For \( v\in\mathbb R^n\) , \( \|v\|\) denotes its Euclidean norm and \( \|v\|_\infty\) its max norm. For a matrix \( M\in\mathbb R^{m\times n}\) , \( \|M\|\) denotes its spectral norm and \( \text{cond}(M)\) its condition number. For a square matrix \( M\in\mathbb R^{n\times n}\) , \( \text{eig}(M)\subset\mathbb C\) denotes the set of its eigenvalues and \( \lambda_{\min}(M) \in \min_{\lambda\in\text{eig}(M)} |\lambda| \) denotes an eigenvalue of \( M\) closest to the origin. We denote the set \( [p]\mathrm{:=}\{1,\dots, p\}\) for some \( p\in\mathbb Z_{>0}\) . Given a signal \( s:\mathbb R_{\geq 0}\to \mathbb R^n\) , we denote its restriction to \( [0,t]\) by \( s_{[0,t]}\) , where \( t\in\mathbb R_{\geq 0}\) . Moreover, its essential supremum (or \( L^\infty\) ) norm is defined as \( \|s_{[0,t]}\|_{L^\infty}\mathrm{:=}\inf\{c\in\mathbb R_{\geq 0}: \|s(\tau)\|_\infty\leq c  \text{for almost all} \tau\in[0,t]\}\) .

Consider a compact set \( \mathcal X\subset\mathbb R^{n_x}\) and a nonlinear system

where \( x(t)\in\mathcal X\) is the state at time \( t\in\mathbb R_{\geq 0}\) , \( x_0\in\mathcal X\) is an unknown point from where the system’s state is initialized, \( y(t)\in\mathbb R^{n_y}\) is the measured output, and \( f:\mathcal X\to\mathbb R^{n_x}\) and \( h:\mathcal X\to\mathbb R^{n_y}\) are smooth functions. The state observation problem involves designing an observer

with an internal state \( \hat z(t)\in\mathbb R^{n_z}\) initialized at \( \hat z_0\in\mathbb R^{n_z}\) , which takes the output \( y(t)\) of (1) as its input and provides an estimate \( \hat x(t)\in\mathbb R^{n_x}\) of the state \( x(t)\) as its output. Designing an observer means choosing functions \( \Phi:\mathbb{R}^{n_z}\times\mathbb{R}^{n_y}\to\mathbb{R}^{n_z}\) and \( \Psi:\mathbb{R}^{n_z}\times\mathbb{R}^{n_y}\to\mathbb{R}^{n_x}\) so that the estimation error

globally asymptotically converges to zero as \( t\to\infty\) . That is, for all \( x_0\in\mathcal X\) and \( \hat z_0\in\mathbb R^{n_z}\) ,

Designing a KKL observer involves transforming the nonlinear system (1) to a higher-dimensional state space where its dynamics is linear up to output injection and bounded-input bounded-state stable. This transformation \( \mathcal T : \mathcal X\to\mathcal Z\) , which must be injective A map \( \mathcal T:\mathcal X\to\mathbb{R}^{n_z}\) is said to be injective if, for every \( x_1,x_2\in\mathcal X\) , \( \mathcal T(x_1)=\mathcal T(x_2)\) implies \( x_1=x_2\) ., maps every point \( x\) in the state space \( \mathcal X\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n_x}\) of (1) to a point \( z=\mathcal T(x)\) in the new state space \( \mathcal Z\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n_z}\) , where in general \( n_z\gg n_x\) . The dynamics in the new state space \( \mathcal Z\) is linear up to output injection and given by

where \( A\in\mathbb{R}^{n_z\times n_z}\) and \( B\in\mathbb{R}^{n_z\times n_y}\) are chosen such that \( A\) is Hurwitz and the pair \( (A,B)\) is controllable \( (A,B)\) is controllable iff \( \text{rank}\left[\begin{array}{cccc} B & AB & \dots & A^{n_z-1}B \end{array}\right]=n_z\) .. Although the transformed system (5) in the new coordinates is bounded-input bounded-state stable, the original nonlinear system (1) need not be Lyapunov stable. Moreover, (5) is not a linear system, but its linearity is only up to output injection, i.e., it is linear when the injected output \( y=h(x)=h(\mathcal T^*(z))\) is ignored, where \( \mathcal T^*\) is the left-inverse of \( \mathcal T\) .

Since

it follows from (5) that, for a given \( A\in\mathbb{R}^{n_z\times n_z}\) and \( B\in\mathbb{R}^{n_z\times n_y}\) , \( \mathcal T\) must satisfy the following PDE:

with \( \mathcal T(0_{n_x})=0_{n_z}\) .

To obtain a state estimate \( \hat x(t)\) in the original coordinates \( \mathbb{R}^{n_x}\) , the map \( \mathcal T\) must be injective, which implies the existence of its left-inverse \( \mathcal T^*\) , i.e., \( \mathcal T^*(\mathcal T(x))=x\) . When the inverse exists, the KKL observer is obtained as

where \( \hat z(t)\) denotes the estimate of \( z(t)\) . Notice that KKL observer (7) is a special case of (2), where \( \Phi(\hat z,y)\) is affine in \( \hat z\) and \( \Psi(\hat z,y) \mathrm{:=} \mathcal T^*(\hat z)\) .

We explore sufficient conditions that ensure the existence of an injective transformation map \( \mathcal T\) such that the estimate \( \hat x(t)\) obtained from the KKL observer (7) satisfies the estimation error requirement (4).

Let \( x(t;x_0)\) denote the solution trajectory of (1.a) initialized at \( x_0\in\mathcal X\) .

This assumption restricts our attention to nonlinear systems whose state \( x(t)\) remains bounded in forward time.

Notice that (8) implies the existence of a class \( \mathcal K\) function \( \varrho\) such that, for every \( z,\hat z\in\mathcal Z\) ,

We have \( \dot{\hat z}(t)-\dot z(t)=A[\hat z(t)-z(t)]\) . Since \( A\) is chosen to be a Hurwitz matrix, \( \|\hat z(t)-z(t)\|\) converges to zero exponentially. Thus, if \( \mathcal T\) is uniformly injective, the estimation error \( \xi(t)\) also converges to zero asymptotically because, from (8), we have

and \( \rho(\|z(t)-\hat z(t)\|)\rightarrow 0\) as \( \|z(t)-\hat z(t)\|\to 0\) .

Although we assumed that (1) is forward complete in \( \mathcal X\) , it may not be backward complete in \( \mathcal X\) . That is, the state trajectories of (1) may leave \( \mathcal X\) , and may even go unbounded, in negative time (\( t\in\mathbb R_{<0}\) ). The notion of backward \( \mathcal O\) -distinguishability guarantees the existence of a finite negative time such that the output maps, corresponding to a pair of trajectories initialized at different points in \( \mathcal X\) , can be distinguished before any of the trajectories leaves \( \mathcal O\supset\mathcal X\) in backward time. Backward \( \mathcal O\) -distinguishability is related to the notions of determinability or constructability in linear systems [32, 11].

It turns out that Assumptions 1 and 2 are sufficient for the existence of a uniformly injective map \( \mathcal T\) satisfying (6). This result is obtained in slightly different forms in [9] and [11]. The most recent result provided by [12] can be restated as follows.

Theorem 1 shows that there exists an injective map \( \mathcal T\) and its left-inverse \( \mathcal T^*\) such that the estimate \( \hat x(t)\) obtained from the KKL observer (7) asymptotically converges to the true state \( x(t)\) . Therefore, relying on Assumptions 1 and 2, and fixing \( n_z = n_y(2n_x+1)\) , \( A\in\mathbb{R}^{n_z\times n_z}\) a Hurwitz matrix, and \( B\in\mathbb{R}^{n_z\times n_y}\) such that \( (A,B)\) is controllable, we can learn the transformation map \( \mathcal T\) and its left-inverse \( \mathcal T^*\) .

Let \( \hat{\mathcal T}_{\theta}\) and \( \hat{\mathcal T}^*_{\eta}\) be parametrized neural networks that approximate \( \mathcal T\) and \( \mathcal T^*\) , respectively. Here, \( \theta\in\mathbb{R}^{n_\theta}\) and \( \eta\in\mathbb{R}^{n_\eta}\) are vectors containing all the weights and biases of the neural networks. Then, the optimal values of \( \theta\) and \( \eta\) are defined as follows:

where \( x(\tau;\chi)\in\mathcal X\) denotes the state at time \( \tau\in[0,\infty)\) initialized at \( x(0)=\chi\in\mathcal X\) , and

is the residual of PDE (6) at \( x\in\mathcal X\) .

The optimization problems in (11) are mathematically well-defined and can be numerically solved up to local minima by sampling solution trajectories of (1) and (5). Since the matrices \( A\) and \( B\) are fixed and the function \( f\) is known, it is possible to generate trajectories of \( x\) and \( z\) numerically. The only problem comes from the fact that, given \( x_0\in\mathcal X\) , we do not know the initial condition of \( z\) because \( z_0 = {\mathcal T} (x_0)\) . For an arbitrary \( z_0\) , note that the solution of (5) satisfies

Since \( A\) is Hurwitz, \( \|\exp(At)z_0\| \to 0\) exponentially fast, and the effect of the initial condition \( z_0\) vanishes from \( z(t;z_0)\) over time \( t\) . Consequently, for any \( \varepsilon > 0\) and \( t > t_*(\varepsilon, z_0)\) with

we have

with \( \varepsilon>0\) the upper bound of the impact of the initial condition \( z_0\) on the norm \( \|z(t;z_0)\|\) , \( \lambda_{\min}(A)\) the real part of the eigenvalue of \( A\) with smallest magnitude, and \( V\) obtained from the eigendecomposition of \( A=V\Lambda V^{-1}\) , which is assumed to be diagonalizable. Therefore,

where \( t_*\mathrm{:=} t_*(\varepsilon,z_0)\) . As time progresses, the trajectory \( z(t;z_0^i)\) becomes almost independent of the choice of the initial condition \( z_0\) . This observation leads to the following data generation procedure.

Initial condition sampling: We sample \( p\in\mathbb Z_{>0}\) initial points \( \left\{ (x_0^i,z_0^i) \right\}_{i \in [p]}\) uniformly in \( \mathcal X \times \mathcal Z\) using Latin hypercube, orthogonal, or random sampling methods.

Trajectory generation: For all \( i \in [p]\) , we simulate (1) and (5) with initial condition \( (x_0^i, z_0^i)\) from \( t_1 = 0\) to \( t_{\tau} = T\) , where \( T\in\mathbb R_{>0}\) is chosen to be large.

Truncation: For all \( i \in [p]\) , the values of \( z\) -trajectory for \( t_k \geq t_{k_*}\) are kept and others are discarded, where

The truncation leads to the following datasets:

Note that, for all \( i\in[p]\) and \( t_k\geq t_{k_*}\) , we have \( z(t_k,z_0^i) \approx \mathcal T(x(t_k,x_0^i))\) .

The optimization problems in (11) minimize the loss functions that account for the deviation of the neural networks \( \hat{\mathcal T}_\theta\) and \( \hat{\mathcal T}_\eta^*\) with respect to the data trajectories. To this end, we can exploit the sampled data

for learning \( \hat{\mathcal T}_\theta\) and \( \hat{\mathcal T}_\eta^*\) . We first learn \( \hat{\mathcal T}_\theta\) and then use it to learn \( \hat{\mathcal T}_\eta^*\) by approximating the learning problems (11.a) and (11.b), respectively.

4.3.1 Learning transformation map \( \hat{\mathcal T}_\theta\)

4.3.2 Learning inverse map \( \hat{\mathcal T}_\eta^*\)

Fig. 1 illustrates the workflow of our proposed learning algorithm. Our procedure deconstructs the autoencoder framework used in previous works such as [27, 29] into learning the transformations \( \hat{\mathcal T}_\theta\) and \( \hat{\mathcal T}_\eta^*\) disjointly. This deconstruction serves to address two fundamental issues with the previous design choices:

1. The joint encoder-decoder structure is inherently susceptible to conflicting gradients between the different components of the objective, which might result in the optimization getting stuck in bad local minima. This would not only degrade the overall accuracy of the learned solutions but also create the risk of failing to enforce the latent output of the autoencoder to reside within \( \mathcal{Z}\) , leading to a discrepancy between the input distributions of \( \hat{\mathcal{T}}_\eta^*\) during online operation.
2. The data generation process is dependent on the truncation of the simulated trajectories to get rid of the transient effects due to the initialization of \( z\) -trajectories using the contraction property of (5). However, this procedure does not allow us to freely choose pairings of initial conditions \( (x_0, z_0)\) , which might result in uneven sampling of certain parts of the state space. This issue has previously been addressed in [28] and [29] by first simulating the system backward in time from the chosen initial conditions in \( \mathcal{X}\) , then obtaining the corresponding values in \( \mathcal{Z}\) by simulating forward from negative time to \( t = 0\) . However, this setup is inherently infeasible for stable systems, and some unstable systems as well, that blow up in negative time.

In our decoupled learning procedure, we first learn \( \hat\theta^\star\) in (15) for the forward map \( \hat{\mathcal{T}}_\theta:\mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathcal{Z}\) by fitting the dataset \( (X,Z)\) using (14) as a loss function. The learned forward map is then used to generate a new dataset \( (Z',X')\) , with sampled initial conditions

The change in order between \( Z'\) and \( X'\) in the dataset notation means that \( Z'\) serves in this instance as the features and \( X'\) the labels. Our access to the forward map \( \hat{\mathcal{T}}_{\hat\theta^\star}:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal Z\) allows us to be independent of the truncation process and directly map the sampled initial conditions in \( \mathcal{X}\) to their values in \( \mathcal{Z}\) , therefore allowing us to choose the distribution of the initial conditions while avoiding system blow-ups in backward time. The parameters \( \hat\eta^\star\) in (17) for the inverse map \( \hat{\mathcal{T}}_\eta^*\) is then learned by minimizing (16) on the new dataset \( (Z',X')\) . The act of decoupling the training of \( \hat{\mathcal{T}}_\theta\) and \( \hat{\mathcal{T}}_\eta^*\) therefore avoids the risk of conflicting gradients between (14) and (16), while ensuring that \( \hat{\mathcal{T}}_\eta^*\) is indeed trained using data from the correct distribution.

In practice, there are uncertainties in system dynamics, i.e.,

where \( w(t)\in\mathbb R^{n_x}\) and \( v(t)\in\mathbb R^{n_y}\) denote the model uncertainty and the measurement noise, respectively. In the presence of uncertainties, the objective of the observer changes from steering the estimation error to zero as in (4) to steering it “close” to zero. That is, the observer must ensure that the estimation error (3) satisfies an input-to-state stability bound

where \( \xi(t)\) is the estimation error defined in (3), \( \xi_0=\xi(0)\) is the initial estimation error, \( \beta\) is a class-\( \mathcal{KL}\) function A function \( \beta:\mathbb R_{\geq 0}\times\mathbb R_{\geq 0}\to\mathbb R_{\geq 0}\) is of class \( \mathcal{KL}\) if for each fixed \( t\in\mathbb R_{\geq 0}\) , \( \beta(\cdot,t)\) is of class \( \mathcal K\) , and for each fixed \( r\in\mathbb R_{\geq 0}\) , \( \beta(r,t)\to 0\) as \( t\to\infty\) . that asymptotically converges to zero as \( t\to\infty\) , and \( \gamma_1,\gamma_2\) are class-\( \mathcal K_\infty\) functions. From (21), it is evident that in the absence of uncertainty \( w(t)\) and noise \( v(t)\) , the estimate \( \hat x(t)\) asymptotically converges to the true state \( x(t)\) , thus satisfying (4). Moreover, (21) imposes robustness criterion on the observer’s state estimate under uncertainties. In other words, as the magnitudes of the uncertainties increase, (21) ensures that there is a graceful degradation of the state estimate, so the estimation error remains bounded as long as the uncertainties are bounded.

Let \( x(t;x_0,w)\) denote the state of (20.a) at time \( t\in\mathbb R_{\geq 0}\) initialized at \( x(0)=x_0\) and driven by \( w_{[0,t]}\) .

Assumption 3((I)) is a standard assumption in robust state estimation [33]. Assumption 3((II)) requires that the deterministic system (1) does a good job in describing the uncertain system (20). Providing such a guarantee is widely studied in system identification, and the reader is referred to [34, 35, 36, 37] for more details.

Define the error in the \( z\) -coordinate as \( \tilde z(t)\mathrm{:=} z(t)-\hat z(t)\) . Then, from (5) and (7), we have

where

with \( x(t)\mathrm{:=} x(t;x_0,w)\) and \( \bar{x}(t)\mathrm{:=} x(t;x_0,0)\) .

Note that \( \sigma(t)\in\mathbb{R}^{n_y}\) in (23) remains bounded for bounded uncertainty \( w(t)\) and noise \( v(t)\) due to Assumption 3. That is, for every \( x(t),\bar{x}(t)\in\mathcal X\) and \( t\in\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}\) ,

where \( \overline w,\overline v\) are given in Assumption 3(i) and \( \ell_h<\infty\) with

because \( h(\cdot)\) is smooth and \( \mathcal X\) is a compact set. In the last step of (24), we used

The lemmas below, though familiar in various forms, are presented here with precise quantification of parameters, which are essential for deriving input-to-state stability bounds of the estimation error in the following sections. Moreover, these bounds are also used in Section 8 to explicitly compute the thresholds for detecting and isolating sensor faults.

Recall \( z=\mathcal T(x)\) , where

with \( \bar{x}(t)\mathrm{:=} x(t;x_0,0)\) the noise-free state trajectory. Also, recall the dynamics of \( \hat z(t)=\hat{\mathcal T}_\theta(\hat x(t))\) given in (19).

The proof of this lemma is straightforward. A similar result can be obtained when \( A\) is not diagonalizable by using the Jordan form of \( A\) ; see [38, Appendix C.5]. However, since diagonalizable matrices are dense in the space of square matrices and also since \( A\) is a design matrix, the diagonalizability assumption is mild.

Given that the activation functions used in the neural network \( \hat{\mathcal T}_\eta^*\) are Lipschitz continuous, e.g., Rectified Linear Unit (ReLU) networks, we show that the KKL observer (7) for the noise-free system (1) is robust to the neural network approximation error. We base our result on the following lemma.

There exists a class \( \mathcal K_\infty\) function \( \alpha\) such that, for every \( z\in\mathcal Z\) , the neural network approximation error \( \mathcal{E}^*(z)\) appearing in (18) satisfies

This is because \( \|\mathcal{E}^*(z)\|\leq \|\mathcal T^*(z)\| + \|\hat{\mathcal T}_\eta^*(z)\|\) . Then, the above inequality follows from (8) and (30) with \( \alpha(\|z\|)=\rho(\|z\|)+\ell_\eta \|z\|\) .

Because the state space \( \mathcal X\subset\mathbb{R}^{n_x}\) is bounded, \( h(\cdot)\) is a smooth map, and \( A\) is Hurwitz, there exists a compact set \( \mathcal Z\subset\mathbb{R}^{n_z}\) containing the trajectory \( z(t;\mathcal T(x_0))\) of (5) for every \( t\in\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}\) and every \( x_0\in\mathcal X\) . Thus, as a consequence of (8) and (30), there exists a finite approximation bound \( \epsilon^*>0\) satisfying

There have been several attempts [44, 45, 46, 47] to estimate \( \epsilon^*\) and show that it can be reduced by improving the design and learning technique of the neural network, and also by increasing the size (number of initialization points \( p\) and sampling frequency \( \tau/T\) ) of the dataset \( (X,Z)\) (see [48]).

Inequality (32) says that the estimation error exponentially converges to a ball whose radius is dictated by a supremum of the approximation error of the inverse map. This indicates that one can achieve better estimation performance by improving the learning of \( \hat{\mathcal T}_\eta^*\) . A general rule of thumb for improving the learning of \( \hat{\mathcal T}^*\) is to choose a deeper neural network and generate more training data through simulations.

We now analyze the robustness of the learned observer (19) to estimate the state of an uncertain nonlinear system (20). Note that the design method of KKL observers as presented in Sections 3 and 4 remains the same for (20).

Given that the model uncertainties and sensor noise are bounded, the above result shows that the KKL observer is robust in terms of input-to-state stability of the estimation error; see [49]. Moreover, it can be observed that improving the learning of \( \hat{\mathcal T}_\eta^*\) while choosing \( |\lambda_{\min}(A)|\) to be large and \( \text{cond}(V)\) to be small For instance, when \( A\) is a diagonal matrix, we have \( V=I_{n_z}\) and \( \text{cond}(V)=1\) . reduces the estimation error.

We generate synthetic datasets and train models for each of the systems (40)–(43) according to our proposed methodology in Section 4. For all systems, we construct the dataset \( (X,Z)\) by sampling initial conditions over \( [-1,1]^{n_x}\) using Latin hypercube sampling, with \( n_x\) denoting the system dimension, which is 2 and 3 for (40)–(41) and (42)–(43), respectively. We sampled 100 initial conditions for (40), (41), and (43), while we used 200 samples for (42). From each sampled initial condition, we generate system trajectories using Runge-Kutta 4 over a time interval of \( [0, 50]\) .

We model the forward map \( \hat{\mathcal{T}}_\theta\) and the inverse map \( \hat{\mathcal{T}}_\eta\) as multi-layer perceptions, trained using the synthetic datasets generated for each system. The hyperparameter specifications for each model are presented in Table 1.

Simulation results for each system are illustrated in Fig. 2. Each trajectory is generated from a random initial condition, different from the ones in the dataset \( X\) , and each component of the model uncertainty and measurement noise is sampled from \( \mathcal{N}(0, 0.1)\) for the reverse Duffing oscillator, van der Pol oscillator and Rössler attractor, whereas for the Lorenz attractor, it is sampled from \( \mathcal{N}(0,2)\) . The simulations demonstrate the capability of our method to estimate the unmeasured states with remarkable accuracy even in the presence of model uncertainties and measurement noise.

We derive upper bounds on the residuals \( r_i(t)\) .

We use Proposition 3 for computing the threshold \( \tau_i(t)\) on the residuals since

where \( \hat\epsilon^*\) is an estimate of \( \epsilon^*\) . Therefore, on the test dataset, we can choose the threshold as

In a steady state when \( t\) becomes large, it holds that \( r_i(t) \leq \tau_i\) when there are no sensor faults. When the residual \( r_i(t)\) surpasses \( \tau_i\) , it signifies that the measured output is significantly different from the predicted output. Since \( \tau_i\) is the threshold in a fault-free case, sensor faults can be detected by measuring the residuals \( r_i(t)\) and raising an alert whenever \( r_i(t) > \tau_i\) for any \( i\) and any \( t\in\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}\) .

A sensor fault is detected whenever the residual \( r_i(t)\) surpasses the threshold \( \tau_i\) . However, \( r_i(t)\) exceeding \( \tau_i\) and having the highest value among other residuals do not mean that sensor \( i\) is faulty. This is because a fault in sensor \( j\) distorts the output \( y_j(t)\) , which is filtered through the observer dynamics and then transformed by \( (h_j\circ \hat{\mathcal T}_\eta^*)(\cdot)\) . Since the neural network \( \hat{\mathcal T}_\eta^*\) is not necessarily a diagonal function, the fault in sensor \( j\) can induce a large residual \( r_i(t)\) , \( i\neq j\) , even when sensor \( i\) is not faulty. This phenomenon can also be observed in Fig. 7(c) and 8(c), which are discussed below. Due to interdependencies caused by the non-diagonal structure of \( \hat{\mathcal T}_\eta^*\) , the transients after the occurrence of a fault may persist above the threshold, which causes difficulty in precisely isolating sensor faults merely from the residuals \( r_i(t)\) .

Based on our empirical observations, differentiated residuals \( \tilde r_i(t_k)\) are better suited for fault isolation. A spike is generated in the differentiated residual \( \tilde r_i(t_k)\) whenever an abrupt fault (\( \phi_i(t)=0\) or \( \zeta_i(t)\neq 0\) ) is introduced in sensor \( i\) at time \( t_k\) . The explanation for this spike is straightforward because, in the differentiated residual, the fault in the output also gets numerically differentiated. Therefore, an abrupt fault results in a spike in the differentiated residual. However, when the fault signal \( \zeta_i(t)\) is smooth and of low magnitude, it is difficult to isolate it. Nevertheless, in many cases, faults are irregular, non-smooth signals.

We generate test datasets, where we denote state trajectories \( x^j(t_k)\mathrm{:=} x(t_k;x_0^j,0)\) that are initialized at \( q\) initial points \( x(0)=x_0^j\) , for \( j=1,\dots,q\) , and the corresponding observer estimates as \( \hat x^j(t_k)\mathrm{:=} \hat x(t_k;\hat{\mathcal T}_\eta^*(z_0^j))\) . We simulate the KKL observer and compute the residuals \( r_1^j(t_k),\dots,r_{n_y}^j(t_k)\) , for \( k=0,\dots,T\) , where \( T\in\mathbb{N}\) and

Here, \( t_T>0\) is chosen large enough to allow the observer to converge to a neighborhood of the original state. Then, the corresponding differentiated residuals \( \tilde r_1^j(t_k),\dots,\tilde r_{n_y}^j(t_k)\) , for \( k=1,\dots,T\) , are obtained using (47). Let \( t_c\) , for \( c<T\) , denote the minimum time at which the observer is in the steady state. Then an empirical threshold for differentiated residuals is computed on the test dataset as follows:

Given that the learned KKL observer estimates the state of the system accurately, \( \tilde r_i(t)\leq r_\Delta\) remains steady when \( t_k\) becomes sufficiently large. Therefore, whenever the differentiated residual \( \tilde r_i(t)\) surpasses the empirical threshold \( r_\Delta\) given by (50), an alert can be raised that sensor \( i\) is faulty. We validate this observation via simulations in the next section.

We consider a network of Kuramoto oscillators and show that FDI of a highly nonlinear system can be achieved using the learned KKL observer (19), even in the presence of model uncertainties and measurement noise. Both sensor failure and degradation faults are demonstrated.

The network of Kuramoto oscillators describes synchronization phenomena in interconnected systems and has applications in electrical power networks, multi-agent coordination, and distributed software systems [58]. The dynamics of a network of Kuramoto oscillators with \( n\) nodes is given as

where \( \theta_{i}(t)\in\mathbb{S}^1\) is the phase angle of node \( i = 1,\dots,n\) , \( \omega_{i}\in\mathbb{R}\) is the natural frequency of node \( i\) , and \( a_{ij}\geq 0\) denotes the coupling between node \( i\) and \( j\) . In the literature, the state trajectories of (51) are often represented graphically as \( \sin(\theta_{i})\) to better illustrate their synchronization. We follow the same convention in our simulations.

We consider a network of \( n=10\) nodes with randomly generated natural frequencies \( \omega_{i}\) and couplings \( a_{ij}\) . The measurements are chosen as \( y= \begin{bmatrix} \theta_{1} & \theta_{2} & \theta_{3} & \theta_{4} & \theta_{5} \end{bmatrix}^\top\) . A set of 100 initial conditions is generated in \( [-2,2]^{10}\) using Latin hypercube sampling. We choose Runge-Kutta as our numerical ODE solver to simulate (51) and (7) over a time interval \( [0,30]\) , partitioned into \( 4000\) sample points for each trajectory. The neural network \( \hat{\mathcal{T}}^*_{\eta}\) is chosen as a fully connected feed-forward network, consisting of 3 hidden layers of 250 neurons with ReLU activation functions. Model training is facilitated by data standardization and learning rate scheduling. Following [11], the parameters of KKL observer (19) are chosen as

where \( \Lambda \in \mathbb{R}^{(2n_{x}+1) \times (2n_{x}+1)}\) is a diagonal matrix with diagonal elements linearly distributed in \( [-15,-21]\) , \( \Gamma \in \mathbb{R}^{2n_{x}+1}\) is a column vector of ones, and \( I_{n_{y}}\) is the identity matrix of size \( n_{y} \times n_{y}\) . Here, \( n_x\) and \( n_{y}\) are 10 and 5, respectively, and \( n_z = n_y(2n_x+1)=105\) .

Figures 7–9 show the results of FDI for a network of Kuramoto oscillators using the learned KKL observer. The theoretical thresholds \( \tau_i\) of the residuals \( r_i(t)\) computed by (49) are shown in the figures in the third column, while the empirical threshold \( r_\Delta=4.74\) is computed using (50) according to the method described in Section 8.2. Going from left to right, the figures show (a) the predicted output \( \hat{y}_i\) obtained by the learned KKL observer and the true output \( y_i\) measured by the faulty sensors, (b) the active fault-inducing signals \( \phi_i(t)\) or \( \zeta_i(t)\) , (c) the generated residuals \( r_i\) and their respective thresholds \( \tau_i\) and (d) the differentiated residuals \( \tilde{r}_i\) and their common threshold \( \tilde r_\Delta\) .

Fig. 7 shows that our method is capable of detecting and isolating sensor failures, which is demonstrated by inducing sensor \( {4}\) ’s failure with \( \phi_{4}(t) = 0\) for \( t\geq 10\) . Before the fault, Fig. 7(a) shows the observer successfully tracking the noisy output of the system after a short transient period induced by the initialization \( \hat{z}(0) = 0\) . The introduction of sensor 4’s failure at time \( t=10\) (Fig. 7(b)) causes the predicted output to diverge from the actual output, producing large residuals that are observed in Fig. 7(c). Although sensor 4 failed, we notice in Fig. 7(c) that the residuals corresponding to sensor 3 and 5 crossed their respective thresholds, whereas the residual corresponding to sensor 4 remained under the threshold. This indicates that monitoring the residuals can allow fault detection but not isolation. For fault isolation, we monitor differentiated residuals in Fig. 7(d) and observe the spike in sensor 4’s differentiated residual at \( t=10\) , accurately indicating its failure.

Fig. 8 and 9 demonstrate the detection and isolation of sensor degradation. In Fig. 8(b), sensors \( {1}\) and \( {5}\) are introduced with a bias \( \zeta_{1}(t)=1\) , at \( t\geq 5\) , and \( \zeta_{5}(t)=1\) at \( t \geq 15\) . Fig. 8(a) shows output prediction. Each fault is detected at the moment of occurrence from the residuals in Fig. 8(c) and is isolated using the differentiated residuals in Fig. 8(d). Lastly, Fig. 9(b) shows the fault signal on sensor \( 3\) , which is a gradually increasing white noise. Fig. 9(a) shows output prediction and Fig. 9(c) and Fig. 9(d) illustrate fault detection and isolation, respectively.

[1] A. Teel and L. Praly. Tools for semiglobal stabilization by partial state and output feedback. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 33(5):1443–1488, 1995.

[2] W. Chen and M. Saif. Observer-based strategies for actuator fault detection, isolation and estimation for certain class of uncertain nonlinear systems. IET Control Theory & Applications, 1(6):1672–1680, 2007.

[3] F. Dettù, S. Formentin, and S. Matteo Savaresi. Joint vehicle state and parameters estimation via twin-in-the-loop observers. Vehicle System Dynamics, 62(9):2423–2449, 2024.

[4] J.-P. Gauthier and I. Kupka. Deterministic Observation Theory and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2001.

[5] H. K. Khalil and L. Praly. High-gain observers in nonlinear feedback control. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 24(6):993–1015, 2014.

[6] P. Bernard. Observer Design for Nonlinear Systems, volume 479. Springer, 2019.

[7] D. Boutat and G. Zheng. Observer Design for Nonlinear Dynamical Systems. Springer, 2021.

[8] N. Kazantzis and C. Kravaris. Nonlinear observer design using Lyapunov’s auxiliary theorem. Systems & Control Letters, 34(5):241–247, 1998.

[9] V. Andrieu and L. Praly. On the existence of a Kazantzis–Kravaris/Luenberger observer. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 45(2):432–456, 2006.

[10] V. Andrieu. Convergence speed of nonlinear Luenberger observers. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 52(5):2831–2856, 2014.

[11] P. Bernard, V. Andrieu, and D. Astolfi. Observer design for continuous-time dynamical systems. Annual Reviews in Control, 53:224–248, 2022.

[12] L. Brivadis, V. Andrieu, P. Bernard, and U. Serres. Further remarks on KKL observers. Systems & Control Letters, 172:105429, 2023.

[13] P. Bernard and V. Andrieu. Luenberger observers for nonautonomous nonlinear systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 64(1):270–281, 2018.

[14] V. Andrieu and P. Bernard. Remarks about the numerical inversion of injective nonlinear maps. In 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 5428–5434, 2021.

[15] D. Luenberger. Observing the state of a linear system. IEEE Transactions on Military Electronics, 8(2):74–80, 1964.

[16] D. Luenberger. Observers for multivariable systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 11(2):190–197, 1966.

[17] D. Luenberger. An introduction to observers. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 16(6):596–602, 1971.

[18] A. Shoshitaishvili. Singularities for projections of integral manifolds with applications to control and observation problems. In Theory of Singularities and its Applications, pages 295–333. American Mathematical Society, 1990.

[19] A. Shoshitaishvili. On control branching systems with degenerate linearization. In IFAC Symposium on Nonlinear Control Systems, pages 495–500, 1992.

[20] A. J. Krener and M. Xiao. Nonlinear observer design in the Siegel domain. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 41(3):932–953, 2002.

[21] G. Kreisselmeier and R. Engel. Nonlinear observers for autonomous Lipschitz continuous systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 48(3):451–464, 2003.

[22] V. Pachy, V. Andrieu, P. Bernard, L. Brivadis, and L. Praly. On the existence of KKL observers with nonlinear contracting dynamics. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 58(21):262–267, 2024.

[23] P. Bernard and M. Maghenem. Reconstructing indistinguishable solutions via a set-valued KKL observer. Automatica, 166:111703, 2024.

[24] R. Engel. Nonlinear observers for Lipschitz continuous systems with inputs. International Journal of Control, 80(4):495–508, 2007.

[25] P. Bernard. Luenberger observers for nonlinear controlled systems. In 56th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 3676–3681, 2017.

[26] L. d. C. Ramos, F. Di Meglio, V. Morgenthaler, L. F. F. da Silva, and P. Bernard. Numerical design of Luenberger observers for nonlinear systems. In 59th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 5435–5442, 2020.

[27] J. Peralez and M. Nadri. Deep learning-based Luenberger observer design for discrete-time nonlinear systems. In 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 4370–4375, 2021.

[28] M. Buisson-Fenet, L. Bahr, V. Morgenthaler, and F. Di Meglio. Towards gain tuning for numerical KKL observers. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 56(2):4061–4067, 2023.

[29] M. U. B. Niazi, J. Cao, X. Sun, A. Das, and K. H. Johansson. Learning-based design of Luenberger observers for autonomous nonlinear systems. In American Control Conference (ACC), pages 3048–3055, 2023.

[30] K. Miao and K. Gatsis. Learning robust state observers using neural ODEs. In Learning for Dynamics and Control Conference, pages 208–219, 2023.

[31] J. Peralez and M. Nadri. Deep model-free KKL observer: A switching approach. In Learning for Dynamics and Control Conference, 2024.

[32] P. J. Antsaklis and A. N. Michel. A Linear Systems Primer. Springer Birkhäuser Boston, MA, 2007.

[33] B. Chen and G. Hu. Nonlinear state estimation under bounded noises. Automatica, 98:159–168, 2018.

[34] M. Milanese, J. Norton, H. Piet-Lahanier, and É. Walter. Bounding Approaches to System Identification. Springer New York, NY, 1996.

[35] H. Mania, M. I. Jordan, and B. Recht. Active learning for nonlinear system identification with guarantees. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23:1–30, 2022.

[36] L. Ljung. System Identification: Theory for the User. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2 edition, 1999.

[37] M. Abudia, J. A. Rosenfeld, and R. Kamalapurkar. Carleman lifting for nonlinear system identification with guaranteed error bounds. In American Control Conference (ACC), pages 929–934, 2023.

[38] E. D. Sontag. Mathematical Control Theory: Deterministic Finite Dimensional Systems, volume 6. Springer New York, NY, 2 edition, 2013.

[39] A. Virmaux and K. Scaman. Lipschitz regularity of deep neural networks: Analysis and efficient estimation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2018.

[40] C. Szegedy, W. Zaremba, I. Sutskever, J. Bruna, D. Erhan, I. Goodfellow, and R. Fergus. Intriguing properties of neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6199, 2013.

[41] M. Fazlyab, A. Robey, H. Hassani, M. Morari, and G. Pappas. Efficient and accurate estimation of Lipschitz constants for deep neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019.

[42] M. Jordan and A. G. Dimakis. Exactly computing the local Lipschitz constant of ReLU networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:7344–7353, 2020.

[43] Y. Ebihara, X. Dai, T. Yuno, V. Magron, D. Peaucelle, and S. Tarbouriech. Local Lipschitz constant computation of ReLU-FNNs: Upper bound computation with exactness verification. In European Control Conference (ECC), pages 2506–2511, 2024.

[44] J. Sokolić, R. Giryes, G. Sapiro, and M. R. Rodrigues. Robust large margin deep neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 65(16):4265–4280, 2017.

[45] K. Kawaguchi, L. P. Kaelbling, and Y. Bengio. Generalization in deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.05468, 2017.

[46] D. Jakubovitz, R. Giryes, and M. R. Rodrigues. Generalization error in deep learning. In Compressed sensing and its applications, pages 153–193. Springer, 2019.

[47] Y. Cao and Q. Gu. Generalization bounds of stochastic gradient descent for wide and deep neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019.

[48] M. Mohri, A. Rostamizadeh, and A. Talwalkar. Foundations of Machine Learning. MIT press, 2018.

[49] E. D. Sontag and Y. Wang. On characterizations of the input-to-state stability property. Systems & Control Letters, 24(5):351–359, 1995.

[50] G.-R. Duan and H.-H. Yu. LMIs in Control Systems: Analysis, Design and Applications. CRC press, 2013.

[51] H. Roger and R. J. Charles. Topics in Matrix Analysis. Cambridge University Press, 1991.

[52] F. Pasqualetti, S. Zampieri, and F. Bullo. Controllability metrics, limitations and algorithms for complex networks. IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, 1(1):40–52, 2014.

[53] K.-C. Goh, M. G. Safonov, and G. P. Papavassilopoulos. A global optimization approach for the BMI problem. In 33rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, volume 3, pages 2009–2014, 1994.

[54] J. Fiala, M. Kočvara, and M. Stingl. PENLAB: A MATLAB solver for nonlinear semidefinite optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1311.5240, 2013.

[55] E. Warner and J. Scruggs. Iterative convex overbounding algorithms for BMI optimization problems. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 50(1):10449–10455, 2017.

[56] K. Zhou and P. P. Khargonekar. Robust stabilization of linear systems with norm-bounded time-varying uncertainty. Systems & Control Letters, 10(1):17–20, 1988.

[57] A. Zemouche, R. Rajamani, B. Boulkroune, H. Rafaralahy, and M. Zasadzinski. \( \mathcal{H}_\infty\) circle criterion observer design for Lipschitz nonlinear systems with enhanced LMI conditions. In American Control Conference (ACC), pages 131–136, 2016.

[58] F. Dörfler and F. Bullo. Synchronization in complex networks of phase oscillators: A survey. Automatica, 50(6):1539–1564, 2014.