Nonlinear Dyn

DOI 10.1007/s11071-016-2643-2

ORIGINAL PAPER

A concept of coupled chaotic synchronous observers

for nonlinear and adaptive observers-based chaos
synchronization
Muhammad Siddique Muhammad Rehan

Received: 14 April 2015 / Accepted: 19 January 2016

Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Abstract In this paper, new control approaches for

synchronization the master and the slave chaotic systems is established by means of novel coupled chaotic
synchronous observers and coupled chaotic adaptive
synchronous observers. The simultaneous estimation
of the master and the slave systems states is accomplished, by means of the proposed observers for each
of the master and the slave systems, to produce error
signals between these estimated states. This estimated
synchronization error signal and the state-estimation
errors converge to the origin by means of a specific
observers-based feedback control signal to ensure synchronization as well as state estimation. Using Lyapunov stability theory, nonadaptive and adaptive control laws and properties of nonlinearities, a convergence
condition for the state-estimation errors and the estimated synchronization error is developed in the form of
nonlinear matrix inequalities. Solution of the resulted
inequality constraints using a two-step approach is presented, which provides the necessary and sufficient
condition to obtain values of the observer gain and controller gain matrices. Further, a method requiring less

M. Siddique M. Rehan (B)

Department of Electrical Engineering, Pakistan Institute of
Engineering and Applied Sciences (PIEAS), Islamabad,
Pakistan
e-mail: rehanqau@gmail.com
M. Siddique
e-mail: engr.siddique01@gmail.com

computational efforts for solving the matrix inequalities for obtaining the observer and the controller gain
matrices using decoupling technique is also proposed.
Numerical simulation of the proposed synchronization
technique for FitzHughNagumo neuronal systems is
illustrated to elaborate efficaciousness of the proposed
observers-based control methodologies.
Keywords Chaos synchronization Observers-based
synchronization Synchronous observers Nonlinear
and adaptive observers Adaptive control

1 Introduction
One of the earliest physicists known in the field of
chaos, Edward Ott [1], made marvelous contribution
in developing chaos theory that can be applied to many
natural phenomenon and synthetic systems. Chaos is
an interesting aperiodic long-time oscillatory behavior of dynamical nonlinear systems that can demonstrate a sensitive dependence on the initial condition
[2]. Since the development of chaos theory, the control and synchronization of chaotic systems flourished
as an emerging topic of research. Synchronization is a
dynamic progression during which the driven system
becomes in line with the driving system so that the synchronized or slave system, in a certain manner, tracks
the trajectory of the synchronizing or master system
[3,4]. Carroll and Pecora made first successful attempt
to present an experimental setup for synchronization

123

M. Siddique, M. Rehan

of chaotic systems with different initial conditions and

published a seminal paper [5] that acted as a catalyst
in the field of chaos synchronization. Since then, many
chaos synchronization techniques have been witnessed
by the researchers.
The literature review reveals that different
approaches such as linear feedback control [6], fullorder and reduced-order output-affine observers [7],
RungeKutta model-based nonlinear observer [8], synchronization with Huygens coupling [9], delay-rangedependent methodologies [10,11], adaptive schemas
using fuzzy disturbance observers [12], back-stepping
techniques [13], robust adaptive methodologies [14,
15], step-by-step sliding-mode observer-based techniques [16], Chaos synchronization of unknown inputs
Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy [3], adaptive generalized projective synchronization (GPS) [17] and evolutionary algorithms [18] are exercised for synchronization of the chaotic systems. All of these techniques
for synchronization of the chaotic systems exhibit
their strengths in variety of applications such as
secure communication [1921], chemical reactions
[22], neural networks [23], optics and lasers [24], biological systems [25], robotics [26] and information
science [27].
The observer-based synchronization techniques are
more relevant to the situation where all the states of
the master as well as the slave systems are unknown
[28]. Researchers are continuously exploring such
techniques with different types of observers for different applications. For instance, synchronous chaos
in coupled systems [29], chaos-based secure communications by employing reduced-order and stepby-step sliding-mode observers [16], and generalized
projective synchronization technique based on state
estimation of hyperchaotic systems without calculating Lyapunov exponent [18] are presented. Active
sliding-mode observer-based synchronization, where
an active observer increased the attraction strength
of the sliding surface, is elaborated in [30]. Similarly, adaptive observer-based synchronization of two
nonidentical chaotic systems with unknown parameters is described recently in [31]. Further, a robust
adaptive control approach for synchronization of the
uncertain chaotic networks in the presence of mixed
time-delays is described in [32]. In addition, outputaffine observers to estimate the system states and to
identify the message signal simultaneously, based on
synchronization of the uncertain chaotic systems, for

123

establishing secure communication modules are developed in [8]. Some other observer-based synchronization techniques include observers for unknown inputs
in Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy models with application to
the secure communication [3] and observer-based synchronization methodology in a cascade connection
of hyperchaotic systems [33]. However, the abovementioned observer-based synchronization techniques
are not dealing with the coupled chaotic synchronous (CCS) and coupled chaotic adaptive synchronous (CCAS) observers-based control methodologies
demonstrated in this paper. The main drawback of
the aforementioned techniques, in contrast to the CCS
and CCAS observers-based control methods, is their
applicability to a lesser extent to synchronize two
chaotic systems with unavailable state vectors.
In this paper, a novel technique for synchronization
of the master and the slave chaotic systems based on
two observers for estimating states of both of the systems is presented, through which complete synchronization of the masterslave networks is achieved via
utilizing their outputs rather than the exact states. In the
recent work [34], an error convergent observer-based
synchronization technique was proposed by employing
estimation of the synchronization error. However, the
approach only deals with the chaotic systems for which
the overall error system is transformable into a linear
combination of various error dynamics. In this paper,
a more generic technique based on CCS observers and
control input using estimated states is accomplished
that can deal with the nonlinear error dynamics for complete synchronization of the masterslave oscillators.
Development of the proposed CCS observers-based
control method is a nontrivial problem as compared
to the existing observer-based techniques for synchronization because the present approach simultaneously
estimates the states of both the master and the slave
systems using CCS observers and controls the dynamics of the error system using a control input. Hence,
the proposed synchronization technique is capable for
two automations, that is, estimation of the states of the
chaotic systems and synchronization of the chaotic systems. Another contribution of this paper is the adaptation of uncertain parameters present in the nonlinear
dynamics by suggesting simple adaptation laws which
are employed along with the proposed control signal
based on CCAS observers for complete synchronization of the masterslave systems. The CCS and CCAS
observers-based synchronization schemes with the sta-

Nonlinear and adaptive observers-based chaos synchronization

tic and adaptive controllers to simultaneously estimate

and synchronize states of two chaotic systems are not
fully elaborated in the literature. Additionally, a twostep approach and a decoupling methodology to determine the controller and the observer gain matrices
using linear matrix inequalities (LMIs) are provided
herein.
The scope of the proposed observers-based synchronization methodologies differs from the conventional synchronization schemes such as [3,6,811,
16,18] and [2934]. The conventional observer-based
approaches are used to estimate the state vector
of a chaotic system and can be employed to specific scenarios like secure communication. The proposed methodologies are useful for monitoring through
state estimation as well as controlled synchronization of the two masterslave systems and have versatile applications. It is worth mentioning that the
proposed observers are different from the conventional Luenberger-type and adaptive observers owing
to the presence of coupling terms employed to achieve
chaos synchronization. It should be noted that these
CCS and CCAS observers are specifically designed
for synchronization of chaos. Therefore, coupling
terms are introduced to aid the synchronization. The
application area of the proposed methodologies is
broader than the conventional chaos synchronization
approaches, which require exact states of the master
slave systems for feedback control. The proposed
chaos synchronization approaches can be applied to
the chaotic systems using information of their outputs, when states are not available, and synchronization is achieved using feedback of the estimated states
(as well as the parametric estimates in the adaptive
synchronization case). Numerical simulation results
are demonstrated for synchronization of FitzHugh
Nagumo neurons by estimating states of the neurons
and taking feedback of the estimated states under both
the known and the unknown parametric information
cases.
This paper is organized as follows: Sect. 2 introduces the systems under consideration. Sections 3
and 4 illustrate the proposed nonlinear and adaptive nonlinear observers-based synchronization methods, respectively. Convex routines for computing gains
of the controller and the observers are provided in
Sect. 5. Simulation results for synchronization of neurons are detailed in Sect. 6. Section 7 concludes the
article.

2 System description
Consider the master and the slave chaotic systems,
defined by the state-space representations
xm (t) = Axm (t) + f (xm (t)) + Bg(xm (t))m ,
ym (t) = C xm (t),

(1)

xs (t) = Axs (t) + f (xs (t)) + Bg(xs (t))s + Bu(t),

ys (t) = C xs (t),

(2)

where xm (t) R n and xs (t) R n are the state vectors

for the master and the slave systems, respectively, and
ym (t) R m and ys (t) R m are the output vectors.
A R nn ,B R nl and C R mn are the real
constant matrices. The vector functions f (x(t)) R n
and g(x(t)) R l p are the nonlinear functions, m
R p and s R p are the unknown parameters in the
dynamics of the chaotic oscillators, and u(t) R l is
the control input.
Assumption 1 The nonlinear functions f (x(t)) and
g(x(t)) in both the master and the slave systems satisfy
 f (x(t)) f (x(t))

L f x(t) x(t)

,
x(t), x(t)
Rn ,

(3)

gm (xm (t)) gm (xm (t)) L gm xm (t) xm (t) ,

xm (t), xm (t) R n ,

(4)

gs (xs (t)) gs (xs (t)) L gs xs (t) xs (t) ,

xs (t), xs (t) R n ,

(5)

where gm (xm (t)) = Bg(xm (t))m and gs (xs (t)) =

Bg(xs (t))s . L f > 0, L gm > 0 and L gs > 0 are the
constant matrices of appropriate dimensions.
A lot of work has been devoted to the synchronization of chaotic systems using state-feedback control
approach. However, in many cases, the exact states are
not available. Therefore, only estimated states of both
the drive and the response systems (1)(2) can be used
for synchronization. The proposed control signal has
the form
u(t) = (xm (t), xs (t)),

(6)

where xm (t) R n and xs (t) R n are the estimates

of xm (t) and xs (t), respectively. The purpose of the
present study is to device static and adaptive feedback
control strategies using the control signal (6) for synchronization of the master and the slave systems (1)
(2) by employing the estimated states. For this reason,

123

M. Siddique, M. Rehan

appropriate approaches for the state estimation of the

master and the slave systems using nonlinear and adaptive nonlinear observers are explored for an efficient
synchronization remedy.

3 Observers-based synchronization
This section discusses observers-based control for synchronization of the chaotic systems (1) and (2) under
known dynamics, that is, by assuming m = s = 0.
The vector function (xm (t), xs (t)) of the proposed
controller (6) is selected as
(xm (t), xs (t)) = F(xm (t) xs (t)),

(7)

where F R ln is the controller gain matrix.

Observers are intended for both the master and the slave
systems for estimation of their states. The proposed
nonlinear observers for the masterslave systems are
given by
xm (t) = A xm (t) + f (xm (t)) + L m (ym (t) ym (t))
1
BF(xm (t) xs (t)),
2
ym (t) = C xm (t),
(8)
xs (t) = A xs (t) + f (xs (t)) + L s (ys (t) ys (t))
1
BF(xs (t) xm (t)),
2
ys (t) = C xs (t),

(9)

where L m R nm and L s R nm are the gain matrices of the observers.

Defining the errors
em (t) = xm (t) xm (t),

(10)

es (t) = xs (t) xs (t),

(11)

eo (t) = xm (t) xs (t).

(12)

Synchronization of the masterslave observers (8)(9)

is established by means of convergence of the estimated
synchronization error eo (t) to the origin, while convergence of state-estimation errors em (t) and es (t) to the
origin ensures that the estimated states xm (t) and xs (t)
approach to the actual states xm (t) and xs (t), respectively. Note that synchronization of the master and the
slave chaotic systems is ensured by convergence of all
the error signals (10)(12) to the zero. The problem
to be addressed herein is to determine the gain matrices L m , L s and F such that the master and the slave

123

Fig. 1 Block diagram to show the coupling architecture for the

master and the slave systems with their respective observers in
nonadaptive case

chaotic networks demonstrate the identical behavior by

employing information of output vectors without using
the actual states for feedback. The complete closedloop architecture for synchronization of the master and
the slave systems with their observers is shown in Fig. 1.
Remark 1 Novelty of this paper lies in the idea that
the master and the slave chaotic systems can be made
coherent by application of their respective observers.
Both estimates of the master and the slave systems are
enforced to catch up the same behavior such that the
estimated synchronization error eo (t) = xm (t) xs (t)
approaches to the zero. Once it happens, it is obvious
that the states of the master and the slave observers are
synchronized; consequently, these observers are called
as synchronous observers.
Remark 2 The proposed observers (8)(9), deliberately designed with the specific structures, are different from the traditional Luenberger-oriented observers
owing to the specific coupling terms 0.5BF(xm (t)
xs (t)) and 0.5BF(xs (t) xm (t)). For a specific selection of F, the coupling strength can be increased

Nonlinear and adaptive observers-based chaos synchronization

enough so that the coupled observers achieve synchronization. Consequently, the proposed observers
are explicitly called as coupled chaotic synchronous
observers.
Now, we provide a synchronization condition for
systems (1)(2) using CCS observers.
Theorem 1 For the given controller and observer gain
matrices F R ln , L m R nm and L s R nm ,
a sufficient condition for the synchronization of the
masterslave networks (1) and (2), subject to Assumption 1, using the control law (6)(7) and CCS observers
(8)(9) is that there exist positive-definite symmetric
matrices Pm , Ps and Po of appropriate dimensions and
scalars 1 > 0, 2 > 0 and 3 > 0 such that the matrix
inequality

1

1 =

0 0.5Pm BF + C T L Tm Po Pm
0
0
2 0.5Ps BF C T L Ts Po
0
Ps
0

0
0
Po

3
<0

1 In
0
0

2 In
0

3 In

(13)
is satisfied, where
1 = AT Pm + Pm AC T L Tm Pm Pm L m C +1 L 2f In ,
2 = AT Ps + Ps A C T L Ts Ps Ps L s C + 2 L 2f In ,
3 = AT Po + Po A F T B T Po Po BF + 3 L 2f In .
Proof Consider the Lyapunov function
T
V (t) = em
(t)Pm em (t)+esT (t)Ps es (t)+eoT (t)Po eo (t).

(14)
The time derivative of the Lyapunov function is given
as
T
T
V (t) = em
(t)Pm em (t) + em
(t)Pm em (t)

+ esT (t)Ps es (t) + esT (t)Ps es (t)

+ eoT (t)Po eo (t) + eoT (t)Po eo (t).

(15)

Using the systems (1)(2), employing the observers

(8)(9) and incorporating the error equations (10)(12)
reveal
em (t) = (A L m C)em (t) + f (xm (t))
1
f (xm (t)) + BFeo (t),
2

(16)

es (t) = (A L s C)es (t) + f (xs (t))

1
f (xs (t)) + BFeo (t),
2
eo (t) = (A BF)eo (t) + f (xm (t))

(17)

f (xs (t)) + L m Cem (t) L s Ces (t).

(18)

From Assumption 1, we can write


T 

f (xm (t)) f (xm (t))
1 f (xm (t)) f (xm (t))
T
(t)em (t) > 0,
+ 1 L 2f em

T
2 f (xs (t)) f (xs (t)) [ f (xs (t)) f (xs (t))]

+ 2 L 2f esT (t)es (t) > 0,

T 


3 f (xm (t)) f (xs (t))
f (xm (t)) f (xs (t))
+ 3 L 2f eoT (t)eo (t) > 0.

It is imperative to mention that the above-mentioned

inequalities, derived from the Lipschitz condition for
f (x(t)), contain scalars 1 > 0, 2 > 0 and 3 > 0
as free variables that can be useful for feasibility of
the design constraints. By utilizing (16)(18) into (15)
and, subsequently, incorporating the above-mentioned
inequalities, one can obtain


T
T
(t)(AT C T L Tm ) + f (xm (t)) f (xm (t))
V (t) em

+ 0.5eoT (t)F T B T Pm em (t)
T
+ em
(t)Pm [(A L m C)em (t)



+ f (xm (t)) f (xm (t)) + 0.5BFeo (t)


T
+ esT (t)(AT C T L Ts ) + f (xs (t)) f (xs (t))

+ 0.5eoT (t)F T B T Ps es (t)

+ esT (t)Ps [(A L s C)es (t) + f (xs (t))

f (xs (t)) + 0.5BFeo (t)

+ eoT (t)(AT F T B T )
T 

Po eo (t)
+ f (xm (t)) f (xs (t))
 T

+ em (t)C T L Tm esT (t)C T L Ts Po eo (t)
+ eoT (t)Po [(A BF)eo (t)


+ f (xm (t)) f (xs (t))
+ eoT (t)Po [L m Cem (t) L s Ces (t)]

T 

f (xm (t)) f (xm (t))
1 f (xm (t)) f (xm (t))
T
(t)em (t)
+ 1 L 2f em
T

2 f (xs (t)) f (xs (t)) [ f (xs (t)) f (xs (t))]

+ 2 L 2f esT (t)es (t)

T

3 f (xm (t)) f (xs (t))


f (xm (t)) f (xs (t)) + 3 L 2f eoT (t)eo (t),

(19)

123

M. Siddique, M. Rehan

which further produces

V (t) E 1T (t)1 E 1 (t),


T (t) eT (t) eT (t)  f T (t)  f T (t)  f T (t)

E 1T (t) = em
s
o
m m
s s
m s
 f m m (t) = f (xm (t)) f (xm (t))
 f s s (t) = f (xs (t)) f (xs (t))
 f m s (t) = f (xm (t)) f (xs (t))

(20)

From (20), it is obvious that V (t) < 0 is ensured if

1 < 0 is satisfied. Hence, the error signals em (t), es (t)
and eo (t) are asymptotically stable. Subsequently, the
master and the slave systems (1)(2) are synchronized,
which completes the proof.


Remark 3 Several observer-based synchronization
approaches are available in the literature, in which
an observer is used to estimate states of a single
chaotic oscillator (see, for instance, [3,8,16,18] and
[2830]). These so-called observer-based synchronization methodologies are very helpful for secure communication and image processing. However, these synchronization approaches are inapplicable to two chaotic
oscillators because there theme is to estimate states of
a single oscillator rather than to synchronize two independent oscillators. The proposed observers-based synchronization methodology, contrastingly, addresses a
relatively different synchronization perplexity, that is,
synchronization of the two chaotic oscillators, and has
broad applications.
Remark 4 Compared to the traditional observer-based
synchronization approaches [3,8,16,18] and [2830],
based on estimation of the unknown state vector of a
single chaotic entity, CCS observers can be applied to
synchronize the masterslave networks. The estimated
states using CCS observers are utilitarian to synchronize the states of the master and the slave oscillators
using a control signal (6). By virtue of the proposed
CCS observers-based chaos synchronization scheme,
exact state vectors are not required in contrast to the
conventional methods (such as [6,9,10], and [11]) and
output measurements can be employed for a static feedback control. It is notable that such an observers-based
chaos synchronization approach for two independent
chaotic entities (1)(2) is lacking in the literature.
Remark 5 Recently, an observer-based synchronization approach is developed in [34] for synchronization of two chaotic oscillators by employing estimation of error between the master and the slave states by

123

means of a linear state estimation error dynamics. This

approach is developed for a specific class of memristive systems, while the proposed CCS observers-based
synchronization method is applicable to a broad class
of systems. In addition, observer design for estimation
of state errors becomes unmanageable in the present
case because the estimation error dynamics is nonlinear. In contrast to [34] and similar Luenberger observers
in [3537], the proposed methodology demonstrates
that synchronization of a broad class of chaotic systems resulting nonlinear state error dynamics can be
achieved by application of CCS observers-based control strategy employing estimation of states of both
oscillators. For autonomous dynamical systems, both
the proposed approach and the methodology in [34]
can be employed for synchronization. However, the
proposed approach can be used for a large operational
range, as the results in [34] are specific to consider some
particular linear modes of operation.

4 Adaptive observers-based synchronization

If the dynamics of the master and the slave chaotic
systems contain unknown parameters (that is, m , s
R p ), the synchronization of both systems cannot be
achieved by the control law (6)(7). Rather, we have to
use adaptation laws along with the specific selection of
control law u(t) = (xm (t), xs (t)) as
(xm (t), xs (t)) = F(xm (t) xs (t))


+ g(xm (t))m (t) g xs (t) s (t),

(21)

where m R p and s R p are the estimates of the

unknown parameters m and s , respectively. Coupled
adaptive observers are aimed for both the master and
the slave systems for estimation of their states under
unknown parameters.




xm (t) = A xm (t) + f (xm (t)) + Bg xm (t) m (t)


+ L m ym (t) ym (t)
1
(22)
BF(xm (t) xs (t)),
2


xs (t) = A xs (t) + f (xs (t)) + Bg(xs (t))s (t)
+ L s (ys (t) ys (t))
1
BF(xs (t) xm (t)) + Bu g ,
2

(23)

Nonlinear and adaptive observers-based chaos synchronization



where u g (t) = g(xm (t))m (t) g xs (t) s (t) is the
nonlinear component of u(t). The proposed nonlinear adaptive observers-based control methodology for
synchronization the masterslave systems is shown in
Fig. 2.
Remark 6 Unequivocally, it is worth noting that CCAS
observers are more generic than the CCS observers
developed in the previous section because these CCAS
observers can deal with the nonlinearities of two types,
that is, nonlinearities with the known parameters and

m (t) = m g T (xm (t))Rm (ym (t) C xm (t)), m > 0,

(24)
s (t) = s g T (xs (t))Rs (ys (t) C xs (t)), s > 0,

(25)
where m and s are the adaptation rates of appropriate dimensions, is that there exist positive-definite
matrices Pm , Ps , and Po and scalars 1 > 0, 2 >
0, 3 > 0, 1 > 0 and 2 > 0, such that matrix
inequality

1 0 0.5Pm BF + C T L Tm Po
Pm
0
0
Pm
0
T
T
2 0.5Ps BF C L s Po
0
Ps
0
0
Ps

0
0
P
0
0
3
o

0
0
0
0

1 In
<0

2 =
0
0
0

2 In

0
0

3 In

1 In

2 In

nonlinearities with the unknown parameters. However,

the main snag of the CCAS observers is their slow
response because of adaptation of parameters m (t) and
s (t). If all the parameters are known, it is better to use
CCS observers for a fast convergence. However, CCAS
observers are utilitarian for adaptive synchronization of
chaos due to practical limitations in parametric measurements.
Let us introduce the following assumption for adaptive observers-based control.
Assumption 2 Let B T Pm C = 0 and B T Ps C = 0,
where C denotes the orthogonal projection on to the
null of C.
If Assumption 2 holds, matrices Rm and Rs can be
selected by solving B T Pm Rm C = 0 and B T Ps
Rs C = 0. Now, we provide an adaptive controller
design condition using CCAS observers.
Theorem 2 For the given controller and observer gain
matrices F R ln , L m R nm and L s R nm ,
a sufficient condition for the synchronization of the
masterslave networks (1) and (2) with unknown parameters m R p and s R p , subject to Assumptions 1 2, using the control law in (6) and (21), and
CCAS observers (22)(23) along with the adaptation
laws, given by

(26)

holds, where
1 = AT Pm + Pm A C T L Tm Pm
Pm L m C + 1 L 2f In + 1 L 2gm I,
2 = AT Ps + Ps A C T L Ts Ps Ps L s C
+ 2 L 2f In + 2 L 2gs I,
3 = AT Po + Po A F T B T Po Po BF
+ 3 L 2f In .
Proof The stability condition (26) for synchronization of the master and the slave systems is derived in
Appendix 1.



5 Convex routines for observers-based control

The above-mentioned Theorems 12 provide solutions
of the synchronization problems for the masterslave
chaotic systems under the constraint that the controller
gain matrix F and the observer gain matrices L m and L s
are imparted. To get rid of this limitation, we have proposed two procedures in Theorems 34 to evaluate the
possible values of F, L m and L s through convex routines. First, we provide a two-step LMI-based approach
for solving the matrix inequalities in Theorem 2.

123

M. Siddique, M. Rehan
Fig. 2 Block diagram to
show the coupling
architecture for the master
and the slave systems with
their respective observers
along with adaptation laws
and control block in
adaptive case

Theorem 3 A solution to the matrix inequalities presented in Theorem 2 is achievable, if and only if there
exist positive-definite matrices Pm , Ps and Po , scalars
1 > 0, 2 > 0, 3 > 0, 1 > 0, and 2 > 0
and a matrix Z < 0 that can be partitioned as

Z 11 Z 12 Z 13
Z = Z 22 Z 23 ,
Z 33

(27)

such that the inequalities

Z11 Z12 Z13

Z22 Z23

Z33

Z 11 1

0
0
Pm
0
Pm
0
0
Ps
0
Ps
0
0
Po
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 In
0
0
0
2 In

3 In
0
0
0

1 In

2 In

Z 12

< 0,

Z 13 0.5Pm BF C T L Tm Po

(28)

Z 22 2 Z 23 0.5Ps BF + C T L Ts Po 0

Z 33 3

(29)
are satisfied.

123

Proof Sufficiency: Let 2 =<0 represent the matrix

inequality (26). It can be partitioned as

=

11

12

T
12 diag{1 In , 2 In , 3 In , 1 In , 2 In }

1 0 0.5Pm BF + C T L T
m Po

T T

11 =
2 0.5Ps BF C L s Po ,

3

Pm 0 0 Pm 0
12 = 0 Ps 0 0 Ps .
0 0 Po 0 0


< 0,

(30)

(31)

Let us introduce a matrix Z < 0 such that Z 11 .

Note that if


Z
12
< 0 (32)
T12 diag{1 In , 2 In , 3 In , 1 In , 2 In }
remains valid, 2 =  < 0 is ensured. One can also
witness the inequality (28) by substituting (27) and (31)
into (32). The matrix inequality Z 11 can be written as (29) by putting the value of Z and 11 from
(27) and (30), respectively. Therefore, the inequalities
in Theorem 3 provide a sufficient condition to establish
a solution of matrix inequalities in Theorem 2.
Necessity: If the inequality (26) is verified, there
always exists a negative-definite matrix Z such that the

Nonlinear and adaptive observers-based chaos synchronization

inequalities Z 11 and (32) are satisfied. At least,

we can always choose a matrix Z validating Z = 11
(and thus ensuring Z 11 ), through which Z can
be replaced by 11 to obtain (32). Z 11 and (32)
can be written as (27)(28). Hence, the condition in
Theorem 3 is necessary for the statement in Theorem 2,
which completes the proof.



The observer and controller gain matrices can be

obtained by solving L m = Pm1 H1 , L s = Ps1 H2 and
F = H3 Po1 .

Remark 7 Obtainment of a solution to the matrix

inequality (26) can be a difficult task. Notwithstanding,
we provided a technique in Theorem 3 for the solution
of the controller and the observer gain matrices. It is
significant to note that the whole procedure discussed in
Theorem 3 can be arranged into a two-step LMI-based
approach. In the step-1, LMI (28) along with Z < 0
can be solved. The solution of this LMI in the form of
Z , Pm , Ps and Po can be utilitarian for solving the step2. In the step-2, LMI (29) can be resolved for obtaining
the controller and the observer gain matrices.

Remark 8 Analysis of Theorems 3 and 4 reveals that

Theorem 3 provides a necessary and sufficient condition for the solution of Theorem 2, while Theorem 4
describes only a sufficient condition. The retrieval of
the matrices L m , L s and F using Theorem 3 may be
comparatively difficult, as the value of Z achieved in
the step-1 may not be suitable to attain feasible values
of L m , L s and F in the step-2. In contrast, Theorem 4
requires less effort for computation of the gains.
Similar to Theorems 3 and 4, convex conditions can
be established for solving the inequalities in Theorem 1.
However, the conditions are omitted here and left for
the reader due to their analogous derivation nature to
the constraints in Theorems 34.

In the following theorem, an alternative method for

obtaining the LMI-based solution of the nonlinear constraint (26) is proposed based on the decoupling technique [38].
Theorem 4 A sufficient condition for the solution of
the constraints in Theorem 2 is that there exist positivedefinite matrices Pm , Ps and Po , matrices H1 , H2 and
H3 of appropriate dimensions, and scalars 1 >
0, 2 > 0, 3 > 0, 1 > 0, 2 > 0, 1 > 0
and 2 > 0 such that the following LMIs are satisfied:

1 Pm
Pm 1 L gm 1 L f
1 In 0
0
0

< 0,

1 In
(33)
0
0

1 In

1 In

2 Ps
Ps 2 L gs 2 L f
2 In 0
0
0

0
2 In 0

< 0,

2 In 0

2 In

3 Po
0
3 L f
2 Po 3 In
0

< 0,

3 In 0

3 In
T
1 = A Pm + Pm A C T H1T H1 C,

2 = AT Ps + Ps A C T H2T H2 C,
3 = Po ATo + A Po H3T B T B H3 .

(34)

(35)

Proof To elaborate the agreement of Theorem 4 with

Theorem 2, we can regenerate the matrix inequality
(26) as presented in Appendix 2.



6 Simulation results
The validity of the proposed techniques for the synchronization of the master and the slave systems, proposed
in Theorems 12, is illustrated by a corroborating simulation study for FitzHughNagumo (FHN) master
slave architectures. The FHN systems are utilized to
understand behavior of multiple neurons under external
electrical stimulation current, such as deep brain stimulation therapy (see [10,39] and [40]). Such therapies are
used to overcome the symptoms such as tremor caused
by neuronal disorders in the brain (such as Parkinsons
disease and Huntington disorder) because of malfunctioning of different parts of the brain. The FHN systems
are described as follows:
xm1 = xm1 (xm1 1)(1 r1 xm1 ) xm2 + Io ,
xm2 = bxm2 ,
xs1 = xs1 (xs1 1)(1 r2 xs1 ) xs2 + Io ,
xs2 = bxs2 .
Let the stimulation current is Io = (m/) cos(t) and
the parameters are selected as r1 = 10.1, r2 = 9.9, b =
1, m = 0.1, = 2 f and f = 0.129. The initial conditions of both states, that is, normalized membrane
potentials for the master and the slave systems, are
assumed to be xm,1 (0) = 0.2 and xm,2 (0) = 0.5, while

123

M. Siddique, M. Rehan

recovery variables has initial state as xs,1 (0) = 0.4

and xs,2 (0) = 0.1. Phase portraits of both the master and slave systems are shown in Fig. 3a, b, respectively, to endorse the chaotic behavior of FHN drive and
response systems. These initial conditions show that
there is a difference between the corresponding states
(membrane potentials) of the master and the slave FHN
system. The time series for both states of the master
and the slave systems and the corresponding errors are
plotted in Fig. 3ce.
It should be noted that the simulation results provided herein for both nonadaptive and adaptive control
techniques are based on normalized membrane potentials for FHN systems because of the following three
reasons. First, the above-mentioned mathematical representation of FHN systems inherently supports the
normalized membrane potential as seen in the literature [10,39] and [40]. Second, the normalized potential for the FHN system can demonstrate a generalized
behavior of a neuron. The ranges of voltages for the
membrane potentials of neurons for different species
are not alike; however, these membrane potentials can
be normalized to the same ranges by employing different scaling factors. Consequently, the normalized membrane potentials provide an overall behavior of neurons,
applicable to a large number of species. Third, normalized variables are useful from control point of view due
to conversion of the variable ranges to desirable values
as it allows calculation of a reasonable controller gain
for simulation and implementation purpose and simplifies the numerical calculation handling. As a result, we
took advantage of the normalized membrane potential
for the synchronization control simulation purpose.

6.1 Simulation results for nonadaptive control

If the nonlinear chaotic master and slave systems have
all the parameters known, FHN system dynamics, in
accordance with (1)(2), can be written as

 



1
1 1
, C= 10 ,
, B=
A=
0
1 0


2
11x1 10x13 + m
cos(t) .
f (x(t)) =
0
The synchronization problem can be resolved by
employing nonadaptive approach propounded in Theorem 1. The observer gain matrices L m and L s and
the controller gain matrix Fcan be selected by using

123

a similar two-step procedure discussed in Theorem 3.

By selecting






1.3
1.3
, Ls =
,F = 10
Lm =
0
0
and applying the control law u = F(xm xs ), simulation results are shown in Fig. 4. The plots affirm
the validity of the proposed scheme for synchronization of the masterslave chaotic systems by elaborating
complete synchronization. Figure 4a, b shows phase
portraits of the FHN master and the slave networks,
respectively. Figure 4c, d displays the phase portraits
of observed states of the master and the slave systems,
respectively. Similarly, Fig. 4e, f represents the temporal evolution of both states of the masterslave architectures with their respective observers. Figure 5 witnesses
the fact that by application of the proposed control law,
various synchronization errors em1 , em2 , es1 , es2 , eo1 ,
and eo2 asymptotically converge to the zero.
From (16) and (17), it is clear that the values of
observer gain matrices L m and L s have explicit effects
on the em (t) and es (t). Similarly, from (18), we can
mention the value of F has an explicit effect on eo (t).
That is why, with the change in the gains, the trend
of synchronization for the nonlinear control scheme is
elaborated in Figs. 6 and 7. These figures show the time
evolution of em1 (t) and eo1 (t) only because the second
terms of the observer gain and input matrices are zero
and the effects on em2 (t) and eo2 (t) may not have any
relation with the current selections of the observer and
controller gains. Additionally, the behavior of es1 (t)
is similar to that of em1 (t); therefore, it is not plotted
here.
To show the degree of synchronization (DOS) quantitatively, we define error-based DOS criteria as follows:

t 2
e
2
0 e dt
 ,
=1 
DOS(e)
=1

t
e
2,max
2

0 e dt 
max

2,max is
where e
2 is the 2-norm of any error e and e
the maximum value of the norm over a range of the
observer or the controller gain. Note that the minimum
and maximum values of DOS(e)
are 0 and 1, respec 2,max , when
tively. The minima occur for e
2 = e
synchronization error is maximum, while the maxima
occur for the minimum synchronization error, that is,
e
2 = 0. It is important to mention that the maximum value e
2,max is obtained by choosing either

Nonlinear and adaptive observers-based chaos synchronization

(a)

(b)

1.5

1.5

xs1

xs2

0.5

0.5

-0.5
-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

xm1

0.8

-0.5
-0.4

-0.2

0.2 0.4
xs1

0.6

0.8

(c)

X m1
X s1

Normalized potentials

1.5

0.5

-0.5
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

t (s)

(d)

2
X m2
X s2

recovery variables

1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

t (s)

(e)

e1
e2

1.5
1
0.5

e1, e2

Fig. 3 Phase portraits of

the master and the slave
FHN systems and time
evolutions of the normalized
membrane potentials,
recovery variables and
membrane potential errors:
a phase portrait of the
master system, b phase
portrait of the slave system,
c time evolution of
membrane potentials,
d time evolution of recovery
variables e time evolution of
errors between
corresponding states of
master and slave systems

0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2

50

100

150

200

250

300

t (s)

123

M. Siddique, M. Rehan
Fig. 4 Phase portraits of
the master and the slave
FHN systems, phase
portraits of their
corresponding observers
using the approach provided
in Theorem 1, the time
evolutions of the membrane
potentials and the recovery
variables: a phase portrait of
the master system, b phase
portrait of the slave system,
c phase portrait of the
master observer, d phase
portrait of the slave
observer, e time evolution of
membrane potentials of the
master and slave systems
and their corresponding
observers, f time evolution
of recovery variables of the
master and slave systems
and their corresponding
observer

(a)

(b)

1.5

1.5
1

xm2

xs2

0.5

0.5

-0.5
-0.4

-0.5
-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

(a)
-0.2

0.2

(c)

(d)

2
1.5

xm 2

xs2

0.8

0.6

0.8

0.5

0.5

-0.5
-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

-0.5
-0.4

-0.2

x m1

0.2

0.4

x s1

1
X m1
estimate of X m1

0.8

Normalized potentials

0.6

1.5

(e)

0.4

xs1

xm1

X s1
estimate of X s1

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
(e )
-0.4

50

100

150

200

250

300

t ( s)

(f)

2
X m2
estimate of X m2
X s2
estimate of X s2

Recovery variables

1.5

0.5

-0.5

50

100

150

t ( s)

123

200

250

300

Nonlinear and adaptive observers-based chaos synchronization

2
e m1
e m2

1.5

e s1
e s2

Synchronization errors

Fig. 5 Synchronization
errors between the
masterslave systems and
their corresponding
observers, the
synchronization errors
between the observers of the
masterslave systems using
the approach provided in
Theorem 1 and the errors
between the corresponding
states of the master and the
slave systems

e o1
e o2

0.5

e1
e2

0
-0.5
-1

-1.5

50

100

150

200

250

300

t (s)

Fig. 6 Synchronization
error em1 for different
values of observer gains and
fixed value of controller
gain

0.6
L m =L s = [1 0] T
L m =L s = [2 0] T

0.4

L m =L s = [8 0] T

0.2

em1

0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

t(s)

Fig. 7 Synchronization
error eo1 for different values
of controller gains and fixed
values of observer gains

0.3
F=[1 0]
F=[5 0]
F=[20 0]

0.2
0.1

eo1

0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

t(s)

123

M. Siddique, M. Rehan
Fig. 8 Phase portraits of
the master and the slave
FHN systems, phase
portraits of their
corresponding observers
using the approach provided
in Theorem 3, the time
evolutions of the normalized
membrane potentials and
the recovery variables: a
phase portrait of the master
system, b phase portrait of
the slave system, c phase
portrait of the master
observer, d phase portrait of
the slave observer, e time
evolution of membrane
potentials of the master and
slave systems and their
corresponding observers, f
time evolution of recovery
variables of the master and
slave systems and their
corresponding observer

(a)

xm 2

(b)

1.5

1.5

xs 2 1

0.5

0.5

-0.5
-0.4 -0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

-0.5
-0.4

(a )

-0.2

0.2

x m1

(c)

(d)

2
1.5

x s2

0.5

0.8

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.5

-0.5
-0.4

-0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

x m1

(e)

0.6

1.5

x m 2

0.4

x s1

0.8

-0.5
-0.4

-0.2

0.2

xs1

1
X m1
estimate of X m1

0.8

X s1
estimate of X s1

Normalized potentials

0.6
0.4
0.2
0

(e )

-0.2
-0.4

50

100

150

200

250

300

t(s)

(f)

2
X m2
estimate of X m2
X s2

1.5

recovery variables

estimate of X s2

0.5

-0.5

50

100

150

t(s)

123

200

250

300

Nonlinear and adaptive observers-based chaos synchronization

Table 1 DOS for different
values of L m = L s and
fixed F = [1 0]

Table 2 DOS for different

values of F and fixed
L m = L s = [1.30]T

S. no.

Lm = Ls

em1 2

DOS

[0 0]T

31.5261

[0.1 0]T

28.2900

0.102648

[0.14 0]T

13.5245

0.5710063

[0.15

8.4689

0.731369

[5 0]T

0.0470

0.998509

[20 0]T

0.0131

0.999584

[100

0.0095

0.999699

0]T

0]T

S. no.

eo1 2

DOS

[0 0]T

3.0379

[0.2 0]T

2.4210

0.203068

[0.5

1.8489

0.391389

[1 0]T

0.4706

0.84509

[5 0]T

0.1324

0.956417

[20

0.0165

0.994569

[100 0]T

0.0052

0.998288

L m = L s = [ 0 0 ]T for any fixed value of F or by

using F = [ 0 0 ] with some fixed value of L m and
L s . Degree of synchronization is calculated for nonadaptive case to show the effect of variations in L m ,
L s and F. Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate the effect of
L m = L s and Fon the DOS, respectively. It can be
concluded that increase in the entries of L m and F can
increase degree of synchronization errors em1 (t) and
eo1 (t), respectively.

6.2 Simulation results for adaptive control

If the value of the parameters r1 and r2 is unknown, we
can assign m = r1 and s = r2 . The FHN systems can
be represented by

 



1
1 1
, C= 10 ,
, B=
A=
0
1 0

 2 m
x1 + cos(t)
f (x(t)) =
0
g(x(t)) = x12 (t) x13 (t).
It is important to mention that to increase the feasibility of the design constraints, the matrix A and the

0]T

0]T

nonlinearity f (x(t)) of the FHN system are modified

as


 2 m

x + cos(t)
1 1
,
, f (x(t)) = 1
A=
0.3x2
1 0.3
without loss of generality. By application of Theorem 3,
we obtain






3.286
3.286
Lm =
, Ls =
, F = 1.409 0.7 .
0
0
By applying the control and adaptation laws in (21) and
(24)(25), simulation results are presented in Fig. 8 to
uphold the validity of proposed scheme for adaptive
synchronization of the master and the slave chaotic
systems under unknown parameters. Fig. 8a, b shows
phase portraits of the master and the slave FHN systems. Figure 8c, d characterizes the phase portraits
of observed states of the master and the slave systems. Similarly, Fig. 8e, f demonstrates the temporal evolution of both states of the masterslave systems and their observers. Figure 9 demonstrates that
by application of the proposed control and adaptation laws, complete synchronization of the master
observer and the slave observer is attained and the
errors em1 , em2 , es1 , es2 , eo1 and eo2 converge to the

123

M. Siddique, M. Rehan
1.5

em1
em2
1

es1
es2

Synchronization Errors

Fig. 9 Synchronization
errors between the
masterslave systems and
their corresponding
observers, the
synchronization errors
between the observers of the
masterslave systems using
the approach provided in
Theorem 3 and the errors
between the corresponding
states of the master and the
slave systems

eo1

0.5

eo2
e1
e2

-0.5

-1

-1.5

50

100

150

200

250

300

200

250

300

t(s)

Fig. 10 Graphical
representation of
convergence of the
adaptation parameters to
their true values using the
approach provided in
Theorem 3

12

10

Adaptive parameters

-2

50

100

150

t(s)

origin. Simulation results for the adaptation of the

unknown parameters are plotted in Fig. 10, which
shows convergence of the adaptive parameters to their
true values, that is, m = r1 = 10.1 and s = r2 = 9.9.
It is noteworthy that synchronization behavior varies
with the change in the observer gain matrices L m
and L s and the controller gain matrix F. Figure 11
shows dependency of synchronization behavior on the

123

the conobserver gain matrices L m and

 L s , by keeping

troller gain matrix as F = 1.409 0.7 , while Fig. 12
shows dependency of synchronization behavior on the

T
controller gain matrix F for L m = L s = 3.286 0 .
Tables 3 and 4 show the effects of L m = L s and Fon the
DOS, respectively, for the adaptive mechanism, which
are similar as for the case of the nonadaptive control
discussed in the previous subsection.

Nonlinear and adaptive observers-based chaos synchronization

Fig. 11 Synchronization
error em1 for different
values of observer gains and
fixed value of controller
gain for proposed adaptive
controller

0.8
L m = L s = [1 0] T
L m = L s = [2 0] T

0.6

L m = L s = [8 0] T

em1

0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6

50

100

150

200

250

300

t(s)

Fig. 12 Synchronization
error eo1 for different values
of controller gains and fixed
values of observer gains for
proposed adaptive control

0.6
F = [1 0.5]
F = [12 0.5]
F = [20 0.5]

0.5
0.4

e o1

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2

50

100

150

200

250

300

t(s)

Table 3 DOS for different

values of L m = L s and
fixed F = [1.50.7]

S. no.

Lm = Ls

em1 2

DOS

[0 0]T

21.6321

[0.1 0]T

18.3696

0.150818

[0.3 0]T

15.2773

0.293767

[0.6

0]T

9.8902

[0.9 0]T

3.9293

0.818358

[1 0]T

2.1716

0.899612

[5 0]T

0.1903

0.991203

[10 0]T

0.0867

0.995992

[100 0]T

0.0138

0.999362

10

[1000

0.0092

0.999575

0]T

0.5428

123

M. Siddique, M. Rehan
Table 4 DOS for different
values of F and fixed
L m = L s = [3.2860]T

S. no.

eo1 2

DOS

[0 0.5]T

2.0975

[0.1 0.5]T

1.7530

0.164243

[0.2 0.5]T

1.4747

0.296925

[0.3

0.5]T

1.2579

0.400286

[0.5 0.5]T

0.9520

0.546126

[0.7 0.5]T

0.7546

0.640238

[1

0.5]T

0.5634

0.731395

[2 0.5]T

0.2688

0.871847

[10 0.5]T

0.0269

0.987175

10

[100

0.0051

0.997569

7 Conclusions
A new approach for the synchronization of the master
slave chaotic systems by means of CCS and CCAS
observers-based control schemes was propounded in
this paper. The proposed techniques are applicable to
attain multi-objectives, that is, estimation of states of
chaotic systems and control of the synchronization
errors in the absence and the presence of unknown
parameters. The novel CCAS observers presented are
more generic than the CCS observers but with a
snag of slow response because of adaptation of the
unknown parameters. By means of Lyapunov stability theory, a convergence condition for the synchronization errors was developed in the form of nonlinear matrix inequalities. The evaluation of controller
and observer gain matrices from the resulted nonlinear matrix inequalities using a two-step approach
was described, and further, a decoupling methodology to attain LMI-based solution was presented. The
two-step technique is more generic, and the decoupling method requires less computational efforts for
the design of the controller and the observer. The recommended methodologies for synchronization are dissimilar with the conventional chaos synchronization
approaches, requiring exact states of the masterslave
systems for feedback control. In future, robust nonlinear and robust adaptive control approaches for the
synchronization of the nonlinear systems using nonlinear and adaptive observers can be considered against
noises and disturbances. Numerical simulation for synchronization of FitzHughNagumo neuronal systems
was illustrated to demonstrate effectiveness of the proposed observers-based chaos synchronization control
methodologies.

123

0.5]T

Acknowledgments This work was supported by Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan by supporting Ph.D. studies of the first author through indigenous Ph.D. scholarship program (phase II, batch II, 2013).

Appendix 1: Proof of Theorem 2

Using (10)(12), CCAS observers (22)(23) and systems (1)(2) reveal the error systems as


em (t) = Aem (t) + f (xm (t)) f (xm (t))
m (t)
+ Bg(xm (t))m Bg(xm (t))
1
L m Cem (t) + BFeo (t),
(36)
2


es (t) = Aes (t) + f (xs (t)) f (xs (t))
s (t)
+ Bg(xs (t))s Bg(xs (t))
1
L s Ces (t) + BFeo (t),
(37)
2


eo (t) = Aeo (t) + f (xm (t)) f (xs (t))
+ Bg(xm (t))m (t) Bg(xs (t))s (t)
+ L m Cem (t) L s Ces (t) BFeo (t) Bu g .
(38)
Applying m (t) = m m (t) and gm (xm (t)) =
Bg(xm (t))m and, further, employing the mathematical
fact
Bg(xm (t))m Bg(xm (t))m (t) = gm (xm (t))
gm (xm (t)) + Bg(xm (t))m (t),
we obtain



em (t) = (A L m C)em (t) + f (xm (t)) f (xm (t))
1
+ BFeo (t) + gm (xm (t)) gm (xm (t))
2
m (t).
(39)
+ Bg(xm (t))

Nonlinear and adaptive observers-based chaos synchronization

Similarly, it is implicit to obtain



es (t) = (A L s C)es (t) + f (xs (t)) f (xs (t))
1
+ BFeo (t) + g(xs (t)) g(xs (t))
2
s (t).
(40)
+ Bg(xs (t))


Using u g = g(xm (t))m g xs (t) s , we have


eo (t) = (A BF)eo (t) + f (xm (t)) f (xs (t))
+ L m Cem (t) L s Ces (t)

(41)

Consider the Lyapunov function

T
V (t) = em
(t)Pm em (t) + esT (t)Ps es (t) + eoT (t)Po eo (t)
1

T
+ mT (t)1
(42)
m m (t) + s (t)s s (t).

Its time derivative along (39)(41), by employing

B T Pm Rm C = 0 and B T Ps Rs C = 0, is given by
T
V (t) = em
(t)(AT C T L Tm )Pm em (t) + [ f (xm (t))
T
f (xm (t)) Pm em (t)

+ 0.5eoT (t)F T B T Pm em (t) + [gm (xm (t))

T
gm (xm (t)) Pm em (t)

f (xs (t))

Po eo (t)

T
(t)C T L Tm Po eo (t) esT (t)C T L Ts Po eo (t)
+ em

+ eoT (t)Po (A BF)eo (t)

(43)

Using Assumption 1 for positive scaling factors 1

and 2 , we have
T 


1 gm (xm (t)) g(xm (t))
gm (xm (t)) gm (xm (t))
T (t) e (t) > 0,
+ 1 L 2gm em
m

T 

gs (xs (t)) gs (xs (t))
2 gs (xs (t)) gs (xs (t))

+ 2 L 2gs esT (t) es (t) > 0,

Employing the above inequalities, using (43), m (t) =

m (t) and s (t) = s (t) and incorporating the adaptation laws (24)(25) under Assumption 2, it implies
that
T
(t)(AT C T L Tm )Pm em (t)
V (t) em
T

+ f (xm (t)) f (xm (t)) Pm em (t)

+
mT (t)g T (xm (t))Rm (ym (t)

+ 0.5eoT (t)F T B T Pm em (t) + [gm (xm (t))

T
g(xm (t)) Pm em (t)

T
(t)Pm (A L m C) em (t)
C xm (t)) + em


T
+ em (t)Pm f (xm (t)) f (xm (t))

T
+ em
(t)Pm (A L m C)em (t)


T
+ em (t)Pm f (xm (t)) f (xm (t))

T
(t)Pm BFeo (t)
+ 0.5em


T
+ em (t)Pm gm (xm (t)) gm (xm (t))

T
T
+ 0.5em
(t)Pm BFeo (t)+em
(t)Pm [g(xm (t), m )

g(xm (t), m )

T
+ (ym (t) C xm (t))T Rm
g(xm (t))m (t)

+ esT (t)(AT C T L Ts )Ps es (t) + [ f (xm (t))

T
f (xm (t)) Ps es (t)

+ esT (t)(AT C T L Ts )Ps es (t) + [ f (xm (t))

T
f (xm (t)) Ps es (t)

+ 0.5eoT (t)F T B T Ps es (t) + [g(xs (t), s )

T
g(xs (t), s ) Ps es (t)

+ 0.5eoT (t)F T B T Ps es (t) + [gs (xs (t))

T
gs (xs (t)) Ps es (t)
+ sT (t)g T (xs (t))Rs (ys (t)

+ esT (t)Ps (A L s C)es (t) + esT (t)Ps



f (xs (t)) f (xs (t))

C xs (t)) + esT (t)Ps (A L s C)es (t)


+ esT (t)Ps f (xs (t)) f (xs (t))

+ 0.5esT (t)Ps BFeo (t)


+ esT (t)Ps g(xs (t), s ) g(xs (t), s )

+ 0.5esT (t)Ps BFeo (t)



+ esT (t)Ps gs (xs (t)) gs (xs (t)) + (ym (t)

+ eoT (t)(AT F T B T )Po eo (t)


T
+ f (xm (t)) f (xs (t)) Po eo (t)

C xm (t))T RsT g(xs (t))s (t)

T
(t)C T L Tm Po eo (t)
+ em


+ eoT (t)(AT F T B T )Po eo (t) + f (xm (t))

esT (t)C T L Ts Po eo (t)

123

M. Siddique, M. Rehan

+ eoT (t)Po (A BF)eo (t)


+ eoT (t)Po f (xm (t) f (xs (t)
+ eoT (t)Po L m Cem (t) eoT (t)Po L s Ces (t)
T

1 f (xm (t)) f (xm (t))


T
f (xm (t)) f (xm (t)) + 1 L 2f em
(t)em (t)
T

2 f (xs (t)) f (xs (t)) [ f (xs (t))

f (xs (t)) + 2 L 2f esT (t)es (t)
T

3 f (xm (t)) f (xs (t))


f (xm (t)) f (xs (t))
+ 3 L 2f eoT (t)eo (t)
1 [gm (xm (t))
T 

g(xm (t))
gm (xm (t))gm (xm (t))
T
+ 1 L 2gm em

(t) em (t)


T
2 gs (xs (t))gs (xs (t))


gs (xs (t))gs (xs (t)) +2 L 2gs esT (t) es (t) ,

which further reveals

(44)
V (t) E 2T (t)2 E 2 (t)

T (t) eT (t) eT (t)  f T (t)  f T (t)

E 2T (t) = em
s
o
mm
ss

T (t) g T (t) ,
 f mT s (t) gm
m
ss


gmm (t) = gm (xm (t)) gm (xm (t)) ,


gss (t) = gs (xs (t)) gs (xs (t)) .

If (26) is satisfied, the above inequality (44) implies

V (t) < 0. Hence, the errors em (t), es (t) and eo (t) converge to the origin, which entails synchronization of
the master and the slave chaotic oscillators.



Appendix 2: Proof of Theorem 4

Applying the congruence transformation, that is, by
pre- and post- multiplying (33) by diag(In , In , In ,
1 In , 1 In , ), where 1 = 1/1 1 and 1 = 1/1 1
for an appropriate number 1 , the resultant matrix
inequality

123

Lf
L gm
Pm
1 Pm
1
1

0
0

1 In 0

0
0
1 In
<0

11 1 In

1 1 In

(45)

is obtained. Employing Schur complement obtains

1 Pm
Pm
(46)
1 = 1 In 0 < 0,

1 In
1 = AT Pm + Pm A C T H1T
H1 C + 1 L 2f + 1 L 2gm .

Similarly, by using 2 = 1/2 2 , and 2 = 1/2 2

for a scalar 2 , and following the same procedure as
above, the matrix inequality (34) can be modified as

2 Ps
Ps
2 = 2 In
0 < 0,

2 In

(47)

2 = AT Ps + Ps A C T H2T H2 C + 2 L 2f + 2 L 2gm .

By application of congruence transformation to (35)

using diag(In , In , 3 In , 3 In , ), where 3 = 1/ 3 , the
resultant inequality is obtained as

3 Po
0
Lf
2 Po In
0

< 0.

3 In 0

3 In
By applying Schur complement, we achieve


3 + 3 L 2f
Po
< 0.

2 Po + 3 In
Since we have
1
Po Po 2 Po + 3 In = ( Po 3 In )( 3 In )1
3
1
( Po 3 In ) 0, Po Po 2 Po + 3 In .
3
Consequently, we obtain


3 + 3 L 2f
Po
< 0.

1 Po Po
3

By considering H3 = F Po and applying congruence

transformation by diag(Po , Po ), it results into


3 Po
< 0,
(48)
3 =
13 In
3 = ATo Po + Po A F T B T Po Po BF + 3 L 2f .

Nonlinear and adaptive observers-based chaos synchronization

By lumping together the linear matrix inequalities (46),

(47), and (48) and, further, using H1 = Pm L m and
H2 = Ps L s , it produces

1 1 4 5
2 2 6 < 0,
(49)

000
0.5Pm BF + C T L Tm Po 0
4 = 0 0 0 , 5 =
0
0,
000
0
0

T
T
0.5Ps BF C L s Po 0
6 =
0
0.
0
0
We can regenerate the matrix inequality (26), by preand post-multiplying (49) by [IT1 , IT4 , IT7 , IT2 , IT5 , IT8 , IT3 ,
IT6 ]T and its transpose, respectively, where I is the
matrix generated by replacing the ith 0nn with In in
0n8n matrix (for example I2 = [0nn , In , 0nn , 0nn ,
0nn , 0nn , 0nn , 0nn ]) and substituting Pm = 11
Pm , Ps = 11 Ps , Po = Po1 , 1 = 1/(1 1 ), 2 = 1/
(2 2 ), 3 = 31 , 1 = 1/(1 1 ), and 2 = 1/(2 2 ).
References
1. Ott, E., Grebogi, C., Yorke, J.A.: Controlling chaos. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 64, 11961199 (1990). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.
64.1196
2. Strogatz, S.H.: Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry and Engineering.
Westview Press, USA (1994)
3. Chadli, M., Zelinka, I.: Chaos synchronization of unknown
inputs TakagiSugeno fuzzy: application to secure communications. Comput. Math. Appl. 68, 21422147 (2014).
doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2013.01.013
4. Gonzalez-Miranda, J.M.: Synchronization and Control of
Chaos. An Introduction for Scientists and Engineers. Imperial College Press, UK (2004). ISBN 9781860944888
5. Carroll, T., Pecora, L.: Synchronizing chaotic circuits. IEEE
Trans. Circuits Syst. 38, 453456 (1991). doi:10.1109/31.
75404
6. Yassen, M.T.: Controlling chaos and synchronization for
new chaotic system using linear feedback control. Chaos
Soliton Fract. 26, 913920 (2005). doi:10.1016/j.chaos.
2005.01.047
7. Ali, A.: Synchronization and secure communication of
uncertain chaotic systems based on full-order and reducedorder output-affine observers. Appl. Math. Comput. 219,
1000010011 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.amc.2013.03.133
8. Beyhan, S.: RungeKutta model-based nonlinear observer
for synchronization and control of chaotic systems. ISA
Trans. 52, 501509 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.isatra.2013.04.
005
9. Ramirez, J.P., Fey, R.H.B., Nijmeijer, H.: Synchronization
of weakly nonlinear oscillators with Huygens coupling.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Chaos: an interdisciplinary. J. Nonlinear Sci. 23, 033118

(2013). doi:10.1063/1.4816360
Rehan, M., Hong, K.-S.: Robust synchronization of delayed
chaotic FitzHughNagumo neurons under external electrical
stimulation. Comput. Math. Methods Med. 2012, Article ID
230980 (2012). doi:10.1155/2012/230980
Zaheer, M.H., Rehan, M., Mustafa, G., Ashraf, M.: Delayrange-dependent chaos synchronization approach under
varying time-lags and delayed nonlinear coupling. ISA
Trans. 53, 17161730 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.isatra.2014.09.
007
Jeong, S.C., Ji, D.H., Park, J.H., Won, S.C.: Adaptive synchronization for uncertain chaotic neural networks with
mixed time delays using fuzzy disturbance observer. Appl.
Math. Comput. 219, 59845995 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.amc.
2012.12.017
Njah, A.N.: Tracking control and synchronization of
the new hyperchaotic Liu system via backstepping techniques. Nonlinear Dyn. 61, 19 (2010). doi:10.1007/
s11071-009-9626-5
Yang, C.C.: Adaptive control and synchronization of identical new chaotic flows with unknown parameters via single
input. Appl. Math. Comput. 216, 13161324 (2010). doi:10.
1016/j.amc.2010.02.026
Yang, C.C.: Adaptive synchronization of L hyperchaotic
system with uncertain parameters based on single-input controller. Nonlinear Dyn. 63, 447454 (2011). doi:10.1007/
s11071-010-9814-3
Yang, J., Zhu, F.: Synchronization for chaotic systems and
chaos-based secure communications via both reduced-order
and step-by-step sliding mode observers. Commun. Nonlinear. Sci. Numer. Simul. 18, 926937 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.
cnsns.2012.09.009
Mbe, E.S.K., Fotsin, H.B., Kengne, J., Woafo, P.: Parameters
estimation based adaptive generalized projective synchronization (GPS) of chaotic Chuas circuit with application
to chaos communication by parametric modulation. Chaos
Solitons Fract. 61, 2737 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2014.
02.004
Liu, B., Wang, L., Jin, Y.-H., Huang, D.-X., Tang, F.: Control
and synchronization of chaotic systems by differential evolution algorithm. Chaos Solitons Fract. 34, 412419 (2007).
doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2006.03.033
Filal, R.L., Benrejeb, M., Borne, P.: On observer-based
secure communication design using discrete-time hyperchaotic systems. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul.
19(15), 14241432 (2014). doi:10.1016/j.cnsns.2013.09.
005
Boutayeb, M., Darouach, M., Rafaralahy, H.: Generalized
state-space observers for chaotic synchronization and secure
communication. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. 49, 345349
(2002). doi:10.1109/81.989169
Yang, J., Zhu, F.: Synchronization for chaotic systems and
chaos-based secure communications via both reduced-order
and step-by-step sliding mode observers. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 18, 926937 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.
cnsns.2012.09.009
Li, Y.N., Chen, L., Cai, Z.S., Zhao, X.Z.: Experimental study
of chaos synchronization in the BelousovZhabotinsky
chemical system. Chaos Solitons Fract. 22, 767771 (2004).
doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2004.03.023

123

M. Siddique, M. Rehan
23. Steinmetz, P.N., Roy, A., Fitzgerald, P.J.: Attention modulates synchronized neuronal firing in primate somatosensory
cortex. Nature 404, 457490 (2000). doi:10.1038/35004588
24. Meffo, L.P., Woafo, P., Domnganga, S.: Cluster states in a
ring of four coupled semiconductor lasers. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 12, 942952 (2007). doi:10.1016/
j.cnsns.2005.10.002
25. Mirollo, R.E., Strogatz, S.H.: Synchronization of pulsecoupled biological oscillators. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 50,
16451662 (1990). doi:10.1137/0150098
26. Angeles, R., Nijmeijer, H.: Mutual synchronization of robots
via estimated state feedback: a cooperative approach. IEEE
T. Contr. Syst. Technol. 12, 542554 (2004). doi:10.1109/
TCST.2004.825065
27. Kuhnert, L., Agladze, K.I., Krinsky, V.I.: Image processing
using light sensitive chemical waves. Nature 337, 244247
(1989). doi:10.1038/337244a0
28. mer, M., Ercan, S.: Observer based synchronization of
chaotic systems. Phys. Rev. E 54, 48034811 (1996). doi:10.
1103/PhysRevE.54.4803
29. Heagy, J.F., Carroll, T., Pecora, L.: Synchronous chaos in
coupled oscillator systems. Phys. Rev. E 50, 18741885
(1994). doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.50.1874
30. Senejohnnya, D.M., Delavari, H.: Active sliding observer
scheme based fractional chaos synchronization. Commun.
Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 17(11), 43734383 (2012).
doi:10.1016/j.cnsns.2012.03.004
31. Bagheri, P., Shahrokhi, M., Salarieh, H.: Adaptive observerbased synchronization of two non-identical chaotic systems
with unknown parameters. J. Vib. Control. (2015). doi:10.
1177/1077546315580052
32. Jeong, S.C., Ji, D.H., Park, J.H., Won, S.C.: Adaptive synchronization for uncertain chaotic neural networks with
mixed time delays using fuzzy disturbance observer. Appl.
Math. Comput. 219, 59845995 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.amc.
2012.12.017

123

33. Grassi, G.: Observer-based hyperchaos synchronization in

cascaded discrete-time systems. Chaos Solitons Fract. 40,
10291039 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2007.08.060
34. Wen, S., Zeng, Z., Huang, T.: Observer-based synchronization of memristive systems with multiple networked input
and output delays. Nonlinear Dyn. 78, 541554 (2014).
doi:10.1007/s11071-014-1459-1
35. Raghavan, S., Hedrick, J.K.: Observer design for a class
of nonlinear systems. Int. J. Control 59, 515528 (1994).
doi:10.1080/00207179408923090
36. Rajamani, R.: Observers for Lipschitz nonlinear systems.
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 43, 397401 (1998). doi:10.
1109/9.661604
37. Zeitz, M.: The extended Luenberger observer for nonlinear
systems. Syst. Control Lett. 9, 149156 (1987). doi:10.1016/
0167-6911(87)90021-1
38. Huang, H., Huang, T., Chen, X., Qian, C.: Exponential stabilization of delayed recurrent neural networks: a state estimation based approach. Neural Netw. 48, 153157 (2013).
doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2013.08.006
39. Che, Y.-Q., Wang, J., Chan, W.-L., Tsang, K.-M.: Chaos
synchronization of coupled neurons under electrical stimulation via robust adaptive fuzzy control. Nonlinear Dyn. 61,
847857 (2010). doi:10.1007/s11071-010-9691-9
40. Yang, C.-C., Lin, C.-L.: Robust adaptive sliding mode
control for synchronization of space-clamped FitzHugh
Nagumo neurons. Nonlinear Dyn. 69, 20892096 (2012).
doi:10.1007/s11071-012-0410-6