scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Event-Triggered Real-Time Scheduling of Stabilizing Control Tasks

17 Sep 2007-IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control (IEEE)-Vol. 52, Iss: 9, pp 1680-1685
TL;DR: This note investigates a simple event-triggered scheduler based on the paradigm that a real-time scheduler could be regarded as a feedback controller that decides which task is executed at any given instant and shows how it leads to guaranteed performance thus relaxing the more traditional periodic execution requirements.
Abstract: In this note, we revisit the problem of scheduling stabilizing control tasks on embedded processors. We start from the paradigm that a real-time scheduler could be regarded as a feedback controller that decides which task is executed at any given instant. This controller has for objective guaranteeing that (control unrelated) software tasks meet their deadlines and that stabilizing control tasks asymptotically stabilize the plant. We investigate a simple event-triggered scheduler based on this feedback paradigm and show how it leads to guaranteed performance thus relaxing the more traditional periodic execution requirements.

Summary (2 min read)

1. Introduction

  • Small embedded microprocessors are quickly becoming an essential part of the most diverse applications.
  • A particularly interesting example are physically distributed sensor/actuator networks responsible for collecting and processing information, and to react to this information through actuation.
  • Common to all these approaches is the underlying principle that better control performance is achieved by providing more CPU time to control tasks.
  • Close at the technical level, although addressing very different problems, is the recent work on stabilization under communication constraints [NE00, BL00, EM01, BPZ02, Lib03, NT04].

2. Notation and problem statement

  • The authors shall not need the definition1 of ISS in this note but rather the following characterization.
  • Definition 2.1. 1See, for example, [Son04] for an introduction to ISS and related notions.
  • When ∆ > 0, the control task needs to be executed before the inequality γ(|e|) ≥ σα(|x|) is satisfied in order to account for the delay ∆ between measuring the state and updating the actuators.
  • Answering the above questions is the objective of the following sections.

3. Existence of a lower bound for inter-execution times

  • The authors start immediately with one of the main contributions of this note.
  • Set R is forward invariant for the closed loop system since the execution rule (2.9) guarantees V̇ ≤ 0.
  • Theorem 3.1 shows that the simple execution rule (2.9) results in a sequence of inter-execution times for the control task that is guaranteed to be lower bounded provided that ∆ is sufficiently small.
  • The techniques used in the proof rely of Lipschitz continuity and are necessarily conservative for general nonlinear systems.
  • For linear systems they provide reasonable estimates and one can even provide computable bounds for ∆ as discussed in the next section.the authors.

4. The linear case

  • The authors also assume the existence of a linear feedback: u = Kx rendering the closed loop system globally asymptotically stable and where K is a matrix of appropriate dimensions.
  • Note that in the linear case any such K renders the closed loop system ISS with respect to measurement errors.
  • They are sufficiently accurate to be useful in practical situations as described in the next section.

5. An academic example

  • In Figure 1 the authors can see how the error norm never reaches σ|x| even though it goes beyond σ′|x| which is used as execution rule.
  • This gap decreases as the state approaches the origin.
  • The authors can see that the estimated values, although conservative, do not overestimate the values obtained through simulation by more than a factor of 3.

6. Co-schedulability of stabilizing control tasks

  • The authors shall assume a preemptive scheduler in which the control task has the highest priority and thus cannot be preempted by any other task and is executed without delays when γ(|e|) ≥ σα(|x|).
  • Note that timing overheads associated with context switching can be captured in the proposed framework by suitably enlarging ∆.
  • When a set of control tasks T can be scheduled despite the overhead associated with the control DR task the authors say that T is co-schedulable with the control task.
  • Co-schedulability is now ensured by the following sufficient condition where dre denotes the smallest integer greater than r ∈ R. Theorem 6.1.
  • Other possibilities are discussed in the next section.

7. Discussion

  • 1. Real-time scheduling policies for non-preemptible tasks.
  • The simple preemptive scheduling strategy presented in Section 6 relied on the possibility to preempt all but the control task.
  • The results presented in this note are also relevant in this more general context since the lower bound on the inter-execution times can be used to construct a timed-automaton model for the control task.
  • 2. ISS with respect to actuation errors and networked control systems.
  • Similar ideas have been more or less explicitly explored in [YTS02, MA04, NT04].

Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

DRAFT
EVENT-TRIGGERED REAL-TIME SCHEDULING
OF STABILIZING CONTROL TASKS
PAULO TABUADA
Abstract. In this note we revisit the problem of scheduling stabilizing control tasks on embed ded processors.
We start from the paradigm that a real-time scheduler should be regarded as a feedback controller that decides
which task is executed at any given instant. This controller has for objective guaranteeing that software tasks
meet its deadlines and that stabilizing control tasks asymptotically stabilize the plant. According to this
feedback paradigm, the decision of executing control tasks should not be based on release times and deadlines
but rather on the state of the plant. We investigate the fea sibili ty of a simple event-triggered scheduler based
on the state norm and provide some schedulability results.
1. Introduction
Small embedded microprocessors are quickly becoming an essential part of the most diverse applications. A
particularly interesting example are physically distributed sensor/actuator networks responsible for collecting
and processing information, and to react to this information through actuation. The embedded microprocessors
forming the computational core of these networks are required to execute a variety of tasks comprising the relay
of information packets in multi-hop communication schemes, monitoring physical quantities, and computation
of feedback control laws. Since we are dealing with resource limited microprocessors it becomes important
to asse ss to what extent we can increase the functionality of these embedded devices through novel real-time
scheduling algorithms based on event-triggered rather than time-triggered execution of control tasks.
We investigate in this note a very simple event-triggered scheduling algorithm that preempts running tasks to
execute the control task whenever a certain error becomes large when compared with the state norm. This
idea is an adaptation to the scheduling context of several techniques used to study problems of control under
communication constraints [NE00, BL00, EM01]. We take explicitly into account the execution time of the
control task and show that the proposed scheduling policy guarantees global asymptotical stability. We also
provide sufficient conditions for co-schedulability of the control task with other tasks competing for processor
time. The proposed approach is illustrated with simulation results.
Real-time scheduling of control tasks has received renewed interest from the academic community in the past
years [SLCB00, CE00, ACR
+
00, CEBA02, BA02, CLS03, LHLQ06]. Common to all these approaches is
the underlying principle that better control performance is achieved by providing more CPU time to control
tasks. This can be accomplished in two different ways: letting control tasks run for longer amounts of
time using anytime implementations or model predictive controllers; or by scheduling control tasks more
frequently. All these approaches assume the existence of a performance criterion for the control task such as
a cost function used to design an optimal linear quadratic regulator. Scheduling strategies are then obtained
through optimization algorithms seeking to determine schedules maximizing the performance criterion. The
work presented in this note does not resort to optimization and does not require a performance criterion.
Instead, the decision to execute the control task is determined by a feedback mechanism based on the state of
the plant.
Closer to the results presented in this note is the work described in [PPV
+
02, PPBSV05], where resource
allocation and feedback control are designed in an integrated fashion. Several concurrent controllers described
This research was partially supported by the National Science Foundation EHS award 0509313.
1

DRAFT
2 PAULO TABUADA
by scalar gains and activation rates of the corresponding processes are designed so as to ensure stability of the
controlled processes as well as real-time schedulability. Close at the technical level, although addressing very
different problems, is the recent work on stabilization under communication constraints [NE00, BL00, EM01,
BPZ02, Lib03, NT04]. All these approaches are concerned with the stabilization of continuous systems under
reduced communication and the employed techniques share with some of the techniques described in this note
a common ancestor: the perturbation approach to stability analysis of control systems, described for example
in [Kha96]. Similar techniques have also been used in [LNT02] to show how sample-and-hold implementations
of stabilizing controllers guarantee stability under sufficiently fast time-triggered executions. Finally, we would
like to refer the reader to [AB02] where some advantages of event-driven control over time-driven control are
presented in a stochastic setting. A preliminary version of the results presented in this note was reported
in [TW06].
2. Notation and problem statement
2.1. Notation. We shall use the notation |x| to denote the Euclidean norm of an element x R
n
. Given
matrices A and B, [A|B] denotes the matrix formed by the columns of matrix A followed by the columns of
matrix B. A function f : R
n
R
m
is said to be Lipschitz continuous on compacts if for every compact set
S R
n
there exists a constant L > 0 such that:
|f(x) f(y)| L|x y|
for every x, y S. A continuous function α : [0, a[ R
+
0
, a > 0, is said to be of class K if it is strictly
increasing and α(0) = 0. It is said to be of class K
if a = and α(r) as r .
2.2. Problem statement. We consider a control system:
(2.1) ˙x = f(x, u), x R
n
, u R
m
for which a feedback controller:
(2.2) u = k(x)
has been designed rendering the closed loop system:
(2.3) ˙x = f(x, k(x + e))
Input-to-State Stable (ISS) with respect to measurement errors e R
n
. We shall not need the definition
1
of
ISS in this note but rather the following characterization.
Definition 2.1. A smooth function V : R
n
R
+
0
is said to be an ISS Lyapunov function for the closed loop
system (2.3) if there exist class K functions α, α, α and γ satisfying:
α(|x|) V (x) α(|x|)(2.4)
V
x
f(x, k(x + e)) α(|x|) + γ(|e|)(2.5)
Closed loop system (2.3) is said to be ISS with respect to measurement errors e R
n
if there exists an ISS
Lyapunov function for (2.3).
The implementation of the feedback law (2.2) on an embedded processor is typically done by sampling the
state at time instants:
t
0
, t
1
, t
2
, t
3
, t
4
. . .
computing u(t
i
) = k(x(t
i
)) and updating the actuator values at time instants:
t
0
+ , t
1
+ , t
2
+ , t
3
+ , t
4
+ , . . .
1
See, for example, [Son04] for an introduction to ISS and related notions.

DRAFT
EVENT-TRIGGERED REAL-TIME SCHEDULING OF STA BILIZING CONTROL TASKS 3
where 0 represents the time required to read the state from the sensors, compute the control law and
update the actuators. This means that to a sequence of measurements:
x(t
0
), x(t
1
), x(t
2
), x(t
3
), x(t
4
), . . .
there corresponds a sequence of actuation updates:
u(t
0
+ ∆), u(t
1
+ ∆), u(t
2
+ ∆), u(t
3
+ ∆), u(t
4
+ ∆), . . .
Between actuator updates the input value u is held constant according to:
(2.6) t [t
i
+ , t
i+1
+ ∆[ = u(t) = u(t
i
+ ∆)
Furthermore, the sequence of times t
0
, t
1
, t
2
, t
3
, t
4
, . . . is typically periodic meaning that t
i+1
t
i
= T where
T > 0 is the period. We can thus regard the execution of the control task implementing the control law (2.2)
as being time-triggered. In this note we consider instead event-triggered executions where the sequence
t
0
, t
1
, t
2
, t
3
, t
4
. . . of execution times is no longer periodic neither specified in advance but rather implicitly
defined by an execution rule based on the state of the plant. To introduce this execution rule we define the
measurement error e to be:
(2.7) t [t
i
+ , t
i+1
+ ∆[ = e(t) = x(t
i
) x(t)
We can thus describe the evolution of (2.1) under the implementation (2.6) of control law (2.2) by:
˙x = f(x, k(x + e))
with e R
n
as defined in (2.7).
Let us first consider the hypothetical case = 0 with the single purpose of explaining the execution rule.
From (2.5) we see that if we restrict the error to satisfy:
(2.8) γ(|e|) σα(|x|), σ > 0
the dynamics of V is bounded by:
V
x
f(x, k(x + e)) (σ 1)α(|x|)
thus guaranteeing that V decreases provided that σ < 1. Inequality (2.8) can be enforced by executing the
control task when:
(2.9) γ(|e|) σα(|x|)
since = 0 implies that if the control task is executed at time t
i
we will have e(t
i
) = x(t
i
) x(t
i
) = 0 and
γ(|e(t
i
)|) = 0 thus enforcing (2.8). When > 0, the control task needs to be executed before the inequality
γ(|e|) σα(|x|) is satisfied in order to account for the delay between measuring the state and updating the
actuators.
Although the simple execution rule (2.9) guarantees global asymptotical stability by construction, there are
three important questions that need to be answered in order to assess the feasibility of this scheduling policy:
(1) Since the execution times are only implicitly defined, can we guarantee that they will not become
arbitrarily close resulting in an accumulation
2
point?
(2) In the absence of accumulation points, can we compute an estimate of the time elapsed between
consecutive executions of the control task?
(3) How can we use the execution rule (2.9) when there are more tasks competing for processor time and
still guarantee that no deadlines are missed?
Answering the above questions is the objective of the following sections.
2
In the context of hybrid systems this corresponds to another example of the infamous Zeno behavior [ATS06 ].

DRAFT
4 PAULO TABUADA
3. Existence of a lower bound for inter-execution times
We start immediately with one of the main contributions of this note.
Theorem 3.1. Let ˙x = f(x, u) be a control system and let u = k(x) be a control law rendering the closed loop
system ISS with respect to measurement errors. If the following assumptions are satisfied:
(1) f : R
n
× R
m
R
n
is Lipschitz continuous on compacts;
(2) k : R
n
R
m
is Lipschitz continuous on compacts;
(3) There exists an ISS Lyapunov function V for the closed loop system satisfying (2.5) w ith α
1
and γ
Lipschitz continuous on compacts,
then, for any compact set S R
n
containing the origin, there exists an ε > 0 such that for all [0, ε] there
exists a time τ R
+
such that for any initial condition in S the inter-execution times {t
i+1
t
i
}
iN
implicitly
defined by the execution rule (2.9) are lower bounded by τ, that is, t
i+1
t
i
τ for any i N.
Proof. Let R be the compact se t defined by all the points x R
n
satisfying V (x) µ where µ > 0 is large
enough so that S R. Such µ always exists since by (2.4) V is proper or radially unbounded. Set R is forward
invariant for the closed loop system since the execution rule (2.9) guarantees
˙
V 0. We now define another
compact set E by all the points e R
n
satisfying |e| γ
1
(σα(|x|)) for all x R. Since α
1
and γ are
Lipschitz continuous on compacts, then so is α
1
(γ(|r|)). Let P be the Lipschitz constant for the compact
set E so that |α
1
(γ(|r|)) α
1
(γ(|s|))| P |r s|. If r = e and s = 0 we obtain α
1
(γ(|e|)) P |e|.
Note that by enforcing P |e| |x| we guarantee α
1
(γ(|e|)) |x| (which is (2.8)) so that if suffices to
show that the inter-execution times are bounded for the execution rule P |e| |x|. As a first step towards
showing boundedness we note that it follows from Lipschitz continuity on compacts of f(x, u) and k(x) that
f(x, k(x + e)) is also Lipschitz continuous on compacts, that is:
|f(r, k(r + s)) f(r
0
, k(r
0
+ s
0
))| L|(r, s) (r
0
, s
0
)|
by taking r = x, s = e and r
0
= 0 = e
0
we obtain:
(3.1) |f(x, k(x + e))| L|(x, e)| L|x| + L|e|
when (x, e) R × E. Note that R × E is forward invariant for the state as well as the error dynamics. We
can now bound the inter-event times by looking at the dynamics of |e|/|x|.
d
dt
|e|
|x|
=
d
dt
(e
T
e)
1/2
(x
T
x)
1/2
=
(e
T
e)
1/2
e
T
˙e(x
T
x)
1/2
(x
T
x)
1/2
x
T
˙x(e
T
e)
1/2
x
T
x
=
e
T
˙x
|e||x|
x
T
˙x
|x||x|
|e|
|x|
|e|| ˙x|
|e||x|
+
|x|| ˙x|
|x||x|
|e|
|x|
=
1 +
|e|
|x|
| ˙x|
|x|
1 +
|e|
|x|
L|x| + L|e|
|x|
by (3.1)
= L
1 +
|e|
|x|

1 +
|e|
|x|
(3.2)
If we denote |e|/|x| by y we have the estimate ˙y L(1 + y)
2
and we conclude that y(t) φ(t, φ
0
) where
φ(t, φ
0
) is the solution of
˙
φ = L(1 + φ)
2
satisfying φ(t, φ
0
) = φ
0
.

DRAFT
EVENT-TRIGGERED REAL-TIME SCHEDULING OF STA BILIZING CONTROL TASKS 5
Assume now that = 0. Then, the inter-execution times are bounded by the time it takes for φ to evolve
from 0 to 1/P , that is, the inter-execution times are bounded by the solution τ R
+
of φ(τ, 0) = 1/P . Since
φ(τ, 0) = τL/(τL 1) we obtain τ = 1/(L + LP ).
For > 0 we need a more detailed analysis. First, pick σ
0
satisfying σ < σ
0
< 1 (take for example σ
0
= σ+(1
σ)/2) and le t P
0
be the Lipschitz constant for α
1
(γ(|e|)
0
). Let now ε
1
R
+
satisfy φ(ε
1
, 1/P ) = 1/P
0
. Such
ε
1
always exists since φ is continuous,
˙
φ > 0 and 1/P < 1/P
0
. Then, by executing the control task at time t
i
,
defined by P |e| = |x|, we guarantee that for t [t
i
, t
i
+ε
1
[ we have |e| |x|/P
0
and thus also γ(|e|) σ
0
α(|x|).
Since σ
0
< 1 asymptotic stability is still guaranteed. The inter-execution times are now bounded by + τ
where τ is the time it takes for φ to evolve from |e(t
i
+ ∆)|/|x(t
i
+ ∆)| = |x(t
i
) x(t
i
+ ∆)|/|x(t
i
+ ∆)|
to 1/P . We thus need to pick small enough so that |e(t
i
+ ∆)|/|x(t
i
+ ∆)| < 1/P since
˙
φ > 0. It now
follows from continuity
3
of |x(t
i
) x(t
i
+ ∆)|/|x(t
i
+ ∆)| with respect to the existence of ε
2
> 0 such that
for any 0 ε
2
we have |x(t
i
) x(t
i
+ ∆)|/|x(t
i
+ ∆)| < 1/P . The proof is now finished by taking
ε = min{ε
1
, ε
2
}.
Theorem 3.1 shows that the simple execution rule (2.9) results in a sequence of inter-execution times for the
control task that is guaranteed to be lower bounded provided that is sufficiently small. The techniques
used in the proof rely of Lipschitz continuity and are necessarily conservative for general nonlinear systems.
However, for linear systems they provide reasonable estimates and we can even provide computable bounds
for as discussed in the next section.
4. The linear case
In this se ction we discuss the linear case in some detail since the arguments in the proof of Theorem can be
refined in order to provide a computational estimate for τ. We thus assume the control system to be of the
form:
˙x = Ax + Bu, x R
n
, u R
m
with A and B matrices of appropriate dimensions. We also assume the existence of a linear feedback:
u = Kx
rendering the closed loop system globally asymptotically stable and where K is a matrix of appropriate
dimensions. Note that in the linear case any such K renders the closed loop system ISS with respect to
measurement errors. We thus have a Lyapunov function V : R
n
R
+
0
satisfying:
a
|x|
2
V (x) a|x|
2
(4.1)
V
x
(Ax + BKx + BKe) a|x|
2
+ g|e||x|(4.2)
with a, a, a, g R
+
.
Corollary 4.1. Let ˙x = Ax + Bu be a linear control system, let u = Kx be a linear control law rendering the
closed loop system globally asymptotically stable and assume that = 0. For any initial condition in R
n
the
inter-event times {t
i+1
t
i
}
iN
implicitly defined by the execution rule:
|e| σ|x|
are lower bounded by the time τ satisfying:
(4.3) φ(τ, 0) = σ
where φ(t, φ
0
) is the solution of:
(4.4)
˙
φ = |A + BK| +
|A + BK| + |BK|
φ + |BK|φ
2
3
Note that x(t
i
+ ∆) is never zero since the closed loop system converges asymptot ically to zero and thus never reaches zero
in finite time.

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Centralised and decentralised event-triggered control strategies based on neighbors’ state estimation are proposed under fixed topology, in which the controller is only updated at the time of triggering, while under switching topologies, the control input of each agent is updated both at event-triggering and topology switching time.
Abstract: In this paper, event-triggered leader-following consensus of general linear multiagent systems under both fixed topology and switching topologies is studied. First, centralised and decentralised event-triggered control strategies based on neighbors’ state estimation are proposed under fixed topology, in which the controller is only updated at the time of triggering. Obviously, compared with the continuous time control algorithms, the event-triggered control strategies can reduce the communication frequency among agents effectively. Meanwhile, event-triggering conditions are derived for systems to achieve consensus by using the Lyapunov stability theory and model transformation method. Then, the theoretical results obtained under the fixed topology are extended to the switching topologies, and the sufficient conditions for the system to achieve leader-following consensus under the switching topologies are given. However, different from fixed topology, the control input of each agent is updated both at event-triggering and topology switching time. Finally, Zeno behaviors can be excluded by proving that the minimum triggering interval of each agent is strictly positive, and the effectiveness of the event-triggered protocol is verified by simulation experiments.

23 citations


Cites background from "Event-Triggered Real-Time Schedulin..."

  • ...In order to reduce this unnecessary waste of resources, a new simple event-triggered control strategy based on feedback mechanism was proposed in [24]....

    [...]

Proceedings ArticleDOI
01 Dec 2012
TL;DR: Using techniques from dynamically quantized control, sufficient resilient bit-rates are derived for nonlinear scalar systems with affine controls and disturbances and suggest that resilient control is indeed achievable using event-triggered feedback.
Abstract: A resilient control system is one that maintains state awareness and an accepted level of operational normalcy in response to unexpected disturbances. There has recently been great interest in event-triggered control for networked systems. It is unclear, however, whether event-triggering is appropriate for resilient control because of the sporadic nature of the feedback. This paper examines the bit-rates needed to realize event-triggered systems that are resilient to transient faults. Using techniques from dynamically quantized control, we derive sufficient resilient bit-rates for nonlinear scalar systems with affine controls and disturbances. For linear systems, these sufficient rates are necessary for stabilizability. The results in this paper suggest that, at least for transient faults, resilient control is indeed achievable using event-triggered feedback.

23 citations


Cites background from "Event-Triggered Real-Time Schedulin..."

  • ...Recent experiments have shown that event triggered systems use fewer communication resources than time triggered systems having comparable performance [3], [4], [5], [6]....

    [...]

Proceedings ArticleDOI
31 Mar 2017
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors compared time-triggered and event triggered control strategies for stabilization of an unstable plant over a rate-limited communication channel subject to unknown, bounded delay.
Abstract: Time-triggered and event-triggered control strategies for stabilization of an unstable plant over a rate-limited communication channel subject to unknown, bounded delay are studied and compared. Event triggering carries implicit information, revealing the state of the plant. However, the delay in the communication channel causes information loss, as it makes the state information out of date. There is a critical delay value, when the loss of information due to the communication delay perfectly compensates the implicit information carried by the triggering events. This occurs when the maximum delay equals the inverse of the entropy rate of the plant. In this context, extensions of our previous results for event triggering strategies are presented for vector systems and are compared with the data-rate theorem for time-triggered control, that is extended here to a setting with unknown delay.

23 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors studied the problem of stabilizing a nonlinear system with time-varying delays in both sensing and actuation using event-triggered control.

23 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: With the help of stochastic analysis technique, sufficient conditions for the filtering error system to be stochastically stable with the required H∞ performance are formulated in terms of linear matrix inequalities.

23 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: By relaxing the definition of quadratic stability, it is shown how to construct logarithmic quantizers with only finite number of quantization levels and still achieve practical stability of the closed-loop system.
Abstract: We show that the coarsest, or least dense, quantizer that quadratically stabilizes a single input linear discrete time invariant system is logarithmic, and can be computed by solving a special linear quadratic regulator problem. We provide a closed form for the optimal logarithmic base exclusively in terms of the unstable eigenvalues of the system. We show how to design quantized state-feedback controllers, and quantized state estimators. This leads to the design of hybrid output feedback controllers. The theory is then extended to sampling and quantization of continuous time linear systems sampled at constant time intervals. We generalize the definition of density of quantization to the density of sampling and quantization in a natural way, and search for the coarsest sampling and quantization scheme that ensures stability. Finally, by relaxing the definition of quadratic stability, we show how to construct logarithmic quantizers with only finite number of quantization levels and still achieve practical stability of the closed-loop system.

1,703 citations


"Event-Triggered Real-Time Schedulin..." refers background or methods in this paper

  • ...This idea is an adaptation to the scheduling context of several techniques used to study problems of control under communication constraints [6], [11], [18]....

    [...]

  • ...Close at the technical level, although addressing very different problems, is the recent work on stabilization under communication constraints [6], [7], [11], [15], [18], [19]....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A new control design methodology is proposed, which relies on the possibility of changing the sensitivity of the quantizer while the system evolves, which yields global asymptotic stability.
Abstract: This paper addresses feedback stabilization problems for linear time-invariant control systems with saturating quantized measurements. We propose a new control design methodology, which relies on the possibility of changing the sensitivity of the quantizer while the system evolves. The equation that describes the evolution of the sensitivity with time (discrete rather than continuous in most cases) is interconnected with the given system (either continuous or discrete), resulting in a hybrid system. When applied to systems that are stabilizable by linear time-invariant feedback, this approach yields global asymptotic stability.

1,533 citations


"Event-Triggered Real-Time Schedulin..." refers background or methods in this paper

  • ...This idea is an adaptation to the scheduling context of several techniques used to study problems of control under communication constraints [6], [11], [18]....

    [...]

  • ...Close at the technical level, although addressing very different problems, is the recent work on stabilization under communication constraints [6], [7], [11], [15], [18], [19]....

    [...]

Book ChapterDOI
TL;DR: This expository presentation addresses the precise formulation of questions of robustness with respect to disturbances, formulated in the paradigm of input to state stability, with an intuitive and informal presentation of the main concepts.
Abstract: The analysis and design of nonlinear feedback systems has recently undergone an exceptionally rich period of progress and maturation, fueled, to a great extent, by (1) the discovery of certain basic conceptual notions, and (2) the identification of classes of systems for which systematic decomposition approaches can result in effective and easily computable control laws. These two aspects are complementary, since the latter approaches are, typically, based upon the inductive verification of the validity of the former system properties under compositions (in the terminology used in [62], the “activation” of theoretical concepts leads to “constructive” control). This expository presentation addresses the first of these aspects, and in particular the precise formulation of questions of robustness with respect to disturbances, formulated in the paradigm of input to state stability. We provide an intuitive and informal presentation of the main concepts. More precise statements, especially about older results, are given in the cited papers, as well as in several previous surveys such as [103] and [105] (of which the present paper represents an update), but we provide a little more detail about relatively recent work. Regarding applications and extensions of the basic framework, we give some pointers to the literature, but we do not focus on feedback design and specific engineering problems; for the latter we refer the reader to textbooks such as [43], [60], [58], [96], [66], [27], [44].

1,142 citations


"Event-Triggered Real-Time Schedulin..." refers background in this paper

  • ...1See, for example, [24] for an introduction to ISS and related notions....

    [...]

Proceedings ArticleDOI
10 Dec 2002
TL;DR: In this paper, it is shown that Lebesgue sampling gives better performance for some simple systems than traditional Riemann sampling, which is an analog of integration theory and is called event-based sampling.
Abstract: The normal approach to digital control is to sample periodically in time. Using an analog of integration theory we can call this Riemann sampling. Lebesgue sampling or event based sampling is an alternative to Riemann sampling. It means that signals are sampled only when measurements pass certain limits. In this paper it is shown that Lebesgue sampling gives better performance for some simple systems.

961 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper is concerned with global asymptotic stabilization of continuous-time systems subject to quantization and involves merging tools from Lyapunov stability, hybrid systems, and input-to-state stability.

799 citations


"Event-Triggered Real-Time Schedulin..." refers background in this paper

  • ...Close at the technical level, although addressing very different problems, is the recent work on stabilization under communication constraints [6], [7], [11], [15], [18], [19]....

    [...]

Frequently Asked Questions (1)
Q1. What have the authors contributed in "Event-triggered real-time scheduling of stabilizing control tasks" ?

The authors investigate the feasibility of a simple event-triggered scheduler based on the state norm and provide some schedulability results.