2109.13559
A Note on Nussbaum-type Control and Lie-bracket Approximation
Marc Weber, Christian Ebenbauer, Bahman Gharesifard
wrongmedium confidenceCounterexample detected
- Category
- math.DS
- Journal tier
- Specialist/Solid
- Processed
- Sep 28, 2025, 12:56 AM
- arXiv Links
- Abstract ↗PDF ↗
Audit review
The paper’s Theorem 1 analyzes the Lie-bracket system ẏ = (a − b k) y, k̇ = b y^2 and states items (i)–(v). Items (i)–(iv) are essentially correct (equilibria, Lyapunov stability via Vp, forward completeness, invariance), but there are scaling and notational slips around dp versus d0 and Euclidean radii. Crucially, item (v) is misstated: with d0 defined as 1/2(y0^2 + (k0 − c0)^2), the paper claims lim x(t) = (0, c0 + sign(b) d0), whereas the correct limit uses the Euclidean radius r = sqrt(2 d0), i.e., lim x(t) = (0, c0 + sign(b) sqrt(2 d0)). The appendix proof also misapplies LaSalle to V0, asserting V̇0 ≤ 0 on Ω0 and equating {V̇0 = 0} with {V0 = d0}, although V̇0 ≡ 0 everywhere for p = 0. The model’s solution produces the correct limit via a clean conserved-quantity and monotonicity argument, and it identifies the paper’s scaling error. See the theorem statement and proofs in the PDF for the claims and slips (Theorem 1 and its proof; polar form with r̄̇ = 0) .
Referee report (LaTeX)
\textbf{Recommendation:} major revisions
\textbf{Journal Tier:} specialist/solid
\textbf{Justification:}
The main qualitative conclusions for the Lie-bracket system are well motivated and potentially useful, but Theorem 1(v) contains a scaling mistake and the proof invokes LaSalle’s invariance with V0 in a way that is not valid because V̇0 ≡ 0. These issues are fixable: clarify the geometry of Vp-sublevel sets (Euclidean radius √(2dp)), replace the LaSalle step with a monotonicity argument for z = k − c0 (or the polar form with r̄̇ = 0), and correct the stated limit. With these changes, the result will be clear and correct.