Dynamic compensation and homeostasis:
a feedback control perspective

arXiv:1801.04959v1 [cs.SY] 15 Jan 2018

Michel Fliessa,c , Cédric Joinb,c,d
a LIX

(CNRS, UMR 7161), École polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau, France.

Michel.Fliess@polytechnique.edu
b CRAN

(CNRS, UMR 7039), Université de Lorraine, BP 239,
54506 Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France

cedric.join@univ-lorraine.fr
c AL.I.E.N.

(ALgèbre pour Identification & Estimation Numériques),
7 rue Maurice Barrès, 54330 Vézelise, France.

{michel.fliess, cedric.join}@alien-sas.com
d Projet

Non-A, INRIA Lille – Nord-Europe, France

Abstract
“Dynamic compensation” is a robustness property where a perturbed biological
circuit maintains a suitable output [Karin O., Swisa A., Glaser B., Dor Y., Alon
U. (2016). Mol. Syst. Biol., 12: 886]. In spite of several attempts, no fully
convincing analysis seems now to be on hand. This communication suggests an
explanation via “model-free control” and the corresponding “intelligent” controllers [Fliess M., Join C. (2013). Int. J. Contr., 86, 2228-2252], which are
already successfully applied in many concrete situations. As a byproduct this
setting provides also a slightly different presentation of homeostasis, or “exact
adaptation,” where the working conditions are assumed to be “mild.” Several
convincing, but academic, computer simulations are provided and discussed.
Keywords: Systems biology, homeostasis, exact adaptation, dynamic
compensation, integral feedback control, PID, model-free control, intelligent
proportional controller.

Research Report. École polytechnique, Palaiseau, France, January 2018

1. Introduction
In systems biology, i.e., an approach of growing importance to theoretical biology (see, e.g., Alon (2006); Klipp et al. (2016); Kremling (2012)), basic control notions, like feedback loops, are becoming more and more popular
(see, e.g., Åström et al. (2008); Cowan et al. (2014); Cosentino et al. (2011);
Del Vecchio et al. (2015)). This communication intends to show that a peculiar
feedback loop permits to clarify the concept of dynamic compensation (DC ) of
biological circuits, which was recently introduced by Karin et al. (2016). DC is
a robustness property. It implies, roughly speaking, that biological systems are
able of maintaining a suitable output despite environmental fluctuations. As
noticed by Karin et al. (2016) such a property arises naturally in physiological
systems. The DC of blood glucose, for instance, with respect to variation in
insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion is obtained by controlling the functional
mass of pancreatic beta cells.
The already existing and more restricted homeostasis, or exact adaptation,
deals only with constant reference trajectories, i.e., setpoints. It is achievable via
an integral feedback (see, e.g., Alon et al. (1999); Briat et al. (2016); Miao et al.
(2011); Stelling et al. (2004); Yi et al. (2000))
Remark 1.1. PIDs (see, e.g., Åström et al. (2008); O’Dwyer (2009)) read:
Z
u = KP e + KI e + KD ė
(1)
where
• u, y, y ⋆ are respectively the control and output variables, and the reference
trajectory.
• e = y − y ⋆ is the tracking error,
• KP , KI , KD ∈ R are the tuning gains.
To the best of our knowledge, they are, strangely enough, more or less missing

2

in the literature on theoretical biology,1 although they lead to the most widely
used control strategies in industry.
From KP = KD = 0 in Equation (1), the following integral feedback is
deduced:
u = KI

Z

e

(2)

Compare Equation (2) with the references above on homeostasis, and Somvanshi et al.
(2015). See Abouaı̈ssa et al. (2017b), and the references therein, for an application to ramp metering on freeways in order to avoid traffic congestion.
Conditions for DC have already been investigated by several authors: Karin et al.
(2017a,b); Sontag (2017); Villaverde et al. (2017). Parameter identification,
which plays a key rôle in most of those studies, leads, according to the own
words of Karin et al. (2017b), to some kind of “discrepancy,” which is perhaps not yet fully cleared up. We suggest therefore another roadmap, i.e.,
intelligent feedback controllers as defined by Fliess et al. (2013). Many concrete applications have already been developed all over the world. Some have
been patented. The bibliography contains for obvious reasons only recent works
in biotechnology: Bara et al. (2016); Join et al. (2017a); Lafont et al. (2015);
MohammadRidha et al. (2018); Tebbani et al. (2016).2
An unexpected byproduct is derived from Remark 1.1 and the comparison in
Abouaı̈ssa et al. (2017b) between Equation (2) and our intelligent proportional
controller (Fliess et al. (2013)). Exact adaptation means now a “satisfactory”
behavior thanks to the feedback loop defined by Equation (2) when the working
conditions are “mild.” The result by Karin et al. (2016) via a mechanism for DC
based on known hormonal circuit reactions, which states that exact adaptation
does not guarantee dynamical compensation, remains therefore valid in this new
context.
1 This

is of course less the case in synthetic biology, i.e., a blending between biology and

engineering (see, e.g., Del Vecchio et al. (2016) and the references therein).
2 A rather comprehensive bibliography of concrete applications is provided
Abouaı̈ssa et al. (2017a).

3

by

This exploratory research report is organized as follows. Intelligent controllers are summarized in Section 2, where the connection between classic PIs
and intelligent proportional controllers is also presented. Section 3, which is
hevily influenced by Abouaı̈ssa et al. (2017b), defines dynamic compensation
and exact adaptation. Section 4 displays various convincing, but academic,
computer experiments. Some concluding remarks may be found in Section 5.

2. Model-free control and intelligent controllers
See Fliess et al. (2013) for full details.
2.1. Generalities
2.1.1. The ultra-local model
The poorly known global description of the plant, which is assumed for
simplicity’s sake to be SISO (single-input single output),3 is replaced by the
ultra-local model :
y (ν) = F + αu

(3)

where:
• the control and output variables are respectively u and y;
• the derivation order ν is often equal to 1, sometimes to 2; in practice ν ≥ 3
has never been encountered;
• the constant α ∈ R is chosen by the practitioner such that αu and y (ν)
are of the same magnitude; therefore α does not need to be precisely
estimated.
The following comments might be useful:
• Equation (3) is only valid during a short time lapse and must be continuously updated;
3 For

a multivariable extension, see, e.g., Lafont et al. (2015); Menhour et al. (2017).

4

• F is estimated via the knowledge of the control and output variables u
and y;
• F subsumes not only the system structure, which most of the time will be
nonlinear, but also any external disturbance.
2.1.2. Intelligent controllers
Set ν = 2. Close the loop with the following intelligent proportional-integralderivative controller, or iPID,
u=−

F − ẏ ∗ + KP e + KI
α

R

e + KD ė

(4)

where:
• e = y − y ⋆ is the tracking error,
• KP , KI , KD ∈ R are the tuning gains.
When KI = 0, we obtain the intelligent proportional-derivative controller, or
iPD,
u=−

F − ẏ ∗ + KP e + KD ė
α

(5)

When ν = 1 and KI = KD = 0, we obtain the intelligent proportional controller,
or iP, which is the most important one,
u=−

F − ẏ ∗ + KP e
α

(6)

Combining Equations (3) and (6) yields:
ė + KP e = 0

(7)

where F does not appear anymore. The tuning of KP is therefore straightforward.
Remark 2.1. See Join et al. (2017b) for a comment on those various controllers.

5

2.1.3. Estimation of F
Assume that F in Equation (3) is “well” approximated by a piecewise constant function Fest .4 The estimation techniques below are borrowed from Fliess et al.
(2003, 2008) and Sira-Ramı́rez et al. (2014). Let us summarize two types of
computations:
1. Rewrite Equation (3) in the operational domain (see, e.g., Erdélyi (1962)):
sY =

Φ
+ αU + y(0)
s

where Φ is a constant. We get rid of the initial condition y(0) by multiplying both sides on the left by
Y +s

d
ds :

dU
Φ
dY
=− 2 +α
ds
s
ds

Noise attenuation is achieved by multiplying both sides on the left by s−2 ,
since integration with respect to time is a lowpass filter. It yields in the
time domain the realtime estimate, thanks to the equivalence between

d
ds

and the multiplication by −t,
Fest (t) = −

6
τ3

Z

t

[(τ − 2σ)y(σ) + ασ(τ − σ)u(σ)] dσ

(8)

t−τ

where τ > 0 might be quite small. This integral may of course be replaced
in practice by a classic digital filter.
2. Close the loop with the iP (6). It yields:
Z t

1
⋆
Fest (t) =
(ẏ − αu − KP e) dσ
τ t−τ
Remark 2.2. From a hardware standpoint, a real-time implementation of our
intelligent controllers is also cheap and easy (Join et al. (2013)).
2.2. PI and iP
Consider the classic continuous-time PI controller
Z
u(t) = kp e(t) + ki e(τ )dτ
4 This

is a weak assumption (see, e.g., Bourbaki (1976)).

6

(9)

R
A crude sampling of the integral e(τ )dτ through a Riemann sum I(t) leads to
Z
e(τ )dτ ≃ I(t) = I(t − h) + he(t)
where h is the sampling interval. The corresponding discrete form of Equation
(9) reads:
u(t) = kp e(t) + ki I(t) = kp e(t) + ki I(t − h) + ki he(t)
Combining the above equation with
u(t − h) = kp e(t − h) + ki I(t − h)
yields
u(t) = u(t − h) + kp (e(t) − e(t − h)) + ki he(t)

(10)

Remark 2.3. A trivial sampling of the “velocity form” of Equation (9)
u̇(t) = kp ė(t) + ki e(t)

(11)

yields
u(t) − u(t − h)
= kp
h



e(t) − e(t − h)
h



+ ki e(t)

which is equivalent to Equation (10).
Replace in Equation (6) F by ẏ(t) − αu(t − h) and therefore by
y(t) − y(t − h)
− αu(t − h)
h
It yields
u(t) = u(t − h) −

e(t) − e(t − h) KP
−
e(t)
hα
α

(12)

FACT.- Equations (10) and (12) become identical if we set
kp = −

1
,
αh

ki = −

KP
αh

(13)

Remark 2.4. This path breaking result was first stated by d’Andréa-Novel et al.
(2010):
7

• It is straightforward to extend it to the same type of equivalence between
PIDs and iPDs.
• It explains apparently for the first time the ubiquity of PIs and PIDs in
the industrial world.

3. Exact adaptation and dynamic compensation
Equation (11) shows that integral and proportional-integral controllers are
close when
1. ė remains small,
2. the reference trajectory y ∗ starts at the initial condition y(0) or, at least,
at a point in a neighborhood,
3. the measurement noise corruption is low.
The following conditions might be helpful:
• the reference trajectory y ∗ is “slowly” varying, and starts at the initial
condition y(0) or, at least, at a point in its neighborhood,5
• the disturbances and the corrupting noises are rather mild.
Then the performances of the integral controller should be decent: this is exact adaptation, or homeostasis. When the above conditions are not satisfied,
dynamic compensation means that one at least of the feedback loops in Section 2.1 is negative, i.e., fluctuations around the reference trajectory due to
perturbations and input changes are attenuated.6
5 Setpoints
6 The

are therefore recovered.
wording “negative feedback” is today common in biology, but, to some extent, ne-

glected in engineering, where it was quite popular long time ago (see, e.g., Küpfmüller et al.
(2017)). Historical details are given by Zeron (2008) and Del Vecchio et al. (2015).

8

4. Two computer experiments
The two academic examples below provide easily implementable numerical
examples. They are characterized by the following features:
• KI = 0.5 (resp. KI = 1) for the integral feedback in the linear (resp.
nonlinear) case.
• α = KP = 1 for the the iP (6) in both cases.
• The sampling period is 10ms.
• In order to be more realistic, the output is corrupted additively by a zeromean white Gaussian noise of standard deviation 0.01.
4.1. Linear case
Consider the input-output system defined by the transfer function
2(s + 1)
s2 + s + 1
Several reference trajectories are examined:
(i) Setpoint and 50% efficiency loss of the actuator: see Figures 1 see 2.
(ii) Slow connection between two setpoints: see Figures 3 and 4.
(iii) Fast connection: see Figures 5 and 6.
(iv) Complex reference trajectory: see Figures 7 and 8.
In the first scenario, the control efficiency loss is attenuated much faster by the
iP than by the integral feedback. The behaviors of the integral feedback and
the iP with respect to a slow connection are both good and cannot be really
distinguished. The situation change drastically with a fast connection and a
complex reference trajectory: the iP becomes vastly superior to the integral
feedback. Exact adaptation works well only in the second scenario, whereas
dynamic compensation yields always excellent results.

9

1.2

1.3
Output
Reference trajectory
Reference

1.2
1
1.1

0.8

1

0.9
0.6
0.8

0.4

0.7

0.6
0.2
0.5

0

0.4
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

5

10

15

20

Time(s)

25

30

35

40

45

50

Time(s)

(a) Control

(b) Output

Figure 1: Integral feedback, constant reference trajectory, control efficiency loss

1.2

1.3
Output
Reference trajectory
Reference

1.2
1
1.1
0.8
1
0.6

0.9

0.8

0.4

0.7
0.2
0.6
0
0.5

-0.2

0.4
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

Time(s)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Time(s)

(a) Control

(b) Output

Figure 2: iP, constant reference trajectory, control efficiency loss

10

40

45

50

1.2

0.5

1

0.4

Output
Reference trajectory
Reference

0.8
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.2

0

0

-0.1

-0.2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

5

10

15

20

Time(s)

25

30

35

40

45

50

Time(s)

(a) Control

(b) Output

Figure 3: Integral feedback, slow connection

1.2

0.8

1

0.6

Output
Reference trajectory
Reference

0.8
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.4
0
0.2

-0.2

0

-0.4

-0.2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

5

10

Time(s)

15

20

25

30

Time(s)

(a) Control

(b) Output

Figure 4: iP, slow connection

11

35

40

45

50

0.6

1.2

0.5

1

0.4

0.8

0.3

0.6

0.2

0.4

0.1

0.2

0

0

-0.1

-0.2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Output
Reference trajectory
Reference

0

5

10

15

20

Time(s)

25

30

35

40

45

50

Time(s)

(a) Control

(b) Output

Figure 5: Integral feedback, fast connection

0.8

1.2

0.6

1

0.4

0.8

0.2

0.6

0

0.4

-0.2

0.2

-0.4

0

-0.6

Output
Reference trajectory
Reference

-0.2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

5

10

Time(s)

15

20

25

30

Time(s)

(a) Control

(b) Output

Figure 6: iP, fast connection

12

35

40

45

50

0.8

1.6

0.7

1.4

0.6

1.2

0.5

1

0.4

0.8

0.3

0.6

0.2

0.4

0.1

0.2

0

Output
Reference trajectory
Reference

0

-0.1

-0.2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

5

10

15

20

Time(s)

25

30

35

40

45

50

Time(s)

(a) Control

(b) Output

Figure 7: Integral connection, complex reference trajectory

0.8

1.4

1.2
0.6
1
0.4
0.8

0.2

Output
Reference trajectory
Reference

0.6

0.4
0
0.2
-0.2
0

-0.4

-0.2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

5

10

15

20

Time(s)

25

30

Time(s)

(a) Control

(b) Output

Figure 8: iP, complex reference trajectory

13

35

40

45

50

4.2. Nonlinear case
Consider
ẏ + y = u3 + Ppert
where Ppert is a perturbation. Introduce three scenarios:
(i) Setpoint without any perturbation, i.e., Ppert = 0: see Figures 9 and 10.
(ii) Setpoint with a sine wave perturbation which starts at t = 25s, i.e.,
Ppert (t) = 0.2 sin( 2π
5 (t − 25)) if t ≥ 25s, and Ppert (t) = 0 if t ≤ 25s:
see Figures 11 and 12.
(iii) Non-constant reference trajectory without any perturbation, i.e., Ppert =
0: see Figures 13 and 14.
A clear-cut superiority of the iP with respect to the integral feedback is indisputable. The behavior of dynamic compensation (resp. exact adaptation) is
always (resp. never) satisfactory.
Remark 4.1. Do not believe that integral feedbacks are never adequate if nonlinearities occur. See
• an example related to ramp metering in Abouaı̈ssa et al. (2017b),
• theoretical investigations in Sontag (2010).

5. Conclusion
In order to be fully convincing, this preliminary annoucement on homeostasis
extensions needs of course to exhibit true biological examples. In our context
noise corruption is also a hot topic (see, e.g., Briat et al. (2016); Sun et al.
(2010)). The estimation and identification techniques sketched in Section 2.1
might lead to a better understanding (see also Fliess (2006, 2008)).

14

1.4

1.4
Output
Reference trajectory
Reference

1.2

1.2

1
1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4

0.4

0.2

0

0.2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

5

10

15

20

Time(s)

25

30

35

40

45

50

Time(s)

(a) Control

(b) Output

Figure 9: Integral feedback, constant reference trajectory, without any perturbation

1.4

1.4
Output
Reference trajectory
Reference

1.2

1.2

1
1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4

0.4

0.2

0

0.2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

Time(s)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Time(s)

(a) Control

(b) Output

Figure 10: iP, constant reference trajectory, without any perturbation

15

45

50

1.4

1.4
Output
Reference trajectory
Reference

1.2

1.2

1
1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4

0.4

0.2

0

0.2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

5

10

15

20

Time(s)

25

30

35

40

45

50

Time(s)

(a) Control

(b) Output

Figure 11: Integral feedback, constant reference trajectory, with perturbation

1.2

1.4

1

1.2

0.8

1

0.6

0.8

0.4

0.6

0.2

0.4

Output
Reference trajectory
Reference

0

0.2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

Time(s)

5

10

15

20

25

30

Time(s)

(a) Control

(b) Output

Figure 12: iP, constant reference trajectory, with perturbation

16

35

40

45

50

1.2

1.2

1

1

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0

0

-0.2

-0.2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Output
Reference trajectory
Reference

0

5

10

15

20

Time(s)

25

30

35

40

45

50

Time(s)

(a) Control

(b) Output

Figure 13: Integral feedback, non-constant reference trajectory, without any perturbation

1.2

1.2

1

1

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0

0

-0.2

Output
Reference trajectory
Reference

-0.2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

Time(s)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Time(s)

(a) Control

(b) Output

Figure 14: iP, non-constant reference trajectory, without any perturbation

17

45

50

References
Abouaı̈ssa H., Alhaj Hasan O., Join C., Fliess M., Defer D. (2017a). Energy
saving for building heating via a simple and efficient model-free control design:
First steps with computer simulations. 21st Int. Conf. Syst. Theor. Contr.
Comput., Sinaia. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01568899/en/
Abouaı̈ssa H., Fliess M., Join C. (2017b). On ramp metering: Towards a better
understanding of ALINEA via model-free control. Int. J. Contr., 90, 10181026.
Alon U. (2006). An Introduction to Systems Biology: Design Principles of Biological Circuits. Chapman and Hall.
Alon U., Surette M.G., Barkai N., Leibler S. (1999). Robustness in bacterial
chemotaxis. Nature, 397, 168-171.
d’Andréa-Novel B., Fliess M., Join C., Mounier H., Steux B. (2010). A mathematical explanation via “intelligent” PID controllers of the strange ubiquity
of PIDs. 18th Medit. Conf. Contr. Automat., Marrakech.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inria-00480293/en/

Åström K.J., Murray R.M. (2008). Feedback Systems: An Introduction for Scientists and Engineers. Princeton University Press.
Bara O., Fliess M., Join C., Day J., Djouadi S.M. (2016). Model-free immune
therapy: A control approach to acute inflammation. Europ. Contr. Conf.,
Aalborg. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01341060/en/
Bourbaki N. (1976). Fonctions d’une variable réelle. Hermann. English translation (2004): Functions of a Real Variable. Springer.
Briat C., Gupta A., Khammash M. (2016). Antithetic integral feedback ensures
robust perfect adaptation in noisy biomolecular networks. Cell Syst., 2, 15-26.
Cowan N.J., Ankarali M.M., Dyhr J.P., Madhav M.S., Roth E., Sefati S., Sponberg S., Stamper S.A., Fortune E.S., Daniel T.L. (2014). Feedback control as
18

a framework for understanding tradeoffs in biology. Integr. Compar. Biol., 54,
223-237.
Cosentino C., Bates D. (2011). An Introduction to Feedback Control in Systems
Biology. CRC Press.
Del

Vecchio

meets

D.,

synthetic

Dy

A.J.,

biology.

J.

Qian
Roy.

Y.

Soc.

(2016).
Interface,

Control
13:

theory

20160380.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.1916.0380

Del Vecchio D., Murray R.M. (2015). Biomolecular Feedback Systems. Princeton
University Press.
Erdélyi A. (1962). Operational Calculus and Generalized Functions. Holt Rinehart Winston.
Fliess M. (2006). Analyse non standard du bruit. C. R. Math., 342, 797-802.
Fliess M. (2008). Critique du rapport signal à bruit en communications
numériques. Revue Afric. Recher. Informat. Math. Appli., 9, 419-429.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inria-00311719/en/

Fliess M., Join C. (2013). Model-free control. Int. J. Contr., 86, 2228-2252.
Fliess M., Sira-Ramı́rez H. (2003). An algebraic framework for linear identification. ESAIM Contr. Optimiz. Calc. Variat., 9, 151-168.
Fliess M., Sira-Ramı́rez H. (2008). Closed-loop parametric identification for
continuous-time linear systems via new algebraic techniques. H. Garnier & L.
Wang (Eds): Identification of Continuous-time Models from Sampled Data,
Springer, pp. 362-391.
Join C., Bernier J., Mottelet S., Fliess M., Rechdaoui-Guérin S., Azimi S.,
Rocher V. (2017a). A simple and efficient feedback control strategy for
wastewater denitrification. 20th World Congr. Int. Feder. Automat. Contr.,
Toulouse. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01488199/en/

19

Join C., Chaxel F., Fliess M. (2013). “Intelligent” controllers on cheap and small
programmable devices. 2nd Int. Conf. Contr. Fault-Tolerant Syst., Nice.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00845795/en/

Join C., Delaleau E., Fliess M., Moog C.H. (2017b). Un résultat intrigant en
commande sans modèle. ISTE OpenScience Automat., 1, 9 p.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01628322/en/

Karin O., Alon U. (2017a). Biphasic response as a mechanism against mutant
takeover in tissue homeostasis circuits. Molec. Syst. Biol., 13, 933.
Karin O., Alon U., Sontag E. (2017b). A note on dynamical compensation and its relation to parameter identifiability. bioRxiv doi:
https://doi.org/10.1101/123489

Karin O., Swisa A., Glaser B., Dor Y., Alon U. (2016). Dynamical
compensation in physiological circuits. Mol. Syst. Biol., 12:

886. DOI

10.15252/msb.19167216

Klipp E., Liebermeister W., Wierling C., Kowald A. (2016). Systems Biology
(2nd ed.). Wiley-VCH.
Kremling A. (2012). Kompendium Systembiologie – Mathematische Modellierung und Modellanalyse. Vieweg + Teubner. English translation (2014):
Systems Biology. CRC Press.
Küpfmüller K., Mathis W., Reibiger, W. (2017). Theoretische Elektrotechnik –
Eine Einführung (20. Auflage).7 Springer.
Lafont F., Balmat J.-F., Pessel N., Fliess M. (2015). A model-free control strategy for an experimental greenhouse with an application to fault accommodation. Comput. Electron. Agricult., 110, 139–149.
7 The

first edition was published in 1932. Karl Küpfmüller was its sole author. He died in

1977.

20

Menhour L., d’Andréa-Novel B., Fliess M., Gruyer D., Mounier H (2017). An
efficient model-free setting for longitudinal and lateral vehicle control. Validation through the interconnected pro-SiVIC/RTMaps prototyping platform.
IEEE Trans. Intel. Transport. Syst., 2017. DOI: 10.1109/TITS.1917.2699283
Miao H., Xia X., Perelson A.S., Wu H. (2011). On identifiability of nonlinear
ODE models and applications in viral dynamics. SIAM Rev., 53, 3-39.
MohammadRidha T., Aı̈t-Ahmed M., Chailloux L., Krempf M., Guilhem I.,
Poirier J.-Y., Moog C.H. (2018). Model free iPID control for glycemia regulation of type-1 diabetes. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Engin., 65, 199-206.
O’Dwyer A. (2009). Handbook of PI and PID Controller Tuning Rules (3rd ed.).
Imperial College Press.
Sira-Ramı́rez H., Garcı́a-Rodrı́guez C., Cortès-Romero J., Luviano-Juárez A.
(2013). Algebraic Identification and Estimation Methods in Feedback Control
Systems. Wiley.
Somvanshi P.R., Patel A.K, Bhartiya S., Venkatesh K.V. (2015). Implementation of integral feedback control in biological systems. Wiley Interdisc. Rev.:
Syst. Biol. Med., 7, 301-316.
Sontag E.D. (2010). Remarks on feedforward circuits, adaptation, and pulse
memory. IET Syst. Biol., 4, 39-51.
Sontag
ity,

E.D.

(2017).

Dynamic

compensation,

and equivariances. PLoS Comput. Biol.,

parameter
13:

identifiabil-

e1005447. doi:

10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005447

Sun L., Becskei A. (2010). The cost of feedback control. Nature, 467, 163-164.
Stelling J., Sauer U., Szallasi Z., Doyle F.J., Doyle J. (2004). Robustness of
cellular functions. Cell, 118, 675-685.
Tebbani S., Titica M., Join C., Fliess M., Dumur D. (2016). Model-based versus model-free control designs for improving microalgae growth in a closed
21

photobioreactor: Some preliminary comparisons. 24th Medit. Conf. Contr.
Automat., Athens. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01312251/en/
Villaverde A.F., Banga J.R. (2017). Dynamical compensation and structural
identifiability of biological models: Analysis, implications, and reconciliation.
PLoS Comput. Biol., 13, e1005878.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005878

Yi T.-M., Huang Y., Simon M.I., Doyle J. (2000). Robust perfect adaptation
in bacterial chemotaxis through integral feedback control. Proc. Nat. Acad.
Sci., 97, 4649-4653.
Zeron E.S. (2008). Positive and negative feedback in engineering and biology.
Math. Model. Nat. Phenom., 3, 67-84.

22

