This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAC.2018.2831169, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. XX, NO. X, APRIL 2018
On the Strong-Accessibility Test
for Meromorphic Nonlinear Systems
Francesco Carravetta
Abstract—In this paper we show that a couple of matrices
A, B (a ’dynamic’ and a ’control’ matrix), whose components
are in general functions of both state and control variables,
can be associated to any stationary nonlinear system whose
system function is meromorphic (e.g. all components are ratios of
analytic functions) in a way consistent with linear systems theory,
and such that the test of accessibility (from a point p of the system
domain) can be carried out formally as the controllability test for
linear systems: the controllability matrix is built up and the full
rank condition checked at the point p. The test terminates, giving
always an exhaustive answer (yes/no) within a fixed number of
steps, a feature not owned by the classical accessibility test, based
on the calculation of vectors from an infinite generator of the
control Lie algebra. Further, it is proved that the accessibility
from a point p implies the accessibility from every point of the
largest open connected subset of the system domain including p,
which, for the sub class of σπ-systems (in IRn ) can be readily
determined as a certain union of orthants of IRn .
Index Terms—Nonlinear system, Controllability, Accessibility,
Meromorphic function, Differential field, Feedback linearizabil-
ity.
I. I NTRODUCTION
T He present article is a development of certain results by
E. Aranda-Bricaire, C. H. Moog and J. B. Pomet, on the
strong-accessibility of meromorphic nonlinear systems, first
issued in the paper [1], and reported as well, within a system-
atic presentation of an algebraic theory of nonlinear control
systems, in the textbook [2]. The article [1] has then to be
considered preparatory to the present paper, which adopts the
same algebraic-inspired setting, so that a preliminary careful
reading of it is strongly advised. The paper is the completion,
and also an extension and an improvement, of a preliminary
version on the same topic, included in the conference paper
[3], where the proof of the main result was incomplete though,
and not related to the basic theoretical background of [1].
The present paper also includes new examples as well as a
comparison with the classical controllability test, an issue that
was not considered in [3].
A. Background
A control affine system, which is C k , k ≥ 1, in some
open domain X of an n-dimensional k-differentiable manifold
M, is said to be accessible (resp. strongly accessible) from a
point x ∈ X if the set of reachable (resp. reachable at a time
t ∈ [0, T ] ⊂ IR) states from x has (resp. has ∀T > 0) a non
F. Carravetta is with the Institute of Systems Analysis and Computer
Science of the Italian National Research Council, Rome, Via dei Taurini 19,
ITALY e-mail francesco.carravetta@iasi.cnr.it .
Manuscript received July XX, 2017; revised xxxx xx, 2017, accepted xxxx
xx, 2018.
0018-9286 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
empty interior. In the literature a distinguished concept of con-
trollability – at a given point x, also said local controllability
– is often found, meaning a stronger property that requires,
besides the accessibility from x, that x belongs to the interior
of the set of reachable points. However, the two terms are often
considered interchangeable in most of literature, and we will
do so in the sequel: with ’controllability’ we will mean always
strong-accessibility. Strong-accessibility in a point x ∈ M
is a necessary and sufficient condition for the equivalence –
through static feedback and a change of coordinates – of the
original system with a linear and controllable one, at least
in a neighborhood of the point x (exact linearization, [4]–
[6]). Strong-accessibility is characterized through equivalent
differential geometric/algebraic definitions allowing in many
cases a calculation for deciding whether a system is accessible
from a given point. These characterizations rely (logically, not
chronologically) mainly on the work of Sussman [7] where
it is shown that, if the underlying manifold is analytic, the
distribution generated by an analytic family of vector fields,
say V, has always a maximal integral manifold, which is the
set of orbits of the family, and whose tangent bundle is the
distribution itself. A quite direct implication of this result is
that if V is attainable 1 from x than the distribution generated
by V is the tangent-bundle of the whole underlying manifold.
Sussman and Jurdjevic shown in [8] that the converse is true
as well, thus giving a first characterization for the concept
of attainability. In the same paper they first extended the
characterization to the case of strong attainability 2 , showing
that there is an involutive sub-distribution, which they build
up, of the distribution generated by V, and thus by Nagano’s
theorem3 [9] such sub-distribution has a maximal integral
manifold whose tangent bundle is the sub-distribution itself.
The way they built up the sub-distribution (through the Lie
algebra generated by a subset of V) gives a way for testing
the attainability. The authors next showed that similar results
hold as well for testing the (strong) accessibility, of a control
affine system, whose vector fields are f0 , f1 , . . . , fm (the latter
m multiplied by m controls), and such a test consists indeed
in calculating a composition of Lie brackets:
[fi1 , [fi2 , [. . . [fik−1 , fi ]]; (1)
i1 , . . . , ik−1 ∈ {0, . . . , m}; i ∈ {1, . . . , m};
and then in checking that the IR-vector space generated by
vector fields of the type (1) (which is shown to be the smallest
Lie algebra generated by f1 , . . . , fm which is invariant under
1 e.g.the semi-orbits generated by V have a non empty interior.
2 e.g.for any T > 0 the semi-orbits at T have a non empty interior.
3 An important generalization of the Frobenius’s theorem
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAC.2018.2831169, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. XX, NO. X, APRIL 2018
f0 ) has full dimension (n). The details of the above sketched
differential-geometric based approach to the problem of acces-
sibility can be found, among others, in [11]-[12]. A systematic
exposition can be found in [13], and an excellent brief survey
can be found in [14].
The main issue coming out with the accessibility test based
on (1) is that it is not known in advance which ones of the
Lie brackets composition (1) will produce independent vector
fields. In fact, what is known is that the (infinite) set of all
vector fields (1) is a generator of the control Lie algebra
(whose dimension determines the system accessibility), but
numerous Lie brackets may be needed in order to find all the
basis vectors, and the maximum depth of nested Lie bracket
operations is not known a priori.
Starting from the eighties, a new approach to nonlinear
system theory became established, which revisits nonlinear
systems as affine varieties associated to a set of differential
equations in a suitable differential field, and in this way turns
nonlinear system theory into a branch of (differential) alge-
braic geometry. What specifically is a ’system’, in this vision,
is the set of solutions of a given set of differential equations in
a quotient field, specifically the quotient on the ideal generated
by the input variables of a field of meromorphic functions.
As far as this algebraic approach is concerned, the reader
is referred to [15] and references therein. More related to the
present paper is a slightly different algebraic approach that can
be recovered from the papers [16] – [21], and is summarized
in the textbook [2]. In [2] the notion of accessibility is related
to the concept of autonomous element (of a nonlinear system),
whose insight is well explained the book-chapter [21], where
also an extension to systems described by partial differential
equations is studied. In these references it is shown that
the strong-accessibility is equivalent to the non-existence of
autonomous elements for the system. In the paper [1], within
the larger goal of finding a characterization for the existence
of linearizing outputs for meromorphic systems (in other
words, for the differential flatness of the system, which is
equivalent to dynamic feedback linearization [22] – [24]), a
necessary and sufficient condition for the strong-accessibility
of meromorphic systems has been found, which is based on
using differential forms, and is remarkable in that it allows to
derive an accessibility test that terminates in at most n steps
(n being the system dimension), giving always the exhaustive
answer (yes or not) to the question on whether the system
is strongly-accessible at a given point, thus overcoming the
issue connected with the calculation of a basis of the control
Lie algebra from the infinite generator constituted by all vector
fields in the form (1). The latter result is reported in [2] with
a different and simpler proof based on the condition of non-
existence of autonomous elements just mentioned above. It
should be noted though, that the greater simplicity of the
proof in [2], with respect to [1], actually push back to the
interplay between the concept of ’autonomous element’ and
strong-accessibility, whereas the proof given in the original
paper [1], is more analytically related to the usual concepts
of distribution (of vector fields) and co-distribution (of one-
forms).
0018-9286 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
2
B. Contribution of the paper
In the present paper, we rely on the characterization of
accessibility, as described in [1], and go further, by showing
that: first, an accessibility test can be built up which is based
on a rank test of a suitable matrix, as in the classical con-
trollability test for linear stationary systems, and second that,
for meromorphic systems, it is sufficient the test be successful
at just one point, say x, of the domain of analyticity, and
for one value of the indeterminate u (representing the input)
and the system is strongly-accessible from all points of the
connected component of the system analyticity domain which
the point x belongs to. We prove that a couple of matrices
A, B, depending in general on both states and controls, can be
always associated to a nonlinear meromorphic control-affine
system, and the controllability test consists simply in testing
the full-rank condition on the controllability matrix, which is
just the matrix with the same name formally built up in the
same way from A, B as in the linear case. The test comes out
as a direct generalization to the nonlinear case of the linear-
controllability test, and as such, it has a finite termination
depending only on the system dimension. As a matter of fact
it inherits the properties of the algorithm described in [1], that
will be used indeed in the proof of the main result.
As a remarkable type of function which is meromorphic on
a domain that can be regularly determined as a composition of
orthants in IRn , we will point out the so called σπ functions
that we have introduced recently in [25]. These functions
are remarkable because they constitute a kind of ’nonlinear
paradigm’ in that, as shown in [25] (see also [26] for a
survey) a huge class of nonlinear systems can be reduced to
a σπ-system by systems immersion. We mention in passing
that, in addition, any σπ-system can be directly4 reduced to
a quadratic system, by another dense system immersion.
The paper is organized in six sections. Besides the
introduction and the conclusive section, in §2 we give the
main notions about the theoretical background used in §3,
which includes the main result: Theorem 5. In §4 we give a
brief on σπ-systems, and on how to calculate their domain
of meromorphicity and analyticity. In §5 we present two
examples: in the first one we show how apply the test,
whereas in the second one we give a quantification of the
improvement of the new test with respect to the classical one.
II. P RELIMINARIES
We make use of a few differential-algebraic concepts for
which we give here a brief description. Our setting is the same
as in [1], to which the reader is addressed for all details. For
more insight on basic algebraic concepts we point out [27],
and specifically on differential forms we suggest [28].
4 e.g. the immersion of a σπ-system into a quadratic system, as shown in
[25], can be directly accomplished from the system exponents and coefficients:
these indeed, suitably multiplied in pairs, constitute the coefficients of the
quadratic system which the σπ-system is to be immersed into.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAC.2018.2831169, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. XX, NO. X, APRIL 2018 3

A. Fields of meromorphic functions said exact (or integrable). The derivation δ on K(X ) induces
∞ a derivation δ 0 on E as follows,
It is well known that the set of all real C functions on an
open set, say D ⊂ IRn , has the natural algebraic structure of a n (q,+∞)
(k) (k) (k) (k)
X X
0
ring with respect to the usual operations of sum and product. δ ω= (δωi dxi+ωi dδxi )+ (δωj duj +ωj dδuj ).
The sub-ring of the real analytic functions, say A(D) is in i=1 (j,k)=(1,0)
addition an integral domain, thus it can be extended to a field (8)
through quotient (i.e. the associated ring of quotients is a field). In the following, as for internal derivations, we no more
We denote M(D) such extension, whose elements (identified distinguish between derivation of a function φ ∈ K(X ) and
with ratios of analytic functions) will be called meromorphic derivation of a one-form ω ∈ E, and replace δ 0 ω, δφ, with the
functions. usual ’dot’ notation in both cases: ω̇, φ̇.

III. ACCESSIBILITY FOR S TATIONARY S YSTEMS

B. Differential field of a nonlinear control system
A. Dynamic and control matrices of a nonlinear system
Let us consider a differential system of the type Let us consider a stationary nonlinear control system as in
(2), which can be written component-wise:
 
ẋ = f (x) + g(x)u = f (x, u) , (2)
ẋi = fi (x, u), i = 1, . . . , n. (9)
where x ∈ IRn (the state), u ∈ IRq (the control), and f (resp.
g) is a vector (resp. a matrix) of real functions meromorphic on Let us define αi,j , βi,s , for i, j = 1, . . . , n, and s = 1, . . . , q
(k)
some open set X ⊂ IRn . Let C = {xi , uj ; i = 1, . . . , n; j = as follows:
1, . . . m; k ∈ IN}, be a set (infinite and countable) of real ∂fi
αi,j ( = αi,j (x, u)) = , (10)
indeterminates, where u(0) = u, and K(X ) the set of all mero- ∂xj
morphic functions of a finite number of the indeterminates of ∂fi
C, with x ∈ X . Such a set has the algebraic structure of a field, βi,s ( = βi,s (x, u)) = , (11)
∂us
that can be readily inferred by previous section. Further, it has
the structure of differential field, i.e. a field endowed with a set Note that αi,j (resp. βi,s ) is meromorphic on X × IRq (resp.
of derivations, say V with V = {δ}, where δ : K(X ) → K(X ) on X ), and thus αi,j , βi,s ∈ K(X ). For a matrix M let us
is the following derivation (fi : ith entry of f ; gi : ith row of denote Mi,j its (i, j)-th entry, and let us define the matrices
g): (functions of x, u) A ∈ IRn×n , B ∈ IRn×q , as
Ai,j = αi,j , Bi,s = βi,s . (12)
δxi = fi (x) + gi (x)u(0) , i = 1, . . . , n; (3)
δuj
(k)
= uj
(k+1)
, k ≥ 0, ∀j = 1, . . . , q, (4) We call A (resp. B) the dynamic (resp. the control) matrix
associated to the nonlinear system (2).
n (q,+∞)
X ∂φ X ∂φ (k) Moreover, let us define the controllability matrix C (=
∀φ ∈ K(X ) : δφ = δxi + δuj , (5)
∂x (k) C(x, u)), as follows:
(j,k)=(1,0) ∂uj
i=1 i

C = B AB A2 B . . . An−1 B ,
 
(13)
which can be identified with the differential equation (2).
Notice that (5) is always well posed, and consistent with (3), In the following we denote by N (M ) (resp. R(M )) the
(4), since only a finite number of derivatives in the above kernel (resp. the range) spaces of a matrix M .
summations can be non zero. We call the couple (K(X ), δ)
the differential field associated to the nonlinear system (2). We
will consider as well the space of all one-forms associated to
B. Main result
K(X ), namely E, whose canonical base is the (infinite count-
(k)
able) set dC = {dxi , duj , (i, j) = (1, 1) . . . (n, q), k ∈ IN}. Before giving the main result of the section (Theorem 3,
The differential of a function F ∈ K satisfies: and Corollary 4), we need to prove few preliminary lemmas.
Let us denote by D ⊂ X the analyticity domain of system
n (q,+∞)
X ∂F X ∂F (k)
(9). Note that, since the system is meromorphic, the set
dF = dxi + (k)
duj . (6) X \ D, i.e. the subset where the system is undefined, is an
∂xi
i=1 (j,k)=(1,0) ∂uj analytic set5 has empty interior (and, in the usual euclidean
Given ω ∈ E, it always can be written as space IRn , has zero measure).
(1) (1)
n (q,+∞) Lemma 1. For fi , . . . , fn ∈ K(X ), define, for k ≥ 2, the
(k) (k)
X X
ω= ωi dxi + ωj duj . (7) (meromorphic) functions f (k) as follows:
i=1 (j,k)=(1,0) n
(k) (k−1) (k−1)
X
(k) fi = f˙i + fj αj,i , (14)
for suitable ’components’ ωi , ωj ∈ K(X ), where only a finite j=1
number of these components are nonzero. If in addition there
exists F ∈ K(X ) such that ω = dF than the one-form ω is 5A set constituted by zeroes of an analytic function

0018-9286 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAC.2018.2831169, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. XX, NO. X, APRIL 2018 4

with αi,j defined in (10). Then, the following two claims are Now, suppose that, for k > 1, Hk can be written as
equivalent: ( n
(1)
X
Hk = ω = fi dxi :
(i) System (9) satisfies the strong accessibility rank i=1
condition ∀x ∈ D. n
)
(l)
X
fi βi,s = 0 ∀s, ∀l = 1, . . . , k − 1 , (20)
∗ ∗ i=1
(ii) There exists an integer k , 1 ≤ k ≤ n, such that the
condition: (l) (1)
where fi = φli (fi ), with φli = φi ◦ φl−1
i , and φi is the map
n defined by (18). Let us calculate
(l)
X
fi βi,s = 0, ∀s = 1, . . . , q, ∀l = 1, . . . , k ∗ , (15) Hk+1 = {ω ∈ Hk ; ω̇ ∈ Hk }.
i=1
From (20), and (17), since ω ∈ Hk , with k > 1, it is
(1) (1)
implies that f1 , . . . , fn are identically zero. n
(2)
X
ω̇ = fi dxi , (21)
Proof. Let us build up a sequence {Hk } – of spaces of one- i=1
forms on the differential field (K(D), δ) associated to system and thus, in order to condition ω̇ ∈ Hk be verified, there shall
(9) – recursively defined as Hk = {ω ∈ Hk−1 ; ω̇ ∈ Hk−1 } be verified:
with H1 = X, where X = spanK(D) {dx1 , . . . , dxn }. We have n
(2)
X
φli (fi )βi,s = 0 ∀s, ∀l = 1, . . . , k − 1.
( H1 = X ) i=1
n (2) (l+1)
(1) (1) Since φli (fi ) = fi , we have
X
(1)
= ω= fi dxi ; for some f1 ,. . ., fn ∈ K(D) (16)
( n
i=1
(1)
X
Hk+1 = ω = fi dxi :
Pn (1)
Then, let us calculate H2 = {ω = i=1 fi dxi ; ω̇ ∈ H1 }. i=1
)
By using the system equation, the derivation formula (8) and n
(l)
X
the definitions (10), (11), we have: fi βi,s = 0 ∀s, ∀l = 1, . . . , k
i=1
n n
( n
)
(1) (1)
X X X (k)
ω̇ = fi dxi + fi d(fi (x, u)) = ω ∈ Hk : fi βi,s = 0 ∀s , (22)
i=1 i=1 i=1
n n n,q
X (1)
X (1) ∂fi X (1) ∂fi Thus, by induction, the result is that (22) is the general
= fi dxi + fi dxj + fi dus
∂xj ∂us expression for any space in the sequence {Hk }. Now, it is well
i=1 i,j i,s
n q,n
known (see [1], Proposition 3.4, and the proof of Proposition
=
X (2)
fi dxi +
X (1)
fi βi,s dus , (17) 3.3) that H∞ , satisfies the condition of the Frobenius theorem
i=1 s,i
(in the dual form), and thus is locally generated – in our case
around a point x ∈ D – by a number, say ρ∞ (the dimension of
where H∞ ) of exact forms, say dψ1 , . . . , dψρ∞ , with ψ1 , . . . , ψρ∞ ∈
K(X ) not depending on u (since H∞ ⊂ H1 = X). Let us
n
(2) (1) (1)
X (1) ∂fj endow the open set D ⊂ IRn with the canonical structure
fi = φi (fi ) = f˙i + fj
∂xi of analytic manifold, and for any x ∈ D consider the space
j=1
n of co-vectors Tx∗ (D), where Tx (D) is the tangent space in x.
(1) (1) Obviously, Tx∗ (D) includes all sections of one-forms generated
X
= f˙i + fj αj,i . (18)
j=1 by dψ1 , . . . , dψρ∞ . Then H∞ is naturally associated with a
co-distribution on D (constituted by the sections in x of any
Now, αi,j is meromorphic on X × IRq , and thus fi ∈ K(X ).
(2) one-form in H∞ ) which annihilates the strong accessibility
(k−1)
Looking at (14) we realize that, if fi
(k)
∈ K(X ) then fi ∈ distribution around any regular point. The latter is an analytic
(k) distribution (since the fields f, gi , i = 1, . . . , q are analytic,
K(X ), and thus by induction all the fi ’s are meromorphic
by definition, on D) and thus any point of D is regular. In
functions of K(X ). That said, it is ω̇ ∈ H1 if and only if
conclusion the system satisfies the strong accessibility rank
q,n q n
! condition for any x ∈ D if and only if H∞ = {0} which is
(1) (1) equivalent to say: there exists an integer k ∗ such that
X X X
0= fi βi,s dus = fi βi,s dus , (19)
s,i s=1 i=1
H1 ⊃ H2 ⊃ . . . ⊃ Hk∗ 6= {0}, Hk∗ +1 = {0} (23)
which implies that H2 can be equivalently written as follows where the inclusions are all strict-sense, and in particular it is
( n n
) k ∗ ≤ n. By reason of (22), such a condition is equivalent to
X (1)
X (1) the statement of the Lemma. •
H2 = ω = fi dxi : fi βi,s = 0 ∀s .
i=1 i=1

0018-9286 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAC.2018.2831169, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. XX, NO. X, APRIL 2018 5

Remark 2. Note that, if condition (ii) of Lemma 1 is verified Then – as D̄ is an open set – by Lemma 3, system (9) is
(1) (1)
for a k ∗ ≤ n, then f1 , . . . , fn all vanish identically, thus, strongly accessible ∀x ∈ D̄ if and only if F is a set of zero
(k) (k)
by (14), f1 , . . . , fn vanish identically as well for any measure (or, which is the same, is a set with a void interior).
k ≥ 2. By reason of that, we can always replace n for k ∗ in Now, all entries of every matrix M are functions of x, u,
(15) while testing condition (ii). analytic in D̄, and the determinant is an analytic function
(indeed is a polynomial) of these entries. It follows that – as
On account of Remark 2, by using the matrices A, B defined the set MC is finite, and D̄ is an open and connected set –
in (12) we can rewrite (14) and the condition (15) in vector by analiticity we have either F = D̄ × IRq or Int{F} = ∅.
form: In other words, the condition Int{F} = ∅ is true if and only
if F = D̄ × IRq is false. The proof is completed by noticing
f (k) = f˙(k−1) + AT f (k−1) , (24) that F = D̄ × IRq is falsified as soon as (29) is verified for
B T f (k) = 0, k = 1, . . . n. (25) just a minor M ∈ MC and a pair (x, u) ∈ D̄ × IRq . •
Lemma 3. System (9) is strongly accessible ∀x ∈ D, if and
only if for almost all (x, u), x ∈ X , u ∈ IRq : Now we can state the main theorem of the section as a
simple rephrasing of Theorem 4.
rank {C} = n. (26)
Theorem 5. System (9) is strongly accessible at every point
of a connected component, D̄, of the analyticity domain D, if
Proof By successive substitutions of (25) in (24) the fol-
and only if there exists a pair (x, u) ∈ D̄ × IRq such that
lowing formula is readily obtained
k rank{C} = n. (31)
k−1 T k−r T
X
B fT (k)
=A B fT (1)
+ A B f˙(r−1) ,
T
(27)
r=2

and thus condition (15) – with k ∗ = n – is equivalent to

C. A few remarks
BT f (1)
  
0 ...
 B T AT BT 0   f˙(1)  In the following remarks we highlight and comment on

 .. ..

 ..  = 0,
 the outcome of Theorem 5, which is the main result of the
 . .  .  paper. We try to forestall some questions as well, sort of
T T
B T An−1 B T An−2 ... BT f˙(n−1) frequently asked questions, that have actually been directed
at us, concerning the local vs global nature of the results
∀f (1) ∈ K(D) ⇒ f (1) ≡ 0. (28)
here presented, as well as whether these results have a
Let us denote by S the matrix in (28), and consider the coordinate-free feature.
following strong (resp. weak) claim:
Remark 6. By Theorem 5, the test of strong-accessibility
Strong claim (resp. Weak claim). System (9) is strongly in a point x reduces in finding an u in IRq such that C(x, u)
accessible in D if and only if N (S) = {0} ∀(x, u) ∈ X × IRq has full rank in x, u. If such a couple (x, u) is found, then
(resp. almost everywhere in X × IRq ) the property of strong accessibility extends from x to the
whole connected component which x belongs to. If the
By Lemma 1, system (9) is strongly accessible in D if system analyticity domain has a finite number of connected
and only if condition (28) is verified. By (24), f (1) ≡ 0 components (we are going to see in the next section that a
on an open set entails f˙(k) ≡ 0 on the same open set, wide class of nonlinear systems have indeed a domain with
for any k, and thus strong claim holds. By reason of the this property) then, testing the strong accessibility at any
continuity of the f˙(k) ’s, weak claim holds as well. Now, it point reduces to performing a finite number of rank tests
is (N (S))⊥ = R(S T ), and thus N (S) = {0} implies the on the matrix C. In the particular case of a linear system,
surjecivity of S T . Finally S T being surjective implies that the analyticity domain is all of IRn and just one rank test is
the controllability matrix C, defined in (13), is surjective as sufficient for deciding the strong-accessibility. Accordingly, it
well, since it is the first block row of S T . • is easy to verify that the matrix C(x, u) turns into a constant
matrix, which is the traditional ’controllability matrix’ of the
Theorem 4 System (9) is strongly accessible ∀x ∈ D̄, where linear control theory.
D̄ is a connected component of the analyticity domain D, if
and only if, denoted by MC the set of all main minors of C, Remark 7. If (2) is just a representation in local
there exists an M ∈ MC and a pair (x, u) ∈ D̄ × IRq such coordinates of a ’real’ system evolving on a generic n-
that dimensional analytic manifold, say M, then some care should
Det{M (x, u)} 6= 0. (29) be paid in interpreting the result of Theorem 5. As a matter of
fact, the controllability matrix C(x, u) depends of the chosen
coordinates, and it should be stressed that the results here
Proof Let us define F ⊂ D̄ × IRq as follows:
presented have the ’global’ meaning suggested by Theorem 5
F = {(x, u) : Det{M (x, u)} = 0, ∀M ∈ MC } . (30) only if (2) is a global representation of some ’real’ underlying

0018-9286 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAC.2018.2831169, IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. XX, NO. X, APRIL 2018
system – i.e. it represents the ’real’ systems for any x ∈ X
actually – and it is ’coordinate-free’ only insofar a change
of coordinates acts globally as well, turning the global
representation (2) into another global representation. This is
in fact the case of a linear system insofar only linear change
of coordinates are considered, which is the classic setting in
linear systems theory.
Remark 8. Perhaps, it is useful to warn readers newcomers
in nonlinear systems theory, that a representation in local coor-
dinates is well a different thing than a ’local approximation’,
and care should be paid in not confusing the two concepts.
System (2) – for instance – could well be exactly linearized
by suitably choosing local coordinates, as well as locally
approximated with a linear system: not only the two linear
systems have in general two different expressions though, they
are conceptually different as well, in that the first one only –
though local – is an exact representation. The same remark
applies as (2) is a nonlinear representation in local coordinates:
it is in principle an exact representation though – even if
X is just a diffeomorphic image in IRn of a neighborhood
of an underlying manifold – and as such it preserves the
accessibility property, at least locally, whereas the system
linear local approximation could lose it (see Example 1).
IV. T HE CASE OF A σπ- SYSTEM
There are of course many examples of a nonlinear system
of the type (2) and meromorphic on an open domain X ∈ IRn .
We point out here the class of systems which can be written
component wise as follows:
νi νm∗
X X
∗ ∗
ẋi = vi,l Xi,l + vi,m Xi,m ,
l=1 m=1
where νi , νi∗ are non negative integers;
∗ to which possibly the points of some sub-family of the family
Xi,l (x), Xi,m (x)), are functions of x, of the following type:
p
(l)
p
(l)
∗p
(l)
Xi,l = x1i,1 x2i,2 · · · xni,n ; Xi,l = x1i,1 x2i,2 · · · xni,n ,
(33)
(l) ∗(l)
with pi,j , pi,j real numbers. Moreover, vi,l are coefficients
(time-varying in general), which may be parameters or time-
∗
varying perturbations, and the vi,m are control-dependent
parameters, depending on some finite set of (scalar) controls,
namely u1 , . . . , uq , according to
q a macro-orthant separated by a coordinate hypherplane. The
(m)
X
∗
vi,m = bi,s us ,
s=1
(m)
where the bi,s ’s constitute another set of (time-varying)
parameters. We call ’control coefficients’ the v ∗ , and ’param-
eters’ the v and b type coefficients, . We say that system (32)
(m)
is stationary if the parameters vi,l and bi,s are all constants.
Systems of the form (32) constitute the basic class of
systems studied in [25], where they have been named σπ-
systems, and for which the noticeable property of undergoing
an exact quadratization has been shown as well, which means
that they can be always reduced to a quadratic system by dense
0018-9286 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Transactions on Automatic Control
6
systems immersion6 . In the present framework, σπ-systems
are interesting because, as we show in a moment, they are
meromorphic on a very regular domain X which can be readily
(l)
determined from just the systems exponents pi,j . What we are
going to show is included in [25] actually, or can be easily
deduced from there, but was not enough highlighted therein
though.
A. The domain of a σπ-system
For a σπ-system we name the system analyticity domain, D,
the maximal open set on which all the functions Xi,l , given in
(33), are all well defined and C ∞ . Every σπ-system is analytic
just where it is C ∞ and, in particular, locally Lipschitz therein.
Thus for any x ∈ D there exists an unique maximal7 curve,
solution of the ODE (32), and passing through x. Consider
the following (open) sets in IRn , (where j = 1, . . . , n):
S+ n
S− n
j = {x ∈ IR |xj > 0}; j = {x ∈ IR |xj < 0}; (35)
±
Also, let Sj , be the closure in IRn of S± 0 0
j , and S = ∪i Si ,
0
where Si is the hyper-plane xi = 0. The structure
of any possible D, for any given set of exponents
{pli,j , i, j = 1, . . . , n; l = 1, . . . , νi } is given by the
following proposition (see [25]).
Proposition 6 The domain D of a σπ-system of order n, is
always an intersection of a choice of mS≤ n2 + 1 sets among
the following n2 + 1 sets: IRn , S+ +
S− 0
j , Sj 0 j 0 , 1 ≤ j, j ≤ n.
From Proposition 6 we can see that the domain D of a
σπ-system is always an open positive macro-orthant, namely
Oi1 ,...,iL , of IRn , which is defined, for a choice L, i1 , . . . , iL ∈
{1, . . . , n}, as
i = 1, . . . , n (32)
Oi1 ,...,iL = {x ∈ IRn : xi1 > 0, . . . , xiL > 0}, (36)
(= ∗
Xi,l , Xi,m
of the coordinate hyperplanes xj = 0 for j 6∈ {i1 , . . . , iL }
p
∗(l)
p
∗(l)
p
∗(l)
are drown away. Note that the positive orthant of IRn is the
macro-orthant O1,...,n , whereas IRn = O (i.e. no choice of
the number L). Notice that, in any case, (36) is the maximal
domain where the system is meromorphic, and in fact can play
the role of the domain X we invoked just below (2) while
introducing the class of systems at issue. Notice also that, if
Theorem 5 is applied to a σπ-system, the connected compo-
nents are always finite in number, and are disjoint subsets of
(34) test of strong-accessibility reduces in finding an x (and at the
same time an u in IRq ) in these connected components each,
such that C(x, u) has full rank in x, u. If such couples x, u
are found, then the property of strong accessibility extends
from x to the whole connected component which x belongs
to. Examples on how to apply the test on σπ-systems can be
found in [3].
6 In the same paper it is shown that a larger class, namely the analytic ICF
(Integral Closed Form) systems, can be reduced by systems immersion to a
σπ-system, and thus analytic ICF systems undergo a quadratization as well.
7 I.e. a map I 3 t 7→ x(t), where I ⊂ IR is the largest among the
x x
domains of curves solution passing through x.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAC.2018.2831169, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. XX, NO. X, APRIL 2018 7

V. EXAMPLES system, what we know is that the Lie algebra generated by the
A. Example 1 system fields is no more than n-dimensional, and it is linearly
generated by vectors constituted by all nested Lie brackets of
Consider the system (two-wheeled planar robot):
the type
[gi1 , [gi2 , [. . . , [gin−1 , gik ] . . .], (43)
ẋ = cos θ · u1 = f1 (x, u), (37) where i1 , . . . , ik ∈ {1, . . . , n} but k is any positive integer,
ẏ = sin θ · u1 = f2 (x, u), (38) so there is an infinite generator for the Lie algebra. We know
θ̇ = u2 = f3 (x, u) (39) that there are at most n linearly independent vectors among all
vectors of the form (43) but we don’t know in general neither
where (x, y) is the robot position (in the plane), θ the bearing- how many nor which they are. In particular. we don’t know in
angle, f = [f1 , f2 , f3 ]T , x = [x, y, θ]T u = [u1 , u2 ]T . The general up to which nesting level (i.e. k) we need to come in
same system can be written as well order to calculate a finite generator. In other words, one even
ẋ = f (x) + g(x)u = f (x, u), (40) do not know whether the classical test terminates in a finite
time. The main advantage of the method here proposed is that,
where f (x) ≡ 0, and on the contrary, it apparently has always a termination which

cos θ 0
 depends of the system dimension only, since the controllability
g(x) =  sin θ 0 . (41) matrix involves at most the (n − 1)-th power of the ’dynamic’
0 1 matrix A defined in (12). Moreover, even in cases where the
classical test has a predictable termination, our test still shows
The linear approximation of the system in the equilibrium a computational advantage. In order to give evidence to the
point (x, u) = (0, 0) is apparently non controllable. However, latter claim, we now try to give a precise meaning to the
the system is strongly accessible at any point (including x = 0) notion of ’computational burden’ when symbolic calculation
as can be checked by calculating the rank of the Lie algebra is involved, and make this through an example.
generated by the two colunns of (41): let us denote the first The example is taken from the textbook [29] (Ibid. Example
(resp: the second) column g1 (resp: g2 ), then 7.12) where a basis gets calculated for a nilpotent Lie algebra
of order three, generated by the three vector fields g1 , g2 , g3 ,
 
sin θ
[g1 , g2 ] =  − cos θ  . which is related to a driftless system8 :
0 ẋ = g1 (x)u1 + g2 (x)u2 + g3 (x)u3 . (44)
and thus g1 , g2 , [g1 , g2 ] form a basis for the Lie algebra We remind readers that a Lie algebra is said to be nilpotent
generated by g1 , g2 (since the Lie algebra dimension cannot of order d if all vectors in (43) vanish for k > d. This
exceed three). Let us show that the test proposed in the paper happens for instance as one vector field is constituted by
predicts the strong accessibility of the system as well. The polynomial functions and the others are constant. The selection
dynamic and control matrices, A, B, are: of a basis is apparently a simplified task when the Lie algebra
∂fi ∂fi is nilpotent, since the set of vectors candidates in (43) is
Aij = (x, u); Bis = (x, u),
∂xj ∂us restricted to the (finite) subset of the vectors having a nesting

0 0 − sin θ · u1
 
cos θ 0
 level k ≤ d. Such a subset is given, for n = d = 3, by the
A =  0 0 cos θ · u1  ; B =  sin θ 0  = g(x); following 14 vectors:
0 0 0 0 1 g1 , g2 , g3 , [g1 , g2 ], [g2 , g3 ], [g3 , g1 ], (45)
The controllability matrix C = [B AB] is [g1 , [g1 , g2 ]], [g1 , [g1 , g3 ]], [g2 , [g1 , g2 ]], [g2 , [g1 , g3 ]], (46)

cos θ 0 0 − sin θ · u1
 [g2 , [g2 , g3 ]], [g3 , [g1 , g2 ]], [g3 , [g1 , g3 ]], [g3 , [g2 , g3 ]] (47)
C(x, u) =  sin θ 0 0 cos θ · u1  . (42) which is a reduced set, not including all possible compositions
0 1 0 0 of vectors, because the Jacobi identity has been exploited:
Following Theorem 5, we see that the system is accessible at [g1 , [g2 , g3 ]] + [g2 , [g3 , g1 ]] + [g3 , [g1 , g2 ]] = 0
any point of the domain (in this case the domain is all of IR3 )
if there is a pair (x, u) ∈ IR3 × IR2 such that C(x, u) has full and thus [g1 , [g2 , g3 ]] can be eliminated from the set9 . Now, the
rank. Setting u1 = u2 = 1, the matrix C is indeed full rank symbolic calculation in the classical test consists in performing
(three) for any θ (for any x). derivatives of functions in the n indeterminates x1 , . . . , xn ,
as well as manipulation of many types of formulas as well.
Consider the derivations only, for any Lie bracket [g, h] we
B. Example 2
have to calculate the two Jacobians dh/dx and dg/dx, i.e.,
In the previous example checking the strong accessibility
8 Thus, similarly as in Example 1, a system for which the controllability
through the classical, or using the new test here proposed,
takes roughly the same amount of calculation. This is because cannot be determined by a linear approximation,
9 As well as all symmetric vectors [g , g ] etc. We point out the method of
2 1
the Lie bracket [g1 , g2 ] gives yet a field linearly independent Philip-Hall (Ibid.) for getting a reduced set from a finite set of generators of
of g1 and g2 . However, in general, for an n-dimensional any nilpotent Lie algebra of vector fields.

0018-9286 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAC.2018.2831169, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. XX, NO. X, APRIL 2018
for n = 3, there are 9 derivatives of scalar functions for
each Jacobian. Thus for calculating the three vectors in (45)
one needs to calculate 27 derivatives. For the remaining
vectors (46), (47), one has to calculate the Jacobians of
[g1 , g2 ], [g1 , g3 ], [g2 , g3 ] which is further 27 derivatives. In
conclusion 54 derivatives are needed in order to obtain the full
set of possible candidates for a basis in the Lie algebra. Let
us see now, how many derivatives are needed for the new test
here described: derivatives are only involved in the calculations
of the matrices A, B, defined in (12), through (10), (11),
where f (x, u) is the right hand side of (44), and in fact only
through (10), since B ∈ IR3×3 is directly given by juxtaposing
g1 , g2 , g3 . By (10) we see that just 9 derivatives needs to be
calculated. The controllability matrix is [B, AB, A2 B] thus a
rank test for a matrix 3 × 9 determines the dimension of the
Lie control algebra with the new test, whereas a rank test for
a 3 × 14 matrix is needed by using the classical test.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS AND FINAL REMARKS
The main result of the paper (Theorem 5) has a very simple
statement that literally traces the well known controllability
condition of linear system theory, and in fact it constitutes a
direct generalization of the latter. However, the proof of this
simple claim is not so simple (it is shared among the proofs
of Lemmas 1 and 3, and Theorem 4) and uses results from
algebraic nonlinear system theory, in particular the strong-
accessibility condition expressed by the chain of inclusions
of spaces of differential forms (23), that can be found in [1].
Our test has a ’global’ significance in that: being the full-rank
condition satisfied at a point of the system domain, can be ex-
tended up to all of the maximal connected domain-component
which the point belongs to. This is not really surprising, in that
it is well known by a theorem of Sussmann (see textbooks,
for instance [13]) that analytic fields on analytic manifolds
generates distributions of constant dimension. As a matter of
fact, meromorphic fields have domains composed by analytic
parts. In §4 we have pointed out the class of σπ-systems
as examples of meromorphic nonlinear systems, which is by
itself a wide class of systems, and moreover, is amenable for
representing a ’nonlinear paradigm’ in that: an huge class of
systems (all the analytic ICF systems), including practically
all smooth nonlinear systems occurring in applications, can be
reduced to a σπ-system by systems immersion [25]. Unlike
the classical controllability test, the test here presented always
terminates in a number of steps depending on the system
dimension only, and as Example 2 shows, it involves in general
the calculation of a lower number of derivatives, and a rank
test on a lower dimensional matrix, which represents its main
utility from a computational point of view.
R EFERENCES
[1] E. Aranda-Bricaire, C.H. Moog, J.B. Pomet A Linear Algebraic Frame-
work for Dynamic Feedback Linearization IEEE Trans. on Aut. Cont. 40,
127-132, 1995.
[2] G. Conte, C.H. Moog, A.M. Perdon, Algebraic Method for Nonlinear
Control Systems, 2nd edition, Communication and Control Engineering
Series, London, UK: Springer Verlag, 2006.
[3] F. Carravetta On Testing the Strong Accessibility of a Nonlinear Control
System In Proc. 54th Conf. Dec. Cont., Osaka, Japan, December 15–18
(2015).
0018-9286 (c) 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
8
[4] L. R. Hunt, R. Su, G. Meyer, Design for multi-input nonlinear systems. in
IEEE Differential Geometric Control Theory. R. Brockett, R. Millmann,
and H. Sussman, Eds. Boston: Birkhauser, 268-298 (1983).
[5] B. Jakubczyk, W. Respondek On linearization of control systems Bull.
Acad. Pol. Sci. Ser. Sci. Math., 18, 517-522 (1980).
[6] D. Claude Everythink you aways wanted to know about linearization in
Algebraic and Geometric Methods in Nonlinear Control Theory, M. Fliess
and M. Hazewinkel, Eds. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel, 181-220
(1986).
[7] H.J. Sussman, Orbits of families of vector fields and integrability of
distribution Trans. of the Am. Math. Soc. 180, 171-188 (1973).
[8] H.J. Sussman, V. Jurdjevic, Controllability of nonlinear systems Jou. of
Diff. Eq. 12(1), 95-116 (1972).
[9] T. Nagano Linear differential systems with singularities and an appli-
cation to transitive Lie Algebras. Jou. of the Math. Soc. of Japan 18,
398-404 (1966).
[10] G.W.Hayes, H. Hermes Nonlinear controllability via Lie theory. Jou. of
SIAM, Series A, Control, 8, 450-460 (1970).
[11] P. Stefan, Accessible sets, orbits, and foliations with singularities. Proc.
of the London Math. Soc, Third Series. 29(3), 669-713 (1974).
[12] H.J. Sussman, Lie brackets, real analyticity, and geometric control
In Differential Geometric Control Theory. Conference held at MTU
(Houghton, MI, June 1982). R.W. Brockett, R.S. Millman, H.J. Sussman
Eds. Progress in Mathematics 27. Birkhauser Boston/Basel/Stuttgart. 1-
116 (1983).
[13] A. Isidori, Nonlinear Control Systems, Communication and Control En-
gineering Series, London, UK: Springer Verlag, 1985 (First published).
[14] A.D. Lewis, A brief on controllability of nonlinear systems, 2001,
http://www.mast.queensu.ca/ andrew/notes/abstracts/2001a.html.
[15] M. Fliess, and S.T. Glad An Algebraic Approach to Linear and Non-
linear Control In Essays on Control: Perspectives in the Theory and its
Applications. Part of the book: Progress in Systems and Control Theory.
L. Trentelman, and J.C. Willems Eds. 14, 222-267 (1993).
[16] M. D. Di Benedetto, J. Grizzle, C.H. Moog Rank Invariants of Nonlinear
Systems SIAM Jou. on Contr. Opt. 27, 658-672 (1989).
[17] A. Isidori, C.H. Moog, A. De Luca. A sufficient condition for full
linearization via dynamic state feedback In Proc. 25th IEEE Conf. Dec.
Contr., 203-208 (1986).
[18] A. Isidori, C.H. Moog. On the nonlinear equivalent of the notion of
transmission zeros In Modeling and Adaptive Control, Lecture Notes in
Control and Information Science. 105, C. I. Byrnes, and A. Kurzhanski,
Eds. New York: Springer-Verlag, 146-158 (1988).
[19] C.H. Moog. Nonlinear decoupling and structure at infinity Math. Contr.
Signals Syst., 1, pp. 257-268 (1988).
[20] J.F. Pommaret, Géométrie différentielle algébrique et théorie du
contrôle, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Série I. 302, 547-550 (1986)
[21] J.F. Pommaret, Algebraic Analysis of Control Systems Defined by Partial
Differential Equations, In Advanced Topics in Control Systems Theory –
Lecture Notes in Control System Theory. 311, 155-223 (2005).
[22] M. Fliess, J. Levine, P. Martin, P. Rouchon. On differentially flat
nonlinear systems In Proc. 2nd IFAC NOLCOS Symp., M. Fliess Ed.,
Bordeaux, 408-412 (1992).
[23] M. Fliess, J. Levine, P. Martin, P. Rouchon. Sur les systémes non lineares
differentiellement plats C.r. Acad. Sci. Paris, 315-I, 619-624 (1992).
[24] P. Martin, Contribution á l’etude des systémes non lineares differen-
tiellement plats Thése de doctorat, Ecole des Mines de Paris (1992)
[25] F. Carravetta, Global Exact Quadratization of Continuous-Time Non-
linear Control Systems SIAM Journal on Control & Optimization. 53(1)
235-261 (2015)
[26] F. Carravetta, A Brief and some Further Insight on the Exact Quadra-
tization of Nonlinear Control Systems, In Proc. 55th Conf. Dec. Cont.,
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, December 14–18 (2016).
[27] D.S. Dummit, R.M. Foote. Abstract Algebra Hoboken, NJ, USA:
Wiley & Sons, 2004 (second edition).
[28] R.L. Bryant, S.S. Chern, R.B. Gardner, H.L. Goldschmitt, P.A. Griffiths
Exterior Differential Systems Mathematical Science Research Institute
Publications. 18, New York: Springer (1991)
[29] R.M. Murray, Z. Li, S.S. Sastry A Mathematical Introduction to Robotic
Manipulation CRC Press (1994)