Automatica 157 (2023) 111249

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automatica
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/automatica

Technical communique

Generalized Filippov solutions for systems with prescribed-time

convergence✩
Richard Seeber
Christian Doppler Laboratory for Model Based Control of Complex Test Bed Systems, Institute of Automation and Control,
Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria

article info a b s t r a c t

Article history: Dynamical systems with prescribed-time convergence sometimes feature a right-hand side exhibiting
Received 20 December 2022 a singularity at the prescribed convergence time instant. In an open neighborhood of this singularity,
Received in revised form 27 May 2023 classical absolutely continuous Filippov solutions may fail to exist, preventing indefinite continuation
Accepted 22 June 2023
of such solutions. This note introduces a generalized Filippov solution definition based on the notion
Available online xxxx
of generalized absolute continuity in the restricted sense. Conditions for the continuability of such
Keywords: generalized solutions are presented and it is shown, in particular, that generalized Filippov solutions
Filippov solution of systems with an equilibrium that is attractive, in prescribed time or otherwise, can always be
Prescribed-time system continued indefinitely. The results are demonstrated by applying them to a prescribed-time control
Unbounded right-hand side design example for a perturbed second-order integrator chain
Time-varying systems
© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction example by switching to a sliding mode approach after the con-

Regulation of a dynamical system’s state to the origin is an
important topic in control theory. In that regard, the type of
convergence of the state is of particular relevance. While lin-
ear control achieves exponential convergence, more advanced
approaches, such as homogeneous or sliding-mode controllers
or observers, can achieve convergence in finite time (Levant,
2005; Roxin, 1966) or fixed time (Polyakov, 2012). More recently,
Holloway and Krstic (2019) and Song et al. (2017) proposed ap-
proaches achieving so-called prescribed-time convergence using
time-varying gains that tend to infinity at the prescribed conver-
gence time instant. While not all prescribed-time approaches use
such unbounded gains, see e.g. Zhou et al. (2022), several other
prescribed-time approaches based on possibly unbounded time-
varying gains have since been proposed, e.g., by Aldana-López
et al. (2022), Espitia and Perruquetti (2022) and Zhou and Shi
(2021).
In Song et al. (2017) and many other works, trajectories are
only considered until the convergence time instant T , i.e., on a
time interval of the form [t0 , T ). In some scenarios, continuing
trajectories beyond the convergence time instant is desirable, for
✩ The financial support by the Christian Doppler Research Association, the
Austrian Federal Ministry of Labour and Economy and the National Foundation
for Research, Technology and Development is gratefully acknowledged. The
material in this paper was not presented at any conference. This paper was
recommended for publication in revised form by Associate Editor Maria Letizia
Corradini under the direction of Editor André Tits.
E-mail address: richard.seeber@tugraz.at.
vergence time instant. From a theoretical point of view, this raises
the issue of continuability of solutions as defined by Filippov
(1988).
The present communique shows that Filippov solutions of
systems featuring prescribed-time convergence may indeed fail
to exist beyond the convergence time instant. A generalized Fil-
ippov solution definition is then suggested that eliminates this
issue. In particular, it is shown that, with the generalized solution
definition, trajectories of prescribed-time systems may always be
continued indefinitely, i.e., to the time interval [t0 , ∞), paving
the way for theoretically sound combinations of prescribed-time
systems with other control approaches.
After introducing Filippov solutions in Section 2, Section 3 mo-
tivates the discussion with two illustrative examples.
Section 4 then defines generalized Filippov solutions and dis-
cusses their properties. Main Theorems 5.2 and 5.7 in Section 5
show formal results on the continuability of such solutions, and
Section 6 applies them in a control design example. Section 7
draws conclusions.
Notation. R, R≥0 , R>0 , and N denote reals, nonnegative reals,
positive reals, and positive integers, respectively. Convex closure
and Lebesgue measure of a set S ⊆ Rn are denoted by co S and
µ(S ), respectively. An interval is any connected set I ⊆ R with
µ(I ) ̸= 0. For a function f with domain I and J ⊆ I , f |J is
the restriction of f to the domain J . For y ∈ R, ⌊y⌋ and ⌈y⌉ are
the largest and smallest integer, respectively, not greater or not
smaller than y. The set of all subsets of a set S is denoted by 2S .

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2023.111249
0005-1098/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Seeber Automatica 157 (2023) 111249

2. Filippov solutions

This communique studies definitions and existence of solu-

tions of differential equations of the form
ẋ = f(x, t) (1)
n n
where f : R × R≥0 → R may be discontinuous in x and
may, additionally, exhibit singularities in t. Systems of this form Fig. 1. Classical Filippov solution from Example 3.1 with T = 1 and initial
commonly occur in the context of prescribed-time systems, cf. conditions t0 = 0, x(t0 ) = x0 = [1 0]T .
e.g. Holloway and Krstic (2019), Song et al. (2017) and Zhou and
Shi (2021), specifically in the form of time-varying gains that
exhibit a singularity at a prescribed time instant T ∈ R>0 . e.g., by Holloway and Krstic (2019), which at t = T is switched
Solutions of (1) may be studied in terms of the associated to the robust exact super-twisting differentiator due to Levant
differential inclusion
(1998). The next example shows that, beyond the formal simi-
ẋ ∈ F (x, t) (2) larity to the systems in Holloway and Krstic (2019), this system
n Rn
indeed features prescribed-time convergence, but classical Filip-
with F : R × R≥0 → 2 obtained by applying the Filip- pov solutions fail to exist in any (two-sided) neighborhood of the
pov procedure, cf. Filippov (1988), to the right-hand side of (1);
prescribed convergence time instant T , where f (and thus also F )
specifically,
⋂ ⋂ exhibits a singularity.
F (x, t) = co {f(x̃, t) : x̃ ∈ Bδ (x) \ S } (3)
δ∈R>0 S ⊂Rn
Example 3.1. Consider system (1) with previously defined right-
µ(S )=0 hand side (4)–(5). Note that f(·, t) is globally Lipschitz continuous
with Bδ (x) = {x̃ ∈ Rn : ∥x − x̃∥ < δ}. The definition of on every compact subset of [0, T ). Hence, for every x0 ∈ R2
Filippov solutions of (1) is based on the notion of (local) absolute and every t0 ∈ [0, T ), the function x : [t0 , T ) → R2 defined as
continuity. x(t) = M(T − t)M(T − t0 )−1 x0 with
[ ]
τ 3 sin τ1 τ 3 cos τ1
Definition 2.1. Let n ∈ N. A function g : R → Rn is called M(τ ) = (6)
τ 2 sin τ1 + τ cos τ1 τ 2 cos τ1 − τ sin τ1
(a) absolutely continuous (AC) on a closed ∑ interval I , if for each
ε > 0 there exists δ > 0 such that m i=1 ∥g(bi ) − g(ai )∥ < ε is the unique classical solution with x(t0 ) = x0 ; for T = 1, it
holds for each finite collection of non-overlapping intervals is depicted in Fig. 1. However, its only continuous extension to
[ai , bi ] ⊆ I , i = 1, . . . , m, that satisfies m i=1 |bi − ai | < δ ; [t0 , T ] with x(T ) = 0 is not absolutely continuous, because it
∑
(b) locally absolutely continuous (LAC) on an interval I , if it is does not have bounded variation. Indeed, the total variation of
absolutely continuous on each compact interval J ⊆ I . the term g(τ ) = τ cos τ1 with τ = T − t ∈ (0, T − t0 ], for example,
is bounded from below by
It is also worth to recall that a function is absolutely contin-
∞ ⏐ ( ∞ ⏐
⏐ (−1)i (−1)i+1 ⏐
⏐
uous if and only if it is continuous, has bounded variation, and
) ( )⏐ ∑
⏐g 1 − g 1
∑ ⏐ ⏐
⏐= −
satisfies Lusin’s N-property (Gordon, 1994). According to Filip-
⏐ ⏐
⏐ iπ (i + 1)π ⏐ ⏐ iπ (i + 1)π ⏐
pov (1988), solutions of (1)—which are called classical Filippov i=i0 i=i0

solutions hereafter—are typically defined as follows. ∞

∑ 2
≥ = ∞, (7)
n (i + 1)π
Definition 2.2. Let I ⊆ R≥0 be an interval. A function x : I → R i=i0
is said to be a classical solution of (2) or a classical Filippov solution
of (1), if it is LAC on I and satisfies (2) almost everywhere on I . wherein i0 = ⌈ (T −1t )π ⌉. Hence, every (nontrivial) continuous
0
function defined on (T − ε, T + ε ) with ε > 0 that satisfies the
3. Motivating examples corresponding inclusion (2) almost everywhere is not locally ab-
solutely continuous. Consequently, no nontrivial classical Filippov
To motivate the discussion, consider the error dynamics of a solutions exist on intervals of this form, i.e., classical solutions
prescribed-time differentiator given by (1) with x = [x1 x2 ]T , cannot be continued beyond the singularity occurring at T . △
−h1 (x1 , t) + x2
[ ]
The next example shows that, for systems that do not feature
f(x, t) = , (4)
−h2 (x1 , t) prescribed-time convergence, continuability of bounded solutions
can fail due to yet another problem.
correction functions h1 , h2 : R × R≥0 → R defined as
{ 4
x t ∈ [0, T ) Example 3.2. Consider system (1) with
h1 (x1 , t) = T −t 1
√ (5a)
|x1 | sign(x1 ) t ∈ [T , ∞)
{ [ ]
k1 A(T − t)x t ∈ [0, T ) − τ1 1
{ f(x, t) = A(τ ) = , (8)
2
x + 1
x t ∈ [0, T ) A(T )x t ∈ [T , ∞), − τ12 0
h2 (x1 , t) = (T −t)2 1 (T −t)4 1 (5b)
k2 sign(x1 ) t ∈ [T , ∞), with T ∈ R>0 . For x0 ∈ R2 , t0 ∈ [0, T ), the unique (and bounded)
and positive constants k1 , k2 , T ∈ R>0 . On the time interval classical solution is given by the function x : [t0 , T ) → R2 defined
[0, T ), these error dynamics correspond to a linear time-varying as x(t) = M(T − t)M(T − t0 )−1 x0 with
differentiator of similar structure1 as the observers proposed, [
τ sin ln τ τ cos ln τ
]
M(τ ) = . (9)
− cos ln τ sin ln τ
1 Note that the example is not a special case of the observers in Holloway and
Krstic (2019), but nonetheless corresponds to an observer with prescribed-time Fig. 2 exemplarily depicts it for T = 1. Since limt →T x(t) does not
convergence. exist for x0 ̸ = 0, every nontrivial function that satisfies (1) almost
2
R. Seeber
Fig. 2. Classical Filippov solution from Example 3.2 with T = 1 and initial
conditions t0 = 0, x(t0 ) = x0 = [1 0]T .
everywhere on (T − ε, T + ε ) with ε > 0 is discontinuous at t = T .
As a consequence, no nontrivial classical Filippov solutions exist
on intervals of this form. △
Recall again that absolute continuity is equivalent to the
three properties continuity, boundedness of variation, and Lusin’s
N-property. While Lusin’s property cannot conceivably be lost,
solutions near t = T fail to exist due to a lack of bounded
variation in Example 3.1 and due to a lack of continuity in
Example 3.2. It is clear that, in the latter example, any attempt to
continuously continue solutions must fail. However, intuitively,
solutions in the former example (as shown in Fig. 1) should be
continuable by the zero solution.
The present communique addresses this issue by proposing a
generalized Filippov solution definition, which guarantees exis-
tence and continuability of solutions under very mild conditions.
In particular, it will be shown that the proposed generalized
Filippov solutions are always continuable to the interval [t0 , ∞)
for systems whose origin is attractive, in prescribed time or
otherwise.
4. Generalized Filippov solutions
In the following, a generalized solution definition for Filippov
type systems is introduced based on the class of functions that are
generalized absolutely continuous in the restricted sense (ACG∗ )
as originally introduced by Lusin (1912), cf. Saks (1937).
Definition 4.1 (Gordon, 1994, Definition 6.1). Let n ∈ N. A function
g : R → Rn is said to be
(a) absolutely continuous in the restricted sense (AC∗ ) on a set
S ⊆ R, if for each ε > 0 there exists δ > 0 such that
m
i=1 supa,b∈[ai ,bi ] ∥g(b) − g(a)∥ < ε for each finite collection
∑
of non-overlapping intervals ∑m [ai , bi ], i = 1, . . . , m, that
satisfies ai , bi ∈ S and i=1 |bi − ai | < δ ;
(b) generalized absolutely continuous in the restricted sense
(ACG∗ ) on a set S ⊆ R, if g|S is continuous on S and S can
be written as the union of countably many sets on each of
which g is AC∗ .
4.1. Definition of generalized solutions
Like LAC functions, also ACG∗ functions are differentiable al-
most everywhere, cf. Gordon (1994, Corollary 6.19). This leads to
the following definition.
Definition 4.2. Let I ⊆ R≥0 be an interval. A function x : I → Rn
is said to be a generalized solution of (2) or a generalized Filip-
pov solution of (1), if it is ACG∗ on I and satisfies (2) almost
everywhere on I .
Remark 4.3. The proposed definition may also be extended to
different solution definitions of discontinuous systems, such as
Utkin solutions or Aizerman–Pyatnitskii solutions—cf. Polyakov
3
Automatica 157 (2023) 111249
and Fridman (2014) for an overview—by analogously relaxing the
absolute continuity requirement in those definitions to general-
ized absolute continuity in the restricted sense.
It is worth noting that, while LAC functions are associated
to the Lebesgue integral, ACG∗ functions are associated to the
Denjoy integral.2 Specifically, a function h : I → Rn is Denjoy
integrable if and only if there exists an ACG∗ function g : I → Rn
such that ġ(t) = h(t) holds almost everywhere on I , cf. for
example Gordon (1994, Definition 7.1).
A similar solution definition for ordinary differential equations,
using the Perron integral, is considered by Kurzweil and Schwabik
(1990), who also study some general criteria for the existence
of such solutions, cf. Schwabik (1990) and references therein.
Here, the considered generalized solution definition for Filippov
systems is studied in the context of prescribed-time systems,
the main result being conditions for continuability of generalized
solutions for all systems of this type.
4.2. Properties of generalized solutions
The following lemma, proven in the appendix, shows some
connections between the different classes of functions (cf. also
Gordon, 1994).
Lemma 4.4. Consider an interval I ⊆ R, a continuous function
g : I → Rn , and a countable collection of intervals (Ij ), j ∈ N, with
I = ∪∞ 3
j=1 Ij . Then, the following statements are true :
(a) if I is closed, then g is AC on I if and only if it is AC∗ on I ;
(b) if g is LAC on I , then it is ACG∗ on I ;
(c) if g is AC∗ on I , then it is LAC on I ;
(d) if g is ACG∗ on each Ij , then it is ACG∗ on I .
From item (b), the following proposition is obvious.
Proposition 4.5. Every classical solution of (2) is also a generalized
solution.
The next proposition shows how classical solutions can be
recovered from generalized solutions using item (c).
Proposition 4.6. Let x : I → Rn be a generalized solution of (2).
Then, for every interval J ⊆ I , an open interval H ⊆ J exists such
that x|H is a classical solution.
Proof. Let J˜ be a closed interval contained in J . Since J˜ is
a perfect set, it contains an open subinterval H on which x is
AC∗ according to Gordon (1994, Theorem 6.1). Hence, x|H is
LAC according to Lemma 4.4, item (c), and is thus a classical
solution. □
Item (d) shows that concatenating countably many general-
ized solutions again yields a generalized solution.
Proposition 4.7. Let (Ij ), (xj ), j ∈ N, be a countable collection
of intervals and corresponding classical or generalized solutions
xj : Ij → Rn of (2) with the property that I = ∪∞ j=1 Ij is an interval
and that, for every pair of integers i, j ∈ N, limt →τ [xj (t) − xi (t)] = 0
for all τ ∈ co Ii ∩ co Ij . Then, x : I → Rn defined as x(τ ) = xj (τ )
for τ ∈ Ij is a generalized solution of (2).
2 Or to the equivalent Perron or Henstock–Kurzweil integral.
3 Note that item (d) of Lemma 4.4, and consequently also Proposition 4.7,
depend on the Axiom of Choice unless the collection (Ij ) is finite.
R. Seeber
Proof. Clearly, x is well-defined and continuous by construction.
Moreover, from Proposition 4.5, each xj is a generalized solution
and hence ACG∗ on Ij . Thus, x is ACG∗ on I due to Lemma 4.4,
item (d). Since it also satisfies the inclusion almost everywhere
on each Ij , it is a generalized solution of (2). □
5. Continuability of generalized solutions
Formal conditions for the continuability of generalized Fil-
ippov solutions are now shown. First, general systems with a
singularity at some time instant T ∈ R>0 are considered. Then,
prescribed-time systems are addressed, by showing indefinite
continuability of generalized solutions for systems with an attrac-
tive equilibrium.
5.1. General systems with singularities
Definition 5.1. A solution x : I → Rn is said to be maximal,
if there exists no solution x̄ : Ī → Rn with Ī ∩ I ̸ = {} and
sup Ī > sup I satisfying x(t) = x̄(t) for all t ∈ I ∩ Ī .
The next theorem shows that generalized solutions that are
continuous at a singularity at some time instant T can be contin-
ued beyond T subject to the usual Filippov conditions, cf. Filippov
(1988).
Theorem 5.2. Let T , ε ∈ R>0 and consider the inclusion (2).
n equilibrium in the classical sense. Then, every maximal generalized
Suppose that F : Rn × R≥0 → 2R is upper semicontinuous on every
compact subset of G = Rn × [T , T + ε ) and that the set F (x, t) is
nonempty, compact, and convex for all (x, t) ∈ G . Let x : I → Rn be
a maximal generalized solution of (2). If sup I ≥ T and limt →T x(t)
exists, then there exists δ ∈ R>0 such that sup I ≥ T + δ .
Remark 5.3. Note that the theorem imposes conditions on F only
after the singularity, and requires existence of the generalized
solution only before and its continuity at the singularity (cf.,
however, Example 3.2).
Proof. Suppose to the contrary that sup I = T , and define
x̄0 = limt →T x(t). According to Filippov (1988, Theorem 7.1), there
exists a classical solution x̄ : [T , T + δ] → Rn with x̄(T ) = x̄0
and some δ ∈ R>0 . Due to Proposition 4.7, there then exists a
generalized solution defined on I ∪ [T , T + δ] which coincides
with x on I . This contradicts the fact that x is maximal. □
Theorem 5.2 already shows local continuability of solutions
in Example 3.1. For systems with attractive equilibria, a more
powerful result, allowing to continue solutions indefinitely, is
shown in the next section.
5.2. Systems with attractive equilibria
Definition 5.4. The origin of the inclusion (2) is said to be
an attractive equilibrium in the classical (generalized) sense, if
0 ∈ F (0, t) holds for almost all t ∈ R≥0 , and all maximal classical
(generalized) solutions x : I → Rn satisfy limt →sup I x(t) = 0.
To establish the connection to prescribed-time systems, it is
first shown that such systems always have an attractive equilib-
rium if the zero solution is unique.
Proposition 5.5. Consider the inclusion (2). Suppose that for all
t0 ∈ R≥0 the unique classical (generalized) solution x̄ with x̄(t0 ) = 0
satisfies x̄(t) = 0 for all t ≥ t0 , and that every maximal classical
(generalized) solution x : I → Rn fulfills limt →T x(t) = 0 for some
T ∈ R≥0 ∪ {∞}. Then, the origin is an attractive equilibrium in the
classical (generalized) sense.
4
Automatica 157 (2023) 111249
Proof. Since the zero solution x̄(t) = 0 is a solution, the inclusion
0 ∈ F (0, t) holds for almost all t ∈ R≥0 . Consider now any
maximal solution x : I → Rn satisfying limt →T x(t) = 0
by assumption. If T = sup I , then there is nothing to prove.
Otherwise, T ∈ I is finite and x(T ) = 0 holds by continuity of
x. Since the zero solution is unique, then x(t) = 0 holds for all
t ∈ [T , ∞) ∩ I , implying limt →sup I x(t) = 0. □
Denote by D the set of time instants where (2) exhibits a
singularity, i.e., where F is not locally bounded.4 It will be shown
that if D does not have cluster points, then generalized solutions
of systems with attractive equilibria in the classical sense are
always continuable indefinitely. If D is moreover finite, attractive
equilibria in the classical and generalized sense will be shown to
be equivalent. To that end, the following auxiliary lemma is used,
which is proven in the appendix.
Lemma 5.6. Let D ⊂ R≥0 and consider the inclusion (2). Suppose
that the set D has no cluster points and that F is locally bounded
on G = Rn × (R≥0 \ D). Let x : I → Rn be a maximal generalized
solution. Then, if either sup I or sup D are finite, an interval J ⊆ I
with sup J = sup I exists such that x|J is a maximal classical
solution.
Theorem 5.7. Let D ⊂ R≥0 and the inclusion (2) satisfy the
conditions of Lemma 5.6, and suppose that the origin is an attractive
solution x : I → Rn satisfies sup I = ∞. If, moreover, sup D is
finite, then the origin is an attractive equilibrium in the generalized
sense.
Proof. Let x : I → Rn be a maximal generalized solution and
suppose to the contrary that sup I = T is finite. From Lemma 5.6
there exists an interval J with sup J = T such that x|J is a
maximal classical solution; hence, limt →T x(t) = 0. But then the
generalized solution x can be continued with the zero solution
using Proposition 4.7, a contradiction. Hence, sup I = ∞. If,
moreover, sup D is finite, then from Lemma 5.6 there exists an
interval J with sup J = ∞ such that x|J is a maximal classical
solution. Hence, limt →∞ x(t) = limt →∞ x|J (t) = 0. □
6. Design example: Prescribed-time control
In the following, a class of prescribed-time controllers for a
second-order system is designed, utilizing the proposed solu-
tion definition. Consider the perturbed double integrator ẋ1 = x2 ,
ẋ2 = u + w with a time-varying perturbation w bounded accord-
ing to |w (t)| ≤ W ∈ R≥0 for all t ∈ R≥0 subject to the control law
⎧ [ ]
⎨− γ 2 + 6 4
x1 − T − x t<T
4 2 t 2
u(x, t) = (T −t) (T −t)
(10)
⎩−k sign(x ) − k sign(x ) t≥T
1 1 2 2
with prescribed time T ∈ R>0 and parameters γ , k1 , k2 ∈ R>0 .
Without perturbation, i.e., for w (t) ≡ 0, one non-trivial Filip-
pov solution of the closed loop on the time interval [0, T ) is, for
example, given by
γ
x1 (t) = (T − t)3 sin , (11)
T −t
γ γ
x2 (t) = (T − t)γ cos − 3(T − t)2 sin .
T −t T −t
4 Note that a set-valued function F is called locally bounded on a set G , if
for all y ∈ G there exist constants ε, M ∈ R>0 such that supz∈F (ỹ) ∥z∥ ≤ M holds
for all ỹ ∈ G with ∥y − ỹ∥ < ε .
R. Seeber
Similar to Example 3.1, boundedness of variation is lost near T ,
and hence this solution cannot cross that singularity as a clas-
sical Filippov solution. Nevertheless, the following proposition
and its proof show that the considered control law achieves
prescribed-time convergence on [0, T ) and finite-time conver-
gence on [T , ∞), and thus renders the origin attractive in the
classical sense, permitting the application of Theorem 5.7.
Proposition 6.1. Let γ , T ∈ R>0 , W ∈ R≥0 and suppose that
k1 > k2 + W > 2W . Consider the closed loop ẋ = f(x, t) defined via
ẋ1 = x2 , ẋ2 = u(x, t) + w (t) with u defined in (10) and arbitrary
Lebesgue measurable disturbance w : R≥0 → [−W , W ]. Then, the
closed loop’s origin is an attractive equilibrium in the classical sense.
Remark 6.2. Using this proposition and Theorem 5.7 with the
set D = {T }, indefinite continuability of generalized solutions
and attractivity of the origin in the generalized sense may be
concluded for the perturbed closed loop.
Proof. Let t0 ∈ R≥0 and consider maximal classical Filippov
solutions x : I → R of the closed loop with t0 ∈ I . Distinguish
the cases t0 ≥ T and t0 ∈ [0, T ). In the first case, sup I = ∞ and
limt →∞ x(t) = 0 follows from finite-time stability of the twisting
algorithm, cf. Levant (2007). In the second case, convergence in
prescribed time T , i.e., [t0 , T ) ⊆ I and limt →T x(t) = 0, will
be shown. Solution existence on each compact subinterval of
[t0 , T ) follows from the fact that the closed loop is an affine time-
varying system satisfying a global Lipschitz condition on such
a subinterval. To show prescribed-time convergence, define the
abbreviation q(x, t) = (T −1t)2 + T −2 t and consider the function
3x x
Q : R2 × [0, T ) → R≥0 defined as
γ 2 x21
Q (x, t) = + q(x, t)2 , (12)
(T − t)6
whose time derivative Q̇ = ∂∂Qx f + ∂∂Qt along closed-loop trajec-
2w (t)q(x,t)
tories on the time interval [0, T ) is given by Q̇ (x, t) =
T −t
Define V : R2 × [0, T ) → R≥0 as V (x, t) = (T − t)Q (x, t), whose
time-derivative satisfies
V̇ (x, t) = −Q (x, t) + 2w (t)q(x, t)
]2
q(x, t)
[
≤ −Q (x, t) + 2w(t)q(x, t) + 2w(t) −
2 conditions imposed on D. From Proposition 4.6, there exists an
3 3 V (x, t)
≤ − Q (x, t) + 4w (t)2 ≤ − + 4W 2
4 4 T −t
3 V (x, t)
≤− + 4W 2 . (13)
4 T
As a consequence, V is uniformly bounded on [t0 , T ); specifically,
V (x(t), t) ≤ max{V (x(t0 ), t0 ), √4W } holds for all t ∈ [t0 , T ).
3T
The claim limt →T x(t) = 0 is now obtained by contradiction as
follows. Suppose that a sequence (tk ), tk ∈ [t0 , T ) and a nonzero
vector c ∈ R2 exist with limk→∞ tk = T and limk→∞ x(tk ) = c.
Since lim supt →T V (c, t) = ∞ for each fixed, nonzero vector c,
lim sup V (x(t), t) ≥ lim sup V (x(tk ), tk )
t →T k→∞
≥ lim sup V (c, tk ) = ∞ (14)
k→∞
then follows, which contradicts the fact that V (x(t), t) is uni-
formly bounded on [t0 , T ). □
Remark 6.3. It is worth noting that the arguments of the previous
proof may also be used to show (non-uniform) Lyapunov stabil-
ity of the closed-loop system’s origin, provided that generalized
Filippov solutions are considered. Arguing this in formal detail is
beyond the scope of the present paper, however.
Automatica 157 (2023) 111249
7. Conclusion
It was shown that Filippov solutions of prescribed-time sys-
tems may in some cases fail to be continuable beyond the pre-
scribed convergence time instant. To overcome this restriction,
a definition of generalized Filippov solutions was introduced.
Indefinite continuability of such generalized solutions was shown
for systems with an attractive equilibrium and thus, in particu-
lar, for all systems featuring prescribed-time convergence. These
results pave the way for theoretically sound combinations of
new or existing prescribed-time approaches with other control
techniques, such as sliding mode control. This was demonstrated
by designing a combined prescribed-time/sliding-mode controller
for a perturbed second-order integrator chain.
Appendix. Proofs
Proof of Lemma 4.4. For item (a), note that if S is a closed
interval in Definition 4.1, then [ai , bi ] ⊆ S if and only if ai , bi ∈ S .
Thus, ∥g(bi ) − g(ai )∥ ≤ supa,b∈[ai ,bi ] ∥g(b) − g(a)∥ shows that AC∗
implies AC. Conversely, suppose that f is AC, let ε > 0 and
let δ > 0 be as in Definition 2.1. Consider any finite collection
Ii = [ai , bi ] of non-overlapping intervals as in Definition 4.1.
Since f is continuous and Ii is compact, there exist ci , di ∈ Ii ⊆ S
with ci < di such that supa,b∈Ii ∥g(b) − g(a)∥ = ∥g(di ) − g(ci )∥.
∑m ∑m
Noting
∑m that i=1 |di − ci | ≤ i=1 |bi − ai | < δ then yields
i=1 supa,b∈Ii ∥g(b) − g(a)∥ < ε from Definition 2.1. For item (b),
since I is an interval, it can be written as the countable union of
compact intervals Jj , on each of which g is AC. Since each interval
Jj is closed, g being AC implies g being AC∗ on Jj due to item (a).
Hence, g is ACG∗ on I by definition. Item (c) follows from the fact
that g is AC∗ on every subset of I , and hence AC on all compact
subintervals of I due to item (a). For item (d), for each j, define Hj
as the countable set of sets according to Definition 4.1, with union
Ij = ∪S ∈Hj S , on which g is AC∗ . Then, the set of sets H = ∪∞ j=1 Hj ,
.
being the countable union of countable sets, is countable, and g
is AC∗ on each S ∈ H. Since ∪S ∈H S = ∪∞ j=1 Ij = I , g is ACG∗ on
I by definition. □
Proof of Lemma 5.6. Let T = sup I ∈ R≥0 ∪ {∞} and choose
θ ∈ I such that D ∩ (θ, T ) = ∅, which is possible due to the
open interval H ⊆ (θ, T ), such that x|H is a classical solution.
Choose any τ1 ∈ H and the largest τ2 ∈ (τ1 , T ] such that x is
LAC on J = [τ1 , τ2 ). To show sup J = sup I , which also implies
that x|J is maximal because otherwise x could be extended using
Proposition 4.7, suppose to the contrary that τ2 < T . Consider
the compact interval J¯ = [τ1 , τ2 ], on which x is not AC by
construction. Then, x|J¯ is continuous and has Lusin’s N-property
according to Gordon (1994, Theorem 6.12), because x is ACG∗ on
J¯ ⊂ I . Let M = supt ∈J¯ ∥x(t)∥ be the uniform bound of x on
J¯ , and let Q be the uniform bound of F on the compact subset
{z ∈ Rn : ∥z∥ ≤ M } × J¯ of G . Then, the total variation of x on J¯
is bounded from above by (τ2 − τ1 )Q . But this implies that x is
AC on J¯ , a contradiction. □
References
Aldana-López, R., Seeber, R., Gómez-Gutiérrez, D., Angulo, M. T., & Defoort, M.
(2022). A redesign methodology generating predefined-time differentia-
tors with bounded time-varying gains. International Journal of Robust and
Nonlinear Control, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rnc.6315.
Espitia, N., & Perruquetti, W. (2022). Predictor-feedback prescribed-time sta-
bilization of LTI systems with input delay. IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, 67(6), 2784–2799.
Filippov, A. F. (1988). Differential equations with discontinuous right-hand side.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
5
R. Seeber
Gordon, R. A. (1994). The integrals of Lebesgue, Denjoy, Perron, and Henstock.
Providence, RI, USA: American Mathematical Society.
Holloway, J., & Krstic, M. (2019). Prescribed-time observers for linear systems
in observer canonical form. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 64(9),
3905–3912.
Kurzweil, J., & Schwabik, Š. (1990). Ordinary differential equations the solution
of which are ACG∗ -functions. Archivum Mathematicum, 26(2–3), 129–136.
Levant, A. (1998). Robust exact differentiation via sliding mode technique.
Automatica, 34(3), 379–384.
Levant, A. (2005). Homogeneity approach to high-order sliding mode design.
Automatica, 41(5), 823–830.
Levant, A. (2007). Principles of 2-sliding mode design. Automatica, 43(4),
576–586.
Lusin, N. (1912). Sur les propriétés des fonctions mesurables. Comptes Ren-
dus Hebdomadaires de Séances de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris, 154,
1688–1690.
Polyakov, A. (2012). Nonlinear feedback design for fixed-time stabilization
of linear control systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 57(8),
2106–2110.
Automatica 157 (2023) 111249
Polyakov, A., & Fridman, L. (2014). Stability notions and Lyapunov functions
for sliding mode control systems. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 351(4),
1831–1865.
Roxin, E. (1966). On finite stability in control systems. Rendiconti del Circolo
Matematico di Palermo, 15(3), 273–282.
Saks, S. (1937). Theory of the integral. New York, NY, USA: Hafner Publishing
Company.
Schwabik, Š. (1990). Generalized ordinary differential equations – a survey. In
Proc. of the 7th Czechoslovak conference on differential equations and their
applications (pp. 59–70).
Song, Y., Wang, Y., Holloway, J., & Krstic, M. (2017). Time-varying feedback
for regulation of normal-form nonlinear systems in prescribed finite time.
Automatica, 83, 243–251.
Zhou, B., Michiels, W., & Chen, J. (2022). Fixed-time stabilization of linear delay
systems by smooth periodic delayed feedback. IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, 67(2), 557–573.
Zhou, B., & Shi, Y. (2021). Prescribed-time stabilization of a class of nonlinear
systems by linear time-varying feedback. IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, 66(12), 6123–6130.