Time-triggering versus event-triggering control over communication channels

arXiv:1703.10744v3 [math.OC] 7 Oct 2017

Mohammad Javad Khojasteh Pavankumar Tallapragada Jorge Cortés Massimo Franceschetti
Abstract— Time-triggered and event-triggered control strategies for stabilization of an unstable plant over a rate-limited
communication channel subject to unknown, bounded delay
are studied and compared. Event triggering carries implicit
information, revealing the state of the plant. However, the delay
in the communication channel causes information loss, as it
makes the state information out of date. There is a critical delay
value, when the loss of information due to the communication
delay perfectly compensates the implicit information carried
by the triggering events. This occurs when the maximum delay
equals the inverse of the entropy rate of the plant. In this context,
extensions of our previous results for event triggering strategies
are presented for vector systems and are compared with the
data-rate theorem for time-triggered control, that is extended
here to a setting with unknown delay.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Internet of things establishes a foundation for emerging
of engineering systems that integrate computing, communication, and control, these systems are know as cyber-physical
systems (CPS) [1], [2]. One key aspect of CPS is the presence
of finite-rate, digital communication channels in the feedback
loop. To quantify their effect on the ability to stabilize the
system, data-rate theorems have been developed [3], [4].
They essentially state that, in order to achieve stabilization,
the communication rate available in the feedback loop should
be at least as large as the entropy rate of the system,
corresponding to the sum of the logarithms of the unstable
modes. In this way, the controller can compensate for the
expansion of the state occurring during communication
More recent formulations of data-rate theorems include
stochastic, time-varying, Markovian, erasure, additive white
and colored Gaussian, and multiplicative noise feedback
communication channels [5]–[10], formulations for nonlinear sytems [11]–[13], and for systems with uncertain and
variable parameters [14]–[17]. Connections with information
theory are highlighted in [13], [18]–[21]. Extended surveys
of the literature appear in [22] and [23].
Another important aspect of CPS is the need to use distributed resources efficiently. In this context, event-triggering
control techniques [24], [25] have emerged. These are based
on the idea of sending information in an opportunistic
manner between the controller and the plant. In this way,
communication occurs only when needed, and the primary
focus is on minimizing the number of transmissions while
guaranteeing the control objectives. Some recent results on
event-triggered implementations in the presence of data rate
M. J. Khojasteh and M. Franceschetti are with the Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering of University of California, San Diego.
J. Cortés is with the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
University of California, San Diego. P. Tallapragada is with the Department
of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru. {mkhojasteh,massimo,cortes}@ucsd.edu, pavant@ee.iisc.ernet.in

constraints appear in [26]–[29]. One important observation
raised in [27] is that using event-triggering is possible to
“beat” the data-rate theorem. More precisely, if the channel
does not introduce any delay, then an event-triggering strategy can achieve stabilization for any positive rate of transmission. This apparent contradiction is resolved by realizing
that the timing of the triggering events carries information,
revealing the state of the system. When communication
occurs without delay, the state can be tracked with arbitrary
precision, and transmitting a single bit at every triggering
event is enough to compute the appropriate control action.
In our previous work [30], we extended the above observation to the whole spectrum of possible delay values. Key
to our analysis was the distinction between the information
access rate, that is the rate at which the controller needs to
receive data, regulated by the classic data-rate theorem; and
the information transmission rate, that is the rate at which
the sensor needs to send data, regulated by a given triggering
control strategy. For a given triggering strategy, we showed
that for sufficiently low values of the delay, the timing
information carried by the triggering events is large enough
and the system can be stabilized with any positive information transmission rate. At a critical value of the delay, the
timing information carried by event triggering is not enough
for stabilization and the required information transmission
rate begins to grow. When the delay reaches the inverse
of the entropy rate of the plant, the timing information
becomes completely obsolete, and the required information
transmission rate becomes larger than the information access
rate imposed by the data-rate theorem.
In the present work, we compare these results with those
of a time-triggered implementation, for which we provide
a formulation of the data-rate theorem for continuous-time
systems in the presence of delay. The comparison leads
to additional insights on the value of information in event
triggering. We also extend results in [30] to vector systems.
Proofs of the results on event-triggering are omitted and can
be found in [31].
Notation: Let R and N denote the set of real and positive
integer numbers, respectively. We denote by B() the ball
centered at 0 of radius . We let log and ln denote the
logarithm with bases 2 and e, respectively. For any function
f : R → Rn and t ∈ R, we let f (t+ ) denote the limit from
the right, namely lims↓t f (s). We let Mn,m (R) be the set of
n × m matrices over the field of real numbers. Let 0n be the
all 0 vector of size P
n. Given A = [ai,j ]1≤i,j≤n ∈ Mn,n (R),
n
we let tr(A) =
i=1 aii and det(A) denote its trace
and determinant, respectively. Note that det(eA ) is equal to
etr(A) . We let m denote the Lebesgue measure on Rn , which
for n = 2, and n = 3 corresponds to area and volume,

an estimate x̂ of the plant state, which during the interreception times evolves according to
˙
x̂(t)
= Ax̂(t) + Bu(t),

(4)

x̂(tk+
c ).

starting from
The state estimation error is then
z(t) = x(t) − x̂(t),
Fig. 1.

System model.

respectively. Note that for A ∈ Mn,n (R) and X ∈ Rn ,
m(AX) = | det(A)|m(X). We let bxc denote the greatest
integer less than or equal to x. We let kxk be the L2 norm
of x in Rn .
II. P ROBLEM FORMULATION
System model: We consider a networked control system
composed by the plant-sensor-channel-controller tuple depicted in Figure 1. The plant dynamics are described by a
vector, continuous-time, linear time-invariant (LTI) system
ẋ = Ax(t) + Bu(t),

(1)

where x(t) ∈ Rn and u(t) ∈ Rm for t ∈ [0, ∞) are the plant
state and control input, respectively. Here, A ∈ Mn,n (R),
B ∈ Mn,m (R), and

where z(0) = x(0)−x̂(0). Without updated information from
the sensor, this error grows, and the system can potentially
become unstable. The sensor should therefore select the
sequence of transmission times {tks }k∈N and the packet
sizes {g(tks )}k∈N in a way that ensures stabilizability and
observability, while satisfying the rate constraints imposed
by the channel.
The asymptotic notions of stabilizability and observability
that we require are standard, and are formally defined in
[3], [30]. To ensure these asymptotic properties, we consider
two different approaches: event-triggered and time-triggered
control. In an event-triggering implementation, we define a
triggering function v(t) that is known to both the controller
and the sensor. Whenever the state estimation error crosses
the value of this function, a transmission occurs. In a
time-triggered implementation, transmissions are not state
dependent.
Information Access Rate: We let bc (t) denote the number
of bits that have been received by the controller up to time
t. We define the information access rate

x(0) ∈ B(L)
for some non-negative real number L (L is known to both
sensor and controller). Without loss of generality, we assume
that all the eigenvalues of A are unstable, that is, Re{λi } >
0 for i ∈ {1, . . . , n}. The sensor can measure the state
of the system exactly, and the controller can apply the
control input to the plant with infinite precision and without
delay. However, sensor and controller communicate through
a channel that can support only a finite data rate and is
subject to delay, as we describe next.
Triggering Times and Communication Delay: We denote
by {tks }k∈N the sequence of times at which the sensor
transmits a packet composed of g(tks ) bits representing the
system state to the controller. We define the k th triggering
interval by
∆0k = tk+1
− tks .
s

(2)

We let tkc be the time at which the controller receives and
decodes a packet of data which was encoded and transmitted
at time tks for k ∈ N. We assume a uniform upper bound,
known to the sensor and the controller, on the communication
delays
∆k = tkc − tks ≤ γ.

(3)

When referring to a generic triggering time or reception time,
we shall skip the superscript k in tks and tkc .
Time-Triggered and Event-Triggered Control: With the information received from the sensor, the controller maintains

(5)

Rc = lim sup
t→∞

bc (t)
.
t

(6)

In this setting, data-rate theorems describe the tradeoff between the information access rate and the ability to
stabilize the system. They are generally stated for discretetime systems, albeit similar arguments hold in continuous
time as well, see e.g. [32]. They are based on the fundamental
observation that there is an inherent entropy rate
Pd
λi
tr(A)
= i=1
(7)
h(A) =
ln 2
ln 2
at which the plant generates information. It follows that to
guarantee stability it is necessary for the controller to have
access to state information at a rate
Rc > h(A).

(8)

This result indicates what is required by the controller, and
it does not depend on the feedback structure — including
aspects such as communication delays, information pattern
at the sensor and the controller, and whether the times at
which transmissions occur are state dependent, as in eventtriggered control, or not, as in time-triggered control.
Information Transmission Rate: We now take the viewpoint of the sensor when examining the amount of information that it needs to transmit to the controller. We make
the following two observations. First, in the presence of
communication delays, the state estimate received by the
controller might be out of date, so that the sensor might

need to send data at a higher rate than what (8) prescribes
to make-up for such discrepancy. Second, in the case of
event-triggered transmissions, the timing of the triggering
events itself carries some information. For instance, if the
communication channel does not introduce any delay, then
a triggering event may reveal the state of the system very
precisely, and effectively carry an unbounded amount of
information. The controller may then be able to stabilize the
system even if the sensor uses the channel very sparingly,
transmitting at a smaller rate than what (8) prescribes.
Motivated by these observations, let bs (t) be the number
of bits transmitted by the sensor up to time t, and define the
information transmission rate by
Rs = lim sup
t→∞

bs (t)
.
t

(9)

Since at every triggering time the sensor sends g(tks ) bits,
we also have
PN
g(tks )
Rs = lim sup Pk=1
.
(10)
N
0
N →∞
k=1 ∆k
III. N ECESSARY CONDITION ON THE ACCESS RATE FOR
EVENT TRIGGERING

We now quantify the amount of information that the controller needs to have access to in order to have exponential
convergence of the estimation error and the plant state to
zero, irrespective of the feedback structure used by the sensor
to decide when to transmit. The proof follows, with minor
modifications to the one for the scalar case, cf. [31].
Theorem 1: Consider the plant-sensor-channel-controller
model described in Section II with plant dynamics (1), and
state estimation error z(t). Let σ ∈ R be positive.
1) If the state estimation error satisfies
kz(t)k ≤ kz(0)k e−σt ,

(11)

2) If the system is stabilizable and
kx(t)k ≤ kx(0)k e−σt ,
then
tr(A) + nσ
bc (t) ≥ t
.
ln 2
In both cases, the information access rate is

(12)

tr(A) + nσ
.
(13)
ln 2
Proof: Note that (13) immediately follows by dividing (11) and (12) by t and taking the limit for t → ∞.
Regarding (i), let us write the solution to (1) as
α(t) = eAt

t

Z

With access to bc (t) bits of information, the controller can at
best identify x(t) up to a ball of radius (t). Consequently,
(i) follows.
Recall that kx(0)k ≤ L. For any given control trajectory
{u(τ )}ττ =t
=0 define
Π{u(τ )}ττ =t
= {x(0) : kx(t)k < (t)},
=0
where (t) = kx(0)k e−σt . These are the sets of all initial
conditions for which by choosing the control trajectory
{u(τ )}ττ =t
=0 , the plant state at time t, x(t), will be in a
ball of radius (t). x(t) depends linearly on {u(τ )}ττ =t
=0 .
As a consequence, all of the sets Π{u(τ )}ττ =t
,
are
linear
=0
transformation of each other. The measure of Π{u(τ )=0}τ ∈[0,t]
is

which is upper bounded by kn Ln e−(tr(A)+nσ)t . We can then
determine a lower bound for bc (t) by counting the number
of Π sets (for different control trajectories {u(τ )}ττ =t
=0 ) which
takes to cover the ball kx(0)k ≤ L.
Thus, the controller must have access to at least bc (t) bits
by time t, where
m(kx(0)k ≤ L)
m(Π)
kn Ln
= log
kn kx(0)kn e−(tr(A)+nσ)t
tr(A) + nσ
L
≥t
+ n log ,
ln 2
L
and this proves (ii).
Remark 1: Theorem 1 is valid for any control scheme,
and the controller does not necessarily have to compute the
state estimate following (4). This theorem can be viewed
as an extension of the data-rate theorem with exponential
convergence guarantees. It states that, to have exponential
convergence of the estimation error and the state, the access
rate should be larger than the estimation entropy, the latter
bc (t) ≥ log

Rc >

x(t) = eAt x(0) + α(t),

m(Γt )
m(B((t)))
| det((eA )t )|m(kx(0)k ≤ L)
= log
kd kz(0)kn e−nσt
Ln
= t log | det(eA )enσ | + log
kz(0)kn
L
= t log |etr(A)+nσ | + n log
.
kz(0)k

bc (t) ≥ log

| det(e−At )kn kx(0)kn e−nσt | = kn kx(0)kn e−(tr(A)+nσ)t ,

then
L
tr(A) + nσ
+ n log
.
bc (t) ≥ t
ln 2
kz(0)k

that is a set which represents the uncertainty at time t given
the bound L on the norm of the initial condition x(0) and
α(t). The state of the system can be any point in this
uncertainty set. We can find a lower bound on bc (t) by
counting the number of balls of radius (t), that cover Γt ,
where (t) = kz(0)k e−σt . The Lebesgue measure of a
sphere of radius  in Rn is kn n where kn is a constant
that changes with dimension. Therefore bc (t), the number of
bits of information that the controller must have access to
by time t, should satisfy

e−Aτ Bu(τ )dτ . (14)

0

We then define,
Γt = {x(t) : x(t) = eAt x(0) + α(t) ; kx(0)k ≤ L}, (15)

concept having been recently introduced in [33]. A similar
result for continuous-time systems appears in [26], but only
for linear feedback controllers. The classic formula of the
data-rate theorem (8), given in [3], [4] can be derived as
a special case of Theorem 1 by taking σ → 0 and using
continuity.
•

However, the controller does not necessarily receive packets
immediately. Indeed, in the worst case, if γ > T the
controller receives packets that have been sent in the time
interval [0, ηT ) by the time ηT + η(γ − T ) = ηγ. While, for
T > γ we have
m(ζtcη− ) ≥ m(ζtoη− ),
c

IV. N ECESSARY CONDITION ON THE TRANSMISSION
RATE FOR TIME TRIGGERING

(16)

and T denotes the transmission period. Note that in this
setting, the sensor transmits without considering whether the
previous packets have been received and decoded or not.
Consequently, the communication delay is upper bounded
as (3) only when there is not another packet in the communication channel. In this setting, we have the following
theorem.
Theorem 2: Consider the plant-sensor-channel-controller
model described in Section II with plant dynamics (1).
Assume that the communication delays upper bounded as (3)
when there is no other packet in the channel, and assuming
that the packets are received and decoded by the controller
in the order they are transmitted by the sensor. Then, there
exists a delay realization {∆k }k∈N such that a rate

tr(A)


if γ < T,

 ln 2
Rs >
γ



 tr(A) T
if γ ≥ T.
ln 2
is necessary for asymptotic observability and asymptotic
stabilizability.
Proof: Consider an observer that can receive the packets
transmitted by the sensor without any delay, and that has
the same knowledge about the system as the controller. Let
ζto and ζtc be the uncertainty sets for the state x(t), at the
observer and controller, respectively. We have ζ0o = ζ0c .
We write the solution to (1) as (14). Consequently, we
have
m(ζto(k+1)− ) = etr(A)T m(ζtoks ).
s

Since the observer receives packets without delay, we have
1

1
o
tr(A)T
m(ζtoks ).
k m(ζ (k+1)− ) =
k e
ts
s
2g(ts )
2g(ts )
By iterating from k = 1 to k = η, we have
m(ζtok+1 ) ≥

m(ζtoη− ) ≥
s

1
2

Pk=η−1
k=1

g(tk
s)

etr(A)ηT m(ζ0o ).

for T ≤ γ we have
sup m(ζtcη− ) ≥ m(ζtoη− )etr(A)η(γ−T ) .

We now derive a data-rate theorem for the information
transmission rate in two different time-triggered scenarios
and in the presence of unknown communication delays.
In the first scenario, we assume the following timetriggered implementation: the sensor transmits at all times
{tks }k∈N , where
tks = kT,

(17)

s

c

{∆k }≤γ

s

(18)

It follows that the right-hand side of (17) and (18) tends to
infinity as η → ∞, making it impossible to stabilize or track
the state, if
1
∞ = lim Pk=η−1 k etr(A)ηT
g(ts )
η→∞ 2 k=1
(
Pk=η−1 k !)
g(ts )
= lim exp T η tr(A) − ln 2 k=1
η→∞
Tη
for T > γ, and
1

∞ = lim

η→∞

2

Pk=η−1
k=1

g(tk
s)

etr(A)ηγ

(

γ
= lim exp T η tr(A) − ln 2
η→∞
T

Pk=η−1
k=1

g(tks )

!)

Tη

for T < γ. The result now follows.
Remark 2: Theorem 2 provides a data-rate theorem for the
information transmission rate without imposing exponential
convergence guarantees. It shows the existence of a critical
delay value γ = T , at which the rate begins to increase
linearly with the delay.
•
We next consider a different time-triggered scenario. Let
t0s = 0,

tk+1
= tks + (b∆k /T c + 1)T,
s

(19)

where T is a fixed non-negative real number. In this case, the
sensor transmits only at integer multiples of the period T ,
after the previous packet is received. It follows that there
is no delay accumulation, and for all packets the delay
satisfies (3). In this setting, we have the following result for
exponential convergence of the estimation error to zero.
Theorem 3: Consider the plant-sensor-channel-controller
model described in Section II with plant dynamics (1), and
state estimation error z(t). Let σ ∈ R be positive. If using
the time-triggered implementation (19) the state estimation
error satisfies
k

kz(tks )k ≤ kz(0)k e−σts ,

(20)

for all k ∈ N, then there exists a delay realization {∆k }k∈N
which requires
(tr(A) + nσ)(b Tγ c + 1)
.
(21)
ln 2
Proof: Using (14) we know the state of the system can
be any point in Γt , cf. (15), then, we have
Rs ≥

m(Γtkc ) = etr(A)∆k m(Γtks ),

and
m(Γtk+1
) ≥ m(Γtkc )e
s



∆
tr(A) (b Tk c+1)T −∆k

.

Iterating from k = 0 to k = η, we have
Pk=η−1

tr(A)(b

∆k
T

η

c+1)T

m(Γ0 ) = etr(A)ts m(Γ0 ).
Pk=η−1 k
We can now obtain a lower bound on
g(ts ) by
k=0
η
counting the number of balls of radius kz(0)k e−σts , that
cover Γtη−
. Recall that the Lebesgue measure of a sphere of
s
radius r in Rn is kn rn where kn is a constant that depends
on the dimension. We have
m(Γtη−
)≥e
s

k=0

k=η−1
X

η

g(tks ) ≥ log

k=0

etr(A)ts m(Γ0 )
η
kn kz(0)kn e−nσts
η

= log

e(tr(A)+nσ)ts m(Γ0 )
.
kn kz(0)kn

Hence,
k=η−1
X

γ

g(tks ) ≥ log

k=0

e(tr(A)+nσ)η(b T c+1)T m(Γ0 )
,
kn kz(0)kn

because the sensor, not having any fore-knowledge of the
delay, must send at least the number of bits required when
∆k = γ for all k ∈ N, to ensure that (20) holds. However,
the actual realization of the delay may be ∆k = 0 for all
k ∈ N, so that we have
e
1
log
η→∞ ηT

Rs ≥ lim

γ
(tr(A)+nσ)η(b T

c+1)T

kn kz(0)kn

m(Γ0 )

,

and the result follows.
Remark 3: In the time-triggered setting governed by (16),
a packet is transmitted without considering whether the
previous packets have been received and decoded. On the
other hand, in the time-triggered setting governed by (19)
a packet is transmitted only after the previous packet is
received. Letting σ → 0, for γ < T both Theorems 2
and 3 reduce to Rs ≥ tr(A)/ ln 2. Namely, for low values
of the delay, and without imposing exponential convergence
guarantees, we recover the critical value of the data-rate
theorem for the access rate in Theorem 1.
•
Remark 4: Theorem 2 and 3 are valid for any control
scheme, and the controller does not necessarily have to
compute the state estimate as (4). These theorems can be seen
as an extension of the data-rate theorem for the information
transmission rate for time-triggered control, with unknown
bounded delay.
•
V. N ECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS ON THE
TRANSMISSION RATE FOR EVENT- TRIGGERING
A. Component-wise description
In the proposed event-triggered design, we deal with each
coordinate of the system separately. This corresponds to
treating the n-dimensional system as n scalar, coupled systems. When a triggering occurs for one of the coordinates, the
controller should be aware of which coordinate of the system
the received packet corresponds to. Accordingly, we assume

that there are n parallel finite-rate digital communication
channels between each coordinate of the system and the
controller, each subject to unknown, bounded delay. In the
case of a single communication channel, we can consider the
same triggering strategy, but an additional dlog ne bits should
be appended at the beginning of each packet to identify the
coordinate it belongs to.
For deriving our necessary and sufficient conditions for
vector system, we assume that all of the eigenvalues of A
are real. Recall that every A ∈ Mn,n (R) can be written
as ΦΨΦ−1 , where Φ is a real-valued invertible matrix and
Ψ = diag[J1 , . . . , Jq ], where each Jj is a Jordan block
corresponding to the real-valued eigenvalue λj of A [34]. We
let dj indicate the order of each Jj . Without loss of generality
assume A is equal to its Jordan block decomposition, that
is, A = diag[J1 , . . . , Jq ]. With the notation of Section II, we
let xji (t), x̂ji (t), and zij (t) be the state, state estimation, and
state estimation error for the ith coordinate of j th Jordan
block, respectively. For each coordinate i of the j th Jordan
k,j
k,j
block we let {tk,j
s,i }k∈N , {tc,i }k∈N , g(ts,i ) be the sequence of
transmission times, reception times, and the number of bits
that are transmitted at each triggering time. Similarly, the
k th communication delay and k th triggering interval can be
specified for each coordinate. Following (3), we have
k,j
∆jk,i = tk,j
c,i − ts,i ≤ γ.

(22)

When referring to a generic triggering or reception time, we
k,j
shall skip the superscript k in tk,j
s,i and tc,i .
An event is triggered for coordinate i in Jordan block j
whenever
|zij (tjs,i )| = vij (tjs,i ),

(23a)

where vij (t) is the event-triggering function
j
vij (t) = v0,i
e−σt ,

(23b)

j
where v0,i
and σ are positive real numbers.

Let z̄ij (tjc,i ) be an estimate of zij (tjc,i ) constructed by the
controller knowing |zij (tjs,i )| = vij (tjs,i ), the bound (22),
and the decoded packet received through the communication
channel. We define the following updating procedure, called
jump strategy
j j
j j
x̂ji (tj+
c,i ) = z̄i (tc,i ) + x̂i (tc,i ).

(23c)

Note that with this jump strategy, we have
j j
j j+
j j
j j
zij (tj+
c,i ) = xi (tc,i ) − x̂i (tc,i ) = zi (tc,i ) − z̄i (tc,i ).

When a triggering occurs for coordinate i of the j th Jordan
block, we assume that the sensor sends enough bits to ensure
j
−σγ
|zij (tj+
v(tjs,i ).
c,i )| ≤ ρ(ts,i ) := ρ0 e

(23d)

When referring to a generic Jordan block, we skip the
superscript and subscript j. For the scalar case we skip the
subscript i too.

The transmission rate for each coordinate is then
PNij
k,j
k=1 g(ts,i )
j
Rs,i = lim sup P j
Ni
0j
Nij →∞
k=1 ∆k,i
Assuming n parallel communication channels between
the plant and the controller, each devoted to a coordinate
separately, we have
Rs =

dj
q X
X

Event−triggered
Time−triggered

Rs

j
Rs,i
.

j=1 i=1

To obtain our necessary condition, we need to restrict the
class of allowed quantization policies. We assume that, at
each triggering event, there exists a delay such that the sensor
can reduce the estimation error at the controller to at most
a fraction of the maximum value ρ(tjs,i ) required by (23d).
This is a natural assumption, see [31].
Assumption 1: The controller can only achieve νprecision quantization, namely there exists ν ≥ 1, and a
delay at most β := A1 ln(1 + 2ρ0 e−σγ ), such that
|z(tjc,i ) − z̄(tjc,i )| ≥

ρ(tjs,i )
.
ν

B. Review of results in the scalar case
The following results for scalar systems are the building
blocks for our vector case derivation and appear in [31].
Theorem 4: Consider the plant-sensor-channel-controller
model described in Section II with plant dynamics (1), estimator dynamics (4), and n = 1. If using the event-triggering
strategy (23), packet sizes such that z(tc ) is determined at
the controller within a ball of radius ρ(ts ) = ρ0 e−σγ v(ts )
with ν-precision, and the state estimation error satisfies (20),
then there exists a delay realization {∆k }k∈N which requires


A+σ
(eAγ − 1)
Rs ≥
max 0, log
. (24)
σγ
ρ0 e−σγ
ln ν + ln(2 + eρ0 )

A+σ
ln 2

ln 2
A

γ
Fig. 2. Illustration of the necessary bit rate for time-triggering control of
a scalar plant (21) and approximation of the necessary bit rate for eventtriggering control of a scalar plant (25) versus the worst-case delay in the
communication channel. For the time-triggered scheme, T = ln 2/A.

Remark 5: Figure 2 compares the results of Theorem 3
and Theorem 4. For small values of γ, the necessary transmission rate in Theorem 4 becomes, cf. [31],
Rs ≥ 0.

(27)

On the other hand, the result of Theorem 3 in the scalar case
and for small values of γ can be written as

A+σ
.
(28)
ln 2
Comparing (27) and (28), the value of the intrinsic timing
information in communication in an event-triggered design
becomes evident. When the delay is small, the timing information carried by the triggering events is substantial and
ensures that controller can stabilize the system. In contrast,
for small values of the delay the information transmission
rate required by a time-triggered implementation equals the
Moreover, when σ is sufficiently large the result can be information access rate required by the classic data-rate
approximated by
theorem.


For large delay values, it can be easily shown that while
Aγ
A+σ
log(e − 1)
Rs ≥
max 0, 1 +
.
(25)
both
the necessary and sufficient conditions for the eventln 2
− log(ρ0 e−σγ )
triggered design in Theorems 4 and 5 converge to the
We also have a corresponding sufficient condition for the
asymptote ((A + σ)/ ln 2)(1 + A/σ) as γ → ∞, the timescalar case.
triggered result in Theorem 3 for grows linearly as γ → ∞.
Theorem 5: Consider the plant-sensor-channel-controller
The reason for this difference is that the time-triggered
model described in Section II with plant dynamics (1), estidesign (19) depends only on the delay while the eventmator dynamics (4), and n = 1. If the state estimation error
triggered scheme depends on both state and delay. In both
satisfies |z(0)| < v0 , using the event-triggering strategy (23)
time-triggered and event-triggered schemes the sensor does
we can achieve
not have fore-knowledge of the delay, and the sensor needs
to send larger packets when the worst-case delay is larger.
|z(t)| ≤ v0 e(A+σ)γ e−σt ,
On the other hand, the triggering rate in the event-triggering
with an information transmission rate

 case tends to zero as γ tends to infinity. More precisely, using
bγ(A + σ)
A+σ
Lemma 3 of [31] in the event-triggering setting for all of the
max 0, 1 + log
,
Rs ≥
−σγ
possible realizations we have
− ln(ρ0 e
)
ln(1 + ρ0 e−(σ+A)γ )
(26)
− ln(ρ0 e−σγ )
tk+1
− tks ≥
,
s
where ρ0 is a constant in the interval (0, 1), and b > 1.
A+σ
Rs ≥

which tends to infinity as γ → ∞. In contrast, in the timetriggered case for delay realization ∆k = 0 for all k ∈ N we
have
tk+1
− tks = T,
s
and in this case the rate increases linearly with the delay. •
C. Necessary and sufficient transmission rate
We now extend the event-triggering results to the vector case.
Theorem 6: Consider the plant-sensor-channel-controller
model described in Section II with plant dynamics (1),
where all eigenvalues of A are real and A is equal to its
Jordan block decomposition, estimator dynamics (4), eventtriggering strategy (23), and packet sizes such that zij (tk,j
c,i ) is
determined at the controller within a ball of radius ρ(tk,j
s,i ) =
k,j
−σγ
ρ0 e
v(ts,i ) with ν-precision. Then there exist a delay
realization such that


q
X
(eλj γ − 1)
dj (λj + σ)
max 0, log
.
Rs >
σγ
ρ0 e−σγ
ln ν + ln(2 + eρ0 )
j=1
Moreover, when σ is sufficiently large the result can be
approximated by


q
X
log(eλj γ − 1)
dj (λj + σ)
max 0, 1 +
.
Rs >
ln 2
− log(ρ0 e−σγ )
j=1
Theorem 7: Consider the plant-sensor-channel-controller
model described in Section II with plant dynamics (1), where
all eigenvalues of A are real and A is equal to its Jordan
block decomposition, estimator dynamics (4), and eventtriggering strategy (23). For the j th Jordan block choose the
following sequence of design parameters
0 < ρj1 < . . . < ρjdj −1 < ρjdj = ρ0 < 1.
j
If the state estimation error satisfies |zij (0)| ≤ v0,i
, then we
can achieve
j
|zij (t)| ≤ v0,i
((ρ0 − ρji ) + e(λj +σ)γ )e−σt

for i = 1, . . . , dj and j = 1, . . . , q, with an information
transmission rate Rs at least equal to
j=q i=dj
X
X
j=1 i=1



(λj + σ)
bγ(λj + σ)
max
0,
1
+
log
,
− ln(ρji e−σγ )
ln(1 + ρji e−(σ+λj )γ )

where
j
0 < v0,i
≤

j
v0,i−1
(λj + σ)(ρ0 − ρji )

((ρ0 − ρji ) + e(λj +σ)γ )(e(λj +σ)γ − 1)

,

(29)

for i = 2, . . . , dj and j = 1, . . . , q, and b > 1.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
We investigated observability and stabilizability of a
continuous-time scalar systems without disturbances in the
presence of a finite rate digital communication channel
subjected to unknown delay in the feedback loop. Our
previous results about inherent information in event-triggered
strategy have been extended to the vector case and compared

with two time-triggered designs. Open problems for future
research include studying the effect of system disturbances
and obtaining exponential convergence guarantees for the
stabilizability of the system.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
M. J. Khojasteh wishes to thank Dr. Daniel Liberzon, and
Mr. Mojtaba Hedayatpour for helpful discussions. This research was partially supported by NSF award CNS-1446891.
R EFERENCES
[1] K.-D. Kim and P. R. Kumar, “Cyber–physical systems: A perspective at the centennial,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 100 (Special
Centennial Issue), pp. 1287–1308, 2012.
[2] K. Carruthers, “Internet of things and beyond: Cyber-physical systems,” Newsletter, vol. 2014, 2014.
[3] S. Tatikonda and S. Mitter, “Control under communication constraints,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 49, no. 7,
pp. 1056–1068, 2004.
[4] G. N. Nair and R. J. Evans, “Stabilizability of stochastic linear
systems with finite feedback data rates,” SIAM Journal on Control
and Optimization, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 413–436, 2004.
[5] N. C. Martins, M. A. Dahleh, and N. Elia, “Feedback stabilization of
uncertain systems in the presence of a direct link,” IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 438–447, 2006.
[6] P. Minero, M. Franceschetti, S. Dey, and G. N. Nair, “Data rate
theorem for stabilization over time-varying feedback channels,” IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 54, no. 2, p. 243, 2009.
[7] P. Minero, L. Coviello, and M. Franceschetti, “Stabilization over
Markov feedback channels: the general case,” IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 349–362, 2013.
[8] R. T. Sukhavasi and B. Hassibi, “Linear time-invariant anytime codes
for control over noisy channels,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 3826–3841, 2016.
[9] E. Ardestanizadeh and M. Franceschetti, “Control-theoretic approach
to communication with feedback,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 2576–2587, 2012.
[10] J. Ding, Y. Peres, G. Ranade, and A. Zhai, “When multiplicative noise
stymies control,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.03239, 2016.
[11] C. De Persis, “n-bit stabilization of n-dimensional nonlinear systems in
feedforward form,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 50,
no. 3, pp. 299–311, 2005.
[12] D. Liberzon, “Nonlinear control with limited information,” Communications in Information & Systems, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 41–58, 2009.
[13] G. N. Nair, R. J. Evans, I. M. Mareels, and W. Moran, “Topological
feedback entropy and nonlinear stabilization,” IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1585–1597, 2004.
[14] V. Kostina, Y. Peres, M. Z. Rácz, and G. Ranade, “Rate-limited control
of systems with uncertain gain,” in 54th Annual Allerton Conference
on Communication, Control and Computing, 2016.
[15] Q. Ling and H. Lin, “Necessary and sufficient bit rate conditions to
stabilize quantized Markov jump linear systems,” in Proceedings of
the 2010 American Control Conference. IEEE, 2010, pp. 236–240.
[16] G. Ranade and A. Sahai, “Control capacity,” in Information Theory
(ISIT), 2015 IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 2015, pp.
2221–2225.
[17] G. N. Nair, S. Dey, and R. J. Evans, “Communication-limited stabilisability of jump Markov linear systems,” in 15th Int. Symp.
Mathematical Theory of Networks and Systems, Notre Dame, IN, 2002.
[18] A. Sahai and S. Mitter, “The necessity and sufficiency of anytime
capacity for stabilization of a linear system over a noisy communication link. Part I: Scalar systems,” IEEE transactions on Information
Theory, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 3369–3395, 2006.
[19] A. S. Matveev and A. V. Savkin, Estimation and control over communication networks. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009.
[20] M. Franceschetti and P. Minero, “Anytime capacity of a class of
Markov channels,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2016,
in press.
[21] G. Nair, “A non-stochastic information theory for communication and
state estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 58,
pp. 1497–1510, 2013.

[22] M. Franceschetti and P. Minero, “Elements of information theory for
networked control systems,” in Information and Control in Networks.
Springer, 2014, pp. 3–37.
[23] B. G. N. Nair, F. Fagnani, S. Zampieri, and R. J. Evans, “Feedback
control under data rate constraints: An overview,” Proceedings of the
IEEE, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 108–137, 2007.
[24] P. Tabuada, “Event-triggered real-time scheduling of stabilizing control
tasks,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 52, no. 9, pp.
1680–1685, 2007.
[25] W. P. M. H. Heemels, K. H. Johansson, and P. Tabuada, “An introduction to event-triggered and self-triggered control,” in 51st IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2012, pp. 3270–
3285.
[26] P. Tallapragada and J. Cortés, “Event-triggered stabilization of linear
systems under bounded bit rates,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 1575–1589, 2016.
[27] E. Kofman and J. H. Braslavsky, “Level crossing sampling in feedback
stabilization under data-rate constraints,” in 45st IEEE Conference on
Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2006, pp. 4423–4428.
[28] Q. Ling, “Bit rate conditions to stabilize a continuous-time scalar linear
system based on event triggering,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, 2016.
[29] J. Pearson, J. P. Hespanha, and D. Liberzon, “Control with minimal cost-per-symbol encoding and quasi-optimality of event-based
encoders,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2016.
[30] M. J. Khojasteh, P. Tallapragada, J. Cortés, and M. Franceschetti,
“The value of timing information in event-triggered control: The
scalar case,” in 54th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication,
Control, and Computing. IEEE, 2016, pp. 1165–1172.
[31] M. J. Khojasteh, P. Tallapragada, J. Cortés, and M. Franceschetti, “The
value of timing information in event-triggered control,” arXiv preprint
arXiv:1609.09594, 2016.
[32] J. Hespanha, A. Ortega, and L. Vasudevan, “Towards the control of
linear systems with minimum bit-rate,” in Proc. 15th Int. Symp. on
Mathematical Theory of Networks and Systems (MTNS), 2002.
[33] D. Liberzon and S. Mitra, “Entropy and minimal data rates for state
estimation and model detection,” in Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control.
ACM, 2016, pp. 247–256.
[34] V. V. Prasolov, Problems and theorems in linear algebra. American
Mathematical Soc., 1994, vol. 134.

