Sensitivity Analysis of Continuous-Time Systems
based on Power Spectral Density

arXiv:1803.10788v1 [] 28 Mar 2018

Neng Wan1 , Dapeng Li2 , and Naira Hovakimyan1

Abstract
Bode integrals of sensitivity and sensitivity-like functions along with complementary sensitivity and
complementary sensitivity-like functions are conventionally used for describing performance limitations of
a feedback control system. In this paper, we show that in the case when the disturbance is a wide sense
stationary process the (complementary) sensitivity Bode integral and the (complementary) sensitivity-like
Bode integral are identical. A lower bound of the continuous-time complementary sensitivity-like Bode
integral is also derived and applied to retrieving a control trade-off in a string-like distributed control
system.

1

Introduction

The last two decades have witnessed a tremendous progress in communication technologies and
their use in feedback control systems. A great deal of attention has been given to understanding
the fundamental limitations of closed-loop systems in the presence of communication channels
[1–6]. The main contribution of these papers was to derive performance limitations of stochastic
nonlinear systems in the presence of limited information. While [1–3,5,6] looked into discrete-time
systems and investigated the Bode-like integrals using Kolmogorov’s entropy-rate equality [7], the
results in [4] provided an extension to continuous-time systems by resorting to mutual information
rates. In these papers, the notion of the sensitivity-like function was introduced to derive Bodelike integrals and corresponding lower bounds, which can be considered as a generalization of the
classical result of Bode integrals for linear time-invariant (LTI) deterministic systems [8]. The
classical result in [8] states that for open-loop stable transfer functions the Bode integral equals
zero, while for unstable open-loop transfer functions it is lower bounded by the sum of unstable
poles of the open-loop transfer function [9, 10]. Similar to the sensitivity function in a LTI system,
the complementary sensitivity function is also used for robustness and performance analysis of
1 Neng

Wan and Naira Hovakimyan are with the Department of Mechanical Science and Engineering, University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA. {nengwan2, nhovakim}@illinois.edu.
2 Dapeng Li is a Principal Scientist with the JD.com Silicon Valley Research Center, Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA.

dapeng.li@jd.com.

1

closed-loop systems [11]. We notice that the result on the complementary sensitivity Bode integral
was once hindered by the unboundedness of the integrand in high frequencies [12]. This issue
was later overcome in [11] by adopting a weighted Bode integral of the complementary sensitivity
function, proven to be lower bounded by the sum of the reciprocals of nonminimum phase zeros.
Seminal results on this topic were reported also in [13, 14].
Performance limitations of stochastic systems in the presence of limited information were
analyzed through sensitivity-like function S(ω) in [1–4] and the complementary sensitivity-like
function T (ω) in [5, 6]. Taking an information-theoretic approach was the key to get Bode
integrals extended to stochastic nonlinear systems. Unlike the frequency-domain approach, which
explicitly depends on the input-output relationship of the feedback systems (transfer function),
the focus of the information-theoretic approach is on the signals.

The lower bound for

sensitivity-like Bode integral for continuous-time systems was first put forward in [4]:
1
2π

Z ∞

log |S(ω)|dω ≥

−∞

∑

pi .

(1)

λ ∈UP

This result can be applied to systems with nonlinear controllers, which is an improvement upon
the prior results based on the frequency-domain approach [8–15]. However, to the best of authors’
knowledge, a lower bound for the complementary sensitivity-like Bode integral for
continuous-time systems has not been derived yet. The unboundedness of the integrand in high
frequencies [12] and the challenge in representing the weighted Bode-like integral with
information-theoretic tools similar to [11] have been the main obstacles on this path.
In this paper, we provide a partial answer to the question: What is the relationship between
Bode integrals of the (complementary) sensitivity function and the (complementary) sensitivitylike function? We answer this question for the continuous-time linear feedback system with a wide
sense stationary input, while some partial answers on discrete-time systems can be found in [2, 6].
We notice that while Kolmogorov’s entropy-rate equality has been used for discrete-time systems
in [1–3, 5, 6] to obtain a lower bound for the sensitivity-like function, a seminal result on mutual
information rates from [16, p. 181] was used in [4] to obtain a similar bound for continuous-time
systems. In this paper, we resort to power spectral density (PSD) to analyze the sensitivity and
the complementary sensitivity of continuous-time systems. With the convenience brought by this
new tool, we first time find a lower bound and an information-theoretic representation for the
complementary sensitivity-like Bode integral, which are later used to derive a control trade-off for
a string-like distributed control system.
The paper is organized as follows: Section II introduces the preliminaries on Bode integrals
and information theory. Section III investigates the relationship between the sensitivity and the
sensitivity-like Bode integrals. Section IV investigates the complementary sensitivity and the
2

complementary sensitivity-like Bode integrals and proposes a lower bound for the latter. Section
V studies a control trade-off in a vehicle platoon system. Section VI draws the conclusion.

2

Preliminaries

Consider the continuous-time feedback configuration P depicted in Figure 1:
d

e

x0

y

L(s)

Figure 1: Continuous-time feedback control system.
where d(t) ∈ R is the disturbance input, y(t) ∈ R is the output, e(t) = d(t) − y(t) is the error signal,
x(t) ∈ Rn is the state, and L(s) denotes the open-loop transfer function
Z ∞

L(s) = L( jω) =

l(t) · e− jωt dt,

(2)

0

with l(t) being the impulse response of the system. In a deterministic setting, the initial condition
x0 in the configuration of Figure 1 is assumed zero. In a stochastic setting, one assumes that the
differential entropy of the initial condition is finite [1–4]. Further discussion on these two different
types of initial conditions is available in [6]. Let the open-loop transfer function of the feedback
configuration in Figure 1 be
∏mj=1 (s − z j )
Y (s)
L(s) =
= c· n
,
E(s)
∏i=1 (s − pi )

(3)

where m ≤ n, and c > 0. Consider the following frequency transformation
s = jω = − jω̃ −1 = s̃−1 .

(4)

Applying (4) to the transfer function (3), the transfer function L̃(s̃) of the auxiliary system takes
the form:

s̃n · ∏mj=1 (1 − s̃ · z j )
Ỹ (s̃)
L̃(s̃) =
= c· m n
= L(s),
s̃ · ∏i=1 (1 − s̃ · pi )
Ẽ(s̃)

which can be depicted by the diagram in Figure 2.
d

e

x0

L(s )

y

Figure 2: Auxiliary system.

3

(5)

The Laplace transforms of the signals in the auxiliary system and the signals in the original system
satisfy
D̃(s̃) = D̃(s−1 ) = D(s̃−1 ) = D(s),

(6)

which also hold if d is replaced by e or y. It is worth noting that although the auxiliary system
L̃(s̃) may not be proper, no intermediate result will be derived from this auxiliary system. We then
consider the inverse of the auxiliary system L̃−1 (s̃) defined by swapping the input ẽ and output ỹ
of the auxiliary system shown in Figure 2. The transfer function of this inverse system becomes:
L̃

−1

Ẽ(s̃) 1 1
∏ni=1 (1 − s̃ · pi )
·
,
(s̃) =
= ·
Ỹ (s̃) c s̃n−m ∏mj=1 (1 − s̃ · z j )

(7)

which can be illustrated by the diagram in Figure 3.
y

d

x0

L1(s )

e

Figure 3: Inverse of auxiliary system.
To generalize the results of this paper to MIMO systems, interested readers can refer to [6, 17].
Before we continue to formulate the (complementary) sensitivity analysis problem, some basic
definitions are given below [4, 7]:
Definition 1 (Wide Sense Stationary). A second order random process {x} is called wide sense
stationary, if
E[x(t)] = E[x(t + v)],

(8)

Cov[x(t), x(t + τ)] = Cov[x(v), x(v + τ)],
where E denotes expectation.
Definition 2. (Mutual Information & Mutual Information Rate) The mutual information between
two continuous-time stochastic processes x and y is defined as
Z Z

I(x; y) =

f (x, y) log
Y X

f (x, y)
dxdy,
f (x) f (y)

(9)

where f (x, y) is the joint probability distribution function, and f (x) and f (y) are the marginal
probability distribution functions. The mutual information rate is defined as
I(xt ; yt )
.
t→∞
t

I∞ (x; y) = lim

4

(10)

Definition 3 (Class F Function; See [4] or [16, p. 182]). We define class F function in the following
way:
F = {l : l(ω) = p(ω)(1 − ϕ(ω)), l(ω) ∈ C, ω ∈ R},

(11)

where p(·) is rational and ϕ(·) is a measurable function, such that 0 ≤ φ ≤ 1 for all ω ∈ R and
R

R | log(1 − ϕ(ω))|dω

< ∞.

The sensitivity function S( jω) of the feedback system in Figure 1 is defined as the closed-loop
transfer function from the disturbance input d to the tracking error e:
S( jω) =

1
.
1 + L( jω)

(12)

The complementary sensitivity function T ( jω) is defined as the closed-loop transfer function from
the disturbance input d to the measurement output y:
T ( jω) =

L( jω)
.
1 + L( jω)

(13)

The integrals of S( jω) and T ( jω) over the whole frequency domain are referred to as Bode
integrals and satisfy the following equalities [9, 10, 13]:
1
2π

Z ∞

log
−∞

Z
1 ∞

2π

log

−∞

s[S(s) − S(∞)]
S( jω)
dω = lim
+ ∑ pi ,
s→∞
S( j∞)
2 · S(∞)
p ∈UP

(14)

T ( jω) dω
dT (s)
1
1
lim
+ ∑ ,
=
2
T (0) ω
2T (0) s→0 ds
z
zi ∈UZ i

(15)

i

where UP and UZ respectively denote the set of unstable poles and the set of unstable zeros of the
plant P. Since (14) and (15) are derived in frequency domain using transfer functions, they cannot
be applied to nonlinear systems.
Starting with [1, 2], information theoretic tools were leveraged to derive performance
limitations and Bode-like results for nonlinear systems. Instead of considering the sensitivity
function S( jω), in [2, 4] sensitivity-like function S(ω) was introduced based on the properties of
signals:
s
S(ω) =

φe (ω)
,
φd (ω)

(16)

where φx (ω) denotes the PSD of a stationary signal x:
Z ∞

φx (ω) =

−∞

rx (τ) · e− jωτ dτ,

and rx (τ) = rxx (t + τ,t) denotes the auto-covariance of the signal x with
rxy (v,t) = Cov[x(v), y(t)].
5

(17)

The complementary sensitivity-like function was defined for discrete-time systems in [5].
Following the same philosophy, the following definition of the complementary sensitivity-like
function is adopted in this paper:
s
T (ω) =

φy (ω)
.
φd (ω)

(18)

As we mentioned previously, the lower bound for Bode integral of T (ω) in continuous-time
systems has not been studied yet. In the following sections, we first discuss the relationship
between the (complementary) sensitivity and the (complementary) sensitivity-like Bode integrals
and then propose a lower bound for the Bode integral of T (ω). Some lemmas and assumptions
that we adopt in this paper are listed following:
Lemma 1. (See [4] or [16, p. 181]) Suppose that two one-dimensional continuous-time processes
x and y form a stationary Gaussian process (x, y). Then


Z
|φxy (ω)|2
1 ∞
dω.
I∞ (x, y) ≥ −
log 1 −
4π −∞
φx (ω)φy (ω)

(19)

The equality holds, if φx and φy belong to the class F.
Assumption 1. The disturbance input d(t) is a zero-mean wide sense stationary process.
Remark 1. Compared with [1–3,5], which assumed that d is an asymptotically stationary process,
Assumption 1 is relatively stringent. However, this assumption is commonly adopted among the
results on continuous-time systems in terms of signals [4, 18].
Assumption 2. For the transfer function L(s), the amount of zeros at s = 0 does not exceed the
amount of poles at s = 0.
Remark 2. We only adopt this assumption when establishing a lower bound for the complementary
sensitivity-like Bode integral. This assumption ensures that the inverse of auxiliary system L̃−1 (s̃)
is proper, e.g. for a double integrator vehicle with first order actuator dynamics L(s) = 1/[s2 ·
(0.1s + 1)] from [21], we have L̃−1 = (s̃ + 0.1)/s̃3 . Similar assumption was adopted in [19], when
investigating the string instability (sensitivity) via a frequency-domain approach.

3

Sensitivity and Sensitivity-Like Functions

We first investigate the relationship between Bode integrals of sensitivity function S( jω) and
sensitivity-like function S(ω) of the closed-loop configuration in Figure 1. The following theorem
states this relationship.

6

Theorem 1. When the disturbance input d(t) is wide sense stationary, Bode integrals of the
sensitivity and the sensitivity-like functions satisfy
1
2π

1
log S(ω)dω =
2π
−∞

Z ∞

Z ∞

log |S( jω)|dω.



Proof. The proof is given in Appendix A.

4

(20)

−∞

Complementary Sensitivity and Sensitivity-Like Functions

The relationship between Bode integrals of complementary sensitivity function T ( jω) and the
complementary sensitivity-like function T (ω) in Figure 1 is summarized in the following corollary.
Corollary 2. When the disturbance input d(t) is wide sense stationary, Bode integrals of
complementary sensitivity function T ( jω) and complementary sensitivity-like function T (ω)
satisfy
1
2π

1
dω
log T (ω) 2 =
ω
2π
−∞

Z ∞

Z ∞

log |T ( jω)|

−∞

dω
.
ω2

(21)


Proof. The proof is given in Appendix B.

From Corollary 2, we know that Bode integrals of T ( jω) and T (ω) are equivalent, when the
disturbance input d is wide sense stationary. The following theorem gives a lower bound for the
Bode integral of T (ω) in continuous-time setting.
Theorem 3. When the closed-loop system in Figure 1 is mean-square stable and d is wide sense
stationary, one has:
˜ ẽ) ≥
I∞ (ỹ; ẽ) − I∞ (d;

1
,
z
zi ∈UZ i

∑

(22)

˜ ẽ and ỹ are the signals defined in the
where UZ is the set of unstable zeros of the plant P, and d,
inverse of auxiliary system. Moreover, when the disturbance input d is Gaussian stationary, the
complementary sensitivity-like Bode integral satisfies
1
2π

Z ∞

log T (ω)
−∞

dω
1
≥ ∑ .
2
ω
z
zi ∈UZ i

(23)

Proof. By the frequency transform (4), we can rewrite the complementary sensitivity-like Bode
integral defined in (21) as follows
1
2π

dω
1 ∞
log T (ω) 2 =
log T (−ω̃ −1 )d ω̃
ω
2π −∞
−∞
Z
1 ∞
=
log T̃ (ω̃)d ω̃,
2π −∞

Z ∞

Z

7

(24)

where the function T̃ (ω̃) satisfying
s
T̃ (ω̃) =

φỹ (ω̃)
=
φd˜(ω̃)

s

φy (−ω̃ −1 )
= T (−ω̃ −1 )
φd (−ω̃ −1 )

(25)

is defined as the complementary sensitivity-like function of the auxiliary system. Meanwhile, since
the complementary sensitivity-like function of the auxiliary system is equivalent to the sensitivitylike function of the inverse of auxiliary system, our task becomes to seek for a lower bound for the
sensitivity-like Bode integral for the inverse of auxiliary system shown in Figure 3. The PSD of
signal d in the original system and the PSD of signal d˜ in the auxiliary system satisfy
Z ∞

φd˜(ω̃) =

Z ∞−∞

=
−∞

rd˜(τ) · e− jω̃τ dτ

rd (τ) · e jω̃

−1 τ

dτ = φd (−ω̃ −1 ) = φd (ω),

(26)

where the covariances of d˜ and d at frequency ω̃ satisfy
rd˜(τ) = rd (τ) · e j(ω̃+ω̃

−1 )τ

.

(27)

From (26) one can notice that after the frequency transformation an additional phase shift is applied
to the covariance of r ˜(τ) inside the Laplace transform, while d˜ is still wide sense stationary.
d

Meanwhile, the equalities (26) and (27) still hold, if we replace d with y or e.
For the inverse of auxiliary system, by Theorem 4.8 in [4], we have
˜ ẽ) ≥
I∞ (ỹ; ẽ) − I∞ (d;

1
.
z
zi ∈UZ i

(28)

∑

When the disturbance input d is Gaussian stationary, according to inequality (1) or Theorem 4.8
in [4], we have

1
2π

Z ∞
−∞

˜ ẽ) ≥
log T̃ (ω̃)d ω̃ = I∞ (ỹ; ẽ) − I∞ (d;

1
.
z
zi ∈UZ i

∑



This completes the proof.

(29)


Remark 3. Since log T (ω) = log |T ( jω)| is unbounded as ω → ∞, we define the Bode-like integral
of T (ω) in (23) as frequency-weighted integral similar to (15).
Remark 4. When the disturbance d is Gaussian stationary, by Lemma 1 we can express the mutual
information rate I∞ (ỹ, ẽ) in terms of the density functions of e and y:


Z
|φỹẽ (ω̃)|2
1 ∞
I∞ (ỹ, ẽ) = −
log 1 −
d ω̃
4π −∞
φỹ (ω̃)φẽ (ω̃)


Z
|φye (ω)|2
1 ∞
dω
=−
log 1 −
.
4π −∞
φy (ω)φe (ω) ω 2
˜ ẽ) can be readily implied.
The expression of I∞ (d;
8

(30)

5

Application to Vehicle Platoon Systems

With the lower bound of the complementary sensitivity-like Bode integral given in Theorem 3,
we now investigate the string instability [19] or the disturbance propagation [20] in vehicle platoon
systems. More detailed discussions about this topic can be found in [19–23].
Consider the distributed vehicle platoon system in Figure 4, where r0 ∈ R is the reference signal
for leader, d ∈ R is the zero-mean stationary disturbance. Each agent is mean square stable and
δi-1

r0
d

e0

L0(s)

y0

...

yi-2

δi

ei-1

Li-1(s)

yi-1

ei

Li(s)

yi

...

Figure 4: Distributed vehicle platoon system.
can be described by the following LTI system
ẋi (t) = Ai xi (t) + Bi ui (t),

(31)

yi (t) = Ci xi (t),
where i = 0, 1, 2, · · · , N are the indices of agents, Ai ∈ Rni ×ni , Bi ∈ Rni ×1 , and Ci ∈ R1×ni . The initial
conditions x0 (0), x1 (0), · · · , xN (0) are mutually independent and with finite differential entropies.
In order to regulate the output yi (t) ∈ R such that yi−1 (t) − yi (t) = δi , define the tracking error ei (t)
of the agent i as
ei (t) = yi−1 (t) − yi (t) − δi .

(32)

When i = 0, we define δ0 = r0 and y−1 (t) = d(t).
Similar to [19], we adopt the following Bode-like integral to investigate the sensitivity of the
vehicle platoon system
dω
log Sd,ei (ω) 2 =
ω
−∞

Z ∞

s

Z ∞

log
−∞

φei (ω) dω
,
φd (ω) ω 2

(33)

which measures the average response of the i-th vehicle’s state to a disturbance at the leader’s
location over all frequencies. With Assumption 1 and Assumption 2 the following theorem gives a
lower bound.
Corollary 4. When the disturbance is Gaussian wide sense stationary, Bode-like integral of the
vehicle platoon system given in Figure 4 satisfies
Z ∞
−∞

log Sd,ei (ω)

dω i−1
1
≥∑ ∑
+ ∑ pi .
2
ω
j=0 z j ∈UZ j z j
pi ∈UPi
9

(34)

Proof. First, we can rewrite the Bode’s integral (33) as
s
Z ∞
Z ∞
dω
φei (ω) dω
log Sd,ei (ω) 2 =
log
ω
φd (ω) ω 2
−∞
−∞
s
s
Z ∞
Z ∞
φy0 (ω) dω
φei (ω) dω
=
log
+
log
2
φyi−1 (ω) ω
φd (ω) ω 2
−∞
−∞
s
i−1 Z ∞
φy j (ω) dω
+∑
log
.
φy j−1 (ω) ω 2
j=1 −∞

(35)

Since d and y j−1 − δ j are zero-mean wide sense stationary processes, according to Theorem 3, we
have

s

Z ∞

log
−∞

s

i−1 Z ∞

∑

log

j=1 −∞

φy0 (ω) dω
≥
φd (ω) ω 2 z

∑

0 ∈UZ0

1
,
z0

φy j (ω) dω i−1
1
≥∑ ∑
,
2
φy j−1 (ω) ω
j=1 z j ∈UZ j z j

(36)

(37)

where UZ j denotes the set of all nonminimum zeros of plant P j . Since yi−1 − δi is a zero-mean
wide sense stationary process, by (1) or Theorem 4.8 in [4], we have
s
Z ∞
φei (ω) dω
≥ ∑ pi .
log
φyi−1 (ω) ω 2 pi ∈UP
−∞
i

(38)

Summing up (36)-(38), we obtain the inequality (34) in Corollary 4. This completes the proof.

Remark 5. Corollary 4 shows that the lower bound of the i-th agent’s Bode-like integral (33)
is determined by the poles of the i-th agent and the zeros of all the preceding agents. When the
disturbance is Gaussian stationary, we have
s
Z ∞
φy j (ω) dω
= I∞ (ỹ j ; ẽ j ) − I∞ (ỹ j−1 ; ẽ j ).
log
φy j−1 (ω) ω 2
−∞

(39)

Signals ẽ j and ỹ j also satisfy (26) and (27). The information-theoretic representations of Bode
integrals in (34), (36) and (38) can be readily implied from (29) and Theorem 4.8 in [4].
Remark 6. Similar to [20], the trade-off that we investigated in Corollary 4 reflects the average
disturbance attenuation performance over all frequencies, and is complementary to the H∞ -type
metric adopted in [19, 21, 23], which characterizes the worst performance by measuring the peak
magnitude over the frequency domain.

Compared with [19–23], the PSD is used as the

fundamental tool in this paper when deriving the lower bound for the weighted Bode-like
integral (33). This argument may also help us to extend the results of this paper to nonlinear
systems.
10



6

Conclusions

We discussed the relationship between Bode integrals of complementary sensitivity and
sensitivity-like functions. A lower bound for the continuous-time complementary sensitivity-like
Bode’s integral was derived and applied to finding a control trade-off in the distributed vehicle
platoon system. Future discussions may include relaxing weakly stationary assumption on the
disturbance and considering nonlinear controllers.

Acknowledgment
The authors specially acknowledge the staff and readers from arXiv.org.

Appendix
6.1

Proof of Theorem 1

Since d(t) = e(t) + y(t), the density function φd (ω) in (16) satisfies
Z ∞

φd (ω) =

−∞
Z ∞

=
−∞

rd (τ) · e− jωτ dτ

[re (τ) + rey (τ) + rye (−τ) + ry (τ)] e− jωτ dτ

= φe (ω) + φey (ω) + φye (ω) + φy (ω)
Letting τ = v − t, and noticing that y(t) =

R∞
0

(40)

l(v0 )e(t − v0 )dv0 , subject to Assumption 1, the

covariances re , rey , rye and ry , in (40) satisfy
re (v,t) = Cov[e(t + v − t), e(t)]
= Cov[e(t + τ), e(t)] = re (τ)
Z ∞

rey (v,t) = Cov[e(v),
Z ∞

=
0

(41a)

l(v0 )e(t − v0 )dv0 ]

0

l(v0 )re (v0 + τ)dv0

= rey (τ)
Z ∞

rye (v,t) = Cov[
Z ∞

=
0

l(v0 )e(v − v0 )dv0 , e(t)]

0

l(v0 )re (−v0 + τ)dv0

= rye (τ)
11

(41b)

Z ∞

ry (v,t) = Cov[

l(v0 )e(v − v0 )dv0 ,

Z ∞ Z0 ∞

=
0

0

Z ∞

l(t 0 )e(t − t 0 )dt 0 ]

0
0

0

0

l(v )l(t ) · re (τ − v + t 0 )dv0 dt 0

= ry (τ)

(41c)

Hence the spectral density functions φey , φye , and φy , in (40) satisfy
1 ∞
rey (τ) · e− jωτ dτ
φey (ω) =
2π −∞
Z
Z
1 ∞ jωv0 0 ∞ − jω(τ+v0 )
=
e l(v )
e
re (τ + v0 )dτdv0
2π 0
−∞
Z

= L(− jω)φe (ω)
Z
1 ∞
φye (ω) =
rye (τ) · e− jωτ dτ
2π −∞
Z
Z
1 ∞ − jωv0 0 ∞ − jω(τ−v0 )
e
l(v )
e
re (τ − v0 )dτdv0
=
2π 0
−∞
= L( jω)φe (ω)
Z
1 ∞
φy (ω) =
ry (τ) · e− jωτ dτ
2π −∞
Z ∞

=

0

e jωt l(t 0 )

0

Z ∞

0

e− jωs l(s0 )·

(42a)

(42b)

(42c)

0

Z ∞
−∞

0

0

e− jω(τ−s +t ) re (τ − s0 + t 0 )dτds0 dt 0

= L(− jω)L( jω)φe (ω)
Substituting (40) and (42) into the sensitivity-like function S(ω) defined in (16), we can rewrite
the sensitivity-like function as follows
s

φe (ω)
.
[1 + L(− jω)] · [1 + L( jω)] · φe (ω)

S(ω) =

(43)

When φe (ω) . 0, we have
S(ω) =

p
S(− jω) · S( jω).

(44)

Since S(− jω) = S̄( jω), where S̄( jω) is the complex conjugate of S( jω), the equality (20)
in Theorem 1 can be retrieved from
1
2π

1 ∞
log S(ω) dω =
log [S(− jω) · S( jω)] dω
4π −∞
−∞
Z
1 ∞
=
log |S( jω)|dω.
2π −∞

Z ∞

Z

(45)


This completes the proof.
12

6.2

Proof of Corollary 2

Substituting (40) and (42) into the complementary sensitivity-like function T (ω) defined
in (18), we can then rewrite T (ω) as follows
s
T (ω) =

L(− jω)L( jω) · φe
[1 + L(− jω)] · [1 + L( jω)] · φe

(46)

When φe (ω) . 0, it follows that
T (ω) =

p
T (− jω) · T ( jω)

(47)

Since T (− jω) = T̄ ( jω), where T̄ ( jω) is the complex conjugate of T ( jω), the equality (21)
in Corollary 2 can be retrieved from
1
2π

Z ∞
−∞

dω
dω
1 ∞
log[T
(−
jω)
·
T
(
jω)]
=
ω2
4π −∞
ω2
Z ∞
1
dω
=
log |T ( jω)| 2
2π −∞
ω
Z

log T (ω)

(48)


This completes the proof.

References
[1] N. C. Martin, M. A. Dahleh, and J. C. Doyle, Fundamental limitations of disturbance
attenuation in the presence of side information, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 52, no.
1, 2007, pp 56-66.
[2] N. C. Martin, and M. A. Dahleh, Feedback control in the presence of noisy channels: “Bodelike” fundamental limitations of performance, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 53, no. 7,
2008, pp 1604-1615.
[3] S. Fang, H. Ishii, and J. Chen, Tradeoffs in networked feedback systems: From informationtheoretic measures to bode-type integrals, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 62, no. 3, 2017,
pp 1046-1061.
[4] D. Li, and N. Hovakimyan, Bode-like integral for continuous-time closed-loop systems in
the presence of limited information, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 58, no. 6, 2013, pp
1457-1469.
[5] K. Okano, S. Hara, and H. Ishii, Characterization of a complementary sensitivity property in
feedback control: An information theoretic approach, Automatica, vol. 45, 2009, pp 504-509.
13

[6] H. Ishii, K. Okano, and S. Hara, Achievable sensitivity bounds for MIMO control systems
via an information theoretic approach, Systems & Control Letters, vol. 60, 2011, pp 111-118.
[7] T. M. Cover, and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, Wiley, 2012.
[8] H. W. Bode, Network Analysis and Feedback Amplifier Design, D. Van Nostrand, 1945.
[9] J. S. Freudenberg, and D. P. Looze, Right half plane poles and zeros and design tradeoffs in
feedback systems, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 30, no. 6, 1985, pp 555-565.
[10] J. S. Freudenberg, and D. P. Looze, A sensitivity tradeoff for plants with time delay, IEEE
Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 32, no. 2, 1987, pp 99-104.
[11] R. H. Middleton, Trade-offs in linear control system design, Automatica, vol. 27, no. 2, 1991,
pp 281-292.
[12] H. K. Sung, and S. Hara, Properties of complementary sensitivity function in SISO digital
control systems, International Journal of Control, vol. 50, no. 4, 1989, pp 1283-1295.
[13] M. M. Seron, J. H. Braslavsky, and G. C. Goodwin, Fundamental Limitations in Filtering
and Control, Springer, 2012.
[14] K. Zhou, and J. C. Doyle, Essentials of Robust Control, Princeton Hall, 1998.
[15] H. K. Sung, and S. Hara, Properties of sensitivity and complementary sensitivity functions in
single-input single output digital control systems, International Journal of Control, vol. 48,
no. 6, 1988, pp 2429-2439.
[16] M. Pinsker, Information and Information Stability of Random Variables and Processes, San
Francisco, USA: Holden-Day, 1964.
[17] S. Fang, J. Chen, and H. Ishii, Towards Integrating Control and Information Theories: From
Information-Theoretic Measures to Control Performance Limitations, Springer, 2017.
[18] K. J. Astrom, Introduction to Stochastic Control Theory, Courier Corporation, 2012.
[19] R. H. Middleton, and J. H. Braslavsky, String instability in classes of linear time invariant
formation control with limited communication range, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 55,
no. 7, 2010, pp 1519-1530.
[20] Y. Zhao, P. Minero, and V. Gupta, On disturbance propagation in leader-followers systems
with limited leader information, Automatica, vol. 50, 2014, pp 591-598.
14

[21] P. Seiler, A. Pant, and K. Hedrick, Disturbance propagation in vehicle strings, IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control, vol. 49, no. 10, 2004, pp 1835-1841.
[22] B. Yu, J. S. Freudenberg, R. B. Gillespie, and R. H. Middleton, Beyond synchronization:
String instability in coupled harmonic oscillator systems, Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control,
vol. 25, 2015, pp 2745-2769.
[23] P. Barooah, and J. P. Hespanha, Error amplification and disturbance propagation in vehicle
strings with decentralized linear control, in Proc. 44th IEEE Conf. Decision Contr. and 2005
European Contr. Conf., Seville, Spain, 2005, pp 4964-4969.

15

