Well-Posedness and Output Regulation for Implicit Time-Varying
Evolution Variational Inequalities∗

arXiv:1609.01152v2 [math.DS] 26 Feb 2018

Aneel Tanwani†

Bernard Brogliato‡

Christophe Prieur§

Abstract
A class of evolution variational inequalities (EVIs), which comprises ordinary differential equations
(ODEs) coupled with variational inequalities (VIs) associated with time-varying set-valued mappings, is
proposed in this paper. We first study the conditions for existence and uniqueness of solutions. The
central idea behind the proof is to rewrite the system dynamics as a differential inclusion which can
be decomposed into a single-valued Lipschitz map, and a time-dependent maximal monotone operator.
Regularity assumptions on the set-valued mapping determine the regularity of the resulting solutions.
Complementarity systems with time-dependence are studied as a particular case. We then use this
result to study the problem of designing state feedback control laws for output regulation in systems
described by EVIs. The derivation of control laws for output regulation is based on the use of internal
model principle, and two cases are treated: First, a static feedback control law is derived when full state
feedback is available; In the second case, only the error to be regulated is assumed to be available for
measurement and a dynamic compensator is designed. As applications, we demonstrate how control
input resulting from the solution of a variational inequality results in regulating the output of the system
while maintaining polyhedral state constraints. Another application is seen in designing control inputs
for regulation in power converters.
Keywords– Evolution variational inequalities; convex optimization; time-varying maximal monotone mappings;
passivity; output regulation; complementarity programming; viability control.
AMS subject classifications– 34A36, 34A60, 49K21, 49J52, 49J53, 93D15, 93D20.

1

Introduction

Nonsmooth dynamical systems provide a modeling framework to describe discontinuous changes in vector
fields, and the state trajectories. The evolution of the trajectories of such systems is often described via
set-valued mappings and leads to several different formalisms which have been developed somewhat independently in the literature. As examples, one may see the books on viability theory [4], Fillipov systems
[18], sweeping processes [24], nonsmooth mechanics [9], and the articles on closed-convex processes [20],
differential variational inequalities [26], or an overview of discontinuous dynamical systems [14]. Evolution
variational inequalities (EVIs) provide a mathematical framework to model evolution of state trajectories
which, in addition to differential equations, satisfy some algebraic relations as well. Roughly speaking, EVIs
comprise an ordinary differential equation (ODE) to describe the motion of the state variable, and a variational inequality (VI) that expresses the constraints, and relations that must be satisfied by the state variable.
∗ A preliminary version of the results was presented at 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Los Angeles, USA in
December 2014. See [36].
† LAAS–CNRS, University of Toulouse, CNRS, 7 Avenue du Colonel Roche, 31400 Toulouse, France.
Email:
aneel.tanwani@laas.fr. His work is partially supported by the project ANR-17-CE40-0019-01.
‡ INRIA Grenoble Rhône-Alpes, Université Grenoble-Alpes, 655 avenue de l’Europe, 38334 Saint-Ismier, France. Email:
bernard.brogliato@inria.fr
§ Université Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS, GIPSA-lab, F-38000 Grenoble, France. Email: christophe.prieur@gipsa-lab.fr. His
work has been partially supported by the LabEx PERSYVAL-Lab (ANR-11-61 LABX-0025-01).

1

VIs are most commonly encountered in optimization, and different classes of EVIs have found applications
in modeling of electrical circuits with nonsmooth devices, and mechanical systems with impacts.
Building on our recent conference papers [35, 36], this article studies the conditions for existence and
uniqueness of solutions for a certain class of EVIs with time-varying set-valued map. These results are also
used for synthesizing controllers which regulate the output of the system to a prescribed output trajectory.
The applications of these results are investigated in the context of designing inputs for viability of convex
sets, and regulation problems in electrical circuits.
In the standard formulation of VIs [17], we consider a mapping, say F : Rds → Rds , and are interested
in finding a vector v ∈ Rds in the domain of F , such that the inequality
hF (v), v 0 − vi ≥ 0,

∀ v 0 ∈ S,

holds for some closed, convex, and stationary set S ⊆ Rds . For the dynamical systems considered in this
paper, we couple such VIs with ODEs, and moreover, we also let the set S be time-varying. The added
difficulty treated in this paper deals with the case when the variable v itself depends on the function F (see
(1) in Section 2 for exact description), which motivates the term ‘implicit’ in the title. From the geometric
viewpoint, a VI can be equivalently expressed as finding v such that −F (v) is a vector in the normal cone
to S at v. The normal cone defines a set-valued operator on the set S, and thus, different tools from the
theory of differential inclusions could be used to study the solutions of EVIs. In our work, we use the fact
that the set-valued operator defined by the normal cone is in fact maximal monotone, and build on the
ground work laid by Brézis in his book [6] on solutions of differential inclusions with maximal monotone
operators; one may also consult the recent tutorial-like article [27]. For the class of EVIs studied in this
paper, motivated primarily by modeling of physical systems, the set-valued maximal monotone operator does
not appear explicitly in the description of the differential equation/inclusion. The multivalued component,
which is also time-varying in our problem formulation, is only defined implicitly through an inequality
which resembles a VI. Conditions on system data are imposed so that this multivalued operator could be
decomposed as a single-valued Lipschitz continuous function, and a maximal monotone set-valued operator.
This decomposition is the key element in establishing the proof of well-posedness. Several particular cases
where S is the positive orthant (complementarity systems), and the regularity of S is imposed by a function
of bounded variation, are also treated.
Our approach extends the work of [10, 11] on the existence of solutions by relaxing certain assumptions
on the matrices that describe the VI. Also, in the literature, the papers [8, 12, 13] study existence and
uniqueness of solutions for systems with linear vector fields coupled with maximal monotone operators.
Making an elegant connection between the notion of passivity (which appears primarily in control theory)
and maximal monotonicity of set-valued maps, it is shown that if the matrices describing the set-valued
operator and the vector field satisfy certain linear matrix inequalities (LMIs), then there exists a unique
solution to the system under consideration. The paper [8] is a particular case of [13], where the latter also
takes into account the implicit description of the set-valued operator. The results of this paper also generalize
the results of [8, 13] by considering nonlinear vector fields in system description, and nonstationary sets S.
The proof worked out in this case is also completely different than the work of [13].
The second main contribution of this paper comes in applying these results to study the control design
problem of output regulation. The system dynamics are driven by a control input which can be chosen as a
function of measured states to drive the output of the system to track a prescribed function asymptotically.
Our approach is based on the pioneering work of [19] who proposed simple algebraic criteria for output
regulation in multivariable linear time-invariant (LTI) systems. In [19], it is assumed that the controlled
plant is driven by the output of an LTI exosystem that models the dynamics of the reference trajectories
and/or disturbances. Intuitively speaking, the proposed control input that achieves the output regulation
comprises a feedback component to make the closed-loop dynamics stable and an additional open-loop
component that shapes the steady state of the plant. The derivation of the open-loop component of the
control input requires the exact knowledge of the exosystem dynamics, and hence the approach is termed
as internal model principle. A large amount of work has followed on the problem of output regulation using
internal model principle in more general contexts and this paper could be seen as extending this principle
for a class of EVIs.
2

In our results on output regulation, we will restrict ourselves to vector fields which are linear in state
and input. The sets considered in the description of VIs for the exosystem and the plant are assumed
to be the same but the mappings used to describe the relations could be different. We derive sufficient
conditions under which there exists a control input that achieves output regulation while maintaining state
constraints. In addition to the classical regulator synthesis equations, additional conditions are needed in
our work to generate a dissipative relation between the multivalued part and the output regulation error.
These additional conditions also guarantee that the closed-loop system is well-posed, that is, it admits a
unique solution which is an important consideration for designing controllers for such class of systems. We
study two cases for control synthesis depending on how much information is available to the controller. In
the first case, it is assumed that the entire states of the plant and the exosystem are available and thus, a
static controller is designed to achieve output regulation. In the second case, it is assumed that only the
regulation error (which needs to converge to zero) is available and in that case a dynamic compensator is
designed.
Moving from control design to applications, we consider two particular case studies. First, we consider
reference signals generated by linear complementarity systems (LCS), and design a control input for an LTI
system that not only achieves the output regulation but also forces the state-trajectory to evolve within
a predefined time-varying polyhedral subset of the state space. Secondly, we consider electrical circuits
with nonsmooth devices which can be modeled using the framework of EVIs. The problem of designing
regulators for such systems is of wide interest in engineering community, and here we present how our
control design algorithms can be applied to solve some of these problems. An example is provided with
each of the case studies with simulation results. In the broader context, these applications relate to solving
regulation problems in the presence of state constraints. In the literature, we see an example of control
of positive systems in this direction [28]. In positive systems, the smooth vector fields are such that the
resulting trajectory evolves in the positive orthant. Here, even if we choose the constraint set to be the
positive orthant, discontinuities in the vector fields arise when the state is at the boundary of the constraint
set, so that the resulting trajectory is “forced to” satisfy the constraints by introducing discontinuities.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we define the system class, formulate the
problem of output regulation that we consider, and introduce some basic results from convex analysis. These
results are used to develop a result on existence and uniqueness of solutions for the proposed system class in
Section 3. The design of static state feedback is considered in Section 4, followed by the design of a dynamic
compensator in Section 5. We discuss the applications of our results in Section 6.

2
2.1

Preliminaries
Evolution Variational Inequalities

Consider a set-valued mapping S : [0, ∞) ⇒ Rds , and assume that S(t) is closed, convex, and nonempty, for
each t ≥ 0. The class of EVIs considered in this paper is described as follows:
ẋ(t) = f (t, x(t)) + Gη(t)
v(t) ∈ S(t),

v(t) = Hx(t) + Jη(t),
0

hv −v(t), η(t)i ≥ 0,

(1a)

0

∀ v ∈ S(t).

(1b)
(1c)

In the above equation x(t) ∈ Rn denotes the state, η(t), v(t) ∈ Rds are vectors, the vector field f : [0, ∞) ×
Rn → Rn is Lebesgue integrable in time (the first argument), and globally Lipschitz in the state variable
(with possibly time-varying Lipschitz modulus). Moreover, G ∈ Rn×ds , H ∈ Rds ×n , J ∈ Rds ×ds are constant
matrices, and J is positive semidefinite.
In the standard references on variational inequalities, the multivalued mapping S(·) is assumed to be
stationary [17, 26]. To make connections with the standard formulation of evolution equations with timevarying domains [4, 24], it is seen that (1b), (1c) could be compactly, and equivalently, written as:
η(t) ∈ −NS(t) (Hx(t) + Jη(t)),
3

(2)

TS (v)

f (x)
NS (v)
S = R+
J = [ 10 00 ]

−NS (v)

S

Hx(t)

v(0)

(a) Analogy of DVIs with sweeping processes when J = 0.

v(t) = Hx(t) + Jη(t)

(b) The vector Jη(t) pushes Hx(t) in the set S = R+ .

Figure 1: Graphical depiction of set-valued components in system (1).
where NS(t) (v(t)) denotes the normal cone to the convex set S(t) at v(t), and is defined as:
NS(t) (v(t)) := {λ ∈ Rds | hλ, v 0 − v(t)i ≤ 0, ∀ v 0 ∈ S(t)}.
As convention, we let NS(t) (v(t)) := ∅, for all v(t) 6∈ S(t).
One can also draw the analogies of the system class (1) with the classical sweeping processes [25]. When
J = 0, one can interpret (1) as follows: as long as v(t) = Hx(t) is in the interior of the set S(t), we get
η(t) = 0 and (1) reduces to an ODE ẋ(t) = f (t, x(t)) (for at least a small period of time) to satisfy the
constraint v(t) ∈ S(t), until v(t) hits the boundary of the set S(t). At this moment, if the vector field
f (t, x(t)) is pointed outside of the set S(t), then any component of this vector field in the direction normal
to S(t) at v(t) must be annihilated to maintain the motion of v within the constraint set, see Figure 1a. In
general, when J 6= 0, the vector Hx(t) may not necessarily be contained in S(t), and we seek a vector(s)
η(t) such that v(t) = Hx(t) + Jη(t) ∈ S(t) and −η(t) is also normal to S(t) at v(t), see Figure 1b. In other
words, the vector η is defined implicitly and not explicitly for the general case J 6= 0.
In what follows, we will use the standard notation, cl, int, and rint to denote the closure, interior, and
the relative interior of a set respectively. The domain, range, and kernel of an operator are denoted by dom,
rge, and ker respectively.

2.2

Problem Formulation

As stated in the introduction, we basically consider two problems related to system class (1).
2.2.1

Well-posedness of EVI (1)

First, we are interested in knowing under what conditions on the system dynamics, a unique solution exists.
To formalize the solution concept for system class (1), we introduce the following set:
(
)
ds
∃
η
∈
R
satisfying
0
Sadm
:= x ∈ Rn
.
(3)
η ∈ −NS(0) (Hx + Jη)
The following notion of solution for time-varying differential inclusions is borrowed from [6, Definition 3.1].
Definition 1. The function x : [0, T ] → Rn is called a strong solution to system (1) with initial condition
0
x(0) ∈ Sadm
, if it is locally absolutely continuous, and satisfies (1a) for almost every t ≥ 0, and (1b), (1c)
hold for each t ≥ 0. The continuous function x : [0, T ] → Rn is called a weak solution to system (1) with
0
initial condition x(0) ∈ Sadm
, if there exists a sequence of strong solutions {xk }∞
k=1 to system (1) with initial
0
condition xk (0) ∈ Sadm such that {xk }∞
converges
to
x
uniformly.
k=1
4

The constraint on the initial condition x(0) is introduced so that there are no discontinuities in the
solution x at time t = 0, and that the solution starts from the admissible domain. In Section 3, we propose
conditions on the system dynamics which guarantee well-posedness for the system class (1).
2.2.2

Output Regulation

For this problem, we restrict ourselves to the case of linear vector fields, and the system class is defined as
follows:
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) + F xr (t) + Gη(t)

(4a)

v(t) = Hx(t) + Jη(t)

(4b)

η(t) ∈ −NS(t) (v(t))

(4c)

where u is a control input, and xr : [0, ∞) → Rdr is the reference signal that is generated from the following
equations:
ẋr (t) = Ar xr (t) + Gr ηr (t)

(5a)

vr (t) = Hr xr (t) + Jr ηr (t)

(5b)

ηr (t) ∈ −NS(t) (vr (t)).

(5c)

The output regulation variable w(·) is defined as:
w(t) = Cx(t) − Cr xr (t).

(6)

It will be assumed throughout the paper that system (5) admits a solution (not necessarily unique) in the
sense of Definition 1. We say that the output regulation is achieved if there exists a control input u such
that the following properties are satisfied:
0
• Well-posedness: For each initial condition in Sadm
, there exists a unique solution to (1) in the sense
of Definition 1.

• Regulation: It holds that limt→∞ w(t) = 0.
• Closed-loop stability: The plant and controller dynamics have a globally asymptotically stable
equilibrium at the origin when xr ≡ 0.

2.3

Motivation

The solution theory for system (1) could be useful in many aspects since several electrical and mechanical
systems are modeled using this framework [9]. To motivate the output regulation, we mention two possible
applications of the proposed problem.
2.3.1

Viability Control

As first application, we consider the problem of finding a control input which maintains predefined constraints
on the state trajectories of a dynamical system while achieving output regulation. This also relates to the
problem of finding control inputs which make the set S(t), for each t ≥ 0, viable in the sense of Aubin [3].
The standard formulations in viability theory treat questions related to existence of inputs which render a
stationary set viable. In our work, we are focused on computing the control inputs, by formulating the input
as the solution to an optimization problem, which guarantee evolution of the system trajectories within some
time-varying sets. Stated more precisely, suppose that we are given a plant described as:
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) + F xr

5

(7)

and we would like to find a control u(·) which not only tracks a reference trajectory generated by the
exosystem of form (5), but also results in the state satisfying the constraint that Hx(t) ∈ S(t), for all t ≥ 0,
where S(·) is some predefined closed and convex set-valued map. This could be achieved by decomposing u
as u := ureg + uη , where we choose uη (t) as the solution of the following variational inequality:
huη (t), v 0 − Hx(t)i ≥ 0,

∀ v 0 ∈ S(t).

(8)

This choice of control input transforms the plant equation (7) as follows:
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bureg (t) + Buη (t) + F xr (t)
with the constraints
v(t) = Hx(t) ∈ S(t)
huη (t), v 0 − Hx(t)i ≥ 0,

∀ v 0 ∈ S(t).

(9)

The case of S(·) being a time-varying polyhedron was also considered as a special case in our previous
work [35]. In that case, (9) is formulated as a linear complementarity problem which could be solved very
efficiently using standard software packages.
2.3.2

Regulation in Power Converters

A large number of electrical circuits with nonsmooth devices (diodes, switches, etc.), such as power converters,
are modeled using cone complementarity relations which is a special kind of variational inequality. To see
this, we consider a closed convex polyhedral cone1 K ⊆ Rds . Let K∗ denote the dual cone to K, defined as:
K∗ := {η ∈ Rds | hη, vi ≥ 0, ∀v ∈ K}.

(10)

Our framework allows us to consider the models of electrical systems of the following form:
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) + F xr (t) + Bext fext (t) + Gη(t)

(11a)

v(t) = Hx(t) + Jη(t) + h(t)

(11b)

K 3 v(t) ⊥ η(t) ∈ K∗ ,

(11c)

where fext and h are sufficiently regular functions of time, and the goal is to design u to solve an appropriate
regulation problem. The notation a ⊥ b is a short-hand for writing a> b = 0. See [1, 37] for examples. Since
K is assumed to be a cone, the cone complementarity problem (11c) is equivalent to [17, Proposition 1.1.3]:
η(t) ∈ −NK (v(t)).
If we let S(t) := K − h(t) := {ṽ ∈ Rds | ṽ + h(t) ∈ K}, then the above inclusion is equivalently written as:
η(t) ∈ −NS(t) (Hx(t) + Jη(t))
and hence system (11) can always be written in the form (1). The results on regulation of system class (4)
can thus be applied to some extent to solve regulation problems in circuits modeled by (11).
Remark 1. In (11), the variable v has an additional time-dependent term which we didn’t add in (1). A
simple algebraic manipulation allows us to (re)define the set-valued map that brings us back to the case
stated in (1). However, we limit ourselves to polyhedral sets when introducing this manipulation because
for existence of solutions, the distance between the values of S at any two time instants must be bounded
by the difference of an absolutely continuous function at those time instants. The function h provides this
bound when S is a polyhedral set-valued mapping (see Lemma 6 in Appendix A), but in general, it may not.
1 We call K ⊂ Rds a closed convex cone, if for each v , v ∈ K, and each α , α ≥ 0, we have α v + α v ∈ K. The set K is
1 2
1
2
1 1
2 2
called a polyhedral set if there is a matrix R such that K = {v | Rv ≥ 0}.

6

2.4

Basics from Set-Valued Analysis

In this section, we recall some basic results from convex analysis which are used in the subsequent sections
for deriving the main results of this paper. One can consult standard references, such as [31], for the results
given here.
A set-valued map Φ(·) is called maximal monotone if for each x1 , x2 ∈ dom(Φ), and yi ∈ Φ(xi ), i = 1, 2,
we have hy2 − y1 , x2 − x1 i ≥ 0, and the graph of Φ cannot be extended any further while satisfying the
monotonicity property. An important thing to note is that there is a vast literature on the solution theory
of differential inclusions where the multivalued operator on the right-hand side is maximal monotone [6].
The following result allows us to draw connection between system (1a), (2) and the theory of maximal
monotone operators. To do so, for a extended real-valued convex function ψ : Rds → [−∞, +∞], we define
the subdifferential of ψ at v ∈ Rds , denoted by ∂ψ(v), as follows:
∂ψ(v) := {λ ∈ Rds | hλ, v 0 − vi ≤ ψ(v 0 ) − ψ(v), ∀ v 0 ∈ dom f }.
Proposition 1. Consider a nonempty, closed and convex set S and let ψS (·) denote its indicator function,
that is, ψS (v) = 0, if v ∈ S and ψS (v) = +∞ otherwise; Then
1. it holds that ∂ψS (v) = NS (v),
2. and NS (·) is a maximal monotone operator.
In our approach, we would like to express (1) as a differential inclusion by replacing η with a set-valued
operator. In order to do that, one can see from (2) that we would need to define the “inverse” of the normal
cone operator. The theory of conjugate functions (or Legendre-Fenchel transforms) [31, Chapter 11] allows
us to make this connection.
Definition 2. For a function ϕ : Rn → [−∞, +∞], the function ϕ∗ : Rn → [−∞, +∞] defined as:
ϕ∗ (η) := sup {hη, vi − ϕ(v)}
v

is called the conjugate of ϕ. For a closed convex set S, the conjugate of the indicator function ψS (·) is the
support function σS (·) defined as:
σS (η) = sup hv, ηi.
v∈S

We now recall the following fundamental result:
Proposition 2 ([31, Proposition 11.3]). For any proper, lower semicontinuous, convex function ϕ(·), one
has ∂ϕ∗ = (∂ϕ)−1 and ∂ϕ = (∂ϕ∗ )−1 . That is,
η ∈ ∂ϕ(v) ⇐⇒ v ∈ ∂ϕ∗ (η).

(12)

In particular, for a closed and convex set S:
η ∈ NS (v) ⇐⇒ v ∈ ∂σS (η).
Finally, the last notion we need is to quantify the distance between two sets in an appropriate manner.
Definition 3. The Hausdorff distance between two sets S1 , S2 ⊆ Rds , denoted by dHaus (S1 , S2 ), is defined
as:


dHaus (S1 , S2 ) := sup sup d(v1 , S2 ), sup d(v2 , S1 )
v1 ∈S1

v2 ∈S2

where d(v, S) = inf w∈S |v − w| is the usual Euclidean distance between a point and the set.

7

3

Well-posedness of the Time-Varying EVIs

There is a considerable amount of literature on the solution theory for differential inclusions, depending on
the structure of the set-valued map on the right-hand side. One particular class of set-valued maps, which are
interesting from the point of analysis and applications, are maximal monotone operators, and the solution
theory for differential inclusions with such operators has been well-studied since the work of Brézis [6]. For
our setup, such inclusions are of particular interest because we will now show that, when the set S(t) is closed
and convex valued, for each t ≥ 0, then equation (1) can be equivalently written as a differential inclusion
with time-varying maximal monotone operator plus a globally Lipschitz vector field on the right-hand side.
To see this, we use Propositions 1 and 2, and describe the relations in (1a), (1b), using a set-valued map
for η(t) as follows:
hv 0 − v(t), η(t)i ≥ 0,

∀ v 0 ∈ S(t)

(13a)

⇐⇒

η(t) ∈ −∂ψS(t) (Hx(t) + Jη(t))

(13b)

⇐⇒

Hx(t) + Jη(t) ∈ ∂σS(t) (−η(t))

Hx(t) ∈ ∂σS(t) + J (−η(t))
−1
− η(t) ∈ ∂σS(t) + J
(Hx(t)).

(13c)

⇐⇒
⇐⇒

(13d)
(13e)

Thus, if we introduce the operator Φ as follows:
Φ : [0, ∞) × Rds ⇒ Rds
(t, v) 7→ (∂σS(t) + J)−1 (v),

(14)

then system (1) can be equivalently written as the following differential inclusion:
ẋ(t) ∈ f (t, x) − G Φ(t, Hx(t)).

(15)

It is an easy exercise to show that the operator Φ(t, ·) is maximal monotone for each t ≥ 0 (see also the
proof of Lemma 1 in Section 3.2) but it is not true in general that G Φ(t, H·) is also maximal monotone.
If it is assumed that f (t, x) = Ax + u(t), and that the LTI system defined using the matrices (A, G, J, H)
is passive and Φ is time-independent, then the maximal monotonicity of the multivalued operator on the
right-hand side of (15) was proven in [13]. Our goal in this section is to generalize this result for the class of
systems (15), and the contribution of what follows in this section could be seen in following two regards:
• A direct approach (different than [13]) to transform the right-hand side of (15) into a maximal monotone
operator (with a minus sign) and a Lipschitz vector field, and then study the solutions of the resulting
differential inclusion.
• Generalize the system class by addressing time-dependent set-valued maps and nonlinear vector fields.
The main result highlighting these contributions is stated as follows:
Theorem 1. Assume that the following holds:
(A1) The matrix J is positive semidefinite and there exists a symmetric positive definite matrix P such
that ker(J + J > ) ⊆ ker(P G − H > ).
(A2) There exists a nonnegative locally essentially bounded function ρ : [0, ∞) → [0, ∞) such that
|f (t, x1 ) − f (t, x2 )| ≤ ρ(t)|x1 − x2 |,

∀ x1 , x2 ∈ Rn .

(A3) For each t ≥ 0, rge H ∩ rint(rge(∂σS(t) + J)) 6= ∅.
(A4) For every t ≥ 0, and each v ∈ rge H ∩rge(∂σS(t) +J), it holds that rge(J +J > )∩(∂σS(t) +J)−1 (v) 6= ∅.
8

(A5) It holds that rge J ⊆ rge H and S : [0, ∞) ⇒ Rds is closed and convex valued for each t ≥ 0. Also, the
mapping S ∩ rge H varies in an absolutely continuous manner with time, that is, there exists a locally
absolutely continuous function µ : [0, ∞) → R+ , such that
dHaus (S(t1 ) ∩ rge H, S(t2 ) ∩ rge H) ≤ |µ(t1 ) − µ(t2 )|, ∀ t1 , t2 ≥ 0,
where dHaus denotes the Hausdorff distance introduced in Definition 3.
Then, for each T ∈ [0, ∞), and x(0) satisfying Hx(0) ∈ rge(∂σS(0) + rge J), there exists a unique weak
solution to (15), and hence to (1), in the sense of Definition 1 over the compact interval [0, T ].

3.1

Discussions

1. If J = 0, then Φ(t, Hx) = NS(t) (Hx), and (A1) basically implies that P G = H > . Well-posedness for
that case was studied in [8, 11]. It is also seen that if the matrices A, G, H, J satisfy a certain linear
matrix inequality, then the assumption (A1) automatically holds [12] and this fact was used in [13]
for the static case where S is not time-varying.
2. The global Lipschitz-like condition on the function f (t, ·) is imposed because we are seeking solutions
for all times, and not just the existence of an interval over which the solution is defined.
3. The constraint qualification (A3) is somewhat a standard assumption when dealing with problems on
variational inequalities, as it ensures that the relative interior of the domain of the set-valued operator
in (15) is nonempty. For the case J = 0, we recall that rge ∂σS(t) = S(t) for each t ≥ 0, and hence
(A3) is consistent with [8].
4. The condition (A4) provides an upper bound on the minimum norm element of the set (∂σS(t) +J)−1 (z)
whenever z is in the admissible domain (see Lemma 3 in Section 3.2 and the discussion in Section 3.3).
Our proof of Theorem 1 requires a result on existence of solution of differential inclusions with timevarying maximal monotone operators [22, Theorem 3], which in turn requires the bound obtained by
(A4). It holds trivially when J = 0.
5. The restrictive element of (A5) is rge J ⊆ rge H (which would hold when rank H = ds , or J = 0).
This condition combined with (A3) ensures that rge H ∩ S(t) 6= ∅, for each t ≥ 0. The bound on the
variation of S ∩ rge H in (A5) is introduced to obtain absolutely continuous trajectories. One can also
think of relaxing this assumption to allow µ to be a function of bounded variation and this is briefly
discussed in Section 3.4.

3.2

Proof of Theorem 1

The proof is based on several intermediate results which will be introduced as lemmas. We first state some
desired properties of the operator Φ introduced in (14) in Lemmas 1–2 .
Lemma 1. For each t ≥ 0, the operator v 7→ (∂σS(t) + J)−1 (v) is maximal monotone.
Proof. First, it is noted that σS(t) is sublinear [31, Theorem 8.24], and hence a convex functional, so that
∂σS(t) is maximal monotone for each t ≥ 0, and rint(dom ∂σS(t) ) 6= ∅ because S(t) is convex-valued and
rint(S(t)) 6= ∅. The matrix J defines a monotone mapping, which is continuous, and thus maximal monotone
[31, Example 12.7]. Also, dom J is Rds . It now holds that (∂σS(t) + J) is maximal monotone because
rint(dom ∂σS(t) ) ∩ rint(dom J) 6= ∅ [31, Corollary 12.44]. Hence, (∂σS(t) + J)−1 is also maximal monotone,
because the inverse operation preserves maximal monotonicity [31, Exercise 12.8(a)].
Lemma 2. For a given t ≥ 0, and x ∈ Rn , consider λ1 , λ2 ∈ Φ(t, Hx), then λ1 − λ2 ∈ ker(J + J > ).

9

Proof. For i = 1, 2, consider λi ∈ (∂σS(t) +J)−1 (Hx), then Hx−Jλi ∈ ∂σS(t) (λi ). Since ∂σS(t) is monotone,
we have
hHx − Jλ1 − Hx + Jλ2 , λ1 − λ2 i ≥ 0
or
hJ(λ1 − λ2 ), λ1 − λ2 i ≤ 0.
It follows that λ1 − λ2 ∈ ker(J + J > ), because J is positive semidefinite.
For each λα ∈ Φ(t, Hx) (with t and x fixed), it follows from Lemma 2 that the projection of λα on
rge(J + J > ), denoted by PJ (λα ), is the same for any α. We use the notation λim := PJ (λα ), so that λα can
be written as
λα := λim + λker
α
>
for some λker
α ∈ ker(J + J ).

Lemma 3. For each t ≥ 0, and x ∈ dom Φ(t, H·), let λim (t, x) := PJ (Φ(t, Hx)). It holds that
λim (t, x) = arg min

|λ|

(16)

λ∈Φ(t,Hx)

and the single-valued map x 7→ λim (t, x) is Lipschitz continuous for each t ≥ 0. That is, λim (t, x) is the
least-norm element of the set Φ(t, Hx) and its dependence on x is Lipschitz continuous.
Proof. We first show that, because of (A1) and (A4), λim (t, x) belongs to the set Φ(t, Hx). To see this,
consider λ ∈ Φ(t, Hx). Due to (A4), there exists λ ∈ rge(J + J > ) ∩ (∂σS(t) + J)−1 (Hx). It then follows
from Lemma 2 that
λ − λ ∈ ker(J + J > )
⇒

λim + λker − λ ∈ ker(J + J > )

⇒

(J + J > )λim = (J + J > )λ

⇒

λim − λ ∈ ker(J + J > )

⇒

λim = λ

and hence λim (t, x) ∈ Φ(t, Hx).
Next, we recall that Φ(t, ·) being a maximal monotone operator, the set Φ(t, Hx) is closed and convex.
e Assume
Hence, it contains the least-norm element [23, Section 3.12, Theorem 1] and let it be denoted by λ.
im
e
ad absurdum that λ 6= λ (t, x). Then, we must have, for each λ ∈ Φ(t, Hx), that
e λ − λi
e ≥ 0.
hλ,
e = λim + λ
eker , for some nonzero λ
eker ∈ ker(J + J > ). Plugging λ = λim
Due to Lemma 2, we can assume that λ
in the above inequality gives

⇒

eker , −λ
eker i ≥ 0
hλim + λ
eker , λ
eker i ≥ 0
− hλ

eker = 0, a contradiction. Hence, λ
e = λim .
but this is only possible with λ
Finally, to show the Lipschitz continuity of the map x 7→ λim (t, x), we consider two vectors xa , xb and
−1
let λim
(Hxi )), for i = a, b. Then,
i = PJ ((∂σS(t) + J)
im
Hxi − Jλim
i ∈ ∂σS(t) (λi )

10

and due to monotonicity of ∂σS(t) for each t ≥ 0, we have
im
im
im
hHxa − Jλim
a − Hxb + Jλb , λa − λb i ≥ 0

or equivalently,
im
im
im
im
im
hJ(λim
a − λb ), λa − λb i ≤ hH(xa − xb ), λa − λb i.

(17)

Since J is positive semidefinite, there exists cJ > 0, such that2
im 2
im
im
im
im
|λim
a − λb | ≤ cJ hJ(λa − λb ), λa − λb i

≤
≤

(18)

im
cJ hH(xa − xb ), λim
a − λb i
im
c |xa − xb | |λim
a − λb |

for some c ≥ 0, which proves the Lipschitz continuity of the desired map.
Since we have assumed that ker(J + J > ) ⊆ ker(P G − H > ), we must have Gλker
= P −1 H > λker
α
α . This
allows us to rewrite (15) as follows:
ẋ(t) = f (t, x)− Gλim (t) − P −1 H > λker
α (t)
= f (t, x)+(P −1 H >− G)PJ (λα (t)) − P −1 H > λα (t)
= f (t, x)− P −1 (P G − H > )PJ (λα (t)) − P −1 H > λα (t)

(19)

λα (t) ∈ Φ(t, Hx(t)).
Let R denote the square root of the matrix P in (A1), so that R is also positive definite and symmetric.
Introduce the coordinate transformation z = Rx, then in the new coordinates, (19) is written as:
ż(t) = Rf (t, R−1 z) + (R−1 H >− RG)PJ (λα (t)) − R−1 H > λα (t)
λα (t) ∈ Φ(t, HR−1 z(t)).

(20)

Lemma 4. For each t ≥ 0, the multivalued operator R−1 H > Φ(t, HR−1 ·) is maximal monotone.
Proof. We basically use [31, Theorem 12.43] and (A3) to arrive at the result. We just need to show that
Φ(t, ·) is maximal monotone for each t ≥ 0, and that rge(HR−1 ) ∩ rint(dom(Φ(t, ·))) 6= ∅. The first condition
holds due to Lemma 1. The latter holds due to the constraint qualification (A3) because dom(Φ(t, ·)) =
rge(∂σS(t) + J).
As a result of Lemmas 3–4, one can now write (20) as:
ż(t) ∈ g(t, z) − Ψ(t, z)

(21)

g(t, z) := Rf (t, R−1 z) − (R−1 H > − RG)PJ (λα (t))

(22)

where
is globally Lipschitz (in the second argument) and
Ψ(t, z) := R−1 H > Φ(t, HR−1 z(t))

(23)

is maximal monotone for each t ≥ 0.
the matrix VJ such that J + J > = VJ VJ> , and let PJ := VJ (VJ> VJ )−1 VJ> be the orthogonal projection on rge(J +
In case, (J +J > ) = 0, we let PJ = 0. Then, |PJ (λ)|2 = hPJ (λ), PJ (λ)i = λ> VJ (VJ> VJ )−1 VJ> λ ≤ kVJ> λk2 k(VJ> VJ )−1 k =
im
k(VJ> VJ )−1 k VJ> λ, VJ> λ = k(VJ> VJ )−1 k λ, VJ VJ> λ = 2k(VJ> VJ )−1 k hJλ, λi. To obtain (18), let λ = λim
a − λb , so that
PJ (λ) = λ.
2 Consider

J > ).

11

Lemma 5. Let g̃ : [0, T ] → Rn be a locally absolutely continuous function. There exists a unique locally
absolutely continuous function z̃ : [0, T ] → Rn which is a strong solution to the differential inclusion
˙ ∈ −Ψ(t, z̃) + g̃(t),
z̃(t)

z̃(0) ∈ dom Ψ(0, ·)

(24)

in the sense of Definition 1.
Proof. The proof is based on showing that the hypotheses of Theorem 4 given in Appendix A hold. We first
show that Ψ(·, ·) satisfies the conditions (H1) and (H2) listed in Theorem 4, which is a result borrowed from
[22, Theorem 3], and consequently (24) could be studied as a particular case.
For verifying (H1), it is observed that the least-norm element ζ 0 (t, z) of Ψ(t, z̃), for each t ≥ 0, z̃ ∈
dom Ψ(t, ·), satisfies the bound
|ζ 0 (t, z̃)| ≤ kR−1 H > k |λim (t, R−1 z̃)|
(25)
where λim (t, x) ∈ Φ(t, Hx), so that λim (t, x) ∈ NS(t) (Hx − Jλim (t, x)). By using the definition of the normal
cone, and the fact that λim (t, x) ∈ rge(J + J > ), we get
|λim (t, x)|2 ≤ cJ hλim (t, x), Jλim (t, x)i
≤ cJ hλim (t, x), Hx − vt i,

∀ vt ∈ S(t),

where cJ is the constant introduced in (18). Using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we now get
|λim (t, x)| ≤ cJ |Hx − vt |,

∀ vt ∈ S(t).

(26)

Next, fix a point w0 ∈ S(0) ∩ rge H, and choose vt0 ∈ S(t) ∩ rge H such that
|w0 − vt0 | = d(w0 , S(t) ∩ rge H)
which always exists because S(t) ∩ rge H, for each t ≥ 0, is closed and convex. Returning to (26), and letting
vt = vt0 , we get
|λim (t, x)| ≤ cJ kHk |x| + cJ |vt0 − w0 | + |w0 |.
Since d(w0 , S(t)) ≤ dHaus (S(0) ∩ rge H, S(t) ∩ rge H) ≤ |µ(t) − µ(0)|, where the last inequality is due to (A5),
we obtain
|λim (t, x)| ≤ c1 |x| + c2 µ(t) + c3 (|w0 | + |µ0 |)
for some constants c1 , c2 , c3 ≥ 0. By substituting this inequality in (25) with x = R−1 z̃, hypothesis (H1) is
seen to hold.
For the hypothesis (H2) (recalling again Theorem 4 given in Appendix A), we show that there is a locally
absolutely continuous function µ̃ such that, for some fixed t1 , t2 ≥ 0, the map Ψ satisfies
dsvm (Ψ(t1 , ·), Ψ(t2 , ·)) ≤ |µ̃(t1 ) − µ̃(t2 )|

(27)

where dsvm (Ψ1 , Ψ2 ) denotes a certain distance between set-valued mappings Ψ1 and Ψ2 , see (28) below. In
the sequel, we show that dsvm (Ψ(t1 , ·), Ψ(t2 , ·)) ≤ dHaus (S(t1 )∩rge H, S(t2 )∩rge H) and by Assumption (A5),
the bound (27) holds. Towards this end, it is observed that
dsvm (Ψ(t1 , ·), Ψ(t2 , ·))
 >

hH (λ1 − λ2 ), z2 − z1 i
−1
= sup
,
λ
∈
(∂σ
+
J)
(Hz
),
i
=
1,
2
i
i
S(ti )
1 + |H > λ1 | + |H > λ2 |


hλ1 − λ2 , Hz2 − Jλ2 − Hz1 + Jλ1 i − hλ1 − λ2 , J(λ1 − λ2 )i
=
sup
1 + |H > λ1 | + |H > λ2 |
λi ∈NS(ti ) (Hzi −Jλi )


hλ1 − λ2 , Hz2 − Jλ2 − Hz1 + Jλ1 i
≤
sup
1 + |H > λ1 | + |H > λ2 |
λi ∈NS(ti ) (Hzi −Jλi )
12

(28)

where the last inequality is due to the fact that J is positive semidefinite. To compute an upper bound
on the expression in the numerator, let vi := Hzi − Jλi ∈ S(ti ) ∩ rge H, which is always possible since
rge J ⊂ rge H. Let wi ∈ S(ti ) ∩ rge H be such that
|w1 − v2 | = d(v2 , S(t1 ) ∩ rge H),

and |w2 − v1 | = d(v1 , S(t2 ) ∩ rge H).

Using the fact that hλ1 , w1 − v1 i ≤ 0 because λ1 ∈ NS(t1 ) (v1 ), we obtain
hλ1 , v2 − v1 i = hλ1 , v2 − w1 + w1 − v1 i ≤ hλ1 , v2 − w1 i.
b
b
Let λH
1 := H λ1 denote the orthogonal projection of λ1 on rge H, so that λ1 is any vector that satisfies
>
>
H
>
⊥
b
(H H)λ1 = H λ1 , and there exists a constant cH such that |λ1 | ≤ cH |H λ1 |. Since λ1 − λH
1 ∈ rge(H) =
>
ker(H ), and v2 , w1 ∈ rge H, we get
hλ1 , v2 − v1 i ≤ hλ1 , v2 − w1 i = hλH
1 , v2 − w1 i
>
≤ |λH
1 | · |v2 − w1 | ≤ cH |H λ1 |d(v2 , S(t1 ) ∩ rge H)

≤ cH |H > λ1 |dHaus (S(t1 ) ∩ rge H, S(t2 ) ∩ rge H) ≤ cH |H > λ1 | · |µ(t2 ) − µ(t1 )|.
Similarly, we can obtain
hλ2 , v1 − v2 i ≤ cH |H > λ2 | · |µ(t2 ) − µ(t1 )|,
and hence
hλ1 − λ2 , v2 − v1 i ≤ cH (|H > λ1 | + |H > λ2 |)|µ(t2 ) − µ(t1 )|.
It thus follows that

dsvm (Ψ(t1 , ·), Ψ(t2 , ·)) ≤

sup
λi ∈NS(ti ) (Hzi −Jλi )

cH |µ(t2 ) − µ(t1 )|(|H > λ1 | + |H > λ2 |)
1 + |H > λ1 | + |H > λ2 |



≤ cH |µ(t2 ) − µ(t1 )|.
The result of Lemma 5 now follows by applying Theorem 4 from Appendix A.
Next, we use the result of Lemma 5 to obtain a bound on |z1 (t) − z2 (t)|, for each t ≥ 0, where zi , i = 1, 2,
satisfies
żi (t) ∈ −Ψ(t, zi ) + g̃i (t)
(29)
for some locally absolutely continuous functions g̃i : [0, ∞) → Rn . To compute this bound, it is seen that
the monotonicity of Ψ(t, ·) yields
1 d
|z1 (t) − z2 (t)|2 = hż1 (t) − ż2 (t), z1 (t) − z2 (t)i
2 dt
≤ hg̃1 (t) − g̃2 (t), z1 (t) − z2 (t)i
≤ |g̃1 (t) − g̃2 (t)| · |z1 (t) − z2 (t)|,
where the first inequality is due to the monotonicity of Ψ(t, ·), and the second inequality is due to Cauchyp
Schwarz. Letting Z(t) := |z1 (t) − z2 (t)|2 , the above inequality is rewritten as: Ż(t) ≤ 2|g̃1 (t) − g̃2 (t)| Z(t).
Applying the comparison lemma for solution of ODEs [21, Lemma 3.4], we get
Z t
|z1 (t) − z2 (t)| ≤ |z1 (0) − z2 (0)| +
|g̃1 (s) − g̃2 (s)| ds.
(30)
0

Coming back to the question of existence of solutions to (21), we make use of the estimate obtained in
(30). Towards this end, consider a sequence of solutions with z1 (t) = z(0), t ≥ 0, and zi+1 (·), for i ≥ 1
obtained as a solution to the inclusion
żi+1 (t) ∈ −Ψ(t, zi+1 ) + g(t, zi (t))
13

with initial condition zi (0) = z(0), i ∈ N. Under the assumption (A2), and recalling Lemma 3 and (22), it
follows that for each compact interval [0, T ], there exists a constant ρT such that
|g(t, zi (t)) − g(t, zi−1 (t))| ≤ ρT |zi (s) − zi−1 (s)|.
Then, from (30), we have, for each t ∈ [0, T ]:
t

Z
|zi+1 (t) − zi (t)| ≤

ρT |zi (s) − zi−1 (s)| ds
0

which through induction leads to:
|zi+1 (t) − zi (t)| ≤

(ρT t)i
kz2 − z1 kL∞ ([0,T ],Rn ) .
i!

Thus, the sequence {zi }∞
i=1 converges uniformly on every compact interval [0, T ], and hence
z(t) := lim zi (t)
i→∞

is a weak solution to system (21).
Uniqueness can be shown to hold easily for the inclusion (21) due to monotonicity of the operator Ψ(t, ·).
Since we have only introduced bijective operations in arriving from system (1) to (21), the conclusion also
holds for system (1). This concludes the proof of Theorem 1.

3.3

Comments and Examples

We provide some additional comments on the assumptions (A3) and (A4) used in the statement of Theorem 1.
3.3.1

Alternative formulation of (A3)

The assumption (A3) was primarily used to satisfy the condition that renders the map x 7→ H > Φ(t, Hx)
maximal monotone. It is natural to ask whether we can say something more about the set dom Φ(t, ·) =
rge(∂σS(t) + J). For a general characterization of this set, see [11, Section 4]. Here, we want to point out a
special case when the matrix J is positive definite.
Proposition 3. If the matrix J is positive definite, then for each t ≥ 0, we have
rint(dom Φ(t, ·)) = rint(rge(∂σS(t) + J)) = rint(S(t)) + rge J.

(31)

Proof. By definition, for each t ≥ 0, dom Φ(t, ·) = rge(∂σS(t) + J), and it is observed that
rint(rge(∂σS(t) + J)) = rint(cl(rge(∂σS(t) + J)))
= rint(cl(rge ∂σS(t) ) + cl(rge J))
= rint(rge ∂σS(t) + rge J)
= rint(rge ∂σS(t) ) + rint(rge J)
= rint(S(t)) + rge J,
where the first and third equality follow from [30, Theorem 6.3], and the fourth equality is due to [30,
Corollary 6.6.2] because the sets under consideration are convex. The second equality is due to Theorem 5
in Appendix A and holds because ∂σS(t) and J define monotone operators, and satisfy the two conditions
required to invoke Theorem 5.

14

3.3.2

Necessity of (A4)

Lemma 3 is a central ingredient of the proof of Theorem 1. It essentially relies on the assumption (A4). The
Lipschitz continuity of the least norm element of the set Φ(t, z) with respect to z ∈ dom Φ(t, ·) does not always
hold, see also Example 1 below. We need this regularity condition to invoke [22, Theorem 3] in Lemma 5
for existence of solutions to differential inclusions with time-varying maximal monotone operators. Another
result on the solutions of such systems, which does not require restrictions on least norm element, appears
in [38]. But [38, Theorem 7.1] is only valid for regular set-valued operators, which requires dom(Φ(t, ·)) to
have nonempty interior for each t ≥ 0 and for our purposes it is much more restrictive than [22, Theorem 3].
Example 1. Consider a system with f (t, x) ≡ 0, for each t ≥ 0,
S(t) = S = {(x1 , x2 ) ∈ R2 | x2 ≥ x21 },

∀t ≥ 0

and the matrices are given by
H=


1
0


0
,
1

G=


1
0


0
,
1

J=


0
0


0
.
1

For this system, conditions (A1), (A2), (A3), (A5) hold. The condition (A4) does not hold and for this
reason, the mapping x 7→ λ(x) given by λ(x) = 0, if x ∈ S
 


x1
2x31
7→
, (x1 , x2 ) 6∈ S
x2
−x2 − x21
is not Lipschitz. The example shows that we cannot have Lipschitz continuity of λim (x) if (A4) does not
hold.
Example 2. Consider the same system as in Example 1, but with
S(t) = {(x1 , x2 ) ∈ R2 | x2 ≥ 0, x1 ≥ 0},

∀ t ≥ 0.

It is easily verified that all the assumptions
of Theorem 1 hold in this case. One could even replace J with


a nonsymmetric matrix given by 01 −1
to arrive at the same conclusion.
1

3.4

The Case of Bounded Variation

Thus far, we have considered solutions of system (1) which are locally absolutely continuous. This is primarily
because the variation in the set-valued mapping S is bounded by an absolutely continuous function. If one
relaxes S to evolve such that the Hausdorff distance between the values of S at any two time instants is
bounded by the variation of a locally BV function,3 then the resulting solution will be a locally BV function.
We are thus interested in the scenario where the restriction on function µ in (A5) is relaxed as follows:
(A5-BV) there exists a right-continuous locally BV function µf : [0, ∞) → [0, ∞), whose variation over the
interval (0, t] is denoted by µ(t) := var(µf(0,t1 ] ), and it satisfies
dHaus (S(t1 ) ∩ rge H, S(t2 ) ∩ rge H) ≤ dµ((t1 , t2 ]) = µ(t2 ) − µ(t1 ), ∀ 0 ≤ t1 ≤ t2 ,
where dµ denotes the Lebesgue-Stieltjes measure associated with µ.
When working with BV functions, the equation (1) has to be interpreted in the sense of measures
associated with the BV functions, and care must be taken in defining the appropriate solution concept.
P
For an interval I ⊆ R, and a function f : I → Rn , the variation of f (·) over the interval I is the supremum of ki=1 |f (si ) −
f (si−1 )| over the set of all finite sets of points s0 < s1 < · · · < sk (called partitions) of I. When this supremum is finite,
the mapping f (·) is said to be of bounded variation (BV) on I. We say that f (·) is of locally bounded variation if it is of
bounded variation on each compact subinterval of I. For a BV function f , it holds that the right and left limits of f are defined
everywhere, and we use the notation f (t+ ) := lims&t f (s) and f (t− ) := lims%t f (s).
3

15

Definition 4. Consider system (1) under the assumption (A5-BV). A right-continuous locally BV function
x : [0, ∞) → Rn is called a strong solution to system (1) if there exists a Radon measure dν, which is absolutely
continuously equivalent4 to dt+dµ such that the differential measure dx is absolutely continuous with respect
loc
n
to dν, dx
dν ∈ L1 (I, R ; ν), and the following relation holds:
dx
dt
(t) ∈ f (t, x) (t) − G(∂σS(t) + J)−1 (Hx(t+ )),
dν
dν

ν − a.e. t ∈ [0, ∞).

(32)

The weak solutions can be defined similarly as in Definition 1. This concept of solution is borrowed from
the literature on sweeping processes with BV solutions, see for example [16, Section 2.2] or [2], and this
solution concept is independent of the choice of the measure ν because (∂σS(t) + J)−1 (z) is a cone for any
z ∈ dom(∂σS(t) + J)−1 . An important observation that can be made from (32) is that, at time ti , if there is
a jump in µ, so that the measure dµ is supported on the singleton {ti }, then a jump in the state trajectory
x at ti is also possible, and this jump is represented by:
−
−1
x(t+
(Hx(t+
i ) − x(ti ) ∈ −G(∂σS(t) + J)
i )).

When G, H are identity matrices, and J = 0, this corresponds to
−
+
x(t+
i ) − x(ti ) ∈ −NS(ti ) (x(ti ))

which is equivalent to solving the following quadratic optimization problem over a convex set:
−
2
x(t+
i ) = arg min kx(ti ) − vk .
v∈S(ti )

The result of Theorem 1 can now be generalized as follows:
Corollary 1. Assume that system (1) satisfies (A1), (A2), (A3), (A4) and (A5-BV); then there exists
a unique weak solution x in the sense of Definition 4.
The proof of this result follows the same blueprint as laid out in the proof of Theorem 1. The difference
starts appearing when we invoke Lemma 5, as the existence of solution must now be proven for (24) when
the time-dependence on the right-hand side is only of bounded variation. The result from [22, Theorem 1]
can now be used, and the rest of the arguments can be tailored accordingly to arrive at the desired result.
For the sake of briefness, the details are omitted in this article.

3.5

Cone Complementarity Systems

The framework of EVIs is especially useful for studying models of electrical circuits with complementarity
relations. The result of Theorem 1 allows us to capture well-posedness for a certain class of complementarity
systems. In particular, we can treat the cone complementarity systems described by
ẋ(t) = f (t, x) + Gη(t)

(33a)

v(t) = Hx(t) + Jη(t) + h(t),

(33b)

K 3 v(t) ⊥ η(t) ∈ K∗ ,

(33c)

where h : [0, ∞) → Rds is a Lebesgue-measurable function, and K is a closed, convex polyhedral cone, and
K∗ denotes the dual cone as defined in (10). We introduce the set-valued mapping

S(t) := z ∈ Rds | z + h(t) ∈ K
(34)
4 A measure dµ is absolutely continuous with respect to another measure dν if dν(I) = 0 implies dµ(I) = 0. The measures dν
and dµ are absolutely equivalent if they are absolutely continuous with respect to each other. By the Radon-Nikodym theorem,
dt((s−ε,s+ε))
dt
the density of Lebesgue measure dt relative to dν, defined as, dν
(s) = limε→0 dν((s−ε,s+ε)) is then well-defined.

16

and reformulate the dynamics of (33) in the form of (5). Towards this end, we recall the following fundamental
relation from convex analysis [17, Proposition 1.1.3]:
K 3 v ⊥ η ∈ K∗ ⇔ η ∈ −∂ψK (v) = −NK (v)

(35)

where ψS denotes the indicator function of the set S. One can effectively rewrite (33b)-(33c) as
η(t) ∈ −NS(t) (Hx(t) + Jη(t)).

(36)

The result of Theorem 1 can now be invoked by checking the conditions (A3), (A4), (A5) for S. But,
because of the added structure on the set K, and the regularity assumption on h, it is possible to rewrite
the conditions for the well-posedness of (33).
Corollary 2. Consider that system (33) satisfies the assumptions (A1), (A2), and suppose that
• The cone K and the matrix J satisfy the condition5

• The matrix H is such that

rint(K − h(t)) ⊆ rint(rge(∂σK−h(t) + J)).

(37a)

JK∗ ⊆ rge H.

(37b)

rge H − K = Rds .

(38)

6

• For each x ∈ Rn and t ≥ 0, if the set Λx (t) := {η ∈ K∗ | v = Hx + Jη + h(t) ∈ K, hη, vi = 0} has a
nonzero element, then
Λx (t) ∩ rge(J + J > ) 6= ∅.
(39)
If h is locally absolutely continuous (respectively, right-continuous BV), then there exists a unique weak
solution to (33) which is continuous (resp. right-continuous BV).
To prove this result as an application of Theorem 1, we basically show that the assumptions (A3), (A4)
and (A5) (resp. (A5-BV)) hold for system (33). It is first seen that the condition (39) implies (A4), because
Λx (t) = −(∂σS(t) + J)−1 (Hx). This equivalence is obtained by showing that the two sets are contained in
each other. Indeed, first take ηx ∈ −(∂σS(t) + J)−1 (Hx), then
ηx ∈ −(∂σS(t) + J)−1 (Hx)
⇐⇒

ηx ∈ −NS(t) (Hx + Jηx )

(from Proposition 2)

⇐⇒

ηx ∈ −NK (Hx + Jηx + h(t))

(from (34))

⇐⇒

ηx ∈ Λx (t)

(from (35)).

The inclusion in the other direction follows the same arguments.
For verifying (A3), we first observe that (38) says: for each z ∈ Rds , rge H ∩ ({z} + K) 6= ∅. For a given
t ≥ 0, choose z = vint − h(t), for some vint in the relative interior of K. Then, there exist v ∈ K and x ∈ Rn
such that Hx = v + vint − h(t). Since K is a convex cone, it can be shown that v + vint ∈ rint K, and hence,
for each t ≥ 0, rge H intersects nontrivially with rint(K − h(t)) ⊂ rint(rge(∂σK−h(t) + J)), where the last
inclusion is due to (37a) and (A3) is verified.
The hypothesis (A5) (resp. (A5-BV)) is verified by (37b) and invoking Lemma 6 in Appendix A. Indeed,
it is seen that K being a convex polyhedral cone allows the existence of a constant cK such that
dHaus (S(t1 ) ∩ rge H, S(t2 ) ∩ rge H) ≤ cK |h(t1 ) − h(t2 )|,
where, by assumption, h is a locally absolutely continuous (resp. right-continuous BV) function.
5 The condition (37a) is not very restrictive because we always have the inclusion K−h(t) = ∂σ
K−h(t) (0) ⊆ rge(∂σK−h(t) +J).
However, the set inclusions are not preserved by the rint operator in general.
6 Equation (38) is to be interpreted in the sense that, for each h ∈ Rds , there exists x ∈ Rn , and v ∈ K, such that h = Hx − v.
Clearly, if H defines a surjective mapping, then (38) holds but it may also hold in more general cases.

17

4

Regulation with State Feedback

We will now use the results on the well-posedness of system (1) to solve the output regulation problem.
For the sake of stability problems treated in the sequel, it will be assumed that the solutions we work with
are indeed the strong solutions without any loss of generality, because one can otherwise work with strong
solutions which approximate the weak solution arbitrarily closely in supremum norm.
For the control design problem treated in this section, all the states of the plant (1) and (5) are assumed
to be available for feedback and thus a control input with static state feedback can be designed which
achieves the stability and regulation. In the formulation of our results, the following terminology is used:
A quadruple of matrices (A, B, C, D) is called strictly passive if there exist a scalar γ > 0 and a symmetric
positive definite matrix P such that
 >

A P + P A + γP
P B − C>
≤ 0.
(40)
B>P − C
−(D + D> )
Theorem 2. Consider systems (4), (5) under assumptions (A3), (A4), (A5), and the output regulation
error (6). Assume that there exist matrices Π ∈ Rn×dr and M ∈ Rdu ×dr such that
ΠAr = AΠ + BM + F

(41a)

Cr − CΠ = 0

(41b)

Hr − HΠ = 0.

(41c)

Furthermore, assume that there exists a state feedback matrix K ∈ Rdu ×n which renders the quadruple
e G,
e H,
e J)
e strictly passive, where
(A,


e := A + BK
e := G ΠGr
A
G
(42)
 


J Jr
e := H
H
Je :=
.
(43)
H
J Jr
Then the output regulation problem is solvable with the following static feedback control law:
u(t) = Kx(t) + (M − KΠ)xr (t).

(44)

Remark 2. In the work of [19], the control law (44) was proposed to solve the output regulation problem in
LTI systems, where Π and M were obtained as solution of (41a), (41b) only, and K is any matrix that makes
(A + BK) Hurwitz. The strict passivity requirement, and additional conditions on the matrix Π in (41c)
are required in the well-posedness and stability analyses for the class of systems considered in this paper.
Remark 3. The intuition behind the stability analysis is that the matrix Π embeds the reference signal
xr in the state space Rn to which the state variable x converges, that is, the control action regulates the
error variable e := x − Πxr to the origin. The internal model principle (conditions (41a), (41b)) shapes the
closed-loop dynamics to match Πẋr . If we let ηe := (η > , −ηr> )> , then the additional conditions allow us to
e η and the auxiliary output He
e + Jeηe. The monotonicity of
make the error dynamics passive with input Ge
the normal cone operator then leads to the negative definiteness of the derivative of the Lyapunov function
e> P e.
Proof of Theorem 2. The proof consists of two parts: the first one shows existence of unique solutions,
and the second part analyses the convergence of the error dynamics.
a) Well-posedness: With control input (44), the closed-loop system is written as
ẋ(t) = (A + BK)x(t) + (F + BM − BKΠ)xr (t) + Gη(t)
η ∈ −NS(t) (Hx(t) + Jη(t)).
e G,
e H,
e J)
e is assumed to be strictly passive, it follows that (A,
e G, H, J) is also strictly passive beSince (A,
cause, using (40), the matrix of interest is a sub-block of the negative semi-definite matrix associated
18

ηe

e + Ge
eη
ė = Ae

η ∈ −NS (Hx + Jη)

e + Jeηe
ye = He

Hx, Hr xr

ηr ∈ −NS (Hr xr + Jr ηr )
Figure 2: Passivity based interpretation of the error dynamics.
e G,
e H,
e J),
e and is hence negative-semidefinite. Thus, the matrix J is positive semidefinite and
with (A,
>
ker(J + J ) ⊆ ker(P G − H > ), see [12] for proof. All the remaining hypothesis of Theorem 1 hold by
construction, and hence the closed-loop system has a unique solution.
b) Regulation: Let Π be a matrix that satisfies (41) and introduce the variable e := x − Πxr . The output
regulation is achieved if we can show that limt→∞ e(t) = 0, since
w(t) = Cx(t) − Cr xr (t)
= Cx(t) − CΠxr (t) = Ce(t).
To show that e(t) → 0 as t → ∞, we observe that
ė(t) = (A + BK)x(t) + (F + BM − BKΠ)xr (t) + Gη(t) − ΠAr xr (t) − ΠGr ηr (t)
= (A + BK)x(t) − (ΠAr − F − BM +BKΠ)xr (t) + Gη(t) − ΠGr ηr (t)
{z
}
|
=AΠ

eη
= (A + BK)x(t) − (A + BK)Πxr (t) + Ge
where we recall that ηe := (η > , −ηr> )> . Now introduce the Lyapunov function V (e) = e> P e, so that the
following holds for almost all t ≥ 0 :

e η (t)
V̇ (e(t)) = e(t)> (A + BK)> P + P (A + BK) e(t) + 2e(t)> P Ge
e > ηe(t) + ηe(t)> (Je + Je> )e
≤ −γe(t)> P e(t) + 2e(t)> H
η
= −γe(t)> P e(t) + 2hη(t), He(t) + Jη(t) − Jr ηr (t)i − 2hηr (t), He(t) + Jη(t) − Jr ηr (t)i
e H,
e J).
e Recalling that He(t) =
where the inequality was obtained by using the passivity of (A + BK, G,
Hx(t) − HΠxr (t) = Hx(t) − Hr xr (t), the monotonicity of the normal cone operator leads to, for each t ≥ 0,
hη(t), Hx(t) + Jη(t) − Hr xr (t) − Jr ηr (t)i ≤ 0
hηr (t), Hx(t) + Jη(t) − Hr xr (t) − Jr ηr (t)i ≥ 0.
It thus follows that V̇ (e(t)) < 0 for all e(t) 6= 0, and thus e(t) → 0 as t → ∞.
Closed-loop stabilization: To show that x converges to zero when xr ≡ 0, we observe that asymptotic
convergence of e(t) = x(t) − Πxr (t) to the origin has already been proven. In particular, when xr ≡ 0, the
state x(t) converges to the origin asymptotically.

Remark 4. One can also generalize the result of Theorem 2 to the case where the variation in the set-valued
map S is governed by a locally BV function as in (A5-BV). In this case, it must be verified that, at the
discontinuities of x or xr , the Lyapunov function V (e) is also decreasing, that is, e+> P e+ ≤ e−> P e− , where
e η , so
e− , e+ denote the value of e before and after a jump instant, respectively. We can write e+ − e− = Ge
that
e η + ηe> G
e > P Ge
e η ≥ e+> P e+
e−> P e− = e+> P e+ − 2e+> P Ge
where the middle term is nonnegative due to the same arguments as used in the proof of Theorem 2. The
formal arguments to deduce asymptotic stability for systems with BV solutions can be found in [32, 33, 34].
19

5

Error Feedback and Dynamic Compensator

In this section, it will no longer be assumed that the states x(·) and xr (·) are available for feedback, but only
the regulation error w(·) is available to the controller. Our approach is based on the certainty equivalence
principle where we first design an estimator for the state variables x(·) and xr (·), and then define the control
law as a function of these estimates.
Toward this end, the estimator we propose is defined as follows:
  
  
   
 

 

x̂˙
A F
L0
x̂
L0
B
G 0
η̂
C
−C
=
−
+
w
+
u
+
(45a)
r
0 Ar
L1
x̂r
L1
0
0 Gr
η̂r
x̂˙ r
 
  
 
η̂
b x̂ + Jb η̂
∈ −NS(t)×S(t) H
,
(45b)
η̂r
x̂r
η̂r
 
L0
b Jb are defined as
where the gain matrix L :=
will be designed in the sequel, and the matrices H,
L1
follows:




b := H 0 , Jb := J 0 .
H
0 Hr
0 Jr
For brevity, we have suppressed the time argument in (45), and will do so in the remainder of this section
unless required. Let us also introduce the following notation:





b := A F , C
b := C −Cr , G
b := G 0 .
A
0 Ar
0 Gr
Theorem 3. Consider systems (4), (5) under assumptions (A3), (A4) and (A5), and the output regulation
error (6). Suppose that there exist a feedback matrix K and an injection matrix L that render the quadruples
e G,
e H,
e J)
e and (A
b − LC,
b G,
b H,
b J)
b strictly passive, respectively. If there exist matrices Π ∈ Rn×dr and
(A,
du ×dr
that satisfy (41), then the output regulation problem is solved by letting
M ∈R
u(t) = K x̂(t) + (M − KΠ)x̂r (t).

(46)

Proof. If we denote the state of the closed-loop system by X := col(x, x̂, x̂r ), and let Λ := col(η, η̂, η̂r ), then
the control law (46) results in the following dynamics:
Ẋ = Acl X + Fcl xr + Gcl Λ

(47a)

Λ ∈ −NS(t)×S(t)×S(t) (Hcl X + Jcl Λ) ,

(47b)

where the matrices Acl , Fcl are obtained from (4), (5), (45), (46), and





G 0
H 0
J
Gcl :=
,
H
:=
,
J
:=
cl
cl
b
b
0 G
0 H
0


0
.
Jb

Well-posedness: To show that the closed-loop system admits a unique solution, we follow the same
procedure as in the proof of Theorem 2. That is, we just need to find a symmetric positive definite matrix
>
>
Pcl such that ker(Jcl + Jcl
) ⊆ ker(Pcl Gcl − Hcl
), as all other hypotheses of Theorem 1 hold by construction.
The matrix Jcl is positive semidefinite by construction. To find the matrix Pcl , it is noted that, by assumption,
there exist symmetric positive definite matrices P, Pb such that the LMI (40) holds for the quadruples (A +
b − LC,
b G,
b H,
b J),
b respectively, for some dissipation constants γ, γ
BK, G, H, J) and (A
b. It thus holds that
>
>
>
>
b
b
b
b
b
ker(J + J ) ⊆ ker(P G − H ), and ker(J + J ) ⊆ ker(P G − H ). Now, simply choose


P 0
Pcl :=
,
0 Pb
20

>
>
then it is easily checked that Pcl is symmetric, positive definite, and ker(Jcl + Jcl
) ⊆ ker(Pcl Gcl − Hcl
).
Regulation: We are interested in asymptotic stability of the origin for the variable e, defined as


 
 
x − Πxr
ex
e




x − x̂
e :=
=: x̃ =: x .
(48)
eξ
xr − x̂r
er


By introducing the matrix W := −K (M − KΠ) , it can be shown using the equations in (41) that




 
e 0
ηe
G
0
A + BK
BW
ex

  η − η̂ 
ė =
(49)
b − LC
b eξ + 0 G 0
0
A
ηr − η̂r
0 0 Gr

e = [G ΠG], and ηe = col(η, −ηr ). Also, η, ηr and col(η̂, η̂r ) are defined in (4b), (5b)
where we recall that G
and (45b), respectively.


0
> αP
Consider the Lyapunov function V (e) = e
e for some α, β > 0 to be specified later. The
0 β Pb
derivative of V (·) along the trajectories of the closed-loop system (47) satisfies the following relations:
>
>
V̇ (e) = αe>
x (P (A + BK) + (A + BK) P )ex + 2αex P BW eξ
> e
b b
b
b
b > b
bb
+ e>
η + 2βe>
ξ (β P (A − LC) + (A − LC) β P )eξ + 2αex P Ge
ξ P G



η − η̂
ηr − η̂r



>
b
e x + Jeηe)
≤ −αγe>
γ e>
η > (He
x P ex − βb
ξ P eξ + 2αex P BW eξ + 2αe

+ 2β(η − η̂)> (H x̃ + J(η − η̂)) + 2β(ηr − η̂r )> (Hr er + Jr (ηr − η̂r ))
b−
where the last inequality is obtained using the passivity assumption on (A + BK, G, H, J) and (A
b
b
b
b
LC, G, H, J). Recalling that HΠ = Hr , it now follows that
e x + Jeηe) = hη(t), He(t) + Jη(t)
e
ηe> (He
− Jr ηr (t)i − hηr (t), He(t) + Jη(t) − Jr ηr (t)i
= hη(t), Hx(t) + Jη(t) − (Hr xr (t) + Jr ηr (t))i − hηr (t), Hx(t) + Jη(t) − (Hr xr (t) + Jr ηr (t))i
≤0
where the inequality follows due to the definition of the normal cone as Hx(t) + Jη(t) ∈ S(t), and Hr xr (t) +
Jr ηr (t) ∈ S(t), for each t ≥ 0, due to the adopted solution concept. Using similar arguments,
(η − η̂)> (H x̃ + J(η − η̂))
= hη(t), Hx(t) + Jη(t) − (H x̂(t) + J η̂(t))i − hη̂(t), Hx(t) + Jη(t) − (H x̂(t) + J η̂(t))i
≤0
and
(ηr − η̂r )> (Hr er + Jr (ηr − η̂r ))
= hηr (t), Hr xr (t) + Jr ηr (t) − (Hr x̂r (t) + Jr η̂r (t))i − hη̂r (t), Hr xr (t) + Jr ηr (t) − (Hr x̂r (t) + Jr η̂r (t))i
≤0
Plugging these relations in the expression for V̇ , and using the notation σmin to denote the smallest eigenvalue
of a matrix, and χ to denote the induced Euclidean matrix norm of P BW , we get
V̇ (e) ≤ −αγ σmin (P ) |ex |2 − βb
γ σmin (Pb) |eξ |2 + 2αχ |ex | |eξ |
≤ −αγ σmin (P ) |ex |2− βb
γ σmin (Pb) |eξ |2+ |ex |2 + α2 χ2 |eξ |2
= −(αγ σmin (P ) − 1)|ex |2 − (βb
γ σmin (Pb) − α2 χ2 )|eξ |2 .
21

Thus, choosing α, β in the definition of the Lyapunov function V (·) such that α γσmin (P ) > 1 and βb
γ σmin (Pb) >
2 2
α χ ), makes V̇ negative definite. In particular ex converges to zero, from which it follows that w =
Cx − Cr xr = C(x − Πxr ) = Cex converges to zero.
Closed-loop stabilization: Asymptotic stability of the origin of the unforced closed-loop system also follows
directly. Indeed, when xr ≡ 0, e(t) = col(x(t), x̃(t), x̂r (t)) converges to the origin asymptotically.

6

Applications

Let us revisit the examples that were pointed out at the beginning of the article as a motivation for studying
the problem of output regulation for the proposed class of systems.

6.1

Viability of Convex Polytopes with Set-Valued Control

In this section, we apply our theoretical results to formulate an output regulation problem with polyhedral
constraints. In particular, the plant to be controlled is now described by:
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) + F xr (t).

(50)

and our aim is to find a control input u such that the following two objectives are met:
(O1) For a given closed convex polyhedral cone K ⊆ Rds , and a locally absolutely continuous function
h(·) : [0, ∞) → Rds , the state x satisfies the constraint that y(t) := Hx(t) + h(t) ∈ K, for all t ≥ 0,
where the matrix H ∈ Rds ×n satisfies the constraint (38).
(O2) the output regulation is achieved with respect to the variable w = Cx − Cr xr for a given exogenous
signal xr .
Thus, in addition to the output regulation, we have a viability problem in Aubin’s sense [3, Chapter 11]
since the state of the plant is constrained to evolve within a predefined polyhedral set at all times.
In order to achieve these objectives, the exosystem generating the reference trajectories is expressed in
the form of a linear complementarity system (LCS), that is, we consider:
ẋr (t) = Ar xr (t) + Gr ηr
∗

−K 3 ηr ⊥ Hr xr (t) + h(t) ∈ K,

(51a)
(51b)

and hence the results of this section can also be interpreted in the context of trajectory tracking for a class
of trajectories generated by LCS.
It will be assumed that system (51) is initialized such that it admits a solution and the resulting state
trajectory xr is locally absolutely continuous. By letting,
S(t) := {z ∈ Rds | z + h(t) ≥ 0},

(52)

system (51) is equivalently written as:
ẋr (t) = Ar xr (t) + Gr ηr
ηr ∈ −NS(t) (Hr xr (t)).
For the plant under consideration, we split the control input u as u := ureg + uη with the motivation
that ureg refers to the classical internal model control input of the form (44) and uη would play the role of
normal vector required to maintain the constraint (a viability controller). Thus, the following control system
is realized:
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bureg (t) + Buη (t) + F xr (t),

(53a)

uη (t) ∈ −NS(t) (Hx(t))

(53b)

ureg (t) = Kx + (M − KΠ)xr (t)

(53c)

22

where M and Π are obtained as solutions to (41) by taking G = B, and K is chosen such that (A+BK, B, H)
is strictly passive. The following result then readily follows from Corollary 2 and Theorem 2.
Corollary 3. The system (53) possesses a unique solution and the resulting state trajectory x satisfies the
properties (O1) and (O2).
It may be the case that equation (53b) is not easily computable for arbitrary closed convex cone K. For
the case, when K = Rd+s , the positive orthant, we replace (53b) with an alternate expression in the form of
complementarity relation for which there exist efficient solvers. In that case, it may be verified that
uη (t) ∈ −N (S(t); Hx(t))
⇔ 0 ≤ uη (t) ⊥ y(t) = Hx(t) + h(t) ≥ 0
(
uη (t) = 0
if Hx(t) ∈ int S(t)
⇔
0 ≤ uη (t) ⊥ ẏ(t) ≥ 0 if Hx(t) ∈ bd S(t)
where ẏ = HAx + HBureg + HBuη + HF xr + ḣ is considered to be known. If the matrix HB is positive
definite, then there exists a unique solution to the aforementioned LCP. Existence (without uniqueness) is
also guaranteed under certain conditions, see several results in [9, Section 5.4.2] and [15] on the solvability
of LCP, in particular for the case when HB is positive semidefinite.
Example 3. As an illustration of Corollary 3, let us consider a second order LTI system described by the
equations
ẋ1 = −0.1x1 + x2 ; ẋ2 = u.
The exosystem is defined as the following linear complementarity system:
  



ẋr1
−0.1 1
0 0
ẋr :=
=
xr +
η
ẋr2
−2 1
−1 1 r

  
−xr2
1
0 ≤ ηr ⊥
+
≥ 0.
xr2
1

(54)

Consider the set S := {z ∈ R | z + 1 ≥ 0} and the matrix H := [ 00 −1
1 ], the relation (54) is equivalently
expressed as ηr ∈ −NS×S (Hxr ). We are interested in designing a control input u, such that limt→∞ |x2 (t) −
xr2 (t)| = 0, and ∀ t ≥ 0, |x2 (t)| ≤ 1, or equivalently Hx(t) ∈ S × S. Verbally speaking, the exosystem has
been chosen so that the plot of xr2 (versus time) resembles a sine wave clipped at the value 1, see Fig. 3.
The control objective is to guarantee |x2 (t)| ≤ 1 and that x2 converges asymptotically to xr2 . Decomposing
the input as u := ureg + uη results in the closed-loop system of the form (53). In the notation of Theorem 2,
we let Π = I2×2 , P = [ 20 01 ], K = [−2 − 2], and M = [−2 1], so that ureg (t) := −2x1 (t) − 2x2 (t) + 3xr2 (t)
follows from (44). The discontinuous component of the input7 uη := −uη1 + uη2 is obtained as a solution of
the following linear complementarity problems
(
uη1 (t) = 0
if x2 (t) < 1
0 ≤ uη1 ⊥ −x2 + 1 ≥ 0 ⇐⇒
0 ≤ uη1 (t) ⊥ −ureg (t) + uη1 (t) ≥ 0 if x2 (t) = 1
(
(55)
uη2 (t) = 0
if x2 (t) > −1
0 ≤ uη2 ⊥ x2 + 1 ≥ 0 ⇐⇒
0 ≤ uη2 (t) ⊥ ureg (t) + uη2 (t) ≥ 0 if x2 (t) = −1
which is always guaranteed to exist [15]. The simulations for this example were carried out using the siconos
platform8 developed at INRIA. The results of the simulation are shown in Fig. 3.
7 We are implicitly using the fact that the two constraints imposed in this problem, x ≤ 1 and x ≥ −1, are not active
2
2
simultaneously. Thus, the complementarity formulation (55) ensures that uη = −uη1 if x2 = 1, and uη = uη2 if x2 = −1,
otherwise uη = 0.
8 Please visit http://siconos.gforge.inria.fr/4.1.0/html/index.html for details.

23

Figure 3: The top plot shows the phase portrait of the trajectories of the plant and the exosystem. The
middle plot confirms that x2 converges to xr2 while staying within the set S. The bottom plot shows the
values of discontinuous component of the control input uη , which only become nonzero when x is on the
boundary of the set S.

6.2

Regulation in Power Converters

The framework of EVIs is extremely useful for modeling electrical circuits with switches, diodes, transistors,
etc., which often induce discontinuities in state variables of the systems during their mode of operation. In
particular, it provides a very efficient framework for the numerical simulation [1, Chapters 7,8]. Designing
state feedback algorithms such that certain variables of the system follow a prescribed trajectory is seen as
a challenging task due to presence of discontinuities in the system description. The results of this paper
allow us to solve this problem for certain class of circuits and here we discuss the direct application of these
results. It remains to be seen to what extent these results can be generalized to explore further similar
applications in the domain of power converters, especially, regulations problems which involve the design of
state-dependent switching laws.
The class of electrical circuits we consider here is assumed to be modeled by the following equations [37]:
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + F xr (t) + Gη(t) + Bu(t) + Bext fext (t)

(56a)

v(t) = Hx(t) + Jη(t) + h(t)

(56b)

∗

K 3 v(t) ⊥ η(t) ∈ K ,

(56c)

where u is a control input, fext is a locally essentially bounded measurable function, and h is a locally BV
function. The reason for including this extra forcing term is that, very often, the power converters are driven
by a voltage or current source which must be taken into account. We limit ourselves to the case where K
is a closed polyhedral convex cone, and K∗ denotes the dual of K. The class of reference signals that we
consider is described as:
ẋr (t) = Ar xr (t) + Gr ηr (t) + Br fext (t)

(57a)

vr (t) = Hr xr (t) + Jr ηr (t) + hr (t)

(57b)

K 3 vr (t) ⊥ ηr (t) ∈ K∗ .

(57c)

Corollary 4. Assume that there exist matrices Π ∈ Rn×dr and M ∈ Rdu ×dr such that the regulator condie G,
e H,
e J)
e strictly passive.
tions (41) hold, and there is a feedback matrix K which renders the quadruple (A,
24

Furthermore, assume that there exists a matrix N such that
BN + Bext = ΠBr

(58)

and h = hr , then the control input
u(t) = Kx(t) + (M − KΠ)xr (t) + N fext (t)
solves the output regulation problem.
The additional condition (58) and term N fext (t) in the control input allow us eliminate the exogenous
signal fext in the error dynamics. The stability of the error dynamics is then analyzed using the same
arguments as given in the proof of Theorem 2.
Example 4. Consider the circuit given in Figure 4a in which the voltage-current characteristic of a diode
is most appropriately modeled using an EVI. We consider the state variables of the system to be x1 (t) :=
Rt
i (s) ds, and x2 (t) := i2 (t). We denote by η the voltage drop across the diode. The voltage source fext
0 1
is a priori fixed as a locally BV function of time. The dynamics of the circuit are governed by the following
equations:

1
 
1
 −1
0
−1
RC
R
x(t) +
η(t) + −1 u(t) + R fext (t)
ẋ(t) = 1
0
0
0
L
LC
 −1

1
1
0 x(t) + η(t) + fext (t) ≥ 0,
0 ≤ η(t) ⊥ RC
R
R
where the complementarity conditions represent the voltage-current characteristic of a diode [1]. The control
input u is to be designed via state feedback such that the voltage across the capacitor x1 (t) has the same
value as fext (t). To do so, we define the reference system as follows:
ẋr (t) = ar xr (t) + gr ηr (t) + br fext (t)
0 ≤ ηr (t) ⊥ ar xr (t) + gr ηr (t) + br fext (t) ≥ 0,
1
where we take ar = − RC
, gr =

1
R,

br =

1
R.

 
1
To solve the regulation problem, we take Π =
, and the resulting control input is
0
u(t) = k1 x1 (t) + k2 x2 (t) +

1
xr (t) − k1 xr (t).
C

where we let K := [k1 k2 ], and the constants k1 , k2 need to be computed. To carry the computations, we
chose L = 1mH, C = 10mF, R = 10 Ω. The LMI solvers in MATLAB were used to find a positive definite
matrix P and the gain vector K such that the criteria of Theorem 1 holds. One possible choice of P and K
obtained from these solvers is




2240.9 −4.4029
P =
, K = −1000 5 .
−4.4029 0.0137
We then used the solvers programmed in the INRIA siconos platform to simulate the resulting system of
differential equations and the variational inequalities. For the simulations, we chose fext (t) = b10 · tc, which
results in the plots reported in Figure 4b. Note that the exosystem in this case only allows us to generate xr
which is nondecreasing. One can consider other exosystems which generate larger class of reference signals,
but this may require adding more elements in the circuit.

25

u

R

+
−

i1 + i2
−

−

η

vC

C

+

+

i1

L
i2

+
−
fext
(a) A circuit with diode and external inputs.

(b) Plots showing fext and x1 tracking xr .

Figure 4: Regulation of discontinuous function in circuits modeled as EVIs.

7

Conclusions

This paper studied the problem of output regulation in a certain class of nonsmooth dynamical systems that
are modeled as evolution variational inequalities. These nonsmooth systems in particular model systems
where states are constrained to evolve within some closed, convex and time-varying set. We first studied
the conditions under which there exists a unique solution for such systems. The classical internal model
principle was then used to derive conditions to synthesize a control law that achieves the desired objective.
The analysis were based on using the Lyapunov methods in combination with monotonicity property of the
normal cone operator to prove stability.
One could think of extending the results to consider the case when the set-valued mapping S(·) is not just
time-dependent, but also state-dependent. This would allow us to model mechanical systems with impacts
within our framework but deeper investigation is required for the synthesis of control in such cases.

A

Useful Results from Literature

Theorem 4 ([22, Theorem 3]). Consider the differential inclusion
ż(t) ∈ −M(t, z(t)),

z(0) ∈ dom M(0, ·),

(59)

where M(t, ·) : H ⇒ H is a maximal monotone operator for each t ∈ [0, T ]. Assume that the following two
conditions hold:
(H1) The least norm element η 0 (t, z) of the set M(t, z) satisfies
|η 0 (t, z)| ≤ λ(t) (1 + |z|),

for t ∈ [0, T ], z ∈ dom M(t, ·)

for some integrable function λ ∈ L1 ([0, T ], R).
(H2) There exists an absolutely continuous function µ : [0, T ] → R such that
dsvm (M(t1 , ·), M(t2 , ·)) ≤ |µ(t1 ) − µ(t2 )|,

for t1 , t2 ∈ [0, T ]

where dsvm (M1 , M2 ) defines a pseudo-distance between two operators M1 , M2 and is given through


hη1 − η2 , z2 − z1 i
, ηi ∈ Mi (zi ), zi ∈ dom(Mi ), i = 1, 2 .
(60)
dsvm (M1 , M2 ) := sup
1 + |η1 | + |η2 |
Then for each z0 ∈ dom M(0, ·), there exists a unique strong solution to the inclusion (59).
26

Lemma 6 ([29]). Consider the closed convex polyhedral cone K defined by K := {y ∈ Rds | R y ≥ 0}. For a
given matrix Q and vectors h1 , h2 , introduce the sets S1 := {x | Qx − h1 ∈ K} and S2 := {x | Qx − h2 ∈ K}.
Then, there exists a constant cK > 0 (depending only on Q and R) such that
dHaus (S1 , S2 ) ≤ cK kRk |h1 − h2 |.
Theorem 5 ([5, Theorem 24.20], [7]). Let M1 and M2 be set-valued monotone operators defined on a
Hilbert space H such that
• the sum M1 + M2 is maximal monotone, and
• for i = 1, 2, dom Mi × rge Mi ⊆ dom Fi , where Fi : H × H → [−∞, ∞] is defined as
Fi (x, y) = hx, yi −

inf

(x,y)∈graph Mi

hx − x, y − yi.

Then, it holds that
cl[rge(M1 + M2 )] = cl[rge M1 + rge M2 ]

(61)

int(rge(M1 + M2 )) = int[rge M1 + rge M2 ].

(62)

The operators satisfying the second condition listed in Theorem 5 are called 3∗ -monotone. If S is a
convex set, and σS denote its support function, then ∂σS is 3∗ -monotone [5, Example 24.9]. For J positive
definite, the same conclusion follows from [5, Example 24.11].

Acknowledgements
The first author would like to thank Kanat Camlibel and Luigi Iannelli for useful discussions related to class
of differential inclusions studied in this paper. Several exchanges with them since the earlier version of this
article was published at IEEE Conference on Decision and Control at Los Angeles in December 2014, have
helped us improve the proofs in Section 3. The authors also thank Dr. Ba Khiet Le for suggesting corrections
in the earlier version of the proof of Lemma 5.

References
[1] V. Acary, O. Bonnefon, and B. Brogliato. Nonsmooth Modeling and Simulation for Switched Circuits, volume 69
of Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg, 2011.
[2] S. Adly, T. Haddad, and L. Thibault. Convex sweeping process in the framework of measure differential inclusions
and evolution variational inequalities. Math. Prog. Ser. B, 48(1):5–47, 2014.
[3] J.-P. Aubin, A.M. Bayen, and P. Saint-Pierre. Viability Theory: New Directions. Springer, 2nd edition, 2011.
[4] J.-P. Aubin and A. Cellina. Differential Inclusions: Set-Valued Maps and Viability Theory. Springer-Verlag,
1984.
[5] H.H. Bauschke and P.L. Combettes. Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces. CMS
Books in Mathematics. Springer, 2011.
[6] H. Brézis. Opérateurs Maximaux Monotones et Semi-Groupes de Contractions dans les Espaces de Hilbert.
North-Holland, Mathematics Studies, 1973.
[7] H. Brezis and A. Haraux. Image d’une somme d’operateurs monotones et applications. Israel J. Mathematics,
23(2):165–186, 1976.
[8] B. Brogliato. Absolute stability and the Lagrange–Dirichlet theorem with monotone multivalued mappings.
Systems & Control Letters, 51:343–353, 2004.
[9] B. Brogliato. Nonsmooth Mechanics: Models, Dynamics and Control. Springer, 3rd edition, 2016.

27

[10] B. Brogliato and D. Goeleven. Well-posedness, stability and invariance results for a class of multivalued Lur’e
dynamical systems. Nonlinear Analysis Series A: Theory, Methods & Applications, 74:195–212, 2011.
[11] B. Brogliato and D. Goeleven. Existence, uniqueness of solutions and stability of nonsmooth multivalued Lur’e
dynamical systems. J. Convex Analysis, 20(3):881–900, 2013.
[12] M.K. Camlibel, L. Iannelli, and F. Vasca. Passivity and complementarity. Math. Prog. Ser. A, 145(1):531–563,
2014.
[13] M.K. Camlibel and J.M. Schumacher. Linear passive systems and maximal monotone mappings. Math. Prog.
Ser. B, 157(2):397–420, 2016.
[14] J. Cortes. Discontinuous dynamical systems: A tutorial on solutions, nonsmooth analysis, and stability. Control
Systems Magazine, 28(3):36–73, 2008.
[15] R.W. Cottle, J.-S. Pang, and R.E. Stone. The Linear Complementarity Problem. Academic Press, 1992.
[16] J.F. Edmond and L. Thibault. BV solutions of nonconvex sweeping process differential inclusion with perturbation. J. Differential Equations, 226:135–179, 2006.
[17] F. Facchinei and J.-S. Pang. Finite-Dimensional Variational Inequalities and Complementarity Problems.
Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering. Springer, 2003.
[18] A.F. Filippov. Differential Equations with Discontinuous Righthand Sides. Springer, 1988.
[19] B. Francis. A linear multivariable regulator problem. SIAM J. Control & Optimization, 15(3):486–505, 1977.
[20] R. Goebel. Lyapunov functions and duality for convex processes. SIAM J. Control & Optimization, 52(4):3332–
3350, 2014.
[21] H.K. Khalil. Nonlinear Systems. Prentice Hall, 3rd edition, 2002.
[22] M. Kunze and M.D.P. Monteiro Marques. BV solutions to evolution problems with time-dependent domains.
Set-Valued Analysis, 5:57–72, 1997.
[23] D.G. Luenberger. Optimization by Vector Space Methods. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1969.
[24] M.D.P. Monteiro Marques. Differential Inclusions in Nonsmooth Mechanical Problems: Shocks and Dry Friction,
volume 9 of Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications. Birkhäuser, 1993.
[25] J.J. Moreau. Evolution problem associated with a moving convex set in Hilbert space. J. Differential Equations,
26:347–374, 1977.
[26] J.-S. Pang and D.E. Stewart. Differential variational inequalities. Math. Prog., Ser. A, 113:345–424, 2008.
[27] J. Peypouquet and S. Sorin. Evolution equations for maximal monotone operators: Asymptotic analysis in
continuous and discrete time. J. Convex Analysis, 17(3 & 4):1113 – 1163, 2010.
[28] A. Rantzer. Scalable control of positive systems. European J. Control, 24:72–80, 2015.
[29] S.M. Robinson. Stability theory for systems of inequalities. Part i: Linear systems. SIAM J. Numerical Analysis,
12(5):754–769, 1975.
[30] R.T. Rockafellar. Convex Analysis. Princeton University Press, 1970.
[31] R.T. Rockafellar and R.J.-B. Wets. Variational Analysis, volume 317 of Gundlehren der mathematischen
Wissenchaften. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 3rd printing, 2009 edition, 1998.
[32] A. Tanwani, B. Brogliato, and C. Prieur. Stability and observer design for multivalued Lur’e systems with
non-monotone, time-varying nonlinearities and state jumps. SIAM J. Control & Optimization, 52(6):3639–3672,
2014.
[33] A. Tanwani, B. Brogliato, and C. Prieur. Stability notions for a class of nonlinear systems with measure controls.
Mathematics of Control, Signals, & Systems, 27(2):245–275, 2015.
[34] A. Tanwani, B. Brogliato, and C. Prieur. Observer design for unilaterally constrained Lagrangian systems: A
passivity-based approach. IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, 61(9):2386–2401, 2016.
[35] A. Tanwani, B. Brogliato, and C. Prieur. On output regulation in state-constrained dynamical systems: An
application to polyhedral case. In Proc. 19th IFAC World Congress, pages 1513–1518, August 2014.
[36] A. Tanwani, B. Brogliato, and C. Prieur. On output regulation in systems with differential variational inequalities. In Proc. 53rd IEEE Conf. on Decision & Control, pages 3077–3082, December 2014.

28

[37] F. Vasca, M.K. Camlibel, L. Iannelli, and R. Frasca. A new perspective for modeling power electronics converters:
Complementarity framework. IEEE Trans. on Power Electronics, 24(2):456–468, 2009.
[38] A.A. Vladimirov. Nonstationary dissipative evolution equations in a Hilbert space. Nonlinear Analysis, 17:499–
518, 1991.

29

