Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Research article Special Issues

The hybrid power mean of the generalized Gauss sums and the generalized two-term exponential sums

  • This article applied the properties of character sums, quadratic character, and classical Gauss sums to study the calculations of the hybrid power mean of the generalized Gauss sums and the generalized two-term exponential sums. It also provided exact formulas for calculating these hybrid power means.

    Citation: Xue Han, Tingting Wang. The hybrid power mean of the generalized Gauss sums and the generalized two-term exponential sums[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(2): 3722-3739. doi: 10.3934/math.2024183

    Related Papers:

    [1] Yude Ji, Xitong Ma, Luyao Wang, Yanqing Xing . Novel stability criterion for linear system with two additive time-varying delays using general integral inequalities. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(8): 8667-8680. doi: 10.3934/math.2021504
    [2] Jenjira Thipcha, Presarin Tangsiridamrong, Thongchai Botmart, Boonyachat Meesuptong, M. Syed Ali, Pantiwa Srisilp, Kanit Mukdasai . Robust stability and passivity analysis for discrete-time neural networks with mixed time-varying delays via a new summation inequality. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 4973-5006. doi: 10.3934/math.2023249
    [3] Nayika Samorn, Kanit Mukdasai, Issaraporn Khonchaiyaphum . Analysis of finite-time stability in genetic regulatory networks with interval time-varying delays and leakage delay effects. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 25028-25048. doi: 10.3934/math.20241220
    [4] Honghong Wang, Kai Wang . Application of sample-data control for a class of time-delay nonlinear systems in circuit systems. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(5): 11316-11329. doi: 10.3934/math.2025514
    [5] Sheng-Ran Jia, Wen-Juan Lin . Adaptive event-triggered reachable set control for Markov jump cyber-physical systems with time-varying delays. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 25127-25144. doi: 10.3934/math.20241225
    [6] Patarawadee Prasertsang, Thongchai Botmart . Improvement of finite-time stability for delayed neural networks via a new Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(1): 998-1023. doi: 10.3934/math.2021060
    [7] Biwen Li, Yibo Sun . Stability analysis of Cohen-Grossberg neural networks with time-varying delay by flexible terminal interpolation method. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 17744-17764. doi: 10.3934/math.2023906
    [8] Rakkiet Srisuntorn, Wajaree Weera, Thongchai Botmart . Modified function projective synchronization of master-slave neural networks with mixed interval time-varying delays via intermittent feedback control. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(10): 18632-18661. doi: 10.3934/math.20221025
    [9] Wenlong Xue, Yufeng Tian, Zhenghong Jin . A novel nonzero functional method to extended dissipativity analysis for neural networks with Markovian jumps. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(7): 19049-19067. doi: 10.3934/math.2024927
    [10] Xingyue Liu, Kaibo Shi . Further results on stability analysis of time-varying delay systems via novel integral inequalities and improved Lyapunov-Krasovskii functionals. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(2): 1873-1895. doi: 10.3934/math.2022108
  • This article applied the properties of character sums, quadratic character, and classical Gauss sums to study the calculations of the hybrid power mean of the generalized Gauss sums and the generalized two-term exponential sums. It also provided exact formulas for calculating these hybrid power means.



    The study of systems with time delays poses a significant challenge for control researchers and engineers, primarily because stability and performance are often compromised. While most existing research focuses on systems with a single time-varying delay, many practical control applications, particularly in networked systems, necessitate the consideration of multiple time-varying delays [1,2,3,4]. This is due to the fact that signals transmitted from one point to another frequently encounter successive delays with varying characteristics. Such systems are commonly found in practical applications, including network control systems, mechanical systems, and biological systems [5,6,7]. Consequently, investigating the stability of systems with multiple time delays is essential. Specifically, the practical significance of linear systems with two-time delays has attracted considerable attention in recent years [8,9,10,11].

    The Lyapunov stability theory is a classical method for analyzing the stability of delay systems [12,13,14]. By constructing an appropriate Lyapunov, the changes in the system's energy or state over time can be examined to determine the stability of the system [15,16,17,18]. Additionally, the linear matrix inequalities (LMIs) method is a commonly used technique in modern control theory [19]. This method transforms the stability conditions of delay systems into solvable matrix inequalities, allowing numerical optimization tools to be employed to obtain stability criteria for the system. Numerical simulation is also an effective tool for studying the stability of delay systems. By simulating the dynamic behavior of the system on a computer, the response of the system under different parameters and initial conditions can be observed, thereby analyzing its stability. In practical analyses, multiple methods are often combined, such as integrating the Lyapunov method with matrix inequality approaches, which can yield stronger stability results, especially in complex or high-dimensional delay systems. It is noteworthy that the time delays are assumed to be differentiable, which is a more stringent condition than that in some existing studies [20,21]. This limitation may affect the general applicability of our results. Future research could consider relaxing this assumption to include non-differentiable time delays, thereby broadening the scope of the proposed method and enhancing its relevance to practical applications. Addressing this issue could significantly enrich the understanding of the stability of systems with more complex delay structures.

    Recently, many studies have constructed enhanced Lyapunov–Krasovskii functions (LKFs) by introducing time-weighted or space-weighted terms and have incorporated various integral inequalities to obtain less conservative stability criteria [22,23,24]. For example, the Wirtinger inequality [25], the Bessel–Legendre inequality [26], and the reciprocally convex inequality (RCI) [17] are popular integral inequalities that have been widely applied. Consequently, an increasing number of studies are beginning to improve upon these inequalities to better apply them in different integrals. It is noteworthy that the quadratic function associated with time delay frequently arises in the derivative of the LKFs. Determining the negative definiteness condition (NDC) of this quadratic function has been a crucial topic in developing tractable LMIs over the years. Numerous studies have been conducted on the conditions for ensuring the negative definiteness of quadratic functions; their work has established conditions for constructing the quadratic form reciprocally convex inequality [27,28].

    The RCI effectively addresses these nonlinear characteristics, enhancing the accuracy of stability analysis. Thus, extending the concept of RCI becomes essential. In light of the recent extensive research on negative determination conditions for quadratic functions, their work has provided the necessary conditions for applying quadratic reciprocally convex inequalities in additive delay systems. The proposed bivariate quadratic reciprocally convex matrix inequality in this paper is inspired by their results. We have derived a bivariate quadratic reciprocally convex matrix inequality (BQRCI) which generalizes the original RCI, facilitating its application to bivariate quadratic functions [27]. By utilizing this inequality, we have successfully reduced the conservativeness of the stability criteria, leading to improved stability conditions. In addition, the application of the generalized BQRCI may be diverse, and future research could explore the integration of T-S fuzzy models with the proposed BQRCI framework. This may involve developing stability analysis methods that utilize T-S fuzzy representations to more effectively address complex nonlinear systems [29,30]. Furthermore, investigating the robustness of the BQRCI under various uncertainties within T-S fuzzy models could provide new insights and enhance the applicability of our findings in reality scenarios. Such extensions could make significant contributions to the field, offering a more comprehensive understanding of stability for systems characterized by time-varying delays and T-S fuzzy dynamics.

    The main contributions of this paper can be summarized as follows:

    1) This paper generalized a new bivariate quadratic reciprocally convex inequality and applied this inequality to additive time-varying delay systems to reduce the conservativeness of system stability.

    2) Using the Lyapunov–Krasovskii functional method and the new bivariate quadratic reciprocally convex inequality, we obtained a new stability criterion and validated the effectiveness of the proposed method through some numerical examples.

    The structure of this paper is as follows: In the second section, we introduce a new inequality related to bivariate quadratic functions, referred to as the improved RCI, called BQRCI. In the next section, we demonstrate the application of this new inequality in LKFs, leading to enhanced stability results and presenting the main theoretical findings. In the final section, we provide four numerical experiments to validate the new stability criterion.

    Notations: Let Rn and Rn×m denote the sets of n-dimensional Euclidean real vectors space and n×m real matrices. The symbols Sn and Sn+ represent the collections of n×n symmetric matrices and symmetric positive-definite matrices. The notation diag refers to diagonal matrices, while zeros (m,n) indicates the m×n matrices in R where all entries are zero. The identity matrix in Rn×n is denoted by In; let be the symmetric part of a matrix. Lastly, we define sym(A)=A+AT, where T denotes the transpose of a matrix, and we set μ21=μ2μ1 and h21=h2h1.

    {˙y(t)=Ay(t)+By(tk1(t)k2(t)),t0,y(t)=ϕ(t),t[k1k2,0], (2.1)

    where y(t)Rn represents the state vector, the initial conditions of time delay are ϕ(t)Rn, and A,BRn×n are the given matrices. The time-varying delays k1(t) and k2(t) are differentiable functions that satisfy the following condition:

    0ki(t)ki,0˙ki(t)μi, (2.2)

    where ki and μi (i=1,2) are given positive constants.

    Next, some important lemmas are introduced as follows:

    Lemma 2.1. [25] For a matrix RSn+, real scalars a and b, if there exists a continuous differentiable function x:[a,b]Rn, the following integral inequality holds:

    ba˙yT(s)R˙y(s)ds1ba[ξ1ξ2]T[R003R][ξ1ξ2], (2.3)

    where

    ξ1=y(b)y(a),ξ2=y(b)+y(a)2babay(s)ds.

    Lemma 2.2. [27] For a bivariate quadratic function f(x,y)=p2x2+p1x+q2y2+q1y+r2xy+r1, where p2,p1,q2,q1,r2,r1R, and 0h1xh2,μ1yμ2, if f(x,y)<0 for (x,y)[h1,h2]×[μ1,μ2], the following inequalities hold:

    {g1(h1)=p2h21+(p1+r2μ1)h1+(q2μ21+q1μ1+r1)<0,g1(h2)=p2h22+(p1+r2μ1)h2+(q2μ21+q1μ1+r1)<0,h212(2p2h1+p1+r2μ1)+g1(h1)<0,g2(h1)=p2h21+(p1+r2μ2)h1+(q2μ22+q1μ2+r1)<0,g2(h2)=p2h22+(p1+r2μ2)h2+(q2μ22+q1μ2+r1)<0,h212(2p2h1+p1+r2μ2)+g2(h1)<0,g3(h1)=p2h21+(p1+r2μ1+μ212r2)h1+[q2(μ21μ1+μ21)+q1(μ212+μ1)+r1]<0,g3(h2)=p2h22+(p1+r2μ1+μ212r2)h2+[q2(μ21μ1+μ21)+q1(μ212+μ1)+r1]<0,h212(2p2h1+p1+r2μ1+μ212r2)+g3(h1)<0.

    Lemma 2.3. [17] Let h1,h2,,hN:RnR be functions that take positive values in an open subset H of Rn. Then, the reciprocally convex combination of hi defined over H satisfies the following equations:

    min{αiαi>0,iαi=1}i1αihi(t)=ihi(t)+maxbi,j(t)ijbi,j(t),

    subject to {bi,j:RnR, bj,i(t)=bi,j(t),[hi(t)bi,j(t)bj,i(t)hj(t)]0}.

    Corollary 2.4. For any real positive scalars α,β,γ,δ, and holds α+β+γ+δ=1, for given RiSn+(i=1,2,,4), and free matrices H12,H13,H14,H23,H24,H34, if the size of the matrix is 4×4, the reciprocally convex inequality shows:

    [1αR10001βR2001γR301δR4][R1H12H13H14R2H23H24R3H34R4], (2.4)

    where the following restrictive conditions hold:

    [R1H12R2]0,[R1H13R3]0,[R1H14R4]0,[R1H12R2]0,[R1H13R3]0,[R1H14R4]0.

    Remark 2.5. The reciprocally convex inequality can be efficiently applied in the stability of systems with time-varying delays; if the size of the matrix is n×n, the number of restrictive conditions of the matrix inequality is n(n1)2.

    Next, we introduce the bivariate quadratic reciprocally convex inequality based on Lemma 2.3 and Corollary 2.4, and also provide a detailed proof for this novel inequality.

    Lemma 2.6. Bivariate quadratic reciprocally convex inequality (BQRCI). For any real positive scalars α,β,γ,δ, and holds α+β+γ+δ=1, for given RiSn+(i=1,2,,4), and free matrices S1j,S2j,S3j,S4j,S5j,S6j,U1j, U2j,U3j,U4j,U5j,U6j,U7j,U8j,U9j, U10j,U11j,U12jRn×n(j=1,2), such that the following inequality holds:

    [1αR10001βR2001γR301δR4][R1000R200R30R4]+[M11M12M13M14M22M23M24M33M34M44]. (2.5)

    When the condition below is satisfied:

    A1=[αU11+α2U12R1(α2+β2)S12+S1100βU21+β2U22R200000]0, (2.6)
    A2=[αU31+α2U32R10(α2+β2)S22+S210000γU41+γ2U42R300]0, (2.7)
    A3=[αU51+α2U52R100(α2+β2)S32+S3100000δU61+δ2U62R4]0, (2.8)
    A4=[0000βU71+β2U72R2(α2+β2)S42+S410γU81+γ2U82R300]0, (2.9)
    A5=[0000βU91+β2U92R20(α2+β2)S52+S5100δU101+δ2U102R4]0, (2.10)
    A6=[0000000βU111+β2U112R3(α2+β2)S62+S61δU121+δ2U122R4]0, (2.11)

    where

    M12=(α2+β2)S12+S11,M13=(α2+β2)S22+S21,M14=(α2+β2)S32+S31,M23=(α2+β2)S42+S41,M24=(α2+β2)S52+S51,M34=(α2+β2)S62+S61,M11=βU11+αβU12+γU31+αγU32+δU51+αδU52,M22=αU21+αβU22+γU71+βγU72+δU91+βδU92,M33=αU41+αγU42+βU81+βγU82+δU111+γδU112,M44=αU61+αδU62+βU101+βδU102+γU121+γδU122.

    Proof: We first write the difference of inequality in six parts,

    [1αR10001βR2001γR301δR4][R1S11S21S31R2S41S51R3S61R4]=[βαR1S1100αβR200000]+[γαR10S210000αγR300]+[δαR100S3100000αδR4]+[0000γβR2S410βγR300]+[0000δβR20S5100βδR4]+[0000000δγR3S61γδR4].

    For the first part,

    [βαR1S1100αβR200000]=[βU11+αβU12(α2+β2)S1200αU21+αβU2200000]D12(α[U11S1100000000]+β[0S1100U2100000]+γ[0S1100000000]+δ[0S1100000000]+α2[U12S1200000000]+β2[0S1200U2200000][R1000R200000])D12,

    where

    D12=[βαI000αβI00I0I].

    In other words,

    [βαR1S1100αβR200000]=[βU11+αβU12(α2+β2)S1200αU21+αβU2200000]DT12A1D12.

    When Eq (2.6) holds,

    [βαR1S1100αβR200000][βU11+αβU12(α2+β2)S1200αU21+αβU2200000].

    Similarly, the other five parts can be described by

    [γαR10S210000αγR300]=[γU31+αγU320(α2+β2)S220000αU41+αγU4200]DT13A2D13,[δαR100S3100000αδR4]=[δU51+αδU5200(α2+β2)S3200000αU61+αδU62]DT14A3D14,[0000γβR2S410βγR300]=[0000γU71+βγU72(α2+β2)S420βU81+βγU8200]DT23A4D23,[0000δβR20S5100βδR4]=[0000δU91+βδU920(α2+β2)S5200βU101+βδU102]DT24A5D24,[0000000δγR3S61γδR4]=[0000000δU111+γδU112(α2+β2)S62γU121+γδU122]DT34A6D34,

    where

    D13=[γαI000I00αγI0I],D14=[δαI000I00I0αδI],D23=[I000γβI00βγI0I],D24=[I000δβI00I0βδI],D34=[I000I00δγI0γδI].

    Hence, the lemma is proved whenever (2.7)–(2.11) hold.

    Remark 2.7. If the free matrix U1j,U2j,U3j,U4j,U5j,U6j,U7j,U8j,U9j,U10j,U11j,U12j, for j=1,2 is the zero matrix and Si2 is also the zero matrix for i=1,2,6, the BQRCI will become the traditional reciprocally convex inequality.

    Remark 2.8. As far as we know, a bivariate quadratic reciprocally convex matrix inequality is proposed for the first time, and the new lemma effectively addresses the bivariate quadratic terms generated in the system. Lemma 2.6 has broader applications and achieves less conservativeness.

    For brevity, the following symbols are defined:

    σ1(t)=[y(t)y(tk1(t))y(t)+y(tk1(t))2k1(t)ttk1(t)y(s)ds],σ2(t)=[y(tk1(t))y(tk1(t)k2(t))y(tk1(t))+y(tk1(t)k2(t))2k2(t)tk1(t)tk1(t)k2(t)y(s)ds],σ3(t)=[y(tk1(t)k2(t))y(tk1(t)k2)y(tk1(t)k2(t))+y(tk1(t)k2)2k2k2(t)tk1(t)k2(t)tk1(t)k2y(s)ds],σ4(t)=[y(tk1(t)k2)y(tk1k2)y(tk1(t)k2)+y(tk1k2)2k1k1(t)tk1k2tk1(t)k2y(s)ds],ξ(t)=[yT(t),yT(tk1(t)),yT(tk1(t)k2(t)),yT(tk1(t)k2),yT(tk1k2),1k1(t)ttk1(t)yT(s)ds,1k2(t)tk1(t)tk1(t)k2(t)yT(s)ds,1k2k2(t)tk1(t)k2(t)tk1(t)k2yT(s)ds,1k1k1(t)tk1(t)k2tk1k2yT(s)ds]Tei=[zeros(n,(i1)n)Inzeros(n,(9i)n)],i=1,2,,9.

    The important notations are denoted as

    Ei=[eiei+1ei+ei+12ei+5](i=1,2,3,4),˜R=[R003R],E=[ET1,ET2,ET3,ET4]T,a2=[0S12(k1+k2)2S22(k1+k2)2S32(k1+k2)2U72(k1+k2)2S42(k1+k2)2S52(k1+k2)2U82(k1+k2)2S62(k1+k2)20],b2=[U52(k1+k2)2S12(k1+k2)2S22(k1+k2)2S32(k1+k2)20S42(k1+k2)2S52(k1+k2)20S62(k1+k2)2U62(k1+k2)2],c2=[U12+U32(k1+k2)2000U22+U92(k1+k2)200U42U112k1+k20U102U122(k1+k2)],a11=U11+U31(k1+k2),a22=U71k1+k2k2U72+k1U92(k1+k2)2,a33=U81k1+k2k2U82k1U112(k1+k2)2,a44=U101+U121(k1+k2)k1U102k1U122(k1+k2)2,b11=U51(k1+k2)k2U32+k1U52(k1+k2)2,b22=U21+U91k1+k2,b33=U41+U111k1+k2k2U42k2U112(k1+k2)2,b44=U61k1+k2k1U62k2U122(k1+k2)2,c11=k2U31k1U51(k1+k2)˜R,c22=k2U71k1U91(k1+k2)˜R,c33=k1U111k1+k2+k1k2U112(k1+k2)2˜R,c44=k2U121k1+k2+k1k2U122(k1+k2)2˜R,a1=diag(a11,a22,a33,a44),b1=diag(b11,b22,b33,b44),c1=diag(c11,c22,c33,c44),α12=[0S12(k1+k2)200U22(k1+k2)200000],β12=[U12(k1+k2)2S12(k1+k2)200000000],α11=[0000U21k1+k200000],β11=[U11k1+k2000000000],γ11=[˜RS1100˜R00000],α22=[00S22(k1+k2)20000U42(k1+k2)200],β22=[U32(k1+k2)20S22(k1+k2)20000000],α21=[0000000U41(k1+k2)+2k2U42(k1+k2)200],β21=[U31k1+k2000000000],γ21=[˜R0S210000k2U41(k1+k2)+k22U42(k1+k2)2˜R00],α32=[000S32(k1+k2)2000000],β32=[U52(k1+k2)200S32(k1+k2)200000U62(k1+k2)2],α31=[0000000000],β31=[U51k1+k200000000U61(k1+k2)+2k1U62(k1+k2)2],γ31=[˜R00S3100000k1U61(k1+k2)+k21U62(k1+k2)2˜R],α42=[0000U72(k1+k2)2S42(k1+k2)20U82(k1+k2)200],β42=[00000S42(k1+k2)20000],β41=[0000000000],α41=[0000U71(k1+k2)00U81(k1+k2)+2k2U82(k1+k2)200],γ41=[0000˜RS410k2U81(k1+k2)+k21U82(k1+k2)2˜R00],α52=[0000U92(k1+k2)20S52(k1+k2)2000],β52=[000000S52(k1+k2)200U102(k1+k2)2],α51=[0000U91(k1+k2)00000],β51=[000000000U101(k1+k2)+2k1U102(k1+k2)2],γ51=[0000˜R0S5100k1U101(k1+k2)+k21U102(k1+k2)2˜R],α62=[0000000U112(k1+k2)2S62(k1+k2)20],β62=[00000000S62(k1+k2)2U122(k1+k2)2],α61=[0000000U111(k1+k2)+2k2U112(k1+k2)200],β61=[000000000U121(k1+k2)+2k1U122(k1+k2)2],γ61=[0000000k2U111(k1+k2)+k21U112(k1+k2)2˜RS61k1U121(k1+k2)+k21U122(k1+k2)2˜R].

    Then, we propose a new delay-dependent stability criterion for the system based on the bivariate quadratic reciprocally convex matrix inequality and the improved Lyapunov–Krasovskii functional.

    Theorem 3.1. For known ki>0, μi>0 (i=1,2), the time delays of the additive system: k1(t) and k2(t) follow conditions (2.2); the additive system (2.1) is asymptotically stable if there exists a matrix, [P1P2P3]S+2n, ZiS+n (i=1,2,3,4), RlS+, for any l=1,2,3,4,5,6, S1j,S2j, S3j,S4j,S5j,S6j,U1j,U2j,U3j,U4j,U5j,U6j, U7j,U8j,U9j,U10j,U11j,U12jRn×n(j=1,2) such that LMIs (3.1)–(3.6) hold.

    Ψ1(0)<0,Ψ1(k2)<0,k22ˆa1+Ψ1(0)<0, (3.1)
    Ψ2(0)<0,Ψ2(k2)<0,k22(ˆa1+ˆc2k1)+Ψ2(0)<0, (3.2)
    Ψ3(0)<0,Ψ3(k2)<0,k22(ˆa1+k12ˆc2)+Ψ3(0)<0, (3.3)
    Ωj1(0)<0,Ωj1(k2)<0,k22αj1+Ωj1(0)<0, (3.4)
    Ωj2(0)<0,Ωj2(k2)<0,k22αj1+Ωj2(0)<0, (3.5)
    Ωj3(0)<0,Ωj3(k2)<0,k22αj1+Ωj3(0)<0. (3.6)

    The important notations are defined:

    Ψ1(h)=ˆa2h2+ˆa1h+ˆc1,Ψ2(h)=ˆa2h2+(ˆa1+ˆc2k1)h+(ˆb2k21+ˆb1k1+ˆc1)<0,Ψ3(h)=ˆa2h2+(ˆa1+k12ˆc2)h+(ˆb1k12+ˆc1)<0,Ωj1(h)=αj2h2+αj1h+γj1<0,Ωj2(h)=αj2h2+αj1h+(βj2k21+βj1k1+γj1)<0,Ωj3(h)=αj2h2+αj1h+(βj1k12+γj1)<0,Θ1=Sym{eT1(P1A+P2)e1+eT1P1Be3eT1P2e5},Θ2=eT1(Z1+Z2+Z3+Z4)e1(1μ1)eT2Z1e2(1μ1μ2)eT3Z2e3(1μ1)eT4Z3e4eT5Z4e5,Θ3=(k1+k2)(eT1ATRAe1+eT3BTRBe3+Sym{eT1ATRBe3}),Υi=Sym{eT1(ATP2+P3)ei+5+eT3BTP2ei+5eT5P3ei+5}(i=1,2,3,4),ˆa2=ETa2Ek1+k2,ˆb2=ETb2Ek1+k2,ˆc2=ETc2Ek1+k2,ˆa1=Υ2Υ3+ETa1Ek1+k2,ˆb1=Υ1Υ4+ETb1Ek1+k2,ˆc1=Θ1+Θ2+Θ3+k2Υ3+k1Υ4+ETc1Ek1+k2.

    Let us prove this theorem:

    Proof: Choose some LKFs candidate first,

    V(yt)=V1(yt)+V2(yt)+V3(yt), (3.7)

    where

    V1(yt)=[y(t)ttk1k2y(s)ds]T[P1P2P3][y(t)ttk1k2y(s)ds],V2(yt)=ttk1(t)yT(s)Z1y(s)ds+ttk1(t)k2(t)yT(s)Z2y(s)ds+ttk1(t)k2yT(s)Z3y(s)ds+ttk1k2yT(s)Z4y(s)ds,V3(yt)=0k1k2tt+θ˙yT(s)R˙y(s)dsdθ.

    Then, we calculate the derivatives of the functionals, which are given by:

    ˙V1(yt)=ξT(t)(Θ1+Υ1k1(t)+Υ2k2(t)+Υ3(k2k2(t))+Υ4(k1k1(t)))ξ(t), (3.8)
    ˙V2(yt)ξT(t)Θ2ξ(t), (3.9)
    ˙V3(yt)=(k1+k2)˙yT(t)R˙y(t)ttk1k2˙yT(s)R˙y(s)ds=(k1+k2)˙yT(t)R˙y(t)ttk1(t)˙yT(s)R˙y(s)dstk1(t)tk1(t)k2(t)˙yT(s)R˙y(s)dstk1(t)k2(t)tk1(t)k2˙yT(s)R˙y(s)dstk1(t)k2tk1k2˙yT(s)R˙y(s)ds. (3.10)

    Using the Wirtinger-based integral inequality (2.3) to estimate the upper bounds of the derivative of V3(t).

    ˙V3(yt)(k1+k2)˙yT(t)R˙y(t)σT1(t)˜Rσ1(t)k1(t)σT2(t)˜Rσ2(t)k2(t)σT3(t)˜Rσ3(t)k2k2(t)σT4(t)˜Rσ4(t)k1k1(t)=(k1+k2)˙yT(t)R˙y(t)+[σ1(t)σ2(t)σ3(t)σ4(t)]T[1k1(t)˜R0001k2(t)˜R001k2k2(t)˜R01k1k1(t)˜R][σ1(t)σ2(t)σ3(t)σ4(t)]. (3.11)

    By using Lemma 2.6,

    ˙V(yt)=ξT(t)(Θ31k1+k2[E1E2E3E4]T[k1+k2k1(t)˜R000k1+k2k2(t)˜R00k1+k2k2k2(t)˜R0k1+k2k1k1(t)˜R][E1E2E3E4])ξ(t)ξT(t)(Θ3+1k1+k2ET[a2k22(t)+b2k21(t)+a1k2(t)+b1k1(t)+c2k1(t)k2(t)+c1]E)ξ(t).

    Therefore,

    ˙V(yt)ξT(t)(ˆa2k22(t)+ˆb2k21(t)+ˆa1k2(t)+ˆb1k1(t)+ˆc2k1(t)k2(t)+ˆc1)ξ(t). (3.12)

    Using Lemma 2.2, from the negative determined condition, ˙V<0 holds if the LMIs conditions (3.1)–(3.3) hold.

    On the other hand, there are some necessary conditions for the new reciprocally convex matrix inequalities (2.6)–(2.11):

    Aj0,forj=1,2,,6.

    Similarly, using Lemma 2.2 again,

    Aj=(αj2k22(t)+βj2k21(t)+αj1k2(t)+βj1k2(t)+γj1)0. (3.13)

    This is ensured by the LMIs (3.4)–(3.6)) based on Lemma 2.2. Consequently, if the LMIs (3.1) to (3.6) are feasible, there exists a sufficiently small ε>0 such that ˙V(yt)<εy(t)2. This condition guarantees that system (2.1) with additive time-varying delays and satisfying condition (2.2) is asymptotically stable. The proof is complete.

    Remark 3.2. When using Lemma 2.6, we can let α=k1(t)k1+k2;β=k2(t)k1+k2;γ=k2k2(t)k1+k2;δ=k1k1(t)k1+k2. In this way, the derivative of V(yt) can become a bivariate quadratic function. In the same way, the necessary condition Aj0 for the Lemma (2.6) can also be written as a bivariate quadratic function. The only difference is that the coefficients of k1(t) and k2(t) are 0.

    Remark 3.3. The LMIs presented in Theorem 3.1 are based on the newly derived bivariate quadratic reciprocally convex inequality. This inequality allows for a more comprehensive application of bivariate quadratic negative definiteness conditions, enabling the formulation of LMIs that effectively utilize the delay information of the systems under discussion. Furthermore, the resulting stability criteria exhibit lower conservativeness without significantly increasing the number of decision variables (NoDVs). Thus, the advantage of the LMIs lies in their foundation on this inequality, which enhances the applicability of negative definiteness conditions while maintaining practical relevance in stability analysis.

    Example 4.1. Consider the time-varying delay system (2.1) with the given matrices A and B,

    A=[2000.9],B=[1011].

    The upper bounds for the delay derivatives, μ1 and μ2, are set at 0.1 and 0.8. Our objective is to determine the upper bounds of delays k1(t) and k2(t), specifically finding k1 and k2 when one is known. Some previous methods use traditional RCI like [31], which do not achieve results as favorable as those obtained by applying BQRCI. Table 1 compares different k1 values with the results from previous studies, including some recent research [32,33,34], and Theorem 3.1 under different delay conditions.

    Table 1.  The time-varying delay upper bound k2 for various k1.
    k1 1.0 1.2 1.5 NoDVs
    [32] 0.982 0.782 0.482 -
    [33] 0.999 0.972 0.680 202n2+25n
    [34] 1.163 0.965 0.669 32n2+10n
    [35] 0.415 0.376 0.248 12.5n2+4.5n
    [36] 0.512 0.406 0.283 7.5n2+3.5n
    [37] 0.595 0.462 0.312 -
    [38] 0.873 0.673 0.452 7.5n2+5n
    Theorem 3.1 1.171 0.975 0.715 100.5n2+27.5n

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    As shown in Table 1, the upper bound of k2 obtained using the current method is greater than that of several recent results, such as those in [32,33,34], while the NoDVs is smaller than in [33]. Therefore, this method effectively controls the increase in computational complexity without significantly raising the number of decision variables, while also achieving less conservativeness for the system.

    Example 4.2. Consider the time-varying delay system (2.1) with the given matrices A and B,

    A=[2000.9],B=[1011].

    We also assess the decay rates for different values of k2. From Table 2, it can be observed that the upper bound of k2 obtained by the current method is greater than that of several recent results, including [31,34,39], and NoDVs is smaller than [31,33,39]. Therefore, this method controls the increase of computation without excessively increasing NoDVs. The proposed method can yield an improved stability criterion for additive time-varying delay systems.

    Table 2.  The time-varying delay upper bound k1 for various k2.
    k2 0.3 0.4 0.5 NoDVs
    [31] 1.967 1.883 1.788 149n2+25n
    [32] 1.682 1.582 1.482 -
    [33] 1.880 1.779 1.675 202n2+25n
    [34] 1.875 1.773 1.671 32n2+10n
    [35] 1.324 1.039 0.806 12.5n2+4.5n
    [36] 1.453 1.214 1.021 19.5n2+3.5n
    [37] 1.531 1.313 1.140 -
    [38] 1.808 1.593 1.424 7n2+5n
    [39] 1.913 1.813 1.713 195.5n2+30.5n
    Theorem 3.1 2.280 2.010 1.806 100.5n2+27.5n

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Example 4.3. Consider the time-varying delay system (2.1) with the given matrices A and B,

    A=[2009],B=[1011].

    From Table 3, it can be seen that the upper bound of k1 and k2 obtained by the current method is greater than that of several recent results, including [10,32,40]. Therefore, this method achieves less conservativeness for the system.

    Table 3.  The time-varying delay upper bound for different cases.
    Method k1=1 k1=1.2 k1=1.5 k2=0.3 k2=0.4 k2=0.5
    [8] 0.415 0.340 0.248 1.324 1.039 0.806
    [10] 0.873 0.673 0.373 1.573 1.473 1.373
    [32] 0.982 0.782 0.482 1.682 1.582 1.482
    [36] 0.512 0.406 0.283 1.453 1.214 1.021
    [40] 0.872 0.672 0.371 1.572 1.472 1.372
    Theorem 3.1 2.163 1.928 1.598 7.111 5.309 4.230

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Example 4.4. By introducing the virtual state and measurement output vectors defined as y(t)=[ΔfΔPmΔPvACE]T and z(t)=[ACEACE]T, the closed-loop LFC system can be represented as the linear system (2.1), which includes two additive time-varying delays. The system parameters are presented in the following format:

    x(t)=[ΔfΔPmΔPvACE],A=[DM1M0001Tch1Tch01RTg01Ts0ϖ000],B=[00000000KPϖTg00KITg0000]

    with the parameters given in [31]: M=10,D=1,Tch=0.3,Tg=0.1,R=0.05, ϖ=21.

    To facilitate comparison with existing results, Figure 1 presents the findings for the case where KI=0.2, KP=0.1, |˙k1(t)|0.1, and |˙k2(t)|0.8. A simple simulation is conducted with the assumption of time-varying delays defined as k1(t)=12sin(0.2x(t))+12 and k2(t)=3.2782sin(1.63.278y(t))+3.2782. The results of this simulation are illustrated in Figure 1, where the LFC achieves its objectives, and the control system remains stable for MAUB k=3.278. The state responses converge to zero, confirming that system 2.1 is stable as shown in Figure 1 under condition Example 4.4.

    Figure 1.  Trajectory of Example 4.3.

    In this study, we successfully generalize a bivariate quadratic reciprocally convex inequality that is effectively applied to additive time-varying delay systems, significantly reducing the conservativeness typically associated with stability analyses. By employing the Lyapunov–Krasovskii function method in conjunction with this new inequality, we derive a novel stability criterion. Ensure that the conservativeness of the system decreases while controlling the excessive growth of the NoDVs without significantly increasing the computational burden. The effectiveness of the new approach is demonstrated through four numerical examples, underscoring its practical applicability in enhancing the stability analysis of additive time-varying delay systems.

    The authors declare that they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

    Xiao Ge: conceptualization, methodology, software MATLAB, writing-review and editing; Xinzuo Ma: software MATLAB, writing-review and editing, validation; Yuanyuan Zhang: methodology, writing-original and draft, software MATLAB, validation; Han Xue: software MATLAB, validation; Seakweng Vong: writing-review and editing, validation, funding acquisition, supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

    This research is funded by the Science and Technology Development Fund, Macau SAR (File No. 0151/2022/A) and the University of Macau (File No. MYRG-GRG2023-00037-FST-UMDF, MYRG-GRG2024-00100-FST-UMDF). Thanks to Professor SeakWeng Vong for his guidance and help.

    The authors declare no conflicts of interest.



    [1] A. Weil, On some exponential sums, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 34 (1948), 204–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.34.5.204 doi: 10.1073/pnas.34.5.204
    [2] X. Lv, W. Zhang, A new hybrid power mean involving the generalized quadratic gauss sums and sums analogous to kloosterman sums, Lith. Math. J., 57 (2017), 359–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10986-017-9366-z doi: 10.1007/s10986-017-9366-z
    [3] G. Djankovic, D. Dokic, N. Lela, I. Vrecica, On some hybrid power moments of products of generalized quadratic Gauss sums and Kloosterman sums, Lith. Math. J., 58 (2018), 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10986-018-9383-6 doi: 10.1007/s10986-018-9383-6
    [4] X. Li, C. Wu, Generalized quadratic Gauss sums and mixed means of generalized Kloosterman sums (Chinese), Mathematics in Practics and Theory, 49 (2019), 236–242.
    [5] X. Liu, Y. Meng, On the fourth hybrid power mean involving the generalized gauss sums, J. Math., 2023 (2023), 8732814. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/8732814 doi: 10.1155/2023/8732814
    [6] X. Li, J. Hu, The hybrid power mean quartic Gauss sums and Kloosterman sums, Open Math., 15 (2017), 151–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/math-2017-0014 doi: 10.1515/math-2017-0014
    [7] X. Li, Z. Xu, The fourth power mean of the generalized two-term exponential sums and its upper and lower bound estimates, J. Inequal. Appl., 2013 (2013), 504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2013-504 doi: 10.1186/1029-242X-2013-504
    [8] X. Li, The hybrid power mean of the quartic Gauss sums and the two-term exponential sums, Adv. Differ. Equ., 2018 (2018), 236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13662-018-1658-z doi: 10.1186/s13662-018-1658-z
    [9] D. Han, A hybrid mean value involving two-term exponential sums and polynomial character sums, Czech. Math. J., 64 (2014), 53–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10587-014-0082-0 doi: 10.1007/s10587-014-0082-0
    [10] L. Chen, X. Wang, A new fourth power mean of two-term exponential sums, Open Math., 17 (2019), 407–414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/math-2019-0034 doi: 10.1515/math-2019-0034
    [11] W. Zhang, D. Han, On the sixth power mean of the two-term exponential sums, J. Number Theory, 136 (2014), 403–413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnt.2013.10.022 doi: 10.1016/j.jnt.2013.10.022
    [12] L. Hua, Introduction to number theory, Beijing: Science Press, 1979.
    [13] T. Apostol, Introduction to analytic number theory, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1976. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5579-4
    [14] W. Zhang, H. Li, Elementary number theory, Xi'an: Shaanxi Normal University Press, 2008.
    [15] K. Ireland, M. Rosen, A classical introduction to modern number theory, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2103-4
    [16] X. Lv, W. Zhang, The generalized quadratic Gauss sums and its sixth power mean, AIMS Mathematics, 6 (2021), 11275–11285. http://dx.doi.org/10.3934/math.2021654 doi: 10.3934/math.2021654
  • 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(1553) PDF downloads(90) Cited by(1)

Figures and Tables

Tables(1)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog