arxiv: 2605.04197 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · 🧮 math.DS · cs.NA· math.NA

Recognition: 3 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Calculating Domain of Attraction Boundary of Power Systems Based on the Gentlest Ascent Dynamics

Aiqing Zhu, Chenmin Zhang, Jianxi Lin, Sixu Wu, Yang Liu, Yifa Tang

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 17:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.DS cs.NAmath.NA

keywords domain of attraction boundarypower system transient stabilitygentlest ascent dynamicsstable manifoldsindex-1 saddle pointsperiodic orbitsnumerical computation

0 comments

The pith

The domain of attraction boundary in power systems equals the closure of the union of stable manifolds of index-1 critical elements.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes a method to locate the boundary that separates regions of stable and unstable behavior after a fault in synchronous-generator power systems. It proves that this boundary is formed by the stable manifolds attached to index-1 saddle points and periodic orbits, and supplies algorithms based on gentlest ascent dynamics to find those elements and construct the manifolds. Knowing the exact boundary matters because it determines whether a disturbance will cause generators to lose synchronism and produce a blackout.

Core claim

Using a gentlest ascent dynamics method for one-saddle points, an adjoint operator method for periodic orbits, and stable manifold algorithms, the authors transform DOA boundary computation into the task of locating unstable critical elements and their stable manifolds. They prove that, under certain assumptions, the DOA boundary is the closure of the union of these stable manifolds, and they develop a stability theory for a perturbed version of the gentlest ascent dynamics system. Numerical tests on two-machine and three-machine benchmark systems, both with and without periodic orbits, confirm that the computed surfaces accurately reproduce the geometric structure of the boundary.

What carries the argument

Gentlest ascent dynamics (GAD) for locating index-1 saddle points, combined with adjoint methods for periodic orbits and stable manifold construction algorithms.

If this is right

DOA boundaries can be built by locating a finite set of index-1 critical elements rather than by exhaustive forward simulation of many trajectories.
The same framework applies to systems whose separatrix contains both saddle points and periodic orbits.
A stability result for the perturbed GAD flow guarantees that small numerical errors do not destroy the computed manifolds.
The method supplies a concrete numerical procedure for transient stability assessment on small-scale generator models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the approach scales to higher-dimensional models that include inverter-based resources, it could support stability assessment for grids with high renewable penetration.
The manifold-construction step might be reused in other engineering domains where separatrices between competing attractors must be mapped explicitly.
Real-time monitoring tools could incorporate online updates of the critical elements when system parameters drift.

Load-bearing premise

Certain assumptions on the power system vector field and the nature of its critical elements must hold for the boundary to coincide exactly with the union of the stable manifolds.

What would settle it

A post-fault trajectory that starts inside the computed boundary yet loses synchronism, or one that starts outside yet returns to the stable equilibrium, would show the boundary calculation is incorrect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.04197 by Aiqing Zhu, Chenmin Zhang, Jianxi Lin, Sixu Wu, Yang Liu, Yifa Tang.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Two-machine system. -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 1 (rad) -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 2 (rad) Asymptotically Stable Equilibrium 1-Saddles Adjoint Unstable Directions (a) 1-saddles and their associated unstable eigen-directions. -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 1 (rad) -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 2 (rad) (b) Boundary of the region of attraction. associated unstable eigen-directions, and then compute the boundary of the region of attraction. The… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Three-machine system. 5 -2 0 3 (rad) 5 2 2 (rad) 0 1 (rad) 0 -5 -5 Asymptotically Stable Equilibrium 1-Saddles Adjoint Unstable Directions (a) 1-saddles and their associated unstable eigen-directions. -6 -4 5 -2 0 5 3 (rad) 2 2 (rad) 0 4 1 (rad) 6 0 -5 -5 (b) Boundary of the region of attraction. 24 view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: 1-saddle and its stable manifold for the three-machine system with a periodic view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Periodic orbit and its associated unstable eigen-direction for the three view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Stable manifolds of the periodic orbits for the three-machine system with a view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Boundary of the region of attraction for the three-machine system with a view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Level set of the boundary of the region of attraction for the two-machine view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Level set of the boundary of the region of attraction for the three-machine view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Level set of the boundary of the region of attraction for the three-machine view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The power system, a fundamental public utility, is increasingly important due to growing global electricity demand. Recent large-scale blackouts (e.g., Iberian Peninsula, UK) have raised concerns about transient stability under impact faults. Transient stability is determined by post-disturbance synchronizing capability of synchronous generators, formulated as identifying the domain of attraction (DOA) boundary of the asymptotically stable equilibrium. Using a benchmark model of synchronous-generator-dominated power systems, this report employs a gentlest ascent dynamics (GAD) method for 1-saddle points, an adjoint operator method for periodic orbits, and stable manifold algorithms to compute the DOA boundary. These algorithms transform DOA boundary determination into constructing unstable critical elements (saddle points and periodic orbits) and their stable manifolds. Theoretically, under certain assumptions we prove that the DOA boundary is the closure of the union of stable manifolds of index-1 critical elements, and establish a stability theory for a perturbed GAD system. Numerical experiments on two-machine and three-machine systems (with only saddle points or with periodic orbits) validate the effectiveness and accuracy. Results show the algorithms accurately capture the geometric structure of the DOA boundary, providing a new numerical tool for transient stability analysis.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper adapts gentlest ascent dynamics to compute DOA boundaries in power systems and claims a proof that the boundary is the closure of stable manifolds of index-1 elements, but the assumptions stay unspecified.

read the letter

The key point with this paper is its use of gentlest ascent dynamics to compute the boundary of the domain of attraction for post-fault equilibria in power systems, supported by a proof that this boundary is the closure of the union of stable manifolds of index-1 critical elements like saddles and periodic orbits. What is new here is the adaptation of GAD to locate 1-saddle points in these models, the use of adjoint methods to handle periodic orbits, and the theoretical result linking the DOA boundary to those manifolds. The numerics on the two- and three-machine benchmarks, covering both saddle-only and periodic orbit cases, appear to validate that the approach reconstructs the boundary geometry effectively. The work does well in providing a practical tool for transient stability analysis, which is relevant given recent blackout concerns. Where it is softer is in the reliance on unspecified 'certain assumptions' for the proof and the perturbed GAD stability theory. The abstract does not detail what these are or confirm they hold for the standard models used, nor does it address what happens if they are violated. This makes it difficult to fully trust the general applicability without the full derivations and any error analysis. This is for power systems researchers focused on dynamical stability and for applied mathematicians interested in numerical methods for manifolds in high-dimensional systems. A reader dealing with similar computational challenges in nonlinear dynamics would get value from the algorithms and examples. It deserves a serious referee because the combination of theory and computation addresses a real engineering need, even if the assumptions need clarification. I would send this to peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops a gentlest ascent dynamics (GAD) approach, combined with adjoint methods for periodic orbits and stable manifold algorithms, to compute the boundary of the domain of attraction (DOA) for post-fault equilibria in synchronous-generator-dominated power systems. It claims a theoretical result that, under certain assumptions, the DOA boundary equals the closure of the union of the stable manifolds of all index-1 critical elements (saddles and periodic orbits), together with a stability theory for a perturbed GAD system. The method is illustrated and validated on two-machine and three-machine benchmark systems, with and without periodic orbits.

Significance. If the central theoretical claims hold under the stated assumptions, the work supplies a new, geometrically grounded numerical tool for transient stability assessment in power systems. This is relevant for blackout prevention, as it converts DOA-boundary computation into the construction of unstable critical elements and their stable manifolds. The explicit treatment of both saddle points and periodic orbits, plus the perturbed-GAD stability analysis, extends existing GAD literature to a practically important class of non-gradient systems.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and theoretical results] Abstract and theoretical results section: the central theorem asserts that the DOA boundary is the closure of the union of stable manifolds of index-1 critical elements 'under certain assumptions,' yet these assumptions are never listed explicitly, nor is it verified that the power-system vector field satisfies them (e.g., hyperbolicity, transversality of manifold intersections, or non-degeneracy of periodic orbits). Without this list, it is impossible to determine whether the two- and three-machine numerical examples lie inside the theorem's regime or what happens when the assumptions fail.
[Numerical experiments] Numerical validation sections: the reported accuracy on the two- and three-machine systems is presented without quantitative error bounds, comparison against independent DOA-boundary methods (e.g., Lyapunov-function level sets or Monte-Carlo sampling), or discussion of how the computed manifolds were truncated or approximated. This weakens the claim that the algorithms 'accurately capture the geometric structure.'

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract refers to 'a benchmark model of synchronous-generator-dominated power systems' without citing the precise swing-equation formulation or parameter values used in the examples; these should be stated explicitly for reproducibility.
[Method sections] Notation for the perturbed GAD system and the adjoint operator for periodic orbits is introduced without a consolidated table of symbols; a short notation table would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of the work's significance and for the constructive major comments. We address each point below, indicating the revisions planned for the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and theoretical results] Abstract and theoretical results section: the central theorem asserts that the DOA boundary is the closure of the union of stable manifolds of index-1 critical elements 'under certain assumptions,' yet these assumptions are never listed explicitly, nor is it verified that the power-system vector field satisfies them (e.g., hyperbolicity, transversality of manifold intersections, or non-degeneracy of periodic orbits). Without this list, it is impossible to determine whether the two- and three-machine numerical examples lie inside the theorem's regime or what happens when the assumptions fail.

Authors: We agree that the assumptions require explicit listing for clarity. The theoretical development draws on standard hyperbolic dynamical systems assumptions (hyperbolicity of saddles and periodic orbits, transversality of manifold intersections, and non-degeneracy of periodic orbits), but these are referenced rather than collected. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection that enumerates all assumptions verbatim and verifies their satisfaction for the two- and three-machine benchmark models under the standard swing-equation vector field. This will delineate the theorem's regime of validity and note the expected behavior when assumptions are violated. revision: yes
Referee: [Numerical experiments] Numerical validation sections: the reported accuracy on the two- and three-machine systems is presented without quantitative error bounds, comparison against independent DOA-boundary methods (e.g., Lyapunov-function level sets or Monte-Carlo sampling), or discussion of how the computed manifolds were truncated or approximated. This weakens the claim that the algorithms 'accurately capture the geometric structure.'

Authors: We partially agree that additional quantitative support would strengthen the validation claims. The present manuscript demonstrates accuracy via visual agreement with known DOA boundaries on standard benchmarks and convergence of the stable-manifold algorithm. In revision we will (i) supply residual-based error bounds for the computed manifolds, (ii) add a direct comparison against Lyapunov-function level sets for the two-machine system, and (iii) expand the discussion of manifold truncation and approximation tolerances. Monte-Carlo sampling is omitted because it is computationally prohibitive in these dimensions; we will explain this choice and emphasize the geometric advantages of the manifold approach instead. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper claims a new theoretical proof (under unspecified but invoked assumptions) that the DOA boundary equals the closure of the union of stable manifolds of index-1 critical elements, plus a stability theory for the perturbed GAD system. These are presented as results derived within the paper rather than by construction from fitted inputs or prior self-citations. The GAD method, adjoint operator, and stable manifold algorithms are drawn from established external literature and applied to power-system models; no equations or steps reduce the central claims to self-referential definitions, renamed fits, or load-bearing self-citations whose validity depends on this work. The numerical examples on two- and three-machine systems serve as validation rather than the source of the claimed theorems.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on unstated domain assumptions for the dynamical system and the applicability of the gentlest ascent dynamics method to the benchmark power system models; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Certain assumptions on the power system dynamics and the nature of index-1 critical elements
Invoked to prove that the DOA boundary is the closure of the union of stable manifolds of index-1 critical elements.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5534 in / 1486 out tokens · 30410 ms · 2026-05-08T17:44:14.023594+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

Foundation.AbsoluteFloorClosure / Cost.FunctionalEquation no parallel; GAD is unrelated to J(x)=½(x+x⁻¹)−1 forcing unclear
this paper applies for the first time the gentlest ascent dynamics method (GAD) for solving 1-saddle points from [14] to the numerical computation of the domain of attraction boundary of power systems
n/a swing equations are an external physical model, not derived from a distinction unclear
Under the electromechanical transient model, the system is governed by ... ω̇ᵢ = (fn/Hᵢ)(Pmᵢ − Peᵢ(δ)) − (Dᵢ/2Hᵢ)ωᵢ

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references

[1]

Bergen and D.J

A.R. Bergen and D.J. Hill. A structure preserving model for power system stability analysis. IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, PAS-100(1):25–35, January 1981

1981
[2]

Rodrigues, L.F.C

H.M. Rodrigues, L.F.C. Alberto, and N.G. Bretas. On the invariance principle: generalizations and applications to synchronization. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Fundamental Theory and Applications, 47(5):730–739, May 2000

2000
[3]

Bretas and L.F.C

N.G. Bretas and L.F.C. Alberto. Lyapunov function for power systems with transfer conductances: extension of the invariance principle. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 18(2):769–777, May 2003

2003
[4]

A spectral operator-theoretic framework for global stability

Alexandre Mauroy and Igor Mezic. A spectral operator-theoretic framework for global stability. In 52nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pages 5234–
[5]

Global stability analysis using the eigenfunctions of the koopman operator

Alexandre Mauroy and Igor Mezic. Global stability analysis using the eigenfunctions of the koopman operator. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 61(11):3356– 3369, November 2016. 32

2016
[6]

Tsolas, A

N. Tsolas, A. Arapostathis, and P. Varaiya. A structure preserving energy function for power system transient stability analysis. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems, 32(10):1041–1049, October 1985

1985
[7]

Energy functions for power systems based on structture preserving models

David Hill and Chong Chi Nai. Energy functions for power systems based on structture preserving models. 1986

1986
[8]

A dynamic theory- based method for computing unstable equilibrium points of power systems

Robert Owusu-Mireku, Hsiao-Dong Chiang, and Matt Hin. A dynamic theory- based method for computing unstable equilibrium points of power systems. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 35(3):1946–1955, May 2020

1946
[9]

Algorithmic construction of lyapunov functions for power system stability analysis

Marian Anghel, Federico Milano, and Antonis Papachristodoulou. Algorithmic construction of lyapunov functions for power system stability analysis. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, 60(9):2533–2546, Septem- ber 2013

2013
[10]

Estimation of regions of attraction of power systems by using sum of squares programming

Shinsaku Izumi, Hiroki Somekawa, Xin Xin, and Taiga Yamasaki. Estimation of regions of attraction of power systems by using sum of squares programming. Electrical Engineering, 100(4):2205–2216, May 2018

2018
[11]

Analysis of robust transient stability of power systems by using sum of squares programming

Shinsaku Izumi, Hiroki Somekawa, Xin Xin, and Taiga Yamasaki. Analysis of robust transient stability of power systems by using sum of squares programming. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 8006–8010. IEEE, December 2018

2018
[12]

Direct Methods for Stability Analysis of Electric Power Systems

Hsiao Dong Chiang. Direct Methods for Stability Analysis of Electric Power Systems. Wiley, 2011

2011
[13]

Hsiao-Dong Chiang and Luis F. C. Alberto. Stability Regions of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems: Theory, Estimation, and Applications. Cambridge, 2015

2015
[14]

The gentlest ascent dynamics

Weinan E and Xiang Zhou. The gentlest ascent dynamics. Nonlinearity, 24(6):1831, may 2011

2011
[15]

Schneider

Sajjad Azimi, Omid Ashtari, and Tobias M. Schneider. Constructing periodic orbits of high-dimensional chaotic systems by an adjoint-based variational method. Phys. Rev. E, 105:014217, Jan 2022

2022
[16]

Estimating critical clearing time of grid faults using da of state-reduction model of power systems

Yang Liu, Zhongyang Chen, Huanjin Yao, Lin Yi, and Q.H.Wu. Estimating critical clearing time of grid faults using da of state-reduction model of power systems. CSEE Journal of Power and Energy Systems, 10(2):807–820, 4 2024

2024
[17]

Hirsch, and F.F

Hsiang Dong Chiang, M.W. Hirsch, and F.F. Wu. Stability regions of nonlin- ear autonomous dynamical systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 33(1):16–27, January 1988

1988
[18]

stability regions of non- linear autonomous dynamical systems

Michael W. Fisher and Ian A. Hiskens. Comments on “stability regions of non- linear autonomous dynamical systems” . IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 66(12):6194–6196, December 2021. 33

2021
[19]

Fisher and Ian A

Michael W. Fisher and Ian A. Hiskens. Hausdorff continuity of region of attrac- tion boundary under parameter variation with application to disturbance recovery. SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, 21(1):327–365, 2022

2022
[20]

Introduction to Smooth Manifolds, volume 218 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics

John M Lee. Introduction to Smooth Manifolds, volume 218 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, 2nd edition, 2013

2013
[21]

Simplified gentlest ascent dynamics for saddle points in non-gradient systems

Shuting Gu and Xiang Zhou. Simplified gentlest ascent dynamics for saddle points in non-gradient systems. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 28(12):123106, 12 2018. 34

2018