Stability Analysis of Sampled-Data Switched Systems
with Quantization

arXiv:1509.00540v1 [cs.SY] 2 Sep 2015

Masashi Wakaiki and Yutaka Yamamoto

Abstract
We propose a stability analysis method for sampled-data switched linear systems with finite-level
static quantizers. In the closed-loop system, information on the active mode of the plant is transmitted
to the controller only at each sampling time. This limitation of switching information leads to a mode
mismatch between the plant and the controller, and the system may become unstable. A mode mismatch
also makes it difficult to find an attractor set to which the state trajectory converges. A switching
condition for stability is characterized by the total time when the modes of the plant and the controller
are different. Under the condition, we derive an ultimate bound on the state trajectories by using a
common Lyapunov function computed from a randomized algorithm. The switching condition can be
reduced to a dwell-time condition.

I. I NTRODUCTION
The recent advance of networking technologies makes control systems more flexible. However,
the use of networks also raises new challenges such as packet dropouts, variable transmission
delays, and real-time task scheduling. Switched system models provide a mathematical framework for such network properties because of their versatility to include both continuous flows
and discrete jumps; see [3], [16], [30], [41] and references therein for the application of switched
system models to networked control systems.
This work was supported in part by The Kyoto University Foundation. The material in this paper was partially presented at
the 19th IFAC World Congress, August 24-29, 2014, South Africa.
M. Wakaiki is with the Center for Control, Dynamical-systems and Computation (CCDC), University of California, Santa
Barbara, CA 93106-9560 USA (e-mail: masashiwakaiki@ece.ucsb.edu). Y. Yamamoto is with the Department of
Applied Analysis and Complex Dynamical Systems, Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan
(e-mail: yy@i.kyoto-u.ac.jp).

On the other hand, many control loops in a practical network contain channels over which
only a finite number of bits can be transmitted. We need to quantize data before sending them out
through a network. Therefore the effect of data quantization should be taken into consideration
to achieve stability and desired performance. In addition to the practical motivation, literature
such as [25], [27], [31], [35] has answered the theoretical question of how much information is
necessary/sufficient for a given control problem.
Switched systems and quantized control have been studied extensively but separately; see,
e.g., [12], [17], [29] for switched systems and [10], [21], [26] for quantized control. However,
quantized control of switched systems has received increasing attention in recent years. For
discrete-time Markovian jump linear systems, control problems with limited information have
been studied in [18], [19], [24], [36], [37]. Also, our previous work [34] has investigated
the output feedback stabilization of continuous-time switched systems under a slow-switching
assumption. In most of the above studies, the switching behavior of the plant is available to the
controller at all times.
In contrast, in sampled-data switched systems with quantization, the controller receives the
quantized measurement and the active mode of the plant only at each sampling time. Since the
controller side does not know the active mode of the plant between sampling times, we do not
always use the controller mode consistent with the plant mode at the present time. The closedloop system may therefore become unstable when switching occurs between sampling times.
Moreover, for the stability of quantized systems, it is important to obtain regions to which the
state belongs. However, mode mismatches yield complicated state trajectories, which make it
difficult to find such regions.
Stabilization of sampled-data switched system with dynamic quantizers has been first addressed
in [13], which has proposed an encoding strategy for state feedback control. This encoding
method has been extended to the output feedback case [32] and to the case with disturbances
[39]. A crucial ingredient in the dynamic quantization is a reachable set of the state trajectories
through sampling intervals. Propagation of reachable sets is used to set the quantization values at
the next sampling time, and the dynamic quantizer achieves increasingly higher precision as the
state approaches the origin. On the other hand, we study the stability analysis of sampled-data
switched systems with finite-level static quantizers. For such a closed-loop system, asymptotic
stability cannot be guaranteed. The objective of the present paper is therefore to find an ultimate

bound on the system trajectories as in the single-modal case, e.g., [4], [5], [8], [9]. Since frequent
mode mismatches make the trajectories diverge, a certain switching condition is required for the
existence of ultimate bounds.
As in [20] for switched systems with time delays, we here characterize switching behaviors by
the total time when the controller mode is not synchronized with the plant one, which we call the
total mismatch time. We derive a sufficient condition on the total mismatch time for the system
to be stable, by using an upper bound on the error due to sampling and quantization. Moreover,
an ultimate bound on the state trajectories is obtained under the switching condition. For the
stability analysis, we use a common Lyapunov function that guarantees stability for all individual
modes in the non-switched case. We find such Lyapunov functions in a computationally efficient
and less conservative way by combining the randomized algorithms in [8], [15] together.
From the total mismatch time, we can obtain an asynchronous switching time ratio. If the
controller mode is synchronized with the plant one, then the closed-loop system is stable.
Otherwise, the system may be unstable. Hence the total mismatch time is a characterization
similar to the total activation time ratio [40] between stable modes and unstable ones. The crucial
difference is that the unstable modes we consider are caused by switching within sampling
intervals. Using the dependence of the instability on the sampling period, we can reduce the
switching condition on the total mismatch time to a dwell-time condition, which is widely
used for the stability analysis of switched systems. In Section 4, we will discuss in detail the
relationship between the total mismatch time and the dwell time of switching behaviors.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we present the closed-loop system, the
information structure, and basic assumptions. In Section 3, we first investigate the growth rate
of the common Lyapunov function in the case when switching occurs in a sampling interval. Next
we derive an ultimate bound on the state, together with a sufficient condition on switching for
stability. Section 4 is devoted to reduce the derived switching condition to a dwell-time condition.
We illustrate the results through a numerical example in Section 5. Finally, concluding remarks
are given in Section 6.
This paper is based on a conference paper [33]. In the conference version, some of the proofs
were omitted due to space limitations. The present paper provides complete results on the stability
analysis in addition to an illustrative numerical example. We also made structural improvements
in this paper.

Notation
We denote by Z+ the set of non-negative integers {k ∈ Z : k ≥ 0}. For a set Ω ⊂ Rn , Cl (Ω),
Int (Ω), and ∂Ω are its closure, interior, and boundary, respectively. For sets Ω1 , Ω2 , let Ω1 \ Ω2
be the relative complement of Ω2 in Ω1 , i.e., Ω1 \ Ω2 := {ω ∈ Ω1 : ω 6∈ Ω2 }.
Let M > denote the transpose of a matrix M ∈ Rn×m . The Euclidean norm of a vector v ∈ Rn
is defined by kvk := (v > v)1/2 . For a matrix M ∈ Rm×n , its Euclidean induced norm is defined
by kM k := sup{kM vk : v ∈ Rn , kvk = 1}. Let λmax (P ) and λmin (P ) denote the largest and
the smallest eigenvalue of a square matrix P ∈ Rn×n . Let B(L) be the closed ball in Rn with
center at the origin and radius L, that is, B(L) := {x ∈ Rn : kxk ≤ L}.
Let Ts be the sampling period. For t ≥ 0, we define [t]− by
[t]− := kTs

if

kTs ≤ t < (k + 1)Ts

(k ∈ Z+ ).

II. S AMPLED - DATA S WITCHED S YSTEMS WITH Q UANTIZATION
A. Switched systems
Consider the following continuous-time switched linear system
ẋ = Aσ x + Bσ u,

(1)

where x(t) ∈ Rn is the state and u(t) ∈ Rm is the control input. For a finite index set P,
the mapping σ : [0, ∞) → P is right-continuous and piecewise constant, which indicates the
active mode σ(t) ∈ P at each time t ≥ 0. We call σ a switching signal, and the discontinuities
of σ switching times or simply switches. The plant sends to the controller the state x and the
switching signal σ.
The first assumption is stabilizability of all modes.
Assumption 2.1: For every mode p ∈ P, (Ap , Bp ) is stabilizable, i.e., there exists a feedback
gain Kp ∈ Rm×n such that Ap + Bp Kp is Hurwitz.
B. Quantized sampled-data system
Consider the closed-loop system in Fig. 1. Let Ts > 0 be the sampling period. The sampler
STs is given by
STs : (x, σ) 7→ (x(kTs ), σ(kTs ))

(k ∈ Z+ ),

and the zero-order hold HTs by
HTs : ud 7→ u(t) = ud (k), t ∈ [kTs , (k + 1)Ts ) (k ∈ Z+ ).
The second assumption is that at most one switch happens in each sampling interval.
Assumption 2.2: Every sampling interval (kTs , (k + 1)Ts ) has at most one switch.
See Remark 2.5 (3) below for the reason why we need this switching assumption.
We now state the definition of a memoryless quantizer Q given in [8]. For an index set S,
the partition {Qj }j∈S of Rn is said to be finite if for every bounded set B, there exists a finite
S
subset Sf of S such that B ⊂ j∈Sf Qj . We define the quantizer Q with respect to the finite
partition {Qj }j∈S by
Q : Rn → {qj }j∈S ⊂ Rn
x 7→ qj

if x ∈ Qj

(j ∈ S).

As in [11], [14], we assume that Q(x) = 0 if x is close to the origin:
Assumption 2.3: If Cl (Qj ) contains the origin, then the corresponding quantization value
qj = 0.
Let qx be the output of the zero-order hold whose input is the quantized state at sampling
times, i.e., qx (t) = Q(x([t]− )). Note that in Fig. 1, the control input u is given by
u(t) = Kσ([t]− ) qx (t).

u(t)

Plant	


(A

(t) , B (t) )

(2)

x(t), (t)

S	
T   s

HT s
Controller	


K
u(kTs )

(kTs )

	
Q  
x(kTs ), (kTs )

Fig. 1: Sampled-data switched system with quantization, where Ts is the sampling period and
STs , HTs , and Q are a sampler, a zero-order hold, and a static quantizer, respectively.

The control input u is a piecewise-constant and discrete-valued signal. If we assume that a finite
S
subset Sf of S satisfies x(t) ∈ j∈Sf Qj for every state trajectory x(t), then data is transmitted
to/from the controller at the rate of
log2 |Sf | + log2 |P|
Ts
bits per time unit, where |Sf | and |P| are the numbers of elements in Sf and P, respectively.
Let P ∈ Rn×n be positive definite and define the quadratic Lyapunov function V (x) := x> P x
for x ∈ Rn . Its time derivative V̇ along the trajectory of (1) with (2) is given by
V̇ ((t), qx (t), σ(t)) = (Aσ(t) x(t) + Bσ(t) Kσ([t]− ) qx (t))> P x(t)
+ x(t)> P (Aσ(t) x(t) + Bσ(t) Kσ([t]− ) qx (t))

(3)

if t is not a switching time or a sampling time.
For p, q ∈ P with p 6= q, we also define V̇p and V̇p,q by
V̇p (x(t), qx (t)) := (Ap x(t) + Bp Kp qx (t))> P x(t) + x(t)> P (Ap x(t) + Bp Kp qx (t))
V̇p,q (x(t), qx (t)) := (Ap x(t) + Bp Kq qx (t))> P x(t) + x(t)> P (Ap x(t) + Bp Kq qx (t)).

(4)

Then V̇p and V̇p,q are the time derivatives of V along the trajectories of the systems (Ap , Bp Kp )
and (Ap , Bp Kq ), respectively.
Every individual mode is assumed to be stable in the following sense with the common
Lyapunov function V :
Assumption 2.4: Consider the following quantized sampled-data systems with ‘a single mode’:
ẋ = Ap x + Bp u,

u = Kp qx

(p ∈ P).

(5)

Let C be a positive number and suppose that R and r satisfy R > r > 0. Then there exists a
positive-definite matrix P ∈ Rn×n such that for all p ∈ P, every trajectory x of the system (5)
with x(0) ∈ E P (R) satisfies
V̇p (x(t), qx (t)) ≤ −Ckx(t)k2
or x(t) ∈ E P (r) for all t ≥ 0, where E P (R) and E P (r) are given by
E P (R) := {x ∈ Rn : V (x) ≤ R2 λmax (P )}
E P (r) := {x ∈ Rn : V (x) ≤ r2 λmin (P )}.

(6)

Assumption 2.4 implies the following: If we have no switches, then the common Lyapunov
function V exponentially decreases at a certain rate until V ≤ r2 λmin (P ) for every mode p ∈ P.
Furthermore, the trajectory does not leave E P (r) as well as E P (R) once it falls into them.
The objective of the present paper is to find a switching condition under which every trajectory
of the switched system in Fig. 1 falls into some neighborhood of the origin and remains in the
neighborhood. We also determine how small the neighborhood is.
Remark 2.5: (1) The ellipsoid E P (R) is the smallest level set of V containing B(R), whereas
E P (r) is the largest level set of V contained in B(r).
(2) For switched systems without samplers, the existence of common Lyapunov functions is a
sufficient condition for stability under arbitrary switching; see, e.g., [12], [17], [29]. For sampleddata switched systems, however, such functions do not guarantee stability because switching
within a sampling interval may make the closed-loop system unstable.
(3) Not only sampling but also quantization makes the stability analysis complicated. In fact,
Assumption 2.4 does not consider trajectories after a switch even without a mode mismatch.
For example, suppose that the mode changes p → q → p at the switching times t1 and t2 in a
sampling interval (0, Ts ). Although the modes coincide between the plant and the controller in
[t2 , Ts ), (6) holds only for t ∈ (0, t1 ). This is because the trajectory in [t2 , Ts ) does not appear
for systems with a single mode. In Assumption 2.2, we therefore assume that at most one switch
occurs in a sampling interval, and hence (6) holds whenever the modes coincide. If we consider
trajectories in the worst case, then the switching condition in Assumption 2.2 can be removed.
However, the stability analysis becomes more conservative and involved.
(4) For quantized sampled-data plants with a single mode, the authors of [8] have proposed
a randomized algorithm for the computation of P in Assumption 2.4. On the other hand, for
switched systems without sampler or quantizer, the authors of [15] have developed a randomized
algorithm to construct common Lyapunov functions. Combining these algorithms together, we
can efficiently compute the desired common Lyapunov function. See Appendix B for details of
the randomized algorithm.

III. S TABILIZATION WITH L IMITED I NFORMATION
A. Upper bound on V̇p,q
Assumption 2.4 gives an upper bound (6) on V̇p , i.e., the decreasing rate of the Lyapunov
function in the case when we use the feedback gain consistent with the currently active mode
of the plant. In this subsection, we will find an upper bound on V̇p,q , i.e., the growth rate in the
case when intersample switching leads to the mismatch of the modes between the plant and the
feedback gain. More specifically, the aim here is to obtain D > 0 satisfying
V̇p,q (x(t), qx (t)) ≤ Dkx(t)k2 .

(7)

Let qx (t) − x(t) is the error between the sampled and quantized state qx (t) and the state x(t)
at the present time. Since
V̇p,q (x(t), qx (t)) = 2x(t)> P (Ap + Bp Kq )x(t) + 2x(t)> P Bp Kq (qx (t) − x(t)),

(8)

we need to obtain a bound on the error qx (t) − x(t) by using x(t). We begin by examining the
relationship among the state at the present time x(t), the sampled state x([t]− ), and the sampled
quantized state qx (t).
The partition {Qj }j∈S is finite. Furthermore, Assumption 2.3 shows that if there exists a
sequence {ξk } ⊂ Qj such that ξk → 0 (k → ∞), then Q(x) = 0 for all x ∈ Qj . Hence there
exists a constant α0 > 0 such that
kBp Kq Q(x)k ≤ α0 kxk

(9)

for all p, q ∈ P and x ∈ E P (R); see Remark 3.6 (3) for the computation of α0 . We also define
Λ by
Λ := max kAp k.
p∈P

The next result gives an upper bound of the norm of the sampled state x([t]− ) by using the
state at the present time x(t).
Lemma 3.1: Consider the swithced system (1) with (2), where σ has finitely many switching
times in every finite interval. Suppose that
η := α0

eΛTs − 1
< 1,
Λ

(10)

and define α1 by
eΛTs
.
1−η

α1 :=

(11)

Then we have
kx([t]− )k < α1 kx(t)k

(12)

for all t ≥ 0 with x([t]− ) ∈ E P (R).
Proof: It suffices to prove (12) for x(0) ∈ E P (R) and t ∈ [0, Ts ).
Let Φ(τ1 , τ2 ) denote the state-transition matrix of the switched system (1) for τ1 ≥ τ2 . If no
switches occur, Φ(τ1 , τ2 ) is given by Φ(τ1 , τ2 ) = e(τ1 −τ2 )Aσ(τ2 ) . If t1 , t2 , . . . , tm are the switching
times in an interval (τ2 , τ1 ) and if we define t0 := τ2 and tm+1 := τ1 , then we have
Φ(τ1 , τ2 ) =

m
Y

e(tk+1 −tk )Aσ(tk ) .

k=0

Since
Z

t

Φ(t, τ )Bσ(τ ) Kσ(0) qx (τ )dτ

x(t) = Φ(t, 0)x(0) +

(13)

0

and since Φ(τ, 0)−1 = Φ(t, 0)−1 Φ(t, τ ), it follows that
Z t
−1
Φ(τ, 0)−1 Bσ(τ ) Kσ(0) qx (τ )dτ.
x(0) = Φ(t, 0) x(t) +
0

This leads to
Z

−1

kx(0)k ≤kΦ(t, 0) k · kx(t)k +

t

Φ(τ, 0)−1 Bσ(τ ) Kσ(0) qx (τ )dτ .

(14)

0

Let t1 , t2 , . . . , tm be the switching times in the interval [0, t). Since keτ A k ≤ eτ kAk for τ ≥ 0, if
we define t0 := 0 and tm+1 := t, then we obtain
kΦ(t, 0)−1 k ≤

m
Y

e(tk+1 −tk )kAσ(tk ) k ≤ eΛt < eΛTs .

(15)

k=0

It is obvious that the equation above holds in the non-switched case as well. Since qx (τ ) =
qx (0) = Q(x(0)) for all τ ∈ [0, Ts ], if follows from (9) that
Z t
Z t
−1
Φ(τ, 0) Bσ(τ ) Kσ(0) qx (τ )dτ ≤
kΦ(τ, 0)−1 k · kBσ(τ ) Kσ(0) qx (τ )kdτ
0

0

Z
≤ α0

t

eΛτ dτ kx(0)k

0
ΛTs

≤ α0

e

−1
kx(0)k = ηkx(0)k.
Λ

(16)

Substituting (15) and (16) into (14), we obtain
kx(0)k < eΛTs kx(t)k + ηkx(0)k.
Thus if (10) holds, (12) follows.
Let us next develop an upper bound of the norm of the error x(t) − x([t]− ) due to sampling.
To this end, we use the following property of the state-transition map of a switched system:
Proposition 3.2: Let Φ(t, 0) be the state-transition map of the switched system (1) as above.
Then
kΦ(t, 0) − Ik ≤ eΛt − 1.

(17)

Proof: Let us first consider the case without switching; that is,
ketAσ(0) − Ik ≤ eΛt − 1.

(18)

Define the partial sum SN of etAσ(0) − I by
N
N
X
X
1
1
k
(tAσ(0) ) − I =
(tAσ(0) )k .
SN (t) :=
k!
k!
k=1
k=0

Then for all t ≥ 0, we have
N
X
k
1
kSN (t)k ≤
tkAσ(0) k
k!
k=1
N
X
k
1
tkAσ(0) k − 1
=
k!
k=0
∞
X
k
1
≤
tkAσ(0) k − 1
k!
k=0

= etkAσ(0) k − 1 ≤ eΛt − 1.
Letting N → ∞, we obtain (18).
We now prove (17) in the switched case. Let t1 , t2 , . . . , tm be the switching times in the
interval (0, t). Let t0 = 0 and tm+1 = t. Then (17) is equivalent to
m
Y
k=0

e(tk+1 −tk )Aσ(tk ) − I

≤ eΛt − 1.

(19)

We have already shown (19) in the case m = 0, i.e., the non-switched case. The general case
follows by induction. For m ≥ 1,
m
Y

e(tk+1 −tk )Aσ(tk ) − I

k=0
m−1
Y

≤ e(tm+1 −tm )Aσ(tm )

!
e(tk+1 −tk )Aσ(tk ) − I

+ ke(tm+1 −tm )Aσ(tm ) − Ik

k=0

≤ ke

(tm+1 −tm )Aσ(tm )

k·

m−1
Y

e(tk+1 −tk )Aσ(tk ) − I + ke(tm+1 −tm )Aσ(tm ) − Ik.

k=0

Hence if (19) holds with m − 1 in place of m, then
(tm+1 −tm )Aσ(tm )

ke

k·

m−1
Y

e(tk+1 −tk )Aσ(tk ) −I + ke(tm+1 −tm )Aσ(tm ) −Ik

k=0

≤ eΛ(tm+1 −tm ) (eΛtm −1) + (eΛ(tm+1 −tm ) −1)
= eΛt − 1.
Thus we obtain (19).
Lemma 3.3: Consider the switched system (1) with (2), where σ has finitely many switching
times in every finite interval. Define β1 by
ΛTs

β1 := (e

α0 
− 1) 1 +
Λ


(20)

Then we have
kx(t) − x([t]− )k < β1 kx([t]− )k

(21)

for all t ≥ 0 with x([t]− ) ∈ E P (R).
Proof: As in the proof of Lemma 3.1, it suffices to prove (21) for all x(0) ∈ E P (R) and
t ∈ [0, Ts ).
By (13), we obtain
Z
x(t) − x(0) = (Φ(t, 0) − I)x(0) +

t

Φ(t, τ )Bσ(τ ) Kσ(0) qx (τ )dτ.
0

This leads to
Z
kx(t) − x(0)k ≤kΦ(t, 0) − Ik · kx(0)k +

t

Φ(t, τ )Bσ(τ ) Kσ(0) qx (τ )dτ .
0

(22)

Proposition 3.2 provides the following upper bound on the first term of the right-hand side of
(22):
kΦ(t, 0) − Ik ≤ eΛt − 1 < eΛTs − 1.
Since kΦ(t, τ )k ≤ eΛ(t−τ ) , a calculation similar to (16) gives
Z t
eΛTs − 1
Φ(t, τ )Bσ(τ ) Kσ(0) qx (τ )dτ ≤ α0
kx(0)k.
Λ
0

(23)

(24)

We obtain (21) by substituting (23) and (24) into (22).
We are now in the position to obtain an upper bound of the norm of the error qx (t) − x(t)
due to sampling and quantization by using the original state x(t).
Similarly to (9), to each p, q ∈ P with p 6= q, there corresponds a positive number γ0 (p, q)
such that
kP Bp Kq (Q(x) − x)k ≤ γ0 (p, q)kxk

(25)

for all x ∈ E P (R); see Remark 3.6 (3) for the computation of γ0 .
Lemma 3.4: Consider the switched system (1) with (2), where σ has finitely many switching
times in every finite interval. Define α1 and β1 as in Lemmas 3.1 and 3.3. If γ(p, q) is defined
by
γ(p, q) := α1 (β1 kP Bp Kq k + γ0 (p, q))

(26)

for each p, q ∈ P with p 6= q, then γ(p, q) satisfies
kP Bp Kq (qx (t) − x(t))k < γ(p, q)kx(t)k

(27)

for all t ≥ 0 with x([t]− ) ∈ E P (R).
Proof: Since qx (t) = Q(x([t]− )), it follows from (21) and (25) that
kP Bp Kq (qx (t) − x(t))k ≤ kP Bp Kq (qx (t) − x([t]− ))k + kP Bp Kq k · kx([t]− ) − x(t)k
< (β1 kP Bp Kq k + γ0 (p, q))kx([t]− )k
< α1 (β1 kP Bp Kq k + γ0 (p, q))kx(t)k.
Thus the desired inequality (27) holds.
Finally, the following theorem gives the growth rate of V in the case when the modes of the
plant and the controller are not synchronized.

Theorem 3.5: Consider the switched system (1) with (2), where σ has finitely many switching
times in every finite interval. Using γ(p, q) in (26), we define D by
D := 2 max(kP (Ap + Bp Kq )k + γ(p, q)).

(28)

p6=q

Then (7) holds for every p, q ∈ P with p 6= q and for every t ≥ 0 with x([t]− ) ∈ E P (R).
Proof: Since V̇p,q satisfies (8), Lemma 3.4 shows that
V̇p,q (x(t), qx (t)) ≤ 2(kP (Ap + Bp Kq )k + γ(p, q))kx(t)k2

(29)

for all p, q ∈ P with p 6= q and for all t ≥ 0 with x([t]− ) ∈ E P (R). Thus we obtain the desired
result (7).
Remark 3.6: (1) Fine quantization and fast sampling make α1 in (11), β1 in (20), and γ0 (p, q)
in (25) small, which leads to a decrease of D in (28).
(2) In this subsection, we have assumed that finitely many switches occurs in a sampling
interval, which makes (15), (23), and (24) conservative. If we allow a higher computational cost,
then another possibility of α1 in (11) and β1 in (20) under Assumption 2.2 would be
0

α1 = max max max
0

p6=q 0≤t≤Ts 0≤t ≤t

1 − α0

β1 = max max max
keAq
0
p6=q 0≤t≤Ts 0≤t ≤t

0

ke−Ap t e−Aq (t−t ) k
R

t
t0

(t−t0 )

ke−Ap t0 e−Aq (τ −t0 ) kdτ
t0

eAp −Ik +α0

Z
t0

t

+

R t0
0

ke−Ap τ kdτ

Z
Aq (t−τ )
ke
kdτ +


!!

t0

keAq

(t−t0 )

eAp

(t0 −τ )

dτ k

,

0

where t0 is a switching time in [0, t].
(3) We can derive α0 in (9) and γ0 (p, q) in (25) as follows. Let Sf be a subset of S such that
S
E P (R) ⊂ j∈Sf Qj . Then
kBp Kq qj k
α0 := max max
p,q∈P j∈Sf minx∈Qj kxk
satisfies (9). Note that if Qj is a polyhedron, then minx∈Qj kxk can be computed by quadratic
programming; see, e.g, [1]. As regards γ0 (p, q) in (25), define S0 := {j ∈ S : 0 ∈ Cl (Qj )}.
Since Q(x) = 0 for x ∈ Qj with j ∈ S0 by Assumption 2.3, it follows that γ0 (p, q) ≥ kP Bp Kq k.
On the other hand, for j 6∈ S0 , we define γ̂0 by
γ̂0 (p, q) := max

j∈Sf \S0

kP Bp Kq k · maxx∈Qj kqj − xk
.
minx∈Qj kxk

Since
kP Bp Kq k · maxx∈Qj kqj − xk
kP Bp Kq k · kqj − xk
≥
minx∈Qj kxk
kxk
≥

kP Bp Kq (qj − x)k
,
kxk

γ0 (p, q) := max{kP Bp Kq k, γ̂0 (p, q)} satisfies (25). We can easily compute maxx∈Qj kqj − xk
if Qj is a cuboid and qj is a center of a vertex of Qj . In fact, let the set of the vertices of Qj
be Vj . Then maxx∈Qj kqj − xk = maxx∈Vj kqj − xk, which implies that maxx∈Qj kqj − xk can
be obtained by calculating kqj − vk for all v ∈ Vj .
B. Stability analysis with total mismatch time
Let us analyze the stability of the switched system (1) with (2) by using the two upper bounds
(6) and (7) of V̇ . Note that the former bound (6) is for the case σ(t) = σ([t]− ), while the latter
(7) for the case σ(t) 6= σ([t]− ). As in [20] for switched systems with time delays, it is therefore
useful to characterize switching signals by asynchronous periods.
Definition 3.7: For τ1 > τ2 ≥ 0, we define the total mismatch time µ(τ1 , τ2 ) by the time in
which the modes mismatch between the plant and the controller, that is,
µ(τ1 , τ2 ) := the length of the set {τ ∈ [τ2 , τ1 ) : σ(τ ) 6= σ([τ ]− )}.

(30)

More explicitly, the length of a set in R means its Lebesgue measure. We shall not, however, use
any measure theory because σ has only finitely many discontinuities in every interval. We see
that if the total mismatch time is small on average as the average dwell-time condition introduced
in [7], then the system is stable. We also derive an ultimate bound on the state trajectories by
using this characterization of switching signals.
Define CP and DP by
CP :=

C
,
λmax (P )

DP :=

D
.
λmin (P )

The objective of this subsection is to prove the following theorem:
Theorem 3.8: Let Assumptions 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 hold. Suppose that L ≥ 0 satisfies
L<

CP
,
CP + DP

(31)

and that κ > 1 satisfies
κ2 r2 λmin (P ) < R2 λmax (P ).

(32)

Define f (κ) by
f (κ) :=

2 log κ
.
CP + DP

(33)

If µ in (30) satisfies
µ(t, 0) ≤ Lt

(34)

for every t > 0, and for each T0 ≥ 0 with σ(T0 ) 6= σ([T0 ]− )
µ(t, T0 ) ≤ f (κ) + L(t − T0 )

(35)

for every t > T0 , then there exists Tr ≥ 0 such that for each x(0) ∈ Int (E P (R)) and σ(0) ∈ P,
x(t) ∈ Int (E P (κr)) for all t ≥ Tr . Furthermore, x(t) ∈ Int (E P (R)) for all t ≥ 0.
Remark 3.9: (1) Theorem 3.8 gives the stability analysis of the switched system by using the
total mismatch time of the modes between the plant and the feedback gain. If a mismatch does
occur, the closed-loop system may be unstable; otherwise it is stable. Our proposed method is
therefore similar to that in [40], where the stability analysis of switched systems with stable and
unstable subsystems is discussed with the aid of the total activation time ratio between stable
subsystems and unstable ones. In [40], the average dwell time [7] is also required to be sufficiently
large. However, such a condition is not needed here because we use a common Lyapunov
function. Conditions on the total activation time ratio has been used for nonlinear systems in
[22], [23], [38]. Moreover, this switching characterization has been applied to stabilization of
systems with control inputs missing in [41] and to resilient control under denial-of-service attacks
in [2].
(2) Although Theorem 3.8 requires that (35) holds for each T0 ≥ 0 with σ(T0 ) 6= σ([T0 ]− ), it
is enough to verify (35) only with the sampling instant [T0 ]− + Ts in place of T0 . In fact, since
at most one switch occurs in [[T0 ]− , [T0 ]− + Ts ), it follows that if σ(T0 ) 6= σ([T0 ]− ), then
µ(t, [T0 ]− + Ts ) = µ(t, T0 ) − ([T0 ]− + Ts − T0 ).
Hence (35) holds for t > T0 if it does for t ≥ [T0 ]− + Ts .
First we study the state behavior that is outside of E P (r). The following lemma shows that
every trajectory whose initial state is in Int (E P (R)) falls into E P (r) if the total mismatch time
µ is small on average. See also Fig. 2.

Lemma 3.10: Let Assumptions 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 hold, and let L ≥ 0 satisfy (31). If
µ(t, 0) achieves (34) for all t > 0, then there exists Tr ≥ 0 such that x(Tr ) ∈ E P (r) for every
x(0) ∈ Int (E P (R)) and σ(0) ∈ P, and furthermore x(t) ∈ Int (E P (R)) for all t ∈ [0, Tr ].
Proof: First we show that the trajectory x(t) does not leave Int (E P (R)) without belonging
to E P (r). Namely, there does not exist TR > 0 such that
x(TR ) ∈ ∂E P (R),
x(t) ∈ Int (E P (R)) \ E P (r)

and

(36)

(0 ≤ t < TR ).

(37)

Assume, to reach a contradiction, (36) and (37) hold for some TR > 0. Recall that
λmin (P )kxk2 ≤ V (x) = x> P x ≤ λmax (P )kxk2
for x ∈ Rn . It follows from (6) and (7) that
V̇p (x(t), qx (t)) ≤ −CP V (x(t))

(38)

V̇p,q (x(t), qx (t)) ≤ DP V (x(t)).
By (37) and (38), a successive calculation at each switching time shows that

V (x(TR )) ≤ exp DP µ(TR , 0) − CP (TR − µ(TR , 0)) V (x(0)).

(39)

DP µ(t, 0) − CP (t − µ(t, 0)) ≤ ((CP + DP ) L − CP ) t

(40)

Since (34) gives

for all t > 0, it follows from (31) and x(0) ∈ Int (E P (R)) that
V (x(TR )) < V (x(0)) < R2 λmax (P ).
However, (36) shows that V (x(TR )) = R2 λmax (P ), and we have a contradiction.
Let us next prove that x(Tr ) ∈ E P (r) for some Tr ≥ 0.
Suppose x(t) 6∈ E P (r) for all t ≥ 0. Then since the discussion above shows that x(t) ∈
Int (E P (R)) \ E P (r) for all t ≥ 0, we obtain (39) with arbitrary t ≥ 0 in place of TR . Hence
(31) and (40) show that V (x(t)) → 0 as t → ∞. However, this contradicts x(t) 6∈ E P (r), i.e.,
V (x(t)) > r2 λmin (P ) > 0. Thus there exists Tr ≥ 0 such that x(Tr ) ∈ E P (r).
From the next result, we see that the trajectory leaves E P (r) only if a switch occurs between
sampling times. This is intuitively obvious because as mentioned in [8], E P (r) is an invariant
set if a mode mismatch does not occur.

Lemma 3.11: Let Assumptions 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 hold. If the trajectory x(t) leaves E P (r)
at t = T0 , more precisely, if there exists δ > 0 such that
x(T0 ) ∈ ∂E P (r), x(T0 + ε) 6∈ E P (r)

(0 < ε < δ),

(41)

then σ(T0 ) 6= σ([T0 ]− ).
Proof: Assume, to get a contradiction, that σ(T0 ) = σ([T0 ]− ). Suppose that σ(T ) 6= σ([T ]− )
for some T > T0 . Let T1 be the smallest number of such T . Define an interval Iδ by
Iδ := (0, min{δ, T1 − T0 }).
If there does not exist T > T0 with σ(T ) 6= σ([T ]− ), then we define Iδ by Iδ := (0, δ). Since
V (x(t)) is differentiable at all t ≥ 0 except for sampling times and switching times, there
is no loss of generality in assuming that V (x(t)) is differentiable in Iδ . Since σ(T0 + ε) =
σ([T0 + ε]− ) = σ([T0 ]− ) for all ε ∈ Iδ , it follows from (6) that
V̇ (x(T0 + ε)) ≤ −Ckx((T0 + ε))k2 ≤ 0

(ε ∈ Iδ ).

V (x(T0 + ε)) > r2 λmin (P ) = V (x(T0 ))

(ε ∈ Iδ ).

However, (41) gives

Since V (x(t)) is continuous, we have a contradiction by the mean value theorem. Thus σ(T0 ) 6=
σ([T0 ]− ).
Lemma 3.12 below shows that the trajectory stays in a slightly larger ellipsoid than E P (r)
after the trajectory enters into E P (r); see Fig. 2.
Lemma 3.12: Let Assumptions 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 hold. Suppose that T0 ≥ 0 is a time at
which x(t) leaves E P (r). Let κ > 1 satisfy (32) and define f (κ) by (33). Pick L ≥ 0 with (31).
If µ(t, T0 ) satisfies (35) for all t > T0 , then for every σ(T0 ) ∈ P, there exists T1 > T0 such that
x(T1 ) ∈ E P (r), and furthermore x(t) ∈ Int (E P (κr)) for all t ∈ [T0 , T1 ].
Proof: By (35), V (x(t)) satisfies


V (x(t)) ≤ exp ((CP + DP ) L − CP ) (t − T0 ) · exp (CP + DP ) f (κ) V (x(T0 ))

(42)

if t > T0 satisfies x(t0 ) ∈ E P (R) \ E P (r) for all t0 ∈ (T0 , t]. On the other hand, since x(T0 ) ∈
∂E P (r), it follows from (33) that

exp (CP + DP ) f (κ) V (x(T0 )) = κ2 r2 λmin (P ).

(43)

E P (R)

Lemma	
  15

E P (r)
E P (r)

Lemma	
  17

Fig. 2: Behavior of trajectory

In conjunction with (32), this leads to

exp (CP + DP ) f (κ) V (x(T0 )) < R2 λmax (P ).
Hence we have x(T1 ) ∈ E P (r) for some T1 > T0 from (31) and (42) as in the proof of Lemma
3.10. Substituting (43) into (42), we also obtain V (x(t)) < κ2 r2 λmin (P ) for t ≥ T0 . Thus
x(t) ∈ Int (E P (κr)) for t ∈ [T0 , T1 ].
Finally, we prove Theorem 3.8 by using Lemmas 3.10, 3.11, and 3.12:
Proof of Theorem 3.8: Lemma 3.10 shows that if (34) holds for all t > 0, then x(Tr ) ∈ E P (r)
for some Tr > 0 and x(t) ∈ Int (E P (R)) for all t ∈ [0, Tr ]. Let τ1 , τ2 , . . . be the instants at which
x(t) leaves E P (r). Using Lemmas 3.11 and 3.12 at each τ1 , τ2 , . . . , we have that if for each
T0 ≥ 0 with σ(T0 ) 6= σ([T0 ]− ), (35) holds for every t > T0 , then there exists τ̂k ∈ (τk , τk+1 ] such
that x(τ̂k ) ∈ E P (r) and x(t) ∈ Int (E P (κr)) for all t ∈ [τk , τk+1 ]. Hence if {τk } has only finitely
many elements, then the stability is achieved. On the other hand, if we have infinitely many τk ,
then τk → ∞ as k → ∞, because τk+2 − τk > Ts by the switching condition in Assumption 2.2.
Thus x(t) ∈ Int (E P (κr)) for all t ≥ Tr . This completes the proof.
IV. R EDUCTION TO A DWELL -T IME C ONDITION
In the preceding section, we have derived a sufficient condition on the total mismatch time µ
for the stability of the quantized sampled-data systems with multiple modes. However, it may
be difficult to check whether µ satisfies (34) and (35). In this section, we will show that these
conditions (34) and (35) can be achieved for switching signals with a certain dwell-time property.

To proceed, we recall the definition of dwell time: We call σ a switching signal with dwell
time Td if the switching signal σ has an interval between consecutive discontinuities no smaller
than Td > 0 and further if σ has no discontinuities in [0, Td ).
The following proposition gives an upper bound of the total mismatch time for switching
signals with dwell time.
Proposition 4.1: Fix n ∈ N. For every switching signal σ with dwell time nTs , µ in (30)
satisfies
µ(t, 0) <

t
n

(t > 0).

(44)

Furthermore, if σ(T0 ) 6= σ([T0 ]− ), then
t − T0
(t > T0 ).
n
Proof: The proof includes a lengthy but routine calculation; see Appendix A.1.
µ(t, T0 ) < Ts +

(45)

Theorem 3.8 and Proposition 4.1 can be combined in the following way:
Theorem 4.2: Let Assumptions 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 hold. Let n ∈ N satisfy n ≥ 1+DP /CP .
Define

κ := exp

Ts (CP + DP )
2


,

(46)

and suppose that κ satisfies (32). If the dwell time of σ is nTs , then there exists Tr ≥ 0 such that
for every x(0) ∈ Int (E P (R)) and σ(0) ∈ P, x(t) ∈ Int (E P (κr)) for all t ≥ Tr . Furthermore,
x(t) ∈ Int (E P (R)) for all t ≥ 0.
Proof: If n and κ are defined as above, Proposition 4.1 shows that µ satisfies (34) and (35)
for every switching signal σ with dwell time nTs . Hence the conclusion of Theorem 3.8 holds.

The next result implies that the upper bounds obtained in Proposition 4.1 are close to the
supremum over all switching signals with dwell time nTs if the sampling period Ts is sufficiently
small.
Proposition 4.3: Fix ε > 0 and n ∈ N. For any T ≥ 0, there exist a switching signal σ with
dwell time nTs and t ≥ T such that
t
µ(t, 0) ≥ −
n




Ts
+ε .
n

Furthermore, for any T ≥ 0, there exist a switching signal σ with dwell time nTs , T0 ≥ 0 with
σ(T0 ) 6= σ([T0 ]− ), and t ≥ T0 + T such that


t − T0
Ts
µ(t, T0 ) ≥ Ts +
−
+ε .
n
n
Proof: This is again a routine calculation; see Appendix A.2.

(47)

The next result is the case n = 1 in Proposition 4.3.
Corollary 4.4: There exist a switching signal σ with dwell time Ts such that µ(t, 0) ≈ t for
sufficiently large t > 0.
This corollary shows that, not surprisingly, if the dwell time does not exceed the sampling period,
then the information on switching signals is not so useful for the stabilization of the sampled-data
switched system.
V. N UMERICAL E XAMPLE
Consider the switched system with the following two modes:


 
1 1 −2
1 −4
, B1 =  
A1 = 
6 −3 2
6 3


 
1 −5
1
 , B2 =   .
A2 = 
1 2
−1
The state feedback gains K1 and K2 are given by
h
i
h
i
K1 = 1.38 −1.86 , K2 = −2.80 3.77 .

(48)

We computed the above regulator gains by minimizing the cost
Z ∞

x(t)> x(t) + u(t)2 dt.
0

Note that both A1 + B1 K2 and A2 + B2 K1 are not Hurwitz: A1 + B1 K2 has one unstable
eigenvalue 4.4538 and A2 + B2 K1 has two unstable eigenvalues 1.4091 and 4.7750.
The sampling period Ts was given by Ts = 0.025, and we used the following logarithm
quantizer: Let the state x be x = [x1 x2 ]> . For a nonnegative integer n, the quantized state
Q(x) = [Q1 (x1 ) Q2 (x2 )]> is defined by

−ξ0 (η n +η n+1 )



2


Qi (xi ) := 0




 ξ0 (ηn +ηn+1 )
2

(−ξ0 η n+1 ≤ xi < −ξ0 η n )
(−ξ0 ≤ xi ≤ ξ0 )
(ξ0 η n < x ≤ ξ0 η n+1 ),

where ξ0 = 0.08 and η = 1.2.
Set C = 1, R = 68.6, and r = 0.175 in Assumption 2.4. Algorithm 1.1 of Appendix B gave
the positive definite matrix P in Assumption 2.4 by


2.9171 0.3489
.
P =
0.3489 3.6256
In the randomized algorithm, we used 107 samples in state for each run, and five samples in
time for each sampled state. We stopped the algorithm when there was no update for an entire
run.
Since we obtain D = 55.15 in (7) from the data above, the resulting n and κ in Theorem 4.2
are n = 76 and κ = 1.2864.
A time response (0 ≤ t ≤ 20) was calculated for σ(0) = 1 and some initial states on
∂E P (R − ) with  = 0.001. Fig. 3 depicts the state trajectories x of the switched system (1)
with dwell time 76Ts = 1.9. After an interval of length 76Ts with no switches, a switch of the
plant mode occurs with probability 0.05 per sampling interval and the distribution is uniform
in a sampling interval. The blue line indicates that the feedback gain designed for the active
subsystem was used, i.e.,
(Aσ(t) , Bσ(t) , Kσ([t]− ) ) = (A1 , B1 , K1 ) or (A2 , B2 , K2 ).
The red line shows that a switch led to the mismatch of the modes between the plant and the
feedback gain, i.e.,
(Aσ(t) , Bσ(t) , Kσ([t]− ) ) = (A1 , B1 , K2 ) or (A2 , B2 , K1 ).
The black lines in Fig. 3 represent the ellipsoid of initial conditions E P (R) and the attractor set
E P (κr), respectively.
Here we see two conservative results: the dwell time 76Ts and the attractor set E P (κr) in
Fig. 3b. Since we evaluate the increasing and decreasing rates of the Lyapunov function only by
(7) and (6), the switching condition for stability becomes conservative. In particular, we need to
refine the upper bound (7) in the mismatch case, which has been obtained by assuming that we
have the worst-case trajectory whenever a mode mismatch occurs. If we know where switching
happens as for piecewise affine systems, then the upper bound (7) can be improved.

1.0	
1
0.8
0.8	


75	

75

0.6
0.6	

0.4
0.4	


50
50	


0.2
0.2	


25
25	


0	
 0

0	
0

−0.2
-­‐0.2	

−0.4
-­‐0.4	


−25
-­‐25	


−0.6
-­‐0.6	


−50
-­‐50	

−75
-­‐75	

−80
−60
-­‐80	


−0.8
-­‐0.8	

−40

-­‐40	


−20

0

0	


20

40

40	


60

(a) Region [−80, 80] × [−75, 75]

80

80	


−1
-­‐1.0	

−0.75
−0.5
−0.25
0.25	
 0.5
0.5	
 0.75
-­‐0.25	
 0
-­‐0.5	

-­‐0.75	

0.75	

0	
 0.25

(b) Region [−0.75, 0.75] × [−1.0, 1.0]

Fig. 3: The trajectories x with σ(0) = 1

As regards the attractor set E P (κr), the trajectories in Fig. 3b stayed in a smaller neighborhood
of the origin. The conservative result is also due to the upper bound (7); see (46). Another reason
is the nonlinearity of static quantizers and this conservatism is observed for systems with a single
mode as well [5], [8], [9]. Construction of polynomial Lyapunov functions may allow us to obtain
less conservative bounds.
If we use multiple Lyapunov functions together with an average dwell-time property, instead
of a common Lyapunov function, then the above conservatism can be reduced. On the other
hand, the authors of [6] have proposed the calculation method of an ultimate bound and an
invariant set for continuous-time switched systems with disturbances. If one can generalize this
method to sampled-data switched systems with a static quantizer, then another insight into the
state trajectory near the origin will be obtained. Details, however, are more involved, so these
extensions are subjects for future research.

VI. C ONCLUDING R EMARKS
For sampled-data switched systems with static quantizers, we have developed a stability analysis by using a common Lyapunov function computed efficiently from a randomized algorithm. We
have derived a switching condition on the total mismatch time, and have found a neighborhood
of the origin into which all trajectories fall whenever the initial state is within a known bound.
Moreover, the condition on the total mismatch time has been reduced to a dwell-time condition.
Future work will focus on improving the upper bound on the growth rate of the Lyapunov
function in the mismatched case, and analyzing the stability by multiple Lyapunov functions
and an average dwell-time property.
A PPENDIX
A. Proof of Proposition 4.1
Let us first prove (44). It is clear that µ = 0 if σ has no discontinuities in the interval (0, t).
Let t1 , . . . , tm be the switching times in (0, t). We have


[tk ]− + Ts − tk
−
−
µ([tk+1 ] , [tk ] ) =

0

if tk 6= [tk ]−
otherwise

for k = 1, . . . , m − 1, and



[tm ]− + Ts − tm



µ(t, [tm ]− ) = t − tm




0

if tm 6= [tm ]− and [tm ]− + Ts < t
if tm 6= [tm ]− and [tm ]− + Ts ≥ t
otherwise

Since t ≥ mnTs , we obtain
µ(t, 0) ≤

m
X

([tk ]− + Ts − tk ) < mTs ≤

k=1

1
t.
n

Hence (44) holds.
Next we show (45). Since σ(T0 ) 6= σ([T0 ]− ) and since the dwell time is nTs ≥ Ts , it follows
that σ has precisely one discontinuity in the interval ([T0 ]− , T0 ]. Let us denote the switching
time by t0 .
Suppose that no switches occur in the interval (T0 , t). Since only the interval [T0 , [T0 ]− + Ts )
has a mode mismatch, it follows that
µ(t, T0 ) ≤ [T0 ]− + Ts − T0 < Ts ,

and hence (45) holds.
Suppose that m switches occur in the interval (T0 , t), and let t1 , . . . , tm be the switching times.
Define ξk by
ξk := (tk+1 − tk ) − nTs

(49)

for k = 0, . . . , m − 1. The dwell-time assumption implies that ξk ≥ 0. We also have
m−1
X

t − T0 = (t − tm ) +

(tk+1 − tk ) − (T0 − t0 )

k=0
m−1
X

= (t − tm ) +

(ξk + nTs ) − (T0 − t0 )

k=0

= mnTs + (t − tm ) +

m−1
X

ξk − (T0 − t0 ).

(50)

k=0

We split the argument into two cases:
(t − tm ) +

m−1
X

ξk ≥ T0 − t0

(51)

ξk < T0 − t0 .

(52)

k=0

and
(t − tm ) +

m−1
X
k=0

First we study the case (51), where some switching intervals are sufficiently larger than nTs .
Combining (51) with (50), we obtain t − T0 ≥ mnTs , and hence
m
X
µ(t, T0 ) ≤ ([T0 ] + Ts − T0 ) +
([tk ]− + Ts − tk )
−

k=1

1
< (m + 1)Ts ≤ Ts + (t − T0 ),
n
which is a desired inequality (45).
Let us next consider the case (52), where every switching interval is smaller than nTs . Since
−

µ(t, T0 ) = µ([t1 ] , T0 ) +

m−1
X

µ([tk+1 ]− , [tk ]− ) + µ(t, [tm ]− )

k=1

and since µ([t1 ]− , T0 ) = µ([T0 ]− + Ts , T0 ) ≤ [T0 ]− + Ts − T0 , it is enough to obtain upper bounds
on µ([tk+1 ]− , [tk ]− ) and µ(t, [tm ]− ).
We first derive
µ([tk+1 ]− , [tk ]− ) ≤ [t0 ]− + Ts − t0

(53)

for k = 1, . . . , m − 1 as follows. Since

Pm−1
k=0

ξk < T0 by (52), each switching time tk (k =

1, . . . , m) satisfies
tk − t0 = (tk − tk−1 ) + · · · + (t1 − t0 )
=

k−1
X

(ξ` + nTs )

`=0

≤

m−1
X

ξ` + knTs

`=0

< T0 − t0 + knTs .
In conjunction with the assumption on the dwell time, this leads to
t0 + knTs ≤ tk < T0 + knTs

(54)

[t0 ]− = [T0 ]− < t0 ≤ T0 < [T0 ]− + Ts ,

(55)

for every k = 1, . . . , m. Since

(54) shows that [tk ]− = [t0 ]− + knTs , and hence
t0 + knTs ≤ tk < [tk ]− + Ts = [t0 ]− + knTs + Ts ,
which gives [tk ]− + Ts − tk ≤ [t0 ]− + Ts − t0 . We therefore have
µ([tk+1 ]− , [tk ]− ) = µ([tk ]− + Ts , [tk ]− )
≤ [tk ]− + Ts − tk
≤ [t0 ]− + Ts − t0 .
Thus we obtain (53).
Similarly, we can obtain
µ(t, [tm ]− ) < T0 − t0 .
In fact, (52) and (49) give
t < (T0 − t0 ) + tm −

m−1
X

ξk = T0 + mnTs .

k=0

If we combine this with t > tm and (54), we see that
t0 + mnTs ≤ tm < t < T0 + mnTs ,

(56)

which implies that
µ(t, [tm ]− ) ≤ t − tm < T0 − t0 .
We therefore have (56).
Since t − tm > 0 and ξk ≥ 0, it follows from (50) that m satisfies t − t0 > mnTs , i.e.,
m<

t − t0
.
nTs

(57)

By (53), (56), and (57), we have
µ(t, T0 ) < ([T0 ]− + Ts − T0 ) + (m − 1)([t0 ]− + Ts − t0 ) + (T0 − t0 )
t − t0 [t0 ]− + Ts − t0
n
Ts
−
t − [t0 ]
<
.
n
<

(58)

Moreover, (55) gives
Ts +

t − T0 t − [t0 ]−
T0 − [t0 ]−
−
= Ts −
n
n
n
Ts
≥ 0.
> Ts −
n

Hence (45) follows from (58).
B. Proof of Proposition 4.3
Fix T ≥ 0 and suppose that m ∈ N satisfies mnTs ≥ T .
To prove the first assertion of the theorem, let a switching signal σ have discontinuities at
knTs + ε/m (k = 1, . . . , m). If we define t := mnTs + Ts , then t ≥ T and we obtain



ε
t
Ts
µ(t, 0) = m Ts −
= mTs − ε = −
+ε .
m
n
n
To prove the second assertion, let T0 − [T0 ]− = ε/(2m + 1) and let σ have a switch at
T0 + knTs +

ε
ε
= [T0 ]− + knTs +
.
2(m + 1)
m+1

for each k = 1, . . . , m. If we set t := T0 + mnTs + Ts , then t ≥ T0 + T and we have




ε
ε
+ m Ts −
µ(t, T0 ) = Ts −
2(m + 1)
m+1
≥ (m + 1)Ts − ε
t − T0
= Ts +
−
n




Ts
+ε ,
n

which is the desired inequality (47).
The randomized algorithm for the computation of P in Assumption 2.4 is summarized here
for the sake of completeness.
For a square matrix X ∈ Rn×n , we denote its Frobenius norm by kXkF = (

Pn

i,k=1

x2i,k )1/2 ,

where xi,k is the (i, k)-th entry of X. For X = X > ∈ Rn×n , let its eigenvalue decomposition be
X = U ΣU > , where U is orthogonal and Σ = diag(λ1 , . . . , λn ). For a fixed γ ≥ 0, define Σγ :=
diag(max{λ1 , γ}, . . . , max{λn , γ}) and set Gδ,δ1 (X) := U Σγ U > , where γ := [(δ 2 − δ12 )/n]1/2
for some δ > δ1 > 0.
For the construction of common Lyapunov functions, we use a scheduling function h : Z+ → P
that has the following revisitation property [15]: For every element i ∈ P and for every integer
l ∈ Z+ , there exists an integer k ≥ l such that h(k) = i.
We can construct the common Lyapunov function in Assumption 2.4 by using the randomized
algorithm of [8], which is based on the gradient method proposed in [28].
Pick an initial P [0,0] > 0 and set R0 , r0 , δ > 0, and δ1 ∈ (0, δ).
S
Find a finite index subset SN of S such that B(R0 ) ⊂ j∈SN Qj .

Algorithm 1.1:
(2)
(3a)

(1)

Set A := Ah(k) , B := Bh(k) , and K := Kh(k) , and define
Z t
At
eAτ Bdτ · u,
φ(x0 , u, t) := e x0 +
0

uj := Kqj
v(P, x, j, t) := (Aφ(x, uj , t) + Buj )> P φ(x, uj , t)
+ φ(x, uj , t)> P (Aφ(x, uj , t) + Buj ) + Ckφ(x, uj , t)k2
∇P v(P, x, j, t) := (Aφ(x, uj , t) + Buj )φ(x, uj , t)> + φ(x, uj , t)(Aφ(x, uj , t) + Buj )>
XP (u) := {x ∈ Rn : (Ax + Bu)> P x + x> P (Ax + Bu) ≤ −Ckxk2 }.
(3b)

Generate
(x[k] , j [k] ) ∈ {(x, j) : x ∈ [Qj ∩ (∂B(r0 ) ∪ ∂B(R0 ))] ∪ (∂Qj ∩ B(R0 )), j ∈ SN }
=: F
according to some density function fx,j satisfying fx,j (x, j) > 0 for all (x, j) ∈ F.

(3c)

If x[k] ∈ ∂B(r0 ) ∪ ∂B(R0 ), then set
P [k+1,0] =


Gδ,δ (P [k,0] ) − µ[k,0] ∇v [k,0]
1

if x[k] 6∈ XP [k,0] (uj [k] )


P [k,0]

otherwise,

where ∇v [k,0] = ∇P v(P [k,0] , x[k] , j [k] , 0) and µ[k,0] is the step size given by
µ[k,0] :=
(3d)

v(P [k,0] , x[k] , j [k] , 0) + δk∇v [k,0] kF
.
k∇v [k,0] k2F

If x[k] ∈ ∂Qj ∩ B(R0 ), then
(i) generate {t[k,i] }l−1
i=0 ⊂ [0, Ts ] according to some density function ft satisfying
ft (t) > 0 for all t ∈ [0, Ts ] with the indices in increasing order: 0 ≤ t[k,0] < · · · <
t[k,l−1] ≤ Ts ;
(ii) if t[k,i] 6= 0 and if φ(x[k] , uj [k] , t[k,i] ) ∈ Cl (Qj [k] ∩ B(R0 )c \ B(r0 )), then set
P [k+1,0] = P [k,i] ; otherwise set


Gδ,δ (P [k,i] )−µ[k,i] ∇v [k,i]
1
[k,i+1]
P
=

P [k,i]

if φ(x[k] , uj [k] , t[k,i] ) 6∈ XP [k,0] (uj [k] )∪B(R0 )
otherwise,

where ∇v [k,i] := ∇P v(P [k,0] , x[k] , j [k] , t[k,i] ) is the step size given by
µ[k,i] :=

v(P [k,0] , x[k] , j [k] , t[k,i] ) + δk∇v [k,i] kF
;
k∇v [k,i] k2F

(iii) set P [k+1,0] = P [k,l] .
(4)

Find R > 0 satisfying E P [k,0] (R) ⊂ B(R0 ) and obtain r > 0 satisfying B(r0 ) ⊂
E P [k,0] (r) ⊂ E P [k,0] (R) if it exists.

The major difference from the algorithm in [8] is the procedure (3a), where a scheduling
function is used. Under assumptions similar to those in [8], we can show that Algorithm 1.1
gives a solution in a finite number of steps with probability one. Since this is an immediate
consequence of [8], [15], we omit the details.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The first author would like to thank Dr. K. Okano of University California, Santa Barbara,
for helpful discussions.

R EFERENCES
[1] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe. Convex Optimization. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U. K., 2004.
[2] C. De Persis and P. Tesi. Resilient control under denial-of-service. In Proc. 19th World Congress of IFAC, 2014.
[3] M. C. F. Donkers, W. P. M. H. Heemels, N. van de Wouw, and L. Hetel. Stability analysis of networked control systems
using a switched linear systems approach. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 56:2101–2115, 2011.
[4] S. K. Elia, N. Mitter. Stabilization of linear systems with limited information. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 46:1384–1400,
2001.
[5] H. Haimovich, E. Kofman, and M. M. Seron. Systematic ultimate bound computation for sampled-data systems with
quantization. Automatica, 43:1117–1123, 2007.
[6] H. Haimovich and M. M. Seron. Componentwise ultimate bound and invariant set computation for switched linear systems.
Automatica, 46:1897–1901, 2010.
[7] J. P. Hespanha and A. S. Morse. Stability of switched systems with average dwell-time. In Proc. 38th IEEE CDC, 1999.
[8] H. Ishii, T. Başar, and R. Tempo. Randomized algorithms for quadratic stability of quantized sampled-data systems.
Automatica, 40:839–846, 2004.
[9] H. Ishii and B. A. Francis. Limited Data Rate in Control Systems with Networks. Lecture Notes on Control and Information
Science, Vol. 275, Berlin: Springer, 2002.
[10] H. Ishii and K. Tsumura. Data rate limitations in feedback control over network. IEICE Trans. Fundamentals, E95-A:680–
690, 2012.
[11] D. Liberzon. Hybrid feedback stabilization of systems with quantized signals. Automatica, 39:1543–1554, 2003.
[12] D. Liberzon. Switching in Systems and Control. Birkhäuser, Boston, 2003.
[13] D. Liberzon. Finite data-rate feedback stabilization of switched and hybrid linear systems. Automatica, 50:409–420, 2014.
[14] D. Liberzon and D. Nešić. Input-to-state stabilization of linear systems with quantized state measurement. IEEE Trans.
Automat. Control, 52:767–781, 2007.
[15] D. Liberzon and R. Tempo. Common Lyapunov functions and gradient algorithm. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 49:990–
994, 2004.
[16] H. Lin and P. J. Antsaklis. Stability and persistent disturbance attenuation properties for a class of networked control
systems: switched system approach. Int. J. Control, 78:1447–1458, 2005.
[17] H. Lin and P. J. Antsaklis. Stability and stabilizability of switched linear systems: a survey of recent results. IEEE Trans.
Automat. Control, 54:308–322, 2009.
[18] Q. Ling and H. Lin. Necessary and sufficient bit rate conditions to stabilize quantized Markov jump linear systems. In
Proc. ACC 2010, 2010.
[19] M. Liu, W. C. H. Daniel, and J. Lu. On quantized control for Markovian jump linear systems over networks with limited
information. In Proc. ASCC 2009, 2009.
[20] D. Ma and J. Zhao. Stabilization of networked switched linear systems: An asynchronous switching delay system approach.
Systems Control Lett., 77:46–54, 2015.
[21] A. S. Matveev and A. V. Savkin. Estimation and Control over Communication Networks. Birkhäuser, Boston, 2009.
[22] D. Muñoz de la Peña and P. D. Christofides. Stability of nonlinear asynchronous systems. Systems Control Lett., 57:465–
473, 2008.
[23] M. A. Müller and D. Liberzon. Input/output-to-state stability and state-norm estimators for switched nonlinear systems”.
Automatica, 48:2029–2039, 2012.

[24] G. N. Nair, S. Dey, and R. J. Evans. Infinmum data rates for stabilising Markov jump linear systems. In Proc. 42nd IEEE
CDC, 2003.
[25] G. N. Nair and R. J. Evans. Exponential stabilizability of finite-dimensional linear systems with limited data rates.
Automatica, 39:585–593, 2003.
[26] G. N. Nair, F. Fagnani, S. Zampieri, and R. J. Evans. Feedback control under data rate constraints: An overview. Proc.
IEEE, 95:108–137, 2007.
[27] K. Okano and H. Ishii. Stabilization of uncertain systems with finite data rates and Markovian packet losses. IEEE Trans.
Control Network Systems, 1:298–307, 2014.
[28] B. T. Polyak and R. Tempo. Probabilistic robust design with linear quadratic regulators. Systems Control Lett., 43:343–353,
2001.
[29] R. Shorten, F. Wirth, O. Mason, K. Wulff, and C. King. Stability criteria for switched and hybrid systems. SIAM Review,
49:545–592, 2007.
[30] I. Song and F. Kim, S. Karray. A real-time scheduler design for a class of embedded systems. IEEE/ASME Trans.
Mechatronics, 13:36–45, 2008.
[31] S. Tatikonda and S. Mitter. Control under communication constraints. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 2004.
[32] M. Wakaiki and Y. Yamamoto. Output feedback stabilization of switched linear systems with limited information. In Proc.
53rd IEEE CDC, 2014.
[33] M. Wakaiki and Y. Yamamoto. Quantized feedback stabilization of sampled-data switched linear systems. In Proc. 19th
World Congress of IFAC, 2014.
[34] M. Wakaiki and Y. Yamamoto. Quantized output feedback stabilization of switched linear systems. In Proc. MTNS 2014,
2014.
[35] W. S. Wong and R. W. Brockett. Systems with finite communication bandwidth constraints II: Stabilization with limited
information feed- back. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 44:1049–1053, 1999.
[36] N. Xiao, L. Xie, and M. Fu. Stabilization of Markov jump linear systems using quantized state feedback. Automatica,
46:1696–1702, 2010.
[37] Q. Xu, C. Zhang, and G. E. Dullerud. Stabilization of Markovian jump linear systems with log-quantized feedback. J.
Dynamic Systems, Meas, Control, 136:1–10 (031919), 2013.
[38] G. Yang and D. Liberzon. A Lyapunov-based small-gain theorem for interconnected switched systems. Systems Control
Lett., 78:47–54, 2015.
[39] G. Yang and D. Liberzon. Stabilizing a switched linear system with disturbance by sampled-data quantized feedback. In
Proc. ACC 2015, 2015.
[40] G. Zhai, B. Hu, K. Yasuda, and A. N. Michel. Stability analysis of switched systems with stable and unstable subsystems:
An average dwell time approach. Int. J. Systems Science, 32:1055–1061, 2001.
[41] W.-A. Zhang and L. Yu. Stabilization of sampled-data control systems with control inputs missing. IEEE Trans. Automat.
Control, 55:447–452, 2010.

