1

The value of timing information
in event-triggered control
Mohammad Javad Khojasteh Pavankumar Tallapragada Jorge Cortés Massimo Franceschetti

arXiv:1609.09594v3 [math.OC] 6 Feb 2018

Abstract
We study event-triggered control for stabilization of unstable linear plants over rate-limited communication channels subject
to unknown, bounded delay. On one hand, the timing of event triggering carries implicit information about the state of the plant.
On the other hand, the delay in the communication channel causes information loss, as it makes the state information available at
the controller out of date. Combining these two effects, we show a phase transition behavior in the transmission rate required for
stabilization using a given event-triggering strategy. For small values of the delay, the timing information carried by the triggering
events is substantial, and the system can be stabilized with any positive rate. When the delay exceeds a critical threshold, the
timing information alone is not enough to achieve stabilization, and the required rate grows. When the the delay equals the
inverse of the entropy rate of the plant, the implicit information carried by the triggering events perfectly compensates the loss of
information due to the communication delay, and we recover the rate requirement prescribed by the data-rate theorem. We also
provide an explicit construction yielding a sufficient rate for stabilization, as well as results for vector systems. Our results do not
rely on any a priori probabilistic model for the delay or the initial conditions.
Index Terms
Data-rate theorem, event-triggered control, control under communication constraints, quantized control

I. I NTRODUCTION
Cyber-physical systems (CPS) are engineering systems that integrate computing, communication, and control. They arise
in a wide range of areas such as robotics, energy, civil infrastructure, manufacturing, and transportation [3], [4]. Due to the
need for tight integration of different components, requirements and time scales, the modeling, analysis, and design of CPS
present new challenges. One key aspect is the presence of finite-rate, digital communication channels in the feedback loop.
Data-rate theorems quantify the effect that communication has on stabilization by stating that the communication rate available
in the feedback loop should be at least as large as the intrinsic entropy rate of the system (corresponding to the sum of the
logarithms of the unstable modes). In this way, the controller can compensate for the expansion of the state occurring during
the communication process. Early formulations of data-rate theorems appeared in [5]–[7], followed by the key contributions
in [8], [9]. More recent extensions include time-varying rate, Markovian, erasure, additive white and colored Gaussian, and
multiplicative noise feedback communication channels [10]–[16], formulations for nonlinear systems [17]–[19], for optimal
control [20]–[22], for systems with random parameters [23]–[26], and for switching systems [27]–[29]. Connections with
information theory are highlighted in [19], [30]–[33]. Extended surveys of the literature appear in [34], [35] and in the book
[36].
Another key aspect of CPS to which we pay special attention here is the need to efficiently use the available resources.
Event-triggering control techniques [37]–[39] have emerged as a way of trading computation and decision-making for other
services, such as communication, sensing, and actuation. In the context of communication, event-triggered control seeks to
prescribe information exchange between the controller and the plant in an opportunistic manner. In this way, communication
occurs only when needed for the task at hand (e.g., stabilization, tracking), and the primary focus is on minimizing the number
of transmissions while guaranteeing the control objectives and the feasibility of the resulting real-time implementation. While
the majority of this literature relies on the assumption of continuous availability and infinite precision of the communication
channel, recent works also explore event-triggered implementations in the presence of data-rate constraints [40]–[45], and packet
drops [46]–[48]. In this context, one important observation raised in [41] is that using event-triggering it is possible to “beat”
the data-rate theorem. Namely, if the channel does not introduce any delay and the controller knows the triggering mechanism,
then an event-triggering strategy can achieve stabilization for any positive rate of transmission. This apparent contradiction can
be explained by noting that the timing of the triggering events carries information, revealing the state of the system. When
communication occurs without delay, the controller can track the state with arbitrary precision, and transmitting a single bit
at every triggering event is enough to compute the appropriate control action. The works [41], [42] take advantage of this
observation to show that any positive rate of transmission is sufficient for stabilization, when the delay is sufficiently small. In
contrast, the work in [40] studies the problem of stabilization using an event-triggered strategy, but it does not exploit the implicit
Preliminary results of this paper appeared in the Proceedings of the Allerton Conference on Communications, Control, and Computing [1] and the IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control [2].
M. J. Khojasteh and M. Franceschetti are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering of University of California, San Diego. P. Tallapragada
is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, India. J. Cortés is with the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, University of California, San Diego. {mkhojasteh,massimo,cortes}@ucsd.edu, pavant@iisc.ac.in

2

Fig. 1. System model. The sensor can measure the full state of the system and the controller applies the input with infinite precision and without delay. The
communication channel only supports a finite rate and is subject to delay.

timing information carried by the triggering events. The recent work in [49] studies the required information transmission rate
for containability [6] of scalar systems, when the delay in the communication channel is at most the inverse of the intrinsic
system’s entropy rate. Finally, [2] compares the results presented here with those of a time-triggered implementation.
The main contribution of this paper is the precise quantification of the amount of information implicit in the timing of
the triggering events across the whole spectrum of possible communication delay values, and the use of this information for
stabilization. For a given event-triggering strategy, we derive necessary and sufficient conditions for the exponential convergence
of the state estimation error and the stabilization of the plant, revealing a phase transition behavior of the data rate as a function
of the delay. Key to our analysis is the distinction between the information access rate, that is the rate at which the controller
needs to receive data, regulated by the classic data-rate theorem; and the information transmission rate, that is the rate at
which the sensor needs to send data, that is affected by channel delays, as well as design choices such as event-triggering or
time-triggering strategies. We show that for sufficiently low values of the delay, the timing information carried by the triggering
events is large enough and the system can be stabilized with any positive information transmission rate. At a critical value of
the delay, the timing information carried by the triggering events is not enough for stabilization, and the required information
transmission rate begins to grow. When the delay reaches the inverse of the entropy rate of the plant, the timing information
becomes completely obsolete, and the required information transmission rate becomes larger than the information access
rate imposed by the data-rate theorem. We also provide necessary conditions on the information access rate for asymptotic
stabilizability and observability with exponential convergence guarantees; necessary conditions on the information transmission
rate for asymptotic observability with exponential convergence guarantees; as well as a sufficient condition with the same
asymptotic behavior. We consider both scalar and vector linear systems without disturbances. Extensions for future work
include the consideration of disturbances and the analysis under triggering strategies different from the one considered here.
Notation: Let R, Z and N denote the set of real numbers, integers and positive integers, respectively. We denote by B(r) the
ball centered at 0 of radius r. We let log and ln denote the logarithm with bases 2 and e, respectively. For a function f : R → Rn
and t ∈ R, we let f (t+ ) denote the limit from the right, namely lims↓t f (s). We let Mn,m (R) be the set of n × m matrices
over the field of P
real numbers. Let 0n be the vector of size n whose entries are all 0. Given A = [ai,j ]1≤i,j≤n ∈ Mn,n (R),
n
we let Tr(A) = i=1 aii and det(A) denote its trace and determinant, respectively. We let m denote the Lebesgue measure
n
on R , which for n = 2 and n = 3 can be interpreted as area and volume, respectively. We let bxc denote the greatest integer
less than or equal to x, and dxe denote the smallest integer greater than or equal to x. We denote by mod(x, y) the modulo
function, whose value is the remainder left after dividing x by y. We let kxk be the L2 norm of x in Rn . We let sign(x) be
the sign function.
II. P ROBLEM FORMULATION
Here we describe the system evolution, the model for the communication channel, and the event-triggering strategy.
A. System model
We consider the standard networked control system model composed of the plant-sensor-channel-controller tuple depicted in
Figure 1. We start with a scalar, continuous-time, linear time-invariant (LTI) system, and then extend the model to the vector
case.
The plant dynamics are described by
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t),

(1)

where x(t) ∈ R and u(t) ∈ R for t ∈ [0, ∞) are the system state and control input, respectively. Here, A is a positive real
number, B ∈ R, and |x(0)| < L is any bounded initial condition, where L is known to both sensor and controller. The sensor
can measure the state of the system perfectly, and the controller can apply the control input with infinite precision and without
delay. However, sensor and controller communicate through a channel that can support only a finite communication rate and

3

is subject to delay. At each triggering event, the sensor can transmit a packet composed of a finite number of bits through the
communication channel, which is received by the controller entirely and without error, after an unknown, bounded delay, as
we describe next.
B. Triggering strategy and controller dynamics
We denote by {tks }k∈N the sequence of times at which the sensor transmits to the controller a packet composed of g(tks )
bits representing the plant state. For every k ∈ N, we let tkc be the time at which the controller receives the packet that the
sensor transmitted at time tks . We assume a uniform upper bound, known to the sensor and the controller, on the unknown
communication delays
∆k = tkc − tks ≤ γ

(2)

and denote the k th triggering interval by
∆0k = tk+1
− tks .
s
When referring to a generic triggering time or reception time, for notational convenience we omit the superscript k in tks
and tkc . Our model does not assume any a priori probability distribution for the delay, and our results hold for any random
communication delay with bounded support.
With the information received from the sensor, the controller maintains an estimate x̂ of the plant state, which starting from
x̂(tk+
c ) evolves during the inter-reception times as
˙
x̂(t)
= Ax̂(t) + Bu(t),

t ∈ [tkc , tk+1
].
c

(3)

The controller computes the control input u(t) based on this estimate. We assume the sensor can also compute x̂(t) for all
time t (as long as the control law is injective, this can easily be accomplished by communication through the control input [30]:
since the sensor has access to the state, it can deduce u(t) using (1) and then obtain x̂(t)). The state estimation error computed
at the sensor is then
z(t) = x(t) − x̂(t).
Initially, we let x(0) − x̂0 = z(0). Without updated information from the sensor, this error grows, and the system can
potentially become unstable. The sensor should, therefore, select the sequence of transmission times {tks }k∈N and the packet
sizes {g(tks )}k∈N so that the controller can ensure stability. This choice requires a certain communication rate available in the
channel, which we wish to characterize.
To select the transmission times, we adopt an event-triggering approach. Consider the event-triggering function known to
both sensor and controller
v(t) = v0 e−σt ,

(4)

where v0 and σ are positive real numbers. A transmission occurs whenever
|z(t)| = v(t).

(5)

Upon reception of the packet, the controller updates the estimate of the state according to the jump strategy
x̂(t+
c ) = z̄(tc ) + x̂(tc ),

(6)

where z̄(tc ) is an estimate of z(tc ) constructed by the controller knowing that |z(ts )| = v(ts ), the bound (2), and the decoded
packet received through the communication channel. It follows that
+
|z(t+
c )| = |x(tc ) − x̂(tc )| = |z(tc ) − z̄(tc )|.

We select the packet sizes as follows. The sensor performs quantization of the state, and chooses a quantization level that
ensures for all possible tc ∈ [ts , ts + γ]
−σγ
|z(t+
v(ts ),
c )| = |z(tc ) − z̄(tc )| ≤ ρ(ts ) := ρ0 e
−σtc

−σts −σγ

(7)
−σγ

≥ v0 e
e
= v(ts )e
where 0 < ρ0 < 1 is a given design parameter. Note that v(tc ) = v0 e
that at each triggering event the estimation error drops below the triggering function, namely

, and hence (7) ensures

|z(t+
c )| ≤ ρ0 v(tc ).
Consequently, the sequence of transmission times {tks }k∈N is monotonically increasing, i.e., ∆0k > 0 for all k ∈ N. Additionally,
using ż = Az and (2), we deduce
|z(tc )| ≤ v(ts )eAγ ≤ v0 e−σ(tc −γ) eAγ

4

v(t)
zsd
zld

z(t)

t
Fig. 2. Evolution of the estimation error for small and large delay realizations. |zsd (t)| indicates the estimation error for small delay realizations, and |zld (t)|
indicates the estimation error for large delay realizations.

= v0 e(A+σ)γ e−σtc .

(8)

From (7) and (8), it follows that the described triggering strategy ensures an exponentially decaying estimation error. The
design parameter ρ0 regulates the resolution of the quantization, and hence the size of the transmitted packets; as well as the
magnitude of the jumps below the triggering function, and hence the triggering rate. These also depend on the delay, which
governs the amount of overshoot of the estimation error above the triggering function, see Figure 2.
The design parameter v0 determines the initial condition of the estimation error when the first triggering event occurs. For
any given 0 < ρ0 < 1, and 0 < v0 < ∞, our objective is to determine the rate required to achieve these exponential bounds
for all possible delay realizations, and then provide an explicit quantization strategy that satisfies these bounds.

C. Information transmission rate
To define the transmission rate, we take the viewpoint of the sensor and examine the amount of information that it needs to
transmit so that the controller is able to stabilize the system. Let bs (t) be the number of bits transmitted by the sensor up to
time t, and define the information transmission rate as
Rs = lim sup
t→∞

Since at every triggering time,

tks

the sensor sends

bs (t)
.
t

g(tks )

bits, we have
PN
g(tks )
.
Rs = lim sup Pk=1
N
0
N →∞
k=1 ∆k

We now make two key observations. First, in the presence of unknown communication delays, the state estimate received
by the controller might be out of date, so that the sensor might need to send data at a higher rate than what is needed on
a channel without delay. Second, in the presence of event-triggered transmissions, the timing of the triggering events carries
implicit information. For example, if the communication channel does not introduce any delay, and assuming that sensor and
controller can keep track of time with infinite precision, then the time of a triggering event reveals the state of the system up
to a sign, since according to (5) we would have
x(t) = x̂(t) ± v(t).
It follows that in this case the controller can stabilize the system even if the sensor uses the channel very sparingly, transmitting
a single bit at every triggering event, that is at a much smaller rate than what needed in any time-triggered implementation.
In general, there is a trade-off between the information gain due to triggering, and the information loss due to the delay. As
we shall see below, this leads to a phase transition in the minimum rate required to satisfy (7) and as a consequence (8).
Finally, it is worth pointing out that the exponential convergence of the state estimation error to zero implies the asymptotic
stabilizability of the system.

5

D. Information access rate
We now consider the viewpoint of the controller and examine the amount of information that it needs to receive from the
plant to be able to stabilize the system. Let bc (t) denote the number of bits that have been received by the controller up to
time t. We define the information access rate as
Rc = lim sup
t→∞

bc (t)
.
t

Classic data-rate theorems describe the information access rate required to stabilize the system. They are generally stated for
discrete-time systems, albeit similar results hold in continuous time as well, see e.g. [50]. They are based on the fundamental
observation that there is an inherent entropy rate
A
,
ln 2
at which the system generates information. It follows that for the system to be stabilizable the controller must have access to
state information at rate
h=

Rc ≥ h.

(9)

This result indicates what is required by the controller, and it does not depend on the feedback structure — including aspects
such as communication delays, information pattern at the sensor and the controller, and whether the times at which transmissions
occur are state-dependent, as in event-triggered control, or periodic, as in time-triggered control.

III. N ECESSARY CONDITION ON THE ACCESS RATE
In this section, we quantify the amount of information that the controller needs to ensure exponential convergence of the state
estimation error or the state to zero, independently of the feedback structure used by the sensor to decide when to transmit.
The result obtained here generalizes (9) and establishes a common ground to compare later a results for the information
transmission rate, which depend on the given policy adopted by the sensor. The proof follows, with minor modifications, the
argument in [8, Propositions 3.1 and 3.2] for discrete-time systems.
Theorem 1. Consider the plant-sensor-channel-controller model described in Section II, with plant dynamics (1), and state
estimation error z(t), and let σ > 0. The following necessary conditions hold:
(i) If the state estimation error satisfies
|z(t)| ≤ |z(0)| e−σt ,
then
bc (t) ≥ t

L
A+σ
+ log
.
ln 2
|z(0)|

(10)

(ii) If the system is stabilizable and
|x(t)| ≤ |x(0)| e−σt ,
then
bc (t) ≥ t

A+σ
.
ln 2

(11)

In both cases, the necessary information access rate is
Rc ≥

A+σ
.
ln 2

(12)

Proof: From (1), we have
x(t) = eAt x(0) + α(t),
Z t
α(t) = eAt
e−Aτ Bu(τ )dτ .

(13a)
(13b)

0

Using (13a) we define the uncertainty set at time t
Γt = {x ∈ R : x = eAt x(0) + α(t) and x(0) ∈ B(L)}.
The state of the system can be any point in this uncertainty set. Letting (t) = |z(0)| e−σt , we can then find a lower bound

6

on bc (t) by counting the number of one-dimensional balls of radius (t) that cover Γt . Specifically,
eAt m(B(L))
m(Γt )
= log
m(B((t)))
2|z(0)| e−σt
L
= t log eA+σ + log
,
|z(0)|

bc (t) ≥ log

which proves (i).
To prove (ii), for any given control trajectory {u(τ )}τ ∈[0,t] , define the set of initial conditions for which the plant state x(t)
tends to zero exponentially with rate σ, i.e.,
Π{u(τ )}τ ∈[0,t] = {x(0) ∈ B(L) : |x(t)| ≤ |x(0)| e−σt }.
By (13b) x(t) depends linearly on {u(τ )}τ ∈[0,t] , so that all the sets Π{u(τ )}τ ∈[0,t] are linear transformations of each other.
The measure of Π{u(τ )=0}τ ∈[0,t] is 2|x(0)|e−At e−σt , which is upper bounded by 2Le−At e−σt . Hence, this quantity also upper
bounds the measure of each Π{u(τ )}τ ∈[0,t] . It follows that we can determine a lower bound for bc (t) by counting the number
of sets of measure 2Le−At e−σt required to cover the ball |x(0)| ≤ L, and we have
2L
A+σ
=t
.
ln 2
2Le−(A+σ)t
showing (ii). Finally, (12) follows by dividing (10) and (11) by t and taking the limit for t → ∞.
bc (t) ≥ log

Remark 1. Theorem 1 is valid for any control scheme, and the controller does not necessarily have to compute the state estimate
following (3). This result can be viewed as an extension of the data-rate theorem with exponential convergence guarantees.
It states that to have exponential convergence of the estimation error and the state, the access rate should be larger than the
estimation entropy, the latter concept having been recently introduced in [51]. A similar result for continuous-time systems
appears in [40], but only for linear feedback controllers. In fact, this work shows that the bound in (12) is also sufficient for
scalar systems when the controller does not use any timing information about the triggering events. The classic formula of the
data-rate theorem (9) [8], [9], can be derived as a special case of Theorem 1 by taking σ → 0 and using continuity.
•
IV. N ECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS ON THE TRANSMISSION RATE
In this section, we determine necessary and sufficient conditions on the transmission rate for the exponential convergence
of the estimation error under the event-triggered control strategy described in Section II. We start by observing that in an
event-triggering implementation the transmission times and the packet sizes are state-dependent. Thus, there may be some
initial conditions and delay realizations for which both the necessary and sufficient transmission rates are arbitrarily small. For
this reason, we provide results that hold in worst-case conditions, namely accounting for all possible realizations of the delay
and initial conditions, without assuming any a priori distribution on these realizations.
A. Necessary condition on the transmission rate
Here we quantify the necessary rate at which the sensor needs to transmit to ensure the exponential convergence of the
estimation error to zero under the given event-triggering strategy. This rate depends on the number of bits that the sensor
transmits at each triggering event, as well as the frequency with which transmission events occur, according to the triggering
rule. Our strategy to obtain a necessary rate consists of appropriately bounding each of these quantities.
To obtain a lower bound on the number of bits transmitted at each triggering event, consider the uncertainty set of the sensor
about the estimation error at the controller, z(tc ), given ts
Ω(z(tc )|ts ) = {y : y = ±v(ts )eA(tc −ts ) , tc ∈ [ts , ts + γ]}.
On the other hand, consider the uncertainty from the point of view of the controller about z(tc ), given tc
Ω(z(tc )|tc ) = {y : y = ±v(t̄r )eA(tc −t̄r ) , t̄r ∈ [tc − γ, tc ]}.
Clearly, for any tc ∈ [ts , ts + γ], we have Ω(z(tc )|tc ) 6= Ω(z(tc )|ts ), namely there is a mismatch between the uncertainties at
the controller and at the sensor. The next result shows that the uncertainty at the sensor is always smaller than the one at the
controller.
Lemma 1. Consider the plant-sensor-channel-controller model described in Section II, with plant dynamics (1), estimator
dynamics (3), event-triggering function (4), triggering strategy (5), and jump strategy (6). Then, Ω(z(tc )|ts ) ⊆ Ω(z(tc )|tc ).
Proof: The uncertainty set of the sensor can be expressed as
Ω(z(tc )|ts ) = [v(ts ), v(ts )eAγ ] ∪ [−v(ts )eAγ , −v(ts )].

7

Noting that for any tc ∈ [ts , ts + γ], v(t̄r )eA(tc −t̄r ) is a decreasing function of t̄r , we have
Ω(z(tc )|tc ) = [v(tc ), v(tc )e(A+σ)γ ] ∪ [−v(tc )e(A+σ)γ , −v(tc )].
The result now follows by noting that, since v is a decreasing function, for all tc ∈ [ts , ts + γ] we have v(ts ) ≥ v(tc ) and
v(ts )eAγ ≤ v(tc )e(A+σ)γ .
To ensure that (7) holds, the controller needs to reduce the state estimation error z(tc ) to within an interval of radius ρ(ts ).
From Lemma 1, this implies that the sensor needs to cover at least the uncertainty set Ω(z(tc )|ts ) with one-dimensional balls
of radius ρ(ts ). This observation leads us to the following lower bound on the number of bits that the sensor must transmit at
every triggering event.
Lemma 2. Under the assumptions of Lemma 1, if (7) holds for all k ∈ N, then the packet size at every triggering event must
satisfy


(eAγ − 1)
.
(14)
g(tks ) ≥ max 0, log
ρ0 e−σγ
Proof: We compute the number of bits that must be transmitted to guarantee that the sensor uncertainty set Ω(z(tc )|ts )
is covered by balls of radius ρ(ts ). Define χγ = {y : y = eAt , t ∈ [0, γ]}. Since g(ts ) is the packet size, it is non-negative.
Hence, g(ts ) ≥ max 0, Hρ(ts ) , where
m(Ω(z(tc )|ts ))
m(B(ρ(ts )))
2v(ts )m(χγ )
= log
2ρ0 e−σγ v(ts )
2v(ts )(eAγ − 1)
= log
,
2ρ0 e−σγ v(ts )

Hρ(ts ) := log

(15)

and the result follows.
Our next goal is to characterize the frequency with which transmission events are triggered. We define the triggering rate
N
Rtr = lim sup PN
N →∞

k=1

∆0k

.

(16)

First, we provide an upper bound on the triggering rate that holds for all initial conditions and possible communication delays
upper bounded by γ.
Lemma 3. Under the assumptions of Lemma 1, if (7) holds for all k ∈ N, then the triggering rate is upper bounded as
Rtr ≤

A+σ
.
− ln(ρ0 e−σγ)

(17)

. From (1)
and the reception time tkc . We have tks ≤ tkc ≤ tk+1
Proof: Consider two successive triggering times tks and tk+1
s
s
is
defined
by
and (3), we have ż(t) = A(x(t) − x̂(t)) = Az(t). The triggering time tk+1
s
k+1

A(ts
|z(tk+
c )e

−tk
c)

| = v(tk+1
).
s

(18)

From (7), we have
k+1

ρ0 e−σγ v(tks )eA(ts

−tk
c)

≥ v(tk+1
).
s

Using (4) and tks ≤ tkc , it follows that
k

k+1

ρ0 e−σγ v0 e−σts eA(ts

−tk
s)

k+1

≥ v0 e−σts

,

and after some algebra we obtain
(A + σ)(tk+1
− tks ) ≥ − ln(ρ0 e−σγ ).
s
We then have the uniform lower bound for all k ∈ N
− ln(ρ0 e−σγ )
,
A+σ
which substituted into (16) leads to the desired upper bound on the triggering rate.
∆0k = tk+1
− tks ≥
s

(19)

Remark 2. In addition to providing an upper bound on the triggering rate, Lemma 3 also shows that our event-triggered
scheme does not exhibit “Zeno behavior” [52], namely the occurrence of infinitely many triggering events in a finite time
interval. This follows from the uniform lower bound for all k ∈ N on the size of triggering interval in (19).
•

8

−σγ
If ∆k = 0 and |z(tk+
v(ts ) for all k ∈ N, then the upper bound on the triggering rate in Lemma 3 is tight.
c )| = ρ0 e
We next provide a lower bound on the triggering rate that holds for a given initial condition and delay value. To obtain this
lower bound, we need to restrict the class of allowed quantization policies. We assume that, at each triggering event, there
exists a delay such that the sensor can reduce the estimation error at the controller to at most a fraction of the maximum value
ρ(ts ) required by (7). This is a natural assumption, and in practice corresponds to assuming an upper bound on the size of the
packet that the sensor can transmit at every triggering event. Without such a bound, a packet may carry an unlimited amount
of information and |z(t+
c )| may become arbitrarily close to zero for all delay values, resulting in a triggering rate arbitrarily
close to zero. For example, if at any triggering event the sensor transmits the triggering time to the controller with arbitrarily
high precision, using (5) the controller could perfectly track the state for all delay values. The next assumption precludes such
unrealistic scenario.

Assumption 1. The controller can only achieve ν-precision quantization. Formally, letting β = A1 ln(1 + 2ρ0 e−σγ ), we assume
there exists a delay realization {∆k ≤ β}k∈N , an initial condition x(0), and a real number ν ≥ 1, such that for all k ∈ N
|z(tkc ) − z̄(tkc )| ≥

ρ(tks )
.
ν

(20)

The upper bound β on the delay in Assumption 1 corresponds to the time required for the state estimation error to grow
from z(ts ) to z(ts ) + 2ρ(ts ). In fact,
z(tc ) = z(ts )eAβ = z(ts )(1 + 2ρ0 e−σγ ),
from which it follows that
z(tc ) − z(ts ) = 2z(ts )ρ0 e−σγ ,
and since z(ts ) = ±v(ts ), we have
|z(tc ) − z(ts )| = 2ρ(ts ).
To ensure (7), the size of the quantization cell should be at most 2ρ(ts ). As the delay takes values in [0, β], the value of z(tc )
sweeps an area of measure 2ρ(ts ). It follows that Assumption 1 corresponds to the existence of a value of the communication
delay for which the uncertainty ball about the state shrinks from having a radius at most ρ(ts ) to having a radius at least
ρ(ts )/ν. With this assumption in place, we can now compute the desired lower bound on the triggering rate.
Lemma 4. Under the assumptions of Lemma 1, if (7) holds with ν-precision for all k ∈ N, then there exists a delay realization
{∆k }k∈N and an initial condition such that
Rtr ≥

A+σ
ln ν + ln(2 +

eσγ .
ρ0 )

Proof: By Assumption 1, for all k ∈ N there exists a delay ∆k ≤ β such that
k −σγ
|z(tk+
.
c )| ≥ (1/ν)ρ0 v(ts )e

From the definition of the triggering time tk+1
in (18), we also have
s
k+1

(1/ν)ρ0 e−σγ v(tks )eA(ts

−tk
s −∆k )

≤ v(tk+1
).
s

Noting that for all k ∈ N, ∆k ≤ β, we have
k+1

(1/ν)ρ0 e−σγ v(tks )eA(ts

−tk
s −β)

≤ v(tk+1
).
s

By dividing both sides by (1/ν)ρ0 e−σγ and using the definition of triggering function, we obtain
k+1

e(A+σ)(ts

−tk
s)

≤

1
.
(1/ν)ρ0 e−σγ e−Aβ

Taking the logarithm, we get
∆0k = tk+1
− tks ≤
s

− ln((1/ν)ρ0 e−σγ ) + Aβ
.
A+σ

By substituting (21) into (16), we finally have
1

Rtr ≥ lim

−σγ )
N →∞ − ln((1/ν)ρ0 e
A+σ

=

ln ν − ln(ρ0

+

A
A+σ β

A+σ
+ ln(1 + 2ρ0 e−σγ )

e−σγ )

(21)

9

Rs

A+σ
ln 2

γeq =

γc

ln 2
A

γ

Fig. 3. Illustration of the phase transition behavior in (23). Rs is measured in bits/sec, and γ is measured in sec. The plot is valid for a generic system
and design parameters. In this specific example, we have chosen A = 5, σ = 3, and ρ0 = 0.7. Consequently, (A + σ)/ ln 2 = 11.5416, ln 2/A = 0.1386,
and γc = 0.0864.

=

A+σ
ln ν + ln(2 +

eσγ .
ρ0 )

We can now combine Lemma 2 and Lemma 4 to obtain a lower bound on the information transmission rate.
Theorem 2. Under the assumptions of Lemma 1, if (7) holds with ν-precision for all k ∈ N, then there exists a delay realization
{∆k }k∈N and an initial condition such that


(eAγ − 1)
A+σ
max 0, log
.
(22)
Rs ≥
σγ
ρ0 e−σγ
ln ν + ln(2 + eρ0 )
Remark 3. Theorem 2 provides a necessary transmission rate for the exponential convergence of the estimation error to zero
using our event-triggering strategy. It is easy to check that as σ → 0, this results also gives a necessary condition for asymptotic
stability, although it does not provide an exponential convergence guarantee of the state.
•
B. Phase transition behavior
We now show a phase transition for the rate required for stabilization expressed in Theorem 2. By combining Lemmas 3
and 4, we have
A+σ
A+σ
≤ Rtr ≤
.
1
− ln(ρ0 e−σγ )
ln ν + ln(2 + ρ0 e−σγ )
It follows that if ρ0  eσγ / max{2, ν}, we can neglect the value of 2 inside the logarithm in the left-hand side, as well as
ln ν, and we have
A+σ
Rtr ≈
.
− ln(ρ0 e−σγ )
In this case, the necessary condition on the transmission rate can be approximated as


A+σ
log(eAγ − 1)
Rs ≥
max 0, 1 +
.
ln 2
− log(ρ0 e−σγ )

(23)

We use this approximation to discuss the phase transition behavior. The approximation clearly holds for large values of the
worst-case delay γ. It also holds for small values of γ, since in this case both (22) and (23) tend to zero. For intermediate
values of γ, the approximation holds for large values of the convergence rate σ. The phase transition is illustrated in Figure 3.
We make the following observations. For small values of γ, the amount of timing information carried by the triggering events
is higher than what is needed to stabilize the system and the value of Rs is zero. This means that if the delay is sufficiently
small, then only a positive transmission rate is required to track the state of the system and the controller can successfully

10

Fig. 4.
Illustration of the phase transition behavior in (23) for different values of ρ0 . Rs is measured in bits/sec, and γ is measure in sec. The plots
are valid for a generic system and design parameters. In this specific example, we have chosen A = 1, and σ = 0.5. Therefore, (A + σ)/ ln 2 = 2.1640,
ln 2/A = 0.6931, A+σ
(1 + A
) = 6.4921
ln 2
σ

.

stabilize the system by receiving a single bit of information at every triggering event. This situation persists until a critical
value γ = γc is reached. This critical value is solution of the equation
eAγ − ρ0 e−σγ = 1.
For this level of delay, the timing information of the triggering events becomes so much out of date that the transmission rate
must begin to increase.
When γ reaches the equilibrium point γeq = ln 2/A, which equals the inverse of the intrinsic entropy rate of the system, the
timing information carried by the triggering events compensates exactly the loss of information due to the delay introduced by
the communication channel. This situation is analogous to having no delay, but also no timing information. It follows that in
this case the required transmission rate matches the access rate in Theorem 1, and we have Rs = (A + σ)/ ln 2. In essence,
since it takes ln 2/A seconds for the plant to generate one new bit of information, it follows that after a delay of ln 2/A there
is an extra bit of information that the sensor needs to supply for a complete description of the state.
When γ is increased even further, then the timing information carried by event triggering is excessively out of date and cannot
fully compensate for the channel’s delay. The required transmission rate then exceeds the access rate imposed by the data-rate
theorem. In this case, a more precise estimate of the state must be sent at every triggering time to compensate for the larger
delay. Another interpretation of this behavior follows by considering the definition Hρ(ts ) in (15). The value γ = γeq = ln 2/A
marks a transition point for Hρ(ts ) from negative to positive values. For γ > γeq event triggering does not supply enough
information and Hρ(ts ) presents a positive information balance in terms of number of bits required to cover the uncertainty
set. On the other hand, for γ < γeq , event triggering supplies more than enough information, and Hρ(ts ) presents a negative
information balance. We can then think of event triggering as a “source” supplying information, the controller as a “sink”
consuming information, and Hρ(ts ) as measuring the balance between the two, indicating whether additional information is
needed in terms of quantized observations sent through the channel.
Finally, Figure 4 illustrates the phase transition for different values of ρ0 . For γ < γeq , since according to (17) smaller values
of ρ0 imply fewer triggering events, it follows that curves associated to smaller values of ρ0 must have larger transmission
rates to compensate for the lack of timing information. On the other hand, for γ > γeq the situation is reversed. The timing
information carried by the triggering events is now completely exhausted by the delay and the controller relies only on the state
information contained in the quantized packets. Since, according to (14), smaller values of ρ0 imply larger packets sent through
the channel and, for each value of the delay, the information in the larger packets becomes out of date at a slower rate than that
in the smaller packets, it follows that in this case curves associated to smaller values of ρ0 correspond to smaller transmission
rates. Finally, we observe that all curves have the same asymptotic behavior for large values of γ, which is independent of
ρ0 . This occurs because as γ increases, more information needs to be sent through the channel and also the triggering rate
A
decreases. Taking both effects into account yields the asymptotic value of the transmission rate A+σ
ln 2 (1 + σ ).
Remark 4. The value of γc is a threshold distinguishing whether (22) is zero or strictly positive. This threshold tends to
γeq = ln 2/A as σ → 0 and ρ0 → 1. This is consistent with the fact that in this case there is only an asymptotic convergence

11

guarantee (not an exponential one), and when the worst-case delay γ is at most the inverse of entropy rate of the system only
a positive transmission rate is necessary for stabilization.
•
C. Sufficient condition on the transmission rate
We now determine a sufficient transmission rate for the exponential convergence of the state estimation error using the
event-triggering strategy described in Section II-B.
In our strategy, we let the sensor send a packet consisting of the sign of z(ts ) and a quantized version of ts to the controller.
Using the bound (2), and the decoded packet, the controller constructs q(ts ), a quantized version of ts . The controller then
estimates z(tc ) as follows
z̄(tc ) = sign(z(ts ))v(q(ts ))eA(tc −q(ts )) .

(24)

The next result provides a bound on the error in the time quantization that guarantees that the requirements of the design are
satisfied.
Lemma 5. Under the assumptions of Lemma 1, using (24), if
|ts − q(ts )| ≤

1
ln(1 + ρ0 e−(σ+A)γ )
A+σ

(25)

then (7) holds.
Proof: Using (24), it follows that
v(q(ts )) A(ts −q(ts ))
e
v(ts )
v0 e−σq(ts ) A(ts −q(ts ))
e
1−
v0 e−σts

|z(tc ) − z̄(tc )| = v(ts )eA(tc −ts ) 1 −
= v(ts )eA(tc −ts )

(26)

= v(ts )eA(tc −ts ) 1 − e(A+σ)(ts −q(ts )) .
As a consequence, (7) may be expressed as
|1 − e(A+σ)(ts −q(ts )) | ≤ ρ0 e−σγ e−A(tc −ts ) .
The smallest possible value of e−A(tc −ts ) for (tc − ts ) ∈ [0, γ] is e−Aγ . Therefore, by ensuring
1 − e(A+σ)(ts −q(ts )) ≤ ρ0 e−(σ+A)γ ,

(27)

we can also ensure (7). The condition in (27) can be rewritten as
1 − ρ0 e−(σ+A)γ ≤ e(A+σ)(ts −q(ts )) ≤ 1 + ρ0 e−(σ+A)γ .
Taking logarithms and dividing by (A + σ), we obtain
1
1
ln(1 − x0 ) ≤ ts − q(ts ) ≤
ln(1 + x0 ),
A+σ
A+σ

(28)

where x0 = ρ0 e−(σ+A)γ . It follows that to satisfy (7) for all delay values it is enough that
|ts − q(ts )| ≤ min{|

1
1
ln(1 − x0 )|, |
ln(1 + x0 )|}.
A+σ
A+σ

The result now follows.
The next result presents a sufficient transmission rate, along with the design that meets it.
Theorem 3. Under the assumptions of Lemma 1, if the state estimation error satisfies |z(0)| < v0 , there exists a quantization
policy that achieves (7) for all k ∈ N (and consequently |z(t)| ≤ v0 e(A+σ)γ e−σt ) with an information transmission rate


A+σ
bγ(A + σ)
Rs ≥
max
0,
1
+
log
,
(29)
− ln(ρ0 e−σγ )
ln(1 + ρ0 e−(σ+A)γ )
where b > 1.
Proof: Our proof strategy is as follows. We design a quantizer to construct a packet of length g(ts ) that the sensor sends
to the controller. Using this packet, the decoder reconstructs the quantized version q(ts ) of ts satisfying (25). The result then
follows from Lemma 5 and quantifying the associated transmission rate.
In our construction, the first bit of the packet determines the sign of z(ts ), i.e., whether z(ts ) = +v(ts ) or z(ts ) = −v(ts ).
For quantizing ts , we first divide the whole positive time line in sub-intervals of length bγ. Recall that the controller receives a

12

packet at time tc , and ts ∈ [tc −γ, tc ]. Noting that bγ > γ, upon the reception of the packet at time tc the decoder
 identifies two
ts
c, 2 , which informs
consecutive sub-intervals of length bγ that ts can belong to — the second bit of the packet is mod b bγ
the decoder that ts ∈ [ιbγ, (ι + 1)bγ] for some fixed ι. The encoder divides this interval uniformly into 2g(ts )−2 sub-intervals,
one of which contains ts . After receiving the packet, the decoder determines the correct sub-interval and chooses q(ts ) as the
middle point of it. With this strategy, we have
|ts − q(ts )| ≤

bγ
.
2g(ts )−1

(30)

Hence, from Lemma 5, it is enough to ensure
bγ
1
≤
ln(1 + ρ0 e−(σ+A)γ ),
A+σ
2g(ts )−1
to guarantee that (7) holds. This is equivalent to


bγ(A + σ)
.
g(ts ) ≥ max 0, 1 + log
ln(1 + ρ0 e−(σ+A)γ )

(31)

(32)

The characterization (29) of the transmission rate now follows from using this bound and the uniform upper bound on the
triggering rate (17).
Theorem 3 ensures the exponential convergence of the state estimation error. The following result shows that (29) is sufficient
for asymptotic stabilizability when employing a linear controller.
Corollary 1. Under the same assumptions of Theorem 3, if (A, B) is a stabilizable pair, then (29) is also a sufficient condition
for asymptotic stabilizability.
Proof: With u(t) = −K x̂(t), we can rewrite (1) as
ẋ(t) = (A − BK)x(t) + BKz(t).
As a consequence, we have
x(t) = e(A−BK)t x(0) + e(A−BK)t

Z

t

e−(A−BK)τ BKz(τ )dτ.

0

According to Theorem 3, (29) is sufficient to guarantee limt→∞ z(t) = 0. Since (A, B) is stabilizable, one can choose K
such that A − BK is Hurwitz, and it follows that, criterion (29) is also sufficient for limt→∞ x(t) = 0. Stability can also be
guaranteed from the above expression.
It should be clear that if the quantization policy designed for establishing Theorem 3 satisfies Assumption 1, then the number
of bits transmitted at each triggering time is finite. We conclude this section by providing a condition under which the designed
policy satisfies Assumption 1.
Theorem 4. Under the assumptions of Lemma 1, let ν ≥ 2, and let the number of bits in each transmitted packet be a constant
g(tks ) = g. If g satisfies the lower bound (32) and the upper bound
bγ(A + σ)

g ≤ log

 ,



ln 1 −

(33)

1

(ν−1)


!
1
2+
ρ0 e−σγ

and
δ

1 − e−(A+σ) 2
1−

δ
e−(A+σ) 4

3δ

≥ e(A+σ) 4 ,

(34)

where δ = bγ/2g−2 , then the quantization policy used in Theorem 3 satisfies Assumption 1 at every triggering time.
Proof: The proof follows from the following two claims.
Claim (a): For all k ∈ N, if tks satisfies
δ
bγ
bγ
δ
= − g−1 ≤ tks − q(tks ) ≤ − g = − ,
(35)
2
2
2
4
then there exists a delay ∆k ≤ β such that (20) is satisfied.
Claim (b): The sequence of transmission times {tks } is uniquely determined by the initial condition z(0) and there exists a
z(0) such that for each k ∈ N, tks satisfies (35).
We first prove Claim (a). Note that when the sensor transmits g bits, lower bounded by (32), the upper-bound on the
−

13

quantization error (30) holds and thus (35) is well defined. From (35) and (33), we have
!
1
1
k
k
ln 1 −
ts − q(ts ) ≤
,
A+σ
(ν − 1)(2 + ρ0 e1−σγ )

(36)

where we have used the fact that ν ≥ 2 to simplify the absolute value. We rewrite this inequality as
k

k

1 − e(A+σ)(ts −q(ts )) ≥

ρ0 e−σγ
> 0.
(ν − 1)(1 + 2ρ0 e−σγ )

Thus, from (26), we see that
|z(tkc ) − z̄(tkc )| ≥ v(tks )eA∆k

ρ0 e−σγ
(ν − 1)(1 + 2ρ0 e−σγ )

ν
ρ(tks ) A(∆k −β+ln( ν−1
))
e
ν


 
ν
ρ(tks )
, ∀∆k ∈ β − ln
,β ,
≥
ν
ν−1

≥

where in the second inequality, we have used the definition of ρ(tks ) in (7). This proves Claim (a).
We now prove Claim (b). First, we need to determine the dependence of tk+1
on tks and ∆k . Recall the triggering rule (5),
s
which we express as
0

0

A(∆k −∆k )
v(tks )e−σ∆k = |z(tk+
c )|e
k

k

0

= v(tks )|1 − e(A+σ)(ts −q(ts )) |eA∆k ,
where we have used the fact ∆0k = tk+1
− tks and (26). On simplification, we obtain
s
∆0k = h(tks − q(tks )),

(37)

1
depends only on tks and not on
ln(|1 − e(A+σ)t |). Notice that tk+1
where, for convenience, we have defined h(t) := − A+σ
s
k+1
k+1
k
k
∆k and. We show next that ts − q(ts ) uniquely determines ts − q(ts ).
To show this, recall that according to the proof of Theorem 3, the quantization policy has the encoder divide the interval
[ιbγ, (ι + 1)bγ] for some fixed ι uniformly into 2g−2 sub-intervals, one of which includes tks . The decoder chooses as q(tks )
the middle point of the sub-interval that contains tks . Thus, we have
 
t
δ
bγ
q(t) =
δ + , δ = g−2 .
(38)
δ
2
2

Letting yk = tks − q(tks ), we obtain
yk+1 = tks + ∆0k − q(tks + ∆0k )
j k


 y + tks δ + δ + ∆0 
 k
k


k
δ
2
ts
δ
= yk +
δ + ∆0k − 
δ
δ
$
%
yk + 2δ + h(yk )
= yk + h(yk ) −
δ =: H(yk ),
δ
where in the second step we have used tks = yk + q(tks ) and (38), and in the third step we have used (37). From the conditions
on g, we know that (30) is satisfied and hence H is a map from the interval [− 2δ , 2δ ] onto itself. We also notice that H is a
piecewise continuous function. In fact, it is easy to verify that on [− 2δ , 0), the function is piecewise strictly increasing. Further,
note that if H is discontinuous at w < 0, then the left limit of H at w is δ/2 while the right limit of H at w is −δ/2.
Next, (34) implies that
δ
δ
3δ
ln(1 − e−(A+σ) 2 ) − ln(1 − e−(A+σ) 4 ) ≥ (A + σ) ,
4
which, after rearranging the terms, we see that it implies




δ
δ
δ
δ
− +h −
≥− +h −
+ δ.
4
4
2
2
Now, observe that if w1 , w2 ∈ [− 2δ , 2δ ] are such that w2 + h(w2 ) = w1 + h(w1 ) + nδ for some n ∈ Z, then H(w1 ) = H(w2 ).
As a result, we conclude that there exists an interval I ∈ [− 2δ , − 4δ ] such that the restriction H : I → [− 2δ , 2δ ] is continuous,
one-to-one and onto. Hence the inverse mapping of this restriction is continuous and is a contraction and hence using the

14

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

3

6

9

12

Fig. 5.
Comparison between the sufficient and necessary conditions. Rs is measured in bits/sec, and γ is measure in sec. Here, A = 1.3, σ = 1,
b = 1.0001, and ρ0 = 0.9. The dashed line represents the asymptote ((A + σ)/ ln 2)(1 + A/σ) = 7.6319.

Banach contraction principle [53] there exists a fixed point of the original map H in I. Finally, note that as we sweep z(0)
through (0, v(0)], t1s varies continuously from ∞ to 0. Thus, there exists a z(0) such that y1 = t1s − q(t1s ) is the fixed point in
I. This proves Claim (b).
Remark 5. We use the assumption in (34) in the proof of Theorem 4 to be able to apply the Banach contraction principle in
establishing the existence of a suitable initial condition. We use the assumption ν ≥ 2 to ensure that the upper bound in (33)
is well defined.
•
Remark 6. Figure 5 illustrates the gap between the sufficient conditiont (29) and the supremum over σ of the necessary
condition (22). For small values of γ, both conditions reduce to Rs > 0. As γ grows to infinity, both conditions converge to
A
the same asymptote with value A+σ
ln 2 (1 + σ ). While (23) reaches the asymptote monotonically increasing for all ρ0 values, the
sufficient condition has an overshoot behavior for larger values of ρ0 as depicted in Figure 6. For intermediate values of γ, the
gap can be explained noticing that the exact value of the communication delay is unknown to the sensor and the controller,
and hence there can be a mismatch between the uncertainty sets at the controller and the sensor. In addition, the sensor and
the controller lack a common reference frame for the quantization of the transmission time.
•

D. Simulation
In this section, we illustrate an execution of our design for deriving the sufficient condition on the transmission rate. Using
Theorem 3, we choose the size of the packet to be


bγ(A + σ)
g(ts ) = max 1, d1 + log
e
,
(39)
ln(1 + ρ0 e−(σ+A)γ )
where the ceiling operator ensures that the packet size is an integer number (we take the maximum between this quantity and
1 to make sure to send at least one bit at each transmission).
We illustrate the execution of our design for the system
ẋ(t) = x(t) + 0.2u(t),

u(t) = −8x̂(t).

The event-triggering function is v(t) = 0.2671e−0.1t . The upper bound on the communication delay is γ = 1.2. The design
parameter are b = 1.0001, ρ0 = 0.1, and the initial condition x(0) = 0.2, and x̂(0) = 0.1. Figure 7(a) shows the evolution of
state estimation error. The triggering strategy ensures that the state estimation error z(t) converges exponentially to zero and
triggering occurs every time the state estimation error crosses the triggering function v(t). The overshoots observed in the plot
are due to the unknown delay in the communication channel. Clearly, |z(t)| is upper bounded by v0 e(A+σ)γ e−σt = e−0.1t .
Figure 7(b) shows the corresponding evolution of x(t) and x̂(t). The values of x(t) and x̂(t) become close to each other at
the reception times because of the jump strategy, while the distance between x(t) and x̂(t) grows during the inter-reception
interval.

15

8

6

4

2

0
0

2

4

6

8

Fig. 6. Illustration of the sufficient transmission rate for asymptotic observability versus the upper bound of delay for different values of ρ0 . Rs is measured
in bits/sec, and γ is measure in sec. Here, A = 1, σ = 1, and b = 1.0001. The dashed line represents the asymptote n((A + σ)/ ln 2)(1 + A/σ) = 5.7708.

0.9

0.6

0.8

0.5

0.7
0.4

0.6
0.3

0.5
0.2

0.4
0.3

0.1

0.2

0

0.1

-0.1

0
0

5

10

15

20

-0.2
0

(a)

5

10

15

20

(b)

Fig. 7. An example realization of our design. (a) shows the evolution of the absolute value of the state estimation error, the value of the event-triggering
function, and the upper bound on the state estimation error. (b) shows the corresponding evolution of the state and state estimation. The continuous-time
dynamics is discretized with stepsize 0.0002. Because of this, a triggering happens when z(t) becomes larger than the triggering function and there is no
packet in the communication channel. In fact, since the sampling time is small, a triggering happens when z(t) becomes approximately equal v(t).

Finally, Figure 8 shows the information transmission rate of a simulation versus the worst-case delay in the channel. The
packet size is chosen according to (39). We calculate the information transmission rate by multiplying the packet size and
the number of triggering events in the simulation time interval divided by its length. One can observe from the plot that,
for small worst-case delay, the system is stabilized with an information transmission rate smaller than the data-rate theorem
(3.75 bits/sec in this example). Instead, for larger worst-case delay, the transmission rate becomes greater than the threshold
determined by the data-rate theorem.
V. E XTENSION TO THE VECTOR SYSTEMS
We now generalize our results to vector systems, building on our analysis of the scalar case. Consider the plant-sensorchannel-controller tuple in Figure 1, and let the plant dynamics be described by a continuous-time, linear time-invariant (LTI)
system
ẋ = Ax(t) + Bu(t),

(40)

16

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.0002

0.4002

0.8002

1.2002

1.6002

Fig. 8. Information transmission rate versus the upper bound of the delay in the communication channel. Rs is measured in bits/sec, and γ is measured in
sec. Here, A = 2.4, B = 1, u(t) = −8x̂(t), σ = 0.2, b = 1.0001, ρ0 = 0.1, v0 = 0.0442, x(0) = 0.201, and x̂(0) = 0.2. The value of γ ranges from
0.0005 to 2.0005, in steps of 0.2. For each value of γ, we compute the transmission rate over an interval of 7 seconds of simulation.

where x(t) ∈ Rn and u(t) ∈ Rm for t ∈ [0, ∞) are the plant state and the control input, respectively. Here, A ∈ Mn,n (R),
B ∈ Mn,m (R), and kx(0)k < L, where L is known to both sensor and controller. We assume all the eigenvalues of A are
real. Without loss of generality, we also assume that they are positive (since stable modes do not need any actuation and we
can disregard them). In this setting, the intrinsic entropy rate of the plant is
Pn
λi
Tr(A)
= i=1 .
(41)
hv =
ln 2
ln 2
Hence, to guarantee stability it is necessary for the controller to have access to state information at a rate
Rc ≥ hv .
Using the Jordan block decomposition [54], we can write the matrix A ∈ Mn,n (R) as ΦΨΦ−1 , where Φ is a real-valued
invertible matrix and Ψ = diag[J1 , . . . , Jq ], where each Jj is a Jordan block corresponding to the real-valued eigenvalue λj
of A. We let pj indicate the order of each Jordan block. For simplicity of exposition, we assume from here on that A is equal
to its Jordan block decomposition, that is, A = diag[J1 , . . . , Jq ].
In the following, we deal with each state coordinate separately. This corresponds to treating the n-dimensional system as
n scalar, coupled systems. When a triggering occurs for one of the coordinates, the controller should be aware of which
coordinate the received packet corresponds to. Accordingly, we assume there are n parallel finite-rate digital communication
channels between each coordinate of the system and the controller, each subject to unknown, bounded delay.
We use the same notation of Section II, but add subindex i and superindex j to specify the ith coordinate of the j th Jordan
k,j
k,j
block. So, for instance, {tk,j
s,i }k∈N , {tc,i }k∈N , g(ts,i ) denote the sequences of transmission times, reception times, and number
of bits that the sensor transmits at each triggering time. Similarly, the k th communication delay ∆jk,i and k th triggering interval
j
∆0 k,i can be specified for each coordinate. The communication delays for all coordinates are uniformly upper-bounded by γ,
a non-negative real number known to both the sensor and the controller. The transmission rate for each coordinate is then
PNij
k,j
k=1 g(ts,i )
j
Rs,i = lim sup P j
.
Ni
0j
Nij →∞
k=1 ∆k,i
Assuming n parallel communication channels between the plant and the controller, each devoted to a coordinate separately,
we have
pj
q X
X
j
Rs =
Rs,i
.
j=1 i=1

Using the same notation of Section II, when referring to a generic triggering or reception time, we omit the superscript k.

17

The controller maintains an estimate x̂ of the state, which evolves according to
˙
x̂(t)
= Ax̂(t) + Bu(t),

(42)

during the inter-reception times. The state estimation error is z(t) = x(t) − x̂(t), which initially is set to z(0) = x(0) − x0 .
For the ith coordinate of the j th Jordan block, we consider an event-triggering function as in (4) with different initial values
v0j for each coordinate, namely
j
vij (t) = v0,i
e−σt .

(43)
th

For each coordinate, we employ the triggering rule (5) and the jump strategy (6). When a triggering occurs for the i coordinate
of the j th Jordan block, we assume that the sensor sends a packet large enough to ensure
−σγ
|zij (tj+
v(tjs,i ).
c,i )| ≤ ρ0 e

(44)

When referring to a generic Jordan block, we omit the superscript and subscript j.
Although each Jordan block is effectively independent from each other, the vector case is not an immediate extension of
the scalar one. Specifically, from (40) and (42), we have that
ż1 (t) = λz1 (t) + z2 (t)
..
.
żp−1 (t) = λzp−1 (t) + zp (t)
żp (t) = λzp (t),

(45)

where p denotes the order of the Jordan block. This shows that the evolution of the coordinates is coupled and hence, even
assuming parallel communication channels, care must be taken in generalizing the results for the scalar case.
Our first result generalizes Theorem 1 on the necessary condition for the information access rate.
Theorem 5. Consider the plant-sensor-channel-controller model described in Section II, with plant dynamics (40), and state
estimation error z(t). Let σ ∈ R be positive, then the following necessary conditions hold:
(i) If the state estimation error satisfies
kz(t)k ≤ kz(0)k e−σt ,
then
bc (t) ≥ t

L
Tr(A) + nσ
+ n log
.
ln 2
kz(0)k

(ii) If the system in (40) is stabilizable and
kx(t)k ≤ kx(0)k e−σt ,
then
bc (t) ≥ t

Tr(A) + nσ
ln 2

In both cases, the information access rate is
Rc ≥

Tr(A) + nσ
.
ln 2

The proof of this result, omitted for space reasons, is analogous to that of Theorem 1, noting that for A ∈ Mn,n (R) and
X ∈ Rn , m(AX) = | det(A)|m(X), det(eA ) = eTr(A) , and that the Lebesgue measure of a sphere of radius  in Rn is kn n ,
where kn is a constant that changes with dimension.
We next generalize the necessary condition on the information transmission rate. If A is diagonalizable, then the necessary
and sufficient bit rate for the vector system is equal to the sum of the necessary and sufficient bit rates that we provide in
Section IV for each coordinate of the system. We now generalize this idea to any matrix with real eigenvalues.
Theorem 6. Consider the plant-sensor-channel-controller model with plant dynamics (40), where all eigenvalues of A are
real, estimator dynamics (42), event-triggering strategy (5), event-triggering function (43), and packet sizes such that zij (tk,j
c,i )
k,j
−σγ
is determined at the controller within a ball of radius ρ(tk,j
)
=
ρ
e
v(t
)
with
ν-precision,
ensuring
(44)
via
the
jump
0
s,i
s,i
strategy (6) for all k ∈ N, i = 1, . . . , pj , and j = 1, . . . , q. Then, there exists a delay realization and initial condition, such

18

that
Rs ≥

q
X
j=1



(eλj γ − 1)
pj (λj + σ)
max 0, log
.
σγ
ρ0 e−σγ
ln ν + ln(2 + eρ0 )

Proof: Since in the dynamics (40) there is no coupling across different Jordan blocks, the inherent entropy rate (41) is
hv (A) = hv (J1 ) + · · · + hv (Jq ).
Therefore, it is enough to prove the result for one of the Jordan blocks. Let J be a Jordan block of order p with associated
eigenvalue λ. Note that the part of the vector z(t) which corresponds to J is governed by (45). The solution of the first
differential equation in (45) is
Z t
e−λτ z2 (τ )dτ.
z1 (t) = eλt z1 (0) + eλt
0

If for the first coordinate a triggering event occurs at time ts,1 , then z1 (tc,1 ) belongs to the set
Ω(z(tc,1 )|ts,1 ) = {y = y1 + y2 :
y1 = ±v1 (ts,1 )eλ(tc,1 −ts,1 ) , y2 =

Z

tc,1

eλ(tc,1 −τ ) z2 (τ )dτ ;

ts,1

tc,1 ∈ [ts,1 , ts,1 + γ], z2 (τ ) ∈ ζτs,2 for τ ∈ [ts,1 , tc,1 ]},
where ζτs,2 is the uncertainty set for z2 (τ ) at the sensor. We define
Y1 = {y1 : y1 = ±v(ts,1 )eλ(tc,1 −ts,1 ) , tc,1 ∈ [ts,1 , ts,1 + γ]},
which is the uncertainty set of z1 (tc,1 ) given ts,1 for the differential equation ż1 = λz1 . By comparing the definitions of the
sets Ω(z(tc,1 )|ts,1 ) and Y1 , we have
m(Ω(z(tc,1 )|ts,1 )) ≥ m(Y1 ).
Finally, we apply Lemmas 2 and Lemma 4 for each coordinate separately, so that the necessary bit rate for each coordinate
must satisfy


(eλγ − 1)
λ+σ
max 0, log
Rs,i ≥
σγ
ρ0 e−σγ
ln ν + ln(2 + eρ0 )
for i = 1, . . . , p. The result now follows.
Note that, when ρ0  eσγ / max{2, ν}, the result in Theorem 6 can be simplified to


q
X
log(eλj γ − 1)
pj (λj + σ)
max 0, 1 +
.
Rs ≥
ln 2
− log(ρ0 e−σγ )
j=1
Our next result generalizes the sufficient condition of Theorem 3 to vector systems.
Theorem 7. Consider the plant-sensor-channel-controller model with plant dynamics (40), where all eigenvalues of A are
real, estimator dynamics (42), event-triggering strategy (5), and event-triggering function (43). For the j th Jordan block choose
the following sequence of design parameters
0 < ρj1 < . . . < ρjpj −1 < ρjpj = ρ0 < 1.
j
If the state estimation error satisfies |zij (0)| ≤ v0,i
, then we can achieve (44) and
j
|zij (t)| ≤ v0,i
((ρ0 − ρji ) + e(λj +σ)γ )e−σt

for i = 1, . . . , pj and j = 1, . . . , q, with an information transmission rate, Rs , at least equal to
!
j=q i=p
X
Xj (λj + σ)
bγ(λj + σ)
max 0, 1 + log
,
− ln(ρ0 e−σγ )
ln(1 + ρji e−(σ+λj )γ )
j=1 i=1
where
j
0 < v0,i
≤

for i = 2, . . . , pj and j = 1, . . . , q, and b > 1.

j
v0,i−1
(λj + σ)(ρ0 − ρji )

((ρ0 − ρji ) + e(λj +σ)γ )(e(λj +σ)γ − 1)

,

(46)

19

Proof: It is enough to prove the result for one Jordan block. The solution of the last two equations in (45) is
Z t
λt
λt
e−λτ zp (τ )dτ,
zp−1 (t) = e zp−1 (0) + e

(47)

0

zp (t) = eλt zp (0).
The differential equation that governs zp (t) is similar to what we considered in Theorem 3. It follows that if the transmission
rate for coordinate p is lower bounded as (29) and |zp (0)| ≤ v0,p , then we can ensure |zp (t)| ≤ v0,p e(σ+λ)γ e−λt .

Assume now that a triggering happens for coordinate p − 1 at time ts,p−1 , namely
|zp−1 (ts,p−1 )| = v(ts,p−1 ),
and the controller receives the packet related to coordinate p − 1 at time tc,p−1 . Then the uncertainty set for zp−1 (tc,p−1 ) at
the controller is
(1)

(2)

Ω(z(tc,p−1 )|tc,p−1 ) = {wp−1 = wp−1 + wp−1 :
(1)
wp−1
(2)

wp−1

(48)

= ±vp−1 (t̄r,p−1 )eλ(tc,p−1 −t̄r,p−1 ) ,
Z tc,p−1
eλ(tc,p−1 −τ ) zp (τ )dτ ;
=
t̄r,p−1

t̄r,p−1 ∈ [tc,p − γ, tc,p−1 ], zp (τ ) ∈ ζτc,p for τ ∈ [t̄r,p−1 , tc,p−1 ]},
(1)

where ζτc,p is the uncertainty set for zp (τ ) at the controller. Clearly, the measure of Ω(z(tc,p−1 )|tc,p−1 ) is larger when wp−1
(2)
and wp−1 in (48) have the same sign. Hence, we can assume that zp−1 (t̄r,p−1 ) and zp (τ ) for τ ∈ [t̄r,p−1 , tc,p−1 ] and
t̄r,p−1 ∈ [tc,p−1 − γ, tc,p−1 ] are positive. Define
(1)

(2)

Wp−1 = {wp−1 = wp−1 + wp−1 :
(1)

wp−1 = ±vp−1 (t̄r,p−1 )eA(tc,p−1 −t̄r,p−1 ) ,
Z tc,p−1
(2)
wp−1 =
eλ(tc,p−1 −τ ) zp (τ )dτ ;
t̄r,p−1

t̄r,p−1 ∈ [tc,p − γ, tc,p−1 ], |zp (τ )| ≤ v0,p e(σ+λ)γ e−στ for τ ∈ [t̄r,p−1 , tc,p−1 ]}.
Clearly, we have
m(Ω(z(tc,p−1 )|tc,p−1 )) ≤ m(Wp−1 ).

(49)

Hence, a sufficient condition for Wp−1 will also be a sufficient condition for Ω(z(tc,p−1 )|tc,p−1 ). We note that Wp−1 is the
Brunn-Minkowski sum of the following sets
(1)

(1)

(1)

Wp−1 = {wp−1 : wp−1 = ±vp−1 (t̄r,p−1 )eA(tc,p−1 −t̄r,p−1 ) , t̄r,p−1 ∈ [tc,p − γ, tc,p−1 ]}
Z tc,p−1
(2)
(2)
(2)
eλ(tc,p−1 −τ ) zp (τ )dτ ;
Wp−1 = {wp−1 : wp−1 =
t̄r,p−1

|zp (τ )| ≤ v0,p e(σ+λ)γ e−στ for τ ∈ [t̄r,p−1 , tc,p−1 ], t̄r,p−1 ∈ [tc,p − γ, tc,p−1 ]}.
By the Brunn-Minkowski inequality [55], we have
(2)

(1)

m(Wp−1 ) ≥ m(Wp−1 ) + m(Wp−1 ).
(1)

(50)

(2)

(2)

The operators in the definition of Wp−1 and Wp−1 are continuous and the operator in the definition of Wp−1 is integral.
(2)
Hence, even if during the time interval [t̄r,p−1 , tc,p−1 ] the value of zp (τ ) jumps according to (6), Wp−1 remains a connected
(1)
(2)
compact set. Therefore, Wp−1 and Wp−1 are closed intervals that are translation and dilation of each other. In this case, the
inequality (50) is tight [56], and by (49) we have
(1)

(2)

m(Ω(z(tc,p−1 )|tc,p−1 )) ≤ m(Wp−1 ) + m(Wp−1 ).

(51)

This allows us to deal with each coordinate, p − 1 and p, separately as follows. If there is no coupling in the differential
equation that governs zp−1 (t), we have
żp−1 (t) = λzp−1 (t).

20

Using Theorem 3, and equation (51) with the rate
Rs,p−1



λ+σ
bγ(λ + σ)
,
≥
max 0, 1 + log
− ln(ρp−1 e−σγ )
ln(1 + ρp−1 e−(σ+λ)γ )

(52)

we can ensure
(2)

Υct+

c,p−1

where Υct+

c,p−1

≤ ρp−1 vp−1 (tc,p−1 ) + m(Wp−1 ),

(53)

is the uncertainty set for zp−1 (t+
c,p−1 ) at the controller.
(2)

We now find an upper bound for m(Wp−1 ) as follows. Since, Rs,p is lower bounded as (29), we can ensure |zp (t)| ≤
v0,p e(σ+λ)γ e−σt , and
Z tc,p−1
(2)
m(Wp−1 ) =
eλ(tc,p−1 −τ ) zp (τ )dτ
tc,p−1 −γ

≤ v0,p e(σ+λ)γ eλtc,p−1

Z

tc,p−1

e−(λ+σ)τ dτ

tc,p−1 −γ

=

v0,p e(σ+λ)γ e−σtc,p−1 (λ+σ)γ
(e
− 1).
λ+σ

(54)

From (46), we have
v0,p ≤

v0,p−1 (λ + σ)(ρ0 − ρp−1 )
.
e(λ+σ)γ (e(λ+σ)γ − 1)

Hence,
v0,p e(σ+λ)γ e−σtc,p−1 (λ+σ)γ
(e
− 1) ≤ (ρ0 − ρp−1 )v0,p−1 e−σtc,p−1 = (ρ0 − ρp−1 )vp−1 (tc,p−1 ).
λ+σ
Consequently, from (54) we have
(2)

m(Wp−1 ) ≤ (ρ0 − ρp−1 )vp−1 (t).

(55)

Therefore, using (53) and (55) we have
m(Υct+

) ≤ ρ0 vp−1 (tc,p−1 )

c,p−1

and
|zp−1 (t+
c )| ≤ ρ0 vp−1 (tc,p−1 ).
When Rs,p is lower bounded as (29) and Rs,p−1 is lower bounded as (52), we can ensure
|zp−1 (t)| ≤ ((ρ0 − ρp−1 ) + e(λ+σ)γ )vp−1 (tc,p−1 )
because the solution of the differential equation that governs zp−1 is given in (47), and using (55) we have
|z(tc,p−1 )| ≤ vp−1 (tc,p−1 − γ)eλγ + (ρ0 − ρp−1 )vp−1 (tc,p−1 )
= ((ρ0 − ρp−1 ) + e(λ+σ)γ )vp−1 (tc,p−1 ).
With the same procedure we can find the sufficient rate Rs,i for i = p − 2, . . . , 1, and this concludes the proof.
Remark 7. In a Jordan block of order pj , the inequality (46) provides an upper bound on the value of the triggering function for
coordinate i using the value of the triggering function for coordinate i − 1, where i = 2, . . . , pj . This is a natural consequence
of the coupling among the coordinates in a Jordan block, cf. (45), which makes the error in coordinate i affect the error in
coordinates 1 to i − 1, for each i = 2, . . . , pj .
•
Corollary 1 can be generalized, provided (A, B) is stabilizable, using a linear control u(t) = −K x̂(t) with A−BK Hurwitz.
This is a consequence of Theorem 7 which guarantees that, using the stated communication rate, the state estimation error for
each coordinate converges to zero exponentially fast.
Remark 8. In our discussion we have assumed that x̂(t) is known to both controller and sensor. Since the sensor has access
to the state, using the system dynamics it can deduce u(t), and then obtain x̂(t), cf. [30]. Note that the controller design for
our sufficient condition is linear u(t) = −K x̂(t), thus the sensor can deduce x̂(t) assuming that BK is invertible. On the
other hand, assuming knowledge of x̂(t) at the sensor does not affect the generality of the necessary condition.
•

21

VI. C ONCLUSIONS
We have studied event-triggered control strategies for stabilization and exponential observability of linear plants in the
presence of unknown bounded delay in the communication channel between the sensor and the controller. Our study has been
centered on quantifying the value of the timing information implicit in the triggering events. We have identified a necessary
and a sufficient condition on the transmission rate required to guarantee stabilizability and observability of the system for
a given event triggering strategy. Our results reveal a phase transition behavior as a function of the maximum delay in the
communication channel, where for small delays, a positive transmission rate ensures the control objective is met, while for
large delays, the necessary transmission rate is larger than that of classical data-rate theorems with periodic communication
and no delay. Future research can address the consideration of disturbances to the plant dynamics, and the study of other
event-triggering strategies.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was partially supported by NSF award CNS-1446891.
R EFERENCES
[1] M. J. Khojasteh, P. Tallapragada, J. Cortés, and M. Franceschetti, “The value of timing information in event-triggered control: The scalar case,” Allerton
Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing, pp. 1165–1172, Sept. 2016.
[2] ——, “Time-triggering versus event-triggering control over communication channels,” in IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Melbourne, Australia,
Dec 2017, pp. 5432–5437.
[3] K.-D. Kim and P. R. Kumar, “Cyber-physical systems: A perspective at the centennial,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 100 (Special Centennial Issue),
pp. 1287–1308, 2012.
[4] R. M. Murray, K. J. Astrom, S. P. Boyd, R. W. Brockett, and G. Stein, “Future directions in control in an information-rich world,” IEEE Control Systems,
vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 20–33, 2003.
[5] D. F. Delchamps, “Stabilizing a linear system with quantized state feedback,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 916–924,
1990.
[6] W. S. Wong and R. W. Brockett, “Systems with finite communication bandwidth constraints. II. stabilization with limited information feedback,” IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 1049–1053, 1999.
[7] J. Baillieul, “Feedback designs for controlling device arrays with communication channel bandwidth constraints,” in ARO Workshop on Smart Structures,
Pennsylvania State Univ, 1999, pp. 16–18.
[8] S. Tatikonda and S. Mitter, “Control under communication constraints,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 1056–1068, 2004.
[9] G. N. Nair and R. J. Evans, “Stabilizability of stochastic linear systems with finite feedback data rates,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization,
vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 413–436, 2004.
[10] N. C. Martins, M. A. Dahleh, and N. Elia, “Feedback stabilization of uncertain systems in the presence of a direct link,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 438–447, 2006.
[11] P. Minero, M. Franceschetti, S. Dey, and G. N. Nair, “Data rate theorem for stabilization over time-varying feedback channels,” IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, vol. 54, no. 2, p. 243, 2009.
[12] P. Minero, L. Coviello, and M. Franceschetti, “Stabilization over Markov feedback channels: the general case,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 349–362, 2013.
[13] R. T. Sukhavasi and B. Hassibi, “Linear time-invariant anytime codes for control over noisy channels,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 61,
no. 12, pp. 3826–3841, 2016.
[14] R. H. Middleton, A. J. Rojas, J. S. Freudenberg, and J. H. Braslavsky, “Feedback stabilization over a first order moving average Gaussian noise channel,”
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 163–167, 2009.
[15] E. Ardestanizadeh and M. Franceschetti, “Control-theoretic approach to communication with feedback,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 57,
no. 10, pp. 2576–2587, 2012.
[16] J. Ding, Y. Peres, G. Ranade, and A. Zhai, “When multiplicative noise stymies control,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.03239, 2016.
[17] C. De Persis, “n-bit stabilization of n-dimensional nonlinear systems in feedforward form,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 50, no. 3, pp.
299–311, 2005.
[18] D. Liberzon, “Nonlinear control with limited information,” Communications in Information & Systems, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 41–58, 2009.
[19] G. N. Nair, R. J. Evans, I. M. Mareels, and W. Moran, “Topological feedback entropy and nonlinear stabilization,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1585–1597, 2004.
[20] S. Tatikonda, A. Sahai, and S. Mitter, “Stochastic linear control over a communication channel,” IEEE transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 49, no. 9,
pp. 1549–1561, 2004.
[21] V. Kostina and B. Hassibi, “Rate-cost tradeoffs in control,” in Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing, Monticello, IL, 2016,
pp. 1157–1164.
[22] A. Khina, Y. Nakahira, Y. Su, and B. Hassibi, “Algorithms for optimal control with fixed-rate feedback,” in IEEE Conference on Decision and Control,
Melbourne, Australia, Dec 2017, pp. 6015–6020.
[23] V. Kostina, Y. Peres, M. Z. Rácz, and G. Ranade, “Rate-limited control of systems with uncertain gain,” Allerton Conference on Communication, Control,
and Computing, pp. 1189–1196, 2016.
[24] Q. Ling and H. Lin, “Necessary and sufficient bit rate conditions to stabilize quantized Markov jump linear systems,” in American Control Conference,
Baltimore, MD, 2010, pp. 236–240.
[25] G. Ranade and A. Sahai, “Control capacity,” in Information Theory (ISIT), 2015 IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 2015, pp. 2221–2225.
[26] G. N. Nair, S. Dey, and R. J. Evans, “Communication-limited stabilisability of jump Markov linear systems,” in 15th Int. Symp. Mathematical Theory
of Networks and Systems, Notre Dame, IN, 2002.
[27] J. Schmidt, “Topological entropy bounds for switched linear systems with Lie structure,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02701, 2016.
[28] D. Liberzon, “Finite data-rate feedback stabilization of switched and hybrid linear systems,” Automatica, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 409–420, 2014.
[29] G. Yang and D. Liberzon, “Finite data-rate stabilization of a switched linear system with unknown disturbance,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 49, no. 18,
pp. 1085–1090, 2016.
[30] A. Sahai and S. Mitter, “The necessity and sufficiency of anytime capacity for stabilization of a linear system over a noisy communication link. Part I:
Scalar systems,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 3369–3395, 2006.
[31] A. S. Matveev and A. V. Savkin, Estimation and control over communication networks. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009.

22

[32] P. Minero and M. Franceschetti, “Anytime capacity of a class of Markov channels,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 3, pp.
1356–1367, 2017.
[33] G. Nair, “A non-stochastic information theory for communication and state estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 58, pp. 1497–1510,
2013.
[34] M. Franceschetti and P. Minero, “Elements of information theory for networked control systems,” in Information and Control in Networks. Springer,
2014, pp. 3–37.
[35] B. G. N. Nair, F. Fagnani, S. Zampieri, and R. J. Evans, “Feedback control under data rate constraints: An overview,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 95,
no. 1, pp. 108–137, 2007.
[36] S. Yüksel and T. Başar, Stochastic Networked Control Systems: Stabilization and Optimization under Information Constraints. Springer Science &
Business Media, 2013.
[37] K. J. Astrom and B. M. Bernhardsson, “Comparison of riemann and lebesgue sampling for first order stochastic systems,” in IEEE Conference on
Decision and Control, vol. 2, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 2002, pp. 2011–2016.
[38] P. Tabuada, “Event-triggered real-time scheduling of stabilizing control tasks,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 1680–1685,
2007.
[39] W. P. M. H. Heemels, K. H. Johansson, and P. Tabuada, “An introduction to event-triggered and self-triggered control,” in IEEE Conference on Decision
and Control, Maui, HI, 2012, pp. 3270–3285.
[40] P. Tallapragada and J. Cortés, “Event-triggered stabilization of linear systems under bounded bit rates,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 61,
no. 6, pp. 1575–1589, 2016.
[41] E. Kofman and J. H. Braslavsky, “Level crossing sampling in feedback stabilization under data-rate constraints,” in IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control, San Diego, CA, 2006, pp. 4423–4428.
[42] Q. Ling, “Bit rate conditions to stabilize a continuous-time scalar linear system based on event triggering,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
2017, to appear.
[43] J. Pearson, J. P. Hespanha, and D. Liberzon, “Control with minimal cost-per-symbol encoding and quasi-optimality of event-based encoders,” IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 2286–2301, 2017.
[44] L. Li, X. Wang, and M. Lemmon, “Stabilizing bit-rates in quantized event triggered control systems,” in Proceedings of the 15th ACM international
conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. ACM, 2012, pp. 245–254.
[45] ——, “Stabilizing bit-rate of disturbed event triggered control systems,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 70–75, 2012.
[46] D. E. Quevedo, V. Gupta, W.-J. Ma, and S. Yüksel, “Stochastic stability of event-triggered anytime control,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 3373–3379, 2014.
[47] B. Demirel, V. Gupta, and M. Johansson, “On the trade-off between control performance and communication cost for event-triggered control over lossy
networks,” in Control Conference (ECC), 2013 European. IEEE, 2013, pp. 1168–1174.
[48] P. Tallapragada, M. Franceschetti, and J. Cortés, “Event-triggered second-moment stabilization of linear systems under packet drops,” IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, 2018, to appear.
[49] S. Linsenmayer, R. Blind, and F. Allgöwer, “Delay-dependent data rate bounds for containability of scalar systems,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 50, no. 1,
pp. 7875–7880, 2017.
[50] J. Hespanha, A. Ortega, and L. Vasudevan, “Towards the control of linear systems with minimum bit-rate,” in Proc. 15th Int. Symp. on Mathematical
Theory of Networks and Systems (MTNS), 2002.
[51] D. Liberzon and S. Mitra, “Entropy and minimal data rates for state estimation and model detection,” in Proceedings of the 19th International Conference
on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. ACM, 2016, pp. 247–256.
[52] K. H. Johansson, M. Egerstedt, J. Lygeros, and S. Sastry, “On the regularization of zeno hybrid automata,” Systems & control letters, vol. 38, no. 3, pp.
141–150, 1999.
[53] C. C. Pugh, Real mathematical analysis. Springer, 2002, vol. 2011.
[54] V. V. Prasolov, Problems and theorems in linear algebra. American Mathematical Soc., 1994, vol. 134.
[55] R. Gardner, “The Brunn-Minkowski inequality,” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 355–405, 2002.
[56] D. Klain, “On the equality conditions of the Brunn-Minkowski theorem,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 139, no. 10, pp.
3719–3726, 2011.

Mohammad Javad Khojasteh (S’14) was born in 1992. During 2010 to 2015 he did his undergraduate study at Sharif University
of Technology, Tehran, Iran. He received two B.Sc. degrees in electrical engineering and pure mathematics. He received the M.Sc.
degree in electrical and computer engineering at the University of California San Diego (UCSD), La Jolla, CA, USA, in 2017. Since
2015, he is pursuing the Ph.D. degree in electrical and computer engineering at UCSD. His research interests include control under
communication constraints, information theory, and cyber-physical systems.

Pavankumar Tallapragada received the B.E. degree in Instrumentation Engineering from SGGS Institute of Engineering &
Technology, Nanded, India in 2005, M.Sc. (Engg.) degree in Instrumentation from the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India in
2007 and the Ph.D. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Maryland, College Park in 2013. He held a postdoctoral
position at the University of California, San Diego during 2014 to 2017. He is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department
of Electrical Engineering at the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, India. His research interests include event-triggered control,
networked control systems, distributed control and networked transportation systems.

23

Jorge Cortés (M’02-SM’06-F’14) received the Licenciatura degree in mathematics from Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain,
in 1997, and the Ph.D. degree in engineering mathematics from Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, in 2001. He held
postdoctoral positions with the University of Twente, Twente, The Netherlands, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Urbana, IL, USA. He was an Assistant Professor with the Department of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, University of California,
Santa Cruz, CA, USA, from 2004 to 2007. He is currently a Professor in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
University of California, San Diego, CA, USA. He is the author of Geometric, Control and Numerical Aspects of Nonholonomic
Systems (Springer-Verlag, 2002) and co-author (together with F. Bullo and S. Martínez) of Distributed Control of Robotic Networks
(Princeton University Press, 2009). He has been an IEEE Control Systems Society Distinguished Lecturer (2010-2014) and is an
elected member for 2018-2020 of the Board of Governors of the IEEE Control Systems Society. His current research interests
include distributed control and optimization, network science, opportunistic state-triggered control and coordination, reasoning under
uncertainty, and distributed decision making in power networks, robotics, and transportation.

Massimo Franceschetti (M’98-SM’11) received the Laurea degree (with highest honors) in computer engineering from the University
of Naples, Naples, Italy, in 1997, the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, CA, in 1999, and 2003, respectively. He is Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of California
at San Diego (UCSD). Before joining UCSD, he was a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California at Berkeley for two years.
He has held visiting positions at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, and the University
of Trento. His research interests are in physical and information-based foundations of communication and control systems. He is
co-author of the book “Random Networks for Communication” and author of “Wave Theory of Information,” both published by
Cambridge University Press. Dr. Franceschetti served as Associate Editor for Communication Networks of the IEEE Transactions
on Information Theory (2009 – 2012), as associate editor of the IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems (2013-16) and
as Guest Associate Editor of the IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications (2008, 2009). He is currently serving as
Associate Editor of the IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering. He was awarded the C. H. Wilts Prize in 2003
for best doctoral thesis in electrical engineering at Caltech; the S.A. Schelkunoff Award in 2005 for best paper in the IEEE Transactions on Antennas and
Propagation, a National Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER award in 2006, an Office of Naval Research (ONR) Young Investigator Award in 2007, the IEEE
Communications Society Best Tutorial Paper Award in 2010, and the IEEE Control theory society Ruberti young researcher award in 2012.

