# Improved Multiple Lyapunov Functions of input-to-output Stability and input-to-state Stability for Switched Systems

Authors: Shizhang Chen; Chongyang Ning
Journal: Journal of Advanced Transportation
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

This paper investigates the Lyapunov characterizations of input-to-output stability (IOS) and input-to-state stability (ISS) for nonlinear switched systems. The restriction on the negativity of derivatives of Lyapunov functions is relaxed; additionally, subsystems are not restricted to be ISS/IOS throughout the state space. These problems are overcome by a newly proposed method, which extends multiple Lyapunov functions (MLFs) to an indefinite form. Indefinite multiple Lyapunov functions (iMLFs) are proposed on the basis of an inequality to estimate the upper boundary of the system state. Moreover, we apply the iMLFs method to verify the extended notions of IOS in a switched system. More relaxed sufficient conditions for ISS and IOS are proposed, a simulation experiment is carried out on a numerical example of the system, which demonstrates their effectiveness and superiority.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

As a specific kind of dynamical systems, the switched system consists of a series of subsystems together with a designed law-derived switching signal [1], which is very compatible with the modeling and analysis of practical systems, such as dynamic systems, chemical industrial systems, and automotive control [2–4]. Nonlinear switched systems received considerable attention over the last decade [5–7]. However, the study of switched systems remains a challenging subject, primarily because of the continuous and discrete dynamics caused by the subsystems and switching signal. Additionally, in general, the characterizations of subsystems have no direct influence on the whole switched system [8–11].As the basic concept of system robustness, ISS has been recognized as a useful method to verify the stability of nonlinear systems [9, 11–14]. Furthermore, some output variables are more important than full states in some practical applications [15]; therefore, IOS is presented as a framework in relation to the output robustness with respect to system inputs [16–18]. Both of these properties have been extensively studied and exploited in nonswitched systems over the past few years [19, 20]. Therefore, this work aims to extend ISS and IOS to switched systems and investigating sufficient conditions for verifying them.Nevertheless, the stability of the nonlinear switched system does not appear easy to ensure, as it concerns both the characterization of the subsystems and the influence caused by the switching signal [21, 22]. For example, [8] indicated that a switched system might also be unstable under some switching signals even though it consists of asymptotically stable subsystems. Additionally, nonlinear conditions are more complex than the linear conditions. Several methods have been presented over the past few years to perform ISS/IOS verification for switched systems [2, 10, 23, 24]. Morse [23] proposed a common Lyapunov function (CLF) method. Then, [24] showed that a constrained switching law, combined with slow switches in a switched system, could also guarantee asymptotic stability. This inspired researchers to propose several more general methods; one of the commonly applied methods which exerts restrictions on the time period that subsystems being activated named average dwell-time (ADT) [25–28], and another effective method is the multiple Lyapunov functions (MLFs) [4, 24, 29, 30]. For example, in [10, 31–34], ISS for switched systems exploited by ADT, and MLF-based results are presented in [24, 29, 35–37].However, it should be noted that there are some common restrictions in the aforementioned works that concern switched systems. First, some or all subsystems are assumed to be ISS [38–43]; for example, [2, 40, 42] required all subsystems to be ISS and [7, 8, 43] argued that the stability of switched systems could be guaranteed with some subsystems that are non-ISS, but the switched system should not switch too frequently or stay within the subregions of non-ISS subsystems for long periods of time. Second, the derivatives of multiple Lyapunov functions with respect to time must be strictly negative-definite, such as the results in [6, 29, 36, 39]. Moreover, in some works, the considered systems are time-invariant [9, 35], and time-varying situations are more complicated because the switches as well as Lyapunov functions are both time-dependent.To address the aforementioned problems, in our previous work [44], we presented a new method which extends the Lyapunov function to an indefinite format , and by which we gave more relaxed verifying conditions for integral ISS (iISS) and ISS characterizations of typical nonlinear systems. Then, [35] exploited and applied the method to switched systems, and [45] extended our method to the verification of systems with time-delay. Therefore, this work aims to extend the multiple Lyapunov functions to an indefinite form and address ISS/IOS verification for switched systems.Under the motivation of the considerations mentioned above, this paper aims to present more relaxed ISS/IOS conditions for nonlinear switched systems. Compared with existing works, this paper possesses the following distinct features: First, none of the subsystems are restricted to ISS/IOS, and the individual ISS/IOS property for subsystems is only required in the subregions when they are activated; second, the system state-based switching law is more flexible in system modeling than time-dependent law. Moreover, the derivatives of Lyapunov functions are no longer restricted to be strictly negative-definite; instead, they are permitted to be indefinite over the state space, and some sufficient conditions for extended notions of IOS are also provided. Finally, we provide an individual upper boundaryλk for every Lyapunov function.The symbol notations utilized and system descriptions are illustrated thoroughly in Section2. Then the state-based switching law and more relaxed ISS sufficient conditions are proposed as the main results, and then the verification of IOS is investigated. In addition, new conditions for verifying the extended notions of IOS properties are discussed in Section 4. Finally, a simulation experiment is carried out based on a numerical example of a switched system, which demonstrates the proposed methods is effective, and we give directions for further work in the conclusion.


## 2. Preliminaries

In this work, we employ the following notations: The Euclidean and supreme norms of the real vector are represented by. and ‖.‖, respectively. Let ℝ consist of all the real numbers, whose nonnegative subset is denoted by ℝ+. All integers and the integers in 0,+∞ are represented by ℤ and ℤ+, respectively. The maximum value between x and y is denoted as x∨y. The truncation of ut, more specifically, uσt0,t=0 when s≥t, and uσt0,t=uσ when σ∈t0,t is represented as uσt0,t. The state trajectory with initial state ξ∈ℝn and input u∈ℝm is represented as x.,ξ,u. As before, we denote a continuous function χs:ℝ+⟶ℝ+∈K if χ strictly increases for s≥0 and satisfies χ0=0. Function χ:ℝ+⟶ℝ+∈K∞ if χ satisfies lims⟶∞χs=∞ and χ∈K. Considering a function φ:ℝ+×ℝ+⟶ℝ+, if φs,t⟶0 when t⟶∞ for a fixed s; and φ∈K for a fixed t, then we call function φ a ℤℒ-function.The system considered in this work is provided as:(1)x˙=fσt,u,ξ;y=hσt,x,where ξ denotes the initial state of switched System (1), based on a designed switching law, right-continuous function σ:ℝ+⟶ℤ+ controls the subsystem sequence. u∈ℝm denotes the measurable and bounded input, vectors fσ and hσ satisfying fσt,0,0=0, hσt,0=0 are both locally Lipschitz continuous. y=hσt,x denotes the output.Functionσ is illustrated as:(2)σ=xt0;k0,t0,k1,t1,…,ki,ti,⋯∣ki∈M,i∈ℤ+,where t0 is the initial time of System (1), ki≠ki+1. M:0,…,m is a right-continuous set consists of the numbers of subsystems. To be more specific, when t∈[ti,ti+1), then σt=ki, and the ki∈M-th system is activated.Note that this work is constructed under the following assumptions: First, the system state should not change abruptly between switching intervals; second, in a limited time interval, switches between subsystems only occur a finite number of times.The definitions of ISS and IOS are given as:Definition 1.
[14] Considering System (1), suppose thatxtalways exists ast≥t0for any measurableutandxt0, and there exist some continuous functionsφ∈ℤℒandχ∈Ksatisfying:(3)xt≤φxt0,t−t0+χ‖ut‖,then the considered system is ISS.Definition 2.
[14] Considering System (1), suppose thatxtalways exists ast≥t0for any measurableut, outputytand initial statext0; some functionsφ∈ℤℒandχ∈Ksatisfying:(4)yt,x≤φxt0,t−t0+χ‖ut‖,then the considered system is IOS.
Our main intention is to derive more relaxed sufficient conditions for verifying ISS/IOS in switched systems by extending MLF to an indefinite notion.


## 3. Main Results

We present a new method called indefinite multiple Lyapunov functions (iMLFs) in the following parts. The new iMLFs are then applied to the analysis of System (1) and some new ISS/IOS sufficient conditions are derived. The details can be divided into several steps: This section first introduce a designed switching law based on the system state; then, a lemma for estimating the upper boundary on the solution of a set of inequalities is presented, which derives the iMLF method. Finally, new sufficient conditions for verifying ISS/IOS properties are presented on the basis of the designed switching law.


### 3.1. A designed switching law based on the system state

As discussed above, the stability of a switched system concerns the characterization of subsystems as well as the construction of switching signals. Our objective in this work is to relax the requirements for stability verification, so the switching law is an essential issue to be addressed first. Considering System (1), we first define several state sets as follows:(5)Ωkt=x∣Vkt,x+μkjt,x≤Vjt,x,∀j∈MΩ˜kjt=x∣Vkt,x+μkjt,x=Vjt,x;where t≥t0, k∈M, function μkjt,x satisfies μkk=0, μkjt,0=0, μkjt,x≠μklt,x,∀j,l,k∈M and μklt,x+μljt,x≤min0,μkjt,x; The function μkj is the key point of this switching law, which controls the switching sequence and ensures that there is an overall decline in the system energy. We also define the boundary of set Ωkt as ∪j=1,j≠kmΩ˜kjt.Then, a system-state-based switching law is given as follows: For any momentt≥t0, σt−=k, xt0∈intΩkt0 and σt0∈M:ifxt∈Ωkt, then the switch does not occur, we also have σt=k;ifxt∈Ω˜kjt, then the current subsystem has been switched to the next one in M, σt=j.Remark 1.
1. The applied switching law controls the switches between subsystems based on specific changes in system states. For any fixed timet, the functionσtselects a fixedkfor System (1), which denotes the current subsystem. When the state satisfiesΩ˜kjt, the current subsystem switches to the next subsystem in the sequence.
2. Also note that∪k=1mΩkt=ℝn. Now, we present a brief proof. Fromμklt,x+μljt,x≤min0,μkjt,x, we can derive that∑i=1jμkiki+1≤0holds for anyi,j∈M, wherekj+1is considered ask1. Assume that there exist somex∈ℝnbut not inΩktfor anyk∈M. Then, there exist someVkit,x+μkiki+1t,x>Vki+1t,xthat holds for some subsystemi. However, considering (3),∑i=1jVkit,x+μkiki+1t,x−Vki+1t,x=∑i=1jμkiki+1t,x≤0, from that we can see the consequence opposite the assumption before. Hence, we can affirm that∪k=1mΩkt=ℝn. In this regard, we do not need to consider that some states might not be included under this switching signal.


### 3.2. ISS conditions of switched nonlinear systems

First, we introduce a lemma presented in our previous work [44], where the derivative of the solution is indefinite rather than strictly negative-definite. Then, this characterization is applied to System (1) under the switching law so that some new sufficient conditions can be derived for ISS/IOS.Lemma 1.
[44] Considering a positive-definiteC1functionηt:ℝ+⟶ℝ+, a functionχ:ℝm⟶ℝ+∈K,λt:ℝ+⟶ℝ,ut:ℝ+⟶ℝmsuch that for anyt≥t0andηt≥χ|ut|:(6)η˙t≤λtrt,then(7)ηt≤ηt0e∫t0tλδdδ+esssupt0≤s≤tχ|us|e∫t0tλ+δdδ,where λδ∨0 is denoted by λ+δ.Then, this lemma is applied to the verification of ISS for System (1) under our switching law.Theorem 2.
Considering a switched system (1) with a continuous, essentially bounded inputut, suppose that there exist positive-definite and differentiable functionsVkt,x, someK∞-functionsα1andα2s≥s, some continuous functionsβkjt,x≤0,μkjt,x,λktandK-functionχsatisfying.(8)α1|x|≤Vkt,x≤α2|x|.2.(9)∂Vkt,x∂t+∂Vkt,x∂xfkt,x,u+∑j=1mβkjt,x[Vkt,x+μkjt,x−Vjt,x]≤λktVkt,x,where k,j∈M;k≠jandVkt,x≥χ|ut|;3.(10)∫t0∞λm+δdδ=C≤∞where λm=maxλk0,…,λki, λm+δ=λmδ∨0, C is defined as a nonnegative constant and(11)∫t0tλm−δdδ≥εt−t0,where λm−δ=−λmδ∨0, t≥t0, and ε is defined as a sufficiently small constant.4.(12)μklt,x+μljt,x≤min0,μkjt,x,and(13)∂μkjt,x∂t+∂μkjt,x∂xfkt,x,u≤λktμkjt,x,where k≠l≠j. Then, the system is ISS.Proof.
We divide the proof into several parts as follows:Step 1.
Prove that Lyapunov functionsVσtt,x are bounded and find the upper boundary in time interval ti,t.Step 2.
Apply the switching law to find the relationship between the Lyapunov functions of two adjacent intervals.Step 3.
Find the relationship between the initialVσt0,xt0 and Vkit,x for any t∈ℤ+. Prove that Vkit,xt≤Vk0t0,xt0e∫t0tλmδdδ+iχ‖us‖e∫t0tλm+δdδ.Step 4.
Prove that functionVσtt,x satisfies the requirement of ISS.
Step (i). Assuming thatti≤t, then ti is the switching-time of the last subsystem, and we have σt=ki, which indicates that the current subsystem is ki. From (7) we can derive that if Vkt,x≥χ|ut|,(14)∂Vkt,x∂t+∂Vkt,x∂xfkt,x,u≤λktVkt,xas function βkj is strict-negative. We can derive from (14) and Lemma 3.1 that the following equation holds:(15)Vσtt,x≤Vkiti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ+esssupti≤s≤tχ|us|e∫titλki+δdδ≤Vkiti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ+χ‖us‖ti,te∫titλki+δdδ.Then, in Step (ii); considering Vkiti,xti, ti is the switching instant; from the switching law, we know that for any i∈ℤ+,(16)Vki+1ti,xti=Vkiti,xti+μkiki+1ti,xti,holds in any switching time-interval, from (10), we have(17)Vkit,xt≤Vki−1ti,xti+μki−1kiti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ+χ‖us‖ti,te∫titλki+δdδ,holds when t∈[ti,ti+1). Then, the following equation could be derived:(18)Vkit,xt≤Vki−1ti,xti+μki−1kiti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ+χ‖us‖ti,te∫titλki+δdδ=Vki−1ti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ+μki−1kiti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ+χ‖us‖ti,te∫titλki+δdδ.From (13), we can see that μkj also fits in Lemma 1. Therefore, we can deduce that(19)μkijt,x≤μkijti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ.Then, we see that(20)μki−1kiti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ≤μki−1kiti−1e∫ti−1tλkiki−1δdδ,where λki−1ki=maxλki−1,λki. Note that (16) holds for any switching interval. Therefore, combining with (18) yields:(21)Vσ(t)(t,x(t))≤Vki−1(ti,x(ti))e∫titλki(δ)dδ+μki−1ki(ti,x(ti))e∫titλki(δ)dδ+χ(‖u(s)‖ti,t)e∫titλki+(δ)dδ≤[Vki−1(ti−1,x(ti−1))e∫ti−1tiλki−1(δ)dδ+χ(‖u(s)‖ti−1,ti)e∫ti−1tiλki−1+(δ)dδ]e∫titλki(δ)dδ+μki−1ki(ti,x(ti))e∫titλki(δ)dδ+χ(‖u(s)‖ti,t)e∫titλki+(δ)dδ≤Vki−2(ti−1,x(ti−1))e∫ti−1tλki−1ki(δ)dδ+[μki−2ki−1(ti−1,x(ti−1))+μki−1ki(ti−1,x(ti−1))]e∫ti−1tλki−1ki(δ)dδ+2χ(‖u(s)‖ti−1,t)e∫ti−1tλki−1ki+(δ)dδ≤Vki−2(ti−1,x(ti−1))e∫ti−1tλki−1ki(δ)dδ+2χ(‖u(s)‖ti−1,t)e∫ti−1tλki−1ki+(δ)dδ.For simplicity, redefine χ‖us‖=χ‖us‖t0,t. Recalling that λm=maxλk, from (21), we can summarize that, for l∈ℤ+ and l≤i/2, after l times the same procedure of (12-19),(22)Vσtt,xt≤Vki−2lti−2l+1,xti−2l+1e∫ti−2l+1tλmδdδ+2lχ‖us‖ti−2l+1,te∫ti−2l+1tλm+δdδ.Then we have completed step (ii), we have found a rule between the switches.
For step (iii), from the above equation, we can draw the conclusion that wheni is even,(23)Vσ(t)(t,x(t))≤Vk0(t1,x(t1))e∫t1tλm(δ)dδ+(i−1)χ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t1tλm+(δ)dδ≤[Vk0(t0,x(t0))e∫t0t1λm(δ)dδ+χ(‖u(s)‖t0,t1)e∫t0t1λm+(δ)dδ]e∫t1tλm(δ)dδ+(i−1)χ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t1tλm+(δ)dδ≤Vk0(t0,x(t0))e∫t0tλm(δ)dδ+iχ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t0tλm+(δ)dδ.When i is odd,(24)Vσ(t)(t,x(t))≤Vk0(t1,x(t1))e∫t1tλm(δ)dδ+(i−1)χ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t1tλm+(δ)dδ≤[Vk0(t0,x(t0))e∫t0t1λk0(δ)dδ+χ(‖u(s)‖t0,t1)e∫t0t1λk0+(δ)dδ]e∫t1tλm(δ)dδ+μk0k1(t1,x(t1))e∫t1tλm(δ)dδ+(i−1)χ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t1tλm+(δ)dδ≤Vk0(t0,x(t0))e∫t0tλm(δ)dδ+μk0k1(t0,x(t0))e∫t0tλm(δ)dδ+iχ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t1tλm+(δ)dδ≤[Vk0(t0,x(t0))+μk0k1(t0,x(t0))]e∫t0tλm(δ)dδ+iχ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t0tλm+(δ)dδ.Step (iv): Considering the definition of λm+t and λm−t, we have(25)e∫t0tλmδdδ=e∫t0tλm+δ−λm−δdδ=e∫t0tλm+δdδe∫t0t−λm−δdδ=eCe∫t0t−λm−δdδ=C1e∫t0t−λm−δdδ,where C1=eC.Putting together (6), (8), (9), (20), (22) and (21) yields(26)α1|xt|≤Vk0t0,xt0+μk0k1t0,xt0e∫t0tλmδdδ+iχ‖us‖e∫t0tλm+δdδ≤α2|xt0|+μk0k1t0,xt0e∫t0tλmδdδ+iχ‖us‖e∫t0tλm+δdδ≤2C1α2|xt0|+μk0k1t0,xt0e−∫t0tλm−δdδ+iC1χ‖us‖,where α2s≥s. We know from the Caratheodory conditions [46, 47] that xt always exists, then constructing the ℤℒ− function φs,t with respect to a minimum real number T∈t0,t satisfying (9) as follows(27)φ(s,t)=α1−1(4C1α2(s)),t∈[t0,T)α1−1(4C1[e−ε(T+1)(t−T)−t+1+T]α2(s)),t∈[T,T+1)α1−1(4C1e−εtα2(s)),t≥T+1Recalling the definition of χ|ut|, not hard to point out that χ‖us‖∈K− function; also, we have proven that φs,t is a ℤℒ-function in our previous work [44]. As a conclusion, by means of (27), the condition in Definition 2.1 has been satisfied. Now, we have completed the proof, i.e., the considered system with the designed switching law is ISS.Remark 2.
Theorem 3.2 extends MLF to an indefinite form, which relaxes the restriction in existing results on the Lyapunov functions for each subsystem is restricted to be decreasing in the domain [2, 3, 10, 29]; the sufficient conditions raise the upper bound on the derivatives of Lyapunov functions such that they could be positive-definite in some time intervals. Furthermore, the switching law is presented in our best way to utilize the ISS/IOS property of subsystems; the summation ofβkjVkt,x+μkjt,x−Vjt,xensures that all subsystems are only supposed to be IOS during activated time intervals in the switching sequence. Compared with [29, 36], the verifying work of the ISS property for switched systems is much simplified due to the construction of the switching law and the new sufficient conditions.
Moreover, whenm=1, Theorem 1 is the indefinite Lyapunov function for typical nonlinear nonswitched systems, so this work is more general than [44]. The extension of this work will focus on the introduction of impulsive signals.Remark 3.
Note that we also provide new sufficient conditions based on the CLF method. Consider switched nonlinear System (1) with an essentially bounded inputuand a founded common Lyapunov functionVt,x, if there exist twoK∞functionsα1,α2s≥s, continuous functionsλand aK-functionχsatisfying(28)α1|x|≤Vt,x≤α2|x|V˙t,x≤λtVt,x;∀χ|ut|≤Vt,x.and conditions (8), (9) are satisfied. Then, the considered system with a CLF is ISS, regardless of the design of switching signals. This proposition is another special case of Theorem 1. When a CLF could be found for System (1), the verifying work could obviously be further simplified.


### 3.3. IOS for nonlinear switched systems

Now, we extend our main result to IOS verification for time-varying nonlinear switched systems, and some new sufficient conditions are proposed. The system outputhσt,x is now considered.Corollary 3.
Considering System (1) with essentially boundedut, if there exist twoK∞functionsα1,α2s≥s, continuous functionsλk,μkjt,x,βkjt,x≤0and aK-functionχsatisfying:1.(29)α1|hkt,x|≤Vkt,x≤α2|x|,and conditions (7) -(9) hold. Then, the considered system with the designed switching law is IOS.The proof part is easy to derive from Theorem 1, so it is omitted here. The details can be found in the Appendix.Remark 4.
The sufficient conditions for IOS in this corollary are extensions of our main result. We also employ Lemma 1 and the switching law in this corollary. Compared with existing results concerning IOS for switched systems, the proposed sufficient conditions have distinct advantages. On the one hand, the subsystem is not restricted to be IOS, and the IOS property is only demanded in some subregions in the state space when the subsystem is activated. On the other hand, the iMLF method relaxes the restrictions on derivatives of Lyapunov functions and permits them to be indefinite for anyt∈ℤ+ [16]. With the help of the designed switching law and iMLF, candidates of Lyapunov functions are more convenient to select, and IOS verification is also much simplified.


## 3.1. A designed switching law based on the system state

As discussed above, the stability of a switched system concerns the characterization of subsystems as well as the construction of switching signals. Our objective in this work is to relax the requirements for stability verification, so the switching law is an essential issue to be addressed first. Considering System (1), we first define several state sets as follows:(5)Ωkt=x∣Vkt,x+μkjt,x≤Vjt,x,∀j∈MΩ˜kjt=x∣Vkt,x+μkjt,x=Vjt,x;where t≥t0, k∈M, function μkjt,x satisfies μkk=0, μkjt,0=0, μkjt,x≠μklt,x,∀j,l,k∈M and μklt,x+μljt,x≤min0,μkjt,x; The function μkj is the key point of this switching law, which controls the switching sequence and ensures that there is an overall decline in the system energy. We also define the boundary of set Ωkt as ∪j=1,j≠kmΩ˜kjt.Then, a system-state-based switching law is given as follows: For any momentt≥t0, σt−=k, xt0∈intΩkt0 and σt0∈M:ifxt∈Ωkt, then the switch does not occur, we also have σt=k;ifxt∈Ω˜kjt, then the current subsystem has been switched to the next one in M, σt=j.Remark 1.
1. The applied switching law controls the switches between subsystems based on specific changes in system states. For any fixed timet, the functionσtselects a fixedkfor System (1), which denotes the current subsystem. When the state satisfiesΩ˜kjt, the current subsystem switches to the next subsystem in the sequence.
2. Also note that∪k=1mΩkt=ℝn. Now, we present a brief proof. Fromμklt,x+μljt,x≤min0,μkjt,x, we can derive that∑i=1jμkiki+1≤0holds for anyi,j∈M, wherekj+1is considered ask1. Assume that there exist somex∈ℝnbut not inΩktfor anyk∈M. Then, there exist someVkit,x+μkiki+1t,x>Vki+1t,xthat holds for some subsystemi. However, considering (3),∑i=1jVkit,x+μkiki+1t,x−Vki+1t,x=∑i=1jμkiki+1t,x≤0, from that we can see the consequence opposite the assumption before. Hence, we can affirm that∪k=1mΩkt=ℝn. In this regard, we do not need to consider that some states might not be included under this switching signal.


## 3.2. ISS conditions of switched nonlinear systems

First, we introduce a lemma presented in our previous work [44], where the derivative of the solution is indefinite rather than strictly negative-definite. Then, this characterization is applied to System (1) under the switching law so that some new sufficient conditions can be derived for ISS/IOS.Lemma 1.
[44] Considering a positive-definiteC1functionηt:ℝ+⟶ℝ+, a functionχ:ℝm⟶ℝ+∈K,λt:ℝ+⟶ℝ,ut:ℝ+⟶ℝmsuch that for anyt≥t0andηt≥χ|ut|:(6)η˙t≤λtrt,then(7)ηt≤ηt0e∫t0tλδdδ+esssupt0≤s≤tχ|us|e∫t0tλ+δdδ,where λδ∨0 is denoted by λ+δ.Then, this lemma is applied to the verification of ISS for System (1) under our switching law.Theorem 2.
Considering a switched system (1) with a continuous, essentially bounded inputut, suppose that there exist positive-definite and differentiable functionsVkt,x, someK∞-functionsα1andα2s≥s, some continuous functionsβkjt,x≤0,μkjt,x,λktandK-functionχsatisfying.(8)α1|x|≤Vkt,x≤α2|x|.2.(9)∂Vkt,x∂t+∂Vkt,x∂xfkt,x,u+∑j=1mβkjt,x[Vkt,x+μkjt,x−Vjt,x]≤λktVkt,x,where k,j∈M;k≠jandVkt,x≥χ|ut|;3.(10)∫t0∞λm+δdδ=C≤∞where λm=maxλk0,…,λki, λm+δ=λmδ∨0, C is defined as a nonnegative constant and(11)∫t0tλm−δdδ≥εt−t0,where λm−δ=−λmδ∨0, t≥t0, and ε is defined as a sufficiently small constant.4.(12)μklt,x+μljt,x≤min0,μkjt,x,and(13)∂μkjt,x∂t+∂μkjt,x∂xfkt,x,u≤λktμkjt,x,where k≠l≠j. Then, the system is ISS.Proof.
We divide the proof into several parts as follows:Step 1.
Prove that Lyapunov functionsVσtt,x are bounded and find the upper boundary in time interval ti,t.Step 2.
Apply the switching law to find the relationship between the Lyapunov functions of two adjacent intervals.Step 3.
Find the relationship between the initialVσt0,xt0 and Vkit,x for any t∈ℤ+. Prove that Vkit,xt≤Vk0t0,xt0e∫t0tλmδdδ+iχ‖us‖e∫t0tλm+δdδ.Step 4.
Prove that functionVσtt,x satisfies the requirement of ISS.
Step (i). Assuming thatti≤t, then ti is the switching-time of the last subsystem, and we have σt=ki, which indicates that the current subsystem is ki. From (7) we can derive that if Vkt,x≥χ|ut|,(14)∂Vkt,x∂t+∂Vkt,x∂xfkt,x,u≤λktVkt,xas function βkj is strict-negative. We can derive from (14) and Lemma 3.1 that the following equation holds:(15)Vσtt,x≤Vkiti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ+esssupti≤s≤tχ|us|e∫titλki+δdδ≤Vkiti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ+χ‖us‖ti,te∫titλki+δdδ.Then, in Step (ii); considering Vkiti,xti, ti is the switching instant; from the switching law, we know that for any i∈ℤ+,(16)Vki+1ti,xti=Vkiti,xti+μkiki+1ti,xti,holds in any switching time-interval, from (10), we have(17)Vkit,xt≤Vki−1ti,xti+μki−1kiti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ+χ‖us‖ti,te∫titλki+δdδ,holds when t∈[ti,ti+1). Then, the following equation could be derived:(18)Vkit,xt≤Vki−1ti,xti+μki−1kiti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ+χ‖us‖ti,te∫titλki+δdδ=Vki−1ti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ+μki−1kiti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ+χ‖us‖ti,te∫titλki+δdδ.From (13), we can see that μkj also fits in Lemma 1. Therefore, we can deduce that(19)μkijt,x≤μkijti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ.Then, we see that(20)μki−1kiti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ≤μki−1kiti−1e∫ti−1tλkiki−1δdδ,where λki−1ki=maxλki−1,λki. Note that (16) holds for any switching interval. Therefore, combining with (18) yields:(21)Vσ(t)(t,x(t))≤Vki−1(ti,x(ti))e∫titλki(δ)dδ+μki−1ki(ti,x(ti))e∫titλki(δ)dδ+χ(‖u(s)‖ti,t)e∫titλki+(δ)dδ≤[Vki−1(ti−1,x(ti−1))e∫ti−1tiλki−1(δ)dδ+χ(‖u(s)‖ti−1,ti)e∫ti−1tiλki−1+(δ)dδ]e∫titλki(δ)dδ+μki−1ki(ti,x(ti))e∫titλki(δ)dδ+χ(‖u(s)‖ti,t)e∫titλki+(δ)dδ≤Vki−2(ti−1,x(ti−1))e∫ti−1tλki−1ki(δ)dδ+[μki−2ki−1(ti−1,x(ti−1))+μki−1ki(ti−1,x(ti−1))]e∫ti−1tλki−1ki(δ)dδ+2χ(‖u(s)‖ti−1,t)e∫ti−1tλki−1ki+(δ)dδ≤Vki−2(ti−1,x(ti−1))e∫ti−1tλki−1ki(δ)dδ+2χ(‖u(s)‖ti−1,t)e∫ti−1tλki−1ki+(δ)dδ.For simplicity, redefine χ‖us‖=χ‖us‖t0,t. Recalling that λm=maxλk, from (21), we can summarize that, for l∈ℤ+ and l≤i/2, after l times the same procedure of (12-19),(22)Vσtt,xt≤Vki−2lti−2l+1,xti−2l+1e∫ti−2l+1tλmδdδ+2lχ‖us‖ti−2l+1,te∫ti−2l+1tλm+δdδ.Then we have completed step (ii), we have found a rule between the switches.
For step (iii), from the above equation, we can draw the conclusion that wheni is even,(23)Vσ(t)(t,x(t))≤Vk0(t1,x(t1))e∫t1tλm(δ)dδ+(i−1)χ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t1tλm+(δ)dδ≤[Vk0(t0,x(t0))e∫t0t1λm(δ)dδ+χ(‖u(s)‖t0,t1)e∫t0t1λm+(δ)dδ]e∫t1tλm(δ)dδ+(i−1)χ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t1tλm+(δ)dδ≤Vk0(t0,x(t0))e∫t0tλm(δ)dδ+iχ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t0tλm+(δ)dδ.When i is odd,(24)Vσ(t)(t,x(t))≤Vk0(t1,x(t1))e∫t1tλm(δ)dδ+(i−1)χ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t1tλm+(δ)dδ≤[Vk0(t0,x(t0))e∫t0t1λk0(δ)dδ+χ(‖u(s)‖t0,t1)e∫t0t1λk0+(δ)dδ]e∫t1tλm(δ)dδ+μk0k1(t1,x(t1))e∫t1tλm(δ)dδ+(i−1)χ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t1tλm+(δ)dδ≤Vk0(t0,x(t0))e∫t0tλm(δ)dδ+μk0k1(t0,x(t0))e∫t0tλm(δ)dδ+iχ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t1tλm+(δ)dδ≤[Vk0(t0,x(t0))+μk0k1(t0,x(t0))]e∫t0tλm(δ)dδ+iχ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t0tλm+(δ)dδ.Step (iv): Considering the definition of λm+t and λm−t, we have(25)e∫t0tλmδdδ=e∫t0tλm+δ−λm−δdδ=e∫t0tλm+δdδe∫t0t−λm−δdδ=eCe∫t0t−λm−δdδ=C1e∫t0t−λm−δdδ,where C1=eC.Putting together (6), (8), (9), (20), (22) and (21) yields(26)α1|xt|≤Vk0t0,xt0+μk0k1t0,xt0e∫t0tλmδdδ+iχ‖us‖e∫t0tλm+δdδ≤α2|xt0|+μk0k1t0,xt0e∫t0tλmδdδ+iχ‖us‖e∫t0tλm+δdδ≤2C1α2|xt0|+μk0k1t0,xt0e−∫t0tλm−δdδ+iC1χ‖us‖,where α2s≥s. We know from the Caratheodory conditions [46, 47] that xt always exists, then constructing the ℤℒ− function φs,t with respect to a minimum real number T∈t0,t satisfying (9) as follows(27)φ(s,t)=α1−1(4C1α2(s)),t∈[t0,T)α1−1(4C1[e−ε(T+1)(t−T)−t+1+T]α2(s)),t∈[T,T+1)α1−1(4C1e−εtα2(s)),t≥T+1Recalling the definition of χ|ut|, not hard to point out that χ‖us‖∈K− function; also, we have proven that φs,t is a ℤℒ-function in our previous work [44]. As a conclusion, by means of (27), the condition in Definition 2.1 has been satisfied. Now, we have completed the proof, i.e., the considered system with the designed switching law is ISS.Remark 2.
Theorem 3.2 extends MLF to an indefinite form, which relaxes the restriction in existing results on the Lyapunov functions for each subsystem is restricted to be decreasing in the domain [2, 3, 10, 29]; the sufficient conditions raise the upper bound on the derivatives of Lyapunov functions such that they could be positive-definite in some time intervals. Furthermore, the switching law is presented in our best way to utilize the ISS/IOS property of subsystems; the summation ofβkjVkt,x+μkjt,x−Vjt,xensures that all subsystems are only supposed to be IOS during activated time intervals in the switching sequence. Compared with [29, 36], the verifying work of the ISS property for switched systems is much simplified due to the construction of the switching law and the new sufficient conditions.
Moreover, whenm=1, Theorem 1 is the indefinite Lyapunov function for typical nonlinear nonswitched systems, so this work is more general than [44]. The extension of this work will focus on the introduction of impulsive signals.Remark 3.
Note that we also provide new sufficient conditions based on the CLF method. Consider switched nonlinear System (1) with an essentially bounded inputuand a founded common Lyapunov functionVt,x, if there exist twoK∞functionsα1,α2s≥s, continuous functionsλand aK-functionχsatisfying(28)α1|x|≤Vt,x≤α2|x|V˙t,x≤λtVt,x;∀χ|ut|≤Vt,x.and conditions (8), (9) are satisfied. Then, the considered system with a CLF is ISS, regardless of the design of switching signals. This proposition is another special case of Theorem 1. When a CLF could be found for System (1), the verifying work could obviously be further simplified.


## 3.3. IOS for nonlinear switched systems

Now, we extend our main result to IOS verification for time-varying nonlinear switched systems, and some new sufficient conditions are proposed. The system outputhσt,x is now considered.Corollary 3.
Considering System (1) with essentially boundedut, if there exist twoK∞functionsα1,α2s≥s, continuous functionsλk,μkjt,x,βkjt,x≤0and aK-functionχsatisfying:1.(29)α1|hkt,x|≤Vkt,x≤α2|x|,and conditions (7) -(9) hold. Then, the considered system with the designed switching law is IOS.The proof part is easy to derive from Theorem 1, so it is omitted here. The details can be found in the Appendix.Remark 4.
The sufficient conditions for IOS in this corollary are extensions of our main result. We also employ Lemma 1 and the switching law in this corollary. Compared with existing results concerning IOS for switched systems, the proposed sufficient conditions have distinct advantages. On the one hand, the subsystem is not restricted to be IOS, and the IOS property is only demanded in some subregions in the state space when the subsystem is activated. On the other hand, the iMLF method relaxes the restrictions on derivatives of Lyapunov functions and permits them to be indefinite for anyt∈ℤ+ [16]. With the help of the designed switching law and iMLF, candidates of Lyapunov functions are more convenient to select, and IOS verification is also much simplified.


## 4. Extended notions of IOS

In this section, we also investigate some extensions of IOS, and the individual new sufficient conditions are also obtained. Note that these new sufficient conditions also allow the derivative of Lyapunov functions to be indefinite, and the subsystems are also permitted to be unstable.Definition 1.
[14] (State-independent input-to-output stability, or SIIOS) Considering System (1), suppose thatxtalways exists ast≥t0for anyxt0and boundedut;ytis detectable, then the system is SIIOS for someφ∈ℤℒandγ∈Ksatisfying:(30)|yt,x|≤φ|ht0,xt0|,t+γ‖u‖,Definition 2.
<i>[14] (Output-Lagrange input-to-output stability) Considering an IOS system conforms to </i>(1), suppose thatxtalways exists whent≥t0for anyxt0and boundedut, then we say the system is OLIOS if:(31)|yt,x|≤maxγ1|ht0,xt0|,γ2‖u‖,where functions γ1,γ2 are K-functions.Definition 3.
<i>[14] (Robustly output stability, or ROS) Considering a constructed system such that:</i>(32)x(t)=gσ(t,x,d)=fσ(t,x,d(t)ϕ(|hσ(x(t))|));y(t)=hσ(t,x),wheredt:ℝ+⟶ℝmis the system input of (30), andϕ∈K∞. Suppose that state trajectoryxtalways exists whent≥t0, for anyxt0and boundedutsuch that(33)|yϕt,x|≤φ|xt0|,t,where functionφ∈ℤℒ, then, we say that the system (1) is ROS.
The more relaxed SIIOS sufficient conditions are given as:Corollary 1.
Considering System (1) with a measurable, bounded inputut, if there exist twoK∞functionsα1,α2s≥s, continuous functionsλk,βkjt,x≤0and aK-functionχsatisfying(34)α1hkt,xt≤Vkt,x≤α2hkt,xt,and conditions (7)-(9) are satisfied; then System (1) is SIIOS.Remark 5.
To be more specific, the differences between IOS and SIIOS is that the decay rate ofytof a SIIOS system is supposed not to be dependent on system states, which is manifested in this system:(35)x1.(t)=−2x1(t)+u(t)1+t2+x22x2.(t)=0y=x1(t);considering Vt,x=x2/2, Then one can deduce that(36)V˙t,x=−Vt,x1+t2+x22t0,holds for all ‖u‖2≤Vt,x. Then it is IOS. However, due to the decreasing rate of yt is dependent on x2t0, the system is not state-independent IOS. Therefore, this notion is much stricter than IOS.Remark 6.
Observing that output-layer input-to-output stability could be regarded as IOS under output redefinition, the definition of OLIOS is equal to(37)|ht,x,u|≤φ|ht0,ξ|,t1+ϱ|xt0|+γ‖us‖,where φ∈ℤℒ, γ,ϱ∈K, t≥0. The specific relationship between the output-stability notions is SIIOS ⟶ OLIOS ⟶ IOS ⟶ ROS, where SIIOS is the strongest notion, but the reverse does not hold.
As a weaker notion of IOS, ROS presents a function for estimating the margin of the output feedback without breaking the robustness. We also provide sufficient conditions for ROS as follows.Corollary 2.
System (1) with a measurable, bounded inpututis ROS if there exist twoK∞functionsα1,α2s≥s, continuous functionsλk,βkjt,x≤0and aK-functionχsatisfying(38)α1hϕt,xt≤Vkt,xt≤α2xt,and conditions (7)-(9) hold.The proofs of Corollary 2 and Corollary 3 are also easy to derive from Corollary 1, so we omit them here.


## 5. Demonstrative example

A switched system is constructed to show the effectiveness of our main result by depicting the simulation results of state trajectories as well as switching signals.Considering a system conforms to (1) which is composed of two subsystems, and the state is defined asx=x1,x2T. We define M= 1,2 such that(39)f1(x)=[1221+t2−t|cost|x1−8x1−5(1+t+t2)x1x22+x2ut1+x12+x22,14x2+1221+t2−t|cost|x2+tx12x2+x1ut1+x12+x22]T,f2(x)=[14x1+1221+t2−t|cost|x1+52tx1x22+x2ut1+x12+x22,−10x2+1221+t2−t|cost|x2−10(t2+t+2)x12x2+x1ut1+x12+x22]T,h1(x)=h2(x)=x1x2.To verify the ISS of this example, the Lyapunov function is chosenV1x=1/2x12+1+1/tx22, V2x=x12+1/21+1/tx22, βkj=−16. The state sets are(40)Ω1t=x∣−14x12+14+12tx22≤0,Ω2t=x∣14x12−14+12tx22≤0,Ω˜12t=x∣−14x12+14+12tx22=0,Ω˜21t=x∣14x12−14+12tx22=0.It is easy to see that theK− functions satisfying condition (6) are easy to find; moreover, we have proved in [44] that the Lyapunov function for a system admits λmt=2/1+t2−t|cost|, then conditions (8) and (9) are satisfied. Then, we can learn from Theorem 3.2 that System (35) is an ISS system. The superiority of proposed iMLFs is obvious. In traditional Lyapunov regard, a function Vt for some systems with an indefinite derivative could not be regarded as a right choice, then sometimes the system could not be classified as an ISS system. But this example shows that the system with iMLFs could also be ISS. This paper not only broaden the field that the functions being choosen, but also simplified the verification of some switched systems.The simulation results of System (35) are depicted as follows. Considering the state trajectories are too flat and the fluctuation is not obvious when initial states are not close enough to the equilibrium, the system state trajectory with or without input is provided in Fig1 and Fig 2, and the switching signal which jumps between two subsystems is provided in Fig 3 and Fig 4. To show our result is also effective when initial states are not close to the equilibrium, we also depict the state response of System (35) with smaller initial state in Fig 5. This example reveals the effectiveness of our method.Figure 1
The state response of System (35) without inputsFigure 2
The switching signal of System (35) without inputsFigure 3
The state response of Example (35) with a bounded inputut=cos96tFigure 4
The switching signal of System (35) with a bounded inputut=cos96tFigure 5
The switching signal of System (35) with a bounded inputut=cos96tTo verify the IOS of this example, we selecty=hσt,x=x1x2. Additionally, it is easy to see that we can find the proper functions α1 and α2x which meet the condition (27); moreover, as we have proved above, this system admits a λmt=2/1+t2−t|cost|, and then we can learn from Corollary 3.3 that this system is an IOS system.


## 6. Conclusion

This paper investigates the ISS and IOS characterizations for nonlinear switched systems by extending the MLFs method to an indefinite form. Some more relaxed ISS/IOS sufficient conditions are proposed, and the main result is applied to the extensions of IOS. Based on the designed switching law and the proposed iMLFs methods, the provided conditions permit the subsystems to admit the Lyapunov functions with indefinite time derivatives. Furthermore, the subsystems are allowed to be non-ISS/IOS. These approaches greatly extend the range of candidate Lyapunov functions and subsystems being selected. Moreover, the work of designing and verifying switched systems is much simplified. Finally, we construct numerical example of the switched system and a simulation experiment is carried out to show the effectiveness of our provided theorem. Considering that the iMLF method has not been extended to some other complex situations, such as time-delayed or impulsive hybrid systems. Further works will concentrate on these topics.


### 6.1. Proof of Corollary 3.3

Now we provide the proof of Corollary 3.3. Considering (7), not hard to see that (12) holds.According to Lemma 3.1, we have(41)Vkt,x≤Vkiti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ+χ‖us‖ti,te∫titλki+δdδ,where ti≤t<ti+1. As dictated by the designed switching law, when ti≤t<ti+1 and i∈ℤ+, then in the current subsystem we also have (14) holds. Taking (37) into consideration:(42)Vσtt,xt≤Vki−1ti,xti+μki−1kiti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ+χ‖us‖ti,te∫titλki+δdδ=Vki−1ti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ+μki−1kiti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ+χ‖us‖ti,te∫titλki+δdδ.Also, from (12) we can derive that(43)μki−1kiti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ≤μki−1kiti−1e∫ti−1tλki−1kiδdδ,combining (38) with (39) yields(44)Vkit,xt≤Vki−2ti−1,xti−1e∫ti−1tλki−1kiδdδ+2χ‖us‖ti−1,te∫titλki−1ki+δdδ.Redefine χ‖us‖=χ‖us‖t0,t, when i is even, with a similar method we proved in (21) indicates(45)Vσ(t)(t,x(t))≤[Vk0(t0,x(t0))e∫t0t1λm(δ)dδ+χ(‖u(t)‖t0,t1)e∫t0t1λ+(δ)dδ]e∫t1tλm(δ)dδ+(i−1)χ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t1tλm+(δ)dδ≤Vk0(t0,x(t0))e∫t0tλm(δ)dδ+iχ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t0tλm+(δ)dδ.When i is odd, then(46)Vσ(t)(t,x(t))≤[Vk0(t0,x(t0))e∫t0t1λk0(δ)dδ+χ(‖u(s)‖ti−1,t)e∫t0t1λk0+(δ)dδ]e∫t1tλm(δ)dδ+μk0k1(t1,x(t1))e∫t1tλm(δ)dδ+(i−1)χ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t1tλm+(δ)dδ≤Vk0(t0,x(t0))e∫t0tλm(δ)dδ+μk0k1(t0,x(t0))e∫t0tλm(δ)dδ+iχ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t0tλm+(δ)dδ.Putting together (41), (27), and (42), we can reach the following conclusion:(47)α1|hkt,x|≤Vk0t0,xt0+μk0k1t0,xt0e∫t0tλmδdδ+iχ‖us‖e∫titλm+δdδ≤α2|xt0|+μk0k1t0,xt0e∫t0tλmδdδ+iχ‖us‖e∫t0tλm+δdδ≤2C1α2|xt0|+μk0k1t0,xt0e−∫t0tλm−δdδ+iC1χ‖us‖,since α2s≥s holds. Constructing function(48)φ(s,t)=α1−1(4C1α2(s)),t∈[t0,T),α1−1(4C1[(t−T)e−ε(T+1)−t+1+T]α2(s)),t∈[T,T+1)α1−1(4C1e−εtα2(s)),t≥T+1,where T satisfies (9) for any t≥T. Note that χ‖us‖ is the K-function and φs,t is a ℤℒ-function. By means of (43), we have the conditions in Definition 2.2 have been satisfied. Now we have completed the proof, i.e. the considered system with the designed switching law is IOS.


## 6.1. Proof of Corollary 3.3

Now we provide the proof of Corollary 3.3. Considering (7), not hard to see that (12) holds.According to Lemma 3.1, we have(41)Vkt,x≤Vkiti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ+χ‖us‖ti,te∫titλki+δdδ,where ti≤t<ti+1. As dictated by the designed switching law, when ti≤t<ti+1 and i∈ℤ+, then in the current subsystem we also have (14) holds. Taking (37) into consideration:(42)Vσtt,xt≤Vki−1ti,xti+μki−1kiti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ+χ‖us‖ti,te∫titλki+δdδ=Vki−1ti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ+μki−1kiti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ+χ‖us‖ti,te∫titλki+δdδ.Also, from (12) we can derive that(43)μki−1kiti,xtie∫titλkiδdδ≤μki−1kiti−1e∫ti−1tλki−1kiδdδ,combining (38) with (39) yields(44)Vkit,xt≤Vki−2ti−1,xti−1e∫ti−1tλki−1kiδdδ+2χ‖us‖ti−1,te∫titλki−1ki+δdδ.Redefine χ‖us‖=χ‖us‖t0,t, when i is even, with a similar method we proved in (21) indicates(45)Vσ(t)(t,x(t))≤[Vk0(t0,x(t0))e∫t0t1λm(δ)dδ+χ(‖u(t)‖t0,t1)e∫t0t1λ+(δ)dδ]e∫t1tλm(δ)dδ+(i−1)χ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t1tλm+(δ)dδ≤Vk0(t0,x(t0))e∫t0tλm(δ)dδ+iχ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t0tλm+(δ)dδ.When i is odd, then(46)Vσ(t)(t,x(t))≤[Vk0(t0,x(t0))e∫t0t1λk0(δ)dδ+χ(‖u(s)‖ti−1,t)e∫t0t1λk0+(δ)dδ]e∫t1tλm(δ)dδ+μk0k1(t1,x(t1))e∫t1tλm(δ)dδ+(i−1)χ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t1tλm+(δ)dδ≤Vk0(t0,x(t0))e∫t0tλm(δ)dδ+μk0k1(t0,x(t0))e∫t0tλm(δ)dδ+iχ(‖u(s)‖)e∫t0tλm+(δ)dδ.Putting together (41), (27), and (42), we can reach the following conclusion:(47)α1|hkt,x|≤Vk0t0,xt0+μk0k1t0,xt0e∫t0tλmδdδ+iχ‖us‖e∫titλm+δdδ≤α2|xt0|+μk0k1t0,xt0e∫t0tλmδdδ+iχ‖us‖e∫t0tλm+δdδ≤2C1α2|xt0|+μk0k1t0,xt0e−∫t0tλm−δdδ+iC1χ‖us‖,since α2s≥s holds. Constructing function(48)φ(s,t)=α1−1(4C1α2(s)),t∈[t0,T),α1−1(4C1[(t−T)e−ε(T+1)−t+1+T]α2(s)),t∈[T,T+1)α1−1(4C1e−εtα2(s)),t≥T+1,where T satisfies (9) for any t≥T. Note that χ‖us‖ is the K-function and φs,t is a ℤℒ-function. By means of (43), we have the conditions in Definition 2.2 have been satisfied. Now we have completed the proof, i.e. the considered system with the designed switching law is IOS.



---

*Source: 4436128-2022-03-26.xml*