## Abstract

This chapter briefly highlights how one might address the aforementioned topological obstructions. We discuss *almost global stabilization*, *periodic time-varying feedback* and the broadest and most successful framework for discontinuous feedback: *hybrid control theory*.

You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF

Obstruction results are aided by the generality offered by the topological viewpoint. Constructive results, however, oftentimes require more structure of the problem to be available [12], e.g., in 1983, Artstein [5] and Sontag [52] introduced CLFs; using center manifold theory, Aeyels was one of the first to provide constructive arguments towards smooth stabilization of nonlinear systems [1]; feedback linearization emerged in the late 1980s, as can be found in the monographs [27, 40]; and in the late 1980s backstepping was initiated by Byrnes, Isidori, Kokotović, Tsinias, Saberi, Sontag, Sussmann and others [31]. See also the 1985 and the 2001 surveys on constructive nonlinear control by Kokotović et al. [29, 30].

Regardless of these constructive methods, the last chapter showcased a collection of fundamental topological obstructions to the asymptotic stabilization of subsets of manifolds by means of merely continuous feedback, let alone smooth feedback. Therefore, in this chapter we briefly review a variety of proposed methods to deal with this situation. See for example [20] for a survey from 1995 on handling an assortment of topological obstructions. Since then, the focus shifted from smooth feedback to several manifestations of discontinuous techniques, as highlighted below.

## 7.1 On Accepting the Obstruction

Motivated by the Poincaré–Hopf theorem, early remarks on *almost* global asymptotic stabilization can be found in [28]. This notion is intimately related to multistability, however, now a *single* point *is* asymptotically stable whereas the rest is not, recall Fig. 1.1(iv). This relates to Question (iii) from Chap. 6, i.e., how does the dynamical system behave outside of the domain of attraction of the attractor under consideration? For example, when stabilizing an isolated equilibrium point on a closed manifold \(\textsf{M}^n\) by means of continuous feedback, the material from Chap. 6 implies that the remaining vector field indices must add up to \(\chi (\textsf{M}^n)-(-1)^n\).

Theoretically handling multistability is usually done via an alteration of classical Lyapunov theory [4, 23], e.g., by passing to the so-called “*dual density formulation*” as proposed in [44]. There, global requirements are relaxed to *almost* global requirements. By doing so, topological obstructions are surmounted at the cost of potentially introducing singularities. This is what we saw in Sect. 1.3. This approach is for example illustrated in [3], where the inverted pendulum is almost globally stabilized.

Although almost global stability of some equilibrium point \(p^{\star }\) can be justified by the points *not* in the domain of attraction of \(p^{\star }\) being of measure zero, this is only true in the idealized setting. For instance, if one needs to take uncertainties or perturbations into account, even if arbitrarily small, this set to avoid remains by no means of measure zero. Hence, this approach cannot be categorized as robust.

## 7.2 On Time-Varying Feedback

Recall from Example 6.4 that time-varying feedback does not in general allow for overcoming *global* topological obstructions. Nevertheless, elaborating on the work by Sontag and Sussmann [51], under controllability assumptions, the so-called “*return method*” as devised by Coron shows that time-varying feedback can overcome some *local* topological obstructions to the stabilization of equilibrium points [17, 18]. Prior to the work by Coron, Samson showed that the nonholonomic integrator (6.1) can be stabilized by time-varying feedback indeed [39, 48, p. 566]. A more general and explicit approach is described in [41] by Pomet. We follow Sepulchre, Wertz and Campion [50] in providing intuition regarding this matter.

### Example 7.1

(*On periodic feedback* [50]) Consider the nonlinear dynamical control system

System (7.1) is small-time-locally-controllable at 0 as, after writing (7.1) in standard form \(\dot{x}=f(x)+g(x)u\), one finds that the set

evaluated at 0, spans \(\mathbb {R}^3\simeq T_0\mathbb {R}^3\) [55]. Nonetheless, (7.1) fails to satisfy Brockett’s condition, cf. Theorem 6.1. In particular, see that if \(\mu (x_1,x_2,x_3)\) is any continuous state feedback aimed at asymptotically stabilizing 0, then \(\mu \) cannot vanish on \(A_{\epsilon }=\{x\in \mathbb {R}^3:x_1=0, 0<\Vert x\Vert <\epsilon \}\), for some sufficiently small \(\epsilon >0\). Otherwise, an additional equilibrium point would be introduced. This implies that \(\mu \) cannot change sign on the annulus \(A_{\epsilon }\). Evidently, a change in sign might be necessary to stabilize a neighbourhood around the origin, for example consider \(x(0)=(0,x_2(0),0)\) with either \(x_2(0)>0\) or \(x_2(0)<0\). Hence, time-varying periodic feedback seems a viable option indeed. This, to enforce a (persistent) change in sign. One can construct a similar story regarding Brockett’s nonholonomic integrator (6.1). To provide a hand-waving comment, let the system start from \((0,0,x_3(0))\), with \(x_3(0)\ne 0\). Then, both \(u_1,u_2\) must become nonzero, pushing both \(x_1,x_2\) away from 0. To make sure \(x_1,x_2\) go back to 0, both \(u_1,u_2\) must flip sign, but this zero crossing (easily) induces an equilibrium away from 0.

For more historical context, see the early survey paper [39] or the remarks in [19].

Regarding Sect. 1.3, with the aforementioned in mind, an optimal control cost akin to (1.2) might not be ideal as time is penalized while (time-invariant) continuous globally asymptotically stabilizing feedback is obstructed by \(\chi (\textsf{G})=0\). Moreover, the almost globally asymptotically stabilizing feedback is not robust.

As many examples before, including Example 7.1, highlight, is that some notion of switching is instrumental in overcoming topological obstructions. The next section highlights one of the most influential solution frameworks, discontinuous- and in particular, *hybrid control*. This framework is also capable of overcoming one of the inherent drawbacks of stabilizing (periodic) time-varying controllers: they are not robust, often slow and thereby costly.

## 7.3 On Discontinuous Control

As mentioned before, allowing for discontinuities in dynamical control systems is not an immediate remedy for topological obstructions, they can prevail [13, 37, 47]. Yet, under controllability assumptions—fitting to discontinuous solution frameworks, discontinuous feedback frequently allows for stabilization [2, 16, 33, 34], e.g., to control the nonholonomic integrator (6.1), one can consider a sliding-mode controller [9]. Notably, the CLF generalization due to Rifford, allows for a principled approach to designing stabilizing discontinuous feedback laws [45, 46], e.g., an explicit feedback stabilizing the nonholonomic integrator (6.1) is presented in [34]. See also [11] for a *numerical* study of CLFs with regard to the nonholonomic integrator. It is imperative to remark that under controllability assumptions, one can show that discontinuous stabilization schemes exist that are robust against measurement noise [53]. For an extensive tutorial paper on discontinuous dynamical systems, see [21], in particular the section on different notions of solutions. The survey articles by Clarke, on the other hand, focus more on control theoretic aspects [14, 15].

### 7.3.1 Hybrid Control Exemplified

Motivated by the modelling of physical systems, e.g., relays, Witsenhausen was one of the early contributors to hybrid control theory [57]. In part due to the aforementioned topological obstructions, however, hybrid control theory became an abstract theory of its own, e.g., see [25, 49, 56]. In this section we will only scratch the surface (Lyapunov-based switching) of what is possible using these techniques, e.g., in general one would discuss differential inclusions, hysteresis and so forth.

### Example 7.2

(*Example *1 *continued*) Recall Fig. 1.1(iii), we start by introducing how one could study discontinuous dynamical systems. Consider a ** hybrid dynamical system** on the circle \(\mathbb {S}^1\subset \mathbb {R}^2\)

for \(C\subseteq \mathbb {S}^1\) the *flow set* and \(D\subseteq \mathbb {S}^1\) the *jump set*, with *g* the corresponding *jump map*. This means that on the set *C*, the system behaves as the dynamical systems we encountered before, but on *D*, the state could possibly change in a way that one cannot describe using \(C^0\) vector fields and flows. For instance, a hybrid system might describe a walking robot with the jump map handling the impact with the ground. See [25] for how to go about solutions of hybrid systems, or see [42, Sect. 24.2] for a succinct introduction. Now, parametrizing a hybrid dynamical system in polar coordinates on \(\mathbb {S}^1\), consider \(\dot{\theta }=\sin (\theta )\) under the jump map \(g(\theta )=\varepsilon \) for some \(\varepsilon \in (0,\pi )\) with the jump set being \(D=\{0\}\). Then, by means of the Lyapunov function \(V(\theta )=\cos (\theta )+1\) stability of this hybrid system can be asserted since \(\langle \partial _{\theta }V(\theta ),\dot{\theta }\rangle =-\sin (\theta )^2\) while for all \(\theta \in D\) one has \(V(g(\theta ))<V(\theta )\). This is graphically summarized in Fig. 7.1(i). Again, we refer to [25, 42] for the technicalities of stability in the hybrid context.

The approach as taken in Example 7.2 lacks robustness and is too ad-hoc for practical purposes. In the context of stabilization of an equilibrium point \(p^{\star }\in \textsf{M}\), a successful hybrid methodology to overcome topological obstructions is to exploit *multiple* potential (Lyapunov) functions [10]. The so-called “*synergistic*” approach uses a family of potential functions \(\mathscr {V}=\{V_i\}_{i\in \mathcal {I}}\), \(V_i:\textsf{M}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}_{\ge 0}\), with \(p^{\star }\) being a critical point of all \(V_i\). The remaining critical points can be different, but if \(q^{\star }\ne p^{\star }\) is a critical point of \(V_j\) there must be a \(k\ne j\) such that \(V_k(q^{\star })<V_j(q^{\star })\). Now, if one switches appropriately between controllers induced by these potential functions, one cannot get trapped at the wrong critical point and hence \(p^{\star }\) will be stabilized.

### Example 7.3

(*Example *7.2 *continued*) We will now follow [42, Example 24.5] and consider a hybrid *control* system on the embedded circle \(\mathbb {S}^1\subset \mathbb {R}^2\) and sketch more formally how the synergistic method works. Consider the control system \(\dot{x}=u\Omega x\), where \(u\in \mathbb {R}\) and \(\Omega \in \textsf{Sp}(2,\mathbb {R})\) such that \(\Omega x\in T_x\mathbb {S}^1=\{v\in \mathbb {R}^2:\langle v,x \rangle =0 \}\). The goal is the same as before, to globally stabilize \(\theta =\pi \), e.g., \(x'=(-1,0)\in \mathbb {R}^2\). We assume to have a smooth potential function \(V:\mathbb {S}^1\rightarrow \mathbb {R}_{\ge 0}\) with two critical points, \(x'\) at its global minimum and some other point \(\bar{x}\) at its global maximum. Then, this potential function *V* is used to construct the family of potential functions \(\mathscr {V}=\{V_1,V_2\}\), as discussed above, see [35] for the details. To be able to switch between these functions, the state space is augmented with the set \(\{1,2\}\). Now let \(m(x)=\min _{q\in \{1,2\}}V_q(x)\), \(C=\{(x,q)\in \mathbb {S}^1\times \{1,2\}:m(x)+\delta \ge V_q(x)\}\) and \(D=\{(x,q)\in \mathbb {S}^1\times \{1,2\}:m(x)+\delta \le V_q(x)\}\) for some \(\delta >0\), that is, we are in the jump set when the current selection of \(V_q\) is “*too large*”. Now define the (set-valued) map \(g_q:\mathbb {S}^1\rightrightarrows \{1,2\}\) by \(g_q(x)=\{q\in \{1,2\}:V_q(x)=m(x)\}\) and select the feedback controller, i.e., the input *u*, as

Indeed, see that under (7.3), \(V_q\) is a Lyapunov function for \(x_q'\) on \(\mathbb {S}^1\setminus \{\bar{x}_q\}\) as \(\dot{V}_q = - \langle \textrm{grad}\, V_q(x),\Omega x\rangle ^2 < 0\) for all \(x\in \mathbb {S}^1\setminus \{\bar{x}_q,x_q'\}\). Note, we exploit the embedding \(\mathbb {S}^1\hookrightarrow \mathbb {R}^2\). Summarizing, we have the closed-loop hybrid system

For the technicalities, in particular how to define \(\delta \), we refer to [35], see also Fig. 7.1(ii). Also note that by construction the stabilization is robust, which should be contrasted to closed-loop systems as given in Example 7.2.

See for example [36, 38] for constructive results on \(\textsf{SO}(3,\mathbb {R})\), [42] for more on Example 7.3 and material concerning hybrid reinforcement learning and see [6, 54] for the hybrid approach in the context of optimization on manifolds.

A particular instance of a hybrid dynamical system is a ** switched dynamical system** [32], [25, Sects. 1.4 and 2.4], that is, a dynamical system of the form \(\dot{x}=f_{\sigma }(x)\) for some switching signal \(\sigma \) e.g., \(\sigma :\textrm{dom}(f)\rightarrow \{1,2,\dots ,N\}\), \(N\in \mathbb {N}\). As alluded to in Figure 1.1, introducing a switch, that is, a discontinuity, can allow for global stabilization. Indeed, (7.4) is a manifestation of a switched system. See for example [32, pp. 87–88] for a switching-based solution to stabilization of the nonholonomic integrator (6.1). Slightly switching gears, a way to overcome topological obstructions is to construct a set of local controllers such that the union of their respective domains of attraction covers the space \(\textsf{M}\). This does not necessarily result in global stabilization. The aim is rather to rule out instability by employing a suitable switching mechanism. Assuming that these controllers are intended to stabilize contractible sets, using the Lusternik–Schnirelmann category as will be introduced in Sect. 8.4, one can bound the number of required controllers from below. Clearly, on \(\mathbb {S}^1\) one needs at least two of those controllers.

In contrast to almost global stabilization techniques, under controllability assumptions, for compact sets *A*, there always exists a hybrid controller that renders *A* locally asymptotically stable, in a robust sense [43]. The intuition being that measurable functions can be approximated by piecewise-continuous functions and converse Lyapunov results can be established for hybrid dynamical systems [24].

### 7.3.2 Topological Perplexity

As continuous feedback is frequently prohibited, one might be interested in obtaining a lower bound on the “*number*” of discontinuous actions required to render a set globally asymptotically stable. For the global stabilization of a point *p* on \(\mathbb {S}^1\), this number is clearly 1 cf. Figure 1.1(iii). Recent work by Baryshnikov and Shapiro sets out to quantify this for generic spaces [7, 8]. The intuition is as follows, consider the desire to stabilize a point *p* on the torus \(\mathbb {T}^2\) and recall its non-trivial singular homology groups

To globally stabilize a point, \(\mathbb {T}^2\) must be deformed to a contractible space. Then, roughly speaking, as \(H_1(\mathbb {R}^2;\mathbb {Z})\simeq 0\), this can be achieved, for example, via two one-dimensional cuts. These cuts correspond to the discontinuities one needs to introduce to globally stabilize *p* on \(\mathbb {T}^2\). Now if one desires to stabilize \(\mathbb {S}^1\hookrightarrow \mathbb {T}^2\), we need a single one-dimensional cut as \(H_1(\mathbb {S}^1\times \mathbb {R};\mathbb {Z})\simeq \mathbb {Z}\). Baryshnikov et al. proposes a method to quantify this approach merely based on topological information, so independent of metrics and coordinates. See also the algorithmic work [22].

In a similar vein, one can consider the work by Gottlieb and Samaranayake on indices of discontinuous vector fields [26]. The intuition being that Definition 1 considers a topological sphere around 0, in that sense there is no difference between Fig. 1.1(iii), (iv), i.e., one considers merely the boundary of a neighbourhood around the discontinuity.

## References

Aeyels D (1985) Stabilization of a class of nonlinear systems by a smooth feedback control. Syst Control Lett 5(5):289–294

Ancona F, Bressan A (1999) Patchy vector fields and asymptotic stabilization. ESAIM Contr Optim Ca 4:445–471

Angeli D (2001) Almost global stabilization of the inverted pendulum via continuous state feedback. Automatica 37(7):1103–1108

Angeli D (2004) An almost global notion of input-to-state stability. IEEE T Automat Contr 49(6):866–874

Artstein Z (1983) Stabilization with relaxed controls. Nonlinear Anal Theor 7(11):1163–1173

Baradaran M, Poveda JI, Teel AR (2019) Global optimization on the sphere: a stochastic hybrid systems approach. IFAC 52(16):96–101

Baryshnikov Y (2021) Topological perplexity in feedback stabilization

Baryshnikov Y, Shapiro B (2014) How to run a centipede: a topological perspective. Geometric control theory and sub-riemannian geometry. Springer, Cham, pp 37–51

Bloch A, Drakunov S (1994) Stabilization of a nonholonomic system via sliding modes. In: Proceedings of IEEE conference on decision and control, vol 3, pp 2961–2963

Branicky MS (1998) Multiple Lyapunov functions and other analysis tools for switched and hybrid systems. IEEE T Automat Contr 43(4):475–482

Braun P, Grüne L, Kellett CM (2017) Feedback design using nonsmooth control Lyapunov functions: a numerical case study for the nonholonomic integrator. In: Proceedings of IEEE conference on decision and control, pp 4890–4895

Casti JL (1982) Recent developments and future perspectives in nonlinear system theory. SIAM Rev 24(3):301–331

Ceragioli F (2002) Some remarks on stabilization by means of discontinuous feedbacks. Syst Control Lett 45(4):271–281

Clarke F (2001) Nonsmooth analysis in control theory: a survey. Eur J Control 7(2–3):145–159

Clarke F (2004) Lyapunov functions and feedback in nonlinear control. Optimal control. Stabilization and nonsmooth analysis. Springer, Berlin, pp 267–282

Clarke FH, Ledyaev YS, Sontag ED, Subbotin AI (1997) Asymptotic controllability implies feedback stabilization. IEEE T Automat Contr 42(10):1394–1407

Coron J-M (1992) Global asymptotic stabilization for controllable systems without drift. Math Control Signals Syst 5(3):295–312

Coron J-M (1995) On the stabilization in finite time of locally controllable systems by means of continuous time-varying feedback law. SIAM J Contr Optim 33(3):804–833

Coron J-M (2007) Control and nonlinearity. American Mathematical Society, Providence

Coron J-M, Praly L, Teel A (1995) Feedback stabilization of nonlinear systems: sufficient conditions and Lyapunov and input-output techniques. Springer, London, pp 293–348

Cortes J (2008) Discontinuous dynamical systems. IEEE Contr Syst Mag 28(3):36–73

de Verdière ÉC (2012) Topological algorithms for graphs on surfaces. Habilitation, École normale supérieure

Efimov D (2012) Global Lyapunov analysis of multistable nonlinear systems. SIAM J Contr Optim 50(5):3132–3154

Goebel R, Hespanha J, Teel AR, Cai C, Sanfelice R (2004) Hybrid systems: generalized solutions and robust stability1. IFAC Proc 37(13):1–12

Goebel R, Sanfelice RG, Teel AR (2012) Hybrid dynamical systems. In: Hybrid dynamical systems. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Gottlieb DH, Samaranayake G (1995) The index of discontinuous vector fields. NYJ Math 1:130–148

Isidori A (1985) Nonlinear control systems: an introduction. Springer, Berlin

Koditschek DE (1988) Application of a new Lyapunov function to global adaptive attitude tracking. In: Proceedings of IEEE conference on decision and control, pp 63–68

Kokotović P, Arcak M (2001) Constructive nonlinear control: a historical perspective. Automatica 37(5):637–662

Kokotović PV (1985) Recent trends in feedback design: an overview. Automatica 21(3):225–236

Kokotović PV (1992) The joy of feedback: nonlinear and adaptive. IEEE Control Syst Mag 12(3):7–17

Liberzon D (2003) Switching in systems and control. Birkhäuser, Boston

Malisoff M, Krichman M, Sontag E (2006) Global stabilization for systems evolving on manifolds. J Dyn Control Syst 12(2):161–184

Malisoff M, Rifford L, Sontag E (2004) Global asymptotic controllability implies input-to-state stabilization. SIAM J Contr Optim 42(6):2221–2238

Mayhew CG, Teel AR (2010) Hybrid control of planar rotations. In: Proceedings of IEEE American control conference, pp 154–159

Mayhew CG, Teel AR (2011) Hybrid control of rigid-body attitude with synergistic potential functions. In: Proceedings of IEEE American control conference, pp 287–292

Mayhew CG, Teel AR (2011) On the topological structure of attraction basins for differential inclusions. Syst Control Lett 60(12):1045–1050

Mayhew CG, Teel AR (2011) Synergistic potential functions for hybrid control of rigid-body attitude. In: Proceedings of IEEE American control conference, pp 875–880

Morin P, Pomet J-B, Samson C (1998) Developments in time-varying feedback stabilization of nonlinear systems. IFAC Proc 31(17):565–572

Nijmeijer H, van der Schaft A (1990) Nonlinear dynamical control systems. Springer, New York

Pomet J-B (1992) Explicit design of time-varying stabilizing control laws for a class of controllable systems without drift. Syst Control Lett 18(2):147–158

Poveda JI, Teel AR (2021) A hybrid dynamical systems perspective on reinforcement learning for cyber-physical systems: vistas, open problems, and challenges. Handbook of reinforcement learning and control. Springer, New York, pp 727–762

Prieur C, Goebel R, Teel AR (2007) Hybrid feedback control and robust stabilization of nonlinear systems. IEEE T Automat Contr 52(11):2103–2117

Rantzer A (2001) A dual to Lyapunov’s stability theorem. Syst Control Lett 42(3):161–168

Rifford L (2000) Existence of Lipschitz and semiconcave control-Lyapunov functions. SIAM J Contr Optim 39(4):1043–1064

Rifford L (2002) Semiconcave control-Lyapunov functions and stabilizing feedbacks. SIAM J Contr Optim 41(3):659–681

Ryan EP (1994) On Brockett’s condition for smooth stabilizability and its necessity in a context of nonsmooth feedback. SIAM J Contr Optim 32(6):1597–1604

Samson C (1991) Velocity and torque feedback control of a nonholonomic cart. In: Advanced robot control, Berlin. Springer, pp 125–151

Sanfelice RG (2020) Hybrid feedback control. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Sepulchre R, Wertz V, Campion G (1992) Some remarks about periodic feedback stabilization. In: IFAC symposium on nonlinear control systems, pp 418–423

Sontag E, Sussmann H (1980) Remarks on continuous feedback. In: Proceedings of IEEE conference decision control, pp 916–921

Sontag ED (1983) A Lyapunov-like characterization of asymptotic controllability. SIAM J Control Optim 21(3):462–471

Sontag ED (1999) Clocks and insensitivity to small measurement errors. ESAIM Contr Optim Ca 4:537–557

Strizic T, Poveda JI, Teel AR (2017) Hybrid gradient descent for robust global optimization on the circle. In: Proceeding of IEEE conferences decision control, pp 2985–2990

Sussmann HJ (1987) A general theorem on local controllability. SIAM J Contr Optim 25(1):158–194

Van Der Schaft AJ, Schumacher JM (2000) An introduction to hybrid dynamical systems. Springer, London

Witsenhausen H (1966) A class of hybrid-state continuous-time dynamic systems. IEEE T Automat Contr 11(2):161–167

## Author information

### Authors and Affiliations

### Corresponding author

## Rights and permissions

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

## About this chapter

### Cite this chapter

Jongeneel, W., Moulay, E. (2023). Towards Accepting and Overcoming Topological Obstructions. In: Topological Obstructions to Stability and Stabilization. SpringerBriefs in Electrical and Computer Engineering(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30133-9_7

### Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30133-9_7

Published:

Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

Print ISBN: 978-3-031-30132-2

Online ISBN: 978-3-031-30133-9

eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)