Computation of attractor dimension and maximal sums of Lyapunov exponents using polynomial optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two approaches are presented for computing upper bounds on Lyapunov exponents and their sums, and on the Lyapunov dimension, among all trajectories of a dynamical system governed by ordinary differential equations. The first approach expresses a sum of Lyapunov exponents as a time average in an augmented dynamical system and then applies methods for bounding time averages. This generalizes the method of Oeri \& Goluskin (Nonlinearity 36:5378--5400, 2023) for bounding the single largest Lyapunov exponent. The second approach considers a different augmented dynamical system, where bounds on sums of Lyapunov exponents are implied by stability of certain sets, and such stability is verified using Lyapunov function methods. Both of our approaches also can be adapted to directly compute bounds on Lyapunov dimension, which in turn imply bounds on the fractal dimension of a global attractor. For systems of ordinary differential equations with polynomial right-hand sides, all of our bounding formulations lead to polynomial optimization problems with sum-of-squares constraints. These sum-of-squares problems can be solved computationally for a chosen system to yield numerical bounds, provided the number of variables and degree of polynomials are not prohibitive. Most of our bounding formulations are proved to be sharp under mild assumptions. In the case of the polynomial optimization problems, sharpness means that upper bounds converge to the quantities being bounded as polynomial degrees are raised. Computational examples demonstrate upper bounds that are sharp to several digits, including for a six-dimensional dynamical system where sums of Lyapunov exponents are maximized on periodic orbits.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".