Automatica, Vol. 12, pp. 479-495. Pergamon Press, 1976.
Printed in Great Britain
Decentralized Control of Linear Multivariable
Systems*
J. P. CORFMATt and A. S. MORSE~;
Concepts from graph theory and from the geometric theory of linear systems are
used to derive explicit conditions for determining when the closed-loop spectrum of
a multi-channel linear system can be freely assigned or stabilized with decentralized
control.
Snmmmry~This paper studies the effect of decentralized
feedback on the closed-loop properties of jointly controlla-
ble, jointly observable k-channel linear systems. Channel
interactions within such systems are described by means of
suitably defined directed graphs. The concept of a complete
system is introduced. Complete systems prove to be precisely
those systems which can be made both controllable and
observable through a single channel by applying nondynamic
decentralized feedback to all channels. Explicit conditions
are derived for determining when the closed-loop spectrum
of a k-channel linear system can be freely assigned or
stabilized with decentralized control.
INTRODUCTION
IT zs sometimes desirable or required to construct
a system's feedback control or decision strategy
based on a constrained measurement or informa-
tion pattern. If the information pattern consists
of disjoint subsets of 'local' measurement vari-
ables, one subset for each local input variable, and
ff the information fed back to each local input
depends only on the input's corresponding subset
of measurement variables, then the information
pattern is decentralized and the overall feedback
strategy is called a decentralized control.
Decentralization arises in many contexts.
Examples can be found of team decision and
adjustment processes [2], [3] where the objective
is for an organization of n members to optimize
the expected value of a cost or payoff functional
while each member is allowed to observe only
*Received 7 August 1975; revised 25 February 1976.The
original version of this paper, based on the principal results
of[l], was presented at the 6th IFAC Congress which was
held in Boston/Cambridge, Mass. during August 1975. The
pubfisbed Proceedings of this IFAC Meeting may be ordered
from: Instrument Society of America, 400 Stanwix Street,
Pittsburgh PA 15222. This paper was recommended for
publication in revised form by associate editor E. J. Davison.
TDepartment of Engineering and Applied Science Yale
University, New Haven, CT 06520, U.S.A.
~The work of the authors was supported by the U.S. Air
Force Office of Scientific Research (Grant No. 72-2211) and
by the National Research Council of Canada, (Grant No.
28140).
479
part of a changing or random environment. Much
work dealing with decentralization in economic
systems centers around linear programming and
the decomposition principle of[4]. There is a
growing literature concerned with applications of
decentralized control to frequency and voltage
regulation problems associated with power shar-
ing in multi-area electrical power pools [5, 6]. A
conventional multiloop industrial controller not
involving 'cross-couplings' can be viewed as a
form of decentralized control, although the term
decentralization is rarely used in this case.
Recent research concerned with decentral-
ization has led to a number of interesting and
useful results. Gersho and Karafin[7] and later
Sandberg[8] proposed a form of decentralized
control to synchronize data transmissions in a
network of remotely located transmitting and
receiving stations. Decentralization has been
successfully applied to a single-commodity net-
work flow problem by Lau, Persiano and
Varaiya[9]. Aoki and Li[10] have studied the
extent to which the state of a linear system can
be recovered from information available to local
control agents. Chu[l 1] has considered a decen-
tralized version of the linear regulator problem
for a system consisting of a string of identical
subsystems.
McFadden[12] and later the present
authors[13] studied the problem of stabilizing a
specially structured linear system using a simple
decentralized decision strategy appropriate to
economic systems; similar problems have re-
cently been discussed in[14]. Another study of
the stabilization question for more general linear
systems was undertaken by Aoki[15] who
developed a number of interesting but partial
results. A solution to the stabilization problem
for a large class of linear systems was recently
obtained by Wang and Davison[16].
In the present paper we study the effects of
480 J . P . CORFMATand A. S. MORSE
decentralized feedback on the closed-loop prop-
erties of k-channel, jointly controllable, jointly
observable, linear systems (I). Channel interac-
tions within such systems are usefully character-
ized in qualitative terms by means of suitably
defined directed graphs (2). The concept of a
complete system is introduced in 3. Complete
systems prove to be precisely those systems
which can be made both controllable and
observable through a single channel by applica-
tion of nondynamic decentralized feedback to all
channels (3).
It is well-known[17] that the closed-loop
spectrum of a linear system can be freely
adjusted or assigned with centralized control
provided the system is both controllable and
observable. However with the added constraint
of decentralization, controllability and observa-
bility are no longer sufficient as pointed out
in[15]. In the sequel (4) it is shown that if the
graph of a k-channel system ~ is strongly
connected, then the closed-loop spectrum of
can be freely assigned just in case ~ is complete.
If the graph of ~ is not strongly connected, then
spectrum assignment is possible if and only if (1)
the dimension of ~ equals the sum of the
dimensions of a set of strongly connected
subsystems of ~ and (2) each subsystem is
complete (5).
If for a particular system, free spectrum
assignment is not possible, then the spectrum of
the closed-loop system which results from
application of any specific linear decentralized
control, contains a uniquely determined subset
which cannot be shifted no matter what control
is applied. By characterizing this subset directly
in terms of the system's parameters (4, 5), a
complete solution is obtained to the problem of
stabilizing a k-channel linear system with de-
centralized control. These results significantly
extend the arthors' earlier work[18], and encom-
pas the contributions of[16].
Notation
In the sequel all vector spaces, maps and linear
transformations are defined over the reals; ~ " is
the real n-space; d(~) is the dimension of a
vector space ~. Both linear maps and matrices are
denoted by capital Roman letters A, B . . . . ; prime
(') means transpose.
An m-input, p-output, n-dimensional linear
system ~ = A x + B u , y = C x , is often rep-
resented by the triple (C, A, B). We write for
image B, ( A ] ~ ) = ' ~ + A ~ + ' " + A " - ~ for
the controllable space of (A, B) and [CIA ] 1
|if
kernel CA J-1 for the unobservable space of (C,
A). The uncontrollable polynomial (u.p.) of
(A, B) is the characteristic polynomial of A mod
(A[~).
If ~ is A -invariant, A I~ is the restriction of A
to ~ . If ~ ~ ~ and ~ is A-invariant, A [l(~/~)
denotes the map induced by A in ~ / ~ .
The root set of a real polynomial a (,I) is the
symmetric set of complex roots of a (A) repeated
according to multiplicity. The spectrum of (C, A,
B) (i.e. the spectrum of A) is the root set of the
characteristic polynomial (c.p.) of A. A set of
complex numbers is stable, if all elements in the
set are points in the open left half complex
plane; a (A) is a stable polynomial if its root set is
stable.
The (unique) monic least common multiple of
two polynomials a(A) and ~5(A) is written as
a (A)v/3 (A); the monic greatest common divisor
of a(~,) and/3(A) is denoted by a(A)^~(A). The
complement of a subset s in a set k is written as
k-s.
The complement of a proper variety in a
vector space is called a robust set. Properties of
robust sets are discussed in the appendix.
1. FORMULATION
The model to be considered is a k-channel
linear system ~ ,- {C,, A, BI ; k} described by the
equations
k
~(t) = Ax(t) + ,-i
y~ B,u,(t) 1
y,(t)=C,x(t), i E k - { l , 2 . . . . . k} (I)
where u,(t) and y,(t) are vectors of control input
and measured output variables associated with
channel i; the time functions u,(.), x(.) and y,(.)
take values in ~ , ( = ~ =,), ~ ( = ~ ' ) and ~,(= ~ ' , )
respectively, and A, BI . . . . . B,, C, . . . . . C~ are
constant matrices or linear maps. We deal
primarily with systems for which k I> 2, for if
k = 1 decentralization is not an issue.
To rule out trivialities, only those systems for
which
B, # ' i E k (2)
are considered. We ustially assume that ~ is a
jointly controllable, jointly observable system;
k k
i.e. (A[]~ ~,) -- &oand A [C, IA] -- 0. Note how-
I--I |--I
e v e r , that this assumption does not necessarily
mean that ~ is controllable or observable through
a single channel; e.g. joint controllability of
d o e s not imply controllability of, for example,
(A, B,).
Roughly speaking, a feedback control for
is decentral/zed if each local control u~
 Decentralized control of linear multivariable systems
depends only on local measurement y, for its
implementation. A local controller for the ith
channel of X is a linear dynamical system X,
forced by y, and possibly a command input v,;
the output of X, then serves as the control input
to the channel i. Thus X, admits a model of the
form
~.,(t ) = Hd,(t ) + L,y,(t) + R,v,(t )
u,(t) M,z,(t) + F~y,(t) + G,v,(t)J
where z,(.) takes values in ~,( = ~ , ) . Note that
the nondynamic local feedback law u , ( t ) =
F,y,(t)+ v~(t) is a specialization of (3) obtained
by setting n, = 0 and G, equal to the p,xp~
identity.
If the local controllers (3) are applied to (1),
there results a closed-loop system (1), (3) of
k
dimension n + X n, with spectrum (i.e., eigen-
|--I
value set) depending on the properties of the
local controllers X,. We say that the closed-loop
spectrum of X is freely assignable with decentral-
ized control if for some fixed set of positive
integers (q,, q2. . . . . q,} and for each symmetric
set of complex numbers A, compatible with {q,,
q, . . . . . q,},? there exist local controllers X,
which, when applied to X, result in a closed-loop
system (1), (3) with spectrum A. The main
objective of this paper is to develop explicit
conditions in terms of the matrices which
characterize X, for determining when the closed-
loop spectrum of X is freely assignable with
decentralized control. This is the spectrum
assignment problem for decentralized feedback
systems.
One possible approach to the spectrum assign-
ment problem is to first apply to Y, local
nondynamical controls of the form
u , ( t ) = F~y,(t)+ v,(t), i E k,
the objective being to select the F, so that the
resulting closed-loop system
J--I
y,(t) = c~(t),
'
1
i ~ k.
t
j (5)
is both controllable and observable through a
single channel, say j. For if this can be
accomplished, then standard techniques[17] can
be used to construct a second local control
system
tA set of complex numbers A is compat/bk with {q,,
q2. . . . . q,} if A can be expressed as a disjoint union of
symmetricsubsets, the number of elementsin the lth subset
equalling q~.
481
~.j(t)= H:,(t) + LIyRt)
v,(t) = M:,ft ) + N~y,(t)
which, when applied to channel j of (5),results in
a closed-loop system with prescribed spectrum.
In the sequel we develop conditions in terms of
the parameter matrices of X which tellwhen this
program can be carried out. To simplify notation
we henceforth write F for the matrix diag. [F,,
(3)
F2 .... F,], P for the vector space of all such
k
matrices, AF for A + X B,F~C,, and Xn~
i--I
{C, An, B~; k} for the k-channel system rep-
resented by (5).
Closely related to the spectrum assignment
problem is the problem of determining when Y
can be stabilized with decentralized control. The
stabilization problem has been studied [16] where
it is shown that ~ can be stabilized with
decentralized control just in case the polynomial
ax(A) =- ^ det [ A I - An], (6)
FE~
called the fixed polynomial of X, has all its roots
in the open left-half complex plane. The neces-
sity of this condition is a direct consequence of
the following proposition which can be deduced
directly from the results of[16].
Proposition 1. Let A ( ~ , k ) denote the spectrum
of the closed-loop system described by (1) and
(3); and write Ax for the root set o]~,x(A ). Then
Ax C A(~,, k)
for all linear controls ]~,, i E k.
In the sequel, Proposition 1 will be used to
arrive at an alternative solution to the stabiliza-
tion problem with solvability conditions expres-
sed directly in terms of the problem data. Our
(4) approach will in addition, enable us to illustrate
when the stabilization problem is well-posed, and
when it is not.
2. CONTROLLABLE, SINGLE-CHANNEL
SUBSYSTEMS
The principal problem to be considered here
and in 3 is as follows: For given X and fixed
j E k, find conditions for the existence of an
F ~ 3g such that (Cj, Ap, Bi) is a controllable,
observable system. If an F with the required
property exists for some j, then it turns out that
such an F exists for each and every j E k; and
when this is so we say that ]~ can be made
controllable and observable through a single
channel with nondynamic decentralized control.
We begin by studying the simpler problem of
determining when an F E P can be found so
482 J.P.
that (A~, B~) is a controllable pair. This problem
has in effect been solved in[19] for the case
k = 2. Central to the problem's solution is the
concept of a remnant polynomial. The remnant
polynomial of a (singie-channel) linear system
(C, A, B ) is defined as
ifr it
P(C' A' B ) = I , ~ , ~,(A) if r < '
where r is the rational function rank of the
transfer matrix C ( A I - A ) - ' B and ,(A),
=(A) . . . . .
, (A) are the transmission polynomials
of (C, A, B)[20], ordered so that ,(A) divides
,_,(A), i~ {2,3 . . . . t}; (C, A, B ) is called a
complete (single-channel) system if its transfer
matrix is nonzero and if p(C, A, B ) = 1.
The main result off19] is as follows.
Proposition 2. Let (C, A, B) and D: V ~ be
fixed with (A [~ + ~ ) = and C(A I - A)-'B # 0.
For all K : ~ ~ V, p(C, A, B) divides the uncon-
troUable polynomial of (A + DKC, B), the word
"divides" being replaceable by 'equals' just in
case K is selected so that d((A + DKC[~)) is as
large as possible.
By making use of the following lemma, it is
possible to restate Proposition 2 in a more
convenient way.
Lemma l.t For the two-channel system
- { C , , A, B,; 2} and any decentralized feed-
back matrix F = d i a g . [F,, F2], (AFI~,) =
(A+B2F2C21~,) and u.p. (AF, B,) = u.p.
(A + B=F,C=, B,).
L e m m a 1 and Proposition 2 clearly imply that
Proposition 2a. If 2 ~ {C~, A, B,; 2} is jointly
controllable and if C 2 ( k l - A)-'B, ~ 0, then for all
F E ~, p(C2, A, B,) divides the uncontrollable
polynomial of (Av, B,), the work divides being
replaceable by equals just in case F E ~; is
selected so that d((Ap[~l)) is as large as possible.
From Proposition 2a it follows that if 2 is
jointly controllable and if C,(AI - A ) - ' B # 0,
then F can be selected so that (A~,I~,) = ~ if and
only if (C2, A, B,) is complete.
In order to extend these results to k-channel
systems, it is necessary to take into account
which transfer matrices within ~ are zero and
which ones are not. This is a topological matter
tThe simple proof of this lemma is omitted.
CORFMAT and A. S. MORSE
and is therefore best treated in graph-theoretic
terms.
We define the graph of 2, written Gz, to be a
pair (k,F) consisting of k nodes labeled 1,
2 . . . . k, with node i representing the ith channel
of 2, and a function F mapping k into its power
set according to the rule F ( j ) = { i : H , ~ 0 } ;
(7)
H, ~- C , ( A I - A)-'Bi is the transfer matrix from
channel input uj of X to channel output y,. The
graph may be represented by a diagram consist-
ing of a set of k nodes, labeled 1, 2 . . . . . k, with a
directed arc drawn from node j to node i just in
case uj influences y, in the sense that H , ~ 0. The
graph of ~ thus represents the open-loop pattern
of signal flow between the channels of E.
It is perhaps natural to expect that if (A~, Ba) is
controllable for some F, then each node of Gz
must be reachable from node j along a directed
patht in Gx. This is, in fact, the case.
Proposition 3. If for some j E k and F E $~,
(AF, Bj) is controllable, then for each i ~ k, with
i # j, there exists a path in Gx from node j to node
i.
While this p r o p e r t y of Gx is necessary for
(AF, Bj) to be controllable for some F, it is not
sufficient for as we have already noted, when
k = 2 completeness of a certain subsystem of
is also required. To describe analogous subsys-
tams for k-channel systems, we introduce the
following notation: If s is a nonempty subset of
k , with elements i., i2. . . . . is ordered so that
il < i2 < . . . < is, then we define B. and C. so that
J
C,= B . = [B,,, B~ . . . . . B~ ]
Thus (C.,, A, B . ) is a subsystem of 2 modeling the
relationship between channel inputs ~, i ~ s~ and
channel outputs yj, j ~ s,. We call (C.,, A, B.,) a
complementary subsystem of E if s= is a proper
subset of k and if s, = k - s 2 ; a complementary
subsystem (Ck-., A, B.) is said to contain input
(reap. output) channel ] if j is an element of s
(reap. k - s).
The following iemma provides a useful rela-
tionship between path properties of Gx and
transfer matrices of complementary subsystems
of E. Below, k(j) denotes the class of all proper
subsets of k which contain j, and k is the class of
all nonempty subsets of k.
tA path from node i, to node/, of Gx can be interpreted as
a sequence of nodes i, .... i. satisfying /q E F(/._,),
q E(2,3 . . . . . p}.
 Decentralized control of linear multivariable systems
L e m m a 2. Let i and j be distinct integers in k.
There exists a path in Gx from node j to node i if
and only if
C.-.(AI - A )-tB. # 0, s ~ (k - k ( i ) ) N k ( j )
(8)
Proof. The existence of a path in G~ from node j
to node i is equivalent to the requirement that for
each proper subset s C k satisfying j ~ s and
i ~ k - s, there exist integers i, ~ s and i, ~ k -
s such that i, ~ F(i~). But the class of proper
subsets s satisfying j ~ s and i ~ k - s coincides
with (k - k(i)) ~ k(]) and the condition i~ ~ F(i,)
is equivalent to C~(AI - A)-tB~, ~ O. Further-
more, Ck_.(AI - A )-~B. # 0 if and only if C~(AI -
A ) - ' B , , ~ 0 for some i, ~ s and i~ ~ k - s . Thus
there exists a path in Gx from node j to node i
just in case (8) is true. []
From the easily verified identity
k the pair (Ap, Bj) for the case when the conditions
k(]) = U ( ( ~ - k(i)) n k(~))
t-I
icti
and L e m m a 2 follows that for each i ~ k, with
i # j, there exists a path in G~ from node j to
node i if and only if
Ck-s(A/" - A )-'B. # O, s ~ k(j)
Since {(C._s,A,B.):s ~ k(j)} is the set of all
complementary subsystems of `2 containing
input channel ], we can state
L e m m a 3. The transfer matrices of all c o m -
plementary subsystems of `2, which contain input
channel j, are nonzero if and only if for each
i ~ k, with i # j, there exists a path in the graph
of `2 from node j to node i.
Proof of Proposition 3. Let (Ap, Bj) be
controllable. Fix s E kfj); then
CA + `2 B,F,C,I~.~CA + "2 B,F,C, If#j).
t Ek--s I Ek
Since (A + `2 B,F,C,, Bj) is controllable, it
follows that CA + `2 B,FaC,[~.) = ~.
i ~ k---a
If C . - . ( M - A )-'B. ffi O, then C . - . A 'B. ffi O, i >~
0; thus ( A i ~ . ) C k e r n e l C.--. and (AI~I.)=
CA + `2 B,F~C,I~.). Therefore ~ E k e r n e l C.-.
| Ek--s
or equivalently, C~_, = 0. This clearly contradicts
(2); therefore C k ~ A I - A ) - * B . # O . Since s E
k(j) is arbitrary, it must be true that the transfer
matrices of all complementary subsystems of `2
containing input channel j, are n o n z e r o . It
follows from L e m m a 3 that Proposition 3 is true.
[]
483
As noted earlier, Proposition 3 provides only
necessary conditions for (A~, Bj) to he controlla-
ble for some F. A complete solution to the
problem is provided by the following theorem.
Theorem 1. Let `2 E {C,, A, B,; k} and j E k be
fixed with Y. jointly controllable. There exists an
F E ~; such that
CAFI~,) = ~f, (9)
if and only if each complementary subsystem of
`2 which contains input channel j is complete.
For fixed j E k, let _~j denote the set of all
F E ~ for which d((AFI~j)) is as large as
possible. As defined, ~_j is clearly robust {cf.
Appendix} in ~:. This implies that if F E 9; is
selected at random, then F is almost certain to he
in _~j. Therefore, if (9) holds for some F, then it
holds for 'almost every' F E 4.
The following theorem further characterizes
of Theorem 1 fail to hold.
Theorem 2. Let ~ and j satisfy the hypotheses
of Theorem 1, and write ap(7,) for the uncontrol-
lable polynomial of (AF, Bj).
i. For all F E ~,
v p(C._.,A,B.) divides aF(A) (10)
semi)
ii. If, in addition, for each i E k with i # j there
is a path in Gx from node j to node i, then a F(A )
is independent of F E ~_j and
aF(A)divides H p(Ck_.,A, BJ (11)
.Gk(D
Theorem 2 implies that the uncontrollable
spectrum of (AF, B~), namely the root set of
aF(A), contains the root set of v O(Ck-,, A, B.)
o~kU)
as a fixed subset for all F E 4. The theorem also
implies that if node j of Gz is connected by a
directed path to each other node of Gz, then the
uncontrollable spectrum of (Ap, Bj) is contained
in another fixed subset, namely the root set of
H p(Ck-.,A, B.), whenever F is selected so
i E I~/)
that d((A~l~j)) is as large as possible. From the
obvious relationship between the two fixed
subsets bounding the root set of at(A), it follows
that if node j of Gz is connected to each other
node of Gx, then F can be selected so that (Ap, Bj)
is stabilizable just in case each polynomial p(C~_,,
A, B J , s E k ( ] ) , is stable.
In the sequel, use will be made of the following
remarks, which pertain to a n y linear system ((7, A,
B).
4.84 J . P . CORFMAT and A. S. MORSE
Remark 1. If D is the identity on ~, then
( A [ ~ + ~ ) = go. From this and Proposition 2 it
follows that if C ( A I - A ) - t B # O , then u.p.
(A + KC, B) ffi p(C, A, B) whenever K is
selected so that d((A + K C [ ~ ) ) is as large as
possible.
Remark 2. It is easy to verify that the rational
function rank of the transfer matrix C(AI - A -
K C ) - ' B is independent of K. Since the transmis-
sion polynomials of (C, A + KC, B) are known
to be independent of K {cf. [20], Corollary 4.1}, it
follows from the definition of p(-), that p(C,
A + KC, B) is independent of K as well.
The proofs of Theorems 1 and 2 are based on
the following lemmas.
Lemma 4. Let (C, A, B ) a n d D:~V--,~ be ]ixed
with C(AI - A)-~B # O. Then u.p. (A + DKC, B)
divides (p(C, A, B)) (u.p. (A, [B, D])) whenever K
is selected so that d((A + DKC[~)) is as large as
possible.
Proof. Let (C, A, /]) denote the system
obtained by restricting the maps of (C, A, B) to
~'-(al~+-~); and write /~: ~--*,~' for the
restricted map v I---,Dv. Then for any K,
u.p. (A + DKC, B) = (u.p. (,4 + DKC, B)) (u.p.
(A + DKC, [B, D])); but since u.p. (A + DKC, [B,
D]) is independent of K,
u.p.(A + DKC, B ) -- (u.p. (.4 + DKC, B))
x (u.p.(A, [B, D)]) (12)
Now fix Ko so that d((A +DKoC[~)) is as
large as possible; since the relation (A +
D K C [ ~ ) = ( A +/~KC'I~) holds for all K, it
follows that K = Ko maximizes d((A +
DKC'I~)s as well. But (AI~ + ~ ) = ~ and the
hypothesis C ( A I - A ) - t B # O implies ~ ( A r -
A)-*/~ # 0. It therefore follows from Proposition
2 applied to the data (C, A, B) and/5, that u.p.
(A +/SKoC, / ~ ) = p ( C , A, B). This and (12)
evaluated at K = Ko the yield u.p.(A +
DKoC, B)ffi(p(C, A, B))(u.p. (A, [B, D]). To
complete the proof it is therefore enough to show
that p(C, A, B) divides p(C, A, B).
Let ff and ~ denote the largest (A, B)-in-
variant and controllability subspaces in kernel
C[22]. Since ~ C ( A i f l B + ~ ) - - ~ and kernel
ffi ~ n (kernel C), ~ is also the largest (A,
/~)-invariant subspace in kernel ~. Furthermore,
C and A ~ C ~ ; thus ,9' f3 ~ is (A, B)-
invariant {cf.[22], Lemma 7.1}. Clearly 5f3~ is
the largest (A, B)-invariant subspace in kernel ~.
Therefore if M : ~/--* is selected so that both S
and S n ~ are (A + BM)-invariant, then
transmission pol. (C,A, B)
= invariant factors
(A + BM)ll(b~lgt)
transmission pol. (C, A, B) -- invariant factors
(A
+ BM)II((Y n ~)/~t)
Since (S~n~)l~tc~el~, it follows {cf.[19],
Lemma 1} that if {,t, ,~ . . . . . ,,}m trans, pol. (C,
A, B) and {~t, ~2. . . . . ~} = trans, pol. (C, A, B),
then t'-< t and ~ divides **, i ~ {1,2 . . . . . t'}.
From this, the definition of a remnant polynomial
and the fact that the rank of C ( A I - A ) - ' B
equals the rank of ( ~ ( X l - ,4)-I/~, it follows that
p(C, A, B) divides p(C, A, B). []
Lemma 5. Let X={C,, A, B,; 2} be a fixed
two-channel system.
i. There exists a map F E 3; such that
Ct(AI - A~)-' # 0 (13)
if and only if
Ci(~ I - A)-'[B,, B~] # 0 (14a)
and
[~j (~I- A)-'B,# 0 (14b)
ii. If (14) holds, then there exists a robust set
~_ * ~ ~; with the property that if F ~ ~. *, then
(13) is satis]ied and
p(C,, A, [B,,B~]). (]5)
Proof. (i) If (14a) fails to hold, then C,A'[B,,
B2]--0 ( i ~ 0 ) or equivalently, ( A I ~ , + ~ 2 ) C
kernel C,. Since (A~lfl~,) C ( A I ~ , + ~2), it fol-
lows that (Ap[~I) C kernel C,; hence CtA/B~ = 0
(i;~0, F G ~ ) which is contrary to (13).
Therefore (14a) and (by duality) (14b) are
necessary.
For sufficiency, suppose (14) holds. If C~(AI-
A ) - ' B ~ # 0 , then (13) is satisfied with Fffi0. If
C t ( A I - A)-'B~ ffi 0, then (14) implies that
C~(AI - A )-'B2 # 0 and that C2(AI - A )-~Bt # O.
Hence in this case there must be least positive
integers q2 and q~ such that C , A ~ - ' B , # O and
that Cv4 q:t Bt # O. But by assumption CtA 'B, =
0 ( i ~ 0 ) ; it follows that A~-'B~ffiAHB~
(i E { I , 2 , . . . . q,}) and that C t A j / - ' - - C , A '-t
(i E {I, 2 . . . . . q2}) for any matrix F = diag. [F,,
 Decentralized control of linear multivariable systems 485

F=] in ~. Thus B2F2C, + B=F'C, +/~C,[~1)) attains it maximum

with respect to (/~, F,, /~) at (0, F*, Ko). It
= C , A ~ A ~,-~B~ follows that
= C~A'~-'(A + B~F~C~
+ B=F,C~)A ~'-~B,
= C~A'~-IB2F2C=A q'-tBt
[P. F=]
Since CtA'~-*B=#O and C2A*,-~B~ ~ 0 , F (i.e. (18)
F=) can now be chosen so that C~A~'+~-'B, ~ 0;
and (13) clearly holds with this choice of F. Remark 2 and (14b) imply that
[e,]
C,
(ii) Assume that (14) is true and let .~ denote (Xl - A - KoC,)-'B, # O. From this, (18) and
the set of F ~ 3~ for which (13) is satisfied; i Lemma 4 applied to the system ( I C : ] , A +
above implies that _~ is nonempty. Since (13) fails
to hold only a proper variety in 3~, _~ is robust in K o C , B,) with D roB2, it follows that u.p.
( A + B.[0, F][][C:] + KoC,,B~) divides
Let ~ denote the set of maps K in the linear
space ~ of maps ~ - , ~ for which
d((A + K C I [ ~ t + ~ , ) ) is maximal; ~_ is clearly
robust in ~. Therefore the product set _~ x _~ is
robust in ~ . Write _At for the set of pairs
( F , K ) in ~ for which d((A~+KC~[~)) is K o C , B~) = u.p. (A~,. + K o C , BO and by Remark
maximal. Then At_ is robust in ~ as is the
2, p([C~], A + K o C , B,) = p([C:], A, B,). Thus
intersection At_~ (_~ x ~).
Let (Fo, Ko) ~ -it_N (@ x ~ be fixed. Define
u.p. (A,.+ K o C , B,)divides ( p ( [ C : ] , A, B , ) )
_~* to be the set of F ~ _~ such that
d((A~ + KoC,II ,>) is maximal; then .~* is robust (u.p. (A + K o C , [B,, B.])). This and (17) show
in ~. It will now be shown that (13) and (15) hold that
for any F ~ ~*.
Fix F* ~ ~ * ; then F* maximizes d((A~ +
P(C,,Ap.,BOdivides(p([C'2],A,B,))
KoC,I~,)) with respect to F ~ _~ as does Fo
(since (Fo, Ko) ~ ~ and F o ~ .~). But
x (u.p.(A + KoCh, [B,, B=]) (19)
d((A~,+KoC~[~,)) can have only one maximal
value with respect to F ~ so
Since Ko maximizes d((A + K C d ~ , + ft2))
d((A~,. + KoC,I~,)) -- d((A~ + KoC,[~,)). Since
with respect to K E ~ (i.e. Ko E ~ ) , it follows
(Fo, Ko) ~ _~, it must be true that (F*, K d ~ _~;
from (14a) and Remark 1 that u.p. (A + KoC,,
in other words
[ B . B.])--p(C,, A, [B,, B.]). Substitution into
(19) yields (15) which is the desired result. D
d((Av. + KoC,I~,)) = max d((AF + KCI~,))
F.K
(16) Lemma 6. For given ~ ="{Ci, A, Bi; k}, suppose
that u.p. (Ap, B0 divides a fixed polynomial 8(A )
Equation (16) implies that Ko maximizes for all F in some robust subset of 3;. Then there
d((A~,.+ KC,[g~,)) with respect to K ~ ~. In exists a monic polynomial ~(A) which divides
addition, C,(AI - Ap.)-'B, # 0 since F* ~ ~. both 8(A) and u.p. (Av, Bt) for all F E ~, and
Therefore, by Remark 1, which equals u.p. (Av, B,) whenever F is selected
so that d((Av[~,)) is as large as possible.
u.p. (AF. + KoC,, Ba) = p(C,, A~.., B0 (17)
Proof. Let .~* denote the set of F E ~ for
Write F = diag. [ F , F=]. Then (16) implies which d((Ar[~,)) is as large as possible. Since
that (F*, F~, Ko) maximizes d((A + B,F,C, + d((Ap[~,)) is independent of F E .~*, the
B2F=C2+KC~[~,)) with respect to ( F , Fa, K). integer n * - d ( g / ( A F [ ~ , ) ) is uniquely deter-
Since (,4 + B,F, CI+ B=F, C2+ K C , ] ~ ) is inde- mined by any F E _~*; clearly
pendent of F~ {cf. Lemma 1}, it must be that (F~,
Ko) maximizes d((A + B=F=C2+ KC~[~I~)) with degree (u.p. (Ap, B,)) = n*, F G ~* (20)
respect to (F=, K). Furthermore since the sub-
stitution K = B2J~ + / ~ is reversible, d((A + Let ~ denote the vector space of maps 9f--, qt,,
486 J . P . CORFMAT and A. S. MORSE

and write aF.~(A) ="c.p. (A~,+ B,K)I(AF + B,) = u.p. (A + B2FTC2, BO. From this and
B,KIB, ). Since u.p. (AF+ B,K, B J is clearly Lemma 4 applied to the system (Cz, A, B J with
independent of K, we can write c.p. (AF + D = Bz, it follows that u.p. (AF., B 0 divides (u.p.
B,K)=aF.K(A)(u.p. (A~, BO). But c.p. (A~+ (A, B3))(p(C2, A, B,)). Hence the lemma is true
B,K) can also be written in factored form as for k = 2.
~(A)~SF.x(A) where ~(A) == ^ c.p. (A~+B,K); Let p ~>2 be fixed and set q = p + 1. Suppose
~.K that the lemma is true for k = p. Assume that the
thus
lemma's hypothesis holds for k = q; i.e. by
a~.x (),)(u.P. (AF, B 0) =/z (X)/SFX(A), Lemma 3,
(F, K) ~ 3 ~ ( ~ (21)
Cq_.(AI-A)-'B.O s E q(1) (24)
Since aF.X(X)=c.p. (A~ + B , K ) restricted to
Write ~ " (resp. ~ , ) for the linear space of all
the controllable space of (AF, B,), it follows that
matrices F" - diag. [F,, F, . . . . . Fp ] ( resp., F,).
for each fixed F ~ ~, a K E g can be found for
Fix s* E p(l); then s* E q(l). Since
which aF.~(A) and ~(A) are coprime. This and
(21) clearly imply that
C,_,. [ C , ,.],
= LC~ J (25)
/t(A) divides u.p. (AF, B,), F ~ 3; (22)
it follows from (24) that
In addition, since by hypothesis u.p. (A~,BO
divides 8 (X) for F in some robust set ~ C :~, ~ (A)
must divide 8 (A). [C~-"] ( k I - A)-'B.. # 0 (26)
By Lemma A.1, the set ~ of pairs (F, K ) E
~ ) ~ such that ~,,.~ (X) and 8(X ) are coprime, is Since s* U {q} E q(l), (24) holds for s ffi s* U {q}.
robust in ~(]~g. Since ~* is robust in ~;, so is
Using the fact that q - (s* U {q}) = p - s*, we can
_~ ~ _~*. Therefore _~ n ((~ n ~ * ) x ~ ) is robust
therefore write
in ~ . This means that there exists a pair (Fo,
Ko) such that F o E _~ n _~* and ~FoX,(X) and
C)-,*(AI - A )-'[B.., Bq ] ~ 0 (27)
8(A) are coprime; but u.p. (AF, B J divides/~(A)
for F ~ _ , so fiFo~o(X) and u.p. (A~o, B 0 are
From (26), (27) and Lemma 5, it follows that
coprime. It follows from (21) that u.p. (A~., B,)
there exists a robust set _~(s*) C ~o such that
divides ~z(A); hence by (22), u.p. (A~o, B0 =
with Fq E _~(s*),
/z(A). But Fo ~ _~* and from (20), degree (u.p.
(AF, B,)) is independent of F ~ _~*. Therefore
C , ~ ( A I - A - B,FqCq )-'Be ~ 0 (28)
degree (u.p. (AF, BJ)=degree tt(X), F ~ _~*.
But this and (22) can be true only if u.p.
and
(AF, B J = ~z(A)forF ~ _~*. Fq.
p (C,-.., A + BQF~C,,B,.) divides
Lemma 7. Let 2 "1 {C,, A, Bi; k} be ~xed and
suppose that for each i E k, with i ~ 1, there
p([CT],A,B,.)p(C,-..,A,[B..,B,]) (29)
exists a path in Gx from node 1 to node i. Then
u.p. (Av, B,) divides (u.p. (A, b~)) Since s* is arbitrary, the preceding statement is
valid for all s* E p(1). Thus (28) and (29) hold for
(.y~, p(C,_., A, B.))
all s* E IR1) and all Fo in the robust set
n
whenever F E is selected so that d((Ad~,)) is a* ~ re(I)

as large as possible. Let ~* denote the robust set obtained by

intersecting N ~(s*) with the set of all
s" E p(I)
Proof. According to Lemma 3, the hypothesis
F~ E ~ which maximize d((A +B~F, CqI~,)).
of the present iemma is equivalent to
Then for arbitrary F* E ~ * ,
Ck...(AI - A )-'B. # O, s E k(l) (23)
d((A + B,F*Cq I~p)) = max d((A + BOWqC_~I~,))
P.
Suppose k = 2, in which case (23) becomes (30)
C 2 ( A I - A ) - ' B , ~ O . If F* (i.e. diag. [F~, F~])
maximizes d((Arl~0), then by Lemma 1, F~ Cr-.(AI-A-B.F*Cq)-'B.#O, s E p(1)
maximizes d((A +B,F2C~IgJJ) and u.p. (A~,., (31)
 Decentralized control of linear multivariable systems 487

p( C,-.,, A + B.F* C~, B.) divides K2, it is possible to write Ap =

p(C,-,, A, Bo)p(Cq.-.u(,), A, B.u{,}). s p(1)
(32)
In writing the right side of (32), we have made
use of (29), (25) and the fact that q - s U {q} =
p - s for s p(1).
Write 3~* for the linear space of all matrices
F I= diag. [F,, F , . . . . . F, ] and let _~,~ denote the
set of all F ~ for which d ( ( A ~ l ~ J ) is
maximal. Then _ ~ is robust in ~ " as is the set
.. ~ r3 (~:o x ~*). Let F ~ -- ( F ~ , F*) 9t
be fixed. Then (Fg, F*) ~,~ so F g maximiz-
es d ( ( A , - + B , F * C o I ~ , ) ) with respect to F ' . In
addition, since F * ~ * , (31) holds. It follows
from L e m m a 3 that Y~*-" {C, A + B,F*Co, B,; p}
satisfies the hypothesis of the present lemma at
k = p. Since by assumption the iemma is valid at
k = p, it must be that u.p. (A~ s + B~F*C~, B J
divides (u.p. (A + B~F*Co, B,)) H p(C,-.,
S~l~l)
A + B~F*~C~,B.). From this, (32) and the fact that
A~t = A~ t + BeF*C,, it follows that
u.p. (A~ s, B~) divides (u.p. (A +
B~F*Co, B,)) II p(C,._,,A, B,)
where m = {s U {q}: s p(I)} U p(l).
From (30) and (24) evaluated at s ffi {q}, it
follows that L e m m a 4 can be applied to the
system (C,, A, B~) with D ffi B, to yield
u.p. (A + B,,F*C,. B.) divides
(u.p. (A, [B., B, ]))p(C., A, S.)
Observe that (B,, B,]ffi B,, C, = C,-, and
m U {p} = q(l); these relations, together with (33)
and (34) imply that
U.D.
(A~ I, B,) divides u.p. (A, B,) H p(c~_., A, B.)
s~q(I)
Since F ~ ~t is arbitrary, (35) holds for all
F g 9t. Hence by L e m m a 6, u.p. (At,, B~) is
fixed and independent of F ' ~ $ . Since
_~.q N _~ cannot be empty, (35) holds for all
F ~. ~.~. Thus the iemma is true at k ffi
q (= p + 1). By induction, the proof is complete.
[]
Proof of Theorem 2
i. Fix s k(]) and F ffidiag. [F,,
F~ ..... F~] ~. Since (A,,I~,) C (A,,I~,>, it
must be that u.p. (Au, B,) divides a~,(A). For
suitably defined block diagonal matrices K, and
A + B.K,C.+ KI..,KiC,,-.; thus by L e m m a 1, u.p.
(At, B.) = u.p. (A + B,,.-,K,CI-,, B.). It follows
that
u.p. (A + Bk-,K2Ck-,, B.) divides at(A) (36)
We wish to show that
p(Ch--., A, B,) divides aF(A ) (37)
For the case when Ck-,(AI -- A )-' B, ~ O, Proposi-
tion 2 applied to the system (Ck-., A, B.) with
D = Bh-,, asserts that p(Ck-,, A, B,) divides u.p.
(A +Bk-,K2Ck-,, B,); this and (36) therefore
imply (37).
Now suppose that C k - . ( A I - A ) - ' B , ffiO, or
equivalently that (AI~,)C[Ck-,IA]. Set ~ t =
(A I~l.) and SO= [Ch_,IA ]. Since both ~R and SOare
subspaces of kernel Ch--., it must be that
t = (A + B,,-.K,C,,-.I~.), that (A +
B,,..,K2Ck-,)SO C S and thus that (A +
Bk-,K2Ck-,)ll( f f / ~ ) = A II(ff l ~ ). But ff/9~ C ~r/9~
implying that c.p. (A + Bk-,K2Ch-,)N(fflgt) di-
vides c.p. (A + Bk-,K2Ch-OllOfl~t); therefore c.p.
A II(ffl~) must divide c.p. (A +
(33)
Bk-,K2Ck-,)II(~Ig~) which in turn equals u.p.
(A + Bk-,K2Ch-,, B.). From this and (36) it follows
that
c.p. A II(YI~) divides aF(A) (38)
Since ~ . is a subspace of both ~ and SO,~t and SO
must be the largest (A, B,)-controllability and (A,
B.)-invariant subspaces respectively in kernel
(34) Ck-.. But 9~ and ff are both A-invariant and rank
(Ck-.(AI -- A )-'B,) = 0. It follows from the defini-
tion of a remnant polynomial that p(Ck--,, A,
B J = c.p. A II(Y/~ ). This and (38) imply that (37)
holds. Thus (37) is true in general.
Since s E k(j) is arbitrary, (37) must be valid
for all s E kfj). It follows that assertion i of the
theorem is true.
(35) ii. Without loss of generality, assume ] ffi 1. By
hypothesis :~ is jointly controllable, so u.p.
(A, B~)= 1. From this and L e m m a 7, it follows
that assertion ii of the theorem is true. VI
Proof of Theorem 1. The requirement that
each complementary subsystem of : containing
input channel ] be complete, is equivalent to the
conditions
c._.(x - A)-'B. # 0, s e k(]) (39a)
p(C..,,A, B.) = I, s E k(/') (39b)
Suppose that for fixed F E 9~, (Ap, Bj) is
488 J . P . CORFMAT and A. S. MORSE
controllable. Then (39a) follows from Proposi-
tion 3 and Lemma 3, while (39b) is a consequence
of ifrheorem 2 and the fact that u.p. (Av, B~) = 1.
Assume (39) is true. Then Lemma 3 and (39a)
insure that the hypothesis of ii/Theorem 2 is
satisfied; (39b) and (11) thus imply for suitable
F ~ P, that u.p. (Av, B~) must divide 1 or
equivalently that (A~, B~) is controllable. []
3. CONTROLLABLE AND OBSERVABLE
SINGLE-CHANNEL SUBSYSTEMS
By making use of Theorem 1 and duality it is
possible to derive conditions for the existence of
an F E ~; which makes the jth channel of ~
both controllable and observable. First note from
Theorem I (dualized), that if ~ is a jointly
observable system, then there exists an
F E 3; such that [C~IAp] = 0 just in case each
complementary subsystem of 2' E{B~, A', C'~;
k} containing input channel j, is complete; since
completeness is invariant under transposition
{cf. [19]}, this condition can be replaced with the
equivalent requirement that each complementary
subsystem of ~ containing output channel j, be
complete. Thus if (Cj, Ap, B~) is both controllable
and observable for some F, then it is necessary
that all complementary subsystems of ~ contain-
ing either input or output channel j, be complete.
We claim that these conditions are sufficient as
well---assuming, of course, that ~ is both jointly
controllable and jointly observable. If the condi-
tions hold, then the sets of F and P for which
(Ap, Bj) is controllable and (Cj, A~) is observable
are each robust in ~, as is their intersection ~ * ;
this being so, the set of F ~ 3; for which (C~, At,
B~) is both controllable and observable, namely
~*, is nonempty.
The preceding argument shows that there
exists an F ~ 3~ such that (C~, A~, B~) is
controllable and observable if and only if each
complementary subystem of ~ containing either
input channel j or output channel j, is complete.
But from the definition of a complementary
subsystem it directly follows that the union of all
complementary subsystems containing either
input or output channel j equals the set of all
complementary subsystems of ]~. Hence if we
now extend the previous definition of complete-
ness to k-channel systems by calling such
systems complete whenever all of their com-
plementary subsystems are complete, then we
can consisely summarize what has been accom-
plished so far.
Theorem 3. Let ~Z~ {C,, A, B,; k} be a jointly
controllable jointly observable system and let
j E kbeftxed. Thereexistsan F E ~ suchthat
(A~lgtj) =
and
[CjIAF] : 0
if and only if Y~ is complete.
Since completeness is a property not depend-
ing on j, it must be true that if 2 is complete, then
for any j E k, F~ can be selected so that (Cj, Arj,
B~) is controllable and observable. Furthermore,
since for each j the set of all such Fj is robust in
Y, the set of all F for which (Cj, AF, Bj) is
controllable and observable for all j E k must
also be robust in ~ and therefore nonempty. In
other words, if 2F can be made controllable and
observable through one channel, then it can be
made controllable and observable through every
channel. More precisely,
Corollary 1. If Y, is a complete, jointly
controllable, jointly observable system, then there
exists an F E such that for all j E k, (Cj, A~,
Bj) is controllable and observable.
In order for ~ to be complete it is necessary
that the transfer matrices of each of its
complementary subsystems be nonzero. But
from Lemma 3, it is obvious that
Lemma 8. The transfer matrices of all com-
plementary subsystems of Y~ are nonzero if and
only if the graph of ~ is strongly connected.t
Therefore 2p can be made controllable and
observable through a single channel, only if the
graph of 2 is strongly connected; in this case we
call 2 a strongly connected system.
Remark. It is not true that the graph of 2p is
independent of F. However, if the graph is
strongly connected for some F, then it remains
strongly connected for all F. It is also true that
completeness of ~p is independent of F.
Suppose we write f~ for the linear space of all
n-dimensional, single-channel systems (C ~'x'',
A c"x'), B<'x=~). It is shown in[19] that (C, A,
B) E 5~ is complete just in case
C(AI - A )-'B ~ 0
and the rank of the matrix
0
tA directed grsph is stronOy ~ if for each distinct
pair of nodzs I and/, thz grsph contains a Imthfrom i toj.
 Decentralized control of linear multivariable systems
is no less than n for all real and complex values
of A. Since rank (hi - A) = n for all A not in the
spectrum of A, it is easy to see that the rank
condition on M(A) is equivalent to the require-
ment that no prime factor of c.p. A be a factor
of every n th order minor of M(A ), the minors of
M(A) being viewed as polynomials in ~. Since
the coefficients of each of these polynomials
depend algebraically on the parameters of (C, A,
B), it must be that the resultant of each prime
factor of c.p. A together with each n th order
minor of M(A ), is a polynomial in the parameters
of (C, A, B). From this it directly follows that the
class of systems in ~ which are not complete, is a
variety in 7. Since ~ always contains at least one
complete system (e.g. select ( C, A, B) E ~ with
(A, B) controllable and C(AI - A )-~B # 0), the
variety is proper. The complement ~ * of this
variety, which is the set of complete systems in ~,
is therefore robust. This implies that .~* is open
and dense in ~f (with respect to the standard
Euclidean metric), and thus that completeness is
a generic property of single-channel systems in
~f.
Suppose we now write g for the linear vector
space of all k-channel systems {CY~'~, A ~'~'~,
B~'~"o; k}. Using essentially the same arguments
as above, it is quite straightforward to show that
if ~g* is the set of jointly controllable, jointly
observable, complete systems in ~g, then ~g* is
robust in ~. Thus one can also state that
joint-controllability, joint-observability and com-
pleteness are generic properties of systems in ~g.
From a practical point-of-view, such an
assertion can be very misleading in that it is
based on hypotheses which fail to take into
account possible dependencies between model
parameters. For example, if there really is no
internal physical connection between the ith
channel input and the jth channel output of the
process modelled by ~, then the transfer matrix
between channel input i and channel output j of
must be exactly, not approximately, zero, and
the class of admissible model parameter pertur-
bations should preserve this property, if conclu-
sions based on perturbation analysis are to make
sense.
With this in mind, suppose we call two systems
in ~, topologically equivalent if both systems
have the same graph. For the topogical equival-
ence class Ex of ~ ~ g to contain at least one
complete system, it is necessary (cf. Lemma 8)
that be strongly connected. Assume, therefore,
that ~ is strongly connected; and write E !
for the set of all jointly controllable, jointly
observable, complete systems in E~. Since E |
coincides with the intersection of ~* and Ez, and
since _g* is open in E, with respect to the
AUTO. voL 12,No. S==G
489
standard Euclidean metric, it follows that E t is
open in Ex, with respect to the restriction of this
metric to Ex. Thu~ if ~ can be made single
channel controllable and observable with decen-
tralized feedback then so can any system
E Ex, provided ~ is sufficiently close to 2. In
other words, the problem of finding an F E 3~
for which 2p is single channel controllable and
observable, is well-posed at any point in E~.
We would like to be able to assert that 'almost
every system' in Ez is in E t , i.e. that E~ is
dense in Ez, but to prove this seems to be a
difficult matter. Note that the usual approach, i.e.
show that E~ is the complement of a proper
variety in Ex, will not work here since in general
Ex is a proper variety in g rather than a linear
subspace. Thus the problem of deciding whether
or not joint controllability, joint observability
and completeness are generic properties of
systems in Ex, remains unsolved.
Remark. The topological constraints imposed
on the graph of 2 can lead to some unusual
consequences. For example, if - {C,, A, B,; 3}
is a two-dimensional, three-channel, jointly
controllable, jointly observable, strongly con-
nected system possessing a transfer matrix with
zero diagonal blocks (i.e. the transfer matrix
from channel input i to channel output i is zero,
i E 3), then the two eigenvalues of A must be
equal.
4. S T R O N G L Y CONNECTED SYSTEMS
By making use of the preceding results it is
now possible to obtain complete and construc-
tive solutions to the spectrum assignment and
stabilization problems for strongly connected
systems, W e begin by reviewing some basic
properties of linear systems,
It is well known that the closed=loop spectrum
of a linear system (C, A, B), resulting from the
application of (centralized) linear control, con-
sists of two subsets: one is controller dependent
and freely assignable with dynamic controllers of
sufficiently high order[17]; the other, called the
unassignable spectrum of (C, A, B), is controller
independent and is therefore a fixed subset of the
closed-loop system's spectrum, no matter what
the controller design. It is also known that if
a(A) is the characteristic polynomial of A rood
( A I ~ ) and if/3(X) is the characteristic polyno-
mial of A restricted to ( A [ ~ ) f 3 [C[A], then the
root set of a(A)~(A) coincides with the unas-
signable spectrum of (C, A, B).t It is natural to
tNote that the roots of a(A) mKl ~(A) are the 'uncontrolla-
ble' and 'controlhble but unobservM~le' eilBmVMues of (C, A,
B ), respectively.
490 J . P . COP,FM^T and A. S. MORSE
call a(A)jS(A) the unassignable polynomial of
(C,A, B).
For fixed ~ - {C~, A, Bi ; k}, it is possible to
characterize the unassignable polynomial of (Cj,
At, Bj) as a function of j E k and F E ~. For
this, let k* denote the set of all proper subsets of
k, and write _~l for the set of F E for which
the rank of the n th order Hankel matrix
c,B, C,A,B, ...
n,(j)-| i .,
-
is as large as possible. Clearly each .~j, j E k, is
robust in as is the intersection ~ * t f=~ ~ .
Theorem 4. Let E I {Ct, A, B~; k} be a jointly
controllable, jointly observable, strongly con-
nected system. L e t / ~ ( A ) denote the unassignable
polynomial of (Cj, AF, Bl) and write az(A ) for the
fixed polynomial of ~ as defined by (6). Then
i. v p(Ch-., A, B,) divides ~tvJ(A)
sell*
jEk,
ii. /z~(A) divides Ir p(Ch-., A, B.)
sEk*
jEk,
iii. ~vJ(A)= az(A) j E_ k,
Note that condition iii asserts that tt/(A) is
independent of F E ~_* and j E k. Thus for
fixed F E .~*, the set of possible closed-loop
spectra which can be achieved by applying
dynamic feedback to a single channel of Ep, is
the same for all channels of E~,.
We remark that condition iii is true only under
the hypotheses of the theorem. In particular, if E
is not strongly connected, then iii need not
necessarily hold.
Recall that Proposition 1 in effect states that
ax(A) must divide the characteristic polynomial
of the closed-loop system which results from
application of any linear decentralized control to
2. It follows that for stabilization, ax(A ) must be
a stable polynomial, while for spectrum assign-
ment, ax(X) must equal one. In view of
iii/Theorem 4, these conditions are also sufficient
for stabilization and spectrum assignment re-
spectively. But conditions i and il of Theorem 4
imply that ax(A ) is stable {resp., equals one} just
in case for each s E k*, p(Ch-,, A, B,) is stable
{resp. equals one}. From this, Lemma 8 and
Theorem 3, we arrive at the following theorem
which provides explicit conditions for the spec-
trum assignment and stabilization problems to be
solvable for strongly connected systems.
Theorem 5. Let E - {Ci, A, Bi; k} be a jointly
controllable, jointly observable, strongly con-
nected system. Then with decentralized control
i. the spectrum of E can be freely assigned if
and only if ]~ is complete.
ft. ~ can be stabilized if and only if for each
s E k*, p(Ck-,, A, B.) is a stable polynomial.
Remark. In view of the discussion in 3, it is
evident that the spectrum assignment problem is
well-posed at any solution point within the
topological equivalence class of E, provided ~ is
strongly connected; using similar arguments it
can easily be shown that this is also the case for
the stabilization problem. However, for systems
which are not strongly connected, quite the
opposite can be true as will be illustrated by
example at the end of the next section.
Example 1. The two channel system described
by the matrices
c[0'00,00]
C2=[1 0 1 O]
FE~
A= 0 0 B,= 0 B2 ~-
0 1
FE~* 0 0
F E ~*
is jointly controllable, jointly observable and
complete. Spectrum assignment can be achieved
by first applying nondynamic feedback to chan-
nel 2, to make channel 1 controllable and
observable, and then applying appropriate
dynamic feedback to channel l using standard
techniques [ 17].
Example 2. Although the system with matrices
-1 0 0 0
Ci = 1 0
0 0
C2 = |0 1 1 0]
1 0
A= 0 I Bl =~01 B2=
0 0
is jointly controllable, jointly observable and
strongly connected, it falls to satisfy condition ii
of Theorem 5, and thus cannot be stabilized. For
this example, the maximal rank of the Hankel
matrix associated with either ohannel of Ep is
three, and there is an unassignable eigenvalue at
A = 1 which cannot be shifted with decentralized
control.
 Decentralized control of linear multivariable systems
Prooy of Theorem 4. Set k ( j ) - { k - s : s
then
k* = k(j) U [~(j)
i. Let j ~ k and F ~ ~ be fixed. By
i/Theorem 2, v p(C~-~, A, B.) divides u.p. (A~,
s G ItO)
B~), while by the dual of i/Theorem 2,
s~iO)
A ', C',-,) divides u.p. (A ~, C~). Since u.p. (A~, B~)
and u.p. (A~, C~) each divide ~ ( A ) , and since
the remnant polynomial of a system is invariant
under system transposition[19], it must be that
v p(C~-,, A, B.) divides/~(A). From this
~ ~ )ur-(J ))
and (40) it follows that assertion i is true.
ii. Let _~ {resp. _~2}denote the set of F ~
for which d((A~I~)) {resp. d((A ~C;))} is as large
as possible. Then _~, and _~2 are each robust in ~:
as is the set _~, n n Let F ~ _~ n n h E ~j and a matrix Ko ~ ~ such that (h'C,
_~* and j ~ k be fixed. Since ]~ is strongly
connected, G= must satisfy the hypothesis of
ii/Theorem 2; therefore
u.p. (A~, B~) divides II p(C~-,, A, B.) (41)
= ~ ItU)
Similarly, by the dual of ii/Theorem 2 and the
fact that F ~ _~2,
u.p. (A ~, C[) divides II p(C,..,,A, B,) (42)
,~iO)
But u.p. (A ~, C~) equals c.p. (AvI[C~IAr]) which
in turn is divisible by c.p. (A~,[((A~,I~)A
[C~[Av])). From this, (41), (42) and the definition
of /z/(A), it follows that /z/(A) divides
II p (C~_,, A, B,). This and (40) imply that
~E( k ( / ) u E ~ j )
/z~(A) divides H p(C~-,,A,B.),
F n n (43)
Since (43) holds for at least one point in _~*, to
prove assertion ii, it is enough to show that
assertion iii is true.
iii. For fixed j ~ k and F ~ P, set ~
(A,i~P and J,-[C, IA,,]. Note that degree
a~(A)=d(~)-d(~tA(~t~GJ/'~,)); in addition,
from realization theory, d(~t~/(~t~ G J'~)) = rank
H~(~). Since rank H~,(~) is independent of
F ~ _~*, it follows that for some integer n*,
degree ~ d ( A ) = n*, F ~ ~:"
Let ~ denote the space of linear maps ~ - - , q~.
Since A~ + B~KC~ = A + ~ B~F~C,+
|--I
491
~ k(j)}: B~(F~+K)C~, it must be that ax(A)= A c.p.
(A~ + B~KC~) {cf. equation (6)}. Thus for any F
(40) and K, c.p. (Av + B~KC~) can be written in
factored form as ax(A )/]v.x (A). In addition, since
the controllable space, unobservable space and
unassignable polynomial of (C~, A~ + BsKC~, B~)
v p (B'., are clearly independent of K, it follows that c.p.
(AF + B~KC~) can also be written as
/ ~ (A) ~/F.X(A) where 7v.~ (A) = c.p.
(AF + B~KC~)[I(~/(~F n X~)). Therefore
ax(A),~v.x(A)= ~ (A)'),v.x(A), (F, K ) ~ :~)~
(45)
For arbitrary but fixed F, let (C, A, B) be the
controllable, observable system induced by (C~,
AF, Bj) in ~t~l~t~ n ~ ) . Using the results of
[17], it is possible to find vectors g E ~j and
+ BKoC, Bg) is controllable and observable.
Hence by the root-locus technique, a scalar B
can be found for which c.p. (A +/~KeC'+
Bggh'C) is coprime with ax(A). Setting K =
Ko+ 8gh' and recognizing that c.p. (A + ~]K~) =
7~.K(A), we see that 7~.~(A) and as(A) are
coprime. From this, (45) and the fact that F was
selected arbitrarily, it follows that
ax(A) divides ~(A) F E ~: (46)
By Lemma A.1, the set ~ of pairs (F,
K) E ~ C such that /]p.K(A) and II p(Ck-,,
sea,*
A, B,) are coprime, is robust in ~ . Since
_~, N _~2 n .~* is robust in ~, it must be that
_~ n ((_~, n _~2 n _~*) ~ ) is robust in ~ ( ~ .
This means that there exists a pair (Fo, Ko) such
that F o E _~, n _~2 n _~* and ~p..~(A) and
II p(C,-,, A, B.) are coprime; thus from (43), it
eEIx*
must be true that ~ p~o(A ) and ~t ~.(A ) are coprime.
This and (45) imply that /Z~o(A) divides as(A).
Therefore from (46) /~o(A) = ax(A). But
FoE_~* and from (44), degree ~ ( A ) is
independent of F E .~*. Therefore degree
/z~ (A) ffi degree ax(A ), F E _~*. But this and (46)
can be true only i f / z / ( A ) = ax(A) for F E _~*;
since } E k is arbitrary and since as(A) is not a
function of ], this relationship remains true for all
jEk. []
5. k-CHANNEL SYSTEMS
We now examine the spectrum assignment and
(44) stabilization problems for systems which are not
necessarily strongly connected. For such sys-
tems the methods appropriate to strongly con-
nected systems cannot be directly applied; e.g. if
is not strongly connected, it is impossible to
492 J . P . COm~M^T and A. S. M o ~

find an F which will make a single channel of Ep
controllable and observable {cf. Theorem 3}.
However it still may be possible to assign or
stabilize the system's spectrum with decentral-
ized control. To determine under what condi-
tions this can be done we use standard techni-
ques from graph theory[21] to decompose Gx
into a number--say p - - o f strongly connected
comPonents G~ - ( q , , r,); the subsets q, form a
partition of k (i.e. k can he written as the disjoint
union of the qD; F, is a function mapping q~ into
its power set according to the rule F , ( / ) - { r :
r ~ (F(j)) t3 q,}, F having already been defined in
2. The reduced graph of 2, written G t, is the
pair (qX Fro) where qR t {q,, q2. . . . . qp} and F m is
the mapping from qS into its power set, defined
in such a way that q, E F*(q~) if and only if there
exist nodes ie ~ qj and ]o ~ q~ such that ie
FOe). We say that a component G~ is isolated if
I ~ (q,) is the empty set and q, ~ U I ~ (q~). Thus
|q
G~ is isolated if no arc enters or leaves the set q,.
Observe that the reduced graph G a contains no
circuits (i.e. if q, ~ Fa(q~), then q~ ~ FS(qD;
thus we may assume that the set q - { q , ,
q2. . . . q~} is ordered in such a way that
r " (q,)C{q,, q~ . . . . . q,_,}, i =2,3 ..... p
(47)
Associated with E, consider the k x k matrix
Tx defined by
triangular structure of the form (48). Corres-
pondingly, the overall transfer matrix of
admits a similar block triangular structure; the
ith diagonal block in the latter is the transfer
matrix of the k,-channel strongly connected
system {C~, A, Bj; q,} described by the equations
~,(t)=Ax,(t)+ Z Bjus(t)
14squ
(49)
y,(t) = C,x,(t), j E q,
Note that in general this system is neither .jointly
controllable nor jointly observable. Nevertheless
realization theory insures the existence of a
jointly controllable, jointly observable system
~' - {Cj, A,, Bj ; q,} with the same overall transfer
matrix as (49). We call E' the ith strongly
connected subsystem of E.
We wish to relate the closed-loop spectrum of
to the closed-loop spectrum of the k-channel
system determined by the ~', when identical
local controllers ~a are applied to both systems.
For this write A(~, k) for the closed-loop
spectrum of ~, and with identical controls
applied to the 2', let A,(Ej, q,) denote the
closed-loop spectrum of Y/.
Observe that the block-triangular structure of
the transfer matrix of 2, with the transfer matrix
of E' being the i th diagonal block, implies that the
parameter matrices describing 2 can be written
as
, = [ ~ , , x . . . . . x], q ~ q,)

[!x
= [ 0 if i ~ F0){i.e. if C,(M-A)-'Bj =0} c,=[o, 6,,x ..... xl, q ~ q0
tu [ I otherwise
C,=[O ..... O,d,], (j ~'q,)
We call Tz the topology matrix of 2; clearly Tx is
the transpose of the incidence matrix[21] of Gz,
and it completely characterizes Gx. .~2 x
Let k, i E p E { l , 2 . . . . . p}, be the number of A= 0
elements in q,. Observe that is always possible to
relabel the channels of E in such a way that the X
set q, contains the k, first integers, q2 the next ks, 0 A,
etc.; to this relabeiling there corresponds a
permutation of the rows of Tx, together with the
same permutation of the columns, and when this Bj-- U E q,),
is carded out there results a matrix T[ which,
because of (47), has the block triangular form

T,, . . . T,p ]
B~ = (j E q=) . . . . .
0 T= . . . T~.
T~[ = (48)
0 . . . 7",,

Without loss of generality, it will be assumed in BI----" U E qp)

the sequel that the relabelling has been done so
that the topology matrix of ~ has a block
 Decentralized control of linear multivariable systems
where x-marks denote matrices of no impor-
tance to the present analysis, and ~' =" {(~j, ~,,/~j;
q,} is a system with the same overall transfer
matrix as X~ -{C'j, A,, B~; q,}. Since X' is jointly
controllable and jointly observable, the parame-
ter matrices of ~ can be written as
~'~= [0, C'.x],(j E q,)
(j Eq,)
L: o A,.
Note that the set Ao= tJ (or(A,,) t3 or(A,2)) is the
complement of the union of the open-loop
spectra of the ~' in the spectrum of X.
For each j E k, let $~=H~zj+L~y~, us=
Mjzj + F~yj denote a local control system Xs to be
applied to the jth channel of X. Write A*~ for the
system matrix describing the overall closed-loop
system which results when controllers E~(j E
p,) are applied to X'. It is easy to see that the
system matrix A* associated with the closed-
loop system resulting from application of the Xj
to X, can be written as
./~*] X X
0 x x
A*= 0 Theorem 6 together with its predecessor,
". A*
where
A*= IA'''
0
0 0 Atz
Clearly ~ ( A * ) = AoO Or(A*). We are led to the
following proposition which characterizes the
closed-loop spectrum of X in terms of the
closed-loop spectra of its strongly connected
subsystems.
Proposition 4. For aH linear controls Xj, j E k,
A(X,, k) = Ao o A, (X,, q,)
iEIt
Proposition 4 clearly implies that the closed-
loop spectrum of X can be freely assigned (reap.
stabilized) just in case Ao is empty (reap. stable)
and spectrum assignment (reap. stabilization) is
possible for each strongly connected subsystem
of X. If these conditions are satisfied, then
spectrum assignment or stabilization can be
achieved by applying the methods of 4 to each
493
one of the strongly connected subsystems of X.
If the resulting decentralized control is then
applied to the original system, the spectrum of
the resulting closed-loop system will coincide
with the disjoint union of Ao and the assigned or
stabilized spectra of each of the p strongly
connected subsystems. A short calculation
shows that the total dimension of the decentral-
ized control system needed to achieve stability
or to assign a prescribed spectrum, never need
exceed n, the dimension of X.
The preceding observations can be summar-
ized in the following way.
Theorem 6. Let X = {C, A, Bt; k} be a jointly
controllable, jointly observable system. Then with
decentralized control, the closed-loop spectrum
of X can be
i. freely assigned if and only if the sum of the
dimensions of X' s strongly connected subsystems
is equal to the dimension of ~ and spectrum
assignment is possible for each strongly con-
nected subsystem.
ii. stabilized if and only if the complement of
the disjoint union of the spectra of ~'s strongly
connected subsystems in the spectrum of E is
stable and stabilization is possible for each
strongly connected subsystem.
Theorem 5, thus provide explicit conditions for
the solvability of both the spectrum assignment
and stabilization problems for k-channel linear
systems.
So far in studying the spectrum assignment
and stabilization problems, we have implicitly
assumed the system data to be exact. However,
dil~culties may arise if the preceding results are
applied without qualification. To illustrate this,
consider the two-channel system with overall
transfer matrix
1 1
s-I s-l-e
0
S
The system is not strongly connected. With
= 0, stabilization can be achieved with the
decentralized control u~ = -2y~ + v , u2 =
-y2 + v2. However, if the same control is applied
with # 0, there results the closed-loop transfer
matrix
I s +1 1 (s - 1( s- - Xs
l)s + 1)' 1
0 1
s+l
494 J.P.
and it is apparent that a right-half plane pole-zero
cancellation takes place when =0. Thus
although for 0, stabilization (and even
spectrum assignment) is possible, for arbitrary
small stabilization is impossible and the pole at
1 + cannot be shifted with any decentralized
control.
From this we may draw the following conclu-
sions, which apply in general to systems which
a r e not strongly connected, but which will be
discussed in terms of a simple example: Suppose
that it is found that a physical process can be
represented by a transfer matrix of the form
S -- at s a2
I o )- .J
with the a, positive. Then two possibilities arise:
i. The parameter a, exactly equals a2, the
equality remaining valid for all physically mean-
ing perturbations of the process data. In this case
the process is truly of dimension two and it
makes sense to apply the theory developed
above to stabilize the system: the closed-loop
system will remain stable for small perturbations
of the process data.
ii. The parameters at and a2 are equal to
within computer tolerances, but are not exactly
equal. It then makes little sense to represent the
process by a model of dimension two and apply
the theory to that model; for if a decentralized
control is designed on such a basis and then
applied to the process, instability will inevitably
occur. This, of course, is because the process
really requires a model of dimension three, and
the theory should be applied to such a model to
correctly predict that the pole at a, cannot be
shifted and therefore that the process cannot be
stabilized with decentralized control.
Now suppose that in place of (50), the process
is initially modeled in state space form; i.e. 2 is a
minimal realization of (50). Then 2 will be of
dimension two if at = a2, and dimension three if
at ~ a,. Suppose now that all parameters of
are perturbed subject only to the constraint that
the perturbed system has the same topology
(graph) as ~. Then it is easy to check that by
perturbing the parameters of 2 ever so slightly, it
is possible to obtain a system for which
stabilization is possible, even f o r case ii when
a, ~ a,. Thus because of computer inaccuracy,
for example, one might well conclude that
stabilization is possible when in fact it is not. Of
course the problem here is that the class of
admissible perturbations is too large.
COePMAT and A. S. MoRsE
CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we have developed explicit
conditions for determining when the closed-loop
spectrum of a linear system can be freely
assigned or stabilized with decentralized control;
and we have described in reasonably complete
terms what sort of spectra one might hope to
achieve. We have made use of some ideas from
graph theory to obtain certain results, e.g. single
channel controllability and observability imply
strong connectedness, which no doubt have
implications for more general, non-linear sys-
tems. While our synthesis technique is construc-
tive, it may not always prove to be the best way
to construct decentralized controls, particularly
for systems known to possess 'weak couplings'
(50)
between channels. On the other hand, both the
stability and dynamic response of an entire
decentralized system are determined only after
all local controllers have been applied, at least
for strongly connected systems, and so if
channel couplings are 'strong', final system
tuning from just one channel would appear to
make sense.
Although some of the preceding solvability
conditions undoubtedly hold generically, the
corresponding nongeneric cases cannot be ig-
nored. For example, if a strongly connected
system is in some sense 'close' to being
incomplete, then it may be better to adopt an
incomplete model for purposes of design.
The subject of decentralized dynamic control
is quite new and it is evident from the preceding
discussion, that there is much work to be done.
REFERENCES
[1] J. P. CORFMAT: Decentralized Control of Linear
Multivariable Systems. Yale University Becton Center
Technical Report CT-67, October, 1974; also Yale
University Doctoral Dissertation, December, 1974.
[2] T. A. M~OtSHS~: Computation in Organizations: The
Comparison of Price Mechanisms and Other Adjust-
ment Processes. Decision and Organization, 237-281.
North Halland, Amsterdam (1972).
[3] J. M~HAK and R. RADNeR: The Economic Theory o[
Teams, Yale University Press, New Haven (1971).
[4] G. B. DA~rrzloand P. WotJ~: Decomposition principle
for linear programs. Operations Res. II(l), 1960.
[5] O. I. ELOmtD: Electric Energy Systems T~ory: An
Introduction. McGraw-Hill, New York (1971).
[6] C. W. SANDERS,E. C. TACKEaand T. D. LINTON:A new
class of decentralized filters for interconnected systems.
IEEE Trans. Aut. Control AC-19, 259-262June (1974).
[9] A. Omtsso and B. J. KAaA~N: Mutual synchronization
of geographically separated oscUlators. Bdl Systems
Tech. J. 1689-1701, December (1966).
[8] I. W. SAmmmto: On conditions under which it is
possible to synchronize digital transmission systems.
lk,U Systems Tech. J. 46(6), 1999-2020(1969).
[9] R. LAU, R. C. M. P m t ~ s o and P. P. VAttA~A:
Decentralized information and control: a netwo~ flow
example, IEEE Trans. Aut. Control AC-17, 446-473.
 Decentralized control of linear multivariable systems
[10] M. Aord and M. T. L~: Partial reconstruction of state
vectors in decentralized dynamic systems. I E E E Trans.
Aut. Control. AC-Ig(3), 289-294 (1973).
[11] K. C. Cwo: Optimal decentralized regulation for a strong
of coupled systems. I E E E Trans. Aut. Control AC-19(3),
243-246 (1974).
[12] D. McFxDogN: On the controllability of decentralized
macroeconomic systems: the assignment problem.
Mathematical Systems Theory and Economics 1,
221-240. Springer-Vering (1967).
[13] J. P. CO~'~UATand A. S. MORSE: Stabilization with
decentralized feedback control. I E E E Trans. Aut.
Control AC-I~6), 673.682 (1973).
[14] M. Aora: On dynamic assignment problems and
decentralized stabilization policies. UCLA, Dept. of
System Science Technical Report, 1974.
[15] M. Aord: On feedback stabilizability of decentralized
dynamic systems. Automatica 8(2), 163-173 (1972).
[16] S. H. WANOand E. J. DAY,SON:On the Stabilization of
decentralized control systems. I E E E Trans. Aut. Con-
trol AC-18(5), 473--478 (1973).
[17] F. M. BP.ASCH,JR. and J. B. PEARSON:Pole placement
using dynamic compensators. I E E E Trans. Aut. Control
AC-~SO), 34-.43 (1970).
[18] J. P. CmWMATand A. S. MoRSe: Spectrum assignment
with decentralized feedback control. Proc. 1973Prince-
ton Conference on Information Science and Systems,
228-231, March 0973).
[19] J. P. C O ~ ^ T and A. S. MORSE: Control of linear
systems through specified input channels. SIAM J.
ControlandOptimization 14(1),163-175,January(1976).
[20] A. S. MoRSe: Structural invariants of linear multivari-
able systems. SIAM Z Control 11(3), 446-465. August
(1973).
[21] R. G. BUSACK~aand T. L. SAA'rY: Finite Graphs and
Networks. McGraw-Hill, New York (1965).
[22] W. M. WONH~ and A. S. MoRSI~:Decoupling and pole
assignment in linear multivarible systems: A geometric
approach. S I A M J . Control $(1), 1-18, February (1970).
APPENDIX
Properties of robust sets
In this appendix we discuss certain properties
of robust subsets which are used throughout the
paper. The assertions which follow can be easily
justified with very elementary arguments. With
the exception of L e m m a A.I, proofs will
therefore not be given.
For our purposes, a subset V of a real
n-dimensional vector space ~ , is a variety in ~ ,
if the coordinates of each element of V, relative
to a fixed basis for ~ , coincide with a zero of a
finite system of (real coefficient) polynomial
equations in n-indeterminates, and visa versa. If
at least one polynomial in the system is not the
zero polynomial, then V ~ 4 ; in this case, V is a
proper variety. If V is a proper variety, then its
495
complement y is open and dense in 3; with
respect to the standard Euclidean metric; it is
natural to call ~ a robust subset of 9;. Note that a
robust subset is never empty.
If ~ and V are robust in ~ , then so is their
intersection ~ N ~ . If ~ and ~_ are robust in
vector spaces ~ and q~ respectively, then the
Cartesian product ~ x ~ is robust in the 'outer'
direct sum 3 ; ~ .
If av: 3~ -~ reals is a polynomial function in the
coordinates of F E 3~, relative to a fixed basis,
we sometimes say that aF is algebrically depen-
dent on F. If My is a matrix with all entries
algebrically dependent on F and if rank MF ~> r
for some F E 3~, then the set of F for which
rank MF ~> r is robust in ~. From this it follows
that if (Cp, AF, B~) is a linear system with
coefficients algebraically dependent on F, then
the set of F for which d((AFI~F)) is maximal, is
robust in 9;. It also follows that if the transfer
matrix of (C~, AF, Bp) is nonzero for some F,
then the set of F with this property is robust in
Suppose that av(A ) is a real monic polynomial
with coefficients depending algebraically on
F ~ 3~. It is always possible to write a ~ ( A ) =
/z(A)/~v(A) where /z(A) = ^ av(A); ~F(A) is a
polynomial, with coefficients depending algebrai-
cally on F, satisfying
^ /h~(~)= l (A.l)
FE~
L e m m a A.I. Let y(A ) be any fixed polynomial.
The set of F E ~ for which ~/(A ) and 13~(A) are
coprime is robust in 3;.
Proof. Write 3'(A)= H 3,~"(A) where the 3,~(A)
t-!
are the prime factors of ~(A). For fixed i, there
must exist F 3~ for which ~v(A) and ~!(A) are
coprime; if this were false, y~(A) (being a prime)
would have to divide /3p(A) for all F E 3;,
contradicting (A. !). Therefore, the set ~, of F for
which the resultant of y~(A) and ~j,(A) is
nonzero, is nonempty and therefore robust in ~.
It follows that the set of F for which 3,(A) and
/3v(A ) are coprime, namely ~ ~!, is robust in 3;.
|-I
[]