965

2D SYSTEMS THEORY - A COhIMON APPROACH TO PROBLEMS IN CIRCUITS,

CONTROL AND SIGNAL PROCESSING

E. Rogers*, K. Galkowski**, D.H. Owens***and N.Amann***

* University of Southa.mpton, U.K.
** Technical University of Wroclaw, Poland
*** University of Exeter, U.K.

Ab st ract 2 Basic nD Systemts Theory

The main aim of this paper is to give an overview of Despite the diversity of applications areas, a very large
2D systems theory, with particular emphasis on its role volume of literature exists on basic nD systems research
in control, circuits and signal processing applications. and is continually being added to. This often requires
mathematical tools outside those required in standard
1 Introduction (1D) linear systems theory. Space limitations obviously
prevent a comprehensive treatment of these techniques.
The past two to three decades, in particular, have Instead we give a summary of the main ones placing
seen a continually growing interest in so-called two- emphasis on where essential differences with the 1D
dimensional (2D) or , more generally, multi-dimensional case arise.
(nD) systems. This is clearly related to the wide vari- At an “abstract” level nD systems theory setss out
ety of applications of both practical and/or theoretical to examine the same basic questions as 1D theory, eg
interest. The key unique feature of an nD system is controllability, observability, causality, construction of
that the plant or process dynamics (input, output and state space models (realisation theory), stability and
state variables for example) depend on more than one stabilisation, feedback control, filtering. The basic
indeterminate and hence information is propagated in reason why generalising 1D results (generally) fails is
many independent directions. due to strong mathematical difficulties with the analysis
Many physical processes have a clear nD structure. tools employed. Also, as already noted, there are many
Also the nD approach is frequently used as an analysis key issues associated with nD systems which have no
tool to assist, or in some cases enable, the solution of 1D counterparts.
a wide variety of problems. A key point is that the Consider now the 2D linear systems case where trans-
applications areas for nD systems theory/ engineering fer function representations are to be used as the ana-
can be found within the general areas of circuits, control lysis base. Then difficulties immediately arise here due
and signal processing (and many ot,hers). to the complexity of t,he underlying ring structure, ie
An obvious approach to, for example, the control re- functions in two indeterminates where the underlying
lated analysis of nD systems, particularly at the con- ring does not have a division algorithm. The existence
ceptual level where some degree of similarity is often of a division algorithm for Euclidean rings forms the
apparent, is to simply extend standard, ie ID, tech- basis for the algorithmic derivation of’ many canonical
niques. This approach is, in general, incorrect since forms and solution techniques at the heart of 1D sys-
many common 1D techniques do not generalise. Also tems theory, eg the Smith form and the solution of 1D
there are many nD systems phenomena which have no polynomial equations.
1D systems counterparts. The main aims of this paper In the 1D case, coprimeness of polynomial matrices
are to : is a key analysis tool. There are three forms of coprime-
ness for an nD polynomialmatrix, termed factor, minor
(i) the differences between standard and zero respectively. These are all equivalent in the
(1D) and nD systems with particular emphasis on
1D case, but for the 2D case only minor and factor
the mathematical tools required;
coprimeness are equivalent. For the nD case ( n 2 3)
(ii) survey progress in a number of key areas which none of these concepts are equivalent!
stretch across the general areas of circuits, control As a simple example in the 2D case, consider the
and signal processing; and polynomials

(iii) to identify some key currently open research prob- z2) z1 - ’, b ( z 1 ,z 2 ) = 22 - 1

lems. These two polynomiails are factor coprime but have

UKACC International Conference on CONTROL ‘96,2-5

September 1996, Confereince Publication No. 427 0 IEE 1996
 966

common zeros. Also the investigation of the stability ability of the state space model. This is another key
of 2D systems using the 2D transfer function descrip- area which does not generalise from 1D to nD where
tion is greatly influenced by this situation as we discuss only partial results are yet known.
next. Key results in feedback control theory for linear 1D
In simple terms, the difficulty is that the numerator systems are characterised by, for example, open loop
polynomial open loop can directly influence stability! controllability, eg the pole assignment problem. The
This key result was first reported by Goodman [I]after situation is again much more complex in the nD sys-
a considerable volume of literature had appeared on sta- tems case, where no such “crisp” theory exists! Gen-
bility tests based on 2D transfer function descriptions. erally speaking, the development of a rigorous control
To illustrate this point further,consider the following theory, and associated controller design algorithms, for
transfer functions in the discrete case 2D/nD systems is much less well developed than the
theory/ design of 2D/nD filters. Some aspects, such as
optimal control, have (not unexpectedly perhaps!) re-
ceived more attention than others. Substantial progress
has been made, however, for some applications driven
sub-classes where “the physics of the process involved”,
and hence simplifications in modelling, have been fully
where, in keeping with 2D systems convention, 21 and
exploited. See also the next section for further discus-
z2 are backward shift operators. These two transfer
sion of this obviously very important general a,rea.
functions have the same denominator but GI is stable
In the 1D case, similarity transforms applied to the
and G2 is not. The key point here is that these two
state vector have a key theoretical role. This is again
transfer functions have a non-essential singularity of
not true for nD systems where, for example, the prob-
the second kind at 21 = 22 = 1. There is no 1D ana-
lem of obtaining all possible state space realisations of
logue of these singularities!
a given state space model cannot be solved in a sim-
The a priori information available and the modelling
ilar manner. Also the synthesis problem which is at
objectives permit the choice of different model struc-
the heart of circuit theory and applications has not, yet
tures to describe 2D or nD systems. As a basic start-
been completely solved in the nD case.
ing point, these representations can be classified ac-
cording to whether or not (i) an input/output struc- Causality is a key feature of classical dynamical sys-
ture is included, and (ii) latent (or auxiliary) variables tems (it must be present for physical realisability). In
are included. This general area is discussed further in the 1D case, the general concept of “time” imposes a
Rocha[2] and the relevant references in this thesis. natural ordering into “past”, “present” and “future”.
As in the 1D case, state space models are a very im- Again the situation is different in the nD case due, in
portant class of internal representations. In this con- effect, to the fact that some of the indeterminates have
text,the concept of the state of a system can be defined a spatial rather than a temporal characteristic. Hence
(obviously) as the memory of the system, ie the past causality is not required since it is only necessary to be
and future evolutions are independent given the current able to recursively perform the required computations.
state. Hence the concept of a state depends on which or- One of the major consequences of this is that singu-
dering is considered on the underlying grid. For the dis- larity is of increased importance in the nD case. Also
crete case this is normally the product order defined as some of the spatial variables in an nD system can be
“naturally bounded” , ie they have bounded regions of
support. This, in turn, can lead to difficulties in formu-
lating a rigorous but practically implementable stabil-
ity theory. Often, however, it is possible to introduce
simplified stability definitions which (if they are applic-
Commonly used models for linear systems recursive able to a given problem) are easier to check (in relative
in the positive quadrant are the Roesser model [3] and terms) [5].
the Fornasini-Marchesini models [4]. The structure of
these models (and others) have been extensively invest- 3 Progress and Open Research Problems
igated. One of the most striking differences with the
1D case is the need to consider both a global, X , and The first significant work on nD systems appeared in
a local, 2 , state. Basically, the global state in a diag- the early 1960’s in the general area of circuit, analysis.
onal line L k , denoted xk , is defined as the collection of For example, Ansell [6] showed how positive real func-
all local states along L k . Concepts such as reachability tions in two or more variables could be used to study
and observability are then defined at both global and networks of transmission lines (distributed parameter
local levels and they can be quite distinct properties! elements and lumped reactances). The use of this the-
Minimality in the 1D linear case is completely charac- ory in studying transmission lines (and other applica-
terised by reachability (or controllability) and observ- tions) suggested that it may also be applicable to sys-
 967
tems with delays. Significa.nt early developments on the
application of nD systems theory to time delay systems
(and vice versa) are reviewed in the survey paper [7].
Following this early work, great interest was generated
in t.he synthesis of 2D and nD positive real functions or
mattrices under the usual circuits assumptions of passiv-
ity, losslessness etc, and this general area is still open
in many respecm.
In parallel with these early circuit theory develop-
ments, work began to appear on key systems theor-
etic based properties of nD systems with the focus very
much on stability theory. For example, the classical
Hurwitz theory was extended to the nD case. Follow-
ing this a large volume of work appeared on stability
theory and tests,, much of it for 2D (and nD) linear sys-
tems described in convolution form. A comprehensive
review of this work can be found in the survey paper
by Jury[8].
A large numt’er of these tests in the discrete case are
based on examining the denominator polynomial of the
2D transfer function for the location of its “roots” rel-
ative to the unii; bidisc, ie the natural generalisation of
the linear 1D case! The paper by Goodman [l] is very
significant because it showed that in certain cases such
tests could produce an inconclusive result - return to
the examples given in the previous section where it can
be shown that the denominator polynomial (common to
both transfer functions) satisfies the stabilit,y test relat-
ive to the unit bidisc! This situation has no 1D counter-
part and the sole reason for it is that GI and Ga have a
non-essential singularity of the second kind on the unit
bidisc. To avoid this difficulty a large volume of 2D
systems literature since 1977 assumes that such singu-
larities simply do not exist! Also there are continual
attempts to “properly characterise” these singularities,
eg [91.
Clearly the basic stability question for 2D systems is
not as simple as the 1D case. There are, however, some
classes of 2D systems where stability can be examined
using standard LD tests! One such case is linear repet-
itive processes where such a theory has been developed
by Rogers and Owens [lo]. Recently this theory has
found use in the analysis and design of iterative learn-
ing control schemes [ll]and other applications (see also
below). The kej- point to note is that this success is to
a large extent due to inherent structural properties of
this sub-class of 2D linear systems!
The advances: in the general area of signal/ image
processing has (created many applications for, in par-
ticular, 2D and 3D filters. These include seismology,
tomography and visual data communications applica-
tions. Early ana.lysis/ design tools where largely based
on input/ output descriptions in the form of multi-
dimensional difference equations with immediate links
via the multi-dimensional z and Fourier transforms to
multi-dimensional transfer functions (or transfer func-
tion matrices). .4 good starting point for studying such
approaches is the book by Dudgeon and Mersereau [12].
Design tools for multi-dimensional filters is an area
in which much work has been done and the filters im-
plemented! Also the literature continues to grow. The
general area of control theory/ controller design for 2D/
nD systems is discussed at the end of this section.
The general area of multi-dimensional filtering the-
ory remains a very active research topic. Prominent in
this is work by Fettweis, see, for example, 1131 for sonir
basic results, on the extension of classical analogue cir-
cuit theory techniques (eg Kirchoff’s laws, passivity)
together with wave filters to digital applications. This
work holds much promise!
In classical systems theory, one of the most iniport-
ant and powerful representations is, of course, the state
space model (in its various forms). This general ap-
proach was first employed in the general control area
and then moved to circuits. Hence it was to be expec-
ted that a state space approach to nD systems (circuits,
control, signal processing) would emerge.
Focusing now on discrete 2D linear systems, two “in-
dependent” state space models duly emerged. The first,
of these is credited to Roesser [3] and clearly has a first,
order structure. Among the key features of t,his model
is that the state vector is partitioned into sub vectors
- one for each of the two directions of information
propagation (usually termed horizontal and vert,ical re-
spectively).
A key measure of the diversity of 2D/ nD systems
over the 1D case, is the variety of state space descrip-
tions which can be used. One main alternative to
the Roesser model (certainly in terms of published re-
search) are the Fornasini-Marchesini models and their
variations/ generalisations [4]. Note, however, that
these model classes are not necessarily fully independ-
ent and it is possible in some cases to transform from
one to the other - see, for example, [14].
It is straightforward to extend these state space mod-
els from the 2D to nD case. Also they can be trans-
formed to transfer function (matrix) representations us-
ing the double z transform - a rigorous theory for
this exists. Similarly, continuous versions of these
models can be defined where the corresponding trans-
fer functions can be obtained by applying the multi-
dimensional Laplace transform. Again in contrast to
the 1D case, it is necessary to consider models with a
so-called mixed structure. For example, Kaczorek [15]
has studied systems described by state space models
which are discrete in one direction and continuous in
the other. Such models obviously have close links with
linear repetitive processes which have numerous prac-
tical applications.
As noted already here, a rigorous stability theory
for these processes based on an abstract model in a
Banach space setting has been developed [lo]. Also a
cross section of the considerable volume of work already
reported on the development of a, rigorous systems the-
 968
ory (some of which exploits links with the Roesser and
Fornasini-Marchesini state space models) can be found
in the appropriate references in [lo] and, for example,
[16, 171 - see also below. Recent work by Roberts, see
for example [18, 191, reports an interesting new applic-
ation for repetitive processes.
In the 2D systems case, the state space represent-
ations have prompted a huge volume of research on
a wide range of systems theoretic questions. These
include controllability, observability, optimal control,
state feedback control, output feedback control. . . Quite
simply, the literature on these aspects is far too large
to attempt any form of survey here. The key point to
stress again is that apart from very special cases (some
of which have no real practical motivation) a straight-
forward generalisation of the 1D case is impossible.
Another field for nD systems theory is processes
modelled by partial differential and/or difference equa-
tions. Interesting applications reported to date include
river pollution modelling [20]. Such applications also
highlight another area of systems research which has
attracted an increasing volume of attention in circuits,
control and signal processing which is briefly discussed
next.
Often in modelling physical systems it is impossible
to construct standard equations. Instead only the so-
called singular (or descriptor or implicit) form of the
state equations can be obtained, ie the derivative of the
state vector is pre-multiplied by a square singular (or
even rectangular) matrix. One implication of this is
that non-monic multi-dimensional polynomials arise in
transfer function descriptions. This is well known in
classic (1D) circuit theory but its importance increases
markedly in the nD systems case. Work on singular nD
systems in a control systems framework can be found
in, for example, [21]. An important point to note is
that here singularity may not be an intrinsic feature
of the system but can, for example, be introduced by
‘inadequate” identification of a model or by the dis-
cretisation methods used. In some cases, it is possible
to avoid singularity by applying well defined algebraic
operations [22].
In 1D systems, minimality (and other key proper-
ties such as the existence of a stabilising state feedback
control law) is completely characterised by the prop-
erties of controllability and observability of the state
space model. Also the Rosenbrock system matrix plays
a central role in understanding and characterising key
systems theoretic properties. Such analysis makes ex-
tensive use of elementary matrices, a sub-class of un-
imodular matrices over a ring, where the key point is
that all unimodular matrices can be constructed as the
product of elementary matrices. The situation in the
nD systems case is much more complex due to the
complexity of the underlying ring structure ([23] for
example).
Constructing an appropriate state space description
on which to base analysis is obviously a key question in
nD systems theory and one of many basic tasks is to at-
tempt to characterise minimality. As noted previously,
there are several distinct definitions of controllability
and observability, say, for the Roesser model and hence
a characterisation based on a straightforward extension
of the 1D case is unlikely (to say the least). This is in-
deed the case and substantial progress has only really
been possible in certain special cases and even these
do not yield simple tests [24]. Another approach to the
realisation problem for nD systems is to study it, in a
multi-dimensional polynomial framework [25]
The construction of a range of state space realisations
for a 2D transfer function (filter) is very important in
terms of applications since it is then possible (at least
in principle) to “optimise” the structure used. For ex-
ample, this can yield structures characterised by the
minimal number of specified circuit elements.
In the 1D case, it is only necessary to invoke the
concept of similarity and hence attention can be restric-
ted to a subset of possible transformations in order to
preserve specified key systems properties. For example,
use of orthogonal transformations preserves lossless-
ness, passivity and symmetry in the circuits case.
Such problems are also of interest in nD systems
where it is again natural to consider using similarity
transformations. Early work by Sun-Yuan Kung et a1
[26] treated this problem for the Roesser model and this
work was later extended to effect by Galkowski [14]
Recently Johnson and co-workers [23, 271 have pro-
duced some new and extremely interesting results on
nD systems equivalence in a Rosenbrock system mat-
rix setting. Galkowski, noting the difficulties with 2D
systems similarity, has developed some key results on
the use of 2D elementary operations to obtain various
state space realisations. The so-called Elementary Op-
erations Algorithm has been developed [as]and the final
realisation matrix is obtained by applying these oper-
ations to the nD polynomial matrix (matrices) in turn
together with augmentation of its size.
Use of this algorithm can yield standard and singular
realisations in both the single input/ output and mul-
tivariable cases. Also it gives some insights into the
basic structural relationships between the Roesser and
Fornasini-Marchesini state space models [as].
Finally, consider the key area of a rigorous gener-
ally applicable control theory, and attendant control-
ler design algorithms, for 2D/nD systems. Then gen-
erally speaking this area is much less well developed
when compared to the theory/ design of 2D/nD fil-
ters. Many key questions are still essentially open and
in some areas this can (arguably) be attributed to not
being able to “appropriately formulate” the problem,
eg the existence problem for a stabilising state feed-
back control law. In the 1D linear systems case, poles
have a well defined (mathematical and physical) mean-
ing and hence the basic “pole assignment” problem is
 969
“well defined” in these terms! What, if anything, is
a “pole” for 2D/nD linear systems and what does it
mean? Once itgain we see that even at the most basic
level 1D resuhs and concepts do not (except in special
cases) generalise to 2D/nD systems!
A considerable volume (continually growing) of liter-
ature exists o n various approaches to control theory/
controller design for 2D/nD systems. Optimal control
based strategies continue to receive much attention by,
for example, 13isiacco and co-workers [30]. Also there
has been some very promising work begun to appear
on robustness issues (mainly stability) - see, for ex-
ample, the special issue in Multidimensional Systems
and Signal Processing, guest edited by Kogan [31].
Some work has also begun to appear [32] on the ex-
tension of the well known and extensively used mat-
rix factorisatim based approach for 1D systems ana-
lysis and design to the 2D/nD case. Note that this
work is based on achieving the weaker condition of so-
called practical stability [5] closed-loop. It is expected,
however, that this “restriction” can be removed.
It is simply not possible to even attempt a more gen-
eral survey of work on 2D/nD systems control theory/
controller design in the space available here. The clear
message is t h d much remains to be done, significant
parts of it at i t very basic level relative to the 1D case.
Contrast this with the general 2D/nD filter case where
design techniciues are well established and some of the
filters have been implemented! This is still a very active
research area --for example, the August 1995 issue [33]
of The IEEE Trans on Circuits and Systems 11: Ana-
logue and Digital Signal Processing contains 4 papers
in this general area. An obvious question to ask is: are
any of these iesults/ techniques of use in the control
case?
Very substantial progress has been made on the de-
velopment of a control theory/ controller design al-
gorithms for special cases of 2D linear systems. For
example, a feedback control theory for linear repetitive
processes based, in effect, on extending/ augmenting
well known lll schemes is emerging [34, 351. Also Well-
stead and co-workers - see, for example, [36, 371 have
produced some very interesting results on self-tuning
prediction ancl control for a class of 2D linear systems
with applications to a paper making plant.
4 Conclusions
Clearly substantial progress has been made on answer- [lo] E. Rogers and D.H. Owens. Stability Analysis for
ing key systeins theoretic questions for nD systems,
many of which do not arise in the 1D case! There are,
however, many, as yet, open or only partially answered
questions - some of them at a very basic level (in
comparison to the 1D case). The increasing number of [ll]N.Amann, D.H. Owens, and E. Rogers. Iterative
applications areas serves to support increased research
in t,his general area.
Hopefully this paper, plus the supporting references,
will have met the basic objectives laid down at the start!
It has, however, obviously been impossible to cover all
aspects or contributions. For example, the recently ad-
vocated behavioural approach to 2D systems analysis
[2] has not been fully covered but (arguably) it is too
early to even attempt to assess its advantages and dis-
advantages.
References
[l] D.S. Goodman. Some stability properties of
two-dimensional linear shift invariant digital fil-
ters. IEEE Trans. Circuits and Systems, CAS-
24(4):201-208, 1977.
[a] P. Rocha. Structure and Representation of 2-0
Linear Systems. PhD thesis, University of Gronin-
gen, The Netherlands, 1990.
[3] R.P. Roesser. A discrete state-space model for lin-
ear image processing. IEEE Trans. Auto. Contr.,
20:l-10, 1975.
[4] E. Fornasini and G. Marchesini. Double indexed
dynamical systems : State models and structural
properties. Mathematical Systems Theory, 12:59-
7 2 , 1978.
[5] P. Agthoklis and L. Bruton. Practical-BIB0 sta-
bility of n-dimensional discrete systems. Proceed-
ings of the IEE, G:236-242, 1983.
[6] H.G. Ansell. On certain two-variable generaliz-
ations of circuit theory, with applications to net-
works of transmission lines and lumped react-
ances. IEEE Trans. on Circuit Theory, CT-
11(2):214-223, 1964.
[7] E.D. Sontag. Linear systems over commutative
rings: A survey. Ricerche di Automatica, 7:1-34,
1976.
[8] E.I. Jury. Stability of multidimensional scalar
and matrix polynomials. Proc. of the IEEE,
66(9):1018-1047, 1978.
[9] S.A. Yost and P.H. Bauer. Shift invariant m-D
systems and singularities on T m :Implications for
robust stability. IEEE Trans. Circuits and Sys-
tems, CAS-42(8):477-479, 1995.
Linear Repetitive Processes, volume 175 of Lec-
ture Notes in Control and Information Sciences.
Springer-Verlag , 1992.
learning control using optimal feedback and feed-
forward actions. International Journal of Control,
1996. Accepted for publication.
 970
[12] D.E. Dudgeon and R.M. Mersereau. Multidimen-
sional Digital Signal Processing. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, 1984.
[13] A. Fettweis. Simulation of hydromechanical par-
tial differential equations by discrete passive dy-
namical systems. In Kimura, H. et all editor,
Recent Advances in Mathematical Theory of Sys-
tems, Control, Networks and Signal Processing II,
pages 489-494. Mita Press, 1992.
[I41 K. Galkowski. The Fornasini-Marchesini and the
Roesser model - recasting by similarity. IEEE
Trans. Auto. Contr., AC-41:107-112, 1996.
[15] T. Kaczorek. 2-D continuous-discrete linear sys-
tems. In Proc. Tenth Int. Conf. on System Engin-
eering ICSE'94, Coventry, 6-8 Sept., volume I,
pages 550-557, 1994.
[16] E. Rogers and D.H. Owens. Stability of linear re- [29] K . Galkowski. Elementary operation approach to
petitive processes - a delay-differential systems
approach. IMA Journal of Mathematical Control
and Information, 12(1):69-90, 1995.
[17] D.H. Owens and E. Rogers. Frequency domain
Lyapunov equations and performance bounds for
differential linear repetitive processes. Systems
and Control Letters, 26:65-68, 1995.
[18] P.D. Roberts. Unit memory linear repetitive pro-
cesses and iterative opt,imal control algorithms. In
Proc. Int. Conf. on Control 94, . pages
-
454-459,
Steveage, UK, 1994. IEE.
[19] P.D. Roberts. Unit memory repetitive process
aspects of iterative optimal control algorithms.
In PrOC 33rd ~ElLY Conference on Decision and [33] IEEE Trans. Circuits and Systems 11: Analog und
Control, pages 1394-1399, Piscataway, NJ, 1994.
IEEE.
[34] E. Rogers and D.H. Owens. Error actuated out-
[20] E. Fornasini. A 2-D systems approach to river
pollution modelling. Multi-dimensional Systems
and Signal Processing, 2:233-265, 1991.
r211 F.L. Lewis. A review Of 2-D
[35] D.H. Owens and E. Rogers, I D controllers for a
Automatica, 28(2):345-254, 1992.
[22] K. Galkowski. Ti-ansformation of the transfer
function variables of the singular n-dimensional
[36] W.P. Heath and P.E. Wellstead. Self-tuning pre-
Roesser model. Int. Journal of Circuit Theory and
Applns, 20:63-74, 1992.
[23] D.S. Johnson. Coprameness in Multidimensional
Systems and Symbolic Computation. PhD thesis,
Loughborough University of Technology, March [37] W.P. Heath and P.E. Wellstead. Self-tuning pre-
1993.
[24] S.H. Zak, E.B. Lee, and W.S. Lu. Realizations
of 2-D filters and time delay systems. IEEE
Trans. Circuits and Systems, CAS-33(12):1242-
1243, 1986.
[25] K. Galkowski. The state-space realization of an
n-dimensional transfer function. Int. Journal of
Carcuat Theory and Applns, 9:189-197, 1981.
[26] S . - Y . Kung, B.C. Levy, M. Morf, and T. Kailath.
New results in 2D systems theory, pt 11: 2D state-
space models - realizations and the notions of
controllability, observability and minimality. Pro-
ceedings of the IEEE, 65(6):945-961, 1977.
[27] D.S. Johnson, E. Rogers, A.C. Pugh, G.E.
Hayton, and D.H. Owens. A polynomial matrix
theory for a certain class of 2-D linear systems.
To appear in Linear Algebra and Its Applications,
1996.
[28] K. Galkowski. Elementary operations and equi-
valence of 2-D systems. Int. Journal of Control,
6311129-1148, 1996.
state-space realization of 2-D systems. Submitted
to IEEE Trans. on Circuik and Systems, 1996.
[30] M. Bisiacco. New results in 2D optimal con-
trol theory. .Multidimensional Systems and Signal
Processing, 6(3):189-222, 1995.
[31] J. Kogan (guest editor). Robustness of multidi-
~~
mensional systems and signal processing. Multi-
dimensional Systems and Signal Processing, 5(4),
1994.
[32] L. Xu, 0 . Saito, and K. Abe. The design of prac-
tically stable nD feedback systems. Automatica,
30(9):1389-1397, 1994.
Digital Signal Processing, 42, August 1995.
put feedback control theory for differelltial lin-
ear repetitive processes. Int. Journal of Control,
65(5):981-998, 1995.
class of 2D linear systems with guaranteed per-
formance. Submitted to Automatica, 1996.
diction and control for two-dimensional processes
part 1: Fixed parameter algorithms. Int. Journal
of Control, 62(1):65-108, 1995.
diction and control for two-dimensional processes
part 2: Parameter estimation, set-point track-
ing and offset handling. Int. Journal o,f Control,
62(2):239-270, 1995.