Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Computationally Checking if a Reaction Network is Monotone or Non-expansive

Alon Duvall

TL;DR

The paper develops a unified, algorithmic framework to determine whether a reaction network defined by $\\dot{x} = \\Gamma R(x)$ is monotone with respect to some cone or non-expansive with respect to some norm. It introduces a constructive procedure that either produces a certifying cone (or norm) or proves nonexistence, and establishes a duality: monotonicity of a network implies monotonicity of its dual with respect to the corresponding dual cone. Key ideas include cross-positivity criteria, lifting to relate monotonicity and non-expansivity, and a cone-building procedure from a starting vector using region-based operations. The work also proves a monotonicity dichotomy, provides termination and convergence guarantees for the algorithm, and demonstrates the method through several worked examples, including recoveries of known cones and a demonstration of non-monotonicity w.r.t. any cone in a particular network. Overall, the approach yields both constructive certificates and theoretical insights into the structure of monotone and non-expansive reaction networks, with implications for stability and global dynamics.

Abstract

We present a systematic procedure for testing whether reaction networks exhibit non-expansivity or monotonicity. This procedure identifies explicit norms under which a network is non-expansive or cones for which the system is monotone-or provides proof that no such structures exist. Our approach reproduces known results, generates novel findings, and demonstrates that certain reaction networks cannot exhibit monotonicity or non-expansivity with respect to any cone or norm. Additionally, we establish a duality relationship which states that if a network is monotone, so is its dual network.

Computationally Checking if a Reaction Network is Monotone or Non-expansive

TL;DR

The paper develops a unified, algorithmic framework to determine whether a reaction network defined by is monotone with respect to some cone or non-expansive with respect to some norm. It introduces a constructive procedure that either produces a certifying cone (or norm) or proves nonexistence, and establishes a duality: monotonicity of a network implies monotonicity of its dual with respect to the corresponding dual cone. Key ideas include cross-positivity criteria, lifting to relate monotonicity and non-expansivity, and a cone-building procedure from a starting vector using region-based operations. The work also proves a monotonicity dichotomy, provides termination and convergence guarantees for the algorithm, and demonstrates the method through several worked examples, including recoveries of known cones and a demonstration of non-monotonicity w.r.t. any cone in a particular network. Overall, the approach yields both constructive certificates and theoretical insights into the structure of monotone and non-expansive reaction networks, with implications for stability and global dynamics.

Abstract

We present a systematic procedure for testing whether reaction networks exhibit non-expansivity or monotonicity. This procedure identifies explicit norms under which a network is non-expansive or cones for which the system is monotone-or provides proof that no such structures exist. Our approach reproduces known results, generates novel findings, and demonstrates that certain reaction networks cannot exhibit monotonicity or non-expansivity with respect to any cone or norm. Additionally, we establish a duality relationship which states that if a network is monotone, so is its dual network.
Paper Structure (25 sections, 34 theorems, 44 equations, 4 algorithms)

This paper contains 25 sections, 34 theorems, 44 equations, 4 algorithms.

Key Result

Theorem 1

WALCHER2001543 A system $\dot{x} = f(x)$ with phase space $\mathbb{R}_{\geq}^n$ is monotone with respect to a proper, pointed and convex cone $K$ iff for any $x \in \mathbb{R}_{\geq}^n$ and for all $k_1\in \hbox{bd}(K)$ and $k_2 \in K^*$ such that $k_2^{\top} k_1 = 0$ we have that $k_2^{\top} \math

Theorems & Definitions (69)

  • Theorem 1
  • Corollary 1
  • proof
  • Definition 1
  • Lemma 1
  • proof
  • Lemma 2
  • proof
  • Lemma 3
  • proof
  • ...and 59 more