Loading [MathJax]/jax/element/mml/optable/SuppMathOperators.js
Research article

Synchronization issue of uncertain time-delay systems based on flexible impulsive control

  • Received: 25 July 2024 Revised: 27 August 2024 Accepted: 09 September 2024 Published: 13 September 2024
  • MSC : 93C30

  • This paper discusses a synchronization issue of uncertain time-delay systems via flexible delayed impulsive control. A new Razumikhin-type inequality is presented, considering adjustable parameters the ϖ(t), which relies on flexible impulsive gain. For the uncertain time-delay systems where delay magnitude is not constrained to impulsive intervals, sufficient conditions for global exponential synchronization (GES) are established. Furthermore, based on Lyapunov theory, a new differential inequality and linear matrix inequality design, and a flexible impulsive control method is introduced through using the variable impulsive gain and time-varying delays. It is interesting to find that uncertain time-delay systems can maintain GES by adjusting the impulsive gain and impulsive delay. Finally, two simulations are given to illustrate the effectiveness of the derived results.

    Citation: Biwen Li, Qiaoping Huang. Synchronization issue of uncertain time-delay systems based on flexible impulsive control[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 26538-26556. doi: 10.3934/math.20241291

    Related Papers:

    [1] Hongguang Fan, Jihong Zhu, Hui Wen . Comparison principle and synchronization analysis of fractional-order complex networks with parameter uncertainties and multiple time delays. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(7): 12981-12999. doi: 10.3934/math.2022719
    [2] Zhifeng Lu, Fei Wang, Yujuan Tian, Yaping Li . Lag synchronization of complex-valued interval neural networks via distributed delayed impulsive control. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 5502-5521. doi: 10.3934/math.2023277
    [3] Tao Xie, Xing Xiong . Finite-time synchronization of fractional-order heterogeneous dynamical networks with impulsive interference via aperiodical intermittent control. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(3): 6291-6317. doi: 10.3934/math.2025287
    [4] Chengbo Yi, Rui Guo, Jiayi Cai, Xiaohu Yan . Pinning synchronization of dynamical neural networks with hybrid delays via event-triggered impulsive control. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(10): 25060-25078. doi: 10.3934/math.20231279
    [5] Biwen Li, Yujie Liu . Quasi-synchronization of nonlinear systems with parameter mismatch and time-varying delays via event-triggered impulsive control. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(2): 3759-3778. doi: 10.3934/math.2025174
    [6] Miao Zhang, Bole Li, Weiqiang Gong, Shuo Ma, Qiang Li . Matrix measure-based exponential stability and synchronization of Markovian jumping QVNNs with time-varying delays and delayed impulses. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(12): 33930-33955. doi: 10.3934/math.20241618
    [7] Shuo Ma, Jiangman Li, Qiang Li, Ruonan Liu . Adaptive exponential synchronization of impulsive coupled neutral stochastic neural networks with Lévy noise and probabilistic delays under non-Lipschitz conditions. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 24912-24933. doi: 10.3934/math.20241214
    [8] Linni Li, Jin-E Zhang . Input-to-state stability of nonlinear systems with delayed impulse based on event-triggered impulse control. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 26446-26461. doi: 10.3934/math.20241287
    [9] Chao Ma, Tianbo Wang, Wenjie You . Master-slave synchronization of Lurie systems with time-delay based on event-triggered control. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 5998-6008. doi: 10.3934/math.2023302
    [10] Ivanka Stamova, Gani Stamov . Impulsive control strategy for the Mittag-Leffler synchronization of fractional-order neural networks with mixed bounded and unbounded delays. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(3): 2287-2303. doi: 10.3934/math.2021138
  • This paper discusses a synchronization issue of uncertain time-delay systems via flexible delayed impulsive control. A new Razumikhin-type inequality is presented, considering adjustable parameters the ϖ(t), which relies on flexible impulsive gain. For the uncertain time-delay systems where delay magnitude is not constrained to impulsive intervals, sufficient conditions for global exponential synchronization (GES) are established. Furthermore, based on Lyapunov theory, a new differential inequality and linear matrix inequality design, and a flexible impulsive control method is introduced through using the variable impulsive gain and time-varying delays. It is interesting to find that uncertain time-delay systems can maintain GES by adjusting the impulsive gain and impulsive delay. Finally, two simulations are given to illustrate the effectiveness of the derived results.



    Compared to continuous control, impulsive control has received widespread attention in the control field and has been effectively used in real applications such as physics [1,2,3,4], cryptography (see [5]), and biological medicine (see [6,7,8]) because it reduces control cost due to the fact that receiving sampling information only occurs at certain discrete instants. For instance, [1] first combined impulsive control methods with moving vehicles to enable vehicles on the road to travel at the desired safe margin and speed, thereby relieving traffic congestion. [8] set up rational impulsive controllers to explore the issue of optimizing drug to treat influenza, so impulsive control can show some worth for medicine.

    Nevertheless, time delays inevitably occur in the sampling, transmission, and processing of impulsive information. Therefore, the time delay problem in impulsive control cannot be ignored. Many researchers have investigated impulsive delay. For example, [2] addresses the problem of the synchronization of time-delay impulsive control in linear dynamic networks with respect to time scales. [9] studied synchronization using distributed delay impulsive control, where the developed Lyapunov function is limited by the size of the impulsive interval. Synchronization of discrete delayed impulsive control with two types of neural networks was analyzed by synchronous impulses, but findings restrict the upper and lower bounds of the impulsive interval [10]. Based on the theory of delayed impulses, the leader-follower synchronization problem for delayed systems was solved in [11]. In particular, the optimal control problem for impulsive time-delay systems has yielded a number of interesting results [12,13,14].

    Synchronization is one of the important dynamics behaviors of impulsive dynamical systems and is very widely used in many different fields [15,16,17]. The stability and synchronization problems of impulsive dynamical systems with time delay have been a popular topic in the control and analysis of discontinuous dynamical systems, and has attracted the interest of many scholars [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. For example, [18] studied impulsive control of nonlinear delayed systems and applied it to synchronization control of delayed neural networks. An effective impulsive controller for the stabilization of singular delayed systems was proposed in [19]. The class comparison principle (see [21]) and average impulsive interval (AII) method for impulsive delay systems (see [20,22,25]) has also been applied to study the stability (or synchronization) of delayed impulsive systems. Furthermore, based on the beneficial impact of impulsive delay on stability, [26] presented an impulsive control scheme with time delay and related criteria for stabilizing the considered system. It is not difficult to find that systems can reach consistent synchronization, asymptotic synchronization, or exponential synchronization by using different impulsive control schemes [27,28,29]. [30] investigated the GES of the systems using the AII concept and impulsive control with a fixed number of impulses. [31] further derives some innovative and less conservative GES criteria for a class of general delay dynamic networks by employing the idea of AII and comparison principle. It is clear that both [30] and [31], as well as some of the previous literature on delayed impulsive control, focus mainly on the case of fixed impulsive gain. Nevertheless, due to the complexity of practical situations, it is unreasonable to apply the same impulsive gain at each impulse point. In addition, external impulses can desynchronize systems that lack adaptive strategies for restoring synchronization [32,33].

    On the other hand, the parameters of time-delay impulsive dynamical systems can be disturbed by some factors, such as electronic component tolerances, model inaccuracies, and environmental changes. Therefore, the parameter uncertainties, should be taken into account when investigating the stability or synchronization problems of time-delay impulsive dynamical systems, and there have been a number of recent studies in this regard [34,35,36,37]. For example, in [36], the synchronization for a kind of switched neural networks involving hybrid delays, parametric uncertainty, and sampling control is discussed.

    In summary, this paper focuses on exploring the influence of flexible impulsive gain on synchronization and the potential positive impact of impulses with delays on synchronization by using adjustable impulsive control. The list of contributions of this article is as follows:

    1) A new flexible impulsive control scheme for uncertain time-delay systems, relying on the variable gain instead of the common gain commonly of previous studies, is presented to enhance the anti-attack ability of impulsive systems. If systems suffer from external desynchronizing impulses, the novel control method guarantees synchronization of the systems by regulating the impulsive gain so that it satisfies the synchronization criteria. Time-varying impulsive delays are taken into account equally. When the size of impulsive delay is large enough in the impulsive interval, the unstable impulsive gain can maintain the system synchronization, and the time-delay system can achieve self-synchronization by integrating the acquired impulsive delay and impulsive gain information.

    2) The new impulsive delay inequality, which takes into account both AII and average impulsive gain, has been developed. By utilizing such inequality, we derive several sufficient criteria for GES. Time delay limitations of continuous differential equations are relaxed.

    The organization of this paper is as follows: Section 2 presents the preliminary knowledge. The major findings are given in Section 3. In Section 4, the results of the simulation are presented, and finally Section 5 draws a conclusion.

    The following notations will be used in this article. Let R (R+, R0+) denote the set of (positive, non-negative) real numbers, and Z (Z0) represents the set of positive (non-negative) integer numbers. Denote Rn as an n-dimensional real space equipped with Euclidean norm . S(t+) and S(t) stand for the right limit and the left limit of S at instant t, respectively. For interval JR, SRm (1mn). PC(J,S)={ϕPC(J,S): ϕ is continuous everywhere except at a finite number of points t where ϕ(t+) and ϕ(t) exist, and ϕ(t+)=ϕ(t)}. For given ρ>0, PC([t0ρ,t0],Rn) represents a class of piecewise right continuous functions x:[t0ρ,t0]Rn, in which xρsupt0ρtt0x(t). Besides, F>0 (F<0, F0) indicates F is a positive (negative, semi) definite symmetric matrix. Let λmax(F) and λmin(F) denote the maximum and minimum eigenvalue of matrix F, respectively. Let FT and F1 be the transpose and inverse of the matrix F. Let In denote an n-dimensional identity matrix. Define the notation as the symmetric term of a symmetric matrix.

    Consider the following class of uncertain time-delay systems:

    {˙s(t)=(A+ΔA)s(t)+(B+ΔB)f(s(t))+(C+ΔC)f(s(tρ))+H,tt0,s(ˆt)=ϱ(ˆt),ˆt[t0ρ,t0], (2.1)

    where s(t) is the state vector and right continuous, i.e., s(t)=s(t+), s(t)Rn; H is an external input; A, B, and CRn×n stand for the connection weight matrix and the delay connection weight matrix; ΔA, ΔB, and ΔC are the norm-bounded uncertainty terms, which satisfy ΔAd1, ΔBd2, and ΔCd3, and furthermore d1, d2, d3>0; f(s()) denotes the activation function; ρ represents the system delay; and ϱPC([t0ρ,t0],Rn) indicates the initial state.

    Refer to system (2.1) as the drive system. The response system is as follows:

    {˙ψ(t)=(A+ΔA)ψ(t)+(B+ΔB)f(ψ(t))+(C+ΔC)f(ψ(tρ))+H,ttk,tt0,ψ(ˆt)=ι(ˆt),ˆt[t0ρ,t0], (2.2)

    where the impulses are driven by

    ψ(t)=Mke(tη(t))+s(t),t=tk,

    where η(t) is the impulsive delay, and {tk} is the impulse sequence. ιPC([t0ρ,t0],Rn) denotes the initial state. Let the synchronization error be e(t)=ψ(t)s(t). Thus, the uncertain time-delay error system is as follows:

    {˙e(t)=(A+ΔA)e(t)+(B+ΔB)g(e(t))+(C+ΔC)g(e(tρ)),ttk,tt0,e(ˆt)=χ(ˆt),ˆt[t0ρ,t0], (2.3)

    where the impulses are driven by

    e(t)=Mke(tη(t)),t=tk, (2.4)

    where g(e())=f(ψ())f(s()), χ(ˆt)=ι(ˆt)ϱ(ˆt).

    Remark 1. The impulsive system discussed here differs from that described using Schwartz-Sobolev theory [38,39]. While the impulsive control is the solution of several integral equations, the latter is simplified as a the particular type of nonlinear Volterra integral equation. The paper expresses the uncertain time-delay error system formally as a differential equation, whether system delay of the continuous part or impulsive delay of the discrete part is included. Besides, the delay in the discrete portion is a significant factor in synchronization of the overall uncertain time-delay systems in the following analysis.

    In the following, we present some assumptions and definitions.

    Assumption 1. Suppose there exists a Lipschitz constant θi such that gi()R satisfies

    |gi(ˉu)gi(ˉv)|θi|ˉuˉv|,ˉu,ˉvR,

    with i=1,2,,n and Θ=diag{θ1,θ2,,θn}.

    Assumption 2. The impulse sequence {tk,kZ+} satisfies t0<t1<<tk, with tk when k, and such impulse time sequences are defined as 0. denotes the set of entire impulse time sequences in 0 that satisfy the inequality η(tk)<tktk1. Moreover, when ηk>0, for kZ0 and ζ0=0, η indicates the set of all impulse time sequences in that satisfy the inequality tkη(tk)tk1+ζk. Every impulse sequence presented in this paper belongs to .

    Definition 1. ([40]) The response system (2.2) is globally exponentially synchronized with the drive system (2.1) if there exist scalars D>0 and γ>0 satisfying

    e(t)Dψϱρexp(γ(tt0)),tt0,

    where ψ, ϱPC([t0ρ,t0],Rn).

    Remark 2. This paper derives sufficient criteria of uncertain time-delay systems synchronization through impulsive controllers {tk,Mk,η(t)}kZ+, making the uncertain time-delay systems (2.1) and (2.2) be GES under the flexible impulsive control (2.4). In comparison with impulsive control in [40,41,42], the design of impulsive gain Mk and η(t) are more flexible in this article. By adjusting the two parameters to satisfy synchronization criteria, this paper builds one flexible delayed impulsive control approach.

    Definition 2. ([43]) Suppose that there are scalars N0>0 and T>0 satisfying

    ttTN0N(t,t)ttT+N0,

    where N(t,t) represent the number of impulses in the interval (t,t). Then, N0 denotes the elasticity number and T is named AII.

    Taking into account the impulsive delay η(t), there is a piecewise function of the following form:

    σ(t)={0,t[t0,t1),tiQ(t0,t)η(ti),t[tk,tk+1),

    where Q(t0,t) stands for the impulse times {tk,kZ+} which occur at (t0,t).

    Consider a new Razumikhin-type inequality under above definitions as follows:

    D+V(t)γV(t),ifV(tρ)ΣV(t),t[tk1,tk), (2.5)
    V(tk)exp(ϖ(tk))V(tkη(tk)), (2.6)

    where kZ+, VPC([t0ρ,+),R+), Σ=exp{hT(N0+1)+ϖ(ρT+N0)+ˆϖ0}1, and γ and h are positive constants with γ<h.

    Definition 3. ([44]) There exist two positive scalars ϖ and ˆϖ0 such that

    ϖN(t,t)ˆϖ0N(t0,t)j=N(t0,t)+1ϖ(tj)ϖN(t,t)+ˆϖ0, (2.7)

    In the same way, we present a piecewise function related to ϖ(tj):

    ξ(t)={0,t[t0,t1),tiQ(t0,t)ϖ(ti),t[tk,tk+1).

    Remark 3. In order to better handle the influence of flexible impulsive gain, we develop a novel Razumikhin-type inequality in terms of variable parameter ϖ(t) relevant to impulsive gain Mk, see synchronization condition MTkPMkexp(ϖk)P. Motivated by average delay impulsive control in [45,46], we propose a positive scalar ϖ in (2.5). Differing from the Razumikhin-type inequality in the previous article, parameter ϖ(t) in the presented inequality does not always need to be positive. It is worth noting that we obtain the lower conservative upper bound of impulsive gain Mk when the flexibility parameter ϖ(t)<0, which was considered to desynchronize systems in existing work, that is have a negative impact on the systems. When the uncertain time-delay systems are driven by a desynchronizing impulsive gain, the synchronization conditions presented are expected to maintain GES.

    Lemma 1. ([47]) Given appropriately dimensional real matrices Z, ΔK and appropriately dimensional real vectors r1, r2, ΔKz, there exists a constant ε>0 that satisfies

    ±2rT1Z(ΔK)r2εrT1ZTZr1+z2εrT2r2.

    Lemma 2. ([48]) Let Λ1 and Λ2 be two real matrices. There exists a positive number U and a matrix E>0 such that

    ΛT1Λ2+ΛT2Λ1UΛT1EΛ1+1UΛT2E1Λ2.

    Lemma 3. ([48]) (Schur Complement) Given

    Q=(Q11Q12Q21Q22),

    where QT11=Q11, QT12=Q21, and QT22=Q22, then if Q<0, we can convert to one of the following conditions:

    (1) Q22<0 and Q11Q12Q122QT12<0.

    (2) Q11<0 and Q22QT12Q111Q12<0.

    Lemma 4. Assume the function g(t) that satisfies inequalities (a) and (b), if there exists a scalar w0 that satisfies

    h0thσ(t)ξ(t)w,tt0, (3.1)

    then the solution of inequalities (a) and (b) satisfy

    g(t)exp(h(tt0))ˆg(t0)Γk,t[tk1,tk),kZ+, (3.2)

    over the class , where h0>h>γ>0, ˆg(t0)=sup{g(t),t[t0ρ,t0]} and Γk=exp(ξ(t)hσ(t)). Furthermore, we take the notation D+ to describe the upper right-hand Dini derivative.

    Proof. Let

    G(t)={g(t)exp(h(ttk1)),t[tk1,tk),kZ+g(t),t[t0ρ,t0). (3.3)

    Subsequently, we shall show that

    G(t)Γkˆg(t0)exp(h(tk1t0)). (3.4)

    First, when k=1, we will show that (3.4) is true, namely, G(t)ˆg(t0), t[t0,t1). Apparently, G(t0)=g(t0)ˆg(t0). Provided that (3.4) was false for ˉt0(t0,t1), there exists ˉt0(t0,t1) to make G(t)>ˆg(t0) hold. Let ˉt0=inf{t(t0,t1):G(t)>ˆg(t0)}, G(ˉt0) will be called the left neighborhood of ˉt0, ˉt0G(ˉt0), and G(ˉt0)=ˆg(t0), then we find that G(ˉt0)>ˆg(t0), G(t)<G(ˉt0), t(t0ρ,ˉt0), and D+G(t)|t=ˉt00.

    Case 1. If t0ˉt0ρˉt0, then G(ˉt0ρ)<G(ˉt0). It follows from (3.3) that g(ˉt0ρ)exp(h(ˉt0ρt0))<g(ˉt0)exp(h(ˉt0t0)), we can get g(ˉt0ρ)<g(ˉt0)exp(hρ)<g(ˉt0).

    Case 2. If ˉt0ρ<t0, then G(ˉt0ρ)=g(ˉt0ρ)<G(ˉt0)=g(ˉt0)exp(h(ˉt0t0))<g(ˉt0). Thus, we obtain g(ˉt0ρ)<g(ˉt0)Σg(ˉt0). Considering (a) and γ<h, one can receive

    D+G(t)|t=ˉt0=[D+g(t)|t=ˉt0hg(ˉt0)]exp(h(ˉt0t0))(γh)g(ˉt0)exp(h(ˉt0t0))<0,

    which is a contradiction. Because ˉt0 is not an impulsive instant, it follows from the concept of ˉt0 that D+G(t)|t=ˉt0<0.

    Afterwards, we suppose that (3.4) is true for kL, LZ+, that is, G(t)ˆg(t0)Γkexp(h(tk1t0)), t[tk1,tk). Thus, we need to illustrate that G(t)ˆg(t0)ΓL+1exp(h(tLt0)) holds for t[tL,tL+1).

    When t=tL, one has

    G(tL)=g(tL)exp(ϖL)g(tLη(tL))=exp(ϖL)G(tLη(tL))exp(h(tLη(tL)tL1))exp(ϖL)ˆg(t0)ΓLexp(h(tL1t0))exp(h(tLη(tL)tL1))=ˆg(t0)ΓL+1exp(h(tLt0)).

    Provided that for ˉtk(tL,tL+1), G(t)ˆg(t0)ΓL+1exp(h(tLt0)) is wrong, so that there is a constant ˉtk(tL,tL+1) that satisfies G(t)>ˆg(t0)ΓL+1exp(h(tLt0)). Let ˉtk=inf{t(tL,tL+1):G(t)>ˆg(t0)ΓL+1exp(h(tLt0))}, and G(ˉtk) will be called the left neighborhood of ˉtk, ˉtkG(ˉtk) and G(ˉtk)=ˆg(t0)ΓL+1exp(h(tLt0)), then we find that G(ˉtk)>ˆg(t0)ΓL+1exp(h(tLt0)), G(t)<G(ˉtk), t(tL,ˉtk), and D+G(t)|t=ˉtk0.

    Case 1. If tLˉtkρˉtk, then G(ˉtkρ)<G(ˉtk), and due to (3.3) we get g(ˉtkρ)<g(ˉtk)exp(hρ).

    Case 2. If tL1ˉtkρtL, then G(ˉtkρ)=g(ˉtkρ)exp(h(ˉtkρtL1))g(ˉt0)ΓLexp(h(tL1t0)), it leads to

    G(ˉtkρ)=g(ˉtkρ)exp(h(ˉtkρtL1))ˆg(t0)ΓLexp(h(tL1t0))=ˆg(t0)ΓL+1exp(h(tL1t0))exp(ϖL+hη(tL))<G(ˉtk)exp(h(tL1tL))exp(ϖL+hη(tL))=g(ˉtk)exp(h(ˉtktL))exp(h(tL1tL)+ϖL+hη(tL))=g(ˉtk)exp(h(ˉtktL1))exp(ϖL+hη(tL)),

    and we have g(ˉtkρ)<g(ˉtk)exp(hρ+ϖL+hη(tL)), which together with η(tL)tLtL1, yields that g(ˉtkρ)<g(ˉtk)exp(h(tLtL1)+ϖL).

    Case 3. If t0ˉtkρtL1, suppose that t0tK1ˉtkρ<tK<<tL<ˉtk, where K<L, KZ+. Therefore, G(ˉtkρ)=g(ˉtkρ)exp(h(ˉtkρtK1))ˆg(t0)ΓKexp(h(tK1t0)), which leads to

    G(ˉtkρ)=g(ˉtkρ)exp(h(ˉtkρtK1))ˆg(t0)ΓKexp(h(tK1t0))=ˆg(t0)ΓL+1exp(h(tLt0))exp(h(tK1tL))exp(Lj=Kϖj+hLk=Kη(tk))<G(ˉtk)exp(h(tK1tL))exp(Lj=Kϖj+hLk=Kη(tk))=g(ˉtk)exp(h(ˉtktL))exp(h(tK1tL))exp(Lj=Kϖj+hLk=Kη(tk))=g(ˉtk)exp(h(ˉtktK1))exp(Lj=Kϖj+hLk=Kη(tk)),

    and we have g(ˉtkρ)<g(ˉtk)exp(hρ)exp(Lj=Kϖj+hLk=Kη(tk)). On account of Assumption 2, one can further obtain that

    hρ+hLk=Kη(tk)<h(tLtK)+h(η(tK)+η(tK+1)++η(tL1)+η(tL))h(tLtK)h(tKtK1+tK+1tK++tL1tL2+tLtL1)h(tLtL1).

    Thus, g(ˉtkρ)<g(ˉtk)exp(h(tLtL1)+Lj=Kϖj).

    Case 4. If ˉtkρ<t0, it yields that

    G(ˉtkρ)=g(ˉtkρ)ˆg(t0)=ˆg(t0)ΓL+1exp(h(tLt0))exp(h(tLt0))exp(Lj=1ϖj+hLk=1η(tk))<G(ˉtk)exp(h(tLt0))exp(Lj=1ϖj+hLk=1η(tk))<g(ˉtk)exp(h(ˉtktL))exp(h(tLt0))exp(Lj=1ϖj+hLk=1η(tk))=g(ˉtk)exp(h(ˉtkt0))exp(Lj=1ϖj+hLk=1η(tk)),

    hence, g(ˉtkρ)<g(ˉtk)exp(h(ˉtkt0))exp(Lj=1ϖj+hLk=1η(tk)). Due to tL<ˉtk and η(tL)tLtL1, we can further derive that

    h(ˉtkt0)+hLk=1η(tk)<h(tLt0)+h(η(t1)+η(t2)++η(tL1)+η(tL))h(tLt0)+h(t1t0+t2t1++tL1tL2+tLtL1)h(tLtL1).

    Then, we introduce that g(ˉtkρ)<g(ˉtk)exp(h(tLtL1)+Lj=1ϖj). Meanwhile, we have

    g(ˉtkρ)<g(ˉtk)exp(h(tLtL1)+ξ(t)ξ(tρ)),t(tL,tL1).

    In the light of Definition 2 and (2.5), one has exp(h(tLtL1)+ξ(t)ξ(tρ))exp(hT(N0+1)+ϖ(ρT+N0)+ˆϖ0).

    Consequently, all situations lead to

    D+G(t)|t=ˉtk=[D+g(t)|t=ˉtkhg(ˉtk)]exp(h(ˉtkt0))(γh)g(ˉtk)exp(h(ˉtkt0))<0,

    which is a contradiction. It implies that, G(t)ˆg(t0)Γkexp(h(tk1t0)), t[tk1,tk), kZ+. This completes the proof.

    Remark 4. Note that the conversion from condition (3.1) to (3.5) is a sufficient criterion for GES of uncertain time-delay systems (2.1) and (2.2). Furthermore, Corollary 2 is introduced to satisfy criterion (3.1) (that is condition (3.5)) in practical implementations, which will be discussed later. Subsequently, we derive Theorem 1 for the GES between uncertain time-delay systems (2.1) and (2.2) as follows.

    Theorem 1. Under Assumptions 1 and 2, if there are scalars w and h_0 > h > 0 > \gamma , matrix P > 0 , diagonal matrices E_1 > 0 and E_2 > 0 , and Q > 0 satisfies LQL\leq P for every k\in \mathcal{Z} _+ with M_k^TPM_k\le exp(-\varpi _k)P such that

    \begin{align} h\sigma (t)+\xi (t)\ge h_0t-w , \end{align} (3.5)
    \begin{align} \begin{pmatrix} \Pi & PB & PC\\ \bullet & -E_1 & 0\\ \bullet & \bullet &-E_2 \end{pmatrix}\le 0 , \end{align} (3.6)

    where \Pi = A^TP+PA+(\varepsilon _1+\varepsilon _2+\varepsilon _3)P^2+\frac{d_1^2}{\varepsilon _1}I_n +\frac{d_2^2}{\varepsilon _2}I_n+\Theta E_1\Theta +(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)\Sigma P-\gamma P with \Theta = \left \{ \theta _1, \theta _2, \cdots, \theta _n\right \} , \Sigma = exp\left \{ hT_*(\mathcal{N}_0+1)+\varpi _*(\frac{\rho}{T_*} +\mathcal{N}_0)+\hat \varpi _0 \right \} , \lambda _1 = \lambda _{max} \left (\frac{\Theta E_2\Theta }{P} \right) , and \lambda _2 = \lambda _{max} \left (\frac{d_3\Theta ^2}{\varepsilon _3} \right) . Then uncertain time-delay systems (2.1) and (2.2) can realize GES over the class \wp .

    Proof. Let the Lyapunov function V(t)\triangleq V(e(t)) = e^T(t)Pe(t) , taking the derivative along the trajectory of error system (2.3), and we have

    \begin{align} \begin{aligned} D^+V(t) = &2e^T(t)Pe(t)\\ = &\left [ (A+\Delta A)e (t)+(B+\Delta B)g(e (t))+(C+\Delta C)g(e (t-\rho)) \right ]^TPe(t)\\ &+ e^T(t)P\left [ (A+\Delta A)e (t)+(B+\Delta B)g(e (t))+(C+\Delta C)g(e (t-\rho)) \right ]\\ = &e(t)^T\left [ A^TP+PA \right ] e(t)+e(t)^T\left [ (\Delta A^T)P+P( \Delta A) \right ] e(t)+g^T(e(t))B^TPe(t)+e(t)^TPBg(e(t))\\ &+g^T(e(t))(\Delta B)^TPe(t)+e(t)^TP(\Delta B)g(e(t))\\ &+g^T(e(t-\rho))C^TPe(t)+e(t)^TPCg(e(t-\rho))\\ &+g^T(e(t-\rho))(\Delta C)^TPe(t)+e(t)^TP(\Delta C)g(e(t-\rho)). \end{aligned} \end{align} (3.7)

    If V(t-\rho)\le \Sigma V(t) , namely, e^T(t-\rho)Pe(t-\rho)\le \Sigma e^T(t)Pe(t) , then by utilizing Assumption 1 and Lemmas 1 and 2, we have

    \begin{align} \begin{aligned} e(t)^T\left [ (\Delta A^T)P+P( \Delta A) \right ] e(t)\leq\varepsilon _1e(t)^TP^2e(t)+\frac{d_1^2}{\varepsilon _1} e(t)^Te(t), \end{aligned} \end{align} (3.8)
    \begin{align} \begin{aligned} g^T(e(t))B^TPe(t)+e(t)^TPBg(e(t))&\leq g^T(e(t))E_1g(e(t))+e(t)^TPBE_1^{-1}B^TPe(t)\\ &\leq e(t)^T\left [ \Theta E_1\Theta +PBE_1^{-1}B^TP \right ] e(t), \end{aligned} \end{align} (3.9)
    \begin{align} \begin{aligned} g^T(e(t))(\Delta B)^TPe(t)+e(t)^TP(\Delta B)g(e(t))&\leq \varepsilon _2e(t)^TP^2e(t)+\frac{1}{\varepsilon _1} g^T(e(t))(\Delta B)^T(\Delta B)g(e(t))\\ &\leq e(t)^T\left [\varepsilon _2P^2+ \frac{d_2^2}{\varepsilon _2} \Theta ^2 \right ] e(t), \end{aligned} \end{align} (3.10)
    \begin{align} \begin{aligned} g^T(e(t-\rho))C^TPe(t)+e(t)^TPCg(e(t-\rho))&\leq g^T(e(t-\rho))E_2g(e(t-\rho))+e(t)^TPCE_2^{-1}C^TPe(t)\\&\leq e^T(t-\rho)\Theta E_2\Theta e(t-\rho)+e(t)^TPCE_2^{-1}C^TPe(t)\\ &\leq \lambda _{max}\left ( \frac{\Theta E_2\Theta}{P} \right ) e^T(t-\rho) Pe(t-\rho)+e(t)^TPCE_2^{-1}C^TPe(t)\\ &\leq e(t)^T\left [ \lambda _1P\Sigma + PCE_2^{-1}C^TP\right ]e(t), \end{aligned} \end{align} (3.11)
    \begin{align} \begin{aligned} g^T(e(t-\rho))(\Delta C)^TPe(t)+e(t)^TP(\Delta C)g(e(t-\rho))&\leq \varepsilon _3e(t)^TP^2e(t)+\frac{d_3^2}{\varepsilon _1}e^T(t-\rho)\Theta ^2e(t-\rho)\\ &\leq \varepsilon _3e(t)^TP^2e(t)+\lambda _2e^T(t-\rho)Pe(t-\rho)\\ &\leq e(t)^T\left [ \varepsilon _3 P^2+\lambda _2\Sigma P\right ]e(t). \end{aligned} \end{align} (3.12)

    It follows from Lemma 3, condition (3.6), and inequalities (3.7)–(3.12) that

    \begin{aligned} D^+V(t) \leq& e(t)^T\left [ A^TP+PA+(\varepsilon _1+\varepsilon _2+\varepsilon _3)P^2+\frac{d_1^2}{\varepsilon _1}I_n +\frac{d_2^2}{\varepsilon _2}I_n+\Theta E_1\Theta +(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)\Sigma P\right ] e(t)\\ &+e(t)^T\left [PBE_1^{-1}B^TP+PCE_2^{-1}C^TP \right ]e(t)\\ \leq& he(t)^TPe(t). \end{aligned}

    For the uncertain time-delay error system (2.3), when t = t_k , k\in\mathcal{Z } _+ , one can get

    \begin{aligned} V(t_k)&\leq e^T(t_k-\eta (t_k))M_k^TPM_ke(t_k-\eta (t_k))\\ &\leq exp(-\varpi _k)V(t_k-\eta (t_k)). \end{aligned}

    Utilizing Lemma 4 and condition (3.5) leads to

    V(t)\le exp(w-h_0t_0)\underset{s\in[-\rho, 0]}{sup} V(\chi (s))exp(h-h_0)(t-t_0).

    Furthermore, we have

    \left \| e(t) \right \| \le D\left \| X \right \|_\rho exp(-\gamma(t-t_0)) , \quad \forall t\ge 0,

    where D = \sqrt{exp(w-h_0t_0)\lambda _{max}(P)/ \lambda _{min}(P)} , \gamma = \frac{1}{2} (h_0-h) > 0 . Hence, the uncertain time-delay systems (2.1) and (2.2) can reach the GES over the class \wp . The proof is completed.

    Corollary 1. If there are numbers h_0 > h > 0 , matrix P > 0 , diagonal matrices E_1 > 0 and E_2 > 0 , and Q > 0 satisfies LQL\leq P for every k\in \mathcal{Z} _+ with M_k^TPM_k\le exp(-(\varpi _*+2\hat\varpi _0)) , conditions (3.5) and (3.6) hold. Then, uncertain time-delay systems (2.1) and (2.2) can achieve GES over the class \wp .

    Proof. According to (2.5), when t_k\in\wp , it follows that

    (k-1)\varpi _*-\hat\varpi _0\le \sum\limits_{j = 1 }^{k-1} \varpi _j\le (k-1)\varpi _* +\hat\varpi _0,

    and

    k\varpi _*-\hat\varpi _0\le \sum\limits_{j = 1 }^{k} \varpi _j\le k\varpi _* +\hat\varpi _0.

    Further, we have

    \begin{aligned} \varpi _k& = \sum\limits_{j = 1 }^{k} \varpi _j-\sum\limits_{j = 1 }^{k-1} \varpi _j\\ &\leq (k\varpi _*+\hat\varpi _0)-((k-1)\varpi _*-\hat\varpi _0)\\ &\leq \varpi _*+2\hat\varpi _0. \end{aligned}

    When t = t_k , it yields that

    \begin{aligned} V(t_k)&\leq e^T(t_k-\eta (t_k))M_k^TPM_ke(t_k-\eta (t_k))\\ &\leq exp(-\varpi _*-2\hat\varpi _0)V(t_k-\eta (t_k))\\ &\leq exp(-\varpi_k)V(t_k-\eta (t_k)). \end{aligned}

    Employing Theorem 1, we prove the statement.

    Corollary 2. Over the class \wp_\eta , the uncertain time-delay systems (2.1) and (2.2) can reach GES, if there exist t_0 = 0 , h_0 > h > 0 , 0 < \eta (t_k)\le \bar\eta , \zeta_k > 0 , 0 < \mu < 1 ,

    \begin{align} 0\le \frac{\zeta _k}{t_k-t_{k-1}} \le \mu , \quad k\in \mathcal{Z} _+, \end{align} (3.13)

    and \varpi_* satisfies

    \begin{align} \varpi_*\geq h_0T_*-(1-\mu)hT_*. \end{align} (3.14)

    Proof. Since {t_{k}}-\eta (t_k)\le {t_{k-1}}+{\zeta _k} , k\in \mathcal{Z} _+ , it yields that

    \begin{align} \begin{aligned} \sigma _k& = \sum\limits_{k = 1 }^{\mathcal{N} (0, t)} \eta (t_k)\\ &\geq t_k-\sum\limits_{k = 1 }^{\mathcal{N} (0, t)}\zeta _k\\ &\geq(1-\mu)t_k\\ &\geq(1-\mu)t-\bar\eta. \end{aligned} \end{align} (3.15)

    It follows from (2.4) and (2.5) that

    \begin{align} \begin{aligned} \xi _k& = \sum\limits_{k = 1 }^{\mathcal{N} (0, t)} \varpi(t_k)\\ &\geq \varpi_*\mathcal{N}-\hat\varpi_0\\ &\geq h_0\mathcal{N} T_*-h(1-\mu)\mathcal{N} T_*-\hat\varpi_0. \end{aligned} \end{align} (3.16)

    Thereby, we get

    \begin{align} h\sigma (t)+\xi (t)\ge h(1-\mu)t-h\bar\eta +h_0\mathcal{N} T_*-h(1-\mu)\mathcal{N} T_*-\hat\varpi_0, \end{align} (3.17)

    which, combined with Definition 2 and (\mathcal{N}-\mathcal{N}_0)T_*\le t\le (\mathcal{N}+\mathcal{N}_0)T_* , can yield

    \begin{align} \begin{aligned} h\sigma (t)+\xi (t)&\geq h(1-\mu)(\mathcal{N}-\mathcal{N}_0)T_*-h\bar\eta +h_0\mathcal{N} T_*-h(1-\mu)\mathcal{N} T_*-\hat\varpi_0\\ &\geq h_0\mathcal{N}T_*-h(1-\mu)\mathcal{N}_0 T_*-h\bar\eta-\hat\varpi_0\\ &\geq h_0(t-\mathcal{N}_0T_*)-h(1-\mu)\mathcal{N}_0 T_*-h\bar\eta-\hat\varpi_0\\ &\geq h_0t-w, \end{aligned} \end{align} (3.18)

    where w = (h_0+h-\mu h)\mathcal{N}_0 T_*+h\bar\eta+\varpi_0 , \forall \mathcal{N} _0 > 0 . Therefore, h_0t-h\sigma (t)-\xi (t) \le w , \forall t\ge 0 , which proves the statement.

    Remark 5. It can be found that Theorem 1, criteria (3.6), and M_k^TPM_k\le exp(-\varpi _k)P are too complex to be tested in practical applications. Hence, we propose Corollaries 1 and 2. We can find that the Constraints of M_k^TPM_k\le exp(-\varpi _k)P will keep changing as \varpi(t_k) is updated. In order to tackle this issue, a fixed upper bound is proposed to make all variable impulsive gains meet M_k^TPM_k\le exp(-\varpi _k)P in Corollary 1. Corollary 2 gives an expressive relation between \varpi_* and T_* , which guarantees condition (3.6) completely. We can have a reasonable estimate of \varpi_* and \varpi(t) once the impulsive interval has been identified. According to M_k^TPM_k\le exp(-\varpi _k)P , the uncertain time-delay systems (2.1) and (2.2) can realize GES under the suitable impulsive gain M_k . Meanwhile, there are no restrictions for \varpi(t) . If \varpi(t) < 0 , the discrete or continuous part is not synchronized. Nevertheless, in order to fulfill condition (3.4) for \varpi_* , we only allow limited desynchronizing jumps in impulsive sequences.

    Remark 6. Compared with (see [44]), the uncertain time-delay systems we are discussing not only have uncertainties, but also includes both delayed and non-delayed terms at the same time. Therefore, the situation studied in this paper covers the situation of (see [44]), and the results obtained are more comprehensive. Compared with (see [30,31]), the impulsive gain considered in this paper is more flexible. Even if the uncertain time-delay systems suffers from unstable impulses, the synchronization can be guaranteed by adjusting the impulsive gain, which has not been well reflected in the previous results.

    In this section, two examples are provided to confirm the validity of the theoretical results.

    Example 1. Consider the uncertain time-delay error system as follows:

    \begin{align} \begin{aligned} \left\{\begin{aligned} &\dot{e } (t) = (A+\Delta A)e (t)+(B+\Delta B)g(e (t))+(C+\Delta C)g(e (t-\rho)), \quad t\ne t_k, \quad t\ge t_0, \\ &e(t) = M_ke(t-\eta (t)), \quad t = t_k, \end{aligned}\right. \end{aligned} \end{align} (4.1)

    where \rho = 0.2 , f(e (t)) = tanh(e(t)) , the initial value e(t) = 3 and A = 0.4 , B = 0.2 , C = 0.2 , \Delta A = 0.01cos(t) , \Delta B = 0.01cos(t) , and \Delta C = 0.01cos(t) , and \left \{ t_k \right \} \in\wp . Suppose t_k = 0.5k and the impulsive delay \eta(t_k) < 0.5 . We then have following situations: Situation 1: \varpi(t) = 0.3 , \eta(t_k) = 0 ; Situation 2: \varpi(t) = 0.3 , \eta(t_k) = 0.48 ; Situation 3: \varpi(t) = -0.1 , \eta(t_k) = 0.48 . Then, Figure 1 shows simulation results.

    Figure 1.  State trajectories of system (4.1) with initial value e(t) = 3.

    Remark 7. It is shown that impulsive delay has a positive effect on synchronization of the uncertain time-delay systems (2.1) and (2.2) from comparison of Situation 1 and Situation 2. At the same time, we can also find that \varpi(t) = -0.1 can produce desynchronizing gains when comparing Situation 2 with Situation 3.

    Furthermore, assume system (4.1) is regularly disturbed by desynchronizing gain every 0.25s. Thus, when t_k = 0.25k , we select

    \varpi(t) = \left\{\begin{aligned} &-0.1, &&t = t_{2k-1}, \\ &\quad0.3, &&t = t_{2k}. \end{aligned} \right.

    Recalling the sufficient criteria of Theorem 1, one has M_k = \sqrt{exp(-\varpi (t))} and \eta(t_k) = 0.21 , and simulation results can be found in Figure 2.

    Figure 2.  State trajectories under impulsive control with impulsive interference.

    Remark 8. We choose a given value of impulsive interval at the same intervals to more accurately describe the relation between impulsive gain and impulsive delay. The state trajectory of system (4.1) is shown by the blue curve in Figure 2. It is clear that the synchronous result becomes out of synchronization under desynchronizing impulsive gain (yellow curve). However, the uncertain time-delay systems (2.1) and (2.2) return to GES by changing the flexible parameter of impulsive gain and adjusting delay, see Figure 2 (red curve). From Figure 3, it follows that impulsive gain adjustment (blue curve) for synchronization is superior to time delay adjustment (red curve). This means the adjustment of impulsive gain plays an important role in synchronization. Higher robustness of systems synchronization can be achieved by varying impulsive gain in the variable impulsive controller.

    Figure 3.  State trajectories under flexible impulsive gain and flexible time-delay.

    Example 2. Consider a special case of the same chaotic systems. When transmission delay \rho = 0 , the value of \Delta A , \Delta B , and \Delta C are 0, respectively, the drive system is as follows:

    \begin{align} s(t) = As(t)+U(s(t)), \end{align} (4.2)

    where s = (s_1, s_2, s_3)^T\in\mathfrak{R} ^3 and

    \begin{pmatrix} -\alpha -\alpha m_1& -\alpha &0 \\ 1 & -1 &1 \\ 0 & -\beta &0 \end{pmatrix}, \quad U(s(t)) = \begin{pmatrix} u_1(s_1(t))\\0 \\0 \end{pmatrix},

    with U_1(s_1(t)) = 0.5\alpha(m_0-m_1) (\left | s_1(t)+1 \right |- \left | s_1(t)-1 \right |) . The control input of corresponding response system can be described as K(t) = M_ke(t-\eta (t))-e(t) . Hence, the response system model is

    \begin{align} \begin{aligned} \left\{\begin{aligned} &\dot{\psi } (t) = A\psi (t), \quad t\neq t_k, \\ &\Delta\psi(\bar{t}) = K(t), \quad t = t_k. \end{aligned}\right. \end{aligned} \end{align} (4.3)

    The state of synchronization is given by e(t) = \psi (t)-s(t) . Then, we give the error system as:

    \begin{align} \begin{aligned} \left\{\begin{aligned} &\dot{e } (t) = A\psi (t)+\bar U(e(t)), && t\neq t_k, \\ &\Delta e(t) = M_ke(t-\eta(t)), && t = t_k, \end{aligned}\right. \end{aligned} \end{align} (4.4)

    where \bar U(e(t)) = U(\psi (t))-U(s (t)) = (u_1(\psi _1 (t))-u_1(s _1 (t)), 0, 0)^T and

    \begin{align} \begin{aligned} \left | u_1(\psi _1 (t))-u_1(s _1 (t))\right | & = \left | 0.5\alpha (m_0-m_1) \right | \cdot\left | \left ( \left | \psi _1(t)+1 \right |- \left | \psi _1(t)-1 \right | \right ) - \left ( \left | s _1(t)+1 \right |- \left | s_1(t)-1 \right | \right )\right |\\ &\leq \alpha\left | (m_0-m_1) \right |\cdot\left |\psi _1(t)-s _1(t)\right |, \end{aligned} \end{align} (4.5)

    when parameters are setted as \alpha = 9.2156 , \beta = 15.9946 , m_0 = -1.24905 , m_1 = -0.75735 , s = (1.2, -0.8, -2.2)^T , and \psi = (0.2, 0.2, 0.1)^T , the error system is illustrated in Figure 4.

    Figure 4.  Synchronization error trajectories of Example 2.

    Under the situation, impulse sequences satisfy t_k = 2k . Let us consider sampling delay as \eta(t_k) = 1.98 . Based on Corollary 2, \varpi_*\geq h_0T_*-(1-\mu)hT_* . Assume the system experiences a desynchronizing impulse D_1 = -0.3I at time t_1 . Recalling Corollary 1 and (3.6), choose D_k = 0.4I, k\neq1 .

    Figure 4 shows the error variable \left | e(t) \right | = \left | e_1(t) \right |+\left | e_2(t) \right |+\left | e_3(t) \right | . It is evident that the adjustment of impulsive gain is an effective way for ensuring synchronization.

    In this paper, the synchronization problem of uncertain time-delay systems is investigated by delayed impulsive control. Especially, a novel Razumikhin-type inequality was developed. In combination with this inequality, we derive some sufficient conditions for GES. This paper shows that delays in impulsive control are helpful for synchronization. Then, for a desynchronizing impulsive gain, we can also find if the size of the delay in the impulsive interval is adequately large, then the desynchronizing impulsive gain does not break synchronization under the conditions we present. Moreover, uncertain time-delay systems can achieve synchronization through combining impulsive delay and impulsive gain. Especially, there has been a relaxation of \varpi(t) . Note that flexible impulsive delays have the upper bound, that is, \eta(t_k)\leq t_k-t_{k-1} . Future work will aim at extending the presented results to the impulsive delays over impulsive intervals.

    Biwen Li: Software, Validation, Supervision; Qiaoping Huang: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing-original draft, Writing-review and editing. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript for publication.

    The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.



    [1] Z. Wu, J. Sun, R. Xu, Consensus-based connected vehicles platoon control via impulsive control method, Physica A, 580 (2021), 126190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2021.126190 doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2021.126190
    [2] X. Liu, K. Zhang, Synchronization of linear dynamical networks on time scales: pinning control via delayed impulses, Automatica, 72 (2016), 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2016.06.001 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2016.06.001
    [3] B. Liu, Z. Sun, Y. Luo, Y. Zhong, Uniform synchronization for chaotic dynamical systems via event-triggered impulsive control, Physica A, 531 (2019), 121725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2019.121725 doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2019.121725
    [4] B. Jiang, J. Lu, X. Li, J. Qiu, Event-triggered impulsive stabilization of systems with external disturbances, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., 67 (2022), 2116–2122. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2021.3108123 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2021.3108123
    [5] A. Khadra, X. Z. Liu, X. Shen, Impulsively synchronizing chaotic systems with delay and applications to secure communication, Automatica, 41 (2005), 1491–1502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2005.04.012 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2005.04.012
    [6] F. Cacace, V. Cusimano, P. Palumbo, Optimal impulsive control with application to antiangiogenic tumor therapy, IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst. Technol., 28 (2020), 106–117. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2018.2861410 doi: 10.1109/TCST.2018.2861410
    [7] P. S. Rivadeneira, C. H. Moog, Observability criteria for impulsive control systems with applications to biomedical engineering processes, Automatica, 55 (2015), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2015.02.042 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2015.02.042
    [8] C. Treesatayapun, Impulsive optimal control for drug treatment of influenza A virus in the host with impulsive-axis equivalent model, Inform. Sciences, 576 (2021), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2021.06.051 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2021.06.051
    [9] H. Yang, X. Wang, S. Zhong, L. Shu, Synchronization of nonlinear complex dynamical systems via delayed impulsive distributed control, Appl. Math. Comput., 320 (2018), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2017.09.019 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2017.09.019
    [10] W. Chen, X. Lu, W. Zheng, Impulsive stabilization and impulsive synchronization of discrete-time delayed neural networks, IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., 26 (2015), 734–748. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2014.2322499 doi: 10.1109/TNNLS.2014.2322499
    [11] M. Li, X. Li, X. Han, J. Qiu, Leader-following synchronization of coupled time-delay neural networks via delayed impulsive control, Neurocomputing, 357 (2019), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2019.04.063 doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2019.04.063
    [12] E. I. Verriest, F. Delmotte, M. Egerstedt, Control of epidemics by vaccination, Proceedings of the 2005, American Control Conference, Portland, OR, USA, 2005,985–990. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2005.1470088
    [13] E. I. Verriest, Optimal control for switched point delay systems with refractory period, IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 38 (2005), 413–418. https://doi.org/10.3182/20050703-6-CZ-1902.00930 doi: 10.3182/20050703-6-CZ-1902.00930
    [14] F. Delmotte, E. I. Verriest, M. Egerstedt, Optimal impulsive control of delay systems, ESAIM: COCV, 14 (2008), 767–779. https://doi.org/10.1051/cocv:2008009 doi: 10.1051/cocv:2008009
    [15] X. Yang, X. Li, J. Lu, Z. Cheng, Synchronization of time-delayed complex networks with switching topology via hybrid actuator fault and impulsive effects control, IEEE Trans. Cybernetics, 50 (2020), 4043–4052. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2019.2938217 doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2019.2938217
    [16] J. Almeida, C. Silvestre, A. Pascoal, Synchronization of multiagent systems using event-triggered and self-triggered broadcasts, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., 62 (2017), 4741–4746. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2017.2671029 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2017.2671029
    [17] J. Lu, Y. Wang, X. Shi, J. Cao, Finite-time bipartite consensus for multiagent systems under detail-balanced antagonistic interactions, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst., 51 (2021), 3867–3875. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2019.2938419 doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2019.2938419
    [18] X. Li, J. Cao, D. W. C. Ho, Impulsive control of nonlinear systems with time-varying delay and applications, IEEE Trans. Cybernetics, 50 (2020), 2661–2673. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2019.2896340 doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2019.2896340
    [19] W. Chen, W. Zheng, X. Lu, Impulsive stabilization of a class of singular systems with time-delays, Automatica, 83 (2017), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2017.05.008 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2017.05.008
    [20] Z. Tang, J. H. Park, J. Feng, Impulsive effects on quasi-synchronization of neural networks with parameter mismatches and time-varying delay, IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., 29 (2018), 908–919. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2017.2651024 doi: 10.1109/TNNLS.2017.2651024
    [21] Z. Yang, D. Xu, Stability analysis and design of impulsive control systems with time delay, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., 52 (2007), 1448–1454. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2007.902748 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2007.902748
    [22] W. Ren, J. Xiong, Stability analysis of impulsive switched time-delay systems with state-dependent impulses, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., 64 (2019), 3928–3935. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2018.2890768 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2018.2890768
    [23] X. Liu, Stability of impulsive control systems with time delay, Math. Comput. Model., 39 (2004), 511–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-7177(04)90522-5 doi: 10.1016/S0895-7177(04)90522-5
    [24] W. Chen, Z. Ruan, W. Zheng, Stability and L_2-gain analysis for linear time-delay systems with delayed impulses: an augmentation-based switching impulse approach, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., 64 (2019), 4209–4216. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2019.2893149 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2019.2893149
    [25] X. Wu, Y. Tang, W. Zheng, Input-to-state stability of impulsive stochastic delayed systems under linear assumptions, Automatica, 66 (2016), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2016.01.002 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2016.01.002
    [26] X. Li, S. Song, Stabilization of delay systems: delay-dependent impulsive control, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., 62 (2017), 406–411. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2016.2530041 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2016.2530041
    [27] A. Haq, Existence and controllability of second‐order nonlinear retarded integro‐differential systems with multiple delays in control, Asian J. Control, 25 (2023), 623–628. https://doi.org/10.1002/asjc.2780 doi: 10.1002/asjc.2780
    [28] B. Wang, C. Wang, Periodic and event‐based impulse control for linear stochastic systems with multiplicative noise, Asian J. Control, 25 (2023), 2415–2423. https://doi.org/10.1002/asjc.3040 doi: 10.1002/asjc.3040
    [29] S. Luo, F. Deng, W. Chen, Stability analysis and synthesis for linear impulsive stochastic systems, Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control, 28 (2018), 4424–4437. https://doi.org/10.1002/rnc.4244 doi: 10.1002/rnc.4244
    [30] J. Lu, D. W. C. Ho, J. Cao, A unified synchronization criterion for impulsive dynamical networks, Automatica, 46 (2010), 1215–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2010.04.005 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2010.04.005
    [31] S. Cai, P. Zhou, Z. Liu, Synchronization analysis of directed complex networks with time-delayed dynamical nodes and impulsive effects, Nonlinear Dyn., 76 (2014), 1677–1691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-014-1238-z doi: 10.1007/s11071-014-1238-z
    [32] X. Li, P. Li, Stability of time-delay systems with impulsive control involving stabilizing delays, Automatica, 124 (2021), 109336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2020.109336 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2020.109336
    [33] T. Liang, Y. Li, W. Xue, Y. Li, T. Jiang, Performance and analysis of recursive constrained least Lncosh algorithm under impulsive noises, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II, 68 (2021), 2217–2221. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSII.2020.3037877 doi: 10.1109/TCSII.2020.3037877
    [34] O. M. Kwon, J. H. Park, S. M. Lee, On robust stability for uncertain neural networks with interval time-varying delays, IET Control Theory Appl., 2 (2008), 625–634. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-cta:20070325 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta:20070325
    [35] A. Wu, H. Liu, Z. Zeng, Observer design and H_\infty performance for discrete-time uncertain fuzzy-logic systems, IEEE Trans. Cybernetics, 51 (2021), 2398–2408. https://doi.org/10.1109/tcyb.2019.2948562 doi: 10.1109/tcyb.2019.2948562
    [36] C. Ge, X. Liu, C. Hua, J. H. Park, Exponential synchronization of the switched uncertain neural networks with mixed delays based on sampled-data control, J. Franklin Inst., 359 (2022), 2259–2282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfranklin.2022.01.025 doi: 10.1016/j.jfranklin.2022.01.025
    [37] W. Huang, Q. Song, Z. Zhao, Y. Liu, F. Alsaadi, Robust stability for a class of fractional-order complex-valued projective neural networks with neutral-type delays and uncertain parameters, Neurocomputing, 450 (2021), 339–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2021.04.046 doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2021.04.046
    [38] H. Zhao, D. Liu, S. Lv, Robust maximum correntropy criterion subband adaptive filter algorithm for impulsive noise and noisy input, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II, 69 (2021), 604–608. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSII.2021.3095182 doi: 10.1109/TCSII.2021.3095182
    [39] D. Sidorov, Integral dynamical models: singularities, signals and control, World Scientific, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1142/9278
    [40] Z. G. Li, C. Y. Wen, Y. C. Soh, Analysis and design of impulsive control systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., 46 (2001), 894–897. https://doi.org/10.1109/9.928590 doi: 10.1109/9.928590
    [41] V. Kumar, M. Djemai, M. Defoort, M. Malik, Total controllability results for a class of time‐varying switched dynamical systems with impulses on time scales, Asian J. Control, 24 (2022), 474–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/asjc.2457 doi: 10.1002/asjc.2457
    [42] G. Wang, Y. Ren, Stability analysis of Markovian jump systems with delayed impulses, Asian J. Control, 25 (2023), 1047–1060. https://doi.org/10.1002/asjc.2863 doi: 10.1002/asjc.2863
    [43] S. T. Zavalishchin, A. N. Sesekin, Dynamic impulse systems: theory and applications, Dordrecht: Springer, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8893-5
    [44] Z. Yu, S. Ling, P. X. Liu, Exponential stability of time‐delay systems with flexible delayed impulse, Asian J. Control, 26 (2024), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1002/asjc.3202 doi: 10.1002/asjc.3202
    [45] X. Li, P. Li, Q. Wang, Input/output-to-state stability of impulsive switched systems, Syst. Control Lett., 116 (2018), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysconle.2018.04.001 doi: 10.1016/j.sysconle.2018.04.001
    [46] B. Jiang, J. Lou, J. Lu, K. Shi, Synchronization of chaotic neural networks: average-delay impulsive control, IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., 33 (2022), 6007–6012. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3069830 doi: 10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3069830
    [47] F. Chen, W. Zhang, LMI criteria for robust chaos synchronization of a class of chaotic systems, Nonlinear Anal. Theor., 67 (2007), 3384–3393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2006.10.020 doi: 10.1016/j.na.2006.10.020
    [48] E. E. Yaz, Linear matrix inequalities in system and control theory, Proc. IEEE, 86 (1998), 2473–2474. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.1998.735454 doi: 10.1109/JPROC.1998.735454
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(855) PDF downloads(51) Cited by(0)

Figures and Tables

Figures(4)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog