Genetic Controller: A New Approach to Perform State Feedback
Control of Generic Non-Linear Systems
César Daltoé Berci, Celso Pascoli Bottura
Abstract— Control theory has been benefited from the enor-
mous development of digital computing and computational
intelligence to solve relatively complex problems through means
of computational methods. In the control theory of nonlinear
systems that relationship is even clearer. Because of the com-
plexity of these systems, it becomes virtually impossible to treat
most of then with traditional methods. Within this context, this
paper proposes the design of a controller, based on genetic
algorithms, which through a particular approach to the control
problem, applies an evolutionary process to select the correct
input to be applied to the system at every sample time. Thus
a controller quite simple and generally applicable to a wide
range of nonlinear dynamic systems is obtained.
I. INTRODUCTION
Control theory started approximately in the year 1868,
with the beginning of the use of differential equations
in dynamic systems analysis, which provided a significant
advance for studying these systems and marks the beginning
of the historical period known as primitive control.
Around the first quarter of the twentieth century, Harold
Stephen Black, proposed the concept of negative feedback
closed loop control, introducing a new milestone in the
history of control. The historical period that begins with
the emergence of the concept of Black is known as classic
control. In this theory the system is represented in the fre-
quency domain by means of transfer functions. This approach
allows the creation of controllers based on specifications
over desired characteristics of the frequency response, and by
many decades it has been used successfully in the design of
controllers. Nowadays this theory is still used and has great
value in the control area, however, it has some significant
limitations, motivating the search for new solutions.
Around the year 1960, a new period called modern control
arised, in which many of the limitations of the approach
in the frequency domain were overcome, however, at the
cost of greater computational complexity of the required
calculations, which now involved arrays and matrices. That
period started due, among others, to three works of Rudolf
E. Kalman [17], which successfully applied the Lyapunov
theory to control and contributed, among other things, to
the development of state feedback control, optimum filter-
ing, realization and state estimation. At this point dynamic
systems are no longer being represented in the frequency
domain, but in the state space in a time domain. This repre-
sentation, although more advantageous in terms of control,
requires greater storage and data processing capacities, being
supported by the emergence of digital computing.
Modern control, despite overcoming many of the limita-
tions of classical control, is still restricted to cases in which
the dynamic model of the system to be controlled is well
defined. That, among others limitations, led to the emergence
of the theory known as post modern control [9], [10], [8],
[11], in which is embedded the theory of robust control [1],
[20], [23], [7], [16].
At the end of the last century, control theory received an-
other major contribution, the rediscovery of the LMI (Linear
Matrix Inequalities) concept [5] that modified the state of
the art of this theory, providing computational solutions for
many problems previously not able to be solved, among other
factors, by not presenting an analytic solution.
Alongside the development of the theory of control, is
developing the history of digital computing, which has
experienced great advances in recent decades. In the middle
of the last century, the phenomenon of semi-conductance
that inaugurates the silicon era and alter the course of
the computation history was discovered. Until then, digital
computers were large machines with their main elements the
valves, many orders of magnitude larger and less efficient
than the transistors, the basic element of modern digital
computation. The first digital computers were exclusivity of
a few universities and research centers around the world,
which restricted their use to a select and very small number
of people. The silicon era, with the advent of the transistor,
provided a rapid democratization and advancement of digital
computation, making it feasible to implement the most mod-
ern control theories, therefore, now a large number of people
in more remote regions of the world, has been provided
with sufficient computational capacity to computationally
implement models in the state space and computationally
expensive control techniques.
Older than the actual discovery of the transistor, is the
area known as computational intelligence, which has long
been studied and for a long time generating numerous
theories and tools of great importance in various fields.
With the advancement of digital computing, new theories on
computational intelligence were created, while others have
gained strength.
Computational intelligence became an important numeri-
cal tool, used in many areas of human knowledge, among
which control is also included. Its use in this area has been
explored by several researchers in countless applications, as
in the solution of LMI’s and Riccati algebraic equations as
is done in [21], among many other possible applications,
and some of them would be unthinkable without the use of
computational intelligence. This scenario creates conditions
for the appearance of a new approach to control theory,
intelligent control, which essentially deals with the use
of computational intelligence in controllers design and in
control itself.
Clearly the relationship between the developments of
digital computing, computational intelligence and control
theory, similarly to what occurs with other areas of human
knowledge that clearly interact during their evolution, created
a sequence of interconnected events forming a stochastic
evolutionary process. In control theory this process emerged
in the theories known today, and is often conditioned by
expectations generated by the state of the art, which generally
tries to combine aspects of old solutions from different
areas to form hybrid solutions that exploit the full available
capabilities .
During this evolutionary process, some concepts consid-
ered outdated or inefficient or even incorrect, can be forgotten
and disregarded. A superficial analysis of the evolutionary
process of control theory with respect to its emergence in the
current state of the art, refers to the question: What would be
the state of the art in control theory, if any historical event
had not occurred when it really did, for example, if humanity
had developed the model of neural computation and not
the digital one? The answer to that question is certainly
unknown, but a reflection about this lead us to believe in
the existence of many possibilities still not exploited.
This historical scenario with the evolutionary process of
control theory inserted, created a motivation for the applica-
tion of the relatively new techniques of computational intelli-
gence to the problem of control by less conventional means,
as is done in: [2], [3], where intelligent state observers based
on geometric observability conditions [15], [4], [13], [14],
[18], [19], [22] are developed, through a new paradigm in
the state estimation field, created from a relatively old theory
of control, however, supported by the new computational
intelligence capacity.
Bearing in mind the same motivation, this paper proposes
an alternative solution, and considerably simpler, to the
control problem, seeing it in its most natural and intuitive
formulation. In spite of the use of state feedback, which
is relatively modern, the proposed controller uses only one
simple and direct premise, that here defines the control
problem: find a specific point located in the input space, that
when applied to the system leads the output to the desired
condition.
The controller here proposed uses the large computational
power now available for a massive computation, guided by
an heuristic method of computational intelligence, finds this
point in the input space, solving this way the control problem
here stated.
Among the various computational tools available, and
capable of accomplishing the task here proposed, the genetic
algorithm was chosen to implement the controller. Among
other factors leading to this choice, the genetic algorithm
represents a widespread and widely accepted computational
tool in the scientific community, as well as is essentially a
method of blindly searching, which meets the requirements
of the proposed issue.
II. G ENETIC A LGORITHMS
Genetic algorithms are methods of search and optimization
based on biological evolutionary processes. These algorithms
were developed with basically two targets:
• To find a formal and rigorous representation for bio-
logical evolutionary processes involved in the evolution
of human beings and another species, enabling a better
understanding of living organisms and their origins.
• To use computationally existing capacities and the
mechanisms of natural evolution, developing evolving
systems capable of solving complex problems based on
the evolution of simple agents.
These algorithms use a population of candidate solutions
to the problem, each solution is represented by an indi-
vidual in the population. These individuals are subject to
interactions with the environment which they belong. The
process of evolution happens in a continuous way, and
simultaneous with respect to all individuals of the population,
characterizing a parallel search strategy.
As in natural evolutionary processes, the genetic algo-
rithms are subject to random variables. The interactions of
these variables generate a process essentially stochastic. This
characteristic of genetic algorithms contrasts with procedural
search and optimization methods, which are for the most part
deterministic.
It is not the only difference between the evolutionary
paradigm and the most traditional search and optimization
methods. Among the most important features in genetic
algorithms which contrast with procedural methods, the
following can be cited:
• Genetic algorithms work on the set of encoding pa-
rameters, as individuals and populations and not on
parameters itself. This method aims to develop the
population and not to optimize a cost function, which
is achieved through appropriate choice of codification.
• Evolutionary methods are based on the adaptation of
the individuals as a result of their interactions with
the environment, and not in derivatives or other kind
of information about the problem. Due to this charac-
teristic genetic algorithms are considered blind search
algorithms.
• The selection and development processes are stochastic,
so the genetic algorithms are not characterized by a de-
terministic process as most of the procedural methods.
The stochastic characteristic of genetic algorithms, com-
bined with its search and exploration ability, make this
method an important tool for global optimization, given the
greater likelihood of a genetic algorithm to find a global
optimum, when compared to more traditional methods based
on gradient descent.
In [12], the author introduces the basic functional structure
of a genetic algorithm, explaining each step of the algorithm.
More details of this algorithm are described by this sequence
of steps:
• An initial population formed by a random set of indi-
viduals Is generated, where each individual represents
 a possible solution to the problem.
• The evolutionary process is started: every individual
of the population is evaluated and receives a concept,
called fitness, which reflects the quality of the solution
represented by him.
• Members of the population based on the concept that
they received in the previous step are selected. Part of
the individuals is maintained for the next generation.
Meanwhile, the least adapted individuals are not se-
lected and disappear from the population, in a process
that tends to extinguish adverse changes.
• Pairs for reproduction, also based on their fitness are
chosen. These individuals will have inheritors in the
new generation.
• The new population is subjected to random mutations,
aiming to introduce variability in the individuals. These
changes will be evaluated in the next generation, where
features favorable to the solution of the problem will be
privileged.
• The evolutionary process continues to create new gen-
erations until a given criterion is met and a satisfactory
solution is found.
This algorithm, although very simple from the biological
view point, represents a powerful search engine adaptive and
robust [6] with a great computational power.
III. T HE C ONTROL P ROBLEM
First we will define a a particular representation for the
control problem.
Definition 1 (The Control Problem): Given a time variant
variable y(t), belonging to a space Y ∈ Rp , it should stay in
a particular subspace R belonging to Y, such that: (y(t) −
y0 )T (y(t) − y0 ) → 0 for every y0 belonging to R, having
y to accomplish this task, the ability of changing the value
of a second variable u(t), belonging to U that is related in
some way to y.
This basic concept of control is practically applicable to
all known methods of control, that use different approaches,
but do not change the main objective. The procedure adopted
here, aims to find directly a solution to the control problem
as described in definition 1, supported by the state represen-
tation of the dynamic system that will be controlled.
To accomplish this, consider a non-linear system:
ẋ = f (x, u)
(1)
y = h(u)
where x ∈ Rn is the state of the system, u ∈ Rm is the
input of the system, y ∈ Rp is the output, f : Rn → Rn is
a vector field where fi for all i ∈ {1...n}, is a smooth and
Lipschitz function, and h : Rn → Rp is a mapping where
hi for every i ∈ {1...p} is a smooth and Lipschitz function.
Here the sets of functions fi and hi , give the relationship
between u(t), the variable where value we are able to change,
and y(t), the variable that will be controlled.
Now, lets consider a subspace R, that contains only one
time variant point r(t), here called reference. Then the
control problem here stated is reduced to finding the value of
u(t) at time t, that applied to the system 1 takes the output
y to the interior of R, which is accomplished by minimizing
the distance between y(t) and R.
Clearly this is a classical optimization problem, and can
be solved by a genetic algorithm or another heuristic opti-
mization tool.
IV. T HE G ENETIC C ONTROLLER
Let us consider the system given by equation 1, which is
described by a continuous time model, and a population of
individuals, defined in a real space belonging to Rm , where
m is the number of inputs in the system.
Assuming that the state of the system, x(t), is completely
known, then, given an input u at time t we can easily find the
future output of the system at time t + α, using a numerical
method like the trapezoidal integration to calculate the state
x(t + α) and solving the equation y(t + α) = h(x(t + α)).
If chosen a discrete time model to represent the system,
the same process could be used, but now α should be an
integer and not a real value as in the continuous model.
Given these assumptions, the first step to design the ge-
netic controller is to choose an appropriate fitness function to
evaluate the individuals of the population. Here this function
is a measure of the distance between the system output y(t)
and the subspace R(t) at time t. Thus the fitness function
will be time variant, like the output and reference signals do.
The equation 2 shows the fitness function here proposed at
the k-th iteration step:
f itnessi (k) = exp −τ (yi (k) − r(tk ))T (yi (k) − r(tk ))


(2)
where yi is the future output corresponding to an indi-
vidual i of the population, τ is a parameter used to adjust
the sensibility of the fitness function to control the diversity
preservation of the population, and r(k) is the reference
signal. Here we should note that r(tk ), is not a discretization
of the signal r(t), but this signal at time instant tk where tk
is the real time at iteration k.
Now applying the evolutionary process with bases on the
fitness function 2, the individual of population that represent
the system output closer to reference signal will be obtained.
Since the individuals of the population are defined in
a space Rm , like the system input does, and assuming
that any individual represents a system input, then we can
calculate a future output to each individual through the
process discussed above. This output will be used in equation
2 to calculate the fitness of the individual.
Assuming that the evolutionary process requires a time
interval of β seconds for its computational processing, then
we will find the input that will be applied to the system at
time t + β, that is the time instant when the solution of the
genetic algorithm will be available. This way, it is necessary
before starting the evolutionary process, to calculate the
system state at time t + β, and then to calculate the future
output for an input applied to the system at time t + β.
Now a sample period for the controller need to be chosen,
that obviously need to be greater then β, otherwise some
evolutionary process may be lost. In this work we choose
a sample period α = 2β, that clearly optimize the control
efficiency from the computational viewpoint. This way when
applied an input to the system at time t + aβ 1 the state
x(t + (a + 1)β) will be previously known, and it will be
necessary to initiate the evolutionary process at time t + aβ.
Any real value greater than 2β may be chosen for the sample
period, also giving good results.

V. A S IMPLE E XAMPLE

Fig. 2. System output for a reference signal with amplitude -1.5

Let us consider the non-linear dynamic system:

We see from Figures 1 and 2 that despite the system

input u need of a certain accommodation period to stabilize
ẋ1 = x21 − x2 − u (something about 2 seconds), the output quickly reaches the
ẋ2 = x1 x2 − 2x21 desired level, which occurs in approximately two sample
periods (as can be seen in Figure 2), This result can still
y = x1 (3)
be substantially improved and arrive very close to an ideal
controller, as it is ever possible to increase the efficiency
which is not completely controllable, as will become clear of the genetic algorithm, which will only require more
in the course of this example. computational capacity.
Now let us consider a simulation of 10 seconds with a
sample period of 0.1 seconds. The reference chosen is a step
with amplitude -1.5. Figure 1 shows the input calculated by
the genetic controller for this simulation.

Fig. 3. Detail of the system output at the begining of the simulation

The previous result is one of the major features of the

proposed controller. Controllers known today can be adjusted
Fig. 1. System input for a reference signal with amplitude -1.5 to obtain a faster response, however, they would generate an
increase in the output overshot, and also some oscillation
during the accommodation period. This happens because
The obtained system output is shown in Figure 2: these controllers in general work by adjusting the poles and
zeros of the dynamic system to be controlled, thus they
are subjected to dynamic properties and also have dynamic
1a is an integer characteristics.
 Unlike these controllers, the genetic controller here pro-
posed is not a dynamic system, nor was designed based on
the dynamic properties of the system. As the only objective
of this controller is to find the input that takes the output to
the desired condition by an optimization process, the overall
result, the difference between the system output and the
reference, will be smaller as better the optimization process
is. That way, what limits the quality of the controller is
only the computational capacity available, which is certainly
limited, however, can be extended indefinitely to the point
of being considered relatively infinite, taking the proposed
controller as close to the ideal as we want.
Consider now a situation where we can not find an input u
such that the system output will follow a particular reference,
which occurs when the system is not controllable. For this
case, we will try to design the proposed controller to make
the system given by the equation 3 to follow a reference
signal given by a unit step. Again a sample period of 0.1
seconds and a simulation time of 4 seconds are considered.
Figure 4 shows the system output for this simulation.
Fig. 4. System output for a reference signal with amplitude 1
It is clear in Figure 4 that the system output lost stability
after t = 3.7 seconds. Figure 5 shows the system input
calculated by the proposed controller for this simulation:
Fig. 5. System input for a reference signal with amplitude 1
Figure 5 shows that the system input needs to increase
indefinitely to maintain the output stable, and that the pro-
posed controller failed to accomplish this because its solution
became faraway from the population. If we consider an initial
population in a larger region, or start it closer to the last
solution found, the controller will maintain the output stable
until it loses computational representation, or in a practical
case, when it reaches a saturation.
Based in these results, and in the definition of the proposed
controller, clearly it will be able to control any dynamic
system through state feedback, whenever the system is
controllable and observable, and its dynamics is well known,
having no other kind of restriction on the system, or need
of applying any kind of linearization or state transformation,
being this way the most generic possible controller.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
The use of techniques of mass computing and compu-
tational intelligence to obtain solutions to various control
problems is an approach already widespread. The proposed
genetic controller, is inserted in this scenario by a new
perspective, creating a very innovative solution to the control
problem.
The definition of control problem here considered, refers
to the problem of control in its most generic way it can
take, not making any mention to the dynamic characteristics
of the system that one wants to control. This way, controllers
designed based on this definition will be the most generic as
possible and they can be applied regardless of the complexity
of the system.
The numerical results obtained confirm another very im-
portant result. The proposed controller has its efficiency tied
to the computational capacity used in its implementation, and
not on the dynamic characteristics of the system and of the
controller itself. That way one can get a controller so close
to the ideal as one wants. This result is of great importance
for the control area.
Given the simplicity, generality and great efficiency pre-
sented by the proposed controller, it is clear its great
relevance to control theory and practice. It represents a
viable alternative especially when it is necessary to control
relatively complex systems with great precision.
R EFERENCES
[1] Stefano Battilotti, Senior, and Alberto De Santis. Robust output feed-
back control of nonlinear stochastic systems using neural networks.
IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 14:103–116, 2003.
[2] César Daltoé Berci. Observadores Inteligentes de Estado: Propostas.
Tese de Mestrado, LCSI/FEEC/UNICAMP, Campinas, Brasil, 2008.
[3] César Daltoé Berci and Celso Pascoli Bottura. Non model based neural
intelligent observer for nonlinear systems. Submitted Article, 2009.
[4] G. Besançon. Nonlinear Observers and Aplications. Springer, 2007.
[5] S. Boyd, L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V. Balakrishnan. Linear Matrix
Inequalities in System and Control Theory. SIAM, Philadelphia, 1994.
[6] André Luiz Brun. Algoritimos Genéticos. Apostila EPAC - Encontro
Paranaense de Computação, Brasil, 2007.
[7] J. J. Cruz. Controle Robusto Multivariável. Editora da Universidade
de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil, 1996.
[8] J. Doyle and G. Stein. Multivariable feedback design: Concepts for a
classical modern synthesis. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
26:4– 16, 1981.
[9] J. C. Doyle. Analysis of feedback systems with structured uncertain-
ties. Proc. IEE, Pt. D, 129:242–250, 1982.
[10] J. C. Doyle, K. Glover, P. P. Khargonekara, and B. A. Francis. State-
space solutions to standard H2 and H∞ control problems. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 34 no. 8, 1989.
[11] J. C. Geromel, P. L. D. Peres, and J. Bernussou. On a convex parameter
space method for linear control design of uncertain systems. SIAM J.
Control and Optimization, 381-402:1991, 29 no. 2.
[12] David E. Goldberg. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization &
Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, 1989.
[13] George W. Haynes. Controllability of Nonlinear Systems With Linearly
Occurring Controls. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- Washington, D.C., 1969.
[14] J. K. Hedrick and A. Girard. Controllability and observability of
nonlinear systems. Control of Nonlinear Dynamic Systems: Theory
and Applications, 2005.
[15] Ron M. Hirschorn and Andrew D. Lewis. Geometric local con-
trollability: Second-order conditions. Transactions of The American
Mathematical Society, 1997.
[16] Petros A. Ioannou. Robust Adaptive Control. Prentice Hall, 1996.
[17] Rudolf Emil Kalman. A new approach to linear filtering and prediction
problems. Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Basic Engineering,
82(Series D):35–45, 1960.
[18] Jerzy Klamka. Controllability of nonlinear discrete systems. Int. J.
Appl. Math. Comput. Sci, 12:179–180, 2002.
[19] Andrew D. Lewis. Nonlinear control theory. Transactions Of The
American Mathematical Society, 2002.
[20] P.L.D. Peres. Sur la Robustesse des Systemes Lineaires: Approache
par Programmation Lineaire. Tese de Doutorado, LAAS, Tolouse,
France, 1989.
[21] Annabell Del Real Tamariz. Modelagem Computacional de Dados
e Controle Inteligente no Espaço de Estado. Tese de Doutorado,
LCSI/FEEC/UNICAMP, Campinas, Brasil, 2005.
[22] Sabiha Amin Wadoo. Feedback Control and Nonlinear Controllability
of Nonholonomic Systems. PhD thesis, Faculty of the Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2003.
[23] Kemin Zhou, John C. Doyle, and Keith Glover. Robust and optimal
control. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1996.