Coprime Factorisation and Gap Metric for Nonlinear Systems

W. Bian and M. French

Department of Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom
wb@ecs.soton.ac.uk, mcf@ecs.soton.ac.uk
AbstractSeveral graph and gap metrics are dened using
normalized coprime factorisations for nonlinear signal oper-
ators. Their relation to the gap metrics of a Georgiou and
Smith type [7] are discussed. It is proved that the topological
structures of the two classes of metrics are equivalent. Formu-
las for a -gap metric and a nonlinear generalization of the
Georgiou-type gap metric [5] are shown to be equal.
I. INTRODUCTION
This paper is concerned with the graph metrics and gap
metrics for nonlinear signal operators.
It is well known that operator metrics dene notions
of distance between input- output mappings and allow the
evaluation of quantities such as modelling approximation
error and robustness margins. In particular, they provide
effective approaches to the analysis of robust stability of
feedback control systems. For linear operators (systems),
various results are well known. In particular, the graph
topology dened by coprime factorisations (see [6], [11],
[13]) is a signicant notion and has been proved to be
topologically equivalent to the gap metrics such as Zames
and El-Sakkarys orthogonal-projection metric (see [5],[15]),
the -gap metric of Vinnicombe [14] and the or -gap
metrics studied by Georgiou and Smith in [6], [7] etc.
Recently, metrics for nonlinear operators have become
of interest due to the study of the robustness of nonlinear
feedback systems. In [7], Georgiou and Smith investigated
gap metrics dened via bijective mapping between graphs
(we name them by Georgiou and Smith type metrics). In
the same paper, and in [9], the -gap metric was adopted
directly to the nonlinear case and a new type, called -gap,
was introduced. The - gap metric is also generalized to
nonlinear case by Anderson, Brinsmead and Bruyne in [1].
There are still many open questions. For example, whether
the -gap metric, -gap metric, metrics of Georgiou and
Smith type and topologies dened via coprime factorisations
are topologically equivalent or not is still an open problem.
Recently, we established some topological structures in
[3] for nonlinear operators having coprime factorisations.
In this paper, we will introduce some graph metrics using
the normalized coprime factorisation and prove that they
are topologically equivalent to the graph topology given in
[3] as well as the gap metric of Georgiou and Smith type
[7]. We will also present the equality of one of the gap
metrics investigated in [9] and one of our gap metric which
is a nonlinear generalization of a Georgiou-type metric [5].
Due to space constraints, many proofs are omitted. How-
ever, they can be found in [4].
II. PRELIMINARIES
We let |, } be two signal spaces with |
s
, }
s
the auxiliary
normed subspaces consist of all bounded (or stable) signals
in |, }, respectively. |, } could be any spaces like L

n
:=
L

(R
+
,R
n
), L
,e
n
, L
p
n
, L
p,e
n
, l
p
or even a general set
on which a truncation and causality can be dened and
any truncated domain becomes a normed linear space. The
truncation operator is denoted by T

. The norm of normed

space X is denoted by | |
X
or | | only if the usage is
unambiguous. The transpose of a matrix operator (A, B) is
denoted by (A, B)

. If u | (say) and > 0, we write

|u|

= |T

u|
/s
.
For any operator P from | to }, we write its domain as
Dom(P) = u |
s
: Pu } and let
|P| = sup
>0,uDom(P)
|u| ,=0
|Pu|

|u|

,
|P|
s
= sup
uDom(P)
|u| ,=0
|Pu|
|u|
,
(P)(r) = sup
>0,uDom(P)
|u| r
|Pu|

s
(P)(r) = sup
uDom(P)
|u|, =0
|Pu|.
One can prove that, if P is causal, then
|P| = |P|
s
, (P)(r) =
s
(P)(r) for all r > 0.
In the following, all signal operators are assumed to be
causal and P0 = 0, unless specied otherwise, so that
there is no need to distinguish between the corresponding
notations.
We also denote by
|P|

= sup
r>0
(P)((r))
r
with a given continuous, strictly increasing function on
R
+
and (0) = 0, () = .
Denition II.1. A signal operator P is said to be (i) gain
stable if |P| < ; (ii) (gf)-stable (stable as shorthand) if
(P)(r) < for each r 0.
Denition II.2. A causal operator P : Dom(P) |
s
}
is said to admit a (right) coprime factorisation (N, D) if
and only if N : |
s
}
s
and D : |
s
|
s
are causal
stable operators such that: i) D is causally invertible with
Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control
Maui, Hawaii USA, December 2003 FrA02-3
0-7803-7924-1/03/$17.00 2003 IEEE 4694
Dom(D
1
) = Dom(P); ii) P = ND
1
; and iii) There
exists a causally stable mapping L : |
s
}
s
|
s
such
that L(D, N)

= I. If, in addition
|(D, N)

u| = |u| for all u |,

we say that (N, D) is a normalized (or inner) coprime
factorisation of P.
We denote by rcf(P) the set of all coprime factorisations
of P, nrcf(P) the set of all normalized coprime factorisa-
tions of P and write
N
nor
(|, }) = P : Dom(P) |
s
} : nrcf(P) ,= .
In the study of robustness of stability, normalized coprime
factorisations are particularly important in both linear and
nonlinear cases. Some existing metrics related to coprime
factorisation are dened via normalized coprime factorisa-
tions. See eg. [2], [8], [9], [10] for detail.
Lemma II.3. [3], [12] Suppose P admits a right coprime
factorisation (N, D). Then
(i) Graph(P) := (u, Pu)

: u Dom(P) =
(Du, Nu)

: u |
s
;
(ii) (N
1
, D
1
) rcf(P) if and only if there exists a
causally stable operator U on |
s
, where U
1
exists and
is stable, such that N = N
1
U, D = D
1
U. Moreover, if
(N, D), (N
1
, D
1
) nrcf(P), then |Uu| = |U
1
u| = |u|
for all u |.
Two graph topologies on the set of nonlinear operators
having coprime factorisations have been established in [3].
These are the pointwise and weighted topologies, denoted
by T
p
and T

, respectively. Due to space consideration, we

do not give the denitions of T
p
, T

here, but note that

the following lemma from [3] provides an characterisation
which can be adopted as a denition for the purposes of this
paper.
Lemma II.4. [3] i) P
n
Jp
P if and only if there exist
(N, D) rcf(P) and (N
n
, D
n
) rcf(P
n
) such that
((D
n
D, N
n
N)

)(r) 0 for each r > 0;

(ii) P
n
J
P if and only if, for each (N, D) rcf(P),
there exists (N
n
, D
n
) rcf(P
n
) such that
sup
r>0

((D
n
D, N
n
N)

)((r))/r

0.
III. GRAPH METRICS AND GAP METRICS
In this section, we will introduce some metrics on oper-
ator set N
nor
(|, }) and investigate their properties. First,
we dene
Q =

Q : |
s
|
s
causal, stable, bijective, Q0 = 0
and Q
1
also stable

,
Q

= Q : |
s
|
s
causal, stable, bijective, Q0 = 0,
Q
s
= Q : |
s
|
s
causal, stable, surjective, Q0 = 0
We now dene six functionals over the set of signal
operators:
Let P
1
, P
2
N
nor
(|, }) with (N
k
, D
k
)
nrcf(P
k
), k = 1, 2. For i = 1, 2, we let
d
i
(P
1
, P
2
) = max

d
i
(P
1
, P
2
),

d
i
(P
2
, P
1
), i = 1, 2
where

d
1
(P
1
, P
2
) = inf
Q
|Q|1

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

d
2
(P
1
, P
2
) = inf
Q

|Q|1

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

;
For i = 3, 4, we let
d
i
(P
1
, P
2
) = log(1 + max

d
i
(P
1
, P
2
),

d
i
(P
2
, P
1
))
where

d
3
(P
1
, P
2
) = inf
Q

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

d
4
(P
1
, P
2
) = inf
Q
s

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

;
For i = 5, 6, we let (in this case P
1
, P
2
could be any
operators from | to })
d
i
(P
1
, P
2
) = log(1 + max

d
i
(P
1
, P
2
),

d
i
(P
2
, P
1
))
where

d
5
(P
1
, P
2
) =

inf|I |

:
1
, if
1
,=
, if
1
=
,

d
6
(P
1
, P
2
) =

inf|I |

:
2
, if
2
,=
, if
2
=
and

1
=

:
: Graph(P
1
) Graph(P
2
)
is surjective, causal and (0) = 0

2
=

:
: Graph(P
1
) Graph(P
2
)
is bijective, causal and (0) = 0

.
By the denitions,

d
4


d
3


d
2


d
1
and

d
5


d
6
. Also
notice that when is the identity, d
2
is the graph metric
studied in [13] for nite dimensional linear systems, whilst
d
6
is a gap metric dened in [7] where

d
6
is extensively
exploited for the robustness of stability of nonlinear systems
and, in most cases, can be replaced by

d
5
.
From the properties of normalized coprime factorisation
and the pointwise graph topology T
p
, we can obtain the
following conclusions.
Proposition III.1. i)

d
i
, d
i
, i = 1, , 4 are each well-
dened on N
nor
(|, }), that is,

d
i
(P
1
, P
2
) is independent
of the choice of the normalized coprime factorisations and
nite for all P
1
, P
2
N
nor
(|, });
ii) d
1
is a metric on N
nor
(|, });
iii) If c > 0 and cr w(r) for all r 0, then d
2
is a
metric and is topologically equivalent to d
1
on N
nor
(|, });
iv) For P
n
, P N
nor
(|, }), P
n
J
P if and only if
there exist (N, D) nrcf(P) and (N
n
, D
n
) rcf(P
n
) such
that |(D D
n
, N N
n
)

0 as n provided
cr (r).
4695
One of our main results is
Theorem III.2. Suppose cr w(r) with c > 0 for all r
0. Then the topology induced by either d
1
or d
2
is equivalent
to the weighted graph topology T

on N
nor
(|, }).
Proof: From Lemma II.3 ii) and Proposition III.1 iv), it
follows that d
2
(P
n
, P) or d
1
(P
n
, P) 0 implies P
n
J
P
for any P
n
, P N
nor
(|, }).
Conversely, we suppose P
n
, P N
nor
(|, }) with
P
n
J
P. Let (N, D) nrcf(P). Then there exist
(N
n
, D
n
) rcf(P
n
) with |(D D
n
, N N
n
)

0 as n and, therefore, |(D
n
, N
n
)

| is bounded
and |(D D
n
, N N
n
)

| 0. This gives
|(D
n
, N
n
)

| |(D, N)

| = 1 as n (III.1)
and, for each > 0, there exists n

> 0 such that

|(D D
n
, N N
n
)

u| |u| (III.2)
for all u |
s
, n > n

.
Let

N
n

D
1
n
be a normalized coprime factorisation of P
n
.
Then there exists stable operators U
n
on |
s
, where U
1
n
exist and are stable, such that D
n
=

D
n
U
n
, N
n
=

N
n
U
n
.
Since |U
n
u| = |(

D
n
,

N
n
)

U
n
u| = |(D
n
, N
n
)

u| for
any u |
s
, we see |U
n
|

is bounded and, by (III.1),

|U
n
| = |(

D
n
,

N
n
)

U
n
| = |(D
n
, N
n
)

| 1 as n .
From (III.2), it follows, for all u |
s
, n > n

,
|U
n
u| = |(D
n
, N
n
)

u|
|(D, N)

u| |(D
n
D, N
n
N)

u|
(1 )|u|,
which implies that
|U
1
n
u|
1
1
|u| and therefore |U
1
n
|
1
1
.
Notice that |U
1
n
| 1/|U
n
|, so we see that |U
1
n
| 1.
Let Q
n
u = U
n
u/|U
n
| for each u |
s
. Then |Q
n
| 1
and Q
1
n
= U
1
n
|U
n
| exists and is stable, which means
Q
n
Q

. Also
|(

D
n
U
n

D
n
Q
n
,

N
n
U
n


N
n
Q
n
)

=|(

D
n
,

N
n
)

(U
n
Q
n
)|

=|(U
n
Q
n
)|

|U
n
| 1

|U
n
|
|U
n
|

0
which implies

d
2
(P, P
n
) |(D

D
n
Q
n
, N

N
n
Q
n
)

|(D

D
n
U
n
, N

N
n
U
n
)

+|(

D
n
U
n


D
n
Q
n
,

N
n
U
n


N
n
Q
n
)

.
So

d
2
(P, P
n
) 0 as n . Similarly, for

Q
n
u =
U
1
n
u/|U
1
n
|, we can prove

d
2
(P
n
, P) |(

D
n
D

Q
n
,

N
n
N

Q
n
)

0
as n . This shows d
2
(P
n
, P) 0 and completes the
proof.
Now we begin to consider d
5
and d
6
.
Using the same method as used in [7], we can prove that
d
5
, d
6
are metrics on the set of all signal operators having
locally asymptotically complete (l.a.c., see [7] for denition)
graph provided (r) r for all r > 0. Also, as in [7], d
5
, d
6
are only generalized metrics, which means that possibly
(say) d
5
(P
1
, P
2
) = for some operators P
1
, P
2
having
l.a.c. graphs. The following comparison results show that
the metrics take nite values if restricted to N
nor
(|, })
(l.a.c. is not required). We rst give a key lemma.
Lemma III.3. Suppose P
i
N
nor
(|, }) with (D
i
, N
i
)
nrcf(P
i
), i = 1, 2. Then there exists a mapping :
Graph(P
1
) Graph(P
2
) if and only if there exists a
mapping Q : |
s
|
s
such that

D
1
N
1

u =

D
2
N
2

Qu, for all u |

s
. (III.3)
Moreover,
(i) is surjective if and only if Q is surjective;
(ii) |Q| = || and (Q)(r) = ()(r);
(iii) is injective if and only if Q is injective;
(iv) |Q
1
| = |
1
| and (Q
1
)(r) = (
1
)(r);
(v) is causal if and only if Q is causal, and 0 = 0 if
and only if Q0 = 0.
We then have:
Proposition III.4.

d
4
(P
1
, P
2
) =

d
5
(P
1
, P
2
) and

d
3
(P
1
, P
2
) =

d
6
(P
1
, P
2
) for P
1
, P
2
N
nor
(|, }).
Proof: From Lemma III.3, it follows

d
5
(P
1
, P
2
)

d
4
(P
1
, P
2
) and

d
6
(P
1
, P
2
)

d
3
(P
1
, P
2
). To show the
reverse inequalities, we notice that
1
: (D
1
, N
1
)

u
(D
2
, N
2
)

u is a surjective operator from Graph(P

1
) to
Graph(P
2
) and |
1
I|

< . So

d
5
(P
1
, P
2
) = inf| I|

:
1
, | I|

< .
Since | I|

< implies the stability of , given

any surjective map : Graph(P
1
) Graph(P
1
) with
| I|

< , there exists a stable, surjective mapping

Q on |
s
satisfying (III.3). Hence

d
4
(P
1
, P
2
) | I|

which indicates that

d
4
(P
1
, P
2
)

d
5
(P
1
, P
2
). This proves
that

d
4
(P
1
, P
2
) =

d
5
(P
1
, P
2
). Similarly,

d
3
(P
1
, P
2
) =

d
6
(P
1
, P
2
).
Theorem III.5. d
3
, d
6
are well-dened metrics on
N
nor
(|, }) and the graph topology T

is equivalent to the
topology induced by either d
3
or d
6
, provided r (r) for
all r 0.
Proof: Obviously P
1
= P
2
implies d
2
(P
1
, P
2
) = 0.
On the other hand, if d
3
(P
1
, P
2
) = 0, then there exist
(N
1
, D
1
) nrcf(P
1
), (N
2
, D
2
) nrcf(P
2
) and Q
n
Q

such that |(N

1
N
2
Q
n
, D
1
D
2
Q
n
)

0 as n .
It can be proved that Q
n
Q for n large enough, which
shows (N
2
Q
n
, D
2
Q
n
) rcf(P
2
). From Proposition III.1
iv), it follows P
n
P
2
J
P
1
and, therefore, P
1
= P
2
. By
Proposition III.4, d
6
satises the same property.
4696
To prove the triangle inequality for d
6
, we suppose
P
1
, P
2
, P
3
N
nor
(|, }) and
1
: Graph(P
1
)
Graph(P
2
),
i
: Graph(P
2
) Graph(P
3
) are bijective
mappings. Then :=
2

1
is a bijective mapping from
Graph(P
1
) to Graph(P
3
) and I = (
2
I)
1
I. So
| I|

|
2
I||
1
|

+|
1
I|

|
2
I|

|
1
|

+|
1
I|

|
2
I|

(|
1
|

I)| + 1) +|
1
I|

.
This leads to the triangle inequality of d
6
. Hence d
6
is
a well-dened metric on N
nor
(|, }) and so is d
3
by
Proposition III.4.
Since d
3
d
2
and Theorem III.2, the convergence
of sequence under T

implies the convergence under d

3
.
Conversely, if d
3
(P, P
n
) 0 as n , From Proposition
III.1 iv), it follows P
n
P
2
J
P
1
. This shows the
equivalence between T

and the topology induced by d

3
or d
6
.
Proposition III.4 and Theorem III.5 suggest that the two
metrics d
2
and d
3
might be equivalent (we already know that
d
3
d
2
). In fact, Georgiou [5] has proved d
2
(P
1
, P
2
)
2d
3
(P
1
, P
2
) in the linear setting. In the nonlinear setting,
the case where (D
2
, N
2
)

is incrementally stable, that is

where

D
2
N
2

Z
= sup
>0
u1,u2/s
|(D
2
, N
2
)

u
1
(D
2
, N
2
)

u
2
|

|u
1
u
2
|

is nite, this claim can be proved by exactly the same

technique as in [5].
IV. GEORGIOUS GAP METRIC AND THE -GAP METRIC
Let H

, H
2
denote the standard Hardy spaces with norms
| |

, | |
2
, respectively. For two linear system operators
P
i
: Dom(P
i
) H
2
H
2
with (N
i
, D
i
) nrcf(P
i
) (i =
1, 2) over H

, Georgiou studied the following gap metric

in [5]:
d
g
(P
1
, P
2
) = max

d
g
(P
1
, P
2
),

d
g
(P
2
, P
1
)
with

d
g
(P
1
, P
2
) = inf
Q1

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

and proved that it equals to Zames and El-Sakkarys [15]

gap metric d
z
(P
1
, P
2
) := |
1

2
|. Here and after,
i
is
the orthogonal projection on /
i
:= Graph(P
i
), i = 1, 2.
In case | = H
m
2
, } = H
n
2
, Georgiou and Smith [7] proved
that the -gap metric for linear systems dened by

H2
(P
1
, P
2
) = sup
m1,1
|m1|2,=0
inf
m2,2
|m
1
m
2
|
2
|m
1
|
2
also equals to |(
2

1
)
1
|. Hence d
g
(P
1
, P
2
) =
max
H2
(P
1
, P
2
),
H2
(P
2
, P
1
) ( see [6]).
Obviously, both
H2
and

d
g
can be genealized for non-
linear systems. In fact, the gap metrics d
3
, d
4
considered in
the last section are nonlinear generalizations of d
g
, whilst
several -gap metrics for nonlinear operators had been
studied in both [7] and [9]. An interesting question is: In the
nonlinear case, what is the relation between -gap metrics
and the gap metrics dened via coprime factorisation? In [9],
some inequality results have been obtained. In this section,
we will present an equality conclusion for the -gap metric

0
(P
1
, P
2
) = sup
>0
sup
m1,1
|m1| ,=0
inf
m2,2
|m
1
m
2
|

|m
1
|

and the d-gap metric

d
0
(P
1
, P
2
) = inf
Q

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

s
,
where Q

= Q : |
s
| stable , Q0 = 0 and a Q
Q

may be not causal.

Theorem IV.1. Suppose P
1
, P
2
are (nonlinear)
operators having normalized coprime factorisations
(N
1
, D
1
), (N
2
, D
2
) respectively. Then
0
(P
1
, P
2
) =

d
0
(P
1
, P
2
) as dened above.
Proof: It can be proved that

d
0
(P
1
, P
2
) is independent
of the choice of the normalized coprime factorisations and
nite.
We claim

0
(P
1
, P
2
) = sup
u/s\0]
inf
vs

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

|u|
=: . (IV.1)
In fact, since |(D
1
, N
1
)

u|

|(D
1
, N
1
)

u| = |u|, it
follows from Lemma II.3 (i) that

0
(P
1
, P
2
) = sup
>0
sup
u/s
|u| ,=0
inf
v/s

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

D
1
N
1

sup
>0
sup
u/s
|u| ,=0
inf
v/s

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

|u|
.
Let > 0 and u |
s
0 be given. Then there exists > 0
with |u|

,= 0 such that
inf
v/s

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

inf
v/s

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

+ |u|.
This implies
inf
v/s

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

|u|
inf
v/s

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

|u|
+

0
(P
1
, P
2
) + .
4697
Since u, are arbitrary, we see
0
(P
1
, P
2
). Conversely,
the causality of N
1
, D
1
imply
inf
v/s

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

|u|

= inf
v/s

D
1
N
1

u T

D
2
N
2

|T

u|
inf
v/s

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

|T

u|

for any > 0, u |
s
with |u|

,= 0, which shows

0
(P
1
, P
2
) . Therefore, (IV.1) is proved.
Now, we prove
0
(P
1
, P
2
) =

d
0
(P
1
, P
2
).

0
(P
1
, P
2
)

d
0
(P
1
, P
2
) is a direct consequence of
(IV.1). To prove the opposite, for each > 0 and each
u |
s
0, we denote by v
u
|
s
any of the points such
that

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

v
u

inf
v/s

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

+ |u|.
Dene a mapping

Q : |
s
|
s
as below

Q0 = 0 and

Qu = v
u
for u |
s
0.
In case there are many v
u
for some u, we just choose one
so that the mapping is well dened. Then
|

Qu| =

D
2
N
2

Qu

D
1
N
1

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

Qu

|u| + inf
v/

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

+ |u|
|u| +

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

+ |u|
(3 + ) |u|
from which we see

Q is stable and

Q Q

. Hence by
(IV.1), we have

d
0
(P
1
,P
2
)
sup
u/s\0]

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

Qu

|u|
sup
u/s\0]
inf
v/s

D
1
N
1

D
2
N
2

|u|
+
=
0
(P
1
, P
2
) + .
Letting 0 to obtain

d
0
(P
1
, P
2
)
0
(P
1
, P
2
), which
completes the proof.
This result and its proof is also true when P
1
, P
2
are linear
operators. Comparing with some existing results or gap
metrics for linear systems such as Georgious ([5]) stated
above, the difference is that our Q will remain nonlinear
and, possibly, noncausal, non-surjective, even in the linear
case.
By Lemma III.3, we have
Corollary IV.2. For P
i
N
nor
(|, }) with (D
i
, N
i
)
nrcf(P
i
), i = 1, 2, we have

0
(P
1
, P
2
) =

d
0
(P
1
, P
2
)
= inf|I |
s
: : /
1
/
2
is stable.
This result establishes a relation between the -gap metric
and the gap metric of Georgiou and Smith type for nonlinear
operators. Using the method as used in Theorem III.5, we
also see that d
0
(P
1
, P
2
) := max

d
0
(P
1
, P
2
),

d
0
(P
2
, P
1
)
satises the triangle inequality and, therefore, is a quasi-
pseudo-metric on N
nor
(|, }).
V. A REMARK
The results in [3] and this paper are presented mainly
for time variable signals, that is, the signal spaces |, } are
consist of signals x : [0, ) R
n
. But this restriction
is not necessary in the proofs except for the exploitation
of truncation. However all the results remain valid in the
case when both | and } are general normed spaces (no
truncation is required), where the signal x could be from
a general set , rather than [0, ), to a general space
X, rather than R
n
. This allows us to consider the signal
operators or systems which might be governed by partial
differential equations, such as the boundary value control
systems.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The main contributions of this paper are as follows.
Natural generalisations of the graph and gap metrics dened
by normalized coprime factorisations to nonlinear systems.
Subject to certain assumptions on the weighted function
and the existence of normalized coprime factorisations, they
are shown to be equivalent with the gap metrics given by
Georgiou and Smith [7] when the stability notion is that
of linear gain, the induced convergence is the same as
that generated by a graph topology given in [3]. Georgiou-
type formulas [5] have been derived and are shown to
be equivalent to other alternative formulations of the gap
metric.
The relations between different gap metrics are shown in
following diagrams
d
1
d
2
d
3
= d
6
d
5
= d
4
d
0
Diagram 1 : Metric Relations.
T

TIII.2
= T
d1
PIII.1
= T
d2
TIII.5
= T
d3
PIII.4
= T
d6
D
T
d5
PIII.4
= T
d4
Diagram 2: Topological Relations.
Here, the letters T, P, D represent Theorem, Propo-
sition and Denition, respectively, and T
di
means the
topology induced by d
i
.
4698
As future work, an important topic is the explicit study
of the numerical computation of the gap, possibly based on
the Georgiou-type formulas, but with additional regularity
assumptions on the minimiser Q. In this regard, nonlinear
generalisations of the commutant lifting theory may be the
appropriate tool.
VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank a reviewer for a helpful suggestion on
the denition of normalized coprime factorisations.
VIII. REFERENCES
[1] Anderson B. D. O., Brinsmead T.S. and Bruyne F. D.,
The Vinnicombe metric for nonlinear operators, IEEE
Tran. Auto. control, vol. 47, 2002, pp 1450-1465
[2] Anderson B. D. O., James M. R. and Limebeer D.
J. N., Robust stabilization of nonlinear systems via
normalized coprime factor representations, Automat-
ica, vol.34, 1998, pp 1593-1599
[3] Bian W. and French M., Coprime factorisation and
robustness of stabilization for nonlinear systems, Pro-
ceeding of 41st CDC, Las Vegas, 2002, pp 1078-1083
[4] Bian W. and French M., Graph topologies, gap metrics
and robust stability for nonlinear systems, submitted
for publication
[5] Georgiou T. T., On the computation of the gap metric,
Systems & Control Letters, vo.11, 1988, pp 253-257
[6] Georgiou T. T. and Smith M. C., Optimal robustness
in the gap metric, IEEE Trans. Auto. Control, vol.35,
1990, pp 673-686
[7] Georgiou T. T. and Smith M. C., Robustness analysis of
nonlinear feedback systems: an input-output approach,
IEEE Trans. Auto. Control, vol.42, 1997, pp 1200-1221
[8] Glover K. and McFarlane D., Robust stabilization
of normalized coprime factor plant descriptions with
H

-bounded uncertainty, IEEE Trans. Auto. Control,

vol.34, 1989, pp 811-830
[9] James M. R., Smith M. C. and Vinnicombe G., Gap
metrics, representations and nonlinear robust stability,
preprint.
[10] Scherpen J. M. A. and Van der Schaft A. J., Normal-
ized coprime factorizations and balancing for unstable
nonlinear systems, Int. J. Control, vol.60, 1994, pp
1193-1222
[11] Sefton J. A. and Ober R. J., On the gap metric and
coprime factorperturbations, Automatica, vol.29, 1993,
pp 723-734
[12] Verma M. S. and Hunt L. R., Right coprime fractor-
izations and stabilization for nonlinear systems, IEEE
Trans. Auto. Control, vol. 38, 1993, pp 222-231
[13] Vidyasagar M., Control System Synthesis, MIT Press,
Cambridge, 1985
[14] Vinnicombe G., Uncertainty and Feedback: H

-
shaping Control System Synthesis, MIT Press, Cam-
bridge, 2001
[15] Zames G. and El-Sakkary A. K., Unstable systems and
feedback: The gap metric, Proceeding of the Allerton
Conf., 1980, pp 380-385
4699