# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

December  2020, 7(2): 425-460. doi: 10.3934/jcd.2020017

## Computer-assisted estimates for Birkhoff normal forms

 Dipartimento di Matematica, Università degli Studi di Roma "Tor Vergata", via della Ricerca Scientifica 1, 00133— Rome, Italy

Received  November 2019 Published  July 2020

Birkhoff normal forms are commonly used in order to ensure the so called "effective stability" in the neighborhood of elliptic equilibrium points for Hamiltonian systems. From a theoretical point of view, this means that the eventual diffusion can be bounded for time intervals that are exponentially large with respect to the inverse of the distance of the initial conditions from such equilibrium points. Here, we focus on an approach that is suitable for practical applications: we extend a rather classical scheme of estimates for both the Birkhoff normal forms to any finite order and their remainders. This is made for providing explicit lower bounds of the stability time (that are valid for initial conditions in a fixed open ball), by using a fully rigorous computer-assisted procedure. We apply our approach in two simple contexts that are widely studied in Celestial Mechanics: the Hénon-Heiles model and the Circular Planar Restricted Three-Body Problem. In the latter case, we adapt our scheme of estimates for covering also the case of resonant Birkhoff normal forms and, in some concrete models about the motion of the Trojan asteroids, we show that it can be more advantageous with respect to the usual non-resonant ones.

Citation: Chiara Caracciolo, Ugo Locatelli. Computer-assisted estimates for Birkhoff normal forms. Journal of Computational Dynamics, 2020, 7 (2) : 425-460. doi: 10.3934/jcd.2020017
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
On the left, plot of the optimal normalization step $r_{\rm opt}$ as a function of the ball radius ${\varrho}\,$; on the right, graph of the evaluation of our lower bound about the escape time $T$ as a function of $1/\sqrt{{\varrho}}\,$. Both the plots refer to results obtained by applying computer-assisted estimates to the Hénon-Heiles model with frequencies $\omega_1 = 1$ and $\omega_2 = - (\sqrt 5 -1)/2$
Plots of the evaluation of our lower bound of the escape time $T$ (in semi-log scale). On the left, the graph is a function of ${\varrho}_0\,$, on the right, of ${{\varrho}^*_2}\,$. The horizontal line corresponds to $T_{ \rm e. l. t.} = 5\times 10^8$. See the text for more details
Growth of the norms (in semi-log scale) of the generating functions for the non-resonant Birkhoff normal form (continuous line) and the resonant one (dashed line). From top to down and from left to right, the boxes refer to the cases of the systems having Sun-Jupiter, Sun-Uranus, Sun-Mars and Saturn-Janus as primary bodies, respectively
In this table we report the results obtained for the Hénon-Heiles model with frequencies $\omega_1 = 1$ and $\omega_2 = -(\sqrt 5 -1)/2$
 $\rho_0$ $\rho$ $r_{\rm opt}$ $a_r$ $\log_{10}{| \mathcal{R}^{(r_{\rm opt})}|_\rho}$ $\log_{10}|\dot I_j|_\rho$ $\log_{10}T$ 9.96e-04 1.00e-03 232 1.00e+03 -1.82e+02 -1.80e+02 1.72e+02 1.24e-03 1.25e-03 230 8.02e+02 -1.59e+02 -1.57e+02 1.49e+02 1.55e-03 1.56e-03 164 6.40e+02 -1.42e+02 -1.39e+02 1.32e+02 1.94e-03 1.95e-03 144 5.13e+02 -1.28e+02 -1.26e+02 1.18e+02 2.42e-03 2.44e-03 110 4.10e+02 -1.16e+02 -1.14e+02 1.07e+02 3.02e-03 3.05e-03 102 3.28e+02 -1.06e+02 -1.04e+02 9.73e+01 3.78e-03 3.81e-03 100 2.63e+02 -9.63e+01 -9.43e+01 8.77e+01 4.72e-03 4.77e-03 100 2.11e+02 -8.63e+01 -8.43e+01 7.79e+01 5.90e-03 5.96e-03 100 1.69e+02 -7.63e+01 -7.43e+01 6.82e+01 7.38e-03 7.45e-03 100 1.35e+02 -6.63e+01 -6.43e+01 5.84e+01 9.22e-03 9.31e-03 100 1.08e+02 -5.64e+01 -5.43e+01 4.86e+01 1.15e-02 1.16e-02 74 8.63e+01 -4.78e+01 -4.59e+01 4.05e+01 1.43e-02 1.46e-02 58 7.07e+01 -4.18e+01 -4.00e+01 3.48e+01 1.79e-02 1.82e-02 52 5.66e+01 -3.67e+01 -3.49e+01 3.00e+01 2.23e-02 2.27e-02 52 4.49e+01 -3.13e+01 -2.96e+01 2.49e+01 2.79e-02 2.84e-02 48 3.57e+01 -2.67e+01 -2.50e+01 2.05e+01 3.46e-02 3.55e-02 38 2.84e+01 -2.27e+01 -2.11e+01 1.68e+01 4.30e-02 4.44e-02 30 2.32e+01 -1.97e+01 -1.82e+01 1.43e+01 5.36e-02 5.55e-02 26 1.86e+01 -1.71e+01 -1.56e+01 1.19e+01 6.70e-02 6.94e-02 26 1.49e+01 -1.42e+01 -1.28e+01 9.30e+00 8.37e-02 8.67e-02 26 1.15e+01 -1.14e+01 -9.94e+00 6.65e+00
 $\rho_0$ $\rho$ $r_{\rm opt}$ $a_r$ $\log_{10}{| \mathcal{R}^{(r_{\rm opt})}|_\rho}$ $\log_{10}|\dot I_j|_\rho$ $\log_{10}T$ 9.96e-04 1.00e-03 232 1.00e+03 -1.82e+02 -1.80e+02 1.72e+02 1.24e-03 1.25e-03 230 8.02e+02 -1.59e+02 -1.57e+02 1.49e+02 1.55e-03 1.56e-03 164 6.40e+02 -1.42e+02 -1.39e+02 1.32e+02 1.94e-03 1.95e-03 144 5.13e+02 -1.28e+02 -1.26e+02 1.18e+02 2.42e-03 2.44e-03 110 4.10e+02 -1.16e+02 -1.14e+02 1.07e+02 3.02e-03 3.05e-03 102 3.28e+02 -1.06e+02 -1.04e+02 9.73e+01 3.78e-03 3.81e-03 100 2.63e+02 -9.63e+01 -9.43e+01 8.77e+01 4.72e-03 4.77e-03 100 2.11e+02 -8.63e+01 -8.43e+01 7.79e+01 5.90e-03 5.96e-03 100 1.69e+02 -7.63e+01 -7.43e+01 6.82e+01 7.38e-03 7.45e-03 100 1.35e+02 -6.63e+01 -6.43e+01 5.84e+01 9.22e-03 9.31e-03 100 1.08e+02 -5.64e+01 -5.43e+01 4.86e+01 1.15e-02 1.16e-02 74 8.63e+01 -4.78e+01 -4.59e+01 4.05e+01 1.43e-02 1.46e-02 58 7.07e+01 -4.18e+01 -4.00e+01 3.48e+01 1.79e-02 1.82e-02 52 5.66e+01 -3.67e+01 -3.49e+01 3.00e+01 2.23e-02 2.27e-02 52 4.49e+01 -3.13e+01 -2.96e+01 2.49e+01 2.79e-02 2.84e-02 48 3.57e+01 -2.67e+01 -2.50e+01 2.05e+01 3.46e-02 3.55e-02 38 2.84e+01 -2.27e+01 -2.11e+01 1.68e+01 4.30e-02 4.44e-02 30 2.32e+01 -1.97e+01 -1.82e+01 1.43e+01 5.36e-02 5.55e-02 26 1.86e+01 -1.71e+01 -1.56e+01 1.19e+01 6.70e-02 6.94e-02 26 1.49e+01 -1.42e+01 -1.28e+01 9.30e+00 8.37e-02 8.67e-02 26 1.15e+01 -1.14e+01 -9.94e+00 6.65e+00
Comparison for the estimates on the stability time between the non-resonant and resonant Birkhoff normal forms. The Jupiter case ($\mu\simeq 0.000954$) with $T_{ \rm e. l. t.} \simeq 5\times 10^8$
 $\rho_0^2$ $\rho^2$ $T$ $\rho_0^2$ $({\rho^*_2})^2$ $\rho^2$ $T$ 2.49e-04 2.59e-04 6.36e+08 2.05e-04 1.83e-04 2.07e-04 5.93e+08 2.47e-04 2.57e-04 1.01e+09 2.02e-04 1.80e-04 2.04e-04 7.23e+08
 $\rho_0^2$ $\rho^2$ $T$ $\rho_0^2$ $({\rho^*_2})^2$ $\rho^2$ $T$ 2.49e-04 2.59e-04 6.36e+08 2.05e-04 1.83e-04 2.07e-04 5.93e+08 2.47e-04 2.57e-04 1.01e+09 2.02e-04 1.80e-04 2.04e-04 7.23e+08
As in Table 2 for the Uranus case ($\mu\simeq 4.36\times 10^{-5}$) with $T_{ \rm e. l. t.} \simeq 6\times 10^7$
 $\rho_0^2$ $\rho^2$ $T$ $\rho_0^2$ $({\rho^*_2})^2$ $\rho^2$ $T$ 8.30e-05 8.80e-05 6.03e+07 9.23e-04 7.57e-04 9.24e-04 7.18e+07 8.13e-05 8.63e-05 1.44e+08 9.04e-04 7.44e-04 9.05e-04 1.27e+08
 $\rho_0^2$ $\rho^2$ $T$ $\rho_0^2$ $({\rho^*_2})^2$ $\rho^2$ $T$ 8.30e-05 8.80e-05 6.03e+07 9.23e-04 7.57e-04 9.24e-04 7.18e+07 8.13e-05 8.63e-05 1.44e+08 9.04e-04 7.44e-04 9.05e-04 1.27e+08
As in Table 2 for the Mars case ($\mu\simeq 3.21\times 10^{-7}$) with $T_{ \rm e. l. t.} \simeq 3 \times 10^9$
 $\rho_0^2$ $\rho^2$ $T$ $\rho_0^2$ $({\rho^*_2})^2$ $\rho^2$ $T$ 7.36e-06 7.84e-06 3.09e+09 1.28e-04 1.08e-04 1.28e-04 3.87e+09 7.22e-06 7.69e-06 6.15e+09 1.27e-04 1.07e-04 1.27e-04 5.86e+09
 $\rho_0^2$ $\rho^2$ $T$ $\rho_0^2$ $({\rho^*_2})^2$ $\rho^2$ $T$ 7.36e-06 7.84e-06 3.09e+09 1.28e-04 1.08e-04 1.28e-04 3.87e+09 7.22e-06 7.69e-06 6.15e+09 1.27e-04 1.07e-04 1.27e-04 5.86e+09
As in Table 2 for the Janus case ($\mu\simeq 3.36\times 10^{-9}$) with $T_{ \rm e. l. t.} \simeq 3 \times 10^{12}$
 $\rho_0^2$ $\rho^2$ $T$ $\rho_0^2$ $({\rho^*_2})^2$ $\rho^2$ $T$ 6.00e-07 6.37e-07 3.10e+12 1.18e-05 1.10e-05 1.18e-05 3.50e+12 5.89e-07 6.24e-07 5.40e+12 1.15e-05 1.08e-05 1.15e-05 6.83e+12
 $\rho_0^2$ $\rho^2$ $T$ $\rho_0^2$ $({\rho^*_2})^2$ $\rho^2$ $T$ 6.00e-07 6.37e-07 3.10e+12 1.18e-05 1.10e-05 1.18e-05 3.50e+12 5.89e-07 6.24e-07 5.40e+12 1.15e-05 1.08e-05 1.15e-05 6.83e+12
Comparisons between the values of the radii $\rho_0^2$ and $({\rho^*_2})^2$ which refer to the stability domains for the non-resonant Birkhoff normal form and the resonant one, respectively. The results are reported as a function of different values of the mass ratio $\mu$, the name of the smaller primary in the corresponding CPRTBP model is reported in the first column
 $\mu$ $\rho_0^2\ \, {\rm (non-res.)}$ $({\rho^*_2})^2\ \, {\rm (reson.)}$ $({\rho^*_2}/\rho_0)^2$ Jupiter $9.54 \times 10^{-4}$ $2.49\times10^{-4}$ $1.83\times10^{-4}$ 0.73 Uranus $4.36 \times 10^{-5}$ $8.30\times 10^{-5}$ $7.57\times 10^{-4}$ 9.12 Mars $3.21\times 10^{-7}$ $7.36\times 10^{-6}$ $1.08\times 10^{-4}$ 14.67 Janus $3.36\times 10^{-9}$ $6.00\times 10^{-7}$ $1.10\times 10^{-5}$ 18.33
 $\mu$ $\rho_0^2\ \, {\rm (non-res.)}$ $({\rho^*_2})^2\ \, {\rm (reson.)}$ $({\rho^*_2}/\rho_0)^2$ Jupiter $9.54 \times 10^{-4}$ $2.49\times10^{-4}$ $1.83\times10^{-4}$ 0.73 Uranus $4.36 \times 10^{-5}$ $8.30\times 10^{-5}$ $7.57\times 10^{-4}$ 9.12 Mars $3.21\times 10^{-7}$ $7.36\times 10^{-6}$ $1.08\times 10^{-4}$ 14.67 Janus $3.36\times 10^{-9}$ $6.00\times 10^{-7}$ $1.10\times 10^{-5}$ 18.33
 [1] João Marcos do Ó, Bruno Ribeiro, Bernhard Ruf. Hamiltonian elliptic systems in dimension two with arbitrary and double exponential growth conditions. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2021, 41 (1) : 277-296. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020138 [2] Shuang Chen, Jinqiao Duan, Ji Li. Effective reduction of a three-dimensional circadian oscillator model. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020349 [3] Predrag S. Stanimirović, Branislav Ivanov, Haifeng Ma, Dijana Mosić. A survey of gradient methods for solving nonlinear optimization. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1573-1624. doi: 10.3934/era.2020115 [4] Xuefei He, Kun Wang, Liwei Xu. Efficient finite difference methods for the nonlinear Helmholtz equation in Kerr medium. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1503-1528. doi: 10.3934/era.2020079 [5] Xin Guo, Lei Shi. Preface of the special issue on analysis in data science: Methods and applications. Mathematical Foundations of Computing, 2020, 3 (4) : i-ii. doi: 10.3934/mfc.2020026 [6] Reza Chaharpashlou, Abdon Atangana, Reza Saadati. On the fuzzy stability results for fractional stochastic Volterra integral equation. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020432 [7] Scipio Cuccagna, Masaya Maeda. A survey on asymptotic stability of ground states of nonlinear Schrödinger equations II. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020450 [8] Wenbin Li, Jianliang Qian. Simultaneously recovering both domain and varying density in inverse gravimetry by efficient level-set methods. Inverse Problems & Imaging, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2020073 [9] Peizhao Yu, Guoshan Zhang, Yi Zhang. Decoupling of cubic polynomial matrix systems. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021, 11 (1) : 13-26. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020012 [10] Xin-Guang Yang, Lu Li, Xingjie Yan, Ling Ding. The structure and stability of pullback attractors for 3D Brinkman-Forchheimer equation with delay. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1395-1418. doi: 10.3934/era.2020074 [11] Chao Xing, Jiaojiao Pan, Hong Luo. Stability and dynamic transition of a toxin-producing phytoplankton-zooplankton model with additional food. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020275 [12] A. M. Elaiw, N. H. AlShamrani, A. Abdel-Aty, H. Dutta. Stability analysis of a general HIV dynamics model with multi-stages of infected cells and two routes of infection. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020441 [13] Ilyasse Lamrani, Imad El Harraki, Ali Boutoulout, Fatima-Zahrae El Alaoui. Feedback stabilization of bilinear coupled hyperbolic systems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020434 [14] Felix Finster, Jürg Fröhlich, Marco Oppio, Claudio F. Paganini. Causal fermion systems and the ETH approach to quantum theory. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020451 [15] Xiyou Cheng, Zhitao Zhang. Structure of positive solutions to a class of Schrödinger systems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020461 [16] Yuri Fedorov, Božidar Jovanović. Continuous and discrete Neumann systems on Stiefel varieties as matrix generalizations of the Jacobi–Mumford systems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020375 [17] Awais Younus, Zoubia Dastgeer, Nudrat Ishaq, Abdul Ghaffar, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Devendra Kumar. On the observability of conformable linear time-invariant control systems. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020444 [18] Shiqi Ma. On recent progress of single-realization recoveries of random Schrödinger systems. Electronic Research Archive, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/era.2020121 [19] Maoding Zhen, Binlin Zhang, Vicenţiu D. Rădulescu. Normalized solutions for nonlinear coupled fractional systems: Low and high perturbations in the attractive case. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020379 [20] Zedong Yang, Guotao Wang, Ravi P. Agarwal, Haiyong Xu. Existence and nonexistence of entire positive radial solutions for a class of Schrödinger elliptic systems involving a nonlinear operator. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020436

Impact Factor: