1

Stability of Analytic Neural Networks with
Event-triggered Synaptic Feedbacks

arXiv:1604.00457v1 [cs.NE] 2 Apr 2016

Ren Zheng, Xinlei Yi , Wenlian Lu Senior Member, IEEE, Tianping Chen Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—In this paper, we investigate stability of a class of
analytic neural networks with the synaptic feedback via eventtriggered rules. This model is general and include Hopfield neural
network as a special case. These event-trigger rules can efficiently
reduces loads of computation and information transmission at
synapses of the neurons. The synaptic feedback of each neuron
keeps a constant value based on the outputs of the other neurons
at its latest triggering time but changes at its next triggering time,
which is determined by certain criterion. It is proved that every
trajectory of the analytic neural network converges to certain
equilibrium under this event-triggered rule for all initial values
except a set of zero measure. The main technique of the proof
is the Łojasiewicz inequality to prove the finiteness of trajectory
length. The realization of this event-triggered rule is verified
by the exclusion of Zeno behaviors. Numerical examples are
provided to illustrate the efficiency of the theoretical results.
Index Terms—Analytic neural network, almost stability, eventtriggered rule, Zenoa behaviors

I. I NTRODUCTION

R

ECURRENTLY connected neural networks have been
extensively studied, and many applications in different
areas have been arising. Such applications heavily depend on
the stable dynamical behavior of the networks. For example,
in application for optimisation, convergence of dynamics is
fundamental, which has attracting many interests from different fields. See [18]-[30] and the references therein. Therefore,
analysis of these behaviors is a necessary step for practical
design of neural networks.
This paper focuses on the following dynamical system

ẋ = −Dx − ∇f (y) + θ
(1)
y = g(Λx),

where x ∈ Rn is the state vector, D = diag{d1 , · · · , dn }
with di > 0 for all i = 1, · · · , n is the self-inhibition matrix,
the cost function f (y) : Rn → R is an analytic function and
θ ∈ Rn is a constant input vector. y = g(Λx) is the output
vector with the sigmoid function g(·) as nonlinear activation
This manuscript is submitted to the Special Issue on Neurodynamic Systems
for Optimization and Applications.
R. Zheng, X. Yi, W. L. Lu and T. P. Chen are with the School of
Mathematical Sciences, Fudan University, China; W. L. Lu is also with the
Centre for Computational Systems Biology, Fudan University; T. P. Chen is
also with the School of Computer Science, Fudan University, China (email:
{yix11, wenlian, tchen}@fudan.edu.cn).
This work is jointly supported by the National Natural Sciences Foundation
of China (Nos. 61273211 and 61273309), the Program for New Century
Excellent Talents in University (NCET-13-0139), the Programme of Introducing Talents of Discipline to Universities (B08018), and the Laboratory of
Mathematics for Nonlinear Sciences School of Mathematical Sciences, Fudan
University.

function and the scaling slopes Λ = diag{λ1 , · · · , λn } for
some λi > 0 for all i = 1, · · · , n.
Eq. (1) was firstly proposed in [20] and is a general model
of neural network system arising in recent years. For example,
the well-known Hopfield neural network [10], [11], whose
continuous-time version can be formulated as

n
P

Ci ẋi = − xi +
ωij yj + θi
Ri j=1
(2)

yi = gi (λi xi ),

for i = 1, · · · , n, where xi stands for the state of neuron i and
each activation function gi (·) is sigmoid. With the symmetric
weight condition (ωij = ωji for all i, j = 1, P
· · · , n), Eq. (2)
can be formulated as Eq. (1) with f (y) = − 21 m
i,j=1 ωij yi yj .
This model has a great variety of applications. It can be used
to search for local minima of the quadratic objective function
of f (y) over the discrete set {0, 1}n [26]-[32], for example,
the traveling-sales problem [13]. This model can be regarded
as a special form of (1) with f (y) = E(y) and proved to
minimize E(y) over the discrete set {0, 1}n [26].
The linearization technique and the classical LaSalle approach for proving stability (See [18], [26]) could be invalid
when the system had non-isolated equilibrium points (e.g., a
manifold of equilibria) [20]. The concept ”absolute stability”
was proposed in [19]-[21] to show that each trajectory of
the neural network converges to certain equilibrium for any
parameters and initial values by proving the finiteness of the
trajectory length and the celebrated Łojasiewicz inequality
[28]-[29]. This idea was also seen in [31].
However, in the model (1), the synaptic feedback of each
neuron is simultaneous according to the output states of the
other neurons, which is costly in practice for a network of a
large number of neurons. In recent years, with the development of sensing, communications, and computing equipment,
event-triggered control [27]-[38] and self-triggered control [1][35] have been proposed and have remarkable advantages
that reduce the frequency of synaptic information exchange
significantly. In this paper, we investigate stability of analytic
neural networks with event-triggered synaptic feedbacks. Here,
we present an event-triggered rule to reduce the frequency of
receiving synaptic feedbacks. At each neuron, the synaptic
feedback is a constant determined by the outputs of the
neurons at its latest triggering time and changes at the next
triggering time of this neuron that is triggered by a criterion via
the neurons’ output states as well. We prove that the analytic
neural network system is almost sure stable (see Definition 1),
which was proposed by Hirsh [23], under the event-triggered
rule by the Łojasiewicz inequality. In addition, we further

2

prove that the event-triggered rule is physically viable, owing
to the exclusion of Zeno behaviors. For the event-triggered
rule, each neuron needs the states of the other neurons and
itself, asynchronous. Hence, the neurons are not triggered in a
synchronous way, but independent of each other. It should be
highlighted that our results can be extended to a large class of
neural networks, for example, the standard cellular networks
[16]-[17].
The paper is organized as follows. In Section II, the preliminaries are given; Stability and the exclusion of Zeno behaviours of analytic neural networks with the event-triggering
rules are proved in Section III; Then the discrete-time monitoring scheme is discussed in Section IV; In Section V,
numerical examples are provided to show the effectiveness
of the theoretical results; The paper is concluded in Section
VI.
Notions: Rn denotes n-dimensional real space. k ·k represents
the Euclidean norm for vectors or the induced 2-norm for
matrices. Br (x0 ) = {x ∈ Rn : kx−x0 k < r} stands for an ndimensional ball with center x0 ∈ Rn and radius r > 0. For a
function F (x) : Rn → R, ∇F (x) stands for its gradient. For a
set Q ⊆ Rn and a point x0 ∈ Rn , dist (x0 , Q) = inf y∈Q kx0 −
yk indicates the distance from x0 to Q. m(·) stands for the
Lebesgue measure in Rn .
II. P RELIMINARIES

AND PROBLEM FORMULATION

In this section, we firstly provide some definitions and
preliminary results, which will be used later. With the discontinuous synaptic feedback, we consider Eq. (1) in the following
form
h

i
ẋi (t) = −di xi (t) − ∇f y(tik (t) ) + θi
i
i
(3)

yi (t) = gi λi xi (t)

for i = 1, · · · , n. Here, xi ∈ R , di > 0 and θi ∈ R. In
particular, let dmax = maxi di . f (y) : Rn → R is an analytic
cost function function and yi = gi (λi xi ) is the output vector
with a scaling parameter λi > 0 and the sigmoid functions
gi (·) as nonlinear activation functions, which we take as the
sigmoid function as follows
gi (x) =

1
.
1 + e−x

The gradient of the activation function g(·) at x ∈ Rn can
be written as ∂g(x) = diag{g1′ (x1 ), · · · , gn′ (xn )}. The strict
increasing triggering event time sequence {tik }+∞
k=1 (to be
defined) are neuron-wise and ti1 = 0, for all i = 1, · · · , n.
At each t, each neuron i changes the information from the
other neurons with respect to an identical time point tiki (t)
with ki (t) = argmaxk′ {tik′ 6 t}. Throughout the paper, we
simplify the notation tiki (t) as tik unless there is a potential
ambiguity.
Let F (xt ) = [F1 (xt ), · · · , Fn (xt )]⊤ be the vector at the
right-hand side of (3), where
h
i
Fi (xt ) = −di xi (t) − ∇f y(tik ) + θi .
(4)
i

Denote the set of equilibrium points for (3) as
n
o
S = x ∈ Rn : −Dx − ∇f (g(Λx)) + θ = 0 .

We first recall the definition of almost stability for model (3)
proposed in [23].
Definition 1: Given an analytic function f (·), the sigmoid
function g(·) and constants di , θi and λi , system (3) is said to
be almost sure stable if for any initial values except a set of
zero measure, the trajectory x(t) of (3), there exists x∗ ∈ S
such that
lim x(t) = x∗ .

t→+∞

The following lemma shows that all solutions for (3) are
bounded and there exists at least one equilibrium point.
Lemma 1: Given di , θi , λi , i = 1, · · · , n, and two analytic
functions f (·) and g(·), for any triggering event time sequence
{tik }+∞
k=0 (i = 1, · · · , n), there exists a unique solution for
the piece-wise cauchy problem (3) with some initial data
x(0) ∈ Rn . Moreover, the solutions with different initial data
are bounded in time interval of its duration.
Proof: First, we prove the existence and uniqueness of
the solution for the system (3). Denotes tk = [t1k , · · · , tnk ]⊤ ,
where k = 0, 1, 2, · · · . Given a time sequence {tik }+∞
k=0 (i =
1, · · · , n) ordered as 0 = ti0 < ti1 < ti2 < · · · < tik < · · ·
(same items in {tik }+∞
k=0 treat as one), there exists a unique
solution of (3) in the interval [t0 , t1 ) by using x(t0 ) = x(0)
as the initial data according to the existence and uniqueness
theorem in [12]). For the next interval [t1 , t2 ), x(t1 ) can be
regarded as the new initial data, which can derive another
unique solution in this interval. By induction, we can conclude
that there exists a piecewise unique solution over the whole
time interval of the duration.
Second, since 0 < gi (x) < 1 (x ∈ R), there exists a
constant M > 0 such that
−di xi (t) − M 6 Fi (xt ) 6 −di xi (t) + M
Thus for any ε0 > 0, there exists r0 > 0 such that
(
Fi (xt ) < −ε0 , ∀ xi (t) > r0

∀ xi (t) 6 −r0

where i = 1, · · · , n. One can see that x(t) ∈ x ∈ Rn : kxk 6
max{r0 , kx(0)k} for the whole duration of the solution.
Consider now the equilibrium points set S. The following
lemma is established in [20], which shows that there exists at
least one equilibrium point in S.
Lemma 2: For the equilibrium points set S, the following
statements hold:
(1) S is not empty.
T
(2) There exists a constant r > 0 such that S
Rn \
Br (0) = ∅.
To depict the event that triggers the next feedback basing
time point, we introduce the following candidate Lyapunov
function:

Z
n 
X
di yi −1
L(x) =f (y) +
gi (s)ds − θ⊤ y,
(5)
λ
i
0
i=1
Fi (xt ) > ε0 ,

3

where y = [y1 , · · · , yn ] with yi = gi (λi xi ) (i = 1, · · · , n).
The function L(x) generalizes the Lyapunov function introduced for (1) in [26], and it can also be thought of as
the energy function for the Hopfield and the cellular neural
networks model [18], [16]. In this paper, we will prove that the
candidate Lyapunov function (5) is a strict Lyapunov function
[20], defined as follows.
Definition 2: A Lyapunov function L(·) : Rn → R is said
to be strict if L ∈ C 1 (Rn ), and the derivative of L along
trajectories x(t), i.e. L̇(x(t)), satisfies L̇(x) 6 0 and L̇(x) < 0
for x ∈
/ S.
The next lemma provides the Łojasiewicz inequality [28],
which will be used to prove the finiteness of length for any
trajectory x(t) of the system (3), towards convergence of the
trajectory of the system (3).
Lemma 3: Consider an analytic and continuous function
H(x) : D ⊆ Rn → R. Let
n
o
S∇ = x ∈ D : ∇H(x) = 0 .
For any xs ∈ S∇ , there exist two constants r(xs ) > 0 and
0 < v(xs ) < 1, such that
H(x) − H(xs )

v(xs )

6 ∇H(x) ,

for x ∈ Br(xs ) (xs ).
The definition of trajectory length is given below.
Definition 3: Let x(t) on t ∈ [0, +∞), be some trajectory
of (3). For any t > 0, the length of the trajectory on [0, t) is
given by
Z t
l[0,t) =
ẋ(s) ds.
0

III. E VENT- TRIGGER SYNAPTIC FEEDBACKS

AND ALMOST

STABILITY

In this section, we synthesize asynchronous triggers that
prescribe when neurons should broadcast its state information and update their control signals. Section III-A presents
the evolution of a quadratic function that measures network
disagreement to identify a triggering function and discusses
the problems that arise in its physical implementation. These
observations are our starting point in Section III-B and Section
III-C, where we should overcome these implementation issues,
also know as Zeno behaviors.
Define the state measurement error vector e(t) =
[e1 (t), · · · , en (t)]⊤ as
h
h
i
i
ei (t) = ∇f y(t) − ∇f y(tiki (t) )
i

for t ∈

[tik , tik+1 )

i

with i = 1, · · · , n and k = 0, 1, 2, · · · .

A. Event-trigger rule
For a constant 0 < c < 2, denote
n

o
c
λi g ′ λi xi (t)
inf
inf
α = 1−
2 i∈1,··· ,n t∈[0,+∞)

and

β=

n
o
1
λi g ′ λi xi (t) .
sup
sup
2c i∈1,··· ,n t∈[0,+∞)

The triggering function Ti (ei , t) for the event-triggered rule
can be defined as
Ti (ei , t) = ei (t) − γ Ψi (t),
√

) and Ψi (t) =
where γ ∈ (0, √α
β
n
P

p
i
δ(t) e−di (t−tki (t) ) with
2

Fi (xt )

i=1

δ(t) = P
n

e

−2di (t−tik

i (t)

)

.

(6)

i=1

The updating rule for the trigger events is given as follow.
Theorem 1: Given T > 0, for each neuron vi , set tik+1 =
i
min{τk+1
, tik + T } with the following updating rule:


i
τk+1
= maxi τ : Ti (ei , t) 6 0, ∀ t ∈ [tik , τ ) ,

(7)

τ >tk

for all i = 1, · · · , n and k = 0, 1, 2, · · · . Suppose that for a
trajectory x(t) of system (3), limk→∞ tik = +∞ holds for all i.
Then x(t) converges to some x∗ ∈ S, namely, limt→∞ x(t) =
x∗ .
Before the proof, we have the following remarks.
Remark 1: From (4), one can see that it is sufficient to
monitor the neurons’ states xj (t), j = 1, · · · , n, from system
(3), in order to verify rule (7). And, the coefficient δ(t) in
Eq. (6) can be seen as a parameter from this normalization
process. Furthermore, according to (3), the evolution of the
state (xi ) of neuron vi is in the form ẋi = −di xi + Ii
with Ii = θi − [∇f (y(tik ))]i a constant, before the event
is triggered. Thus, we can either continuously monitoring
neurons’ states xj (t), j = 1, · · · , n, or formulate them as
i
i
xi (t) = e−di (t−tk ) xi (tik )+(1/di )[1−e−di (t−tk ) ]Ii . Therefore,
we can only monitor the states at the event times instead,
which leads a discrete-time monitoring scheme. We will
discuss this scenario in Section IV in detail.
Remark 2: The preliminary condition for the convergence
of the trajectory of system (3) is that the existing duration of
the solution of the Cauchy problem of (3) should be [0, ∞),
or equivalently limk→∞ tki = ∞ for all i. We will verify
this condition by proving the exclusion of Zeno behaviors in
Sections III-B and III-C.
The proof of this theorem comprises of the following
propositions.
Proposition 1: Under the assumptions in Theorem 1, L(x)
in (5) is a strict Lyapunov function for system (3).
Proof: The partial derivative of the candidate Lyapunov
function L(x) along the trajectory x(t) can be written as

h
i


∂
′
L x(t) = − λi g λi xi (t) − di xi (t) − ∇f y(tiki (t) )
∂xi
i
i
h
h
i

+ θi − ∇f y(t) + ∇f y(tiki (t) )
i
i
i
h
′
(8)
= − λi g λi xi (t) Fi (xt ) − ei (t) ,

4

According to Lemma 3, there exist r(e
x) > 0 and v(e
x) ∈
(0, 1) such that |L(x) − L(e
x)|v(ex) 6 k∇L(x)k for x ∈
e as h → +∞ and xjh ∈ Sjh have difBr(ex) (e
x). Since xjh → x
ferent energy levels Ljh , we can pick a point xjh0 ∈ Br(ex) (e
x)
such that L(xjh0 ) 6= L(e
x). Then

and the time derivative of L(x(t)) gives
n
 dxi (t)
 X
∂
L x(t)
L̇ x(t) =
∂x
dt
i
i=1
n
i
X
h
λi g ′ λi xi (t) Fi (xt ) − ei (t) Fi (xt ).
=−

0 < L(xjh0 ) − L(e
x)

i=1

1
Consider the inequality |ei (t)Fi (xt )| 6 2c
|ei (t)|2 + 2c |Fi (xt )|2
for some 0 < c < 2. Then we have


n
X


2
λi g ′ λi xi (t) Fi (xt ) − ei (t)Fi (xt )
L̇ x(t) = −
i=1

n


cX
6− 1−
λi g ′ λi xi (t) Fi (xt )
2 i=1

+

n

1 X
λi g ′ λi xi (t) ei (t)
2c i=1

6−α

n
X

2

Fi (xt )

+β

n
X

2

and

Kj = Γj
2

i=1

i=1

From the rule (7), one can see that |ei (tik + T )| 6 γΨi (tik + T )
holds for all t > 0 at most except t = ti1 , · · · , tik , · · · . This
implies
n
X

Fi (xt )
L̇ x(t) 6 − α

2

+ βγ

2

=−α

Fi (xt )

2

+ βγ 2

n
X

i

δ(t) e−2di (t−tki (t) )

i=1

i=1

= − α − βγ

Ψ2i (t)

i=1

i=1

n
X

n
X

n
X
2

Fi (xt )

2

60

(9)

i=1

for all k = 0, 1, 2, · · · . For any x ∈
/ S, there exits i0 ∈
{1, · · · , n} such that Fi0 (xt ) 6= 0. Thus L̇(x) < 0. Proposition
1 is proved.
With the Lyapunov function L(x) for system (3) and the
event triggering condition (7), the consequent proof follows
[20] with necessary modifications.
Proposition 2: There exist finite different energy levels
Lj (j = 1, 2, · · · , m), such that each set of equilibrium points
n
o
Sj = x ∈ S : L(x) = Lj and j = 1, 2, · · · , m

is not empty.
Proof: First of all, it can be seen that L(x) in (5) is analytic on Rn . Suppose that there exist infinite different values
Lj (j = 1, · · · , +∞) such that Sj = {x ∈ S : L(x) = Lj }
is not empty. From Lemma 2, it is known that there exists
r1 > 0 such that outside Br1 (0) there are no equilibrium
points. Hence Sj ⊂ Br1 (0) for j = 1, · · · , +∞.
Consider points xj ∈ Sj for j = 1, · · · , +∞. Since
j
x ∈ S, it holds F (xj ) = 0 and from Eq. (8), ∇L(xj ) = 0.
Since Br1 (0) is a compact set, hence, there exist a point
jh
x
e and a subsequence {xjh }+∞
6= x
e for all
h=1 such that x
jh
h = 1, · · · , +∞ and x → x
e as h → +∞. Since ∇L is
continuous, taking into account that ∇L(xjh ) = 0 for all
h = 1, · · · , +∞, it results ∇L(e
x) = 0.

6 ∇L(xjh0 ) = 0,

which is a contradiction. This completes the proof.
Without loss of generality, assume that the energy levels
Lj (j = 1, 2, · · · , m) are ordered as L1 > L2 > · · · > Lm .
Thus there exists γ > 0 such that Lj > Lj+1 + 2γ, for any
j = 1, 2, · · · , m − 1. For any given ε > 0, define
n
o
Γj = x ∈ Rn : dist (x, Sj ) 6 ε

2

ei (t)

v(e
x)

\n


o
x ∈ Rn : L(x) ∈ Lj − γ, Lj + γ .

(10)

Proposition
3: For j = 1, 2, · · · , m, Kj is a compact set
T
and Kj S = Sj .
Proof: From Lemma 2, Sj ∈ Br1 (0) is bounded, hence
Γj is a compact set and x ∈ RnT:L(x) ∈ [Lj − γ, Lj + γ]
is a closed set. Thus, Kj = Γj
x ∈ Rn : L(x)
T ∈ [Lj −
γ, Lj + γ] is a compact set. Then proterty Kj S = Sj is
an immediate consequence of Proposition 2.
Proposition 4: For any trajectory x(t) of the system (3)
and any given time point τ > 0, let Kj , for some j ∈
{1, 2, · · · , m}, be a compact set as defined in (10). Then there
exist a constant Cj > 0 and an exponent vj ∈ (0, 1) such that

L̇ x(τ )
vj

> Cj L x(τ ) − Lj ,
F (xτ )
for x(τ ) ∈ Kj \ S.
Proof: Recall the notion tiki (τ ) as tik with ki (τ ) =
arg maxk′ {tik′ 6 τ }. Fi (xt ) can be rewritten as
h
i
Fi (xτ ) = −di xi (tik ) − ∇f y(tik ) + θi ,
i

for i = 1, · · · , n. From (8) and (7), we have
 2
∇L x(τ )
=

n
X
i=1

=

n
X
i=1

6

β̃j2


∂
L x(τ )
∂xi

2

i
h
λi g ′ λi xi (τ ) Fi (xτ ) − ei (τ )

n
X

"

i=1
"
n
X

Fi2 (xτ )

+

e2i

2



x(τ ) + 2 Fi (xτ )ei x(τ )

#

#



1 2
(1 +
+ 1+
6
e x(τ )
c i
i=1


n
n
X
1 2X 2
2
Fi (xτ ) + β̃j2 1 +
Ψi (τ )
γ
6 β̃j2 (1 + c)
c
i=1
i=1


γ2
2
2
= β̃j (1 + c) 1 +
F (xτ ) ,
c
β̃j2

c)Fi2 (xτ )

5

where β̃j = maxi∈{1,··· ,n} maxx(τ )∈Kj {λi gi′ (λi xi (τ ))}. Then
it holds

F (xτ ) > hj ∇L x(τ ) ,

where

hj =

1
q
β̃j (1 + c) 1 +

γ2
c

.

From Eq. (9), we have


2
L̇ x(τ ) > α − βγ 2 F (xτ ) .

For the point x(τ ) ∈ Kj \ S, from Eq. (8), ∇L(x(τ )) 6=
0. There exists r(x(τ )) > 0, c(x(τ )) > 0 and an exponent
v(x(τ )) ∈ (0, 1) such that



∇L x(τ ) > c x(τ ) L x(τ ) − Lj

v(x(τ ))

,

for x ∈ Br(x(τ )) (x(τ )). Indeed, if r(x(τ )) > 0 is small, we
have ∇L(x) 6= 0 for x ∈ Br(x(τ ))(x(τ )). Therefore, it holds

L̇ x(τ )

> α − βγ 2 F (xτ )
F (xτ )


> α − βγ 2 hj ∇L x(τ )



> α − βγ 2 hj c x(τ ) L x(τ ) − Lj

where


> Cj L x(τ ) − Lj

vj

,

Cj = (α − βγ 2 ) hj min

x(τ )∈Kj

and

v(x(τ ))

n
o
c x(τ )

n
o
v x(τ )
vj = min

Since x(t) → Sj (t → +∞) and L(x(t)) → Lj (t → +∞),
it follows that there exists e
t > 0 such that x(t) ∈ Ki for t > e
t.
By using Proposition 4, considering that x(t) ∈ Rn \ S for
t > 0 and x(t) ∈ Ki for t > e
t, we have that there exists
Cj > 0 and vj ∈ (0, 1) such that


L̇ x(t)
vj

−L̇ x(t)
=
> Cj L x(t) − L(+∞) ,
F (xt )
F (xt )

for t > e
t. Then
Z
Z t
ẋ(s) ds =

e
t

e
t

1
6
Cj

Proposition 5: Any trajectory x(t) of the systm (3) has a
finite length on [0, +∞), i.e.,
Z +∞
Z t
l[0,+∞) =
ẋ(s) ds = lim
ẋ(s) ds < +∞.
0

t→+∞

0

Proof: Assume without loss of generality that x(0) is
not an equilibrium point of Eq. (3). Due to the uniqueness
of solutions, we have ẋ(t) = F (xt ) 6= 0 for t > 0, i.e.,
x(t) ∈ Rn \ S for t > 0. From Proposition 1, it is seen
that L(x(t)) satisfies L̇(x(t)) < 0 for t > 0, i.e., L(x(t))
strictly decreases for t > 0. Thus, since x(t) is bounded on
[0, +∞) and L(x(t)) is continuous, L(x(t)) will tend to a
finite value L(+∞) = limt→+∞ L(x(t)). From Proposition 1
and the LaSalle invariance principle [23], [12], it also follows
that x(t) → S (t → +∞). Thus, from the continuity of L, it
results L(+∞) = Lj for some j ∈ {1, 2, · · · , m} and x(t) →
Sj (t → +∞).

F (xs ) ds
Z

t

e
t


−L̇ x(s)

L x(s) − L(+∞)

vj

ds.

The change of variable σ = L(x(s)) derives
Z t
Z L(x(t))
1
1
ẋ(s) ds 6
−
vj dσ
Cj L(x(et))
e
σ − L(+∞)
t
(
h
i1−vj

1
=
L x(e
t) − L(+∞)
Cj (1 − vj )
)
h
i1−vj

− L x(t) − L(+∞)
6

h
i1−vj

1
L x(e
t) − L(+∞)
,
Cj (1 − vj )

for t > e
t. Therefore, we have
Z +∞
l[0,+∞) =
ẋ(s) ds
0

6

Z

e
t

ẋ(s) ds +

6

Z

Z

+∞

ẋ(s) ds

e
t

0

x(τ )∈Kj

for x(τ ) ∈ Ki \ S.
Now, we are at the stage to prove that the length of x(t) on
[0, +∞) is finite. The statement proposition is given as follow.

t

e
t

ẋ(s) ds +

0

< +∞.

h
i1−vj

L x(e
t) − L(+∞)
Cj (1 − vj )

This completes the proof of Proposition 5.
In what follows it remains to address the proof of Theorem
1, which is given in Section III-A.
Proof of Theorem 1: Suppose that the condition (7) holds.
Then from Proposition 5, for any trajectory x(t) of the system
(3), we have
Z +∞
Z t
l[0,+∞) =
ẋ(s) ds = lim
ẋ(s) ds < +∞.
t→+∞

0

0

From Cauchy criterion on limit existence, for any ε > 0,
there
R t2 exists T (ε) such that when t2 > t1 > T (ε), it results
t1 ẋ(s) ds < ε. Thus,
Z t2
Z t2
ẋ(s) ds < ε.
x(t1 ) − x(t2 ) =
ẋ(s)ds 6
t1

t1

It follows that there exists an equilibrium point x∗ of (3), such
that limt→+∞ x(t) = x∗ . Recalling the Definition 1, we can
conclude that x(t) is convergent.

6

Remark 3: The event-triggered condition (7) implies that
the next time interval for neuron vi depends on states of the
neurons vj that are synaptically linked to neuron vi We say
that neuron vj is synaptically linked to neuron vi if [∇f (y)]i
depends on yj , in other words,
∂ 2 f (y)
6= 0.
∂yi ∂yj
When the event triggers, the neuron vi has to send its current
state information xi (t) to the other neurons immediately in
d
order to avoid having dt
L(x(t)) > 0. However, such a trigger
rule would cause the following problems:
(P1) The triggering function Ti (ei , t) = 0 may hold even after
neuron vi sends its new state to the other neurons. A bad
situation is that Ψi (t) = 0 happens at the same time
when |ei (t)| = 0. This may cause the neuron to send its
state continuously. This is called continuous triggering
situation in the Zeno behavior 1 .
(P2) Event if Ψi (t) = 0 and |ei (t)| = 0 never happen at the
same time point. The Zeno behavior may still exist. For
example, one neuron vi broadcasting its new state to
the other neurons may cause the triggering rules for two
neurons vj1 and vj2 are broken alternately. That is to say,
the inter-event time for both vj1 and vj2 will decrease
to zero. This is called alternate triggering situation in
the Zeno behavior.
These observations motivate us to introduce the Morse-Sard
Theorem for avoiding the continuous triggering situation (P1)
in Subsection III-B. In Subsection III-C, we will also prove
that for all the neuron, the alternate triggering situation is
absent by the event-triggered rule in Theorem 1.
B. Exclusion of continuous triggering situation
From the rule (7), we know that a triggering event happens
at a threshold time tik satisfying
Ti (ei , tik ) = ei (tik ) − γΨi (tik ) = 0
for i = 1, · · · , n and k = 0, 1, 2, · · · .
To avoid the situation that Ψi (t) = 0 and |ei (t)| = 0 happen
at the same triggering time point tik for some k, when the
triggering function Ti (ei , t) = 0 still holds after the neuron vi
sends the new state to the other neurons, we define a function
vector
i
1h
S(t, tτ ) = e⊤ (t)e(t) − γ 2 Ψ⊤ (t)Ψ(t)
2
where tτ ∈ Tk and
n n
o
[
tik : tik 6 t
(11)
Tk =
i=1

for k = 0, 1, 2, · · · , which is the set of all the latest triggering
time points before the present time t. Denote S(t, tτ ) =

⊤
S1 (t, tτ ), · · · , Sn (t, tτ )
and the following theorem that
1 Zeno behavior is described as a system making an infinite number of
jumps (i.e. triggering events in this paper) in a finite amount of time (i.e. a
finite time interval in this paper), see [15].

comes from the Morse-Sard theorem [4], [5] will be used for
excluding this continuous triggering.
Theorem 2: For each initial data x(0), there exists a measure zero subset O ⊂ Rn such that for all the neurons
vi (i = 1, · · · , n), if x(0) ∈ Rn \O and the triggering time
point set at the first event T0 is countable, then the set of all
the triggering time point on [0, +∞)
T =

+∞
n
[ [

k=0 i=1

i
tk

is also a countable set.
Proof: To show that the triggering time point set T
is countable for each x(0) ∈ Rn \O, we first prove an
equivalent statement that the Jacobian matrix dS(t, tτ ) =

⊤
dS1 (t, tτ ), · · · , dSn (t, tτ )
has rank n at next triggering
time point t = tik+1 when Tk (i.e., the set of all the latest
triggering time points before the present time t) is countable.
Note


∂
∂
dSi (t, tτ ) =
Si (t, tτ ) ,
Si (t, tτ ),
∂t
∂tτ
where tτ ∈ Tk . The two components in the above equation
satisfy
dei (t)
dΨi (t)
∂
Si (t, tτ ) = ei (t)
− γ 2 Ψi (t)
∂t
dt
dt
i
i
dh
2
∇f y(t) + γ di δ 2 (t) e−2di (t−tk )
= ei (t)
dt
i
i
dh
= ei (t)
∇f y(t) + γ 2 di Ψ2i (t)
dt
i

and

dei (t)
dΨi (t)
∂
Si (t, tτ ) = ei (t)
− γ 2 Ψi (t)
∂tτ
dtτ
dtτ
i
i
d h
= − ei (t)
∇f y(tτ ) − γ 2 di δ 2 (t) e−2di (t−tk )
dtτ
i
i
d h
∇f y(tτ ) − γ 2 di Ψ2i (t)
= − ei (t)
dtτ
i

When event triggers and ei (t) resets to 0 in the short time
period after the next time point tik+1 , that is, ei (tik+1 + ε) → 0
when ε → 0, then it holds
lim

ε→0

∂
Si (t, tτ )
∂t

= γ 2 di Ψ2i (tik+1 )
t=tik+1 +ε

and
lim

ε→0

∂
Si (t, tτ )
∂tτ

t=tik+1 +ε

= −γ 2 di Ψ2i (tik+1 ).

Define a initial data set by



i
i
Ok = xi (0) ∈ R : δ tk+1 = 0 for all i = 1, · · · , n
Sn
Take the initial data x(0) ∈ Rn \ i=1 Oki , we have
q
i
i
Ψi (tik+1 ) = δ(tik+1 ) e−di (tk+1 −tk ) 6= 0

7

which implies


dSi tik+1 , tτ = lim dSi tik+1 + ε, tτ
ε→0



 ∂
∂
= lim
Si t, tτ
Si t, tτ ,
ε→0 ∂t
∂tτ
t=ti +ε
h
i k+1
= γ 2 di Ψ2i (tik+1 ), −γ 2 di Ψ2i (tik+1 )
6= 0.

that is, the Jacobian matrix dS(t, tτ ) has S
rank n at t = tik+1 .
n
Then it follows that if x(0) ∈ R \ ni=1 Oki and Tk is
countable, the next triggering time point tik+1 is isolated, hence
the next triggering time point set for all the neurons
Tk+1 =

n
[


Theorem 3: Let O be a zero measured set as defined in (12).
Under two criterions of the event-triggered rule in Theorem 1,
for each x(0) ∈ Rn \O, the next inter-event interval of every
neuron is strictly positive and has a common positive lowerbound. Furthermore, the alternate triggering situation in the
Zeno behaviors are excluded.
Proof: Let us consider the following derivative of the
state measurement error for any neuron vi (i = 1, · · · , n)

n h
X


i
λj gj′ λj xj (t) Fj xt
∇2 f y(t)
=

tik+1

n
[

i=1

Ok =

+∞
n
[ [

k=0 i=1

(12)

the triggering time points set for all the neuron on [0, +∞)
T =

+∞
[

k=0

Tk =

+∞
n
[ [

k=0 i=1



tik

is countable and moreover m(O) = 0 under the assumption
that T0 is countable. This theorem is proved.
Recalling the triggering function Ti (ei , t), we have the
results that if the initial data x(0) ∈ Rn \O and there exist
countable number of triggering time points at the first event
(i.e., T0 is countable), then
Ψ(tτ ) 6= 0 for tτ ∈ T =

+∞
n
[ [

k=0 i=1



tik

that is to say, Ψi (t) = 0 and |ei (t)| = 0 may never happen
at the same time at all the triggering time point tik where
i = 1, · · · , n and k = 0, 1, 2, · · · . Therefore, the continuous
triggering situation in the Zeno behavior (P1) is avoided by
the rule (7).
Remark 4: Any perturbation on the initial data x(0) can
help away from the zero measured subset O.

where

j=1

i=1

q 
6M δ t
M=

2

v
u
n
X
u
i
e−2di (t−tk )
Λ tδ(t)


= ∇2 f y(t)

Oki

Oki ,

v
u n

 uX
Λ ∂g Λx(t) t
Fj xt


6 ∇2 f y(t)

i=1

for the Lebesgue measure m(·).
Now, according to the method of induction, we can assert
that for each initial data x(0) ∈ Rn \O, where

k=0

ij

j=1

m(Ok ) = 0 and Ok =

O=

ij

j=1

is countable. Furthermore, by using the inverse function theorem, it holds

+∞
[

n h
X
i
∇2 f y(t)
y˙j (t)

ėi (t) =

√
n Λ

sup
t∈[0,+∞)

and then it follows
Z t
Z
ei (t) =
ėi (s)ds 6
tik


∇2 f y(t)

t

tik

ėi (s) ds 6 M

Z tp
δ(s)ds.
tik

where t ∈ [tik , tik+1 ).
For any neuron vi (i = 1, · · · , n), if there are no events
in [tik , tik + T ), the compulsory criterion will be triggered,
that is, tik+1 = tik + T . Otherwise, if there is a triggering
event in [tik , tik + T ), according to the autonomy criterion, it
satisfies tik 6 tik+1 < tik + T . That is to say, it always satisfies
d
Fi (xt ) = −di Fi (xt ) if there is no
tik+1 − tik 6 T . Noting dt
event occurring at t. Then, there exists some σ > 0 such that
n
n
2
2
P
P
Fi xtik
Fi xtik
i=1
i=1
0< P
n
n
2 6 P
2 6σ
Fi xtik+1
Fi xtik +T
i=1

i=1

for all i = 1, · · · , n and k = 0, 1, 2, · · · , with taking σ =
e2dmax T . Moreover, since |Fi (x(t))| is decreasing on [tik , tik+1 )
if there are no events occuring during this period, we obtain
n
n
2
2
P
P
Fi xtik+1
Fi xtik
i=1
6 δ(t) 6 i=1
n
P
n
e−2dmax T
i=1

C. Exclusion of alternate triggering situation
After excluding the continuous triggering situation, we are
to prove the absence of the alternate triggering situation in
the Zeno behavior. Toward this aim, we will find a common
positive lower-bound for the inter-event time tik+1 − tik , for all
i = 1, · · · , n and k = 0, 1, 2, · · · .

where dmax = maxi=1,··· ,n {di }, which implies
δ(t)
6
δ(tik+1 )

n
P

Fi xtik

i=1
n
P

i=1



e−2di T

2

n
n
P

i=1

Fi xtik+1



2

6 σe2dmax T

8

for any t ∈ [tik , tik+1 ). Based on the autonomy criterion of the
updating rule in Theorem 1, the event will not trigger until
|ei (t)| = γΨi (t) at time point t = tik+1 > tik . Hence, for each
x(0) ∈ Rn \O, it holds
Z tik+1 p
ei (tik+1 )
δ(s)
−di (tik+1 −tik )
q
6M
ds
γe
= q
tik
δ(tik+1 )
δ(tik+1 )
√
6 M σ edmax T (tik+1 − tik )
Noting that the equation
γ e−di ηi
√
= ηi
M σ edmax T
with ηi = tik+1 − tik possesses a positive solution of ηi , we
can assert that for all neurons vi (i = 1, · · · , n), the next
inter-event time has a common positive lower-bound which
follows


γ e−di ηi
√ d T = ηi .
ηi :
η = min
(13)
i∈{1,··· ,n}
M σ e max
This implies that |ei (t)| = γΨi (t) holds at some t = tik+1 ,
which must satisfy tik+1 − tik+1 > η for all i = 1, · · · , n and
k = 0, 1, 2, · · · .
Since η and T are uniform for all the neurons, the next
triggering time point tik+1 satisfies tik+1 > tik + min{η, T } for
all i = 1, · · · , n and k = 0, 1, 2, · · · . Hence, the next interevent interval of each neuron is lower bounded by a common
positive constant, which means the absence of the alternate
triggering situation in the Zeno behavior (P2) is proved.
To sum up, we have excluded both the continuous triggering situation and alternate triggering situation in the Zeno
behavior, when the event-triggered rule is taken into account.
Therefore, we can claim that there is no Zeno behavior for all
the neurons.
After proving exclusion of Zeno behaviors, we are at the
stage to conclude limk→∞ tik = ∞ for all i = 1, · · · , n. This
implies the following summary result.
Theorem 4: Under the event-trigger rule described in Theorem 1, system (3) is almost sure stable.
Proof: In fact, from Theorems 2 and 3, one can conclude
that for all initial values except a set of zero measure, the
trajectory of system (3) possesses discontinuous the trigger
events with inter-event interval a positive low bounded. This
implies that the solution of Cauchy problem of system (3)
with these initial values exists for the duration [0, ∞) and
limk→∞ tik = +∞ for all i = 1, · · · , n. From Theorem 1,
it converges to certain equilibrium on S. Therefore, we have
proved this theorem.
IV. D ISCRETE - TIME

MONITORING

The continuous monitoring strategy for Theorem 1 may be
costly since the states of the neurons should be observed simultaneously. An alternative method is to predict the triggering
time point when inequality (7) does not hold and update the
triggering time accordingly.

For any neuron vi (i = 1, · · · , n), according to the current
event timing tik , its state can be formulated as



h
i
1

∗
i
∗

d
x
(t
)
+
∇f
y(t
)
−
θ
x
(t)
=
x
(t
)
+
i i k
i
i
i k

k

di
i


h
i
∗
(14)
× e−di (t−tk ) − 1





yi (t) = gi λi xi (t)

for t∗k < t < tik+1 , where t∗k = maxj tjk is the newest
timing of all other neurons and tik+1 is the next triggering
time point at which neuron vi happens the triggering event.
Then, solving the following maximization problem
n
o
t − t∗k : ei (t) 6 γΨi (t) ,
(15)
∆tik = max
i
t∈(t∗
k ,tk+1 )

we have the following prediction algorithm (Algorithm 1) for
the next triggering time point.
With the information of each neuron at time tik and the
proper parameters γ, search the observation time ∆tik by (15)
at first. If no triggering events occur in all neurons during
(tik , t∗k + ∆tik ), the neuron vi triggers at time t∗k + ∆tik and
record as the next triggering event time tik+1 , that is tik+1 =
t∗k + ∆tik . Renew the neuron vi ’s state and send the renewed
information to the other neurons. The prediction of neuron vi
is finished. If some other neuron triggers at time t ∈ (tik , t∗k +
∆tik ), update t∗k in state formula (14) and go back to find a
new observation time t∗k + ∆tik by solving the maximization
problem (15).
Algorithm 1 Prediction for the next triggering time point tik+1
Require:
j
1: Initialize γ > 0, t∗
k ← maxj tk
2: Input xi (t) ← xi (tik ) for all i = 1, · · · , n
Ensure:
3: Flag ← 0
4: while Flag = 0 do
5:
Search ∆tik by the strategy (15)
6:
τ ← t∗k + ∆tik
7:
if No neurons trigger during (tik , τ ) then
8:
vi triggers at time tik+1 = τ
9:
vi renew its state information xi (tik+1 )
10:
vi sends the state information to the other neurons
11:
Flag ← 1
12:
else
13:
Update t∗k in the state formula (14)
14:
end if
15: end while
16: return tik+1
In addition, when neuron vi updates its observation time
∆tik , the triggering time predictions of the neurons will be
affected. Therefore, besides the state formula (14) and the
maximization problem (15) as given before, each neuron
should take their triggering event time whenever any of the
other neurons renews and broadcasts its state information. In

9
2

x1

1.5

x2

x3

x4

x5

1
0.5

x

other word, if one neuron updates its triggering event time, it
is mandatory to inform the other neurons.
Remark 5: This monitoring scheme via the state formula
(14) may lose the high-level efficiency of the convergence,
because it abandons the continuous adjustment on δ(t) in Eq.
(6). But the advantage is that a discrete-time inspection on
x(t) can be introduced to ensure the convergence in Theorem
1, which can reduce the monitoring times and costs.

0
−0.5
−1
−1.5
−2
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

t

V. E XAMPLES

(a) Dynamics of components in system (16) under the updating rule (7).

f (y) =

5 
X
3
i=1

4

yi4

−

yi3



5

X
1
yi
− y⊤W y +
2
i=1

3.919
−4.672

W =
 4.011
−1.983
1.282

4
3
2
1

0

0.5

1


3.948
2.564
3.204
0.156
6.491 −4.117 −1.371 −0.501

1.370
5.727
5.411
1.185
.
1.656 −8.428
7.652 −7.694
2.135
5.559
0.659
9.569

By the rule (7), Fig. 1(a) illustrates the state x(t) converges
to x∗ = [−1.314, 0.861, −1.709, 0.580, −0.944]⊤. The initial value x(0) = [0.728, −0.769, 1.770, −1.827, 0.315]⊤ is
randomly selected in the domain [−2, 2]5 and γ = 0.3. The
triggering time points of each neuron are shown in Fig. 1(b).
Take the different values√of √
the parameter γ from 0.1
to 0.5 by step 0.05 and α/ β = 0.527. The simulation results under the event-triggered rule are shown in
Table I. η is the theoretical lower-bound for the interevent time of all the neurons calculated by (13). η sim =
mini∈{1,··· ,n} mink∈{0,1,2,··· } (tik+1 − tik ) is the actual value
of the minimal length of inter-event time by simulation. N
is the average number of triggering events over the neurons
and T first stands for the first time when kx(t) − x∗ k 6 0.001.
All the results in the table are average over 50 independent
simulations.
It can be seen that the actual minimal inter-event time
η sim is always larger than the corresponding theoretical
lower-bound η. This implies that we have excluded the
Zeno behavior with the lower-bound η for all the neurons.
Moreover, The average number of triggering events N
decreases while the first convergent time T first increases with
γ increasing from 0.1 to 0.5 by step 0.05.

1.5

2

2.5

3

t

(16)

where D = Λ = diag{1, 1, 1, 1, 1}, θ = [1, −1, 1, −1, 1]⊤ and


5

Neuron No.

In this section, two numerical examples are given to demonstrate the effectiveness of the presented results and the application. Example 1 is a 5-dimension system which illustrates
our theoretical results and Example 2 is a 3-dimension system
which compares the continuous monitoring with the discretetime monitoring.
Example 1: Consider a 5-dimension analytic neural network
with

(b) Time slots of triggering events at each neuron for stability.
Fig. 1. Dynamics of the system (16) and the triggering time points {tik }+∞
k=0 .
TABLE I
S IMULATION RESULTS UNDER THE EVENT- TRIGGERED RULE
√ WITH
d1 = d2 = 1, T = 0.03, σ = e2dmax T AND M = 5/4

γ
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50

η sim
0.00490
0.00712
0.00908
0.01476
0.01505
0.01789
0.01898
0.02124
0.02351

η
0.00443
0.00665
0.00887
0.01108
0.01330
0.01552
0.01774
0.01995
0.02217

N
82.9
68.6
59.5
52.9
47.6
40.5
35.9
32.6
28.7

T first
1.948
1.981
2.091
2.152
2.188
2.203
2.362
2.525
2.718

Example 2: Consider a 3-dimension neural network (3) with

3
3 
X
X
1
1 4
yi ,
(17)
yi − yi3 − y ⊤ W y +
f (y) =
2
2
i=1
i=1
where D = Λ = diag{1, 1, 1, 1, 1}, θ = [1, −1, 1, −1, 1]⊤ and


3 2.5 2
3
W = 2 2
3 2 2.5

According to the event-triggered rule (7) in Theorem 1,
Fig. 2(a) shows that the state x(t) converges to the equilibrium by continuous monitoring and Fig. 2(c) indicates
the convergence by discrete-time monitoring. With x(0) =
[1.211, −0.772, −1.7530]⊤ and γ = 0.5, the equilibrium is

10

x∗ = [0.080, −1.807, −0.088]⊤. The time slots of the triggered events of each neuron by continuous-time and discretetime monitoring are illustrated in Figs. 2(b) and 2(d).

2

x1

1.5

x2
x3

1

x

0.5
0

We record η sim , η, N and T first with different values of γ by
both continuous-time and discrete-time monitoring. The results
shown in Table II are average 50 independent simulations. It
can be seen that η sim is larger than the theoretical lowerbound η by both continuous-time and discrete-time monitoring, which implies that the Zeno behavior is excluded for all
the neurons. N and T first from two monitoring are similar to
those in Example 1. N decreases and T first√increases
with γ
√
increasing from 0.1 to 0.5 by step 0.05 and α/ β = 0.527.
TABLE II
S IMULATION RESULTS UNDER THE EVENT- TRIGGERED RULE BY
CONTINUOUS MONITORING AND DISCRETE - TIME MONITORING
WITH
√
d1 = d2 = 1, T = 3, σ = e2dmax T AND M = 26/80

−0.5
−1
−1.5
−2
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

t

Neuron No.

(a) Dynamics of components in system (17) by continuous-time monitoring
under the event triggering rule (7).

3

γ
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
γ

2

1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

t

0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50

Continuous-time
η sim
N
T first
0.01320
38.3
4.356
0.01760
36.7
4.376
0.01978
29.4
4.532
0.02756
25.8
4.608
0.04548
20.3
4.656
Discrete-time
η sim
N
T first
0.01320
37.2
4.254
0.01760
35.7
4.344
0.01978
28.1
4.513
0.02756
23.7
4.598
0.04548
19.3
4.652

η
0.00423
0.00846
0.01268
0.01691
0.02114
η
0.00423
0.00846
0.01268
0.01691
0.02114

(b) Time slots of triggering events by continuous-time monitoring.
2

According to the definition of Lyapunov (or energy) function (5), if the input kθk takes a sufficient small value and
λi → +∞ for i = 1, 2, 3, then L(x) ≈ f (y). Thus, as an
application, the system (17) with the event-triggered rule (7)
in Theorem 1 can be used to seek the local minimum point of
f (y) over {0, 1}3. Denote

y(Λ) = lim g Λx(t) ,

x1

1.5

x

2

x3

1

x

0.5
0
−0.5
−1

t→+∞

−1.5
−2
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

t
(c) Dynamics of components in system (17) by discrete-time monitoring under
the event triggering rule (7).

where x(t) is the trajectory of the system (17). y(Λ) is the
local minimum point of H(y) where

3
3 
X
X
1
1 4
3
yi ,
yi − yi − y ⊤ W y +
H(y) =
2
2
i=1

Neuron No.

i=1

2

Fig. 3 shows that the limit y(Λ) converges to local minimum
points [1, 0, 0]⊤ and [0, 1, 0]⊤ when λi → +∞ (i = 1, 2, 3).
The initial value x(0) for each simulation is chosen randomly
in the domain [−5, 5]3 and γ = 0.5.

1

VI. C ONCLUSION

3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

t
(d) Time slots of triggering events by discrete-time monitoring.
Fig. 2. Dynamics of the system (17) and the triggering time points {tik }+∞
k=0 .

In this paper, the event-triggering rule for discrete-time
synaptic feedbacks in a class of analytic neural network was
proposed and proved to guarantee neural networks to be almost
sure stable. In addition, the Zeno behaviors can be prove to
be excluded. By these asynchronous event-triggering rules, the
synaptic information exchanging frequency between neurons

11

y

3

1
0.5
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

y2

1

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

y1

Fig. 3. The limit y(Λ) converges to two local minimum points [1, 0, 0]⊤
and [0, 1, 0]⊤ with a random input θ with |θ| < 0.001, γ = 0.5, and random
initial data in the domain [−5, 5]3 . λ1 = λ2 are picked from 0.01 to 100.

are significantly reduced. The main technique of proving almost stability is finite-length of trajectory and the Łojasiewicz
inequality [20]. Two numerical examples have been provided
to demonstrate the effectiveness of the theoretical results. It
has also been shown by these examples, following the routine
in [32] and the proposed updating rule can reduce the cost
of synaptic interactions between neurons. One step further,
our future work will include the self-triggered formulation and
event-triggered stability of other more general systems as well
as their application in dynamic optimisation.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Anta and P. Tabuada, “Self-triggered stabilization of homogeneous
control systems,” in Proceedings of American Control Conference,
Seattle, WA, Jun. 2008, pp. 4129-4134.
[2] A. Anta and P. Tabuada, “To sample or not to sample: self-triggered
control for nonlinear systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 55,
pp. 2030-2042, Sep. 2010.
[3] A. Molin and S. Hirche, “Suboptimal Event-Based Control of Linear
Systems Over Lossy Channels Estimation and Control of Networked
Systems,” in Proceedings of the 2nd IFAC Workshop on Distributed
Estimation and Control in Networked Systems, Annecy, France, Sep.
2010, pp. 5560.
[4] A. P. Morse, “The behaviour of a function on its critical set,” Ann. Math.,
vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 62-70, 1939.
[5] A. Sard, “The measure of the critical values of differentiable maps,”
Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., vol. 48, no. 12, pp. 883-890, 1942.
[6] D. V. Dimarogonas, E. Frazzoli, and K. H. Johansson, “Distributed
event-triggered control for multi-agent systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, vol. 57, pp. 1291-1297, May. 2012.
[7] E. Garcia and P. J. Antsaklis, “Model-based event-triggered control
with time-varying network delays,” in Proceedings of the 50th IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control and European Control Conference,
Orlando, Fl, Dec. 2011, pp. 1650-1655.
[8] G. S. Seyboth, D. V. Dimarogonas, and K. H. Johansson, “Event-based
broadcasting for multi-agent average consensus,” Automatica, vol. 49,
no. 1, pp. 245-252, 2013.
[9] J. D. Cao and J. Wang, “Global asymptotic stability of a general class
of recurrent neural networks with time-varying delays,” IEEE Trans.
Circuit Syst. I, Fundam. Theory Appl., vol. 50, pp. 34-44, Jan. 2003.
[10] J. J. Hopfield, “Neural networks and physical systems with emergent
collective computational abilities,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., vol. 79, no. 8,
pp. 2554-2558, 1982.
[11] J. J. Hopfield, “Neurons with graded response have collective computational properties like those of two-state neurons,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.,
vol. 81, no. 10, pp. 3088-3092, 1984.
[12] J. K. Hale, Ordinary Differential Equations. New York, NY: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 1980.
[13] J. Mańdziuk, “Solving the travelling salesman problem with a Hopfieldtype neural network.” Demonstratio Math., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 219-231,
1996.

[14] K. G. Vamvoudakis, “An Online Actor/Critic Algorithm for EventTriggered Optimal Control of Continuous-Time Nonlinear Systems,” in
Proceedings of American Control Conference, Portland, OR, Jun. 2014,
pp. 1-6.
[15] K. H. Johansson, M. Egerstedt, J. Lygeros, and S. S. Sastry, “On the
regularization of zeno hybrid automata,” Systems and Control Letters,
vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 141-150, 1999.
[16] L. O. Chua and L. Yang, “Cellular neural networks: Theory,” IEEE
Trans. Circuits Syst., vol. 35, pp. 1257-1272, Oct. 1988.
[17] L. O. Chua and L. Yang, “Cellular neural networks: Application,” IEEE
Trans. Circuits Syst., vol. 35, pp. 1273-1290, Oct. 1988.
[18] M. A. Cohen and S. Grossberg, “Absolute stability of global pattern
formation and parallel memory storage by competitive neural networks,”
IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., vol. 13, pp. 815-821, Sep. 1983.
[19] M. Forti and A. Tesi, “New conditions for global stability of neural networks with application to linear and quadratic programming problems,”
IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers, vol. 42, pp. 354-366, Jul.
1995.
[20] M. Forti and A. Tesi, “Absolute stability of analytic neural networks: An
approach based on finite trajectory length,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst.
I, Reg. Papers, vol. 51, pp. 2460-2469, Dec. 2004.
[21] M. Forti and A. Tesi, “The Łojasiewicz exponent at equilibrium point
of a standard CNN is 1/2,” Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos, vol. 16, no. 8, pp.
2191-2205, 2006.
[22] M. Forti, P. Nistri, and M. Quincampoix, “Convergence of neural
networks for programming problems via a nonsmooth Łojasiewicz
inequality,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw., vol. 17, pp. 1471-1486, Nov.
2006.
[23] M. Hirsh, “Convergence activation dynamics in continuous time networks,” Neural Netw., vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 331-349, 1989.
[24] M. J. Manuel, A. Anta, and P. Tabuada, “An ISS self-triggered implementation of linear controllers,” Automatica, vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 13101314, 2010.
[25] M. J. Manuel and P. Tabuada, “Decentralized event-triggered control
over wireless sensor/actuator networks,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,
vol. 56, pp. 2456-2461, Oct. 2011.
[26] M. Vidyasagar, “Minimum-seeking properties of analog neural networks
with multilinear objective functions,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, vol.
40, pp. 1359-1375, Aug. 1995.
[27] P. Tabuada, “Event-triggered real-time scheduling of stabilizing control
tasks,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 52, pp. 1680-1685, Sep. 2007.
[28] S. Łojasiewicz, “Une proprieté topologique des sous-ensembles analytiques réels,” in Colloques internationaux du C.N.R.S. les équations aux
dériveés partielles, Paris, France, 1963, pp. 87-89.
[29] S. Łojasiewicz, “Sur la géométrie semi- et sous-analytique,” Ann. Inst.
Fourier, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 1575-1595, 1993.
[30] T. P. Chen and L. L. Wang, “Power-rate global stability of dynamical
systems with unbounded time-varying delays,” IEEE Trans. Circuits
Syst. II, Exp. Briefs, vol. 54, pp. 705-709, Aug. 2007.
[31] T. P. Chen and S. Amari, “Stability of asymmetric Hopfield networks,”
IEEE Trans. Neural Netw., vol. 12, pp. 159-163, Jan. 2001.
[32] W. L. Lu and J. Wang, “Convergence analysis of a class of nonsmooth
gradient systems,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers, vol. 55,
pp. 3514-3527, Dec. 2008.
[33] W. L. Lu and T. P. Chen, “New conditions on global stability of CohenGrossberg neural networks,” Neural Comput., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 11731189, 2003.
[34] W. Zhu and Z. P. Jian, “Event-Based Leader-following Consensus of
Multi-agent Systems with Input Time Delay,” IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, vol. 60, pp. 1362-1367, May. 2015.
[35] W. Zhu, Z. P. Jian, and G. Feng, “Event-based consensus of multi-agent
systems with general linear models,” Automatica, vol. 50, no. 2, pp.
552-558, 2014.
[36] X. Wang and M. D. Lemmon, “Self-triggered feedback control systems
with finite-gain L2 stability,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 45, pp.
452-467, Mar. 2009.
[37] X. Wang and M. D. Lemmon, “Event-triggering distributed networked
control systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 56, pp. 586-601,
Mar. 2011.
[38] Y. Fan, G. Feng, Y. Wang, and C. Song, “Distributed event-triggered
control of multi-agent systems with combinational measurements,” Automatica, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 671-675, 2013.
[39] Z. Liu, Z. Chen, and Z. Yuan, “Event-triggered average-consensus of
multi-agent systems with weighted and direct topology,” J. Syst. Sci.
Complex., vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 845-855, 2012.

