{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030732860520094562, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.215909090909091, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Linearized analysis versus optimization-based nonlinear analysis for nonlinear systems

For autonomous nonlinear systems stability and input-output properties in small enough (infinitesimally small) neighborhoods of (linearly) asymptotically stable equilibrium points can be inferred from the properties of the linearized dynamics. On the other hand, generalizations of the S-procedure and sum-of-squares programming promise a framework potentially capable of generating certificates valid over quantifiable, finite size neighborhoods of the equilibrium points. However, this procedure involves multiple relaxations (unidirectional implications). Therefore, it is not obvious if the sum-of-squares programming based nonlinear analysis can return a feasible answer whenever linearization based analysis does. Here, we prove that, for a restricted but practically useful class of systems, conditions in sum-of-squares programming based region-of-attraction, reachability, and input-output gain analyses are feasible whenever linearization based analysis is conclusive. Besides the theoretical interest, such results may lead to computationally less demanding, potentially more conservative nonlinear (compared to direct use of sum-of-squares formulations) analysis tools.