arxiv: v1 [math.ds] 19 Jul 2016

Transcription

1 Mutually Quadratically Inariant Information Structures in Two-Team Stochastic Dynamic Games Marcello Colombino Roy S Smith and Tyler H Summers arxi: mathds 19 Jul 016 Abstract We formulate a two-team linear quadratic stochastic dynamic game featuring two opposing teams each with decentralized information structures We introduce the concept of mutual quadratic inariance (MQI) which analogously to quadratic inariance in (single team) decentralized control defines a class of interacting information structures for the two teams under which optimal linear feedback control strategies are easy to compute We show that for zero-sum twoteam dynamic games structured state feedback Nash (saddlepoint) equilibrium strategies can be computed from equialent structured disturbance feedforward saddle point equilibrium strategies Howeer for nonzero-sum games we show ia a counterexample that a similar equialence fails to hold The results are illustrated with a simple yet rich numerical example that illustrates the importance of the information structure for dynamic games I INTRODUCTION Future cyber-physical systems (CPS) will feature cooperatie networks of autonomous decision making agents equipped with embedded sensing computation communication and actuation capabilities These capabilities promise to significantly enhance performance but also render the network ulnerable by increasing the number of access and influence points aailable to attackers Red team-blue team scenarios in which a defending team seeks to operate the network efficiently and securely while the attacking team seeks to disrupt network operation hae been used to qualitatiely assess and improe security in military and intelligence organizations but hae not receied formal mathematical analysis in a CPS context Here we will study some fundamental properties in two-team stochastic dynamic games in cyber-physical networks with a focus on interactions of the information structures of each team Dynamic game theory 1 offers a general framework for the study of optimal decision making in stochastic and noncooperatie enironments The theory can be iewed as a marriage of game theory with a focus on interactions of multiple decision making agents and optimal control theory 3 4 with a focus on dynamics and feedback The main elements of dynamic game theory are (1) a dynamical system along with a set of agents whose actions influence the state eolution of the system () an objectie function to be M Colombino and R Smith are with the Automatic Control Laboratory ETH Zurich Switzerland T Summers is with the Department of Mechanical Engineering Uniersity of Texas at Dallas USA addresses: {mcolombi rsmith}@controleeethzch tylersummers@utdallasedu This research is supported by the National Science Foundation under grant CNS and partially supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation grant optimized associated with each agent and (3) an information structure that specifies information sets for each agent ie who knows what and when Seeral special classes of dynamic games hae been extensiely studied In team decision theory all agents cooperate to optimize the same objectie function Static team theory traces back to the seminal work of Marschak and Radner 5 7 Decentralized control theory has deeloped from team decision theory and control theory and introduces dynamics The presence of dynamics makes aailable information depend on the actions of agents and significantly complicates the problem Dynamic aspects were studied in important early work by Witsenhausen 8 10 and Ho 11 1 Witsenhausen s famous counterexample 8 iidly demonstrated the computational difficulties associated with team decision making in dynamic and stochastic enironments This still-unsoled counterexample described a simple team decision problem in which a nonlinear strategy strictly outperforms the optimal linear strategy and established deep connections between control communication and information theory Research on decentralized and distributed control theory has continued and there has been a recent resurgence of interest drien by the adent of large-scale cyber-physical networks Recent work has elaborated on connections with communication and information theory and focused on computational and structural issues 15 0 These important structural information aspects arising from cooperating agents hae receied much less attention in the dynamic game literature which tends to focus only on non-cooperatie and adersarial behaior The most well studied case is the two-player problem which features two opposing agents who hae centralized information structures and has connections to robust control 1 What is currently under explored is a comprehensie study of information structure aspects when there are both non-cooperatie elements as in general dynamic game theory and cooperatie elements as in decentralized control theory These aspects can be captured by a two-team stochastic dynamic game framework Two-team stochastic dynamic games feature two opposing teams with decentralized information structures for both the attacking and defending teams: each agent must act based on partial information measured or receied locally in a way that coordinates its actions with team members and counters against the opposing team This framework mathematically formalizes red team-blue team scenarios that qualitatiely assess network security and resilience In comparison to decentralized control theory a team adersarial element is

2 added In comparison to general dynamic game theory a sharp contrast between cooperation with teammates and conflict against adersaries is presered Further the stochastic element (modeled by a chance or Nature player in the game) allows the inclusion of random component failures and disturbance signals There is currently a lack of deep theoretical and computational understanding in this class of dynamic games A static ersion of the problem was studied in Many fundamental questions that been answered in static or single team decentralized control settings do not hae counterparts in the two-team setting The main contributions of the present paper are as follows We formulate a two-team stochastic dynamic game problem and introduce a concept of mutual quadratic inariance which defines a class of interacting information structures for the two teams under which optimal linear feedback control strategies are easy to compute This is analogous to the concept of quadratic inariance in (single team) decentralized control 15 We show that for zero-sum twoteam dynamic games structured state feedback saddle point equilibrium strategies can be computed from equialent structured disturbance feedforward saddle point equilibrium strategies Howeer for nonzero-sum games we show ia a counterexample that a similar equialence fails to hold for structured Nash equilibrium strategies Finally we present a numerical example which illustrates the importance of the information structure on the alue of the game The rest of the paper is structured as follows Section II proides preliminaries on static team games Section III formulates a two-team stochastic dynamic game Sections IV and V deelop results on disturbance feedforward and state feedback strategies and introduce the concept of mutual quadratic inariance Section VI presents illustratie numerical experiments and Section VII gies some concluding remarks and future research directions II TWO-TEAM STOCHASTIC STATIC GAMES In this section we reiew basic results for a two-team stochastic static game In this setting two teams who both know the distribution parameters of a Gaussian random ector w need to decide strategies to compute ectors u R m and R q as a function of the realization w R n in order to minimize the expectation of different quadratic forms in wu Each team is composed of multiple agents each of which obseres a different linear function of w and decides a portion of the ectors u or More formally gien a ector w N(m w Σ w ) where Σ w 0 consider the following game T 1 : min E w(j 1 (wu)) κ i( ) s t u i = κ i (C i w) i Z 1N T : min E w(j (wu)) λ j( ) s t j = λ j (Γ i w) j Z 1M (1) where J i (wu) := w u H i ww H i wu H i w Hi wu H i uu H i u Hi w Hi u H i w u i {1} are the objectie functions of each team and κ i ( )i Z 1N and λ j ( )j Z 1M are Borel measurable functions corresponding to the decision strategies of agents on team 1 and respectiely Assumption 1: We assume H1uu H 1u H1uu H 0 u 0 H 1u H H u H Note that in the zero-sum case (J 1 = J ) Assumption 1 is standard to guarantee the existence of a saddle point equilibrium to the game without decentralized information structure 3 condition 639 If J 1 = J Assumption 1 reduces to the standard positie definite assumption of team theory 6 We now define the set of Nash optimal strategies for the game in (1) Definition 1: A pair of strategies (κ ( )λ ( )) of the form κ 1 (C 1 )κ N (C n ) and λ 1 (Γ 1 )λ M (Γ n ) is Nash optimal for the game in (1) if κ ( ) argmin E wj 1 (wλ (w)κ(w)) κ( ) λ ( ) argmin E wj (wλ(w)κ () (w)) λ( ) Under Assumption 1 the game in (1) admits a unique set of linear Nash optimal strategies which can be computed by soling a set of linear equations deried from stationarity conditions This turns out to be a special case of a general multi-player multi-objectie linear quadratic static game considered in 4 III TWO-TEAM STOCHASTIC DYNAMIC GAMES Problem (1) is a static game There is no concept of time and causality of the information pattern In this section we formulate a dynamic game where two teams can influence the state eolution of a dynamical system The agents on each team decide a portion of an input signal based on different obserations of the system state oer time Decision must be causal: each player is only allowed to use past or at most present information Our focus will be on the role of information structures for both teams in determining equilibrium strategies Dynamic games offer a rich ariety of information structures Specific instances hae been considered in the literature with much work on arious types of centralized structures 1 and some work on structures defined by spatiotemporal decentralization patterns For example a one-step-delay obseration sharing pattern was shown in 4 to admit unique linear optimal strategies There has been recent progress in (single team) decentralized control on information structure issues including a characterization of information structures called quadratically inariant that yield conex control design

3 problems 15 Here we seek an analogous result in a twoteam game setting Consider the system x(t+1) = Ax(t)+B 1 u(t)+b (t)+w(t) (3) where x(t) R n is the system state at time t with x(0) N(0Σ 0 ) u(t) R m1 is the input for team 1 at time t (t) R m is the input for team at time t and w(t) N(0Σ t ) is a random disturbance The cost functions for each team are gien by ( N 1 J i := E x(t) M i (t)x(t)+u(t) R i (t)u(t) t=0 +(t) V i (t)(t) ) +x(n) M i (N)x(N) i {1} where M i (0) = 0 n n M i (t) = M i (t) R n n R i (t) = R i (t) R m1 m1 and V i (t) = V i (t) R m m By defining the matrices A = blockdiag(a A) R n(n+1) n(n+1) B i 0 0 B i = 0 0 B i Rn(N+1) mjn i {1} 0 0 M i = blockdiag(0m i (1)M i (N)) R n(n+1) n(n+1) R i = blockdiag(r i (0)R i (N 1)) R m1n m1n and V i = blockdiag(v i (0)V i (N 1)) R mn MN for i {1} the ectors x = (x(0)x(n)) R n(n+1) u = (u(0)u(n 1)) R m1n = ((0)(N 1)) R mn and w = (x(0)w(0)w(n 1)) R n(n+1) and the shift matrix 0 Z := I Rn(N+1) n(n+1) we can write system (3) as I 0 (4) x = ZAx+ZB 1 u+zb +w (5) The system in (5) can be rewritten compactly as x = P 11 P 1 P 13 w u (6) where P 11 = (I ZA) 1 P 1 = (I ZA) 1 ZB 1 and P 13 = (I ZA) 1 ZB The cost functions in (4) can be written in function of the ectorized inputs as J i (u) = E w w u H i w u i {1} where H i = P11 M ip 11 P11 M ip 1 P11 M ip 13 P1M i P 11 P1M i P 1 +R i P1M i P 13 P13 M ip 11 P13 M ip 1 P13 M ip 13 +V i for i = {1} We are interested in the finite horizon two-team stochastic dynamic game where: Team 1 minimizes J 1 (u) Team minimizes J (u) Each team choses a structured causal state feedback strategy of the form u = K 1 (x) = K (x) K 1 S 1 K S where K i : R n(n+1) R min for i {1} are measurable functions and S 1 and S define an information structure for each team We define a information structures i {01} n(n+1) min as a binary matrix K i S i indicates that if S i jk = 0 then the j th element of K i is not a function of x k By choosing the information structures one can enforce causality and a prescribed spatiotemporal structure on the controller strategies IV MUTUAL QUADRATIC INVARIANCE In decentralized control with quadratically inariant information structures the controller structure can be enforced on an affine parameter that defines the achieable set of closedloop systems and recoer a structured feedback controller We now follow a similar approach in the two-team setting A Disturbance feedforward strategies By searching for measurable disturbance feedforward strategies of the type u = Q 1 (P 11 w) and = Q (P 11 w) where Q 1 S 1 and Q S we recoer the formulation of (1) Proided that Assumption 1 is satisfied there exists a unique Nash equilibrium of the form u = Q 1 P 11 w = Q P 11 w in the space of linear strategies The matrices Q 1 Q can be easily computed by soling a linear system of equations or a sequence of semidefinite programs 4 Assumption 1 for the dynamic game problem becomes P 1 M 1 P 1 +R 1 P1 M 1P 13 P13M 1 P 1 P13M 0 P 13 +S P 1 M P 1 +R P1 M P 13 P13 M P 1 P13 M 0 1P 13 +S 1 We can define new cost functions that depend on the matrices Q 1 and Q describing linear disturbance feedforward strategies as ( ) J i = J Q i (u) (7) u=p 11w=Q P 11w

4 In particular J i ( Q ) = M 1 i (I +P 1 Q 1 +P 13 Q )P 11 Σ 1 w F where Σ 1 w is the coariance of w B Equialent state feedback strategies + R 1 i Q 1 Σ 1 w F + V 1 i Q Σ 1 w F It is easy to show that there exists a bijectie relationship between a pair of linear disturbance feedforward strategies (Q 1 Q ) and an equialent pair of linear state feedback strategies described by the matrices (K 1 K ) More precisely using (6) we obtain u = P 11 w = Q Q x Q P1 We can define the function g such that ( ) ( ) K1 = g K Q where P 13 u ( ) ( ) 1 g = I + P1 P Q Q 13 Q Using a similar approach to (8) one can construct the inerse mapping that gien a pair of feedback strategies recoers the equialent feedforward strategies Q = g 1 ( K1 K ) where the map g 1 takes the form g 1 ( K1 K ) = K1 K ( I P 1 P 13 K 1 K ) 1 Gien a pair of linear feedback strategies K 1 and K the cost for player i can be ealuated by considering the equialent feedforward strategies as ( ( )) J i (u) = J i g 1 K1 K u=k1x=k x where J i is defined in (7) Now that we hae a way to construct feedback strategies which are equialent to any set of linear feedforward strategies we need to establish a condition that guarantees that such equialent feedback strategies will presere the desired structure (8) C Mutual Quadratic Inariance We know form the quadratic inariance literature 15 5 that Q 1 S 1 and Q S K 1 S 1 and K S if and only if for all (K 1 K ) S 1 S it holds that K1 K P1 P 1 K 13 S K 1 S (9) in other words S 1 S is quadratically inariant under P 1 P 13 We define this property as mutual quadratic inariance We can expand (9) as K1 S K 1 S = { K1 P 1 K 1 K 1 P 13 K S 1 K P 1 K 1 K P 13 K S (10) By obsering (9) we note that MQI is equialent to QI for a control problem where both decisions u and are taken by a single decision maker MQI information structures will allow us to compute equilibrium strategies in two-team games V COMPUTING EQUILIBRIUM STRATEGIES We hae seen in Section IV that gien structures S 1 and S which are mutually quadratically inariant under P 1 and P 13 one can easily obtain a Nash equilibrium in the disturbance feedforward strategies Furthermore once we recoer the equialent state feedback strategies the structure is presered There is still a nontriial question that needs to be answered Problem 1: Gien a Nash equilibrium in the feedforward strategies ( Q 1 Q ) are the equialent feedback strategies ( ) ( ) K1 = g (11) K Q a Nash equilibrium in the feedback strategies? In order to understand why the answer to Problem 1 is nontriial we first present a counterexample for a nonzero sum game A Nonzero sum game Consider the following problem instance with N = A = B 1 = 04 B = 01 Σ 0 = 1 Σ t = 1 t M 1 (t) = R 1 (t) = S 1 (t) = 1 t M (t) = 70 tr (t) = S (t) = 1 t (1) This is a single state two-stage two-player problem and we will consider centralized causal strategies which are readily erified to be mutually quadratically inariant Using disturbance feedforward strategies the problem can be reduced to a static game whose unique Nash Equilibrium strategies are readily computed using methods from 4 This yields the Nash pair ( Q 1 Q ) where Q 1 = Q = (13)

5 The( corresponding ) equilibrium alue for player 1 is J1 = 0 The corresponding state feedback Q strategies are K 1 = (14) K = Howeer ( K 1 K ) is not a Nash Equilibrium in state feedback ( ( strategies )) since it is readily erified that ˆK1 J 1 g 1 = 061 where K ˆK 1 = (15) Although the sparsity structure is presered between the disturbance feedforward and state feedback strategies since the information structure is mutually quadratically inariant the Nash Equilibrium property is not presered Thus for this particular non-zero sum dynamic game the answer to the question posed in Problem 1 is negatie We show next that this situation does not occur in zero-sum games B Zero sum game Let us now consider the zero sum game case where the objectie function of one team is precisely the negatie of that of the other team Such problems can be re-written as a min-max problem of the form minmax u w J(u) := E w w u H w u (16) As before we are interested in strategies of the form u = K 1 (x) = K (x) K 1 S 1 K S where S 1 and S are prescribed sets of structured causal controllers As zero-sum games are a special case of nonzero sum games proided Assumption 1 holds we can find structured Nash equilibria (rather saddle point equilibrium in the zero sum context) if we consider linear strategies of the form u = Q 1 P 11 w and = Q P 11 w For the zero sum game of the form (16) Assumption 1 reads P 1 MP 1 +R P1MP 13 P13 MP 1 ( P13 MP 13 +S ) 0 As before gien the saddle point equilibrium in the feedforward strategies when S 1 and S are mutually quadratically inariant we can compute equialent linear feedback strategies that presere the structure In the zero-sum case howeer we can relate the equilibrium property of the feedforward strategies to that of the state feedback strategies We start with a result that shows that the maps g and g 1 presere stationary points We begin by noting that for a zero-sum game J 1 = J then Lemma 1: Gien ( ) K1 = g Q 1 K ( ) J 1 Q Q 1 S = Q 1Q = Q 1 ( ) J Q Q S = Q 1Q = Q (17) if and only if ( ( )) J 1 g 1 K1 K K 1 S1 ( ( )) K1= K 1K = K (18) J g 1 K1 K K S K1= K 1K = K Proof: Let us simplify the notation and define K1 Q := K := P := P Q K 1 P 13 We start by proing the only if part Note that since J 1 = J ( ) J Q Q S = Q 1Q = Q if and only if ( ) J 1 Q Q S = Q 1Q = Q Assume (18) holds and suppose (17) does not hold Then there exist Q S1 S with Q 0 such that J 1 ( Q+ε Q) J( Q) lim = κ 0 ε 0 ε or equialently ( (g( J 1 g 1 Q+ε Q ))) J ( Q) lim ε 0 ε = κ 0 (19) We know that ) ( ) 1 ( ) g( Q+ε Q = I +( Q+ε Q P) Q+ε Q ( = I + QP QP) 1 ( ) +ε Q+ε Q = (I + QP) 1 +ε(i + QP) 1 QP(I + 1 QP) ) +O(ε )( Q+ε Q where = K+ε K+O(ε ) K = (I + QP) 1 Q+(I + QP) 1 QP(I + QP) 1 Q (0)

6 Using 15 Theorem 14 + Theorem 6 and mutual quadratic inariance it is easy to conclude that K S 1 S Substituting (0) in (19) and using the fact that Q = g ( K) one obtains J 1 (g ( K+ε K+O(ε 1 ) lim ε 0 ε J 1 (g ( K+ε K 1 lim ε 0 ε )) J ( g 1( K)) = )) J ( g 1( K)) = κ 0 which since K S 1 S is in contradiction with (18) and thus proes the claim The conerse direction can be proen analogously Note that Lemma 1 only holds for zero-sum games as the proof heaily relies to the fact that J 1 = J We are now ready to state our main result which allows us to construct a saddle point Equilibrium in the space of linear feedback strategies Theorem : Let ( Q 1 Q ) be the unique saddle point equilibrium in the disturbance feedforward strategies Then if there exists a saddle point equilibrium in state feedback strategies it is unique and gien by K1 K = g ( Q ) Proof: Let (ˆK 1 ˆK ) be any saddle point equilibrium in state feedback linear strategies Let( ˆQ 1 ˆQ ) be the corresponding disturbance feedforward policy Since (ˆK 1 ˆK ) is stationary so is ( ˆQ 1 ˆQ ) by Lemma 1 Since J is conex quadratic in Q 1 and concae quadratic in Q it follows from Assumption 1 that the stationary point is unique Thus ( ˆQ 1 ˆQ ) = ( Q 1 Q ) Since g is bijectie (ˆK 1 ˆK ) = ( K 1 K ) Thus ( K 1 K ) is the unique saddle point equilibrium in state feedback linear strategies due to the uniqueness of ( Q 1 Q ) This result allows computation of structured equilibrium feedback strategies in two-team stochastic dynamic games with mutually quadratically inariant information structures VI NUMERICAL EXAMPLE We now present a ery simple illustratie numerical example The mutual quadratic inariance property allows us to compute equilibrium strategies and alues under these information structures and thereby to understand the importance of different information structures in dynamical games We consider a two player system depicted in Figure 1 which can be interpreted as a simple transportation network w 1 w x u 1 x Fig 1: Two player network Each subsystem consists of a buffer with single integrator dynamics System 1 stores x 1 and can control input u that transfers some of the good stored in its buffer to System System stores x and can control input to discard some of the good Both systems are affected by random disturbances which are normally distributed with zero mean and unit ariance The dynamics of the system is x + 1 x x1 = x 1 0 u+ 1 1 w1 + w (1) Gien the dynamics in (1) with w 1 (t)w (t)x(0) N(01) we consider the following zero sum dynamic game minmax u 10 t=1 Ex 1(t)+Eu (t 1)+ Ex (t) E (t 1) s t u = K 1 x K 1 S 1 = K x K S () where x = (x(0)x(10)) u = (u(0)u(9)) = ((0) (9)) Both players benefit from keeping the ariance of their state and input low and from increasing the ariance of the opponent s state and input We will compare the results for different information structures S 1 and S all of which are mutually quadratically inariant In particular we consider: Causal controllers with full information (FI) That is both players hae access to all past and present information S 1 = S = One step delay information sharing (1SDIS) At time t both players do not know the opponent s current state but hae full information up to time t 1 S 1 = S =

7 TABLE I: The cost at the Nash Equilibrium for the three different information structures A smaller cost is indicates an adantage for Player 1 who is minimizing in () while a larger cost is an adantage for Player Equilibrium cost for the different information structures Structure Equilibrium Cost () FI SDIS -100 DP Decentralized control for Player 1 (DP1) Player 1 only has access to present and past information about its own state Player has full information 10 5 FI 1SDIS DP1 S 1 = and S has full information It is easily erifiable that all such structures respect the mutual quadratic inariance assumption for the gien system We computed the Nash equilibrium feedforward strategies ( Q 1 Q ) for the three different information structures using the method proposed in We applied Theorem to compute the linear saddle point equilibrium in the state feedback strategies as ( ) K1 = g K Q In Table I we obsere the different costs at equilibrium Note the large difference in cost function that is achieed for different information structures Using the full information structure as a baseline as we expect Player 1 is penalized by using decentralized information (DP1) On the other hand Player 1 obtains a great adantage with the one step delay information sharing (1SDIS) structure Figure shows the breakdown of the cost function of () for the different information structures and allows us to understand why certain information structures are more beneficial for different players For example if we consider 1SDIS we notice that Player 1 can exploit the fact that its opponent has no information on Player 1 s current state and input and it uses this to dramatically increase the ariance of x To do so Player 1 needs to spend some ariance in u which is also increased The net gain howeer is clearly in faor of Player 1 VII CONCLUSION We hae considered a two-team linear quadratic stochastic dynamic game with decentralized information structures for both teams We introduced the concept of Mutual Quadratic Inariance (MQI) which defines a class of interacting team Ex 1 (t) Eu(t) Ex (t) E(t) Fig : Breakdown of the cost function of () for the three information structures information structures for which equilibrium strategies can be easily computed We demonstrated an equialence of disturbance feedforward and state feedback saddle point equilibrium strategies that facilitates this computation in zero-sum games and we showed such an equialence fails to hold for Nash equilibrium strategies in nonzero-sum games A numerical example showed how mutually quadratically inariant information structures can be ealuated and how different structures can lead to significantly different equilibrium alues Many fundamental questions remain open in two-team stochastic dynamic games For example issues inoling infinite horizon and boundedness of the equilibrium alue (stability) separation and certainty equialence games with incomplete model information and design of information structures can be considered Some of these results may take inspiration from recent progress on information structure issues in decentralized control REFERENCES 1 T Başar and G Olsder Dynamic noncooperatie game theory ol 00 SIAM 1995 J Von Neumann and O Morgenstern Theory of games and economic behaior Princeton Uniersity Press R Bellman On the theory of dynamic programming Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America ol 38 no 8 p L Pontryagin Optimal control processes Usp Mat Nauk ol 14 no J Marschak Elements for a theory of teams Management Science ol 1 no pp R Radner Team decision problems The Annals of Mathematical Statistics pp J Marshak and R Radner Economic theory of teams Yale Uniersity Press H Witsenhausen A counterexample in stochastic optimum control SIAM Journal on Control ol 6 no 1 pp H Witsenhausen Separation of estimation and control for discrete time systems Proceedings of the IEEE ol 59 no 11 pp

8 10 H Witsenhausen On information structures feedback and causality SIAM Journal on Control ol 9 no pp Y C Ho and K-C Chu Team decision theory and information structures in optimal control problems part i IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control ol 17 no 1 pp Y-C Ho Team decision theory and information structures Proceedings of the IEEE ol 68 no 6 pp P Groer S Y Park and A Sahai Approximately optimal solutions to the finite-dimensional Witsenhausen counterexample IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control ol 58 no 9 pp P Groer A B Wagner and A Sahai Information embedding and the triple role of control IEEE Transactions on Information Theory ol 61 no 4 pp M Rotkowitz and S Lall A characterization of conex problems in decentralized control Automatic Control IEEE Transactions on ol 51 no pp A Nayyar A Mahajan and D Teneketzis Decentralized stochastic control with partial history sharing: A common information approach IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control ol 58 no 7 pp S Yüksel and T Başar Stochastic networked control systems AMC ol 10 p J Swigart and S Lall Optimal controller synthesis for decentralized systems oer graphs ia spectral factorization IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control ol 59 no 9 pp L Lessard and S Lall Optimal control of two-player systems with output feedback to appear IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control ol 60 no 8 pp A Gattami B M Bernhardsson and A Rantzer Robust team decision theory Automatic Control IEEE Transactions on ol 57 no 3 pp T Başar and P Bernhard H-infinity optimal control and related minimax design problems: a dynamic game approach Springer Science & Business Media 1990 M Colombino T Summers and R Smith Quadratic two-team games in IEEE Conference on Decision and Control Osaka Japan pp B Hassibi A H Sayed and T Kailath Indefinite-quadratic estimation and control Studies in Applied and Numerical Mathematics T Basar Decentralized multicriteria optimization of linear stochastic systems Automatic Control IEEE Transactions on ol 3 no pp J Swigart and S Lall An explicit state-space solution for a decentralized two-player optimal linear-quadratic regulator in Proceedings of the 010 American Control Conference pp IEEE 010