2008 American Control Conference
4
Westin Seattle Hotel, Seattle, Washington, USA
June 11-13, 2008
On the Input-Output Stability of Nonlinear
Systems: Large Gain Theorem
Vahid Zahedzadeh, Horacio J. Marquez, and Tongwen Chen
Abstract— In this paper, minimum gain of an operator is
introduced. Moreover, some of its properties are presented. It
is proved that the minimum gain of a strictly proper, stable,
LTI system is zero. It is also shown that the minimum gain of
an operator fails to satisfy the triangular inequality. Finally,
the so-called large gain theorem is stated and a new stability
condition for feedback interconnection of nonlinear systems
is derived.
Index Terms— Nonlinear systems, induced operator
norms, continuous-time systems, discrete-time systems, small-
gain theorem
I. I NTRODUCTION
ne of the well-accepted and widely-used methods
O to study stability of systems is the input-output
approach. It was initiated by Popov, Zames, and Sandberg,
in the 1960s [8] [11] [9]. So far, it has been a fruitful area
which has resulted in many of the recent developments
in control theory, such as robust control and small-gain
based nonlinear stabilization techniques. The input-output
stability theory considers systems as mappings from an
input space of functions into an output space. In this theory,
the well-behaved input and output signals are considered
as members of input and output spaces. Therefore, if the
“well-behaved” inputs produce well-behaved outputs, the
system is called stable.
The main contribution of the input-output stability the-
ory in control theory is through the well-known small-gain
theorem. In this context, the most notable contributions
have also been made by Zames and Sandberg, e.g. [11]
[9]. The small gain theorem says that the feedback loop
will be stable if the loop gain is less than one. This simple
rule has been a basis for numerous stabilization techniques
such as nonlinear H∞ control [3].
Stability of systems, in its various forms, still continues
to inspire researchers. Motivated by the classical small
gain theorem, ”nonlinear gain” small gain theorems are
discussed in literature as [5] [10] [4]. The notion of non-
uniform in time robust global asymptotic output stability
introduced in [6] for a wide class of systems. A small-gain
theorem for a wide class of feedback systems is proposed
in [7]. In [2], it is shown that for an open loop unstable
system which is closed loop stable the gain must exceed
one.
978-1-4244-2079-7/08/$25.00 ©2008 AACC.
ThC15.
In this paper, the minimum gain of a system has been
studied. Although it has been showed that the minimum
gain is not a norm on space of operators, a new stability
condition has been derived for feedback systems based on
the minimum gains of the open-loop systems.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section II we in-
troduce the notation and present some preliminary results.
In Section III, the minimum gain of an operator is defined
and some of its properties are derived. In Section IV, the
large gain theorem is stated. An example is also provided
to illustrate the usage of the theorem.
II. N OTATION AND P RELIMINARIES
A. Notation
Let R and C denote the fields of real and complex
numbers, respectively. RHP stands for the portion of the
complex plane with positive real part. Rn denotes the space
of n×1 real vectors. For M ∈ Rn×m , M T is the transpose
of M ; σ(M ) is the minimum singular value of M; σ(M )
is a singular value of M; σ(M ) is the maximum singular
value of M. The Euclidean norm in Rn is denoted by k · k.
In×n denotes the n×n identity matrix. Let Bp (c, r) denote
the open ball with center c and radius r with norm p, i.e.
Bp (c, r) := {x| kx − ckp < r}. Lrp denotes Lebesgue p-
space of r-vector valued functions on [0, ∞], with norm
R∞
1/p
defined as kf kp := 0 kf (t)kp for 1 ≤ p < ∞ and
kf k∞ := ess supt∈R kf (t)k. Usually r is a finite integer;
we drop r and write Lp instead of Lrp , if no confusion will
arise. Similarly, let ℓp denote the vector space of discrete-
time signals with norm k · kp . Let Xp denote either Lp or
ℓp and X denote Xp for any 0 < p ≤ ∞. To distinguish
among various norm notation, we indicate the space as a
subscript for the norm, such as k·kRn or k·kXp . Whenever
the space is not mentioned, norms with t argument denote
Euclidean norm at t and without t denote the Xp norm
where Xp is a general space or can clearly be understood
from the content. Let Tτ denote the truncation operator:
for f (t) , 0 ≤ t < ∞, Tr f (t) = f (t) on [0, τ ], and
zero otherwise. We also denote the truncation of f (t) by
fT (t) := Tr f (t).
Let U := X and Y := X denote input and output signal
spaces, respectively. A nonlinear time-varying system can
be thought of as a possibly unbounded operator H : Dh →
3440
 2

H2 x
Y where Dh ⊆ U. The action of H on any u ∈ Dh is
denoted by Hu. A system H is called to be stable if Dh =
2
U. For an operator H : U → Y , let γp (H) stand for the
1
induced norm (gain) of the operator defined as -3 -2 -1
1 2 3 x
kHukT -1
γp (H) := sup (1) -2
0 6= u ∈ U kukT

where the supremum is taken over all u ∈ U and all T in

R+ for which uT 6= 0. Fig. 1: H2 in Example 3.1

III. M INIMUM G AIN OF AN O PERATOR

Let H : U → Y denote an operator. We define the exists a row in G(s) where all elements are strictly proper,
minimum gain of H as follows: namely there is i such that for all j, lims→∞ Gij (s) = 0.
Let H stand for the convolution operator defined by
k(Hu)T k
ν(H) = inf (2) Z t
06=u∈U kuT k
H(z(t)) = g(t − τ )z(τ )dτ (8)
where the infimum is taken over all u ∈ U and all T in 0
R+ for which uT 6= 0. It is trivial that the minimum gain We have
of an operator is less or equal to its induced norm. It is ν(H) = 0 (9)
also obvious that if a minimum gain of a system is infinite,
Proof: See Appendix III.
then it is unstable. In other words, the minimum gain of
Corollary 3.1: The minimum gain of a system with a
a stable system is always finite. The converse is, however,
strictly proper stable transfer function is zero.
not true.
Lemma 3.4: Let g(t) be the impulse response of
Lemma 3.1: Let M ∈ Rn×n . Define H : X2 → X2 as
a continuous-time (discrete-time) LTI system. Let
Hx := M x, then
G(s) (G(z)) denote the Laplace transform (z-transform)
ν(H) = σ(M ) (3) of g(t). Furthermore, assume that G(s) (G(z)) has at
Proof: See Appendix I. least one zero in the RHP (outside of the unit circle). Let
Lemma 3.2: Let Φ(·, ·) : R+ × Rn → Rn (Φ(·, ·) : H stand for the convolution operator defined by
Z × Rn → Rn in discrete time) and H be the operator
+
Z t
defined as H(z(t)) = g(t − τ )z(τ )dτ (10)
0
H : Xp → Xp ; Hx(t) := Φ(t, x(t)) (4)
for continuous-time case and
Suppose there exists a constant µp such that t
X
n
µp kxkp ≤ kΦ(t, x)kp , ∀x ∈ R , ∀t ≥ 0 (5) H(z(t)) = g(t − l)z(l) (11)
l=0
then µp ≤ νp (H).
for discrete-time one. We have
Proof: See Appendix II. ν(H) = 0 (12)
Example 3.1: Memory less Nonlinearities: Let X = Proof: See Appendix IV.
L∞ , and consider nonlinear operators H1 (u) = u2 and Lemma 3.5: Let H : Dh ⊆ U → Y be a possi-
H2 (.) defined by the graph in the plane shown in Fig. 1. bly unstable operator. Let Rh denote the range of H,
We have namely Rh = {y ∈ Y : y = Hu for some u ∈ Dh }. As-
k(H1 u)T kL∞ sume that H has a stable right inverse, i.e., there exists
ν(H1 ) = inf = inf |u| = 0 (6)
06=u∈L∞ kuT kL∞ 06=u∈L∞ H −1 : Rh → Dh such that
The minimum gain ν(H2 ) is easily determined from the H · H −1 = I (13)
slope of the graph of H2 .
and H −1 is stable. Moreover, assume that γ(H −1 ) < ∞
k(H2 u)T kL∞
ν(H2 ) = inf = 0.5 (7) Then
06=u∈L∞ kuT kL∞ 1
ν(H) = (14)
Lemma 3.3: Let g(t) be the impulse response of a γ(H −1 )
continuous-time, stable, LTI system. Let G(s) denote the Proof: See Appendix V.
Laplace transform of g(t). Furthermore, assume that there Corollary 3.2: Unstable, bi-proper, LTI systems

3441
 3

1) Let g(t) be the impulse response of a continues-time, H1 x H2 x (H1 + H2 ) x

unstable, bi-proper, LTI system. Let H stand for the 2

1
convolution operator defined by -1 x x x
1 1
Z t -1

H(z(t)) = g(t − τ )z(τ )dτ (15)

0
(a) H1 (b) H2 (c) H1 + H2
Let G(s) be the Laplace transform of g(t). We have
−1 Fig. 2: The triangle inequality is not satisfied by ν(·).
ν(H) = G−1 (s) H∞

(16)
2) Let g(t) be the impulse response of a discrete-time,
K H K H
unstable, strictly proper, LTI system. Let H denote +
+
the convolution operator defined by
t
X (a) (b)
H(z(t)) = g(t − l)z(l) (17)
l=0 Fig. 3: Stabilizable system
Let G(z) be the z-transform of g(t). We have
−1
ν(H) = G−1 (z) H∞ .

(18) the minimum gain of an operator is not a norm or even a
Example 3.2: Let semi-norm on the space of operators.
s+1 Lemma 3.6: Let H : U → Y denote an operator.
G(s) = (19) Suppose that there exists a nonzero stable operator K :
s−1
R → U such that HK : R → Y is stable, then ν(H) < ∞.
and H : Dh ⊂ L2 → L2 be an operator defined as (15).
Proof: Let 0 6= r(t) ∈ R such that r ∈ / Ker(K),
Equation (18) implies that
then u(t) = K r(t) ∈ U, u 6= 0 and y(t) = HK r(t) ∈
−1
ν(H) = G−1 (s) H∞ = 1. Y, implied by the stability of K and HK, respectively.

(20)
Therefore kukU 6= 0 and kukU , kykY < ∞. Consequently,
For instance, let u(t) := (1−2t) e−t u−1 (t), where u−1 (t) kyk
ν(H) ≤ kukY < ∞.
s−1
denotes the step function. We have U (s) = (s+1) 2 and
U
Corollary 3.3: Any system that can be stabilized by a
1
consequently Y (S) = s+1 which shows that y(t) = stable system with the mentioned properties in Lemma 3.6
kyk
e−t u−1 (t). This reveals that ν(H) ≤ kukL2 = 1. It and a structure as shown in either Fig. 3(a) or Fig. 3(b),
L2
is important to note that there is no input that satisfies has a finite minimum gain.
kykL Proof: The corollary is based on Lemma 3.6 and the
kuk
2
< 1. This can be shown by contradiction. Assume
L2 proof follows a similar routine as the proof of the lemma
kŷk
there exists some input û ∈ Le2 such that kûkL2 < 1 where with defining a new R equals R ⊕ Y in 3(a) or R + Y in
L2
ŷ is the corresponding output. We have kŷk < kûk < ∞. 3(b).

On the other hand, û = G−1 ŷ. Since G−1 H∞ = 1 Theorem 3.1: Sub-multiplicative property
kûk ≤ kŷk which is a contradiction. Let H1 , H2 : X → X be causal operators. Then
The minimum gain of operators satisfies the positivity and ν(H1 H2 ) ≤ ν(H1 )ν(H2 ) (23)
the positive homogeneity properties. To see this, we have Proof: Let u ∈ X , we have
ν(·) ≥ 0 (21) kH1 H2 uk ≥ ν(H1 ) kH2 uk ≥ ν(H1 )ν(H2 ) kuk (24)
and
Considering the fact that ν(H1 H2 ) is the infimum gain of
kλHuk the H1 H2 , Inequality (24) implies (23).
ν(λH) = inf
06=u∈Xe kuk
(22)
kHuk IV. L ARGE G AIN T HEOREM
= |λ| inf = |λ| ν(H)
06=u∈Xe kuk
In this section, we concentrate on the feedback system
However, it can be shown that it fails to satisfy the triangle shown in Fig. 4. Under mild conditions on H1 and H2
inequality. For instance, suppose that H1 and H2 are (e.g., the product of the instantaneous gains is less than one
memoryless nonlinearities depicted in Fig. 3. It is trivial [1]), the feedback configuration is guaranteed to be well-
that ν(H1 ) = 0, ν(H2 ) = 0 and ν(H1 + H2 ) = 1. This posed. The equations describing this feedback system, to
shows that ν(H1 + H2 ) > ν(H1 ) + ν(H2 ). Consequently, be known as the Feedback Equations, are:

3442
 4

u1 e1 y1
H1 Moreover, substituting (36) and (35) in (30) and (31),
+
-
respectively,
y2 e2 + u2
H2
+ ν(H1 )
ky1T k ≤ (ku1T k + ν(H2 ) ku2T k)
Fig. 4: The feedback system ν(H1 )ν(H2 ) − 1
(37)
and
ν(H2 )
e1 = u 1 − y2 ky2T k ≤ (ν(H1 ) ku1T k + ku2T k)
ν(H1 )ν(H2 ) − 1
e2 = u 2 + y1 (38)
(25)
y 1 = H1 e 1
Hence, the norms of ke1T k, k12T k, ky1T k and ky2T k are
y 2 = H2 e 2
bounded. If, in addition, u1 , u2 ∈ X , then (35-38) must
Theorem 4.1: Consider the feedback interconnection also be satisfied if T approaches ∞. Therefore,
described by (25) and shown in Fig. 4. Then, if 1 <
ν(H1 )ν(H2 ) < ∞, the feedback system is input-output- 1
ke1 k ≤ (ku1 k + ν(H2 ) ku2 k) (39)
stable. ν(H1 )ν(H2 ) − 1
Proof: To show stability of the feedback intercon-
1
nection, we must show that u1 , u2 ∈ X imply that e1 , e2 , ke2 k ≤ (ν(H1 ) ku1 k + ku2 k) (40)
ν(H1 )ν(H2 ) − 1
y1 and y2 are also in X . According to the definition of ν,
we have ν(H1 )
ky1 k ≤ (ku1 k + ν(H2 ) ku2 k) (41)
ν(H1 ) ke1T k ≤ ky1T k (26) ν(H1 )ν(H2 ) − 1
ν(H2 ) ke2T k ≤ ky2T k (27)
ν(H2 )
ky2 k ≤ (ν(H1 ) ku1 k + ku2 k) (42)
On the other hand, ν(H1 )ν(H2 ) − 1
y1T = e2T − u2T (28) Consequently, e1 , e2 , y1 and y2 are also in X .
y2T = u1T − e1T (29) Example 4.1: Let H1 be the convolution operator de-
fined by (8) where g(t) is the impulse response of
Thus,
s+1
ky1T k ≤ ke2T k + ku2T k (30) G(s) = k
s−1
ky2T k ≤ ke1T k + ku1T k (31)
where k ∈ R. Let H2 be a memoryless nonlinearity
Substituting (26) and (27) in (30) and (31), respectively, depicted in Fig. 1. As shown in Example 3.2, ν(H1 /k) = 1
which implies that ν(H1 ) = |k|. On the other hand, we
ν(H1 ) ke1T k ≤ ke2T k + ku2T k (32) have ν(H2 ) = 0.5. Consequently ν(H1 )ν(H2 ) = 0.5|k|.
ν(H2 ) ke2T k ≤ ke1T k + ku1T k (33) The large gain theorem, namely Theorem 4.1, guarantees
that the feedback system is stable if |k| > 2.
Using (27) and (31), Equation (32) implies that
ν(H2 )ν(H1 ) ke1T k ≤ ν(H2 ) ke2T k + ν(H2 ) ku2T k
V. C ONCLUSION
≤ ky2T k + ν(H2 ) ku2T k
≤ ke1T k + ku1T k + ν(H2 ) ku2T k The minimum gain of an operator as well as some of
(34) its properties are introduced. These properties are useful
in the computation of the minimum gain of a system. For
Since ν(H1 )ν(H2 ) > 1, instance, it is shown that the minimum gains of strictly
1 proper, stable, LTI systems are zero. When it comes to the
ke1T k ≤ (ku1T k + ν(H2 ) ku2T k) metric properties, the minimum gain of an operator fails to
ν(H1 )ν(H2 ) − 1
(35) satisfy the triangular inequality which implies that it is not
a metric or a norm in the space of operators. Finally, the
Similarly, so-called large gain theorem is stated and proved. This
1 theorem implies a new stability condition for feedback
ke2T k ≤ (ν(H1 ) ku1T k + ku2T k)
ν(H1 )ν(H2 ) − 1 interconnection of nonlinear systems. An example is pro-
(36) vided to illustrate the derived stability condition.

3443
 5

A PPENDIX I For p = ∞,
P ROOF OF LEMMA 3.1
kHxkL∞ = sup kΦ(t, x(t))k ≥ sup µp kx(t)k
t t
The proofs for the continuous-time and discrete-time p (48)
cases are the same and only the first one is given here. We = µp sup kx(t)k = µp kxkL∞
t
use the following property of the smallest singular value
Equations (47) and (48) imply that µp is a lower bound
of matrices (e.g. [12] pp. 21):
for ν(H). This completes the proof.
kM xk
σ(M ) = min kM xk = min (43)
kxk=1 x6=0 kxk A PPENDIX III
P ROOF OF LEMMA 3.3
Let M = U ΣV T be the SVD of M , where V = T
Let x̂(t) = [x̂1 (t) x̂2 (t) · · · x̂n (t)] ,
[v1 , v2 , · · · , vn ] ∈ Rn×n , U, Σ ∈ Rn×n . It is well-known (
that vn is the minimizer of (43), e.g. [12]. Let x ∈ L2 , we sin(ωt) k = i,
have x̂k (t) =
0 otherwise.
Z ∞
2 2
kM xk = kM x(t)k2 dt where i corresponds to the strictly proper row in G(s) and
Z0 ∞ ω ≥ π. Let
2
≥ σ(M )2 kx(t)k2 dt (44)  jωk π 
0 x(t) := x̂(t) − x̂ t − (49)
Z ∞ π ω
2 2
= σ(M )2 kx(t)k2 dt = σ(M )2 kxk where ⌊r⌋ denotes the floor function of a real number r,
0
which is the largest integer less than or equal to r, namely
which shows that σ(M ) is a lower bound for ν(H). ∀r ∈ R ; ⌊r⌋ := sup{n ∈ Z|n ≤ r}. It is trivial that
To show that it is the greatest lower bound, let x(t) =   
vn −t 0
kvn k e . We have




  0 
.

  
Z ∞ vn −t 2
Z ∞ −t 2

  .. 
2 e dt = 1/ 0 ≤ t ≤ ωπ ,
    
kxk = e dt =

  
2 sin(ωt) ith row
kvn k   
0 0 x(t) = 
..

(45)  
.

  


0

and 



2 
∞

vn −t
Z 
t > ωπ .
 
0
2 
kM xk = M kvn k e dt

0
Z ∞ and j ω k π 
e−2t
 
= kM vn k2 dt kx(t)k = x̂i (t) − x̂i t −
 
kvn k2 π ω

0
(46)
Z ∞
2 e
−2t Thus,
= kσ(M )vn k 2 dt
0 kvn k kxkL∞ = sup | sin(ωt)| = 1 (50)
Z ∞ t
2 2
= kσ(M )k e−2t dt = 1/2 kσ(M )k Z ⌊ω π
π ⌋ω
0 kxk2L2 = | sin(ωt)|2 dt
0
Equations (45) and (46) imply that ν(H) is equal to σ(M )  ⌊ ω ⌋ π
for some input. This completes the proof. sin (2ωt)  π ω
= 1/2
t− (51)
2ω 
0

A PPENDIX II
jωk π sin 2π⌊ ωπ ⌋
= −
P ROOF OF LEMMA 3.2 π 2ω 4ω
Z ⌊ ωπ ⌋ ωπ
Let x ∈ Lp , for p 6= ∞, kxkL1 = | sin(ωt)| dt (52)
Z ∞ Z ∞ 0
p
kHxkpLp = kΦ(t, x(t))k dt ≥ µpp kx(t)kp dt   of |x̂(t)| depicted in
To calculate (52), consider the graph
0Z
∞
0 Fig. 5. The number of peaks is ωπ . Moreover,
p p
= µpp kx(t)k dt = µpp kxkLp Z ωπ
0
2
S= sin (ωt) dt = (53)
(47) 0 ω

3444
 6

1
of G(s) at s0 . Since all poles of Y (s) are in LHP, y(t) is
a decaying signal. On the other hand, u(t) is an unstable
S signal, rising by time. If we truncate both u(t) and y(t)
0 1
at T , which is chosen sufficiently large, the corresponding
x
gain of the system will be small. By increasing T , the gain
can be decreased as much as desired. Therefore, ν(H) = 0.
Fig. 5: |x̂(t)|
A PPENDIX V
P ROOF OF LEMMA 3.5
Consequently, Let y(t) := Hu(t), which implies that u(t) = H −1 y(t).
jω k 2
jω k Therefore
kxkL1 = S= (54) kyT k kyT k 1
π π ω ν(H) = inf = inf = inf ku k
u∈U kuT k u∈D h kuT k u∈D h T
To calculate the norm of the output kyk, we can first find kyT k
the response of the system to input x̂(t), namely ŷ(t),
 and
1 1
= =
then obtain the output using y(t) = ŷ(t) − ŷ t − ωπ ωπ kuT k kH −1 y T k
implied by the linearity property of the system and (49). sup sup (61)
u∈Dh kyT k u∈Dh kyT k
If we let ω → ∞, the response of the system to x̂(t) 1 1
approaches to zero. The reason is that the amplitude of = =
kH −1 yT k γ(H −1 )
all elements of the i-th row of G(s) approaches to zero sup
at high frequencies. Therefore, limw→∞ kŷ(t)k = 0 and y∈Rh kyT k
consequently R EFERENCES
lim kyk = 0 (55)
w→∞ [1] J. A. Ball and J. W. Helton, “Interconnection of nonlinear
On the other hand, (51) and (54) imply causal systems,” IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, vol. 34,
pp. 1132 – 1140, 1989
2 [2] T.T. Georgiou , M. Khammash, and A. Megretski, “On a
lim kxkL2 = 1/2, lim kxkL1 = (56) large-gain theorem,” Systems and Control Letters, vol. 32,
w→∞ w→∞ π
pp. 231 – 234, 1997
Equations (50), (55) and (56) imply [3] J. W. Hilton and M. R. James, Extending H∞ Control to
Nonlinear Systems, SIAM, 1999.
ν1 (H) = 0, ν2 (H) = 0, ν∞ (H) = 0 (57) [4] B. Ingalls and E. D. Sontag, “A small-gain theorem with
applications to input/output systems, incremental stability,
A PPENDIX IV detectability and interconnection,” Journal of the Franklin
Institute, vol. 339, pp. 211 – 229, 2002.
P ROOF OF LEMMA 3.4
[5] Z. P. Jiang, A. Teel and L. Praly, “Small-gain theorem for ISS
The proofs for the continuous-time and discrete-time systems and applications,” Mathematics of Control, Signals,
cases are the same and only the first one is given here. and Systems, vol. 7, pp. 95 – 120, 1994.
[6] I. Karafyllis, “The Non-Uniform in Time Small-Gain The-
Let s0 be the RHP zero of G(s), namely there exists w
orem for a Wide Class of Control Systems with Outputs,”
such that G(s0 )w = 0. If σ0 + iω0 = s0 ∈ C, trivially s∗0 European Journal of Control, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 307–323,
is also a RHP zero of G(s). Let 2004.
( [7] I. Karafyllis and Z. P. Jiang, “A small-gain theorem for a
w es0 t if s0 ∈ R, wide class of feedback systems with control applications,”
u(t) = σ0 t
(58) SIAM J. Control and Optimization, in press, 2007.
w e sin (ω0 t) if s0 ∈ C.
[8] V. M. Popov, “Absolute stability of nonlinear systems of
Consequently, automatic control,” Automation Remote Control, vol. 22, pp.
( 857 - 875, 1962.
1 [9] I. W. Sandberg, “On the L2 -boundedness of solutions of
w· s−s0 if s0 ∈ R.
U (s) = ω0 (59) nonlinear functional equations,” Bell System Tech. Journal,
w· (s−σ0 )2 +ω02
if s0 ∈ C, vol. 43, pt. 11, pp. 1581 – 1599, July 1964.
[10] A. R. Teel, “A nonlinear small gain theorem for the analysis
We have of control systems with saturation,” IEEE Transactions on
(
G(s) · w · 1
if s0 ∈ R. Automatic Control, vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 1256–1270, 1989.
s−s0
Y (s) = ω0 (60) [11] G. Zames, “On the input-output stability for time-varying
G(s) · w · (s−σ0 )2 +ω02
if s0 ∈ C, nonlinear feedback systems, Part I, conditions derived using
concepts of loop gain, conicity and positivity,” IEEE Trans.
Since G(s) is assumed to be stable, Y (s) is a stable signal. on Automat. Contr., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 228 – 238, 1966.
It is important to note that Y (s) does not have a pole at [12] K. Zhou, Essentials of Robust Control, Prentice Hall, Upper
s0 . The reason is that the pole at s0 is canceled by the zero Saddle River, 1998.

3445