arxiv: v1 [cs.it] 10 Feb 2015

Transcription

1 arxiv: v [cs.it 0 Feb 205 Multi-Sensor Scheduling for State Estimation with Event-Based Stochastic Triggers Sean Weeraody Student Member IEEE Yilin Mo Member IEEE Bruno Sinopoli Member IEEE Duo Han Student Member IEEE and Ling Shi Member IEEE Abstract In networed systems state estimation is hampered by communication limits. Past approaches which consider scheduling sensors through deterministic event-triggers reduce communication and maintain estimation quality. However these approaches destroy the Gaussian property of the state maing it computationally intractable to obtain an exact minimum mean squared error estimate. We propose a stochastic event-triggered sensor schedule for state estimation which preserves the Gaussianity of the system extending previous results from the single-sensor to the multi-sensor case. I. INTRODUCTION Networed Control Systems NCSs spatially distributed systems where sensors actuators and controllers exchange information over a shared bandlimited communication networ have become a topic of significant interest in both academia and industry. As noted by [ the use of NCSs in practice provides for flexible architecture and reduces costs in installation and maintenance. Thus NCSs have been used in several applications including public transportation health care and mobile sensor networs. Nonetheless remote state estimation remains a significant challenge in NCSs [2. Traditionally state estimates are computed at an estimation center using information from sensors which sample and send measurements periodically. While it is reasonable to assume that remote state estimation centers are well equipped in most cases sensors have a limited power supply and are difficult to replace. Moreover bandwidth constraints in a communication networ may restrict the number of sensors which can communicate at any given time [3 [4 [5. One way to address these issues is to simply reduce the communication rate. This solution however degrades estimation quality. In this paper we propose a sensor scheduling scheme which allows us to achieve a desired tradeoff between communication rate and estimation performance. Specifically we design a stochastic multi-sensor event-based schedule for the remote state estimation problem which extends the single sensor results from [6. Before continuing we briefly document recent attempts to address the problem of remote estimation via sensor scheduling. We first examine offline schemes where sensors are scheduled based on system parameters prior to use. Yang et. al. [7 determined that given fixed communication constraints an optimal deterministic offline schedule should allocate sensor transmission times as uniformly as possible over a finite time horizon. Moreover Shi et. al. [8 specifically considered the 2-sensor problem with bandwidth constraints and found The wor by S. Weeraody Y. Mo and B. Sinopoli is supported by NSF grant 0955 CAREER: Efficient Secure and Robust Control of Cyber Physical Systems and NSF grant CPS: Medium: Collaborative Research: The Cyber Physical Challenges of Transient Stability and Security in Power Grids. The wor by D. Han and L. Shi is supported by a HK RGC GRF grant S. Weeraody and B. Sinopoli are with the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh PA 523 USA sweera@andrew.cmu.edu brunos@ece.cmu.edu Y. Mo was with the ECE department of Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh PA when this article was written. He is now with the department of Control and Dynamical Systems California Institute of Technology Pasadena CA. yilinmo@caltech.edu D. Han and L. Shi are with the ECE department of Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Clear Water Bay Kowloon Hong Kong. fdhanaa eeslingg@ust.h. that a periodic sensor schedule minimized average error covariance. In addition to offline designs previous wor has considered eventbased designs where sensor transmissions are scheduled in real time based on an occurrence related to a sensor measurement or current system parameters. Astrom and Bernhardsson [9 show that for certain systems event based sampling offers better performance than periodic sampling. Additionally Imer et. al. [0 consider a single sensor sequential estimation problem where the state is represented by an independent identically distributed i.i.d process. The authors assume communication is limited over a finite horizon and propose a stochastic solution. Furthermore Xu et. al. [ consider scheduling a single smart sensor which computes and sends a local estimate of the state. The authors propose a stochastic event trigger where the rate of transmission is a quadratic function of the difference between the state estimate computed at the sensor and the estimate computed at the remote estimator. While not utilized in [9 [0 and [ event-based approaches can allow the estimator to extract information ab the state from the absence of a measurement and thus improve its estimate. For instance Ribeiro et. al. [2 require the transmission of a single bit per observation based on the sign of the innovation and derive an approximate minimum mean squared error MMSE estimator. Also the authors in [3 design a threshold scheme on the normalized innovation vector to trigger communication to the remote estimator and derive an approximate MMSE estimate. Deterministic schemes as discussed by [2 [3 destroy the Gaussian property of the innovation process in traditional Kalman filtering thus rendering the closed-form derivation of the exact MMSE estimator computationally intractable. Symmetric triggers such as those proposed in [4 and [6 allow the remote estimator to compute an MMSE estimate. Here the triggers are designed so that a priori and a posteriori estimates are identical if a measurement is dropped which implicitly requires that the sensor has access to the same information as the estimator. However this is not feasible in the multi-sensor case with substantially increasing communication in the networ. Han et. al. in [6 incorporate a stochastic decision rule which not only allows the remote estimator to use information contained in the absense of a measurement but also maintains the Gaussian distribution of the current state. A ey advantage of the proposed method over most deterministic triggers is that in addition to obtaining an exact MMSE estimator by preserving Gaussianity [6 maintains an exact distribution of the state x and the estimation error e for all time. Thus the proposed stochastic event-based trigger is useful in scenarios where real time error analysis is critical. In this paper we extend the same stochastic decision rule to the multi-sensor case where there exists a unique decision variable for each of m sensors. The main contribution of this paper relative to [6 which considers a binary transmit or drop policy for a single trigger is the derivation of a two-step estimation filter to account for multiple independent triggers a modified optimization problem to design each trigger and a realistic simulation example on data center energy management. For this scenario we also obtain expressions for sensor communication rates and upper and lower bounds on the error covariance. A preliminary study for this paper was previously presented [5. Here a three-step recursive filter is proposed which computes a state distribution conditioned on all previous information newly received measurements and the identity of sensors which do not transmit sequentially. In this article we obtain an equivalent twostep recursive filter which combines the last two stages allowing us to directly obtain an a posteriori state distribution with any intermediary steps. We also extend [5 by accounting for vector sensor measurements with correlated sensor noise as well as through our optimization problem and simulation example.

2 2 The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section II formulates the multi-sensor state estimation problem and proposes a stochastic event-based sensor scheduling scheme. Section III introduces a recursive filtering algorithm to obtain the MMSE estimator of the state and its error covariance. Section IV derives results ab communication rate and estimation performance. Section V proposes a semi-definite program to intelligently select trigger parameters. Section VI consists of a simulation. A conclusion at the end summarizes future wor. Notation: X denotes the transpose of matrix X. S n + and S n ++ are the sets of n n positive semi-definite and positive definite matrices. When X S n + we simply write X 0 or X > 0 if X S n ++. NµΣ denotes a Gaussian distribution with mean µ and covariance matrix Σ. E[ denotes the expectation Pr denotes the probability of a random event ρ denotes the spectral radius of a matrix. diagx X s is the bloc diagonal matrix with square submatrices X X s. and 0 denote vectors with entries and 0 respectively and I n is the identity matrix of size n n. Finally {A} 0 is the matrix obtained by deleting all 0 rows from the matrix A. II. PROBLEM SETUP We define the following linear system: x + = Ax +w y i = Ci x +v i i = m. Here x R n is the state vector while y i R s i is the ith of m vector sensor measurements. In addition w R n and v [v v m R s are mutually uncorrelated Gaussian noises with covariances Q > 0 and R > 0 respectively and s = m si. To simplify notation we define y [y y m. The initial state x 0 is zero-mean Gaussian random variable with covariance matrix Σ 0 > 0 and is uncorrelated with w and v i for all 0. We assume that AC is detectable where we define C [C C m. To reduce the rate of sensor to estimator communication we intelligently transmit a fraction of our sensor measurements. Note that we choose to transfer sensor measurements as opposed to local estimates. This reduces computation by the sensor as well as possibly the size of pacets for n > s i. We specify γ i {0} as the binary decision variable for sensor i at time. When γ i = a transmission occurs while when γ i = 0 no measurement is sent. Collecting our decision variables over m sensors we have γ = [γ γm. Also suppose at each time l sensors drop their measurements and m l sensors transmit their measurements. The sensors which transmit have indices p p m l. Define the vector of received measurements y r R m l at time by y r = [y p y p m l. To obtain a MMSE estimator given all previous and current measurements we perform a two-step process. The first step is a time update where we obtain the MMSE estimator of x given the information set up to time. This is denoted by I {γ 0 γ y r 0 y r } where I. In the second step we update our estimate of x using our previous information set the received measurements at time y r and the nowledge that certain sensors did not transmit a measurement at time γ. Thus we update using I. Given the information set we define the following estimation parameters: ˆx E[x I P E[x ˆx x ˆx I ˆx E[x I P E[x ˆx x ˆx I. 2 Here ˆx is an a priori MMSE estimate and ˆx is an a posteriori MMSE estimate. When all measurements are sent to the estimator computation of ˆx and P the error covariance reduces to the standard Kalman filter where the Gaussian distribution of the state allows for a simple recursive filter. As done by [6 to maintain the Gaussian distribution of x we consider a stochastic trigger. A stochastic trigger taes a measurement y i and computes a function ϕ i : R s i [0 to determine the probability sensor i does not transmit. While deterministic triggers assign probabilities equal to or 0 for each measurement the chosen trigger assigns probabilities in [0. To do this at time each sensor i generates an i.i.d. uniform random variable ζ i over [0 and computes γ i. { γ i 0 ζ i ϕ i y i = ϕi α exp ζ i > ϕ i y i 2 α Y i α. 3 Here Y i S s i ++ are trigger parameters and we define Y S s ++ as Y diagy i Y m. Note that Pγ i = 0 y i has the shape of a scaled Gaussian distribution. In the next section we will show this allows the state to remain Gaussian. For the chosen trigger we consider stable systems i.e. ρa <. If the system is unstable any sensor i which measures an unstable state will have y i grow unbounded. In this case by 3 sensor i will always transmit. III. MMSE ESTIMATOR DESIGN In this section based on the design of ϕ i we obtain a closedform solution to the MMSE estimation problem given recursively by the following theorem: Theorem. Consider remote state estimation with eventbased scheduler 3 and define the matrix Ψ R s s diagγ I s γ mi sm to store the m decision variables. Assume fx 0 I N0Σ 0 so ˆx 0 = 0 P 0 = Σ0. Then fx I Nˆx P and fx I Nˆx P where ˆx ˆx and P P satisfy the following recursive equations: Time update: Measurement update: ˆx = Aˆx P = AP A +Q 4 ˆx = ˆx +P C CP C +R+I Ψ Y Ψ y Cˆx 5 P = P P C CP C +R+I Ψ Y CP 6 Proof. To simplify the proof of the theorem we define the following notation which will allow us to distinguish among parameters associated with sent measurements versus dropped measurements. Suppose at time there exists l sensors j j l that do not trigger a transmission and m l sensors p p m l which trigger a transmission. We define the matrix Γ R m l = s pi s and Γ l = s ji s R m l m to select sensors which transmit and Λ R and Λ R l m to select sensors which do not transmit as { Γ = {Ψ } 0 Γ v = p u uv 0 otherwise { Λ = {I Ψ } 0 Λ v = j u uv 0 otherwise. 7 In [6 a closed loop design is considered where α = y i E[yi. This design can handle unstable systems but requires estimator to sensor communication at each step which increases communication. As a result we do not consider this approach.

3 3 We prove Theorem using induction on the distribution fx I Nˆx P. Case n = 0: For n = 0 we have I =. Thus fx 0 I = fx 0 N0Σ 0 and the initial conditions holds. Case assume for n = : We assume that fx I Nˆx P. Case prove for n = +: We first verify the measurement update step. Measurement Update Step: Consider the joint conditional pdf of x and Λ y given I fx Λ y I = fx Λ y y r Γ γ = Λ γ = 0I = fx Λ y Γ y Λ γ = 0I = Pr Λ γ = 0 x y I fx Λ y Γ y I. Pr Λ γ = 0 Γ y I 8 The second equality follows since the nowledge of the values of sent measurements Γ y implies that the decision variables Γ γ =. The last equality is derived from Bayes rule. By our induction assumption fx Λ y Γ y is jointly Gaussian distributed given I. As a result the conditional distribution fx Λ y Γ y I is also Gaussian. We first observe fx Λ y Γ y I has mean [ˆx Λ Cˆx Γ Cˆx and covariance P P C Λ P C Γ Λ CP Λ CP C +RΛ Λ CP C +RΓ. Γ CP Γ CP C +RΛ Γ CP C +RΓ 9 Given a joint Gaussian distribution fx Λ y Γ y I it is easy to compute fx Λ y Γ y I which is also Gaussian [6. The conditional means are µ x = ˆx +P Γ C Γ CP C +RΓ Γ y Cˆx 0 = Λ Cˆx +Λ CP C +RΓ Γ CP C +RΓ Γ y Cˆx. Furthermore [ the covariance of x and Λ y given Γ y and I Σxx Σ xy is Φ = where Σ xy Σ yy Σ xx = P P Γ C Γ CP C +RΓ Γ CP 2 Σ yy = Λ CP C +RΛ Λ CP C +RΓ Γ CP C +RΓ Γ CP C +RΛ 3 Σ xy = P Λ C P Γ C Γ CP C +RΓ Γ CP C +RΛ. 4 Now that we have obtained fx Λ y Γ y I we also observe that Pr Λ γ = 0 x y I = Pr Λ γ = 0 Λ y = exp 2 y Λ Λ YΛ Λ y. 5 Using 8 we can thus obtain the joint probability density function for the state x and the dropped measurements Λ y. That is we have fx Λ y I = β exp 2 θ where β R and θ R are defined respectively as β Pr Λ γ = 0 Γ y I detφ 2π n+ l s ji 6 [ θ x µ x Λ y [ Σxx Σ xy Σ yx Σ yy [ x µ x Λ y +Λ y Λ YΛ Λ y. 7 We now introduce the following Lemma with proof found in the appendix. Lemma. The scalar θ R is given by [ [ x θ = x Θ x x Λ y ȳ Λ y ȳ +c 8 where x R n ȳ R l l s jic R and Θ S s ji +n ++ are given by x = ˆx + P C CP C +R+I Ψ Y Ψ y Cˆx 9 ȳ = [ I +Σ yyλ YΛ µyc = µ yσ yy +Λ Y Λ. 20 [ Θxx Θ xy Θ = 2 Θyy where Θ xy Θ xx = P P C CP C +R+I Ψ Y CP Θ xy = Σ xyi +Λ YΛ Σ yy Θ yy = [ Σ yy +Λ YΛ. 22 Thus the joint pdf of our state and unnown measurements are given as follows fx Λ y I = exp c β 2 exp [ [ x x Θ x x Λ y ȳ Λ y ȳ Since fx Λ y I is a pdf its integral normalizes to one which implies that fx Λ y I are jointly Gaussian. Moreover this implies that x is conditionally Gaussian given I with mean ˆx and covariance P. Therefore 5 and 6 hold for the measurement update step. Time Update Step: We have proved fx I Nˆx P. By the conditional independence of x and w we can verify the time update step fx + I = fax +w I NAˆx AP A +Q. 24 Thus 4 holds. By induction fx I Nˆx P. Moreover from this result and the proof of the measurement update step fx I Nˆx P which concludes the proof. Remar. The estimation filter can be formulated as a Kalman filter with time-varying sensor noise R + I Ψ Y and innovation Ψ y Cˆx. The similarity between the stochastic schedule and Kalman filtering allows for computational simplicity and easy implementation. Remar 2. With an imperfect channel the estimator will have to differentiate between intended pacet drops by the sensor due to the stochastic trigger and unintended drops due to the channel. If pacet drops are IID Bernoulli the state will be distributed according to a Gaussian mixture model corresponding to each possible trajectory of γ. The resulting distribution however is intractable as.

4 4 IV. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS In proposing an event-based trigger our goal is to address the tradeoff between estimation performance and power consumed through communication by sensor nodes. The communication rate λ i [0 for sensor i can be defined as λ i limsup T T + T =0 E[γ i. 25 Knowledge of the communication rate λ i of each sensor will allow designers to determine the required system bandwidth and to estimate the lifetime of each sensor. To obtain an expression for the communication rate λ i for each sensor we first define Σ S n ++Π i S s i ++ by Σ lim Covx = AΣA +Q Π i lim Covyi = Ci ΣC i +R i where R i E[v i vi. With these results we now can arrive at an expression for the communicate rate of each sensor with proof in [6. Theorem 2. Consider a stable linear system with a stochastic event-based sensor schedule given by 3. The communication rate λ i for each sensor i = m is given by λ i = deti +Π i Y i. 26 We next verify that the properties established for the expected communication rate over several runs apply to a single sample path the proof of which is found in [6. Theorem 3. The following equality almost surely holds. lim N T + T =0 γ i a.s = λ i. 27 Furthermore for any finite integer l 0 define the event of l sequential paced drops over all m sensors E l and the event of l sequential pacet arrivals over all m sensors E l as follows E l {γ = 0 γ +l = 0} E l {γ = γ +l = }. Then almost surely E l and E l happen infinitely often. We next examine the estimation performance by analyzing the statistical properties of P. Theorem 4. Consider a stable system with scheduler given by 3. Let g WX AXA +Q AXC CXC +W CXA. There exists an M S++ n such that for all P is uniformly bounded above by M. 2 For any ǫ > 0 there exists an N such that for all N the following inequalities hold X ǫi P X +ǫi 28 where X and X are the unique solutions X = g RX and X = g R+Y X respectively. 3 For any ǫ > 0 almost surely for infinitely many s we have P X ǫi and almost surely for infinitely many s we have P X +ǫi. The first statement shows that regardless of the choice of Y i communication rate the error covariance is bounded. The second statement obtains upper and lower bounds while the third statement shows that during a sample path P will approach these bounds infinitely many times a consequence of Theorem 3 where we expect long strings of transmissions and drops. V. OPTIMIZATION OF TRIGGER PARAMETERS Before we continue we introduce the following Corollary with proof found in the appendix. Corollary. Define P X XC CXC +R+Y CX. For any ǫ > 0 an N such that for all N P P +ǫi. 2 For any ǫ > 0 almost surely for infinitely many s we have P P ǫi Thus it is a worthy goal to design Y i to limit P. We address the estimation and communication tradeoff by minimizing the system communication rate subject to this bound. Problem : Y i = arg min Y i 0 m m λ i subject to P Here the matrix serves as an upper bound on our worse case error covariance thus providing a robust bound on our estimation quality. Unfortunately this formulation deals with a nonconvex minimization problem which cannot easily be solved. However we observe the following result. Lemma 2. Define fx +x 2 and gx = expx 2. Givenλ i from 25Π i > 0 andy i > 0 the following inequality holds m m f tr Π i Y i λ opt mg m tr Π i Y i 30 where λ opt is the global minimum of Problem. Proof. Let u = m ui and ui = tr Π i Y i. We observe that m m u fu fu i λ opt gu i mg m 3 The first equality holds for u = 0. The inequality holds since partial derivatives of m fui with respect toui are greater than or equal to those of fu. The second and third inequalities are proved in [6. Applying Jensen s inequality to g which is concave we get the last inequality. Since the optimum value of our objective function can be bounded by two increasing functions of m tr Π i Y i we propose the following convex relaxation to Problem. m Problem 2: Y i = arg min tr Π i Y i Y i 0 m subject to P. 32 There exist challenges with the constraint since P is only defined through X which itself is defined through an implicit function g w. The following theorem allows us to obtain an equivalent set of constraints and thus formulate the problem as a semi-definite program. 2 Y i 0 is chosen to ensure the problem is feasible for solvers. To ensure Y S m ++ consider Y i ǫi where ǫ > 0.

5 5 Theorem 5. The optimal Y i satisfying Problem 2 can be found by solving the following problem. Solve: Y i = arg min Y i 0 m m tr Π i Y i Q S +C R C Q A C R A Q A Q A+S 0 R C 0 Y +R The proof is found in the appendix. 0 Y i 0 S. TraceE[P Mean Squared Error Kelvin Stochastic Un-Optimized Stochastic Optimized Random Offline Upper Bound Un-Optimized X Lower Bound X VI. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS To assess performance we consider a thermal model for data centers introduced in [7. The size of data centers has been growing both in number and capacity resulting in rising energy costs. To conserve energy [7 considers the following thermal model for energy control. Ts Tc To sψ ss sψ sc sψ so = cψ cs cψ cc cψ co oψ os oψ oc oψ oo Ts in Tc in To in Ψ ss Ψ sc Ψ so = Ψ cs Ψ cc Ψ co Ψ os Ψ oc Ψ oo Ts Tc To Ts Tc To +Bu 33 +Du. 34 Here the state x is a collection of put temperatures of devices while the measured values y are the input temperatures of devices which require multiple sensors. The subscripts represent different nodes under consideration where s corresponds to servers c corresponds to air conditioners and o corresponds to other devices. The inputs include a reference temperature for the air conditioners power consumed and temperature of heat sources. Ψ gives weight to how the temperature put of each node affects the temperature into each node andis a set of thermal constants. Addressing the trade-off between estimation and communication in this example will reduce energy expenditures and data storage necessary for thermal control. To obtain a model consistent with we linearize the system around its stable equilibrium and assume the inputs remain at or near their equilibrium values for all time a valid assumption during the night or bacup periods. Furthermore we sample the system at a rate 50 of Hz. We consider a system with 6 servers 3 air conditioners and other device. The matrices Q and R are generated as a product of a random matrix with entries uniform from 0 to multiplied by its transpose. The matrices are scaled so that the average magnitude of error in w is 0. Kelvin and in v is 0.5 Kelvin. In Fig we plot the mean squared error in the state estimate as a function of the average communication rate where each data point is obtained over a run of 0000 trials. We consider 3 main designs. We first consider a random design where for each sensor at each time step the probability of transmission is λ avg. We also consider a stochastic design where each sensor communicates at the same rate and an optimized design from Problem 2. Also shown are upper and lower bounds for the un-optimized approach. In Fig 2 we plot the percent improvement of the stochastic designs relative to the random design in terms of the mean squared error plotted in Fig. An un-optimized design provides as much as 5% improvement while the optimized design offers as much as 30% improvement λ avg Communication Rate Fig.. tracee[p under three scheduling strategies: random stochastic and stochastic optimized vs λ avg the communication rate % Improvement Compared to Random Stochastic Un-Optimized Stochastic Optimized λ avg Communication Rate Fig. 2. Percent improvement of designed stochastic triggers compared to random triggers VII. CONCLUSION In this paper we considered a stochastic event trigger for the sensor scheduling problem in multi-sensor networed systems. The stochastic trigger has inherent advantages over offline triggers which can not improve estimates using information contained by the absence of a measurement. Moreover it maintains the Gaussian properties of the state an advantage over previous event triggered approaches. We thus could derive a recursive filter to obtain the MMSE estimator and error covariance. Additionally we obtained an expression for sensor communication rate as well as asymptotic bounds for our error covariance. Finally we introduced an optimization problem that will allow designers to reduce the overall communication rate in the system subject to some upper bound on the worst case error covariance. Future wor consists of considering the stochastic trigger in a system with control inputs and incorporating inter-sensor cooperation. REFERENCES [ J. Hespanha P. Naghshtabrizi and Y. Xu A survey of recent results in networed control systems Proceedings of the IEEE vol. 95 no. pp

6 6 [2 N. Mahali Sensor networs and configuration: fundamentals standards platforms and applications Recherche vol. 67 p [3 A. Ribeiro and G. B. Giannais Bandwidth-constrained distributed estimation for wireless sensor networs-part i: Gaussian case IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing vol. 54 no. 3 pp [4 Z.-Q. Luo An isotropic universal decentralized estimation scheme for a bandwidth constrained ad hoc sensor networ IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications vol. 23 no. 4 pp [5 Y. Mo R. Ambrosino and B. Sinopoli Sensor selection strategies for state estimation in energy constrained wireless sensor networs Automatica vol. 47 no. 7 pp [6 D. Han Y. Mo J. Wu S. Weeraody B. Sinopoli and L. Shi Stochastic event-triggered sensor schedule for remote state estimation IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control Accepted 204. [Online. Available: [7 C. Yang and L. Shi Deterministic sensor data scheduling under limited communication resource IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing vol. 59 no. 0 pp [8 L. Shi and H. Zhang Scheduling two gauss marov systems: An optimal solution for remote state estimation under bandwidth constraint IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing vol. 60 no. 4 pp [9 K. J. Astrom and B. M. Bernhardsson Comparison of Riemann and Lebesgue sampling for first order stochastic systems in Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Decision and Conference no pp [0 O. C. Imer and T. Basar Optimal estimation with limited measurements in Decision and Control 2005 and 2005 European Control Conference. CDC-ECC th IEEE Conference on 2005 pp [ Y. Xu and J. Hespanha Estimation under uncontrolled and controlled communication in networed control systems in Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and the European Control Conference 2005 pp [2 A. Ribeiro G. B. Giannais and S. I. Roumeliotis Soif: Distributed alman filtering with low-cost communications using the sign of innovations IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing vol. 54 no. 2 pp [3 J. Wu Q. Jia K. Johansson and L. Shi Event-based sensor data scheduling: Trade-off between communication rate and estimation quality IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control vol. 58 no. 4 pp [4 K. H. J. C. Ramesh H. Sandberg Design of state-based schedulers for a networ of control loops IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control vol. 58 no. 8 pp [5 S. Weeraody Y. Mo B. Sinopoli D. Han and L. Shi Multisensor scheduling for state estimation with event-based stochastic triggers in 4th IFAC Worshop on Distributed Estimation and Control in Networed Systems 203 pp [6 L. Scharf Statistical Signal Processing. Addison Wesley 99. [7 L. Parolini Models and control strategies for data center energy efficiency Ph.D. dissertation Carnegie Mellon University. VIII. APPENDIX Proof. Lemma We begin by observing the following identities associated with Λ and Γ. Γ Γ = I m l s ji 2 Λ Λ = I l s pi 3 Γ Γ = I m Λ Λ = Ψ 4 Λ Γ = 0. We note that sum of following two quadratic forms can be expressed as x µ Σ x µ +x Σ 2x = x Σ +Σ 2x 2x Σ µ +µ Σ µ = x Σ +Σ 2 Σ µ Σ +Σ 2 x Σ +Σ 2 Σ µ +µ Σ Σ Σ +Σ 2 Σ µ. 35 Setting Ỹ [ Λ YΛ [ y Λ Λ YΛ Λ y = and noting that x Λ y [ 0 0 we can directly apply 35 to 7 to obtain [ θ = where we have Θ = c = x x Λ y ȳ [ Φ x +Ỹ ȳ [ µx [ Θ = 0 Λ YΛ x x Λ y ȳ Φ +Ỹ [ x Λ y +c 36 [ Φ µx [ Φ Φ Φ Φ µx +Ỹ We now attempt to verify 2. From Lemma of [6 we can directly obtain [ Σxx 0 Θ = [ ΣxyΣ yy +Λ Y Λ Σ xy Σ xyi +Λ YΛ Σ yy [ [Σ xyi +Λ YΛ Σ yy Σ yy +Λ YΛ. 39 Defining Z CP C + R and W Γ Γ Z Γ Γ and substituting equations 234 we obtain where Σ xx Σ xy Σyy +Λ YΛ Σ xy V W +Λ W Z Λ = P P C V +U CP 40 Λ Z Z W Z Λ Λ Λ Z W 4 U Λ W Z Λ Λ Z Z W Z Λ Λ YΛ + Λ Z Z W Z Λ Λ Z Z W Z Λ Λ Λ Z W. 42 Since Λ Z Λ W Z Λ Λ Z Z W Z Λ = I and Λ has a unique right inverse equal to Λ we have Λ W Z Λ Λ Z Z W Z Λ = Z Λ. 43

7 7 Furthermore we observe that Λ Z Λ Λ Z Z W Z Λ = Λ Z Λ Λ Z Λ Λ Z Λ Λ Z W Z Λ = Λ Z I Γ Γ Z Λ Λ Z I Γ Γ Z Γ Γ Z Γ Γ Z Λ = Λ Λ Λ Z Γ Γ Z Λ +Λ Z Γ Γ Z Λ Λ Γ Γ Z Γ Γ Z Λ = I. 44 Thus from 43 we obtain V = W +Z Λ Λ Λ Z W = Z Λ Λ +I Z Λ Λ Z W = Z Λ Λ +I Z I Γ Γ Z W = Z Λ Λ +Z Γ Γ Z Γ Γ Z Γ Γ = Z Λ Λ +Z Γ Γ = Z. 45 Moreover from 43 and 44 we have U = Z Λ Λ YΛ +Λ Z Λ Λ Z. 46 From the matrix inversion lemma ȳ U +V = CP C +R+I Ψ Y. 47 As such 2 is verified. Next from 37 [ x [ µx = I +Φ Ỹ [ [ [ [ I 0 Σxx Σ xy 0 0 µx = + 0 I Σ xy Σ yy 0 Λ YΛ [ [ I ΣxyΛ = Y Λ +Σ yy µx 0 I +Σ yyλ YΛ Therefore it can be seen that where S = W y Cˆx. 48 x = ˆx +P C S 49 Λ W Z Λ Λ Z Z W Z Λ +Λ Y Λ Λ Λ Z W Cˆx +Λ Z W y. Noting that W = W Γ Γ and Λ Γ = 0 we have S = W Λ W Z Λ Λ Z Z W Z Λ +Λ Y Λ Λ Λ Z W Γ Γ y Cˆx. Utilizing the matrix inversion lemma S = U +V Ψ y Cˆx. Thus 9 and 20 associated with x and ȳ immediately follow. It now remains to verify the expression for c in 20. We first observe by the matrix inversion lemma that Φ +Ỹ = = Φ Φ [ 0 I [ 0 + I [ [0 0 I Φ I Φ [ Λ YΛ 0 I [0 +Λ Y Λ I Φ. Applying 38 [ [ [ µx 0 0 c = µx 0 Σyy +Λ Y Λ = µ y Σyy +Λ Y Λ µy. Proof. Corollary To begin we define function hxψ : S n ++ {0} s S n ++ as hxψ X XC CXC +R+I diagψy CX. 50 Using the matrix inversion lemma hxψ = X +C R+I diagψy. C This implies h is monotonically increasing in X and maximized for Ψ = 0 s. From Theorem we observe that P = hp [γ s γ m s m. 5 By Theorem 4.2 we have that P X + ǫi for N ǫ. By the monotonicity of h we obtain P hx + ǫi0 = X + ǫi X + ǫic CX + ǫic +R+Y CX + ǫi. Moreover by the continuity of h in X for any ǫ > 0 there exists ǫ > 0 such that P hx + ǫi0 X XC CXC +R+Y CX +ǫi = P +ǫi 52 for N ǫ = Nǫ. We must now show that P approaches this upper bound infinitely many times. To do this define function h : S n ++ S n ++ as hx AXA +Q AXA +QC CAXA +QC +R+Y CAXA +Q = haxa +Q0. 53 Note that h is monotonically increasing inx since h is monotonically increasing in its first argument and AXA + Q is monotonically increasing in X. Utilizing Proposition of [6 we now there exists an l > 0 such that h l 0 X XC CXC +R+Y CX ǫi = P ǫi. If event Ē l occurs then we now that P +l = h l P h l 0 P ǫi. 54 By Theorem 3 the event Ē l almost surely occurs infinitely often and thus the result holds. Proof. Theorem 5 We first assert that the following two statements are equivalent. P 2 There exists 0 < U such that U hu. The first statement implies the second by taing U = P. Noting the monotonicity of h and the convergence of h to the fixed point P the second statement implies the first by repeatedly applying h. Tae S = U. Then by the matrix inversion lemma the following statements are equivalent. P

8 8 2 There exists S such that 0 AS A + Q + C R+Y C S. By the matrix inversion lemma AS A +Q = Q Q AS +A Q A A Q. Thus using Schur s condition for positive definiteness we have that the following statements are equivalent. P 2 There exists S such that [ Q +C R+Y C S Q A A Q A Q 0 A+S 55 A Q A+S > 0. Since S > 0 the latter statement immediately holds. Now by the matrix inversion lemma 55 is equivalent to [ Q +C R C S Q A A Q A Q A+S [ C R R +Y [ R C Thus by Schur s condition for positive definiteness we have that the following statements are equivalent P 2 There exists S such that Q +C R C S Q A C R A Q A Q A+S 0 0 R C 0 R +Y R +Y > 0. Note that the latter statement is given for free since R > 0. The theorem follows immediately.