1

Poincaré Analysis for Hybrid Periodic Orbits of
Systems with Impulse Effects under External Inputs

arXiv:1712.03291v1 [] 8 Dec 2017

Sushant Veer, Rakesh, and Ioannis Poulakakis

Abstract—In this paper we investigate the relation between
robustness of periodic orbits exhibited by systems with impulse
effects and robustness of their corresponding Poincaré maps.
In particular, we prove that input-to-state stability (ISS) of a
periodic orbit under external excitation in both continuous and
discrete time is equivalent to ISS of the corresponding 0-input
fixed point of the associated forced Poincaré map. This result
extends the classical Poincaré analysis for asymptotic stability
of periodic solutions to establish orbital input-to-state stability
of such solutions under external excitation. In our proof, we
define the forced Poincaré map, and use it to construct ISS
estimates for the periodic orbit in terms of ISS estimates of
this map under mild assumptions on the input signals. As a
consequence of the availability of these estimates, the equivalence
between exponential stability (ES) of the fixed point of the 0-input
(unforced) Poincaré map and ES of the corresponding orbit is
recovered. The results can naturally be applied to continuoustime systems as well. Although our motivation for extending
classical Poincaré analysis to address ISS stems from the need
to design robust controllers for limit-cycle walking and running
robots, the results are applicable to a much broader class of
systems that exhibit periodic solutions.
Index Terms—Poincaré map, hybrid orbits, input-to-state stability, exponential stability.

I. I NTRODUCTION
YSTEMS with impulse effects (SIEs) are characterized
by a set of ordinary differential equations (ODEs) and a
discrete map that reinitializes the ODEs when the corresponding solution reaches a switching surface, possibly resulting
in discontinuous evolution. These systems arise in a broad
range of fields; a non-exhaustive list of examples includes
impact mechanics [1], modeling of population dynamics [2],
communication [3], and legged robotics [4]; a collection of
methods for analyzing SIEs can be found in [5].
In this paper, we study the stability properties of limit
cycles exhibited by SIEs under persistent external excitation.
Our interest in this specific class of systems arises from
dynamically-stable legged robots, where periodic walking
gaits are modeled as limit cycles of SIEs. This approach has
been successful in generating asymptotically stable periodic
gaits for bipedal robots through a variety of methods, including
hybrid zero dynamics [6], [7], geometric control [8], virtual
holonomic constraints [9], to name a few. Recent extensions
of these methods resulted in generating continuums of limitcycle gaits for bipedal walkers [10], [11], and switching among

S

S. Veer and I. Poulakakis are with the Department of Mechanical Engineering and Rakesh is with the Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, 19716 USA e-mail: {veer, rakesh,

poulakas}@udel.edu.
This work is supported in part by NSF CAREER Award IIS-1350721 and
by NRI-1327614.

them [12]–[14], to enlarge the behavioral repertoire of these
robots in order to accomplish tasks that require adaptability
to typical human-centric environments [15], and human (or
robot) collaborators [16]. Practical use of these robots demands robustness to external disturbances, which has led many
researchers—including the authors of the present paper—to
analyze [17]–[19] and design [14], [20], [21] controllers that
enhance the robustness of limit-cycle walking gaits. With this
being our motivation, we develop in this paper a framework
for rigorously analyzing the robustness of limit cycles, by
relating orbital ISS for hybrid limit cycles of SIEs with the
corresponding Poincaré map.
The ISS notion of stability has been widely used to study
robustness in continuous [22], discrete [23], and hybrid [24]
nonlinear systems. Intuitively, the state trajectories emanating
in a neighborhood of an ISS equilibrium point remain bounded
when the external inputs are bounded. In addition, when
the inputs vanish, these trajectories converge back to the
equilibrium. However, studying ISS of periodic orbits, as in
the present paper, instead of equilibria poses a considerable
challenge, which, in the case of SIEs, is exacerbated by the
hybrid nature of the system. Examining the robustness of
such hybrid orbits could be facilitated by studying a suitable
sampled discrete system, termed the forced Poincaré map, that
is, the map induced by the usual definition of the Poincaré
map—see [25] for example—by incorporating the effects of
external inputs in continuous and discrete time. However, to
the best of the authors’ knowledge, establishing the connection
between the ISS of a 0-input fixed point of the forced Poincaré
map and the ISS of the underlying periodic orbit has not been
addressed in the relevant literature.
Indeed, numerous results exist that analyze the Poincaré
map under external inputs without considering their effect on
the limit cycle; see [26], [27] for periodic inputs and [18],
[19], [28] for inputs that are not necessarily periodic. On
the other hand, results that relate the stability properties of
a fixed point of a Poincaré map and the corresponding limit
cycle are restricted to 0-input (unforced) systems; see [29,
Theorem 6.4] for continuous systems and [30, Theorem 1],
[5, Theorem 13.1], [31, Theorem 1] for systems with impulse
effects. This gap in the relevant literature calls for the development of new tools that enable limit-cycle robustness analysis
through the study of the corresponding forced Poincaré map.
Offering such tools is at the core of this paper.
Specifically, the main result of this work is to prove that
ISS of a periodic orbit exhibited by a SIE is equivalent to ISS
of a 0-input fixed point of the corresponding forced Poincaré
map. To achieve this, we consider ISS with respect to inputs
that affect the continuous, as well as the discrete dynamics of

2

the system. The continuous-time inputs belong to the space
of continuous functions, which, equipped with the supremum
norm, obtains the structure of an infinite-dimensional Banach
space. As a consequence, the forced Poincaré map is a nonlinear functional defined over an infinite-dimensional function
space, thus significantly extending prior work, which only
considers finite dimensional disturbances; see [18], [19], [32]
for example. In addition to establishing ISS in this general
setting, the proof of the main result (Theorem 1) provides an
explicit connection between the ISS estimates of the forced
Poincaré map and those of the hybrid orbit. Furthermore, it is
worth mentioning that the results of this paper generalize [31,
Theorem 1], which is widely used to establish equivalency of
exponential stability (ES) between a hybrid limit cycle and
the corresponding Poincaré map. Indeed, [31, Theorem 1] can
be obtained as an immediate consequence of Theorem 1 of
Section III below; see Corollary 1. Most important, Proposition 1 of Section III and Lemma 8 of Section V below
complete crucial arguments that were omitted in the proof
of [31, Theorem 1].
Finally, our results can offer useful tools for rigorously
analyzing robust controllers for limit cycles of SIEs. For
example, the methods in [33] for robust control design for
dynamically-walking bipeds based solely on the Poincaré
map can be rigorously justified in an orbital setting using
our results. As a final note, the results of this paper can
naturally be applied to study ISS of limit cycles of continuoustime nonlinear systems under external excitation. Hence, their
relevance extends beyond SIEs and dynamically-stable legged
systems, and they can be used to analyze the stability of
other biomimetic robots—including aerial robots with flapping
wings [34] and robot snakes [35]—which realize locomotion
through periodic forceful interactions with their environment.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II introduces the
class of systems under study and develops the forced Poincaré
map; Section III presents the main results of the paper;
Section IV and V present the proofs for Proposition 1 and
Theorem 1, respectively; and Section VI provides conclusions.
II. BACKGROUND
This section introduces the class of systems with impulse
effects pertinent to this paper, and develops a forced Poincaré
map suitable for studying periodic orbits of such systems under
the influence of continuous and discrete inputs. We begin with
a few notes on the notation used in the paper.
A. Notation
Let R and Z denote the sets of real and integer numbers,
and R+ and Z+ the corresponding subsets that include the
non-negative reals and integers, respectively. For any x ∈ Rn ,
the euclidean norm is represented as kxk. An open ball of
radius δ > 0 centered at x is denoted by Bδ (x). The pointto-set distance of x from A ⊆ Rn is defined as dist(x, A) :=
inf y∈A kx − yk and let P(A) represent the power set of A.
For any interval E ⊆ R let u : E → Rp be a function
that represents the continuous-time inputs. The norm of u is

defined as kuk∞ := supt∈E ku(t)k. The set of continuoustime inputs we work with belong to U := {u : E →
Rp | u is continuous, kuk∞ ∈ R+ }.
Discrete-time inputs v̄ are defined as the sequence v̄ :=
q
{vk }∞
k=0 such that vk ∈ R for all k ∈ Z+ . The norm of v̄ is
defined as kv̄k∞ := supk∈Z+ kvk k. The discrete inputs belong
to V := {v̄ sequence in Rq | kv̄k∞ ∈ R+ }. With an abuse of
notation we use k · k∞ to denote the norm for both U and V.
No ambiguity arises because the meaning of k · k∞ depends
on whether the argument is continuous or discrete.
A function α : R+ → R+ belongs to class K if it is
continuous, strictly increasing, and α(0) = 0. A function
β : R+ × R+ → R+ belongs to class KL if it is continuous,
β(·, t) belongs to K for any fixed t ≥ 0, β(s, ·) is strictly
decreasing, and limt→∞ β(s, t) = 0, for any fixed s ≥ 0.
B. Forced Systems With Impulse Effects
We are interested in studying the stability of periodic orbits
exhibited by systems with impulse effects under externally
applied inputs. These systems are characterized by alternating
continuous and discrete phases. The evolution of the state x ∈
Rn during the continuous phase is governed by an ordinary
differential equation
ẋ(t) = f (x(t), u(t)) ,

(1)

p

where the input u : R+ → R is an element of U defined in
Section II-A and u(t) ∈ Rp is its value. The vector field f in
the right-hand side of (1) satisfies the following assumption
A.1) f : Rn × Rp → Rn is twice continuously differentiable1 .
Let x(t) := ϕ(t, x(0), u) be the flow of (1) starting from
the initial state x(0) and evolving under the influence of the
input u. Local existence and uniqueness of this solution for a
fixed u follows from [36, Theorem 3.1] based on assumption
A.1 and the continuity of u as a function of t.
The continuous phase terminates when the flow reaches a
set S ⊂ Rn defined as
S := {x ∈ Rn | H(x) = 0} ,

(2)

where it is assumed that
A.2) S 6= ∅, the map H : Rn → R is twice continuously
differentiable, and for all x̂ ∈ S, ∂H
∂x x̂ 6= 0, i.e. S is a
twice continuously differentiable embedded submanifold
in Rn with co-dimension 1.
For future use we define the sets S + := {x ∈ Rn | H(x) > 0}
and S − := {x ∈ Rn | H(x) < 0}.
The approach of the continuous solution to S initiates the
discrete phase, which is governed by the equation
x+ = ∆(x− , v)
−

for x− ∈ S ,

(3)

+

where x , x are the states right before and after impacting
S, respectively, and v ∈ Rq is a member of the discrete input
v̄, which belongs in the set V defined in Section II-A. It is
assumed that
A.3) ∆ : Rn × Rq → Rn is continuously differentiable.
1 Whenever we state that a function is i ∈ Z
+ times continuously
differentiable, it applies to all its arguments.

3

O

∆(x∗ )

x∗

S
Fig. 1. Geometric illustration of O. The switching surface S is in grey.

Putting together the dynamics of the continuous and discrete
phases given by (1) and (3), the forced system with impulse
effects takes the form
(
ẋ(t) = f (x(t), u(t)) if x(t) ∈
/S
Σ:
.
(4)
+
−
−
x = ∆(x , v)
if x ∈ S
Let x∗ ∈ S and T ∗ ∈ (0, ∞) such that the following hold.
A.4) dist(∆(x∗ , 0), S) > 0, and ∆(x∗ , 0) ∈ S + . Note that
the choice of ∆(x∗ , 0) ∈ S + does not result in any loss
of generality. Indeed, if ∆(x∗ , 0) ∈ S − , simply re-define
S with Ĥ(x) := −H(x).
A.5) ϕ(t, ∆(x∗ , 0), 0) exists for all t ∈ [0, T ∗ ] and
ϕ(T ∗ , ∆(x∗ , 0), 0) = x∗ .
Assumptions A.4-A.5 ensure Σ exhibits an unforced (u ≡
0, v̄ ≡ 0) hybrid orbit,
O := {ϕ(t, ∆(x∗ , 0), 0) | t ∈ [0, T ∗ )} .

(5)

We further assume that O satisfies the following.
A.6) Let O be the closure of O, then S ∩ O = {x∗ }.
A.7) O is transversal to S at x∗ , i.e. Lf H(x∗ , 0) :=
∂H
∗
∂x x∗ f (x , 0) < 0.
It follows from our assumptions that O is not a closed
curve. Moreover, assumption A.7 ensures that the orbit is not
tangential to S; see Fig. 1 for a geometric illustration.
Let x(t) := ψ(t, x(0), u, v̄) be the hybrid flow of the system
(4) for some initial state x(0), continuous input u, and discrete
input v̄. We assume that ψ is right-continuous at time instants
when it approaches S; it is a matter of choice whether ψ is
right- or left-continuous [5], the results will hold regardless.
It can be observed from (4) that at any instant, the solution
will either evolve according to (1) or (3). This allows us
to represent ψ as the flow of (1) which, on approaching
S, is interrupted by the discrete map (3). Hence, the existence and uniqueness of ψ for a maximal time duration
[0, tmax (x(0), u, v̄)) follows from the existence and uniqueness of ϕ [36, Theorem 3.1] and the fact that ∆ is a welldefined map for x ∈ S and v ∈ Rq . A more detailed discussion
on the properties of ψ can be found in Appendix A.
C. Forced Poincaré Map
The Poincaré map is a common tool used for analyzing
systems with periodic orbits. Given a Poincaré section—which
is an embedded submanifold transversal to the orbit—the
Poincaré map returns consecutive intersections of the system’s

flow with the Poincaré section. Here, we study the map which
returns the intersection of the solution of (4) with S under the
influence of the external inputs u and v̄. Consequently, it is
natural to call this map the forced Poincaré map.
In Section II-B above, the existence and uniqueness of the
solution of (1) has been established using [36, Theorem 3.1]
by defining fˆ(x, t) := f (x, u(t)). However, to develop the
forced Poincaré map, it is important to be able to consider
the forced solution ϕ(t, x(0), u) with u appearing as one
of its arguments and interpreted as an infinite-dimensional
member of the Banach space (U, k · k∞ ); see Appendix A and
[37] for more details. We only note here that, for notational
convenience, we use the same symbol u to denote both
the finite-dimensional values of the input function at given
time instants and the infinite-dimensional interpretation of the
input signal as a function in the Banach space (U, k · k∞ );
the distinction will always be clear through the domain of
definition of the corresponding map.
Let TI : S × U × Rq → R+ ∪ {∞} be the time-to-impact
map defined as


inf{t ≥ 0 | ϕ(t, ∆(x, v), u) ∈ S},


(6)
TI (x, u, v) :=
if ∃t : ϕ(t, ∆(x, v), u) ∈ S



∞,
otherwise
which gives the time after which a solution of (4) starting
at x ∈ S returns to S. Lemma 1 below establishes that the
time-to-impact function TI is well defined and continuously
differentiable in x, u and v. Note that the dependence of TI
on u is to be understood with u interpreted as a function in
(U, k · k∞ ). It is shown in Appendix A that the assumption
A.1 implies that ϕ(t, x(0), u) is continuously differentiable in
u in the Fréchet sense, thus enabling the use of the implicit
mapping theorem [37, Chapter XIV, Theorem 2.1], which is
crucial in the proof of the lemma.
Lemma 1. Let the time-to-impact map be as in (6). Suppose
that (4) satisfies assumptions A.1-A.7, then there exists a
δ > 0 such that TI is continuously differentiable for any
x ∈ Bδ (x∗ ) ∩ S, u ∈ U with kuk∞ < δ, and v ∈ Bδ (0).
Proof. Before proceeding with the proof, note that even
though the domain of TI is restricted to S × U × Rq , TI is
well-defined on Rn × U × Rq since ∆ and ϕ are well-defined
maps for any x ∈ Rn . Hence, we will consider this extended
domain of TI in the proof, which follows from the implicit
mapping theorem [37, Chapter XIV, Theorem 2.1].
Let H̃(t, x, u, v) := H ◦ ϕ(t, ∆(x, v), u) where x ∈ Rn ,
u ∈ U, and v ∈ Rq . From Lemma 10 in Appendix A,
we have that the flow ϕ is continuously differentiable in all
its arguments in the Fréchet sense. Using this with assumption A.2 we have that H̃ is continuously differentiable. From
assumption A.5 it follows that H̃(T ∗ , x∗ , 0, 0) = 0. Further,
from assumption A.7 we have ∂ H̃/∂t|(T ∗ ,x∗ ,0,0) 6= 0. Next,
noting that (Rn × Rq , k · k) and (U, k · k∞ ) are Banach spaces,
we can use [37, Chapter XIV, Theorem 2.1] to establish
the existence of a unique map TI (x, u, v) which satisfies
H̃(TI (x, u, v), x, u, v) = 0 for a sufficiently small δ > 0 such
that x ∈ Bδ (x∗ ), u ∈ U with kuk∞ < δ, and v ∈ Bδ (0).

4

Additionally, since H̃(t, x, u, v) is continuously differentiable
with respect to its arguments, so is TI (x, u, v). As this holds
for any x ∈ Bδ (x∗ ), it also holds for any x ∈ Bδ (x∗ )∩S.
The forced Poincaré map P : S × U × Rq → S is defined as
P (x, u, v) := ϕ(TI (x, u, v), ∆(x, v), u) .
From Lemma 1 it follows that P is well-defined and continuously differentiable for any x ∈ Bδ (x∗ ) ∩ S, u ∈ U with
kuk∞ < δ, and v ∈ Bδ (0).
For k ∈ Z+ , let tk be the time instant at which the (k+1)-th
intersection of x(t) = ψ(t, x(0), u, v̄) with S occurs. Define
uk (t) := u(t) for2 tk ≤ t < tk+1 , and let vk be the k-th
element of the sequence3 v̄. Then, the forced Poincaré map
gives rise to a forced discrete dynamical system,
xk+1 = P (xk , uk , vk ) ,

(7)

which captures the evolution of x(t) as it crosses S, i.e. each
xk ∈ S corresponds to the (k + 1)-th intersection of x(t) and
S. As x(t) is assumed to be right-continuous at impacts, we
can define xk more formally as xk := limt%tk x(t). Let x∗
be as in assumption A.6, then x∗ is the 0-input fixed point of
(7), i.e. x∗ = P (x∗ , 0, 0).
For future use, we also define T̂I (x, u) : S + × U → R+ ∪
{∞} as the time-to-impact function for solutions of (1) starting
from states in S + defined as
T̂I (x, u) :=
(8)
(
inf{t ≥ 0 | ϕ(t, x, u) ∈ S}, if ∃t : ϕ(t, x, u) ∈ S
.
∞,
otherwise
It can be noted that T̂I is continuously differentiable like TI
which can be shown using a proof similar to that of Lemma 1.
Finally, the following remark clarifies the relation between
ψ, ϕ, and the sequence {xk }∞
k=0 ; this will be important when
proving the main result (see Theorem 1).
Remark 1. Let x(t) := ψ(t, x(0), u, v̄) be a solution of (4)
that exists for all t ≥ 0. Then, if t0 = T̂I (x(0), u[0,t0 ) ) where
u[0,t0 ) = u(t) is the restriction of u(t) over [0, t0 ), we have
x(t) = ϕ(t, x(0), u[0,t0 ) ), for 0 ≤ t < t0 .
Furthermore, if the sequence {xk }∞
k=0 is the solution of (7) for
the initial state x0 = limt%t0 x(t) and the sequence of input
functions {uk }∞
k=0 are as defined above, then for all k ∈ Z+ ,
x(t) = ϕ(t, ∆(xk , vk ), uk ), for tk ≤ t < tk+1 ,
where
tk+1 = tk + TI (xk , uk , vk ) = t0 +

k
X

D. Pertinent Stability Definitions
Notions of orbital stability that will be studied in this paper
are introduced here. We begin with local input-to-state stability
(LISS) of the periodic orbit.
Definition 1a. The periodic orbit O of (4) is orbitally LISS
if there exists a δ > 0, α1 , α2 ∈ K, and β ∈ KL
such that x(t) := ψ(t, x(0), u, v̄) satisfies for all t ∈
[0, tmax (x(0), u, v̄)),
dist(x(t), O) ≤β(dist(x(0), O), t) + α1 (kuk∞ ) + α2 (kv̄k∞ ),
for any x(0) ∈ S + with dist(x(0), O) < δ, u ∈ U with
kuk∞ < δ, and v̄ ∈ V with kv̄k∞ < δ.
Shrinking δ sufficiently in Definition 1a ensures that
tmax (x(0), u, v̄) → ∞ for all ensuing hybrid solutions. In the
rest of the paper, we will restrict our attention to ψ that exists
for all time, do not possess consecutive discrete jumps4 , and
do not exhibit Zeno5 behavior; conditions to assure these are
discussed in Proposition 2 which is relegated to Appendix A
for maintaining focus on the primary development. Hence, we
provide the following definition of LISS which will be the one
that we will use in the paper.
Definition 1b. The periodic orbit O of (4) is orbitally LISS
if there exists a δ > 0, α1 , α2 ∈ K, and β ∈ KL such that
x(t) := ψ(t, x(0), u, v̄) satisfies for all t ≥ 0,
dist(x(t), O) ≤ β(dist(x(0), O), t) + α1 (kuk∞ )
+ α2 (kv̄k∞ ) ,

(9)

for any x(0) ∈ S + with dist(x(0), O) < δ, u ∈ U with
kuk∞ < δ, and v̄ ∈ V with kv̄k∞ < δ.
Besides LISS, we will briefly consider local exponential
stability (LES) of O.
Definition 2. The periodic orbit O of (4) is LES if there exists
a δ > 0, N > 0, and ω > 0 such that x(t) := ψ(t, x(0), 0, 0)
satisfies for all t ≥ 0,
dist(x(t), O) ≤ N e−ωt dist(x(0), O) ,
for any x(0) ∈ S + with dist(x(0), O) < δ.
Noting that LES is a specialized case of LISS, we can use
Proposition 2 of Appendix A and choose a sufficiently small δ
that ensures the existence of LES solutions for all time; hence,
in the definition above, we assume that tmax (x(0), 0, 0) → ∞.
Besides orbital stability, we also present notions of stability
for the discrete system (7).
Definition 3. The system (7) is LISS if there exists a δ > 0,
α1 , α2 ∈ K, and β ∈ KL, such that for all k ∈ Z+ ,
kxk − x∗ k ≤ β(kx0 − x∗ k, k) + α1 (kuk∞ ) + α2 (kv̄k∞ ) ,
(10)

TI (xj , uj , vj ) .

j=0
2 The results of this paper hold even if u is discontinuous as long as each
uk is continuous, in other words, u can be discontinuous at tk .
3 Note that ku k
+
k ∞ ≤ kuk∞ and kvk k ≤ kv̄k∞ for all k ∈ Z .

4 Consecutive discrete jumps mean that the discrete dynamics for (4) are
activated more than once successively, without the system undergoing the
continuous phase, i.e. x ∈ S followed by ∆(x, v) ∈ S.
5 Solutions of hybrid systems exhibit Zeno behavior when—loosely
speaking—an infinite number of discrete jumps occur in finite time; see [38].

5

is satisfied for any x0 ∈ S with kx0 − x∗ k < δ, u ∈ U with
kuk∞ < δ, and v̄ ∈ V with kv̄k∞ < δ.
The 0-input fixed point of (7), i.e. x∗ , is LES in the absence
of inputs if it satisfies the following definition.
Definition 4. The fixed point x∗ of (7) is LES if there exists
a δ > 0, N > 0, and 0 < ρ < 1 such that for all k ∈ Z+ ,
kxk − x∗ k ≤ N ρk kx0 − x∗ k ,
is satisfied for any x0 ∈ S with kx0 − x∗ k < δ.
III. M AIN R ESULTS
In this section we present the main results of this paper.
First, we introduce an important proposition on the geometric
relation between O and S. This proposition allows us to
express bounds on the orbital distance of any x ∈ S from
O equivalently based on its euclidean distance from x∗ , and
vice-versa. The importance of this proposition becomes clear
by observing the distance metrics used in Definition 1b and
Definition 3. Hence, it serves as an important bridge between
the orbital notions of stability and the Poincaré map’s stability.
Proposition 1. Let S be as in (2) and satisfy assumption A.2.
Let O be as in (5) and satisfy assumptions A.4-A.7. Then, there
exists a 0 < λ < 1 such that
λkx − x∗ k ≤ dist(x, O) ≤ kx − x∗ k ,

(11)

for all x ∈ S.

Theorem 1], which has been subsequently used in a number
of relevant publications, e.g., [7], [39]–[42], and many more.
However, [31, Theorem 1] holds only for initial states in the
Poincaré section, as noted above [31, Equation (6)], rather
than for initial states in a neighborhood of the entire orbit,
as Definition 2 requires. Furthermore, Proposition 1, which is
crucial for commuting between Definition 2 and Definition 4
is omitted in the proof of [31, Theorem 1], resulting in the
estimate in [31, Equation (6)] being incomplete; the final
estimate should have been expressed in terms of dist(x, O),
which requires the use of Proposition 1.
Remark 3. It should be emphasized that the results of this
paper can be used to study limit-cycle solutions of continuoustime forced systems like (1), by replacing the discrete update
map ∆ with the identity map for the x component and the
zero map for the v component.
IV. P ROOF OF P ROPOSITION 1
The proof of Proposition 1 is organized in a sequence of
lemmas. We begin with a lemma which establishes that for O,
the point-to-set distance is equal to the minimum euclidean
distance over the closure of the orbit. As the minimum will
be attained by some point in O, Lemma 2 allows us to work
with the euclidean distance from that point instead of dealing
with inf y∈O kx − yk.
Lemma 2. Let O be defined as in (5) and satisfy assumptions
A.4-A.7, then for all x ∈ Rn , we have
dist(x, O) = inf kx − yk = min kx − yk .

The proof of Proposition 1 is detailed in Section IV.
Now we are ready to present the main result of the paper.
Theorem 1. Consider the system (4) which satisfies assumptions A.1-A.3 and possesses a periodic orbit O that is defined
as in (5) and satisfies assumptions A.4-A.7. Then, the following
are equivalent.
(i) O is an LISS orbit of (4);
(ii) x∗ is an LISS fixed point of (7).
It is straightforward to note that in the absence of inputs (u ≡ 0, v̄ ≡ 0), Theorem 1 essentially collapses
to the Poincaré result of asymptotic stability for systems
with impulse effects, providing an alternative proof for [30,
Theorem 1]. However, the proof detailed in the following
sections explicitly constructs the class-KL functions involved
in the definitions, thereby providing useful insight on the
rates of convergence. The following result can be stated as
an immediate corollary of Theorem 1.
Corollary 1. Under the assumptions of Theorem 1, the following are equivalent
(i) O is a LES 0-input orbit of (4);
(ii) x∗ is a LES 0-input fixed point of (7).
Before continuing with proving the main results, the following remarks are in order.
Remark 2. The equivalence between ES of a periodic orbit
and ES of the corresponding fixed point of the associated
Poincaré map has been discussed for the first time in [31,

y∈O

y∈O

Proof. Let x ∈ R . The fact that O = O ∪ {x∗ } implies
n

min kx − yk = min{kx − x∗ k, inf kx − yk} .
y∈O

y∈O

(12)

On the other hand,
inf kx − yk ≤ inf (kx − x∗ k + kx∗ − yk) = kx − x∗ k .

y∈O

y∈O

(13)

because inf y∈O kx∗ − yk = 0 due to x∗ ∈ O. The result
follows from (12) in view of (13).
To simplify notation in the proofs that follow, the closure of
the orbit O is parameterized as a function y(τ ) on some closed
interval [0, T ], in “time” like coordinates τ . Let ϕ− (t, x∗ , 0)
be the flow of the 0-input continuous system (1) backwards
in time from the initial state x∗ . The flow is chosen to be
backwards so that x∗ is at τ = 0 primarily for convenience
of notation; the flow can be chosen forwards in time starting
from ∆(x∗ , 0) as well. Then, let τ := t/s, where s > 0 is a
scaling constant, and define the function y : [0, T ] → O by
the rule
y(τ ) = ϕ− (sτ, x∗ , 0)

(14)

where T = T ∗ /s. The scaling is performed to ensure that in
the Taylor expansion of y(τ ) about τ = 0, the first derivative
is a vector of unit magnitude. This is done only to simplify
notation in the future. Note that y(τ ) should be viewed as a
parameterization of the set O and not as a solution of the

6

system Σ in (4). In fact, this section only deals with the
geometric properties of O and S and does not study the
dynamical system as such. The following lemma provides
some useful properties of y(τ ).

O
T x∗ O
ν

Lemma 3. The map y(τ ) is bijective and three-times continuously differentiable in τ .

T x∗ S
z

x∗

x

The proof of Lemma 3 can be found in Appendix B.
The next lemma shows that as x is picked closer to x∗ , the
nearest points to x on O approach x∗ .
Lemma 4. Let6 τm : Rn → P(O) be a set-valued map defined
as τm (x) := arg minτ ∈[0,T ] kx − y(τ )k for x ∈ Rn and y(τ )
as defined in (14). Then,
∀ > 0, ∃δ > 0 : kx − x∗ k < δ =⇒ τmin < ,
∀τmin ∈ τm (x) .
Proof. Let 0 <  < T . The map y(τ ) is continuous, so
y([, T ]) is compact (and thus closed) in Rn . Hence, its
complement y([, T ])c in Rn is open and contains y(0) = x∗
using the injectivity of y(τ ) from Lemma 3. As a result, there
exists a δ > 0 such that B2δ (x∗ ) ⊂ y([, T ])c .
It can be seen that for any x ∈ Bδ (x∗ ), the points on
O closest to x will be within B2δ (x∗ ). This follows by a
contradiction argument. Indeed, take any x ∈ Bδ (x∗ ) and
let τmin be any element of the set7 τm (x) defined in the
statement of Lemma 4. Assume y(τmin ) is outside B2δ (x∗ )
so that kx − y(τmin )k ≥ δ. But, since x∗ ∈ O we also have
kx − y(τmin )k ≤ kx − x∗ k < δ, resulting in a contradiction. It
follows that for any τmin ∈ τm (x), y(τmin ) ∈ B2δ (x∗ ) ⊂
y([, T ])c , and thus τmin < , which is a consequence of
the injectivity of y(τ ) by Lemma 3. As this holds for any
0 <  < T , the result trivially holds for all  > 0.

S
Fig. 2. Geometric illustration. The switching surface S is in grey, the tangent
plane Tx∗ S is in blue, curved line is the orbit O, and the dashed line is Tx∗ O.

ensure that ν has unit length. Let y 0 (τ ), r0 (τ ) be shorthand
for dy/dτ and dr/dτ , respectively. As y(τ ) is three-times
continuously differentiable by Lemma 3, r(τ ) and r0 (τ ) are
continuous on τ ∈ [0, T ], hence there exists Mr ≥ 0 such that
kr(τ )k ≤ Mr and kr0 (τ )k ≤ Mr for all τ ∈ [0, T ].
(i) Tx∗ O and Tx∗ S
The tangent line of O at x∗ is Tx∗ O := {x∗ + τ ν | τ ∈ R}
as illustrated in Fig. 2. Given z ∈ Tx∗ S, the point on Tx∗ O
closest to z is obtained by projecting the vector z − x∗ along
the unit vector ν. Specifically, the point on Tx∗ O closest to z
is given by x∗ + τ̂min (z)ν, where
τ̂min (z) = hz − x∗ , νi ,

where h·, ·i represents the inner product. Let the angle between z − x∗ and ν be θ(z). By transversality of O and
S at x∗ given by assumption A.7, θ(z) will never be 0
or π, so minkzk=1 | sin(θ(z))| =: µ satisfies 0 < µ ≤ 1.
Constructing the right-angle triangle with vertices at x∗ , z,
and x∗ + τ̂min (z)ν, we see that kz − x∗ − τ̂min (z)νk =
kz − x∗ k · | sin(θ(z))|. Thus, for all z ∈ Tx∗ S, we have
dist(z, Tx∗ O) = inf kz − (x∗ + τ ν)k
τ ∈R

Next, we present a lemma which shows that the lower bound
of Proposition 1 holds locally around x∗ .
Lemma 5. Let S be as in (2) and satisfy assumption A.2. Let
O be as in (5) and satisfy assumptions A.4-A.7. Then, there
exists δ > 0 and 0 < λ̄ < 1 such that
∗

dist(x, O) ≥ λ̄kx − x k ,
for all x ∈ Bδ (x∗ ) ∩ S.
Proof. This proof is structured as follows. We begin by establishing the desired inequality for states restricted to the vector
spaces Tx∗ O (tangent line to O at x∗ ) and Tx∗ S (tangent plane
to S at x∗ ) and subsequently introduce non-linearities one-byone. First, we extend the result to O and Tx∗ S, and finally,
we extend the result to O and S. A geometric illustration of
the setup can be seen in Fig. 2.
Performing Taylor’s expansion [37, pp. 349] of y(τ ) about
τ = 0, we get
y(τ ) = x∗ + τ ν + τ 2 r(τ )

(15)

where ν is a unit vector and τ 2 r(τ ) is the remainder. The
scaling factor s in the definition of τ above (14) is chosen to
6 Recall

from Section II-A that P(·) is the power set of its argument.
7 It is straightforward to note that τ (x) 6= ∅ if O =
6 ∅ and compact.
m

(16)

= kz − x∗ − τ̂min (z)νk
= kz − x∗ k · | sin(θ(z))|
≥ µkz − x∗ k .

(17)

(ii) O and Tx∗ S
Now we extend the result to O and Tx∗ S. Choose δ > 0 such
that z ∈ Bδ (x∗ ) ∩ Tx∗ S implies τmin < T for all τmin ∈
τm (z); Lemma 4 guarantees that such δ exist. Next, split the
set Bδ (x∗ ) ∩ Tx∗ S into two subsets:
(a) E1 := {z ∈ Bδ (x∗ ) ∩ Tx∗ S | ∃τmin ∈ τm (z) : τmin = 0}
(b) E2 := {z ∈ Bδ (x∗ ) ∩ Tx∗ S | ∀τmin ∈ τm (z), τmin 6= 0}.
Clearly, E1 and E2 are disjoint and E1 ∪E2 = Bδ (x∗ )∩Tx∗ S.
If z ∈ E1 , then 0 ∈ τm (z) and thus
dist(z, O) = inf kz−yk = kz−y(τmin )k = kz−x∗ k . (18)
y∈O

For convenience, from hereon when we use τmin , it is
understood that τmin can be any element of τm (z). Also, we
will drop the functional dependence of τ̂min on z; see (16).
If z ∈ E2 then τmin > 0 and the vector from z to the nearest
point on O must be orthogonal to the orbit. Hence, we have
hz − y(τmin ), y 0 (τmin )i = 0, which, on using (15), gives
2
hz − x∗ − τmin ν − τmin
r(τmin ),
2
ν + 2τmin r(τmin ) + τmin
r0 (τmin )i = 0 .

(19)

7

We use (19) to derive an important estimate. From (19),
2
τmin = hz − x∗ , νi + 2τmin hr(τmin ), z − x∗ i + τmin
a(τmin , z) ,
(20)
where a(τ, z):= hr0 (τ ), z − x∗ i − h3ν, r(τ )i − τ hν, r0 (τ )i +
h2r(τ ), r(τ )i − τ 2 hr(τ ), r0 (τ )i. Since r(τ ) and r0 (τ ) are
bounded as discussed below (15), and τmin < T , we have,
for some constant c > 0, that

τmin ≤ kz − x∗ k + cτmin (kz − x∗ k + τmin ).

(21)

is the projection of x on Tx∗ S, then Appendix C shows that
there exists a constant c > 0 such that
kx − zk ≤ ckx − x∗ k2 .

Since kz − x∗ k = kz − x + x − x∗ k ≤ kx − x∗ k + ckx − x∗ k2
by the triangle inequality and (30), choosing x ∈ S so that
kx − x∗ k < δ for a sufficiently small δ > 0 ensures that the
corresponding z satisfies (29). Then,
inf kx − yk = inf kx − z + z − yk

y∈O

Using  = 1/(4c) in Lemma 4 there exists a δ < 1/(4c)
(shrink δ if necessary) such that for kz − x∗ k < δ, we have
τmin < 1/(4c). Then from (21) we have
τmin ≤ 2kz − x∗ k.

(30)

y∈O

≥ inf kz − yk − kx − zk
y∈O

≥ (µ/2)kz − x∗ k − kx − zk

(31)

∗

≥ (µ/2)kx − x k − (1 + µ/2)kx − zk

(22)

∗

∗ 2

≥ (µ/2)kx − x k − ckx − x k .

Next, noting τ̂min = hz − x∗ , νi, from (20) we obtain
2
|τ̂min − τmin | ≤ c(τmin kz − x∗ k + τmin
) .

Using (22) in the above inequality and updating the constant8
c > 0 accordingly, we have

(32)
(33)

where (31) follows from (29); (32) from the reverse triangle
inequality on kz − x∗ k = kz − x + x − x∗ k; and (33) follows
from (30) with c > 0 updated accordingly. Write (33) as
inf kx − yk ≥ (µ/4)kx − x∗ k + kx − x∗ k(µ/4 − ckx − x∗ k),

y∈O

|τ̂min − τmin | ≤ ckz − x∗ k2 ,

(23)

provided kz − x∗ k < δ.
Turning our attention to dist(z, O) and using Lemma 2,
inf kz − yk = kz − y(τmin )k

y∈O

2
= kz − x∗ − τmin ν − τmin
r(τmin )k

(24)

2
= kz − x∗ − τ̂min ν + (τ̂min − τmin )ν − τmin
r(τmin )k (25)
2
≥ kz − x∗ − τ̂min νk − |τ̂min − τmin | − τmin
|r(τmin )| (26)

≥ µkz − x∗ k − ckz − x∗ k2 ,

(27)

and choose kx − x∗ k ≤ µ/(4c), shrinking δ if necessary. The
result follows by letting λ̄ = µ/4 < 1.
Now we present the proof of Proposition 1, which essentially extends Lemma 5 to the entire S.
Proof of Proposition 1. The upper bound on dist(x, O) in
Proposition 1 follows, for all x ∈ S, directly from (13).
For the lower bound, we begin by applying Lemma 5 to
establish the existence of δ > 0 and 0 < λ̄ < 1 such that
dist(x, O) ≥ λ̄kx − x∗ k ,

(34)

for all x ∈ S with kx − x∗ k < δ. To obtain a lower bound
that holds for all x ∈ S, we first consider the case where S is
unbounded; then, the case where S is bounded follows easily.
Let S be unbounded and distinguish the following regions.
(i) RI = {x ∈ S | kx − x∗ k > δ 0 } for δ 0 > δ
We will show that a δ 0 > δ exists so that for all x ∈ RI a lower
inf kz − yk ≥ (µ/2)kz − x∗ k + kz − x∗ k(µ/2 − ckz − x∗ k). bound for dist(x, O) similar to (34) can be found. First note
y∈O
that, by the definition (2), the surface S is closed. Furthermore,
Choosing kz −x∗ k ≤ µ/(2c) (shrink δ > 0 if necessary) gives by assumption A.6 we have O ∩ S = {x∗ }, and thus the only
∗
dist(z, O) = inf kz − yk ≥ (µ/2)kz − x∗ k ,
(28) limit point that O∗ and S share is x . Hence, dist(x, O) > 0
y∈O
for all x ∈ S\{x }, as these points are in the complement of
the closure of O in Rn , and dist(x, O)/kx − x∗ k > 0 is well
for all z ∈ E2 .
∗
Putting together the results of (18) and (28) for the sets E1 defined for all x ∈ S\{x }. We claim that
and E2 , respectively, and noting that min{1, µ/2} = µ/2 as
lim dist(x, O)/kx − x∗ k = 1 ,
(35)
kxk→∞
µ/2 ≤ 1/2 < 1 (see below (16) to recall the meaning of µ)
gives us,
from which it follows easily that there exists δ 0 > 0 (expand
δ 0 if necessary to ensure δ 0 > δ) such that
dist(z, O) = inf kz − yk ≥ (µ/2)kz − x∗ k ,
(29)
y∈O
dist(x, O) ≥ (1/2)kx − x∗ k ,
(36)
for all z ∈ Bδ (x∗ ) ∩ Tx∗ S.
for all x ∈ RI . To show the claim (35), take any x ∈ S\{x∗ },
(iii) O and S
Here, we extend the result to x ∈ Bδ (x∗ ) ∩ S. First, note that let τmin ∈ ∗τm (x) and define MO := maxy1 ,y2 ∈O ky1 − y2 k
)k ≤ MO . Then, dist(x, O) = kx −
if x ∈ S is a point in the neighborhood of x∗ and z ∈ Tx∗ S so that kx − y(τmin
y(τmin )k ≥ kx − x∗ k − kx∗ − y(τmin )k implies
where (24) is obtained by using (15); (25) is obtained by
adding and subtracting τ̂min ν; (26) is obtained by using
the reverse triangle inequality; and (27) is obtained by the
boundedness of r(τ ), (17), (23), and (22). Again we update
the constant c > 0 accordingly. Further we can write (27) as

8 Intermediate constants of no particular importance are used as c while
updating the meaning of c as we proceed with the proof.

dist(x, O)
kx∗ − y(τmin )k
MO
≥1−
≥1−
,
∗
kx − x k
kx − x∗ k
kx − x∗ k

(37)

8

and dist(x, O) = kx − y(τmin )k ≤ kx − x∗ k + kx∗ − y(τmin )k
implies
dist(x, O)
kx∗ − y(τmin )k
MO
≤
1
+
≤1+
.
kx − x∗ k
kx − x∗ k
kx − x∗ k

(38)

As a result, for any sequence of points xn ∈ S\{x∗ } such
that kxn − x∗ k → ∞, it follows from (37) and (38) that
1 ≤ lim inf
n→∞

dist(xn , O)
dist(xn , O)
≤ lim sup
≤1 ,
kxn − x∗ k
kxn − x∗ k
n→∞

implying limn→∞ dist(xn , O)/kxn − x∗ k = 1, which by [43,
Theorem 4.2] proves the claim (35).
(ii) RII = {x ∈ S | δ ≤ kx − x∗ k ≤ δ 0 }
With δ > 0 provided by Lemma 5 and δ 0 > δ selected
as in

case (i), let λ̂ := minx∈RII dist(x, O)/kx − x∗ k > 0, which
is well defined since dist(x, O)/kx − x∗ k > 0 is continuous
over the compact set RII . Hence,
dist(x, O) ≥ λ̂kx − x∗ k ,

(39)

for all x ∈ RII .
Finally, combining (34), (36), and (39) by choosing λ =
min{λ̄, 1/2, λ̂, } gives
dist(x, O) = inf kx − yk ≥ λkx − x∗ k,
y∈O

for all x ∈ S, completing the proof when S is unbounded.
For the case where S is bounded, we can choose δ 0 > 0
sufficiently large to ensure that S ⊂ Bδ0 (x∗ ). Then, an
argument analogous to that used in (ii) above establishes the
desired lower bound for this case, thereby completing the proof
of Proposition 1.
V. P ROOF OF T HEOREM 1
In the proof of Theorem 1, we will often compare different
solutions based on their initial state and inputs. With this in
mind, we present the following lemma, which is a straightforward adaptation of [36, Theorem 3.5].
Lemma 6. Suppose f in (1) satisfies assumption A.1. Let u1 ∈
U and x1 (t) be the solution of
ẋ(t) = f (x(t), u1 (t)), x1 (0) = a1 ,
which exists for all t ∈ [0, T̂ ]. There exists L > 0 and δ > 0
such that if ka2 − a1 k < δ and ku2 − u1 k∞ < δ, then
ẋ(t) = f (x(t), u2 (t)), x2 (0) = a2 ,
has a unique solution x2 (t) for all t ∈ [0, T̂ ]. Further,
kx1 (t) − x2 (t)k ≤ eLT̂ ka1 − a2 k + (eLT̂ − 1)ku1 − u2 k∞ , (40)

for all t ∈ [0, T̂ ].
The proof of Lemma 6 is analogous to the proof of [36,
Theorem 3.5] and is omitted for brevity.
The following remark extends the unperturbed (zero-input)
solution ϕ(t, ∆(x∗ , 0), 0) of (1) that starts from ∆(x∗ , 0).
Remark 4. By assumption A.5, the solution ϕ(t, ∆(x∗ , 0), 0)
of (1) exists for all t ∈ [0, T ∗ ], where T ∗ = TI (x∗ , 0, 0) is
the period of O. Hence, by [36, Theorem 3.1], there exists
T ∈ (T ∗ , ∞) so that ϕ(t, ∆(x∗ , 0), 0) can be extended over

the interval [T ∗ , T ]. As Lf H(ϕ(T ∗ , ∆(x∗ , 0), 0), 0) < 0 from
assumption A.7 while Lf H(ϕ(t, ∆(x∗ , 0), 0), 0) is continuous
in time, it follows that for a sufficiently small T > T ∗ , we can
ensure Lf H(ϕ(t, ∆(x∗ , 0), 0), 0) < 0 for all T ∗ ≤ t ≤ T , so
ϕ(t, ∆(x∗ , 0), 0) ∈ S − for that time duration.
Lemma 7 below shows that the perturbed solution
ϕ(t, ∆(x, v), u) of (1) is well defined over the interval [0, T ]
where the unperturbed solution ϕ(t, ∆(x∗ , 0), 0) can be extended, provided that the initial conditions and inputs are in
a sufficiently small neighborhood of those corresponding to
ϕ(t, ∆(x∗ , 0), 0). Moreover, the lemma provides a bound on
the distance of ϕ(t, ∆(x∗ , v), u) from the orbit O that will be
used in the proof of Theorem 1.
Lemma 7. Under the assumptions of Theorem 1, there exist
δ > 0, and T > 0, T > T ∗ with T ∗ = TI (x∗ , 0, 0) being the
period of O, such that for all x ∈ Bδ (x∗ ) ∩ S, u ∈ U with
kuk∞ < δ, and v̄ ∈ V with kv̄k∞ < δ the following hold
(i) The perturbed solution ϕ(t, ∆(x, v), u) of (1), where v
a member of v̄, exists and is unique over [0, T ].
(ii) The solution ϕ(t, ∆(x, v), u) crosses S in finite time
TI (x, u, v) given by (6), and 0 < T < TI (x, u, v) < T ,
where T < T ∗ < T .
(iii) There exists a c > 0 such that
sup dist(ϕ(t, ∆(x, v), u), O) ≤ ckx − x∗ k + ckuk∞
0≤t<TI

+ ckv̄k∞ .

(41)

Proof. We begin with part (i). By Remark 4, ϕ(t, ∆(x∗ , 0), 0)
exists and is unique over [0, T ] with T > T ∗ . Lemma 6
establishes the existence of δ1 > 0 for which, when x ∈ S
and v ∈ Rq are such that k∆(x, v) − ∆(x∗ , 0)k < δ1 , and
when kuk∞ < δ1 , the perturbed solution ϕ(t, ∆(x, v), u)
exists and is unique over the same interval [0, T ]. By the
continuity of ∆ following from assumption A.3, there exists
a δ2 > 0 for which kx − x∗ k < δ2 and kvk < δ2
guarantee k∆(x, v) − ∆(x∗ , 0)k < δ1 . As a result, choosing
δ = min{δ1 , δ2 } we have that for x ∈ Bδ (x∗ )∩S, u ∈ U with
kuk∞ < δ and v̄ ∈ V with kv̄k∞ < δ, the perturbed solution
ϕ(t, ∆(x, v), u) of (1) exists and is unique over [0, T ], thus
proving part (i).
To prove part (ii), let T = T − T ∗ > 0. By continuity of TI
there exists a δT > 0 such that for x ∈ BδT (x∗ ) ∩ S, u ∈ U
with kuk∞ < δT , and v ∈ BδT (0), we have that |TI (x, u, v)−
TI (x∗ , 0, 0)| < T , which implies that T < TI (x, u, v) < T
where T = T ∗ − T = 2T ∗ − T > 0 (shrink T if necessary
to ensure that T < 2T ∗ ). Choosing δ = min{δ1 , δ2 , δT } with
δ1 , δ2 > 0 chosen as in the proof of part (i) implies both that
ϕ(t, ∆(x, v), u) is well defined over [0, T ] and that it crosses
S in finite time TI (x, u, v) satisfying T < TI (x, u, v) < T .
Hence, part (ii) is proved.
Finally, for part (iii), let w(t) := ϕ(t, ∆(x∗ , 0), 0) be the
unperturbed (zero-input) solution of (1), which by Remark 4
is well-defined over the interval [0, T ] with T > T ∗ . Let δ > 0
as in the proof of part (ii) so that, for x ∈ Bδ (x∗ ) ∩ S,
u ∈ U with kuk∞ < δ and v ∈ Bδ (0), the perturbed

9

solution ϕ(t, ∆(x, v), u) exists and is unique over [0, T ] and
TI (x, u, v) < T . Then, for any t ∈ [0, T ] we have
dist(ϕ(t, ∆(x, v), u), O)
= inf kϕ(t, ∆(x, v), u) − w(t) + w(t) − yk
y∈O

≤ kϕ(t, ∆(x, v), u) − w(t)k + dist(w(t), O) , (42)
where (42) is obtained by adding and subtracting w(t) and
using the triangle inequality. Note that dist(w(t), O) = 0 for
t ∈ [0, T ∗ ], while for t ∈ (T ∗ , T ] we have

Note that the first term in the RHS of (48) is the same
as the one in the RHS of (44), for which an upper bound
is available by (46). Next, we look at the second term. Let
F := maxT ∗ ≤t≤T kf (w(t), 0)k. As mentioned in Remark 4,
we have Lf H(w(t), 0) < 0 for all T ∗ ≤ t ≤ T which implies
that f (w(t), 0) 6= 0 for all t ∈ [T ∗ , T ], hence F > 0. Use F
in the following,
Z t
∗
sup kw(t) − x k = sup
f (w(s), 0) ds
T ∗ ≤t<TI

≤ F LT (kx − x∗ k + kuk∞ + kv̄k∞ ) .

y∈O

∗

≤ ||w(t) − x || + inf ||x − y||
y∈O

∗

= ||w(t) − x || ,

(43)

since inf y∈O ||x∗ − y|| = 0.
We distinguish the following cases.
Case (a): Assume that TI ≤ T ∗ . Then, for all t ∈ [0, TI ], we
have dist(w(t), O) = 0 and application of sup0≤t<TI on (42)
results in the bound
sup dist(ϕ(t, ∆(x, v), u), O)
0≤t<TI

≤ sup kϕ(t, ∆(x, v), u) − w(t)k .

(44)

0≤t<TI

We proceed with finding an upper bound of the term in the
right-hand side (RHS) of (44). Since ∆ and TI are continuously differentiable from assumption A.3 and Lemma 1,
respectively, they are also locally Lipschitz. Let L∆ > 0 be the
Lipschitz constant for ∆ which holds for any x ∈ Bδ (x∗ ) ∩ S
and v ∈ Bδ (0) (shrink δ if necessary). Similarly, let LT > 0
be the Lipschitz constant for TI which holds for any x ∈
Bδ (x∗ ) ∩ S, u ∈ U with kuk∞ < δ and v ∈ Bδ (0) (shrink δ
if necessary). Applying Lemma 6 for a suitable δ > 0 (shrink
if necessary), we have

(45)

for t ∈ [0, T ]. Local Lipschitz continuity of ∆ in (45) gives
kϕ(t, ∆(x, v), u) − w(t)k

≤ L∆ eLT kx − x∗ k + kv̄k∞ + (eLT − 1)kuk∞ ,

(46)

for all t ∈ [0, T ]. Since [0, TI (x, u, v)) ⊂ [0, T ], (46)
is an upper bound for the term on the RHS of (44) for
t ∈ [0, TI (x, u, v)).
Case (b): Assume that TI > T ∗ . Then, using (43) we have
sup

∗

kw(t) − x k .

(47)

T ∗ ≤t<TI

Applying sup0≤t<TI on (42) followed by (47) results in
sup dist(ϕ(t, ∆(x, v), u), O)
0≤t<TI

≤ sup kϕ(t, ∆(x, v), u) − w(t)k
0≤t<TI

+

sup
T ∗ ≤t<TI

Using (46) and (49) in (44) and (48) results in (41) for an
appropriate constant c > 0, thereby completing the proof.
Lemma 7 shows that solutions starting on S at points
sufficiently close to x∗ with small enough inputs are well
defined, and their distance from the orbit satisfies the linear
upper bound (41). However, in proving Theorem 1 we need
an “orbital” version of this result, i.e. we need a result for
solutions starting anywhere close to the entire orbit. Next,
we present a lemma which shows that if a solution starts
sufficiently close to O, then it will cross S in finite time.
Furthermore, bounds on the distance of such solutions from
O that are similar to (41) are also provided.
Lemma 8. Under the assumptions of Theorem 1, there exist
δ > 0 and T > T ∗ with T ∗ = TI (x∗ , 0, 0) being the period of
O such that for all x ∈ S + with dist(x, O) < δ and u ∈ U
with kuk∞ < δ, the following hold
(i) The perturbed solution ϕ(t, x, u) of (1) exists and is
unique over an interval [0, T x ] ⊂ [0, T ].
(ii) The solution ϕ(t, x, u) crosses S in finite time T̂I (x, u)
given by (8), and 0 < T̂I (x, u) < T .
(iii) There exists a c > 0 such that
0≤t<T̂I

≤ eLT k∆(x, v) − ∆(x∗ , 0)k + (eLT − 1)kuk∞ ,

sup dist(w(t), O) ≤

(49)

sup dist(ϕ(t, x, u), O) ≤ c dist(x, O) + ckuk∞ . (50)

kϕ(t, ∆(x, v), u) − w(t)k

0≤t<TI

T∗

≤ F |TI (x, u, v) − TI (x∗ , 0, 0)|

dist(w(t), O) = inf ||w(t) − x∗ + x∗ − y||
∗

T ∗ ≤t<TI

kw(t) − x∗ k .

(48)

The proof of Lemma 8 is similar to the proof of Lemma 7
in many aspects, albeit more technical as it requires the
construction of suitable open covers for O; thus, it is relegated
to Appendix D to maintain focus on the main results. Before
proving Theorem 1, we present a final lemma, which provides
a property of class-K functions that will be useful to us; see
[44, Lemma 14] for a proof of this lemma.
Lemma 9. Let α ∈ K, then for any  > 0, s1 > 0, and
s2 > 0, the following inequality holds
α(s1 + s2 ) ≤ α((1 + )s1 ) + α((1 + −1 )s2 ) .
Proof of Theorem 1. We first show (i) =⇒ (ii) and then
(ii) =⇒ (i) by explicitly constructing class-KL and class-K
functions to satisfy Definitions 1b and 3. To avoid ambiguity
in notation, we use x(0) ∈ Rn as the initial condition for
the system with impulse effects (4) and x0 ∈ S as the initial
condition for the discrete system (7).
(i) =⇒ (ii)
Assume that O is a LISS orbit of (4), and let x(t) :=
ψ(t, x(0), u, v̄) be a solution of (4) that satisfies Definition 1b

10

for some δΣ > 0 and for suitable functions α1 , α2 ∈ K,
β ∈ KL. Choose δΣ sufficiently small to further ensure that
Lemma 8 is satisfied. Then, t0 = T̂I (x(0), u[0,t0 ) ) is finite,
and x0 := limt%t0 x(t), i.e. the first intersection of x(t) and
S, is well-defined. To guarantee that subsequent intersections
of x(t) with S are also well defined, let δT > 0, T > 0,
and T > T ∗ be as in Lemma 7. Pick 0 < δ < min{δΣ , δT }
sufficiently small to also ensure that β(δ, 0)+α1 (δ)+α2 (δ) <
min{δΣ , λδT }; here, by Proposition 1, λ ∈ (0, 1) is a constant
such that (11) holds for all x ∈ S. Then, for dist(x(0), O) < δ,
kuk∞ < δ, and kv̄k∞ < δ, we have that

t0 = T̂I (x(0), u[0,t0 ) ), and that there exists a bound T 2 > T ∗
so that t0 < T 2 . We need to make sure that δ can be selected
in a way that x0 satisfies kx0 − x∗ k < δ1 so that Lemma 7
continues to hold. As before, let x(t) := ψ(t, x(0), u, v̄); see
Remark 1 for the form of x(t) over the intervals [tk , tk+1 ).
From Lemma 8(iii) we have

dist(x(t), O) ≤ β(dist(x(0), O), t) + α1 (kuk∞ ) + α2 (kv̄k∞ )

dist(x0 , O) ≤ c1 dist(x(0), O) + c1 kuk∞ .

≤ β(δ, 0) + α1 (δ) + α2 (δ)
< min{δΣ , λδT }
for all t ≥ 0. Hence, this choice of δ > 0 ensures that
dist(xk , O) < λδT for all k ∈ Z+ , so that by Proposition 1,
we get xk ∈ BδT (x∗ ) ∩ S for all k ∈ Z+ . Furthermore,
it ensures that T < TI (xk , uk , vk ) < T uniformly for all
k ∈ Z+ . Finally, it guarantees that dist(x0 , O) < δΣ , allowing
the use of (9) with the same β, α1 , α2 as above, for solutions
of (4) starting at x0 . As a result, for all k ∈ Z+ we can write
kxk − x∗ k
≤ dist(xk , O)/λ
≤ β(dist(x0 , O), tk − t0 )/λ + α1 (kuk∞ )/λ + α2 (kv̄k∞ )/λ
≤ β(dist(x0 , O), kT )/λ + α1 (kuk∞ )/λ + α2 (kv̄k∞ )/λ
≤ β(kx0 − x∗ k, kT )/λ + α1 (kuk∞ )/λ + α2 (kv̄k∞ )/λ ,

where the first inequality follows from Proposition 1; the
second inequality follows from (9); the third inequality follows
from the fact that β is monotonically decreasing in time
and tk+1 − tk = TI (xk , uk , vk ) ≥ T for all k ∈ Z+ ; and
the last inequality follows from Proposition 1 again. Noting
that (1/λ)β ∈ KL, (1/λ)α1 ∈ K and (1/λ)α2 ∈ K,
and comparing the last inequality with (10), we get that the
solution of (7) satisfies Definition 3, thus completing the first
part of the proof.
(ii) =⇒ (i)
Assume that x∗ is a LISS fixed point of (7), and let {xk }k∈Z+
with xk ∈ S for all k ∈ Z+ be a solution of (7) that satisfies
Definition 3 for some δ1 > 0. Then, for x0 ∈ Bδ1 (x∗ ),
kuk∞ < δ1 , and kv̄k∞ < δ1 , there exist suitable functions
α1 , α2 ∈ K, β ∈ KL such that (10) is satisfied. This implies
kxk − x∗ k ≤ β(δ1 , 0) + α1 (δ1 ) + α2 (δ1 ) for all k ∈ Z+ ,
and thus δ1 can be chosen (shrinking it if necessary) so
that Lemma 7 is satisfied for all integers k ≥ 0. Then,
there exist T 1 > T ∗ (obtained as in Remark 4) so that
TI (xk , uk , vk ) < T 1 for all k ∈ Z+ .
The setting above provides a uniform (over k) upper bound
T 1 to the impact times TI (xk , uk , vk ) defining the intervals
[tk , tk+1 ), where tk+1 = tk +TI (xk , uk , vk ) for k ∈ Z+ . However, to establish a relation between the discrete-time solution
of (7) and the continuous-time solution (4), we also need to
address the interval [0, t0 ); that is, the interval until the solution
intersects S for the first time. By Lemma 8, there exists δ > 0
such that, if x(0) ∈ S + satisfies dist(x(0), O) < δ and u ∈ U
satisfies kuk∞ < δ, the solution crosses S in finite time

sup dist(x(t), O) ≤ c1 dist(x(0), O) + c1 kuk∞ ,

(51)

0≤t<t0

for some c1 > 0, which since x0 := limt%t0 x(t) and the
function dist(x, O) is continuous in x, implies that
(52)

∗

Since x0 ∈ S, Proposition 1 implies λkx0 −x k ≤ dist(x0 , O)
for λ ∈ (0, 1), and by (52) we have λkx0 − x∗ k ≤
c1 dist(x(0), O) + c1 kuk∞ < 2c1 δ. Hence, using the above
inequality, choosing δ < min{δ1 , λδ1 /(2c1 )} in Lemma 8
ensures that Lemma 7 continues to hold. Furthermore, in what
follows, we define T = max{T 1 , T 2 }.
The analysis above shows that, under the assumption of x∗
being a LISS fixed point of (7), there exist a δ > 0 such
that, for x(0) ∈ S + with dist(x(0), O) < δ and for u ∈
U with kuk∞ < δ, Lemma 8 implies t0 < T where t0 =
T̂I (x(0), u[0,t0 ) ), and that the solution satisfies the bound (51).
If, in addition, v̄ ∈ V with kv̄k∞ < δ, Lemma 7 implies
tk+1 − tk < T with tk+1 = tk + TI (xk , uk , vk ) for all k ∈ Z+ .
In this case, the solution satisfies the bound
sup

dist(x(t), O) ≤ c2 kxk − x∗ k + c2 kuk∞

tk ≤t<tk+1

+ c2 kv̄k∞ ,

(53)

for some c2 > 0 and for all k ∈ Z+ . Substituting (10) in
(53), and (for compactness of notation) defining α(u, v̄) :=
α̂1 (kuk∞ ) + α̂2 (kv̄k∞ ) with α̂1 (kuk∞ ) = c2 α1 (kuk∞ ) +
c2 kuk∞ and α̂2 (kv̄k∞ ) = c2 α2 (kv̄k∞ ) + c2 kv̄k∞ , results in
dist(x(t), O) ≤ c2 β(kx0 − x∗ k, k) + α(u, v̄)
≤ c2 β(dist(x0 , O)/λ, k) + α(u, v̄)

(54)

for all tk ≤ t < tk+1 and k ∈ Z+ . Note that (54) was obtained
by using Proposition 1 for λ ∈ (0, 1).
With this information, we now construct suitable class-K
and class-KL functions to prove that the orbit O is LISS in
the system (4). We distinguish the following cases.
Case (a): t ∈ [tk , tk+1 ) for any k ≥ 1
By Remark 1 we have that tk+1 ≤ (k + 2)T . Pick c3 > 0
such that for all k ≥ 1, c3 (k + 2)T ≤ k. This can be ensured
by selecting c3 ≤ 1/(3T ). Using this in (54) implies
dist(x(t), O) ≤ c2 β(dist(x0 , O)/λ, c3 (k + 2)T ) + α(u, v̄)
≤ c2 β(dist(x0 , O)/λ, c3 t) + α(u, v̄) ,

(55)

which is obtained by using the fact t < tk+1 ≤ (k + 2)T .
The estimate (55) holds for all k ∈ Z+ with k ≥ 1, and thus
it holds for all t ≥ t1 .
Case (b): t ∈ [tk , tk+1 ) for k = 0
Choose γ = ln(2)/(2T ) so that c2 β(dist(x0 , O)/λ, 0) ≤

11

2c2 β(dist(x0 , O)/λ, 0)e−γt over the interval [t0 , t0 + T ) ⊂
[0, 2T ]. Then, since t1 < t0 + T , the estimate (54) implies
that, for all t ∈ [t0 , t1 ),

that satisfy Definition 1b for solutions of (4). With an abuse
of notation we re-use the symbols β, α1 , and α2 . Let
β(dist(x(0), O), t) := max{2c1 dist(x(0), O)e−γt ,

dist(x(t), O) ≤ c2 β(dist(x0 , O)/λ, 0) + α(u, v̄)

β̂(2c1 dist(x(0), O), t)} ,

≤ 2c2 β(dist(x0 , O)/λ, 0)e−γt + α(u, v̄) . (56)
Now we can combine the estimates (55) and (56) to obtain
a bound for all t ≥ t0 of the distance from O of a solution
starting from x0 at time t0 . Note that the function
β̂(dist(x0 , O), t) := c2 max{2β(dist(x0 , O)/λ, 0)e−γt ,
β(dist(x0 , O)/λ, c3 t)} ,

α1 (kuk∞ ) := α̂1 (kuk∞ ) + c1 kuk∞ ,
α2 (kv̄k∞ ) := α̂2 (kv̄k∞ ) .
Then, for all t ≥ 0, we have
dist(x(t), O) ≤ β(dist(x(0), O), t) + α1 (kuk∞ ) + α2 (kv̄k∞ ),
completing the proof of the theorem.
Finally, we present a proof of Corollary 1.

is continuous, monotonically increasing in dist(x0 , O), and
monotonically decreasing in t because the individual functions
in the max have the same properties; hence, β̂ ∈ KL.
Upper bounding (55) and (56) with β̂ and remembering that
α(u, v̄) := α̂1 (kuk∞ ) + α̂2 (kv̄k∞ ) results in

Proof of Corollary 1. The proof of Corollary 1 is identical to
that of Theorem 1 with u ≡ 0, v̄ ≡ 0. The only point to note is
that in proving (ii) =⇒ (i) we choose ω > 0 (see Definition 2)
such that ρ in Definition 4 satisfies ρ = e−ωT .

dist(x(t), O) ≤β̂(dist(x0 , O), t) + α̂1 (kuk∞ ) + α̂2 (kv̄k∞ ) ,
(57)

VI. C ONCLUSION

which holds for all t ≥ t0 .
To complete the proof, we need an estimate in which
the class-KL function in the RHS of (57) depends on
dist(x(0), O) and not dist(x0 , O); the reader is reminded
that x(0) is the initial state of the solution of (4), i.e.
ψ(t, x(0), u, v̄), while x0 is the first intersection of ψ with S.
To remedy this fact, use (52) noting that β̂(dist(x0 , O), t) in
(57) is a class K function for any fixed t. With this observation,
use β̂ on (52) followed by Lemma 9 with  = 1 to get,
β̂(dist(x0 , O), t) ≤ β̂(c1 dist(x(0), O) + c1 kuk∞ , t)

This paper presents a method for analyzing robustness of
limit cycles exhibited by systems with impulse effects. It is
shown that ISS of the limit cycle is equivalent to that of
the forced Poincaré map. This result allows us to analyze
the robustness of hybrid limit cycles by merely analyzing a
discrete dynamical system. The proof of this result, provides
ISS estimates that could be used to quantify the robustness.
Furthermore, exploiting the availability of these estimates, we
establish an equivalence between ES of the limit cycle and the
0-input Poincaré map. The overarching goal of this work is to
develop a framework within which the robustness of periodic
orbits can be rigorously analyzed.

≤ β̂(2c1 dist(x(0), O), t) + β̂(2c1 kuk∞ , t)
≤ β̂(2c1 dist(x(0), O), t) + β̂(2c1 kuk∞ , 0).
Use this inequality in (57) and absorb the second term of the
above inequality in α̂1 (kuk∞ ) to obtain the following bound
dist(x(t), O) ≤β̂(2c1 dist(x(0), O), t)
+ α̂1 (kuk∞ ) + α̂2 (kv̄k∞ ) .

(58)

However, (58) merely holds for t ≥ t0 and not for all t ≥ 0.
To address this issue we consider the following case.
Case (c): t ∈ [0, t0 )
We use the bound (51), which is a consequence of Lemma 8.
Employing a trick similar to the one used for constructing the
class KL function in Case (b), let9 γ = ln(2)/(2T ). Then,
c1 dist(x(0), O) ≤ 2c1 dist(x(0), O)e−γt over the interval
[0, T ]. Then, since t0 ≤ T , (51) gives for t ∈ [0, t0 ),
dist(x(t), O) ≤ 2c1 dist(x(0), O)e−γt + c1 kuk∞ .

(59)

To complete the proof, we now combine the bound (58)
which is valid for all t ≥ t0 with the bound (59) which is valid
for t ∈ [0, t0 ) to construct class-KL and class-K functions
9 In fact, for this case, γ = ln(2)/T would suffice, but we use the same γ
as in Case (b) to avoid additional contstants.

A PPENDIX A
This appendix clarifies a few technical aspects regarding
the forced solution ϕ(t, x(0), u) of (1) and the hybrid forced
solution ψ(t, x(0), u, v̄) of (4). We begin with the solution
ϕ(t, x(0), u) of (1), which maps R+ ×Rn ×U to Rn . For most
applications in control theory, the system is affected by a fixed
u ∈ U, thereby its solution can be viewed as that of a timevarying ODE with the vector field fˆ(t, x) := f (x, u(t)). In
this paper we need to compare solutions with different initial
conditions and inputs; thus, in what follows, we view u as
a parameter which resides in the Banach space (U, k · k∞ )
and make use of Banach calculus [37] to analyze variations
of ϕ(t, x(0), u) with respect to its arguments. The following
lemma shows that the solution ϕ(t, x(0), u) of (1) is continuously differentiable with respect to its arguments, in the
Fréchet sense, under the hypothesis that f : Rn × Rp → Rn
in (1) is continuously differentiable, as it is required to be by
assumption A.1.
Lemma 10. Let f : Rn × Rp → Rn in (1) be continuously
differentiable in its arguments, with u ∈ U as in Section II-A.
Define F : R+ ×Rn ×U → Rn as F (t, x, u) := f (x, G(t, u)),
where G : R+ × U → Rp is G(t, u) = u(t). Then, the flow
ϕ : R+ × Rn × U → Rn of ẋ = F (t, x, u) is continuously
differentiable in its arguments in the Fréchet sense.

12

Proof. To establish the lemma, we will use [37, Theorem 5.2, pp 377], which states that the flow ϕ is continuously
differentiable in its arguments when F is continuously differentiable in t, x and u. Note that, although the statement
of [37, Theorem 5.2, pp 377] requires F to be continuously
differentiable in t, its proof only uses continuity of F in t.
Therefore, in what follows, we will show that F is continuously differentiable in x and u, but only continuous in t.
We begin by showing that G is continuous in t and continuously differentiable in u. Continuity of G in t is clear. Now, to
show continuity of G with respect to u ∈ U, we will show that
the operator Ĝ : U → Rp defined by Ĝ(u) = G(t, u) = u(t)
for a fixed time t ∈ R+ is bounded and linear, which
by [45, pp. 257, Theorem 1] implies that Ĝ is continuous
in u, thus G is also continuous in u. Indeed, linearity is
immediate by the definition of Ĝ, while boundedness follows
from kĜ(u)k = ku(t)k ≤ kuk∞ , implying that the operator
norm is upper bounded by 1 for any t ∈ R+ . As a result,
G(t, u) is continuous in both arguments. Furthermore, G is
linear with respect to u, and using [37, pp 339, Theorem 3.1],
we have that the Fréchet (partial) derivative of G with respect
to u is continuous, for it is G itself. Thus, G(t, u) is continuous
in t and continuously differentiable in u. Using this fact with
the assumption that f is continuously differentiable, it follows
that F is continuous in t and continuously differentiable in
(x, u). The result follows from [37, Theorem 5.2, pp 377],
noting that continuous differentiability in t can be relaxed to
continuity in t.
The following proposition establishes certain properties of
interest regarding the hybrid solutions ψ of (4) that are in a
sufficiently small neighborhood of a LISS periodic orbit O.
Proposition 2. Consider the system (4) which satisfies assumptions A.1-A.7. Suppose that the solutions of (4), denoted
by x(t) = ψ(t, x(0), u, v̄) and defined in Section II-B, satisfy
Definition 1a. Then, there exists a δ > 0 such that for all
x(0) ∈ S + with dist(x(0), O) < δ, u ∈ U with kuk∞ < δ,
and v̄ ∈ V with kv̄k∞ < δ the following holds:
(i) x(t) has no consecutive discrete jumps,
(ii) x(t) exists for all t ≥ 0, and
(iii) x(t) does not exhibit Zeno behavior.
Proof. To show part (i), by Definition 1a we have that
dist(x(t), O) ≤ β(δ, 0) + α1 (δ) + α2 (δ) ,

(60)

for all t ∈ [0, tmax (x, u, v̄)); clearly, by properties of class-KL
and class-K functions (see also Section II-A), the upper bound
in (60) is monotonically increasing in δ. Hence, the solution
x(t) can be “trapped” arbitrarily close to O by choosing
a sufficiently small δ. Now, by the continuity of ∆ from
assumption A.3 and assumption A.4, there exists a δ∆ > 0
such that for any x ∈ Bδ∆ (x∗ ) ∩ S and v ∈ Bδ∆ (0), we have
k∆(x, v) − ∆(x∗ , 0)k < dist(∆(x∗ , 0), S)/2 ,

(61)

which implies that ∆(x, v) ∈ S + . If tk denotes the (k + 1)-th
instance the solution reaches S and xk = limt%tk x(t) ∈ S,
Proposition 1 implies
kxk − x∗ k ≤ dist(xk , O)/λ .

(62)

Shrink δ in (60) to ensure dist(xk , O) < λδ∆ for all k ∈
Z+ . Using this in (62) gives kxk − x∗ k < δ∆ for all k ∈
Z+ , essentially guaranteeing that (61) holds for every discrete
event, thereby completing the proof of part (i).
To prove part (ii), from (60) it is clear that x(t) is trapped
in a compact set. Using arguments similar to the proof of
[36, Theorem 3.3], the continuous solution must exist until
it reaches S, or it can be extended indefinitely if it never
reaches S. In the later case the proof of part (ii) is complete.
Now, if the solution does reach S, a well-defined discrete jump
occurs that ensures the post-discrete-event state is still trapped
within the same compact set and lies outside S because of
part (i); hence, the solution must flow again according to the
continuous dynamics until it reaches S. We can propagate this
argument forward for all time to obtain part (ii).
The proof of part (iii) is a straightforward consequence of
the continuity of TI from Lemma 1. There exists δT > 0 such
that for x ∈ BδT (x∗ ), u ∈ U with kuk∞ < δT , v ∈ BδT (0)
we have 0 < T < TI (x, u, v) < T . Using arguments similar to
the ones in the proof of part (i), we can choose a δ sufficiently
small to ensure that kxk −x∗ k < min{δT , δ∆ } for all k ∈ Z+ .
Hence, any two consecutive discrete events are punctuated by
a time gap of at least T > 0 ensuring the absence of Zeno
behavior and completing the proof of part (iii).
A PPENDIX B
Proof of Lemma 3. From assumption A.1, we get that f (x, 0)
is twice continuously differentiable; hence, its backward flow
ϕ− (sτ, x∗ , 0) = y(τ ) is three-times continuously differentiable. Surjectivity of y(τ ) is obvious from the definition of
y(τ ) in (14). Injectivity follows from a contradiction argument.
Assume y(τ ) is not injective, then there exists τ1 < τ2 in
[0, T ], such that y(τ1 ) = y(τ2 ). Let f − (x, 0) := −f (x, 0)
be the vector field for the backwards flow. If f − (y(τ1 ), 0) 6=
f − (y(τ2 ), 0), this is a contradiction to the fact that f is a welldefined function. If f − (y(τ1 ), 0) = f − (y(τ2 ), 0), we consider
the following cases:
Case (i): 0 < τ1 < τ2
As y(τ1 ) = y(τ2 ), we return to the same state after some interval τ2 − τ1 > 0. As a result, E := {y(τ ) | τ1 ≤ τ ≤ τ2 } ⊂ O
is a periodic orbit of the backwards-flow continuous system.
Within case (i) consider the following sub-cases:
(a) y(τ ) ∈ E for all τ ∈ [τ1 , T ]:
The orbit E would exist in the forward flow as well
with the exception that the flow will be in the opposite
direction to the backward flow. As the periodic orbit is
an invariant set under the 0-input continuous dynamics
(1), the forward flow starting from y(T ) = ∆(x∗ , 0)
will get trapped in E and never reach S, leading to a
contradiction with assumption A.5, according to which
the solution must reach S in finite time T ∗ .
(b) There exists τ̂ ∈ [τ1 , T ] such that y(τ̂ ) 6∈ E:
This sub-case results in a contradiction to the uniqueness
of the backwards solution, as starting from y(τ1 ) ∈ E,
one solution flows to y(τ̂ ) 6∈ E while the other gets
trapped in E.
Case (ii): 0 = τ1 < τ2
Note that H(y(τ )) and Lf − H(y(τ, 0)) are continuous in

13

τ . Additionally, from assumption A.6-A.7 it follows that
H(y(0)) = H(x∗ ) = 0 and Lf − H(y(0), 0) > 0 (flipped
sign from assumption A.7 due to the flow being backwards in
time), thus there exists a δ > 0 such that Lf − H(y(τ ), 0) > 0
for all τ ∈ [0, δ). Hence for the interval (0, δ) we have
H(y(τ )) > 0, i.e. {y(τ ) | τ ∈ (0, δ)} ⊂ S + . Again using
continuity of H(y(τ )) and Lf − H(y(τ ), 0) at τ2 we have that
H(y(τ )) is strictly increasing in the interval (τ2 − δ, τ2 + δ)
(shrink δ > 0 if necessary to ensure δ < τ2 − δ) but
H(y(τ2 )) = 0, hence, H(y(τ )) < 0 for all τ ∈ (τ2 − δ, τ2 ),
i.e. {y(τ ) | τ ∈ (τ2 − δ, τ2 )} ⊂ S − . Thus, for some τ̄ such
that δ < τ̄ < τ2 − δ, the solution must cross over from S +
to S − at a point other than x∗ , resulting in a contradiction to
assumption A.6.
A PPENDIX C
First note that S is a twice continuously differentiable
embedded submanifold in Rn given by H(x) = 0. Clearly,
H(x∗ ) = 0, and without loss of generality assume that
∂H
6= 0, which follows from
for the n-th coordinate ∂x
n x∗
assumption A.2. Hence, using the implicit function theorem
we can write xn = h(x̄) where x̄ := (x1 , ..., xn−1 ) for
x̄ ∈ Bδ (x̄∗ ) where x∗ = (x̄∗ , h(x̄∗ )). As a result, the local
coordinates of states x ∈ S in a neighborhood of x∗ are
x = (x̄, h(x̄)). The Taylor expansion of h(x̄) at x̄∗ gives
h(x̄) = h(x̄∗ ) + A(x̄ − x̄∗ ) + O(kx̄ − x̄∗ k2 ) ,

(63)

∗
where A = ∂h
∂ x̄ x̄∗ . Let z ∈ Tx S be the projection of x on
Tx∗ S along (x1 , x2 , ..., xn−1 ), then its coordinates are z =
(x̄, h(x̄∗ ) + A(x̄ − x̄∗ )). Hence, for x ∈ S and z ∈ Tx∗ S,
there exists a c > 0 such that,

kx − zk = k(x̄, h(x̄)) − (x̄, h(x̄∗ ) + A(x̄ − x̄∗ ))k
= |O(kx̄ − x̄∗ k2 )|
≤ ckx̄ − x̄∗ k2 ≤ ckx − x∗ k2 .
A PPENDIX D
Proof of Lemma 8. We first prove Lemma 8(i), (ii) simultaneously. The proof follows from Lemma 6 and the fact that O
is compact. Using Lemma 6 for any point on the orbit, there
exists a sufficiently small open ball of initial conditions and
inputs such that the corresponding (forced) solution exists and
is unique over a time interval that is sufficiently long for the
solution to cross S in finite time. Then, invoking compactness
of O, we show that an upper bound on the finite time to cross
S holds uniformly in a “tube” around O.
Let w(t) := ϕ(t, ∆(x∗ , 0), 0) be the unperturbed (zeroinput) solution of (1) starting from ∆(x∗ , 0). By Remark 4,
w(t) is well-defined over an interval [0, T ] with T > T ∗ . Then
define we := w(T ) which is in the open set S − . Hence, there
exists a δe > 0 such that Bδe (we ) ⊂ S − . Given an arbitrary
time ξ ∈ [0, T ∗ ] and the corresponding point w(ξ) ∈ O,
Lemma 6 ensures that there exists a δξ > 0 such that, for
any x ∈ Bδξ (w(ξ)) and u ∈ U with kuk∞ < δξ , the
(perturbed) solution ϕ(t, x, u) exists and is unique over the
interval t ∈ [0, T − ξ]. Furthermore, for some L > 0, (40)
gives kϕ(t, x, u) − w(ξ + t)k ≤ (2eL(T −ξ) − 1)δξ for all

t ∈ [0, T − ξ], which implies that δξ can be chosen sufficiently
small to ensure that sup0≤t≤T −ξ kϕ(t, x, u) − w(t + ξ)k < δe .
This ensures that if we start in a neighborhood of a point w(ξ)
of the unforced solution, then the perturbed solution will cross
S within the interval [0, T x ] with T x := T − ξ; clearly, [0, T x ]
depends on the point w(ξ) and is a subset of [0, T ].
Now, to extend these results over the entire orbit, construct
an open cover of O by using the open balls Bδξ (w(ξ)) for
each ξ ∈ [0, T ∗ ]. As O is compact, there exists ξ1 , ξ2 , ..., ξN ∈
[0, T ∗ ], and δi := δξi , wi := w(ξi ) such that ∪N
i=1 Bδi (wi ) ⊃
O is a finite sub-cover. Choose 0 < δ < min1≤i≤N δi such
that {x ∈ Rn | dist(x, O) < δ} ⊂ ∪N
i=1 Bδi (wi ). Choosing
such δ > 0 is always possible. Indeed, since ∪N
i=1 Bδi (wi ) is
bounded, its boundary B := ∂(∪N
i=1 Bδi (wi )) is compact. Let
0 < δ < minx∈B dist(x, O)/2 (shrink if necessary to ensure
δ < min1≤i≤N δi ) where the min is well-defined because
dist(x, O) is continuous. Note that {x ∈ Rn | dist(x, O) < δ}
is connected because O is connected; hence, this choice of δ
ensures that {x ∈ Rn | dist(x, O) < δ} ⊂ ∪N
i=1 Bδi (wi ). With
this choice of δ, any solution ϕ(t, x, u) such that x ∈ S + with
dist(x, O) < δ and u ∈ U with kuk∞ < δ exists and is unique
for t ∈ [0, T − ξi ], where ξi corresponds to the ball Bδi (wi )
that includes x (note that x may belong to multiple such balls;
picking any one would suffice). Moreover, the solution will
cross S in time within max1≤i≤N (T −ξi ) ≤ T . This completes
the proof of Lemma 8(i), (ii).
The proof of Lemma 8(iii) closely follows the proof of
Lemma 7(iii), with the difference that, instead of comparing the solution ϕ(t, x, u) with ϕ(t, ∆(x∗ , 0), 0) as was
the case in Lemma 7(iii), now we compare ϕ(t, x, u) with
ϕ(t, w(ξmin ), 0) = w(t + ξmin ), where ξmin ∈ [0, T ∗ ] is such
that10 dist(x, O) = kx−w(ξmin )k. To do this comparison, we
use Claim 1 and Claim 2 below to generalize estimates related
to T̂I and Lemma 6, respectively, from an open-ball around a
point in Rn to an entire open neighborhood of O in S + .
Claim 1: Let T̂I be as in (8). There exist LT̂ > 0 and δ > 0
such that for x ∈ S + with dist(x, O) < δ and u ∈ U with
kuk∞ < δ, the following is satisfied
|T̂I (x, u) − T̂I (w(ξmin ), 0)| ≤ LT̂ (kx − w(ξmin )k + kuk∞ ).
Claim 2: There exist L > 0 and δ > 0 such that for any
x ∈ S + with dist(x, O) < δ and u ∈ U with kuk∞ < δ, the
following is satisfied for 0 ≤ t ≤ T − ξmin ,
kϕ(t, x, u)−w(t+ξmin )k ≤ eLT kx−w(ξmin )k+(eLT −1)kuk∞ .
Hence, in proving Lemma 8(iii) we follow the steps of proving
Lemma 7(iii), where, instead of local Lipschitz continuity of
TI and Lemma 6, we use Claim 1 and Claim 2, respectively,
to compare ϕ(t, x, u) with ϕ(t, w(ξmin ), 0) = w(t+ξmin ). We
use T ∗ − ξmin and T − ξmin instead of T ∗ and T . In the end,
we replace kx − w(ξmin )k with dist(x, O).
Finally, we present proofs of Claim 1 and 2.
10 Such a ξ
min exists by Lemma 2. Note that ξmin depends on x since
ξmin ∈ arg minξ∈[0,T ] kx − w(ξ)k; we do not display this dependence for
notational convenience.

14

Proof of Claim 1. For any ξ ∈ [0, T ∗ ], there exists a δξ > 0
such that T̂I is continuously differentiable, hence locally Lipschitz, with a Lipschitz constant LT̂ ,ξ for any x ∈ Bδξ (w(ξ))
and u ∈ U with kuk∞ < δξ . Construct an open-cover for O as
above, but now use Bδξ /2 (w(ξ)) for all ξ ∈ [0, T ∗ ]. As O is
compact, there are ξ1 , ξ2 , ..., ξN ∈ [0, T ∗ ] and δi := δξi , wi :=
w(ξi ) such that O ⊂ ∪N
i=1 Bδi /2 (wi ). Let x ∈ Bδi /2 (wi ) for
some i, then w(ξmin ) ∈ Bδi (wi ) for the same i. This holds
because kx−w(ξmin )k ≤ kx−wi k < δi /2, hence using the triangle inequality kw(ξmin )−wi k ≤ kx−w(ξmin )k+kwi −xk <
δi . Therefore, for any x ∈ ∪N
i=1 Bδi /2 (wi ), we can write the
Lipschitz bound with the Lipschitz constant LT̂ ,ξi replaced by
LT̂ = max1≤i≤N LT̂ ,ξi . Choosing 0 < δ < min1≤i≤N δi /2
such that {x ∈ S + | dist(x, O) < δ} ⊂ ∪N
i=1 Bδi /2 (wi ) and
u ∈ U with kuk∞ < δ completes the proof.
Proof of Claim 2. This proof is very similar to [36, Theorem 3.5]; hence, we only provide a sketch. It is pointed out that
L is the Lipschitz constant of f on the compact set {(x, û) ∈
Rn × Rp | kx − w(t)k ≤ , ∀t ∈ [0, T ∗ ], and kûk ≤ } where
û is used to denote the value of u ∈ U at a certain time instant
and should not be confused with the function itself. The proof
follows by the Gronwall-Bellman inequality [36, Lemma A.1]
between ϕ(t, x, u) and w(t + ξmin ), which gives
kϕ(t, x, u) − w(t + ξmin )k
≤e

L(T −ξmin )

≤e

LT

(64)

kx − w(ξmin )k + (e

kx − w(ξmin )k + (e

LT

L(T −ξmin )

− 1)kuk∞ ,

− 1)kuk∞ .

for t ∈ [0, T − ξmin ]. Choosing δ = /(2eLT ) such that
dist(x, O) = kx − w(ξmin )k < δ and kuk∞ < δ ensures
the solution remains trapped in the compact -neighborhood
of O for t ∈ [0, T ∗ −ξmin ] and hence the inequality holds.
R EFERENCES
[1] D. Baı̆nov and P. S. Simeonov, Systems with impulse effect: stability,
theory, and applications. Chichester, U.K.: Ellis Horwood, 1989.
[2] G. Ballinger and X. Liu, “Permanence of population growth models
with impulsive effects,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, vol. 26,
no. 12, pp. 59–72, December 1997.
[3] T. Yang and L. O. Chua, “Impulsive stabilization for control and
synchronization of chaotic systems: theory and application to secure
communication,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Fundamental Theory and Applications, vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 976–988, October
1997.
[4] E. R. Westervelt, J. W. Grizzle, C. Chevallereau, J. H. Choi, and
B. Morris, Feedback Control of Dynamic Bipedal Robot Locomotion.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2007.
[5] W. M. Haddad, V. Chellaboina, and S. G. Nersesov, Impulsive and hybrid
dynamical systems. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press,
2006.
[6] E. R. Westervelt, J. W. Grizzle, and D. E. Koditschek, “Hybrid zero
dynamics of planar biped walkers,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 42–56, 2003.
[7] A. Ames, K. Galloway, J. Grizzle, and K. Sreenath, “Rapidly exponentially stabilizing control lyapunov functions and hybrid zero dynamics,”
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 876–891,
2014.
[8] R. Gregg and M. Spong, “Reduction-based control of three-dimensional
bipedal walking robots,” International Journal of Robotics Research,
vol. 2010, no. 6, pp. 680–702, 26.
[9] L. B. Freidovich, U. Mettin, A. S. Shiriaev, and M. W. Spong, “A passive
2-DOF walker: Hunting for gaits using virtual holonomic constraints,”
IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 1202–1208, October
2009.

[10] H. Razavi, A. M. Bloch, C. Chevallereau, and J. W. Grizzle, “Symmetry
in legged locomotion: a new method for designing stable periodic gaits,”
Autonomous Robots, pp. 1–24, July 2016.
[11] S. Veer, M. S. Motahar, and I. Poulakakis, “Generation of and switching
among limit-cycle bipedal walking gaits,” in Proc. of IEEE Conf. on
Decision and Control, Melbourne, December 2017.
[12] C. O. Saglam and K. Byl, “Switching policies for metastable walking,”
in Proc. of IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, Florence, December
2013, pp. 977–983.
[13] M. S. Motahar, S. Veer, and I. Poulakakis, “Composing limit cycles
for motion planning of 3d bipedal walkers,” in Proc. of IEEE Conf. on
Decision and Control, Las Vegas, December 2016.
[14] S. Veer, M. S. Motahar, and I. Poulakakis, “Adaptation of limitcycle walkers for collaborative tasks: A supervisory switching control
approach,” in Proc. of IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and
Systems, Vancouver, September 2017.
[15] ——, “Almost driftless navigation of 3d limit-cycle walking bipeds,”
in Proc. of IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems,
Vancouver, September 2017.
[16] M. S. Motahar, S. Veer, and I. Poulakakis, “Steering a 3d limit-cycle
walker for collaboration with a leader,” in Proc. of IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf.
on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vancouver, September 2017.
[17] S. Veer, M. S. Motahar, and I. Poulakakis, “On the adaptation of dynamic
walking to persistent external forcing using hybrid zero dynamics
control,” in Proc. of IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and
Systems, Hamburg, September 2015, pp. 997–1003.
[18] ——, “Local input-to-state stability of dynamic walking under persistent
external excitation using hybrid zero dynamics,” in Proc. of American
Control Conf., Boston, July 2016, pp. 4801–4806.
[19] S. Kolathaya and A. D. Ames, “Parameter to state stability of Control
Lyapunov Functions for hybrid system models of robots,” Nonlinear
Analysis: Hybrid Systems, 2016.
[20] Q. Nguyen and K. Sreenath, “Optimal robust control for bipedal robots
through control lyapunov function based quadratic programs,” in Proc.
of Robotics: Science and Systems, 2015.
[21] K. A. Hamed, B. G. Buss, and J. W. Grizzle, “Exponentially stabilizing
continuous-time controllers for periodic orbits of hybrid systems: Application to bipedal locomotion with ground height variations,” Int. J. of
Robotics Research, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 977–999, July 2016.
[22] E. D. Sontag, “Input to state stability: Basic concepts and results,” in
Nonlinear and optimal control theory, ser. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer, 2008, vol. 1932, pp. 163–220.
[23] Z.-P. Jiang and Y. Wang, “Input-to-state stability for discrete-time
nonlinear systems,” Automatica, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 857–869, 2001.
[24] C. Cai and A. R. Teel, “Characterizations of input-to-state stability for
hybrid systems,” Systems & Control Letters, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 47–53,
January 2009.
[25] J. Guckenheimer and P. Holmes, Nonlinear Oscillations, Dynamical
Systems, and Bifurcations of Vector Fields, ser. Applied Mathematical
Sciences. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1996, vol. 42.
[26] S. Foale and S. Bishop, “Dynamical complexities of forced impacting
systems,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A:
Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 338, no. 1651,
pp. 547–556, March 1992.
[27] L. Glass, M. R. Guevara, J. Belair, and A. Shrier, “Global bifurcations of
a periodically forced biological oscillator,” Physical Review A, vol. 29,
no. 3, p. 1348, March 1984.
[28] A. E. Martin and R. D. Gregg, “Stable, robust hybrid zero dynamics
control of powered lower-limb prostheses,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 3930–3942, August 2017.
[29] H. K. Khalil, Noninear Systems. New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company, 1992.
[30] J. W. Grizzle, G. Abba, and F. Plestan, “Asymptotically stable walking
for biped robots: Analysis via systems with impulse effects,” IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 51–64, January
2001.
[31] B. Morris and J. Grizzle, “A restricted poincaré map for determining
exponentially stable periodic orbits in systems with impulse effects:
Application to bipedal robots,” in IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control and European Control Conference, Seville, Spain, December
2005, pp. 4199–4206.
[32] A. L. Fradkov and A. Y. Pogromsky, Introduction to control of oscillations and chaos. River Edge, New Jesrsey: World Scientific, 1998,
vol. 35.
[33] K. A. Hamed and R. D. Gregg, “Decentralized feedback controllers for
robust stabilization of periodic orbits of hybrid systems: Application to

15

[34]

[35]

[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]

[42]

[43]
[44]
[45]

bipedal walking,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology,
vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 1153–1167, July 2017.
A. Ramezani, S. U. Ahmed, J. Hoff, S.-J. Chung, and S. Hutchinson,
“Describing robotic bat flight with stable periodic orbits,” in Biomimetic
and Biohybrid Systems. Living Machines 2017, ser. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, M. Mangan, M. Cutkosky, A. Mura, P. Verschure,
T. Prescott, and N. Lepora, Eds. Springer, 2017, vol. 10384, pp. 394–
405.
P. Liljeback, K. Y. Pettersen, Ø. Stavdahl, and J. T. Gravdahl, “Controllability and stability analysis of planar snake robot locomotion,” IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1365–1380, June
2011.
H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Prentice hall, 2002.
S. Lang, Real and functional analysis, 3rd ed. Springer-Verlag, 1993.
R. Goebel, R. G. Sanfelice, and A. R. Teel, Hybrid Dynamical Systems:
modeling, stability, and robustness. Princeton University Press, 2012.
E. Wendel and A. D. Ames, “Rank deficiency and superstability of
hybrid systems,” Nonlinear Analysis: Hybrid Systems, vol. 6, no. 2, pp.
787–805, May 2012.
I. Poulakakis and J. W. Grizzle, “The spring loaded inverted pendulum as
the hybrid zero dynamics of an asymmetric hopper,” IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 1779–1793, August 2009.
K. Sreenath, H.-W. Park, I. Poulakakis, and J. W. Grizzle, “Embedding
active force control within the compliant hybrid zero dynamics to
achieve stable, fast running on mabel,” The International Journal of
Robotics Research, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 324–345, 2013.
A. D. Ames, R. D. Gregg, and M. W. Spong, “A geometric approach
to three-dimensional hipped bipedal robotic walking,” in Proc. of IEEE
Conf. on Decision and Control, New Orleans, December 2007, pp. 5123–
5130.
W. Rudin, Principles of mathematical analysis. McGraw-Hill New
York, 1964, vol. 3.
E. Sarkans and H. Logemann, “Input-to-state stability of discrete-time
lur’e systems,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 54,
no. 3, pp. 1739–1768, 2016.
H. Royden and P. Fitzpatrick, Real Analysis, 4th ed. Prentice Hall,
2010.

Sushant Veer is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University
of Delaware. He received his B.Tech in Mechanical
Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology
Madras (IIT-M) in 2013. His research interests lie
in the control of complex dynamical systems with
application to dynamically stable robots. He has also
worked on assisstive device development. Sushant
Veer received the Yeongchi Wu International Education Award for the presentation at International
Society of Prosthetics and Orthotics World Congress
2013, and Singapore Technologies Scholarship, 2010.
Rakesh received an MA in Mathematics from Delhi
University in 1978 and a PhD in Mathematics from
Cornell University in 1986. He is currently a Professor in the Department of Mathematical Sciences
at University of Delaware. His main area of interest
is Inverse Problems for Hyperbolic PDEs.

Ioannis Poulakakis received his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering (Systems) from the University of
Michigan, MI, in 2009. From 2009 to 2010 he was
a post-doctoral researcher with the Department of
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Princeton
University, NJ. Since September 2010 he has been
with the Department of Mechanical Engineering at
the University of Delaware, where he is currently an
Associate Professor. His research interests lie in the
area of dynamics and control with applications to
robotic systems, particularly dynamically dexterous
legged robots. Dr. Poulakakis received the National Science Foundation
CAREER Award in 2014.

