Inversion-Based Output Tracking and Unknown Input
Reconstruction of Square Discrete-Time Linear Systems
E. Naderi and K. Khorasani a

arXiv:1606.06215v2 [cs.SY] 23 Jan 2017

a

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Abstract
In this paper, we propose a framework for output tracking control of both minimum phase (MP) and non-minimum phase
(NMP) systems as well as systems with transmission zeros on the unit circle. Towards this end, we first address the problem of
unknown state and input reconstruction of non-minimum phase systems. An unknown input observer (UIO) is designed that
accurately reconstructs the minimum phase states of the system. The reconstructed minimum phase states serve as inputs
to an FIR filter for a delayed non-minimum phase state reconstruction. It is shown that a quantified upper bound of the
reconstruction error exponentially decreases as the estimation delay is increased. Therefore, an almost perfect reconstruction
can be achieved by selecting the delay to be sufficiently large. Our proposed inversion scheme is then applied to solve the
output-tracking control problem. We have also proposed a methodology to handle the output tracking prob! lem of systems
that have transmission zeros on the unit circle in addition to MP and NMP zeros. Simulation case studies are also presented
that demonstrate the merits and capabilities of our proposed methodologies.
Key words: Inversion-based techniques; Unknown input reconstruction; Output tracking; Non-minimum phase systems;

1

Introduction

Output tracking problems arise in many control applications such as in aerospace and robotics. One possible
solution to this problem is an inversion-based approach
in which the control input is considered as the output
of an inverse system which is stimulated by the actual
system desired output. However, this approach is quite
challenging due to presence of unstable transmission zeros of the system. Unstable transmission zeros also challenge a stable reconstruction of the unknown system inputs using the known outputs. This can be considered
as an equivalent problem to the inversion-based output
tracking problem. Both inversion-based output tracking
and unknown input reconstruction problems have received extensive attention from the control community
researchers.
Inversion of linear systems was first systematically
treated by Brocket and Mesarovic [1]. The classic works
are known as structure algorithm [2], Sain & Massey
algorithm [3], and the Moylan algorithm [4]. Gillijns [5]
has proposed a general form of the Sain & Massey algorithm in which certain free parameters are available for
adjustment based on the design requirements. However,
this is accomplished under the assumption that the
original system does not have any unstable transmission
zeros.
The problem of unknown input reconstruction using inversion schemes has been tackled by more sophisticated
methods. Palanthandalam-Madapusi and his colleagues
([6], [7] and [8]) have considered the problem of input
reconstruction in several papers, yet, the provided solutions are only applicable to minimum-phase (MP)
systems. Xiong and Saif [9] have proposed an observer
for input reconstruction that works under limited cases
Email address: kash@ece.concordia.ca (E. Naderi and
K. Khorasani).

of non-minimum phase (NMP) systems. Specifically,
to those non-minimum phase systems with zero feedthrough matix (D) and those systems having special
disturbance dynamics. The restrictive condition of requiring zero feed-through matrix appears in most works
that are related to the input reconstruction problem
[10]. Flouquet and his colleagues [11] have proposed
a sliding mode observer for the input recon! struction
which is also only valid for minimum phase systems
with zero feed-through matrix.
A successful solution to stable inversion of minimum
phase and non-minimum phase systems was proposed
in Zou and Devasia [12]. This solution is extended to
discrete-time systems in [13]. However, the solution
requires that the system should have a well-defined relative degree. A geometric solution for stable inversion
of linear systems is proposed by Marro and Zattoni [14].
The algebraic counterpart of the geometric solution is
provided in [15]. Both the above geometric and algebraic solutions do not provide a framework for handling
systems having transmission zeros on the unit circle in
addition to MP and NMP zeros.
The other problem of inversion-based output tracking
has also been the subject of a number of research in the
literature. It is well-known that unbiased inversion-based
output tracking is essentially non-causal since it requires
the information on the entire trajectory in future that
is not a reasonable assumption for many applications.
Zou and Devasia ([12,16,17]) have introduced previewbased stable-inversion method for continuous-time systems. Basically, this method requires access to a finite
window of future data instead of having the entire future
trajectory, although the approach results in a degraded
output tracking error performance. This technique has
been significantly improved by the recent work ([18,19]),
however, these works are also developed for continuoustime LTI systems. However, the method is constrained

by restrictive assumptions, such as requiring a we! lldefined relative degree condition. Several other work using different approaches are available in the literature
that are mostly application of a particular method such
as the Q-learning [20] or filtered basis functions [21].
In this study, we first address the inversion-based unknown state and input reconstruction problem. A general unknown input observer is proposed that accurately
and independently reconstructs the minimum phase
states of the system by using only the available system
measurements. The minimum phase states here refers
to n − p states of the overall system, where n denotes
the order of the system and p denotes the number of
unstable transmission zeros. Next, the estimated minimum phase states are considered as inputs to an FIR
filter to reconstruct the p non-minimum phase states of
the system. The FIR filter estimates the non-minimum
phase system states with a time delay of n + nd steps.
It also yields an estimation error which is a function
of the to be selected parameter nd . We have explicitly derived subsequently the relationship between the
reconstruction error and nd .
Specifically, we have shown that the estimation error
is proportional to inverse of the smallest non-minimum
phase zero to the power of nd . Hence, if the system does
not have any transmission zeros on the unit circle, the
estimation error asymptotically decays to zero as nd is
increased. This can therefore ensure that an unbiased
input and states estimation can be obtained. For most
cases, an nd equal to four or five times n would yield
an almost perfect estimation results for any smooth or
non-smooth unknown input. For a smooth input, an nd
as small as 2 may suffice.
We comprehensively address and discuss the dynamics
of the non-minimum phase states and have derived the
relationships among the system matrices. By invoking
a minor modification, our proposed methodology is
extended to solve the inversion-based output tracking
control problem. As opposed to a delayed reconstruction, our method now requires data corresponding to
n + nd time steps ahead of the desired trajectory. As in
the previous problem, we have quantified the tracking
error characteristics and have shown that an almost
perfect tracking is achievable by properly selecting nd
that yields an unbiased state reconstruction that can be
achieved as in the first problem.
Finally, we have shown that our proposed methodology
for stable inversion of linear systems can be successfully
extended to handle the output tracking problem in systems that have transmission zeros on the unit circle in
addition to MP and NMP zeros. Our proposed solution
introduces a further delay of nc due to implementation
of a controller of order nc . In contrast to unstable transmission zeros, the output tracking error does not exponentially decrease by increasing nc . Instead, the output
tracking error depends on the norm of a transfer function which is parameterized by the system and the selected controller parameters. We have further characterized design criteria and have formulated a minimization
problem for selection of the controller parameters.

(2)

(3)
(4)
(5)

(6)

minimum phase linear discrete-time systems is proposed and developed,
In our proposed methodology, the MP states are
partitioned and estimated by using the system measurements. The MP states are exactly estimated
with a delay of at most equal to the system order;
in contrast to the available works in the literature
where all states are approximated with a delay that
depends on the location of the smallest unstable
transmission zero,
Our proposed solution does not require that the
system should have a well-defined relative degree,
An algorithm and a simple constructive procedure
for designing the inversion-based output tracking
control scheme is proposed,
We have shown that our proposed solution provides
a framework for handling the output tracking problem of systems that have transmission zeros on the
unit circle in addition to MP and NMP zeros for
the first time in the literature, and finally
The accuracy of our proposed input and state estimation scheme as well as the output tracking control performance as a function of the delay parameter are quantified and investigated. For the case
that the system has transmission zeros on the unit
circle, the output tracking error is characterized by
the norm of a transfer matrix that depends on the
system and controller parameters.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The
problem statement and preliminaries are provided in
Section 2. Section 3 is devoted to the problem of developing and designing unknown state and input reconstruction methodologies. The problem of developing an
inversion-based output tracking strategy is addressed in
Section 4. The extension of the solution to the case where
the system has transmission zeros on the unit circle is
developed in Section 5. Finally, several numerical case
studies are presented in Section 6 to demonstrate and illustrate the capabilities of our proposed methodologies.
2 Problem Statement
Consider the following deterministic discrete-time linear
time-invariant (LTI) system S,
(
x(k + 1) = Ax(k) + Bu(k)
S:
(1)
y(k) = Cx(k) + Du(k)
where x ∈ Rn , u ∈ Rm and y ∈ Rl . The quadruple
Σ := (A, B, C, D) is assumed to be known a priori. The
output measurement y(k) is also assumed to be available, however, both the system states x(k) and u(k) are
assumed to be unmeasurable. In this paper, we consider
the following two specific problems.
Problem 1: The system states and the unknown input
reconstruction: The objective of this problem is to estimate the system state x(k) and the unknown input u(k)
from the only available system measurement y(k). The
main assumption that is imposed to solve this problem
is given by Assumption 1 below.

To summarize, the main contributions of this paper can
be stated as follows:

Assumptions: The system S is assumed to satisfy the
following conditions. namely, i) the system is square
(m = l), ii) the system has a minimal realization, and
iii) the system does not have any zeros on the unit circle.

(1) A methodology for estimation of unknown states
and unknown inputs of both minimum and non-

In Section 5 we relax the Assumption (iii). Other conditions that may be required are provided under each

specific statement and result subsequently.

scheme that estimates the remaining set of the system
states.

Problem 2: The output tracking: The objective of this
problem is to estimate the input signal u(k) such that
the output y(k) follows a desired trajectory yd (k). This
problem is in fact another re-statement of the Problem
1 above with the difference that the actual output of the
system is now replaced by yd (k). The main assumption
that is also required here is Assumption 1.

3.1

We now present the notation that is used throughout
the paper. Given the matrix A, then A⊥ , AT and N (A)
denote the orthogonal space, the transpose, and the null
space of A, respectively. We use the concept of pseudo inverse. If A is full column rank, then we denote the pseudo
inverse of A by A† and compute it by (AT A)−1 AT . If
A is rank deficient, then we denote its pseudo inverse
by A+ , where A+ is a matrix that satisfies the following four conditions: 1) AA+ A = A, 2) A+ AA+ = A+ ,
3) (AA+ )T = AA+ , and 4) (A+ A)T = A+ A. If U ΣV T
denotes the SVD decomposition of A, then A+ is given
by V Σ+ U T , where Σ+ is obtained by reciprocating each
non-zero diagonal element of Σ. If A denotes the system
matrix, then A(1) implies transformation of A under a
standard similarity transformation matrix T(1) . If x(k)
denotes a vector, then x̂(k) represent an estimate of x(k).
Also, x(1) (k) denotes the transformation of x(k) under
the similarity matrix T(1) , i.e. x(1) (k) = T(1) x(k). Finally, diag(V) denotes a diagonal matrix with elements
of the vector V on its diagonal. Consider the Rosenbrock
System Matrix defined by,
"
#
zI − A B
MR (z) =
(2)
C
D
if rank(MR (z)) < n + l, then z is called a transmission
zero (or simply the zero) of the system S or the quadruple (A, B, C, D). The abbreviations MP and NMP stand
for minimum phase and non-minimum phase systems,
respectively.
3

State and Unknown input reconstruction

In this section, we consider and develop methodologies
for solving the Problem 1. Let us first set up an unknown
input observer (UIO) that generates the state η(k) as an
estimate of Mx(k) by using only the system measurements y(k), where M ∈ Rq×n is a full row rank matrix
to be specified. If rank(M) = n, then the system states
can be fully reconstructed since x̂(k) = M−1 η(k). However, such an M with rank equal to n does not always
exist. In fact, it turns out that the rank of M is closely
related to the transmission zeros of the system S.
More specifically, we will show that rank(M) = n −
β, where α and β are now representing the number of
finite MP and NMP transmission zeros of the system
S, respectively. Clearly, α + β is not necessarily equal
to n. Our strategy is to first construct an M having
the rank n − β by using two to be designed matrices
M0 and M# that are specified subsequently based on
the system S matrices. Given M, we then introduce a
transformation to partition the system states that can be
exactly estimated from those where their estimation is
obstructed by the NMP transmission zeros of the system.
The estimated states will then serve as inputs to a causal

Partial or full estimation of the system states

We start by stating our first formal definition.
Definition 1 Assume M ∈ Rq×n , where q ≤ n, is a full
row rank matrix. We denote η(k) = Mx(k) as a partial
or full estimate of the system S states if q < n or q = n,
respectively.
Our goal is to design an unknown input observer (UIO)
that estimates Mx, where M ∈ Rq×n , q ≤ n, is a full
row rank matrix. We consider the governing dynamics
of the unknown input observer (UIO) as follows,
η(k − n + 1) = Âη(k − n) + F Y(k − n)

(3)

where,

y(k − n + 1)


 y(k − n + 2) 
 ∈ Rnl
Y(k − n) = 
..




.
y(k)


(4)

with the matrices Â ∈ Rq×q and F ∈ Rq×(nl) to be
specified subsequently. Our objective is to now select
the matrices M, Â and F such that η(k) − Mx(k) → 0
as k → ∞. The output measurement equation of the
system S can be alternatively expressed as,
Y(k − n) = Cn x(k − n) + Dn U(k − n)
where,




C
D
0



D
 CA 
 CB
 ; Dn = 
Cn = 
..
..
..






.
.
.
n−1
n−2
n−3
CA
CA
B CA
B

(5)


0

0
.. 

. 
D
(6)
where Cn ∈ R(nl)×n , Dn ∈ R(nl)×(nm) and U(k − n) ∈
Rmn is constructed similar to Y(k − n) from the input
sequence. The state equation of the system S can be
expressed as,
...
...
..
.
...

x(k − n + 1) = Ax(k − n) + BIn U(k − n)
(7)
h
i
where In = Im×m 0m×(n−m) . Using the equations
(3), (5) and (7), the unknown input observer error dynamics is now governed by,

(η − Mx)(k − n + 1) = Â(η(k − n) − Mx(k − n))
+ (ÂM − MA + F Cn )Y(k − n)
+ (F Dn − MBIn )U(k − n) (8)
It now follows that Mx is accurately estimated if and
only if (i) Â is selected to be a Hurwitz matrix, (ii)
0 = ÂM−MA+F Cn , and (iii) 0 = F Dn −MBIn . The
conditions (i)-(iii) above are the well-known unknown
input observer equations that are solvable under certain
conditions [22]. We will show that these conditions have

a solution if and only if the system S is MP. However,
this will be obtained under the restrictive requirement
that M should be full rank square matrix. We will show
subsequently that a solution for NMP systems exists if
a lower rank matrix M is considered.
From the condition (iii) it follows that,
+
F = MBIn D+
n + Kn (I − Dn Dn )

(9)

where Kn ∈ Rnl×nm is an arbitrary matrix. Let us first
denote by Â0 and M0 as solution to Â and M that satisfy the conditions (i)-(iii) corresponding to Kn ≡ 0.
Subsequently, we shall return to the general case where
Kn and (I − Dn D+
n ) are nonzero to obtain another solution to M that we will denote by M# . For now for M0 ,
we have,
F0 = M0 BIn D+
(10)
n
If we substitute F0 from equation (10) into the condition
(ii), we obtain,
Â0 M0 = M0 (A − BIn D+
n Cn )

(11)

PROOF. Follows by direct substitution of the solution
above into the conditions (i)-(iii) that verifies the result.

Remark 2 One may suggest to use the Jordan canonical form of Γ to obtain a solution to the conditions
(i)-(iii), especially when the system S has repeated MP
transmission zeros. This may yield an M having higher
rank condition as compared to the solution provided by
Lemma 1 under certain limited cases. However, in general this will not lead to a robust numerical procedure and
in most cases the algorithm could fail numerically due to
ill-conditioning.
Lemma 1 implies that a solution for NMP systems exists
unless the system S has exactly n NMP transmission
zeros (this is highly unusual in real applications). Our
proposed methodology for state estimation problem that
will be subsequently discussed requires that rank(M) =
n−β . However, rank of M0 that is obtained from Lemma
1 is not necessarily equal to n − β, since Γ may have
multiple eigenvectors due to repeated eigenvalues and
the generalized eigenvectors are not a solution to the
equation (11).

Equation (11) - which is in fact the Sylvester equation has M0 = 0 as its trivial solution. The non-trivial solution to (11) is obtained if M0 is considered as the transpose of the left eigenvectors of Γ = (A− BIn D+
n Cn ) and
Â0 as a diagonal matrix of Γ eigenvalues. It now follows
that the full estimation of the system states by the UIO
observer (3) is obstructed by the NMP transmission zeros of the system due to the fact that the eigenvalues of
(A − BIn D+
n Cn ) contain NMP zeros of the square system S as formally stated in the following theorem.

Specifically, the set Z (as defined in Theorem 1) may
have αz elements sharing the same eigenvectors. We now
consider the term Kn (I − Dn D+
n )Cn in order to obtain linearly independent vectors associated with the elements of Z. If the set Z is not empty, then it implies
that Dn is rank deficient, and therefore (I − Dn D+
n ) is
a nonzero matrix.

Theorem 1 Let Assumption 1 hold, and V = {vi |i =
1, .., p} denote the set of the system S invariant zeros, and
Z = {0, . . . , 0} that contains n−p zeros. The eigenvalues
of Γ = (A − BIn D+
n Cn ) are given by V ∪ Z.

+
Â# M# = M# (A − BIn D+
n Cn ) + Kn (I − Dn Dn )Cn
(12)
)C
is
not
identically
zero,
a
non-trivial
Since (I−Dn D+
n
n
solution exists and Â# , M# and Kn can be selected such
that the condition (i) is satisfied. Therefore, we have the
following theorem.

PROOF. Proof is provided in the Appendix A. 
Remark 1 It should be noted that Theorem 1 does not
hold for non-square systems. The eigenvalues of Γ may or
may not coincide with the transmission zeros of S. Each
case needs to be then separately investigated, however,
once the eigenvalues of Γ are determined, the remaining
procedure for obtaining a solution to the conditions (i)(iii) is similar to that of a square system.
If the system S has at least one MP transmission zero,
or it has less than n NMP zeros (therefore, the set Z in
Theorem 1 is not empty), then at least one eigenvalue
of Γ is less than 1, which is denoted by a. Let us now
set Â0 = a. If MT0 is chosen to be the left eigenvector
associated with the eigenvalue a, then equation (11),
and consequently conditions (i)-(iii) are satisfied even if
the system S has nonzero NMP transmission zeros. In
general, we can state the following result.
Lemma 1 Let Assumption 1 hold, and V = {vi |i =
1, .., p} denote the set of the system S invariant zeros,
Z = {0, . . . , 0} that contains n − p zeros, and Θα the set
of MP transmission zeros of S. If {Θα ∪ Z} 6= ∅, then
T
F0 = M0 BIn D+
n , Â0 = diag(Θα ∪ Z) and M0 that has
left eigenvectors of Γ associated with diag(Θα ∪ Z) are
solutions to the conditions (i)-(iii).

Let us now construct M# and Â# such that they satisfy
the following Sylvester equation,

Theorem 2 Let Assumption 1 hold and all the MP
transmission zeros of S have an algebraic multiplicity of
1. Then, the complete solution to the conditions (i)-(iii)
is given by,
#
#
"
"
M0
Â0 0
(13)
;M =
Â =
M#
0 Â#
where rank(M) = n − β.
PROOF. The proof is provided in the Appendix B. 
Note that if the system S has MP transmission zeros with
an algebraic multiplicity that is higher than 1, then the
rank of M# is reduced proportionally by the multiplicity
of the MP transmission zeros. This is due to the fact that
(I − Dn D+
n ) loses its rank. On the other hand, M0 also
loses its rank by such MP transmission zeros. Therefore,
our method fails, since the rank of M will be less than
n − β. However, we will introduce a technique in Section
5 to relax the assumption on simplicity of the MP zeros.
The solution given in equation (12) is closely related to
equation (5). The matrix I − Dn D+
n gives the null space

of Dn . Multiplication of both sides of equation (5) by
this matrix yields,
+
(I − Dn D+
n )Y(k − n) = (I − Dn Dn )Cn x(k − n) (14)

Let us now define P = (I−Dn D+
n )Cn . It follows that the
rank of P depends on the rank of N (Dn ). If the system S
has exactly p = n transmission zeros, then N (Dn ) = 0,
and consequently P ≡ 0. On the other hand, M0 will be
full row rank and will have n − β linearly independent
rows if the MP transmission zeros are simple. As p is
reduced, then the rank of P increases and the rank of M0
decreases. This relationship reveals several important
characteristics of N (Dn ). A more detailed discussion of
these properties is beyond the scope of this paper.
3.2

Partitioning of the states

If the system S has any NMP transmission zeros, then
rank(M) = q < n, and therefore the states cannot be
fully estimated. Let us now perform an LQ decomposition of the matrix M to partition the estimation of the
q states from the estimation of the other n − q states.
Namely, let us set M = LQ.
The unknown input observer (UIO) is described by equation (3), where Â and F are selected according to Theorem 2 and equation (9), and where η(k−n) = Mx̂(k−n).
Equivalently, we have η(k − n) = LQx̂(k − n). Let us
now set the similarity transformation
matrix T(1) = Q.
h
i
Therefore, η(k − n) = M(1)
0 x̂(1) (k − n) 1 , where
q
h
i
(1)
(1)
Mq 0 = L. The matrix Mq ∈ Rq×q is a nonsingular matrix, hence the first q states can be independently reconstructed from η(k − n) as follows,
−1

x̂(1) (1 : q)(k − n) = M(1)
η(k − n)
q

(15)

where x(1 : q) denotes the first q elements of the vector
x.
Definition 2 The MP and NMP states correspond to
the first q and the last n − q states of the system S (1) and
(1)
(1)
are denoted by x1 (k) and x2 (k), respectively. In other
iT
h
(1)
T
T
words, x(1) (k) = (x(1)
, where
(k))
(x
(k))
1
2
S

(1)

:

(

x(1) (k + 1) = A(1) x(1) (k) + B (1) u(k)
y(k) = C (1) x(1) (k) + Du(k)

(16)

Equation (18) shows that the MP states can be independently and accurately estimated from the system
(1)
(1)
measurements. In other words, x̂1 (k − n) → x1 (k −
n) as k → ∞. This is due to the fact that according to the error dynamics (8) and conditions (i)-(iii),
η(k − n) − Mx(k − n) → 0 as k → ∞. Therefore,
Lx̂(1) (k − n) − Lx(1) (k − n) → 0 as k → ∞, which yields
the desired result. An important property of the MP
states is now given by the following theorem.
(1)

Theorem 3 Let Assumption 1 hold. Then x1 (k) → 0
as k → ∞ if and only if y(k) = 0 for k = k0 , k0 +
1, . . . , ∞, k0 > 0.
PROOF. It is known from the state equation of the
system (18) that η(k) = 0 if and only if y(k) = 0 (⇒
Y(k) = 0) for k = k0 , k0 +1, . . . , ∞, k0 > 0. On the other
(1) (1)
(1)
hand, η(k) = Mq x̂1 (k). Since Mq is a nonsingular
(1)
matrix, it follows that x̂1 (k) ≡ 0 if and only if η(k) ≡
(1)
(1)
0. Moreover, x1 (k) → x̂1 (k) as k → ∞. Therefore,
(1)
x1 (k) → 0 as k → ∞, if and only if y(k) = 0 for
k = k0 , k0 + 1, . . . , ∞, k0 > 0. 
The above partitioning is quite helpful in several ways.
The most important one is that it renders an elegant expression for the NMP states reconstruction estimation
error as discussed in the next section. Furthermore, in
certain applications such as in fault detection and isolation problems, the considered faults may only affect the
MP states of the system. Therefore, it will not be necessary to estimate the NMP system states that can be
computationally costly as well as an error prone process.
3.3

Dynamics of the MP and NMP states

The unknown input estimation problem requires a successful reconstruction of both the MP and the NMP
states. Towards this end, we partition the state space
(1)
model of the system S or S(1) as follows (x1 (k) ∈ Rq
(1)
and x2 (k) ∈ Rn−q ),

S(1)

Considering the Definition 2 and equation (15), we have,
(1)

−1
x̂1 (k − n) = (M(1)
η(k − n)
q )

or in the state space representation,
(
η(k − n + 1) = Âη(k − n) + F Y(k − n)
(1)
(1)
x̂1 (k − n) = (Mq )−1 η(k − n)
1

(17)
where,
A(1) =
(18)

Recall the notation that was defined in Section 2,
(1)
namely, x(1) (k) = T(1) x(k), x1 (k) = T(1) x(1) (k), A(1) =
(1)
(1) −1
(1)
(1)
T A(T ) , B = T B, and C (1) = C(T(1) )−1 .

"

 (1)
(1) (1)

x1 (k − n + 1) = A11 x1 (k − 1)



(1)
(1)
(1)


+A12 x2 (k − n) + B1 u(k − n)



(1)
(1) (1)


 x2 (k − n + 1) = A21 x1 (k − n)
(1)
(1)
: +A(1)
22 x2 (k − n) + B2 u(k − n)


(1) (1)


 y(k − n) ="C1 x1 (k −#n)+


i x(1) (k − n)

 h (1)
2


C
D

2
u(k − n)
(1)

(1)

A11 A12
(1)
(1)
A21 A22

#

; B (1) =

"

(1)

B1
(1)
B2

#

(19)

i
h
; C (1) = C1(1) C2(1) .

(20)
It is now straightforward to conclude from Theorem 3
that the following lemmas imply that the NMP states
cannot be algebraically estimated from the MP states
and the system measurement outputs. Specifically, we
have:

Lemma 2 Let "Assumption#1 hold and 0 < q < n. Then
(1)
C2
D
the columns of
are linearly dependent.
(1)
(1)
A12 B1
PROOF. Proof is provided in the Appendix C. 
Lemma 3 Let Assumption" 1 hold and#0 < q < n. Then
(1)
(1)
A22 B2
are a subset of
the transmission zeros of
(1)
(1)
A12 B1
the system S transmission zeros.

(1)

If on the other hand B1 is not a full column rank matrix, then let us assume that D is full column rank. In this
case, the unknown input in terms of the system states is
given by the following expression,

(1) (1)
u(k − n) = D† y(k − n) − C1 x1 (k − n)


(1) (1)
−C2 x2 (k − n)
(26)

By substituting equation (26) into the second equation
of (19), it yields,
(1)

(1)

Lemma 4 Let Assumption" 1 hold and#0 < q < n. Then
(1)
(1)
A22 B2
are a subset of
the transmission zeros of
(1)
C2
D
the system S transmission zeros.

where,
(1)

(1)

Let us now assume that B1 is full column rank. Then,
the unknown input u(k) in terms of the system states
is obtained by the first expression of equation (19), according to

(1)
(1)†
x1 (k − n + 1)−
u(k − n) = B1

(1) (1)
(1) (1)
A11 x1 (k − n) − A12 x2 (k − n)
(21)

By substituting the above equation into the second and
third equations of (19) yields,
(
(1)
(1)
(1)
x2 (k − n + 1) = Az x2 (k − n) + Bz X1 (k − n)
(1)
(1)
y(k − n) = Cz2 x2 (k − n) + Cz1 X1 (k − n)
(22)
where,
(1)
(1) (1)† (1)
Az = A22 − B2 B1 A12
(23)
i
h
(1) (1)†
(1)
(1) (1)† (1)
(24)
Bz = B2 B1
A21 − B2 B1 A11
" (1)
#
x1 (k − n + 1)
(1)
X1 (k − n) =
(25)
(1)
x1 (k − n)
(1)†

(1)

Cz2 = C2 −i DB1 A12 and Cz1 =
hand where
(1)† (1)
(1)
(1)†
C1 − DB1 A11 . The quadruple Σz :=
DB1
(Az , Bz , Cz1 , Cz2 ) have interesting properties that are
related to the transmission zeros of the system S. We
are now in a position to state our next result.

(1)

(1)

Azd = A22 − B2 D† C2
h
i
(1) † (1)
(1) †
Bzd = A(1)
−
B
D
C
B
D
21
2
1
2
"
#
(1)
x1 (k − n)
(1)
X1d (k − n) =
y(k − n)

PROOF. Proof is provided in the Appendix E. 

(1)

(1)

x2 (k − n + 1) = Azd x2 (k − n) + Bzd X1d (k − n) (27)

PROOF. Proof is provided in the Appendix D. 

(28)
(29)
(30)

We can now state the next result of this paper.
Theorem 5 Let Assumption 1 hold, 0 < q < n, and D
be a full column rank matrix. Then, the eigenvalues of
Azd are the NMP zeros of the system S.
PROOF. Proof is provided in the Appendix G. 
(1)

It should be noted that if both B1 and D are column
rank deficient matrices, then the NMP states and the
unknown input can no longer be estimated. This is a
slightly stronger assumption
" than
# the input observability
B (1)
that requires the matrix
to be full column rank.
D
3.4

Estimation of the NMP states

The state equation (22) (or similarly the equation (27)
(1)
depending on the rank condition of B1 or D) describes
the dynamics of the NMP states. The eigenvalues of Az
(or Azd ) coincide with the NMP transmission zeros of
the system S. Therefore, the dynamics of equation (22)
or equation (27) is unstable. This unstable dynamics
should be treated in a manner that provides a stable
estimation of the NMP states. Towards this end, let us
now consider the following non-casual structure that is
obtained by re-arranging the state representation (22)
or (27) as follows

(1)

Theorem 4 Let Assumption 1 hold, 0 < q < n and B1
be a full column rank matrix. Then, the eigenvalues of Az
are the NMP zeros of the system S. Moreover, Cz2 = 0.
PROOF. The proof is provided in the Appendix F. 

Remark 3 According to Theorem 4 and the definition
(1)
of Cz2 , if D happens to be zero, then, C2 must be zero
(1) (1)
which implies y(k) = C1 x1 (k). This fact seems to be
useful for design of a robust fault detection and isolation
scheme, that is left as a topic of our future research.

(1)

(1)

(1)

x2 (k − n) = Ãz x2 (k − n + 1) − B̃z Θ1 (k − n) (31)
where,
Ãz = (Az )−1 (for (22)) or (Azd )−1 (for (27))

(32)

B̃z = (Az )−1 Bz (for (22)) or (Azd )−1 Bzd (for (27))
(33)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Θ1 (k−n) = X1 (k−n) (for (22)) or X1d (k−n) (for (27))
(34)

(1)

Iterating equation (31) for nd time steps yields,
(1)

(1)

x2 (k − n − nd ) = Ãnz d x2 (k − n)−
nX
d −1
(1)
(Ãz )i B̃z Θ1 (k − n − i − 1) (35)
i=0

where Ãnz d denotes Ãz raised to the power of nd . The
inverse of Az (or Azd ) exists since Az (or Azd ) does not
have a zero eigenvalue. Also, Ãz is Hurwitz due to the
fact that the eigenvalues of the inverse matrix is the
inverse of the matrix eigenvalues. Equation (35) provides
the key to estimation of the NMP states.
Let us now construct the following FIR filter,
(1)

(1)

x̂2 (k − n − nd ) = Ãnz d x̄20 (k − n)−
nX
d −1
(1)
(Ãz )i B̃z Θ̂1 (k − n − i − 1) (36)
i=0

(1)

where x̄20 (k−n) denotes the random initial condition of
(1)
the FIR filter at each time step k − n and Θ̂1 (k − n) =
(1)
(1)
(1)
X̂1 (k − n) or Θ̂1 (k − n) = X̂1d (k − n), depending on
whether B (1) or D is full column rank, respectively.
"

(1)
X̂1 (k

(1)

x̂1 (k − n + 1)
(1)
x̂1 (k − n)

#

− n) =
and
"
#
(1)
x̂1 (k − n)
(1)
X̂1d (k − n) =
. The estimate of the MP
y(k − n)

Moreover,

(1)

(1)

Since x1 (k) − x̂1 (k) → 0 as k → ∞, then Θ1 (k) −
(1)
Θ̂1 (k) → 0 as k → ∞. Therefore, the NMP state
estimation error is now given by ex2 (k − n − nd ) =
(1)
(1)
Ãnz d (x2 (k − n) − x̄20 (k − n)) as k → ∞. 
Theorem 6 highlights a number of important trade-off
analysis considerations regarding the nature of the NMP
state estimation error and the selection of the delay nd .
Specifically, the following observations can be made:
• The farther the NMP transmission zeros are from the
unit circle, a smaller NMP state estimation error can
be ensured since the term Ãnz d decays faster to zero,
• The NMP state estimation error for the MP strictly
stable system is zero since these systems have a NMP
zero at infinity that results in Ãnz d ≡ 0, and
• The closer the NMP transmission zeros are to the unit
circle, one can ensure a larger NMP state estimation
error to the point that if the system S has any transmission zeros on the unit circle, then the NMP state
estimation results will be certainly biased regardless
of the choice of nd .
It turns out that one can obtain a conservative upper
bound on the NMP state estimation error by considering
the 2-norm of ex2 (k). We are now in a position to state
our next result.
Theorem 7 Let Assumption 1 hold, 0 < q < n, either
(1)
(1)
B1 or D is a full column rank matrix and x̄20 (k) =
nd
0 for all k. Then sup(kex2 (k)k2 ) = σmax (Ãz )k(zI −
A(1) )−1 B (1) k∞ , where σmax (.) denotes the largest singular value operator.

(1)

states (x̂1 (k)) as previously discussed is given by (18).
(1)
The random initial condition x̄20 (k − n) at each time
step introduces errors in the estimation process, but for
sufficiently large nd , the effects of the initial conditions
(1)
(1)
will vanish and x̂2 (k − n − nd ) − x2 (k − n − nd ) → 0
as k → ∞ (note that Ãnz d → 0 for nd ≫ 1), as shown
subsequently.
Practically, nd must be as small as possible, however an
accurate estimation requires a large nd . Hence, selection
of nd requires a trade-off analysis by quantification of
the estimation error versus nd at each time step. Below,
we provide an explicit expression for the reconstruction
or estimation error as a function of the delay nd and the
initial condition.
Definition 3 The NMP state estimation error is defined
(1)
(1)
according to ex2 (k) = x2 (k) − x̂2 (k).
Theorem 6 Let Assumption 1 hold, 0 < q < n , and
(1)
either B1 or D is a full column rank matrix. Then the
NMP state estimation error at the time step k − n − nd
(1)
(1)
is given by Ãnz d (x2 (k − n) − x̄20 (k − n)).
PROOF. Note that we have,
(1)

(1)

ex2 (k − n − nd ) = x2 (k − n − nd ) − x̂2 (k − n − nd )
(1)

(1)

= Ãnz d (x2 (k − n) − x̄20 (k − n))
nX
d −1
(1)
(Ãz )i B̃z (Θ1 (k − n − i − 1)
−

i=0
(1)
− Θ̂1 (k

− n − i − 1))

PROOF. It follows from Theorem 6 that,
(1)

kex2 (k − n − nd )k2 = kÃnz d x2 (k − n)k2

(37)

(1)
≤ kÃnz d k2 kx2 (k − n)k2
≤ σmax (Ãnz d )k(zI − A(1) )−1 B (1) k∞

The last inequality holds since the L2 input-output gain
is bounded by the ∞-norm of the system S. 
The above upper bound can be plotted as a function of
nd to perform a trade-off analysis. Note that σmax (Ãnz d )
is determined by the smallest NMP transmission zero of
the system S due to the fact that the eigenvalues of Ãz
are inverse of the system S NMP transmission zeros. This
is in accordance with the results that are stated in [14].
Note that σmax (Ãnz d ) asymptotically decays to zero as
nd is increased. Therefore, an almost perfect estimation
can be achieved when nd is equal to several times that
of the system order.
Remark 4 If the system S is stimulated by an input
such that u(k + 1) 6= u(k) at finite k’s (such as in a
step function) or ku(k + 1) − u(k)k is sufficiently small
(such as in a harmonic function), then one can choose
(1)
(1)
x̄20 (k − n) = x̂2 (k − n − nd − 1) in the filter (36) which
may yield an almost unbiased state estimate by selecting
the smallest possible choice of nd = 2. This is due to the
(1)
fact that in these cases x̂2 (k − n − nd − 1) is a close
(1)
(1)
approximation to x2 (k − n − nd − 1) and x2 (k − n)
(for small nd ), and therefore it may yield a sufficiently

small NMP state estimation error, i.e., ex2 (k −n−nd ) =
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Ãnz d (x2 (k−n)−x̄20 (k−n)) = Ãnz d (x2 (k−n)−x̂2 (k−
n − nd − 1)) ≈ 0 even if nd is selected to be sufficiently
small.
We will illustrate the above statement in our simulation
case study section. Once both the MP and NMP states
are estimated, the unknown input can now be easily estimated by using equation (21) (or (26)). Specifically, if
(1)
B1 is full column rank, then û(k) is given by,
(1)†

û(k − n) = B1


(1)
x̂1 (k − n + 1)−


(1) (1)
(1) (1)
A11 x̂1 (k − n) − A12 x̂2 (k − n)

(38)

and if D is full column rank, it is given by,


(1) (1)
û(k − n) = D† y(k − n) − C1 x̂1 (k − n)


(1) (1)
−C2 x̂2 (k − n)

(39)

Definition 4 The unknown input estimation error is
defined according to eu (k) = û(k) − u(k).
Proposition 1 Let Assumption 1 hold, 0 < q < n, and
(1)
B1 be a full column rank matrix. Then,
(1)†

eu (k) → −B1

(1)

A12 ex2 (k) as k → ∞.

(40)

PROOF. The result follows readily from equations (21) and (38) by noting that u(k) − û(k) =
(1)†

(1)
(1) (1)
(1) (1)
(x1 (k + 1) − A11 x1 (k) − A12 x2 (k)) −
(1)
(1) (1)
(1) (1)
(1)†
B1 (x̂1 (k + 1) − A11 x̂1 (k) − A12 x̂2 (k)) →
(1)† (1)
−B1 A12 ex2 (k) as k → ∞. This follows due to
(1)
(1)
the fact that x̂1 (k) → x1 (k) as k → ∞ and
(1)
(1)
ex2 (k) = x2 (k) − x̂2 (k) (Definition 3). 

B1

The Proposition 1 links the unknown input estimation
error to the state estimation error. This may serve as
a means for conducting a trade-off analysis. The above
implies that the state estimation error is propagated
(1)† (1)
through the gain −B1 A12 to the unknown input estimation error. One can interestingly conclude that if
(1)† (1)
−B1 A12 happens to be zero, then the unknown input estimation process will be unbiased regardless of the
NMP states estimation error. Therefore, it can immedi(1)† (1)
ately be concluded that −B1 A12 = 0 if and only if the
NMP zero of the system S is at infinity. In other words,
the system S is strictly stable and MP. The proposition
1 provides an explicit unknown input estimation error
(1)
expression if B1 is full column rank. In case that D is
a full column rank matrix, we arrive at the ! following
result.
Proposition 2 Let Assumption 1 hold, 0 < q < n , and
D be a full column rank matrix. Then,
(1)

eu (k) → −D† C2 ex2 (k) as k → ∞.

(1) (1)(k)

(1) (1)

(1) (1)

C2 x2
) − D† (y(k) − C1 x̂1 (k) − C2 x̂2 (k)) →
(1)
−D† C2 ex2 (k) as k → ∞. This follows due to the fact
(1)
(1)
(1)
that x̂1 (k) → x1 (k) as k → ∞ and ex2 (k) = x2 (k)−
(1)
x̂2 (k) (Definition 3). 
An immediate conclusion from the Propositions 1 and 2
(1)
is that if the system S is NMP and both B1 and D are
(1)†

(1)

(1)

full column rank matrices, then B1 A12 = D† C2 ,
which we have already derived through a different
(1)
method in Theorem 4 (Cz2 = 0). This completes our solution to the Problem 1. In the next section, we discuss
a solution to the Problem 2.
It is worth pointing that our proposed methodology is
not suitable for systems when all the zeros are NMP and
the system has the same number of poles and zeros. In
fact, this scenario for a square system implies that the
matrix D is full rank, therefore, other methods such as
the one in [10] are available to handle this particular
case.
4 Inversion-based output tracking
We have shown earlier that in presence of NMP states,
accurate estimation of the MP states as well as bounded
error estimation of the NMP states are possible under
certain conditions. In this section, by utilizing the previous results we will introduce and develop an inversionbased output tracking control methodology as a solution to Problem 2. Specifically, we will obtain relationship between the resulting tracking error performance
and the unknown input and state estimation errors. We
also demonstrate that almost perfect tracking of an arbitrary desired output trajectory can be achieved.
For the output tracking problem a delayed state and
input estimation may not be useful or practical given
that the controller should issue the command at a given
present time. This challenge can be resolved if we assume that the desired output trajectory from yd (k) to
yd (k + n + nd ) is known a priori at a given time step
k, which is known as the preview time (window) in the
literature [12]. This is actually a reasonable and acceptable assumption given that the desired trajectory is typically planned in advance and at least it can be assumed
practically to be known for n + nd time steps ahead. Our
proposed estimation scheme is now slightly modified to
incorporate this conditional change. A summary of the
procedure for implementation of our proposed scheme is
presented in Table 1.
h
iT
Let us now define Yd (k) as yd (k)T . . . yd (k + n)T ,
where Yd (k) is assumed to be a known signal. It is now
utilized to derive the unknown input observer following
(1)
equation (18) to yield x̂1 (k) as follows,
(
η(k + 1) = Âη(k) + F Yd (k)
(42)
(1)
(1)−1
x̂1 (k) = Mq
η(k)
(1)

(41)

An estimate of x2 (k) is now given by,
(1)

PROOF. It follows readily from equations (26) and
(1) (1)
(39) that we have u(k) − û(k) = D† (y(k) − C1 x1 (k) −

(1)

x̂2 (k) = Ãnz d x̄20 (k+nd )−

nX
d −1

(1)

(Ãz )i B̃z Θ̂1 (k+nd −i−1)

i=0

(43)

(1)

where x̄20 (k + nd ) is a random initial condition of the
(1)
(1)
FIR filter at each time step k+nd , and Θ̂1 (k) = X̂1 (k)
(1)
(1)
or Θ̂1 (k) = X̂1d (k), if B (1) or D is" full column#rank,
(1)
x̂1 (k + 1)
(1)
respectively. Moreover, X̂1 (k) =
and
(1)
x̂1 (k)
#
"
(1)
x̂1 (k)
(1)
(1)
X̂1d (k) =
. If B1 is full column rank, then
y(k)
û(k) is given by,


(1)
(1) (1)
(1) (1)
(1)†
x̂1 (k + 1) − A11 x̂1 (k) − A12 x̂2 (k)
û(k) = B1

Table 1
Inversion-based output tracking algorithm.

(1) Calculate Â, F and M from Theorem 2.
(1)
(2) Calculate T(1) and Mq from equations given
in Section 3.2.
(3) Calculate A(1) , B (1) and C (1) by applying the
similarity transformation to the system S using
the matrix T(1) (x(1) = T(1) x).
(4) Partition A(1) , B (1) and C (1) according to equation (20).
(1)
(5) If B1 is full column rank, then obtain Az and
(1)
Bz from equations (23) and (24). If B1 is not
full column rank and D is full column rank, then
obtain Azd and Bzd from equations (28) and
(29).
(6) Calculate Ãz and B̃z from equations (32) and
(33).
(7) Select nd according to Theorem 8 to meet the
desired estimation error specifications .
(8) At each time step k,
(1)
(a) Reconstruct x̂1 (k) from equation (42).
(1)
(b) Reconstruct x̂2 (k) using equation (43).
(1)
(c) If B1 is full column rank, then reconstruct
(1)
û(k) from equation (44). If B1 is not full
column rank and D is full column rank, then
reconstruct û(k) from equation (45).

(44)
and if D is full column rank, then û(k) is given by,


(1) (1)
(1) (1)
(45)
û(k) = D† y(k) − C1 x̂1 (k) − C2 x̂2 (k)

Since the NMP state estimation scheme is subject to errors, if the computed û(k) is fed to the system, it will then
generate y(k) that is different from the desired yd (k). In
other words, y(k) is the real output of the system subjected to and stimulated by û(k), that is (in view of the
state space representation (16))
(
x̃(1) (k + 1) = A(1) x̃(1) (k) + B (1) û(k)
(46)
y(k) = C (1) x̃(1) (k) + Dû(k)
where x̃(1) (k) denotes the state response of the system
to the input û(k). If the exact u(k) is known, then we
would have obtained,
(
x(1) (k + 1) = A(1) x(1) (k) + B (1) u(k)
(47)
yd (k) = C (1) x(1) (k) + Du(k)

We are now in a position to define the output tracking
error as follows.
Definition 5 The output tracking error is defined as
ey (k) = y(k) − yd (k).
It now follows from equations (46) and (47) that,
(
ẽx (k + 1) = A(1) ẽx (k) + B (1) eu (k)
(48)
(1)
ey (k) = C (1) ẽx (k) + Deu (k)
where ẽx (k) = x̃(1) (k) − x(1) (k). It is straightforward to
conclude from equation (48) that ey (k) → 0 as k → ∞
if eu (k) → 0 as k → ∞. However, eu (k) is given by the
NMP state estimation error (ex2 (k)) that is multiplied
by a gain as formally stated in Propositions 1 or 2. We
have shown in Theorem 7 that the NMP state estimation error (ex2 (k)) decays asymptotically as nd increases.
Hence, an almost perfect output tracking for any desired
trajectory can be achieved by selecting nd to be sufficiently large by as much as few times of the system order in most cases. The following theorem formally establishes the above statement and provide an upper bound
on the output tracking error versus the delay parameter
nd .
Theorem 8 Let Assumption 1 hold and 0 < q <
(1)
n. If B1 is full column rank, then key (k)k2 ≤
(1)†

(1)

σmax (Ãnz d )kC(zI − A)−1 B + Dk∞ kB1 A12 k2 k(zI −
A(1) )−1 B (1) k∞ . On the other hand, if D is full column

rank, then key (k)k2 ≤ σmax (Ãnz d )kC(zI − A)−1 B +
(1)
Dk∞ kD† C2 k2 k(zI − A(1) )−1 B (1) k∞ .
PROOF. According to equation (48), key (k)k2 =
(1)
kC(zI − A)−1 B + Dk∞ keu (k)k2 . If B1 is full column rank, then from Proposition 1, keu (k)k2 =
(1)†

(1)

(1)†

(1)

kB1 A12 ex2 (k)k2 ≤ kB1 A12 k2 kex2 (k)k2 . Our desired result is now obtained if we substitute kex2 (k)k2 ,
by using Theorem 7, into the above expression as
σmax (Ãnz d )k(zI − A(1) )−1 B (1) k∞ . Following along the
same procedure yields our other desired result for the
case when D is full column rank. 
As expected, Theorem 8 implies that the upper bound
of the output tracking error has the same functionality
in terms of the delay parameter nd as that of the upper
bound of the NMP states estimation error. Theorem 8 is
quite useful for performing a trade-off analysis between
the delay parameter nd and the output tracking error.
This completes our proposed methodology for inversionbased output tracking. In the next section, we show that
our proposed solution provides a framework for systematic treatment of the systems with transmission zeros on
the unit circle.
5

Systems having transmission zeros on the unit
circle

In this section, we show that our proposed approach can
be extended and applied for handling the output tracking problem in systems that have transmission zeros on
the unit circle in addition to MP and NMP zeros. This
problem has not been addressed and solved in the literature. For simplicity of the discussion, we only consider

a SISO system that is described by,
Y (z) = G(z)U (z) = (z + 1)G′ (z)U (z)

(49)

The function G(z) is given by the z-transform of the
system S that has a transmission zero at z = −1, and
therefore can be written as (z + 1)G′ (z), where all the
zeros and poles of G′ (z) are inside the unit circle. The
extension of our proposed solution to a general MIMO
system with non-minimum phase transmission zeros
and multiple zeros on the unit circle is straightforward
and not included here for simplicity. Our objective is
to determine u(k) such that y(k) follows the desired
and known trajectory yd (k). Note that if such a u(k)
is found, it will also satisfy Yd (z) = G(z)U (z), where
Yd (z) denotes the z-transform of yd (k).
Let us rewrite Yd (z) as Yd (z) = zYd′ (z) + Yd′ (z), where
Yd′ (z) = G′ (z)U (z). Clearly, Yd′ (z) is given by
Yd′ (z) = (z + 1)−1 Yd (z)

(50)

The exact computation of yd′ (k) = Z −1 {Yd′ (z)} requires
the initial condition yd′ (0), which is not known. If we
rewrite equation (50) in the time-domain, we have,
yd′ (k + 1) = −yd′ (k) + yd (k)

(51)

Therefore, we have yd′ (1) = −yd′ (0) + yd (0) at k = 0.
Although yd (0) is known, but yd′ (0) is unknown. On the
other hand, the pole of the system (51) is at -1, thus
the effect of unknown initial condition will not die out
overtime. If yd′ (0) was known, since U (z) satisfies both
Yd (z) = G(z)U (z) and Yd′ (z) = G′ (z)U (z), then one
would simply use the algorithm of Table 1 to compute
u(k) by using G′ (z) and the exact value of yd′ (k) instead
of G(z) and yd (k). Consequently, the problem of handling transmission zeros on the unit circle would be easily resolved. In fact, the Algorithm provided in Table 1,
similar to the other work, e.g. in [8] can generate an almost exact duplicate of the unknown states and inputs
that are biased by the value of the unknown initial condition. However, our objective here is to diminish the effects of unknown initial conditions ! so that the system
outputs converge to the desired trajectory starting from
an arbitrary initial condition.
Let us assume that the system S′ is specified by the
quadruple Σ′ := (A′ , B ′ , C ′ , D′ ) and goverend by
Z −1 (G′ (z)). Note that the system S′ is minimum phase.
Therefore, according to the equation (18), the estimate
of all the system states is given by,
X̂(z) = (zI − A)−1 F ZM Yd′ (z)

(52)


−1

−1
(1)
(1)
(1)
where A = Mq
ÂMq , F = Mq
F and
h
iT
ZM = z 0 . . . z n−1 , where z −1 denotes the delay
(1)
Mq ,

operator. The matrices
Â and F are computed
from Theorem 2 by using the quadruple Σ′ . The transfer
function in equation (52) is stable since the poles of A
are the MP zeros of the system.
Let us introduce the controller H(z) having the order nc
that can be written as (z + 1)H ′ (z). It is necessary for

H(z) to have (z + 1) as a factor in order to cancel out
the pole of the inverse system at z = −1. Moreover, let
us assume that an approximation to the system S′ states
is given by X̃(z) = H(z)X̂(z). Therefore, according to
equation (38), an approximation Ũ (z) to the unknown
input is given by,
Ũ (z) = (B ′(1) )† (zI − A′(1) )H(z)X̂(z)

(53)

where B ′(1) = QB ′ and A′(1) = QA′ Q−1 . Combining
equations (50), (52) and (53) yield,
Ũ (z) = (B ′(1) )† (zI−A′(1) )H(z)(zI−A)−1 F ZM (z+1)−1 Yd (z)
(54)
By canceling out the pole at z = −1 by the (z + 1) factor
of H(z), one obtains,
Ũ (z) = (B ′(1) )† (zI − A′(1) )H ′ (z)(zI − A)−1 F ZM Yd (z)
= G̃i (z)Yd (z)
(55)
Equation (55) provides a direct and biased estimate of
the system input by using yd (k) with an additional delay
of nc . Theoretically, the unbiased estimate of the system
input is given by (H(z) = I),
Û (z) = (B ′(1) )† (zI − A′(1) )(zI − A)−1 F ZM (z + 1)−1 Yd (z)
= Ĝi (z)Yd (z)
(56)
Therefore, the output tracking error is approximated by,
Ec (z) = Ŷ (z) − Ỹ (z)
= G(z)(Ĝi (z) − G̃i (z))Yd (z)

(57)

The above result provides an important criterion for
selecting the controller H(z). Note that the governing
error dynamics (57) does not have a pole at z = −1 since
the pole of Ĝi (z) has been canceled out by the (z + 1)
factor of G(z). Therefore, the system (57) is stable.
Let us assume that for the particular case we considered
here the function H(z) is expressed as H(z)I, where H(z)
represents a SISO transfer function of a controller that
contains a factor (z + 1). Therefore, the error dynamics
(57) is given by,
Ec (z) = G(z)Gi (z)(1 − H(z))Yd (z)

(58)

where Gi (z) = (B ′(1) )† (zI − A′(1) )(zI − A)−1 F ZM .
Therefore, the design problem is reduced to that of
solving the following optimization problem,
min k1 − H(z)k

H(z)

(59)

which is also known as the H∞ (or H2 ) norm minimization problem.
Clearly, the above problem is associated with numerous trade-off considerations. For instance, one may not
be able to achieve a minimum value over all frequencies. One may directly introduce the controller H(z) by
defining an approximation of the system input given by
Ũ (z) = H(z)Û (z). The choice depends on the design
preference requirements. Using H(z) provides more degrees of freedom, however it also complicates the mini-

mization problem and the trade-off studies.

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6

|e x |2

A significant advantage of our solution is derived from
the fact that both minimum and non-minimum phase
zeros will not be involved in the design process of H(z) to
handle the transmission zeros on the unit circle. In other
words, the controller H(z) should only cancel out the
transmission zeros on the unit circle, and therefore one
can always find such a controller. However, the actual
challenge is due to the fact that the controller should
also minimize the k1 − H(z)k over a desired range of
frequencies.

1

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

Let us further assume that the particular case we consider here has also a non-minimum phase transmission
zero. In this case, we exactly follow the algorithm that
is provided in Table 1 subject to two modifications,
namely: i) we use the quadruple Σ′ to determine the
algorithm parameters, and ii) we use the following relationship for estimation of the MP states instead of
equation (18), namely
X̃(z) = H ′ (z)(zI − A)−1 F ZM Yd (z)
Therefore, the inverse dynamics poles are the same as
the poles of H ′ (z) and A which are inside the unit circle.
Note that the order of A is less than n, therefore H ′ (z)
should be selected such that the above transfer function
becomes proper.
Finally, following along a similar approach allows one to
relax the condition of simplicity of the MP transmission
zeros in Theorem 2. As an illustration, let us assume that
the transfer function of a SISO system can be expressed
as G(z) = (z − p)2 G′′ (z), where kpk < 1 and G′′ (z) does
not have (z − p) as a factor in its denominator. Therefore, the algebraic multiplicity of z = p is two. In this
case, we exactly follow the algorithm that is provided in
Table 1 subject to two modifications, namely: i) we use
the quadruple Σ′ as described by Z −1 {(z − p)G′′ (z)} to
determine the algorithm parameters, and ii) we use the
signal yd′ (k) instead of yd (k) where yd′ (k) is governed
d (z)
by Yd′ (z) = Yz−p
. The above transfer function has an
arbitrary initial condition. Since kpk < 1, the effects
of the unknown initial condition will die out quickly. !
The solution also does not require the introduction of a
controller.
This now completes our proposed methodology for
handling transmission zeros on the unit circle. In the
next section, we will provide illustrative simulations to
demonstrate the merits of our proposed methodologies.
6

Numerical Case Studies Simulations

Case I: Consider the following discrete-time linear system,
(z − 1.5)(z − 0.5)
(60)
G(z) =
z2
or in its equivalent state space representation given by,

"
#
" #

0
0
0

 x(k + 1) =
x(k) +
u(k)
1 0
1
(61)
h
i


 y(k) = −2 0.75 x(k) + u(k)

0.1
0
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

nd

Fig. 1. Upper bound of the NMP state estimation error versus
nd .

Using Lemma 1, the solution hto the conditions
(i)-(iii)
i
is given by Â = 0.5, F = −0.5547 0 , and M =
h
i
−0.5574 0.8321 . Therefore, the unknown input observer is now given by equation (18),
(
η(k + 1) = 0.5η(k) − 0.5574y(k)
(62)
(1)
x̂1 (k) = η(k)
Moreover, we have from the LQ decomposition of M and
equations (28) and (29), the following
"
#
h
i
−0.5547 0.8321
(1)
T =
;L = 1 0
0.8321 0.5547
h
i
Azd = 1.5; Bzd = −1.5 −1 .

The upper bound for the state estimation error versus nd is shown in Figure 1. We have applied a
non-smooth random input to the system in order to
illustrate and demonstrate the effects of nd on the estimation error. A smooth input, as stated in Remark
4, will be estimated in an almost unbiased manner for
(1)
any nd ≥ 2. Figure 2 depicts that x1 (1) is perfectly
estimated by using the unknown input observer (UIO)
as expected. Figure 3 shows that a perfect reconstruc(1)
tion can be achieved for x2 (1) by selecting nd = 15, as
expected from Figure 1. According to the Proposition
1, the unknown input should also be almost perfectly
reconstructed with nd = 15, which is also verified in
Figure 4.
Case II: In another simulation case study, consider that
a non-smooth yd (k) is required to be followed. The unknown input is reconstructed by using the Algorithm
that is detailed in Table 1, and the results are depicted in
Figure 5. This figure demonstrates that an almost perfect output tracking is achieved by selecting nd = 15.
Finally, consider a smooth yd (k) as given by yd (k) =
k 2 sin(5πk). The output tracking result for this smooth
desired trajectory (not shown due to space limitations)
confirms and validates the statements made in Remark
4.
Case III: To provide a comparative study, consider a
MIMO system that is taken from the reference [14] with

0.6

1
true state
estimated state

0.8

0.4

0.6

0.3

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.1

0

y

x (1)
1

0.5

0

-0.2

-0.1

-0.4

-0.2

-0.6

-0.3

-0.8

-0.4

-1
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

yd
tracking performance with n d =5
tracking performance with n d =15

0

5

time step

true state
estimated state with n d =5

1.2

estimated state with n d =15

1

x (1)
2

0.8

0.6

n d =15
n d =5

0.4

0.2

0
-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

time step

Fig. 3. The estimation of the NMP state (the graphs are
shifted by nd − n time steps to the left for the purpose of
comparison) by utilizing the filter (36).
1.2
true input
estimated input with n d =5

1

estimated input with n d =15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Fig. 5. The output tracking performance corresponding to
different values of nd by utilizing equations (42), (43) and
(45).

The system (63) has two zeros at z1 = 0.6072 and
z1 = 1.9928. Therefore, it has three MP states and one
NMP state. Authors of [14] proposed a geometric approach and applied it to the system (63) to achieve an
almost perfect estimation of the states and unknown
inputs with a delay of 20 time steps (nd = 20). For comparison, our simulation results for the same example is
shown in Figure 6 (the numerical values of the estimation filter parameters are given in Appendix H), which
demonstrate that by using our proposed methodology
the unknown states and inputs are almost perfectly reconstructed with only a delay of nd = 10, which is half
of the delay that was used in [14]. Moreover, as shown
in Figure 6b, by using our approach the three MP states
of the system are estimated without any delay when the
transient response due to the unknown initial condition
dies out quick! ly. This is in contrast to the delayed results that are shown in the work [14].
However, the most important contribution of our work
over that in [14] is derived from the fact that our
methodology unlike the one in [14] can handle transmission zeros on the unit circle as illustrated in the next
case study.
Case IV: Consider the following system,

0.8

u

15

time step

Fig. 2. The estimation of the MP state by utilizing the filter
(18).
1.4

10

0.6

G(z) =

(z + 1)(z + 3)(z + 0.5)(z − 0.5)
z 2 (z 2 − z + 0.5)

(64)

0.4

The above system has both MP and NMP transmission
zeros as well as a zero on the unit circle. We follow the
procedure that was introduced in Section 5 for designing an inversion-based output tracking controller. We
selected the controller H(z) having the structure,

0.2

0
-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

time step

Fig. 4. The estimation of the unknown input (the graphs are
shifted by nd − n time steps to the left for the purpose of
comparison) by utilizing equation (39).

A ∈ R4×4 , B ∈ R4×2 and C ∈ R2×4 as follows,


0.6 −0.3






 0.1

1




 x(k + 1) =  −0.4 −1.5


0.3 1.1


"
#



1
2
3
4


 y(k) =
x(k)

2 1 5 6

0

0





0

0.4








0 
 u(k)
 x(k) +  0



0.4 −0.3 
 0 −0.1 
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.9
0

0

(63)

H(z) =

z+1
I
2z

(65)

The numerical values for the other parameters are given
in Appendix I. Figure 7 shows the output tracking performance of our proposed solution with nc = 1 and
nd = 10. The result demonstrates the significant advantage of our proposed solution for handling all types of
transmission zeros within a single framework. Specifically, Figure 7 shows that the desired trajectory is approximately followed by an error that is governed by
equation (57). On the other hand, the proposed methodology in [14] essentially fails under this case. Note that

a

20
yd

x (1)
(1)
1

15

estimated state
true state

0.5

tracking performance

10

0

5
-0.5
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

y

x (1)
(2)
1

1

-5

0

-10
-1
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-15

x (1)
(3)
1

5

-20
0

-25
-5
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

time step

-30
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

time step

b
2

Fig. 7. The output tracking performance for the system (64).

estimated state
true state

1.5
1

x (1)
2

0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

40

50

60

time step

c
4

estimated input
true input

u(1)

2
0

values of Γ = (A − BIn D+
n Cn ) may or may not coincide
with the transmission zeros of the system. Also, it may or
may not have the same characteristics, namely the MP
transmission zero of S remains the stable eigenvalue of Γ.
However, if one determines the matrices Â, F and M by
using a different method for these systems, then the remainder of our procedur! e for unknown state and input
reconstruction, as described in this paper, will remain
applicable and unchanged. We have also demonstrated
that our proposed methods can provide an almost perfect tracking of any desired output trajectory by using
data and information that correspond to a small preview
time. An important contribution of our methodology is
the fact that we have provided a single framework that
can handle the problem of output tracking for systems
that have transmission zeros on the unit circle in addition to MP and NMP zeros. However, further research
is required to address issues of robustness and tracking
error performance in presence of disturbances and modeling uncertainties. These issues are left as topics of future research.

-2
-4
-10

0

10

20

30

References

4

u(2)

2
0
-2
-4
-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

time step

Fig. 6. Simulation results for the MIMO system (63) taken
from [14], (a) The MP state estimates, (b) The NMP state
estimates, and (c) The unknown input estimates.

the H(z) that is selected in equation (65) can be used
for all SISO systems that have a transmission zero at
z = −1, in addition to MP and NMP zeros.
7 Conclusion
In this paper, we have shown that one can almost perfectly estimate and reconstruct the unknown state and
inputs of a system if i) the system S is square, and ii)
(1)
B1 or D is full column rank. Non-square systems rarely
have transmission zeros [23], and therefore it is straightforward to design an unknown input observer (UIO) to
estimate all the system states. We excluded non-square
systems from our analysis since Theorem 1 is not guaranteed for this class of systems. In other words, the eigen-

[1] R. Brockett and M. Mesarovic, “The reproducibility of
multivariable systems,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis
and Applications, vol. 11, pp. 548–563, 1965.
[2] L. Silverman, “Inversion of multivariable linear systems,”
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 14, pp. 270 –
276, jun 1969.
[3] J. Massey and M. Sain, “Inverses of linear sequential
circuits,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. C-17,
pp. 330 – 337, april 1968.
[4] P. Moylan, “Stable inversion of linear systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 22, pp. 74 – 78, feb
1977.
[5] S. Gilijns, Kalman filtering techniques for system inversion
and data assimilation. PhD thesis, K.U.Leuven, Leuven,
Belgium, 2007.
[6] R. A. Chavan and H. J. Palanthandalam-Madapusi, “Delayed
recursive state and input reconstruction,” arXiv preprint
arXiv:1509.06226, 2015.
[7] H.
J.
Palanthandalam-Madapusi
and D. S. Bernstein, “Unbiased minimum-variance filtering
for input reconstruction,” in American Control Conference,
2007. ACC’07, pp. 5712–5717, 2007.
[8] S. Kirtikar, H. Palanthandalam-Madapusi, E. Zattoni,
and D. S. Bernstein, “l-delay input and initial-state
reconstruction for discrete-time linear systems,” Circuits,
Systems, and Signal Processing, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 233–262,
2011.

[9] Y. Xiong and M. Saif, “Unknown disturbance inputs
estimation based on a state functional observer design,”
Automatica, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 1389–1398, 2003.
[10] S. Wahls and H. Boche, “Novel system inversion algorithm
with application to oversampled perfect reconstruction filter
banks,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 58,
pp. 3008–3016, June 2010.
[11] T. Floquet and J.-P. Barbot, “A sliding mode approach of
unknown input observers for linear systems,” in Decision
and Control, 2004. CDC. 43rd IEEE Conference on, vol. 2,
pp. 1724–1729, 2004.
[12] Q. Zou and S. Devasia, “Preview-based stable-inversion for
output tracking of linear systems,” Journal of dynamic
systems, measurement, and control, vol. 121, no. 4, pp. 625–
630, 1999.
[13] K. George, M. Verhaegen, and J. M. Scherpen, “Stable
inversion of mimo linear discrete time nonminimum phase
systems,” in Proc. 7th Mediterranean Conference on Control
and Automation, pp. 267–281, 1999.
[14] G. Marro and E. Zattoni, “Unknown-state, unknown-input
reconstruction in discrete-time nonminimum-phase systems:
Geometric methods,” Automatica, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 815 –
822, 2010.
[15] G. Marro, E. Zattoni, and D. S. Bernstein, “Geometric insight
and structure algorithms for unknown-state, unknown-input
reconstruction in linear multivariable systems,” {IFAC}
Proceedings Volumes, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 11320 – 11325, 2011.
18th {IFAC} World Congress.
[16] Q. Zou and S. Devasia, “Preview-based optimal inversion
for output tracking: application to scanning tunneling
microscopy,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems
Technology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 375–386, 2004.
[17] Q. Zou and S. Devasia, “Precision preview-based stableinversion for nonlinear nonminimum-phase systems: The vtol
example,” Automatica, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 117–127, 2007.
[18] Q. Zou, “Optimal preview-based stable-inversion for output
tracking of nonminimum-phase linear systems,” Automatica,
vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 230–237, 2009.
[19] H. Wang, K. Kim, and Q. Zou, “B-spline-decompositionbased output tracking with preview for nonminimum-phase
linear systems,” Automatica, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 1295–1303,
2013.
[20] B. Kiumarsi, F. L. Lewis, H. Modares, A. Karimpour, and
M.-B. Naghibi-Sistani, “Reinforcement q-learning for optimal
tracking control of linear discrete-time systems with unknown
dynamics,” Automatica, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1167–1175, 2014.
[21] M. Duan, K. S. Ramani, and C. E. Okwudire, “Tracking
control of non-minimum phase systems using filtered basis
functions: A nurbs-based approach,” in ASME 2015 Dynamic
Systems and Control Conference, pp. V001T03A006–
V001T03A006, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
2015.
[22] S. Sundaram and C. N. Hadjicostis, “Delayed observers for
linear systems with unknown inputs,” IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, vol. 52, pp. 334–339, Feb 2007.
[23] E. Davison and S. Wang, “Properties and calculation
of transmission zeros of linear multivariable systems,”
Automatica, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 643 – 658, 1974.
[24] D. Carlson, E. Haynsworth, and T. Markham, “A
generalization of the schur complement by means of
the moorepenrose inverse,” SIAM Journal on Applied
Mathematics, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 169–175, 1974.

A

Proof of Theorem 1

The eigenvalues of A − BIn D+
n Cn are obtained by solving |zI−A+BIn D+
n Cn | = 0. If the system is square, then
D+
n is a nonzero square matrix. Therefore, one can equiv+
alently solve the equation |D+
n | |zI−A+BIn Dn Cn | = 0.
On the other hand from the Schur identity [24], we have,
#
"
zI − A −BIn
+
+
Dn |zI−A+BInDn Cn | =
(A.1)
Cn
Dn

Let us partition Cn and Dn as follows,

Cn =


C
! 

 CA 
C


=
..

C−


.
n−1
CA




(A.2)


0

0
D 0
Dn =
.. 

−
−
D21
D22
. 
D
(A.3)
Then, the right hand side of equation (A.1) can be partitioned as,


#
"
zI − A −B 0
zI − A −BIp


(A.4)
= C
D 0 
Cn
Dn
−
−
C − D21
D22
!

D
0

D
 CB
=
..
..


.
.
n−1
n−2
CA
B CA
B

...
...
..
.
...

−
Thus, if D22
is full row rank, then according to the Schur
identity, equation |zI− A+ BIn D"+
n Cn | = 0 has only
# one
zI − A −BIp
set of solution that is given by
= 0,
Cn
Dn
which is exactly the transmission zeros of the system
−
S. hHowever, if Di22
is rank deficient, then certain rows

−
of C − D21
D− are linearly dependent on the rows of
h
i 22
−A −B 0 . Hence, z = 0 is also a solution. On the

other hand, since |zI − A + BIn D+
n Cn | = 0 must have
n eigenvalues, if the system S has p transmission zeros,
then z = 0 is a solution of multiplicity n − p. 

B

Proof of Theorem 2

Since the system S has α1 transmission zeros having an
algebraic multiplicity of 1, therefore Γ has α1 linearly
independent eigenvectors. Therefore, M0 has at least α1
linearly independent rows. On the other hand, the set Z
(as defined in Theorem 1) has αz zeros, where αz = n −
β − α1 . Therefore, I − Dn D+
n has αz independent rows.
This implies that M# has αz linearly independent rows.
Therefore, M has αz + α1 = n − β linearly independent
rows. 
C

Proof of Lemma 2

Since the system S has at least one NMP zero (q < n),
then by the definition of transmission zeros, there exists
a nonzero u(k) that yields a zero output (y(k) = 0 for all
(1)
k). On the other hand, according to Theorem 3, x1 (k)
approaches to zero when y(k) = 0 for k = k0 , k0 + 1, . . ..
Therefore, from the first and third equations of (19), we
have for k → ∞,
#"
#
" # "
(1)
(1)
C2
D
0
x2 (k − n)
.
(C.1)
=
(1)
(1)
0
u(k − n)
A12 B1

"

#
(1)
x2 (k − n)
Since
is nonzero, it implies that the
u(k − n)
"
#
(1)
C2
D
columns of
are linearly dependent. 
(1)
(1)
A12 B1
D

Proof of Lemma 3
(1)

First note that A11 in equation (19) is a Hurwitz matrix,
(1)
otherwise x1 (k) → ∞ as k → ∞. Next, consider,
(
(1)
(1) (1)
(1)
x2 (k − n + 1) = A22 x2 (k − n) + B2 u(k − n)
(z1)
S
:
(1) (1)
(1)
ξ(k − n) = A12 x2 (k − n) + B1 u(k − n)
(D.1)
If there exists a nonzero u(k) that yields ξ(k) = 0, then
this implies that from the first equation of (19) we have,
(1)
x1 (k) → 0 as k → ∞. Therefore, y(k) → 0 as k →
∞ according to Theorem 3. Therefore, the transmission
zeros of S (z1) are also the transmission zeros of S (1) . 
E

Proof of Lemma 4

Consider the following system,
 (1)
(1) (1)
(1)

 x2 (k − n + 1) = A22 "x2 (k − n) +#B2 u(k − n)
h
i x(1) (k − n)
S (z2) :
(1)
2

 ξ(k − n) = C2 D
u(k − n)
(E.1)
If there
exists
a
nonzero
u(k)
that
yields
ξ(k)
=
0,
then
h
i
since I C1 is full row rank, the third equation of (19)
(1)

yields x1 (k) = 0, and y(k) = 0. Therefore, the transmission zeros of S (z2) are also the transmission zeros of
S (1) . 

F

Proof of Theorem 4

Note that Cz2 = 0 is an immediate result of the Schur
identity [24] and Lemma 2. The eigenvalues
of#Az are a
"
(1)
(1)
A22 B2
, which
subset of the transmission zeros of
(1)
(1)
A12 B1
are a subset of the system S zeros according to Lemma
3. According to Theorem 3 and Theorem 4 (Cz2 = 0),
the output of the system (22) goes to zero as k → ∞
(1)
(1)
if and only if x1 (k), and consequently, X1 (k) goes to
zero as k → ∞. The first equation of (22) implies that if
(1)
Az is a Hurwitz matrix, then x2 (k) must approach to
(1)
zero when X1 (k) is zero. However, we know that there
(1)
exists nonzero x2 (k) and u(k) that yield a zero y(k)
for all k. Therefore, since the response of an unforced
line! ar system can approach to zero or infinity (recall
we excluded systems with transmission zeros on the unit
(1)
circle in Assumption 1), therefore x2 (k) must approach
to infinity. This implies that the eigenvalues of Az are
the NMP zeros of S. 
G

Proof of Theorem 5

e NMP zeros of S. Proof follows along the same lines
as those for Theorem 4 using Lemma 4 and is therefore
omitted for brevity. 

H

Numerical values for estimation filter parameters for the system (63)


0.6072 0 0


Â =  0
0 0  , Az = 1.9928
0
0 0


0 0 −0.662 0.0184


F =  0 0 −0.0206 0.1365 
0 0 0.1337 0.0338


0.0488 0.9650 0.2063 −0.1547


M =  0.2523 0.0953 0.6205 0.7364 
0.2013 0.3012 0.5700 0.7375


−0.0488 −0.9650 −0.2063 0.1547
 0.2483 −0.0190 0.6003 0.7600 


T(1) = 

 −0.4645 0.2474 −0.5833 0.6187 
−0.8487 −0.0855 0.5067 −0.1252


−1.0000
0
0
0


L =  −0.1183 0.9930
0
0
−0.3039 0.9469 0.1048 0

h
i
Bz = −0.2463 −2.0822 2.4171 5.3035 −0.0678 −2.3507
I Numerical values for estimation filter parameters for the system (64)




0 1.042 0 0
0 0
0




Â =  0 0.5 0  , F =  0 −0.4119 0 0 
0 0.4823 0 0
0 0 −0.5


0.368 −0.368 0.792 −0.317


M= 0
0.395 −0.852 0.341 
0 −0.395 −0.852 0.341


−0.3680 0.3680 −0.7928 0.3171
 −0.9298 −0.1456 0.3138 −0.1255 


T(1) = 


0
−0.9184 −0.3674 0.1470 
0



0

0.3714

0.9285



−1.0000
0
0
0


L =  0.9298 −0.3680
0
0  , Az = 3
0.6386 −0.2527 0.7269 0
h
i
Bz = 2.1348 −0.8448 0.9894 −0.2135 0.0845 −0.0989

