i-th vehicle at time t, \alpha_i>0 is seen as the sensitivity of the i-th driver to the velocity difference between the current vehicle and the preceding vehicle, and h(\tau) is the time delay distribution. Using the master stability function (see details in Section ?), we obtain the necessary and sufficient condition on the consensus of system (5.1) (i.e. \lim_{t\to+\infty}|{x}_i(t)-{x}_j(t)|=0 for 1\leq i<j\leq N): All eigenvalues (except for 0) of the network matrix \bm{J}, which is weighted by \alpha_i\geq 0, are located within the stability region \Omega of

In the following, we discuss about two representative cases for the network matrix of N vehicles (see Fig. ?). Case A: vehicles traveling around a ring network (the asymmetric matrix \bm{J}_A corresponding to the situation where \alpha_i\equiv \alpha in system (5.1)), and Case B: vehicles arranged along a linear network (the asymmetric matrix \bm{J}_B corresponding to the situation in which \alpha_1=0 and \alpha_i\equiv\alpha for 2\leq i\leq N in system (5.1)). The distribution density is taken as h(\tau)=h^n_T(\tau), which has been defined in (4.2).

Using the arguments similar to those in Example 4.2, we obtain the stability regions \Omega^n_T for system (5.1) with h(\tau)=h^n_T(\tau) within the contours that are determined by

Here, we regard \tan({\pi}/{2})=+\infty. As seen in Fig. ?, the stability region shrinks as T increases from 0, i.e., \Omega^n_{T_1}\subseteq\Omega^n_{T_2} for T_1>T_2. As T=0, the stability region reduces to the left half of the complex plane.

In Case A, all eigenvalues of \bm{J}_A are given by

As T increases from 0, all eigenvalues (except for 0) are located within \Omega^n_{T} until reaching a critical value T_c, where one of the eigenvalues (except for 0) touches the contours of \Omega^n_{T} (see the red dashed curves in Fig. ?). Now, we turn to calculate the critical value T_c, which is written as

Write the contour (?) using the polar coordinates as L^n_T(\beta)=r^n_T(\beta){\rm e}^{{\rm i}\theta^n_T(\beta)}, where

Then, taking the absolute value and argument value separately on both sides of (?), we obtain that

and

It is important to note that the contours specified in (?) as well as all eigenvalues are symmetric along the real axis. Therefore, we select the critical value situated above the real axis, resulting in \beta_c>0 while 0<l\leq{N}/{2}. It follows from (?) that {\beta_c T_c}/{n}=\tan\left({\pi l}/{Nn}\right). Substituting it into (?) yields:

Taking l=1 further yields the sufficient and necessary condition on the consensus of system (5.1) for Case A as:

To numerically validate the analytically-obtained results, we choose four combinations for the pair (n,N), viz., (1,10), (1,5), (2,10), and (2,5). For each combination, system (5.1) is numerically implemented with the parameters (\alpha,T)\in(0,2)\times (0,2). The divergence or convergence synchronization rates are computed by \limsup_{t\to+\infty}{\max_{1\leq i<j\leq N}\log|x_i(t)-x_j(t)|}/{t}. As shown in Fig. ?, the analytical criteria in (?) are confirmed by our numerical results.

In Case B, all eigenvalues (except for 0) of \bm{J}_B are given by

By (?), we have

Consequently, the sufficient and necessary condition on the consensus of system (5.1) for Case B becomes

where we regard \tan({\pi}/{2})=+\infty. \square

Consider a general second-order MAS with N agents, which reads

where x_i(t), v_i(t), and u_i(t) denote position, velocity, and input of agent i, respectively, and i=1,2,\cdots,N. We introduce a PD control protocol with the distributed time delays for the input as

Here, k_{1,2} represent the proportional and derivative gains, respectively, a_{ij} denotes the adjacency weight of the connections for MAS network, and h(\tau) is the density distribution of time delays. Significant contributions have been made in prior research studies concerning the case involving discrete time delays (i.e., h(\tau)=\delta(\tau-T))[b47, b48]. Here, we investigate the scenario involving the distributed time delays, where the density distribution is characterized by h_T(\tau)=\frac{1}{T}{\rm e}^{-\frac{\tau}{T}}.

Using similar argument to Section ?, we obtain the sufficient and necessary condition on the stability of system (5.2) with controller (5.2) (i.e. \lim_{t\to+\infty} |{x}_i(t)|=\lim_{t\to+\infty} |v_i(t)|=0 for all i) as: All eigenvalues of \bm{J}=\{a_{ij}\}_{N\times N} are located within the stability region \Omega_T of the characteristic equation

It is noted here that the TCE is transformed as an equation of polynomial due to the particularly-used density distribution h_T(\tau). Thus, the SCCs becomes

To this end, we are in a position to present the change of the stability regions using the geometric approach. As shown in Fig. ?, the SCCs, as determined by the representation in (?), own different shapes and directions for different values of T\geq 0. As T=0, the SCCs divide the complex plane into two regions, where the left one defines the stability region \Omega_0 of Eq. (?). As T increases, the shapes and directions of the SCCs remain unchanged until T surpasses a critical value T_{c_1} (see Fig. ?). As T surpasses T_{c_1}, the SCCs divide the complex plane into three regions. In comparison to the case of T<T_{c_1}, the additional region is small, formed by the self-encirclement of the SCCs (see Fig. ?). The stability regions \Omega_T, highlighted in green, shrinks as T increases. As T exceeds a critical value T_{c_2}, the directions of the SCCs are reversed, leading to the disappearance of the stability region (see Fig. ?).

Next, we are to seek the values of T_{c_1,c_{2}}. From the parametric representation in (?), the polar coordinates for the SCCs can be further obtained as

and

From the direction of the SCCs at \beta=0 (see Fig. ? and Fig. ?), we obtain the critical value T_{c_1}=\frac{k_2}{k_1}-\frac{a}{b}=0.1 from \theta'_T(0)=0. On the other hand, \theta_T(\beta)=\pi+\left(a+\frac{k_1}{k_2}-\frac{1}{T}\right)\frac{1}{\beta}+o\left(\frac{1}{\beta}\right) as \beta\to+\infty. Thus, the critical value T_{c_2}\approx 0.5238 from a+\frac{k_1}{k_2}-\frac{1}{T}=0. Hence, the contours of the stability region \Omega_T can be parameterized as:

where \beta^*>0 is the root of \theta_T(\beta^*)=\pi as T_{c_1}<T<T_{c_2}.

Now, returning to the stability problem of system (5.2), we consider a noise-perturbed self-negative feedback network \bm{J}=-R\bm{I}_N+\alpha\bm{\Xi}_N where \bm{\Xi}_N\triangleq\{\xi_{ij}\}_{N\times N}, each \xi_{ij} are independently sampled from a uniform distribution within the interval [-1,1], and \alpha is the noise strength. According to the Circular Law (see Section ?, Theorem 7.1), for sufficiently large N, the eigenvalues of J = \{a_{ij}\}_{N\times N} are approximated as uniformly distributed within a circle obeying the equation

Fix N, T\geq 0, and R>0. When \alpha=0, all the eigenvalues of \bm{J} collapse to a single point -R (brown dots in Fig. ?). Suppose that -R\in\Omega_T. As \alpha increases from 0, all eigenvalues are located within \Omega_T until reaching a critical value \alpha_c, when the circle (?) becomes tangent to the SCCs (see black dashed curves in Fig. ?). Here, the critical value \alpha_c=\alpha_c(T,R,N) is obtained as follows:

To numerically validate the analytically-obtained results, we choose four different values of R. For each value, system (5.2) with controller (5.2) is numerically implemented for 1000 times with the parameters (\alpha,T)\in(0,4)\times (0,0.3). As shown in Fig. ?, the analytical criteria in (?) are confirmed by our numerical results.\square

We consider a system of coupled Kuramoto’s oscillators described by:

Here, the i-th oscillator, represented by the phase dynamics \theta_i, is supposed to rotate on a unit circle [b39, b56]. Moreover, \omega_i represents the natural frequency of the i-th oscillator, K is the global coupling strength, N is the total number of oscillators (assumed to be sufficiently large), and u_i is the control input. From a viewpoint of applications, all the natural frequencies are not necessarily be identical, which is supposed to obey a unimodal Cauchy-Lorentz distribution as

As K=0, each oscillator rotates at its own natural frequency, showing desynchronization state. For K>2, the coupled oscillators without control (u_i(t)\equiv 0) show a phenomenon of phase synchronization (see Fig. ? as t<10). In order to eliminate this phase synchronization, we introduce feedback couplings with heterogeneous delays as:

Here, C and S are constant real-valued coupling strengths to be designed while the delay \tau_{ij} means the time required to transfer a signal from the j-th oscillator to the i-th one. In real neuronal systems, oscillators are always spatially randomly and sparsely connected, which indicates that time delays obey a specific distribution h(\tau) rather than being identical. Denote by

the order parameter. Using the classic mean-field method (see Remark 5.5 and Section ?), the macroscopic dynamics of r(t) obeys:

where L\triangleq (C+{\rm i}S)/2 is the complex-valued coupling strength. Notice that r(t)\equiv 0 and |r(t)|>0 correspond, respectively, to the desynchronization state and the synchronization state (see Remark 5.6). Hence, linearization of system (?) in the vicinity of r=0 yields a time-delayed dynamical system as

Therefore, our goal is to find a suitable complex-valued L as the coupling gain to stabilize the zero solution of system (?) for K>2. Such a goal has been realized for some particular cases in Section ?. In the following, we discuss about two special cases, viz., Case A: \tau_{ij}\equiv T is a constant, i.e. h(\tau)=\delta(\tau-T), and Case B: d=0 and \tau_{ij} obeys an exponential distribution with mean value T>0, i.e. h(\tau)=\frac{1}{T}{\rm e}^{-\frac{\tau}{T}}. For both cases, using the analytical arguments in a normal way yields a stability region for system (?) if and only if ({K}/{2}-1)T<1. Actually, as ({K}/{2}-1)T<1, appropriate values for the coupling strengths of C and S can be selected so that L=(C+{\rm i}S)/2 falls within the stability region (refer to Figs. ? and ?). The effectiveness of our proposed feedback with heterogeneous delays has been confirmed by the numerical results depicted in Fig. ?. \square