Systems & Control Letters 59 (2010) 687–694

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Systems & Control Letters

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/sysconle

Robust interval observers for global Lipschitz uncertain chaotic systems

Marcelo Moisan a,∗ , Olivier Bernard b
a
EMEL S.A., BP 8330097, Santiago, Chile
b
INRIA COMORE, BP 93, 06902 Sophia–Antipolis, France

article info abstract

Article history: In this paper we develop and apply a robust interval observer to estimate the unknown variables of
Received 11 February 2009 uncertain chaotic systems. We consider that bounds of the uncertainties are known and propose an
Received in revised form observer that computes guaranteed upper and lower bounds for the unknown variables. We show that
8 July 2010
the proposed observer converges asymptotically toward a bounded error, leading to an original scheme
Accepted 5 August 2010
Available online 28 September 2010
of observer-based synchronization. The method is applied to the estimation of the variables of Chua’s
chaotic system.
Keywords:
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Interval observers
Observer-based synchronization
Uncertain systems
Chaotic systems

1. Introduction the slave chaotic system is replaced by an observer, which will

Uncertain dynamics and perturbations are common drawbacks
that have to be considered when estimating unknown variables
of a system, especially when dealing with biological systems [1,2].
This is why the development of robust state observers is required.
The task can be even more challenging when the system presents
a chaotic behavior.
Nowadays, the analytical study of chaos is used to explain
some behavior in biology, chemical processes and physics [3].
Features of chaotic behavior, such as sensitivity to initial conditions
and exponential divergence of nearby trajectories also make it
potentially useful in the field of signal encryption and secure
communication [4]. The idea consists of using the synchronization
of chaotic systems. Since its introduction in [5], the problem of
chaos synchronization has received great attention in the research
community. Numerous achievements in this field have been made,
introducing new methods in order to achieve the synchronization
of two chaotic systems.
Conceptually, given a master (drive) chaotic system and a
second identical slave (response) system, the objective is to force
the slave system to synchronize the behavior of the master system
[5]. In order to solve this problem, the theory of automatic control
has played a fundamental role. Methods based on continuous
control have been widely discussed [6,3]. On the other hand, chaos
synchronization has also been stated as an estimation problem:
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +56 2 7873495.
E-mail address: marcelo.moisan@emel.cl (M. Moisan).
0167-6911/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.sysconle.2010.08.005
estimate (synchronize) the unknown variables of the master
chaotic system. In [7], theoretical observability concepts are
presented, giving notions and links to the system synchronization
problem. Synchronization is achieved in [8] using observers up to a
scalar signal, and high gains observers are used in [9]. Simultaneous
state estimation is associated to message masking in [10], and
the discrete time treatment of observer-based synchronization is
studied in [11].
However, most of the previously mentioned techniques are
usually formulated considering perfect knowledge of the chaotic
system. This assumption can be quite difficult to fulfil considering
realistic systems: mismatch between master and slave systems
parameters can be found and moreover, transmitted signals or
available information can be affected by noise (above all in the
field of communications). Therefore, new methods more robust to
uncertainties are needed. On this matter, some efforts have been
already presented. For example, in [12] the control of uncertain
chaotic systems is faced. In [13] a novel approach considering
the simultaneous synchronization and identification of uncertain
parameters is proposed for Rössler’s system.
In this paper we consider the uncertainties from a purely
deterministic point of view, that is, we assume bounds for the
uncertain quantities. Then, we use these bounds to construct the
so-called interval observer.
An interval observer is a robust process that provides guar-
anteed bounds of the unknown part of an uncertain dynamical
system. Interval observers are based on so called framers. These
framers consist of two coupled differential systems that keep the
partial order with respect to the system to be estimated. If the
688 M. Moisan, O. Bernard / Systems & Control Letters 59 (2010) 687–694

framers provide a bounded estimate for bounded uncertainty, then
this estimate is an interval observer.
Interval observers [14] are commonly formulated considering
monotonicity properties of differential systems. This theory was
originally introduced in [14,15] and has been successfully applied
to the analysis of various biological systems. Since the introduction
of interval observers most of the efforts have focused in exploiting
the characteristic of guaranteed upper and lower estimates
[16–18].
This paper is structured as follows. In Section 2 we introduce
some hypotheses about the system, definitions and an example
of a chaotic system. Sections 3 and 4 are devoted to the theoret-
ical aspects related to the formulation of an interval observer. This
is performed in two steps: first we develop an interval observer
under perfect knowledge of the dynamics of the system. Conver-
gence conditions are given for this case. In Section 4 we deduce a
framer which takes into account uncertainties on parameters and
noise in the measurements. Asymptotic bounds on the estimation
error are given in order to prove that the framer is indeed an inter-
val observer. Each case is illustrated with the application to Chua’s
chaotic system example.
2. Class of system and example
We consider a dynamical system that can be written in the
form:
ẋ(t ) = A(κ)x(t ) + ψ(x, κ); x(0) = x0

(S ) :
y(t ) = Cx(t )
where x ∈ Ω ⊂ Rn is the state vector of the system (x0 ∈ Ω0 ⊂ Ω
is the initial condition), A ∈ Rn×n . The continuous and differen-
tiable mapping ψ(x, κ) concentrates the non-linearity of the sys-
tem. We will assume in the sequel that ψ(x, κ) is a global Lipschitz
function on the considered domain Ω , with respect to x:
∀(x1 , x2 ) ∈ Ω 2 , |ψ(x1 , κ) − ψ(x2 , κ)| ≤ Γ |x1 − x2 |
where Γ is the Lipschitz constant.
System (1) is also characterized by a set of parameters κ .
This last point is treated in detail hereafter, when considering
uncertainties in the observer formulation.
Furthermore, we consider that a linear combination of the state
vector is measured, with C ∈ Rn+ . Note that the same principle
of observer design straightforwardly applies to a system output
of dimension p. For sake of simplicity we focus here on the single
output case.
For the formulation and analysis of the observers, we make the
following hypothesis on system (1).
Hypothesis 1. The trajectories of (1) initialized at x0 in the
bounded set Ω0 stay in a bounded domain Ω : ∀x0 ∈ Ω0 , |x(t , x0 )|
≤ xmax for all positive time.
2.1. Example: Chua’s chaotic system
where α , β , γ ∈ R+ and a, b ∈ R− , with a < b, are system
parameters.
Chua’s system (3) has the form of system (1) considering x =
[x1 x2 x3 ]T ∈ R3 with:
−α(1 + b) α 0
 
A= 1 −1 1 and
0 −β −γ
(5)
−α h(x1 )
 
ψ(x) = 0 .
0
For the forthcoming analysis, we will consider that the variable
y = x1 + x2 + x3 is measured, therefore C = [1 1 1].
Property 1. The solutions of system (3) remain bounded for all time.
Proof. See for example [19,3], where a qualitative study of Chua’s
equations can be found. 
Property 2. The function ψ1 (x) = −α h(x1 ) is monotone increasing
and, moreover, positively bounded: ψ1 (x) ≤ −α(a − b).
Proof. The proof is straightforward, under the assumptions given
for the parameters α , a and b. 
In the following sections, we develop the interval observer in
two steps: first, we consider the case of perfect knowledge of
(1) system (1). Then, we consider the case when system parameters
are not accurately known and measurements are biased. We show
how to obtain a guaranteed stable and error bounded estimation
of the chaotic state.
3. Interval observers with perfect knowledge
Before introducing the observers, let us recall the following
(2) definition.
Definition 1. A square matrix B is said to be cooperative if its off-
diagonal entries are nonnegative [20]: bij ≥ 0, ∀i ̸= j.
Remark 1. The operator ≤ applied between vectors or matrices
should be understood as a set of inequalities applied component
by component.
3.1. A perfect knowledge interval observer
Let us start our analysis giving some properties of any global
Lipschitz mapping ψ(x) : Rn → Rq , that will be useful in the
formulation of the observer.
Property 3. The differentiable global Lipschitz function ψ(x) can
be written as the difference of two differentiable global Lipschitz
functions f (x) and g (x) which are two increasing functions of x:

Chua’s system is one of the most cited and studied paradigms ψ(x) = f (x) − g (x).
of chaotic behavior. The double scroll attractor that features
Proof. Let us consider fj (x) = γ i xi and gj (x) = fj (x) − ψj (x),
∑n
this system is generated from a simple electrical circuit. The
dimensionless equations that represent Chua’s system are the where γj ≥ 0 is the Lipschitz constant of function ψj and j =
following [19]: {1, . . . , q}. It is clear that gj (x) is increasing since:
ẋ1 = α[x2 − x1 (1 + b) − h(x1 )] ∂ gj ∂ψj

ẋ2 = x1 − x2 + x3 (3) =γ − ≥ 0, ∀i = {1, . . . , n}
∂ xi ∂ xi
ẋ3 = −β x2 − γ x3 .
then Property 3 holds. 
The nonlinear feature is given by the function:
1 Property 4. For any global Lipschitz function ψ(x), there exists a
h(s) = (a − b)[|s + 1| − |s − 1|] (4) differentiable global Lipschitz function ψ(xa , xb ) : Rn × Rn → Rq ,
2
 M. Moisan, O. Bernard / Systems & Control Letters 59 (2010) 687–694 689

such that: Remark 2. It is rather straightforward to find appropriate Θi , and

• ψ( Fi : it suffices that the Fi off-diagonal terms are large enough so
 x,x) = ψ(x)  that Ai off-diagonal elements become positive. However, among
• ∂∂ψ
xa
≥ 0 and ∂∂ψ
xb
≤0 the possible choices, some are more efficient in terms of interval
size, especially the ones that ensure stability (see Property 2 in the
Proof. From Property 3, it holds that ψ(x) = f (x) − g (x) and
sequel).
therefore, mapping ψ can be written as
Proof. We write the error dynamics by comparing Eqs. (12) and
ψ(xa , xb ) = f (xa ) − g (xb ) (6) (1). This leads to the following system:
with f and g monotone increasing. 
ė+ = A1 e+ + F1 e− + ψ(x+ , x− ) − ψ(x)

(Oe ) : (13)
The main consequence of this property is that we have, for the ė− = A2 e− + F2 e+ + ψ(x) − ψ(x− , x+ ).
bounds of the argument x:  +
e
Considering the error dynamics e = e−
, it can be rewritten in the
x −
≤ x ≤ x ⇒ ψ(x , x ) ≤ ψ(x, x) ≤ ψ(x , x ).
+ − + + −
(7)
compact form ė = Âe + φ(x+ , x− , x), where:
Moreover, using the generalized Taylor formula, the upper [ ]
difference can be written as follows: A1 F1
 = and
F2 A2
∂ψ 1
∫
(14)
ψ(x , x ) − ψ(x, x) =
+ −
(τ v + (1 − τ )u)dτ (v − u) (8) ψ(x+ , x− ) − ψ(x, x)
[ ]
0 ∂v φ(x+ , x− , x) = .
 +  ψ(x, x) − ψ(x− , x+ )
x x
where v = x− and u = x . From Eq. (6), we have
By initial condition hypothesis, e(0) ≥ 0. Let us consider the first
time instant t0 when one of the component of vector e is equal to
1
∂f
[∫
ψ(x+ , x− ) − ψ(x, x) = (τ x+ + (1 − τ )x)dτ zero. Let us e.g. assume that it is the kth component of ek . We have
0 ∂x for this error component:
1
∂g
∫ ]
− (τ x + (1 − τ )x− )dτ (v − u) 2n
∂x
−
0 ėk |t =t0 = âki ei + φk (x+ , x− , x) ≥ 0 (15)
i̸=k
= [N1 (x , x) − N2 (x, x )](v − u).
+ −
(9)
Similarly, for the lower bound we have: where the components of matrix  are denoted âij . As a
consequence ek will stay nonnegative and finally e will remain
ψ(x, x) − ψ(x− , x+ ) = [N3 (x, x− ) − N4 (x+ , x)](v − u) (10) nonnegative for any time t. 
q×n
where the nonnegative matrices Ni ∈ R+ , i = {1, . . . , 4} are Moreover, considering the bounds given by Eq. (11) we have a
straightforwardly derived from (9) (and from the similar expres- differential inequality of the form ė ≤ Ãe, where:
sion for the lower bounds). This allows us introduce the following
A + Θ1 C + F1 + N1
[ ]
property. F1 + N2
à = . (16)
F2 + N3 A + Θ2 C + F2 + N4
Property 5. Consider the global Lipschitz function ψ(x) : R → R n q

and its associate function ψ(xa , xb ) : Rn × Rn → Rq (see Property 4).

∂ψ Proposition 2. If matrix à is stable and condition of Proposition 1 are
If the Jacobian matrix ∂v ∈ Rq×2n is bounded then, for bounds of the fulfilled, then system (12) is an interval observer; it converges
q×n
argument x− ≤ x ≤ x+ , there exist matrices Ni ∈ R+ , i = {1, . . . , asymptotically towards the solution of (1).
4} such that:
Proof. It follows that à is cooperative because each Ni is nonneg-
ψ(x+ , x− ) − ψ(x, x) ≤ N1 e+ + N2 e−

ative. On the other hand Âe + φ(x+ , x− ) ≤ Ãe, which implies that
(11)
ψ(x, x) − ψ(x− , x+ ) ≤ N3 e+ + N4 e− e⋆ (t ) ≥ e(t ) ≥ 0, where e⋆ is the solution of the system ė⋆ =
Ãe⋆ . 
where e+ = x+ − x and e− = x − x− .

Proof. Given that x− ≤ x ≤ x+ , then Eq. (7) holds. Therefore, the Remark 3. Conditions to have at the same time cooperativity and
proof is straightforwardly derived from Eqs. (9) and (10).  stability for linear systems are discussed in [21,18]. It is worth
noting that, under some conditions, there exists a linear change
Now let us consider the following system: of variables which can transform a stable linear system into a
cooperative stable system. In the general linear case this change
ẋ = Ax + ψ(x , x ) + Θ1 (y − y) + F1 (x − x )
 + + + − + + −
of variable is time varying.
(O1 ) : ẋ = Ax + ψ(x , x ) − Θ2 (y − y ) − F2 (x − x )
− − − + − + −
(12)
x (0) = x+
0 , x− (0) = x−
 +
0 3.2. Application to Chua’s system
where Θi = (θ1i , . . . , θni )T ∈ Rn are two gain vectors, x− and x+
∈ Rn and y+ = Cx+ , y− = Cx− . F1 and F2 are nonnegative matrices. For this case, the nonlinear part ψ1 (x1 ) = −α h(x1 ) of Chua’s
system is perfectly known. Since it is monotone increasing (from
Proposition 1. For any Θ1 , Θ2 ∈ Rn and nonnegative matrices F1 Property 2), we consider ψ 1 (s) = α h(s) and thus:
and F2 such that the matrices A1 = A + Θ1 C + F1 and A2 = A +
Θ2 C + F2 are cooperative, then system (12) is a framer of system (1): ψ 1 (x− ) ≤ ψ1 (x) ≤ ψ 1 (x+ ). (17)
if system (12) is initialized such that x− +
0 ≤ x0 ≤ x0 , then for any For Chua’s equations, we have considered α = 11.85, β = 14.9,
nonnegative time t, x− (t ) ≤ x(t ) ≤ x+ (t ). γ = 0.29, a = −1.14 and b = −0.71, and the initial condition
690 M. Moisan, O. Bernard / Systems & Control Letters 59 (2010) 687–694

Fig. 1. Interval estimation of variables x1 , x2 and x3 , considering perfect knowledge of Chua’s system.

x0 = [−0.1 0.2 0.05]T [19]. We run the observer of Eq. (12) with We will show that a framer for this class of system will depend
the initialization x+ T − T
0 = [5 5 5] and x0 = [−5 − 5 − 5] . on the sign of the state estimates. For this purpose let us introduce
We take the gain value Θ = Θ1 = Θ2 = [−α − 1 0]T , and a the following matrices:
matrix F = F1 = F2 computed such that:
σn+×n = diag[pos(x+ )] and σn−×n = diag[pos(x− )] (22)
|aij + θi | if aij + θi < 0

fij =
0 otherwise. where

for i, j = {1, . . . , 3},


i ̸= j (18) 1 if xi ≥ 0
pos(xi ) = (23)
This allows to write matrix  of Eq. (14) as follows: 0 otherwise.
−α(2 + b) 0 0 0 0 α  In other words, σ + (x+ ) denotes a diagonal matrix where the
0 −2 0 0 0 0  element σk will be 1 if the kth component of the vector x+ is
β

 0 0 −γ 0 0  nonnegative and 0 if not. In a similar way, the diagonal matrix
 =  (19)
α −α(2 + b) σ − (x− ) is constructed over the sign of the components of the

 0 0 0 0 
0 0 0 0 −2 0 vector x− .
 
0 β 0 0 0 −γ Now we write a candidate observer equation as follows:
which is cooperative and stable. The interval estimates performed
ẋ = Bx+ + ψ(x+ , x− ) + Θ1 (y+ − y) + F1 (x+ − x− )
 +
by the observer can be seen in Figs. 1 and 2.
(O2 ) : ẋ− = Bx− + ψ(x− , x+ ) − Θ2 (y − y− ) − F2 (x+ − x− )
x (0) = x+0 , x− (0) = x−
 +
4. Interval observers with uncertainties 0
(24)
Now we take into account bounded uncertainties in the system
parameters and measurements. where:

B = Aσ + + A(I − σ + ) and B = Aσ − + A(I − σ − ). (25)

4.1. Uncertain parameters
Let us consider Eq. (1) in the case where κ is uncertain,
but known to exist in the intervals κi ∈ [κ i , κ i ]. Under this
consideration, matrix A is not known anymore but can be bounded
by two known matrices A and A, such that A ≤ A ≤ A. We denote
M1 and M2 ∈ Rn+×n , the two positive matrices such that:
M1 = A − A and M2 = A − A.
Of course, the function ψ(.) is parameterized by [κ, κ]. This
parameterization is not explicited here to lighten the notations.
Proposition 3. If there exist Θ1 , Θ2 ∈ Rn and nonnegative matrices
F1 and F2 such that the matrices A1 = A + Θ1 C + F1 and A2 =
A + Θ2 C + F2 are cooperative, then system (24) is a framer for
(20) system (1).

For a simpler notation, we define Proof. Let us construct the error dynamics. After some algebraic
arrangements in Eq. (25) we have:
R = A − A = M1 + M2 (21)
which is a nonnegative matrix. B = [A − M2 + Rσ + ] and B = [A − M1 − Rσ + ]. (26)
 M. Moisan, O. Bernard / Systems & Control Letters 59 (2010) 687–694 691

Fig. 2. Convergence interval of variables x1 , x2 and x3 , considering perfect knowledge of Chua’s system.

The error system has thus the following form: Remark 4. In general, the choice of κ i or κ i to construct bounds
of ψ(x, κ) depends exclusively on the nonlinearity structure. To
ė = (A + Θ1 C + F1 )e+ + F1 e− + φ + (.)
 +
simplify the writing, in the sequel we will assume that the term
+ (Rσ + − M2 )x+


(Oe2 ) : − (27) φ(x+ , x− , x) remains bounded by a positive constant vector φ =
 = (A + Θ2 C + F2 )e− + F2 e+ + φ − (.)
ė [φ 1 φ 2 ]T .
+ (Rσ − − M1 )x− .

 +
e 4.1.1. Application to Chua’s system
The error dynamics e = e− can be rewritten in the form:
For the nonlinear part of Chua’s model, given by Eq. (4), we have
[
x+
] to take into account the sign of the estimates. This leads to:
ė = Âe + φ(x+ , x− , x) + H (28) if x+
x− 1 ≥ 0:

where  and φ(x+ , x− , x) remain the same as in Eq. (14) and 1

ψ 1 ( x+
1 ) = − (α a − α b)[|x1 + 1| − |x1 − 1|]
+ +
(33)
2
R σ + − M2
[ ]
0
.
1 < 0:
if x+
H= (29)
0 Rσ − − M1
The term H is related to the parametric uncertainty. From (21), we 1
ij ij ψ 1 ( x+
1 ) = − (α a − α b)[|x1 + 1| − |x1 − 1|]
+ +
(34)
have Rij = m1 + m2 , and therefore: 2
ij if x−
1 ≥ 0:
if pos(x+
j ) = 1

m1
[Rσ + − M2 ]ij = (30)
−mij2 otherwise. 1
ψ 1 ( x−
1 ) = − (α a − α b)[|x1 + 1| − |x1 − 1|]
− −
(35)
Then it is clear that the kth column of Rσ + − M2 has the same sign 2

1 < 0:
as the kth component of x+ . The same statement applies to matrix if x−
Rσ − − M1 with respect to x− . This implies that:
1
[Rσ + − M2 ]ij x+ ψ 1 ( x−
1 ) = − (α a − α b)[|x1 + 1| − |x1 − 1|].
− −
(36)
i ≥ 0 and [R σ − M1 ]ij x−
−
i ≥ 0 (31) 2
 +
x
and therefore H x− = H u ≥ 0. Under this definition of functions ψ 1 and ψ , and considering
1
To finish the proof we consider the first time instant t0 when a Property 2, the boundedness of vector φ(x+
1 , x1 , x) is clear.
−

component ek of the vector error e cancels. Writing the derivative

ėk (t0 ), we get: 4.2. Biased output
2n
−
ėk |t =t0 = {âki ei + hki ui } + φk (x+ , x− , x) ≥ 0. (32) In practice, measurements are corrupted with noise. We
i̸=k assume that this noise is bounded:

This proves the positivity of the error system.  y = Cx(1 + δ), |δ| ≤ ∆ < 1. (37)
692 M. Moisan, O. Bernard / Systems & Control Letters 59 (2010) 687–694

Fig. 3. Interval estimation of variables x1 , x2 and x3 , for Chua’s system with parametric uncertainty and biased measurements.

In other words, the original measured set of variables Cx is Again, we use the compact notation of Eq. (28) to write the error
corrupted by a bounded multiplicative perturbation δ . dynamics. Then we have:
Depending on the sign of the measurements y, we can bound
A + Θ1 C + F 1
[ ]
the actually unknown quantity Cx considering: F1
 = (43)
F2 A + Θ2 C + F 2
y y
y= ≤ Cx ≤ =y (38)
1 + ε∆ 1 − ε∆ and
Rσ + − M2

x+
[ ][ ]
1 if y ≥ 0
where ε = −1 otherwise. H =
0
0 Rσ − − M1 x−
These bounds are known quantities that let us formulate a new
framer according to the following proposition. −η1 Θ1 C
[ ][ ]
0 x
+ . (44)
0 −η2 Θ2 C x
Proposition 4. If there exist Θ1 , Θ2 ∈ R− , and nonnegative matrices
n

F1 and F2 such that the matrices A1 = A + Θ1 C + F1 and A2 = We already proved that the vectors (Rσ + − M2 )x+ and (Rσ − −
A + Θ2 C + F2 are cooperative, then system (24) is a framer for M1 )x− remain by construction positive for all time. Now, provided
system (1), under parametric uncertainty and biased measurements. gains vectors Θ1 , Θ2 ∈ Rn− and considering Eqs. (38) and (42) we
Proof. Let us focus on the correction terms. For the upper bound verify that:
now we have:
sign(y) = sign(η1 ) = sign(η2 ). (45)
1+δ
[ ]
+ +
y −y = Cx − Cx Moreover, from Eq. (37) we have that the output y and Cx have the
1 − ε∆
same sign, then:
ε∆ + δ
= Ce+ − Cx . (39) sign(η1 ) = sign(η2 ) = sign(Cx)
1 − ε∆
−η1 Θ1 C
[ ][ ]
0 x
Similarly, the lower bound correction can be written as: ⇒ ≥ 0, ∀Θi < 0. (46)
0 −η2 Θ2 C x
ε∆ − δ
y − y− = Ce− − Cx . (40) With this last result the vector H is positive for bounded
1 + ε∆ uncertainties in the system parameters and biased measurements.
Now we compute the error dynamics. To complete the proof, we just need to verify that matrix  is
cooperative. Indeed, if matrices F1 , F2 , A + Θ1 C + F1 and A + Θ2 C + F2
ė = (A + Θ1 C )e+ + (Rσ + − M2 )x+
 +
−η Θ Cx + φ + (.) + F1 (e+ + e− ) are cooperative, then it is straightforward that  is also cooperative,


(Oe3 ) : − 1 1 (41) under the hypothesis of sign for Θi and Fi . 
ė = (A + Θ2 C )−e + (Rσ +− M−1 )x
− − −

−η2 Θ2 Cx + φ (.) + F2 (e + e )
4.3. From framers to interval observers
where:
ε∆ + δ ε∆ − δ Until this point we have obtained guaranteed upper and lower
η1 = and η2 = . (42) bounds of system (1), because of the positivity of the error systems.
1 − ε∆ 1 + ε∆
 M. Moisan, O. Bernard / Systems & Control Letters 59 (2010) 687–694 693

Fig. 4. Convergence interval of variables x1 , x2 and x3 , for Chua’s system with parametric uncertainty and biased measurements.

Now, in order to derive an interval observer, we analyse the then system (28) can be written in the form of (47) considering:
stability of the system (28), with  and H as defined in (43) and
(Rσ + − M2 − η1 Θ1 C )x + φ + (.)
[ ]
(44). b= (51)
For our purposes, the following lemma will be useful. (Rσ − − M1 − η2 Θ2 C )x + φ − (.)
and matrix N as defined in Eq. (49). From Proposition 4, matrix N is
Lemma 1. Consider the system also cooperative. Indeed, matrices G, σ + and σ − are nonnegative.
On the other hand, the term b is bounded by a positive vector.
ė = Ne + b(t ), e(0) = e0 . (47) Considering Eqs. (21), (22) and (42), the following positive bounds
If matrix N ∈ R n×n
is cooperative and stable, and moreover, there can be deduced:
exists a constant vector B ∈ Rn+ such that b(t ) ≤ B, then the solution (i) Rσ + − M2 ≤ R and Rσ − − M1 ≤ R
of system (47) is upper bounded by the solution of the system ż =
2∆ 2∆ (52)
Nz +B, z (0) = e0 , which admits one stable equilibrium eeq = −N −1 B. (ii) η1 ≤ = η1 and η2 ≤ = η2 .
1−∆ 1+∆
Proof. See [14] for a detailed demonstration.  Using Hypothesis 1 and the previous bounds, it is possible to
apply Lemma 1, and therefore we end up with the error bound of
Lemma 2. If there exist Θ1 , Θ2 ∈ Rn− , and nonnegative matrices F1 Eq. (48). 
and F2 such that the matrix  (see Eq. (43)) is cooperative and stable,
then system (24) defines an interval observer, and the estimation error 4.4. Application to Chua’s system
is ultimately bounded by:
Let us consider the observer given by Eq. (24). Now all the
(R − η1 Θ1 C )xmax + φ 1
[ ]
eeq = −N −1
(48) parameters of Chua’s system are supposed to be uncertain, with
(R − η2 Θ2 C )xmax + φ 2 known upper and lower bounds: α ∈ [11.49, 12.21], β ∈ [14.45,
15.35], γ ∈ [0.29, 0.31] and a ∈ [−1.17, −1.1], b ∈ [−0.73 −
where 0.69] which corresponds to a ±5% range with respect to their real
[
A + Θ1 C + Rσ + + F1 F1
] values.
N = . (49) We have considered an uniformly distributed noise signal
F2 A + Θ2 C + R σ − + F 2
characterized by ∆ = 0.07. For this simulation we have considered
the same values for the gain Θ and matrix F as in Section 3, which
Proof. From Eq. (44) and considering that x+ = x + e+ and x− enables to obtain stable upper and lower bounds on the system
= x − e− the term H can be written as: state. Simulation results can be seen in Figs. 3 and 4.
Even though the estimates performed for the perfect knowledge
Rσ + − M2 e+
[ ][ ]
0 case and the uncertain case (see Figs. 1 and 3 respectively),
H =
0 Rσ − − M1 e− are characterized by a strong peaking at the beginning of the
simulation, the observer successfully converges. For the perfect
(Rσ + − M2 − η1 Θ1 C )x
[ ]
+ (50) knowledge case, the observer converges asymptotically to zero, as
(Rσ − − M1 − η2 Θ2 C )x a direct consequence of the selected gain values. For the case where
694 M. Moisan, O. Bernard / Systems & Control Letters 59 (2010) 687–694
uncertainties are considered, the observer converges toward a
bounded error, which depends on the range of the uncertainties.
It is worth noting that for this case the variable x2 converges
toward a very narrow interval, since its dynamics are not affected
by parametric uncertainties (see Eq. (3)), performing interval
estimates that are less sensitive to the noise in the available output.
5. Conclusions
An interval observer has been presented in order to estimate
the unmeasured variables of a chaotic system. This method is
suitable for observer–based synchronization of chaotic systems,
where uncertainties of parameters and noise in the measured
variables have to be taken into account. Interval observers offer
a way to deal with uncertainties with many advantages when
compared with classical observers: for example, they work in a
purely deterministic framework and they allow to online assess the
error of the performed estimates.
The proposed techniques can now be assessed in the framework
of message encryption in highly biased communication channels.
References
[1] O. Bernard, G. Sallet, A. Sciandra, Nonlinear observers for a class of biological
systems. Application to validation of a phytoplanktonic growth model, IEEE
Trans. Automat. Control 43 (1998) 1056–1065.
[2] L. Mailleret, O. Bernard, J.-P. Steyer, Robust nonlinear adaptive control for
bioreactors with unknown kinetics, Automatica 40 (8) (2004) 365–383.
[3] S. Strogatz, Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications in Physics,
Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering, Addison-Wesley, 1994.
[4] T. Yang, L. Chua, Secure communication via chaotic parameter modulation,
IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst.-I 43 (9) (1996) 817–819.
[5] L.M. Pecora, T.L. Carroll, Synchronization in chaotic systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64
(10) (1990) 821–824.
[6] T. Kapitaniak, L.O. Chua, G.Q. Zhong, Experimental synchronization of chaos
using continuous control, Int. J. Bifurcations Chaos 2 (6) (1994) 483–488.
[7] H. Nijmeijer, I. Mareels, An observer looks at synchronization, IEEE Trans.
Circuits Syst.-I 44 (10) (1997) 882–890.
[8] G. Grassi, S. Mascolo, Nonlinear observer design to synchronize hyperchaotic
systems via scalar signal, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst.-I 44 (10) (2003) 237–251.
[9] W. Yu, High–Gain Observer for chaotic synchronization and secure communi-
cations, Int. J. Commun. Syst. 18 (2005) 487–500.
[10] M. Boutayeb, M. Darouach, H. Rafaralahy, Generalized state–space observers
for chaotic synchronization and secure communications, IEEE Trans. Circuits
Syst.-I 49 (3) (2002) 345–349.
[11] G. Millerioux, J. Daafouz, Input independent chaos synchronization of
switched systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 49 (7) (2004) 1182–1187.
[12] Z. Li, G. Chen, S. Shi, C. Han, Robust adaptive tracking control for a class of
uncertain chaotic systems, Phys. Lett. A 310 (2003) 40–43.
[13] S. Chen, J. Hu, C. Wang, J. Lü, Adaptive synchronization of uncertain rössler
hyperchaotic system based on parameter identification, Phys. Lett. A 321
(2004) 50–55.
[14] J.-L. Gouzé, A. Rapaport, Z. Hadj-Sadok, Interval observers for uncertain
biological systems, Ecological modell. 133 (2000) 45–56.
[15] A. Rapaport, J.-L. Gouzé, Parallelotopic and practical observers for nonlinear
uncertain systems, Int. J. Control 76 (3) (2003) 237–251.
[16] O. Bernard, J.-L. Gouzé, Closed loop observers bundle for uncertain biotechno-
logical models, J. Process Control 14 (2004) 765–774.
[17] M. Moisan, O. Bernard, J.-L. Gouzé, Near optimal interval observers bundle for
uncertain bioreactors, Automatica 45 (1) (2009) 291–295.
[18] F. Mazenc, O. Bernard, Interval observers for linear systems with additive
disturbances, Proceedings of the NOLCOS conference, Bologna, Italy, 2010.
[19] G. Leonov, D. Ponomarenko, V. Smirnova, Global stability and instability of
canonical chua’s circuits, in: R.N. Madan (Ed.), Chua’s Circuit: A Paradigm for
Chaos, World Scientific, 1993, pp. 725–739. (series B).
[20] H.L. Smith, Monotone Dynamical Systems: An introduction to the theory of
competitive and cooperative systems, Amer. Math. Soc. 75 (1995).
[21] F. Mazenc, O. Bernard, Asymptotically stable interval observers for planar
systems with complex poles, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 55 (2010) 523–527.