Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Dynamic Stabilisation of Boundary Control Systems

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes a separation principle for observer-based stabilization of abstract boundary control systems: stability of the feedback and observer-error semigroups transfers to the closed-loop semigroup, together with external well-

desk verdict Useful boundary-node stabilization framework with a solid abstract core; the 1D wave example has a missing Rouché estimate that a referee will need to see. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.28189 v2 pith:CNOMFNVN submitted 2026-05-27 math.OC math.APmath.FA

Mohamed Fkirine , Lassi Paunonen This is my paper
classification math.OCmath.APmath.FA MSC 93C2593D1535B3593C2047D0647A10
keywords boundarycontrolsystemsobserver-basedstabilisationpolynomialstabilityexponentialexternalwell-posednesswaveequationSCOLEmodelseparationprinciple
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper designs output-feedback controllers for PDEs whose inputs act through boundary conditions. It works in the abstract 'boundary node' formalism and proves a separation principle: once separate feedback and observer gains make the state-feedback semigroup and the observer-error semigroup stable (exponentially, strongly, or polynomially), the full closed-loop semigroup is stable in the same sense, and under transfer-function conditions the closed loop is externally well-posed. The authors apply this recipe to three models: a two-dimensional wave equation with in-domain control on a region that fails the Geometric Control Condition, giving polynomial decay t^{-1/2}; a one-dimensional wave equation with non-collocated boundary input and output, giving exponential decay for sufficiently small observer gains; and a non-uniform SCOLE beam-with-tip-mass model, giving polynomial decay t^{-1/2}. A sympathetic reader should take away a general framework for stabilising boundary-controlled hyperbolic systems even when exponential stabilisation is impossible.

What carries the argument

The central object is the boundary node (B,A,C,Q,Bi), a compact way to encode a linear PDE with boundary inputs: B maps the operator domain to the boundary space, A is the generator on the subspace where the boundary condition is zero, Q routes the control into boundary conditions, and Bi handles in-domain control. The argument's load-bearing identity is the similarity transform S(x, ˆx)=(x, ˆx−x), which puts the closed-loop generator in upper-triangular form with diagonal blocks AK and AL; Proposition 2.11 then transfers stability of the diagonal semigroups to the coupled system at the cost of a resolvent estimate. The controller is analysed as having an internal loop, so it need not be a w

What would settle it

For the 1D wave model with ℓb>0 fixed, compute the zeros of S(λ)=λ−C1(λ−A_L0−L_i0 C_d)^{-1}L_i0 C_d 1 as ℓi→0. Finding a zero with Re λ≥0, or a sequence with Re λ_n≥0 along which |S(λ_n)^{-1}|→∞, would falsify Proposition 4.3. Alternatively, simulate the closed-loop energy for small ℓi and test whether it decays exponentially; polynomial rather than exponential decay would contradict the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 3.1. Given a boundary node (B,A,C,Q,Bi) whose augmented node (B,A,[C;K],[Q,L],[Bi,Li]) is well-posed, if the two transfer functions satisfy (I−P_K)^{-1}∈H∞(C_β^+;L(U)) and (I−P_L)^{-1}∈H∞(C_β^+;L(Y)), then the closed-loop boundary node (Be,Ae,Ce,Qe,Bei) is well-posed, and the closed-loop semigroup Te has the stability type of the semigroups TK and TL: exponential, strong, or polynomial with the same exponent. The theorem therefore reduces observer-based stabilisation of a boundary control system to two separate design tasks: stabilising the system under state feedback and stabilising the observer error dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The exponential-stabilisation claim for the 1D wave equation rests on a spectral assertion for the observer-error semigroup that the proof does not display: for all sufficiently small observer gains ℓi, a certain Schur complement S(λ) has only zeros in the open left half-plane and a uniformly bounded inverse on the right half-plane; if this spectral fact fails, the exponential rate is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 2D wave example shows that when the control region fails the Geometric Control Condition, observer-based feedback still yields polynomial decay t^{-1/2} rather than no stabilisation.
  • The 1D non-collocated wave example shows exponential stabilisation is possible even though static output feedback fails, provided the observer gain is chosen small enough.
  • The SCOLE example shows the method covers hybrid beam-mass systems with the control entering through the finite-dimensional tip dynamics, again with polynomial decay t^{-1/2}.
  • Under the theorem's conditions the closed-loop system is externally well-posed, so it has well-defined input, output, and input-output maps for generalised solutions.
  • A controller designer may independently choose feedback and observer gains, relying on the closed loop to inherit whichever stability type is weaker.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same separation structure suggests an immediate extension: any hyperbolic PDE for which one can prove polynomial (or logarithmic) decay of TK and exponential decay of TL would inherit the weaker rate, so the framework should apply to damped wave equations on domains where the Geometric Control Condition fails but resolvent bounds on the imaginary axis are known.
  • The 1D wave result points to a design trade-off left implicit: exponential stability requires a sufficiently small observer gain ℓi, which presumably slows the transient decay; a quantitative relation between ℓi and the decay rate would be a natural next question.
  • Because Theorem 3.1 leaves the stability of TK and TL as assumptions, the paper's abstract contribution is a reduction rather than a universal stabiliser; its practical scope is set by existing tools for proving polynomial stability of damped PDEs.
  • The disk example with logarithmic decay indicates the resolvent-estimate approach extends beyond polynomial rates, suggesting that boundary-node observer controllers could be tuned to produce prescribed non-uniform decay rates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies observer-based dynamic stabilization of abstract boundary control systems on Hilbert spaces. After setting up boundary nodes and feedback/cascade well-posedness (Props. 2.9–2.11), it states Theorem 3.1: under well-posedness of the augmented node (B, A, [C;K], [Q,L], [Bi,Li]) and H∞ resolvent conditions on I−PK and I−PL, the closed-loop boundary node is well-posed and its semigroup inherits the stability type (exponential, strong, or polynomial) of the state-feedback semigroup TK and observer-error semigroup TL. Corollary 3.4 and Prop. 3.2 provide relaxed and collocated versions. Applications are a 2D wave equation with polynomial decay α=1/2, a 1D wave equation with non-collocated boundary input/output stabilized exponentially, and a SCOLE beam/tip-mass model with polynomial decay α=1/2.

Significance. The abstract framework is a useful unification: it covers boundary control, in-domain inputs, non-well-posed controllers via internal loops, and gives resolvent-based rates. The proof of Theorem 3.1 is carefully structured and follows standard well-posed linear systems and semigroup arguments; the transfer-function conditions are explicit and checkable. The examples are nontrivial and include cases where exponential stabilization is impossible (2D wave/SCOLE), with polynomial rates. No fitting-to-data or self-referential derivation is present. However, the advertised applications are not yet fully supported: the 1D wave proof contains an omitted Rouché/Schur-complement computation that is load-bearing for exponential stability of TL, and the SCOLE application delegates TK polynomial stability to an accepted same-author preprint without stating the result. If these gaps are filled, the paper would be a substantial contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2, Proposition 4.3] The exponential-stability claim for TL rests on the unproved assertion: 'explicit computations and Rouché's theorem can be used to show that for all sufficiently small ℓ_i>0 the Schur complement S(λ)=λ−C1(λ−AL0−Li0Cd)−1Li0Cd1 has only zeros with negative real parts, and that its inverse is uniformly bounded on C_0^+.' No computation is given, so the claim cannot be checked. This is load-bearing: it is the only step proving that the observer-error semigroup TL is exponentially stable, and exponential stability of TL is needed to apply Theorem 3.1(c). The statement is not a routine small-perturbation consequence: at ℓ_i=0 the block AL = [[0,C1],[0,AL0]] has an eigenvalue at 0, so one must show that the Schur zero moves into the left half-plane and that no spectrum approaches iR as ℓ_i→0. Please include the full Rouché/Schur-complement calculation or an alternative resolvent estimate, and c
  2. [§4.3, Proposition 4.5] The proof of polynomial stability of TK (and hence the SCOLE conclusion) is outsourced to [14, Thm. 3.3], an accepted but not yet published preprint by the same authors. The theorem's statement and hypotheses are not given, so the correctness of the SCOLE application cannot be verified from the present manuscript. Please state the result used, verify its hypotheses for the gain Kx=−κq used here, or include a self-contained proof. This is not a circularity objection, but a verifiability requirement for a load-bearing step of one of the three advertised applications.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, Lemma 2.13] The notation (∥u∥L2(k,k+1))_{k=0}^∞ ∈ ℓ1(C) is unclear: ℓ1(C) is not defined and C does not appear to be a sequence space. Please clarify the intended sequence-space notation.
  2. [§4.2, transfer-function verification] After deriving PK and PL, the text says the H∞ conditions follow from 1+κ1/tanh(λ) and 1+ℓb/tanh(λ) being uniformly bounded away from zero. The expression for PL also contains C(λ−A)^{-1}Li; it would help to state explicitly that this term is bounded by M/√(Re λ−1) and hence harmless for sufficiently large Re λ.
  3. [§4.2, Proposition 4.3 statement] There is a typo in the hypothesis 'if κ0, κ1, >0'; the comma after κ1 should be removed. Also, the displayed external well-posedness inequality has hard-to-parse nested norms; please reformat with clearer delimiters.
  4. [References] References [14] and [17] are arXiv/ preprint items; please update publication data in the final version where available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main theorem is a conditional separation result and the concrete stability conclusions rest on independent external stability theorems, not on the conclusions being proved.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 3.1 is a conditional separation theorem: it assumes well-posedness of an augmented boundary node and H-infinity resolvent conditions on (I-P_K)^-1 and (I-P_L)^-1, then constructs the closed-loop boundary node by feedback and transfers the stability type of TK and TL to the closed-loop semigroup via an error-coordinate block decomposition and Proposition 2.11. The closed-loop generator is not used to define TK or TL, and the stability type of the closed loop is not assumed; it is concluded from the separate semigroups. In the examples, the stability inputs are taken from external results: [2], [5], [6], [15], [20], [39] for damped wave semigroups, exact observability, and the SCOLE model; [14] is a same-author citation used only for TK-polynomial stability in the SCOLE example and is an independently accepted result about the same plant, not a reformulation of the present theorem. The 1D wave proof contains an omitted spectral verification: the paper states that 'explicit computations and Rouché's theorem can be used to show that for all sufficiently small ℓi > 0 the Schur complement S(λ) = λ - C1(λ - AL0 - Li0Cd)^-1 Li0Cd1 has only zeros with negative real parts, and that its inverse is uniformly bounded on C0+' but does not show those computations. This is a completeness/correctness gap, not circularity, because the asserted Schur-complement condition is an independent hypothesis check rather than an identification of the conclusion with an input. No fitted prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' own work, and no ansatz smuggled by self-citation were found. Hence no circular step is established.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central framework adds no fitted constants or invented entities. The design gains are free but arbitrary-positive or small; no data-fitting is used. The main external burden is inherited stability theorems for the auxiliary semigroups, plus one unproved spectral claim in the 1D example.

free parameters (3)
  • κ0, κ1 (1D wave feedback gains)
    Positive design constants in controller (4.3c); the proof requires only κ0,κ1>0, so no fitted values are used.
  • ℓ_b, ℓ_i (1D wave observer gains)
    ℓ_b>0 is arbitrary and ℓ_i must be sufficiently small; the paper proves existence of ℓ_i* but does not compute it.
  • κ, ℓ (SCOLE gains)
    Positive gains; the result holds for every κ,ℓ>0, so they are not fitted to data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The boundary-node framework: A|Ker(B) generates a C0-semigroup and B has a bounded right-inverse (Definition 2.1).
    Defines the class of systems studied; not proven for arbitrary systems but verified for the PDE examples.
  • domain assumption Well-posedness and transfer-function hypotheses in Theorem 3.1: the augmented boundary node is well-posed and (I−P_K)^{-1}, (I−P_L)^{-1}∈H∞ on a right half-plane.
    These are the sufficient conditions under which the controller is proved to work; they are assumptions, not conclusions.
  • standard math Borichev–Tomilov resolvent characterization of polynomial stability [4, Thm. 2.4] and Batty–Duyckaerts non-uniform stability [3].
    Used in Section 3 (Prop 2.11 and Prop 3.2) to convert resolvent bounds on iR into polynomial decay rates.
  • ad hoc to paper In Prop 4.3, the Schur complement S(λ) has no zeros in C_0^+ and is uniformly bounded there for sufficiently small ℓ_i>0, stated as 'explicit computations and Rouché's theorem can be used to show...'.
    Load-bearing for exponential stability of TL and hence for the 1D wave controller; the computation is not included in the paper.
  • domain assumption Exponential/polynomial stability of auxiliary semigroups TK and TL for the examples: TK via [20, Sec. 7.2] (1D wave), TL via [6, Thm. 10.1] (1D wave), TK via [14, Thm. 3.3] (SCOLE), TL via [15, Thm. 4.2] (SCOLE).
    The concrete stabilization proofs delegate key stability facts to external results, one of which [14] is a same-author accepted preprint not reproduced in the text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic Stabilisation of Boundary Control Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CNOMFNVN

@misc{pith2026260528189,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic Stabilisation of Boundary Control Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CNOMFNVN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.28189}
}
read the original abstract

We design observer-based controllers to stabilise abstract linear boundary control systems on Hilbert spaces. Our main results introduce conditions for exponential, strong, and polynomial stability, and establish external well-posedness of the closed-loop system. We design controllers for a one-dimensional wave equation, a two-dimensional wave equation with distributed control and observation, and a non-uniform SCOLE model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.28189 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The control scheme. The parameters of the controller are the state feedback gain K and the output injection gains L and Li . Roughly stated, these parameters should be chosen so that the operators AK := (A + BiK)|Ker(B−QK) and AL := (A + LiC)|Ker(B−LC) generate stable semigroups. Our first main results in Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 3.2 provide conditions for the stability and well-posedness of the closed-loop syste… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Active Disturbance Rejection for Boundary Control Systems

    math.OC 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A general active-disturbance-rejection controller is proven to exponentially stabilise and reject input disturbances for abstract boundary control systems, with explicit wave- and heat-equation designs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [14]

    Fkirine and L

    M. Fkirine and L. Paunonen. Polynomial stability of wind turbine tower models. SIAM J. Control Optim. , accepted for publication, preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.22432

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    I. Aksikas. Duality-based optimal compensator for boundary control hyperbolic PDEs system: application to a tubular cracking reactor. J. Franklin Inst. , 357(14):9692– 9708, 2020

    2020

  3. [2]

    Anantharaman and M

    N. Anantharaman and M. L´ eautaud. Sharp polynomial decay rates for the damped wave equation on the torus. Anal. PDE, 7(1):159–214, 2014. With an appendix by S. Nonnenmacher

    2014

  4. [3]

    C. J. K. Batty and T. Duyckaerts. Non-uniform stability for bounded semi-groups on Banach spaces. J. Evol. Equ. , 8:765–780, 2008

    2008

  5. [4]

    Borichev and Yu

    A. Borichev and Yu. Tomilov. Optimal polynomial decay of functions and operator semigroups. Math. Ann., 347(2):455–478, 2010

    2010

  6. [5]

    Chill, L

    R. Chill, L. Paunonen, D. Seifert, R. Stahn, and Yu. Tomilov. Non-uniform stability of damped contraction semigroups. Anal. PDE, 16(5):1089–1132, 2023

    2023

  7. [6]

    Cox and E

    S. Cox and E. Zuazua. The rate at which energy decays in a string damped at one end. Indiana Univ. Math. J. , 44(2):545–573, 1995

    1995

  8. [7]

    Curtain, G

    R. Curtain, G. Weiss, and M. Weiss. Coprime factorization for regular linear systems. Automatica J. IF AC, 32(11):1519–1531, 1996

    1996

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    Curtain and H

    R. Curtain and H. Zwart. Introduction to Infinite-Dimensional Systems Theory , vol- ume 71 of Texts in Applied Mathematics . Springer-Verlag New York, 2020

    2020

  2. [9]

    R. Curtain. Robust stabilizability of normalized coprime factors: the infinite- dimensional case. Internat. J. Control , 51(6):1173–1190, 1990

    1990

  3. [10]

    Curtain, G

    R. Curtain, G. Weiss, and M. Weiss. Stabilization of irrational transfer functions by controllers with internal loop. In Systems, approximation, singular integral operators, and related topics (Bordeaux, 2000) , volume 129 of Oper. Theory Adv. Appl. , pages 179–207. Birkh¨ aus...

    2000

  4. [11]

    Demetriou

    M. Demetriou. Natural second-order observers for second-order distributed parameter systems. Systems Control Lett. , 51(3-4):225–234, 2004. DYNAMIC STABILISATION OF BOUNDARY CONTROL SYSTEMS 25

    2004

  5. [12]

    Emirsaj low

    Z. Emirsaj low. Boundary observers for boundary control systems. In Advanced, con- temporary control, volume 1196 of Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. , pages 92–104. Springer, Cham, 2020

    2020

  6. [13]

    Emirsaj low

    Z. Emirsaj low. Discrete-time output observers for boundary control systems. Int. J. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. , 31(4):613–626, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    On the boundary control of a hybrid system with variable coefficients

    Bao-Zhu Guo. On the boundary control of a hybrid system with variable coefficients. J. Optim. Theory Appl. , 114(2):373–395, 2002

    2002

  8. [16]

    Dynamic stabilization of an Euler- Bernoulli beam under boundary control and non-collocated observation.Systems Con- trol Lett., 57(9):740–749, 2008

    Bao-Zhu Guo, Jun-Min Wang, and Kun-Yi Yang. Dynamic stabilization of an Euler- Bernoulli beam under boundary control and non-collocated observation.Systems Con- trol Lett., 57(9):740–749, 2008

    2008

  9. [17]

    Hastir and L

    A. Hastir and L. Paunonen. Well-posedness and stability of infinite-dimensional sys- tems under monotone feedback. arXiv e-prints , page arXiv:2503.16092, March 2025

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Jacob and H

    B. Jacob and H. Zwart. Linear Port-Hamiltonian Systems on Infinite-Dimensional Spaces, volume 223 of Operator Theory: Advances and Applications . Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 2012

    2012

  11. [19]

    Joly and C

    R. Joly and C. Laurent. Decay of semilinear damped wave equations: cases without geometric control condition. Ann. H. Lebesgue, 3:1241–1289, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Krstic and A

    M. Krstic and A. Smyshlyaev. Boundary control of PDEs: A course on backstepping designs, volume 16 of Advances in Design and Control . SIAM, Philadelphia, 2008

    2008

  13. [21]

    Lasiecka and R

    I. Lasiecka and R. Triggiani. Control Theory for Partial Differential Equations: Con- tinuous and Approximation Theories , volume 1 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2000

    2000

  14. [22]

    G. Lebeau. ´Equation des ondes amorties. In Algebraic and geometric methods in math- ematical physics (Kaciveli, 1993) , volume 19 of Math. Phys. Stud. , pages 73–109. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1996

    1993

  15. [23]

    Littman and L

    W. Littman and L. Markus. Exact boundary controllability of a hybrid system of elasticity. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. , 103(3):193–236, 1988

    1988

  16. [24]

    Logemann

    H. Logemann. Stabilization and regulation of infinite-dimensional systems using co- prime factorizations. In Analysis and optimization of systems: state and frequency domain approaches for infinite-dimensional systems (Sophia-Antipolis, 1992) , volume 185 of Lect. Notes Contro...

    1992

  17. [25]

    Malinen and O

    J. Malinen and O. Staffans. Conservative boundary control systems. J. Differential Equations, 231(1):290–312, 2006

    2006

  18. [26]

    Mathiyalagan, A

    K. Mathiyalagan, A. Shree Nidhi, H. Su, and T. Renugadevi. Observer and bound- ary output feedback control for coupled ODE-transport PDE. Appl. Math. Comput. , 426:Paper No. 127096, 19, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    K. Mikkola. Infinite-Dimensional Linear Systems, Optimal Control and Algebraic Ric- cati Equations. PhD thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, 2002

    2002

  20. [28]

    Nicaise, L

    S. Nicaise, L. Paunonen, and D. Seifert. Stability of abstract coupled systems. J. Funct. Anal., page 110909, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Oostveen and R

    J. Oostveen and R. Curtain. Riccati equations for strongly stabilizable bounded linear systems. Automatica J. IF AC, 34(8):953–967, 1998

    1998

  22. [30]

    Paunonen

    L. Paunonen. Stability and robust regulation of passive linear systems. SIAM J. Con- trol Optim., 57(6):3827–3856, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Paunonen and J.-P

    L. Paunonen and J.-P. Humaloja. Dynamic polynomial stabilization of a 1D wave equation. In Proceedings of the SIAM Conference on Control and Its Applications , Chengdu, China, June 19–21, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Rebarber

    R. Rebarber. Exponential stability of coupled beams with dissipative joints: a fre- quency domain approach. SIAM J. Control Optim. , 33(1):1–28, 1995

    1995

  25. [33]

    Rozendaal, D

    J. Rozendaal, D. Seifert, and R. Stahn. Optimal rates of decay for operator semigroups on Hilbert spaces. Adv. Math., 346:359–388, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    D. Salamon. Infinite-dimensional linear systems with unbounded control and obser- vation: A functional analytic approach. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 300(2):383–431, 1987. 26 M. FKIRINE AND L. PAUNONEN

    1987

  27. [35]

    Smyshlyaev and M

    A. Smyshlyaev and M. Krstic. Backstepping observers for a class of parabolic PDEs. Systems Control Lett. , 54(7):613–625, 2005

    2005

  28. [36]

    Staffans

    O. Staffans. Well-Posed Linear Systems . Cambridge University Press, 2005

    2005

  29. [37]

    Staffans

    O. Staffans. Coprime factorizations and well-posed linear systems. SIAM J. Control Optim., 36(4):1268–1292, 1998

    1998

  30. [38]

    Staffans

    O. Staffans. Passive and conservative continuous-time impedance and scattering sys- tems. Part I: Well-posed systems.Math. Control Signals Systems, 15(4):291–315, 2002

    2002

  31. [39]

    Tucsnak and G

    M. Tucsnak and G. Weiss. Observation and Control for Operator Semigroups . Birkh¨ auser Basel, 2009

    2009

  32. [40]

    Tucsnak and G

    M. Tucsnak and G. Weiss. Well-posed systems—The LTI case and beyond.Automatica J. IF AC, 50(7):1757–1779, 2014

    2014

  33. [41]

    Vries, K

    D. Vries, K. Keesman, and H. Zwart. Luenberger boundary observer synthesis for Sturm-Liouville systems. Internat. J. Control , 83(7):1504–1514, 2010

    2010

  34. [42]

    Vries, K

    D. Vries, K. Keesman, and H. Zwart. A Luenberger observer for an infinite dimensional bilinear system: a UV disinfection example. IF AC Proceedings Volumes, 40(20):667– 672, 2007. 3rd IF AC Symposium on System Structure and Control

    2007

  35. [43]

    G. Weiss. Regular linear systems with feedback. Math. Control Signals Systems , 7(1):23–57, 1994

    1994

  36. [44]

    Weiss and R

    G. Weiss and R. Curtain. Dynamic stabilization of regular linear systems.IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, 42(1):4–21, 1997

    1997

  37. [45]

    Xiaowei Zhao and G. Weiss. Suppression of the vibrations of wind turbine towers. IMA J. Math. Control Inform. , 28(3):377–389, 2011. (M. Fkirine) Mathematics Research Centre, Tampere University, P.O. Box 553, 33101 Tampere, Finland Email address : mohamed.fkirine@tuni.fi (L. P...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.