720 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMSII: EXPRESS BRIEFS, VOL. 64, NO.
6, JUNE 2017
Hankel Norm Performance of Digital Filters
Associated With Saturation
Choon Ki Ahn, Senior Member, IEEE, and Peng Shi, Fellow, IEEE
AbstractThis brief proposes a new approach to the examina-
tion and reduction of the undesired memory effect of digital filters
joined with saturation, which is known as system ringing. A new
criterion is established to ascertain the Hankel norm performance
of digital filters joined with saturation. Using this criterion, it is
possible to check the reduction of undesired responses of the filters
to past excitations. The asymptotic stability for the digital filters
is ensured without external input under the proposed criterion.
Three improved criteria for the Hankel norm performance of
digital filters are also presented based on the diagonally dominant
matrix approach. A numerical simulation shows the usefulness of
the developed method.
Index TermsDigital filter, Hankel norm performance, memory
effect, saturation.
I. I NTRODUCTION
D URING the past decades, digital filters have been an impor-
tant technology in electronics engineering. Digital filters
are devices that perform mathematical operations for discrete-
time signals to attenuate or enhance some aspects of such signals.
They have been widely used in many electronics applications, in-
cluding control, communication, audio, and radar [1]. Basically,
digital filters are linear time-invariant systems. However, non-
linear phenomena, including saturation and quantization, may
arise in their implementation based on fixed-point arithmetic.
These undesired effects should be avoided or reduced [2][4].
In order to consider and handle these effects, some research has
been performed to test and reduce the nonlinear phenomena
of digital filters [5][14]. On the other hand, high-order and
large-scale digital filters are usually divided into low-order and
small-scale filters when they are implemented with hardware
and software techniques. This situation results in the existence
of mutual interferences between the low-order and small-scale
filters. This may cause poor performance or even divergence
Manuscript received May 19, 2016; revised July 19, 2016; accepted
August 5, 2016. Date of publication August 16, 2016; date of current version
May 26, 2017. This work was supported in part by the National Research
Foundation (NRF) of Korea through the Ministry of Science, ICT, and Fu-
ture Planning under Grant NRF-2014R1A1A1006101, in part by the Energy
Efficiency & Resources Core Technology Program of the Korea Institute
of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP), granted financial
resource from the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy, Republic of Korea
(No. 20142010102390), and in part by the National Nature Science Foundation
of China under Grant 61573112 and Grant U1509217. This brief was recom-
mended by Associate Editor L.-P. Chau. (Corresponding author: Choon Ki Ahn.)
C. K. Ahn is with the School of Electrical Engineering, Korea University,
Seoul 136-701, Korea (e-mail: hironaka@korea.ac.kr).
P. Shi is with the College of Automation, Harbin Engineering University,
Harbin 150001, China; with the School of Electrical and Electronic En-
gineering, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia; and also
with the College of Engineering and Science, Victoria University, Melbourne,
VIC 8001, Australia (e-mail: peng.shi@adelaide.edu.au).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this brief are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TCSII.2016.2600499
1549-7747 2016 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.
[15], [16]. Some robust stability results have been presented for
1-D [17] and 2-D digital filters [18], [19] to tackle this problem.
In general, ringing is the undesired response of systems to
past excitations. Ringing usually arises under several forms of
noise signals in many electronic systems (e.g., oscillations in
digital filters and controllers, gate ringing in power converters,
and input ringback in clock devices). If we do not check
and reduce the ringing in the system design, it may lead to
low performance or malfunction. In mechanical system design,
ringing can enhance the breakdown when it is associated with
resonance. In audio system design, ringing may result in echoes
before the transient status. Ringing can be regarded as a ten-
dency of systems to store energy and produce undesired mem-
ory effects for external inputs. Thus, ringing can be quantified
using the Hankel norm performance of systems. The Hankel
norm performance measures the undesired memory effects of
past external input signals on future output signals [20][22].
This naturally raises the following question: Is there a condition
for the Hankel norm performance of digital filters to test and
reduce the undesired memory effects? Unfortunately, there are
no answers to this question in the literature, although analysis
of the undesired memory effects in digital filters is practically
important. This fact motivates us to carry out this brief, and this
brief answers the question in the positive.
In this brief, we propose a new analysis approach to the
undesired memory effects of digital filters associated with
saturation based on the Hankel norm performance. A novel
Hankel norm performance criterion for digital filters associated
with saturation is obtained via the linear matrix inequality
(LMI) approach. The presented criterion can test and attenuate
the undesired memory effects of past external inputs on future
outputs in digital filters. In addition, three improved criteria for
the Hankel norm performance of digital filters are discussed
using the diagonally dominant matrix approach. The obtained
criteria also ensure the asymptotic stability result of digital
filters without external input. The results presented in this brief
are the first results on the memory effect analysis and the
reduction for digital filters.
This brief is organized as follows. Section II examines a
condition for the Hankel norm performance of digital filters
jointed with saturation. Improved criteria are also discussed.
Section III provides a numerical simulation. The conclusion is
given in Section IV.
II. M EMORY E FFECT A NALYSIS OF D IGITAL F ILTERS
Let us consider the following digital filter represented by a
statespace form:
x(r + 1) = f (y(r)) + u(r) (1)
y(r) = Ax(r) + u(r) (2)
z(r) = Hx(r) (3)
AHN AND SHI: HANKEL NORM PERFORMANCE OF DIGITAL FILTERS ASSOCIATED WITH SATURATION 721

where x(r) = [x1 (r) x2 (r) xn (r)]T Rn is the state where V (x(r))  V (x(r + 1)) V (x(r)), W (x(r)) 
variable, y(r) = [y1 (r) y2 (r) yn (r)]T Rn is the W(x(r+1))W(x(r)), V (x(r)) = xT (r)Qx(r), and W (x(r)) =
output variable, z(r) = [z1 (r) z2 (r) zm (r)]T Rm xT (r)Rx(r). Define (r)  [x(r) f (y(r))]T and (r) 
is a linear combination vector of the state, u(r) = [(r) u(r)]T . Then, J1 (r) satisfies J1 (r) = T (r)1 (r).
[u1 (r) u2 (r) un (r)]T Rn is the external input or dis- 1 < 0 implies J1 (r) < 0. This leads to V (x(r))
turbance, f (y(r)) = [f1 (y1 (r)) f2 (y2 (r)) fn (yn (r))]T 2 uT (r)u(r) < 1 (1 , r) 0. Under the zero initial condi-
Rn is a nonlinear function vector representing the saturation, tion, summing both sides of this inequality from r = 0 to r =
A Rnn is the coefficient of the filter, and H Rmn is T 1 gives
a constant matrix. Throughout this brief,  is denoted by a

T 1 
T 1
block deduced using the symmetry of a matrix. In this brief, 2
we employ the output saturation nonlinearities, i.e., V (x(T )) = V (x(r)) < uT (r)u(r). (12)
r=0 r=0

1, if yi (r) > 1
fi (yi (r)) = yi (r), if 1 yi (r) 1 (4) On the other hand, J2 (r) satisfies J2 (r) = T (r)2 (r), con-

sidering u(r) = 0, r T . If 2 < 0, we obtain J2 (r) < 0.
1, if yi (r) < 1 This results in W (x(r)) + z T (r)z(r) < 1 (2 , r) 0. Sum-
where i = 1, 2, . . . , n. Given a scalar level > 0 and a time ming both sides of this relation from r = T to r = gives
T > 0, the objective is to find a novel criterion satisfying

0 W (x()) < W (x(T )) z T (r)z(r). (13)

 
T 1
T 2 T r=T
z (r)z(r) < u (r)u(r) (5)
r=T r=0 Using (12) and (13), the condition R < Q implies

 
T 1
under the zero initial condition. Then, the digital filter is said
to have the Hankel norm performance if condition (5) is z T (r)z(r) < W (x(T )) < V (x(T )) < 2 uT (r)u(r)
r=T r=0
satisfied. Performance (5) can be interpreted as a measure for
(14)
the effects of past inputs (the memory of the digital filter) on
the future states. which shows the Hankel norm performance. This completes the
Now, we find a new Hankel norm performance criterion for proof. 
filter (1)(3). Remark 1: From (10), we obtain V (x(r)) < 1 (1 , r) 0
Theorem 1: Given a scalar level > 0, we assume that there for u(r) = 0 in view of condition (4). The Lyapunov stability
exist two matrices 0 < Q = QT Rnn and 0 < R = RT guarantees x(r) 0 as r . Thus, the proposed criterion
Rnn and two scalars 1 > 0 and 2 > 0 such that ensures the asymptotic stability result for the digital filter
(1)(3) without external input.
1 < 0, 2 < 0, R < Q (6) Remark 2: The H performance is represented by



where
z T (r)z(r) < 2 uT (r)u(r)
1 (1, 1)   r=0 r=0
1 = 0 1 (2, 2)  (7)
which considers the effects of all the inputs on all the states
1 (3, 1) Q 1 (3, 3) on the nonnegative time interval [0, ) [23][26]. Therefore,
 
2 (1, 1)  it cannot consider and measure the memory effects of digital
2 =
0 2 (2, 2) filters correctly.
The criterion presented in Theorem 1 may be conservative
1 (1, 1) = 1 AT A Q, 1 (2, 2) = Q 1 I
because of two scalars, i.e., 1 and 2 . In the next result, we
1 (3, 1) = 1 A, 1 (3, 3) = Q + 1 I 2 I present an improved condition for the Hankel norm perfor-
2 (1, 1) = 2 AT A + H T H R, 2 (2, 2) = R 2 I. (8) mance of filter (1)(3) with the introduction of the diagonally
dominant matrix approach.
Then, the digital filter (1)(3) has the Hankel norm perfor- Theorem 2: Given a scalar level > 0, we assume that there
mance . exist matrices 0 < Q = QT Rnn , 0 < R = RT Rnn ,
(1) (2)
Proof: Define 0 < P (1) = [Pst ] Rnn , 0 < P (2) = [Pst ] Rnn , 0 <
T (1) T
S (1) = S (1) = [Sst ] Rnn , 0 < S (2) = S (2) = [Sst ]
(2)

1 (, r)  f T (y(r)) f (y(r)) (1) (2)

Rnn , L(1) = [Lst ] Rnn , and L(2) = [Lst ] Rnn , such that

[Ax(r) + u(r)]T [Ax(r) + u(r)] . (9) 1 < 0, 2 < 0, R < Q (15)

Then, condition (4) implies 1 (, r) 0 for any > 0. For L(1)

ss > 0, s = 1, 2, . . . , n (16)
1 > 0 and 2 > 0, we introduce the following two new functions: (1) (1)
Lst = L(1)
ss st , s, t = 1, 2, . . . , n, (s = t) (17)
n  
J1 (r)  V (x(r)) u (r)u(r) 1 (1 , r)
2 T
(10)  (1) 
1 st  , s = 1, 2, . . . , n (18)
J2 (r)  W (x(r)) + z (r)z(r) 1 (2 , r)
T
(11) t=1,t=s
722 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMSII: EXPRESS BRIEFS, VOL. 64, NO. 6, JUNE 2017

L(2) for k = 1, 2, where s = 1, 2, . . . , n. This shows that the ma-

ss > 0, s = 1, 2, . . . , n (19)
(2) (2)
trices P (1) and P (2) are diagonally dominant. Recalling that
ss st , s, t = 1, 2, . . . , n, (s = t)
Lst = L(2) (20) (4) is associated, and P (k) is diagonally dominant, we can
  (2) 
n obtain f T (y(r))P (k) f (y(r)) y T (r)P (k) y(r) for k = 1, 2,
1 st  , s = 1, 2, . . . , n (21) which implies 2 (P (1) , r) 0 and 2 (P (2) , r) 0 for all
t=1,t=s matrices P (1) and P (2) satisfying (22)(27). Now, we introduce
n   the following two new functions:
(1) (1)
(1)
Pss Pst + 2Sst , s = 1, 2, . . . , n (22)
t=1,t=s J1 (r)  V (x(r)) 2 uT (r)u(r) (L(1) , r)
(1)
Sst 0, s, t = 1, 2, . . . , n, (s = t) (23) 2 (P (1) , r) (33)
(1) (1)
Pst + Sst 0, s, t = 1, 2, . . . , n, (s = t) (24) J2 (r)  W (x(r)) + z (r)z(r) (L
T (2)
, r)
n  
(2) (2)
(2)
Pss Pst + 2Sst , s = 1, 2, . . . , n (25) 2 (P (2)
, r). (34)
t=1,t=s
(2)
Sst 0, s, t = 1, 2, . . . , n, (s = t) (26) They satisfy J1 (r) = T (r)1 (r) and J2 (r) = T (r)2 (r).
(2) (2)
Thus, 1 < 0 and 2 < 0 imply J1 (r) < 0 and J2 (r) < 0.
Pst + Sst 0, s, t = 1, 2, . . . , n (s = t) (27) They result in
   
where V (x(r)) 2 uT (r)u(r) < L(1) , r +2 P (1) , r 0
   
1 (1, 1)  
W (x(r)) + z T (r)z(r) < L(2) , r +2 P (2) , r 0.

1 = L(1) A
T
1 (2, 2)  (28)
P (1) A Q + L(1) 1 (3, 3) Using the proof in Theorem 1, we can show the Hankel norm
  performance. This completes the proof. 
2 (1, 1) 
2 = T In Theorem 2, the diagonally dominant matrix approach was
L(2) A 2 (2, 2) utilized to reduce the potential conservatism. However, the
condition presented in Theorem 2 is not an LMI because of
1 (1, 1) = AT P (1) A Q (16)(21). Thus, a computationally efficient LMI-based method
T cannot be used to check the feasibility of the criterion. In
1 (2, 2) = Q L(1) L(1) P (1) addition, if n is large, then it is difficult to select the matrix L.
T
1 (3, 3) = Q 2 I + P (1) Now, we choose L(k) = L(k) = N (k) in Theorem 2 for k = 1, 2,
(k)
where N is a row diagonally dominant matrix. Then, the
2 (1, 1) = AT P (2) A + H T H R following LMI-based criterion is obtained.
Corollary 1: Given a scalar level > 0, we assume that there
2 (2, 2) = R L(2) L(2) P (2) .
T
(29) exist matrices 0 < Q = QT Rnn , 0 < R = RT Rnn ,
(1) (2)
0 < P (1) = [Pst ] Rnn , 0 < P (2) = [Pst ] Rnn , 0 < S (1) =
T (1) T (2)
Then, the digital filter (1)(3) has the Hankel norm perfor- S (1) = [Sst ] Rnn , 0 < S (2) = S (2) = [Sst ] Rnn ,
T (1) T
mance . 0 < N (1) = N (1) = [Nst ] Rnn , 0 < N (2) = N (2) =
Proof: Introduce the following two new functions: (2) T (1)
[Nst ] Rnn , S(1) = S(1) = [Sst ] Rnn , and S(2) =
T (2)
(L, r)  [y(r) f (y(r))]T Lf (y(r)) S(2) = [Sst ] Rnn , such that (22)(27), i.e.,

f T (y(r)) LT [y(r) f (y(r))] (30) 1 < 0, 2 < 0, R < Q (35)

2 (P, r) f T (y(r)) P f (y(r)) 

n  
(1) (1)
(1)
Nss Nst + 2Sst , s = 1, 2, . . . , n (36)
[Ax(r) + u(r)]T P [Ax(r) + u(r)] . (31) t=1,t=s

(1)
Condition (4) implies (L(1) , r) 0 and (L(2) , r) 0 for all Sst 0, s, t = 1, 2, . . . , n, (s = t) (37)
matrices L(1) and L(2) satisfying (16)(21). Note that (L, r) (1) (1)
is represented by Nst + Sst 0, s, t = 1, 2, . . . , n, (s = t) (38)

n  
(L, r) = [Ax(r) + u(r) f (y(r))]T Lf (y(r)) (2)
Nss
(2)
Nst + 2Sst
(2)
, s = 1, 2, . . . , n (39)
t=1,t=s
f (y(r)) L [Ax(r) + u(r) f (y(r))] . (32)
T T

(2)
 Sst 0, s, t = 1, 2, . . . , n, (s = t) (40)
(k) (k) (k)
Conditions (22)(27) imply Pss nt=1,t=s (|Pst + Sst | +
(k)  (k) (2) (2)
Nst + Sst 0, s, t = 1, 2, . . . , n (s = t) (41)
| Sst |) nt=1,t=s |Pst | using the triangular inequality
AHN AND SHI: HANKEL NORM PERFORMANCE OF DIGITAL FILTERS ASSOCIATED WITH SATURATION 723

where

1 (1, 1)  
1 = N (1) A 1 (2, 2)  (42)
P (1) A Q + N (1) 1 (3, 3)
 
2 (1, 1) 
2 =
N (2) A 2 (2, 2)
1 (1, 1) = AT P (1) A Q
1 (2, 2) = Q 2N (1) P (1)
1 (3, 3) = Q 2 I + P (1)
2 (1, 1) = AT P (2) A + H T H R
2 (2, 2) = R 2N (2) P (2) . (43)

Then, the digital filter (1)(3) has the Hankel norm perfor-
mance . Fig. 1. First component of z(r).
Remark 3: If (36)(41) are satisfied, we obtain

n     
n   1 (1, 1) = AT P (1) A Q
 (k) (k)   (k)   (k) 
(k)
Nss Nst + Sst  + Sst  Nst  T
1 (2, 2) = Q F(1) F(1) P (1)
t=1,t=s t=1,t=s
1 (3, 3) = Q 2 I + P (1)
using the triangular inequality for k = 1, 2, where s = 1, 2,
2 (1, 1) = AT P (2) A + H T H R
. . . , n. This shows that matrix N (k) is a row diagonally domi-
T
nant matrix. 2 (2, 2) = R F(2) F(2) P (2) (50)
Now, we introduce matrices F(k) for k = 1, 2, which are
defined as and F(1) and F(2) are defined in (44)(47). Then, the digital
  filter (1)(3) has the Hankel norm performance .
(k)
F(k)  Fst Rnn (44) Remark 4: In [27][29], the asymptotic stability of digital fil-

n   ters joined with the saturation arithmetic was studied. However,
(k) (k) these works do not consider the effects of external disturbances
F(k)
ss = st + st , s = 1, 2, . . . , n (45)
t=1,t=s or inputs on digital filters in spite of the existence of mutual
(k) (k) (k) interferences or external disturbances between the digital filters
Fst = st st s, t = 1, 2, . . . , n, (s = t) (46) in the hardware or software implementation. In contrast to these
(k)
st > 0,
(k)
st > 0, s, t = 1, 2, . . . , n (s = t). (47) results, this brief considers the effects of external input and tests
the undesired memory effect of digital filters for external input.
F(k) are row diagonally dominant matrices, where the diagonal
elements are positive. Choose L(k) = F(k) in Theorem 2, where III. N UMERICAL E XAMPLE
k = 1, 2. Then, the following LMI-based criterion is obtained. Consider a digital filter of the form (1)(3), where the system
Corollary 2: Given a scalar level > 0, we assume that matrices are given by
(1) (1) (2) (2)
there exist scalars st > 0, st > 0, st > 0, st > 0, s,    
t = 1, 2, . . . , n (s = t); and matrices 0 < Q = QT Rnn , 0.3 0.5 0.1 0
A= , H= . (51)
(1) 0.15 0.3 0 0.2
0 < R = RT Rnn , 0 < P (1) = [Pst ] Rnn , 0 < P (2) =
(2) T (1)
[Pst ] Rnn , 0 < S (1) = S (1) = [Sst ] Rnn , and 0 < Let the Hankel norm performance be = 0.38. The criterion in
T (2) Corollary 1 is feasible using MATLAB. According to Corollary1,
S (2) = S (2) = [Sst ] Rnn such that (22)(27), i.e.,
the digital filter has the guaranteed Hankel norm performance
1 < 0, 2 < 0, R < Q (48) = 0.38. Let T = 50. Now, we apply the external input on the
time interval [0, 49] and do not apply it outside this time
where interval. Figs. 1 and 2 show the first and second components
of z(r), respectively, when the external input is given by

1 (1, 1)   u(r) = 0.1[sin(0.5r) cos(r)]T for 0 r < 50 and u(r) =
T [0 0]T for r 50 under the zero initial condition. The z(r) for
1 = F(1) A 1 (2, 2)  (49)
r 50 represents the memory effect of the digital filter for the
P (1) A Q + F(1) 1 (3, 3) applied external input. Then, we obtain
  
2 (1, 1)  100
2 = z T (r)z(r)
T r=50 = 0.0548 (52)
F(2) A 2 (2, 2) 49 T
r=0 u (r)u(r)
724 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMSII: EXPRESS BRIEFS, VOL. 64, NO. 6, JUNE 2017
Fig. 2. Second component of z(r).
which is below the prescribed level. Thus, the Hankel norm per-
formance is verified. It should be noted that it is not possible to
measure and test the memory effects of digital filters using the
existing criteria. In addition, Figs. 1 and 2 demonstrate that the
digital filter considered in this example is asymptotically stable
without the external input, which was discussed in Remark 1.
IV. C ONCLUSION
This brief has examined the Hankel norm performance of
digital filters jointed with saturation. A new LMI-based crite-
rion for the Hankel norm performance of digital filters jointed
with saturation was presented. Three improved criteria were
also proposed based on the diagonally dominant matrix ap-
proach. Using the criteria, it is possible to check and reduce
the undesired memory effects of digital filters for external input.
The asymptotic convergence result for digital filters without ex-
ternal input was also discussed. The usefulness of the obtained
method was shown via a numerical example.
R EFERENCES
[1] D. Schlichtharle, Digital Filters: Basics and Design. Berlin, Germany:
Springer-Verlag, 2000.
[2] I. Sandberg, The zero-input response of digital filters using saturation
arithmetic, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst., vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 911915,
Nov. 1979.
[3] C. K. Ahn, A new LMI criterion for the realization of limit cycle-free
direct form digital filters with saturation arithmetic, Int. J. Innov. Comput.
Inf. Control, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 14531461, 2012.
[4] C. K. Ahn, P. Shi, and H. R. Karimi, Novel results on generalized
dissipativity of 2-D digital filters, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II, Exp.
Brief , vol. 63, no. 9, pp. 893897, Sep. 2016.
[5] V. Singh, Elimination of overflow oscillations in fixed-point state-space
digital filters using saturation arithmetic, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst.,
vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 814818, Jun. 1990.
[6] H. Kar and V. Singh, A new criterion for the overflow stability of second-
order state-space digital filters using saturation arithmetic, IEEE Trans.
Circuits Syst. I, Fundam. Theory Appl., vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 311313,
Mar. 1998.
[7] V. Singh, LMI approach to stability of direct form digital filters utilizing
single saturation overflow nonlinearity, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II,
Exp. Briefs, vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 878881, Oct. 2007.
[8] H. Kar and V. Singh, Stability analysis of 2-D state-space digital filters
with overflow nonlinearities, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers,
vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 598601, Apr. 2000.
[9] H. Kar and V. Singh, Robust stability of 2-D discrete systems described
by the Fornasini-Marchesini second model employing quantization/
overflow nonlinearities, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II, Exp. Briefs,
vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 598602, Nov. 2004.
[10] X. Li, X. Yu, C. Wang, and B. W. Ling, Periodic input response of
a second-order digital filter with twos complement arithmetic, IEEE
Trans. Circuits Syst. II, Exp. Briefs, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 225229,
Mar. 2009.
[11] T. Li, Q. Zhao, J. Lam, and Z. Feng, Multi-bound-dependent stability
criterion for digital filters with overflow arithmetics and time delay, IEEE
Trans. Circuits Syst. II, Exp. Briefs, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 3135, Jan. 2014.
[12] C. K. Ahn and H. Kar, Passivity and finite-gain performance for 2-D
digital filters: The FM LSS model case, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II,
Exp. Briefs, vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 871875, Sep. 2015.
[13] M. Zhang, X. Shen, and T. Li, Fault tolerant attitude control for CubeSats
with input saturation based on dynamic adaptive neural network, Int. J.
Innov. Comput. Inf. Control, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 651663, 2016.
[14] C. K. Ahn, L. Wu, and P. Shi, Stochastic stability analysis for 2-D
Roesser systems with multiplicative noise, Automatica, vol. 69,
pp. 356363, 2016.
[15] Y. Tsividis, Mixed Analog-Digital VLSI Devices and Technology.
Singapore: World Scientific, 2002.
[16] J. Monteiro and R. Leuken, Integrated Circuit and System Design: Power
and Timing Modeling, Optimization and Simulation. Berlin, Germany:
Springer-Verlag, 2010.
[17] C. K. Ahn and P. Shi, Generalized dissipativity analysis of digital filters
with finite-wordlength arithmetic, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II, Exp.
Briefs, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 386390, Apr. 2016.
[18] C. K. Ahn, l2 l elimination of overflow oscillations in 2-D digital fil-
ters described by Roesser model with external interference, IEEE Trans.
Circuits Syst. II, Exp. Briefs, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 361365, Jun. 2013.
[19] C. K. Ahn, l2 l suppression of limit cycles in interfered two-
dimensional digital filters: A Fornasini-Marchesini model case, IEEE
Trans. Circuits Syst. II, Exp. Briefs, vol. 61, no. 8, pp. 614618,
Aug. 2014.
[20] K. Zhou, J. C. Doyle, and K. Glover, Robust and Optimal Control.
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 1996.
[21] K. Glover, All optimal Hankel-norm approximations of linear multivari-
able systems and their L -error bounds, Int J. Control, vol. 39, no. 6,
pp. 11151193, 1984.
[22] X. Su, L. Wu, P. Shi, and Y. Song, A novel approach to output feedback
control of fuzzy stochastic systems, Automatica, vol. 50, pp. 32683275,
2014.
[23] H. Gao and C. Wang, Delay-dependent robust H and L2 L fiter-
ing for a class of uncertain nonlinear time-delay systems, IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control, vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 16611666, 2003.
[24] H. Huang and G. Feng, Delay-dependent H and generalized H2 fil-
tering for delayed neural networks, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg.
Papers, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 846857, Apr. 2009.
[25] B. Zhang, W. X. Zheng, and S. Xu, Filtering of Markovian jump delay
systems based on a new performance index, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I,
Reg. Papers, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 12501263, May 2013.
[26] C. K. Ahn, P. Shi, and M. V. Basin, Two-dimensional dissipative control
and filtering for Roesser model, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 60,
no. 7, pp. 17451759, Jul. 2015.
[27] T. Shen, X. Wang, and Z. Yuan, Stability analysis for a class of
digital filters with single saturation nonlinearity, Automatica, vol. 46,
pp. 21122115, 2010.
[28] V. Singh, Stability of discrete-time systems joined with a saturation
operator on the state-space: Generalized form of LiuMichels criterion,
Automatica, vol. 47, pp. 634637, 2011.
[29] T. Shen, Z. Yuan, and X. Wang, Stability analysis for digital filters with
multiple saturation nonlinearities, Automatica, vol. 48, pp. 27172720,
2012.