Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 846

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Output-Based Event-Triggered Control With Guaranteed ${\cal L}_{\infty}$-Gain and Improved and Decentralized Event-Triggering

Donkers, M. C. F., Heemels, W. P. M. H.·2012·IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control

Abstract

Most event-triggered controllers available nowadays are based on static state-feedback controllers. As in many control applications full state measurements are not available for feedback, it is the objective of this paper to propose event-triggered dynamical output-based controllers. The fact that the controller is based on output feedback instead of state feedback does not allow for straightforward extensions of existing event-triggering mechanisms if a minimum time between two subsequent events has to be guaranteed. Furthermore, since sensor and actuator nodes can be physically distributed, centralized event-triggering mechanisms are often prohibitive and, therefore, we will propose a decentralized event-triggering mechanism. This event-triggering mechanism invokes transmission of the outputs in a node when the difference between the current values of the outputs in the node and their previously transmitted values becomes “large” compared to the current values and an additional threshold. For such event-triggering mechanisms, we will study closed-loop stability andL∞-performance and provide bounds on the minimum time between two subsequent events generated by each node, the so-called inter-event time of a node. This enables us to make tradeoffs between closed-loop performance on the one hand and communication load on the other hand, or even between the communication load of individual nodes. In addition, we will model the event-triggered control system using an impulsive model, which truly describes the behavior of the event-triggered control system. As a result, we will be able to guarantee stability and performance for event-triggered controllers with larger minimum inter-event times than the existing results in the literature. We illustrate the developed theory using three numerical examples.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tac.2011.2174696

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

  • Optimal Sampled-Data Control Systems

    Chen, T., & Francis, B. A. (1995) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-3037-6 · Cited by 2,217 · cited 1×

    “The fact that the controller is based on output feedback instead of state feedback does not allow for straightforward extensions of existing event-triggering mechanisms if a minimum time between two subsequent events has to be guaranteed.”
    Background

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 846

Metadata

Authors
Donkers, M. C. F., & Heemels, W. P. M. H.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control
Published
2012-06
Volume
57
Issue
6
Pages
1362-1376
ISSN
  • 0018-9286 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-2523
OpenAlex
W2118133052
Cited by
846
References
1
FWCI
66.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Output-Based Event-Triggered Control With Guaranteed ${\cal L}_{\infty}$-Gain and Improved and Decentralized Event-Triggering. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tac.2011.2174696
The paper
Donkers, M. C. F., & Heemels, W. P. M. H. (2012). Output-Based Event-Triggered Control With Guaranteed ${\cal L}_{\infty}$-Gain and Improved and Decentralized Event-Triggering. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. https://doi.org/10.1109/tac.2011.2174696

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.