1: \NeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX2e}

2: % LaTeX 2.09 can't be used (nor non=LaTeX) [1994/12/01]

3: % LaTeX date must December 1994 or later

4: 

5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Macros and Definitions %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6: %\newcommand{\revision}{kryolit}

7: %\newcommand{\pending}[1]{ \par\medskip{\sc #1}

8: %\marginpar{\sc {\Writinghand} } \par\medskip }

9: %\newcommand{\pig}{{\Writinghand}\marginpar{{\Writinghand}}}

10: 

11: \newif\ifpdf \ifx\pdfoutput\undefined \pdffalse \else \pdfoutput=1

12: \pdftrue \fi

13: 

14:  \newenvironment{fig}[2] { \begin{center}

15:  \begin{figure}

16:  \def\myfigcaptionlar{#1} \def\myfigcaptionvar{{#2}}}

17:  {\caption{\myfigcaptionvar}\label{\myfigcaptionlar}

18:  \end{figure}\end{center}}

19:  

20:  \newcommand{\psfig}[3] {\begin{fig}{#1}{#2}\if 0#3 \else

21:  \begin{center}\includegraphics{#3}\end{center}\fi

22:  \end{fig} }

23:  

24:  \newcommand{\texfig}[3] {\begin{fig}{#1}{#2} \if 0#3 \else

25:  \begin{center}

26:  \input{#3}

27:  \end{center}

28:  \fi

29:  \end{fig}

30:  \if 0#3 \fi  }

31:  

32:  \newcommand{\citez}[1]{\cite{#1}} \newcommand{\In}[1]{{\tt

33:  In$[$#1$]$}}

34: 

35: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Document Openings %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

36: \documentclass[openany,oneside,fleqn,11pt]{article}

37: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amscd,amsthm} 

38: % \usepackage{marvosym}

39: % \usepackage{makeidx}

40: \usepackage{url} 

41: \usepackage[numbers]{natbib}

42: % \usepackage[small,compact,sc]{titlesec} 

43:  \usepackage{float}

44: \ifpdf \usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx}

45: \else 

46: % \usepackage{pandora} 

47:  \usepackage{graphicx} 

48: \fi

49: %\usepackage[mathcal]{euscript}

50: %\usepackage{showkeys}  

51: \usepackage[bookmarks=true]{hyperref} %this one must be the last one

52: %\usepackage[a4paper, left=15mm, right=15mm]{geometry} 

53: \newcommand{\hyref}[1]{\href{#1}{\tt{#1}}}

54: \newcommand{\hyreff}[2]{\href{#1}{\tt{#2}}}

55:  

56: \begin{document}

57: %\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf} 

58: \DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.mps}

59: 

60: 

61: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Textual Macros %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

62: \newcommand{\Ito}{It\^o }

63: 

64: \newcommand{\Mathematica}{{\it

65:  Mathematica }}

66: \newcommand{\MathReader}{{\it

67:  MathReader }}

68: 

69: \newcommand{\abbrev}[1]{#1. }

70: \newcommand{\ie}{\abbrev{i.e}}

71: \newcommand{\pg}{\abbrev{p}}

72: \newcommand{\eg}{\abbrev{eg}}

73: \newcommand{\etc}{\abbrev{etc}}

74: \newcommand{\vs}{\abbrev{vs}}

75: \newcommand{\propan}{\abbrev{Propos}}

76: \newcommand{\theopan}{Theorem}

77: 

78: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Propositions %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

79: \theoremstyle{theorem} 

80: \newtheorem{prop}{Proposition}

81: \newtheorem{lemma}[prop]{Lemma} 

82: \newtheorem{theo}[prop]{Theorem}

83: \newtheorem{coroll}[prop]{Corollary}

84: \newcommand{\refprop}[1]{Proposition~\ref{#1}}

85: \newcommand{\refppropag}[1]{\propan~\ref{#1} \pg~\pageref{#1}}

86: \newcommand{\reftpropag}[1]{\theopan~\ref{#1} \pg~\pageref{#1}}

87: \newcommand{\refcorol}[1]{Corollary~\ref{#1} \pg~\pageref{#1}}

88: \theoremstyle{definition} 

89: \newtheorem{adefn}[prop]{Definition}

90: \newenvironment{defn}{\begin{adefn}}{\hfill$\blacksquare$\end{adefn}}

91: \theoremstyle{remark}

92: \newtheorem{arem}[prop]{Remark}

93: \newtheorem{aexample}[prop]{Example}

94: \newcommand{\defbf}[1]{{\bf #1}}

95: \newenvironment{solution}{\begin{proof}[Solution]}{\end{proof}}

96: \newenvironment{rem}{\begin{arem}}{\hfill$\triangledown$\end{arem}}

97: \newenvironment{example}{\begin{aexample}}{\hfill$\vartriangle$\end{aexample}}

98: 

99: \newcommand{\algitem}[1]{\item #1}

100: 

101: \floatstyle{boxed} \newfloat{Algorithm}{H}{lop}

102: \newenvironment{alg}[5]{ \def\myalgcaptionvar{{\bf #2}$\quad[$#1$]$}

103:  \if 0#5 \def\myalgcaptionvarl{\relax} \else

104:  \def\myalgcaptionvarl{\noindent{#5}} \fi

105:  \begin{Algorithm}

106:  \noindent{\bf input: }#3

107:  \noindent{\bf output: }#4

108:  \begin{itemize}

109:  } {

110:  \end{itemize}

111:  \myalgcaptionvarl

112: % \hrule

113:  \caption{\myalgcaptionvar}

114:  \end{Algorithm}

115: }

116:  

117: \newenvironment{romanenu}

118: {\begin{enumerate}\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{(\roman{enumi})}}

119:  {\end{enumerate}}

120: 

121: 

122: 

123: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Notation %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

124: % common ==========================

125: \newcommand{\rfor}[1]{\quad\text{for}\quad#1}

126: \newcommand{\firstfor}{\qquad&&\text{for}\quad}

127: \newcommand{\nextfor}{&&\text{for}\quad}

128: 

129: \newcommand{\alterbar}{\vec}

130: 

131: \newcommand{\origi}[1]{{#1}_0} \newcommand{\define}{:=}

132: \newcommand{\definer}{=:} \newcommand{\compose}{\circ}

133: \newcommand{\frahalf}{{\frac{1}{2}}}

134: 

135: % iteration =======================

136: \newcommand{\iva}[1]{0 \le i \le #1} \newcommand{\jva}[1]{0 \le j \le

137:  #1}

138: %\newcommand{\ssum}[3]{{\sum_{#2 \le #1 \le #3}}}

139: \newcommand{\ssum}[3]{{\sum_{#1 = #2}^{#3}}}

140: \newcommand{\ssumi}[1]{{\ssum{i}{1}{#1}}}

141: 

142: % sets and spaces =================

143: \newcommand{\RR}{{\mathbb R}} \newcommand{\NN}{{\mathbb N}}

144: \newcommand{\ZZ}{{\mathbb Z}} \newcommand{\CC}{{\mathbb C}}

145: 

146: \newcommand{\RntoRn}{{\colon\RR^n \to \RR^n}}

147: \newcommand{\RntoR}{{\colon\RR^n \to \RR}}

148: \newcommand{\RtoRn}{{\colon\RR \to \RR^n}}

149: \newcommand{\RtoR}{{\colon\RR \to \RR}}

150: 

151: % systems =========================

152: \newcommand{\dsys}[3]{\left(#1,#2,U,\origi{#3}\right)}

153: \newcommand{\ssys}[4]{\left(#1,#2,#3,U,\origi{#4}\right)}

154: \newcommand{\osys}[4]{\left(#1,#2,#3,U,\origi{#4}\right)}

155: % \newcommand{\dsys}[3]{\left(#1(#3),#2(#3),U,\origi{#3}\right)}

156: % \newcommand{\ssys}[4]{\left(#1(#4),#2(#4),#3(#4),U,\origi{#4}\right)}

157: % \newcommand{\osys}[4]{\left(#1(#4),#2(#4),#3(#4),U,\origi{#4}\right)}

158: \newcommand{\dsysfgx}{\dsys{f}{g}{x}}

159: \newcommand{\dosysfghx}{\osys{f}{g}{h}{x}}

160: \newcommand{\ssysfgx}{\ssys{f}{g}{\sigma}{x}}

161: 

162: \newcommand{\bigdsys}[3]{\left(#1\, , \, #2\, , \, U\, , \,

163:  \origi{#3}\right)} \newcommand{\bigssys}[4]{\left(#1\, , \, #2\, ,

164:  \, #3\, , \, U\, , \, \origi{#4}\right)}

165: 

166: \newcommand{\clssys}{{\mathbb X}} \newcommand{\clssysdet}{\clssys_D}

167: \newcommand{\clssysito}{\clssys_I}

168: \newcommand{\clssysstrat}{\clssys_S}

169: 

170: \newcommand{\clsys}{\clssys(n,1,1)}

171: \newcommand{\clsysdet}{\clssysdet(n,1)}

172: \newcommand{\clsysito}{\clssysito(n,1,1)}

173: \newcommand{\clsysstrat}{\clssysstrat(n,1,1)}

174: 

175: \newcommand{\clmisys}{\clssys(n,m,k)}

176: \newcommand{\clmisysdet}{\clssysdet(n,m)}

177: \newcommand{\clmisysito}{\clssysito(n,m,k)}

178: \newcommand{\clmisysstrat}{\clssysstrat(n,m,k)}

179: 

180: \newcommand{\dsdef}{$\Theta_D = \dsysfgx \in \clsysdet$ }

181: \newcommand{\isdef}{$\Theta_I = \ssysfgx \in \clsysito$ }

182: \newcommand{\ssdef}{$\Theta_S = \ssysfgx \in \clsysstrat$ }

183: 

184: \newcommand{\dsdefmiuu}{$\Theta = \ssysfgx \in \clmisys$ }

185: \newcommand{\dsdefmi}{$\Theta_D = \dsysfgx \in \clmisysdet$ }

186: \newcommand{\isdefmi}{$\Theta_I = \ssysfgx \in \clmisysito$ }

187: \newcommand{\ssdefmi}{$\Theta_S = \ssysfgx \in \clmisysstrat$ }

188: 

189: \newcommand{\smooth}{C^{\infty}} \newcommand{\analytic}{C^{\omega(x)}}

190: \newcommand{\kdifferentiable}{C^{k}}

191: 

192: % operations

193: 

194: % differentiation ============

195: \newcommand{\parby}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}

196: \newcommand{\parbyx}[1]{\parby{#1}{x}}

197: \newcommand{\parbyz}[1]{\parby{#1}{z}}

198: 

199: \newcommand{\parbysec}[2]{\frac{\partial^2 #1}{\partial #2^2}}

200: 

201: \newcommand{\parbyxx}[3]{\frac{\partial^2 #1}{\partial #2 \partial

202:  #3}} \newcommand{\parbyxxx}[4]{\frac{\partial^3 #1}{\partial #2

203:  \partial #3 \partial #4}}

204: \newcommand{\parbyxxxx}[5]{\frac{\partial^4 #1}{\partial #2 \partial

205:  #3 \partial #4 \partial #5 }}

206: 

207: \newcommand{\lie}[2]{{\mathcal L}_{#1} {#2}}

208: \newcommand{\multilie}[3]{{\mathcal L}_{#1}^{#2} {#3}}

209: \newcommand{\biglie}[2]{\langle d{#2},{#1}\rangle}

210: %\newcommand{\biglie}[2]{\lie{#1}{#2}}

211: 

212: \newcommand{\ad}[3]{\operatorname{ad}_{{#1}}^{{#2}} {{#3}}}

213: \newcommand{\adfg}[1]{\ad{f}{{#1}}{g}}

214: \newcommand{\lighk}[1]{\lie{g}{\multilie{f}{#1}{h}}}

215: \newcommand{\distrofg}[1]{\left\{\ad{f}{i}{g},\,\iva{{#1}}\right\}}

216: \newcommand{\distroabafg}[1]{\left\{\ad{{\alterbar

217:  f}}{i}{g},\,\iva{{#1}}\right\}}

218: 

219: \newcommand{\compoit}{\compose T^{-1} (z)}

220: \newcommand{\travf}[1]{\parbyx{T} #1 \compoit}

221: \newcommand{\trav}[1]{\parbyx{T} #1}

222: 

223: % operators ==================

224: \newcommand{\flow}[1]{Fl^{#1}}

225: \newcommand{\trace}{{\operatorname{trace}}}

226: \newcommand{\grad}{{\operatorname{grad}}}

227: \newcommand{\kernel}{{\operatorname{kernel}}}

228: \newcommand{\annihilator}{{\operatorname{annihilator}}}

229: \newcommand{\rank}{{\operatorname{rank}}}

230: \newcommand{\abs}{{\operatorname{abs}}}

231: \newcommand{\sgn}{{\operatorname{sgn}}}

232: \newcommand{\sspan}{{\operatorname{span}}} \newcommand{\ito}[2]{P_#1

233:  #2} \newcommand{\corr}[2]{\operatorname{corr}_#1(#2)}

234: \newcommand{\Corr}[2]{\operatorname{Corr}_#1 #2}

235: 

236: \newcommand{\corrxx}[2]{{\frahalf \parby{#1}{#2} #1}}

237: \newcommand{\corrx}{\corrxx{\sigma}{x}}

238: 

239: \newcommand{\itox}{{\frahalf \sigma^2 \parbysec{T}{x} \compose T^{-1}

240:  (z)}} \newcommand{\itoxs}{{\frahalf \sigma^2 \parbysec{T}{x} }}

241: 

242: 

243: % coordinate transformation ======

244: \newcommand{\tantra}[1]{#1_\ast} \newcommand{\cotantra}[1]{#1^\ast}

245: 

246: \newcommand{\sct}[1]{{\mathcal T}_{#1}} \newcommand{\sctt}{\sct{T}}

247: 

248: \newcommand{\scti}[1]{\sct{#1}^{I}}

249: \newcommand{\scts}[1]{\sct{#1}^{S}}

250: 

251: \newcommand{\feedback}[2]{{\mathcal F}_{#1,#2}}

252: \newcommand{\feedbackab}{\feedback{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}

253: 

254: \newcommand{\combinedz}{{\mathcal J}}

255: \newcommand{\combined}[3]{\combinedz_{#1,#2,#3}}

256: \newcommand{\combinedtab}{\combined{T}{{\alpha}}{{\beta}}}

257: 

258: 

259: % stochastic

260: \newcommand{\expected}[1]{{\cal E}\left\{#1\right\}}

261: \newcommand{\var}[1]{\operatorname{var}\left\{#1\right\}}

262: \newcommand{\cov}[1]{\operatorname{cov}\left\{#1\right\}}

263: 

264: \newcommand{\wrong}{^\#}

265: 

266: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

267: \newcommand{\tpDate}{2002/10/09}

268: \newcommand{\tpAuthor}{Ladislav Sl\'ade\v cek}

269: \newcommand{\tpeAddress}{\v R\'\i{}kovice 18, CZ 751 18, Czech Republic}

270: 

271: \newcommand{\tpEmail}{\hyreff{mailto:lsla@post.cz}{lsla@post.cz}}

272: \newcommand{\tpeTitle}{Exact Feedback Linearization of Stochastic

273: Control Systems}

274: % #3

275: \newcommand{\tpeAbstractN}{Abstract}

276: % #4

277: \newcommand{\tpeAbstract}{This paper studies exact linearization

278:  methods for stochastic SISO affine controlled dynamical systems. The

279:  systems are defined as vectorfield triplets in Euclidean space. The

280:  goal is to find, for a given nonlinear stochastic system, a

281:  combination of invertible transformations which transform the system

282:  into a controllable linear form. Of course, for most nonlinear

283:  systems  such transformation does not exist.

284: 

285:   We are focused on linearization by state coordinate transformation

286:  combined with feedback.  The difference between \Ito and Stratonovich

287:  systems is emphasized. Moreover, we define three types of linearity

288:  of stochastic systems --- $g$-linearity, $\sigma$-linearity, and

289:  $g\sigma$-linearity.

290:  

291:  Six variants of the stochastic exact linearization problem are

292:  studied. The most useful problem --- the \Ito-~$g\sigma$

293:  linearization is solved using the correcting term, which proved to be

294:  a very useful tool for \Ito systems.  The results are illustrated on

295:  a numerical example solved with help of symbolic algebra.  }

296: % #5

297: \newcommand{\tpeKeywordsN}{Keywords}

298: % #6

299: \newcommand{\tpeKeywords}{ exact linearization, feedback

300:   linearization, nonlinear dynamical system, \Ito integral,

301:   Stratonovich integral, correcting term 

302: {\bf MCS classification:} 93B18, 93E03}

303: 

304: 

305: 

306: % ============================================================

307: \title{\tpeTitle} \author{\tpAuthor}

308: 

309: \newcommand{\tp}[6]{ \vfill

310:  \begin{titlepage}

311:  \begin{center} 

312:  {~\\} \vspace{25mm}

313:  {\Large #1}\\

314:  \vspace{1cm}

315:  {\large \tpAuthor}\\

316:  {\tpEmail}\\

317:  {#2}\\

318:  

319:  \vspace{0.5cm}

320:  {\large \tpDate}\\

321:  \end{center}

322:  \begin{quote}\small

323:  \vspace{15mm}

324:  {\sc\bf #3:} #4\\

325:  {\sc\bf #5:} #6\\

326:  \end{quote}

327:  \end{titlepage}

328:  }

329:  

330:  \newcommand{\tpe}{ \tp {\tpeTitle} {\tpeAddress} {\tpeAbstractN}

331:  {\tpeAbstract} {\tpeKeywordsN} {\tpeKeywords} }

332: 

333:  

334: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

335: \tpe 

336: 

337: \tableofcontents

338: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Section %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

339: 

340: 

341: \section{Introduction}

342: \pagenumbering{arabic}\count1=0

343: \label{sec:intro}

344: 

345: The theory of exact linearization of deterministic dynamical systems

346: has been thoroughly studied since seventies. This paper attempts to

347: apply some of the results to the stochastic area. We emphasize the

348: exact linearization by state coordinate transformation combined with

349: feedback (further abbreviated as SFB linearization). Our main goal is

350: to identify the main difficulties of this approach and to consider

351: applicability of the methods known from the deterministic systems.

352: 

353: The task of SFB linearization is following: given a dynamical

354: systems~$\Theta$ we are looking for a combination of coordinate

355: transformation~$\sctt$ and feedback~$\feedbackab$ which will make the

356: resulting system~$\feedbackab \compose \sctt (\Theta)$ linear and

357: controllable. One can also define the feedback-less linearization by

358: coordinate transformation only (here abbreviated as SCT) or several

359: variants of the input-output linearization. These variants are not

360: considered here.

361: \begin{rem}

362: The notation for composition of mappings sometimes differs;

363: right-to-left convention is used here:~$f \compose g(x) \define

364: f(g(x))$.

365: \end{rem}

366: 

367: 

368: The subject of exact linearization of stochastic controlled dynamical

369: systems lies on the intersection of three branches of science:

370: differential geometry, control theory, and the theory of stochastic

371: processes. Each of them is very broad and it is virtually impossible

372: to cover all details of their combination. Hence it is necessary to

373: choose a minimalistic simplified model for our problem and to refrain

374: from most technical details. {\em We decided to represent dynamical

375: systems under investigation by triplets of smooth vectorfields and to

376: concentrate on transformation rules for these triplets\/}. The detailed

377: interpretation of the vectorfield systems (\ie solvability of

378: underlying differential equations, properties of flows and

379: trajectories) will be considered only on an informal, motivational level.

380: 

381: For simplicity, we shall confine all the definitions of geometrical

382: object to the Euclidean space; we will work in a fixed coordinate

383: system using explicit local coordinates, which may be considered to be

384: local coordinates of some manifold. This is mainly because we are

385: unable to capture all consequences  of the modern,

386: coordinate-free differential geometry to the stochastic calculus (see

387: \eg~\citet{kendall86},~\citet{malliavin},~\citet{emery89}). We believe

388: that this approach is quite satisfactory for the majority of practical

389: applications.

390: 

391: 

392: \subsection{Dynamical systems}

393: 

394: \begin{defn}

395: In this paper, a stochastic dynamical system~$\Theta \define

396:  \ssysfgx$ is defined to be a triplet of  smooth and bounded

397:  vectorfields~$f$,~$g$, and~$\sigma$ defined on an open

398:  neighborhood~$U$ of a point~$\origi{x} \in \RR^n$.  We usually

399:  call~$U\in \RR^n$ the \defbf{state space},~$f$ the \defbf{drift

400:  vectorfield},~$g$ the \defbf{control vectorfield}, and ~$\sigma$ the

401:  \defbf{dispersion vectorfield}.

402: \end{defn}

403: 

404: From now on, let's assume that all functions, vectorfields, forms, and

405: distributions are smooth and bounded on~$U$.

406: 

407: In this paper, we will study almost only SISO systems, but in the case

408: of stochastic MIMO systems with~$m$ control inputs and~$k$-dimensional noise the

409: symbols~$g$ and~$\sigma$ stand for~$n\times m$ ($n \times k$

410: respectively) matrix of smooth vectorfields having its rank equal

411: to~$m$ ($k$ respectively). The class of all

412: deterministic~$n$-dimensional dynamical systems with~$m$ inputs will

413: be called~$\clmisysdet$ and the class of stochastic systems

414: with~$k$-dimensional noise will be denoted with~$\clmisys$.

415: 

416: Similarly, autonomous deterministic dynamical system

417: corresponds to a single vectorfield and a controlled

418: deterministic dynamical system corresponds to a vectorfield pair. It

419: is obvious that this approach is limited to time invariant, affine

420: systems.

421: 

422: 

423: \begin{rem}

424:   The acronyms SISO and MIMO are used in the usual meaning even for

425:   systems without outputs, where the wording ``scalar-input''and

426:   ``vector-input'' will be appropriate. Stochastic systems with~$m =1$

427:   and~$k=1$ will be considered SISO.

428: \end{rem}

429: 

430: The definition may be interpreted as follows: there is a stochastic

431:  process~$x_t$ defined on~$\RR^n$ which is a strong solution of the

432:  stochastic differential equation $dx_t = f(x_t)\,dt + g(x_t) u(t)\,dt

433:  + \sigma(x_t)\,dw_t$, with initial condition~$\origi{x}$,

434:  where~$u(t)$ is a smooth function with bounded derivatives and~$w_t$

435:  is a one-dimensional Brownian motion. The differential $dw_t$ is just

436:  a notational shortcut for the stochastic integral.

437:  

438:  Details of the theory of stochastic processes are beyond the scope of

439:  this article. The reader is referred to \citet{wong84},

440:  \citet{oksendal}, \citet{sagemelsa}, \citet{malliavin},

441:  \citet{kendall86}, \citet{karatzas}; the text of \citet{kohlman} is

442:  freely available on the Internet.

443:  

444:  Theory of stochastic processes offers several alternative definitions

445:  of the stochastic integral, among them the \Ito integral and the

446:  Stratonovich integral; each of them is used to model different

447:  physical problems. Consequently there are two classes of differential

448:  equations and two alternative definitions of a stochastic dynamical

449:  system --- \Ito dynamical systems defined by \Ito integrals and

450:  Stratonovich systems defined by Stratonovich integrals.

451: 

452:  Serious differences between these integrals exists but from out point

453:  of view there is a single important one: {\em the rules for

454:  coordinate transformations of dynamical systems defined by \Ito

455:  stochastic integral are quite different from the transformation rules

456:  which are valid for Stratonovich systems\/}.

457:  

458:  The definition of the \Ito dynamical system used by us is formally

459:  equivalent to the definition of the Stratonovich system; the only

460:  difference will be in the corresponding coordinate transformation.

461: 

462: If necessary, \Ito and Stratonovich dynamical

463:  systems will be distinguished by a subscript: $\Theta_I \in

464:  \clmisysito$ and~$\Theta_S \in \clmisysstrat$.

465: 

466: \begin{rem}

467: In this paper we will use the adjectives {\em \Ito\/} and {\em

468:   Stratonovich} rather freely. For example we will speak of

469:   'Stratonovich linearization' instead of `exact linearization of

470:   stochastic dynamical system defined by Stratonovich integral'.

471: \end{rem}

472: 

473: 

474: 

475: \subsection{Transformations}

476: 

477: Furthermore, we will study two transformations of dynamical systems:

478: the coordinate transformation~$\sctt$ and the

479: feedback~$\feedbackab$. The definition of these transformation should

480: be in accord with their common interpretation. This can be illustrated

481: on the definition of the \defbf{coordinate transformation of a

482: deterministic dynamical system} $\sctt: \clmisysdet \to \clmisysdet$

483: which is induced by a diffeomorphism~$T \colon U \to \RR^n$ between two

484: coordinate systems on an open set~$U \subset \RR^n$.

485: The mapping~$\sctt$  is defined by:

486: \begin{align}

487:  \label{eq:83}

488: \sctt \dsys{f}{g}{x} \define  \left(

489: \tantra{T} f , \tantra{T} g ,T(U),T(\origi{x}) 

490: \right) 

491: .\end{align}

492: 

493: Recall that the symbol~$\tantra{T}$ stands for the contravariant

494: transformation~$(\tantra{T} f)_i = \ssum{j}{0}{n} f_j

495: \parby{T_i}{x_j}$. Moreover, we will require

496: that the coordinate transformation~$T$ preserves the equilibrium state

497: of the system \ie~$T(\origi{x}) = 0$.

498: 

499: The definition captures the contravariant transformation

500: rules for differential equations known from the basic calculus.

501: 

502: Note that the words ``coordinate transformation'' are used in two

503: different meanings: first as the

504: diffeomorphism~$T\colon U\to \RR^n$ between coordinates;

505: second as the mapping between systems~$\sctt: \clmisysdet \to

506: \clmisysdet$.

507: 

508: Coordinate transformation of stochastic systems distinguish between

509: \Ito and Stratonovich systems.  One of the major complications of the

510: linearization problems for \Ito systems is the second-order term in

511: the transformation rules for \Ito systems:

512: \begin{defn} \label{def:ctito}

513:  Let~$U\in \RR^n$ be an open set and let~$T\colon U\to \RR^n$ be a

514:  diffeomorphism from~$U$ to~$\RR^n$ with bounded

515:  first derivative on $U$ such that~$T(\origi{x})=0$. The mapping

516:  $\sctt\colon \clmisysito \to \clmisysito$ will be called a

517:  \defbf{coordinate transformation of an \Ito dynamical system} induced by

518:  diffeomorphism~$T$ if the systems $\Theta_1

519:  \define \ssys{f}{g}{\sigma}{x}$ and $\Theta_2 \define

520:  \left(\tilde f,\tilde g,\tilde \sigma,T(U),\origi{x}\right)$; $\Theta_2

521:  = \sctt\left(\Theta_1\right)$ are related by:

522:  \begin{align}

523:  \label{eq:86}

524:  \tilde f &= \tantra{T}f + \ito{\sigma}{T}  \\

525:  \label{eq:87}

526:  \tilde g_i &= \tantra{T}g_i \firstfor 1 \le i \le m\\

527:  \label{eq:89}

528:  \tilde \sigma_i &= \tantra{T}\sigma_i  \firstfor 1 \le i \le

529:  k

530: .\end{align}

531: \end{defn}

532: 

533: The symbol~$\ito{\sigma}{T}$ stands for the \defbf{\Ito term} which is

534: a second order linear operator defined by the following relation for

535: the~$m$-th component of~$\ito{\sigma}{T}$, $1\le m\le n$

536: \begin{equation}

537: \label{eq:16}

538: \ito{\sigma} T_m \define \frahalf \ssum{{i,j}}{1}{n}

539: \frac{\partial^2 T_m}{\partial x_i x_j} \ssum{l}{1}{k} \sigma_{il}

540: \sigma_{jl}

541: .\end{equation}

542: 

543: The transformation rules for Stratonovich

544: systems~$\sctt\colon \clmisysstrat \to \clmisysstrat$,

545: $(f,g,\sigma,U,\origi{x}) \mapsto (\tantra{T}f, \tantra{T}g, \tantra{T}\sigma,

546: T(U), T(\origi{x}))$ are 

547: equivalent to rules valid for the deterministic systems; only the

548: rule\eqref{eq:89} for the drift vectorfield must be added.

549: 

550: The difference between the coordinate transformation of \Ito and

551: Stratonovich systems should be emphasized: in the Stratonovich case

552: all the vectorfields transform contravariantly; on the other hand, in

553: the \Ito case, the \Ito term~$\ito{\sigma}{T}$ is added to the drift

554: vectorfield  of the resulting system.

555: 

556: \psfig{fig:introsfee}{Regular State Feedback}{introsfee} Another

557: important transformation of dynamical systems is the regular feedback

558: transformation. A feedback transformation is determined by two smooth

559: nonlinear functions $\alpha \colon \RR^n \to \RR^m$

560: and~$\beta \colon \RR^n \to \RR^m \times \RR^m$ defined on~$U$

561: with~$\beta $ nonsingular for every~$x \in U$ (see

562: Figure~\ref{fig:introsfee}). Usually, $\alpha $ is written as a column~$m \times

563: 1$ matrix; $\beta $ as a square $m \times m$ matrix.

564: 

565: \begin{defn} \label{def:feedback}

566:   Let~\dsdefmiuu be a stochastic dynamical system. A \defbf{regular

567:   state feedback} is the transformation $\feedbackab \colon \clmisys

568:   \to \clmisys~$, $ (f,g,\sigma,U,\origi{x}) \mapsto \ssys{f + g\alpha

569:   }{g\beta }{\sigma}{x} $.

570: \end{defn}

571: 

572: A new input variable~$v$ is introduced by the

573: relation~$u=\alpha +\beta v$.  Given the feedback~$\feedbackab$

574: with nonsingular~$\beta $, we can always construct an inverse

575: relation~$\feedback{a}{b} \define \feedbackab^{-1}$ such

576: that~$\feedbackab \compose \feedback{a}{b} = \feedback{a}{b} \compose

577: \feedbackab$ is the identity. The coefficients are related as

578: follows:~$\beta  = b^{-1}$, $\alpha  = - b^{-1}a$, and~$a = -\beta ^{-1}

579: \alpha $.

580: 

581: This definition of feedback transformation can be used also for

582: deterministic systems provided that the drift vectorfield~$\sigma$ is

583: assumed to be zero.

584: 

585: The symbol~$\combinedtab$ is used to indicate the combination of

586:  coordinate transformation with feedback~$\combinedtab \define 

587:  \feedbackab\compose\sctt$ can be interchanged.

588: 

589: \begin{rem}

590: \label{rem:orderinv}

591: Observe that the order of feedback and

592: coordinate transformation in the

593: composed transformation~$\combinedtab \define \feedbackab \compose

594: \sctt$

595: \begin{multline}

596:  \combinedtab = \sctt \compose \feedbackab \bigdsys{f}{g}{x} =

597:  \sctt \bigdsys{f+g\alpha }{g\beta }{x}\\

598:  = \bigdsys{\tantra{T} f + \tantra{T} g\alpha }{\tantra{T} g\beta }{z}

599:  = \bigdsys{\tantra{T} f + (\tantra{T} g) \alpha  }{ (\tantra{T} g)

600:  \beta  }{z} \\

601: = \feedback{\alpha '}{\beta '} \compose \sctt

602: .\end{multline}

603: The functions~$\alpha(z)'$, $\beta(z)'$ are equal to~$\alpha(x) $ 

604: and~$\beta(x) $ written in the $z$~ coordinates $\alpha(z) '=\alpha(x) 

605: \compose T^{-1}(z)$, $\beta(z) '=\beta(x) \compose T^{-1}(z)$. 

606: \end{rem}

607: 

608: 

609: %======== Subsection ================================================

610: \subsection{Linearity}

611: 

612: \label{sub:linearity}

613: 

614: The definition of linearity is straightforward in the deterministic

615: case. In contrast, the stochastic case is more complex, because there

616: are two ``input'' vectorfields and thereby several degrees of

617: linearity can be specified.

618: 

619: \begin{defn} \label{def:linear} The deterministic dynamical

620:   system~$\Theta_D = (f,g,U,0) \in \clmisysdet$ is \defbf{linear} if

621:   the vectorfield~$f$ is a linear mapping without no constant term and

622:   the vectorfields~$g_i$ are constant; that is they can be written as

623:   $f(x)= Ax$, $g(x)= B$ with~$A$ a square~$n \times n$ matrix and~$B$

624:   an~$n \times m$ matrix. The matrices must be constant on whole~$U$.

625: \end{defn}

626: \begin{defn} \label{def:linearsto}

627:   The stochastic dynamical system~$\Theta=(f,g,\sigma,U,0)$ is:

628: \begin{itemize}

629: \item \defbf{$g$-linear} if the mapping~$f(x) = Ax$ is linear without 

630:   constant term and~$g(x) = B$ is constant on~$U$.

631: \item \defbf{$\sigma$-linear} if the mapping~$f(x) = Ax$ is linear

632:   without constant term and~$\sigma(x) = S$ is constant on~$U$.

633: \item \defbf{$g\sigma$-linear} if it is both~$g$-linear and

634:   $\sigma$-linear.

635: \end{itemize}

636: The matrices~$A$ and~$B$ have the same dimensions as in

637: Definition~\ref{def:linear}; $S$ is an~$n \times k$ matrix.

638: \end{defn}

639: 

640: 

641: \begin{rem}

642:  The vectorfield~$g$ is \defbf{constant} on~$U$ if the value

643:  of~$g(x)$ is the same for every~$x \in U$. The vectorfield~$f$

644:  on~$U$ is \defbf{linear without constant term} if~$f(\origi{x})=0$

645:  and the superposition principle~$f(x_1+x_2)=f(x_1)+f(x_2)$

646:  holds for every~$x_1$, $x_2 \in U$.

647: \end{rem}

648: 

649: We study systems at equilibrium \ie we require that~$f(\origi{x})=0$

650: and that all transformations preserve the equilibrium:~$T(\origi{x})

651: =0$,~$\alpha (\origi{x})=0$, and~$\beta(\origi{x})$ is nonsingular.

652: The \Ito systems require an additional

653: condition~$f(\origi{x})+\corr{\sigma}{\origi{x}}=0$.  The non-equilibrium case can

654: be easily handled by extending the linear model with a constant term.

655: 

656: Moreover we require that the resulting linear systems are

657: controllable.  A controlled deterministic dynamical linear

658: system~$\Theta_D = (Ax,B,\RR^n,0) \in \clmisysdet$ is

659: \defbf{controllable} if its first $n$ repeated brackets form an

660: $n$-dimensional space

661: \begin{equation}

662:  \label{eq:68}

663:  \dim \left\{A^kB, 0\le k\le n-1 \right\} = n

664: .\end{equation}

665: Other definitions of controllability of linear

666: systems exist. For example Theorem 3.1 of~\citet{zhou} gives six

667: definitions with proofs of equivalence.

668: 

669: The controllability property deserves some attention in the stochastic

670: case. The linear stochastic dynamical system is characterized by two input

671: vectorfields $g(x)=B$ and $\sigma(x)=S$. 

672: \begin{enumerate}

673: \item The definition of the controllability for the control

674:   vectorfield~$g$ is identical to the deterministic case;

675:   \ie~\eqref{eq:68} must be satisfied. This property will be called

676:   \defbf{$g$-controllability}.

677: \item We will also define \defbf{$\sigma$-controllability} as the

678:   requirement that the repeated brackets $S,AS,A^2S,\dots,A^{n-1}S$

679:   form an $n$-dimensional space.

680: \item Finally, the linear system is \defbf{$g\sigma$-controllable} if

681: \begin{equation}

682: \label{eq:3}

683:  \dim \left( \left\{A^kB, 0\le k\le n-1 \right\} \bigcup \left\{A^kS, 0\le

684:      k\le n-1 \right\} \right)= n

685: .\end{equation}

686: \end{enumerate}

687: In this paper, we do not deal with the reachability, controllability,

688: accessibility, observability, and similar properties of nonlinear

689: systems.

690: 

691: 

692: \begin{defn} \label{def:itogssisosfb}

693:   Let~\dsdefmiuu be a dynamical system such that~$f(\origi{x}) =0$. We

694:   call the combination of a coordinate transformation~$\sctt$ and a

695:   regular feedback~$\feedbackab$ such that $T(\origi{x})=0$,

696:   $\alpha (\origi{x})=0$, and $\beta (\origi{x})$ is nonsingular the

697:   \defbf{linearizing transformation } of $\Theta$ if the

698:   transformation~$\feedbackab \compose \sctt $ converts~$\Theta$ into

699:   a~{\em controllable\/} linear system.

700:  

701: For stochastic system we distinguish:

702: \begin{romanenu}

703: \item \defbf{$g$-linearizing transformation} which transforms~$\Theta$ into

704:   a~$g$-linear and~$g$-controllable system

705: \item \defbf{$\sigma$-linearizing transformation} which transforms~$\Theta$ into

706:   a~$\sigma$-linear and~$\sigma$-controllable system 

707: \item \defbf{$g\sigma$-linearizing 

708:  transformation}  which transforms~$\Theta$ into

709:   a~$g\sigma$-linear and~$g$-controllable system 

710: 

711: Note that for $g\sigma$-linearization we

712: require~$g$-controllability. This is slightly stricter requirement

713: than~$g\sigma$ controllability but it should be naturally fulfilled by

714: the majority of practical control systems. This requirement cancels

715: many ``uncomfortable'' linear forms. Consider for example the system

716: with prefilter of Figure~\ref{fig:prefilter} which

717: is~$g\sigma$-controllable but~$g$-uncontrollable.

718: \end{romanenu}\psfig{fig:prefilter}{Dynamical System with

719: a Prefilter.}{prefilter}

720:  The system~$\Theta$ is \defbf{linearizable} if there exists 

721: linearizing transformation of~$\Theta$.

722: \end{defn}

723: 

724: 

725: 

726: \subsection{Computational Issues}

727: 

728: In most practical circumstances, computational issues are the limiting

729: factor of any application of differential geometric methods in

730: control.

731: 

732: The equations of exact linearization algorithms must be dealt in a

733: symbolic form. Even the simplest exact linearization problems are

734: extremely complex from the computational point of view.  Therefore,

735: the computer algebra tools are often employed. The results presented

736: in this paper were tested by the author on  few simulations of

737: control systems in the symbolic  system \Mathematica.

738: 

739: Of course, the computer algebra has apparently serious limitations and

740: drawbacks. Viability of the symbolic computational approach to the

741: problems of the nonlinear control is studied by \citet{jager95}. Some

742: very useful theoretical notes about the symbolic computation can be

743: found in~\citet{winkler}. Unfortunately, the limited scope

744: of this article does not allow deeper discussion of these subjects.

745: 

746: \subsection{Applications}

747: 

748: We propose, very briefly, two applications of the theory presented here: 

749: \begin{romanenu}

750: \item \defbf{Control ---}

751:  a dynamical systems~$\Theta$ obtained by exact

752: linearization will be controlled using the linear

753: feedback law:

754: \begin{equation}

755:  \label{eq:141}

756:  v = Kz + \kappa \nu

757: ,\end{equation}

758: where~$K$ is a row matrix of feedback gains,~$\kappa$ is an input

759: gain, $z$~is the state vector, $v$~is the original control input,

760:  and~$\nu$ is a new control input. 

761: 

762: Two approaches can be studied --- classical linear control methods and

763: the more sophisticated stochastic optimal control  approach studied

764: for example by \citet{oksendal}.

765: 

766: The~$g\sigma$-linear systems are natural candidates for such

767: approach because  the other linear forms leave certain

768: part of the resulting system nonlinear.

769: 

770: \item \defbf{Filtering} --- the filtering problem is probably the most useful

771: application of the theory of stochastic processes. We want

772: to give the best estimate to the state of a dynamical system defined

773: by the stochastic differential equation:

774: \begin{align}

775: \label{eq:118} dx_t = f(x_t)\,dt + \sigma_f(x_t)\,dw_tf;

776: \end{align} based on observations of the from:

777: \begin{align}

778: \label{eq:119}y_t = h(x_t) +

779: \sigma_h(x_t)\,dw_th .\end{align} $x_t$ is an $n$-dimensional stochastic process, $f$, $\sigma_f$,

780: $\sigma_h$ are smooth vectorfields and $h$ is a

781: smooth function.

782: 

783: It would be interesting to use exact linearization of the nonlinear

784: system to design an exact linear filter. Unfortunately, this idea has

785: no direct association with the linearization results presented below,

786: because it requires {\em output\/} exact linearization or

787: linearization of an autonomous system. Therefore, it would be helpful

788: to extend our results to these cases in the future.

789: 

790: 

791: \end{romanenu}

792: 

793: 

794: \subsection{Previous Work}

795: \label{ssub:laal}

796: 

797: The problem of SFB~$g$-linearization of SISO dynamical system defined in the

798:  \Ito formalism has been 

799: studied by~\citet{lahdhiri}.  The authors derive

800: equations corresponding to~\eqref{eq:50},~\eqref{eq:51} (eq 14, 15, 16

801: in~\citez{lahdhiri}). These equations are combined and then

802: reduced to a set of PDEs of a single

803: unknown function~$T_1$. Because there is no commuting relation

804: similar to~\eqref{eq:103} the equations contain partial derivatives

805: of~$T_1$ up to the~$2n$-th order (eq 23 in~\citez{lahdhiri}).

806: Next, the authors propose a lemma (Lemma 1) that identifies the

807: linearity conditions with non-singularity and involutivness

808: of~$\distrofg{n-2}$. Unfortunately, we disagree with this result.

809: 

810:  It can be easily verified that for~$\sigma=0$ this

811: statement does not correspond to the deterministic conditions

812: (Proposition~\ref{prop:d1sfb2}), because the deterministic case

813: requires non-singularity up to the~$(n-1)$-th bracket, not only up to

814: the~$(n-2)$-th one. Second, although the method of finding~$T_1$

815: was given (solving PDE), we do not think

816: that the existence of~$T_1$ was proved.

817: 

818: After this paper was finished, we discovered recent works

819: of~\citet{pan02} and~\citez{pan01}. In the article~\citez{pan01}

820: Pan defines and solves the problem of {\em feedback complete

821: linearization of stochastic nonlinear systems}. In our terminology,

822: this problem is equivalent to SFB MIMO input--output \Ito $g\sigma$

823: linearization which was not studied by us. 

824: 

825: In~\citez{pan02} Pan declares and proves so called \index{invariance

826:   under transformation rule}{\em invariance under transformation rule}

827:   which is exactly equivalent to our Theorem~\ref{prop:corr} which is

828:   probably the most important result of our paper.

829: 

830: Althougth the problems solved by Pan were slightly different, he uses

831: the same equivalence --- Theorem~\ref{prop:corr}.  This proves that

832: our conclusions about applicability of the \index{correcting

833: term}correcting term are perfectly valid.

834: 

835: In~\citez{pan02} Pan

836: consider three other \index{canonical form}canonical forms of

837: stochastic nonlinear systems, namely the \index{noise-prone strict

838: feedback form}noise-prone strict feedback form, \index{zero dynamics

839: canonical form}zero dynamics canonical form and \index{and observer

840: canonical form}observer canonical form also not studied by us. 

841: 

842: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Section %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

843: \section{Deterministic Case}

844: \label{sec:detcase}

845: 

846: In this section we recapitulate the results of the SFB and SCT exact linearization

847: theory for SISO systems. For detailed treatment and proofs we refer to

848: existing literature, above all  the

849: classical monographs of~\citet{isidori85} and~\citet{nijmeijer94}. For a

850: very readable introduction to the field we refer to the seventh

851: chapter of~\citet{vidyasagar93}. The books also contain extensive

852: bibliography. The monograph of~\citet{isidori85} builds mainly on the

853: concept of relative degree. In contrast we will emphasize the approach

854: of~\citet{vidyasagar93} because the method is  more suitable for the

855: stochastic case.

856: 

857: \subsection{Useful Relations}

858: 

859: The solution of the SFB linearization problem as presented

860: here  uses  the Leibniz rule

861: \begin{align}

862: \label{eq:63}

863: \lie{\lbrack f,g\rbrack }{\alpha } =

864: \lie{f}{(\lie{g}{\alpha })} - \lie{g}{ (\lie{f}{\alpha })}

865: \end{align} 

866: with~$f,g$ smooth vectorfields on~$U$; $\alpha\colon U\to \RR $ is

867: a smooth function. The recursive form of the Leibniz rule allows to

868: simplify the chains of differential equations for the

869: transformation~$T$. This can be expressed in the form of the following

870: statement:

871: 

872: For all $x \in U$, $k \ge 0$ these two sets of conditions are

873: equivalent:

874: 

875: \begin{align}

876: \label{eq:2}

877: \text{(i)}&\qquad&\lie{g}{\alpha } = \lie{g}{\lie{f}{\alpha }} = 

878: \cdots = \lie{g}{\multilie{f}{k}{\alpha }}=0 \\

879: \label{eq:10}

880: \text{(ii)}&&\lie{g}{\alpha } = \lie{\adfg{}}{\alpha } = \cdots =

881: \lie{\adfg{k}}{\alpha }=0 .\end{align}

882: 

883: Recall that the symbol~$\lie{f}{h}$ stands for the Lie derivative 

884:  defined by~$\lie{f}{h} = \langle f,\grad\,h \rangle = \ssumi{n} f_i(x)

885:  \parby{}{x_i} h(x)$. Higher order Lie derivatives

886:  can be defined recursively

887: $\multilie{f}{0}{h} = h$, $\multilie{f}{k+1}{h} =

888:  \lie{f}{\multilie{f}{k}{h}}$ for~$k \ge 0$. The Lie Bracket is defined as

889: ~$[f,g] \define \parbyx{g}f-\parbyx{f}g$; there is also a recursive

890:  definition:

891: \begin{equation}

892:  \ad{f}{0}{g} \define g; \quad \ad{f}{k+1}{g} \define

893:  \left[f,\ad{f}{k}{g}\right] \quad \text{for } k \ge 0 

894: .\end{equation}

895: 

896: 

897: Another very important result of the differential geometry is

898: invariance of the Lie bracket under the tangent

899: transformation~$\tantra{T}$ 

900: (see~\citet{nijmeijer94} Proposition 2.30 \pg~50):

901: 

902: Let~$T\colon U\to \RR^n$ be a diffeomorphic coordinate transformation, and~$f$ and~$g$

903: be smooth vectorfields. Then

904: \begin{align}

905:  \label{eq:103}

906:  \tantra{T} [f,g] = [\tantra{T} f, \tantra{T} g] .\end{align}

907: 

908: \subsection{SFB Linearization}

909: 

910: Every controllable linear system may be, by a linear coordinate

911: transformation, transformed to the controllable canonical form

912: (\citet{kalman}). Furthermore, this controllable canonical form can

913: be always transformed into the integrator chain by a linear

914: regular feedback.  Therefore, the integrator chain is a canonical

915: form for all feedback linearizable systems. (See \citet{vidyasagar93}

916: section 7.4). Consequently, the  equations of the integrator chain can be compared

917: with the equations of the nonlinear systems and the following

918: proposition can be proved:

919: 

920: \begin{prop} \label{prop:d1sfb1a}

921:  There is a SFB linearizing transformation~$\combinedtab$ of a SISO

922:  deterministic dynamical system~\dsdef into a controllable linear

923:  system if and only if there is a solution~$T_1, T_2, \dots,

924:  T_n\RntoR$ to the set of partial differential equations

925:  defined on~$U$

926: \begin{alignat}{2}

927: \label{eq:150}

928: \lie{f}{}{T_i} &= T_{i+1} \firstfor 1 \le i \le {n-1}\\

929: \label{eq:151}

930: \lie{g}{}{T_i} &= 0 \nextfor 1 \le i \le {n-1}\\

931: \label{eq:152}

932: \lie{g}{}{T_n} &\ne 0 .\end{alignat} Then the

933: feedback is defined as follows:

934: \begin{align}

935: \label{eq:57}

936: \alpha &=-\frac{\lie{f}{T_n}}{\lie{g}{{T_n}}}\qquad\qquad

937: \beta =\frac{1}{\lie{g}{T_n}} .\end{align}

938: \end{prop}

939: \begin{proof}

940: See \citet{vidyasagar93} equations 7.4.20--21.

941: \end{proof}

942: 

943: 

944: \begin{prop} \label{prop:d1sfb1}

945:  The SFB linearizing transformation~$\combinedtab$ of a SISO

946:  deterministic dynamical system~\dsdef into a controllable linear

947:  system  exists if and only if there is

948:  a solution~$\lambda \RntoR$ to the set of partial differential

949:  equations:

950: \begin{alignat}3

951: \label{eq:8}

952: \biglie{\adfg{i}}{\lambda }&=0\firstfor{\iva{n-2}}\\

953: \label{eq:9}

954: \biglie{\adfg{{n-1}}}{\lambda }&\not=0 .\end{alignat} The

955: linearizing transformation~$T(x)$ is given by:

956: \begin{alignat}3

957: \label{eq:11}

958: T_{i}&=\multilie{f}{{i-1}}\lambda  \firstfor 1\le i\le n\\

959: \alpha &=\frac{-\multilie{f}{{n}}\lambda 

960: }{\lie{g}{}\multilie{f}{{n-1}}\lambda }&\qquad\qquad&

961: \label{eq:12}

962: \beta =\frac{1}{\lie{g}{}\multilie{f}{{n-1}}\lambda }

963: .\end{alignat}

964: \begin{proof}

965: See \citet{vidyasagar93} equations 7.4.23--33 and \citet{nijmeijer94} Corollary 6.16.

966: \end{proof}

967: 

968: \end{prop}

969: Finally, the  geometrical conditions for the

970: existence of the linearizing transformation  are studied.

971: 

972: \begin{theo} \label{prop:d1sfb2}

973:  A deterministic SFB linearizing transformation of~\dsdef into a

974:  controllable linear system exists if and only if the

975:  distribution~$\Delta_{n} \define \sspan\left\{{\adfg{i},

976:  \iva{n-1}}\right\}$ is nonsingular on~$U$ and the

977:  distribution~$\Delta_{n-1} \define \sspan\left\{{\adfg{i},

978:  \iva{n-2}}\right\}$ is involutive on~$U$.

979: \end{theo}

980: \begin{proof}

981: See \citet{nijmeijer94} Corollary 6.17, \citet{vidyasagar93} Theorem

982: 7.4.16, \citet{isidori89} Theorem 4.2.3 .

983: \end{proof}

984: 

985: \subsection{SCT Linearization}

986: 

987: \begin{theo} \label{prop:s1ctt2t}

988:   There is a SCT~linearizing transformation~$\sctt$ of a deterministic

989:   MIMO system~\dsdefmi into a controllable linear system if  and only

990:   if there exists a reordering of the vectorfields~$g_1 \dots g_m$ and

991:   an~$m$-tuple of integers~$\kappa_1 \le \kappa_2 \le \dots \kappa_m$

992:   with~$\ssumi{m} \kappa_i = n$ called the \defbf{controllability

993:     indexes} such that the following conditions are satisfied for

994:   all~$x \in U$:

995:  \begin{align}

996:  \label{eq:43}

997:  \text{(i)}&\qquad\dim\left(\sspan\left\{( \ad{f}{j}{g_i}(x),

998:  \iva{m}, \jva{\kappa_i-1})\right\}\right) = n\\

999:  \label{eq:44}

1000:  \text{(ii)}&\qquad[\ad{f}{k}{g_i},\ad{f}{l}{g_j}]=0

1001:  \qquad\text{for}\qquad 0 \le k+l \le \kappa_i+\kappa_j-1,\, 0 \le

1002:  i,j \le m . \end{align}

1003: \end{theo}

1004: \begin{proof}

1005: See  \citet{nijmeijer94} Theorem 5.3 and Corollary 5.6.

1006: \end{proof}

1007: 

1008: The following corollary can be verified for SISO systems:

1009: 

1010: \begin{coroll} \label{prop:s1ctt2a}

1011:  For a SISO system with~$m=1$ the

1012:  condition (ii) of~\ref{prop:s1ctt2t} can be simplified as

1013:  follows:

1014: \begin{align}

1015: \label{eq:45}

1016: [g,ad^l_f g] = 0, \quad l = 1, 3, 5, \dots, 2n-1, \forall x \in U

1017: .\end{align}

1018: \end{coroll}

1019: \begin{proof}

1020: See  \citet{nijmeijer94} Corollary 5.6 and the text which follows.

1021: \end{proof}

1022: 

1023: 

1024: 

1025: 

1026: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Section %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1027: \section{Transformations of \Ito Dynamical Systems}

1028: \label{sec:stotrans}

1029: 

1030: The transformation rules of \Ito systems are motivated by the  \Ito

1031: differential rule (see \eg~\citet{wong84} Section 3.3), which defines

1032: the influence of nonlinear coordinate transformations on  \Ito stochastic

1033: processes.

1034: 

1035: The \Ito differential rule applies to the situation where a scalar

1036: valued stochastic process~$x_t$ defined by a stochastic differential

1037: equation~$dx_t = f(x_t)\,dt + \sigma(x_t)\,dw_t$ with~$f\RtoR$ and~$\sigma\RtoR$

1038: smooth real functions and~$w_t$  a Brownian motion, is transformed

1039: by a a diffeomorphic coordinate transformation~$T\colon \RR \to \RR$.

1040: Then the stochastic process~$z_t\define T(x_t)$ exists and is an \Ito

1041: process. Further, the process~$z_t$ is the solution of the stochastic

1042: differential equation

1043: \begin{equation} \label{eq:126}

1044: dz_t = \parbyx{T} {f(x_t)}\,dt + \parbyx{T} {\sigma(x_t)}\,dw_t + \itoxs\,dt

1045: .\end{equation}

1046: All details together with a proof are

1047: available for example in~\citet{karatzas}.

1048: 

1049: The \Ito rule can be also derived for the multidimensional case: for

1050: the~$m$-th component of an~$n$-dimensional stochastic process the \Ito

1051: rule can be expressed as follows:

1052: \begin{multline}

1053:  dz_m = \ssumi{n} \parby{T_m}{x_i} f_i\,dt + \frahalf \ssum{i}{1}{n}

1054:  \ssum{j}{1}{k} \parby{T_m}{x_i} \sigma_{ij}\,dw_j + \frahalf

1055:  \ssum{{i,j}}{1}{n} \frac{\partial^2 T_m}{\partial x_i x_j}

1056:  \ssum{l}{1}{k} \sigma_{il}

1057:  \sigma_{jl}\,dt \\

1058:  =\lie{f}T_m\,dt + \ssum{j}{1}{k} \lie{\sigma_j}{T_m}\,dw_j +

1059:  \ito{\sigma}T_m\,dt

1060: .\end{multline}

1061: 

1062: For the most common case with scalar noise~$k=1$ the equation

1063:  can be further simplified to:

1064: \begin{equation}

1065: dz_m =\lie{f}{T_m}\,dt + \lie{\sigma}{T_m}\,dw +

1066: \frahalf \ssum{{i,j}}{1}{n}

1067: \parbyxx{T_m}{x_i}{x_j} \sigma_{i} \sigma_{j}\,dt 

1068: .\end{equation}

1069: The operator~$\ito{\sigma} T_m$ is sometimes written using

1070: matrix notation as:

1071: \begin{equation}

1072: \ito{\sigma} T_m = \frahalf \trace \left(\sigma^T\sigma \parbysec{T_m}{x}\right)

1073: .\end{equation}

1074: Generally, $\ito{\sigma}$ vanishes for linear~$T$ or zero~$\sigma$. 

1075: 

1076: 

1077: %======== Subsection ================================================

1078: \subsection{The Correcting Term}

1079: \label{sub:corr}

1080: 

1081: 

1082: In this section we introduce an extremely useful equivalence

1083: between \Ito and Stratonovich systems, which allows to use some

1084: Stratonovich linearization techniques for \Ito problems. The

1085: motivation is following: let~\isdefmi be an  \Ito system. We

1086: are looking for a Stratonovich system $\Theta_S = \ssys{\alterbar

1087:  f}{\alterbar g}{\alterbar \sigma}{x}$ such that the trajectories

1088: of~$\Theta_I$ and~$\Theta_S$ are identical. The aim is to find

1089: equations relating the quantities~$\alterbar f$,~$\alterbar

1090: g$, and~$\alterbar \sigma$ with~$f$,~$g$, and~$\sigma$.

1091: 

1092: \begin{defn} \label{def:corr}

1093:  Let~$\Theta_{1I} = \ssys{f}{g}{\sigma}{x} \in \clmisysito$ be

1094:  an~$n$-dimensional \Ito dynamical

1095:  system with~$k$-dimensional Brownian

1096:  motion~$w$. The vectorfield $\corr{\sigma}{x}$ whose ~$r$-th

1097:  coordinate is equal to

1098: \begin{alignat}3 

1099: \label{eq:5}

1100:  (\corr{\sigma}{x})_r &= -\frahalf \ssum{i}{1}{n} \ssum{j}{1}{k}

1101:  \parby{{\sigma_{rj}}}{{x_i}} \sigma_{ij} \firstfor 1 \le r \le n

1102: \end{alignat}

1103: is called the \defbf{correcting term}.

1104: Note that the derivative is always evaluated in the corresponding

1105: coordinate system.

1106: Further, let us define the \defbf{correcting mapping} $\Corr{\sigma} \colon \clmisysito \to \clmisysstrat$ by

1107: \begin{align}

1108: \label{eq:21}

1109:  \Corr{\sigma} (f,g,\sigma,U,\origi{x}) \define

1110:  (f+\corr{\sigma}{x},g,\sigma,U,\origi{x}) .\end{align}

1111:  \end{defn}

1112:  The general treatment of the subject can be found for example

1113: in~\citet{wong84} \pg~160 or in \citet{sagemelsa}.  The following

1114: theorem describes the

1115: behavior of the correcting term under the coordinate transformation.

1116: \begin{theo} \label{prop:corr}

1117:   Let~\isdef be a one-dimensional \Ito dynamical system. Let $T$ be a

1118:   diffeomorphism defined on~$U$ and the symbols~$\scti{T}$ and

1119:   $\scts{T}$ denote a \Ito coordinate transformation and a

1120:   Stratonovich coordinate transformation induced by the same

1121:   diffeomorphism~$T$ and~$\tilde\sigma = \tantra{T}{\sigma}$.  Then the following diagram commutes:

1122: \begin{equation}

1123: \begin{CD}

1124: \label{eq:4}

1125: \Theta_{1I} @>\scti{T}>> \Theta_{2I}\\

1126: @V{\Corr{\sigma}}VV @AA{\Corr{{\tantra{T} \sigma}}^{-1}}A\\

1127: \Theta_{1S} @>\scts{T}>> \Theta_{2S}\\

1128: \end{CD}

1129: .\end{equation}

1130: In other words:

1131:  \begin{align}

1132:  \label{eq:19}

1133:   \scti{T} &= {\Corr{{\tilde\sigma}}{}}^{-1} \compose \scts{T} 

1134:   \compose \Corr{\sigma}{} \quad\text{and} \\

1135:  \label{eq:20}

1136:   \scts{T} &=  {\Corr{\sigma}{}}^{-1}  \compose \scti{T}

1137:   \compose \Corr{{\tilde\sigma}}{}  

1138:  . \end{align}

1139: 

1140: The notation~$\Corr{{\sigma}}{}^{-1}$ is used to denote the

1141: inverse mapping 

1142: \begin{align}

1143: \label{eq:23}

1144:  {\Corr{\sigma}{}}^{-1} (f,g,\sigma,U,\origi{x}) \define

1145:  (f-\corr{\sigma}{x},g,\sigma,U,\origi{x}) 

1146: .\end{align}

1147: \end{theo}

1148: 

1149: \begin{proof}

1150:  The correcting term~$\corr{\sigma}{x}\RntoRn$

1151:  is equal to

1152: \begin{equation}

1153: \corr{\sigma}{x} = -\corrx

1154: .\end{equation}

1155: The transformations specified in the diagram~\eqref{eq:4} will be

1156: evaluated in the following order:

1157: \begin{equation}

1158: \begin{CD}

1159: \label{eq:6}

1160: \Theta_{1I} @>({\operatorname a})>> \Theta_{2I} \\

1161: @V({\operatorname b})VV \\

1162: \Theta_{1S} @>({\operatorname c})>> \Theta_{2S}

1163: @>({\operatorname d})>> \Theta_{3I}\\

1164: \end{CD}

1165: \end{equation}

1166: We want to prove the equivalence of~$\Theta_{2I}$ and~$\Theta_{3I}$.

1167: The symbols (a) and (c) denote \Ito

1168: coordinate transformations; the

1169: symbols (b) (d) stand for the correcting

1170: mapping and its inverse. Note that the systems~$\Theta_{2I}$,

1171: $\Theta_{2S}$, and $\Theta_{3I}$ are defined in the~$z$-coordinate

1172: systems. Further, let

1173: \begin{align}

1174:  \label{eq:243}

1175:  \tilde\sigma&\define\trav{\sigma}\\

1176:  \kappa&\define \tantra{T} \corr{\sigma}{x} = -\trav{(\corrx)}\\

1177:  \origi{z}&\define T(\origi{x}) .\end{align} Then

1178: \begin{align}

1179:  \text{(a)}&\qquad \Theta_{2I} =\bigssys{\trav{f} + \itoxs }{

1180:  \trav{g}}{ \tilde\sigma }{z}\\

1181:  \text{(b)}&\qquad \Theta_{1S} =\bigssys{f - \corrx }{ g }{

1182:  \sigma }{x} \\

1183:  \text{(c)}&\qquad \Theta_{2S} =\bigssys{\trav{\left(f-\corrx\right)}

1184:  }{ \trav{g} }{

1185:  \trav{\sigma} }{z}\\

1186:  \text{(d)}&\qquad \Theta_{3I} =\bigssys{\trav{f} + \kappa + \frahalf

1187:  \parbyz{\tilde\sigma}{\tilde\sigma} }{ \trav{g} }{ \tilde\sigma

1188:  }{z}

1189: .\end{align}

1190: 

1191: All the terms in (a) are equivalent to the respective terms in (d)

1192: except for the drift terms containing functions of~$\sigma$. Therefore,

1193: we continue comparing these terms only. For (a):

1194: 

1195: \begin{align}

1196:  \label{eq:37}

1197:  L &\define \itoxs .\end{align} For (d):

1198: \begin{multline}

1199: \label{eq:38}

1200: R \define \kappa + \corrxx{{\tilde\sigma}}{z} = \kappa + \frahalf

1201: \parbyz{} \left( \parbyx{T} \sigma \right) \parbyx{T}\sigma = \kappa +

1202: \frahalf \parbyz{x} \parbyx{} \left( \parbyx{T} \sigma \right)

1203: \parbyx{T}\sigma = \\

1204: \kappa + \frahalf \left( \parbysec{T}{x}\sigma +

1205:  \parbyx{T}\parbyx{\sigma} \right) \sigma = \kappa + \frahalf

1206: \parbysec{T}{x}\sigma^2 - \kappa= \itoxs .\end{multline} Thus~$L=R$

1207:  and $\Theta_{2I} = \Theta_{3I}$.

1208: \end{proof}

1209: 

1210: Theorem~\ref{prop:corr} is valid also for combined

1211:  transformations:

1212: \begin{coroll} \label{prop:corrcorol}

1213:   Let~\isdef, $T$, $\scti{T}$, and

1214:   $\scts{T}$ have the same meaning as in Theorem~\ref{prop:corr}. 

1215:  Then the following diagram commutes for arbitrary regular feedback~$\feedbackab$:

1216: \begin{equation}

1217: \begin{CD}

1218: \label{eq:4000}

1219: \Theta_{1I} @>\scti{T}>> \Theta_{2I} @>\feedbackab>> \Theta_{4I}\\

1220: @V{\Corr{\sigma}}VV @AA{\Corr{{\tantra{T} \sigma}}^{-1}}A @AA{\Corr{{\tantra{T} \sigma}}^{-1}}A\\

1221: \Theta_{1S} @>\scts{T}>> \Theta_{2S}  @>\feedbackab>> \Theta_{4S}\\

1222: \end{CD}

1223: .\end{equation}

1224: \end{coroll}

1225: 

1226: \begin{proof}

1227:   We want to prove equivalence of~$\Theta_{4I}$

1228:   and~${\Corr{{\tantra{T} \sigma}}^{-1}} \Theta_{4S}$. 

1229:   

1230:   The control and dispersion vectorfields of~$\Theta_{4I}$

1231:   and~$\Theta_{4S}$ are identical and they are not influenced by the

1232:   correcting mapping.

1233: 

1234:   Using the notation of Theorem~\ref{prop:corr} we can express the

1235:   drift term of~$\Theta_{4I}$ as~$\tantra{T}f + L + g\alpha $. The

1236:   drift term of~${\Corr{{\tantra{T} \sigma}}^{-1}} \Theta_{4S}$ 

1237:   is~$\tantra{T}f + R + g\alpha  $. The effect of feedback is purely

1238:   additive and both the systems are equal.

1239: \end{proof}

1240: 

1241: 

1242: 

1243: At first glance the correcting term is rather

1244: surprising. How can the second derivative of~$T$ in (\ref{eq:37}) be

1245: compensated by the correcting term, which does

1246: not contain the~$T$ at all? The answer is quite simple: the second

1247: derivative is hidden in the correcting term

1248: implicitly because the correcting term depends

1249: on the coordinate system in which the system~$\Theta_{1I}$ is defined.

1250: The derivative~$\parbyx{\sigma}$ contained in the

1251: correcting term is always taken in the

1252: appropriate coordinate system. To emphasize the dependence of the

1253: correcting term on the coordinate system, we

1254: will never omit the independent variable (\eg $x$ or $z$) from the

1255: symbol~$\corr{\sigma}{x}$.

1256: 

1257:  Proposition~\ref{prop:corr} is valid for general multidimensional

1258:  systems~\isdefmi; the proof is purely mechanical and is not presented

1259:  here.

1260: 

1261: Let us now turn our attention to several special cases of the

1262: correcting mapping.

1263: \begin{coroll} \label{prop:corrvectr}

1264:  Let~$\Theta_I = \ssysfgx \in \clssysito(n,m,1)$ be

1265:  an~$n$-dimensional stochastic dynamical system with an

1266:  one-dimensional Brownian motion~$w$.

1267:  The~$r$-th coordinate of the correcting

1268:  term~$(\corr{\sigma}{x})_r$ is equal to

1269: \begin{equation}

1270: \label{eq:214}

1271: (\corr{\sigma}{x})_r = \frahalf \ssum{i}{1}{n}

1272: \parby{{\sigma_{r}}}{{x_i}} \sigma_{i} = \frahalf

1273: \lie{\sigma}{\sigma_r}

1274: \rfor{1\le r\le n}

1275: .\end{equation}

1276: \end{coroll}

1277: \begin{proof}

1278:  Substitute~$k = 1$ into~\eqref{eq:5}.

1279: \end{proof}

1280: \begin{coroll}

1281:  \label{prop:ic1}

1282:  For systems with one-dimensional noise ($k=1$) define the matrix

1283:  valued \Ito term~$\ito{\sigma}{T}$ for~$T\RntoRn$

1284:  with components~$T_i$, $1\le i\le n$, as a column $n\times 1$

1285:  matrix $\ito{\sigma}{T} \define \left[\ito{\sigma}{T_1},

1286:  \ito{\sigma}{T_2}, \dots,\ito{\sigma}{T_n}\right]^T$.

1287:  

1288:  Then the relations~\eqref{eq:214} can be expressed as

1289: \begin{align}

1290: \label{eq:215}

1291: \ito{\sigma}{T} = \tantra{T} \left(\corr{\sigma}{x}\right) -

1292: \corr{{\tilde\sigma}}{z} .\end{align}

1293: \end{coroll}

1294: \begin{proof}

1295:  The proof is almost identical to that of

1296:  the multidimensional variant of Corollary~\eqref{prop:corr}.The symbols can be

1297:  identified as follows:

1298:  \begin{alignat}2

1299:  L_i &= \left(\ito{\sigma}{T}\right)_i \firstfor 1\le i\le n \\

1300:  \kappa_i &= \left( \tantra{T} \left(\corr{\sigma}{x}\right)\right)_i \\

1301:  R_i &= \left(\tantra{T} \left(\corr{\sigma}{x}\right) \right)_i -

1302:  \left(\corr{{\tilde\sigma}}{z}\right)_i .\end{alignat}

1303: \end{proof}

1304: \begin{coroll} 

1305:  \label{prop:ic2}

1306:  Assume that the conditions of Proposition~\ref{prop:ic1} hold. The

1307:  relation~\eqref{eq:215} can be written as:

1308:  \begin{alignat}3

1309:  \label{eq:140}

1310:  \frahalf \lie{\sigma}{\lie{\sigma}{T_i}} &=

1311:  \ito{\sigma}{T_i} - \lie{\corr{\sigma}{x}}{T_i} \firstfor 1

1312:  \le i \le n

1313: . \end{alignat} 

1314: \end{coroll}

1315: \begin{proof}

1316:  The formula can be expressed as:

1317:  \begin{multline}

1318:  \label{eq:139}

1319:  \frahalf \lie{\sigma}{{\lie{\sigma}{T_i}}} = \frahalf

1320:  \lie{\sigma}{ \left( \ssum{j}{1}{n} \parby{T_i}{x_j} \sigma_j

1321:  \right) } = \frahalf \ssum{l}{1}{n} \sigma_k \parby{}{x_k}

1322:  \left( \ssum{j}{1}{n} \parby{T_i}{x_j} \sigma_j

1323:  \right) =\\

1324:  \frahalf \ssum{k,j}{1}{n} \left( \sigma_j\sigma_k

1325:  \parbyxx{T_i}{x_k}{x_j} +\parby{T_i}{x_j}

1326:  \parby{\sigma_j}{x_k} \sigma_k \right) = \ito{\sigma}{T_i} -

1327:  \lie{{\corr{\sigma}{x}}}{T_i} . \end{multline}

1328: \end{proof}

1329: 

1330: %======== Subsection ================================================

1331: \subsection{Composition of Coordinate Transformations of \Ito Systems}

1332: \label{sub:stgroup}

1333: 

1334: The set of all deterministic coordinate transformations~$\sctt$

1335: together with composition~$\sct{RS} \define \sct{S} \compose \sct{R}$

1336: forms a group. Obviously, this fact is a straightforward result of the

1337: behavior of the contravariant transformation and therefore an

1338: analogous statement must hold for Stratonovich systems.  Surprisingly,

1339: this is valid also for \Ito systems as will be shown here. This has an

1340: important consequence: we may always find the inverse transformation

1341: to a given coordinate transformation of \Ito systems. We will prove

1342: the following assertion:

1343: \begin{theo}

1344:  \label{prop:compogr}

1345: 

1346:  Let~$\scti{R}$, $\scti{S} \in \clsysito$ be

1347:  coordinate transformations of

1348:  one-dimensional \Ito systems  induced by

1349:  diffeomorphisms~$R$ and~$S$. Then

1350: \begin{equation}

1351:  \label{eq:123}

1352:  \scti{S} \compose \scti{R} = \scti{S \compose R} 

1353: .\end{equation}

1354: \end{theo}

1355: \begin{proof}

1356:  We will transform the system in two

1357:  different ways and show that the results are equal.

1358: \begin{enumerate}

1359: \item In the first method the system~$A=(0,0,a,U,\origi{x})$ which

1360:   corresponds to a differential equation~$dx = a(x)\,dw$ will be

1361:   transformed twice:

1362: \begin{enumerate} \item first,  by~$y=R(x)$ to~$y$

1363:  coordinates \item and then the result~$B=(g,0,b,U,\origi{x})$ which

1364:   corresponds to~$dy = g(y)\,dt + b(y)\,dw$

1365:   by~$z=S(y)$ to~$z$ coordinates. 

1366: \end{enumerate}

1367: \item The other method

1368:  transforms the system~$A$ only once by~$z=T(x) = S(R(x)) = (S

1369:  \compose R)(x)$.

1370: \end{enumerate}

1371: Without loss of generality, the equation~$dx = a(x)\,dw$ is assumed

1372:  to have no drift term because the drift term transforms in the

1373:  contravariant fashion. The derivatives will be

1374:  denoted by~$\parbyx{T(x)} \definer T'$,~$\parbyx{R(x)} \definer

1375:  R'$,~$\parby{S(y)}{y} \definer S'$ and similarly for~$T''$,

1376:  $R''$ and $S''$. Note that the prime is always used to denote

1377:  derivatives by the argument of the function.

1378:  

1379:  The transformation by~$R$ gives:

1380:  \begin{align}

1381:  \label{eq:64} 

1382:  dx &= a \, dw\\

1383:  \label{eq:266} 

1384:  dy &= R' a\,dw + \frahalf a^2 R'' \,dt .\end{align} Thus the

1385:  coefficients of the second SDE are defined

1386:  by

1387: \begin{align}

1388:  \label{eq:267}

1389:  b(y) &\define (R'a) \compose R^{-1}(y)\\

1390:  \label{eq:268}

1391:  g(y) &\define (\frahalf a^2 R'') \compose R^{-1}(y) .\end{align}

1392: 

1393: The second transformation (by~$S$) gives

1394: \begin{align}

1395: \label{eq:269}

1396: dz &= \left( S' g + \frahalf b^2 S'' \right)\,dt + S' b \,dw =\\

1397: \label{eq:270}

1398: &= \left(\frahalf a^2 S' R'' + \frahalf (R')^2 a^2 S'' \right) \,dt +

1399: S' R' a \,dw = \\

1400: \label{eq:272}

1401: &= \frahalf a^2 \left(S'R'' + (R')^2 S'' \right)\,dt + S'R' a\,dw =\\

1402: \label{eq:273}

1403: &= \frahalf a^2 T''\,dt + T' a\,dw .\end{align} The last equality

1404: follows from the fact that~$T''=S''(R')^2+S'R''$.

1405: \end{proof}

1406: One can verify the multidimensional case in the same

1407: spirit. 

1408: %======== Subsection ================================================

1409: \subsection{Invariants}

1410: \label{sub:stoinvar}

1411: 

1412: 

1413: In the deterministic case, some useful propositions about the

1414: invariant properties for example the Leibniz rule~\eqref{eq:63} and

1415: the relation~\eqref{eq:2} were employed. 

1416: 

1417: Unfortunately, we have not found any analogy for the \Ito systems yet.

1418: To point out the main complications, we will analyze the \Ito

1419: equivalent of the Leibniz rule~\eqref{eq:63}, which is essential for

1420: reducing the order of partial differential equations in the

1421: deterministic exact linearization.

1422: 

1423: If the Lie derivative~$\lie{g}{}$ is interpreted

1424: as a general first order operator

1425: \begin{align}

1426:  \lie{g}{} = \ssumi{n}g_i \parby{}{x_i}

1427: \end{align}

1428: then the commutator of two such first order

1429: operators $\lie{f}{\lie{g}{}} - \lie{g}{\lie{f}{}}$ is also a first

1430: order operator~$\lie{\lbrack f,g\rbrack }{}$ (see~\eqref{eq:63}).

1431: 

1432: Similarly, define the general second order operator as

1433: \begin{align}

1434: \label{eq:17}

1435: O(g,G) &\define \ssumi{n}g_i \parby{}{x_i} + \ssum{i,j}{0}{n}

1436: G_{ij}\parbyxx{}{x_i}{x_j}

1437: \end{align}

1438: where $g_i,G_{ij}\RntoR$ for $1 \le i,j \le n$. We can compute

1439: the commutator

1440: \begin{align}

1441: \label{eq:213}

1442: C(f,F,g,G) \define O(f,F)O(g,G) - O(g,G)O(f,F)

1443: \end{align} of such

1444: second order operators. If this commutator was also

1445: a second order operator (\ie there were~$\varphi$ and $\Phi$

1446: such that the operator~$C(f,F,g,G) = O(\varphi,\Phi)$), then we would

1447: be able to simplify any PDEs of stochastic

1448: transformations. (See Proposition~\ref{prop:sfbooo}).

1449: 

1450: Because the operator~$O$ is linear, \ie~$O(f,F) = O(f,0) + O(0,F)$, we

1451:  can split the computation into four independent, reusable parts:

1452: \begin{multline}

1453:  C(f,F,g,G) = O(f,F)O(g,G) - O(g,G)O(f,F) = \\

1454:  =\lie{[f,g]}{} + C(0,F,0,G) + C(f,0,0,G) + C(0,F,g,0)

1455:  .\end{multline}

1456: 

1457: The first term is already a first order operator. Only the second

1458:  and the third terms need to be computed because the fourth term

1459:  can be obtained from the third one by formal substitution. For

1460: the third term:

1461: \begin{multline}

1462:  O(f,0) O(0,G) = \ssum{i}{1}{n} f_{i} \parby{}{x_i} \left(

1463:  \ssum{k,l}{1}{n} G_{kl}

1464:  \parbyxx{}{x_k}{x_l} \right) = \\

1465:  \ssum{i,k,l}{1}{n} \left( f_{i} \parby{G_{kl}}{x_i}

1466:  \parbyxx{}{x_k}{x_l} + f_{i} G_{kl} \parbyxxx{}{x_i}{x_k}{x_l}

1467:  \right) 

1468: .\end{multline} 

1469: Further,

1470: \begin{multline}

1471:  O(0,G)0(f,0) = \ssum{k,l}{1}{n} G_{kl} \parbyxx{}{x_k}{x_l} \left(

1472:  \ssum{i}{1}{n} f_i \parby{}{x_i}

1473:  \right) =\\

1474:  \ssum{i,k,l}{1}{n} G_{kl} \left( \parbyxx{f_i}{x_k}{x_l}

1475:  \parby{}{x_i} + 2 \parby{f_i}{x_l} \parbyxx{}{x_i}{x_k} + f_i

1476:  \parbyxxx{}{x_i}{x_k}{x_l} \right) .\end{multline}

1477: 

1478: The intermediate results for the third and the fourth terms

1479:  can be combined into

1480: \begin{multline}

1481:  O(f,0) O(0,G) + O(0,F) O(g,0) - O(g,0) O(0,F) - O(0,G) O(f,0) =\\

1482:  \ssum{i,k,l}{1}{n} \left( f_{i} \parby{G_{kl}}{x_i} - g_{i}

1483:  \parby{F_{kl}}{x_i} + 2 F_{ki} \parby{g_l}{x_i} - 2 G_{ki}

1484:  \parby{f_l}{x_i}

1485:  \right) \parbyxx{}{x_k}{x_l} \\

1486:  \left( F_{kl} \parbyxx{f_i}{x_k}{x_l} - G_{kl}

1487:  \parbyxx{g_i}{x_k}{x_l} \right) \parby{}{x_i} .\end{multline} All

1488: of them are first and second order operators. Now let's evaluate the

1489: second term

1490: \begin{multline}

1491:  O(0,F) O(0,G) = \ssum{i,j}{1}{n} F_{ij} \parbyxx{}{x_i}{x_j} \biggl(

1492:  \ssum{k,l}{1}{n} G_{kl} \parbyxx{}{x_k}{x_l} \biggr) =\\

1493:  \ssum{i,j,k,l}{1}{n} \biggl( F_{ij} \parbyxx{G_{kl}}{x_i}{x_j}

1494:  \parbyxx{}{x_k}{x_l} + (F_{ij} + F_{ji}) \parby{G_{kl}}{x_j}

1495:  \parbyxxx{}{x_i}{x_k}{x_l} + F_{ij} G_{kl}

1496:  \parbyxxxx{}{x_i}{x_j}{x_k}{x_l} \biggr) .\end{multline}

1497: \begin{multline}

1498:  O(0,F) O(0,G) - O(0,G) O(0,F) = \ssum{i,j,k,l}{1}{n} \biggl( \biggl(

1499:  F_{ij} \parbyxx{G_{kl}}{x_i}{x_j} - G_{ij}

1500:  \parbyxx{F_{kl}}{x_i}{x_j}

1501:  \biggr) \parbyxx{}{x_k}{x_l} +\\

1502:  \biggl( (F_{ij} + F_{ji}) \parby{G_{kl}}{x_j} - (G_{ij} + G_{ji})

1503:  \parby{F_{kl}}{x_j} \biggr) \parbyxxx{}{x_i}{x_k}{x_l} \biggr)

1504:  .\end{multline} Unfortunately the last term

1505: \begin{align}

1506:  \label{eq:60}

1507:  \biggl( (F_{ij} + F_{ji}) \parby{G_{kl}}{x_j} - (G_{ij} + G_{ji})

1508:  \parby{F_{kl}}{x_j} \biggr) \parbyxxx{}{x_i}{x_k}{x_l}

1509: \end{align}

1510: is of third order and, in general, it does not vanish.  Thus we have

1511: shown that the commutator of two general second order operators is of

1512: third order. Consequently, the Leibniz rule simplifications used in

1513: the deterministic case cannot be applied to the general stochastic

1514: linearization problem.

1515: 

1516: 

1517: 

1518: 

1519: %======== Subsection ================================================

1520: \section{Stochastic Case } 

1521: \label{sub:stoclass}

1522: 

1523: Since there are two  definitions of coordinate transformation of stochastic

1524: differential equations (\Ito, Stratonovich) and three

1525: definitions of linearity ($g,\sigma,g\sigma$), we face at least six

1526: stochastic problems per a deterministic one. In this section we will

1527: discuss all of them giving at least partial solutions to the feedback

1528: linearization problem. We consider mainly the SISO problem except for

1529: cases where the MIMO extension is trivial.

1530: 

1531: %======== Subsection ================================================

1532: \subsection{Stratonovich $g$-linearization}

1533: \label{sub:stotech}

1534: 

1535: 

1536: We show that the method known for deterministic systems can

1537: be applied without modifications.

1538: 

1539: \begin{prop} \label{prop:stratgprop}

1540:  The Stratonovich dynamical system~\ssdefmi is $g$-linearizable if and

1541:  only if the deterministic system~\dsdefmi is linearizable. These two

1542:  linearizing transformation{}s are equal. This holds both for SISO and

1543:  MIMO systems and both for SFB and SCT linearization.

1544: \end{prop}

1545: \begin{proof}

1546:  The comparison of transformation laws for deterministic and

1547:  Stratonovich systems shows that the coefficients of $f$ and

1548:  $g$ transform in the same way.  The

1549:  controllability conditions and the definition of linearity are

1550:  also identical (compare Definition~\ref{def:linear} with

1551:  Definition~\ref{def:linearsto}). Identical problems have

1552:  identical  solutions.

1553: \end{proof}

1554: 

1555: %======== Subsection ================================================

1556: \subsection{Stratonovich $g\sigma$-linearization}

1557: \label{sub:ssgsigma}

1558: 

1559: The Stratonovich problems are not complicated by the second order \Ito

1560: term. The transformation laws for Stratonovich systems are the same as

1561: the deterministic transformation laws, therefore many results of the

1562: deterministic linearization theory can be used. 

1563: 

1564: For example, the stochastic SCT $g\sigma$-linearization of a

1565: Stratonovich system is equivalent to the linearization of a

1566: deterministic, non-square MIMO system with two inputs and a single

1567: output. The SFB problem, which is studied in this section, is not as

1568: simple as the SCT one because the feedback influences only the control

1569: input~$u$ (Figure~\ref{fig:picassym}). The ``dispersion input'' is not

1570: a part of the feedback.  Consequently, in order to solve the

1571: Stratonovich SFB $g\sigma$-linearization, we have to deal with a

1572: combined deterministic SFB-SCT problem.

1573: \psfig{fig:picassym}{Asymmetry of  SFB $g\sigma$-Linearization}{picassym}

1574: 

1575: \subsubsection{Canonical Form}

1576: Recall that we require~$g$-controllability of the resulting system

1577: 

1578: Since this is a Stratonovich problem, the transformed

1579: vectorfields~$\tilde f$ and~$\tilde g$ do not depend on the dispersion

1580: vectorfield~$\sigma$. Therefore, the {\em control part\/} and the {\em

1581:   dispersion part\/} can be studied independently.

1582: 

1583: Any~$g$-linear system can be transformed into integrator chain by a

1584: combination of a linear coordinate transformation and linear

1585: feedback. Therefore, if we set~$\sigma=0$, the canonical form is the

1586: integrator chain. 

1587: 

1588: In general, the dispersion vectorfield~$\tilde \sigma$ is assumed to

1589: be arbitrary constant vectorfield~$\tilde \sigma(x)_i=s_i$, $1\le i\le n$

1590: (See Definition~\ref{def:linearsto}) and this form is preserved by arbitrary linear

1591: transformations. Therefore the canonical form can be written as:

1592: \begin{align}

1593: \label{eq:1000}

1594: \tilde f_i(x) &= x_{i+1} \firstfor 1\le i\le n-1\\

1595: \tilde f_n(x) &= 0\\

1596: \tilde g_i(x) &= 0 \firstfor 1\le i\le n-1\\

1597: \tilde g_n(x) &= 1\\

1598: \label{eq:1077}

1599: \tilde \sigma_i(x) &= s_i \firstfor 1\le i\le n

1600: .\end{align}

1601: 

1602: We can compare this canonical form with the equations which

1603: define the transformed system~$\tilde \Theta$.

1604: 

1605: \begin{prop} \label{prop:s1sfb1a}

1606: There is a SFB $g\sigma$-linearizing transformation

1607:  of the SISO Stratonovich system

1608:  \ssdef into a~$g$-controllable linear system if and only if

1609:  there is a solution~$\lambda \RntoR$ of the set of partial differential equations:

1610: \begin{alignat}3

1611: \label{eq:7}

1612: \biglie{\adfg{i}}{\lambda }&=0\firstfor 0 \le i \le n-2\\

1613: \label{eq:13}

1614: \biglie{\adfg{{n-1}}}{\lambda }&\ne 0\\

1615: \label{eq:14}

1616: \biglie{\ad{f}{i}{\sigma}}{\lambda }&=s'_{i+1} \nextfor 0 \le i \le

1617: n-1

1618: \end{alignat}

1619: such that~$s'_i \in \RR$ are constants on~$U$ for $1 \le i \le n$.

1620: Then the linearizing transformation is given by:

1621: \begin{alignat}3

1622: \label{eq:22}

1623: T_i&=\multilie{f}{{i-1}}\lambda  \firstfor 1\le i\le n\\

1624: \alpha &=\frac{-\multilie{f}{{n}}\lambda 

1625: }{\lie{g}{}\multilie{f}{{n-1}}\lambda } &\qquad\qquad&

1626: \label{eq:28}

1627: \beta =\frac{1}{\lie{g}{}\multilie{f}{{n-1}}\lambda }

1628: .\end{alignat}

1629: \end{prop}

1630: \begin{proof}

1631: Assume that~$\Theta_S$ is transformed by~$\combinedtab$ into 

1632: $\tilde \Theta \define \left(\tilde f,\tilde g,\tilde

1633:   \sigma,T(U),T(\origi{x})\right)$ where the~$i$-th components

1634: of~$f$,$g$, and~$\sigma$ can be expressed as:~$\tilde f_i =

1635: \lie{f}{T_i}$, $\tilde g_i =

1636: \lie{g}{T_i}$, $\tilde \sigma_i =

1637: \lie{\sigma}{T_i}$. Moreover, the feedback is defined by~$ u = \alpha  + \beta  v $.

1638: The equations of~$\Theta$ can be compared to

1639:  the equation of the canonical  form~\eqref{eq:1000}-\eqref{eq:1077}.

1640: \begin{alignat}{3}

1641:  \label{eq:160}

1642:  \lie{f}{T_i} &= T_{i+1} \firstfor 1 \le i \le n-1\\

1643:  \label{eq:161}

1644:  \lie{g}{T_i} &= 0 \nextfor 1 \le i \le n-1\\

1645:  \label{eq:162}

1646:  \lie{g}{T_n} &= 1/\beta  \ne 0 \\

1647:  \label{eq:163}

1648:  \lie{f}{T_n} &= -\alpha /\beta  .\end{alignat} 

1649: 

1650: The

1651: relations~\eqref{eq:7}, \eqref{eq:13}, \eqref{eq:22}, and~\eqref{eq:28} are equivalent to

1652: relations~\eqref{eq:8}-\eqref{eq:12} from 

1653: Proposition~\ref{prop:d1sfb1}. The relation~\eqref{eq:14} can be

1654: verified in a similar way:

1655: \begin{alignat}{3}

1656:  \label{eq:165}

1657:  \lie{\sigma}{T_i} &= s_{i} \firstfor 1 \le i \le n

1658: \end{alignat}

1659: thus by ~\eqref{eq:160}

1660: \begin{alignat}{3}

1661:  \label{eq:254}

1662:  \lie{\sigma}{\lie{f}{T_i}} &= s_{i+1} \firstfor 1 \le i \le n-1

1663: \end{alignat}

1664:  and by ~\eqref{eq:63}

1665: \begin{alignat}{3}

1666:  \label{eq:255}

1667:  \lie{\sigma}{\lie{f}{T_i}} &= \lie{f}{\lie{\sigma}{T_i}}

1668:  -\lie{[f,\sigma]}{T_i} \firstfor 1 \le i \le n-1

1669: \end{alignat}

1670: since the Lie derivative of a constant is zero:

1671: \begin{alignat}{3}

1672:  \label{eq:256} \lie{f}{\lie{\sigma}{T_i}} &= \lie{f}{s_i} = 0\\

1673:  s_{i+1} \define \lie{\sigma}{\lie{f}{T_i}} &=

1674:  -\lie{[f,\sigma]}{T_i} \firstfor 1 \le i \le n-1 .\end{alignat}

1675: The equations~\eqref{eq:14} are obtained by successive application of

1676: this relation. The symbols~$s_i$ are equal to~$s'_{i}$ except for the signs.

1677: \end{proof}

1678: 

1679: \subsubsection{Conditions for the Control Part}

1680: 

1681: The necessary conditions for linearizability of the {\em control

1682:   part\/} of~$\Theta$ (\ie the system~$\left(f,g,0,U,\origi{x}

1683: \right)$) can be expressed in geometrical form. We intentionally omit

1684: the dispersion part, using the fact that the resulting system must be

1685: linear when the noise is zero.

1686: 

1687: Further, the class of all solutions of this subproblem will be

1688: called~$C$. This class can be studied to find  if some member

1689: of~$C$ linearizes the {\em dispersion part\/} of the system.

1690: 

1691: We can find a geometrical criterion similar to the conditions of

1692: Proposition~\ref{prop:d1sfb2}. In this case these conditions are

1693: necessary but not sufficient since also \eqref{eq:14} must be

1694: satisfied.

1695: 

1696: \begin{prop}

1697:  \label{prop:s1sfb1}

1698:  SFB~$g\sigma$-linearizing transformation of the Stratonovich system

1699:  $\Theta_S$ into a~$g\sigma$-controllable system 

1700:  linear system exists only if the distribution~$\distrofg{n-2}$ is

1701:  involutive and the distribution~$\distrofg{n-1}$ is $n$-dimensional.

1702: \end{prop}

1703: \begin{proof}

1704:  This theorem is equivalent to Proposition~\ref{prop:d1sfb2} which is

1705: a direct consequence of Proposition~\ref{prop:d1sfb1a} which

1706: corresponds to Proposition~\ref{prop:s1sfb1a}. 

1707: \end{proof}

1708: 

1709: 

1710: \subsubsection{Condition for the Dispersion Part}

1711: \label{prop:cftdp}

1712: The conditions of Proposition~\ref{prop:s1sfb1} can be written

1713: in matrix form. We are looking for~$T_1 = \lambda\RntoR$ such that

1714: \begin{align}

1715:  \label{eq:189}

1716:  \left[\,\,\begin{matrix}

1717:  \adfg{0}\\

1718:  \adfg{1}\\

1719:  \vdots\\

1720:  \adfg{n-2}\\

1721:  \end{matrix}\,\,\right]

1722: \quad \left[\,\,\begin{matrix}

1723:  \parby{\lambda }{x_1}\\

1724:  \parby{\lambda }{x_2}\\

1725:  \vdots\\

1726:  \parby{\lambda }{x_n}\\

1727:  \end{matrix}\,\,\right]

1728: = \left[0\right]

1729: .\end{align}

1730: 

1731: 

1732: The vectors~$ \adfg{0} \dots \adfg{n-2}$ are written in coordinates

1733: as~$1\times n$ rows. The first matrix is~$(n-1)\times n$. Moreover it is

1734: required that

1735: \begin{equation}

1736: \label{eq:1020}

1737: \biglie{\adfg{n-1}}{\lambda}

1738: \end{equation} is nonzero. 

1739: 

1740: We will use the algorithm for SFB deterministic linearization (see

1741: Section~\ref{sec:detcase}) to find such a transformation~$\lambda$.Then we will

1742: verify if the conditions for linearity of the dispersion part of the

1743: system~\eqref{eq:14} are also valid. There are~$n$ additional linearity

1744: conditions ($s_i$ are constants):

1745: 

1746: \begin{align}

1747: \label{eq:1001}

1748:  \left[\,\,\begin{matrix}

1749:  \ad{f}{0}{\sigma}\\

1750:  \ad{f}{1}{\sigma}\\

1751:  \vdots\\

1752:  \ad{f}{n-1}{\sigma}\\

1753:  \end{matrix}\,\,\right]

1754: \quad \left[\,\,\begin{matrix}

1755:  \parby{\lambda }{x_1}\\

1756:  \parby{\lambda }{x_2}\\

1757:  \vdots\\

1758:  \parby{\lambda }{x_n}\\

1759:  \end{matrix}\,\,\right]=

1760: \left[\,\,\begin{matrix}

1761:  s_1\\

1762:  s_2\\

1763:  \vdots\\

1764:  s_n\\

1765:  \end{matrix}\,\,\right]

1766: .\end{align}

1767: 

1768: In the deterministic case we were satisfied with {\em arbitrary\/}

1769: solution~$\lambda $ to the equations~\eqref{eq:189},

1770: and~\eqref{eq:1020} . In this stochastic case we must find the class

1771: of {\em all\/} solutions and then check if this class contains the

1772: solution for the~$\sigma$ part~\eqref{eq:1001}. Details depend on the

1773: methods used for solving the set of PDEs.

1774: 

1775: This result is summarized in the following

1776: algorithm:

1777: 

1778: \begin{itemize}

1779: \item{Find $\Delta_k \define \adfg{i}$ for $0\le i \le k-1$.}

1780: \item{Verify that $\dim(\Delta_{n})$ is $n$.}

1781: \item{Verify that $\Delta_{n-1}$ is

1782:  involutive (see \citet{nijmeijer94} Remark following Definition 2.39)

1783:  otherwise no linearizing 

1784: transformation exists.}

1785:  \item{Find all~$\lambda$ satisfying~\eqref{eq:192} by solving 

1786: PDEs~\eqref{eq:192}; denote~$C$ the set of all

1787:  such functions.} 

1788: \item{Verify that there is a~$\lambda_1\in

1789:  C$ such that the conditions~\eqref{eq:1001} are

1790:  satisfied, otherwise no linearizing

1791:  transformation exists.} 

1792: \item{Compute $T$,$\alpha $,$\beta $ from

1793:  \eqref{eq:160} -- \eqref{eq:163}.}

1794: \end{itemize}

1795: 

1796: Now, we can illustrate one possible practical approach  which

1797: worked for several simple problems solved by us (see the example in

1798: Section~\ref{sub:appcrane}).

1799: 

1800: First we can compute the kernel of the matrix~$M_g$ to find the

1801: form~$\omega = \left[ \omega_1, \omega_2, \dots, \omega_n

1802: \right]^T$ which satisfies~$M_g \omega = 0$, \ie~$\omega$ is

1803: perpendicular to~$M_g$. In modern computer algebra systems there is a

1804: single command for this.

1805: 

1806: Proposition~\ref{prop:s1sfb1} assumes that~$n$

1807: vectorfields~$\Delta_{n} \define \distrofg{n-1}$ form an~$n$

1808: dimensional space. The vectorfields~$\Delta_{n-1} \define

1809: \distrofg{n-2}$ are chosen from them and consequently must form

1810: an~$(n-1)$-dimensional space. Thus their kernel~$d\lambda $ is

1811: exactly one dimensional and arbitrary~$\omega' = c(x)\omega(x)$ also

1812: belongs to the kernel ($c(x)$ is a scalar). 

1813: 

1814: But not every~$\omega'$ that is perpendicular to~$M_g$ is a

1815: solution to the original linearization problem. The

1816: function~$\omega'$ must be an exact one-form \ie there must be

1817: a scalar function~$\lambda $ such that~$d \lambda =

1818: c(x)\omega(x)$. The Frobenius theorem guarantees that

1819: if~$\Delta_{n-1}$ is involutive, then there is always~$c(x)\in\RR$

1820: such that~$c(x)\omega(x)$ is the exact one-form.

1821: 

1822: A necessary condition for a one-form~$\omega =

1823: \ssumi{n} \omega_i$ to be exact is

1824: \begin{equation}

1825:  \label{eq:102}

1826:  \parby{\omega_i}{x_j} = \parby{\omega_j}{x_i} \qquad \text{for}

1827:  \qquad 1 \le i,j \le n

1828: .\end{equation}

1829: 

1830: Hence for every~$1\le i,j \le

1831: n$

1832: \begin{alignat}{3}

1833:  \parby{}{x_j}\left(c(x)\omega_i \right) &=

1834:  \parby{}{x_i}\left(c(x)\omega_j \right),\end{alignat} thus for

1835: every~$1\le i,j \le n$

1836: \begin{alignat}{3}

1837: \label{eq:192}

1838: \parby{c(x)}{x_i}\omega_j - \parby{c(x)}{x_j}\omega_i + c(x)

1839: \left( \parby{\omega_j}{x_i} - \parby{\omega_i}{x_j} \right) = 0

1840: .\end{alignat} The later condition is a set of linear PDEs, with

1841: unknown~$c(x)$, which are guaranteed to have a solution by the

1842: involutivness of~$\Delta_{n-1}$ (the Frobenius theorem). 

1843: 

1844: In our computations the equation~\eqref{eq:192} was in a simple form

1845: which allowed to determine all the solutions easily. More complicated

1846: cases will require more sophisticated analysis.

1847: 

1848: 

1849: 

1850: %======== Subsection ================================================

1851: \subsection{\Ito $g\sigma$-linearization}

1852: \label{sub:isgsigma}

1853: 

1854: 

1855: In the previous subsection we tried to find~$g\sigma$-linearizations

1856: for Stratonovich dynamical systems. Once this is done, the

1857: correcting mapping can be used to

1858: construct \Ito $g\sigma$-linearizing

1859: transformation. This method works for both the

1860: SFB and the

1861: SCT case.

1862: 

1863: Given an \Ito system~$\Theta_I$, the corresponding

1864: Stratonovich system $\Theta_S$ can be

1865: obtained using the correcting mapping

1866: $\Theta_S = \Corr{\sigma}\left({\Theta_I}\right)$.  Afterward, the Stratonovich

1867: $g\sigma$-linearization algorithm can be applied giving a

1868: linear system~$\Theta_{2S}$. Due to linearity of the

1869: drift

1870: vectorfield~$\tilde \sigma$ of~$\Theta_{2S}$, the

1871: correcting term~$\corr{{\tilde \sigma}}{z}$ of

1872: the backward transformation~${\Corr{{\tilde \sigma}}{}}^{-1}$

1873: vanishes.

1874: 

1875: 

1876: \begin{theo} \label{prop:gsigmaprop}

1877:  The SFB 

1878:  $g\sigma$-linearizing

1879:  transformation~$\combinedz_I$ of the~\Ito dynamical system \isdefmi,

1880:  $f(\origi{x})=0$, $\corr{\sigma}{\origi{x}}=0$, into a $g\sigma$-controllable linear

1881:  system  exists if and

1882:  only if there is a SFB

1883:  $g\sigma$-linearizing

1884:  transformation~$\combinedz_S$ of the Stratonovich dynamical

1885:  system

1886: 

1887: \begin{align}

1888: \label{eq:24}

1889: \Theta_S &= \ssys{\alterbar f}{g}{\sigma}{x} =

1890:  \Corr{\sigma}{(\Theta_I)}\\

1891: \alterbar f &= f + \corr{\sigma}{x}

1892: .\end{align}

1893: Moreover~$\combinedz_I = \combinedz_S \compose \Corr{\sigma}{}$.

1894: 

1895: \end{theo}

1896: \begin{proof}[Proof (sufficiency)]

1897:  We use the properties of the correcting term

1898:  (Subsection \ref{sub:corr}). Assume that there is a

1899:  mapping~$\combinedz_S$ which transform $\Theta_S$ into a linear

1900: ~$g$-controllable system $(Ax,B,S,U,0)$  . By~(\ref{eq:19})

1901:  \begin{align}

1902:  \label{eq:248}

1903:  \combinedz_I = \Corr{{\tilde\sigma}}{}^{-1} \compose \combinedz_S

1904:  \compose \Corr{\sigma}{} 

1905: .\end{align}

1906:  The backward correcting

1907: transformation $\Corr{{\tilde \sigma}}^{-1}$ is identity because the correcting term

1908: of a linear mapping $\corr{{\tilde \sigma}}{x}$ is zero. Thus~$

1909: \combinedz_I =  \combinedz_S \compose \Corr{\sigma}{} $

1910: and ~$\combinedz_I (\Theta_{I})$ equals $(Ax,B,S,U,0)$, which is

1911: linear and~$g$-controllable by assumption.

1912: \end{proof}

1913: \begin{proof}[Proof (necessity)]

1914:   Assume that there is the \Ito transformation~$\combinedz_I$ which

1915:   linearizes $\Theta_I$ and by~(\ref{eq:24}) $\Theta_I =

1916:   {\Corr{\sigma}{}}^{-1}(\Theta_S)$. Construct Stratonovich

1917:   linearization by~$\combinedz_S = \combinedz_I \compose

1918:   {\Corr{\sigma}{}}^{-1} $.  Hence~$\combinedz_I$ linearizes

1919:   ${\Corr{\sigma}{}}^{-1}(\Theta_S)$ and~$\combinedz_S$

1920:   linearizes~$\Theta_S$ into the same linear and controllable system

1921:   as~$\combinedz_I$.

1922: \end{proof}

1923:  

1924: 

1925: 

1926: %======== Subsection ================================================

1927: \subsection{\Ito~$g$-linearization}

1928: \label{sub:sfbig}

1929: 

1930: The \Ito $g$-linearization problem is probably the most complicated

1931: variant of exact linearization studied in this paper. The dispersion

1932: vectorfield of an \Ito dynamical system transformed by a coordinate

1933: transformation~$\sctt$ consists of two terms: the transformed

1934: vectorfield~$\tantra{T} f$ and the \Ito term~$\ito{\sigma}$. We

1935: require that the sum of these  terms is linear, thus the

1936: nonlinearity of the drift~$\tantra{T}f$ must compensate for the \Ito

1937: term. Since the \Ito term behaves to~$T$ as a second order

1938: differential operator, this problems generates a set of second order

1939: partial differential equations. One can attempt to use simplifications

1940: as in the deterministic linearization, namely, the recursive Leibniz

1941: rule~\eqref{eq:10}. Unfortunately, this approach does not work for the

1942: stochastic case. In general, the \Ito equations cannot be easily

1943: simplified by commutators because the commutator of second order

1944: operators is not a second order operator but a third order operator

1945: (see Subsection~\ref{sub:stoinvar}).

1946: 

1947: Nevertheless, there are special cases for which simpler conditions

1948:  can be found. The most important special case (commuting $g$

1949:  and $\sigma$) will be studied here.

1950: 

1951: \subsubsection{Canonical Form ---$n$ unknowns}

1952: 

1953: The canonical form for the $g$-linearization

1954:   is the integrator chain with a nonlinear drift

1955: \begin{align}

1956: \label{eq:1007}

1957: \tilde f_i(x) &= x_{i+1} \firstfor 1\le i\le n-1\\

1958: \label{eq:1008}

1959: \tilde f_n(x) &= 0\\

1960: \label{eq:1009}

1961: \tilde g_i(x) &= 0 \firstfor 1\le i\le n-1\\

1962: \label{eq:1010}

1963: \tilde g_n(x) &= 1

1964: .\end{align}

1965: Assume that there is a~$g$-linear

1966: system~$\Theta_I = (Ax,B,\sigma(x),U,\origi{x})$. Then the drift part

1967: of~$\Theta_I$ can be transformed by a {\em linear} transformation into

1968: the integrator chain. This is because the \Ito term of a linear

1969: transformation vanishes. 

1970: 

1971: The equations which define~$T$ can be obtained by comparing  this

1972: canonical form with the equations of~$\tilde \Theta$.

1973: 

1974: \begin{prop} \label{prop:s1sfb2}

1975:   Let~\isdef be an \Ito dynamical system with~$f(\origi{x})=0$ such

1976:   that~$\corr{\sigma}{\origi{x}}=0$. There is a SFB~$g$-linearizing

1977:   transformation~$\combinedtab$ of the system~$\Theta_{I}$ into a

1978:   ~$g$-controllable linear system if and only if there is a solution

1979:   $T_i\RntoR$, $1\le i \le n$, to the set of partial differential

1980:   equations defined on~$U$:

1981: \begin{alignat}{3}

1982: \label{eq:50}

1983: T_{i+1}&=\lie{f}{T_i}+\ito{\sigma}{T_i} \firstfor 1\le i\le{n-1}\\

1984: \label{eq:51}

1985: \lie{g}{T_i}&=0 \nextfor 1\le i\le{n-1}\\

1986: \label{eq:52}

1987: \lie{g}{T_n}&\not=0 .\end{alignat} The symbol~$\ito{\sigma}$

1988: denotes the \Ito operator (see Definition~\ref{eq:16}). The

1989: feedback can be constructed as:

1990: \begin{align}

1991: \label{eq:53}

1992: \alpha &=-\frac{(\lie{f}{T_n}+\ito{\sigma}{T_n})}{\lie{g}{}T_n}

1993: \qquad\qquad \beta =\frac{1}{\lie{g}{T_n}}

1994: .\end{align}

1995: \end{prop}

1996: \begin{proof}

1997: 

1998: The~$i$-th components

1999: of~$f$,$g$, and~$\sigma$ are:~$\tilde f_i =

2000: \lie{f}{T_i} + \ito{\sigma}{T_i}$, $\tilde g_i =

2001: \lie{g}{T_i}$, $\tilde \sigma_i =

2002: \lie{\sigma}{T_i}$. 

2003:  The partial differential equations \eqref{eq:50}, \eqref{eq:51}

2004:  and \eqref{eq:52} are obtained by comparison of \eqref{eq:86}-\eqref{eq:89}

2005:  with the equations~\eqref{eq:1007}-\eqref{eq:1010}.

2006: \end{proof}

2007: \subsubsection{PDEs of single unknown}

2008: 

2009: One can attempt to reduce the equations~\eqref{eq:50},

2010: \eqref{eq:51}, and~\eqref{eq:52}, to a set of equations of a

2011: single unknown, similarly to the results of Proposition \ref{prop:d1sfb1}.

2012: 

2013: \begin{coroll}

2014:  \label{prop:sfbooo} Define the general second order

2015:  operator~$O(f,F)$ as in~\eqref{eq:17}. The exponential notation

2016:  for~$O$ will be defined recursively: $O^0(f,F)T \define T$ and

2017:  $O^{l+1}(f,F)T \define O(f,F)O^l(f,F)T$ for~$l \ge 0$. Next, define

2018:  \begin{align} F_{ij} \define \frahalf \sigma_i \sigma_j .

2019:  \end{align} Then the set of partial differential equations~\eqref{eq:50}-\eqref{eq:52} of~$n$ unknowns has a 

2020:  solution if and only if there is a 

2021:  solution~$\lambda \RntoR$ defined on~$U$ to the set of

2022:  PDEs of single unknown:

2023:  \begin{alignat}{3} \label{eq:153}

2024:  O(g,0)O^i(f,F)\lambda &=0\firstfor 0\le i\le n-2\\ 

2025:  \label{eq:154} O(g,0)O^{n-1}(f,F)\lambda &\ne 0 . \end{alignat}

2026:  The original solution and the feedback

2027:  can be found as \begin{alignat}{3}

2028:  T_i&=O^{i-1}(f,F)\lambda \firstfor 1 \le i \le n\\

2029:  \label{eq:58} \alpha &= -

2030:  \frac{O(f,F)^{n-1}\lambda }{O(g,0)^{n-1}\lambda } \quad\quad \beta =

2031:  \frac{1}{O(g,0)^{n-1}\lambda } . \end{alignat}

2032: \end{coroll}

2033: \begin{proof}

2034:  Since~$T_1=\lambda $ and by definition

2035:  of~$\ito{\sigma}{}$ \eqref{eq:16} and~$O$~\eqref{eq:17}:

2036:  \begin{alignat}3

2037: \label{eq:264}

2038: O(f,F)T_i &= \lie{f}{T_i} + \ito{\sigma}{T_i} \firstfor 1\le i\le n\\

2039: \label{eq:265}

2040: O(g,0)T_i &=\lie{g}{T_i} \nextfor 1\le i\le n ;

2041:  \end{alignat} then~$T_{i+1} = O(f,F)T_i$ by~\eqref{eq:50} and

2042:  $T_i = O^{i-1}(f,F)T_1 = O^{i-1}(f,F)\lambda $. Similarly

2043:  the equation \eqref{eq:53} implies~\refprop{eq:58}.

2044: \end{proof}

2045: 

2046: Note, that for the deterministic case~$\sigma=0$, the

2047: operators~$O(g,0)$ and~$O(g,0)O^i(f,F)$ degenerate

2048: to~$\lie{g}{}$ and to~$\lie{g}{}\multilie{f}{i}{}$ respectively,

2049: thus the result is the same as that of Proposition~\ref{prop:d1sfb1}.

2050: 

2051: In general, the equations of the system are of an order up to~$2n$ and

2052: cannot be reduced to a lower order. The

2053: commutator of two second order operators is of third

2054: order as was pointed out by~\eqref{eq:60}. In particular, for~$i=1$ we

2055: have to evaluate~$C(g,0,f,F) \definer O(a,A)$, which {\em is\/} of

2056: second order due to the fact that~$G=0$. But starting from~$i=2$ the

2057: commutator~$C(f,F,a,A) = C(f,F,C(g,0,f,F))$ is of

2058: third order.

2059: 

2060: \subsubsection{Correcting Term}

2061: 

2062: The same problem can be reformulated using conversion to the

2063: Stratonovich formalism. One can compute the drift vectorfield~$\alterbar f$

2064: of the equivalent Stratonovich system by applying the

2065: correcting term~$\alterbar f \define f +

2066: \corr{\sigma}{x}$. Then the Stratonovich system~$\ssys{\alterbar

2067:  f}{g}{\sigma}{x}$ may be transformed, by a suitable transformation,

2068: to such a form~$(\tilde f,\tilde g,\tilde \sigma,T(U),0)$ that after

2069: applying the backward correcting

2070: term~$-\corr{{\tilde \sigma}}{z}$ the resulting \Ito system will be

2071: linear.

2072: 

2073: Compare this formulation with the~$g\sigma$-linearization where the

2074: backward correcting term vanished due to

2075: linearity of~$\tilde \sigma$. This does not happen with

2076: the~$g$-linearization, and the backward correcting term is a part of the equations.

2077: 

2078: In general, it may be difficult to solve these equations. Nevertheless

2079: there are special cases when the solution can be obtained. See for example

2080: Section~\ref{sub:appcrane}. Another important case (commuting $g$~

2081: and~$\sigma$) is studied below.

2082: 

2083: \begin{coroll} \label{prop:s1sfb3}

2084:  The equations of Proposition~\ref{prop:s1sfb2} are equivalent to~$n$

2085:  partial differential equations:

2086: \begin{alignat}3

2087: \label{eq:143}

2088: T_{i+1}&=\lie{\alterbar f}{T_i} -\corr{{\alterbar \sigma}}{z}=\\

2089: &\lie{\alterbar f}{T_i} + \frahalf \lie{\sigma}{\lie{\sigma}{T_i}} \firstfor 1 \le i \le{n-1}\\

2090: \label{eq:144}

2091: \lie{g}{T_i}&=0\nextfor 1 \le i \le{n-1}\\

2092: \label{eq:145}

2093: \lie{g}{T_n}&\not=0 .\end{alignat} Then the

2094: feedback can be constructed as

2095: \begin{align}

2096:   \alpha &=-\frac{\lie{\alterbar f}{T_n} + \frahalf

2097:     \lie{\sigma}{\lie{\sigma}{T_n}}}{\lie{g}{T_n}} \qquad\qquad

2098:   \beta =\frac{1}{\lie{g}{T_n}} .\end{align} Where $\alterbar f

2099: \define f + \corr{\sigma}{x}$.

2100: \end{coroll}

2101: \begin{proof}

2102:  The equations~\eqref{eq:143} can be obtained

2103:  from~\eqref{eq:50} by applying~\eqref{eq:215} 

2104:  and~\eqref{eq:140}:

2105: \begin{multline}

2106:  \label{eq:216}

2107:  T_{i+1} = \lie{f}{T_i}+\ito{\sigma}{T_i} = \lie{\left(

2108:  \alterbar f - \corr{{\alterbar \sigma}}{x} \right)}{T_i}+

2109:  \ito{\sigma}{T_i} = \\

2110:  \lie{\alterbar f}{T_i} - \lie{\corr{{\alterbar

2111:  \sigma}}{x}}{T_i} + \ito{\sigma}{T_i} = \lie{\alterbar

2112:  f}{T_i} + \frahalf\lie{\sigma}{\lie{\sigma}{T_i}}

2113:  .\end{multline}

2114: 

2115: The other equations are adopted from Proposition~\ref{prop:s1sfb2}.

2116: The set of PDEs of~$n$ unknowns can be transformed into a set

2117: of PDEs of a single unknown~$\lambda =T_1$, but

2118: the order of the equation will be~$2n-1$.

2119: \end{proof}

2120: 

2121: \begin{rem} \label{prop:s1sfb4}

2122:   Observe that the set of~$n$ second order partial differential

2123:   equations~\eqref{eq:143}-~\eqref{eq:145} defined in

2124:   Proposition~\ref{prop:s1sfb3} can be transformed, by introducing 

2125:   new variables~$S_i = \lie{\sigma}{T_i}$,  to the following system

2126:   of~$2n-1$ first order partial differential equations for~$1 \le i

2127:   \le {n-1}$:

2128: \begin{alignat}3

2129: \label{eq:146}

2130: \lie{g}{T_i}&=0\\

2131: \label{eq:147}

2132: \lie{\sigma}{T_i}-S_i&=0\\

2133: \label{eq:148}

2134: \lie{{\alterbar f}}{T_i} + \frahalf\lie{\sigma}{S_i}&=T_{i+1}\\

2135: \label{eq:149}

2136: \lie{g}{T_n}&\not=0 .\end{alignat} $T_i$ 

2137: and~$S_i\RntoR$ are unknown real valued functions defined on $U$.

2138: \end{rem}

2139: 

2140: \subsubsection{Systems with Commuting $g$ and $\sigma$}

2141: There is a special case of \Ito dynamical systems for which the 

2142: solution is completely known and can be computed using

2143: only first order PDEs.

2144: 

2145: \begin{theo}

2146:  \label{prop:ssfbco}

2147:  Let~\isdef be a SISO \Ito dynamical system. If the

2148:  vectorfield~$\sigma$ commutes with all vectorfields~$\ad{{\alterbar

2149:  f}}{i}{g}$ for~$0\le i\le n-1$, \ie ~$[\ad{{\alterbar

2150:  f}}{i}{g},\sigma]=0$, where $\alterbar f

2151: \define f + \corr{\sigma}{x}$, then the \Ito system is $g$-linearizable if and

2152:  only if the distribution

2153: \begin{align}

2154: \alterbar \Delta_{n} \define

2155:  \sspan\left\{{\ad{{\alterbar f}} {i}{g}, \iva{n-1}}\right\}

2156: \end{align}

2157: is

2158:  nonsingular on~$U$ and the distribution

2159: \begin{align}

2160: \alterbar \Delta_{n-1}

2161:  \define \sspan\left\{{\ad{{\alterbar f}}{i}{g}, \iva{n-2}}\right\}

2162: \end{align}

2163: is involutive on~$U$. If these conditions hold, then a

2164:  solution~$\lambda \RntoR$ to the set of partial differential

2165:  equations exists

2166: \begin{align}

2167: \label{eq:77}

2168: \biglie{\ad{{\alterbar f}}{i}{g}}{\lambda }&=0\rfor{\iva{n-2}}\\

2169: \label{eq:78}

2170: \biglie{\ad{{\alterbar f}}{{n-1}}{g}}{\lambda }&\not=0 .\end{align}

2171: the linearizing transformation is given by:

2172: \begin{alignat}3

2173: \label{eq:79}

2174: T_1&=\lambda \\

2175: \label{eq:80}

2176: T_{i+1}&= \lie{\alterbar f}{T_i} + \frahalf

2177: \lie{\sigma}{\lie{\sigma}{T_i}} \firstfor 1

2178: \le i \le{n-1}\\

2179: \alpha &=\frac{-\multilie{\alterbar f}{{n}}\lambda 

2180: }{\lie{g}{}\multilie{\alterbar f}{{n-1}}\lambda } &\qquad\qquad&

2181: \label{eq:81}

2182: \beta =\frac{1}{\lie{g}{}\multilie{\alterbar f}{{n-1}}\lambda }

2183: .\end{alignat}

2184: \end{theo}

2185: \begin{proof}

2186:  We will apply the Leibniz rule to the relation of~(\ref{eq:143})

2187: Corollary~\ref{prop:s1sfb3} to expand the

2188:  term~$\lie{g}{T_{i+1}}$ for~$1\le i\le n-1$ 

2189: \begin{multline}

2190:  \label{eq:195}

2191:  \lie{g}{T_{i+1}} = \lie{g}{ \left( \lie{{\alterbar f}}{T_i}+

2192:  \frahalf \lie{\sigma}{\lie{\sigma}{T_i}} \right) } =

2193:  \lie{g}{\lie{{\alterbar f}}{T_i}} + \frahalf

2194:  \lie{g}{\lie{\sigma}{\lie{\sigma}{T_i}}}

2195:  =\\

2196:  \lie{{\alterbar f}}{\lie{g}{T_i}} - \lie{[\alterbar f,g]}{T_i}

2197:  + \frahalf \lie{\sigma}{\lie{g}{\left(\lie{\sigma}{T_i}\right)}}

2198:  - \frahalf \lie{[\sigma,g]}{\left(\lie{\sigma}{T_i}\right)}

2199:  =\\

2200:  0 - \lie{[\alterbar f,g]}{T_i} + \frahalf \lie{\sigma}{ \left(

2201:  \lie{\sigma}{\lie{g}{T_i}} - \lie{[\sigma,g]}{T_i} \right)

2202:  } - \frahalf \left( \lie{\sigma}{\lie{[\sigma,g]}{T_i}} -

2203:  \lie{[\sigma,[\sigma,g]]}{T_i} \right)

2204:  =\\

2205:  -\lie{[\alterbar f,g]}{T_i} + 0 -  \frahalf

2206:  \lie{\sigma}{\lie{[\sigma,g]}{T_i}} + \frahalf

2207:  \lie{[\sigma,[\sigma,g]]}{T_i} .\end{multline} If the

2208: vectorfields~$g$ and~$\sigma$ commute, then the second and

2209: third terms vanish. If, moreover, $[\sigma,[\alterbar f,g]] = 0$ then

2210: \begin{alignat}{3}

2211:  \label{eq:257}

2212:  \lie{g}{{T_{i+2}}} &= - \lie{{[\alterbar f,g]}}{ \left(

2213:  \lie{{\alterbar f}}{T_i} + \frahalf

2214:  \lie{\sigma}{\lie{\sigma}{T_i}} \right)} = \lie{{[\alterbar

2215:  f,[\alterbar f,g]]}}{T_i} .\end{alignat} In general

2216: if~$[\sigma,\ad{{\alterbar f}}{i}{g}]=0$ for~$0\le i\le n-1$ then 

2217: \begin{alignat}{3}

2218:  \label{eq:258}

2219:  \lie{g}{T_{k}} &= (-1)^k \lie{{[\ad{{\alterbar f}}{k}{g},]}}{T_1}

2220:  .\end{alignat}

2221: 

2222: Thus the equations~\eqref{eq:143} and \eqref{eq:144} will be

2223: equivalent to

2224: \begin{alignat}{3}

2225:  \label{eq:193}

2226:  \biglie{\ad{{\alterbar f}}{i}{g}}{\lambda }&=0\firstfor{\iva{n-2}}\\

2227:  \label{eq:194}

2228:  \biglie{\ad{{\alterbar f}}{{n-1}}{g}}{\lambda }&\not=0

2229: ,\end{alignat} which are of the same form as the equations of

2230: Proposition~\ref{prop:d1sfb1} and consequently the conditions

2231: from Proposition \ref{prop:d1sfb2} can be used.

2232: \end{proof}

2233: 

2234: 

2235:  

2236: %======== Subsection ================================================

2237: \subsection{\Ito and Stratonovich $\sigma$-linearization}

2238: \label{sub:sfbchsigma}

2239: 

2240: 

2241: The stochastic SFB $\sigma$-linearization problem is similar to

2242: deterministic SCT linearization.

2243: The dispersion

2244: vectorfield~$\sigma$ transforms in the same way as deterministic

2245: drift vectorfields do. Consequently, no \Ito term

2246: complicates the transformation. Moreover, the \Ito and

2247: Stratonovich cases are equivalent.

2248: 

2249: On the other hand, in the SFB $\sigma$-linearization we are free to

2250: choose the feedback~$\feedbackab$ that perturbs the

2251: drift

2252: vectorfield~$f$ into~$\tilde f = f + g \alpha $.

2253: 

2254: \psfig{fig:sigmasfb}{Ito and Stratonovich

2255:  $\sigma$-linearization}{sigmasfb}

2256: \begin{prop} \label{prop:sfsigma}

2257:  Let~$\Theta$ be a SISO stochastic

2258:  system~$\Theta = \ssysfgx$. There is a

2259:  SFB $\sigma$-linearizing

2260:  transformation~$\combinedtab$ into a $\sigma$-controllable linear

2261:  system if and only if there is a smooth

2262:  feedback function~$\alpha \RntoR$ such that the

2263:  deterministic system~$\dsys{f+g\alpha }{\sigma}{x}$ has a

2264:  SCT

2265:  linearizing

2266:  transformation~$\sctt$. Equivalently,  there must be

2267: such~$\alpha $ that the the modified odd bracket condition:

2268: \begin{equation}

2269:  \label{eq:59}

2270:  [\sigma,\ad{f+g \alpha  }{l}{\sigma}]=0 \qquad\text{for}\qquad l = 1,\dots,2n-1 

2271: \end{equation}

2272: is satisfied (see~\eqref{eq:45}). The resulting combined

2273: transformation consists of composition of the coordinate transformation~$\sctt$ and the

2274: feedback~$\feedbackab$ where~$\beta $ is arbitrary

2275: function of~$x$; for instance~$\beta  = 1$.

2276: \end{prop}

2277: \begin{proof}

2278: Compare definition of linearity of a deterministic system with

2279:  definition of 

2280:  $\sigma$-linearity. The system is is $\sigma$-linearizable if and only if the

2281:  deterministic systems~$\dsys{f+g\alpha }{\sigma}{x}$ is

2282:  SCT linearizable (see Corollary~\ref{prop:s1ctt2a}).

2283:  

2284:  It is evident that the function~$\beta $ (see

2285:  Figure~\ref{fig:sigmasfb}) has no effect on the dispersion part and

2286:  can be chosen arbitrarily. (Probably nonzero for otherwise the system will

2287:  be $g$-uncontrollable).

2288: \end{proof}

2289: 

2290: 

2291: The condition~\eqref{eq:59} can be expressed in terms of

2292: derivatives of $\alpha $ using bracket

2293: relations known from differential geometry. For example, for~$l=1$:

2294: \begin{align}

2295: \label{eq:156}

2296: [\sigma,[f+g \alpha ,\sigma ]] &= [\sigma, [f,\sigma ]+[g \alpha

2297: ,\sigma ]] = [\sigma,[f,\sigma ]]+[\sigma,[g \alpha ,\sigma ]]=\\

2298: &=[\sigma,g+[f+g,\sigma ]] + g \lie{\sigma}{\lie{\sigma}{\alpha }}

2299: .\end{align}

2300: The other conditions for~$k=3,5,7,\dots$ can be expressed in a similar

2301: way giving the set of~$n$ partial

2302: differential equations of the order up to~$2n$ for example by a

2303: computer using symbolic algebra tools. The

2304: problem is not very interesting from the practical point of view.

2305: 

2306: 

2307: %======== Subsection ================================================

2308: \section{Example---Crane}

2309: \label{sub:appcrane}

2310: 

2311: 

2312: In this section the methods of stochastic exact linearization are

2313: demonstrated on an example --- control of a crane under

2314: the influence of random disturbances. The description of the plant was

2315: adopted from~\citet{ackermann93} where the model of a crane linearized

2316: by approximative methods was studied. Unlike Ackermann, we control the

2317: same system using the exact model. Moreover the influence of random

2318: disturbances is added. \psfig{fig:crane1}{Crane}{crane1} Consider the

2319: crane of Figure~\ref{fig:crane1}, which can be used for example for

2320: loading containers into a ship. The hook must

2321: be automatically placed to a given position.

2322: Feedback control is needed in order to dampen

2323: the motion before the hook is lowered into the ship. The input signal

2324: is the force~$u$ that accelerates the crab. The crab mass is~$m_C$,

2325: the mass of the load~$m_L$, the rope length is~$l$, and the

2326: gravity acceleration~$g$.

2327: 

2328: We assume that the driving motor has no nonlinearities, there is no

2329: friction or slip, no elasticity of the rope and no damping

2330: of the pendulum (\eg from air drag). We will define four state

2331: variables: the rope angle $x_1$ (in radian), the angular velocity~$x_2

2332: = \dot x_1$, the position of the crab~$x_3$, and the velocity of

2333: the crab~$x_4 = \dot x_3$. As shown in~\citez{ackermann93}, the

2334: plant is described by two second order differential equations:

2335: \begin{align}

2336:  \label{eq:72}

2337:  u &= (m_L + m_C) \ddot x_3 + m_L l ( \ddot x_1 \cos x_1 - \dot x_1^2

2338:  \sin

2339:  x_1) \\

2340:  \label{eq:73}

2341:  0 &=m_L \ddot x_3 \cos x_1 + m_L l \ddot x_1 + m_L g \sin x_1

2342: .\end{align}

2343: Additionally, we assume that the load is under influence of random

2344: disturbance, which can be modeled as a white noise

2345: process. The disturbance (wind) is horizontal, has zero mean and

2346:  can be described by the \Ito differential~$dw$:

2347: \begin{align}

2348:  \label{eq:74}

2349:  dx_2 = \frac{F \cos x_1}{m_L l}\,dw,\end{align} where~$F$ is a

2350: constant having the physical unit of force.

2351: 

2352: We used symbolic algebraic system \Mathematica to handle the

2353: computations. The complete \Mathematica worksheet can be downloaded

2354: from the web page of the author  \hyref{http://www.tenzor.cz/sladecek}.

2355: 

2356: \Mathematica was used to solve the equations of the system for

2357: unknown values~$\dot x_2$ and~$\dot x_4$ (angular and

2358: positional acceleration). Values of vectorfields~$f$, $g$, and

2359: $\sigma$ were derived as follows:

2360: 

2361: \begin{align}

2362:  \label{eq:76}

2363:  f &= \left[ x_2, -\frac{\sin x_1 \left( g (m_L+m_C) + l m_L x_2 \cos

2364:  x_1 \right) }

2365:  {l (m_C + m_L - m_L \cos^2 x_1) }, x_4, 0\right]^T\\

2366:  g &= \left[ 0, -\frac{\cos x_1 }

2367:  {l (m_C + m_L - m_L \cos^2 x_1) }, 0, u\right]^T\\

2368:  \sigma &= \left[0, \frac{F \cos x_1}{m_L l},0,0 \right]^T

2369: .\end{align}

2370: 

2371: 

2372: The state space model is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:crane2}. We can see

2373: that the positional state variables~$x_3$ and~$x_4$ are isolated from

2374: the angular state variables~$x_1$ and~$x_2$. Later, we will

2375: concentrate on the angular variables pretending that the load will be

2376: stabilized no matter where the crane is. Consequently, we obtain only

2377: two-dimensional system on which the exact linearization techniques can

2378: be demonstrated. \psfig{fig:crane2}{The State Space Model of

2379:   Crane}{crane2}

2380: 

2381: Next, consider the random disturbances. Because the

2382: correcting term~$\corr{\sigma}{x}$ is zero, 

2383: there is no difference in using either the

2384: \Ito or the Stratonovich integral. In case of more ``nonlinear'' noise, one of

2385: the integrals must be selected. If the \Ito model is chosen,

2386: Theorem~\ref{prop:gsigmaprop} must be applied.

2387: 

2388: Now we evaluate the conditions of Proposition~\ref{prop:s1sfb1}

2389: to check that the system is linearizable. In fact, we must only

2390: evaluate the non-singularity condition because every one-dimensional

2391: distribution is involutive, and the

2392: integrability is satisfied automatically. To this

2393: end, we will compute the null space (kernel) of the

2394: matrix~$[[f,g],g]$, which is empty and therefore the matrix is

2395: nonsingular. We conclude, that the {\em deterministic\/}

2396: SFB problem is solvable. 

2397: 

2398: Notice, that the system is already in the integrator chain form and

2399: hence~$\lambda = x_1$ satisfies this condition. Therefore, the

2400: {\em deterministic\/} system is linearizable by feedback only, with no

2401: state space transformation at all, \ie $z=T(x)=x$.

2402: 

2403: This choice of the output function~$\lambda $ is natural but does

2404: not cancel the nonlinearity in the dispersion coefficient~$\sigma$.

2405: For this purpose, we must use the algorithm of Section~\ref{prop:cftdp} to construct

2406: another nontrivial coordinate transformation~$T$.

2407: 

2408: To obtain this transformation, we must find the space of all

2409: functions~$\lambda $ satisfying conditions for

2410: feedback linearity~\eqref{eq:7}. Observe

2411: that~$\lie{g}{\lambda }$ must be zero hence

2412: \begin{align}

2413:  \label{eq:75}

2414:  \parby{\lambda }{x_1} g_1 + \parby{\lambda }{x_2} g_2 &= 0

2415:  .\end{align}

2416: 

2417: Since~$g_1=0$ and~$g_2 \ne 0$ in

2418: neighborhood of~$x_0$, then

2419: $\parby{\lambda }{x_2} = 0$ and $\lambda  = c_1(x_1)$ is a

2420: function of~$x_1$ only (\ie without~$x_2$). The coordinate transformation is $T =

2421: \left[\lambda ,\lie{f}{\lambda } \right]^T$. We want to select

2422: such $c_1(x_1)$ that the dispersion

2423: vectorfield~$\tilde \sigma \define \tantra{T}\sigma$ in the new

2424: coordinate system~$z=T(x)$ will be constant:

2425: \begin{align}

2426:  \label{eq:70}

2427:  \parby{c_1(x_1)}{x_1} \frac{F \cos x_1}{m_L l} = \text{constant}

2428:  .\end{align}

2429: 

2430: We decided to define the constant as~${F}/{(m_L l)}$, therefore

2431: \begin{align}

2432:  \label{eq:221}

2433:  \parby{c_1}{x_1} &= \frac{1}{\cos x_1}

2434: \end{align}

2435:  and

2436: \begin{multline}

2437:  \label{eq:71}

2438:  T_1 = \lambda  = c_1(x_1) = \int \frac{1}{\cos x_1} \, d x_1 =\\

2439:  -\ln \left( \cos \frahalf{x_1} - \sin \frahalf{x_1} \right) +\ln

2440:  \left( \cos \frahalf{x_1} + \sin \frahalf{x_1} \right)

2441:  .\end{multline}

2442: \begin{align}

2443:  \label{eq:222}

2444:  T_2 = \lie{f}{\lambda } &= x_2 \sec x_1

2445: .\end{align}

2446: 

2447: Finally, we can compute the feedback from~\eqref{eq:28}. In the

2448: \Mathematica worksheet we validate the results by computing~$\tilde \Theta

2449: = \combinedtab \ssysfgx $, The computation showed that the

2450: system~$\ssys{\hat f}{\hat g}{\hat \sigma}{x}$ is in the integrator

2451: chain form in the~$z$ coordinate chart.  

2452: 

2453: 

2454: \begin{multline}

2455: b=\frac{1}{l \left( m_c + m_l \left( \sin (x_1) \right)^2 \right)}\\

2456: a=\tan ({x_1}) \left( \sec (x_1)\,x_2^2 -

2457:          b\,g\, ( m_c +  m_l ) + l\,m_l\,{x_2}\cos ({x_1}) \right)

2458: .\end{multline}

2459: 

2460: 

2461: \section{Conclusion}

2462: 

2463: \subsection{Main Results}

2464: 

2465: \begin{romanenu} 

2466:  

2467: \item The structure of the stochastic linearization problem is much richer

2468:  than the structure  of the deterministic one. Two definitions of coordinate

2469:  transformation exist and there are differences between the~$g$,~$\sigma$,

2470:  and~$g\sigma$-linearization.

2471: 

2472: \item In the case of \Ito integrals, the coordinate transformation

2473:  laws are of second order (the \Ito rule). 

2474: 

2475: There is a large difference between

2476: $g\sigma$-linearization and $g$-linearization. In the former case the

2477: effect of the \Ito term can be reduced to the first order operator and

2478: consequently the problem is solvable by differential geometry. On the

2479: other hand, in the later case there is no easy method to elliminate

2480: the \Ito term and the a set of second order partial differential

2481: equations must be solved to get the linearizing transformation.

2482: 

2483: 

2484: \item We have given (at least partial) solutions to all

2485:  SISO SFB problems. The results are listed in Table~\ref{tab:sfb}.

2486: 

2487: \begin{table}[htpb]

2488:  \begin{center}

2489: \begin{tabular}{llll}

2490: \hline

2491: Linearization&$g$&$g\sigma$&$\sigma$\\

2492: \hline

2493: Deterministic&\reftpropag{prop:d1sfb2}&&\\ 

2494: Stratonovich &\refppropag{prop:stratgprop}

2495: &\reftpropag{prop:s1sfb1} 

2496: &\refppropag{prop:sfsigma}\\ 

2497: \Ito&\refcorol{prop:sfbooo}

2498: &\reftpropag{prop:gsigmaprop}

2499: &\refppropag{prop:sfsigma}\\ 

2500: \hline

2501: 

2502: \end{tabular}

2503: \caption{Overview of results --- SISO SFB case}

2504: \label{tab:sfb}

2505: \end{center}

2506: \end{table}

2507: 

2508: \item \Ito linearization problems can be approached by means of the

2509:  correcting term. The \Ito differential

2510:  equation can be converted to the Stratonovich equation

2511:  whose behavior under coordinate transformations is simpler.

2512:  This method is only partially applicable to the $g$-linearization.

2513: \item An important special case was identified for the \Ito

2514:   $g$-linearization. The case is characterized by commuting control

2515:   vectorfields~$g$ and dispersion

2516:   vectorfields~$\sigma$.  Solutions can be found

2517:   using  first order methods.

2518: \item Computer algebra proved to be a useful tool for solving exact

2519:  linearization problems. 

2520: \item Industrial applications of the exact linearization in general

2521:  are still unlikely, mainly due to complexity, sensitivity, and

2522:  limited robustness of the control laws designed by the method. 

2523: \end{romanenu}

2524: 

2525: \subsection{Future Research}

2526: 

2527: \begin{romanenu}

2528: \item Find a solution to the \Ito~$g$-linearization problem in general

2529:  case, including geometric criteria, using second order geometry.

2530: \item Analyze the computability issues; implement a universal symbolic

2531:   algebra toolbox for the problem.

2532: \item Solve the SCT problem.

2533: \item Extend the results to the MIMO systems.

2534: \item Extend the results to the input-output problems and

2535:   linearization of autonomous systems. Work out the applications of

2536:   nonlinear filtering.

2537: \item Perhaps, some of the results can be used as a starting

2538:  point for approaching more general class of problems as the problems

2539:  of disturbance decoupling, input invariance of stochastic

2540:  non--linear systems, or problems of reachability and

2541:  observability.

2542: 

2543: \end{romanenu}

2544: 

2545: 

2546: \bibliography{sladecek}

2547: \bibliographystyle{plainnat}

2548: 

2549: 

2550: \end{document}

2551: \endinput

2552: 

2553: 

2554: % LocalWords: ftn Appendices

2555: 

2556: 

2557: 

2558: