arxiv: v1 [math.oc] 18 Mar 2014

Transcription

1 Optimal Output Feedback Architecture for Triangular LQG Problems Takashi Tanaka and Pablo A Parrilo arxiv: v mathoc 8 Mar 04 Abstract Distributed control problems under some specific information constraints can be formulated as (possibly infinite dimensional) convex optimization problems The underlying motivation of this work is to develop an understanding of the optimal decision making architecture for such problems In this paper, we particularly focus on the N-player triangular LQG problems and show that the optimal output feedback controllers have attractive state space realizations The optimal controller can be synthesized using a set of stabilizing solutions to N linearly coupled algebraic Riccati equations, which turn out to be easily solvable under reasonable assumptions NOMENCLATURE A B G(s) : C(sI A) C D B + D represents a proper rational transfer function matrix The space of matrix valued functions G such that G G, G < is denoted by L, where G, G π trg (jω)g (jω)dω L can be written as L H H, where H is the subspace of functions G analytic in Re(s) > 0 The H norm of a function G H can be computed using the same formula G G, G The Hardy space H will be also used in this paper Let I n be the n n + + n N dimensional identity matrix Denote by E i the i-th block column of I n, and by E i the i-th block row of I n We also write E to denote the first n + + n i columns of I n, while E is the last n i + +n N columns of I n Similarly, E denotes the first n + + n i rows of I n, while E is the last n i + + n N rows of I n For a general matrix M, shorthand notations such as M E M, M ME, M E ME will be also used I specifies a sparsity structure of matrices, or matrix-valued functions If M has N N subblocks, M I LBT means that M is lower block triangular If M I, then M has nonzero components only in the ( ) subblock If M Ij i, only (i, j)-th subblock can be nonzero (X, K) ARE p (A, B, F, H) represents a solution of algebraic Riccati equation A T X + XA (XB + F T H)Ψ (XB + F T H) T + F T F 0 with K Ψ (XB+F T H) T where Ψ H T H Similarly, (Y, L) ARE d (A, C, W, V ) represents a solution of AY + Y A T (CY + V W T ) T Φ (CY + V W T ) + W W T 0 with L (CY + V W T ) T Φ where Φ V V T row{m,, M n } M M n, col{m,, M n } M T Mn T T Both authors are with Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA ttanaka@mitedu, parrilo@mitedu I INTRODUCTION It is widely recognized that tractability of distributed control problems greatly depends on the information structure underlying the problem If the information structure is arbitrary, the problem can be hopelessly hard as demonstrated by an iconic example by Witsenhausen in 968 In contrast, many tractability results initiated by Ho and Chu suggest that distributed control problems seem much more accessible when decision makers form a hierarchy in terms of their ability to observe and control the physical system Currently, a unification via the quadratic invariance (QI) introduced by 7 is known to capture a wide class of distributed control problems that can be formulated as (infinite dimensional) convex optimization problems Unfortunately, the QI framework does not immediately lead us to an explicit form of the optimal solution, and as a result, state space realizations of the optimal controllers remain unknown for many QI optimal control problems This paper derives a state space realization of the solution to the triangular LQG problem, which is a special case but an important instance of the QI optimal control problems The triangular LQG problem is formulated as follows Suppose that the transfer function of the system to be controlled is given by G G G G G A W B F 0 H C V 0 Matrices A R n n, B R n m, C R p n are partitioned according to n n + + n N, m m + + m N, p p + + p N, and A, B, C I LBT with respect to this partitioning The injected noise w, performance output z, control input u, and observation output y are related by col{z, y} Gcol{w, u} A controller transfer function K I LBT needs to be designed so that u Ky minimizes the H norm of the closed loop transfer function from w to z Problem : Find a state space realization of the optimal solution K opt to the problem: min G + G K(I KG ) G (a) st K I LBT and stabilizing (b) Problem can be interpreted as a distributed control problem under a particular information constraint shown in Fig We make some natural assumptions on system matrices A, B, C, F, H, W and V so that Problem is well-posed Assumption : For every i {,,, N}, (A ii, B ii ) is stabilizable and H has full column rank

2 Plant Controller N N Dynamics propagation Observation Control Fig A, B, C I LBT means that system dynamics propagates only downward on the chain of local subsystems (defined by A ii, B ii, C ii ) Each row of K I LBT can be considered as an independent controller, who controls local subsystem based on the observations of the outputs of upstream subsystems Alternatively, each column of K can be seen as an independent controller, who observes local output and controls downstream subsystems Another valid interpretation is to view K I LBT as a sum of local controllers K i I, who observes upstream subsystems and controls downstream systems (the above figure) A jωi B has full column rank for all ω R F H 3 For every i {,,, N}, (C ii, A ii ) is detectable and V has full row rank A jωi W 4 has full row rank for all ω R C V Due to the quadratic invariance property 7, Problem can be written as a convex optimization problem by introducing a particular re-parametrization 9 It is also straightforward to see by vectorization 8 that Problem admits a unique and rational solution in this parameter domain, and hence that K opt is also rational In this paper, we further show that the optimal controller has a fascinating state space structure, which can be easily synthesized by solving a set of linearly coupled Riccati equations This work extends recent progress in the understanding of state space solutions to distributed control problems 4, 0, II SUMMARY OF THE RESULT Under Assumption and (the second assumption will be discussed later), a state space model of K opt can be constructed This requires to determine N controller gains K,, K N and N observer gains L,, L N by finding a set of stabilizing solutions to algebraic Riccati equations: (X, K ) ARE p (A, B, F, H) (a) (X i, K i ) ARE p (A+L i C, B, H K i, H ), i {, 3,, N} (b) (Y N, L N ) ARE d (A, C, W, V ) (c) (Y i, L i ) ARE d (A+B + K i+, C, L i+ V +, V ), i {,,, N } (d) Notice that (a) and (c) can be solved independently since they require problem data A, B, C, F, H, W and V only, while the remaining N Riccati equations (b) and (d) have dependencies on each other By carefully looking at their substructures, we show that unknown variables can be sequentially determined as shown in Fig Apparently, concepts of control and estimation are highly symmetric in this synthesis It is convenient to introduce nn dimensional square incidence matrices ζ and µ to describe the architecture of K opt Define ζ by dividing it into N N sub-blocks and setting its (i, j)-th sub-block to I n if i j and to zero otherwise Matrix µ is defined as the inverse of ζ Theorem : Under Assumption and, () admits a unique set of solutions (X i, K i ), (Y i, L i ), i,, N such that each of them is a stabilizing solution to the corresponding Riccati equation in () Using these solutions, the optimal controller to Problem can be written as K opt AK B K where A C K 0 K, B K, C K are defined by A K I A + diag{l C,, L N C N } + ζdiag{b K,, B N K N }µ (3a) B K col{l E,, L N E N } C K row{e K,, E N K N }µ (3b) (3c) Moreover, the optimal value of Problem can be written as J opt J cnt + J dcnt where Jcnt trw T X W + trψk Y N K T N Jdcnt tr(hk H j+ K j+ )Y j (HK H j+ K j+ ) T j Note that J cnt can be interpreted as the optimal cost when the controller is designed without information constraints (compare with the result of standard H control) The price to pay to impose information constraints as in Fig is precisely given by J dcnt The optimal controller given in Theorem turns out to be a certainty equivalent controller That is, if col{x K (t),, x K N (t)} is the state of the optimal controller, then x Ki (t) can be interpreted as the least mean square estimate of x(t) based on the observations of outputs of upstream subsystems (see Appendix E) Nevertheless, as Fig shows, controller and observer gain must be jointly designed when N The well-known separation principle holds only in an exceptional circumstance of N, where controller and observer gains can be designed separately III COUPLED RICCATI EQUATIONS Since the proof of optimality of the proposed controller is closely related to the solvability of the set of Riccati equations (), we study its solution procedure in this section We introduce the following partitioning of unknown matrices X i, Y i, K i and L i for every i {,,, N}: ˇXi Xi X i, K i Ki ˆKi, ˆX i X T i Ŷi Ȳ Y i i Ȳ T i ˇY i, L i ˆLi L i where ˆX i (X i ), Ŷ i (Y i ), ˆKi K i E, ˆLi E L i In particular, X ˆX, K ˆK and Y N Ŷ N, L N ˆL N Matrices ˆK i and ˆL i are further partitioned as (4)

3 4 4 L, L, L,3 K, K, K,3 Y L X X X 3 X 4 L, L, L,3 K, K, K,3 3 4 Y 3 3 L L 3, L 3, L 3,3 K 3, K 3, K 3,3 3 4 Y 3 L 3 K K K 3 K 4 Fig This diagram illustrates the order in which controller/observer gains are determined when N 3 Suppose K i,j is the i-th player s controller gain acting on his state estimate of x j (ie, K i row{k i,, K i,, K i,3 }) Similarly, suppose L i,j is the i-th player s estimator gain to update his state estimate of x j (ie, L i col{l i,, L i,, L i,3 }) The solution process starts by solving (a) to generate K,, K,, K,3 This recursively allows one to solve for K,, K,3 and then for K 3,3 Estimator gains can be also found by first solving (c) and then proceed backward on the chain Finally, the remaining gains (in the dotted line) is computed at once by solving a system of linear equations This procedure is a natural extension of the case of N reported in 4 ˆK i row{ ˆK i a, ˆK i b}, ˆL i col{ˆl b i, ˆL a i } where ˆK i a K i E i and ˆL a i E il i Also introduce  K i  L i A + B ˆK i, Ā K i A + ˆL i C, ĀL i A + B K i A + + L i C,0 A + BK, N+,N A + L N C i,i A + B K i + L i C for i N Equation (b) can be written as T i,i Xi + X i i,i + Σ i 0 Ki T Ψ + X ib Ki Ψ T 0 (5a) (5b) where Σ i (H K i H K i ) T (H K i H K i ) and (d) is rearranged as i+,iy i + Y i i+,it + Πi 0 (6a) Φ LT i + C Y i Φ + L T i+ 0 (6b) where Π i (L i V L i+ V + )(L i V L i+ V + ) T Now, all unknown variables can be determined by the following three-step procedure, which also visualized in Fig 3 A Step : Sequential solving of Riccati subequations In this step, sub-matrices indicated by ˆ in (4) are determined Notice that ˆX, ˆK, ŶN, ˆL N are directly obtained by solving (a) and (c) To compute ˆX i, ˆK i for i {, 3,, N}, focus on the lower-right ( ) sub-block of (5a) and ( ) subblock of (5b) They are by themselves Riccati equations with respect to ( ˆX i, ˆK i ): ( ˆX i, ˆK i ) ARE p (A, B, H ˆKb i, H ) (7) Since the right hand side contains ˆKb i, these Riccati equations need to be solved in the forwarding (ascending) order on the chain Similarly, Ŷi, ˆL i for i {,,, N } Y 4 Fig 3 Sequential process to determine unknown variables Step : Entries with dark gray are computed by sequentially solving Riccati subequations Step : Entries with light gray are computed at once by solving a linear system Step 3: White entries are obtained by solving Lyapunov equations can be computed by focusing on the upper-left ( ) subblock of (6a) and ( ) sub-block of (6b) They are Riccati equations with respect to (Ŷi, ˆL i ): (Ŷi, ˆL i ) ARE d (A, C, ˆL b i+v +, V ) (8) Since the right hand side contains ˆL b i+, they need to be solved in the backward (descending) order in the chain Proposition : Under Assumption, algebraic Riccati equations (7) and (8) admit a unique positive semidefinite solution, which is also stabilizing B Step : Solving a linear system In this step, we compute components with By looking at the upper-right ( ) subblock of (5a) and the upper ( ) subblock of (5b), as well as the upper-right ( ) + subblock of (6a) and the right ( ) + subblock of (6b), we obtain K T i Ψ + X i B row{ K i, ˆK a i } T Ψ 0  L i T Xi + X i  K i + ĀL i T ˆXi L 4 (9a) + row{ K i, ˆK a i } T (Ψ ˆK b i Ψ ˆK i ) 0 (9b) for every i {, 3, N} and Φ L T i + CȲ i T Φ + col{ˆl a i+, L i+ } T 0 (9c) T  L i Ȳi + ȲiÂK i+t + Ŷ i Ā K i+ + (ˆL b i+φ + + ˆL i Φ + )col{ˆl a i+, L i+ } T 0 (9d) for every i {,,, N } Since ˆX i, ˆK i, Ŷi, ˆL i are computed in the previous step, these are linear equations with respect to X i, K i, i {, 3,, N} and Ȳi, L i, i {,,, N } There are precisely the same number of linear constraints as the number of real unknowns Unfortunately, we are currently not aware of a theoretical guarantee for the non-singularity of (9) Hence at this point, we have to make an additional assumption: Assumption : The linear system (9) with respect to ˆX i, ˆK i, i {, 3,, N} and Ŷi, ˆL i, i {,,, N } admit a unique solution

4 When N, it is shown in 4 that the linear system (9) admits a unique solution under Assumption and thus Assumption is unnecessary It must be addressed in the future whether this generalizes to N > Our numerical studies indicate that, when problem data is randomly generated to satisfy Assumption, (9) is usually a well-conditioned linear system C Step 3: Solving Lyapunov equations Finally, ˇXi for i {, 3,, N} and ˇY i for i {,,, N } are computed by looking at ( ) subblock of (5a) and ( ) + + sub-block of (6a)  L i T ˇXi + ˇX i  L i + ĀL T i XT i + X i Ā L i K T i Ψ K i + row{ K i, ˆK a i } T Ψ row{ K i, ˆK a i } 0 i {, 3,, N} (0a)  K ˇY i+ i + ˇY i  K T i+ + Ā K i+ȳi + Ȳ i T Ā K T i+ Li Φ L T i + col{ˆl a i+, L i+ }Φ + + col{ˆl a i+, L i+ } T 0 i {,,, N } (0b) Since all other quantities are known by the previous step, these are Lyapunov equations with respect to ˇX i and ˇY i, which can be easily solved Since ÂK i and ÂL i are Hurwitz stable (guaranteed by Proposition ), they admit a unique solution Proposition : Under Assumption and, the set of algebraic Riccati equations () admit a unique tuple of positive semidefinite solutions X i, Y i, i {,,, N} Moreover, they are stabilizing solutions Proof: It is clear from Theorem 3 that (a) and (c) admit unique positive semidefinite solutions which are stabilizing To see why solutions constructed in Step, and 3 above are positive semidefinite, notice that under Assumption and, the algorithm produces a unique set of variables satisfying (5a) and (6a) Furthermore, notice that i,i A  L i 0 + B K i + L i C is a stable matrix since its diagonal blocks are stable Hence, due to the inertia property of a Lyapunov equation, X i and Y i must be positive semidefinite They are indeed stabilizing solutions since i,i is a stable matrix A Stability IV DERIVATION OF MAIN RESULT Notice that the closed-loop transfer function is given by G cl G cl G cl A W B G cl G cl F 0 H C V 0 A K B K C B K V 0 BC K A W B HC K F 0 H () 0 C V 0  K i S 0, S 0, S 0,N S 0,N+ S, S, S,N S,N+ S, S,N S,N+ S N,N S N,N+ Fig 4 Inclusion relation diagram among subspaces S i,j defined by (0) For convenience, we also define S 0,j {QE G cl : Q H }, S i,n+ {G cl E Q : Q H }, S 0,N+ H To see that K opt is a stabilizing controller, we need to verify that A is a stable matrix Let ζ be an n(n + )-dimensional square matrix whose (i, j)-th sub-block is I n if i j and is zero otherwise Also define µ ζ One can easily check that a similarity transformation gives,0, µa ζ N,N 0 N+,N () This is a block upper-triangular matrix Moreover, all diagonal blocks are stable matrices as we saw in the proof of Proposition This shows the stability of A B Optimal Controller Characterization If K opt is the optimal solution to Problem, then any perturbation K K opt + K such that K I LBT only degrades control performance Due to the uniqueness of the rational solution to Problem, it is sufficient for us to show that K 0 is the optimal solution to the modified H optimal control problem min G cl + G cl K (I G cl K ) G cl st K is stabilizing and K I LBT Since G cl H I LBT, the subspace I LBT is quadratically invariant under G cl This means that all stabilizing controllers are parametrized by the structured Youla parameter Q K (I G cl K ) H I LBT Hence, the above statement is equivalent to that Q 0 is the optimal solution to the model matching problem min G cl G cl QG cl (8) st Q H I LBT Since the non-rectangular constraint I LBT is inconvenient to work with, we use an alternative characterization of the same statement using rectangular blocks I, i {,,, N} The condition Q H I LBT can be replaced by Q H I LBT without loss of generality Recall that under Assumption, H has full column rank, V has full row rank, and G cl H This means that Q must be in H so that the value of (8) is bounded

5 i-th block (N )-th block K i E row{0,, 0, E + K i+ E K i,, E N K N E N N-th block (N+)-th block K N, E N K N, E K i } (3) st block L j col{ L E,, A KL i,i U i (j )-th block L j E, j-th block N-th block (N+)-th block L j E,, L j E, L j E }E (4) (i )-th block (N+)-th block (j+)-th block (N+)-th block J i row{0,, 0, I, 0,, 0, I }, Ĵj col{0,, 0, I,, I } (5) C Ui B U i D Ui, M i A Ψ B K i Ψ i {,,, N} where B Ui B Ψ, (6) { { F + HK if i HΨ C Ui Ψ E (E K i E K i ) if i N, D if i U i Ψ E E Ψ if i N A KL j+,j B V j Vj, N i A L jφ j {,,, N} where C Vj C Vj D Vj C Φ Φ C, (7) { { W + LN V if j N Φ B Vj (L j E L j+ E + )E + Φ + if j N, D V if i N V j E E + Φ + if i N + Φ + Proposition 3: Q 0 is the optimal solution to (8) if and only if for every i {,,, N}, Q i 0 is the optimal solution to the model matching problem min G cl G cl Q i G cl (9) st Q i H I One approach to find a solution to the model matching problem (9) is to apply the projection theorem 5 Define subspaces S i,j of H for i j N by S i,j {G cl E QE G cl : Q H } (0) Proposition 3 implies that, in order to infer that K opt is the optimal controller, it suffices to prove that Q 0 is the minimizer of G cl G cl E QE G cl over Q H for every i {,,, N} Equivalently, it needs to be shown that π Si,i (G cl ) 0 for every i {,,, N}, where : H S i,j is the projection operator π Si,j C Nested Projections It is clear that the inclusion relations in Fig 4 hold among subspaces defined by (0) We are going to exploit this diagram to find an explicit representation of π Si,j (G cl ) Recall the following fact: Theorem : (Nested Projections, see eg, 6) Let S, S,, S N be subspaces of a Hilbert space such that S N S N S S Then π SN π SN π SN π S π S According to Fig 4, Theorem suggests that π Si,i can be computed as, for instance, π Si,i π Si,i π Si,i+ π Si,N π Si,N π S,N () Understanding π Si,i as a composition of stepwise projections is convenient in the following presentation, since each projection step can be associated with one of N Riccati equations in () To be precise, we consider writing S i,j using an orthonormal basis Recall that a rational function U H is said to be inner if U U I and co-inner if UU I It turns out that each subspace can be written as S i,j {U U i M i QN j V j V N : Q H } () where the explicit form of inner functions U,, U N, coinner functions V,, V N and other necessary quantities are given in (3)-(7) The above expression is obtained by repeated applications of a particular type of spectral factorizations (Lemma in Appendix D) Each application of the factorization requires a solution to one of the Riccati equations in () Writing S i,j in the form of () makes nested projections easier Suppose that the projection of G cl onto S i,j can be written in the form of π Si,j (G cl ) U U i Pi V j V N S i,j for some P i Then it is easy to check that the subsequent projection is given by π Si+,j (G cl ) U U i+ Pi+ V j V N S i+,j where P i+ is chosen to satisfy the optimality condition U P i+ i P i+, M i+ QN j 0 Q H Details can be found in Lemma 3 in Appendix D Also, notice that every projection generates a residual term as π Si,j (G cl )π Si+,j (G cl ) + U U i R (i,j) (i+,j) V j V N π Si,j (G cl )π Si,j (G cl ) + U U i R (i,j) (i,j ) V j V N The H norm of residual terms will be used later to compute the optimal value of Problem Finally, all the above operations can be performed at the state space level, as summarized in Lemma

6 trw T X W if i, j R (i,j) (i,j) trφ LT j X L j if i, j tr(l i V L j V ) T X (L i V L j V ) if i trf Y N F T if i N, j N R (i,j+) (i,j) trψ K iy N Ki T if i N, j N tr(h K i H j+ K j+ )Y j (H K i H j+ K j+ ) T if j N (3) (4) Lemma : The projection of G cl onto any subspace S i,j in Fig 4 is given by π Si,j (G cl ) U U U i P i,j V j V N V N where A P Λj i,j (5) Γ i 0 { { F if i 0 W if j N + Γ i Ψ K i if i N, Λ j L j Φ if j N Moreover, A KL R (i,j) (i,j) i,i J i Λ j C Ui 0 A KL j+,j B Vj R (i,j+) (i,j) Γ i Ĵ j 0 Proof: See Appendix D D Proof of Optimality We are now ready to prove that π Si,i (G cl ) 0 for every i {,,, N} Combined with Proposition 3, this completes the proof of optimality of the proposed controller Proof: (of Theorem ) We have verified the existence and uniqueness of the stabilizing solution to () in Section III By Lemma, for every i {,,, N}, we have P i,i A L i Φ Ψ K i 0 Apply a state space transformation defined by µ and ζ As we have observed in (), µa ζ is an upper block triangular matrix Also, it is straightforward to check that all ( ) + sub-blocks of µl i Φ are zero Furthermore, it is possible to show that all ( ) sub-blocks of Ψ K i ζ are zero Hence P i,i 0 Therefore, for every i {,,, N}, π Si,i (G cl ) U U U i P i,i V V N V N 0 By Proposition 3, this implies that the proposed controller is the optimal solution to Problem Since we have shown that G cl is the optimal closed loop transfer function, the optimal cost is given by computing its H norm To obtain more explicit expression, consider a nested projection π S, π S, π S,N π S,N+ It is possible to write G cl π S, (G cl )+R (0,N+) (,N+) +U R (,N+) (,N) + N j U R (,j+) (,j) V j+ V N Since π S, (G cl ) 0 and all residual terms are orthogonal, the optimal cost J opt G cl can be decomposed as G cl R (0,N+) (,N+) + R (,N+) (,N) R (,j+) (,j) N + j Each term can be written more explicitly using the fact (3) (4) This proves J opt J cnt + J dcnt V CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK In this paper, we have presented a state-space realization of the optimal output feedback controller for the N-player triangular LQG problem We have derived a set of algebraic Riccati equations to be solved to construct the optimal controller Solvability of Riccati equations, namely nonsingularity of the linear system (9), must be verified in the future work REFERENCES Y-C Ho and K-C Chu Team decision theory and information structures in optimal control problems part i IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 7():5, 97 A Lamperski and J C Doyle Dynamic programming solutions for decentralized state-feedback LQG problems with communication delays In American Control Conference (ACC), 0, pages , 0 3 L Lessard Decentralized LQG control of systems with a broadcast architecture In Decision and Control (CDC), EEE 5st Annual Conference on, pages , 0 4 L Lessard and S Lall Optimal control of two-player systems with output feedback, 03 arxiv: D G Luenberger Optimization by Vector Space Methods Wiley, D G Luenberger Projection pricing Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 09(): 5, 00 7 M Rotkowitz and S Lall A characterization of convex problems in decentralized control IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 50(): , M Rotkowitz and S Lall Convexification of optimal decentralized control without a stabilizing controller In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Mathematical Theory of Networks and Systems (MTNS), pages , S Sabău and N C Martins On the stabilization of LTI decentralized configurations under quadratically invariant sparsity constraints In 48th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing, pages , 00 0 P Shah and PA Parrilo An optimal controller architecture for posetcausal systems, 0 arxiv:7 S Skogestad and I Postlethwaite Multivariable feedback control: analysis and design John Wiley, 005 J Swigart and S Lall Optimal controller synthesis for a decentralized two-player system with partial output feedback In American Control Conference (ACC), 0, pages 37 33, 0 3 M Vidyasagar Control system synthesis: a factorization approach MIT Press,

7 4 K Zhou, J C Doyle, and K Glover Robust and optimal control Prentice-Hall, Inc, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 996 APPENDIX A Quadratic Invariance and Convexity This section gives a brief review of the notion of Quadratic Invariance and how an optimal control problem can be formulated as an infinite dimensional convex optimization problem For brevity, our discussion here is rather informal; for a thorough introduction, readers are referred to 7 The H optimal control formulated in Problem is a nonconvex optimization problem respect to K A natural approach is to introduce the Youla parametrization, which has been historically used to convexify centralized control problems Youla parameterization is particularly simple if G is stable, and is given by Q K(I G K) The inverse in this expression is guaranteed to exist on the domain of stabilizing K by the generalized Nyquist criterion Conversely, the corresponding controller K can be recovered from Q by K (I QG ) Q The objective function is expressed as G G QG, which is clearly convex with respect to the new parameter Q Moreover, the requirement that K is stabilizing is translated in the new domain as the requirement that Q is stable (ie, Q H ), which is also a convex constraint The information constraint K I, however, results in a nonconvex constraints on the Q domain, unless I is quadratically invariant under G Definition : (Quadratic Invariance) Let U, Y be vector spaces Suppose G is a linear mapping from U to Y and I is a set of linear maps from Y to U Then I is called quadratically invariant under G if K I KGK I The significance of I being quadratic invariant is that, the condition K I can be translated to Q I on the new domain, which is a convex constraint 3 Since we are considering triangular LQG problems in this paper, G has a lower block triangular structure (G I LBT ), while the information constraint on the controller implies that the controller transfer function is also lower block triangular (K I LBT ) It is easy to verify that the space of transfer function matrices with sparsity pattern I LBT is indeed quadratically invariant under G Therefore, Problem can be recast as the following infinite dimensional convex optimization problem min G G QG (6a) st Q H I LBT (6b) An optimization problem of this form is called the model matching problem This can be intuitively understood via the internal model principle 3 This fact can be understood from the following informal observation: if K I and I is QI under G, the Neumann series expansion gives Q K(I G K) K KG K K(G K) Since we can inductively show that every term in the last expression belongs to I, Q I If G is not stable, Youla parameter must be constructed using coprime factors of G 3 In this case, parametrization of stabilizing controllers subject to the information constraint is more involved Nevertheless, if I is quadratically invariant under G, the information constraints can be recast as linear constraints on the Youla parameter 9 Therefore, even in this case, the optimal H control problem subject to information constraints can be reformulated as a convex optimization problem B Centralized H Optimal Control Assume that A is a Hurwitz matrix and that G H In this case, the optimal solution Q to the H model matching problem (6) must be in H, since otherwise G G QG is unbounded under Assumption Hence the centralized H optimal control problem can be cast as a simple H model matching problem min G G QG (7a) st Q H (7b) One approach to find a solution to the model matching problem is to apply the projection theorem 5 Let H be a Hilbert space and S be a closed nonempty subspace of H If a H, then there exists an element x 0 S such that a x 0 a x for all x S Such an element x 0 is called a projection of a onto S, and is denoted by x 0 π S (a) It can be shown that x 0 π S (a) if and only if x 0 S and a x 0, x 0 for all x S In the model matching problem (7), a set S {G QG : Q H } defines a closed nonempty subspace of H Hence the optimal solution to (7) can be found by computing a projection of G onto S To this end, a coprime factorization technique of rational functions, particularly the inner-outer factorization, is useful We first recall the following facts Proofs can be found in 4 Theorem 3: Suppose (A, B) is stabilizable, H has full A jωi B column rank, and has full column rank F H for all ω R Then algebraic Riccati equation (X, K) ARE p (A, B, F, H) has a unique positive semidefinite solution Moreover, it is stabilizing (that is, A cl A + BK is a Hurwitz stable matrix) Theorem 4: () (Right Inner-Outer Factorization) A B Assume G is stabilizable and F H A jωi B has full column rank for all ω R F H Then there exists a right coprime factorization G UM such that U is inner and M is stably invertible A particular realization of such factorization is U A + BK BΨ F + HK HΨ, M A B Ψ K Ψ where Ψ H T H and (X, K) ARE p (A, B, F, H) () (Left Inner-Outer Factorization)

8 A W Assume G is detectable and B ˆK i ) z, z 0 However, this contradicts that stability C V of A A jωi W + B ˆK i This shows that (7) has a unique positive has full row rank for all ω R semidefinite and stabilizing solution for all i {,, N} C V A similar argument can be applied to (8) as well Then there exists a left coprime factorization G N V such that V is co-inner and N is stably invertible A particular realization of such factorization is D Proof of Lemma Lemma : () For every i {,,, N}, U i is an A + LC W + LV V Φ C Φ, N A LΦ inner function and G cl E U U U i M i V C Φ () For every j {,,, N}, V j is a co-inner function and E G cl N j V j V j+ V N Proof: () When i, U M,0 BK B 0 A B F + HK HK H where Φ V V T and (Y, L) ARE d (A, C, W, V ) Using U and V, the subspace S can be expresses as S {UPV : P H }, where P M QN is a new parameter Since M and N are stably invertible, requiring that Q H is equivalent to requiring P H Suppose the projection of G onto S can be written as UP V By the optimality condition G UP V, UPV 0 P H, one obtains U G V P H Hence it must be that P π H (U G V ) Moreover, straightforward state space manipulations show that P π H (U G V ) A LΦ Ψ K 0 (8) From this result, one can recover the optimal centralized H controller A + BK + LC L K opt K 0 It is also possible to show that the optimal control performance is J cent tr(w T XW ) + tr(ψky K T ) (9) C Proof of Proposition By Theorem 3, ( ˆX, ˆK ) ARE p (A, B, F, H) has a unique positive semidefinite solution that is also stabilizing; in particular A +B ˆK is stable Thus it suffices to show that if A +B ˆK i is stable for some i {,,, N }, then the algebraic Riccati equation ( ˆX i+, ˆK i+ ) ARE p (A + +, B+ +, H ˆKb i, H + ) (30) has a unique positive semidefinite solution that is also stabilizing Since (A + +, B+ + ) is stabilizable by Assumption, by Theorem 3, the only way that (30) fails to have a unique positive semidefinite solution is that A + + jωi B+ + z z H ˆKb i H + 0 for some 0 z z Notice that z cannot be zero as this implies z is also zero due to the assumption that H + has full column 0 0 rank Introducing z, z, we have z z A that jωi B z H ˆKi H 0 Left-multiplied by z I B (Ψ ) H T, this reduces to jω z (A +, A B F + HK F H G cl From the first to the second expression, a similarity transformation was applied by multiplying the state space A matrix I J by from the left and by its inverse from the right The fact that K is a solution to (a) is exploited to obtain 0 at the upper-right corner of the state space A matrix The last step was obtained by eliminating uncontrollable states When i {, 3,, N}, i,i B K i B U i M i 0 A B C Ui Ψ E E K i Ψ E E i,i A B C Ui Ψ M i E E K i Ψ E E From the first to the second expression, a similarity transformation was applied by multiplying by from the I Ji left and by its inverse from the right Combining the above results, one obtains G cl E U U U i M i To see that U i is inner, notice that T i,i Xi + X i i,i + CU T i C Ui 0 DU T i C Ui + BU T i X i 0 follows from (5) Since DU T i D Ui I, by Corollary 330 in 4, U i is an inner function () When j N, A L N C L N V N N V N 0 N+,N W + L N V C C V A 0 W 0 N+,N W + L N V G cl C 0 V From the first to the second expression, a similarity transformation was applied by multiplying the state space A matrix

9 I ĴN by from the left and by its inverse from the right The last step was obtained by eliminating unobservable states When j {,,, N }, A L j C L j E E + Φ + N + j V j 0 j+,j B Vj C C E E + Φ + + A 0 L j+ Φ j+,j B Vj C 0 E E + Φ + E E + N i+ + From the first to the second expression, a similarity transformation was applied by multiplying by from the I Ĵj left and by its inverse from the right Combining the above results, one obtains E G cl N j V j V j+ V N To see that V j is co-inner, or equivalently that Vj T is inner, notice that j+,jy j + Y j j+,j T + BVj B T V j 0 D Vj B T V j + C Vj Y j 0 follows from (6) Since D Vj DV T j I, V j is a co-inner function Lemma 3: Let Γ i and Λ j be given as in Lemma, while Γ and Λ be any matrices Let 0 i < j N + () If F U U i Pi V j V N S i,j where A Λ P i, Γ i 0 then π Si+,j (F) U U i+ Pi+ V j V N () If F U U i ˆPj V j V N S i,j where A Λj ˆP j, Γ 0 then π Si,j (F) U U i ˆPi V j V N Proof: () We show that if P i is in the assumed form, then so is P i+ By the optimality condition, π Si+,j (F) satisfies F πsi+,j(f), U U i+ M i+ Q i+,jn j V j V N 0 for all Q i+,j H Hence P i+ must satisfy U P i+ i P i+, M i+ Q i+,jn j 0 Q i+,j H Such P i+ is given by P i+ π H (U P i+ i ), since in this case, the inner product of U P i+ i P i+ H and M i+ Q i+,jn j H is zero The projection π H (U P i+ i ) is computed as follows For every i {0,,, N }, U P T i+,i CU T i+ Γ i 0 i+ i 0 A Λ BU T i+ DU T i+ Γ i 0 AKL T i+,i 0 0 A Λ Γ i+ 0 To obtain the last expression, a similarity transformation is applied to the state space matrices by left-multiplying I Xi+ Ji+ by and right-multiplying by its inverse Notice that the Riccati equation (a) or (b) appears on the upper right block of the state space A matrix, and hence this component is zero Moreover, since A is stable and T,0 is anti-stable, its projection onto H is given by P i+ π H (U P A Λ i+ i ) Γ i+ 0 () Similarly, we show that if ˆPj is in the assumed form, then so is ˆP j From the optimality condition, it is possible to infer that ˆP j π H ( ˆP j Vj ) For every j {,,, N + }, A Λ j BV T j Λ j DV T j ˆP j Vj 0 T j,j CV T j Γ 0 0 A 0 Λ j 0 T j,j Γ 0 A similarity transformation is applied to the state space I Ĵ matrices by left-multiplying by j Y j and right-multiplying by its inverse Since j,j T is antistable, its projection onto H is ˆP j π H ( ˆP j Vj ) A Λj Γ 0 Proof of Lemma is by induction When i 0 and j N +, the identity (5) clearly holds since P 0,N+ Gcl So suppose (5) holds for some (i, j) such that 0 i < j N + By the nested projection, π Si+,j (G cl ) π Si+,j (F), where F π Si,j (G cl ) U U i P i,j V j V N Applying Lemma 3 (), we have that π Si+,j (G cl ) U U i+ P i+,j V j V N Hence, we have verified that (5) holds for (i +, j) Similarly, by the nested projection, π Si,j (G cl ) π Si,j (F) Applying Lemma 3 (), we have that π Si,j (G cl ) U U i P i,j V j V N Hence, we have verified that (5) holds for (i, j ) This proves that the identity (5) holds for every subspace in Fig 4 Finally, state space expressions for R (i,j) (i,j) P i,j U ip i,j and R (i,j+) (i,j) P i,j+ P i,j V j are obtained by straightforward state space manipulations

10 E Certainty Equivalence We verify that x Ki (t) can be interpreted as the least mean square estimate of x(t) conditioned on the observations of outputs of upstream subsystems In other words, if H yj : w y and F : w x are given, a transfer function Q xj : y x Kj defined by the proposed controller minimizes F Q xj H yj over H Notice that H yj E G cl, A W AK B F, Q row{0,, 0, I} 0 xj K E E j 0 By the optimality condition, it suffices to check that π S0,j (F) Q xj H yj Applying Lemma 3 () repeatedly, the LHS becomes π S0,j (F) ˆP j V j V N where ˆP j A L j Φ, while the RHS is row{0,, 0, I} 0 Q xj H yj Q xj N j V j V N A L j Φ row{e j, 0} 0 V j V N To see ˆP j Q xj H yj, notice that ˆP j Q xj H yj A L j Φ row{ E j, I} 0 µa ζ µl j Φ (3) row{ E j, I} ζ 0 The upper right block of (3) has nonzero matrices only on the first j subblocks, while the first j subblocks of the lower left block of (3) are all zero matrices Since µa ζ is upper-triangular as observed in (), all controllable states are not observable and (3) is identically zero This proves π S0,j (F) Q xj H yj