Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Robust Output Regulation of Uncertain Linear Time-Varying Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that exact robust output regulation of linear time-varying systems with plant uncertainty generally requires an infinite-dimensional internal model, while a finite controller can only achieve approximate tracking.

desk verdict Solid positive framework, but the main negative result is over-stated and needs a proof or a narrower statement. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.17464 v3 pith:LCLZDOER submitted 2026-01-24 eess.SY cs.SY

Jinmeng Zha , Zhen Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY MSC 93C0593C7393D21
keywords outputregulationlineartime-varyingsystemsinternalmodelprincipleparametricuncertaintyinfinite-dimensionalcontrollerapproximateregulatorequationsystemimmersion
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 tackles the long-open problem of robust output regulation for linear time-varying (LTV) systems. It proposes a reformulation called intrinsic system immersion, which turns the regulator equation into a forced system whose non-decaying output trajectories must be reproduced by an unforced internal model. Using this lens, the authors argue that finite-dimensional affine parametric uncertainty in the plant can generate an infinite-dimensional family of error-zeroing signals, so no fixed finite-dimensional linear controller can achieve exact robust regulation in general. They then supply a constructive approximate design, based on truncating Neumann and Peano–Baker series, that drives the tracking error arbitrarily small, and recovers exact regulation when only the interaction with the exosystem is uncertain.

What carries the argument

The central object is the intrinsic system immersion (Definition 4.2): after right-multiplying by the exosystem transition matrix, the regulator equation becomes a forced linear system (22) whose output Ω(t,t0,µ) is the ideal feedforward signal. Finding an internal model is rephrased as constructing an unforced system (21) that reproduces all these output trajectories as µ varies. The load-bearing identity is the propagation condition (24), Ω(t,t0,µ) = H(t)Φ_F(t,t0)Σ(t0,µ), which holds iff the parametric dependence of the regulator solution can be concentrated into the initial condition of the internal model. For plant uncertainty, the inverse high-frequency gain b^{-1}(t,µ) and the transiti

What would settle it

Run the Example-1-style calculation with a non-diagonalizable X(µ) (e.g., repeated eigenvalues of η(µ) with Jordan blocks) and a periodic exosystem, and check whether the family {R(t,µ)} remains infinite-dimensional; a finite-dimensional outcome would refute the 'nothing new but tedious calculations' dismissal behind Lemma 5.1 and would undermine Hypothesis 5.1's 'generally' claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that robustness against plant uncertainty in LTV output regulation is structurally different from the LTI case: while an LTI plant's ideal feedforward gain is constant and therefore lives in a finite-dimensional space, the feedforward gain of an LTV plant is time-varying, and affine uncertainty in the plant can make the family of required feedforward functions infinite-dimensional. The paper formalizes this through intrinsic system immersion, showing that designing an internal model is equivalent to reproducing the output of a forced system (the regulator equation dynamics) by an unforced system. The propagation condition (24) gives a necessary and sufficient algebraic t

Load-bearing premise

The impossibility claim is load-bearing only under the technical condition that the normalized Fourier coefficients of the exosystem input converge super-polynomially to a fixed non-orthogonal subspace, and only for periodic exosystems with LTI plant and diagonalizable X(µ); if those conditions fail, the paper does not prove that infinite-dimensional internal models are necessary.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Interaction uncertainty (uncertainty in P(t,µ) and Q(t,µ)) can always be handled by a finite-dimensional internal model of dimension ρ(N+1), constructed without explicitly solving the regulator equation.
  • If plant uncertainty enters the high-frequency gain b(t,µ) or the zero dynamics η(t,µ) (or M(t,µ)) in a nondegenerate way, no finite-dimensional linear error-feedback controller can achieve exact robust regulation; the best a finite controller can do is approximate regulation.
  • The approximate design (Theorem 5.4) yields a tracking error bound that scales with the tail of the Neumann/Peano–Baker truncations, and the error can be made arbitrarily small by increasing the internal model order while keeping uncertainty amplitudes small.
  • The LTV non-resonance condition is reinterpreted: it governs uniform boundedness of the regulator equation solution, not solvability, and an LTV controller cannot beat an LTI one when the plant is LTI.
  • The dimension of an internal model can be minimized through observability decomposition and projection of the initial-value family (Section 4.1), which extends prior results even for periodic systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Hypothesis 5.1 survives closer scrutiny, the same obstruction likely applies to nonlinear and adaptive extensions: any controller that is linear in the error feedback and finite-dimensional will fail to learn the infinite-dimensional family of feedforward signals; nonlinear or data-driven internal models may be needed, as the authors hint in the conclusion.
  • The approximate-regulation framework suggests a direct connection to repetitive control and preview control: the infinite-dimensional internal model resembles a bank of frequency-selective resonators that are truncated, so error bounds could be re-derived in terms of the reference's Fourier decay rate.
  • One testable extension is to check whether spectral or commutativity conditions on the uncertainty directions E_ηi(t) (which make the Peano–Baker series terminate) recover finite-dimensional exact regulation for a wider class than the 'degenerate' cases mentioned in Hypothesis 5.1; the paper's own Remark 5.5 points at this.
  • The paper's impossibility claim is conditional on the technical condition in Lemma 5.1; if that condition fails, some nondegenerate plant uncertainties might still admit finite-dimensional exact internal models, carving out a region between 'finite' and 'infinite' not mapped by the current result.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an 'intrinsic system immersion' framework for robust output regulation of uncertain linear time-varying systems. It reformulates the regulator equation as a forced system and shows that finding an internal model is equivalent to reproducing the non-decaying output trajectories of that forced system with an unforced one. The main positive results are: (i) coordinate-free solvability and uniform boundedness of the regulator equation under minimum-phase and uniform-relative-degree assumptions (Theorem 3.1); (ii) a necessary and sufficient 'propagation condition' for a finite-dimensional internal model (Proposition 4.1); (iii) a finite-dimensional robust internal model for interaction uncertainty (Theorem 5.1); and (iv) an infinite-dimensional internal model for general plant uncertainty, together with a truncated finite-dimensional approximate controller with an explicit error bound (Theorems 5.3 and 5.4). The paper also claims, as Hypothesis 5.1, that plant uncertainty in b(t,µ) and M(t,µ), or in b(t,µ) and η(t,µ), generally forces an infinite-dimensional internal model except for restrictive degeneracies.

Significance. If the negative claim were established at the claimed level of generality, this would be a substantial fundamental limitation result for robust output regulation of uncertain LTV systems. The paper also makes original positive contributions: the solvability theorem, the explicit finite-dimensional construction for interaction uncertainty, the approximate finite-dimensional design with a quantitative error bound, and the dimension-minimization procedure for internal models are concrete and useful. The paper is openly constructive and does not fit parameters to data. However, the central negative claim is stated as a Hypothesis and is supported only by a special-case lemma with a significant gap (non-diagonalizable case omitted) and by a deferred example. The gap between proving that a family of regulator-equation solutions is infinite-dimensional and proving that the corresponding family of required internal-model outputs is infinite-dimensional is also not addressed. These issues are load-bearing because the paper's advertised boundary between finite- and infinite-dimensional robust regulation depends on them.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2, Hypothesis 5.1] As written, Hypothesis 5.1 is contradicted by the classical LTI case. Take an LTI plant in Byrnes-Isidori form (4) with r=2, n=3, S=0, P=[0;1;0], Q=1, A(µ)=[[0,1,0],[α1,α2,α3],[0,0,η(µ)]], B(µ)=[0;b(µ);0], C=[1,0,0], with b(µ)=1+µ and η(µ)=-1+µ. The regulator equation (5)-(6) has the constant solution Π=(-1,0,0)^T and R(µ)=(α1-1)/(1+µ). Hence the family {R(·,µ)} lies in the one-dimensional space of constant functions, and (24) holds with F=0, H=1, so a finite-dimensional internal model exists even though both b and η are uncertain. Unless 'restrictive degeneration' is explicitly defined to exclude finite-frequency exosystems, the statement is false. Lemma 5.1 avoids this by requiring an infinite nonzero Fourier subsequence (condition 1, Eq. (38)), but that restriction is absent from Hypothesis 5.1 and from the abstract/conclusion claims. The paper should either formulate Hypothesis 5.1 w
  2. [Lemma 5.1, proof of Eq. (40)] The proof explicitly restricts to diagonalizable X(µ) and dismisses the non-diagonalizable case as 'nothing new but tedious calculations'. This is not acceptable for a lemma that is the only proof in support of the general Hypothesis 5.1. The Neumann-series expansion and the Vandermonde argument in (36)-(40) change when X(µ) has nontrivial Jordan blocks; a separate argument is required. More importantly, the lemma concludes that the family F={Π_l(t,µ)} is infinite-dimensional, but the internal model must reproduce the family {R(t,µ)}, and by (11) R=-b^{-1}O'_A Π+N'. The proof never shows that the variation of Π_l survives in R. If the zero-dynamics part of O'_A vanishes (α_l=0 in the Byrnes-Isidori form), R may be independent of Π_l. Thus the conclusion 'an infinite-dimensional IM is necessary' does not follow from the lemma as stated.
  3. [Theorem 5.4 and Eqs. (52), (54), (56)] The proof of Theorem 5.4 derives the tracking-error bound as the product of an exponentially growing factor involving (ϕ'_G)^{2r+1} from (54) and an exponentially decaying factor from (52). The statement that the error goes to zero as k_b,k_η→∞ 'if g1,g2 are small enough' requires a quantitative comparison between the growth rate in (54) and the decay rate in (52), including the dependence of the auxiliary constants g'_1,g'_2 on g1,g2. The proof does not provide this comparison. Since the 'arbitrarily small tracking error' claim is a central advertised feature of the approximate design, this step needs to be made explicit and verified with the choices of k,g used in the proof.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (27)] The expression for u appears truncated: 'u= [ −ksign(b)(−K1)H im]' is missing the state vector. It should read u = [-k sign(b)(-K1), H_im] col(ξ1,ξ2), or similar. Please clarify.
  2. [Throughout] Typographical errors: 'Caley-Hamilton' should be 'Cayley-Hamilton' (p.2); 'fisrt' in Section 5.2; 'b_η' in the proof of Theorem 5.4 should presumably be 'k_η'.
  3. [Abstract / Section 7] Hypothesis 5.1 is explicitly labeled a Hypothesis, but the abstract and conclusion state the negative result as established fact ('generally necessitates an infinite-dimensional controller'). Please align the terminology with the level of proof actually provided.
  4. [Example 1] The claim that the family {Ω_µ} in Example 1 is infinite-dimensional is deferred to Supplementary S3. Since this example is the only concrete evidence for the infinite-dimensional obstruction in the LTV plant case, a short proof or a precise statement in the main text would strengthen the paper.
  5. [Lemma 5.2] The constants g'_1 and g'_2 are introduced without motivation before (50); their relationship to g1 and g2 and their effect on the final bounds in (54) should be explained explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the framework is a constructive reformulation, and the main negative claim is explicitly a hypothesis rather than a derived theorem.

full rationale

The paper's internal-model construction is not circular: Theorem 5.1 builds F,H directly from the affine uncertainty channels and verifies the propagation condition (24) by linearity; Theorem 5.3/5.4 constructs an infinite-dimensional IM from convergent Neumann/Peano-Baker series and bounds the truncation error explicitly. The finite-dimensional obstruction in Lemma 5.1 rests on a linear-independence argument for the family {Π_l(·,µ)}; the step that a finite-dimensional IM can only generate a finite-dimensional function family follows from Definition 4.3/(21) and is a mathematical consequence, not a fitted input. Proposition 3.1 cites [21] (co-authored by Z. Zhang) and [22]; [22] is independent, and the cited regulator-equation conditions are standard published results rather than the paper's own unverified claim. The central negative claim (Hypothesis 5.1) is explicitly labeled a hypothesis and is supported only in a special periodic/LTI case by Lemma 5.1; moreover, Lemma 5.1 proves infinite-dimensionality of the state family and does not explicitly prove infinite-dimensionality of the output family R(·,µ), and it omits non-diagonalizable cases. These are correctness/support gaps, not circular reductions: no equation is defined in terms of the result it is used to prove, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Hence no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No data fitting appears; the central dependencies are domain assumptions about relative degree, minimum phase, affine uncertainty structure, and small uncertainty magnitudes. The most fragile input is Lemma 5.1's technical condition and the unproved Hypothesis 5.1, which together carry the headline impossibility claim.

free parameters (5)
  • controller gains k, g
    Chosen larger than state-dependent thresholds (29) to enforce uniform asymptotic stability. The stabilization proof requires existence of such gains, not data fitting.
  • Lyapunov coefficients c1, c3, c5, c4 = g^{2(r−1)}
    Hand-picked lower bounds in Proposition 4.3 to render the derivative of the Lyapunov function negative definite.
  • truncation orders k_b, k_η (equivalently N_R)
    Design choices controlling the accuracy of the approximate internal model in Lemma 5.2 and Theorem 5.4.
  • canonical realization constant α_cr = later set to a'_3/2 + φ_S
    Any positive constant works in Proposition 4.4; the specific value is chosen later to make the error-bound decay rate independent of the approximation order.
  • small-gain bounds g1, g2, g'_1, g'_2
    Bounds on uncertainty amplitudes and directions in (42) and (50). They are not fitted to data but are threshold assumptions the theorems require.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: exosystem transition matrix Φ_S(t,s) is uniformly bounded (marginal stability).
    Used in Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 4.1 to ensure bounded regulator-equation solutions; standard in output regulation.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: uniform relative degree r and lower-bounded high-frequency gain b(t,µ).
    Needed for the Byrnes-Isidori form and for rank(O_A) ≡ r, which drives the solvability lemma.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: topological equivalence to Byrnes-Isidori form and uniformly asymptotically stable zero dynamics.
    Ensures the regulator-equation solution is uniformly bounded and provides exponential decay used in Lemma 3.4 and Proposition 4.3.
  • domain assumption Assumption 4: plant uncertainty enters affinely in Byrnes-Isidori coordinates.
    Used in Theorems 5.3 and 5.4; the authors admit it may require approximation (Remark 5.3).
  • standard math rank(O_A(·,·)) ≡ r for systems with uniform relative degree ([46, Prop. 4.5]).
    Basis of Lemma 3.2, which asserts the regulator equation is always solvable.
  • standard math Floquet theorem, Neumann series, and Peano-Baker expansion.
    Used in Lemma 5.1 and Theorem 5.3 to expand b^{-1}(t,µ) and Φ_η(t,t0,µ).
  • ad hoc to paper Lemma 5.1 technical conditions on Fourier coefficients and diagonalizability of X(µ); non-diagonalizable case omitted.
    The key impossibility proof is conditional on these conditions. The text says other situations are "nothing new but tedious calculations," leaving a gap in the general claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Output Regulation of Uncertain Linear Time-Varying Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LCLZDOER

@misc{pith2026260117464,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Output Regulation of Uncertain Linear Time-Varying Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LCLZDOER}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.17464}
}
read the original abstract

Robust output regulation for linear time-varying systems has remained an open problem for decades. By augmenting the classical immersion viewpoint, we propose the trajectory-matching system immersion framework. It reformulates the regulator equation as a forced system, and demonstrates that finding an internal model is equivalent to reproducing the non-decaying output trajectories of this forced system by constructing an unforced one. This perspective yields an exact algebraic boundary for finite-dimensional internal models, termed finite linear parameterization. It further reveals a distinctive obstruction in time-varying systems: even highly structured, finite-dimensional affine parametric uncertainties can generate infinite-dimensional families of non-decaying error-zeroing signals, thereby precluding exact robust regulation via linear finite-dimensional internal models in general. Hence, we develop a comprehensive approximate robust design, which yields a bounded tracking error that can be arbitrarily small, and avoids explicitly solving the regulator equation. Additionally, it recovers exact regulation when the uncertainty influences the system in some specified ways. Overall, these results clarify the intrinsic limitation of exact finite-dimensional robust regulation for uncertain LTV systems, and provide a general, executable framework for constructing an internal model-based design.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.17464 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simulation results of Example 2 in the presence of interaction uncertainty. (a) Reference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simulation results of Example 3 in the presence of plant uncertainty. (a) Reference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The robust control of a servomechanism problem for linear time-invariant multivariable sys- tems.IEEE transactions on Automatic Control, 21(1):25–34, 1976

    Edward Davison. The robust control of a servomechanism problem for linear time-invariant multivariable sys- tems.IEEE transactions on Automatic Control, 21(1):25–34, 1976

    1976

  2. [2]

    The internal model principle of control theory.Automatica, 12(5):457–465, 1976

    Bruce A Francis and Walter Murray Wonham. The internal model principle of control theory.Automatica, 12(5):457–465, 1976

    1976

  3. [3]

    The linear multivariable regulator problem.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 15(3):486–505, 1977

    Bruce A Francis. The linear multivariable regulator problem.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 15(3):486–505, 1977

    1977

  4. [4]

    Output regulation of nonlinear systems.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 35(2):131–140, 1990

    A Isidori and CI Byrnes. Output regulation of nonlinear systems.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 35(2):131–140, 1990

    1990

  5. [5]

    GlobalH ∞ output regulation of nonlinear systems via output-feedback reinforcement learning.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2025

    Shaobao Li, Yuxiang Wang, Yuguang Zhang, Xiaoyuan Luo, Juan Wang, and Xinping Guan. GlobalH ∞ output regulation of nonlinear systems via output-feedback reinforcement learning.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2025

    2025

  6. [6]

    Output feedback-based adaptive optimal output regulation for continuous-time strict-feedback nonlinear systems.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2025

    Yi Jiang, Tianyou Chai, and Guanrong Chen. Output feedback-based adaptive optimal output regulation for continuous-time strict-feedback nonlinear systems.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    Adaptive non-linear tracking with complete compensation of unknown distur- bances.European journal of control, 4(2):132–139, 1998

    Vladimir Olegovich Nikiforov. Adaptive non-linear tracking with complete compensation of unknown distur- bances.European journal of control, 4(2):132–139, 1998

    1998

  8. [8]

    Semi-global nonlinear output regulation with adaptive internal model.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 46(8):1178–1194, 2002

    Andrea Serrani, Alberto Isidori, and Lorenzo Marconi. Semi-global nonlinear output regulation with adaptive internal model.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 46(8):1178–1194, 2002

    2002

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Finite-dimensional regulators for a class of infinite-dimensional systems.Systems & Control Letters, 3(1):7–12, 1983

    Johannes M Schumacher. Finite-dimensional regulators for a class of infinite-dimensional systems.Systems & Control Letters, 3(1):7–12, 1983

    1983

  2. [10]

    Practical tracking for minimum-phase 1-D heat equation with arbitrary refer- ence signals.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2025

    Bao-Zhu Guo and Ji-Xiao Wang. Practical tracking for minimum-phase 1-D heat equation with arbitrary refer- ence signals.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Robust output regulation for multi-dimensional heat equation under boundary control.Automatica, 171:111956, 2025

    Ren-Xi Zhao, Bao-Zhu Guo, and Lassi Paunonen. Robust output regulation for multi-dimensional heat equation under boundary control.Automatica, 171:111956, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Cooperative output regulation for continuous-time linear periodic systems.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 69(11):7956–7963, 2024

    Chengcheng Fu, Hao Zhang, Chao Huang, Zhuping Wang, and Huaicheng Yan. Cooperative output regulation for continuous-time linear periodic systems.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 69(11):7956–7963, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Zhanpeng Feng, Kai Zhang, Huaiyuan Jiang, and Bin Zhou. Fully distributed cooperative output regulation of heterogeneous periodic linear multi-agent systems with input saturation.International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 35(8):2920–2932, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Direct adaptive cooperative output regulation of unknown multi-agent systems via distributed internal model.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2025

    Liquan Lin and Jie Huang. Direct adaptive cooperative output regulation of unknown multi-agent systems via distributed internal model.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Output regulation of linear stochastic systems with unstable linear exogenous systems.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 70(1):65–80, 2025

    Ji Ma, Xiao Yu, Weiyao Lan, and Zhiyong Chen. Output regulation of linear stochastic systems with unstable linear exogenous systems.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 70(1):65–80, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Robust stabilizer design for linear time-varying internal model based output regulation and its application to an electrohydraulic system.Automatica, 50(4):1128–1134, 2014

    Xingyong Song, Yu Wang, and Zongxuan Sun. Robust stabilizer design for linear time-varying internal model based output regulation and its application to an electrohydraulic system.Automatica, 50(4):1128–1134, 2014. 22 APREPRINT- JANUARY27, 2026

    2014

  9. [17]

    Enhanced contour tracking: A time-varying internal model principle-based approach

    Yue Cao and Zhen Zhang. Enhanced contour tracking: A time-varying internal model principle-based approach. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2025

    2025

  10. [18]

    Adaptive-dynamic-programming-regulated extremum seeking for distributed feedback optimization.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2025

    Tong Liu, Miroslav Krsti´c, and Zhong-Ping Jiang. Adaptive-dynamic-programming-regulated extremum seeking for distributed feedback optimization.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Output regulation of linear time-varying systems.IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 26(2):311–313, 1993

    Stefano Pinzoni. Output regulation of linear time-varying systems.IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 26(2):311–313, 1993

    1993

  12. [20]

    Robust adaptive regulation of linear time-varying systems.IEEE Transac- tions on Automatic Control, 45(7):1301–1311, 2002

    Riccardo Marino and Patrizio Tomei. Robust adaptive regulation of linear time-varying systems.IEEE Transac- tions on Automatic Control, 45(7):1301–1311, 2002

    2002

  13. [21]

    The linear periodic output regulation problem.Systems & Control Letters, 55(7):518–529, 2006

    Zhen Zhang and Andrea Serrani. The linear periodic output regulation problem.Systems & Control Letters, 55(7):518–529, 2006

    2006

  14. [22]

    Output regulation of time-varying systems.Systems & Control Letters, 55(12):999–1005, 2006

    Akira Ichikawa and Hitoshi Katayama. Output regulation of time-varying systems.Systems & Control Letters, 55(12):999–1005, 2006

    2006

  15. [23]

    Trajectory tracking and disturbance rejection for linear time- varying systems: Input/output representation.Systems & Control Letters, 58(6):452–460, 2009

    Zongxuan Sun, Zhen Zhang, and Tsu-Chin Tsao. Trajectory tracking and disturbance rejection for linear time- varying systems: Input/output representation.Systems & Control Letters, 58(6):452–460, 2009

    2009

  16. [24]

    Zhen Zhang and Zongxuan Sun. A novel internal model-based tracking control for a class of linear time-varying systems.Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, Transactions of the ASME, 132(1):1–10, 2010

    2010

  17. [25]

    A discrete time-varying internal model-based approach for high precision tracking of a multi-axis servo gantry.ISA transactions, 53(5):1695–1703, 2014

    Zhen Zhang, Peng Yan, Huan Jiang, and Peiqing Ye. A discrete time-varying internal model-based approach for high precision tracking of a multi-axis servo gantry.ISA transactions, 53(5):1695–1703, 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    Low-order stabilizer design for discrete linear time-varying internal model-based system.IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 20(6):2666–2677, 2015

    Xingyong Song, Pradeep Kumar Gillella, and Zongxuan Sun. Low-order stabilizer design for discrete linear time-varying internal model-based system.IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 20(6):2666–2677, 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    Lorenzo Marconi and Andrew R. Teel. Internal model principle for linear systems with periodic state jumps. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 58(11):2788–2802, 2013

    2013

  20. [28]

    Isolating invisible dynamics in the design of robust hybrid internal models.Automatica, 68:56–68, 2016

    Nicholas Cox, Lorenzo Marconi, and Andrew R Teel. Isolating invisible dynamics in the design of robust hybrid internal models.Automatica, 68:56–68, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    Periodic output regulation for distributed parameter systems.Mathe- matics of Control, Signals, and Systems, 24(4):403–441, 2012

    Lassi Paunonen and Seppo Pohjolainen. Periodic output regulation for distributed parameter systems.Mathe- matics of Control, Signals, and Systems, 24(4):403–441, 2012

    2012

  22. [30]

    Robust output regulation for continuous-time periodic systems.IEEE Transactions on Auto- matic Control, 62(9):4363–4375, 2017

    Lassi Paunonen. Robust output regulation for continuous-time periodic systems.IEEE Transactions on Auto- matic Control, 62(9):4363–4375, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Adaptive observer-based output regulation with non-smooth non-periodic exogenous signals.IEEE Control Systems Letters, 8:1535–1540, 2024

    Zirui Niu, Kaiwen Chen, and Giordano Scarciotti. Adaptive observer-based output regulation with non-smooth non-periodic exogenous signals.IEEE Control Systems Letters, 8:1535–1540, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Output regulation of linear systems with non-periodic non- smooth exogenous signals.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.21209, 2025

    Zirui Niu, Daniele Astolfi, and Giordano Scarciotti. Output regulation of linear systems with non-periodic non- smooth exogenous signals.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.21209, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Topics in control theory, 1993

    Hans W Knobloch, Alberto Isidori, and Flockerzi Dietrich. Topics in control theory, 1993

    1993

  26. [34]

    Springer Science & Business Media, 2003

    Alberto Isidori, Lorenzo Marconi, and Andrea Serrani.Robust autonomous guidance: an internal model ap- proach. Springer Science & Business Media, 2003

    2003

  27. [35]

    The internal model principle for linear multivariable regulators

    Bruce A Francis and William M Wonham. The internal model principle for linear multivariable regulators. Applied mathematics and optimization, 2(2):170–194, 1975

    1975

  28. [36]

    On the internal model structure for infinite-dimensional systems: Two common controller types and repetitive control.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 45(6):2065–2093, 2007

    Eero Immonen. On the internal model structure for infinite-dimensional systems: Two common controller types and repetitive control.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 45(6):2065–2093, 2007

  29. [37]

    Robust regulation of distributed parameter systems with infinite- dimensional exosystems.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 48(8):4846–4873, 2010

    Timo H ¨am¨al¨ainen and Seppo Pohjolainen. Robust regulation of distributed parameter systems with infinite- dimensional exosystems.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 48(8):4846–4873, 2010

    2010

  30. [38]

    Adaptive robust output regulation of uncertain linear periodic systems.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 54(2):266–278, 2009

    Zhen Zhang and Andrea Serrani. Adaptive robust output regulation of uncertain linear periodic systems.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 54(2):266–278, 2009

    2009

  31. [39]

    Robust hybrid output regulation for linear systems with periodic jumps: Semiclassical internal model design.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 62(12):6649–6656, 2017

    Daniele Carnevale, Sergio Galeani, Laura Menini, and Mario Sassano. Robust hybrid output regulation for linear systems with periodic jumps: Semiclassical internal model design.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 62(12):6649–6656, 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    Internal model theory for distributed parameter systems.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 48(7):4753–4775, 2010

    Lassi Paunonen and Seppo Pohjolainen. Internal model theory for distributed parameter systems.SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 48(7):4753–4775, 2010

    2010

  33. [41]

    Robust tracking control for electrohydraulic system using an internal model-based sliding surface.Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 144(6):061006, 2022

    Hao Sun, Zongxuan Sun, and Shihua Li. Robust tracking control for electrohydraulic system using an internal model-based sliding surface.Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 144(6):061006, 2022. 23 APREPRINT- JANUARY27, 2026

    2022

  34. [42]

    A robust design of time-varying internal model principle-based control for ultra- precision tracking in a direct-drive servo stage.Mechatronics, 103:103249, 2024

    Yue Cao and Zhen Zhang. A robust design of time-varying internal model principle-based control for ultra- precision tracking in a direct-drive servo stage.Mechatronics, 103:103249, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Robust disturbance rejection for uncertain linear system with time-varying exo-system: A disturbance observer approach.Automatica, 174:112100, 2025

    Hyuntae Kim, Gyunghoon Park, and Hyungbo Shim. Robust disturbance rejection for uncertain linear system with time-varying exo-system: A disturbance observer approach.Automatica, 174:112100, 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Zeros of continuous-time linear periodic systems.Automatica, 34(12):1651–1655, 1998

    Giuseppe De Nicolao, Giancarlo Ferrari-Trecate, and Stefano Pinzoni. Zeros of continuous-time linear periodic systems.Automatica, 34(12):1651–1655, 1998

    1998

  37. [45]

    Zero dynamics and stabilization for analytic linear systems

    Thomas Berger, Achim Ilchmann, and Fabian Wirth. Zero dynamics and stabilization for analytic linear systems. Acta Applicandae Mathematicae, 138(1):17–57, 2015

    2015

  38. [46]

    Arizona State University, 1989

    Stefano Pinzoni.Stabilization and control of linear time-varying systems. Arizona State University, 1989

    1989

  39. [47]

    On the structure theory of linear differential systems.SIAM Journal on Control, 6(4):659–680, 1968

    Leonard Weiss. On the structure theory of linear differential systems.SIAM Journal on Control, 6(4):659–680, 1968

    1968

  40. [48]

    A new approach to the theory of canonical decomposition of linear dynamical systems.SIAM Journal on Control, 11(1):148–158, 1973

    P d’Alessandro, A Isidori, and A Ruberti. A new approach to the theory of canonical decomposition of linear dynamical systems.SIAM Journal on Control, 11(1):148–158, 1973

    1973

  41. [49]

    Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1993

    Kostas S Tsakalis and Petros A Ioannou.Linear time-varying systems: control and adaptation. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1993

    1993

  42. [50]

    Courier Corporation, 2001

    John P Boyd.Chebyshev and Fourier spectral methods. Courier Corporation, 2001

    2001

  43. [51]

    Cambridge University Press, 2004

    Yitzhak Katznelson.An introduction to harmonic analysis. Cambridge University Press, 2004. 24 APREPRINT- JANUARY27, 2026 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 32 33 34 35 -5 0 5 10-15 25 30 35 -0.01 0 0.01 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 2...

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.