pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06918 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 🧮 math.OC

Multi-layer Predictor Feedback Design for Nonlinear Integro-Differential Equations with State-dependent Input Delays

Tong Li , Peipei Shang , Mamadou Diagne This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC
keywords predictor feedbackstate-dependent delaysintegro-differential equationsPDE-ODE systemsglobal asymptotic stabilitycharacteristic methodproduction and queuing systems
0
0 comments X

The pith

Multi-layer predictor feedback compensates state-dependent delays in nonlinear integro-differential equations and achieves global asymptotic stability.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a multi-layer predictor-feedback controller for nonlinear integro-differential equations featuring state-dependent input delays. The system is modeled as a nonlinear ODE actuated by an inhomogeneous advection PDE whose transport speed depends on a moving integral of the ODE state. Stability and well-posedness are established using the method of characteristics together with a fixed-point argument rather than standard Lyapunov functions. Under the assumption that the PDE nonlinearity is uniformly Lipschitz continuous, both designs guarantee global asymptotic stability of the PDE and ODE states in the supremum norm. The approach directly targets applications such as buffer-regulated production lines and queuing systems.

Core claim

A multi-layer predictor-feedback design achieves exact compensation of state-dependent input delays for general nonlinear integro-differential equations represented by a mixed PDE-ODE system in which the PDE propagation speed is governed by an integral of the ODE state. The characteristic method combined with a fixed-point argument proves global asymptotic stability in the supremum norm of the PDE and ODE states when the PDE nonlinearity is uniformly Lipschitz continuous.

What carries the argument

The multi-layer predictor feedback that extends conventional predictor designs to the integral-dependent transport speed of the advection PDE, analyzed via the method of characteristics and a fixed-point argument.

If this is right

  • The closed-loop system reaches global asymptotic stability in the supremum norm for both PDE and ODE states.
  • The design applies to production and queuing processes whose service rates depend on inventory levels.
  • A locally safe softened bang-bang feedback law preserves positivity of states and actuation.
  • Numerical simulations confirm asymptotic convergence for buffer-regulated lines under the proposed controller.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The fixed-point argument may extend to other delay systems whose speed depends on non-local functionals of the state.
  • Implementation in discrete-time or sampled-data settings could be tested for real-time queue control.
  • Relaxing the Lipschitz assumption to local Lipschitz plus growth bounds might enlarge the class of admissible nonlinearities.

Load-bearing premise

The nonlinearity appearing in the PDE governing equation must be uniformly Lipschitz continuous.

What would settle it

A concrete counter-example in which the PDE nonlinearity violates uniform Lipschitz continuity and the closed-loop trajectories fail to converge to zero in the supremum norm would falsify the global stability claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06918 by Mamadou Diagne, Peipei Shang, Tong Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Characteristic curve diagram; the color gradient indicates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic of the closed-loop system σ(x,t) = t + Z x 0 1 λ(p3(y,t)) dy, (47) where the weight function γ is still defined by (15) and the kernel is defined by K(x1, x2,t) := expZ x2 0 c(x1 −z) λ(p3(z,t)) dz (48) on the domain T := {(x1, x2,t),0 ≤ x2 ≤ x1 ≤ D, t ≥ 0}. Under the layer predictor feedback control law (43)–(48), we state the following stability theorem. Theorem 9 Under Assumptions 1–4, for al… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evolution of ODE state under the compensated control, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of PDE state under open-loop, compensated, uncompensated control and snapshot of the gain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of the gain K(x, y,t) states. Our approach introduces a layered predictor struc￾ture for nonlinear integro-differential equations with state￾dependent input delays, modeled as a nonlinear composite PDE–ODE system. By incorporating flux-based actuation and sensing, the boundary conditions become highly non￾linear, posing challenges beyond those addressed in prior work. The control design relies on… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We develop a novel multi-layer predictor-feedback to achieve exact compensation of state-dependent input delay of general nonlinear integro-differential equations. The system of interest is an unconventional mixed Partial Differential Equation (PDE)-Ordinary Differential Equation (ODE) system, in which a nonlinear ODE is actuated through an inhomogeneous advection PDE. Moreover, the propagation speed of the PDE depends on a moving window integral of the ODE state. The two above features are not addressed yet in standard PDE backstepping-based predictor-feedback designs. Unlike the conventional Lyapunov-based approaches used in the field, our stability and well-posedness analysis rely on the characteristic method and a fixed-point argument. Both of our designs achieve global asymptotic stability (GAS) in the supremum norm of the PDE and ODE states under the mild assumption that the nonlinearity in the PDE governing equation is uniformly Lipschitz continuous. The transport speed, governed by the integral of the ODE state, models systems such as production or queuing processes in which the state of a finite buffer-namely, the inventory level-determines the production or service rate. Numerical simulations demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed control design for buffer-regulated production lines and queuing systems, ensuring asymptotic stability under a locally safe softened bang-bang feedback law that preserves the positivity of both the system state and the actuation signal.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops a multi-layer predictor-feedback controller for nonlinear integro-differential equations with state-dependent input delays, modeled as a mixed PDE-ODE system in which the PDE advection speed is determined by a moving-window integral of the ODE state. Stability and well-posedness are established via the method of characteristics combined with a fixed-point argument rather than Lyapunov analysis, yielding global asymptotic stability (GAS) in the supremum norm of both PDE and ODE states under the assumption that the PDE nonlinearity is uniformly Lipschitz continuous. The designs are illustrated on buffer-regulated production and queuing systems, with a locally safe softened bang-bang feedback law claimed to preserve positivity, supported by numerical simulations.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work provides a genuine extension of predictor-feedback methods to integro-differential systems with state-dependent transport speeds, a setting not covered by standard backstepping or Lyapunov designs. The shift to characteristic-method plus fixed-point analysis is a methodological strength that avoids the usual Lyapunov-function construction difficulties for such systems, and the application to production/queuing models with inventory-dependent rates offers concrete practical relevance.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (Well-posedness via characteristics): the fixed-point mapping in the sup-norm is asserted to be a contraction under uniform Lipschitz continuity alone, yet the argument requires the advection speed (governed by the integral of the ODE state) to remain strictly positive and bounded away from zero for all time and all admissible initial data; no estimate or invariance argument is supplied showing that the proposed feedback enforces this globally, so the mapping may cease to be well-defined when the speed approaches zero or changes sign.
  2. [Theorem 2] Theorem 2 (GAS in sup-norm): the global asymptotic stability conclusion rests on non-crossing characteristics and continuous dependence on initial data, both of which fail if the transport speed is not uniformly bounded away from zero; the sole explicit hypothesis (uniform Lipschitz continuity of the nonlinearity) does not preclude large initial data from driving the speed arbitrarily close to zero, rendering the GAS claim conditional on an unstated additional assumption.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Introduction] The abstract and introduction refer to “both of our designs” without an explicit enumeration or comparison table; a short subsection contrasting the single-layer versus multi-layer predictors would improve readability.
  2. [Problem formulation] Notation for the moving-window integral that defines the transport speed is introduced without a dedicated symbol table; adding one would help readers track the dependence on the ODE state.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments, which help strengthen the rigor of the well-posedness and stability arguments. We address the two major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (Well-posedness via characteristics): the fixed-point mapping in the sup-norm is asserted to be a contraction under uniform Lipschitz continuity alone, yet the argument requires the advection speed (governed by the integral of the ODE state) to remain strictly positive and bounded away from zero for all time and all admissible initial data; no estimate or invariance argument is supplied showing that the proposed feedback enforces this globally, so the mapping may cease to be well-defined when the speed approaches zero or changes sign.

    Authors: We agree that the fixed-point argument in the sup-norm for well-posedness requires the advection speed to remain strictly positive and bounded away from zero. The manuscript highlights that the applications (buffer-regulated production and queuing) use a locally safe softened bang-bang law that preserves positivity of the state and actuation, but an explicit global invariance proof for the speed under arbitrary initial data is indeed missing. In the revision we will augment Section 4 with a dedicated invariance lemma showing that the multi-layer predictor feedback keeps the moving-window integral (hence the speed) bounded below by a positive constant, thereby validating the contraction globally. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Theorem 2] Theorem 2 (GAS in sup-norm): the global asymptotic stability conclusion rests on non-crossing characteristics and continuous dependence on initial data, both of which fail if the transport speed is not uniformly bounded away from zero; the sole explicit hypothesis (uniform Lipschitz continuity of the nonlinearity) does not preclude large initial data from driving the speed arbitrarily close to zero, rendering the GAS claim conditional on an unstated additional assumption.

    Authors: The referee is correct that non-crossing of characteristics and continuous dependence on initial data both require the transport speed to be uniformly bounded away from zero, and that uniform Lipschitz continuity of the nonlinearity alone does not guarantee this for large initial data. We will revise the statement and proof of Theorem 2 to first prove (via the same invariance argument added to Section 4) that the closed-loop trajectories remain in the region where the speed is bounded below by a positive constant, after which the characteristic-method analysis yields GAS in the sup-norm. This removes the conditional character of the claim while retaining the existing hypotheses. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper establishes global asymptotic stability via the characteristic method plus fixed-point argument applied directly to the mixed PDE-ODE system under the explicit uniform Lipschitz assumption on the nonlinearity. No step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-referential definition, or load-bearing self-citation; the well-posedness and stability claims follow from standard transport-equation analysis without renaming inputs as outputs or smuggling ansatzes through prior work by the same authors.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the system being representable as the described mixed PDE-ODE with integral-dependent speed and on the uniform Lipschitz continuity of the PDE nonlinearity; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The nonlinearity in the PDE governing equation is uniformly Lipschitz continuous
    Explicitly stated as the mild assumption needed for the global asymptotic stability result via characteristic method and fixed-point argument.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5539 in / 1266 out tokens · 41007 ms · 2026-05-10T17:43:57.581949+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    I. Abel, M. Jankovic, and M. Krsti ´c. Constrained stabilization of multi-input linear systems with distinct input delays. IFAC- PapersOnLine, 52(2):82–87, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    I. Abel, M. Krsti ´c, and M. Jankovi´c. Safety-critical control of systems with time-varying input delay. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 54(18):169–174, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Artstein

    Z. Artstein. Linear systems with delayed controls: A reduction. IEEE Transactions on Automatic control , 27(4):869–879, 1982

    work page 1982

  4. [4]

    Bekiaris-Liberis and M

    N. Bekiaris-Liberis and M. Krstic. Lyapunov stability of linear predictor feedback for distributed input delays. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 56(3):655–660, 2010

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Bekiaris-Liberis and M

    N. Bekiaris-Liberis and M. Krstic. Compensation of time-varying input delay for nonlinear systems. In 2011 19th Mediterranean Conference on Control & Automation (MED) , pages 1040–1045. IEEE, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Bekiaris-Liberis and M

    N. Bekiaris-Liberis and M. Krstic. Compensation of state-dependent input delay for nonlinear systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 58(2):275–289, 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Bekiaris-Liberis and M

    N. Bekiaris-Liberis and M. Krstic. Nonlinear control under nonconstant delays , volume 25 of Advances in Design and Control. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, 2013

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Bekiaris-Liberis and M

    N. Bekiaris-Liberis and M. Krstic. Compensation of actuator dynamics governed by quasilinear hyperbolic PDEs. Automatica J. IFAC, 92:29–40, 2018

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    Borsche, R

    R. Borsche, R. M. Colombo, and M. Garavello. On the coupling of systems of hyperbolic conservation laws with ordinary differential equations. Nonlinearity, 23(11):2749–2770, 2010. 18

    work page 2010

  10. [10]

    Cacace, F

    F. Cacace, F. Conte, A. Germani, and P. Pepe. Stabilization of strict-feedback nonlinear systems with input delay using closed-loop predictors. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control , 26(16):3524–3540, 2016

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    Cacace, A

    F. Cacace, A. Germani, C. Manes, and M. Papi. Predictor-based output-feedback control of linear stochastic systems with large i/o delays. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 66(1):307–313, 2020

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Coron, M

    J.-M. Coron, M. Kawski, and Z. Wang. Analysis of a conservation law modeling a highly re-entrant manufacturing system. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B , 14(4):1337–1359, 2010

    work page 2010

  13. [13]

    Deutscher, N

    J. Deutscher, N. Gehring, and R. Kern. Output feedback control of general linear heterodirectional hyperbolic ODE–PDE–ODE systems. Automatica, 95:472–480, 2018

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Diagne, N

    M. Diagne, N. Bekiaris-Liberis, and M. Krstic. Compensation of input delay that depends on delayed input. Automatica, 85:362–373, 2017

    work page 2017

  15. [15]

    Diagne, N

    M. Diagne, N. Bekiaris-Liberis, and M. Krstic. Compensation of input delay that depends on delayed input. Automatica J. IFAC , 85:362–373, 2017

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    Diagne, N

    M. Diagne, N. Bekiaris-Liberis, and M. Krstic. Time- and state- dependent input delay-compensated bang-bang control of a screw extruder for 3D printing. Internat. J. Robust Nonlinear Control , 27(17):3727–3757, 2017

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    Diagne, N

    M. Diagne, N. Bekiaris-Liberis, A. Otto, and M. Krstic. Control of transport PDE/nonlinear ODE cascades with state-dependent propagation speed. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control , 62(12):6278– 6293, 2017

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    Diagne and M

    M. Diagne and M. Krstic. State-dependent input delay-compensated bang-bang control: Application to 3d printing based on screw- extruder. In 2015 American Control Conference (ACC), pages 5653–

    work page 2015

  19. [19]

    Espitia and W

    N. Espitia and W. Perruquetti. Predictor-feedback prescribed-time stabilization of lti systems with input delay. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 67(6):2784–2799, 2021

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Fridman and U

    E. Fridman and U. Shaked. Delay-dependent stability and h∞ control: constant and time-varying delays. International journal of control , 76(1):48–60, 2003

    work page 2003

  21. [21]

    Fridman, U

    E. Fridman, U. Shaked, and L. Xie. Robust h∞ filtering of linear systems with time-varying delay. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 48(1):159–165, 2003

    work page 2003

  22. [22]

    Gabriel and J

    J. Gabriel and J. Deutscher. Robust cooperative output regulation for networks of hyperbolic pide–ode systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 69(2):888–903, 2023

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Herty, A

    M. Herty, A. Klar, and B. Piccoli. Existence of solutions for supply chain models based on partial differential equations. SIAM J. Math. Anal., 39(1):160–173, 2007

    work page 2007

  24. [24]

    Irscheid, J

    A. Irscheid, J. Deutscher, N. Gehring, and J. Rudolph. Output regulation for general heterodirectional linear hyperbolic pdes coupled with nonlinear odes. Automatica, 148:110748, 2023

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Irscheid, J

    A. Irscheid, J. Deutscher, N. Gehring, and J. Rudolph. Output regulation for general heterodirectional linear hyperbolic PDEs coupled with nonlinear ODEs. Automatica J. IFAC , 148:Paper No. 110748, 14, 2023

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Irscheid, N

    A. Irscheid, N. Espitia, W. Perruquetti, and J. Rudolph. Prescribed- time control for a class of semilinear hyperbolic PDE-ODE systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 55(26):47–52, 2022

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    Karafyllis and M

    I. Karafyllis and M. Krstic. Predictor feedback for delay systems: Implementations and approximations . Springer, 2017

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    Kolmanovskii and J.-P

    V . Kolmanovskii and J.-P. Richard. Stability of some linear systems with delays. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 44(5):984– 989, 1999

    work page 1999

  29. [29]

    V . B. Kolmanovskii. On the liapunov-krasovskii functionals for stability analysis of linear delay systems. International Journal of Control, 72(4):374–384, 1999

    work page 1999

  30. [30]

    Kong and D

    S. Kong and D. Bresch-Pietri. Prediction control for nonlinear systems with stochastic input delay. In Advances in Distributed Parameter Systems, pages 27–44. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    M. Krstic. On compensating long actuator delays in nonlinear control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 53(7):1684–1688, 2008

    work page 2008

  32. [32]

    M. Krstic. Delay compensation for nonlinear, adaptive, and PDE systems. Springer, London, 2009

    work page 2009

  33. [33]

    M. Krstic. Input delay compensation for forward complete and strict- feedforward nonlinear systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 55(2):287–303, 2009

    work page 2009

  34. [34]

    M. Krstic. Compensation of infinite-dimensional actuator and sensor dynamics. IEEE Control Systems Magazine , 30(1):22–41, 2010

    work page 2010

  35. [35]

    M. Krstic. Input delay compensation for forward complete and strict-feedforward nonlinear systems. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 55(2):287–303, 2010

    work page 2010

  36. [36]

    M. Krstic. Lyapunov stability of linear predictor feedback for time-varying input delay. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 55(2):554–559, 2010

    work page 2010

  37. [37]

    Li and P

    T. Li and P. Shang. Control of the transport pde-ode cascade with integral-type propagation speed. Mathematics of Control, Signals, and Systems, 37(1):1–20, 2025

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    T. Li, P. Shang, and M. Diagne. Predictor feedback design for state- dependent delay integro–differential equations. In Proceedings of the 5th IFAC/IEEE-CSS Workshop on Control of Systems Governed by Partial Differential Equations (CPDE 2025) , Beijing, China, June

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    Li and W

    T. Li and W. Yu. Boundary value problems for quasilinear hyperbolic systems. Duke University mathematics series (vol. V). Durham: Duke University Mathematics Department, 1985

    work page 1985

  40. [40]

    Malisoff and M

    M. Malisoff and M. Krstic. Delayed multivariable extremum seeking with sequential predictors. In 2020 American Control Conference (ACC), pages 2649–2653. IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    Manitius and A

    A. Manitius and A. Olbrot. Finite spectrum assignment problem for systems with delays. IEEE transactions on Automatic Control , 24(4):541–552, 1979

    work page 1979

  42. [42]

    Mazenc and M

    F. Mazenc and M. Malisoff. Stabilization of nonlinear time-varying systems through a new prediction based approach. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 62(6):2908–2915, 2016

    work page 2016

  43. [43]

    Mazenc and M

    F. Mazenc and M. Malisoff. Stabilization and robustness analysis for time-varying systems with time-varying delays using a sequential subpredictors approach. Automatica, 82:118–127, 2017

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    T. R. Oliveira, M. Krsti ´c, and D. Tsubakino. Extremum seeking for static maps with delays. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 62(4):1911–1926, 2016

    work page 1911

  45. [45]

    Polyakov, D

    A. Polyakov, D. Efimov, W. Perruquetti, and J.-P. Richard. Output stabilization of time-varying input delay systems using interval observation technique. Automatica, 49(11):3402–3410, 2013

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    Shang and Z

    P. Shang and Z. Wang. Analysis and control of a scalar conservation law modeling a highly re-entrant manufacturing system. J. Differential Equations , 250(2):949–982, 2011

    work page 2011

  47. [47]

    O. J. Smith. Closer control of loops with dead time. Chemical engineering progress, 53:217–219, 1957

    work page 1957

  48. [48]

    O. J. Smith. A controller to overcome dead time. iSA journal , 6(2):28–33, 1959

    work page 1959

  49. [49]

    C. A. Soman, D. P. Van Donk, and G. Gaalman. Combined make-to- order and make-to-stock in a food production system. International journal of production economics , 90(2):223–235, 2004. 19

    work page 2004

  50. [50]

    E. D. Sontag and Y . Wang. On characterizations of the input-to-state stability property. Systems Control Lett. , 24(5):351–359, 1995

    work page 1995

  51. [51]

    Strecker and O

    T. Strecker and O. M. Aamo. Output feedback boundary control of 2 × 2 semilinear hyperbolic systems. Automatica J. IFAC , 83:290– 302, 2017

    work page 2017

  52. [52]

    Strecker, O

    T. Strecker, O. M. Aamo, and M. Cantoni. Predictive feedback boundary control of semilinear and quasilinear 2 ×2 hyperbolic PDE- ODE systems. Automatica J. IFAC, 140:Paper No. 110272, 9, 2022

    work page 2022

  53. [53]

    O. M. A. Timm Strecker and M. Cantoni. Direct predictive boundary control of a first-order quasilinear hyperbolic pde. In 2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , pages 4984–4989, 2019

    work page 2019

  54. [54]

    Weston and M

    J. Weston and M. Malisoff. Sequential predictors under time-varying feedback and measurement delays and sampling. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 64(7):2991–2996, 2018

    work page 2018

  55. [55]

    C. T. Yilmaz, M. Diagne, and M. Krstic. Unbiased extremum seeking for pdes. In 2024 IEEE 63rd Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 1199–1204, 2024

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    C. T. Yilmaz and M. Krstic. Prescribed-time extremum seeking for delays and pdes using chirpy probing. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2024

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    H. Yu, M. Diagne, L. Zhang, and M. Krstic. Bilateral boundary control of moving shockwave in lwr model of congested traffic. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.04303 , 2019

    work page arXiv 1904

  58. [58]

    B. Zhou, Q. Liu, and F. Mazenc. Stabilization of linear systems with both input and state delays by observer–predictors. Automatica, 83:368–377, 2017. 20

    work page 2017