pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.05822 · v3 · submitted 2025-12-05 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Safe Output Regulation of Coupled Hyperbolic PDE-ODE Systems

Ji Wang , Miroslav Krstic This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 00:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY
keywords safe output regulationhyperbolic PDE-ODEnonovershooting backsteppingstate observerdisturbance estimatorprescribed time safetyUAV payload controlexponential convergence
0
0 comments X

The pith

A nonovershooting backstepping controller with observer and estimator achieves safe output regulation and exponential tracking for coupled 2x2 hyperbolic PDE-ODE systems with disturbances.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a control strategy for systems described by coupled hyperbolic partial differential equations and ordinary differential equations, which appear in applications such as UAVs carrying suspended payloads. The strategy uses a specialized backstepping design to keep the output within safety limits or bring it back within a set time, while also making the tracking error shrink exponentially to zero. It includes an observer to estimate unmeasurable states and a disturbance estimator, with proven bounds on their errors that allow the controller to remain robust. If successful, this would enable reliable safe operation in distributed systems where safety constraints must be strictly enforced without sacrificing performance.

Core claim

The central claim is that for a class of coupled 2×2 hyperbolic PDE-ODE systems with fully distributed disturbances, a state-feedback controller designed via the nonovershooting backstepping method, combined with a state observer and disturbance estimator, guarantees that the regulated output stays in or is rescued to the safe region in prescribed time, the output tracking error converges exponentially to zero, estimation errors converge exponentially, and all closed-loop signals remain bounded. This is illustrated in a UAV delivery scenario with a cable-suspended payload avoiding barriers.

What carries the argument

The nonovershooting backstepping method, which designs the controller to prevent overshoot in the regulated output while achieving regulation, integrated with explicit bounds from the observer and disturbance estimator to handle uncertainties.

If this is right

  • If the regulated output starts in the safe region, it stays there under the control.
  • Otherwise, the output enters the safe region within a prescribed finite time.
  • The output tracking error decays exponentially to zero.
  • Observer and disturbance estimation errors also decay exponentially to zero.
  • All signals in the closed loop stay bounded.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This design could be adapted to systems with different boundary conditions or additional nonlinearities.
  • Applications beyond UAVs, such as traffic flow or chemical processes modeled similarly, might benefit from the prescribed-time safety feature.
  • Experimental validation on physical systems would test the robustness to modeling errors not covered in the analysis.

Load-bearing premise

The system must fit the specific coupled 2x2 hyperbolic PDE-ODE structure with the regulated output being the state furthest from the actuator, allowing derivation of explicit estimation error bounds.

What would settle it

A simulation or experiment where the regulated output, starting outside the safe region, fails to enter it within the prescribed time or where the tracking error does not converge to zero would disprove the guarantees.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.05822 by Ji Wang, Miroslav Krstic.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: UAV delivery with cable-suspended payloads. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Payload displacement 𝑦1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Payload velocity 𝑦2 (a) 𝑤(𝑥, 𝑡) (b) 𝑧(𝑥, 𝑡) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PDE states with the output-feedback control. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Observer errors case, we set 𝑦1 (𝑡0) = −1 that is beyond the safe region, and the design parameters in the output-feedback control law are the same as the output-feedback control in the safe initialization except for 𝑘1, 𝑘2 that are chosen as 𝑘1 = 2.5, 𝑘2 = 4.5 now, and additionally choosing 𝑡𝑎 = 2, 𝜖 = 2 in (33) to enforce the out return to the safe region. The simulation results are presented below. We k… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Estimates of exogenous signals 𝑣𝑑, 𝑣𝑟 in (107), (108) (red lines are estimates and dashed black lines are true values) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Control forces at the top of the cable safe region, the designed control input effectively guides it back to safety within 1.4 seconds, which is less than the designated time 𝑡¯0+𝑡𝑎 = 2.058 in the control design. Another ODE state 𝑦2, i.e., the payload velocity, is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: PDE states with the output-feedback control. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper presents a safe output regulation control strategy for a class of systems modeled by a coupled $2\times 2$ hyperbolic PDE-ODE structure, subject to fully distributed disturbances throughout the system. A state-feedback controller is developed by the {{nonovershooting backstepping}} method to simultaneously achieve exponential output regulation and enforce safety constraints on the regulated output that is the state furthest from the control input. To handle unmeasurable states and external disturbances, a state observer and a disturbance estimator are designed. Explicit bounds on the estimation errors are derived and used to construct a robust safe regulator that accounts for the uncertainties. The proposed control scheme guarantees that: 1) If the regulated output is initially within the safe region, it remains there; otherwise, it will be rescued to the safety within a prescribed time; 2) The output tracking error converges to zero exponentially; 3) The observer accurately estimates both the distributed states and external disturbances, with estimation errors converging to zero exponentially; 4) All signals in the closed-loop system remain bounded. The effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated through a UAV delivery scenario with a cable-suspended payload, where the payload is regulated to track a desired reference while avoiding collisions with barriers.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a safe output regulation strategy for coupled 2×2 hyperbolic PDE-ODE systems subject to fully distributed disturbances. A nonovershooting backstepping state-feedback controller is designed to enforce safety constraints on the regulated output (the state furthest from actuation) while achieving exponential regulation to a reference. A state observer and disturbance estimator are introduced, with explicit bounds on their estimation errors used to construct a robust safe regulator. The central claims are that the regulated output either remains inside the safe set or is driven inside within prescribed time, the output tracking error converges exponentially to zero, observer and estimator errors converge exponentially to zero, and all closed-loop signals remain bounded. The approach is illustrated on a UAV cable-suspended payload delivery example.

Significance. If the derivations of the explicit error bounds and their integration into the nonovershooting barrier analysis are rigorous, the work would represent a meaningful extension of backstepping-based boundary control to safety-critical regulation problems in hyperbolic systems with uncertainties. The combination of prescribed-time rescue, exponential convergence, and robustness to distributed disturbances addresses a practically relevant gap, with the UAV application providing a concrete demonstration of potential utility in engineering systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Robust safe regulator construction and target-system barrier analysis] The skeptic concern is valid: the manuscript derives explicit bounds on observer and disturbance estimator errors but does not appear to quantify how these exponential envelopes (whose constants depend on disturbance norm and initial conditions) interact with the prescribed-time gain schedule to keep the safety margin strictly positive during the finite-time rescue phase. This analysis is load-bearing for claim 1 in the abstract.
  2. [Observer and disturbance estimator design] In the error-system analysis for the observer under fully distributed disturbances, the Lyapunov or kernel-based bounds must be shown to remain compatible with the nonovershooting property without requiring additional conservatism that could invalidate the prescribed-time guarantee; the current presentation leaves this interaction unexamined.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Problem formulation] Notation for the coupling terms between the PDE and ODE subsystems could be introduced more explicitly in the problem formulation to aid readers.
  2. [Numerical example] The UAV example would benefit from a brief statement of the specific parameter values used for the cable-suspended payload model.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments in detail below and indicate the changes we will implement in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Robust safe regulator construction and target-system barrier analysis] The skeptic concern is valid: the manuscript derives explicit bounds on observer and disturbance estimator errors but does not appear to quantify how these exponential envelopes (whose constants depend on disturbance norm and initial conditions) interact with the prescribed-time gain schedule to keep the safety margin strictly positive during the finite-time rescue phase. This analysis is load-bearing for claim 1 in the abstract.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee pointing out this potential gap in the exposition. The manuscript does derive the explicit bounds and incorporates them into the barrier analysis by defining a modified safety set that accounts for the estimation error envelope. The prescribed-time gain schedule is then tuned to ensure the transformed state trajectory respects the adjusted barrier, keeping the original safety margin positive. To make this rigorous and transparent, we will revise the target-system analysis section to include an explicit lemma showing the condition on the gain parameter that guarantees the margin positivity, using the derived constants from the error bounds. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Observer and disturbance estimator design] In the error-system analysis for the observer under fully distributed disturbances, the Lyapunov or kernel-based bounds must be shown to remain compatible with the nonovershooting property without requiring additional conservatism that could invalidate the prescribed-time guarantee; the current presentation leaves this interaction unexamined.

    Authors: The error bounds for the observer and estimator are obtained via Lyapunov analysis on the error system, yielding exponential convergence with rates that can be made arbitrarily fast by design parameters. These rates are chosen to be compatible with the nonovershooting controller by ensuring the error decay is faster than the prescribed-time convergence, thus the uncertainty term vanishes before the rescue completes without extra conservatism. We will add a discussion in the revised manuscript to explicitly link the observer convergence rate to the nonovershooting condition, confirming that no additional conservatism is introduced that affects the prescribed-time guarantee. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained via standard backstepping and explicit error bounds from the model.

full rationale

The paper's central claims rest on designing a state observer and disturbance estimator for the 2x2 hyperbolic PDE-ODE system, deriving explicit exponential bounds on their errors via Lyapunov or kernel methods, and inserting those bounds into a nonovershooting backstepping controller to enforce safety. These steps are constructed directly from the plant equations and target-system transformations rather than by fitting parameters to data or reducing to prior self-citations by definition. The safety guarantees (nonovershooting or prescribed-time rescue) and exponential regulation follow from the closed-loop target dynamics with the inserted bounds; no load-bearing premise collapses to an input by construction. The approach is therefore independent of the specific fitted quantities or self-referential uniqueness theorems.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the system being exactly representable as a coupled 2x2 hyperbolic PDE-ODE with fully distributed disturbances and on the existence of a nonovershooting backstepping transformation that simultaneously enforces safety and regulation.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The plant is a coupled 2x2 hyperbolic PDE-ODE system with fully distributed disturbances.
    Explicitly stated as the class of systems considered in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Explicit bounds on observer and disturbance estimator errors can be derived.
    Used to construct the robust safe regulator as described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5515 in / 1388 out tokens · 43387 ms · 2026-05-17T00:48:10.963359+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Disturbance rejection in 2×2 linear hyperbolic systems,

    A. Aamo, “Disturbance rejection in 2×2 linear hyperbolic systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 58, 1095–1106, 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Disturbance rejection in general heterodirectional 1-D linear hyperbolic systems using collocated sensing and control,

    Anfinsen, H., Aamo, O. “Disturbance rejection in general heterodirectional 1-D linear hyperbolic systems using collocated sensing and control,”Automatica, 76, 230-242, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Prescribed-time safety design for strict-feedback nonlinear systems,

    I. Abel, D. Steeves, M. Krstic, M. Jankovic, “Prescribed-time safety design for strict-feedback nonlinear systems,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 69(3): 1464–1479, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Constrained control of multi- input systems with distinct input delays,

    I. Abel, M. Jankovic, and M. Krstic, “Constrained control of multi- input systems with distinct input delays,”Int. J. Robust Nonlin., 34(10): 6659–6682, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Control barrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical systems,

    A. D. Ames, X. Xu, J. W. Grizzle, and P. Tabuada. “Control barrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical systems,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 62(8):3861–3876, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    A fixed-time stable adaptation law for safety-critical control under parametric uncertainty,

    M. Black, E. Arabi, and D. Panagou, “A fixed-time stable adaptation law for safety-critical control under parametric uncertainty,” inProc. IEEE European Control Conf., pp. 1328–1333, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Strictly proper control design for the stabilization of 2×2 linear hyperbolic ODE-PDE-ODE systems,

    D. Bou. Saba, F. Bribiesca-Argomedo, M. D. Loreto and D. Eberard, “Strictly proper control design for the stabilization of 2×2 linear hyperbolic ODE-PDE-ODE systems,” inProc. 58th IEEE Conf. Decis. Control, pp. 4996–5001, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Local exponential 𝐻2 stabilization of a 2×2 quasilinear hyperbolic system using backstepping,

    J.M. Coron, R. Vazquez, M. Krstic and G. Bastin, “ Local exponential 𝐻2 stabilization of a 2×2 quasilinear hyperbolic system using backstepping,”SIAM J. Control Optim., 51(3), pp. 2005–2035, 2013

    work page 2005

  9. [9]

    Output feedback control of general linear heterodirectional hyperbolic ODE-PDE-ODE systems,

    J. Deutscher, N. Gehring and R. Kern “Output feedback control of general linear heterodirectional hyperbolic ODE-PDE-ODE systems,” Automatica, 95, pp. 472–480, 2018

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    Output feedback control of general linear heterodirectional hyperbolic PDE-ODE systems with spatially-varying coefficients,

    J. Deutscher, N. Gehring, R. Kern “Output feedback control of general linear heterodirectional hyperbolic PDE-ODE systems with spatially-varying coefficients,”Int. J. Control, 92(10), pp.2274–2290, 2019

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    Output regulation for general linear heterodirectional hyperbolic systems with spatially-varying coefficients,

    J. Deutscher, “Output regulation for general linear heterodirectional hyperbolic systems with spatially-varying coefficients,”Automatica, 85, pp.34–42, 2017

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    A backstepping approach to output regulation for coupled linear wave-ODE systems,

    J. Deutscher, J. Gabriel, “A backstepping approach to output regulation for coupled linear wave-ODE systems,”Automatica, 123, 109338, 2021. 16

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Safe PDE backstepping QP control with high relative degree CBFs: Stefan model with actuator dynamics,

    S. Koga, M. Krstic, “Safe PDE backstepping QP control with high relative degree CBFs: Stefan model with actuator dynamics,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, DOI: 10.1109/TAC.2023.3250514, 2023

    work page doi:10.1109/tac.2023.3250514 2023

  14. [14]

    Krstic, A

    M. Krstic, A. Smyshlyaev,Boundary control of PDEs, SIAM, 2008

    work page 2008

  15. [15]

    Nonovershooting control of strict-feedback nonlinear systems,

    M. Krstic, M. Bement, “Nonovershooting control of strict-feedback nonlinear systems,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 51, pp. 1938–1943, 2006

    work page 1938

  16. [16]

    Mean-nonovershooting control of stochastic nonlinear systems,

    W. Li, M. Krstic, “Mean-nonovershooting control of stochastic nonlinear systems,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 66 (12), pp: 5756– 5771, 2020

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    Stabilization of coupled linear heterodirectional hyperbolic PDE- ODE systems,

    F. Di Meglio, F. Bribiesca-Argomedo, L. Hu and M. Krstic, “Stabilization of coupled linear heterodirectional hyperbolic PDE- ODE systems,”Automatica, 87, pp. 281–289, 2018

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Exponential control barrier functions for enforcing high relative-degree safety-critical constraints,

    Q. Nguyen and K. Sreenath, “Exponential control barrier functions for enforcing high relative-degree safety-critical constraints,”in Proc. Amer. Control Conf, pp. 322–328, 2016

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    Marcum𝑄-functions and explicit kernels for stabilization of 2×2 linear hyperbolic systems with constant coefficients,

    R. Vazquez and M. Krstic, “Marcum𝑄-functions and explicit kernels for stabilization of 2×2 linear hyperbolic systems with constant coefficients,”Syst. Control Lett., 68, pp. 33–42, 2014

    work page 2014

  20. [20]

    Backstepping boundary stabilization and state estimation of a 2×2 linear hyperbolic system,

    R. Vazquez, M. Krstic and J.M. Coron, “Backstepping boundary stabilization and state estimation of a 2×2 linear hyperbolic system,” in50th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and European Control Conference, pp. 4937–4942, 2011

    work page 2011

  21. [21]

    Delay-compensated control of sandwiched ODE-PDE-ODE hyperbolic systems for oil drilling and disaster relief,

    J. Wang and M. Krstic, “Delay-compensated control of sandwiched ODE-PDE-ODE hyperbolic systems for oil drilling and disaster relief,”Automatica, 120, pp. 109131, 2020

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    Wang and M

    J. Wang and M. Krstic,PDE Control of String-Actuated Motion, Princeton University Press, 2022

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Control of a 2×2 coupled linear hyperbolic system sandwiched between two ODEs,

    J. Wang, M. Krstic and Y. Pi, “Control of a 2×2 coupled linear hyperbolic system sandwiched between two ODEs,”Int. J. Robust Nonlin., 28, pp. 3987–4016, 2018

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    Output-positive adaptive control of hyperbolic PDE-ODE cascades,

    J. Wang and M. Krstic, “Output-positive adaptive control of hyperbolic PDE-ODE cascades,” arXiv:2309.05596v3, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Control barrier functions for systems with high relative degree,

    W. Xiao and C. Belta, “Control barrier functions for systems with high relative degree,” inProc. Conf. Decis. Control, pp. 474–479, 2019

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    High order control barrier functions,

    W. Xiao and C. Belta, “High order control barrier functions,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 67(7), pp. 3655–3662, 2021

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Output regulation boundary control of first- order coupled linear MIMO hyperbolic PIDE systems,

    X. Xu and S. Dubljevic, “Output regulation boundary control of first- order coupled linear MIMO hyperbolic PIDE systems,”International Journal of Control, 93(3), pp: 410–423, 2020

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    State feedback regulator design for coupled linear wave equations,

    J. Gabriel, J. Deutscher, “State feedback regulator design for coupled linear wave equations,”In Proc. European Control Conference (ECC), Limassol, Cyprus, pp. 3013–3018, 2018

    work page 2018

  29. [29]

    Output regulation of anti-stable coupled wave equations via the backstepping technique,

    J.-J. Gu, J.-M. Wang, Y.-P. Guo, “Output regulation of anti-stable coupled wave equations via the backstepping technique,”IET Control Theory and Applications, 12, 431–445, 2018

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    Output regulation for general heterodirectional linear hyperbolic PDEs coupled with nonlinear ODEs,

    A. Irscheid, J. Deutscher, N. Gehring, J. Rudolph, “Output regulation for general heterodirectional linear hyperbolic PDEs coupled with nonlinear ODEs,”Automatica, 148, 110748, 2023

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Output regulation and tracking for linear ODE-hyperbolic PDE-ODE systems,

    J. Redaud, F. Bribiesca-Argomedo, J. Auriol, “Output regulation and tracking for linear ODE-hyperbolic PDE-ODE systems,”Automatica, 162, 111503, 2024

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Yoshida,Lectures on differential and integral equations, volume

    K. Yoshida,Lectures on differential and integral equations, volume

    work page

  33. [33]

    Interscience Publishers, 1960. 17

    work page 1960