arxiv: v1 [math.oc] 14 Mar 2018

Transcription

1 Identifiability of Undirected Dynamical Networks: a Graph-Theoretic Approach Henk J. van Waarde, Pietro Tesi, and M. Kanat Camlibel arxiv: v1 [math.oc] 14 Mar 2018 Abstract This paper deals with identifiability of undirected dynamical networks with single-integrator node dynamics. We assume that the graph structure of such networks is known, and aim to find graph-theoretic conditions under which the state matrix of the network can be uniquely identified. As our main contribution, we present a graph coloring condition that ensures identifiability of the network s state matrix. Additionally, we show how the framework can be used to assess identifiability of dynamical networks with general, higher-order node dynamics. As an interesting corollary of our results, we find that excitation and measurement of all network nodes is not required. In fact, for many network structures, identification is possible with only small fractions of measured and excited nodes. I. INTRODUCTION Networks of dynamical systems appear in multiple contexts, including power networks, sensor networks, and robotic networks (cf. Section 1 of [1]). It is natural to describe such networks by a graph, where nodes correspond with dynamical subsystems, and edges represent interaction between different systems. Often, the graph structure of dynamical networks is not directly available. For instance, in neuroscience, the interactions between brain areas are typically unknown [2]. Other examples of networks with unknown interconnection structure include genetic networks [3] and wireless sensor networks [4]. Consequently, the problem of network reconstruction is considered in the literature. Network reconstruction is quite a broad concept, and there exist multiple variants of this problem. For example, the goal in [5], [6] is to reconstruct the Boolean structure of the network (i.e., the locations of the edges). Moreover, simultaneous identification of the graph structure and the network weights has been considered in [7], [8], [9]. Typically, the conditions under which the network structure is uniquely identifiable are rather strong, and it is often assumed that the states of all nodes in the network can be measured [6], [7], [8], [9]. In fact, it has been shown [10] that measuring all network nodes is necessary for network reconstruction of dynamical networks (described by a class of state-space systems). Pietro Tesi and Henk van Waarde are with the Engineering and Technology Institute Groningen, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Groningen, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands. Pietro Tesi is also with the Department of Information Engineering, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. Kanat Camlibel and Henk van Waarde are with the Johann Bernoulli Institute for Mathematics and Computer Science, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands. h.j.van.waarde@rug.nl, p.tesi@rug.nl, pietro.tesi@unifi.it, and m.k.camlibel@rug.nl. In this paper, we consider undirected dynamical networks described by state-space systems. In contrast to the above discussed papers, we assume that the graph structure is known, but the state matrix of the network is unavailable. Such a situation arises, for example, in electrical or power networks in which the locations of links are typically known, but link weights require identification. Our goal is to find graph-theoretic conditions under which the state matrix of the network can be uniquely identified. Graph-theoretic conditions have previously been used to assess other system-theoretic properties such as structural controllability [11], [12], fault detection [13], [14], and parameter-independent stability [15]. Conditions based on the graph structure are often desirable since they avoid potential numerical issues associated with more traditional linear algebra tests. In addition, graph-theoretic conditions provide insight in the types of networks having certain system-theoretic properties, and can aid the selection of input/output nodes [16]. The papers that are most closely related to the work in this paper are [17] and [18]. Nabavi et al. [17] consider weighted, undirected consensus networks with a single input. They assume that the graph structure is known, and aim to identify the weights in the network. A sensor placement algorithm is presented, which selects a set of sensor nodes on the basis of the graph structure. It is shown that this set of sensor nodes is sufficient to guarantee weight identifiability. Bazanella et al. [18] consider a network model where interactions between nodes are modeled by proper transfer functions (see also [19], [20]). Also in this paper, the graph structure is assumed to be known, and the goal is to find conditions under which the transfer functions can be identified. Under the assumption that all nodes are externally excited, necessary and sufficient graph-theoretic conditions are presented under which all transfer functions can be (generically) identified. Note that both of the above papers make explicit assumptions on the number of input nodes. To the best of the authors knowledge, the current paper is the first to consider graph-theoretic conditions for identifiability of dynamical networks without a priori assumptions on the location and number of input/output nodes. Our main contribution consists of a graph coloring condition for identifiability of dynamical networks with single-integrator node dynamics. Specifically, we prove a relation between identifiability and so-called zero forcing sets [21] (see also [11], [12], [22]). As our second result, we show how our framework can be used to assess identifiability of dynamical networks with general, higherorder node dynamics.

2 The organization of this paper is as follows. First, in Section II we introduce the notation and preliminaries used throughout the paper. Subsequently, in Section III we state the problem. Section IV contains our main result, and Section V treats an extension to higher-order dynamics. Finally, our conclusions are stated in Section VI. II. PRELIMINARIES We denote the sets of natural, real, and complex numbers by N, R, and C, respectively. Moreover, the set of real m n matrices is denoted by R m n. Furthermore, the set of all symmetric n n matrices is given by S n. We denote the Kronecker product of two matrices A and B by A B. The n n identity matrix is given by I n. The subscript n is omitted if the dimension of I is clear from the context. For x 1, x 2,..., x n R q, we use the notation col(x 1, x 2,..., x n ) R qn to denote the concatenation of the vectors x 1, x 2,..., x n. Finally, the cardinality of a set S is denoted by S. A. Graph theory All graphs considered in this note are simple, i.e., without self-loops and without multiple edges between any pair of vertices. Let G = (V, E) be an undirected graph, where V = {1, 2,..., n} is the set of vertices (or nodes), and E V V denotes the set of edges. A node j V is said to be a neighbour of i V if (i, j) E. For any subset V = {v 1, v 2,..., v r } V we define the n r matrix P (V ; V ) as P ij := { 1 if i = v j 0 otherwise where P ij denotes the i, j-th entry of P. We will now define two families of matrices, associated with the graph G. Firstly, we define the so-called qualitative class Q(G) as Q(G) := {X S n for i j, X ji 0 (i, j) E}. Matrices in Q(G) carry the graph structure of G in the sense that nonzero off-diagonal entries of X Q(G) correspond to edges in G. Note that the diagonal elements of matrices in Q(G) are free. In this paper, we focus on a subclass of Q(G), namely the class of matrices with non-negative off-diagonal entries. This class is denoted by Q p (G), and defined as Q p (G) := {X Q(G) for i j, X ji 0 = X ji > 0}. The class Q p (G) contains several well-known graph-related matrices such as weighted adjacency and negated Laplacian matrices. B. Zero forcing sets In this section we review the notion of zero forcing. Let G = (V, E) be an undirected graph with vertices colored either black or white. The color-change rule is defined in the following way. If u V is a black vertex and exactly one neighbour v V of u is white, then change the color of v to black [21]. When the color-change rule is applied to u to change the color of v, we say u forces v, and write u v. Given a coloring of G, that is, given a set Z V containing black vertices only, and a set V \ Z consisting of only white vertices, the derived set D(Z) is the set of black vertices obtained by applying the color-change rule until no more changes are possible [21]. A zero forcing set for G is a subset of vertices Z V such that if initially the vertices in Z are colored black and the remaining vertices are colored white, then D(Z) = V. A zero forcing set Z V is called a minimum zero forcing set if for any zero forcing set Y in G we have Y Z. Finally, for a given zero forcing set, we can construct the derived set, listing the forces in the order in which they were performed. This list is called a chronological list of forces. Note that such a list does not have to be unique. C. Dynamical networks Consider an undirected graph G = (V, E). Let V I V be the set of so-called input nodes, and let V O V be the set of output nodes, with cardinalities V I = m and V O = p, respectively. Associated with G, V I, and V O, we consider the dynamical system ẋ(t) = Xx(t) + Mu(t) y(t) = Nx(t), where x R n is the state, u R m is the input, and y R p is the output. The matrix X Q p (G) carries the structure of the graph G, and the matrices M and N are indexed by V I and V O, respectively, in the sense that (1) M = P (V ; V I ), and N = P (V ; V O ). (2) We use the shorthand notation (X, M, N) to denote the dynamical system (1). The transfer matrix from u to y of system (1) is given by N(sI X) 1 M, where s C is a complex variable. D. Network controllability and observability In this section, we review the notion of strong structural controllability and observability of dynamical networks. In the case that system (1) is controllable [23], we say the pair (X, M) is controllable. Similar to the definition in [11], we say (1) is strongly structurally controllable if (X, M) is controllable for all X Q p (G). We emphasize that we define structural controllability with respect to the class Q p (G) (and not with respect to Q(G), as in [11]). If (X, M) is controllable for all X Q p (G), we say (G; V I ) is controllable, with slight abuse of terminology. The following lemma relates controllability of (G; V I ) with the colorchange rule, as introduced in Section II-B. Lemma 1. Let G = (V, E) be an undirected graph, and let V I V be a set of initially black vertices. Suppose that v w where v V I and w V \ V I. Then (G; V I ) is controllable if and only if (G; V I {w}) is controllable. Lemma 1 was proven in [11] in the case that controllability of (G; V I ) is defined as controllability of (X, M) for all X Q(G) (see Lemma IV.2 of [11]). The proof of Lemma IV.2 uses Lemma IV.1 of [11]. Note that the proofs of both

3 of these lemmas do not use any information on the sign of off-diagonal entries of X. In fact, these proofs only use the fact that the diagonal entries of X Q(G) are free, and for i j, X ji 0 if and only if (i, j) E. Therefore, the proofs of Lemma IV.1 and IV.2 in [11] can be immediately applied to prove Lemma 1. If system (1) is observable [23], we say the pair (X, N) is observable. Moreover, (1) is strongly structurally observable if (X, N) is observable for all X Q p (G). If (1) is strongly structurally observable, we say (G; V O ) is observable, with slight abuse of terminology. By duality (see Section 3.3 of [23]) and by symmetry of the matrices X Q p (G), we have that (G; V I ) is controllable if and only if (G; V I ) is observable. Finally, the triple (G; V I ; V O ) is said to be minimal if (G; V I ) is controllable and (G; V O ) is observable. E. Network identifiability Inspired by the general definition of distinguishability of nonlinear systems [24], we state the following definition of distinguishability of systems of the form (1). Definition 1. Consider two dynamical systems (X 1, M, N) and (X 2, M, N) of the form (1), and denote their output trajectories by y 1 ( ) and y 2 ( ), respectively. We say X 1 and X 2 are indistinguishable if for all inputs u( ) applied to both systems, we have y 1 ( ) = y 2 ( ). Moreover, X 1 and X 2 are said to be distinguishable if they are not indistinguishable. In addition to the definition of distinguishability, we introduce the notion of identifiability as follows. Definition 2. A matrix X 1 Q p (G) is identifiable if X 1 and X 2 are distinguishable for all X 2 Q p (G) \ {X 1 }. In this paper, we are interested in conditions under which all matrices in Q p (G) are identifiable. We therefore introduce the following shorthand notation. With slight abuse of terminology, we say the triple (G; V I ; V O ) is identifiable if all X Q p (G) are identifiable. Note that identifiability of (G; V I ; V O ) is a property of the graph and the input/output nodes only (and not of the particular state matrix X Q p (G)). The following conditions for identifiability of (G; V I ; V O ) follow directly from Theorem 1 of [24]. Theorem 2. Consider a graph G = (V, E) with input nodes V I V and output nodes V O V. Define M and N as in (2). The triple (G; V I ; V O ) is identifiable if and only if for all X 1, X 2 Q p (G) the following implication holds: NX k 1 M = NX k 2 M for all k N = X 1 = X 2, equivalently, N(sI X 1 ) 1 M = N(sI X 2 ) 1 M = X 1 = X 2. III. PROBLEM STATEMENT Consider an undirected graph G = (V, E) with input nodes V I V and output nodes V O V, and consider the associated dynamical system (1). Throughout this paper, we assume G, V I, and V O to be known. We are interested in conditions under which all state matrices X Q p (G) can be identified from input/output data. In other words, we want to find conditions under which (G; V I ; V O ) is identifiable. Note that it is not straightforward to check whether the conditions of Theorem 2 are satisfied. Indeed, the conditions of Theorem 2 require the computation and comparison of an infinite number of transfer matrices. Instead, in this paper we want to establish a condition for identifiability of (G; V I ; V O ) in terms of zero forcing sets. Such a graphbased condition has the potential of being more efficient to check than the conditions of Theorem 2. In addition, graphtheoretic conditions have the advantage of avoiding possible numerical errors in the linear algebra computations appearing in Theorem 2. Explicitly, the considered problem in this paper is as follows. Problem 1. Consider an undirected graph G = (V, E) with input nodes V I V and ouput nodes V O V. Provide graph-theoretic conditions under which (G; V I ; V O ) is identifiable. IV. MAIN RESULT In this section, we state our results. First, we establish a lemma which will be used to prove our main contribution (Theorem 4). The following lemma considers the case that V I = V O, and says that minimality and identifiability of a triple (G; V S ; V S ) is invariant under the color-change rule. Lemma 3. Let G = (V, E) be an undirected graph, and consider a set V S V of initially black vertices. Moreover, let v V S and w V \ V S, and suppose that v w. Then (G; V S ; V S ) is minimal and identifiable if and only if (G; V S {w}; V S {w}) is minimal and identifiable. Proof. The only if part of the statement follows directly from the fact that controllability, observability, and identifiability are preserved under the addition of input and output nodes. Therefore, in what follows, we focus on proving the if part. Suppose that (G; V S {w}; V S {w}) is minimal and identifiable. By Lemma 1 and by duality, this implies that the triple (G; V S ; V S ) is minimal. Let M = P (V ; V S {w}) and N = M be the input and output matrices associated with V S {w}, respectively. Moreover, consider two matrices X, X Q p (G), and suppose that N(sI X) 1 M = N(sI X) 1 M. (3) Without loss of generality, we assume that the nodes in the set V S {w} are indexed as the first V S {w} nodes of V. We partition the vertex set V in four subsets, namely {w}, {v}, V S \ {v}, and the remaining vertices in V. Compatible with this partition, we write X 11 X 12 X 13 X X 12 X 22 X X = X 13 X 23 X 33 X 34 X 14 0 X 34 X 44, M = 0 0 I 0 0 0, where the first row of X and M corresponds to the node w, the second row corresponds to v, the third row block is

4 associated with V S \{v}, and the last row block corresponds to the remaining vertices in V. Note that, since v w we have (v, w) E, and consequently X 12 is a positive scalar. Moreover, as v w, the vertex w is the only neighbour of v in V \V S, and hence X 24 = 0. By hypothesis, (G; V S {w}; V S {w}) is minimal, and hence the systems (X, M, N) and ( X, M, N) are minimal. Therefore, (3) holds if and only if there exists a nonsingular T R n n such that XT = T X, T M = M, and NT = N. In fact, the relations T M = M and NT = N hold if and only if the matrix T has the form T = I T 44, (4) where T 44 is nonsingular, and the partitioning of T is compatible with the one of X. By hypothesis, the triple (G; V S {w}; V S {w}) is identifiable, and therefore, (3) implies that X = X. Equivalently, for all X, X Q p (G), the following implication holds: XT = T X, where T satisfies (4) = X = X. (5) We want to prove that (G; V S ; V S ) is identifiable. Hence, let M = P (V ; VS ) and N = M be the input and output matrices associated with V S, respectively, and note that M is of the form 0 0 M = I. 0 0 Consider two matrices X, X Q p (G) and suppose that N(sI X) 1 M = N(sI X) 1 M. Since we have already shown that (G; V S ; V S ) is minimal, there exists a nonsingular T R n n such that X T = T X, T M = M, and N T = N. In this case, the equations T M = M and N T = N imply that T is of the form T T14 T = I 0. (6) T T44 Next, the equation X T = T X yields X 12 T11 X12 X 12 T11 X 12 T14 = X 12 0, 0 T41 X12 where asterisks denote elements of lesser interest. Consequently, we obtain X 12 T14 = 0 and T 41 X12 = 0. Since v w, both X 12 and X 12 are nonzero scalars, and therefore we obtain T 14 = 0 and T 41 = 0. Furthermore, combining the equations X 12 = T 11 X12 and X 12 T11 = X 12 yields X 12 = T 2 11X 12, and, since X 12 0, we conclude that T 11 = 1 or T 11 = 1. Note that T11 = 1 is not possible, since by definition of Q p (G), the scalars X 12 and X 12 are both positive. To conclude, we have shown that T11 = 1, T14 = 0, and T 41 = 0. Therefore, the matrix T in (6) has the form (4). Consequently, by the implication (5), we have X = X. In other words, (G; V S ; V S ) is identifiable, which completes the proof. Based on the previous lemma, we state the following theorem, which is the main result of this paper. It states an elegant graph-theoretic condition under which (G; V I ; V O ) is identifiable. Theorem 4. Let G = (V, E) be an undirected graph with input set V I V and output set V O V. If V I V O is a zero forcing set in G, then (G; V I ; V O ) is identifiable. Proof. Define V S := V I V O, and suppose that V S is a zero forcing set in G. By consecutive application of Lemma 3, we have that (G; V S ; V S ) is minimal and identifiable if and only if (G; V ; V ) is minimal and identifiable. Note that (G; V ; V ) is trivially minimal and identifiable. We conclude that (G; V S ; V S ) is identifiable. Finally, note that V S V I and V S V O. Since identifiability is invariant under the addition of input/output nodes, we conclude that (G; V I ; V O ) is identifiable, which completes the proof. Remark 1. For a graph G = (V, E), checking whether a given subset V S V is a zero forcing set in G can be done in time complexity O(n 2 ), where n = V (cf. [22]). Consequently, checking the condition of Theorem 4 is still feasible for large-scale graphs. Although the focus of this paper is on the analysis of identifiability, we remark that Theorem 4 can also be used in the design of sets V I and V O that ensure identifiability of (G; V I ; V O ). Specifically, input and output sets with small cardinality are obtained by choosing V I = V O as a minimum zero forcing set in G. Minimum zero forcing sets are known for several types of graphs including path, cycle, and complete graphs, and for the class of tree graphs (see Section IVB of [11]). It was shown that finding a minimum zero forcing set in general graphs is NP-hard [25]. However, there also exist heuristic algorithms for finding (minimum) zero forcing sets. For instance, it can be shown that for any graph G, it is possible to find a zero forcing set of cardinality n diam(g), where diam(g) denotes the diameter of G. Remark 2. It is interesting to remark that Theorem 4 implies that for many networks it is sufficient to excite and measure only a fraction of nodes (see, for instance, Example 1). This is in contrast with the case of identifiability of dynamical networks with unknown graph structure, for which it was shown that all nodes need to be measured [10]. Apart from the fact that we assume that the graph G is known, the rather mild conditions of Theorem 4 are also due to the fact that we consider undirected graphs. In fact, in the case of directed graphs it can be shown that the condition V I V O = V is necessary for identifiability, i.e., each node of the graph needs to be an input or output node (or both). To see this, let G d be a directed graph, and define Q p (G d ) analogous to the definition for undirected graphs (Section II-A), with the

5 distinction that X Q p (G d ) is not necessarily symmetric. Assume that V I V O V. We partition X Q p (G d ), and pick a nonsingular T R n n as X = [ ] X11 X 12, T = X 21 X 22 [ ] I 0, 0 ɛi where the row block [ ] X 21 X 22 corresponds to the nodes in V \(V I V O ). The partition of T is compatible with the one of X, and ɛ R is positive, not equal to 1. If X 12 and X 21 are not both zero matrices, then X := T 1 XT is contained in Q p (G d ) and X X, but (X, M, N) and ( X, M, N) have the same transfer matrix. That is, (G; V I ; V O ) is not identifiable. If both X 12 and X 21 are zero, then the transfer matrix of (X, M, N) is independent of X 22, hence, (G; V I ; V O ) is also not identifiable. We conclude that for directed graphs, the condition V I V O = V is necessary for identifiability. Example 1. In this example, we illustrate Theorem 4. Consider the tree graph G = (V, E) of Figure 1. The input set Fig. 1. Tree graph G with input and output set V I = V O = {4, 7, 9, 10, 17, 19, 22, 34, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 47, 49, 50, 52, 57, 60, 64, 65, 67}. V I and output set V O have been designed in such a way that V I = V O is a minimum zero forcing set in G. In fact, the nodes of V I have been chosen as initial nodes of paths in a so-called minimal path cover of G [11], and therefore, V I is a minimum zero forcing set in G by Proposition IV.12 of [11]. This implies that also V I V O is a zero forcing set, and therefore, by Theorem 4 we conclude that (G; V I ; V O ) is identifiable. Example 2. It is important to note that the condition in Theorem 4 is not necessary for identifiability. This is shown in the following example. Consider a graph G = (V, E), where V = {1, 2, 3}, and E = {(1, 2), (2, 1), (2, 3), (3, 2)}, and let V I = {2} and V O = V. A straightforward calculation shows that any matrix X Q p (G) can be identified from the Markov parameters NXM and NX 2 M. This shows that (G; V I ; V O ) is identifiable. However, note that V I V O = {2} is not a zero forcing set in G. V. IDENTIFIABILITY FOR HIGHER-ORDER DYNAMICS The purpose of this section is to generalize the results of Section IV to the case of higher-order node dynamics. Specifically, suppose that node i V has the associated dynamics { Ax i (t) + Bu i (t) + Ez i (t) if i V I ẋ i (t) = Ax i (t) + Ez i (t) otherwise, where x i R q is the state of node i, u i R r is the input (only applied to nodes in V I ), and z i R s describes the coupling between the nodes. The real matrices A, B, and E are of appropriate dimensions. In addition to the above dynamics, we associate with each node i V O the output equation y i (t) = Cx i (t), where y i R t, and C R t q. The coupling variable z i is chosen as n z i (t) = X ij Kx j (t), j=1 where K R s q, X ii R, X ij = X ji, and for i j, X ij 0 and X ij > 0 if and only if (i, j) E. We define x := col(x 1, x 2,..., x n ), u := col(u i1, u i2,..., u im ), and y := col(y j1, y j2,..., y jp ), where i k V I and j l V O for all k = 1, 2,..., m and l = 1, 2,..., p. Then, the dynamics of the entire network is described by the system ẋ(t) = (I A + X EK)x(t) + (M B)u(t) y(t) = (N C)x(t), where the (i, j)-th entry of the matrix X Q p (G) is equal to X ij, and the matrices M and N are defined in (2). In what follows, we use the shorthand notation ˆX := I A+X EK, ˆM := M B, and ˆN := N C. We assume that the matrices A, B, C, E and K are known, and we are interested in conditions under which the matrix X can be identified. To make this precise, consider two matrices X 1, X 2 Q p (G) and define ˆX 1 := I A + X 1 EK and ˆX 2 := I A + X 2 EK. Similar to Definition 1, we say the matrices X 1 and X 2 are indistinguishable with respect to (7) if the output of ( ˆX 1, ˆM, ˆN) equals the output of ( ˆX 2, ˆM, ˆN) for all input functions u( ) applied to both systems. The matrices X 1 and X 2 are distinguishable with respect to (7) if they are not indistinguishable. Finally, we say (G; V I ; V O ) is identifiable with respect to (7) if all distinct X 1, X 2 Q p (G) are distinguishable with respect to (7). The following theorem states conditions for identifiability of (G; V I ; V O ) for the case of general network dynamics. Theorem 5. Let G = (V, E) be an undirected graph with input set V I V and output set V O V, and consider the associated network dynamics (7). Then (G; V I ; V O ) is identifiable with respect to (7) if V I V O is a zero forcing set in G and C(EK) k B 0 for all k N. (7)

6 Proof. Consider two matrices X 1, X 2 Q p (G) and define ˆX 1 := I A + X 1 EK and ˆX 2 := I A + X 2 EK. Moreover, let ˆM := M B, and ˆN := N C. Suppose that X 1 and X 2 are indistinguishable with respect to (7), equivalently, ˆN ˆXk 1 ˆM = ˆN ˆXk 2 ˆM for all k N [24]. We want to prove by induction that NX1 k M = NX2 k M for all k N. For k = 1, the equation ˆN ˆX 1 ˆM = ˆN ˆX2 ˆM implies (N C)(I A+X 1 EK I A X 2 EK)(M B) = 0, and hence N(X 1 X 2 )M CEKB = 0. By assumption, CEKB 0, and therefore NX 1 M = NX 2 M. Next, suppose that NX1M i = NX2M i for all i = 1,..., k. The aim is to prove that NX1 k+1 M = NX2 k+1 M. Note that for j = 1, 2, we obtain ˆN ˆX k+1 j ˆM = NX k+1 j M C(EK) k+1 B+ k NXjM i R i, i=0 where R i is a matrix that depends on A, B, C, E and K only. By the induction hypothesis, NX1M i = NX2M i for k+1 k+1 i = 1,..., k, and therefore ˆN ˆX 2 ˆM = ˆN ˆX 2 ˆM implies (NX k+1 1 M NX k+1 2 M) C(EK) k+1 B = 0. Since C(EK) k+1 B 0, we find NX k+1 1 M = NX k+1 2 M. In other words, we have shown that NX k 1 M = NX k 2 M for all k N. However, since V I V O is a zero forcing set in G, we obtain X 1 = X 2 by Theorem 4. We conclude that (G; V I ; V O ) is identifiable with respect to (7). VI. CONCLUSIONS In this paper we have considered the problem of identifiability of undirected dynamical networks. Specifically, we have assumed that the graph structure of the network is known, and we were interested in conditions under which the network s state matrix can be identified. We have proven that the state matrix can be identified if the intersection of the set of input nodes and the set of output nodes constitutes a zero forcing set. Checking whether a given set of nodes is a zero forcing set can be done efficiently, with time complexity that is quadratic in the total number of nodes of the network [22]. We emphasize that the results we have presented here only treat the identifiability of dynamical networks, and we have not discussed any network reconstruction algorithms, like in [5], [6], [7], [8]. However, if the conditions of Theorem 4 are satisfied, then the state matrix of the network can be identified using any suitable method from system identification [26], or from the network reconstruction literature. REFERENCES [1] M. Mesbahi and M. Egerstedt, Graph Theoretic Methods in Multiagent Networks, ser. Princeton series in applied mathematics. Princeton University Press, [2] P. A. Valdés-Sosa, J. M. Sánchez-Bornot, A. Lage-Castellanos, M. Vega-Hernández, J. Bosch-Bayard, L. Melie-García, and E. Canales-Rodríguez, Estimating brain functional connectivity with sparse multivariate autoregression, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 360, pp , [3] A. Julius, M. Zavlanos, S. Boyd, and G. J. Pappas, Genetic network identification using convex programming, IET Systems Biology, vol. 3, no. 3, pp , [4] G. Mao, B. Fidan, and B. D. O. Anderson, Wireless sensor network localization techniques, Computer Networks, vol. 51, no. 10, pp , [5] S. Shahrampour and V. M. Preciado, Topology identification of directed dynamical networks via power spectral analysis, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 60, no. 8, pp , [6] D. Materassi and M. V. Salapaka, On the problem of reconstructing an unknown topology via locality properties of the Wiener filter, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 57, no. 7, pp , [7] S. Hassan-Moghaddam, N. K. Dhingra, and M. R. Jovanović, Topology identification of undirected consensus networks via sparse inverse covariance estimation, in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 2016, pp [8] H. J. van Waarde, P. Tesi, and M. K. Camlibel, Topology reconstruction of dynamical networks via constrained Lyapunov equations, Submitted, available online at arxiv.org/abs/ , [9] J. Zhou and J. Lu, Topology identification of weighted complex dynamical networks, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, vol. 386, no. 1, pp , [10] P. E. Paré, V. Chetty, and S. Warnick, On the necessity of full-state measurement for state-space network reconstruction, in Proceedings of the IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing, Dec 2013, pp [11] N. Monshizadeh, S. Zhang, and M. K. Camlibel, Zero forcing sets and controllability of dynamical systems defined on graphs. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 59, no. 9, pp , [12] H. J. van Waarde, M. K. Camlibel, and H. L. Trentelman, A distancebased approach to strong target control of dynamical networks, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 12, pp , [13] P. Rapisarda, A. R. F. Everts, and M. K. Camlibel, Fault detection and isolation for systems defined over graphs, in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Dec 2015, pp [14] F. Veldman-de Roo, A. Tejada, H. van Waarde, and H. L. Trentelman, Towards observer-based fault detection and isolation for branched water distribution networks without cycles, in Proceedings of the European Control Conference, Linz, Austria, 2015, pp [15] F. J. Koerts, M. Bürger, A. J. van der Schaft, and C. De Persis, Topological and graph-coloring conditions on the parameter-independent stability of second-order networked systems, SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 55, no. 6, pp , [16] S. Pequito, S. Kar, and A. P. Aguiar, A framework for structural input/output and control configuration selection in large-scale systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 61, no. 2, pp , Feb [17] S. Nabavi and A. Chakrabortty, A graph-theoretic condition for global identifiability of weighted consensus networks, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 61, no. 2, pp , Feb [18] A. S. Bazanella, M. Gevers, J. M. Hendrickx, and A. Parraga, Identifiability of dynamical networks: Which nodes need be measured? in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Dec 2017, pp [19] P. M. J. van den Hof, A. Dankers, P. S. C. Heuberger, and X. Bombois, Identification of dynamic models in complex networks with prediction error methods basic methods for consistent module estimates, Automatica, vol. 49, no. 10, pp , [20] H. H. M. Weerts, P. M. J. van den Hof, and A. G. Dankers, Identifiability of linear dynamic networks, Automatica, vol. 89, pp , [21] L. Hogben, Minimum rank problems, Linear Algebra and its Applications, vol. 432, no. 8, pp , [22] M. Trefois and J. C. Delvenne, Zero forcing number, constrained matchings and strong structural controllability, Linear Algebra and its Applications, vol. 484, pp , [23] H. L. Trentelman, A. A. Stoorvogel, and M. Hautus, Control Theory for Linear Systems. London, UK: Springer Verlag, [24] M. Grewal and K. Glover, Identifiability of linear and nonlinear dynamical systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 21, no. 6, pp , Dec [25] A. Aazami, Hardness results and approximation algorithms for some problems on graphs, PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, [26] L. Ljung, System Identification: Theory for the User. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall, 1999.