are a little different when it comes for feedback control and packet dropouts between controller and actuator. As demonstrated by [7], depending on the packet dropout rates and the weights of the optimization variable, better results can be obtained with zero-input or with hold-input schemes. Hence, the design of the mode-dependent filter could be simplified by considering a null input whenever a dropout occurs, but some simulation should be done before deciding what the best strategy for the control input is. The output feedback control is built based on an internal model state observer interconnected with a state gain. For themode-dependentH2 control problem, a Separation Principle has been proved by [1], but there is no similar result for the H∞ control problem, to the best of my knowledge. Therefore, it would make more sense to work with a full-order dynamic output feedback controller, as indicated in [4]. Finally, it seems to me that using a limit for the number of consecutive dropouts in the communication channels, indicated in the article as lk and hk , has increased too much the complexity of the problem. By considering an upper bound for that variable, the stochastic nature of the dropout is not Bernoulli anymore and the formulas for the expected values should be different. Moreover, most of the complexity on the Lyapunov function used by the authors comes from the fact that their closed loop system is represented as a discrete-timeMarkov jump systemwith time-delays. In summary, the association of a mode-dependent dynamic output feedback controller with the quantization effects and the discussion of when to apply hold-input or zero-input strategies would be a good direction for future work by the authors, given the developments they have achieved in the article under discussion.
Read full abstract