See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51858029

Data-Driven Model-Free Adaptive Control for a

Class of MIMO Nonlinear Discrete-Time Systems

Article in IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · November 2011

DOI: 10.1109/TNN.2011.2176141 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

126 586

2 authors:

Zhong-Sheng Hou Shangtai Jin

Beijing Jiaotong University Beijing Jiaotong University
272 PUBLICATIONS 3,033 CITATIONS 78 PUBLICATIONS 639 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Shangtai Jin on 18 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL NETWORKS, VOL. 22, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2011
Data-Driven Model-Free Adaptive Control for a
Class of MIMO Nonlinear Discrete-Time Systems
Zhongsheng Hou and Shangtai Jin
Abstract— In this paper, a data-driven model-free adap-
tive control (MFAC) approach is proposed based on a new
dynamic linearization technique (DLT) with a novel concept
called pseudo-partial derivative for a class of general multiple-
input and multiple-output nonlinear discrete-time systems. The
DLT includes compact form dynamic linearization, partial form
dynamic linearization, and full form dynamic linearization. The
main feature of the approach is that the controller design
depends only on the measured input/output data of the controlled
plant. Analysis and extensive simulations have shown that MFAC
guarantees the bounded-input bounded-output stability and the
tracking error convergence.
Index Terms— Compact form dynamic linearization, data-
driven control, model-free adaptive control, multiple-input
and multiple-output nonlinear system, partial form dynamic
linearization, pseudo-partial derivative, stability.
I. I NTRODUCTION
A DAPTIVE control has been with us for several decades.
Many books [1]–[4] and thousands papers have been
published on this subject, and the number of applications
appears steadily increasing. The adaptive control techniques
and methodologies typically assume that the structure of the
plant is known while the parameters may be unknown or slow
time-varying. For a practical nonlinear plant, however, the
structure of the plant is often difficult to identify, sometimes,
it is impossible. Furthermore, modeling theory was to develop
a plant model lain in a model set covering to the true system,
under the assumption that the true system was in the model
set, or approximating the true system in terms of bias and
variance error on the identified models. It is recognized that the
model obtained from first-principle or identified from data is
an approximation of the true system with some error. In other
word, the unmodeled dynamics always exists in the modeling
process. In a sequel, the closed loop control system, designed
by the adaptive control design approach which is thought to
have no alternative but to use, would inherited a born unsafety
caused by the unmodeled dynamics [5]. This motivates us
Manuscript received January 5, 2011; revised August 18, 2011; accepted
November 6, 2011. Date of publication November 30, 2011; date of cur-
rent version December 13, 2011. This work was supported in part by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China, under Grant 60834001, Grant
61120106009, and Grant 61040050, and the Fundamental Research Funds for
the Central Universities under Grant 2011JBM201.
The authors are with the Advanced Control Systems Laboratory of
the School of Electronic and Information Engineering, Beijing Jiao-
tong University, Beijing 100044, China (e-mail: zhshhou@bjtu.edu.cn;
shtjin@bjtu.edu.cn).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TNN.2011.2176141
1045–9227/$26.00 © 2011 IEEE
2173
to study the data-driven model-free control method, which
does not require any model information of the controlled
systems.
The data-driven control means that the controller designing
depends only on the input/output (I/O) measurement data of
the controlled plant, without any explicitly using the system
model, but it could be designed using an implicit informa-
tion of the system dynamics or system structure, such as,
the direct adaptive control, the subspace predictive control.
The data-driven model-free control method implies that the
controller designing is merely based on the input/output
measurement data of the controlled plant, without explicitly
or implicitly using the plant structure or dynamics infor-
mation of the controlled plant, and whatever the plant is
linear or nonlinear. Since the data-driven model-free adap-
tive control method does not require a model of a plant in
controller designing, the modeling process, the unmodeled
dynamics, and the theoretical assumptions on the dynamics
of the plant do not exist. Up to now, many data-driven
control approaches could be found in literature, but different
authors call them with different names: data-based, data-
driven, model-free, iterative learning control (ILC), unfalsi-
fied control (UC), virtual reference feedback tuning (VRFT),
iterative feedback tuning (IFT), etc., Perhaps the first data-
driven control method is the Ziegler-Nichols procedure for
tuning proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers. It is
based, however, on the plant step responses and it is graphical
method and cannot be generalized to other control problems.
For a repeatable control task on a finite time interval, ILC
is most suitable control method with a data-driven feature
[6]–[8]. UC approach has been investigated in the past decade
[9]–[14]. This approach recursively “falsifies” controllers that
fail to satisfy a performance specification directly using
on-line I/O measurement data of a plant. Other data-driven
control approaches, such as, VRFT and IFT can be classified
into the framework of the controller parameter tuning. VRFT
is designed for an unknown discrete-time single-input and
single output (SISO) LTI system without resorting to the
identification of a process model and whose controller design-
ing problem is transformed into an identification problem for
the controller parameters with the help of a virtual reference
signal under the assumption that the controller’s structure
is known a priori [15]–[18]. IFT is also suggested for an
unknown discrete-time SISO LTI system [19]–[23]. Instead
of one-shot controller parameters tuning using a minimizer,
IFT controller designing needs three experiments recursively
in each iteration in order to calculate the controller parameters.
2174 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL NETWORKS, VOL. 22, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2011
For these two approaches, the main issues from the views of
theory and applications are the concerns on the stability and
implementation.
Recently, model-free adaptive control (MFAC) approach has
been proposed for a class of discrete-time SISO nonlinear
systems with a systematic framework [24]–[30]. Instead of
identifying the nonlinear model of the plant, a series of
equivalent local dynamic linearization data models is built
along the dynamic operation points of the closed-loop system
using a new dynamic linearization technique (DLT) with a
novel concept called pseudo-partial derivative (PPD). The
time-varying PPD could be estimated merely using the I/O
measurement data of a controlled plant. The DLT includes
the compact form dynamic linearization (CFDL), the partial
form dynamic linearization (PFDL), and the full form dynamic
linearization (FFDL). We just present the first two in this paper
due to page limitation.
The equivalent dynamic linearization data models based
MFAC approach is outlined by the following steps.
1) Choose one of the dynamic linearization data models
among CFDL, PFDL, and FFDL.
2) Estimate the time varying parameter PPD in the equiva-
lent dynamic linearization data model merely using the
on-line measurement I/O data.
3) Design the MFAC algorithm based on the equivalent
dynamic linearization data model.
4) Update the PPD parameter of the controller iteratively.
5) Repeat from step 2.
In contrast to other adaptive control schemes, MFAC has
several attractive properties, which make it suitable for many
practical control tasks. First, MFAC uses the real time mea-
surement I/O data of the controlled plant only. No mathe-
matical model and structural information of the controlled
plant are needed, which implies that we can design the
controller independently, and also implies that we can develop
a generic controller for a certain class of industrial practi-
cal processes. Second, MFAC does not require any external
testing signals and any training process, which are neces-
sary to the neural networks based nonlinear adaptive control,
so it is a lower cost controller. Third, MFAC is simple
and easily implemented with small computational burden
and strong robustness. Fourth, under some assumptions, the
convergence and stability of CFDL based MFAC (CFDL-
MFAC) and PFDL based MFAC (PFDL-MFAC) for discrete-
time SISO nonlinear system are guaranteed [24]–[26], [30].
This is a highlighted feature comparing with other data-
drive control approaches, such as, VRFT, IFT, UC, etc. Fifth,
MFAC has a systematic framework, which includes a series
of equivalent dynamic linearization data models for a class
of discrete-time nonlinear SISO, multiple-input single-output,
multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) systems, and a
series of controller designing methods, such as, one-step-
ahead weight control, predictive control, and iterative learning
MFAC control. Finally, MFAC has been successfully imple-
mented in many practical fields, such as, chemical industry
[31], [32], linear motor control and in injection moulding
process [33], PH value control [34], and robotic welding
process [35].
Owing to the complexity of MIMO nonlinear systems,
most of the techniques developed for SISO systems cannot
be directly extended to MIMO systems. One of the main
difficulties in MIMO nonlinear control system design is input
coupling. In order to decouple the inputs, usually the decou-
pling matrix is needed to be known and invertible. However,
it is difficult to guarantee the nonsingular property of the
decoupling matrix. In [4] and [36], decoupling control was
investigated for MIMO system, and the accurate mathematical
model of the controlled MIMO system and all the state
variables are assumed to be available, which are too restrictive
to be obtained in practical applications. It is noted that, till
now, very a few papers study the adaptive control problem on
the general nonlinear discrete-time system, and they all focus
on some special class of nonlinearities [37].
In this paper, the model-free adaptive control approach
for SISO nonlinear discrete-time is extended to the MIMO
nonlinear system, and the novel proofs for the stability and
convergence are proposed. Note that, it is not trivial problem
for the extending the results of controller design and theoret-
ical analysis for a SISO system to that of MIMO case due
to inputs and outputs couplings. Further, it is more difficult
issue that extending the results of unknown SISO nonlinear
system to that of unknown MIMO case [14], [38]. The main
contributions of this paper are as follows.
1) The controlled plant is assumed to be an unknown
MIMO discrete-time nonlinear system, but it is assumed
to be known accurately in almost all existing adaptive
control methods of nonlinear system, except neural
network (NN) based control methods.
2) The assumptions in this paper are on the on-line I/O
relationship of the closed-loop data, but the assumptions
of other adaptive control methods are on the dynamics
model or the states.
3) It does not require any training process for MFAC
method, whereas it usually requires training process with
rather rich off-line I/O data of the open loop system for
NN based control.
4) The MFAC schemes are designed by only using the mea-
surement I/O data of the controlled plant. The traditional
unmodeled dynamics does not appear in these MFAC
schemes, so they have very strong robustness comparing
with the other model based control methods.
5) The analysis approach of the proposed MFAC schemes
for the MIMO discrete-time nonlinear system is also a
novel data-driven one, which is based on the equivalent
dynamic linearization virtual data models.
For model-free or data-driven approaches, we are aware of
many claims made in the literature that a particular control
technique is “model-free or data-driven.” However, most of
these claims on the basis of implicit system modeling required.
(We wish to raise this issue not because there is anything
inherently wrong with these other approaches, but to help
clarify that our “model-free adaptive control” is a truly data-
driven approach literally.) For example, fuzzy controllers are
frequently claimed as model-free; nevertheless, in all fuzzy
controllers, the fuzzy rules are involved in the controller in a
linguistic-type fashion. Similar arguments can also be made
HOU AND JIN: DATA-DRIVEN MFAC FOR A CLASS OF MIMO NONLINEAR DISCRETE-TIME SYSTEMS
for other controllers claimed as model-free, e.g., some control
system using neural network, where, the neural networks act
as a system model in the controller. Although the model-
free approach is appropriate for many practical systems, it is
generally inappropriate for systems where an accuracy system
model can be determined. One reason, of course, is that with
a reliable model, the controller could be designed to achieve
optimality with theoretical guarantee. Further, with a reliable
model, the theoretical analysis and many other things, such as
controllability, state filtering and estimation, state prediction,
system performance monitoring, state feedback, etc., could be
done accordingly.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section II,
the CFDL and the PFDL techniques are presented for a class
of discrete-time MIMO nonlinear systems. In Section III,
CFDL-MFAC and PFDL-MFAC schemes are designed and
the convergence and BIBO stability of the MFAC systems are
analyzed. In Section IV, some numerical simulation studies
are given to demonstrate the efficiency and correctness for the
MFAC schemes. Conclusions are given in Section V.
II. DYNAMIC L INEARIZATION FOR MIMO
N ONLINEAR D ISCRETE -T IME S YSTEMS
In this section, the equivalent dynamic linearization data
models of the controlled plant are given. These descriptions
are then used in the following section to design and analyze
the data-driven model-free adaptive control systems.
Following MIMO nonlinear discrete-time system is
considered:
y(k + 1) = f(y(k), . . . , y(k − n y ), u(k), . . . , u(k − n u )) (1)
where y(k) ∈ R p and u(k) ∈ R p are the system outputs
and inputs, respectively, n y , n u are the unknown orders, p is
a known integer, and f(. . .) ∈ R p is an unknown nonlinear
vector-valued function.
A. Compact Form Dynamic Linearization
The CFDL of nonlinear system (1) is based on the following
assumptions.
Assumption 1: The partial derivatives of f(· · · ) with respect
to control inputs u(k) are continuous.
Assumption 2: System (1) is generalized Lipschitz, that is,
y(k + 1) ≤ bu(k) for each fixed k and u(k) = 0,
where y(k + 1) = y(k + 1) − y(k), u(k) = u(k) − u(k − 1)
and b is a positive constant.
Remark 1: These assumptions imposed on the controlled
system are reasonable and acceptable from a practical view-
point. Assumption 1 is a typical condition of control system
design for general nonlinear systems. Assumption 2 limits the
rates of changes of the system outputs driven by the changes of
the control inputs. From the ‘energy’ point of view, the output
energy change rates inside a system cannot go to infinity if
the changes of the control input energy are in a finite altitude.
Theorem 1: For nonlinear system (1), satisfying Assump-
tions 1 and 2 with u(k) = 0 for each fixed k, there
2175
must exist (k), called the PPD matrix, such that, (1) can be
transformed into the following equivalent CFDL data model:
y(k + 1) = (k)u(k) (2)
⎡ φ (k) φ (k) ··· φ (k) ⎤
11 12 1p
⎢ φ21 (k) φ22 (k) ··· φ2 p (k)
⎥
where (k) = ⎣ . .. .. .. ⎦ , and (k) ≤ b.
.. . . .
φ p1 (k) φ p2 (k) ··· φ pp (k) p× p
Proof: See Appendix A.
Remark 2: The CFDL data model is built along the
dynamic operation points of the closed-loop system. Accord-
ing to Theorem 1, for each fixed k, there exists time-varying
PPD matrix (k), such that the nonlinear system can be
transformed into CFDL data model. From the proof of the
theorem, we can see that the existence of PPD matrix is
guaranteed by rigorous mathematical analysis (differential
mean value theorem) theoretically, thus it is an accurate and
equivalent linearization description. Moreover, from (A3) in
Appendix A, it is shown that the PPD parameter matrix in
CFDL data model (2) is not unique.
Remark 3: From the proof of Theorem 1, we can see that
(k) is related to the system inputs and outputs till time instant
k. However, (k) is a differential signals in some sense and
bounded for any k, so we can regard (k) as a slowly time-
varying parameter, and the relationship with respect to control
input u(k) can be ignored if u(k) = 0 and the magnitude
of u(k) is not too large, which will be guaranteed by a
resetting mechanism and an adjustable designing parameter in
control input index function, and will be shown in the next
section.
Remark 4: Several typical linearization methods, such as
Taylor’s linearization, feedback linearization, piecewise lin-
earization, orthogonal function approximation linearization,
etc., could be found in literatures. Taylor’s linearization for
MIMO nonlinear system is to obtain the constant Jacobian
matrix at an equilibrium point using Taylor expansion. How-
ever, the linearized model is an approximated expression in
nature, since high-order terms are ignored. The feedback
linearization is to transform a nonlinear system into a linear
system so that well-known and powerful linear design tech-
niques can be applied. This linearization has been applied in
many cases, but it requires the accurate mathematical model
and full state measurement, and it has difficulty in dealing
with the parameter uncertainties or disturbances. Piecewise
linearization executes Taylor expansion piecewisely to improve
linearization accuracy, however, more model information of
the controlled plant is needed. Orthogonal function approxi-
mation linearization utilizes a set of orthogonal basis functions
to approximate the nonlinearity, however, a large number
of parameters will appear in the linearized model, and the
amount of the parameters will also increases exponentially
as more orthogonal basis functions involves, which renders
heavy computation burden to identification algorithms. Com-
pared with aforementioned linearization methods, the pro-
posed linearization method has several merits for designing
or analysis problems to the control system. First, CFDL is
only based on the I/O data of the controlled plant, no model
dynamics is needed, whereas others are model based. Second,
2176
CFDL data model (2) is an equivalent description of the
original system (1), since the existence of the PPD matrix
is guaranteed by rigorous mathematical analysis, whereas
Taylor’s model or piecewise linearization model is a “lin-
earized model.” Finally, CFDL data model is simple and
the dynamic behaviors of PPD matrix may be easy to be
estimated using the measurement data collected in closed-
loop system, whereas orthogonal function approximation
linearization renders heavy computation burden to identifica-
tion algorithms.
B. Partial Form Dynamic Linearization
From (2), we can see that all the systems nonlinearity
of (1) is compressed into the PPD matrix (k). However,
from adaptive control point of view, the unknown parameter
PPD (k) must be estimated using some parameter estimation
algorithm with system I/O measured data when (2) is used to
design adaptive control system. If the dynamics of PPD (k)
is so complex that any estimation algorithm is not able to track
it, a reasonable and intuitive strategy to cope with this issue is
to decompose it into several components, in other words, the
other dynamic linearization data model needs to be developed
to capture the dynamics driven by different input changes at
different time instant. For this purpose, the PFDL technique
is proposed with two other similar assumptions.
Assumption 3: The partial derivatives of f(· · · ) with respect
to control inputs u(k), . . . , u(k − L + 1) are continuous. L
is a positive constant called control input length constant of
linearization for the discrete-time nonlinear system.
Assumption 4: System (1) is generalized Lipschitz, that is,
satisfying y(k + 1) ≤ bŪ(k) for each fixed k and
Ū(k) = 0, where y(k + 1) = y(k + 1) − y(k), Ū(k) =
[uT (k), . . . , uT (k − L + 1)]T , u(k − i + 1) = u(k − i +
1) − u(k − i ), i = 1, . . . , L. b is a positive constant.
Theorem 2: For the nonlinear system (1), satisfying
Assumptions 3 and 4 with Ū(k) = 0 for each fixed k,
¯ it is a common assumption.
there must exist (k), called PPD matrix, such that (1) can
be transformed into the following PFDL data model:
¯
y(k + 1) = (k)Ū(k)
¯
where (k) = [1 (k) · · ·  L (k)]
⎡ ⎤
φ11i (k) φ12i (k) · · · φ1 pi (k)
⎢ φ21i (k) φ22i (k) · · · φ2 pi (k) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
i (k) = ⎢ .. .. .. .. ⎥
⎣ . . . . ⎦
φ p1i (k) φ p2i (k) · · · φ ppi (k) p× p
¯ ρT (k) (y∗ (k + 1) − y(k))
i = 1 · · · L, and (k) ≤ b.
Proof: See Appendix B.
Remark 5: Similar discussions like Remarks 2–4 could be
listed here.
Remark 6: When constant L = 1, PFDL of nonlinear
system becomes CFDL, which is much easier and simpler for
use and implementation in some case. Please see the following
sections for details.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL NETWORKS, VOL. 22, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2011
III. MFAC D ESIGN AND S TABILITY A NALYSIS
In this section, we will present the designing and analy-
sis methods for the data driven model-free adaptive control
scheme using the equivalent CFDL data model and PFDL
data model proposed in the previous section, respectively. The
CFDL and PFDL data models are linear models with a time-
varying PPD parameter matrix. If the PPD parameter matrix
is obtained through some parameter estimation algorithms,
then the equivalent dynamic linearization data models can be
regarded as a virtual model of the plant. Using certain equiva-
lent principle, in a sequel, all the analysis and designing skills
in model-based theories can be borrowed and incorporated into
controller design and analysis for this MFAC system.
A. CFDL-MFAC Design and Stability Analysis
For the rigorous analysis in following discussions, another
assumption should be made.
Assumption 5: The PPD (k) is a diagonally dominant
matrix in following sense, |φi j | ≤ b1 , b2 ≤ |φii (k)| ≤ αb2 , i =
1, . . . , p, j = 1, . . . , p, i = j , α ≥ 1, b2 > b1 (2α +1)( p −1),
and the sign of all the elements of (k) is unchanged.
Remark 7: This assumption is similar to [39]. In the case
of input coupling is not too large, (k) is a diagonally
dominant matrix. For the discrete-time SISO nonlinear system,
Assumption 5 is same as the assumption in [24]–[26] and
[30], that is b2 ≤ |φ11 (k)| ≤ αb2 . The sign of the (k)
is similar to the control direction in model based control
methods. In this paper, our target is to control a class of
unknown MIMO nonlinear system under a week coupling
condition, only using the measurement I/O data of the closed-
loop controlled system. Since the plant model is unavailable,
and only the system operation data is at hand, the diagonal
dominance condition on the system I/O data relationship may
be the last choice for the describing on the system coupling.
Roughly speaking, this condition could be verified if the I/O
data of the controlled system is rich and accurate enough, so
Consider the following control input criterion function:
 2
J (u(k)) = y∗ (k + 1) − y(k + 1) + λ u(k) − u(k − 1)2
(3) (4)
where y∗ (k + 1) is the desired output signal, and λ is a
weighting constant.
Rewrite (2) as
y(k + 1) = y(k) + (k)u(k). (5)
Substituting (5) into (4), differentiating (4) with respect to
u(k), and letting it zero, gives
u(k) = u(k − 1) + (6)
λ + (k)2
where ρ is a step-size constant, which is added to make
(6) general and will be used in the stability proof later.
Remark 8: It is obvious that λ is not only a penalty factor
on u(k)2 , but also a part of denominator in (6), which
means that the substitution domain of (1) substituted by (2) can
be limited into some reasonable scope, in sequel, constraining
HOU AND JIN: DATA-DRIVEN MFAC FOR A CLASS OF MIMO NONLINEAR DISCRETE-TIME SYSTEMS 2177

 y(k)
Φ̂(k)
Remark 11: A reset algorithm (9) is used to make para-
Estimator Differentiator
meter estimation algorithm have a stronger ability in tracking
 u(k−1)
time-varying parameter. For the discrete-time SISO nonlinear
Differentiator
y∗ system, (9) is same as reset algorithm in [24]–[26] and [30].
+ y(k)
MFAC Plant For reader’s convenience, the block diagram of MFAC
− scheme is shown in Fig. 1.
u(k−1) u(k)
z−1 Lemma 1 [42]: Let A = [αi j ] ∈ C n×n . For each 1 ≤ i ≤ n,
z−1 n Gerschgorin disk is defined as Di = {z||z − αii | ≤
the
j  =i, j =1 |αi j |}, z ∈ C. The Gerschgorin domain

is defined
Fig. 1. Block diagram of MFAC. as a union of all the Gerschgorin disks D A = ni=1 Di . All
eigenvalues of matrix A lie in its Gerschgorin domain D A .
the PPD (k) from changing too quickly. In fact λ is an Theorem 3: The nonlinear system (1), satisfying Assump-
important design parameter for the MFAC control system. tions 1, 2, and 5, is controlled by the CFDL-MFAC scheme
Theoretical analysis and computer simulation results show that (8)–(10) for y∗ (k + 1) = y∗ = const., then there
suitable choice of λ can guarantee the stability or improve the exists a λmin ≥ 0, and if λ > λmin , guaranteeing:
performance of the control system. 1) lim y(k + 1) − y∗  = 0 monotonically and 2) {y(k)} and
k→∞
Remark 9: The control law (6) is designed only by I/O {u(k)} are bounded sequences.
measurement data of the controlled plant, and has a recursive Proof: See Appendix C.
form. It is quite different from the control law in [40], and has
no relations with any explicit model dynamics and structural B. PFDL-MFAC Design and Stability Analysis
information of the plant. In the PFDL case, Assumption 5 may be rewritten as given.
Remark 10: Since the unknown PPD parameter matrix Assumption 6: 1 (k) of the PPD (k) ˆ is a diagonally
(k), is time-varying, the conventional projection or least dominant matrix in following sense, |φi j 1 | ≤ b1 , b2 ≤
squares algorithm cannot track it well. So some time-varying |φii1 (k)| ≤ αb2 , i = 1, . . . , p, j = 1, . . . , p, i = j , α ≥ 1,
algorithms should be used to estimate the unknown (k). In b2 > b1 (2α + 1)( p − 1), and the sign of all the elements of
fact, any time-varying parameter estimation algorithm can be 1 (k) is unchanged.
used to estimate the PPD (k), such as the modified projection Remark 12: Similar Remark 7 could be given here.
algorithm [24]–[26], [30], the least-square algorithm with a Revising the control input criterion function (4) for the
time-varying forgetting factor [40], or the leakage recursive PFDL case, and taking similar procedure to (5) and (6), gives
least-square algorithm [41].
ρ1 1T (k) (y∗ (k + 1) − y(k))
In this paper, we use the modified projection algorithm to u(k) = u(k − 1) +
estimate the unknown PPD λ + 1 (k)2

L
ˆ
(k) ˆ − 1)
= (k 1T (k) ρi i (k)u(k − i + 1)
i=2
ˆ − 1)u(k − 1))uT (k − 1)
η(y(k) − (k − . (11)
+ λ + 1 (k)2
μ + u(k − 1)2 (7) Here we still use the modified projection algorithm
ˆ
(k) ˆ − 1)
= (k
where η ∈ (0, 1) is a step-size constant, and μ > 0 is a
weighting factor. ˆ − 1)Ū(k − 1))ŪT (k − 1)
η(y(k) − (k
+ .
Using the parameter estimation algorithm (7) and the control μ + Ū(k − 1)2
law algorithm (6), the CFDL-MFAC scheme is constructed as (12)
follows: Using the parameter estimation algorithm (12), control law
algorithm (11), the PFDL-MFAC scheme is constructed as
ˆ
(k) ˆ − 1)
= (k follows:
ˆ − 1)u(k − 1))uT (k − 1)
η(y(k) − (k
+ . ˆ
(k) ˆ − 1)
= (k
μ + u(k − 1)2  
η y(k) − (k ˆ − 1)Ū(k − 1) ŪT (k − 1)
(8)
+  2 .
φ̂ ii (k) = φ̂ ii (1), if |φ̂ii (k)| < b2 or |φ̂ii (k)| > αb2 μ + Ū(k − 1)
or sign(φ̂ii (k)) = sign(φ̂ii (1)) (13)
φ̂ i j (k) = φ̂ i j (1), if |φ̂i j (k)| > b1 or sign(φ̂i j (k)) φ̂ ii1 (k) = φ̂ ii1 (1), if |φ̂ii1 (k)| < b2 or |φ̂ii1 (k)| > αb2
= sign(φ̂i j (1)), i = j (9) or sign(φ̂ii1 (k)) = sign(φ̂ii1 (1)),
ρ ˆ T (k) (y∗ (k + 1) − y(k)) φ̂ i j 1 (k) = φ̂ i j 1 (1), if |φ̂i j 1 (k)| > b1
u(k) = u(k − 1) + (10) or sign(φ̂i j 1 (k)) = sign(φ̂i j 1 (1)), i = j (14)
ˆ
λ + (k) 2
ρ1  ˆ T (k) (y∗ (k + 1) − y(k))
where φ̂ i j (1) is the initial value of φ̂ i j (k), i = 1, . . . , p, j = u(k) = u(k − 1) + 1
λ +  ˆ 1 (k)2
1, . . . , p.
2178 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL NETWORKS, VOL. 22, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2011

L
ˆ T (k)
 ˆ i (k)u(k − i + 1)
ρi  mapping technique. So it is quite conservative in general. The
1
i=2 simulation results are given in Section IV to illustrate that the
− (15)
ˆ 1 (k)2
λ +  proposed data-driven MFAC control schemes still work well
when they are used in a nonlinear MIMO tracking control
where ρ1 , . . . , ρ L , η ∈ (0, 1) are the step-size series, and λ, μ
problem, and the diagonal dominant condition does not hold
are two weighting constants, φ̂ i j 1 (1) is the initial value of
either.
φ̂ i j 1 (k), i = 1, . . . , p, j = 1, . . . , p.
Remark 13: The PFDL-MFAC scheme (13)–(15) has L p2 IV. S IMULATION
parameters needed to be updated on-line and it is quite
In this section, two numerical MIMO nonlinear systems
different from the traditional adaptive control system design,
and a three tank system are simulated to demonstrate the
in which there are usually 2np2 parameters needed to be
applicability and efficiency of the CFDL and the PFDL data
estimated on-line, where n denotes the order of the controlled
model based MFAC. In following simulations, all mathemati-
system. For the case of L = 1, the number of controller
cal models just serve as I/O data generator for the systems to
parameters needed to be updated on-line for MIMO nonlinear
be controlled, no any information of them will be included in
system is p2 , and the PFDL-MFAC scheme (13)–(15) becomes
the MFAC controller design.
the CFDL-MFAC scheme (8)–(10). It can be designed much
easier than that of the traditional adaptive control system.
A. Numerical Examples
Remark 14: A reset algorithm (14) is to make parameter
estimation algorithm have a stronger ability in tracking time- Example 1: CFDL-MFAC.
varying parameter. Consider the nonlinear system [43]
Remark 15: Extensive numerical simulations and experi- x 11 (k)2
ments have shown that L could be set to be the integer number x 11 (k + 1) = + 0.3x 12(k),
1 + x 11 (k)2
in the interval from 1 to the sum of the estimated orders of
x 11 (k)2
the plant if n y and n u are unknown. For practical applications, x 12 (k + 1) =
L could be 1 for a simple system and could be the maximum 1 + x 12 (k)2 + x 21 (k)2 + x 22 (k)2
for a complex system. +a(k)u 1 (k),
Remark 16: The CFDL-MFAC and PFDL-MFAC schemes x 21 (k)2
x 21 (k + 1) = + 0.2x 22(k),
have no relationship with any explicit or implicit model 1 + x 21 (k)2
dynamics and structural information of the plant, and PPD x 21 (k)2
x 22 (k + 1) =
parameter matrix is estimated just by using the measured I/O 1 + x 11 (k)2 + x 12 (k)2 + x 22 (k)2
data of the controlled system. This is the reason that we call +b(k)u 2 (k),
them data-driven model-free adaptive control. It is a common y1 (k + 1) = x 11 (k + 1) + 0.005r and(1),
sense that there is no universal controller in this world, so
MFAC is not a universal controller either. In order to analyze y2 (k + 1) = x 21 (k + 1) + 0.005r and(1)
the stability and convergence, some reasonable and practical where a(k) = 1 + 0.1 sin(2πk/1500), b(k) = 1 +
assumptions are needed to be made to the plant. 0.1 cos(2πk/1500) are two time-varying parameters. In [43],
Remark 17: As we have known, the designing of the con- this example is controlled by using neural network without
troller and estimator of traditional adaptive control system time-varying parameters a(k), b(k), and the noise.
depends on the structure and the orders of mathematical In this paper, the desired trajectories are
model of the controlled plant, but the real structure and the ⎧
orders of controlled system are very difficult to identify, and ⎨ 0.4 t ≤ 500
y1∗ (t) = 0.7 500 < t ≤ 1000
sometimes have relations with time and ambient, so the control ⎩
0.5 1000 < t ≤ 1500
performance of various existing adaptive control systems may ⎧
be deteriorated or the designed control systems may be unsta- ⎪
⎪ 0.6 t ≤ 300
⎨
ble in practice when these mismatching unmodeled dynamics ∗ 0.8 500 < t ≤ 700
y2 (t) =
occur. The MFAC scheme presented in this paper only use the ⎪
⎪ 0.7 1000 < t ≤ 1200
⎩
I/O data of controlled system, thus the unmodeled dynamics 0.5 1200 < t ≤ 1200.
disappears, and it should have strong robustness. The initial values are: x 1,1(1) = x 1,1(2) = x 2,1 (1) =
Theorem 4: The nonlinear system (1), satisfying Assump- x 2,1 (2) = 0.5, x 1,2 (1) = x 1,2 (2) = x 2,2 (1) = x 2,2 (2) =
tions 3, 4, and 6, is controlled by the PFDL-MFAC scheme 0, u(1) = u(2) = [0, 0]T . These values are cited
(13)–(15) for y∗ (k + 1) = y∗ = const., then there from [43]. The controller parameters   η = ρ = 1,
are
exists a λmin ≥ 0, and if λ > λmin , guaranteeing: λ = 0.5, μ = 1, (1)ˆ ˆ
= (2) 0 .
= 00.5 0.5
1) lim y(k + 1) − y∗  = 0 and 2) {y(k)} and {u(k)} are The simulation results using the CFDL-MFAC scheme are
k→∞
bounded sequences. shown in Fig. 2, where Fig. 2(a)–(d) shows the tracking
Proof: See Appendix D. performances of the output y1 and y2, the control inputs
Remark 18: It is noted that Theorems 3 and 4 are just a u1 and u2, and the dynamics of the PPD (k), respec-
sufficient conditions for the MIMO regulating problem when tively. From Fig. 2(a) and (b), we can see that the control
the data-driven MFAC control system is applied to a plant, performance with time-varying parameters and noise is quite
and the stability analysis method is featured by the contract satisfactory.
HOU AND JIN: DATA-DRIVEN MFAC FOR A CLASS OF MIMO NONLINEAR DISCRETE-TIME SYSTEMS 2179

0.75
y1*(k) Consider the nonlinear system
0.7 y2(k)
2.5y1(k)y1 (k − 1)
Tracking performance y1(k)
0.65 y1 (k + 1) =
0.6 1 + y1 (k) + y2 (k − 1)2 + y1 (k − 2)2
2

0.55 + 0.09u 1(k)u 1 (k −1)+1.2u 1(k)+1.6u 1(k −2)

0.5 + 0.5u 2 (k) + 0.7 sin(0.5(y1(k) + y1 (k − 1)))
0.45 × cos(0.5(y1 (k) + y1 (k − 1)))
0.4 5y2 (k)y2 (k − 1)
0.35 y2 (k + 1) =
1 + y2 (k) + y1 (k − 1)2 + y2 (k − 2)2
2
0.3
0 500 1000 1500 + u 2 (k) + 1.1u 2 (k − 1) + 1.4u 2 (k − 2)
Step
+ 0.5u 1 (k).
(a)
0.85 The desired trajectories are
0.8
y2*(k)    
y2(k) k k
y1∗ (k + 1) = 5 sin
Tracking performance y2(k)

0.75 + 2 cos
50 20
0.7    
k k
y2∗ (k + 1) = 2 sin
0.65
+ 5 cos .
0.6 50 20
0.55
The initial values are: y1 (1) = y1 (3) = 0, y1 (2) = 1,
0.5
0.45
y2 (1) = y1 (3) = 0, y2 (2) = 1, u(1) = u(2) = [0, 0]T .
0.4 The parameters of the CFDL-MFAC and PFDL-MFAC are
η =ρ= ˆ ˆ
0.35  0.5  ρ1 = ρ2 = 0.5, λ 1=0 00.01,  μ = 1, (1) = (2) =
0 500 1000 1500 ˆ
0 , (1) = ˆ
(2) = 000 .
Step 0 0.5 010000
(b)
The simulation results are shown in Fig. 3, where
1.6 Fig. 3(a)–(d) shows the tracking performances of output y1
u1(k)
1.4 u2(k) and y2, the control inputs of u1 and u2, respectively. From
Control inputs u 1(k) and u2(k)

1.2
Fig. 3(a) and (b), we can see that the control performance of
1
PFDL-MFAC is quite satisfied, which is better than that of
0.8
CFDL-MFAC.
0.6
B. Three Tank Water System
0.4
Fig. 4 shows the principal structure of the three-tank system.
0.2
The plant consists of three cylinders T1, T2, and T3 with the
0
cross section S A . These tanks are connected serially with each
−0.2
0 500 1000 1500 other by pipes with the cross section Sn . A single outflow valve
Step with the cross section Sn is located at tank 2. The outflowing
(c) liquid (usually distilled water) is collected in a reservoir, which
φ11(k) supplies the pumps 1 and 2. Hmax denotes the highest possible
1.2 φ12(k)
φ21(k) liquid level.
φ22(k)
Dynamics of the PPD

1 In this paper, the control input signals are the pump liquid
0.8 flow rates Q 1 and Q 2 , the output signals are the liquid levels
0.6 h 1 and h 2 .
0.4 Define the following variables and the parameters: αz i :
0.2
outflow coefficients of tank i ; h 1 , h 2 , h 3 : liquid levels (m);
Q 13 : flow rate from tank 1 to tank 3 (m3 /sec); Q 32 : flow rate
0
from tank 3 to tank 2 (m3 /sec); Q 20 : flow rate from tank 2
−0.2
0 500 1000 1500 to reservoir (m3 /sec); Q 1 , Q 2 : supplying flow rates (m3 /sec);
Step S A : section of cylinder (m2 ); S1 : section of leak opening (m2 );
(d) Sn : section of connection pipe (m2 ). Then, the dynamics of
Fig. 2. Simulation results of Example 1. (a) Tracking performance the three-tank system is expressed by a set of differential
y1 (k). (b) Tracking performance y2 (k). (c) Control inputs u 1 (k) and u 2 (k). equations [44]
(d) Dynamics of the PPD.
dh 1
SA = Q 1 (t) − Q 13 (t)
Example 2: PFDL-MFAC. dt
In this example, the dynamics of PPD (k) of CFDL data dh 3
SA = Q 13 (t) − Q 32 (t)
model is so complex that the proposed estimation algorithm is dt
not able to track its complex behavior, in sequel, the CFDL- dh 2
SA = Q 2 (t) + Q 32 (t) − Q 20 (t)
MFAC scheme do not work well. We now use the PFDL- dt 
MFAC to control it. Q 13 (t) = αz 1 Sn sgn(h 1 (t) − h 3 (t)) (2g |h 1 (t) − h 3 (t)|
2180 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL NETWORKS, VOL. 22, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2011

30 Pump 1 Pump 2
y1*(k)
25 CFDL−MFAC Q2

Tracking performance y1(k)

PFDL−MFAC Q1
20 SA
15
10
5 Hmax nominal
h1 T1 T3 T2 outflow
0
h3 value (pipe)
−5 Sl Sn h2
−10
−15
az1 az3 az2
−20 Q13 Q32 Q20
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Step
(a) Fig. 4. Three-tank water control system.
30
y2*(k)
CFDL−MFAC TABLE I
Tracking performance y2(k)

20 PFDL−MFAC PARAMETERS OF T HREE TANK WATER

10 SA Sn Hmax Q max α1 α2 α3
0.0154m2 5 × 10−5 m2 0.6m 0.0001 m3 /s .22 .28 .27
0

−10

−20 In the simulation, the discretized model of three-tank system

−30
is obtained by first-order Euler’s method, the sampling period
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 is 1 s and the simulation time is 1500 s. The parameters of
Step three-tank system are given in Table I. The initial conditions
(b)
10
are h 1 (1) = 0, h 2 (1) = 0, h 3 (1) = 0, Q 1 (1) = 0, and
8
CFDL−MFAC
PFDL−MFAC Q 2 (1) = 0. The desired liquid levels are given as follows:
⎧
6 ⎨ 0.15 t ≤ 500
Control input u1(k)

4 h ∗1 (t) = 0.3 500 < t ≤ 1000

⎩
2 0.15 1000 < t ≤ 1500
⎧
0
⎪
⎪ 0.2 t ≤ 300
−2 ⎨
0.4 500 < t ≤ 700
−4 h ∗2 (t) =
⎪ 0.2 1000 < t ≤ 1200
⎪
−6 ⎩
0.05 1200 < t ≤ 1200.
−8
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 The parameters of PFDL-MFAC scheme are setto be ρ1 =
Step
ρ2 = 0.5, λ = 1, η = 1, μ = 0.0001, and (1) ˆ = 10 01 10 01 .
(c)
15 In order to verify the effectiveness and the superiority of
CFDL−MFAC the proposed approach, a comparison to PID control method
PFDL−MFAC
10 is given. The PID controller for three tank water system is
Control input u2(k)

5 studied in [45], which is given as follows:

   
u 1 (k + 1) u 1 (k)
0
=
u 2 (k + 1) u 2 (k)
−5  
K P11 K I 11 K D11 K P12 K I 12 K D12
−10
+
K P21 K I 21 K D21 K P22 K I 22 K D22
⎡ ⎤
−15 e1 (k) − e1 (k − 1)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 ⎢ e1 (k) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
Step ⎢ e1 (k) − 2e1 (k) + e1 (k − 2) ⎥
(d) ×⎢⎢ ⎥
e2 (k) − e2 (k − 1) ⎥
Fig. 3. Simulation results of Example 2. (a) Tracking performance y1 (k).
⎢ ⎥
⎣ e2 (k) ⎦
(b) Tracking performance y2 (k). (c) Control input u 1 (k). (d) Control input
u 2 (k). e2 (k) − 2e2 (k) + e2 (k − 2)

 where e1 (k) and e2 (k) are tracking errors of tanks 1 and 2,

Q 32 (t) = αz 3 Sn sgn(h 3 (t) − h 2 (t)) 2g |h 3 (t) − h 2 (t)|

Q 20 (t) = αz 2 Sn sgn(h 2 (t)) 2g |h 2 (t)|
where α1 , α2 , α3 : outflow coefficients (dimensionless, real
values ranging from 0 to 1), g: earth acceleration (m/s2 ),
sgn(z): sign of the argument z.
respectively. K Pi j , K I i j , and K I i j are the PID parameters to
be determined.
The main issue associated with PID control is to find
appropriate values of the PID parameters. In [45], a hybrid
strategy by combining genetic algorithms [46] and the big-
bang big crunch [47] algorithm is used to find optimal PID
HOU AND JIN: DATA-DRIVEN MFAC FOR A CLASS OF MIMO NONLINEAR DISCRETE-TIME SYSTEMS 2181

0.4
h1*(k) The comparison results of PID and PFDL-MFAC scheme
0.35 h1(k) with MFAC
h1(k) with PID are shown in Fig. 5, where Fig. 5(a) shows the liquid level of
Liquid level of T1 (m)
0.3 tank 1, Fig. 5(b) shows the liquid level of tank 2, Fig. 5(c)
0.25 shows the flow rate of pump 1, Fig. 5(d) shows the flow
0.2 rate of pump 2. From the comparison results, we can see
0.15 0.302 that, these two control methods can accomplish the control
0.1 0.3 task successfully. However, we would like to point out that:
0.298 1) the PID controller cannot compensate the interactions as
0.05 0.296
600 800 1000 successfully as PFDL-MFAC scheme at the time instants when
0
0 500 1000 1500 one of the reference inputs is changed abruptly; 2) the PID
Time (s) parameter tuning procedure is time-consuming comparing with
(a) MFAC, since so many experiments are needed to find the best
0.45
h2*(k) PID parameters; and 3) the PID tuning is carried out in an
0.4 h2(k) with MFAC
h2(k) with PID off-line manner and needed the I/O data collection procedure,
0.35
Liquid level of T2 (m)

whereas MFAC is the on-line adaptive control approach.

0.3
0.25
V. C ONCLUSION
0.2
0.15 0.41 Based on a novel DLT, the data-driven CFDL-MFAC, and
0.1 0.4 PFDL-MFAC for a class of MIMO nonlinear discrete-time
0.05 0.39 system are presented. It is shown that the MFAC method is
0
400 600 a new adaptive control method, comparing with traditional
0 500 1000 1500 adaptive control in the aspects of assumptions, designing and
Time (s)
analysis. The main features are as follows. First, the on-line
(b)
× 10−4 I/O data is directly used throughout the entire process of
1.2
MFAC controller design and stability analysis without plant model.
PID
Second, the PFDL-MFAC controller has L p2 parameters
Control input Q1(k) (m3/s)

1
needed to be adjusted on-line. For the case of L = 1, the
0.8
number of controller parameters needed to be adjusted on-
0.6 line is p2 , and the PFDL-MFAC scheme becomes CFDL-
MFAC scheme. Third, it can be designed much easier than
0.4
that of the traditional adaptive control system. Fourth, the
0.2 BIBO stability and error convergence of the MFAC schemes
are guaranteed by theoretical analysis. This is a highlighted
0
0 500 1000 1500 feature comparing with other data-drive control approaches.
Time (s) Finally, the effectiveness of the MFAC schemes was illustrated
(c) via numerical simulations.
× 10−4
1.2
MFAC
Our future task will be on the stability of the MFAC for
PID stochastic discrete-time systems, the stability of MFAC for
Control input Q2(k) (m3/s)

1
the tracking control problem, and applications.
0.8
A PPENDIX A
0.6
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 1
0.4 Proof: From (1) we have
0.2
y(k + 1) = f(y(k), . . . , y(k − n y ), u(k), . . . , u(k − n u ))
0
0 500 1000 1500
−f(y(k), . . . , y(k − n y ), u(k − 1), u(k − 1),
Time (s)
. . . , u(k − n u )) + f(y(k), . . . , y(k − n y ),
(d)
Fig. 5. Simulation results of three tank water system. (a) Liquid level of T1 .
u(k − 1), u(k − 1), . . . , u(k − n u ))
(b) Liquid level of T2 . (c) Control input Q 1 (k). (d) Control input Q 2 (k). −f(y(k − 1), . . . , y(k − n y − 1), u(k − 1),
. . . , u(k − n u − 1)). (A1)
parameters. After many trials, the best PID parameters are
obtained as follows: Let
(k) = f(y(k), . . . , y(k − n y ), u(k − 1), u(k − 1),
. . . , u(k − n u )) − f(y(k − 1), . . . , y(k − n y − 1), u(k − 1),
K P11 = 0.00512; K I 11 = 0.00063; K D11 = 0.00721;
. . . , u(k − n u − 1)), and by virtue of Assumption 1 and the
K P12 = 0.00131; K I 12 = 0.00005; K D12 = 0.00130; differential mean value theorem, (A1) can be rewritten as
K P21 = 0.00267; K I 21 = 0.00027; K D21 = 0.00242; ∂f ∗
K P22 = 0.00985; K I 22 = 0.00101; K D22 = 0 : 00642. y(k + 1) = u(k) +
(k) (A2)
∂u(k)
2182 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL NETWORKS, VOL. 22, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2011

where Form (B2) we have

⎡ ∂f ∗ ∂ f 1∗ ∂ f1∗ ⎤
1
···
∂f ∗
⎢ ∂u 1 (k) ∂u 2 (k) ∂u p (k) ⎥ y(k + 1) = u(k) +
1 (y(k), . . . , y(k − n y − 1)
⎢ ⎥ ∂u(k)
⎢ ∂ f 2∗ ∂ f2∗ ∂ f2∗ ⎥ u(k − 1), u(k − 2) . . . , u(k − n u − 1))
⎢ ··· ⎥
⎢ ∂u p (k) ⎥
(∂f ∗ )/(∂u(k)) = ⎢ ∂u 1 (k) ∂u 2 (t) ⎥. −
1 (y(k), . . . , y(k − n y − 1),
⎢ .. .. .. .. ⎥
⎢ ⎥ u(k − 2), u(k − 2), . . . , u(k − n u − 1))
⎢ . . . . ⎥
⎣ ∂ fp ∗ ∂ fp ∗ ∂ f p∗ ⎦
···
+
1 (y(k), . . . , y(k − n y − 1),
∂u 1 (k) ∂u 2 (k) ∂u p (k) u(k − 2), u(k − 2), . . . , u(k − n u − 1))
(∂ f i∗ )/(∂u j (k)) represents the partial derivative value of f i ∂f ∗ ∂
1∗
= u(k) + u(k − 1)
with respect to input u j at some point in the interval ∂u(k) ∂u(k − 1)
[u j (k), u j (k − 1)]. +
2 (y(k), . . . , y(k − n y − 1),
For each fixed k, we consider the following equation u(k − 2), . . . , u(k − n u − 1)) (B3)
with the numerical matrix H(k) with p rows and p
columns: where
⎡ ∗ ∗ ⎤

(k) = H(k)u(k). (A3) ∂
11 ∂
11
...
⎢ ∂u 1 (k − 1) ∂u p (k − 1) ⎥
Since condition u(k) = 0 holds, (A3) must have at least ⎢ ⎥
∗ ⎢ .. .. .. ⎥
one solution H∗ (k). In fact, it must have infinite number of (∂
1 )/(∂u(k − 1)) = ⎢ . . . ⎥.
⎢ ∗ ∗ ⎥
solutions for each k. ⎣ ∂
1 p ∂
1 p ⎦
...
Let (k) = H∗ (k)+(∂f ∗ /∂u(k)), then we have y(k+1) = ∂u 1 (k − 1) ∂u p (k − 1)
(k)u(k). Result (k) ≤ b is the direct conclusion of ∗ )/(∂u (k − 1))
(∂
1i j represents the  partial derivative value
 of
Assumption 2.

1i at some point in the interval u j (k − 1), u j (k − 2) , and

2 (y(k), . . . , y(k − n y − 1), u(k − 2), . . . , u(k − n u − 1)) =
A PPENDIX B
1 (y(k), . . . , y(k − n y − 1), u(k − 2), u(k − 2), . . . , u(k − n u −
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 2 1)). Equation (B3) also comes from the use of the differential
Proof: From (1) we have mean value theorem and Assumption 3.
Similarly, from (B3) we have
y(k + 1) = f(y(k), . . . , y(k − n y ), u(k), . . . , u(k − n u ))
 ∗ 
−f(y(k), . . . , y(k − n y ), u(k − 1), u(k − 1), ∂f ∗ ∂
1∗ ∂
L−1
y(k + 1) = , ,..., Ū(k)
. . . , u(k − n u )) + f(y(k), . . . , y(k − n y ), ∂u(k) ∂u(k −1) ∂u(k − L +1)
+
L (y(k), . . . , y(k − n y − 1),
u(k − 1), u(k − 1), . . . , u(k − n u ))
u(k − L), . . . , u(k − n u − 1)). (B4)
−f(y(k − 1), . . . , y(k − n y − 1), u(k − 1),
. . . , u(k − n u − 1)). (B1) For each fixed k, we consider the following equation with
variables matrix H(k) with dimension p × pL:
Let
1 (y(k), . . . , y(k−n y −1), u(k −1), . . . , u(k−n u−1)) =
f(y(k), . . . , y(k − n y ), u(k − 1), u(k − 1), . . . , u(k − n u )) −
L (y(k), . . . , y(k − n y − 1), u(k − L), . . . , u(k − n u − 1))
f(y(k − 1), . . . , y(k − n y − 1), u(k − 1), . . . , u(k − n u − 1)). = H(k)Ū(k). (B5)
Using differential mean value theorem and Assumption 3,
(B1) becomes Equation (B5) must have at least a solution H∗ (k) since
condition Ū(k) = 0 holds. In fact, it must have infinite
∂f ∗
y(k + 1) = u(k) +
1 (y(k), . . . , y(k − n y − 1), solutions.
∂u(k) Let
u(k − 1), . . . , u(k − n u − 1)) (B2)  ∗ 
∂f ∗ ∂
1∗ ∂
L−1
where ¯ ∗
(k) = H (k) + , ,...,
∂u(k) ∂u(k − 1) ∂u(k − L + 1)
⎡ ∂f ∗ ∂ f 1∗ ∂ f1∗ ⎤
1
··· then we have
⎢ ∂u 1 (k) ∂u 2 (k) ∂u p (k) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ∂ f 2∗ ∂ f2∗ ∂ f2∗ ⎥ ¯
y(k + 1) = (k) Ū(k). (B6)
⎢ ··· ⎥
⎢ ∂u p (k) ⎥
(∂f ∗ )/(∂u(k)) = ⎢ ∂u 1 (k) ∂u 2 (t) ⎥. ¯
Result (k)≤b is the direct conclusion of the Assump-
⎢ .. .. .. .. ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ . . . . ⎥ tion 4.
⎣ ∂ fp ∗ ∂ fp ∗ ∂ f p∗ ⎦
···
∂u 1 (k) ∂u 2 (k) ∂u p (k) A PPENDIX C
(∂ f i∗ /∂u j (k))
represents the partial derivative value of f i at P ROOF OF T HEOREM 3
some point in the interval [u j (k), u j (k − 1)], and u(k) = Proof: This proof includes two steps. The first step is to
u(k) − u(k − 1). prove the boundedness of PPD estimated value. The second
HOU AND JIN: DATA-DRIVEN MFAC FOR A CLASS OF MIMO NONLINEAR DISCRETE-TIME SYSTEMS 2183

step is to prove the convergence and the BIBO stability of ˆ

This means that φ̂i (k) and (k) are bounded, since φ̃i (k)
MFAC system. ⎡ ⎤ is bounded from (C7) and (k) ≤ b from Theorem 1.
φ̂1 (k) Second Step: Let
⎢ φ̂2 (k) ⎥
ˆ
First Step: Let (k) = ⎢ ⎥
⎣ .. ⎦, φ̂i (k) = [φ̂i1 (k), e(k) = y∗ − y(k). (C8)
.
φ̂ p (k) Substituting (2) and (10) into (C8)
φ̂i2 (k), . . . , φ̂ip (k)], i = 1, 2, . . . , p. e(k + 1) = e(k) − (k)u(k)
Equation (8) may be rewritten as  
ρ(k) ˆ T (k)
φ̂i (k) = φ̂i (k − 1) = I− e(k). (C9)
ˆ
λ + (k) 2
η(yi (k) − φ̂i (k − 1)u(k − 1))uT (k − 1) From Lemma 1 we have
+ ⎧  ⎛ ⎞
μ + u(k − 1)2 ⎪  p 
(C1) ⎪
⎪ ρ φ j i (k)φ̂ j i (k) ⎟
⎨  ⎜
 ⎜ i=1 ⎟
where yi (k) = φi (k − 1)u(k − 1), i = 1, 2, . . . , p. D j z z − ⎜1 −  2 ⎟
⎪
⎪   ⎝ ˆ  ⎠
Subtracting φi (k) from both sides of (C1), and let φ̃i (k) = ⎩ 
⎪ λ + (k)  

φ̂i (k) − φi (k), we have  p ⎫
 ⎪
φ̃i (k) = φ̃i (k − 1) + φi (k − 1) − φi (k) ρ  φ j i (k)φ̂hi (k) ⎪ ⎪
⎬
!p
i=1
ηφ̃i (k − 1)u(k − 1)uT (k − 1) ≤  2 (C10)
− . (C2) ˆ  ⎪
⎪
μ + u(k − 1)2 h=1,h = j λ + (k)  ⎪
⎭
Since (k) ≤ b (Theorem 1), we have φi (k − 1) −
where z is the eigenvalue of matrix [I −
φi (k) ≤ 2b. Taking norm on the both sides of (C2) yields ˆ T (k))/(λ + (k)
ˆ
(ρ(k) 2 )], and D , j = 1, 2, . . . , p, is
j
φ̃i (k)≤ φi (k − 1) − φi (k) 
the Gerschgorin disk.
 ηφ̃i (k − 1)u(k − 1)uT (k − 1)  Using triangle inequality, (C10) becomes
  ⎧   
+ φ̃i (k − 1) −  ⎪   p 
 μ + u(k − 1)2  ⎪
⎪   ρ φ j i (k)φ̂ j i (k) 
  ⎨  
   
ηφ̃i (k − 1)u(k − 1)uT (k − 1) 
i=1
  D j z |z| ≤ 1 −  2 
≤ φ̃i (k − 1) −  ⎪
⎪    ˆ   
 μ + u(k − 1)2  ⎪
⎩   λ + (k) 
 
+ 2b. (C3)  p ⎫
 ⎪
ρ  φ j i (k)φ̂hi (k) ⎪
 ⎪
⎬
Squaring the first item of right side of (C3) we have !p
i=1
 2 +  2 . (C11)
 ˆ  ⎪
 ηφ̃i (k − 1)u(k − 1)uT (k − 1) 
 h=1,h = j λ + (k) ⎪
⎪
⎭
φ̃i (k − 1) − 
 μ + u(k − 1)2 
  From Assumption 5 and reset algorithm (9), we have
ηu(k − 1)2
= −2 + p   
  
μ + u(k − 1)2 ρ φ j i (k) φ̂ j i (k)  
ρ φ j j (k) φ̂ j j (k)
i=1
ηφ̃i (k − 1)u(k − 1)2 1−   ≤ 1−  
× + φ̃i (k − 1)2 . (C4)  ˆ 2  ˆ 2
μ + u(k − 1)2 λ + (k)  λ + (k) 
There exists 0 < η < 2, μ > 0 such that ρb22
  ≤ 1−   (C12)
ηu(k − 1)2  ˆ 2
−2 + < 0. (C5) λ + (k) 
μ + u(k − 1)2
and
 p 
Equations (C4) and (C5) imply that there exists 0 < d1 < 1
p   p p   
such that  φ j i (k)φ̂hi (k) φ j i (k) φ̂hi (k)
   
h=1,h = j i=1 h=1,h = j i=1
 ηφ̃i (k − 1)u(k − 1)uT (k − 1)  ρ  2 ≤ρ  
  ˆ   ˆ 2
φ̃i (k − 1) −  λ + (k)  λ + (k) 
 μ + u(k − 1)2 
     
  p
φ j j (k) φ̂h j (k)
≤ d1 φ̃i (k − 1) . (C6)
h=1,h = j
Note that, we only need the existence of constant d1 instead =ρ  
 ˆ 2
of its exact value. λ + (k)
Substituting (C6) into (C3) yields
p
p   
φ j i (k) φ̂hi (k)
φ̃i (k) ≤ d1 φ̃i (k − 1) + 2b h=1,h = j i=1,i = j
+ρ  
2b(1 − d1k−1 )  ˆ 2
≤ · · · ≤ d1k−1 φ̃i (1) + . (C7) λ + (k)
1 − d1
2184 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL NETWORKS, VOL. 22, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2011

p   
α 2 b22 ( p − 1) α 2 b22 ( p − 1)
φ j j (k) φ̂h j (k) ≤  2 <   < 1. (C16)
h=1,h = j ˆ   ˆ 2
=ρ   λ + (k)  λmin + (k) 
 ˆ 2
λ + (k) 
Selecting 0 < ρ < 1 and λ > λmin such that

p     
φ j h (k) φ̂hh (k)  p  p   
 ρ φ (k) φ̂ (k)  ρ φ j i (k) φ̂ j i (k)
+ρ
h=1,h = j  j i j i 
   i=1  i=1
 ˆ 2 1 −  2  = 1−   . (C17)
λ + (k)   ˆ    ˆ 2
 λ + (k)  λ + (k)

p
p     
φ j i (k) φ̂hi (k)
h=1,h = j i=1,i = j,h Obviously, the following inequality holds:
+ρ  
 ˆ 2
λ + (k)  2αb12 ( p − 1)2
0 < M1 ≤   usi ng (C14)
2αb1 b2 ( p − 1) + b12 ( p − 1)( p − 2)  ˆ 2
λ + (k) 
≤ρ   < 1. (C13)
 ˆ 2
λ + (k) b22
<  
 ˆ 2
From Assumption 5, we have λ + (k) 
α 2 b22 + b12 ( p − 1)
b2 > b1 (2α + 1)( p − 1). (C14) ≤   usi ng (C16)
 ˆ 2
λ + (k) 
Adding (C12) and (C13) yields
α 2 b22 + b12 ( p − 1)
 p  <   < 1. (C18)
p 
     ˆ 2
ρ φ j i (k) φ̂ j i (k) ρ  φ j i (k)φ̂hi (k) λmin + (k) 
i=1
!
p
i=1
1−   +  
 ˆ 2  ˆ 2 From (C15), (C17), and (C18), we have
λ + (k) h=1,h = j λ + (k)     p 
 p   
b22 − 2αb1 b2 ( p − 1) − b12 ( p − 1)( p − 2)  ρ 
φ j i (k)φ̂ j i (k)  ρ  φ j i (k)φ̂hi (k)

≤1−ρ  !p
   i=1  i=1
 ˆ 2 1 −  2  +  
λ + (k)   ˆ    ˆ 2
 λ + (k)  h=1,h= j λ + (k) 
 
b2 (b2 − 2αb1 ( p − 1)) − b12 ( p − 1)( p − 2)
= 1−ρ   < 1 − ρ M1 < 1. (C19)
 ˆ 2
λ + (k) 
From (C11) and (C19) we have
usi ng (C14)
% &
b2 b1 ( p − 1) − b1 ( p − 1)( p − 2)
2
ρ(k) ˆ T (k)
< 1−ρ   s I− ≤ 1 − ρ M1 < 1 (C20)
 ˆ 2 ˆ
λ + (k) 2
λ + (k) 
b2 b1 ( p − 1) − b12 ( p − 1)( p − 1) where s(A) is the spectral radius of matrix A.
< 1−ρ   There exists ε > 0 such that
 ˆ 2
λ + (k)   
 ρ(k) ˆ T (k) 
b1 ( p − 1)(b2 − b1 ( p − 1))  
I −  < 1 − ρ M1 + ε = d2 < 1. (C21)
= 1−ρ    λ + (k) v
ˆ 2
 ˆ 2
λ + (k) 
Taking norm on the both sides of (C9)
agai n usi ng (C14)  
2αb12 ( p − 1)2  ρ(k) ˆ T (k) 
 
< 1−ρ   . (C15) e(k + 1)v ≤  I −  e(k)v
 ˆ 2  λ + (k) 
ˆ 2
λ + (k) v
≤ d2 e(k)v · · · ≤ d2k e(1)v . (C22)
From Assumption 5 and reset algorithm (9), we have
φ j i (k)φ̂ j i (k) > 0, i = 1, . . . , p, j = 1, . . . , p. Thus, there Thus, the conclusion 1) of Theorem 2 is the direct result of
exist λmin > 0 such that the following equation holds when (C22).
λ > λmin : Since y∗ is a constant and e(k) is bounded, y(k) is also
bounded.

p p 
  
 Form the boundedness of (k)ˆ we have
φ j i (k)φ̂ j i (k)  φ j i (k) φ̂ j i (k)  
i=1
=
i=1  
     ρ ˆ T (k) 
 ˆ 2  ˆ 2  
λ + (k) λ + (k)      ≤ M2 . (C23)
  ˆ 2 
 λ + (k) 
v
HOU AND JIN: DATA-DRIVEN MFAC FOR A CLASS OF MIMO NONLINEAR DISCRETE-TIME SYSTEMS 2185

Using (10), (C22) and (C23) yields ¯

Since (k) ˆ¯
and (k) are bounded, there exists λmin > 0,
!
k such that the following equations hold when λ > λmin :
u(k)v ≤ u(0)v + u(i )v 2αb12 ( p − 1)2
i=1 0 < M1 ≤  2
  ˆ 

k 
 λ +  (k) 
ˆ T (i ) 
1
!
 ρ 
≤ u(0)v +     e(i )v α 2 b22 + b12 ( p − 1)
  ˆ 2  <   <1 (D5)
i=1  λ + (i ) 
v  ˆ 2
λmin + (k) 
!
k
≤ u(0)v + M2 d2i−1 e(1)v s(A1 (k)) ≤ 1 (D6)
i=1 C1 (k)v ≤ M3 < 1 (D7)
M2 C2 (k)v ≤ M4 (D8)
≤ u(0)v + e(1)v . (C24)
1 − d2 M1 + M3 M4 < 1. (D9)
Thus, the conclusion 2) of Theorem 2 is obtained.
Remark 19: In the case of p = 1 or b1 = 0, from Note that, (D5), (D6) can be derived by the similar procedure
Assumption 5, reset algorithm (9), and (C10), we have as (C10)–(C20).
ρb22 Taking the similar procedure as (C10)–(C20) yields
|z| ≤ 1 −   <1 (25)
 ˆ 2 s (A2 (k)) ≤ 1 − ρ1 M1 < 1. (D10)
λ + (k)
The characteristic equation of A1 (k) is
where z is the eigenvalue of matrix [I − ⎛ ⎞
(ρ(k) ˆ
ˆ T (k))/(λ + (k) 2 )], λ > λ
min and 0 < ρ < 1.
⎜ !L ˆ (k)
ρi  T ˆ i (k) ⎟
Using (25), the conclusion of Theorem 2 is obtained. z p det ⎝z L−1 I + z L−i 1
 2 ⎠ = 0. (D11)
ˆ 
A PPENDIX D i=2 λ +  1 (k) 
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 4 L
Note that, det(z L−1 I + ˆ i (k))/
i ˆ 1 (k)
L−i (ρ  T
i=2 z
Proof: The proof of boundedness of the PPD matrix is ˆ 1 (k) )) is a (L − 1) p-order monic polynomial,
(λ +  2
similar to that of Theorem 3 in Appendix C.
ˆ¯ which can be rewritten as z (L−1) p + ( max ρi )/
Based on the estimated value of (k), now we prove the i=2,...,L
convergence and BIBO property. (λ + ˆ 1 (k)2 )χ(z), where χ(z) is a (L − 1) p − 1-order
Let polynomial.
¯
Since (k) ˆ¯
and (k) are bounded, and s(A1 (k)) ≤ 1, the
e(k) = y∗ − y(k),
⎡ ⎤ following inequality holds:
ρ2 ˆ T (k)ˆ 2 (k) ˆ T (k)
ρL  ˆ L (k)
1 1
⎢−  2 · · · −  2 0 ⎥ |χ(z)|
⎢ ˆ  ˆ  ⎥  2 ≤ M2 . (D12)
⎢
A1 (k) = ⎢ λ +   1 (k)  λ +   1 (k)  ⎥, ˆ 
⎥ λ +  (k) 
⎣ ⎦ 1

I 0 Selecting max ρi such that

 T  i=2,...,L
ˆ
1 (k) 0
0 0  T |z|(L−1) p ≤ max ρi M2 < 1. (D13)
C1 (k) =  2 , E(k) = eT (k) 0 . (D1) i=2,...,L
ˆ 
λ + 1 (k) From (D13) we have
Equation (15) is rewritten as ) * 1
(L−1) p
s (A1 (k)) ≤ max ρi M2 < 1. (D14)
Ū(k) = A1 (k)Ū(k − 1) + ρ1 C1 (k)E(k). (D2) i=2,...,L

Substituting (3) and (D2) into (D1) gives For a given matrix A, there exists an arbitrary small positive
⎛ ⎞ constant ε such that the following inequality holds:
⎜ ˆ (k) ⎟
ρ1 1 (k) T
e(k + 1) = ⎝ I − 
1
2 ⎠ e(k) Av < s(A) + ε (D15)
ˆ 
λ + 1 (k)
where s(A) is the spectral radius of A, and Av is the
¯
−(k)A 1 (k)Ū(k − 1). (D3) consistent matrix norm of A.
⎡ ⎤
ˆ
ρ1 1 (k)1 (k)
T From (D15), (D10), and (D14) we have
 2 0 ⎥ ' (
⎢ I− ¯
Let A2 (k) = ⎣ ˆ  ⎦, C2 (k) = (k) . A1 (k)v < s(A1 (k)) + ε
λ + 1 (k) 0 1
0 0 ≤ { max ρi M2 } (L−1) p + ε < 1 (D16)
Equation (D3) is rewritten as i=2,...,L

E(k + 1) = E(k) − C2 (k)Ū(k) (D4) and

= A2 (k)E(k) − C2 (k)A1 (k)Ū(k − 1). A2 (k)v < s(A2 (k)) + ε ≤ 1 − ρ1 M1 + ε < 1. (D17)
2186 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL NETWORKS, VOL. 22, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2011

Let Using (D9), we have d2 = 1 − ρ1 M1 + ε > ρ1 (M1 +

) * 1 M3 M4 ) − ρ1 M4 + ε = ρ1 M3 M4 + ε > d3 . Thus h(k) can be
(L−1) p
d1 = max ρi M2 +ε (D18) rewritten as
i=2,...,L
d2 = 1 − ρ1 M1 + ε. (D19) h(k) < d3 d1k E(1)v + d3 d1k−1 E(2)v
+ · · · + d3 d12 E(k − 1)v + d2 d1 g(k + 1)
Taking norm on the both sides of (D2) and using
Ū(0)v = 0, yields < d3 d1k E(1)v + d3 d1k−1 E(2)v

   
Ū(k) ≤  A1 (k)v Ū(k − 1) + · · · + d3 d12 E(k − 1)v + d2 d1 d2k−1 E(1)v
v v
ρ1 C1 (k)v E(k)v 
  !
k−2 !
j
< d1 Ū(k − 1) + ρ1 M3 E(k)v v +d1 d3
k−2− j
d2 d1
j −i
E(i )v
!
k j =1 i=1
< · · · < ρ1 M3 d1k−i E(i )v . (D20) 
i=1 < d1 d2k E(1)v
Taking norm on both sides of (D4) yields
!
k−1 !
j 
k−1− j j −i
E(k + 1)v ≤  A2 (k)v E(k)v +d1 d3 d2 d1 E(i )v
  j =1
+ C2 (k)v A1 (k)v Ū(k − 1)v
i=1
  = d1 g(k + 1). (D25)
< d2 E(k)v + d1 M4 Ū(k − 1) v
Substituting (D25) into (D24) yields
!
k−1
 
d1 Ū( j )v .
k−1− j
< · · · < d2k E(1)v + M4 d2
g(k+2) = d2 g(k+1)+h(k) < d2 g(k+1)+d1 g(k+1). (D26)
j =1
(D21) Selecting 0 < ρ1 < 1, . . . , 0 < ρ L < 1 such that
1

Let d3 = ρ1 M3 M4 and substituting (D20) into (D21) gives { max ρi M2 } (L−1) p < ρ1 M1 < 1 and
i=2,...,L

!
k−1
  ) * 1
d1 Ū( j )v
k−1− j (L−1) p
E(k + 1)v < d2k E(1)v + M4 d2 0 < 1 − ρ1 M1 + max ρi M2 < 1. (D27)
j =1 i=2,...,L

< d2k E(1)v Since ε is an arbitrary small positive constant, following

!
k−1 !
j inequality holds:
k−1− j j −i
+M4 d2 d1 ρ1 M3 d1 E(i )v ) * 1
(L−1) p
j =1 i=1 d2 + d1 = 1 − ρ1 M4 + ε + max ρh M1 + ε < 1.
h=2,...,L
!
k−1
k−1− j
!
j
j −i (D28)
= d2k E(1)v + d1 d3 d2 d1 E(i )v
Substituting (D28) into (D26) gives
j =1 i=1
= g(k + 1) (D22) lim g(k + 1) < lim (d2 + d1 )g(k)
k→∞ k→∞
where < lim (d2 + d1 )2 g(k − 1)
k→∞
!
k−1 !
j
g(k + 1) = d2k E(1)v + d1 d3
k−1− j
d2 d1
j −i
E(i )v . < · · · < lim (d2 + d1 )k−1 g(2) = 0. (D29)
k→∞
j =1 i=1
(D23) This implies that lim |e(k + 1)| = 0.
k→∞
Obviously, if g(k + 1) converges to zero, then E(k + 1)v From (D20), (D22), and (D28) we have
also converges to zero. Computing g(k + 2) yields
  !
k
  !
k !
i
!
k !
j Ū(k) ≤ Ū(i ) ≤ ρ1 M3 i− j
d1 E( j )v
k− j j −i v v
g(k + 2) = d2k+1 E(1)v + d1 d3 d2 d1 E(i )v i=1 i=1 j =1
j =1 i=1 ρ1 M3
< (E(1)v + · · · + E(k)v )
= d2 g(k + 1) + d3 d1k E(1)v + d3 d1k−1 E(2)v 1 − d1
+ · · · + d3 d12 E(k − 1)v + d3 d1 E(k)v . ρ1 M3
< (E(1)v + g(2) + · · · + g(k))
1 − d1  
< d2 g(k + 1) + d3 d1k E(1)v + d3 d1k−1 E(2)v
ρ1 M3 g(2)
+ · · · + d3 d12 E(k − 1)v + d3 d1 g(k + 1) < |E(1)| + . (D30)
1 − d1 1 − d1 − d2
= d2 g(k + 1) + h(k) (D24)
Thus the conclusion 2) of Theorem 4 is obtained.
where h(k) = d3 d1k E(1)v + d3 d1k−1 E(2)v + · · · + Remark 20: Similar discussion like Remark 19 could be
d3 d12 E(k − 1)v + d3 d1 g(k + 1). listed here.
HOU AND JIN: DATA-DRIVEN MFAC FOR A CLASS OF MIMO NONLINEAR DISCRETE-TIME SYSTEMS
R EFERENCES
[1] B. D. O. Anderson, R. R. Bitmead, C. R. Johnson, Jr., P. Y. Kokotovic,
R. L. Kosut, I. M. V. Mareels, L. Praly, and B. D. Riedle, Stability of
Adaptive Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986.
[2] K. J. Astrom and B. Wittenmark, Adaptive Control. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley, 1989.
[3] K. S. Narendra and A. M. Annaswamy, Stable Adaptive Systems.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1988.
[4] S. Sastry and M. Bodson, Adaptive Control: Stability, Convergence, and
Robustness. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1994.
[5] B. D. O. Anderson and A. Dehghani, “Challenges of adaptive control:
Past, permanent and future,” Annu. Rev. Control, vol. 32, no. 2, pp.
123–135, Dec. 2008.
[6] Y. Q. Chen and C. Y. Wen, Iterative Learning Control-Convergence,
Robustness and Applications (Lecture Notes in Control and Information
Sciences), vol. 248. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2003.
[7] H. S. Ahn, Y. Q. Chen, and K. L. Moore, “Iterative learning control:
Brief survey and categorization,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. Part
C: Appl. Rev., vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1099–1121, Nov. 2007.
[8] J. X. Xu and Y. Tan, Linear and Nonlinear Iterative Learning Control.
Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2003.
[9] M. G. Safonov and T. C. Tsao, “The unfalsified control concept: A
direct path from experiment to controller,” Feedback Control, Nonlin.
Syst. Complex., Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1995, pp. 196–214.
[10] M. G. Safonov and T. C. Tsao, “The unfalsified control concept and
learning,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 843–847,
Jun. 1997.
[11] J. V. Helvoort and B. D. Jager, “Direct data-driven recursive controller
unfalsification with analytic update,” Automatica, vol. 43, no. 12, pp.
2034–2046, 2007.
[12] A. Dehghani, B. D. O. Anderson, and A. Lanzon, “Unfalsified adaptive
control: A new controller implementation and some remarks,” in Proc.
Eur. Control Conf., 2007, pp. 709–716.
[13] C. Manuelli, S. G. Cheong, E. Mosca, and M. G. Safonov, “Stability
of unfalsified adaptive control with non-scli controllers and related
performance under different prior knowledge,” in Proc. Eur. Control
Conf., 2007, pp. 702–708.
[14] J. V. Helvoort, B. D. Jager, and M. Steinbuch, “Data-driven multivariable
controller design using ellipsoidal unfalsified control,” Syst. Control
Lett., vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 759–762, 2008.
[15] S. M. Savaresi and G. O. Guardabassi, “Approximate I/O feedback
linearization of discrete-time non-linear systems via virtual input direct
design,” Automatica, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 715–722, 1998.
[16] M. C. Campi, A. Lecchini, and S. M. Savaresi, “Virtual reference
feedback tuning (VRFT): A new direct approach to the design of
feedback controllers,” in Proc. 39th IEEE Conf. Decis. Control, Sydney,
Australia, Dec. 2000, pp. 623–629.
[17] M. C. Campi, A. Lecchini, and S. M. Savaresi, “Virtual reference
feedback tuning: A direct method for the design of feedback controllers,”
Automatica, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1337–1346, 2002.
[18] M. C. Campi and S. M. Savaresi, “Direct nonlinear control design:
The virtual reference feedback tuning (VRFT) approach,” IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 14–27, Jan. 2006.
[19] H. Hjalmarsson, “From experiment design to closed-loop control,”
Automatica, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 393–438, 2005.
[20] H. Hjalmarsson, S. Gunnarsson, and M. Gevers, “Model-free tuning of
a robust regulator for a flexible transmission system,” Eur. J. Control,
vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 148–156, 1995.
[21] H. Hjalmarsson, M. Gevers, and S. Gunnarsson, “Iterative feedback
tuning: Theory and applications,” IEEE Control Syst. Mag., vol. 18,
no. 4, pp. 26–41, Aug. 1998.
[22] H. Hjalmarsson, “Iterative feedback tuning: An overview,” Int. J. Adapt.
Control Signal Process, vol. l6, no. 5, pp. 373–395, 2002.
[23] J. Sj´’oberg, F. D. Bruyne, M. Agarwal, B. D. O. Anderson, M. Gevers,
F. Kraus, and N. Linard, “Iterative controller optimization for nonlinear
systems,” Control Eng. Pract., vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 1079–1086, 2003.
[24] Z. S. Hou, “The parameter identification, adaptive control and model
free learning adaptive control for nonlinear systems,” Ph.D. thesis,
Northeastern Univ., Shenyang, China, 1994 (In Chinese).
[25] Z. S. Hou and W. H. Huang, “The model-free learning adaptive control
of a class of SISO nonlinear systems,” in Proc. Amer. Control Conf.,
Albuquerque, NM, 1997, pp. 343–344.
[26] Z. S. Hou, C. Han, and W. Huang, “The model-free learning adaptive
control of a class of MISO nonlinear discrete-time systems,” in Proc.
IFAC Low Cost Autom., Shenyang, China, 1998, pp. 227–232.
2187
[27] Z. S. Hou, The Nonparametric Model and Its Adaptive Control Theory.
Beijing, China: Science Press, 1999 (In Chinese).
[28] Z. S. Hou, “The model-free direct adaptive predictive control for a class
of discrete-time nonlinear system,” in Proc. 4th Asian Control Conf.,
Singapore, 2002, pp. 519–524.
[29] R. H. Chi and Z. S. Hou, “Dual-stage optimal iterative learning control
for nonlinear non-affine discrete-time systems,” ACTA Autom. Sinica,
vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 1061–1065, 2007.
[30] Z. S. Hou and S. T. Jin, “A novel data-driven control approach for a class
of discrete-time nonlinear systems,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.,
vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1549–1558, Nov. 2011.
[31] L. D. S. Coelho and A. A. R. Coelho, “Model-free adaptive control
optimization using a chaotic particle swarm approach,” Chaos, Solitons
Fractals, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 2001–2009, 2009.
[32] L. D. S. Coelho, W. P. Marcelo, R. S. Rodrigo, and A. A. R. Coelho,
“Model-free adaptive control design using evolutionary-neural compen-
sator,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 499–508, 2010.
[33] K. K. Tan, T. H. Lee, S. N. Huang, and F. M. Leu, “Adaptive-predictive
control of a class of SISO nonlinear systems,” Dyn. Control, vol. 11,
no. 2, pp. 151–174, 2001.
[34] B. Zhang and W. D. Zhang, “Adaptive predictive functional control of
a class of nonlinear systems,” ISA Trans., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 175–183,
2006.
[35] F. L. Lv, J. F. Wang, C. J. Fan, and S. B. Chen, “An improved model-free
adaptive control with G function fuzzy reasoning regulation design and
its applications,” in Proc. IMechE Part I: J. Syst. Control Eng., vol. 222,
pp. 817–828, Nov. 2008.
[36] J. Descusse and C. Moog, “Decoupling with dynamic compensation for
strong invertible affine nonlinear systems,” Int. J. Control, vol. 42, no. 6,
pp. 1387–1398, 1985.
[37] S. S. Ge and K. P. Tee, “Approximation-based control of nonlinear
MIMO time-delay systems,” Automatica, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 31–43, 2007.
[38] L. Miskovic, A. Karimi, D. Bonwin, and M. Gevers, “Correlation-based
tuning of decoupling multivariable controllers,” Automatica, vol. 43,
no. 9, pp. 1481–1494, 2007.
[39] C. Y. Wen, J. Zhou, and W. Wang, “Decentralized adaptive backstepping
stabilization of interconnected systems with dynamic input and output
interactions,” Automatica, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 55–67, 2009.
[40] G. C. Goodwin and K. S. Sin, Adaptive Filtering, Prediction and
Control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984.
[41] S. Haykin, Adaptive Filter Theory, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1996.
[42] S. Gerschgorin, Uber die Abgrenzung der Eigenwerte einer Matrix. Izv,
Akad. Nauk. USSR Otd. Fiz. Mat. Nauk, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 749–754,
1931.
[43] J. Zhang and S. S. Ge, “Output feedback control of a class of discrete
MIMO nonlinear systems with triangular form inputs,” IEEE Trans.
Neural Netw., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1491–1503, Nov. 2005.
[44] DTS200-Laboratory Setup Three-Tank System, : Amira GmbH, Duis-
burg, Germany, 2000.
[45] S. Iplikci, “A support vector machine based control application to the
experimental three-tank system,” ISA Trans., vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 376–386,
Jul. 2010.
[46] W. D. Chang, “A multi-crossover genetic approach to multivariable PID
controllers tuning,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 620–626, 2007.
[47] O. K. Erol and I. Eksin “A new optimization method: Big bang big
crunch,” Adv. Eng. Softw., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 106–111, 2006.
Zhongsheng Hou received the Bachelors and Mas-
ters degrees from the Jilin University of Technol-
ogy, Changchun, China, and the Ph.D. degree from
Northeastern University, Shenyang, China, in 1983,
1988, and 1994, respectively.
He was a Post-Doctoral Fellow with the Harbin
Institute of Technology, Harbin, China, from 1995 to
1997, and a Visiting Scholar with Yale University,
New Haven, CT, from 2002 to 2003. In 1997, he
joined Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China,
and is currently a Full Professor and the Founding
Director of the Advanced Control Systems Laboratory and the Head of the
Department of Automatic Control of the School of Electronic and Information
Engineering. He has over 80 peer reviewed journal papers published and
100 papers in prestigious conference proceedings. He is the author of two
monographs: Nonparametric Model and its Adaptive Control Theory (Science
2188 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL NETWORKS, VOL. 22, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2011
Press of China, 1999, in Chinese) and the forthcoming Model Free Adaptive
Control Theory and Applications (2012). His current research interests are
in data-driven control, model-free adaptive control, learning control, and
intelligent transportation systems.
Dr. Hou served as a Committee Member for over 40 international con-
ferences and Chinese conferences, and as an Associate Editor and a Guest
Editor for several international journals.
View publication stats
Shangtai Jin received the Bachelors, Masters, and
Ph.D. degrees from Beijing Jiaotong University, Bei-
jing, China, in 1999, 2004, and 2009, respectively.
He is currently a Lecturer with Beijing Jiaotong
University. His current research interests include
model-free adaptive control, data-driven control,
learning control, and intelligent transportation sys-
tems.