Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Resilient Control for Networked Switched Systems With/Without ACK: An Active Quantized Framework

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Active quantizer keeps switched systems stable during DoS attacks

desk verdict Systematic four-strategy extension of active quantized control under DoS that has a real, load-bearing gap around the unproven Nmax bound on asynchronous intervals. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16296 v1 pith:AJVWQGGO submitted 2025-08-22 eess.SY cs.SY

Rui Zhao , Zhiqiang Zuo , Yijing Wang , Wentao Zhang , Yang Shi This is my paper
classification eess.SYcs.SY MSC 93C3093C6593D2093D30
keywords denial-of-serviceattacksswitchedsystemsquantizedcontrolactivecontrollerACKsignalevent-triggeredtime-triggeredLyapunovstability
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

This paper tries to show that a switched linear system can remain asymptotically stable under denial-of-service (DoS) attacks even when state information is quantized, provided the quantizer is actively managed. The authors design four control strategies that pair active or passive controllers with quantizers centered at a predicted state or at the origin, with or without ACK feedback confirming successful transmission. For each strategy they give update laws for the encoder and decoder so that the state stays inside the quantization range and the two sides stay synchronized during attack-free intervals. The central results are sufficient conditions tying the attack frequency and duration, the dwell time, and the quantization level together. A reader should care because quantized feedback, switching, and DoS attacks interact badly in networked control; the paper gives a family of concrete designs and stability certificates for that interaction.

What carries the argument

The key object is a dynamic quantizer whose two parameters — a range Ee_k and a center xe*_k — are updated at every sampling instant according to one of eight cases determined by the ACK signal and the synchronous/asynchronous flag. For the active strategy the center is placed at the predicted state, so during normal operation the state sits near the center of the quantization box and the range shrinks rapidly; during DoS intervals the active controller keeps the state from diverging, so the range does not blow up. A separate decoder-side update law is designed so that encoder and decoder parameters coincide at every attack-free instant, which is what guarantees the quantized signal is decod

What would settle it

Take the Example A helicopter system with Strategy 1 and Nmax=2, and inject a DoS attack that starts just before a switching instant and lasts three sampling periods. If the encoder parameter Ee_k violates bound (31) or the state fails to converge, the claim that conditions (29)-(30) with Nmax=2 guarantee stability is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the combination of an active predictor-based controller and a dynamic quantizer with non-origin center (Strategy 1) stabilizes the switched system (1) under DoS attack, with quantization level N > Γ odd and constraints (29)-(30) on attack and switching. The same framework yields three further results: an origin-centered quantizer version (Strategy 2), a passive zero-order-hold version (Strategy 3), and an ACK-free version with time-triggered or event-triggered update laws (Strategy 4). In each case the paper proves asymptotic stability by showing the quantizer's range parameter Ee_k converges to zero while a Lyapunov function V(k)=||x(tk)||+Ee_k decreases al

Load-bearing premise

The proof assumes that an asynchronous interval caused by a switch during a DoS attack lasts at most N_max sampling periods, with N_max treated as a known constant (set to 2 in the examples); if the attack-induced asynchronism exceeds N_max, the bound on the encoder parameter and condition (29) lose their basis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With Strategy 1, a lower quantization level suffices for stability (N=3 in the numerical examples) than origin-centered/passive strategies (N=125 or 175), reducing communication bit rate.
  • Strategy 1 tolerates higher DoS attack frequency and longer attack duration than passive Strategy 3; the simulations show τD and T much smaller for Strategy 1.
  • Designing the switching signal so switches occur exactly at sampling instants (Corollary 1) removes several asynchronous cases and relaxes both DoS and dwell-time conditions.
  • When ACK is unavailable, the time-triggered and event-triggered update laws (Theorems 4-5) still guarantee stability under periodic/intermittent DoS bounds, at the price of more conservative quantization parameters.
  • If the paper is right, the same encoder/decoder alignment technique applies to non-switched systems under DoS with no ACK, a gap the paper says it fills.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper treats Nmax as a known constant; an immediate design requirement is to compute or certify Nmax from the actual DoS and switching models, since the stability conditions depend on it.
  • The active strategy's low quantization level suggests a trade-off: it can be used to save communication bandwidth at the cost of a more computationally demanding controller and quantizer.
  • The event-triggered ACK-free update, which reacts only when the state leaves the quantization range, may be extended to non-periodic DoS attacks by replacing Assumption 6 with a measured bound on the attack-free interval.
  • A natural next step, suggested by the conclusion, is porting the update laws to multi-agent consensus or output-feedback settings, where synchronizing local quantizers is harder.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies quantized control of switched linear systems under denial-of-service (DoS) attacks, proposing four strategies that combine active/passive controllers, origin-centered or custom-centered quantizers, and networks with or without ACK signals. For each strategy the authors design encoder/decoder update laws intended to keep the state inside the quantization range and to maintain encoder–decoder uniformity, and they derive sufficient stability conditions expressed as constraints on the DoS attack frequency/duration, the dwell time, the quantization level, and an assumed maximal asynchronous interval Nmax. The headline result is Theorem 1 for the active quantized strategy with ACK, supported by Lemma 3 on convergence of the encoder parameter; Theorem 2 covers the origin-centered quantizer, Theorem 3 the passive strategy, and Theorems 4–5 the ACK-free time-triggered and event-triggered variants. Simulations on helicopter and academic examples illustrate the claimed behavior.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper makes a useful contribution: it systematically treats the combined effect of DoS attacks, switching asynchronism, and quantization, and it offers a credible path to ACK-free quantized control for switched systems. The idea of separating encoder and decoder update laws and transmitting zooming-out/switching information to restore uniformity is interesting and appears to be novel. The paper is also explicit about the trade-offs among quantization level, dwell time, and DoS resilience, and the simulations suggest the proposed algorithms are implementable. However, the strength of the contribution is currently undermined by a load-bearing assumption about Nmax that is not derived from the stated DoS model, and by several key proofs being omitted or compressed rather than demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B, Lemma 3 and Theorem 1] The proof of Lemma 3 uses the bound G(tk,t0) ≤ Nmax Nσ(tk,t0), but Nmax is nowhere derived from the problem assumptions. Assumptions 1–2 are average frequency/duration constraints; they permit an individual DoS interval to be arbitrarily long. The asynchronous interval caused by a switch occurring inside a DoS attack lasts until the first successful transmission after the attack ends, i.e., it is governed by the residual attack length, not by a fixed Nmax. If that residual exceeds Nmax, the bound (31) on Ee_k no longer follows, the definition of Γ with m∈[0,Nmax−1] is insufficient, and condition (29) loses its basis. The same issue affects Corollary 1, Eq. (42). The manuscript needs to either derive Nmax from the DoS/switching model or add an explicit assumption bounding each individual attack interval, as is later done for Strategy 2 in Assumption 4. This is load-bearing for the paper's
  2. [Section III-B, Lemma 2] Lemma 2 is central because encoder–decoder uniformity at DoS-free instants is what makes the transmitted quantized signal meaningful. The proof is omitted with the sentence 'The proof is obvious in Cases 1–3, 7, 8 and it is omitted here.' This is not adequate, especially because the decoder update law (27) differs from the encoder law (14) in several cases and Case 8 involves delayed parameters Ed_{k−n} and xd*_{k−n}. A referee cannot verify uniformity without an explicit case-by-case argument. Please provide the full proof or a detailed derivation showing Ed_k = Ee_k and xd*_k = xe*_k at all DoS-free sampling instants.
  3. [Section III-C, Theorem 2] Theorem 2 is stated as a formal stability result for Strategy 2, but its proof is omitted with the explanation 'The proof of this theorem is similar to that of Theorem 1' and 'The detailed proof is omitted here.' The update laws (44)–(45) and the condition (49) contain new quantities Λ_i and Ψ_p that are not present in Theorem 1, so the convergence of Ee_k under (49) and the subsequent state convergence are not demonstrated. Since Theorem 2 is a main contribution of the paper, this omission is a load-bearing gap. Please include a complete proof, or clearly specify which parts are direct repetitions of Theorem 1 and which require new arguments.
  4. [Section III-B, proof of Theorem 1] The Lyapunov argument at switching instants is compressed to the single displayed equation V(⌞ts+1⌟) = νp^{τd/τs−Nmax−1} ˆνp (µ3pq)^{Nmax−2} µ2pq µ1pq V(⌞ts⌟). This step is not derived in the text: it assumes the asynchronous interval has length exactly Nmax, does not show how the first asynchronous step (37) is combined with the subsequent bounds (38)–(41), and does not explain the exponents. Moreover, the theorem statement contains the phrase 'there exists scalar ρp∥Bdp∥+b<1', which is not a well-formed existence condition because ρp and Bdp are system data and b is a derived quantity that is only defined later in Lemma 3. This step should be rewritten and fully proved, and the statement should be corrected so that b is defined before it is used.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V] The heading 'V. SIMULATIONS' is immediately followed by another 'VI. SIMULATIONS' heading; one of them should be removed. Also, in Example A the sentence 'In [], the the VTOL helicopter model' is incomplete and contains a typo.
  2. [Table III] The table header 'Airspeeds(knots)' appears to belong to the simulation description rather than to the table content, which lists numerical entries for a32(σ(t)), a34(σ(t)), and b21(σ(t)). Please correct the caption and header.
  3. [Notation, Section II-A] The definition of SYtk is given as the flag during [tk−1, tk), but Table II and the update laws mostly refer to SYtk+1. This is understandable but should be stated explicitly to avoid confusion. Also, the symbols a and b in Lemma 3 are used in the proof before their definitions are given; please reorder the definitions.
  4. [Section IV-C, Theorem 4] In the proof of Theorem 4, the notation for the 'virtue' DoS attack and 'virtue' switching signal is introduced informally. Please define these terms as formal auxiliary sequences, and specify how Assumption 6 implies the claimed dominance of the virtual attack over the actual one. This would make the proof easier to check.
  5. [References] Some references are cited with incomplete information, e.g., the VTOL helicopter model in Example A is cited as '[]'. Please complete the citation. Also, the reference list has minor issues such as 'T echnology' and missing accents; these should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: stability conditions are derived from quantizer update laws and system dynamics; self-citations are background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain. Lemma 1 constructs encoder update laws (14)-(15) so that the invariant ∥x(tk)−xe∗k∥ ≤ Ee_k holds; this is an invariant-preserving design, not a prediction fitted to a target result. Lemma 3 bounds the encoder parameter Ee_k using the DoS frequency/duration assumptions and a stated Nmax bound on asynchronous intervals; the Nmax bound is an additional assumption rather than a derived consequence, but it is not an equation that is equivalent to the stability conclusion. Theorem 1 then combines this bound with a Lyapunov argument to produce sufficient conditions (29)-(30). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no central result reduces by construction to its inputs. The paper relies on prior work by the same authors (e.g., [6], [17], [20], [21]) for background and for the active-control idea, but the stability proofs here are carried out in the manuscript and do not depend on the truth of an unverified self-cited uniqueness claim. The main weakness is the unproved Nmax assumption used in Lemma 3 and Theorem 1; this is a correctness risk, not a circularity. Simulations only select parameters satisfying the sufficient conditions, which is legitimate validation rather than circular reasoning. Overall, the derivation is self-contained apart from the Nmax caveat, so the circularity burden is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the classical DoS model (Assumptions 1-2), stabilizability of the subsystem pairs, existence of matrix-norm growth constants, and the extra bound Nmax on the asynchronous interval. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • ρp (state growth bound constants) = Example A: ρ1=3.8927, ρ2=3.8620
    Chosen in simulations to satisfy ∥(Adp)^k∥ ≤ ρp λp^k; the theory only requires existence.
  • λp (state decay rates) = Example A: λ1=0.9602, λ2=0.9609
    Matrix-norm decay constants for the closed-loop matrices; values affect the dwell-time conditions (30), (50).
  • ξpq, ηpq (asynchronous bound constants) = Example A: ξ12=1.1687, ξ21=0.5751; η1=1.0216, η2=1.0922
    Constants in ∥[Adpq(τs);0]^k∥ ≤ ξpq ηpq^k; used in Theorem 1 conditions.
  • ρ̂p, λ̂p, ξ̂p, η̂p (passive-strategy constants) = Example A: λ̂1=0.9822, λ̂2=0.9607, η̂1=1.1004, η̂2=1.1029, ρ̂1=3.1096, ρ̂2=3.8799, ξ̂1=1.0930, ξ̂2=1.0599
    Analogous matrix-norm constants for Strategies 3 and 4; values are chosen in the examples.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption DoS attack frequency constraint n(t,t0) ≤ n0 + (t-t0)/τD (Assumption 1).
    Standard attacker model from De Persis and Tesi [11]; used in Lemma 3 and Theorems 1-3.
  • domain assumption DoS attack duration constraint |Ξ(t,t0)| ≤ κ + (t-t0)/T (Assumption 2).
    Bounds total attack duration; used to define the effective attack duration and in the stability conditions.
  • domain assumption Initial state bound ∥x(0)∥ ≤ E0 (Assumption 3).
    Needed to initialize the quantization range E0.
  • domain assumption Maximum DoS attack interval τ_n ≤ n_max τ_s (Assumption 4).
    Used in Strategy 2's update law and stability analysis.
  • domain assumption Switches occur only at sampling instants (Assumption 5).
    Used in Strategy 4 to avoid extra asynchronous behavior.
  • domain assumption Intermittent DoS attack: at least n_min sleeping periods and at most n_max attack periods (Assumption 6).
    Used for the no-ACK strategies to construct a 'virtual DoS attack' bound.
  • domain assumption Each pair (Ap, Bp) is stabilizable.
    Standard assumption; ensures existence of stabilizing gains Kp (stated at start of Section II).
  • standard math Existence of constants ρp, λp, ξpq, ηpq satisfying the matrix-norm inequalities (Table VI).
    Follows from Schur stability of the closed-loop matrices; the paper asserts existence and uses the constants throughout.
  • domain assumption The maximum asynchronous interval Nmax is finite and known (used e.g. in Lemma 3 with G(tk,t0) ≤ Nmax Nσ(tk,t0)).
    This is a key load-bearing premise not proven from the DoS model; it bounds the asynchronous interval in the convergence analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resilient Control for Networked Switched Systems With/Without ACK: An Active Quantized Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AJVWQGGO

@misc{pith2026250816296,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resilient Control for Networked Switched Systems With/Without ACK: An Active Quantized Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AJVWQGGO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16296}
}
read the original abstract

This paper deals with the quantized control problem for switched systems under denial-of-service (DoS) attack. Considering the system's defensive capability and the computational resources of quantizers and controllers, four control strategies are proposed. These strategies incorporate different combinations of controllers (active and passive), quantizers (centered on the origin or custom-designed), and network configurations (with or without ACK signals). For each strategy, specific update laws for the encoder and decoder are designed to avoid quantization saturation. Furthermore, the uniformity of encoder and decoder operations is maintained by transmitting additional information to the decoder. To achieve asymptotic stability, sufficient conditions concerning the switching signal and DoS attack constraints are derived by taking into account the asynchronous behaviors. The proposed active quantization strategy with the ACK signal leverages the system model information to compute the control signal in real-time, allowing for possible convergence of the system state despite DoS attack. Additionally, a well-designed switching signal is suggested to further mitigate the impact of DoS attack. A passive quantization strategy with ACK signal is also developed as a simplified version of the active quantized control strategy, providing the foundation for a strategy without ACK signal. Inspired by time-triggered and event-triggered mechanisms, the passive quantization strategy without ACK signal is investigated, with two feasible update laws for the quantizer. Finally, two simulations are conducted to validate the effectiveness of the proposed strategies.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Quantized control for networked switched systems under denial-of-service attacks via a barrier event-triggered mechanism,

    W.-H. Wang, Y .-W. Wang, X.-K. Liu, and Z.-W. Liu, “Quantized control for networked switched systems under denial-of-service attacks via a barrier event-triggered mechanism,” Nonlinear Analysis: Hybrid Systems, vol. 49, p. 101343, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [24]

    Quantized stabilization of switched systems with partly unstabilizable subsystems and denial-of- service attacks,

    J. Yan, Y . Xia, X. Wang, and X. Feng, “Quantized stabilization of switched systems with partly unstabilizable subsystems and denial-of- service attacks,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear , vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 4574–4593, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [1]

    Liberzon, Switching in Systems and Control

    D. Liberzon, Switching in Systems and Control . Birkh ¨auser Boston, 2003

    work page 2003

  4. [2]

    Switched LQR/ H∞ steering vehicle control to detect critical driving situations,

    L. Menhour, A. Charara, and D. Lechner, “Switched LQR/ H∞ steering vehicle control to detect critical driving situations,” Control Engineering Practice, vol. 24, pp. 1–14, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [3]

    Application of switched system theory in power system stability,

    S. Chen, L. Jiang, W. Yao, and Q. Wu, “Application of switched system theory in power system stability,” in2014 49th International Universities Power Engineering Conference (UPEC) , pp. 1–6, 2014. 18 T ABLE VII: Parameters used in Strategy 1 Γp = ∥eApτs ∥ Γ1pq = ˆΓ1pq + Γ2pq N N −1 ˆΓ1pq = maxt∈[0,τs) eApq teAqq (τs−t) Γ2pq = maxt∈[0,τs) eApq teAqq (τs−t)...

    work page 2014

  6. [4]

    Bumpless transfer control for switched linear systems and its appliaction to aero-engines,

    Y . Shi and X.-M. Sun, “Bumpless transfer control for switched linear systems and its appliaction to aero-engines,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systeems I: Regular Papers, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 2171–2182, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [5]

    Event-triggered multisource bumpless transfer control for networked switched systems with almost output regulation against switching deception attacks,

    L. Li, M. Ju, D. Ma, and T. Li, “Event-triggered multisource bumpless transfer control for networked switched systems with almost output regulation against switching deception attacks,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems , vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 3956–3965, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [6]

    Event-triggered control for networked switched systems with quantization,

    R. Zhao, Z. Zuo, and Y . Wang, “Event-triggered control for networked switched systems with quantization,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems , vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 6120–6128, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 32 references
  1. [7]

    Finite data-rate feedback stabilization of switched and hybrid linear systems,

    D. Liberzon, “Finite data-rate feedback stabilization of switched and hybrid linear systems,” Automatica, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 409–420, 2014

    2014

  2. [8]

    Feedback stabilization of switched linear systems with unknown disturbances under data-rate constraints,

    G. Yang and D. Liberzon, “Feedback stabilization of switched linear systems with unknown disturbances under data-rate constraints,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 2107–2122, 2018

    2018

  3. [9]

    Almost sure stability of nonlinear systems under random and impulsive sequential attacks,

    W. He, F. Qian, Q.-L. Han, and G. Chen, “Almost sure stability of nonlinear systems under random and impulsive sequential attacks,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 65, no. 9, pp. 3879–3886, 2020

    2020

  4. [10]

    Secure event-triggered consensus control of linear multiagent systems subject to sequential scaling attacks,

    W. He and Z. Mo, “Secure event-triggered consensus control of linear multiagent systems subject to sequential scaling attacks,” IEEE Trans- actions on Cybernetics , vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 10314–10327, 2022

    2022

  5. [11]

    Input-to-state stabilizing control under denial- 19 of-service,

    C. De Persis and P. Tesi, “Input-to-state stabilizing control under denial- 19 of-service,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 2930–2944, 2015

    2015

  6. [12]

    Data-driven resilient predictive control under denial-of-service,

    W. Liu, J. Sun, G. Wang, F. Bullo, and J. Chen, “Data-driven resilient predictive control under denial-of-service,” IEEE Transactions on Auto- matic Control, vol. 68, no. 8, pp. 4722–4737, 2023

    2023

  7. [13]

    Quantized state feedback stabilization of nonlinear systems under denial-of-service,

    M. Shi, S. Feng, and H. Ishii, “Quantized state feedback stabilization of nonlinear systems under denial-of-service,” Automatica, vol. 139, p. 110180, 2022

    2022

  8. [14]

    Stabilization of networked control systems under DoS attacks and output quantization,

    M. Wakaiki, A. Cetinkaya, and H. Ishii, “Stabilization of networked control systems under DoS attacks and output quantization,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 3560–3575, 2020

    2020

  9. [15]

    Resilient control under quantization and denial-of-service: Codesigning a deadbeat controller and transimission protocol,

    W. Liu, J. Sun, G. Wang, F. Bullo, and J. Chen, “Resilient control under quantization and denial-of-service: Codesigning a deadbeat controller and transimission protocol,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 67, no. 8, pp. 3879–3891, 2022

    2022

  10. [16]

    Networked control under DoS attacks: Tradeoffs between resilience and data rate,

    S. Feng, A. Cetinkaya, H. Ishii, P. Tesi, and D. Persis, Claudio, “Networked control under DoS attacks: Tradeoffs between resilience and data rate,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 460–467, 2021

    2021

  11. [17]

    Event-triggered control for switched systems with denial-of-service attack,

    R. Zhao, Z. Zuo, and Y . Wang, “Event-triggered control for switched systems with denial-of-service attack,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 67, no. 8, pp. 4077–4090, 2022

    2022

  12. [18]

    A new switching law for event-triggered switched systems under DoS attacks,

    J. Fu, Y . Qi, N. Xing, and Y . Li, “A new switching law for event-triggered switched systems under DoS attacks,” Automatica, vol. 142, p. 110373, 2022

    2022

  13. [19]

    Input-to-state stability of switched linear systems with unstabilizable modes under DoS attacks,

    Y .-W. Wang, Z.-H. Zeng, X.-K. Liu, and Z.-W. Liu, “Input-to-state stability of switched linear systems with unstabilizable modes under DoS attacks,” Automatica, vol. 146, p. 110607, 2022

    2022

  14. [20]

    Active control strategy for switched systems against asynchrnous DoS attack,

    R. Zhao, Z. Zuo, Y . Wang, and W. Zhang, “Active control strategy for switched systems against asynchrnous DoS attack,” Automatica, vol. 148, p. 110765, 2023

    2023

  15. [21]

    Active control strategy for disturbed switched systems under asynchronous DoS attacks,

    R. Zhao, Z. Zuo, Y . Wang, and W. Zhang, “Active control strategy for disturbed switched systems under asynchronous DoS attacks,” IEEE Control Systems Letters , vol. 6, pp. 2701–2706, 2022

    2022

  16. [23]

    Quantization- dependent dynamic event-triggered control for networked switched sys- tems under denial-of-service attacks,

    W.-H. Wang, Y .-W. Wang, X.-K. Liu, and Z.-W. Liu, “Quantization- dependent dynamic event-triggered control for networked switched sys- tems under denial-of-service attacks,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems , vol. 54, pp. 3822–3833, June 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Observer-based stabilization of systems with quantized inputs and outputs,

    M. Wakaiki, T. Zanma, and K.-Z. Liu, “Observer-based stabilization of systems with quantized inputs and outputs,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 2929–2936, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Cluster synchronization in directed networks via intermittent pinning control,

    X. Liu and T. Chen, “Cluster synchronization in directed networks via intermittent pinning control,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks , vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 1009–1020, 2011

    2011

  19. [27]

    Stability of networked switched systems in the presence of denial-of-service attacks,

    D. Li, Z. Zuo, Y . Wang, and M. Fu, “Stability of networked switched systems in the presence of denial-of-service attacks,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 1267–1283, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Consensus in networks of multiagents with cooperation and competition via stochastically switching topologies,

    B. Liu and T. Chen, “Consensus in networks of multiagents with cooperation and competition via stochastically switching topologies,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 1967–1973, 2008

    1967

  21. [29]

    Consensus in networks of multiagents with switching topologies modeled as adapted stochastic processes,

    B. Liu, W. Lu, and T. Chen, “Consensus in networks of multiagents with switching topologies modeled as adapted stochastic processes,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 227–253, 2011

    2011

  22. [30]

    Global almost sure self-synchronization of hopfield neural networks with randomly switching connections,

    B. Liu, W. Lu, and T. Chen, “Global almost sure self-synchronization of hopfield neural networks with randomly switching connections,” Neural Networks, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 305–310, 2011

    2011

  23. [31]

    Pinning synchronization of directed networks with switching topologies: A multiple lyapunov func- tions approach,

    G. Wen, W. Yu, G. Hu, J. Cao, and X. Yu, “Pinning synchronization of directed networks with switching topologies: A multiple lyapunov func- tions approach,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 26, no. 12, pp. 3239–3250, 2015. PLACE PHOTO HERE Rui Zh...

    2015

  24. [2025]

    student in the Depart- ment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Victoria, Victoria BC, Canada

    From January 2024 to December 2024, he worked as a visiting Ph.D. student in the Depart- ment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Victoria, Victoria BC, Canada. She is currently a Postdoctoral Fellow with the Department of Electrical Engineering, City University of Hong K...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.