2202.06773
Funnel control of linear systems under output measurement losses
Thomas Berger, Lukas Lanza
correctmedium confidence
- Category
- Not specified
- Journal tier
- Specialist/Solid
- Processed
- Sep 28, 2025, 12:56 AM
- arXiv Links
- Abstract ↗PDF ↗
Audit review
The paper’s Theorem II.1 establishes global existence, funnel invariance, and bounded input for linear minimum-phase systems of known relative degree under intermittent output availability, using the reset funnel law (13), the normal form (2), explicit loss/availability constraints (Δ1–Δ2), (δ1–δ2), and entry conditions (φ1)–(φ2). The candidate solution follows the same structure: it uses the KLyapunov estimate for the internal state (3)–(6), Lemma A.1-type growth bounds during losses, the A_k cascade and Lemma A.2 for funnel-entry at switch-on, and then closes the loop across intervals to show uniform bounds and global solutions. Minor omissions (e.g., not explicitly stating the Γ + Γ^T coercivity constant used to bound u in the initial part of availability intervals, or writing out exact constants when absorbing terms) do not alter correctness. Overall, the model reproduces the paper’s argument with the same hypotheses and proof strategy. See the paper’s system class and normal form (2) with Γ sign-definite and Q Hurwitz, the controller (13), assumptions (Δ1–Δ2), (δ1–δ2), and the proof steps using Lemma A.1 and Lemma A.2 culminating in (25)–(27) and Theorem II.1’s conclusions (i)–(iii) .
Referee report (LaTeX)
\textbf{Recommendation:} minor revisions \textbf{Journal Tier:} specialist/solid \textbf{Justification:} The work provides a rigorous extension of funnel control to settings with intermittent output measurements. The analysis is complete under standard minimum-phase assumptions, with explicit feasibility bounds on loss and availability periods. While conservative, the bounds are constructive and the proof structure is clear. Minor improvements in exposition and a discussion on reducing conservatism would strengthen the paper.