V0'``
is only provided because it is needed by ``'YT'`` in some specific cases.
Furthermore ``'YT'`` gives on average more robust results than ``'KNV0'``
when ``abs(det(X))`` is used as a robustness indicator.

[2]_ is available as a technical report on the following URL:
https://hdl.handle.net/1903/5598

References
----------
.. [1] J. Kautsky, N.K. Nichols and P. van Dooren, "Robust pole assignment
       in linear state feedback", International Journal of Control, Vol. 41
       pp. 1129-1155, 1985.
.. [2] A.L. Tits and Y. Yang, "Globally convergent algorithms for robust
       pole assignment by state feedback", IEEE Transactions on Automatic
       Control, Vol. 41, pp. 1432-1452, 1996.

Examples
--------
A simple example demonstrating real pole placement using both KNV and YT
algorithms.  This is example number 1 from section 4 of the reference KNV
publication ([1]_):

>>> import numpy as np
>>> from scipy import signal
>>> import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

>>> A = np.array([[ 1.380,  -0.2077,  6.715, -5.676  ],
...               [-0.5814, -4.290,   0,      0.6750 ],
...               [ 1.067,   4.273,  -6.654,  5.893  ],
...               [ 0.0480,  4.273,   1.343, -2.104  ]])
>>> B = np.array([[ 0,      5.679 ],
...               [ 1.136,  1.136 ],
...               [ 0,      0,    ],
...               [-3.146,  0     ]])
>>> P = np.array([-0.2, -0.5, -5.0566, -8.6659])

Now compute K with KNV method 0, with the default YT method and with the YT
method while forcing 100 iterations of the algorithm and print some results
after each call.

>>> fsf1 = signal.place_poles(A, B, P, method='KNV0')
>>> fsf1.gain_matrix
array([[ 0.20071427, -0.96665799,  0.24066128, -0.10279785],
       [ 0.50587268,  0.57779091,  0.51795763, -0.41991442]])

>>> fsf2 = signal.place_poles(A, B, P)  # uses YT method
>>> fsf2.computed_poles
array([-8.6659, -5.0566, -0.5   , -0.2   ])

>>> fsf3 = signal.place_poles(A, B, P, rtol=-1, maxiter=100)
>>> fsf3.X
array([[ 0.52072442+0.j, -0.08409372+0.j, -0.56847937+0.j,  0.74823657+0.j],
       [-0.04977751+0.j, -0.80872954+0.j,  0.13566234+0.j, -0.29322906+0.j],
       [-0.82266932+0.j, -0.19168026+0.j, -0.56348322+0.j, -0.43815060+0.j],
       [ 0.22267347+0.j,  0.54967577+0.j, -0.58387806+0.j, -0.40271926+0.j]])

The absolute value of the determinant of X is a good indicator to check the
robustness of the results, both ``'KNV0'`` and ``'YT'`` aim at maximizing
it.  Below a comparison of the robustness of the results above:

>>> abs(np.linalg.det(fsf1.X)) < abs(np.linalg.det(fsf2.X))
True
>>> abs(np.linalg.det(fsf2.X)) < abs(np.linalg.det(fsf3.X))
True

Now a simple example for complex poles:

>>> A = np.array([[ 0,  7/3.,  0,   0   ],
...               [ 0,   0,    0,  7/9. ],
...               [ 0,   0,    0,   0   ],
...               [ 0,   0,    0,   0   ]])
>>> B = np.array([[ 0,  0 ],
...               [ 0,  0 ],
...               [ 1,  0 ],
...               [ 0,  1 ]])
>>> P = np.array([-3, -1, -2-1j, -2+1j]) / 3.
>>> fsf = signal.place_poles(A, B, P, method='YT')

We can plot the desired and computed poles in the complex plane:

>>> t = np.linspace(0, 2*np.pi, 401)
>>> plt.plot(np.cos(t), np.sin(t), 'k--')  # unit circle
>>> plt.plot(fsf.requested_poles.real, fsf.requested_poles.imag,
...          'wo', label='Desired')
>>> plt.plot(fsf.computed_poles.real, fsf.computed_poles.imag, 'bx',
...          label='Placed')
>>> plt.grid()
>>> plt.axis('image')
>>> plt.axis([-1.1, 1.1, -1.1, 1.1])
>>> plt.legend(bbox_to_anchor=(1.05, 1), loc=2, numpoints=1)

r