4274 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 62, NO.

8, AUGUST 2017

On Asymptotic Stability of Discrete-Time Linear Time-Varying Systems

Bin Zhou, Senior Member, IEEE, and Tianrui Zhao

Abstract—This note is concerned with asymptotic stability anal-
ysis of discrete-time linear time-varying (DLTV) systems. The con-
tribution can be summarized as follows. First, the difference be-
tween nonuniformly exponential stability (ES), which was not well
recognized in the literature, and uniformly ES (UES) was revealed
and illustrated by numerical examples. Second, some state tran-
sition matrices and difference Lyapunov inequalities (DLIs) based
necessary and sufficient conditions were derived for testing differ-
ent stability concepts including asymptotic stability (AS), ES, and
UES of general DLTV systems. The main feature of the DLIs-based
criteria is that the time-difference of the Lyapunov function is not
required to be negative definite. Finally, the ES concept was utilized
for analysis stability of a class of upper triangular DLTV systems
and perturbated DLTV systems. The effectiveness of the proposed
results was demonstrated by some examples.
Index Terms—Difference Lyapunov inequalities (DLIs), discrete-
time systems, exponential stability, linear time-varying (LTV)
systems.
I. INTRODUCTION
Stability analysis of dynamics system is the most important and
fundamental problem in control theory and engineering, and thus has
received continued attention in the literature since the pioneering work
of Lyapunov [14]. Various stability concepts such as asymptotic sta-
bility, input/output stability, finite time stability, and practical stability
have been thoroughly investigated for different kinds of dynamics sys-
tems in both mathematical and control communities (see [4], [11], [21],
[24], and the references therein) by exploiting the “second method” of
Lyapunov [8]. By using this kind of methods, stability of the consid-
ered systems can be guaranteed if one can find an auxiliary positive
definite function (which is known as the Lyapunov function) such that
its time derivative along the considered system is negative definite,
which avoids studying the solutions of the considered systems directly.
Hence, this method is also known as Lyapunov’s indirect method. The
main difficulty in applying this method is that there are no general rules
for constructing a suitable Lyapunov function [8], except for some par-
ticular cases, such as that the considered system is linear time-invariant
(LTI). We mention that the usage of the Lyapunov’s second method
is even challenging for general linear time-varying (LTV) dynamic
systems since the construction of Lyapunov functions relies on their
state transition matrices, which are generally not possible to obtain
[19], [25]. This is also the case for nonlinear time-varying systems and
time-varying delay systems [15], [16].
Manuscript received July 11, 2016; revised December 3, 2016 and
February 10, 2017; accepted March 13, 2017. Date of publication March
30, 2017; date of current version July 26, 2017. This work was supported
in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant
61273028, Grant 61322305, and Grant 61573120, in part by the Fok
Ying Tung Education Foundation under Grant 151060, and in part by
the Foundation for the Author of National Excellent Doctoral Dissertation
of China under Grant 201343. Recommended by Associate Editor F.
Mazenc. (Corresponding author: Bin Zhou.)
The authors are with the Center for Control Theory and Guidance
Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, China
(e-mail: binzhou@hit.edu.cn; tianruizhaohit@gmail.com).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TAC.2017.2689499
Lyapunov’s second method can be applied on both continuous-time
and discrete-time systems. Compared with continuous-time systems
[24], [25], discrete-time ones may be more attractive since they have
a strong background in engineering applications, by noting that most
practical control systems involve digital computers that work naturally
in a discrete-time manner. Hence, stability analysis of discrete-time
dynamics systems, including the discrete-time LTV (DLTV) system as
a special case, by using the Lyapunov’s second method have been ex-
tensively studied in the literature (see [1], [4], [9], [10], [12], [13], [19],
[20], [22], [23], and the references therein). We restrict our attention to
the linear case. For discrete-time LTI system, it is well known that the
stability can be totally characterized by the locations of the eigenvalues
of the system matrix [19], [20] or, by Lyapunov’s second method, by
the solvability of the so-called discrete-time Lyapunov matrix equa-
tions [8], [19]. However, for DLTV systems except for the periodic
case [5], there is no obvious relationship between the stability and the
eigenvalue locations of the system coefficients, and the Lyapunov’ sec-
ond method is not as effective as the LTI case since the construction
of the Lyapunov function is not an easy task [19]. This is also the case
for stability analysis of continuous-time LTV systems, which has been
listed as the first open problem in mathematical control theory [3].
Lyapunov stability theory is powerful, yet in some cases (especially,
for stability test of time-varying systems) the condition that the time
derivative of the Lyapunov function is negative definite is difficult to
satisfy. Hence, considerable research effort has been taken to weaken
such a condition. For example, motivated by the work in [18], Aeyels
and Peuteman gave an efficient method in which the negative semidef-
initeness condition on the time derivative of the Lyapunov function
along the considered system is no longer needed [2], and nonmono-
tone Lyapunov functions for periodic time-varying systems have been
investigated in [6].
By considering the difficulty in testing asymptotic stability of general
LTV systems with Lyapunov’s second methods, we recently provided
some new results in the continuous-time setting in [25] by weakening
the traditional negative definiteness assumption on time derivatives of
Lyapunov functions, which were achieved with the help of the scalar
stable functions. The approach in [25] has been successfully extended
to time-delay systems in our recent work [26]. One purpose of this
note is to build parallel results for DLTV systems. To this end, we
first introduce a new stability concept referred to as nonuniformly
exponential stability for DLTV systems, which, to the best of our
knowledge, is not available in the literature. We then establish some
state transition matrices and difference Lyapunov inequalities (DLIs)
based necessary and sufficient conditions for testing various stability
concepts including asymptotic stability, nonuniformly and uniformly
exponential stability for general DLTV systems, with the help of the
notion of stable functions. We also show how to apply the concept of
nonuniformly exponential stability to the stability analysis of a class
of upper triangular DLTV systems and perturbated DLTV systems.
Several numerical examples are given to illustrate the obtained results.
The results reported in this note for DLTV systems complement those
in [25]. However, we also provide some new results whose continuous-
time versions were not available in [25]. On the one hand, the state

0018-9286 © 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

Authorized licensed use limited to: SHANGHAI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 07,2024 at 11:31:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 62, NO. 8, AUGUST 2017 4275

transition matrix based criterion for both nonuniformly and uniformly 2) uniformly stable if and only if γ(k0 ) in (3) is independent of k0
exponential stability were not given in [25]. On the other hand, we have (see [19, Th. 22.4]);
carefully investigated the stability of some perturbated DLTV systems 3) AS if and only if (see [4, Th. 5.5.1])
with the help of the concept of nonuniformly exponential stability,
which was not considered in [25]. Finally, we mention that, although lim Φ(k, k0 ) = 0 (4)
k →∞
the work of this note has been motivated by its continuous-time coun-
terparts [25], the development of the results involve techniques (for 4) ES [WGDR λ] if and only if, for any k0 ∈ J, there exists a scalar
example, the proofs for the DLIs-based stability criterion) that are γ(k0 ) > 0 such that
quite different from those used in [25]. Φ(k, k0 ) ≤ γ(k0 )λk −k 0 , ∀k, k0 ∈ J, k ≥ k0 (5)
The remainder of this note is organized as follows. In Section II,
various different stability concepts, particularly, the nonuniformly ex- 5) UES [WGDR λ] if and only if γ(k0 ) in (5) is independent of k0
ponential stability, are introduced for DLTV systems. In Section III, (see [19, Th. 22.7])
state transition matrices based criterion and DLIs-based criterion are 6) UAS if and only if it is UES (see [19, Th. 22.14 ]).
provided, respectively, in Sections III-A and III-B. In Section IV, we Though the characterization of ES is not available in the literature
investigate the stability of some special DLTV systems. A class of up- (to the best of our knowledge), its proof is straightforward. It fol-
per triangular DLTV systems and some perturbated DLTV systems are, lows from Definition 1 and Lemma 1 that “UAS” ⇔“UES” ⇒“ES”⇒
respectively, studied in Sections IV-A and IV-B. In Section V, some ex- “AS”⇒“Stable” and “UAS” ⇒“Uniformly Stable”⇒“Stable.” We next
amples with some of them borrowed from the literature are provided to make some explanations on UES.
illustrate the obtained results. Finally, Section VI concludes this paper. Remark 1: It follows from Items 5 and 6 of Lemma 1 that sys-
Notation: In this note, we will fairly use standard notation. De- tem (1) is not UES if there exist two series {k0 (n)}∞ n = 0 ⊆ J and
note Z = {−∞, . . . , −1, 0, 1, 2, . . . , ∞} and Z+ = {0, 1, 2, . . . , ∞}. {k (n)}∞ n = 0 ⊆ J satisfying k (n) ≥ k0 (n) when n → ∞, such that
If not specified, symbol J denotes either Z or Z+ . Let I [a, b] =
{a, a + 1, . . . , b} , where a, b ∈ Z with a ≤ b. The acronym WGDR lim Φ(k(n), k0 (n)) = ∞. (6)
n →∞
refers to “with guaranteed decay rate,” ρ (·) refers to the spectral radius
To show this, we assume that system (1) is UES. Then
of a square matrix, and · denotes the usual Euclidean norm. De-
note floor (x) as the largest integer that is less than or equal to x. Let lim Φ(k(n), k0 (n)) ≤ lim γλk (n )−k 0 (n ) ≤ γ
n →∞ n →∞
H (k) be a matrixseries with appropriate  dimensions. Then, for any
k, k0 ∈ J, we let kj = k 0 H (k) = 0 and kj = k 0 H (k) = I if k < k0 . which contradicts with (6). Consequently, if there exists a series
{k0 (n)}∞
n = 0 ⊆ J such that
II. STABILITY CONCEPTS OF DLTV SYSTEMS lim A (k0 (n)) = ∞
n →∞
Consider the following DLTV system
then, by setting k (n) = k0 (n) + 1, it follows from
x(k + 1) = A(k)x(k), k ∈ J, (1)
lim Φ (k (n) , k0 (n)) = lim A (k0 (n)) = ∞
n →∞ n →∞
where A (k) : J → Rn ×n is a given matrix [4]. Let
Φ(k, k0 ), k, k0 ∈ J denote its state transition matrix. Then, that system (1) is not UES.
x(k) = Φ(k, k0 )x(k0 ) ∀k, k0 ∈ J, k ≥ k0 . We provide some examples to illustrate different stability concepts.
Definition 1: The DLTV system (1) is said to be The first system is AS but is not ES.
1) stable if for any ε > 0 and for any k0 ∈ J , there exists a δ = Example 1: Consider the scalar DLTV system
δ(k0 , ε) > 0 such that x(k0 ) ≤ δ ⇒ x(k) ≤ ε ∀k ≥ k0 ;  2
k+1
2) uniformly stable if δ in Item 1 is independent of k0 ; x(k + 1) = A (k) x(k), A (k) =
3) asymptotically stable (AS) if it is stable and, for any k0 ∈ J and k+2
any ε > 0, there exist two positive scalars η = η(k0 ) and K = where k ∈ J = Z+ . This system is AS since Φ (k, k0 ) = ( kk0++11 )2 →
K(k0 , ε) such that x(k0 ) ≤ η ⇒ x(k) ≤ ε ∀k ≥ K + k0 ; 0, k → ∞. By a similar analysis in [19, p. 430]we can show that this
4) uniformly asymptotically stable (UAS) if it is uniformly stable and system is not ES.
η and K in Item 3 are independent of k0 ; The next system is ES but is not UES.
5) exponentially stable (ES) [WGDR λ], where λ ∈ (0, 1), if, for any Example 2: Consider a scalar DLTV system
given k0 ∈ J, there exists a scalar γ = γ(k0 ) > 0 such that
k
k −k 0
x(k + 1) = A (k) x(k), A (k) = 2−2 + (−1 ) k
(7)
x(k) ≤ γ(k0 ) x(k0 ) λ ∀k ≥ k0 (2)
where k ∈ J = Z+ . Straightforward computation gives that
6) uniformly exponentially stable (UES) [WGDR λ] if γ in Item 5 is
independent of k0 .  k0
  1 k −k 0
Φ (k, k0 ) ≤ max 2−1 + (−1 ) k 0 , 1 ∀k ≥ k0
The above stability concepts except for Item 5 are standard (see, for 2
example, [4, Sec. 5.4 ]). Notice that, if a system is ES but is not UES,
then γ(k0 ) will diverge, say limk 0 →∞ γ(k0 ) = ∞. Characterizations of which implies that the system is ES. However, this system is not UES
different stability concepts in term of Φ(k, k0 ) are recalled as follows. since limn →∞ A (k0 (n)) = ∞ where k0 (n) = 2n.
Lemma 1: The DLTV system (1) is We can find a system that is ES but is not UES even when A (k)
1) stable if and only if, for any k0 ∈ J, there exists a γ(k0 ) > 0 such is uniformly bounded.
that (see [4, Th. 5.5.1]) Example 3: Consider a scalar DLTV system

e(k + 2 ) sin (ln (k + 2 )) e−2 a

Φ(k, k0 ) ≤ γ(k0 ) ∀k, k0 ∈ J, k ≥ k0 (3) x (k + 1) = A (k) x (k) , A (k) =
e(k + 1 ) sin (ln (k + 1 ))

Authorized licensed use limited to: SHANGHAI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 07,2024 at 11:31:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4276 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 62, NO. 8, AUGUST 2017

where k ∈ J = Z+ , and a is a constant satisfying where μ(k) : J → R+ is a nonzero scalar function (here, we have
  assumed, without loss of generality, that μ (k) ≥ 0). It is easy to see
1 1 eπ + 1
a∈ ,  Π1 . (8) that the state transition matrix, denoted by φ(k, k0 ), is given by
2 2 eπ − 1
k
−1
This system is a slight modification of [12, eq. (25)] where a ∈ ( 12 , 12 + φ(k, k0 ) = μ (i) , k ≥ k0 ∈ J. (13)
1
4eπ
)  Π0 ⊂ Π1 . It follows that A (k) is uniformly bounded by i= k 0
e2 (1 −a ) . The state transition matrix is
Definition 2: The scalar function μ(k) is said to be
exp ((k + 1) sin (ln (k + 1))) −2 a (k −k 0 ) 1) AS if the scalar DLTV system (12) is AS;
Φ (k, k0 ) = e .
exp ((k0 + 1) sin (ln (k0 + 1))) 2) ES [WGDR λ] if system (12) is ES [WGDR λ];
3) UES [WGDR λ] if system (12) is UES [WGDR λ].
Obviously, we have, for all k, k0 ∈ J, k ≥ k0

Φ (k, k0 ) ≤ exp (2k0 + 2) e−(2 a −1 )(k −k 0 )
 k+2√
2 sin (ln (s )+ π4 )d s −2 a
which implies ES. Since A (k) = e k + 1
transition matrix can also be written as
(9) III. STABILITY ANALYSIS OF GENERAL DLTV SYSTEMS
A. State Transition Matrices Based Criteria
, the state
For a given k0 ∈ J, a sequence {ki }∞ i = 0 , ki ∈ J is said to be ad-

 k+1 √ missible if limi →∞ ki = ∞ and there exists an integer δ > 0 such that
2 sin (ln (s )+ π4 )d s −2 a (k −k 0 ) δi  ki + 1 − ki ∈ (0, δ] ∀i ≥ 0.
Φ (k, k0 ) = e k 0 + 1 .
Proposition 1: The DLTV system (1) is ES if, for any given k0 ∈ J,
As the growth rate of the function ln (s) goes to 0 when s goes to ∞, one there exist an admissible sequence {ki }∞ i = 0 and two scalars c ∈ (0, 1)
can find an unbounded sequence of initial conditions k0 (n) such that and d (k0 ) ∈ [1, ∞) such that, for all i ≥ 0
sin (ln (s) + π/4) remains greater than 0 for an unbounded sequence
Φ(ki + 1 , ki ) ≤ c (14)
of intervals starting at k0 (n), which implies the loss of uniformity. In
fact, we can choose k0 (n) = floor(exp(2nπ + 32 π)) − 1 and k(n) = Φ(ki + h, ki ) ≤ d (k0 ) ∀h ∈ I [0, δi ] . (15)
floor(eπ (k0 (n) + 1)) − 1 > k0 (n) to obtain
Proof: For any k ∈ J and k0 ∈ J with k ≥ k0 , there exist an inte-
Φ (k (n) , k0 (n)) ger n = n(k) ≥ 0 and an integer h ∈ I [0, δn ] such that k = kn + h.
Hence
eπ + 1
exp (k (n) + 1) 1 −
≥
k (n )+ 1
e−2 a (k (n )−k 0 (n )) 
n −1

exp (k0 (n) + 1) 1

−1 Φ(k, k0 ) ≤ Φ(kn + h, kn ) Φ(kj + 1 , kj )
k 0 (n )+ 1
j=0

≥ e−e exp (k0 (n) ((2a + 1) − (2a − 1) eπ )) .

π
√ k n −k 0 d (k0 ) √ k −k
≤ d (k0 ) cn ≤ d (k0 ) δ
c ≤ δ
c 0
c
Hence limn →∞ Φ (k (n) , k0 (n)) = ∞ and the system is not UES
√
by Remark 1. which is just (5) with λ = δ c ∈ (0, 1) and γ (k0 ) = d (kc 0 ) . 
We finally provide a second order DLTV system that is ES but is not We mention that conditions (14) and (15) are not necessary for ES,
UES. as indicated by the following example.
Example 4: Consider a DLTV system (see [19, p. 435]) Example 5: Consider a scalar DLTV system with
1
λ λk1 2 , k ∈ I[2n + 1 − 2, 2n + 1 + 2n − 2)
x(k + 1) = A(k)x(k), A (k) = (10) A(k) = 8
0 λ
2, k ∈ I[2n + 1 + 2n − 2, 2n + 2 − 2)
where λ = 1
and λ1 2 are constants. Since
2 where k ∈ J = Z+ . For any k0 ∈ J, there exist two integers n0 ∈ Z+
⎧⎡ ⎤ and θ0 ∈ I [−2, 2n 0 + 1 − 2) such that k0 = 2n 0 + 1 + θ0 . Then, we can
⎪
⎪ λk −k 0 λk1 20
⎪
⎪ ⎣ φ 12 ⎦ , λ1 2 =
 1, show that the state transition matrix satisfies
⎪
⎨ λ − λλ1 2
0 λ k −k 0  k −k 0
Φ (k, k0 ) =
⎪ Φ (k, k0 ) ≤ 2m a x {2 (θ 0 + 2 ), 2 (2
n 0 + 1 −θ −2
0 )} 1 , k ≥ k0
⎪
⎪ 2
⎪ λk −k 0 −λk −2 k 0 + 1 (k − k0 )
⎪
⎩ , λ1 2 = 1
0 λk −k 0 which implies that the system is ES. Since the length of the inter-
k −k 0 k −k 0
val I[2n + 1 + 2n − 2, 2n + 2 − 2) approaches infinity as n → ∞, (14)
where φ1 2 = λ − (λλ1 2 ) , this system is ES if and only if
cannot be satisfied for any admissible sequence {ki }∞i= 0 .
1 However, the conditions in (14) and (15) turn out to be necessary
|λ1 2 | < = 2. (11)
λ when UES is considered.
Proposition 2: The following statements are equivalent.
However, this system is not UES if |λ1 2 | > 1 since A (k) is un-
1) The DLTV system (1) is UES.
bounded. Moreover, we can see that this system is UES if and only if
2) For any given k0 ∈ J, there exists an admissible sequence {ki }∞
|λ1 2 | ≤ 1. By this example, we mention that, for DLTV system, all the i= 0
and two scalars c ∈ (0, 1) and d ∈ [1, ∞) such that (14) and (16)
eigenvalues of the system matrix being strictly less than unity do not
are satisfied for all i ≥ 0
imply that the system is AS.
At the end of this section, we consider stability of the following Φ(ki + h, ki ) ≤ d ∀h ∈ I [0, δi ] . (16)
scalar DLTV system
3) For any given constant c ∈ (0, 1), there exist a δ ∗ (c) > 0 and
y(k + 1) = μ(k)y(k) ∀k ∈ J (12) d (c) ∈ [1, ∞) such that, for any integer δ ≥ δ ∗ (c) and k ∈ J,

Authorized licensed use limited to: SHANGHAI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 07,2024 at 11:31:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 62, NO. 8, AUGUST 2017 4277

there holds Proof: Choose the Lyapunov function V (x (k) , k) =

xT (k) P (k) x (k). By (21), we have V (x (k + 1) , k + 1) ≤
Φ(k + δ, k) ≤ c (17)
μ2 (k) V (x (k) , k) ∀k ∈ J , from which it follows that
Φ(k + h, k) ≤ d (c) ∀h ∈ I [0, δ] . (18)
V (x (k) , k) ≤ φ2 (k, k0 )V (x (k0 ) , k0 )
Proof: Item 2 ⇒ Item 1: This part is similar to the proof of Lemma
≤ φ2 (k, k0 ) P (k0 ) x (k0 )2
1 and the only difference is that γ (k0 ) = d (kc 0 ) is independent of k0 if
d (k0 ) is. where k, k0 ∈ J, k ≥ k0 and x (k0 ) is an arbitrary initial condition.
Item 1 ⇒ Item 2: Let δ be γλδ < 1 and δi = δ, i ≥ 0. Hence Since V (x (k) , k) ≥ p1 x (k)2 , we deduce from the above inequal-
ity that
Φ(ki + 1 , ki ) ≤ γλδ < 1

Φ(ki + h, ki ) ≤ γλh = d < ∞. P (k0 )
Φ (k, k0 ) ≤ n φ(k, k0 ) ∀k ≥ k0 ∈ J. (24)
p1
Item 3 ⇒ Item 1: Notice that, for any k ≥ k0 , there exist two in-
tegers n ≥ 0 and h ∈ I[0, δ) such that k = k0 + nδ + h. Let ki = Proof of Item 1: The “if” part follows from (24) directly. To
k0 + iδ, i ∈ Z+ . Then show the converse, we consider the scalar sequences ϕ (k) and μ (k)

n −1 defined as
Φ(k, k0 ) ≤ Φ(k, kn ) Φ(kj + 1 , kj )  ϕ (k + 1)
j=0 ϕ (k) = tr (ΦT (k, 0) Φ (k, 0)), μ (k) = (25)
ϕ (k)
√ k −k 0 −h d (c) √ k −k
≤ d (c) cn = d (c) δ
c ≤ δ
c 0 where k ∈ J = Z+ . Since A (k) , k ∈ J is nonsingular, μ (k) > 0 is
c well defined. The corresponding state transition matrix for system (12)
which demonstrates that system (1) is UES. is given by
Item 1 ⇒ Item 3: Since Φ(k + h, k) ≤ γλh , we can choose
k
−1
d (c) = γ and δ ∗ = logλ γc .  ϕ (k)
φ (k, k0 ) = μ (i) = >0 (26)
We finally recall characterizations of AS and UES for periodic DLTV i= k 0
ϕ (k0 )
systems from [5] and [7].
where k, k0 ∈ J, k ≥ k0 . Since the DLTV system (1) is AS, we have
Proposition 3: Assume that DLTV system (1) is periodic with pe-
limk →∞ ϕ (k) = 0 and thus limk →∞ φ (k, k0 ) = 0, which means that
riod T . Then, the following statements are equivalent.
μ (k) is an AS function. Now, consider the matrix function P (k)
1) The DLTV system (1) is AS.
defined as
2) The DLTV system (1) is ES.
3) The DLTV system (1) is UES. P (k) = φ2 (k, 0) ΦT (0, k) Φ (0, k) , k ∈ J = Z+ . (27)
4) For any given constant c ∈ (0, 1), there exists an n∗ (c) > 0 such
that, for any integer n ≥ n∗ (c) and k ∈ J, there holds We have, by using the functions in (25) and (26), for all k ∈ J
 −1
Φ(k + nT , k) ≤ c. (19) P (k) = φ2 (k, 0) Φ (k, 0) ΦT (k, 0)
  −1
5) There exists a constant c ∈ (0, 1) such that ≥ φ2 (k, 0) tr Φ (k, 0) ΦT (k, 0) In
ρ (Φ(k + T , k)) ≤ c. (20) 1
= φ2 (k, 0) In
ϕ2 (k)
B. Difference Lyapunov Inequalities Based Criteria  −1 2
= ϕ2 (0) φ2 (k, 0) φ (k, 0) In
It is well known that the discrete-time LTI system x(k + 1) =
Ax(k) ∀k ∈ J is UES [WGDR λ] if and only if there exists a P > 0 1
= ϕ−2 (0) In = In (28)
satisfying the Lyapunov inequality AT P A ≤ λ2 P (see [19, p. 448 ]). n
Motivated by this result and our early results on continuous-time LTV which means that (22) is fulfilled. Notice that Φ (k, s + 1) =
systems [25], we consider the following DLI Φ (k, s) A−1 (s) . Hence
AT (k) P (k + 1) A (k) ≤ μ2 (k) P (k) , k∈J (21) AT (k) P (k + 1) A (k)
 
where P (k) = P T (k) : J → Rn ×n and μ (k) : J → R+ are to be = AT (k) μ2 (k) φ2 (k, 0) ΦT (0, k + 1) Φ (0, k + 1) A (k)
defined.
Theorem 1: The DLTV system (1) is = μ2 (k) φ2 (k, 0) ΦT (0, k) Φ (0, k)
1) AS if (and only if when J = Z+ and A(k) is nonsingular for all = μ2 (k) P (k)
k ∈ J ), there exist an AS function μ (k) and a positive constant p1
such that (21) and (22) are satisfied which indicates that P (k) satisfies the DLI (21).
Proof of Item 2: The “if” part follows from (24) directly since
p1 In ≤ P (k) ∀k ∈ J (22) μ (k) is an ES function. We next show the “only if” part. By as-
2) ES if and only if there exist an ES function μ (k) and a positive sumption, there exist γ > 0 and λ ∈ (0, 1) such that Φ (k, k0 ) ≤
constant p1 such that (21) and (22) are satisfied; γ (k0 ) λk −k 0 ∀k, k0 ∈ J, k ≥ k0 . Motivated by the construction of
3) UES if and only if there exist a UES function μ (k) and two positive Lyapunov functions for LTV systems [17], [25], we consider
constants p2 >p1 such that (21) and (23) are satisfied 
∞
∗ −k )
P (k) = eε (k ΦT (k ∗ , k) Φ (k ∗ , k) , k∈J (29)
p1 In ≤ P (k) ≤ p2 In ∀k ∈ J. (23)
k ∗= k

Authorized licensed use limited to: SHANGHAI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 07,2024 at 11:31:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4278 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 62, NO. 8, AUGUST 2017

where ε ∈ (0, −2 ln λ) is a constant. The symmetric matrix function which is exactly in the form of [2, eq. (37)]. Hence, the system is
P (k) is well defined since UES as given in [2, Th. 2]. However, compared with [2, Th. 2],
Theorem 1 in this paper is also applicable to AS and ES.

∞
 k ∗ −k γ 2 (k)
P (k) ≤ γ 2 (k) eε λ2 = . (30)
k ∗= k
1 − e ε λ2 IV. STABILITY OF SOME SPECIAL DLTV SYSTEMS
This matrix also satisfies (22) since A. Stability of Triangular DLTV Systems

∞
∗ −k −1 ) In this section, we investigate the stability of a class of triangular
P (k) = In + eε (k ΦT (k ∗ , k) Φ (k ∗ , k) ≥ In .
k ∗= k + 1
systems.
Theorem 2: Consider the following block upper triangular DLTV
Finally, it follows from system

∞  
∗ −k −1 )
AT (k) P (k + 1) A (k) = eε (k AT (k) A1 1 (k) A1 2 (k)
x (k + 1) = x(k) (31)
k ∗= k + 1 0 A2 2 (k)
×ΦT (k ∗ , k + 1) Φ (k ∗ , k + 1) A (k) where Ai j (k) : J → Rn i ×n j , i, j = 1, 2 are matrix functions.

∞
∗ −k )
1) System x1 (k + 1) = A1 1 (k) x1 (k) is UES WGDR λ1 .
= e−ε eε (k ΦT (k ∗ , k) Φ (k ∗ , k) = e−ε P (k) 2) System x2 (k + 1) = A2 2 (k) x2 (k) is ES WGDR λ2 .
k ∗= k 3) There exist two positive constants γ1 2 and λ1 2 such that
ε
that the DLI (21) is satisfied with μ (k) = e− 2 . A1 2 (k) ≤ γ1 2 λk1 2 ∀k ∈ J. (32)
Proof of Item 3: The “if” part follows again from (24) directly since
μ (k) is a UES function and P (k) satisfies (23), i.e., 4) The scalars λ2 and λ1 2 satisfy

p2 k −k 0 λ1 2 λ2 < 1. (33)
Φ (k, k0 ) ≤ n γλ , ∀k, k0 ∈ J, k ≥ k0 .
p1
Then, system (31) is ES. Particularly, system (31) is UES when
The proof for the “only if” part is similar to that for Item 2 by noting λ1 2 ∈ [0, 1] and the DLTV subsystem x2 (k + 1) = A2 2 (k) x2 (k) is
that the scalar γ(k) in (30) is independent of k. The proof is finished. UES.
 Proof: Let Φi i (k, k0 ) be the state transition matrices of subsystems
Remark 2: We give some explanations on Theorem 1. xi (k + 1) = Ai i (k) xi (k) , i = 1, 2. Then, the state transition matrix
1) From the proof of Theorem 1 we can see that, if we let μ (k) in for system (31) is
Items 2 and 3 be, respectively, stable and uniformly stable, then  
the corresponding conditions imply, respectively, that system (1) Φ1 1 (k, k0 ) Φ1 2 (k, k0 )
Φ (k, k0 ) = x (k) ∀k ≥ k0
is stable and uniformly stable. 0 Φ2 2 (k, k0 )
2) The DLI (21) can be written as
where
AT (k) P (k + 1) A (k) − P (k) ≤ −Q (k)

k −1

where Q (k) = [1 − μ2 (k)] P (k) . Since we do not require Φ1 2 (k, k0 ) = Φ1 1 (k, j + 1) A1 2 (j) Φ2 2 (j, k0 ) . (34)
μ (k) ∈ (0, 1) , Q (k) can be indefinite, which is different from j=k0

the existing results such as [19, Th. 23.3]. By the conditions in Items 1 and 2, there exist four positive constants
3) From the proof of Items 1 and 2 of Theorem 1, we notice that p1 γ1 and γ2 (k0 ) , αi , i = 1, 2, such that
can be dependent on k0 . 
4) The result in Item 3 of Theorem 1 can be linked with the result in Φ1 1 (k, k0 ) ≤ γ1 λk1 −k 0 ∀k ≥ k0 ∈ J
[2]. Since μ (k) is UES by assumption, it follows from Proposition Φ2 2 (k, k0 ) ≤ γ2 (k0 ) λk2 −k 0 ∀k ≥ k0 ∈ J.
2 that, for any c ∈ (0, 1), there exists a positive integer δ such that,
for any k ∈ J Hence, by using (32) and (34), we have


k+ δ −1 
k −1
−(j + 1 ) j
φ (k + δ, k) = μ (i) ≤ c. Φ1 2 (k, k0 ) ≤ γ1 γ2 (k0 ) γ1 2 λk1 λ−k
2
0
λ1 λ1 2 λj2 .
i= k j=k0

Hence, by using (21) repeatedly, we obtain We consider two cases.

Case 1: λ1 = λ2 λ1 2 . In this case, we have
V (k + δ, x (k + δ))
Φ1 2 (k, k0 )
≤ μ2 (k + δ − 1) V (k + δ − 1, x (k + δ − 1))
k −k 0 −1
 λj λj
≤ ··· ≤ γ1 γ2 (k0 ) γ1 2 λk1 λ−k 0
λ1
−(k 0 + 1 ) k 0 k 0
λ1 2 λ2 12 2
2
λj1

k+ δ −1 j=0
≤ μ2 (i) V (k, x (k)) ≤ c2 V (k, x (k))
γ1 γ2 (k0 ) γ1 2 λk1 20
i= k = λk1 −k 0 − (λ1 2 λ2 )k −k 0
λ1 − λ1 2 λ2
from which and (23) it follows that
≤ 2κ (k0 ) (max {λ1 , λ1 2 λ2 })k −k 0 ∀k > k0 (35)
V (k + δ, x (k + δ)) − V (k, x (k))
    k
γ 1 γ 2 (k 0 )γ 1 2 λ1 20
≤ − 1 − c2 V (k, x (k)) ≤ − 1 − c2 p1 x (k)2 where κ (k0 ) = |λ1 −λ1 2 λ2 |
.

Authorized licensed use limited to: SHANGHAI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 07,2024 at 11:31:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 62, NO. 8, AUGUST 2017 4279

Case 2: λ1 = λ2 λ1 2 . In this case, we have Then, for any k, k0 ∈ J with k ≥ k0


k −1 z (k) ≤ ΦA (k, k0 ) z (k0 )
Φ1 2 (k, k0 ) ≤ γ1 γ2 (k0 ) γ1 2 λk1 λ−k
2
0
λ−1
1
j=k0 
k −1
+ ΦA (k, j + 1) E (j) z (j)
γ1 γ2 (k0 ) γ1 2 λk1 20 λ−1 k −k j=k0
≤ 1
eε (k −k 0 ) λ1 0
ε ≤ γλk −k 0 z (k0 )
γ1 γ2 (k0 ) γ1 2 λk1 20 λ−1
≤ 1
(eε λ1 ) k −k 0 (36) 
k −1
ε + γλk −j −1 E (j) z (j) . (40)
where ε is any sufficiently small number such that e λ1 < 1. Hence, ε j=k0

system (31) is ES [WGDR min{λ1 2 λ2 , λ1 eε }] with the help of (5). By denoting w (k) = z (k) λ−k , the above inequality becomes
Moreover, by (35) and (36), we can verify easily that the system is
UES when λ1 2 ∈ [0, 1] and γ2 (k0 ) is independent of k0 . The proof is 
k −1
γ
finished.  w (k) ≤ γ w (k0 ) + E (j) w (j) ∀k ≥ k0 .
j=k
λ
Clearly, the DLTV system in Example 4 is exactly in the form of 0

(31) and the stability condition (11) is a consequence of (33). Applying the Gronwall–Bellman inequality [4] on the above inequality
Remark 3: Consider the following general triangular DLTV system gives
⎡ ⎤ ⎛ ⎞
A1 1 (k) A1 2 (k) ··· A1 n (k) 
k −1
⎢ A2 n (k) ⎥ γ
⎢ A2 2 (k) ··· ⎥ w (k) ≤ γ w (k0 ) exp ⎝ E (j)⎠ ∀k ≥ k0
x (k + 1) = ⎢ .. .. ⎥ x (k) (37) λ
⎣ . . ⎦ j=k 0

An n (k) or, equivalently

⎛ ⎞
where k ∈ J , xi (k + 1) = Ai i (k) xi (k) , i ∈ I [1, n − 1] , are all 
k −1
γ
UES. Assume that xn (k + 1) = An n (k) xn (k) is ES and there exist z (k) ≤ γλk −k 0 z (k0 ) exp ⎝ E (j)⎠ ∀k ≥ k0 .
λ
nonnegative constants ci j and di j and nonnegative integers mi j such j=k 0

that
Let zi (k0 ) = ei , i ∈ I [1, n] , where ei denotes the ith column of In .
Ai j (k) ≤ ci j + di j k m i j ∀k ∈ J, j > i. Then, by using (39), we get, for all k, k0 ∈ J, k ≥ k0
%& '%
Then, by applying Theorem 2 repeatedly from the bottom to the ΦA + E (k, k0 ) = % z1 (k) z2 (k) · · · zn (k) %
top, we conclude that system (37) is ES. Moreover, if xn (k + 1) = ⎛ ⎞
γ 
k −1
An n (k) xn (k) is UES and mi j = 0, then system (37) is also UES. ≤ nγλk −k 0 exp ⎝ E (j)⎠
λ j=k
0

B. Stability of Perturbated DLTV Systems γ

≤ nγλk −k 0 exp (ε (k − k0 ) + β (k0 , ε))
In this section, we use the concept of ES to investigate the stability λ
 
of the perturbated DLTV system γβ (k0 , ε) γε k −k 0
= nγ exp e λ + ln λ . (41)
λ
z (k + 1) = (A (k) + E (k)) z (k) ∀k ∈ J (38)
Hence, if ε is such that γε
λ
+ ln λ < 0, or equivalently
where A (k) , E (k) : J → Rn ×n are some given matrices and A(k)
is as in (1). We can provide the following result for stability of the λ
ε<− ln λ (42)
perturbated DLTV system (1). γ
Theorem 3: Assume that the nominal DLTV system (1) is UES. we see from (41) that the perturbated system (38) is ES. In the case
Assume that there exist a positive constant β and a sufficiently small that β (k0 , ε) is independent of k0 , the proof for the “if” part follows
constant ε such that E (k) satisfies from (41) since nγ exp (λ−1 γβ) is independent of k0 .
We notice that the nominal system (1) can be written as

k −1
E (k) ≤ ε (k − k0 ) + β (k0 , ε) ∀k ≥ k0 ∈ J. (39)
x (k + 1) = (A (k) + E (k) − E (k)) x (k)
j=k0
= (A1 (k) + E1 (k)) x (k) ∀k ∈ J (43)
Then, the perturbated DLTV system (38) is ES. Moreover, if E (k)
satisfies (39) with β (k0 , ε) independent of k0 , then the perturbated which is again in the form of (38) with E1 (k) satisfying (39). Hence,
DLTV system (38) is UES if and only if the nominal DLTV system (1) the “only if” part can be proven in a similar way as the “if” part. 
is UES. We have some corollaries of the above theorem.
Proof: Let ΦA (k, k0 ) and ΦA + E (k, k0 ) be the state transition Corollary 1: Let J = Z. If
matrices for the nominal DLTV system (1) and the perturbated DLTV
system (38), respectively. Since system (1) is UES, there exist two lim E (k) = 0 (44)
k →∞
constants γ and λ ∈ (0, 1) such that
then the perturbated DLTV system (38) is ES if the nominal DLTV
ΦA (k, k0 ) ≤ γλk −k 0 ∀k, k0 ∈ J, k ≥ k0 . system (1) is UES.

Authorized licensed use limited to: SHANGHAI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 07,2024 at 11:31:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4280 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 62, NO. 8, AUGUST 2017

Proof: We notice that, for any given k0 ∈ J and any positive con- Example 6: Consider a second-order DLTV system with
stant ε, there exists a positive integer K (k0 , ε) such that
⎡ ⎤
exp ((k + 2) sin ln (k + 2)) −2 a
e e−a k ⎦
E (k) ≤ ε ∀k ≥ k0 + K (k0 , ε)  κ0 . (45) A (k) = ⎣ exp ((k + 1) sin ln (k + 1))
0 e−a
We can compute, for any k ≥ k0 ∈ J
A1 1 (k) A1 2 (k)
⎧ k −1  (48)
⎪  0 A2 2 (k)

k −1 ⎪
⎨ E (j) , k ∈ I[k0 , κ0 )
j=k0
E (j) = where k ∈ J = Z+ and a satisfies
⎪
⎪ 
κ0 k
−1
j=k0 ⎩ E (j) + E (j) , k ≥ κ0
j=k0 j=κ0
1 1 1 + eπ
⎧ κ0 <a<  Π2 ⊃ Π0 . (49)
⎪  2 2 eπ
⎪
⎨ E (j) , k ∈ I[k0 , κ0 )
j=k0
≤ 
κ0 It is clear that the A2 2 -subsystem is UES and A1 2 (k) satisfies (32)
⎪
⎪ E (j) + ε (k − κ0 ) , k ≥ κ0
⎩ with λ1 2 = 1, which implies that (33) is satisfied. Hence, Conditions
j=k0
2–4 of Theorem 2 are satisfied. However, Condition 1 of Theorem 2 is

κ0
not satisfied since the A1 1 -subsystem is ES but is not UES (according
≤ ε (k − k0 ) + E (j) . (46) to Example 3). In the following we will show that the system is even
j=k0
UNSTABLE.
Denote the state transition matrix of (48) by Φ (k, k0 ) =
Since ε can be sufficiently small, the result then follows from
[φi j (k, k0 )] , i, j = 1, 2. Then, by (34), we have
Theorem 3. 
Corollary 2: Assume that the following condition is satisfied

k −1
h(k + 1)e2 a (j + 2 ) −a j −a (j −k 0 )
φ1 2 (k, k0 ) = e e
lim E (k) = 0. (47) h(j + 2)e2 a (k + 1 )
|k |→∞, k ∈J j=k 0


k −1
1
Then, the perturbated DLTV system (38) is UES if and only if the = h(k + 1)e4 a −2 a (k + 1 )+ a k 0
nominal DLTV system (1) is UES. j=k0
h(j + 2)
Proof: The proof for “if” part: Let e(k) = E (k). For any given
ε > 0, there exists an integer k∗ = k∗ (ε) such that
 −π 2 )π)),
1
where h(k) = exp(k sin(ln(k))). Let k n = floor(exp((2n

π
kN = floor (kn e ) > kn , kβ = floor kn e β
and β ∈ 0, 2 be a
e(k) ≤ ε, ∀ |k| ≥ k∗ , k ∈ J.
constant to be determined. For any k0 , let n0 be such that kn 0 ≥ k0 .
Since
Hence, for any k ≥ k0 ∈ J, we can compute
 1

k −1
εΔk + k∗ maxi ∈I[0 , k ∗ ] {e(i)} , J = Z+ − sin (ln (s + 1)) ≥ cos (β) − , s ∈ [kn , kβ ]
s
e(j) ≤
j=k0
εΔk + 2k∗ maxi ∈I[−k ∗ , k ∗ ] {e(i)} , J = Z
we have
where Δk = k − k0 and since the second term on the right-hand side k N −1

of the above inequality is independent of k0 , the result then follows φ1 2 (kN , k0 ) = φ1 1 (kN , j + 1) A1 2 (j) φ2 2 (j, k0 )
from Theorem 3. j=k0
The proof for “only if” part is the same as that for Theorem 3 in
  k N −1

view of (43).  π
(k N + 1 ) 1 − k e + 1 + 4 a −2 a (k N + 1 )+ a k 0 1
Corollary 3: Assume that the limit limk →∞ A (k) exists and let ≥e N

j=kn 0
h(j + 2)
limk →∞ A (k) = A∞ .
1) Let J = Z+ . Then, the DLTV system (1) is UES if and only if A∞ k β −1
 1
≥ e−e e(j + 2 ) (c o s β − j + 1 )
π −(2 a −1 )k n e π + a k 0
is Schur stable.
2) Let J = Z. Then, the DLTV system (1) is ES if A∞ is Schur stable. j=kn
3) Let J = Z and, moreover, limk →−∞ A (k) = A∞ . Then, the
−e π −(2 a −1 )k n e π + a k 0 + k n c o s β −2
DLTV system (1) is UES if and only if A∞ is Schur stable. ≥e
Proof: We write (1) as x(k + 1) = (A∞ + E(k))x(k), where ≥ e(c o s β −(2 a −1 )e
π )k n + a k 0 −2 −e π
.
E(k) = A (k) − A∞ . Since limk →∞ E(k) = 0, Item 1 of this corol-
lary follows from Corollary 2, Item 2 follows from Corollary 1, and
Let β be chosen such that cos β > (2α − 1) eπ , which is possible since
Item 3 follows also from Corollary 2 since lim|k |→∞ E(k) = 0. 
0 < (2α − 1)eπ < 1. Hence

V. SOME NUMERICAL EXAMPLES lim φ1 2 (kN , k0 ) → ∞

n →∞
In this section, we provide some examples to illustrate the results
obtained in Sections III and IV. namely, system (48) is unstable.
The following example demonstrates that the UES in Condition 1 of We next provide an example to illustrate that AS of system (31) may
Theorem 2 cannot be replaced by ES. be guaranteed if the A1 1 -subsystem is only AS.

Authorized licensed use limited to: SHANGHAI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 07,2024 at 11:31:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 62, NO. 8, AUGUST 2017 4281

Example 7: Consider a second-order DLTV system with [3] D. Aeyels and J. Peuteman, “Uniform asymptotic stability of linear time-
⎡ ⎤ varying systems,” in Open Problems in Mathematical Systems and Con-
(k + 1)2 e(2 a −1 )k trol Theory, V. Blondel et al. Eds. London, U.K.: Springer-Verlag, 1999,
⎢ 2 ⎥ pp. 1–5.
A (k) = ⎢ (k + 2) (k + 2)2 ⎥
⎣ exp ((k + 2) sin ln (k + 2)) −2 a ⎦ [4] R. P. Agarwal, Difference Equations and Inequalities: Theory, Methods,
0 e and Applications. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, 2000.
exp ((k + 1) sin ln (k + 1)) [5] S. Bittanti and P. Colaneri, Periodic Systems: Filtering and Control. Berlin,
Germany: Springer, 2008.
A1 1 (k) A1 2 (k)
 (50) [6] C. Bohma, M. Lazarb, and F. Allgowera, “Stability of periodically time-
0 A2 2 (k) varying systems: Periodic Lyapunov functions,” Automatica, vol. 48,
pp. 2663–2669, 2012.
where k ∈ J = Z+ and a satisfies (8). By Example 1, the A1 1 - [7] J. K. Hale, Ordinary Differential Equations (Pure and Applied Mathemat-
subsystem is only AS. Denote the state transition matrix by Φ (k, k0 ) = ics), Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, vol. 21, 1969.
[φi j (k, k0 )] , i, j = 1, 2. Then [8] R. E. Kalman and J. E. Bertram, “Control system analysis and design via
the “second method” of Lyapunov: II—Discrete-time systems,”J. Basic

k −1 Eng., vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 394–400, 1960.
φ1 2 (k, k0 ) = φ1 1 (k, j + 1) A1 2 (j) φ2 2 (j, k0 ) [9] W. H. Kwon and A. E. Pearson, “On feedback stabilization of time-varying
j=k0 discrete linear systems,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. AC-23, no. 3,
pp. 479–481, Jun. 1978.

k −1
(j + 2)2 e(2 a −1 )j e2 a (k 0 + 1 )+ (j + 1 ) sin (ln (j + 1 )) [10] S. R. Kolla, R. K. Yedavalli, and J. B. Farison, “Robust stability bounds on
= time-varying perturbations for state-space models of linear discrete-time
j=k0
(k + 1)2 (j + 2)2 e2 a (j + 1 )+ (k 0 + 1 ) sin (ln (k 0 + 1 )) systems,” Int. J. Control, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 151–159, 1989.
[11] H. K. Khalil. Nonlinear Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-

k −1
(j + 2)2 e(2 a −1 )j 2 a k 0 + k 0 −(2 a −1 )j + 2
Hall, 2002.
≤ e [12] G. A. Leonov and N. V. Kuznetsov, “Time-varying linearization and the
j=k0
(k + 1)2 (j + 2)2 Perron effects,” Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1079–1107,
2007.
e(2 a + 1 )k 0 + 2 [13] Y. J. Liu and S. Tong, “Adaptive fuzzy control for a class of nonlinear
= (k − k0 ) ∀k ≥ k0 ∈ J discrete-time systems with backlash,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 22,
(k + 1)2 no. 5, pp. 1359–1365, Oct. 2014.
[14] A. M. Lyapunov, The General Problem of the Stability of Motion. London,
which implies limk →∞ φ1 2 (k, k0 ) = 0. Hence system (50) is AS. U.K.: Taylor & Francis, 1992 (Transl.: by A. T. Fuller).
This example indicates that Condition 1 of Theorem 2 may be [15] F. Mazenc, M. Malisoff, and S. I. Niculescu, “Reduction model approach
relaxed. for linear time-varying systems with delays,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,
vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 2068–2082, Aug. 2014.
VI. CONCLUSION [16] F. Mazenc and M. Malisof, “Stability analysis for time-varying systems
with delay using linear Lyapunov functionals and a positive systems ap-
This paper investigated the asymptotic stability of discrete-time time- proach,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 771–776, Mar.
varying (DLTV) systems. Some state transition matrices and DLIs- 2016.
based necessary and sufficient conditions were derived for testing [17] J. L. Massera, “Contributions to stability theory,” Ann. Math., vol. 64,
no. 1, pp. 182–206, 1956.
asymptotic stability, nonuniformly exponential stability and uniformly [18] K. S. Narendra and A. M. Annaswamy, “Persistent excitation in adaptive
exponential stability of general DLTV systems. The main advantage systems,” Int. J. Control, vol. 45, 1987, Art. no. 127C160.
of the DLIs-based criteria is that they allow the time-differences of [19] W. J. Rugh, Linear System Theory, vol. 2, Upper Saddle River, NJ USA:
quadratic Lyapunov functions to be indefinite. By using the concept of Prentice-Hall, 1996.
[20] A. Szyda, “Stability of time-varying linear system,” Pomiary, Automatyka,
nonuniformly exponential stability, a class of triangular DLTV systems Kontrola, vol. 56, pp. 1364–1367, 2010.
and perturbated DLTV systems was investigated and some sufficient [21] E. D. Sontag and Y. Wang, “On characterizations of the input-to-state
conditions, some of which are even necessary, were established to guar- stability property,” Syst. Control Lett., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 351–359, 1995.
antee their nonuniformly exponential stability and uniformly exponen- [22] L. Weiss, “Controllability, realization and stability of discrete-time sys-
tial stability. Some numerical examples were utilized to demonstrate tems,” SIAM J. Control, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 230–251, 1972.
[23] Z. G. Wu, P. Shi, H. Su, and J. Chu, “Delay-dependent stability analysis for
the effectiveness of the established stability criteria. discrete-time singular Markovian jump systems with time-varying delay,”
Int. J. Syst. Sci., vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 2095–2106, 2012.
REFERENCES [24] J. F. Zhang, “General lemmas for stability analysis of linear continuous-
time systems with slowly time-varying parameters,” Int. J. Control, vol. 58,
[1] B. D. O. Anderson and J. B. Moore, “Detectability and stabilizability no. 6, pp. 1437–1444, 1993.
of time-varying discrete-time linear systems,” SIAM J. Control Optim., [25] B. Zhou, “On asymptotic stability of linear time-varying systems,” Auto-
vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 20–32, 1981. matica, vol. 68, pp. 266–276, 2016.
[2] D. Aeyels and J. A. Peuteman, “New asymptotic stability criterion for non- [26] B. Zhou and A. V. Egorov, “Razumikhin and Krasovskii stability theorems
linear time-variant differential equations,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, for time-varying time-delay systems,” Automatica, vol. 71, pp. 281–291,
vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 968–971, Jul. 1998. 2016.

Authorized licensed use limited to: SHANGHAI UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on March 07,2024 at 11:31:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.