Comparing global input-output behavior of
frozen-equivalent LPV state-space models
Ziad Alkhoury ∗,∗∗ Mihály Petreczky ∗∗∗ Guillaume Mercère ∗
∗

arXiv:1703.03679v1 [cs.SY] 10 Mar 2017

University of Poitiers, Laboratoire d’Informatique et d’Automatique
pour les Systèmes, Bâtiment B25, 2 rue Pierre Brousse, TSA 41105,
86073 Poitiers Cedex 9. (e-mails: ziad.alkhoury@univ-poitiers.fr,
guillaume.mercere@univ-poitiers.fr)
∗∗
Ecole des Mines de Douai, F-59500 Douai, France.
∗∗∗
CNRS, Centrale Lille, UMR 9189 - CRIStAL-Centre de Recherche
en Informatique, Signal et Automatique de Lille, F-59000 Lille,
France. (e-mail: mihaly.petreczky@ec-lille.fr)
Abstract: It is known that in general, frozen equivalent (Linear Parameter-Varying) LPV
models, i.e., LPV models which have the same input-output behavior for each constant
scheduling signal, might exhibit different input-output behavior for non-constant scheduling
signals. In this paper, we provide an analytic error bound on the difference between the inputoutput behaviors of two LPV models which are frozen equivalent. This error bound turns out to
be a function of both the speed of the change of the scheduling signal and the discrepancy
between the coherent bases of the two LPV models. In particular, the difference between
the outputs of the two models can be made arbitrarily small by choosing a scheduling signal
which changes slowly enough. An illustrative example is presented to show that the choice of
the scheduling signal can reduce the difference between the input-output behaviors of frozenequivalent LPV models.
Keywords: LPV system identification, local approach, interpolation, modeling error.
1. INTRODUCTION
As shown, e.g., in Tóth (2010); Lopes dos Santos et al.
(2011), existing techniques dedicated to the identification
of Linear Parameter-Varying (LPV) systems can be split
up into two main families: the local and the global approach. On the one hand, the global approach focuses
on a global procedure for which it is assumed that one
global experiment can be performed in which the control
inputs as well as the scheduling variables can be both
excited (see, e.g., Bamieh and Giarré (2002); Felici et al.
(2007)). By construction, these techniques are restricted to
specific systems where the components of the scheduling
variables are totally controllable and excitable (and not
only measurable). On the other hand, the local approach
is based on a multi-step procedure (see, e.g.,Vizer and
Mercère (2014), Vizer et al. (2013b), Lovera and Mercère
(2007)) where first, frozen linear time-invariant models
are estimated for constant values of the the scheduling
variables, then the global LPV model is built from the interpolation of the local LTI models. A substantial amount
of local techniques are available in the literature (see
De Caigny et al. (2011), Luspay et al. (2011)). This is
probably due to the fact that the identification techniques
for LTI systems are more mature than the LPV ones, in
addition to the development of algorithms to optimize the
number of local operating points involved in the procedure
Vizer and Mercère (2014), as well as their strong link
1 This work was partially supported by ESTIREZ project of Region
Nord-Pas de Calais, France.

with the gain scheduling procedure Rugh and Shamma
(2000). However, it is clear that none of these techniques
is consistent when black-box state-space LPV models are
estimated. As pointed out first in Tóth et al. (2007), the
main reasons why the current solutions fail to mimic the
global behavior of the LPV system are due to (i) the
lack of information about the dynamical behavior of the
scheduling variables p in the frozen models when LPV
models depending on p dynamically are handled, (ii) the
difficulty to express the local LTI models w.r.t. a coherent
basis Tóth (2010) before the interpolation. While solutions
have been suggested to bypass these difficulties when graybox state-space LPV models are considered Vizer et al.
(2013b,a, 2015), restricting slow variations of p (w.r.t. the
dynamics of the system) is the only assumption to make in
order to guarantee a reliable global model behavior when
black-box models are handled, i.e., when the only source
of information is restricted to measured data, see Khalate
et al. (2009).
In this paper, we present an analytical error bound on
the difference between the global input-output behavior
of two frozen equivalent LPV models. By global inputoutput behavior we mean the input-output behavior along
all scheduling signals, while by frozen equivalence of two
LPV models we mean that their input-output behavior
is the same along all constant scheduling signals. As it
was discussed above, even if the data were generated by
an LPV model, local methods for system identification
in general result in LPV models which are only frozen

equivalent to the ‘true’ one. Hence, the error bound of
this paper allow us
(1) to evaluate the difference between the input-output
behavior LPV model obtained by local identification
methods, and the ‘true’ LPV model which generated
the data,
(2) to evaluate the difference between the input-output
behavior of LPV models obtained by different local
identification methods.
The error bound includes the speed of the change of the
scheduling signal, the minimal time the scheduling signal
remains constant (can be 1 time step in general) and a
measure of inconsistency of the bases of the frozen LTI
models. Note that this bound is valid only for (quadratically) stable LPV models. It turns out that even if the
frozen LTI models are not in a coherent basis, the error
between the input-output behaviors of the corresponding
LPV models can be kept arbitrary small by using sufficiently slow scheduling signals, or by keeping the scheduling signal constant for long enough. This allows us to
conclude that the problem of choosing the ‘correct’ state
transformation required for the interpolation step becomes
less critical for slowly varying scheduling signals.
While the results of the paper seem to be intuitive, they
have never been presented formally, to the best of our
knowledge. A precise error bound could be of great interest for system identification and control design for LPV
models, because it allows the user to quantify the effect
of the modeling error due to local identification on the
system performance. In turn, this could be incorporated as
an additional constraint in control synthesis, or used as a
minimization criteria in parametric system identification.
Outline of the paper. In Section 2, we present the basic
notions to set up the framework of the paper. Next, in
Section 3, we present the main results. Section 4 presents
an illustrative example. Finally, Section 5 concludes the
paper. The proofs of the results are presented in Appendix.
2. PROBLEM FORMULATION
To set up the framework of the paper, we give some basic
definitions for LTI and LPV models.
Definition 1. (LTI models). A discrete-time Linear TimeInvariant (LTI) model is defined as follows

x(t + 1) = Ax(t) + Bu(t),
L
(1)
y(t)
= Cx(t).
x(t) ∈ X = Rnx is the state at time t, y(t) ∈ Y = Rny is
the output at time t, u(t) ∈ U = Rnu is the input at time
t, and A ∈ Rnx ×nx , B ∈ Rnx ×nu and C ∈ Rny ×nx In the
sequel, we will use the notation
L = (A, B, C)
(2)
for an LTI model of the form (1).
Definition 2. (LPV models). A discrete-time Linear Parameter Varying (LPV) model (Σ) is defined as follows

x(t + 1) = A(p(t))x(t) + B(p(t))u(t),
Σ
(3)
y(t)
= C(p(t))x(t).
x(t) ∈ X = Rnx is the state at time t, y(t) ∈ Y = Rny
is the output at time t, u(t) ∈ U = Rnu is the input at t

and p(t) ∈ P is the value of the scheduling signal at time
t. The matrix functions A : P 7→ Rnx ×nx , B : P 7→ Rnx ×nu
and C : P 7→ Rny ×nx are assumed to be continuous. We
assume that P is compact, i.e., closed and bounded set. In
the sequel, we will use the short notation
Σ = (A(.), B(.), C(.))
(4)
to denote a model of the form (3). Notice that we use
the notation A(.), B(.) and C(.) to emphasize that these
matrices are maps, not constant matrices.
Remark 1. In order to avoid notational ambiguity, we
denote that matrices of the LTI models by bold symbols,
i.e., (A, B, C), while we denote that matrices of the LPV
model by (A(.), B(.), C(.)).
From now on, we will use the following notation: for a set
A, we denote by AN the set of all functions of the form
φ : N → A. An element of AN can be thought of as a signal
in discrete-time. By a solution of L (respectively Σ), we
mean a tuple of trajectories (x, y, u) ∈ (X , Y, U) satisfying
(1), (respectively (x, y, u, p) ∈ (X , Y, U, P) satisfying (3)),
for all k ∈ N, where X = XN , Y = YN , U = UN , P = PN .
Note that P denotes the set of scheduling signals, while
P denotes the set of all possible values of the scheduling
parameters. That is, an element of P is a sequence, while
an element of P is a vector. The same remark holds
for X , Y, U and X, Y, U respectively. Note that in the
sequel, unless stated otherwise, we will use p to denote
a scheduling signal, and we use p to denote a potential
value of the scheduling variable, i.e., p ∈ P is a sequence,
but p ∈ P is a vector of constant values.
Definition 3. (Input-output map of LPV models).
Define the functions
YΣ : U × P 7→ Y,
(5)
for an LPV model Σ, such that for any (x, y, u, p) ∈ (X ×
Y × U × P), y = YΣ (u, p) hold if and only if (x, y, u, p)
satisfy (3), and x(0) = 0. The function YΣ is called the
input-output map of Σ.
Definition 4. (Frozen model of Σ at p). A frozen model
of an LPV Σ = (A(.), B(.), C(.)) at p, denoted by LΣ (p),
is the LTI model defined by
LΣ (p) = (A(p), B(p), C(p)).
(6)
Definition 5. (Frozen-minimal LPV models).
An LPV model Σ = (A(.), B(.), C(.)) is frozen-minimal, if
∀p ∈ P, the LTI LΣ (p) = (A(p), B(p), C(p)) is minimal 2 .
In this paper, all models have the same state, input, output
and scheduling signal dimensions. Therefore, the matrices
and vectors dimensions nx , np , ny and nu will be omitted
when clear from the context.
Definition 6. (Frozen-equivalent LPV models at p).
We say that two LPV models Σ = (A(.), B(.), C(.)) and
Σ̂ = (Â(.), B̂(.), Ĉ(.)) are frozen equivalent, if ∀p ∈ P
the LTI models LΣ (p) and LΣ̂ (p) have the same transfer
function, i.e., for all s ∈ C which is not an eigenvalue of
A(p) or Â(p), C(p)(sInx − A(p))−1 B(p) = Ĉ(p)(sInx −
Â(p))−1 B̂(p).
That is, if Σ and Σ̂ are frozen input-output equivalent
LPV models, then, for any p ∈ P such that p is constant
2

According to the classical definition, i.e., (A(p), B(p)) is controllable and (A(p), C(p)) is observable, (see Rugh (1996)).

(i.e., p(0) = p(k), ∀k ∈ N), and for any u ∈ U, YΣ (u, p) =
YΣ̂ (u, p).

sup kB(p)k = KB ,

(9)

p∈P

sup kC(p)k = KC ,

(10)

p∈P

3. MAIN RESULTS

sup kTΣ̂,Σ (p)k = KT .

In this section, the difference between the outputs of
two frozen-minimal and frozen-equivalent LPV models is
characterized.

It is important to note that KB , KC and KT are finite.
This follows directly from the fact that each of the maps
B, C and TΣ̂,Σ are continuous, and P is a compact set.

3.1 Preliminaries

Now, for every scheduling signal p ∈ P, define
KM (p) = sup kInx − Mp(k),p(k+1) k.

(11)

p∈P

(12)

k∈N

Then,
In order to compare the global behavior of the LPV models
Σ and Σ̂, we need to introduce some concepts. We start
from the fact that there is a unique isomorphism between
any two input-output equivalent minimal LTI models (i.e.,
they have the same transfer function) L and L̂ (see Rugh
(1996)). This means that there is a unique nonsingular
nx × nx matrix T that fulfills
T AT −1 = Â,

T B = B̂,

CT −1 = Ĉ.

(7)

where {A, B, C} and {Â, B̂, Ĉ} are the state-space matrices of L and L̂ respectively. We say that T is an isomorphism from L to L̂.
Now, let us assume that LΣ (p) = (A(p), B(p), C(p)) and
LΣ̂ (p) = (Â(p), B̂(p), Ĉ(p)) are two frozen LTI models
of Σ and Σ̂, respectively, at p ∈ P. We assume that
Σ and Σ̂ are both frozen-equivalent and frozen-minimal
LPV models, then LΣ (p) and LΣ̂ (p) are input-output
equivalent and both are minimal for all p ∈ P. Hence,
there exists a (unique) isomorphism T (p) from LΣ̂ (p) to
LΣ (p) for all p ∈ P. Let us call the map TΣ̂,Σ : p → T (p),
the frozen isomorphism map from Σ̂ to Σ.
Lemma 1. Let Σ, Σ̂ be two frozen-minimal and frozenequivalent LPV models .If A, B, C, Â, B̂ and Ĉ are continuous maps, then TΣ̂,Σ is a continuous map as well.
The proof of Lemma 1 can be found in Appendix A.1
Remark 2. It is important to note that TΣ̂,Σ is not an
LPV isomorphism between the two LPV models. In order
for TΣ̂,Σ to be an LPV isomorphism, A(p(t)) = TΣ̂,Σ (p(t +
−1
1))Â(p(t))TΣ̂,Σ
(p(t)), should hold for any scheduling signal
p ∈ P, see Kulcsár and Tóth (2011); Tóth (2010) for more
details.

In the rest of the paper, we will need the following
notations.
Notation 1. In the sequel, kAk will denote the induced 2Norm of any matrix A, while for a vector p, kpk will denote
the Euclidean vector norm of p, (see Meyer (2000)). We
denote by Inx the nx × nx identity matrix.
To proceed with the characterization of the global behavior
equivalence, let us define
∀p1 , p2 ∈ P : Mp1 ,p2 = TΣ̂,Σ (p1 )TΣ̂,Σ (p2 )−1 .

(8)

Notice that, if T (p1 ) = T (p2 ), then, Mp1 ,p2 = Inx . Define
the coefficients KB , KC and KT as follows,

KM (p) ≤

sup kInx − Mp1 ,p2 k < +∞.

(13)

p1 ,p2 ∈P

Notice that

sup kInx − Mp1 ,p2 k exists because TΣ̂,Σ is

p1 ,p2 ∈P

continuous, and hence P × P 3 (p1 , p2 ) 7→ Mp1 ,p2 is
continuous and defined on a compact set. This means that,
∃KM > 0, such that
∀p ∈ P : KM (p) ≤ KM .
(14)
Let us also assume that Σ and Σ̂, are quadratically stable,
i.e., there exists a positive definite matrix P > 0, such
that for all p ∈ P, A(p)T P A(p) − P < 0 and for Â(p)
similarly.
Lemma 2. If Σ is quadratically stable, then there exists
a nonsingular S ∈ Rnx ×nx , such that the LPV
Σ̄ = (SA(.)S −1 , SB(.), C(.)S −1 )
satisfies
sup kSA(p)S −1 k < α < 1,
p∈P

for some α ∈ (0, 1).
In the sequel, we will assume that
sup kA(p)k ≤ α < 1,

(15)

p∈P

sup kÂ(p)k ≤ α̂ < 1.

(16)

p∈P

If it is not the case, then we can replace Σ by Σ̄. Note that
α in (15) is an upper bound on the Lyapunov exponent of
dynamical system x(t + 1) = A(p(t))x(t); the smaller α is,
the faster the solutions of x(t + 1) = A(p(t))x(t) converge
to zero.
If Σ̂ satisfies (15), then it follows from (Rugh, 1996, Proof
of Lemma 27.4 and Theorem 27.2) and (9) – (10) that
there exists µ1 > 0 such that for any solution (x̂, ŷ, u, p)
of Σ̂ such that x(0) = 0 and supt∈N ku(t)k < +∞,
sup kx̂(t)k ≤ µ1 sup ku(t)k.
(17)
t

t∈N

From now on, when comparing the outputs of two LPV
models, we will assume that they are subject to the same
bounded input from the set
l∞ (U) = {u ∈ U : kukl∞ = sup ku(t)k < +∞}.
t∈N

Moreover, we will consider piecewise-constant scheduling
signals from the following set.

S∆={p ∈ P : ∀k ∈ N,∀i ∈ {0, 1, · · · , ∆ − 1} :
p(k∆ + i)=p(k∆)},

(18)

3.2 General error bound
We are now ready to present our main result on the
global input-output equivalence of frozen-equivalent LPV
models.
Theorem 1. (Difference characterization). Let Σ and Σ̂
be two frozen-minimal, frozen-equivalent and quadratically stable LPV models. Then, for all p ∈ S∆ , ∆ > 0
and u ∈ l∞ (U), t ∈ N,
kYΣ (u, p)(t) − YΣ̂ (u, p)(t)k
≤ g(∆, KM (p), t mod ∆) · kukl∞
≤ g(∆, KM , t mod ∆).kukl∞ .
(19)
where t mod ∆ denotes the remainder of dividing t by ∆,
and for all i = 0, . . . , ∆ − 1,
αi
g(∆, K, i) =
K(αKT µ1 + KB )KC ,
(20)
1 − α∆
and KB , KC , KT , KM (p), α and µ1 are defined in equations (9), (10), (11), (12), (15) and (17) respectively.
The proof of Theorem 1 can be found in Appendix A.3.
Eq. (19) gives a conservative bound on the output error of
two LPV systems whose frozen transfer functions are the
same. It clearly shows that the error is affected by each of
the following:
• The length of the interval ∆, on which the scheduling
signal p is constant.
• The Lyapunov exponent α of the system, which
expresses the degree of stability.
• The distance KM (p) which expresses the degree of
inconsistency of the basis of the frozen models: if
all the frozen models are in a consistent basis, then
KM (p) is zero.
• The amplitude of the input kukl∞ . Note that (19)
remains true if instead of kukl∞ we take kukl2 =
P
1
( k=0 ku(k)k22 ) 2 .
3.3 Special cases
In this subsection, we formally derive and present important results based on Theorem 1, i.e., which aim at
showing the effects of different variables on the difference
of the input-output map presented in Equations (19) and
(20) from Subsection 3.2.
Theorem 2. (Switching interval). Let Σ and Σ̂ be two
frozen-minimal, frozen-equivalent and quadratically stable
LPV models. Then, for all ε > 0 there exists ∆m > 0 such
that for all p ∈ S∆ , ∆ > ∆m , u ∈ l∞ (U), and for all t ∈ N
with t mod ∆ > ∆m ,
kYΣ (u, p)(t) − YΣ̂ (u, p)(t)k < ε.kukl∞ .
(21)
The proof of Theorem 2 can be found in Appendix A.4.
Theorem 2 tells us that if we have a piecewise constant
scheduling signal, and the duration of each constant piece
is large enough, then on each constant piece the outputs
can get arbitrarily close, no matter how bad we choose
the coordinates of the frozen models. In case of switching

sequences we call the length of the interval on which p is
constant the dwell time. For switched systems, the theorem
says that for large enough dwell times, the outputs of the
system can get arbitrary close towards the end of the active
period of each discrete mode.
Theorem 3. (Speed of change of scheduling parameter).
Let Σ and Σ̂ be two frozen-minimal, frozen-equivalent and
quadratically stable LPV models. Then, for every ε > 0,
there exists δm > 0 such that, for all p ∈ P satisfying
∀t ≥ 0 :|p(t + 1) − p(t)| < δm ,
(22)
and for all u ∈ l∞ (U), t ∈ N,
kYΣ (u, p)(t) − YΣ̂ (u, p)(t)k < ε.kukl∞ .
The proof of Theorem 3 can be found in Appendix A.5.
This result is particularly interesting, because the scheduling signal is no longer restricted to be a piece-wise constant
signal. This implies that we can still guarantee the inputoutput ‘approximate’ equivalence using a slowly changing
scheduling signal, and the result holds for any t.
However, if no conditions can be imposed on the scheduling
signal, it is of great interest to evaluate the effect of the
stability of the system on the difference between inputoutput maps of the two frozen-equivalent models. In the
next theorem, we study the mentioned effect.
Theorem 4. (Stability). Let Σ and Σ̂ be two frozenminimal, frozen-equivalent and quadratically stable LPV
models. Then, for all ε > 0, there exists αm > 0 such that,
if Σ satisfies
sup kA(p)k ≤ αm ,
(23)
p∈P

then, for all u ∈ l∞ (U), p ∈ P, t ∈ N,
kYΣ (u, p)(t) − YΣ̂ (u, p)(t)k < ε.kukl∞ .

(24)

The proof of Theorem 4 can be found in Appendix A.6.
3.4 Discussion: basic trade-offs
Notice that, from Eq. (19), we have three factors that play
important role in the error characterization.
(1) The switching interval of the scheduling signal. By
choosing a relatively long switching interval ∆, we
guarantee that the difference between the outputs of
the LPV models becomes small enough towards the
end of each constant interval.
(2) The rapidity of change of the scheduling signal, i.e.,
the difference between two consecutive values of the
scheduling variable, which is |p(t + 1) − p(t)|. This
case is of great interest when ∆ = 1, because the
scheduling variable will not be restricted to a piecewise constant signal any longer, and it will be allowed
to change at each time instant. By slowly changing
the scheduling signal, we can get relatively very
small difference between the input-output behaviors
of frozen-equivalent LPV models.
(3) The stability of the system. The more the system is
stable, the less it responds to the applied input, i.e.,
the less the difference between two LPV models is.
The results above actually show the following. On the
one hand, even if the identified LTI models are in a noncoherent state-space basis, the obtained state-space LPV

Model and Real system output signals

y(t); y^(t)

y(t)
y^(t)

2
0

jjy(t) ! y^(t)jj

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

4

2
1

y(t)
y^(t)

2
0

80

t
Output di,erence

0

jjy(t) ! y^(t)jj

y(t); y^(t)

Model and Real system output signals
4

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

60

70

80

60

70

80

t
Output di,erence
0.1

0.05

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0
0

10

20

t
Scheduling signal

30

40

50

t
Scheduling signal

p(t)

0.4

p(t)

0.5

0

0.3
0.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

10

20

30

t

Fig. 2. Output difference for p(t) = 0.3 + 0.1sin(t/5).
Model and Real system output signals

y(t); y^(t)

model can be still an accurate approximation of the real
system provided that the scheduling signal is slow enough.
More precisely, using slow changing scheduling signal, or
using a piece-wise constant scheduling signal with long
switching intervals is enough to obtain satisfying results.
On the other hand, if the basis of the frozen state-space
representation is close to a consistent one, then, even for
‘faster’ scheduling signal the approximation error will be
small.

50

t

4

y(t)
y^(t)

2
0
0

jjy(t) ! y^(t)jj

Fig. 1. Output difference for p a piece-wise constant signal.

40

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

60

70

80

60

70

80

t
Output di,erence

0.2
0.1
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

t
Scheduling signal

Let us consider the LPV model Σ of the form (3), such
that nx = 2, np = 1, nu = ny = 1, and such that, for any
p ∈ P := [0.1, 0.4],


 
 >
0 0.2p
1
1
A(p)=
, B(p)=
, C(p)=
.
0.2 p
1
1
In order to obtain an LPV model Σ̂, which is frozenequivalent to Σ, we perform an LPV identification process
which includes the following steps:
(1) Input-output data generation at each possible constant value of the scheduling signal.
(2) Black-box LTI system identification using a subspace
method. This step results in multiple LTI models, all
are obtained in the same canonical form.
(3) Linear interpolation of the matrices of the frozen
models with respect to the values of the scheduling
signal. This step gives us the matrices of the LPV
model Σ̂, which is frozen equivalent to the original
one.
For comparing the outputs of the original LPV model and
the identified one, we excite both LPV models Σ and Σ̂
using the same input u(t) = 1 and the same scheduling
signal p, which is different for each of the following figures.
In Fig 1, the scheduling signal is chosen to be a piecewise constant one as is clearly shown in the figure. Notice
that the difference between the outputs is non-zero at
the switching instances of p, i.e., at t = 11, 21, ..., 71.
Notice also that the difference decreases approaching zero
as we go away from the switching instances. This result is
expected based on Theorem 2. We can also see that the
difference between the outputs depends on the jumps in
the switching signal.

p(t)

0.4

4. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE

0.3
0.2
0

10

20

30

40

50

t

Fig. 3. Output difference for p(t) = 0.3 + 0.1sin(t/2).
In Fig. 2 and 3, the scheduling signal is chosen to be a
sinusoidal one. This allows us to illustrate the results of
Theorem 3. It is clear that the output difference of Σ
and Σ̂ becomes bigger as we increase the frequency of the
scheduling signal in Fig 3, in comparison to Fig 2.

It is important to mention that the interpolation step
is a crucial one, because the resulting LPV model is
assumed to be frozen-equivalent to the original model
(or the real system) at frozen values of p; otherwise
the difference between the output of Σ and Σ̂ does not
approach zero even if the interval on which the scheduling
signal is constant was very long. Instead, the difference
cannot become smaller than a certain value, which is
affected by the distance between the frozen models of
Σ and Σ̂. Studying the effect of having an upper bound
on the distance between the frozen models is left for
future work. In this example, a linear interpolation is
performed, as it is sufficient to give us the required
model. For different systems, higher complexity models
and interpolation methods might be required in order to
avoid getting frozen-non-equivalent LPV models.
5. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, an analytical expression for the difference
between any two frozen-equivalent LPV models is presented. This difference could be seen as a modeling error of
LPV systems, and the introduced expression allows us to

evaluate the modeling error of LPV systems numerically,
and gives the controller designer a bound on the global
difference between frozen-equivalent LPV models. Future
work will be aimed at using this expression in an optimization criteria during the identification process, more
precisely, during the search for a coherent basis for the
identified frozen models, which helps in minimizing the
modeling error of LPV systems.
REFERENCES
Bamieh, B. and Giarré, L. (2002). Identification of linear
parameter varying models. International Journal of
Robust and Nonlinear Control, 12(9), 841–853.
De Caigny, J., Camino, J., and Swevers, J. (2011).
Interpolation-based modeling of MIMO LPV systems.
IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology,
19(1), 46–63.
Felici, F., van Wingerden, J.W., and Verhaegen, M. (2007).
Subspace identification of MIMO LPV systems using a
periodic scheduling sequence. Automatica, 43(10), 1684–
1697.
Khalate, A., Bombois, X., Tóth, R., and Babuska, R.
(2009). Optimal experimental design for LPV identification using a local approach. In Proceedings of the
IFAC Symposium on System Identification. Saint-malo,
France.
Kulcsár, B. and Tóth, R. (2011). On the similarity state
transformation for linear parameter-varying systems. In
Proceedings of the IFAC World Congress. Milano, Italy.
Lopes dos Santos, P., Azevedo Perdicolis, T., Novara, C.,
Ramos, J., and Rivera, D. (2011). Linear ParameterVarying System Identification: new developments and
trends. Advanced Series in Electrical and Computer
Engineering, World Scientific.
Lovera, M. and Mercère, G. (2007). Identification for
gain scheduling: a balanced subspace approach. In
Proceedings of the American Control Conference. New
York, USA.
Luspay, T., Kulcsár, B., van Wingerden, J.and Verhaegen,
M., and Bokor, J. (2011). Linear Parameter Varying
Identification of Freeway Traffic Models. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 19(1), 31–45.
Meyer, C. (2000). Matrix analysis and applied linear
algebra. SIAM, Cambridge University Press.
Rugh, W. and Shamma, J. (2000). Research on gain
scheduling. Automatica, 36(10), 1401–1425.
Rugh, W.J. (1996). Linear System Theory (2Nd Ed.).
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
Tóth, R. (2010). Modeling and identification of linear
parameter-varying systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
Tóth, R., Felici, F., Heuberger, P., and den Hof, P.V.
(2007). Discrete-time LPV I/O and state-space representations. differences of behavior and pitfalls of interpolation. In Proceedings of the European Control
Conference. Kos, Greece.
Vizer, D., Mercère, G., and Laroche, E. (2015). Gray-box
LPV model identification of a 2-DoF surgical robotic
manipulator by using an H∞ -norm-based local approach. In Proceedings of the IFAC Workshop on Linear
Parameter Varying Systems. Grenoble, France.
Vizer, D., Mercère, G., Prot, O., Laroche, E., and Lovera,
M. (2013a). Linear fractional LPV model identification

from local experiments: an H∞ -based optimization technique. In Proceedings of the Conference on Decision and
Control. Florence, Italy.
Vizer, D., Mercère, G., Prot, O., and Ramos, J. (2013b).
A local approach framework for black-box and graybox LPV system identification. In Proceedings of the
European Control Conference. Zurich, Switzerland.
Vizer, D. and Mercère, G. (2014). An H∞ -norm-based
approach for operating point selection and LPV model
identification from local experiments. Periodica Polytechnica Electrical Engineering and Computer Science,
58(3), 121–131.
Appendix A. PROOFS
A.1 Proof of Lemma 1
Note that for all p ∈ P, TΣ̂,Σ (p) isomorphism satisfies
TΣ̂,Σ (p) =R(LΣ (p))R> (LΣ̂ (p))×

(A.1)

[R(LΣ̂ (p))R> (LΣ̂ (p))]−1 ,
where for all p ∈ P,


R(LΣ (p))= B(p) A(p)B(p) . . . A(p)nx −1 B(p) , (A.2)


R(LΣ̂ (p))= B̂(p) Â(p)B̂(p) . . . Â(p)nx −1 B̂(p) (A.3)
are the reachability matrices of LΣ (p) and LΣ̂ (p) respectively. Since A, B, C and Â, B̂, Ĉ are continuous maps,
then from Eq. (A.2) and Eq. (A.3), we can conclude that
the maps P 3 p 7→ R(LΣ (p)) and P 3 p 7→ R(LΣ̂ (p))
are continuous. Hence, from Eq. (A.1), TΣ̂,Σ is also a
continuous map.
A.2 Proof of Lemma 2
Proof. From the definition of quadratic stability of Σ, ∃P
positive definite matrix, such that the LMI
A(p)> P A(p) − P < 0
(A.4)
holds for p ∈ P. Then, let us choose S such that, P = S > S
and define Â(p) := SA(p)S −1 . Then, if follows directly
that, ∀p ∈ P
Â(p)> Â(p) − Inx < 0,

(A.5)

i.e.,
kÂ(p)k < 1.
Since P is compact, then,
sup kÂ(p)k = kÂ(pm )k

(A.6)
(A.7)

p∈P

for some pm ∈ P and the statement of the Lemma follows
directly.
A.3 Proof of Theorem 1
In order to simplify the equations, we define the following
quantities, for each ∆ > 0, k ≥ 0 and i ∈ {0, 1, . . . , ∆ − 1}:
tks = k∆,
tke = k∆ + ∆ − 1,
tki = k∆ + i.
The intuition behind this notation is as follows. Consider
any p ∈ S∆ . Then p is a piece-wise constant scheduling
signal. Then tks , tke and tki denote the starting time instance, the ending time instance and the ith time instance

(k − 1)th interval
tk−1
s

...

From the first equation in Eq. (A.9) and the fact that
−1
(p(tki )), B(p(tki )) =
A(p(tki )) = TΣ̂,Σ (p(tki ))Â(p(tki ))TΣ̂,Σ

k th interval

tk−1
tks . . .
e

tki . . .

TΣ̂,Σ (p(tki ))B̂(p(tki )), it follows that, ∀i ∈ {0, 1, . . . ∆ − 1},

tke

Fig. A.1. Scheduling signal time instances tks , tke and tki .
of the k th interval of the scheduling signal p respectively.
We illustrate these time instances in Figure A.1.
Note that on each set {tks , tks + 1, · · · , tke }, the signal p is
constant, and tks = tk−1
+1, i.e., the sets {tks , tks +1, · · · , tke }
e
are adjacent and cover the whole time axis.
To derive the equations in the statement of the theorem,
which characterize the differences between Σ and Σ̂, let
(x, y, p, u) be a solution of

x(t + 1) = A(p(t))x(t) + B(p(t))u(t),
Σ
(A.8)
y(t)
= C(p(t))x(t),
such that x(0) = 0 and let (x̂, ŷ, p, u), x̂(0) = 0 be a
solution of

x̂(t + 1) = Â(p(t))x̂(t) + B̂(p(t))u(t),
Σ̂
(A.9)
ŷ(t)
= Ĉ(p(t))x̂(t).
In order to be able to compare the states of the two models
Σ and Σ̂, we need to apply a coordinates transformation
to transform the Σ̂ to the same state basis of Σ. Define,
∀i ∈ {0, 1, · · · , ∆ − 1},
x̄(tki ) = TΣ̂,Σ (p(tki ))x̂(tki ),

(A.10)

where TΣ̂,Σ (p(tki )) is the isomorphism from the frozen
model LΣ̂ (p(tki )) to LΣ (p(tki )). Remember that p(tki ) is
constant on the set {tks , tks + 1, · · · , tke }, i.e., p(tki ) = p(tks ),
then x̄(tki ) = TΣ̂,Σ (p(tks ))x̂(tki ) for all tki .
In order to characterize the difference between y(tki ) =
YΣ (u, p)(tki ) and ŷ(tki ) = YΣ̂ (u, p)(tki ) by means of the
model-related coefficients and the input, we break down
the process to three steps for the sake of readability. In
the first step, we relate the difference between x and x̄
inside the set {tks , tks + 1, . . . , tke }, to the difference between
x and x̄ at the beginning of this interval.
In the second step we relate the difference between x and
x̄ at the beginning (tks ) of each interval, to the difference
between x and x̄ at the end (tk−1
) of the preceding interval.
e
Finally, in the third step, we use the results of the
preceding two steps in a recursive manner to relate the
difference between x and x̄ at any time instant t to the
difference between x and x̄ at time instant ∆ − 1.
Next, we implement these three steps mathematically.

x̄(tki + 1) = A(p(tki ))x̄(tki ) + B(p(tki ))u(tki ).
(A.11)
By subtracting above equation from the first equation in
Eq. (A.8) we get,
x(tki + 1) − x̄(tki + 1) = A(p(tki ))(x(tki ) − x̄(tki )). (A.12)
Then, recursively, on the same time interval, we get
x(tki ) − x̄(tki ) = A(p(tks ))i (x(tks ) − x̄(tks )).
(A.13)
Next, by replacing Eq. (15) in Eq. (A.13), we find that,
kx(tki ) − x̄(tki )k ≤ αi kx(tks ) − x̄(tks )k.

(A.14)

2) Step two: relating to the precedent interval. Now, in
order to get a step backward on the time axis, we need to
relate the initial values of the time interval with the last
value of the previous time interval. For this purpose, define
β =A(p(tk−1
))x̄(tk−1
) + B(p(tk−1
))u(tk−1
).
e
e
e
e
Notice that β is a constant value, and one should not
confuse it with a state trajectory.
By taking the norm of β, we get
kβk ≤ αKT µ1 kukl∞ + KB ku(tk−1
)k.
e
Notice, from the definition of the l∞ norm,
∀k ∈ N : kukl∞ ≥ ku(k)k.
(A.15)
Then,
kβk ≤ (αKT µ1 + KB ).kukl∞ .
(A.16)
Now, using the triangle inequality, we can write
kx(tks ) − x̄(tks )k ≤ kx(tks ) − βk + kβ − x̄(tks )k. (A.17)
Notice that,
kx(tks ) − βk = kA(p(tk−1
))(x(tk−1
) − x̄(tk−1
))k
e
e
e
≤ kA(p(tk−1
))k.kx(tk−1
) − x̄(tk−1
)k.
e
e
e
Then,
kx(tks ) − βk ≤ αkx(tk−1
) − x̄(tk−1
)k.
e
e
Remember that
x̄(tks ) =TΣ̂,Σ (p(tks ))x̂(tks )

(A.18)

=TΣ̂,Σ (p(tks ))[Â(p(tk−1
))x̂(tk−1
) + B̂(p(tk−1
))u(tk−1
)]
e
e
e
e
))−1 [A(p(tk−1
))x̄(tk−1
)
=TΣ̂,Σ (p(tks ))TΣ̂,Σ (p(tk−1
e
e
e
+ B(p(tk−1
))u(tk−1
)],
e
e

(A.19)

i.e.,
x̄(tks ) =Mp(tk ),p(tk−1
) β.
e
s

Along with Eq. (A.10), we can directly find that


β − x̄(tks ) = I − Mp(tk ),p(tk−1
β.
)
e
s

(A.20)

(A.21)

Then,
kβ − x̄(tks )k ≤ kI − Mp(tk ),p(tk−1
) k.kβk.
e
s

(A.22)

Then, by replacing (A.16) and (12) in Eq. (A.22),we get
1) Step one: relating to first value of the interval. Now,
we will characterize the difference between the states of
the two LPV models over one interval of the scheduling
signal, i.e., when the scheduling signal is constant. In
this characterization, we expect to see the effect of the
initial states, i.e., the difference at start time instant of
the current interval of the scheduling signal, in addition to
the length of the time interval ∆.

kβ − x̄(tks )k ≤ KM (p)(αKT µ1 + KB )kukl∞ .
(A.23)
Then, combining (A.18) and (A.23), we find that
kx(tks ) − x̄(tks )k ≤αkx(tk−1
) − x̄(tk−1
)k
(A.24)
e
e
+ KM (p)(αKT µ1 + KB )kukl∞ .
In the last step, we recursively find the relation of the
output difference with the initial state of the systems.

3) Step three: recursivity. From Eq. (A.14) and Eq. (A.24), As ϕ is a continuous function defined on a compact set,
then it is uniformly continuous.
we can recursively find that
k
k
i (k−1)∆
kx(ti ) − x̄(ti )k ≤ α α
kx(∆ − 1) − x̄(∆ − 1)k
In particular, since ϕ(p1 , p1 ) = 0 for all p1 ∈ P,
k−1
∀ε
1 > 0 : ∃δ(ε1 ) > 0, such that, if kp1 − p2 k =
X
+ αi
α∆j Ku (p)kukl∞ ,
(A.25) k(p1 − p2 ) − (p1 − p1 )k < δ(ε1 ), then,
j=0
kϕ(p1 , p2 ) − ϕ(p1 , p1 )k = kϕ(p1 , p2 )k < ε1 .
(A.34)
where Ku (p) = KM (p)(αKT µ1 + KB ). Notice that Hence, if p ∈ P is such that kp(t + 1) − p(t)k < δ(ε1 ), then
TΣ̂,Σ (p(0)) is an isomorphism from LΣ̂ (p(0)) to LΣ (p(0)), KM (p) < ε1 .
i.e., the local models of Σ̂ and Σ during the first ∆ time Then, we can take
instances. This yields directly that,
 α
−1
ε1 = ε
(αK
µ
+
K
)K
.
(A.35)
T
1
B
C
kx(∆ − 1) − x̄(∆ − 1)k = 0.
1 − α∆
Then,
This means that,
k−1
α
X
KM (p)(αKT µ1 + KB )KC
g(∆, KM (p), 1) =
kx(tki ) − x̄(tki )k ≤ αi Ku (p)kukl∞
α∆j .
(A.26)
1 − α∆
α
j=0
≤ ε1
(αKT µ1 + KB )KC
1 − α∆
Notice that, for α ∈ [0, 1], we have
= ε.
k−1
∞
X
X
1
∆j
∆j
.
(A.27) Then, from Eq (19), with ∆ = 1, ∀ε > 0, ∃δ > 0 such that
α ≤
α =
1 − α∆
i=0
j=0
if kp(t + 1) − p(t)k < δ, then,
Then, replacing in the equation (A.26), we get
kYΣ (u, p)(t) − YΣ̂ (u, p)(t)k ≤ g(∆, KM (p), 1).kukl∞
i
≤ ε.kukl∞ .
α
kx(tki ) − x̄(tki )k ≤
Ku (p)kukl∞ .
(A.28)
∆
1−α
A.6 Proof of Theorem 4
Then, notice that, using Eq (A.10), we can write
C(p(tki ))x̄(tki ) = C(p(tki ))TΣ̂,Σ (p(tki ))x̂(tki )
=

Ĉ(tki )x̂(tki )

=

(A.29)

ŷ(tki ).
C(p(tki )),

Then, from Eq. (A.28), after multiplication by
we get that,
αi
Ku (p) sup kC(p)k.kukl∞ .
ky(tki )− ŷ(tki )k≤
1 − α∆
p
i.e.,
kYΣ (u, p)(tki ) − YΣ̂ (u, p)(tki )k ≤ g(∆, KM (p), i).kukl∞ .
Remember that for all p ∈ P, KM (p) ≤ KM , then,
kYΣ (u, p)(tki ) − YΣ̂ (u, p)(tki )k ≤ g(∆, KM , i).kukl∞ .
A.4 Proof of Theorem 2
Remember that 0 < α < 1, then,
αi
= 0.
lim
i→∞ 1 − α∆
Then, from Eq. (20), we can find that
lim g(∆, KM (p), i) = 0.
i→∞

(A.30)
(A.31)

This means, ∀ε > 0, ∃∆m > 0, such that,
∀i ≥ ∆m : g(∆, KM (p), i) < ε,
(A.32)
Then, from Eq (19), ∀i > ∆m :
kYΣ (u, p)(k∆ + i) − YΣ̂ (u, p)(k∆ + i)k
≤ g(∆m , KM (p), i).kukl∞
≤ ε.kukl∞ .
A.5 Proof of Theorem 3
Consider the map
ϕ : P × P 7→ Rnx ×nx : (p1 , p2 ) → I − Mp1 ,p2 .
−1
TΣ̂,Σ

(A.33)

Since TΣ̂,Σ is continuous, so is
and hence ϕ is
continuous. Remember that P is compact, then so is P × P.

Notice that, from Eq. (20), we can find that,
lim g(∆, KM (p), i) = 0.
α→0

(A.36)

This means that ∀ε > 0, ∃αm > 0, such that, ∀α < αm ,
g(∆, KM (p), i) < ε.
(A.37)
Then, from Eq. (19), in additions to our assumption that
kAk < α, we directly get that, if α < αm , then, ∀t > 0,
kYΣ (u, p)(t) − YΣ̂ (u, p)(t)k ≤ g(∆, KM (p), i).kukl∞
≤ ε.kukl∞ .

