arxiv: v1 [cs.sy] 2 Apr 2019

Transcription

1 On the Existence of a Fixed Spectrum for a Multi-channel Linear System: A Matroid Theory Approach F Liu 1 and A S Morse 1 arxiv: v1 [cssy] 2 Apr 2019 Abstract Conditions for the existence of a fixed spectrum {ie, the set of fixed modes} for a multi-channel linear system have been known for a long time The aim of this paper is to reestablish one of these conditions using a new and transparent approach based on matroid theory I INTRODUCTION The classical decentralized control problem considered in [1], [2] focuses on stabilizing or otherwise controlling a k > 1 channel linear system of the form ẋ = Ax+ k B i u i, y i = C i x i 1 Decentralization is enforced by restricting the feedback of each measured signal y i to only its corresponding control input u i, possibly through a linear dynamic controller Wang and Davison [1] were able to show that no matter what these feedback controllers might be, as long as they are finite dimensional and linear time-invariant LTI, the spectrum of the resulting closed-loop system contains a fixed subset depending only on A, the B i and the C i, which they elected to called the set of fixed modes of the system Roughly speaking, the set of fixed modes of 1, henceforth called the fixed spectrum of 1, is the the spectrum of A that cannot be shifted by the decentralized output feedback laws u i = F i y i, i {1,2,,k} That is, if A R n n, B i R n mi, C i R li n, the fixed spectrum of 1, written Λ fixed, is precisely k Λ fixed = Λ A+ B i F i C i F i R m i l i where Λ denotes the spectrum Since the F i can be zero, it is clear that the fixed spectrum is a subset of the spectrum of A It is possible that the fixed spectrum is an empty set, in which case it is said that the system has no fixed spectrum Wang and Davison showed that Λ fixed is contained in the closed-loop spectrum of the system which results when any given finite dimensional LTI decentralized controls are applied to 1 Thus Λ fixed must be a stable spectrum if decentralized stabilization is to be achieved Wang and Davison were also able to show that the stability of Λ fixed is sufficient for decentralized stabilization with linear dynamic controllers Not surprisingly, the notion of a fixed *This work was supported by National Science Foundation grant n and US Air Force grant n FA F Liu and A S Morse are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA{fengjiaoliu, asmorse}@yaleedu spectrum also arises in connection with the decentralized spectrum assignment problem treated in [2], [3] In particular it is known that a necessary and sufficient condition for free assignability of a closed-loop spectrum with finite dimensional LTI decentralized controllers is that there is no fixed spectrum [1], [2] However, it should be noted that unlike the centralized case, free spectrum assignability in the decentralized case presumes that the overall spectrum admits a suitable partition into a finite number of symmetric sets, the partition being determined by the strongly connected components in a suitably defined graph of 1 [2] It is clear from the preceding that Λ fixed plays a central role in both the decentralized stabilization and decentralized spectrum assignment problems Accordingly many characterizations of Λ fixed exist [4] A certain subset of a fixed spectrum can be eliminated by time-varying decentralized controllers [5], [6], sampling strategies [7], [8], or other techniques [9], [10] The subset of a fixed spectrum which cannot be eliminated by any including nonlinear decentralized controllers are characterized in [11] An explicit necessary and sufficient matrixalgebraic condition for a complex number λ to be in the fixed spectrum of 1 is derived in [12], using matrix pencils and matrix nets [13] An equivalent algebraic condition is established in [14], [15] Equivalent graph-theoretic criteria for the existence of a fixed spectrum are developed in [16] Frequency domain characterizations of a fixed spectrum are presented in [17] [22] In particular, the characterization of a fixed spectrum in [12] is quite fundamental and inspires a number of later work [4], [11], [14] [16] Let k {1,2,,k} Suppose S = {i 1,i 2,,i s } k withi 1 < i 2 < < i s, the complement ofs inkis denoted by k S = {j 1,j 2,,j k s } with j 1 < j 2 < < j k s Let B S [B i1 B i2 B is ], C k S C j1 C j2 C jk s The result in [12] is stated below Proposition 1: [12] A k-channel linear system {A,B i,c i ;k} has λ ΛA in its fixed spectrum if and only if S k such that [ ] λin S 2 C k S 0 Although originally proved with techniques like matrix pencils and matrix nets [12], [13], Proposition 1 reveals an insight that whether a multi-channel linear system has a fixed

2 spectrum is indeed a combinatorial problem By exploiting this fact, a new and transparent proof of Proposition 1 using matroid theory is presented in this paper Roughly speaking, a matoid is a mathematical structure that generalizes the notion of linear independence in vector spaces It is a handy tool for studying combinatorial properties of matrices II PROOF A formal proof of Proposition 1 is given in this section, for which some concepts and three lemmas are needed Lemma 1: Let matrices [ ] A C n n, B C n m, and C C l n Then if and only if A + BE+KC for any matricese C m n [ andk ] C n l Proof of Lemma 1: Necessity If, [ ] A+BE +KC B then for any matrices E C m n and K C n l, as the of a matrix remains unchanged under elementary row and column operations So A+BE +KC for any [ E and ] K Sufficiency Suppose n, by elementary [ column ] operations, E C m n such that A+BE = n Similarly, by elementary row operations, K C n l such that A+BE + KC = n C This completes the proof of Lemma 1 Let M be a parameterized matrix whose entries are linear combinations of algebraically independent scalar parameters The generic of M, denoted by g M, is the maximum of M that can be achieved as the parameters vary over the entire parameter space It is generic in the sense that it is achievable by any parameter values in the complement of a proper algebraic set in the parameter space For some d N, we are given column vectors w 1, w 2,, w d C n1 and row vectors r 1, r 2,, r d C 1 n2 Let d {1,2,,d} Suppose S = {i 1,i 2,,i s } d with i 1 < i 2 < < i s, and d S = {j 1,j 2,,j d s } with j 1 < j 2 < < j d s, let w S = [w i1 w i2 w is ], r d S = r j1 r j2 r jd s Let P = {w i,r i i d} be the set of d pairs of vectors For I P, let {w i w i,r i I} be the set of column vectors appearing in I; let {r i w i,r i I} be the set of row vectors appearing in I Note that I = {wi w i,r i I} = {ri w i,r i I} where I is the number of vector pairs in I A nonempty subset I P is jointly independent if {w i w i,r i I} and{r i w i,r i I} are both linearly independent sets Let J{w i,r i ;d} be the set of all jointly independent subsets of 3 P The following proposition summarizes Lemma 1 derived from the matroid intersection theorem [23] and Lemma 2 in [24] Proposition 2: [24] For some d N, given column vectors w 1, w 2,, w d C n1, row vectors r 1, r 2,, r d C 1 n2, and algebraically independent scalar parameters p 1, p 2,, p d, the following equation holds g I I J{w i,r i;d} = min w S + r d S Although Proposition 2 was initially developed for real vectors and parameters, the same proof applies to complex vectors and parameters without change Therefore a proof of Proposition 2 will not be given here The next lemma extends Proposition 2 to a more general case For some d N, we are given complex matrices W 1, W 2,, W d, each of which has n 1 rows and an arbitrary number of columns, and complex matrices R 1, R 2,, R d, each of which has an arbitrary number of rows and n 2 columns Suppose S = {i 1,i 2,,i s } d with i 1 < i 2 < < i s, and d S = {j 1,j 2,,j d s } with j 1 < j 2 < < j d s, let W S = [W i1 W i2 W is ], R d S = R j1 R j2 R jd s For each i d, let colw i denote the set of column vectors of W i and let rowr i denote the set of row vectors of R i Let P = {w,r w colw i,r rowr i,i d} be the set of all vector pairs taken from matrices with the same indices For I P, let {w w,r I,r rowr d } be the set of column vectors appearing in I, with any common vectors repeated; let {r w,r I,w colw d } be the set of row vectors appearing in I, with any common vectors repeated That is, if a column vector w appears exactly n w times in I, the set {w w,r I,r rowr d } contains n w copies of w Note that I = {w w,r I, r rowrd } = {r w,r I, w colwd } A nonempty subset I P is jointly independent if {w w,r I, r rowr d } and {r w,r I, w colw d } are both linearly independent sets Let J{W i,r i ;d} be the set of all jointly independent subsets of P Lemma 2: For some d N, given complex matrices W 1, W 2,, W d, each of which has n 1 rows and an arbitrary number of columns, complex matrices R 1, R 2,, R d, each of which has an arbitrary number of rows and n 2 columns, and parameterized matrices P 1, P 2,, P d of appropriate sizes, whose entries are algebraically independent thus are modeled by distinct parameters, the following equation

3 holds g W i P i R i I J{W i,r i;d} I = min W S + R d S As Proposition 2 is proved directly from the matroid intersection theorem, it is natural to ask whether Lemma 2 can be proved in the same way Unfortunately, the answer is no In order to do that, we may need a more general notion of matroid which allows the of an element to be greater than 1 Proof of Lemma 2: For each t d, suppose W t is of size n 1 α t, R t is of size β t n 2, and P t is of size α t β t Note that W t P t R t = αt β t j=1 w i tp ij t r j t, where w i t C n1 is the ith column of W t, p ij t is the ijth entry of P t, and r j t C 1 n2 is the jth row of R t Recall that P = {w,r w colw t,r rowr t,t d}, now let d = P = t dα t β t Let the entries of the P t, t d, be denoted by p 1 through p d and let the vector pairs in P be labeled 1 through d, ie, P = {w i,r i i d}, where d {1,2,, d} So J{w i,r i ; d} = J{W i,r i ;d} Thus W t P t R t = t d d α t β t wt i pij t rj t = i p i r i i dw t=1 j=1 By Proposition 2, g W i P i R i = g i d I J{w i,r i; d} I I J{W i,r i;d} I As P contains all possible combinations of W t s columns and R t s rows for each t d, it is not hard to see that S d, t d, either all columns of W t appear in w S or all rows of R t appear in r d S By Proposition 2, there exists S 0 d such that w S0 + r d S0 = min w S + r d S Now if all columns of W t appear in w S0, remove rows of R t from r d S0 if any; else remove columns of W t from w S0 if any Repeat the removal process for all t d, and denote the resultant matrices by w S 0 and r d S0 respectively Then S 1 d such that w S 0 = W S1 up to a permutation of columns and r d S0 = R d S1 up to a permutation of rows So min w S + r d S min W S + R d S W S1 + R d S1 = w S 0 + r d S0 w S0 + r d S0 = min w S + r d S 4 It implies that g W i P i R i = g i p i r i i dw = min w S + r d S By Proposition 2 = min W S + R d S By 4 This completes the proof of Lemma 2 Let M C n1 n2 be a complex matrix of t min{n 1,n 2 } By decomposition, there exist a full column matrix W C n1 t and a full row matrix R C t n2 such that M = WR In another word, M = t w i r i, where w i C n1 is the ith column of W and r i C 1 n2 is the ith row of R Let t {1,2,,t} It is easy to see that {w i i t} and {r i i t} are both linearly independent sets Lemma 3: Suppose a complex matrix M n1 n 2 = t w i r i, where w i C n1 are column vectors, r i C 1 n2 are row vectors, {w 1,w 2,,w t } and {r 1,r 2,,r t } are both linearly independent sets For some d t, given column vectors w t+1, w t+2,, w d C n1, row vectors r t+1, r t+2,, r d C 1 n2, and algebraically independent scalar parameters p 1, p 2,, p d, the following equation holds d d g M + = g 5 Proof of Lemma 3: By the definition of generic, the left-hand side of equation 5 is less than or equal to the right-hand side, so it suffices to prove the other direction There exists S 0 d such that I 0 = {w i,r i i S 0 } is a jointly independent subset of {w i,r i i d} with the maximum cardinality, ie, max I = I 0 I J{w i,r i;d} First, it is claimed that equation 5 holds whend t S 0 Now suppose the claim is true and consider the general case when d t S 0 Let S 1 = S 0 d t We have d g = I 0 = g = g = g g i S 0 i t S 1 M + i S1 M + d By Proposition 2 By the definition of I 0 By the claim So equation 5 holds for the general case Next, the claim will be proved Now assume d t S 0 Let t 1 = S 0 t Let t 2 = t t 1 = d S 0 As {w i i t}

4 and {r i i t} are both linearly independent sets, and by the definition of S 0, it is clear that each vector in {w i i t 1 } respectively, {r i i t 1 } is linearly independent with the vectors in {w i i d t 1 } respectively, {r i i d t 1 } So d g = t 1 +g 6 t 1 Suppose the generic of w i r i + d is i t 2 admissible by p i = p i C for i d t, then d g M + d w i r i + w i r i + w i p i r i i t 1 i t 2 d = w i r i + w i r i + w i p i r i i t 1 i t 2 d = t 1 +g w i r i + i t 2 As S 0 = t 1 + d t, by equation 6, g = d t Without loss of generality, t 1 assume t 1 = {1,2,,t 1 } It is easy to see that { Q p t1+1,p t1+2,,p d C d t1 t 1 = d t is an open set in C d t1, because its complement is a closed set Let p u,v C d t1 be the vector whose first t t 1 entries are u C and last d t entries are v C, ie, p i = u for i t 2 and p j = v for j d t Clearly p 0,1 Q, which implies that δ > 0 such that p δ,1 Q thus p 1, 1 Q That δ is, g w i r i + d d t Therefore, i t 2 d g M + t 1 +d t = S 0 d = g The claim is proved This completes the proof Corollary 1: Suppose a complex matrix M n1 n 2 = t w i r i, where w i C n1 are column vectors, r i C 1 n2 are row vectors, {w 1,w 2,,w t } and {r 1,r 2,,r t } are both linearly independent sets For some d t, given complex matrices W t+1, W t+2,, W d, each of which } has n 1 rows and an arbitrary number of columns, complex matricesr t+1, R t+2,, R d, each of which has an arbitrary number of rows and n 2 columns, algebraically independent scalar parameters p 1, p 2,, p t, and parameterized matrices P t+1, P t+2,, P d of appropriate sizes, whose entries are algebraically independent thus are modeled by distinct parameters, the following equation holds d g M + W i P i R i t = g + d W i P i R i Proof of Corollary 1: For each s d t, suppose W s is of size n 1 α s, R s is of size β s n 2, and P s is of size α s β s Then d g M + W s P s R s = g M + s=t+1 d t = g w s p s r s + s=1 t = g w s p s r s + s=1 α s β s ws i pij s rj s s=t+1 j=1 d α s β s ws i pij s rj s s=t+1 j=1 d s=t+1 W s P s R s where w i s C n1 is the ith column of W s, p ij s is the ijth entry of P s, and r j s C1 n2 is the jth row of R s Proof of Proposition 1: Sufficiency If S k such that 2 holds, by Lemma 1, λi n A B S E S E k S C k S for any matricese S R ms n ande k S R n l k S, where m S m i and l k S l j It implies that i S j k S λi n A i k B i F i C i for any matrices F i R mi li, i k Thus λ is in the fixed spectrum of system {A,B i,c i ;k} Necessity If λ is in the fixed spectrum of system {A,B i,c i ;k}, λi n A i k B i F i C i for any matrices F i R mi li, i k Suppose A λi n = t, then there exist w i C n and r i C 1 n, i t, such that {w i i t} and {r i i t} are both linearly independent sets, and A λi n = t w i r i By Corollary 1, t g + k B j F j C j j=1

5 By Lemma 2, S 1 t, S 2 k such that [ ] rt S1 [w S1 B S2 ]+ C k S2 So ] ] rs1 rt S1 [w S1 B S2 ][ + [w E t S1 E k S2 ][ S2 C k S2 for any matrices E S2 and E k S2 of appropriate sizes As A λi n = w S1 r S1 +w t S1 r t S1, it implies that A λi n +B S2 E S2 +E k S2 C k S2 for any matrices E S2 and E k S2 By Lemma 1, 2 holds for S 2 k III CONCLUDING REMARKS This paper utilizes matroid theory to simplify the proof of the algebraic condition derived in [12] for the existence of a fixed spectrum in a multi-channel linear system [16] K Reinschke, Graph-theoretic characterization of fixed modes in centralized and decentralized control, Int J Control, vol 39, no 4, pp , 1984 [17] H Seraji, On fixed modes in decentralized control systems, Int J Control, vol 35, no 5, pp , 1982 [18] B D O Anderson, Transfer function matrix description of decentralized fixed modes, IEEE Trans Autom Control, vol 27, no 6, pp , 1982 [19] M Vidyasagar and N Viswanadham, Algebraic characterization of decentralized fixed modes, Syst & Control Lett, vol 3, no 2, pp 69 72, 1983 [20] X Xie and Y Yang, Frequency domain characterization of decentralized fixed modes, IEEE Trans Autom Control, vol 31, no 10, pp , 1986 [21] X Xu, Y Xi, and Z Zhang, Further studies on algebraic characterization of fixed modes, in Proc IEEE Conf Decision Control, Athens, Greece, 1986, pp [22] J Kong and J H Seo, Graph-theoretic characterization of fixed modes in frequency domain, Automatica, vol 32, no 7, pp , 1996 [23] K Murota, Matrices and Matroids for Systems Analysis Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2010 [24] F Liu and A S Morse, A graphical characterization of structurally controllable linear systems with dependent parameters, IEEE Trans Autom Control, 2019, to appear ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors would like to thank Brian D O Anderson for suggesting the problem which this paper is addressed REFERENCES [1] S-H Wang and E J Davison, On the stabilization of decentralized control systems, IEEE Trans Autom Control, vol 18, no 5, pp , 1973 [2] J P Corfmat and A S Morse, Decentralized control of linear multivariable systems, Automatica, vol 12, no 5, pp , 1976 [3] M Vidyasagar and N Viswanadham, Algebraic characterization of decentralized fixed modes and pole assignment, in Proc IEEE Conf Decision Control, Orlando, FL, USA, 1982, pp [4] Z Gong and M Aldeen, On the characterization of fixed modes in decentralized control, IEEE Trans Autom Control, vol 37, no 7, pp , 1992 [5] B D O Anderson and J B Moore, Time-varying feedback laws for decentralized control, IEEE Trans Autom Control, vol 26, no 5, pp , 1981 [6] J L Willems, Time-varying feedback for the stabilization of fixed modes in decentralized control systems, Automatica, vol 25, no 1, pp , 1989 [7] U Ozguner and E J Davison, Sampling and decentralized fixed modes, in Proc Amer Control Conf, Boston, MA, USA, 1985, pp [8] J L Willems, Elimination of fixed modes in decentralized systems by means of sampling, Syst & Control Lett, vol 10, no 1, pp 1 8, 1988 [9] J Lavaei and A G Aghdam, Elimination of fixed modes by means of high-performance constrained periodic control, in Proc IEEE Conf Decision Control, San Diego, CA, USA, 2006, pp [10] S S Stanković and D D Šiljak, Stabilization of fixed modes in expansions of lti systems, Syst & Control Lett, vol 57, no 4, pp , 2008 [11] Z Gong and M Aldeen, Stabilization of decentralized control systems, J Math Systems Estim Control, vol 7, pp , 1997 [12] B D O Anderson and D J Clements, Algebraic characterization of fixed modes in decentralized control, Automatica, vol 17, no 5, pp , 1981 [13] B D O Anderson and H-M Hong, Structural controllability and matrix nets, Int J Control, vol 35, no 3, pp , 1982 [14] Z Gong and M Aldeen, Equivalence of characterizations of fixed modes, Syst & Control Lett, vol 22, no 1, pp 61 69, 1994 [15] W Q Liu, K L Teo, and W Y Yan, Comments on the characterizations of fixed modes for decentralized control systems, J Flin Inst, vol 333, no 1, pp 31 40, 1996