117

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 50, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005

[13] M. Van Nieuwstadt, M. Rathinam, and R. M. Murray, Differential atness and absolute equivalence of nonlinear control systems, SIAM J.
Control Optim., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 12251239, 1998.
[14] A. Teel and L. Praly, Global stabilizability and observability imply
semi-global stabilizability by output feedback, Syst. Control Lett., vol.
22, pp. 313325, 1994.
[15] F. Esfandiari and H. Khalil, Output feedback stabilization of fully linearizable systems, Int. J. Control, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 10071037, 1992.
[16] A. Atassi and H. Khalil, A separation principle for the stabilization of
a class of nonlinear systems, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 44, pp.
16721687, Sep. 1999.
[17] L. Consolini and M. Maggiore, Robust output feedback tracking with
a matching condition, presented at the 42nd Conf. Decision Control,
Maui, HI, Dec. 2003.
[18] M. Vidyasagar, On the stabilization of nonlinear systems using state
detection, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. AC-25, pp. 504509, Mar.
1980.

Global Robust Output Regulation for Output

Feedback Systems
Zhiyong Chen and Jie Huang
AbstractThe global robust output regulation problem for the class of
nonlinear systems in output feedback form has been studied under the assumption that the solution of the regulator equations is polynomial. This
assumption essentially requires these systems contain only polynomial nonlinearity and is due to the failure of nding a nonlinear internal model to
account for more complex nonlinearities than polynomials. Recently, it was
found that a nonlinear internal model can be constructed under some assumption much milder than the polynomial assumption. In this note, we
will apply this type of internal model to solve the global robust output regulation problem for the class of nonlinear systems in output feedback form.
Index TermsNonlinear control, output regulation, robust control.

I. INTRODUCTION
A systematic framework for tackling the robust output regulation
problem for general uncertain nonlinear systems was given in [9],
which was evolved from the approach in [1] which deals with the
local robust output regulation problem by output feedback control.
This framework addresses the robust output regulation problem in
two steps. First, convert the robust output regulation problem for a
given system into a robust stabilization problem of an augmented
system. The augmented system consists of the given system and a
class of appropriately dened dynamic systems called internal model
candidates. Second, solve the robust stabilization problem of the
augmented system. The accomplishment of the rst step depends on
the existence of what is called the steady-state generator in [9] which
is a special internal model candidate. A linear steady-state generator
always exists if the solution of the regulator equations is a polynomial in the exogenous signal. However, the polynomial assumption
is restrictive as it essentially limits the nonlinear systems to be of
Manuscript received May 7, 2003; revised June 27, 2004. Recommended by
Associate Editor Hua Wang. This work was supported in part by the Hong Kong
Research Grant Council under Grant CUHK 4168/03E and by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 60374038.
The authors are with the Department of Automation and Computer-Aided
Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong
(e-mail: zychen@acae.cuhk.edu.hk; jhuang@acae.cuhk.edu.hk).
Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TAC.2004.841125

polynomial type. Recently, it was found that a nonlinear steady-state

generator can be constructed when the polynomial assumption does
not hold [3], [9]. As a result, the robust output regulation problem
for a much larger class of nonlinear systems can be converted into a
robust stabilization problem of an augmented system even without
the polynomial assumption. The accomplishment of the second step
depends on whether or not there exists an appropriate internal model
candidate such that the augmented system is stabilizable in some
sense. Such an internal model candidate is called an internal model.
The solvability of the global robust output regulation problem for
the class of the nonlinear systems in output feedback form has been
studied in [17] under the assumption that a linear internal model exists. In this case, the corresponding augmented system is still in output
feedback form. Thus, the stabilization of the augmented system does
not post a special difculty than that of the given system. In this note,
we will further study the same problem without assuming the existence
of a linear internal model. Thus, our result can apply to nonpolynomial
nonlinear systems in output feedback form. We will see that, in the absence of the assumption of the linear internal model, the augmented
system takes a lower triangular form which is more complicated than
the output feedback form. Therefore, the stabilization of the augmented
system is more challenging than the case studied in [17]. As a result,
instead of the conventional backstepping method as adopted in [17],
we have to rely on the small gain method to deal with the problem.
The rest of this note is organized as follows. In Section II, we apply
the framework established in [9] to convert the robust output regulation
problem of the output feedback system into a stabilization problem of
an augmented system. In Section III, we give the main result together
with an illustrative example. Finally, we close this note by some remarks.
II. OUTPUT REGULATION VS. STABILIZATION
The class of nonlinear systems considered in this note are modied
from the class of systems called output feedback systems [15], and are
described by

z_ = F (w)z + G(y; v; w)y + D1 (v; w)

y_ = H (w)z + K (y; v; w)y + b(w)1 + D2 (v; w)
_i = 0 i i + i+1 ;
i = 1; . . . ; r 0 2
_
r01 = 0 r01 r01 + u
(1)
e = y 0 q(v; w)
n
r0
1
are the
where col(z; y ) 2 < and  = col(1 ; . . . ; r01 ) 2 <
states, y 2 < is the output, u 2 < is the input, e 2 < is the tracking
error, w 2 <N is the plant uncertain parameter, and v 2 <q is the exogenous signal representing the disturbance and/or the reference input,
produced by an exosystem described by

v_ = A1 v v(0) = v0

(2)

where A1 is a matrix with all eigenvalues simple with zero real parts.
It is assumed that all the functions in the setup are sufciently smooth
and D1 (0; 0) = 0, D2 (0; 0) = 0, and q (0; 0) = 0.
Briey, the global robust output regulation problem aims to design a
state or output feedback control law such that, for all uncertain parameter w 2 W  <N and all exogenous signals v (t) 2 V  <q with
W and V being any known compact sets of the respective Euclidian
spaces, the solution of the closed-loop system starting from any initial state of the plant and the controller exists and is bounded, and the
tracking error approaches 0 asymptotically.
To study the solvability conditions for this problem, let us rst state
some standard assumptions as follows.

0018-9286/$20.00 2005 IEEE

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 50, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005

A1)

There exists a sufciently smooth function z(v; w) with

z(0; 0) = 0 satisfying, for all v 2 <q , and all w 2 <N

@z(v; w) A v = F (w)z(v; w)
1
@v
+G (q(v; w); v; w) q(v; w) + D1 (v; w):

(3)

All the eigenvalues of F (w) have negative real parts for all
w 2 <N .
A3) b(w) > 0 for all w 2 <N .
Remark 2.1: Under assumptions A1) and A3), let

A2)

y(v; w) = q(v; w)
41 (v; w) = 1 @y(v; w) A1 v 0 H(w)z(v; w)
b(w)
@v
0K (y(v; w); v; w) y(v; w) 0 D2 (v; w))

(4)

The solvability of the regulator equations is a necessary condition for

the solvability of the robust output regulation problem [11]. To render
the solvability of the robust output regulation problem, various conditions have been imposed on the solution of the regulator equations. The
rst condition was given in [6], [10] which requires that the solution of
the regulator equations be a polynomial in v with its coefcients depending, in general, on w . Later, two essentially equivalent conditions
were given in [1] and [8], respectively. Recently, a condition which is
much milder than previous conditions was proposed in [3]. To describe
this condition, let (v; w) be polynomial in v . Then, there exist a monic
polynomial P () = r 0 a1 0 a2  0 1 1 1 0 ar r01 such that, along
all trajectories v(t) of the exosystem, and w 2 <N

dr (v; w) 0 a (v; w) 0 a d(v; w) 0 1 1 1 0a dr01 (v; w) = 0:

1
2
r dtr01
dtr
dt
P () is called a zeroing polynomial of (v; w). P () is called a minimal zeroing polynomial of (v; w) if P () is a zeroing polynomial of
(v; w) of least degree. Let i (v; w), i = 1; . . . ; I , for some positive
integer I , be I polynomials in v . They are called pairwise coprime if
their minimal zeroing polynomials P1 (); . . . ; PI () are pairwise coexist

pairwise
coprime
polynomials
with r1 ; . . . ; rI being the degrees
of their minimal zeroing polynomials P1 (s); . . . ; PI (s),
and sufciently smooth function 01 : <r +111+r 7! <
vanishing at the origin such that

1 (v; w); . . . ; I (v; w)

41 (v; w)) = 01 1 (v; w); _ 1 (v; w); . . . ; 1(r 01) (v; w);
. . . ; I (v; w); _ I (v; w); . . . ; (r 01) (v; w)
I

(5)

and

for i = 1; . . . ; I;

the pair f9i ; 8i g is observable

(7)

(8)

where 8 = diag(81 ; . . . ; 8I ). It can be easily veried, noting that 8i

is such that _i = 8i i , that the triple f; ;  g satises

41 (v; w); . . . ; 4r01 (v; w)) :

4(v; w) = col (4

There

i (v; w) = col i (v; w); _ i (v; w); . . . ; i(r 01) (v; w) ;

i = 1; . . . ; I
 = T col(1 ; . . . ; I )
1 () = 01 (T 01 )
i ((v; w)) = LA v i01 ((v; w)) + i01 i01 ((v; w)) ;
i = 2; . . . ; r;

() = T 8T 01 ; () = col (1 (); . . . ; r ())

Then, it can be veried that the regulator equations associated with system (1) admit a global solution given by
col(z(v; w); y(v; w); 4(v; w)), and u(v; w), where

prime.
A4)

where 9 = (91 ; . . . ; 9I ) is the Jacobian matrix of 01 at the

origin with 9i 2 <12r , and 8i is the companion matrix of
Pi (s).
Remark 2.2: Under assumption A4, let

where T is any nonsingular matrix of dimension r1 + 1 1 1 + rI . Also,

dene two functions as follows:

and

4i (v; w) = LA v 4i01 (v; w)

i = 2; . . . ; r 0 1
+ i014i01 (v; w);
u(v; w) = LA v 4r01 (v; w) + r014r01 (v; w):

118

(6)

d (v(t); w) =  ( (v(t); w))

dt
4(v; w); u(v; w)) =  ((v; w)) :
col (4

(9)

A triple f; ;  g satisfying (9) is called a steady-state generator of

system (1) with output g(z; y; ; u) = col(; u) [9]. Moreover, under
condition (6), the linearization of the pair f(); ()g at the origin
is observable [9]. Thus, the steady-state generator is further called a
linearly observable steady-state generator with output g(z; y; ; u) =
col(; u).
Remark 2.3: When (1) has a steady-state generator f; ;  g with
output col(; u), we can dene a dynamic system as follows:

_ = (; ; u)

(10)

where : <r +111+r 7! < is a sufciently smooth function vanishing

at the origin such that

((v; w); 4(v; w); u(v; w)) =  ((v; w)) :

(11)

A system of the form (10) with property (11) is called an internal model
candidate with output col(; u) [9]. The given plant (1) and the internal
model candidate (10) constitute an augmented system with the state
variables ( , z , y ,  ). Performing on the augmented system the following coordinate and input transformation:

 =  0 (v; w); z = z 0 z(v; w); e = y 0 q(v; w)

i = i 0 i ();
i = 1; . . . ; r 0 1; u = u 0 r ()

(12)

puts the augmented system in new coordinates and input to the following form:

_ = fa (; u; v; w)

(13)

 with  = col(1 ; . . . ; r01 ), and the func; z; e; )

where  = col(
tion fa is sufciently smooth with fa (0; 0; v; w) = 0.
Remark 2.4: By [9, Cor. 3.1], for any given compact sets V and W ,
 =0
; z; e; )
if there exists a controller such that the equilibrium col(
of the closed-loop system composed of the augmented system (13) and
the controller is globally robustly asymptotically stable for all v(t) 2 V
and all w 2 W , then there exists a controller that solves the global
robust output regulation problem for the original system (1) and exosystem (2) for all v(t) 2 V and all w 2 W .

119

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 50, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005

with (0; 0; v; w) = 0, and 1 (1) is the nonlinear part of 1 (1).

[2]
Specically, 1 (x) = 1 (x) 0 9T 01 x.
= col(~; z), x = col(x1 ; . . . ; xr ) =
Denoting Z
col(e; 1 ; . . . ; r01 ), xr+1 = u = r ,  = col(v; w), and
^b1 () = b(w), ^bi () = 1, i = 2; . . . ; r, puts (21), (16) to (19) into
the following form:
[2]

III. MAIN RESULT

By Remark 2.4, in order to solve the global robust output regulation
problem for system (1), it sufces to solve the global robust stabilization problem of the augmented system (13). As pointed out in [9], the
global robust stabilizibility of a general uncertain nonlinear system is a
complex issue. Recall from [9] that an internal model candidate can be
further called an internal model if it makes the augmented system robustly stabilizable perhaps under some additional conditions. In what
follows, we will give a specic construction of an internal model for
(1).
Pick any matrices M 2 <(r +111+r )2(r +111+r ) and N 2
(r +111+r )21
<
such that {M , N } is controllable and M Hurwitz.
There exists a unique nonsingular matrix T satisfying the Sylvester
equation T 8 0 MT = N 9 since the pair f9; 8g is observable. Let

_ = (; ; u) = M + N 1 0 1 () + 9T 01  :

Z_ = f0 (Z; x1 ; )
x_ = f (Z; x1 ; . . . ; x ; ) + ^b ()x +1 ; i = 1; . . . ; r
i

i i

(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)

K~ (e; v; w)e = K (q + e; v; w)(q + e) 0 K (q; v; w)q ,

~
G(e; v; w)e = G(q + e; v; w)(q + e) 0 G(q; v; w)q , and  = u.
where

Now, all we need to do is to globally stabilize the augmented system

(15)(19). For this purpose, let us perform another coordinate transformation as follows:

~ =  0 Nb01 (w)e

where

d = Nb01 (w)e + (v; w)

(z ; e; v; w) = 0 N 1[2] Nb01 (w)e +  0 1[2]()
+ MNb01 (w)e 0 b01 (w)N
2 H (w)z + K~ (e; v; w)e

i i

System (22) is in a special form of the lower triangular systems. The

robust stabilization of (22) has been extensively studied under various
assumptions in [2], [9], [12], and [14]. Here, we will state a stabilization
result for (22) for the case where  is time varying, and the proof can
be found in [7, Ch. 7].
Lemma 3.1: Consider (22) in which Z 2 <n , xi 2 <, i =
1; . . . ; r,  : [0; 1) 7! 6  <n is a piecewise continuous function
with 6 a prescribed compact set containing the origin of <n , fi , i =
0; . . . ; r, are globally dened C 1 functions satisfying f0 (0; 0; ) = 0,
fi (0; . . . ; 0; ) = 0 for  2 <n . Suppose the subsystem Z_ =
f0 (Z; x1 ; ) is robustly input-to-state stable (RISS) with state Z and
input x1 ,1 and has a known C 1 gain function, and ^bi () > 0, i =
1; . . . ; r, for all  2 Rn . Then, there exists a smooth partial state
feedback control u
 = (x1 ; . . . ; xr ) that globally robustly asymptotically stabilizes (22) for all  2 6.
To obtain the solvability conditions for the global robust output regulation problem for system (1), we will also appeal to the small gain
theorem. For convenience, let us rephrase a special case of the small
gain theorem given in [5] into the following lemma, which can be derived from the original work in [12] and [13].
Lemma 3.2: Consider system

(20)

(21)

(22)

f1 (Z; x1 ; )
= H (w)z + K~ (e; v; w)e
+ b(w) 1 ~ + b01 (w)Ne +  0 1 ()
f2 (Z; x1 ; x2 ; )
1 ( )
= 0 1 + @@
N 1
f +1 (Z; x1 ; . . . ; x +1 ; )
= 0 @@() N 1 0   ;
i = 2 ; . . . ; r 0 1:

x_ 1 = f1 (x1 ; x2 ; u; (t))
x_ 2 = f2 (x2 ; u; (t)) ;
t  t0  0

which puts the subsystem (15) into the following:

~_ = M ~ 0 N 1[2] (~ + d) 0 1[2] (d) + (z ; e; v; w)

F (w)z + G~ (e; v; w)e

(; 4; u) = M + N 41 0 1 () + 9T 01 
= M + N 9T 01  = T 8T 01  = ():

(15)

f0 (Z; x1 ; )
= col M ~ 0 N 1[2] (~ + d) 0 1[2] (d) + (z ; e; v; w);

Then

_ = (M + N 9T 01 ) + N 1

z_ = F (w)z + G~ (e; v; w)e
e_ = H (w)z + K~ (e; v; w)e
+ b(w) (1 ( + ) 0 1 ()) + b(w)1
_1 = 0 1 + @1 () N 1 + 2
@
_ = 0 @ () N 1 0   +  +1 ;
i = 2; . . . ; r 0 1
@

where

(14)

Thus, (14) is an internal model candidate of the system (1) with output
col(; u). It will be seen later that this internal model candidate is such
that the augmented system is, under some other conditions, stabilizable
in the sense described in Lemma 3.1. Thus, in the rest of this note, we
will call (14) an internal model of the system (1) with output col(; u).
Remark 3.1: It is noted that in the special case where 41 (v; w) is a
polynomial in v , 1 ( ) = 9T 01  . The internal model (14) becomes
_ = M + N1 . This linear internal model was proposed in [16].
With the specic internal model (14), the augmented system (13)
takes the following form:

(23)
(24)

where, for i = 1, 2, xi 2 <n , fi is C 1 in all its arguments, u 2

m
, and  : [t0 ; 1) 7! <n is piecewise continuous. Assume the
following.

<

 

2<

1That is, for all t

t
0 , Z (t )
of Z_ = f (Z; x ; ) exists and satises

, and x (t)

2L

kZ (t)k  max  (kZ (t )k ; t 0 t ) ;  x

0

, the solution

1[t ;t]

for some class KL function  and some class K function , independent of .

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 50, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005

i)

Subsystem (23) is RISS with x1 as state, col(x2 ; u) as input,

i.e., for all t  t0  0, x1 (t0 ) 2 <n , and col(x2 (t); u(t)) 2

L1 +
kx1 (t)k  max f1 (kx1 (t0 )k ; t 0 t0 ) ;
1 x2[ ] ); 1 ( u[ ]
for some class KL function 1 , and some class K functions 1
and 1 , independent of .
ii) Subsystem (24) is RISS with x2 as state, u as input, i.e., for all
t  t0  0, x2 (t0 ) 2 < , and u(t) 2 L1
kx2 (t)k  max 2 (kx2 (t0 )k ; t 0 t0 ) ; 2 ( u[ ] )
for some class KL function 2 and some class K function 2 ,
independent of .
Then, system (23) and (24) is RISS with x(t) = col(x1 (t); x2 (t)) as
state and u as input, i.e., for all t  t0  0, x(t0 ) 2 < + , and
u(t) 2 L1
kx(t)k  max f(kx(t0 )k ; t 0 t0 ) ;  u[ ] )
for some class KL function  and class K function , independent of
. Moreover, it sufces to choose
(25)
(s) = max f21 (s); 21  2 (s); 22 (s)g :
n

t ;t

t ;t

t ;t

t ;t

120

By Lemma 3.2, (26) and (28) show that the subsystem Z_ =

as state and x1 as input with a gain
function

f0 (Z; x1 ; ) is RISS viewing Z

(s)  max 21 (s); 21  2 (s); 22 (s) ; s  0:

e

(29)

Since 1e , z1 and 2e are C 1 functions, it is always possible to choose
a C 1 function  satisfying (29). The proof is completed.
Remark 3.2: From [2], [9], [12], and [14], a controller that stabilizing the lower triangular system (22) can be explicitly constructed as
follows:

u =  (~x ); x~1 = x1 ; x~ +1 = x +1 0  (~x );

r

i = 1; . . . ; r 0 1

for some smooth functions i , i = 1; . . . ; r . Therefore, the overall

controller to solve the output regulation problem of the original system
is

u =  (~x ) +  (); x~1 = e; x~ +1 = 

i = 1; . . . ; r 0 1
_ = M + N 1 0 1 () + 9T 01  :
r

0  () 0  (~x );
i

Remark 3.3: Since M is Hurwitz, there exists a symmetric positivedenite matrix P such that

P M + M P = 0I:
T

Using Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2, we are ready to obtain the main result of
this note.
Theorem 3.1: Under assumptions A1)A4), assume the following.
A5) System (21) is RISS viewing ~ as state and col(
z ; e) as input
with a C 1 gain function. Then, the global robust output regulation problem for system (1) and exosystem (2) is solvable.
Proof: By Lemma 3.1, it sufces to show that under the assumptions A2) and A5), the upper subsystem of (22) is RISS viewing Z as
state and x1 as input with a C 1 gain function. This can be done by utilizing Lemma 3.2.
First, under Assumption A5), we have

k~(t)k  max 1 (k~(0); tk) ; 1 z[0

z

; 1 e[0
e

;t]

(26)

;t]

for some class KL function 1 and C class K functions 1 and 1e ,

independent of .
Next, let us show that the following system:
1

z


~ v; w)e
(27)
z_ = F (w)z + G(e;
1
is RISS with a C gain function viewing z as state and e as input.
By assumption A2), there exists a symmetric positivedenite matrix

Q(w) continuously depending on w , such that

Q(w)F(w) + F (w)Q(w) = 0I:
Let V (
z ; w) = z Q(w)z . Clearly, V (z ; w) satises, akzk2 
V (z ; w)  akzk2 for suitable a > 0 and a > 0, and its derivative
T

along (27) satises

dV (z ; w)  0kzk2 + 2kz kkQ(w)k G(e;

~ v; w)e :
dt
Pick any 0 <  < 1 and let (1) be a C 1 class K function satisfying
~ v; w)e :
 (kek)  2 kQ(w)k G(e;
10
Then, kzk  (kek) ) (dV (
z ; w)=dt)  0kzk2 . Thus, (27)
is RISS with state z and input e with a C 1 gain function 2 (s) =
(a=a)(s), i.e.,
kz(t)k  max 2 (kz(0); tk) ; 2 e[0 ]
(28)
for some class KL function 2 [18].
z

;t

(30)

As described in [9], to guarantee the satisfaction of assumption A5), it

sufces to suppose that there exists a positive number R satisfying

02~ P N 1[2](~ + d) 0 1[2](d)  (1 0 R)~ ~

T

(31)

for all ~, d. This assumption is to restrict the growth of the nonlinear
part of the function 1 (1). Moreover, the inequality (31) is satised in
[2]
some meaningful cases. First, if 1 is linear, 1 (x)  0. Thus, (31)
[2]
holds automatically. Next, note that (31) holds when j1 (~
 + d) 0
[2]
1 (d)j  ((1 0 R)=2kPN k)k~k. Thus, (31) holds if 1[2] is glob[2]
ally Lipschitz, i.e., j1 (~
 + d) 0 1[2] (d)j  Lk~k for some positive
number L, and the Lipschitz constant L satises L < (1=2kPN k).
Example 3.1: Consider the following system:

z_ = 0 z + 0:2v1 y + D1 (v; w)
y_ = z 0 0:1v2 y 0 sin2 (0:1wy) + 101 + D2 (v; w)
_1 = 0 1 + u; e = y 0 10v1

= v2 , v_ 2 = 0v1 , where D1 (v; w) = v12 and

D2 (v; w) = 10wv1 +10v2 . We will solve the global output regulation
and the exosystem v_ 1

problem for this system. To be specic, we will only consider the case
where V = fv jv12 + v22  1g and W = [01; 1].
Solution: It can be easily veried that the solution of the regulator
equations is

z(v; w) = v12 y(v; w) = 10v1

41 (v; w) = 0 wv1 + 0:1 sin2 (wv1 )
u(v; w) = L 4 1 (v; w) + 41 (v; w)
= 0 wv2 + 0:2 sin(wv1 ) cos(wv1 )wv2
0 wv1 + 0:1 sin2 (wv1 ):
Let 1 (v; w) = wv1 . Then, the minimal zeroing polynomial of 1
is P1 (s) = s2 + 1, and
41 (v; w) = 01 (1 ; _ 1 ) = 01 (v; w) + 0:1 sin2 1 (v; w):
A v

f; ;  g with output

0 1
222
(1 ; u), where  = T [wv1 wv2 ] , 8 =
01 0 , and T 2 < is
Thus, the system has a steady-state generator
T

121

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 50, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005

any nonsingular matrix. Since 9 = [01 0], the pair f9; 8g is observable. Thus, the generator is linearly observable.
So far, we have veried the satisfaction of assumptions A1)A4). To
obtain an internal model that makes the satisfaction of assumption A5,
choose M = diagf01; 02g and N = [0:2 0:4]T , which are control-

1 0:1 satisfying the Sylvester

= 0000::16
0:08
equation T 8 0 MT = N 9. Under this T
1 () = 0 101 + 12:52 + 0:1 sin2 (101 0 12:52 )
2 () = 0 201 + 12:52 + 0:2 sin(101 0 12:52 )
2 cos(101 0 12:52 )(201 0 12:52 )
0 101 + 12:52 + 0:1 sin2 (101 0 12:52):
0:5 0 . Thus,
Now, solving the Lyapunov (30) gives P =
0 0:25

lable, then there exists T

[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]

inequality (31) becomes

02~T 00:5 0:025 12

1[2] (~
 + d) 0 1[2](d)

 (1 0R)~T ~:

It can be easily veried that the previous inequality holds for 0 <
R < 0:72. Thus by Remark 3.3, assumption A5) is satised. Therefore, by Theorem 3.1, the global robust output regulation problem for
this system is solvable.
As a matter of fact, a controller that solves the global robust output
regulation problem for this system can be given as follows:

u = 2 () 0 1190~
x2
x~2 = 1 0 1 () + 17:3~
x1
x~1 = e
_ = M + N 1 0 1 () + 9T 01  :

The details of the synthesis are omitted due to the space limit.
IV. CONCLUDING REMARKS

[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]

, Nonlinear Output Regulation: Theory and Applications. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM, 2004.
, Remarks on robust output regulation problem for nonlinear systems, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 46, pp. 20282031, Nov. 2001.
J. Huang and Z. Chen, A general framework for tackling the output regulation problem, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 49, pp. 22032218,
Dec. 2004.
J. Huang and C.-F. Lin, On a robust nonlinear servomechanism
problem, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 15101513,
Jul. 1994.
A. Isidori and C. I. Byrnes, Output regulation of nonlinear systems,
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 35, pp. 131140, Jan. 1990.
Z. P. Jiang and I. Mareels, A small-gain control method for nonlinear
cascaded systems with dynamic uncertainties, IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, vol. 42, pp. 292308, Feb. 1997.
Z. P. Jiang, A. R. Teel, and L. Praly, Small-gain theorem for ISS systems
and applications, Math. Control, Signals Syst., vol. 7, pp. 95120, 1994.
W. Lin and Q. Gong, A remark on partial-state feedback stabilization
of cascade systems using small gain theorem, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 497500, Mar. 2003.
R. Marino and P. Tomei, Global adaptive output feedback control of
nonlinear systems, part I: linear parameterization, IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, vol. 38, pp. 1730, Jan. 1993.
V. O. Nikiforov, Adaptive nonlinear tracking with complete compensation of unknown disturbances, Eur. J. Control, vol. 4, pp. 132139,
1998.
A. Serrari and A. Isidori, Global robust output regulation for a class of
nonlinear systems, Syst. Control Lett., vol. 39, pp. 133139, 2000.
E. D. Sontag and Y. Wang, New characterizations of input-to-state stability, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 12831294, Sep.
1996.

Necessary and Sufcient Graphical Conditions for

Formation Control of Unicycles
Zhiyun Lin, Bruce Francis, and Manfredi Maggiore

In this note, we have studied the solvability of the global robust

output regulation problem for the class of the nonlinear systems in
output feedback form without the polynomial assumption on the solution of the regulator equations. In our formulation, we have assumed
that the bound of the compact sets V and W are known as is the case in
[17]. This assumption can be removed by using the universal adaptive
control technique as described in [4].

AbstractThe feasibility problem is studied of achieving a specied formation among a group of autonomous unicycles by local distributed control. The directed graph dened by the information ow plays a key role.
It is proved that formation stabilization to a point is feasible if and only if
the sensor digraph has a globally reachable node. A similar result is given
for formation stabilization to a line and to more general geometric arrangements.
Index TermsDistributed control, multiagent system, nonholonomic
mobile robots.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for the
many constructive comments about the rst version of this note.

I. INTRODUCTION
REFERENCES
[1] C. I. Byrnes, F. Delli Priscoli, A. Isidori, and W. Kang, Structurally
stable output regulation of nonlinear systems, Automatica, vol. 33, pp.
369385, 1997.
[2] Z. Chen and J. Huang, Global robust stabilization of cascaded polynomial systems, Syst. Control Lett., vol. 47, pp. 445453, 2002.
[3]
, Nonlinear internal model and the robust output regulation
problem, in Proc. 2003 Amer. Control Conf., Denver, CO, June 2003,
pp. 15601565.
[4]
, Dissipativity, stabilization, and regulation of cascade-connected
systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 49, pp. 635650, May 2004.
[5]
, A variation of the small gain theorem, presented at the 8th Int.
Conf. Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision, Kunming, China, Dec.
2004.
[6] J. Huang, Asymptotic tracking and disturbance rejection in uncertain nonlinear systems, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 40, pp.
11181122, June 1995.

The problem of coordinated control of a group of autonomous

wheeled vehicles is of recent interest in control and robotics. Over
the past decade, many researchers have worked on formation control
problems with differences regarding the types of agent dynamics, the
varieties of the control strategies, and the types of tasks demanded.
In 1990, Sugihara and Suzuki [1] proposed a simple algorithm for a
group of point-mass type robots to form approximations to circles
Manuscript received November 12, 2003; revised May 3, 2004 and June 25,
2004. Recommended by Associate Editor M. Reyhanoglu.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3G4, Canada (e-mail:
linz@control.utoronto.ca; bruce.francis@utoronto.ca; maggiore@control.
utoronto.ca).
Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TAC.2004.841121

0018-9286/$20.00 2005 IEEE