Identifiability of linear dynamic networks ?
Harm H.M. Weerts a , Paul M.J. Van den Hof a and Arne G. Dankers b
a

Control Systems Group, Department of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands (email:
h.h.m.weerts@tue.nl, p.m.j.vandenhof@tue.nl)

arXiv:1609.00864v4 [] 24 Oct 2017

b

Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Calgary, Canada (email: adankers@hifieng.com)

Abstract
Dynamic networks are structured interconnections of dynamical systems (modules) driven by external excitation and disturbance signals. In order to identify their dynamical properties and/or their topology consistently from measured data, we need
to make sure that the network model set is identifiable. We introduce the notion of network identifiability, as a property of a
parameterized model set, that ensures that different network models can be distinguished from each other when performing
identification on the basis of measured data. Different from the classical notion of (parameter) identifiability, we focus on the
distinction between network models in terms of their transfer functions. For a given structured model set with a pre-chosen
topology, identifiability typically requires conditions on the presence and location of excitation signals, and on presence, location and correlation of disturbance signals. Because in a dynamic network, disturbances cannot always be considered to be of
full-rank, the reduced-rank situation is also covered, meaning that the number of driving white noise processes can be strictly
less than the number of disturbance variables. This includes the situation of having noise-free nodes.
Key words: System identification, dynamic networks, identifiability, singular spectrum, algebraic loops.

1

Introduction

Dynamic networks are structured interconnections of
dynamic systems and they appear in many different areas of science and engineering. Because of the spatial
connections of systems, as well as a trend to enlarge
the scope of control and optimization, interesting problems of distributed control and optimization have appeared in several domains of applications, among which
robotic networks, smart grids, transportation systems,
multi agent systems etcetera. An example of a (linear)
dynamic network is sketched in Figure 1, where excitation signals r and disturbance signals v, together with
the linear dynamic modules G induce the behaviour of
the node signals w.
When structured systems like the one in Figure 1 become of interest for analysing performance and stability, it is appropriate to also consider the development of
? Third revision 28 September 2017. Earlier versions of this
paper were submitted on 26 August 2016, 6 February 2017
and 28 June 2017. This project has received funding from
the European Research Council (ERC), Advanced Research
Grant SYSDYNET, under the European Union’s Horizon
2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement
No 694504).

Preprint submitted to Automatica

Fig. 1. Dynamic network where node variables wi are the
outputs of the summation points indicated by circles.

(data-driven) models. In system identification literature,
where the majority of the work is focused on open-loop
or feedback controlled (multivariable) systems, there is
an increasing interest in data-driven modeling problems
related to dynamic networks. Particular questions that
can be addressed are, e.g.:
(a) Identification of a single selected module Gji , on
the basis of measured signals w and r;
(b) Identification of the full network dynamics;
(c) Identification of the topology of the network, i.e.

25 October 2017

In this paper we are going to address the question: under
which conditions on the experimental setup and choice
of model set, different network models in the set can be
distinguished from each other on the basis of measured
data? The typical conditions will then include presence
and location of external excitations, presence of and
modelled correlations between disturbance signals, and
modelled network topology.
This question will be addressed by introducing the
concept of network identifiability as a property of a
parametrized set of network models. We will study this
question for the situations that

the Boolean interconnection structure between the
several nodes wi .
The problem (a) of identifying a single module in a dynamic network has been addressed in [Van den Hof et al.,
2013], where a framework has been introduced for prediction error identification in dynamic networks, and
classical closed-loop identification techniques have been
generalized to the situation of structured networks. Using this framework, predictor input selection ([Dankers
et al., 2016]) has been addressed to decide on which node
signals need to be measured for identification of a particular network module. Errors-in-variables problems have
been addressed in ([Dankers et al., 2015]) to deal with
the situation when node signals are measured subject to
additional sensor noise.

• Disturbance terms vi are allowed to be correlated
over time but also over node signals, i.e. vi and vj ,
i 6= j can be correlated.
• The vector disturbance process v := [v1T v2T · · · ]T
can be of reduced-rank, i.e. has a driving white noise
process that has a dimension that is strictly less
than the dimension of v. This includes the situation
that some disturbance terms can be 0.
• Direct feedthrough terms are allowed in the network
modules.

The problem (b) of identifying the full network can
be recast into a multivariable identification problem,
that can then be addressed with classical identification
methods Söderström and Stoica [1989]. Either structured model sets can then be used, based on an a priori
known interconnection structure of the network, or a
fully parametrized model set, accounting for each and
every possible link between node signals.

The presence of possible correlations between disturbances, limits the opportunities to break down the modelling of the network into several multi-input singleoutput MISO) problems, as e.g. done in [Van den Hof
et al., 2013]. For capturing these correlations among disturbances all relevant signals will need to be modelled
jointly in a multi-input multi-output (MIMO) approach.

The problem (c) of topology detection has been addressed in e.g. [Materassi and Salapaka, 2012] where
Wiener filters have been used to reconstruct the network
topology. In [Chiuso and Pillonetto, 2012] a Bayesian
viewpoint has been taken and regularization techniques
have been applied to obtain sparse estimates. Topology
detection in a large scale network has been addressed
in [Sanandaji et al., 2011, 2012] using compressive sensing methods, and in a biological network in [Yuan et al.,
2011, Yuan, 2012] using also sparse estimation techniques. Causal inference has been addressed in [Quinn
et al., 2011].

If the size of a dynamic network increases, the assumption of having a full rank noise process becomes more
and more unrealistic. Different node signals in the network are likely to experience noise disturbances that
are highly correlated with and possibly dependent on
other node signals in its direct neighbourhood. One could
think e.g. of a network of temperature measurements in
a spatial area, where unmeasured external effects (e.g.
wind) affect all measured nodes in a strongly related way.
In the identification literature little attention is paid to
this situation. In a slightly different setting, the classical
closed-loop system (Figure 3) also has this property, by
considering the input to the process G to be disturbancefree, rendering the two-dimensional vector noise process
of reduced-rank. Closed-loop identification methods typically work around this issue by either replacing the external excitation signal r by a stochastic noise process,
as e.g. in the joint-IO method ([Caines and Chan, 1975]),
or by only focussing on predicting the output signal and
thus identifying the plant model (and not the controller),
as e.g. in the direct method ([Ljung, 1999]). In econometrics dynamic factor models have been developed to
deal with the situation of high dimensional data and
rank-reduced noise ([Deistler et al., 2010, 2015]).

Not only in problem (b) but also in problem (c), the
starting point is most often to model all possible links between node signals, in other words to parametrize all possible modules Gji in the network. However when identifying such a full network model, care has to be taken that
different network models can indeed be distinguished on
the basis of the data that is available for identification.
In [Gonçalves and Warnick, 2008, Adebayo et al., 2012]
specific local conditions have been formulated for injectivity of the mapping from the network transfer function
(transfer from external signals r to node signals w) to
network models. This is done outside an identification
context and without considering (non-measured) disturbance inputs. Uniqueness properties of a model set for
purely stochastic networks (without external excitations
r) have been studied in [Materassi and Salapaka, 2012,
Hayden et al., 2013] where the assumption has been
made, like in many of the works in this domain, that each
node is driven by an independent white noise source.

The notion of identifiability is a classical notion in system identification, but the concept has been used in

2

rk , k = 1, . . . K. Each internal variable is described as:

different settings. The classical definition as present in
[Ljung, 1976, Söderström et al., 1976] is a consistencyoriented concept concerned with estimates converging
to the true underlying system (system identifiability) or
to the true underlying parameters (parameter identifiability). In the current literature, identifiability has become a property of a parametrized model set, referring
to a unique one-to-one relationship between parameters
and predictor model, see e.g. [Ljung, 1999]. As a result
a clear distinction has been made between aspects of
data informativity and identifiability. For an interesting account of these concepts see also the more recent
work [Bazanella et al., 2010]. In the current literature
the structure/topology of the considered systems has
been fixed and restricted to the common open-loop or
closed-loop cases. In our network situation we have to
deal with additional structural properties in our models.
These properties concern e.g. the choices where external excitation and disturbance signals are present, and
how they are modeled, whether or not disturbances can
be correlated, and whether modules in the network are
known and fixed, or parametrized in the model set. In
this paper we will particularly address the structural
properties of networks, and we will introduce the concept of network identifiability, as the ability to distinguish networks models in identification. Rather than focussing on the uniqueness of parameters, we will focus
on uniqueness of network models.

wj (t) =

L
X
l=1

Gjl (q)wl (t) +

K
X

Rjk (q)rk (t) + vj (t) (1)

k=1

l6=j

where q −1 is the delay operator, i.e. q −1 wj (t) = wj (t−1);
• Gjl , Rjk are proper rational transfer functions, and
the single transfers Gjl are referred to as modules in
the network.
• rk are external variables that can directly be manipulated by the user;
• vj is process noise, where the vector process v =
[v1 · · · vL ]T is modelled as a stationary stochastic
process with rational spectral density, such that
there exists a p-dimensional white noise process
e := [e1 · · · ep ]T , p ≤ L, with covariance matrix Λ > 0
such that
v(t) = H(q)e(t).
The noise model H requires some further specification.
For p = L, referred to as the full-rank noise case, H is
square, stable, monic and minimum-phase. The situation
p < L will be referred to as the singular or rank-reduced
noise case. In this latter situation it will be assumed that
the L node signals wj , j = 1, · · · L are ordered in such
a way that the first p nodes are affected by a full-rank
noise process, thus allowing a representation for H that
satisfies
" #
Ha
(2)
H(q) =
Hb

We are going to employ the dynamic network framework
as described in [Van den Hof et al., 2013], and we will introduce and analyse the concept of network identifiability of a parametrized model set. We will build upon the
earlier introduction of the problem and preliminary results presented in [Weerts et al., 2015] and [Weerts et al.,
2016a], but we will reformulate the starting points and
definitions, as well as extend the results to more general situations in terms of correlated noise, reduced-rank
noise, and absence of delays in network modules.

with Ha square and monic, while H is stable and has a
stable left inverse H † , satisfying H † H = Ip , the p × p
identity matrix.
When combining the L node signals we arrive at the full
network expression

This paper will proceed by defining the network setup
(Section 2), and subsequently formulating the models,
model sets and identifiability concept (Section 3). In Section 4 conditions to ensure network identifiability are
presented for various situations, after which some examples are provided in Section 5. In Section 6 results
are provided that exploit the particular interconnection
structure that is present in the model set, after which
a discussion section follows and conclusions are formulated.

 

 
 
 
0 G12 · · ·
G1L w1
w1
r1
e1
 

 
 
 
.. 
w  
w 
r 
e 
..
 2 G21 0
 2
 2
 2
.
. 
 =

 +R(q) +H(q) 
.
.
 ..   . .





 .. 
 .   .. . . . . . GL−1 L
 .. 
 .. 
.
 

 
 
 
wL GL1 · · · GL L−1 0
wL
rK
ep
Using obvious notation this results in the matrix equation:
w = Gw + Rr + He.

2

(3)

Dynamic network setting
The network transfer function that maps the external
signals r and e into the node signals w is denoted by:

Following the basic setup of [Van den Hof et al., 2013], a
dynamic network is built up out of L scalar internal variables or nodes wj , j = 1, . . . , L, and K external variables

h
i
T (q) = Twr (q) Twe (q) ,

3

(4)

set of parametrized matrix-valued functions:

with
−1

R(q), and

(5)

−1

H(q).

(6)

Twr (q) := (I − G(q))
Twe (q) := (I − G(q))



M := M (θ) = G(q, θ), R(q, θ), H(q, θ), Λ(θ) , θ ∈ Θ ,
with all models M (θ) satisfying the properties as listed in
Definition 1.
2

The identification problem to be considered is the problem of identifying the network dynamics (G, R, H, Λ) on
the basis of measured variables w and r.

In this paper we will consider model sets for which all
models in the set share the same rank, i.e. rank(Λ(θ)) =
p. We will use parameters θ only as a vehicle for creating a set of models. We will not consider any particular
properties of the mapping from parameters to network
models.

The dynamic network formulation above is related to
what has been called the Dynamic Structure Function
(DSF) as considered for disturbance-free systems in
[Adebayo et al., 2012, Yuan et al., 2011, Yuan, 2012].
In particular, state space structures can be included by
considering every module to be restricted to having first
order dynamics only.
In terms of notation, for any transfer function A(z) we
will denote A∞ := limz→∞ A(z).
3

The question whether in a chosen model set, the models
can be distinguished from each other through identification, has two important aspects:
• a structural —or identifiability— aspect: is it possible at all to distinguish between models, given the
presence and location of external excitation signals
and noise disturbances, and
• a data informativity aspect: given the presence and
location of external excitation signals and noise
disturbances, are the actual signals informative
enough to distinguish between models during a
particular identification experiment.

Network model set and identifiability

In order to arrive at a definition of network identifiability
we need to specify a network model and a network model
set.
Definition 1 (network model) A network model of a
network with L nodes, and K external excitation signals,
with a noise process of rank p ≤ L is defined by the
quadruple:
M = (G, R, H, Λ)

We will refer to the first (structural) aspect as the notion
of network identifiability. For consistency of model estimates in an actual identification experiment, it is then
required that the model set is network identifiable and
that the external excitation signals are sufficiently informative. This separation of concepts allows us to study
the structural aspects of networks, separate from the
particular choice of test signals in identification.

with
• G ∈ RL×L (z), diagonal entries 0, all modules proper
and stable 1 ;
• R ∈ RL×K (z), proper;
• H ∈ RL×p (z), stable, with a left stable inverse, and
satisfying (2).
• Λ ∈ Rp×p , Λ > 0;
• the network is well-posed 2 [Dankers, 2014], with
(I − G)−1 proper and stable.
2

Based on the network equations (3)-(6) we can rewrite
the system as

where

We include the noise covariance matrix Λ in the definition of a model, as is common for multivariable models [Söderström and Stoica, 1989]. The noise model H is
defined to be non-square in the case of a rank-reduced
noise (p < L).

w = Twr (q)r(t) + v̄(t)
v̄(t) := Twe (q)e(t).

(7)
(8)

Many identification methods, among which prediction
error and subspace identification methods, base their
model estimates on second order statistical properties
of the measured data. These properties are represented
by auto-/cross-correlation functions or spectral densities
of the signals w and r. On the basis of the expressions
(7)-(8), and noticing that r is measured and e is not,
the model objects that generate the second-order properties of w, are typically given by the transfer function
Twr (q) and the spectral density Φv̄ (ω), with Φv̄ (ω), being defined as Φv̄ (ω) := F{E[v̄(t)v̄ T (t − τ )]}, where F is
the discrete-time Fourier transform, and E the expected
value operator. By utilizing (5)-(6), we can now write

Definition 2 (network model set) A network model
set for a network of L nodes, K external excitation signals, and a noise process of rank p ≤ L, is defined as a
1

The assumption of having all modules stable is made in
order to guarantee that Twe (6) is a stable spectral factor of
the noise process that affects the node variables.
2
This implies that all principal minors of (I − G(∞))−1 are
nonzero.

4

Example 1 Consider the disturbance-free systems S1 ,
S2 in Figure 2 with A(q) 6= 0, −1, and B(q) 6= 0, both
rational transfer functions. These two networks are described by the transfer functions

for a parametrized model M (θ):
Twr (q, θ) := [I − G(q, θ)]−1 R(q, θ),
Φv̄ (ω, θ) = [I − G(eiω , θ)]−1 H(eiω , θ)Λ(θ) ·
·H(eiω , θ)∗ [I − G(eiω , θ)]−∗ ,


 


1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0

 



0
0
0
0





G1 = A 0 0 , G2 =  0 0 B  , R1 = R2 = 0 1
.
1 0
A 0 0
0 B 0


where (·)∗ denotes complex conjugate transpose. As a
result we arrive at a definition of network identifiability
that addresses the property that network models are
uniquely determined from Twr and Φv̄ .

The transfer function matrices Twr (q) related to the networks S1 and S2 respectively, are given by:

Definition 3 (Network identifiability) The
network model set M is globally network identifiable at
M0 := M (θ0 ) if for all models M (θ1 ) ∈ M,
Twr (q, θ1 ) = Twr (q, θ0 )
Φv̄ (ω, θ1 ) = Φv̄ (ω, θ0 )



0





1

0






0


1
 , T2 (q) = (A + 1)B 1 . (10)
A+1 0
AB + 1 B


T10 (q) = 


)
⇒ M (θ1 ) = M (θ0 ).

1

(9)

A

These transfer functions map the external signals r to
the node signals w. We consider the model set M(θ) with
(omitting arguments q)

M is globally network identifiable if (9) holds for all M0 ∈
M.
2





G12 (θ) G13 (θ)
1






G(θ) = G21 (θ)
0
G23 (θ) , R = 0
G31 (θ) G32 (θ)
0
1

We have chosen to use the spectral density Φv̄ in the
definition, rather than its spectral factor as e.g. done in
Weerts et al. [2015]. This is motivated by the objective
to include the situation of rank-reduced noise, where
Φv̄ (ω, θ) will be singular, and the handling of possible
direct feedthrough terms and algebraic loops in the network. This will be further addressed and clarified in Section 4.

0


0

1
 , (11)
0

and so G(θ) is parametrized and R is known and fixed.
Since we have a disturbance free system we discard a noise
model here, without loss of generality.
In order to investigate whether each of the two systems
can be represented uniquely within the model set, we refer
to (5), and analyze whether the equation

Remark 1 In the definition we consider identifiability
of the network dynamics M = (G, R, H, Λ). This can
simply be generalized to consider the identifiability of a
particular network property f (M ), by replacing the right
hand side of the implication (9) by f (M1 ) = f (M0 ),
while f can refer to network properties as e.g. the Boolean
topology of the network, or the network dynamics in G,
etcetera.
2

Ti0 (q) = [I − G(q, θ)]−1 R(q)

(12)

for i = 1, 2 has a unique solution for G(q, θ). To this end
we premultiply (12) with [I − G(q, θ)].
For network S1 we then obtain the relation (omitting
argument q)

Remark 2 The definition allows the handling of several
situations, using either signals w as data, or the combined signals w and r. Note that e.g. in the direct method
and joint-io method for closed-loop identification [Ljung,
1999], only the measured signals in w are used as a basis
for identifiability studies. In these approaches, excitation
signals r may be present, but are not taken into account.
This situation can be handled by removing matrix R from
the model set.
2




1


 
-G21 (θ)




1
-G23 (θ) A
1  = 0

-G31 (θ) -G32 (θ)
1
AB + 1 B
1
1

-G12 (θ) -G13 (θ)



1

0



0




1
.
0
(13)

Solving the corresponding six equations for the parametrized
transfer functions Gij (θ) shows the following. When
combining the two equations related to the first row
in the right hand side matrix of (13) it follows that
G13 (θ) = G12 (θ) = 0. Solving the second row leads to
G23 (θ) = 0 and G21 (θ) = A, while solving the third row
delivers G31 (θ) = 0 and G32 (θ) = B. As a result the
original system S1 is uniquely recovered, and so M is
globally network identifiable at S1 .

Before moving to the formulation of verifiable conditions
for network identifiability, we present an example of a
disturbance free network to illustrate that a model set
can be globally identifiable at one model, but not at
another model. The example is taken from [Weerts et al.,
2015].

5

easy to verify. This reformulation is done for three different situations, specifying particular assumptions on the
presence/absence of delays in the modules in the networks.
First we are making the following assumption:
Assumption 1 We will consider model sets that satisfy
the property that all models in the set share the same value
of rank Λ(θ) = p, and the node signals w are ordered
in such a way that for all models in the set the first p
components of v constitute a full rank process.

Fig. 2. Systems S1 (left) and S2 (right).

When applying the same reasoning to network S2 we
obtain
  


1 0
1
0
1
-G12 (θ) -G13 (θ)
  






-G21 (θ)
1
-G23 (θ)(A + 1)B 1 = 0 1
.

1 0
A+1 0
-G31 (θ) -G32 (θ)
1
(14)

This Assumption may look rather restrictive, but actually it can be shown that for the analysis of network
identifiability at a particular model, the assumption is
not restrictive. Additionally the required value of p as
well as the requested ordering of signals can be determined from data. This topic will be further addressed in
Section 7.
Before being able to formulate verifiable conditions for
identifiability, we need to collect some properties of
reduced-rank spectra, in order to properly handle the
situation that p < L.

Solving this system of equations for the second column on
the right hand side leads to G12 (θ) = G32 (θ) = 0, while
the solution for the first column delivers G13 (θ) = 0,
G31 (θ) = A and
− G21 (θ) + (A + 1)B − G23 (θ)(A + 1) = 0

4.1

(15)

Factorizations of reduced-rank spectra

Lemma 1 (reduced-rank spectra) Consider an Ldimensional stationary stochastic process x with rational
spectral density Φx and rank p < L, that satisfies the
ordering property of Assumption 1. Then

or equivalently G21 (θ) = (A+1)(B−G23 (θ)). This shows
that not only G21 (θ) = 0, G23 (θ) = B is a valid solution,
but actually an infinite number of solutions exists. As a
result M is not globally network identifiable at S2 . An interpretation is that in S2 the contributions from w1 and
w3 both solely depend on r1 making them indistinguishable, which is reflected in the modeled transfer function
matrix R(q).
2

a. Φx allows a unique spectral factorization
Φx = F ∆F ∗
"

Remark 3 In the setting of an identification problem
of either the dynamics or the topology of the network,
it will be most important to be able to verify whether
all models in a particular model set can be distinguished
from each other, rather than the identifiability of one
particular model in the set. Since in an identification
problem the underlying real data generating network is
unknown, global network identifiability of a model set M
is a stronger concept than global network identifiability
at a particular model. The latter property is considered
in [Gonçalves and Warnick, 2008] and [Gevers et al.,
2016]. Here we will address both properties.
2
4

with F ∈ R

L×p

#

with Fa square,
Fb
monic, and F stable and having a stable left inverse
F † that satisfies F † F = Ip , ∆ ∈ Rp×p , ∆ > 0;
b. Based on the unique decomposition of Φx in (a.),
there exists a unique factorization of Φx in the structure:
˘ F̆ ∗
Φx = F̆ ∆
˘ ∈ RL×L , having
with F̆ square and monic, and ∆
the particular structure
"
F̆ =

Conditions for verifying network identifiability

Fa

(z), F =

Fa

0

Fb − Γ I

#
,

˘ =
∆

" #
I
Γ

∆

" #T
I
Γ

and Γ := limz→∞ Fb (z);
In this Section we will derive conditions for verifying
global network identifiability. To this end the implication
(9) of Definition 3 will be reformulated into a condition
on the network transfer functions T (q, θ), that is more

Proof. Part (a) is the standard spectral factorization
theorem, see Youla [1961]. Part (b) can be verified by
direct computation.

6

This spectral factorization result shows that for the modelling of the noise process v, we actually have two options. The first is a noise model v = He with e a pdimensional (full-rank) noise process, and a L × p noise
" #
Ha
filter H structured as H =
of which the upper
Hb
square part Ha is monic. The second option is a noise
model v = H̆ ĕ, with ĕ an L-dimensional (possibly reduced rank) noise process, and H̆ a monic square noise
"
#
Ha
0
filter, structured as
. In this paper we will
Hb − Hb∞ I
dominantly use the first (non-square) representation,
while the second (square) representation will be effectively utilized in many of the proofs.

as a definition of network identifiability. In the situation
of rank-reduced noise, including noise-free nodes, this
result is still true under the formulated condition that
all modules in the network are strictly proper. The only
adaptation is that the transfer function Twe (q, θ) is no
longer square but rectangular in its dimension, i.e. L×p.
An equivalent formulation of (18) is obtained by adding
the equality of covariance matrices Λ to both sides of the
implication, leading to
T (q, θ1 ) = T (q, θ0 )
Λ(θ1 ) = Λ(θ0 )

⇒ M (θ1 ) = M (θ0 ).

(19)

In this representation it is clear that, when starting from
expression (9) in the definition of network identifiability, Twe (q, θ) and Λ(θ) are uniquely determined from
Φv̄ (ω, θ).

Now we are up to formulating conditions for network
identifiability. To this end we will distinguish between
different situations, dependent on the presence of delays
in the network.
4.2

)

4.3

The situation of modules with direct feedthrough

In order to handle the situation of having direct
feedthrough terms in G, we need to deal with the phenomenon of algebraic loops.

The situation of strictly proper modules

First we consider the situation that all modules in the
network are strictly proper, i.e. limz→∞ G(z) = 0.

Definition 4 In a dynamic network there is an algebraic loop around node wn1 , if there exists a sequence of
integers n1 , · · · , nk such that:

Proposition 1 Consider a network model set M, and
define
T (q, θ) := (I − G(q, θ))−1 U (q, θ)
(16)
h
i
with U (q, θ) := R(q, θ) H(q, θ)
(17)

∞
∞
G∞
n1 n2 Gn2 n3 · · · Gnk n1 6= 0,

with G∞
n1 n2 := limz→∞ Gn1 n2 (z).

with T (q, θ) being the parameterized version of the network transfer function T (q) (4). If

then condition (9) in Definition 3 of network identifiability is equivalently formulated as

It can be shown (see Dankers [2014]) that there are no
algebraic loops in a network if and only if there exists
a permutation matrix Π, such that ΠT G∞ Π is upper
triangular. We can now formulate a Proposition that is
an alternative to Proposition 1.

{T (q, θ1 ) = T (q, θ0 )} ⇒
(18)
{(G(θ1 ), R(θ1 ), H(θ1 )) = (G(θ0 ), R(θ0 ), H(θ0 ))}.

Proposition 2 Consider a network model set M, and
T (q, θ), U (q, θ) according to (16),(17). If

• G∞ (θ) := limz→∞ G(z, θ) = 0 for all θ ∈ Θ,

• there is no algebraic loop around any node signal in
the parametrized model set, i.e. there exists a permutation matrix Π such that for all θ ∈ Θ,

The proof is provided in the Appendix.
Note that the above result is valid for both full-rank
(p = L) and reduced-rank (p < L) noise processes. Additionally there are no restrictions on Λ(θ), e.g. it is not
restricted to being diagonal. In Gonçalves and Warnick
[2008] the transfer function T has been used as a basis
for dynamic structure reconstruction, in a continuoustime domain setting. The fact that the network transfer
function T is the object that can be uniquely identified
from data, has been analyzed in Weerts et al. [2015] for
the situation that p = L with diagonal Λ(θ), and no algebraic loops in the networks. This has been the motivation in Weerts et al. [2015] to use the condition (18)

ΠT G∞ (θ)Π

(20)

is upper triangular, and
∞
∞
T
• Φ∞
is diagonal for all
v (θ) := H (θ)Λ(θ)H (θ)
θ ∈ Θ,
then condition (9) in Definition 3 of network identifiability is equivalently formulated as (19).
The proof is provided in the Appendix.

7

For the particular situation of noise-free nodes, the result of this proposition has been applied in Weerts et al.
[2016a]. Proposition 2 in relation to Proposition 1, shows
that the ability to estimate more flexible correlations
between the white noise processes (Φ∞
v (θ) is not constrained in Proposition 1, while being diagonal in Proposition 2), is traded against the ability to handle direct
feedthrough terms in the modules (Proposition 2). It
also should be noted that the above results hold true for
any particular experimental setup, i.e. for any selection
of excitation signals r that are present.

Proposition 3 Consider a network model set M, and
T (q, θ), U (q, θ) according to (16),(17). If for all θ ∈ Θ:

4.4

The proof is provided in the Appendix.

h
i
• each row of G∞ (θ) R∞ (θ) has at most K parameterized elements, and
• for each i = 1, · · · L, the matrix Ťi∞ (θ) has full row
rank,
then condition (9) in Definition 3 of network identifiability is equivalently formulated as (19).

The situation of algebraic loops

In the Proposition, conditions are formulated under
which the transfer function Twr will uniquely determine the direct-feedthrough term G∞ and —as a result thereof— also the noise covariance matrix Λ. In a
context of consistent identification methods, handling
the situation of algebraic loops is further discussed in
Weerts et al. [2016b].

The results of Proposition 1 and 2 have been derived
based on conditions that guarantee that the transfer function Twe uniquely determines the model terms
(H, Λ). So actually this has been a reasoning that is fully
based on the noise spectrum Φv̄ . By incorporating more
specific conditions on Twr , more generalized situations
can be handled, even including the situation of having
algebraic loops in the network. We will follow a reasoning where the transfer function Twr will be required to
uniquely determine the feedthrough term G∞ , and –as
a result— also the noise covariance matrix Λ.

4.5

Network identifiability results for full excitation

We have shown under which conditions the essential condition for global network identifiability can be equivalently formulated in the expression (19) on the basis of T
and Λ. We continue with showing when the implication
(19) is satisfied in the situation that we have at least as
many external excitation plus white noise inputs, as we
have node signals. This leads to sufficient conditions for
global network identifiability that are not dependent on
the particular structure of the network as present in G.

To this end we consider the direct feedthrough terms
∞
Twr
(θ), R∞ (θ) and G∞ (θ). Suppose that row i of (I −
∞
G (θ)) has αi parameterized elements, and row i of
R∞ (θ) has βi parameterized elements. We define the
L × L permutation matrix Pi and the K × K permutation matrix Qi such that all parametrized entries in the
considered row of (I − G∞ (θ))Pi are gathered on the left
hand side, and all parametrized entries in the considered
row of R∞ (θ)Qi are gathered on the right hand side, i.e.

Theorem 1 Let M be a network model set for which the
conditions of one of the Propositions 1-3 are satisfied.
Then

i
h
∞ (2)
(I − G∞ (θ))i? Pi = (I − G∞ (θ))(1)
(I
−
G
)
i?
i?
(21)
h
i
(1)
(2)
∞
∞
∞
R (θ)i? Qi = R i? R i? (θ)
(22)

(a) M is globally network identifiable at M (θ0 ) if there
exists a nonsingular and parameter-independent
transfer function matrix Q ∈ R(K+p)×(K+p) (z) such
that
h
i
U (q, θ)Q(q) = D(q, θ) F (q, θ)
(24)

with (·)i? indicating the i-th row of a matrix.

with D(θ) ∈ RL×L (z), F (θ) ∈ RL×(p+K−L) (z), and
D diagonal and full rank for all θ ∈ Θ0 with

Next we define the matrix Ťi∞ (θ) of dimension αi ×(K −
∞
βi ) as the submatrix of Twr
(θ) that is constructed by
taking the row numbers that correspond to the columns
of G∞ (θ)i? that are parametrized, and by taking the column numbers that correspond to the columns of R∞ (θ)
that are not parametrized. This is formalized by

Θ0 := {θ ∈ Θ | T (q, θ) = T (q, θ0 )}.

(23)

(b) If in part (a) the diagonal and full rank property of
D(q, θ) is extended to all θ ∈ Θ, then M satisfies
the condition (19) for global network identifiability
at all M (θ0 ) ∈ M.

We can now formulate the following identifiability result
for the situation that even algebraic loops are allowed in
the network.

The proof of the Theorem is added in the appendix.
Expression (24) is basically equivalent to a related result
in [Gonçalves and Warnick, 2008], where a deterministic reconstruction problem is considered on the basis of

Ťi∞ (θ)

h

:= Iαi

"
#
i
IK−βi
−1 ∞
.
0 Pi Twr (θ)Qi
0

8

a network transfer function, however without considering (non-measured) stochastic disturbance signals. Note
that the condition can be interpreted as the possibility
to give U (q, θ) a leading diagonal matrix by column operations. There is an implicit requirement in the theorem that U has full row rank, and therefore it does not
apply to the case of Example 1. The situation of a rankreduced matrix U will be considered in Section 6.

leading diagonal by column operations. This is e.g. the
case in Example 1. Both structural constraints and possible reduced row rank of U (q, θ) will be further considered in Section 6. First we will present some illustrative
examples that originate from Weerts et al. [2016a].

Example 2 Suppose we model correlated noise by having off-diagonal terms in H, in the model set M(θ) with

Example 3 (Closed-loop system) One of the very
simple examples to which the results of this paper apply
is the situation of a single-loop feedback system, with
a disturbance signal on the process output, and a reference input at the process input (controller output),
see Figure 3. The process output y will take the role

5


G12 (θ) G13 (θ)


G=
0
G23 (θ)
,
G21 (θ)
G31 (θ) G32 (θ)
0




H11 (θ) H12 (θ)
0
R11 (θ)
0





H =
0 
R22 (θ)
H21 (θ) H22 (θ)
, R =  0
,
0
0
H33 (θ)
0
0


0

where R11 (θ), R22 (θ) 6≡ 0, and H(θ) monic. Then
a simple permutation
h matrix Q can
i be found to create U (q, θ)Q = D(q, θ) F (q, θ) with D(q, θ) =
h
i
diag( R11 (θ) R22 (θ) H33 (θ) ) and by Theorem 1 the
model set is globally network identifiable. If external excitation signals r would have been absent, identifiability
can not be guaranteed according to Theorem 1 because
the off-diagonal terms in the noise model would prevent
the existence of a permutation matrix Q that can turn the
noise model into a diagonal form. If the process noises at
the first two nodes are uncorrelated, they can be modelled
with H21 (θ) ≡ H12 (θ) ≡ 0, and the diagonal H directly
implies global network identifiability, irrespective of the
presence of external excitation signals.
2

Illustrative examples

Fig. 3. Classical closed-loop configuration.

of node variable wa , while the process input u will be
represented by the (noise-free) wb . When parametrizing
process G(q, θ) and controller C(q, θ), as well as noise
model v(t) = Ha (q, θ)e(t) and the fixed reference filters
Ra (q) = 0, Rb (q) = 1, it appears that the essential identifiability result of Theorem 1 is reflected by the matrix

U (q, θ) =

#
"
Ha (q, θ) 0
0

.

1

This matrix is square and equal to the diagonal matrix
D in the theorem. Since it is square we have that matrix
F will have dimension 2 × 0. The conditions of Theorem
1 are satisfied with Q = I, and therefore the closed-loop
system is globally network identifiable. This implies that
consistent estimates of G0 and C can be obtained, when
identified simultaneously.

One of the important consequences of Theorem 1 is formulated in the next corollary.
Corollary 1 Subject to the conditions in Theorem 1, a
network model set M is globally network identifiable if
every node signal in the network is excited by either an
external excitation signal r or a noise signal v, that is
uncorrelated with the excitaton/noise signals on the other
nodes.

In our current setting we consider the simultaneous identification of all modules in the network. In the classical
direct method of closed-loop identification, one typically
parametrizes the plant model G, but not the controller C,
implying that only part of the network is identified. This
can lead to questions of identifiability of part of a network
(rather than of the full network). The analysis of such a
question can fit into the general setting of Definition 3 by
considering the network property f (M ) = G, as meant
in Remark 1.

The situation described in the Corollary corresponds to
U (q, θ) having a single parametrized entry in every row
and every column, and thus implies that U (q, θ) can be
permuted to a diagonal matrix. Uncorrelated excitation
can come from noise or external variables. Note that the
result of Theorem 1 can be rather conservative, as it does
not take account of any possible structural conditions in
the matrix G(q, θ). Additionally the result does not apply to the situation where U (q, θ) is not full row rank,
as in that case it can never be transformed to having a

Example 4 (Network example) In this example we
analyze the 5 node network of Figure 4 where the noises
on nodes 1 and 2 are correlated. The nodes are labeled

9

for satisfying (19) at a particular model M0 . The conditions are formulated in terms of nullspaces that can
not be checked without knowledge of the underlying network. Since we are most interested in global identifiability of a full model set, rather than in a particular model,
we will further elaborate and generalize these conditions
and present them in a form where these conditions can
effectively be checked.
First we need to introduce some notation.
In line with the reasoning in Section 4.4, we suppose
that each row i of G(θ), has αi parameterized transfer
functions, and row i of U (θ) has βi parametrized transfer
functions, and we define the L × L permutation matrix
Pi , and the (K + p) × (K + p) permutation matrix Qi ,
such that all parametrized entries in the considered row
of (I − G(q, θ))Pi are gathered on the left hand side,
and all parametrized entries in the considered row of
U (q, θ)Qi are gathered on the right hand side, i.e.
h
i
(2)
(I − G(θ))i? Pi = (I − G(θ))(1)
(25)
i? (I − G)i?
h
i
(1)
(2)
U (θ)i? Qi = Ui?
(26)
U (θ)i?

Fig. 4. 5 node network.

such that the last two are noise-free. Process noise will
be modeled according to

 


H11 (q, θ) H12 (q, θ)
0
v1 (t)
e1 (t)

 


 e2 (t) .
v2 (t) = H21 (q, θ) H22 (q, θ)
0

 


0
0
H33 (q, θ)
v3 (t)
e3 (t)
|
{z
}
Ha (q,θ)

The elements H21 and H12 are present to allow for modelling correlation between the process noises v1 and v2 ,
while v3 is modelled independently from these two signals. As the external excitation signals r4 and r5 directly
affect the two corresponding node signals, without a dynamic transfer, the corresponding R matrices are not
parametrized but fixed to 1. This leads to a matrix U (q, θ)
constructed as

H11 (q, θ) H12 (q, θ)
0

H21 (q, θ) H22 (q, θ)
0


U (q, θ) = 
0
0
H33 (q, θ)


0
0
0

0

0

0

00

Next we define the transfer matrix Ťi (q, θ) of dimension
αi × (K + p − βi ), as the submatrix of T (q, θ) that is
constructed by taking the row numbers that correspond
to the columns of G(q, θ)i? that are parametrized, and
by taking the column numbers that correspond to the
columns of U (q, θ) that are not parametrized. This is
formalized by




0 0


0 0 .

1 0

01

Ťi (q, θ) := [Iαi

#
"
IK+p−βi

.

(27)

0

The following Theorem now specifies necessary and sufficient conditions for the central identifiability condition
(19).

The condition of Theorem 1 is now checked by attempting to diagonalize the matrix U (q, θ) by postmultiplication with some filter Q(q) which does not depend on θ.
Due to the correlated noise it is not possible to diagonalize the matrix in this way. Note that by adding external
excitations to nodes 1 and 2, leading to the addition of
fixed unit vector columns in U (q, θ), we can make the
model set globally network identifiable.
6

0] Pi−1 T (q, θ)Qi

Theorem 2 Let M be a network model set for which the
conditions of one of the Propositions 1-3 are satisfied,
and that additionally satisfies the following properties:
a. Every parametrized entry in the model {M (z, θ), θ ∈
Θ} covers the set of all proper rational transfer functions;
b. All parametrized transfer functions in the model
M (z, θ) are parametrized independently (i.e. there
are no common parameters).

Network identifiability in case of structure restrictions

When there are structure restrictions in G(q, θ) or matrix U (q, θ) is not full row rank, as in Example 1, the
result of Theorem 1 is conservative and/or even does
not apply. Structure restrictions in G(q, θ) are typically
represented by fixing some modules, possibly to 0, on
the basis of assumed prior knowledge. For these cases of
structure restrictions, in [Gonçalves and Warnick, 2008]
necessary and sufficient conditions have been formulated

Then
(1) M is globally network identifiable at M (θ0 ) if and
only if
• heach row ii of the transfer function matrix
G(θ) U (θ) has at most K + p parameterized
entries, and

10

• for each i, Ťi (θ0 ) defined by (27) has full row
rank.
(2) M is globally network identifiable if and only if
• each
row ii of the transfer function matrix
h
G(θ) U (θ) has at most K + p parameterized
entries, and
• for each i, Ťi (θ) defined by (27) has full row
rank for all θ ∈ Θ.
2

2 = K + p parameterized transfer functions on each row.
The second condition is checked by evaluating the rank of
the appropriate sub-matrices defined in (27) on the basis
of the T -matrices for S1 and S2 given in (10).
For S1 we need to check the conditions for rows 1-3 accordingly. Then by considering (13) we can determine
Ťi (q, θ1 ) as appropriate submatrices of T (q, θ1 ). For all
rows i, Qi = I, since U is not parametrized, and so
we need to consider all columns of T (q, θ1 ). For i = 1,
Ťi (q, θ1 ) is defined by selecting the second and third row of
T (q, θ1 ), corresponding with the columns of parametrized
elements in G1? (q, θ1 ), i.e.

The proof is provided in the Appendix. The condition
on the maximum number of parametrized entries in the
transfer function matrix, reflects a condition that the
number of parametrized transfers that map into a particular node, should not exceed the total number of excitation signals plus white noise signals that drive the
network. The check on the row rank of matrices Ťi is an
explicit way to check the related nullspace condition in
[Gonçalves and Warnick, 2008]. The assumption (a.) in
the Theorem, refers to the situation that we do not restrict the model class to any finite dimensional structure,
but that we consider the situation that could be represented by a non-parametric identification of all module
elements.

"
Ť1 (q, θ1 ) =

A

1

#
;

AB + 1 B

while for i = 2 we need to select rows one and three,
and for i = 3 rows one and two, corresponding with
the columns of parametrized elements in G2? (q, θ1 ) and
G3? (q, θ1 ), respectively, leading to
"
Ť2 (q, θ1 ) =

Remark 4 The condition on the maximum number of
parametrized entries per row in the parametrized matrix
seems closely related to a similar condition for structural identifiability of (polynomial) ARMAX systems, as
formulated in Theorem 2.7.1. of Hannan and Deistler
[1988]. A further analysis of this relationship is beyond
the scope of this paper, and will be explored elsewhere.

1

0

AB + 1 B

#

"
,

Ť3 (q, θ1 ) =

1 0

#
.

A 1

Since all three Ť -matrices are full row-rank, the conditions for global network identifiability at S1 are satisfied
which verifies the conclusion of Example 1.
For S2 a similar check needs to done on the basis of (14),
leading to
#
"
1 0
Ť2 (q, θ2 ) =
A+1 0

Remark 5 The identifiability results as formulated in
the above Theorem
h can also ibe applied row-wise to the
composed matrix G(θ) U (θ) . This implies that the elements of row i of this matrix are uniquely identifiable, if
the formulated conditions are satisfied for the particular
value of i only. This fits with the reasoning in Remark 1,
and can be simply verified in the proof of the Theorem.
This aspect is also addressed in Weerts et al. [2015].

which obviously does not have full rank, confirming that
the model set is not globally network identifiable at S2 .
If we would restrict the model set to satisfy G21 (θ) = 0,
it can simply be verified that the conditions for global network identifiability at S2 are satisfied, which is confirmed
by the analysis in (15).
When information about the ’true’ network is used then
one can obtain results that allow us to distinguish between certain networks. However we are mainly interested in results that allow us to distinguish between all
networks in a model set, since in an identification setting
the true network structure/dynamics will not be known.

The results of this Section can be applied to Example 1.
Example 5 (Example 1 continued) In Example 1 a
model set has been defined with U = R not full row rank,
and hence Theorem 1 is not suitable for checking its network identifiability. Now with the introduction of necessary and sufficient conditions in Theorem 2 we can evaluate the network identifiability property of the model set
in Example 1 easily. Consider a model set with G and R
as defined in (11), without noise model (i.e. p = 0) such
that U = R, and satisfying assumptions (a.) and (b.) of
Theorem 2. Global network identifiability at S1 and S2
is evaluated by checking the two conditions
h
i of Theorem
2. First it is easily verified that G(θ) U has at most

7

Discussion on signal ordering assumption

In Assumption 1 we have formulated a condition on an
ordering property of the model set. In this Section we
will further discuss this Assumption and how it can be
dealt with.
Our definitions of models and model sets in Section 3
only consider models that have the ordering property. So,

11

for discussing the situation of models that do not have
this property, we need to slightly adapt our definition.

w in such a way that the permuted model satisfies the
ordering property as meant in Assumption 1.

Definition 5 (Network model without ordering)
A network model without ordering property is defined by
the quadruple
M = (G, R, H̃, Λ̃)
(28)

A proof is collected in the Appendix. The reasoning that
underlies this result, is that under the formulated conditions the covariance matrix Λ̃0 can be uniquely retrieved
from the data. And based on Λ̃0 a permutation matrix
can then be found that reorders the node signals into a
(reordered) model that satisfies the ordering property.
The conditions of this Proposition are basically the same
as the ones applied in Propositions 1, 2 and 3 for analyzing identifiability.

with H̃ ∈ RL×L (z) monic, and Λ̃ ∈ RL×L , and G and R
as defined before in Definition 1.
First of all, if we are considering network identifiability at
a particular (unordered) model M0 = (G0 , R0 , H̃0 , Λ̃0 ),
then the covariance matrix Λ̃0 carries the information of
the rank p as well as the information for re-ordering the
node signals w in such way that, after reordering, the
model satisfies the ordering property of Assumption 1.
This can be understood by realizing that rank Λ̃0 = p,
and that there exists a permutation matrix Π such that
[Ip 0]ΠT Λ̃0 Π[Ip 0]T = Λ0 , the rank-p covariance matrix
of the ordered model. That same permutation matrix
can then be applied to w, to reorder the node signals in
the model so as to arrive at its ordered equivalent. So
when addressing the problem of global identifiability at
a particular model, the model information intrinsically
contains the information how to order the signals to satisfy the ordering property.

The results in this section show that the ordering property of Assumption 1 is not a restriction if we consider
the identifiability of a model set at a particular model
(local analysis). This is due to the fact that in that particular model, either the model information or the mea∞
and Φ∞
surement data in the form of Twr
v̄ carry enough
information to find a permutation matrix to arrive at a
permuted model that does satisfy Assumption 1.
8

Conclusions

The objective of this paper has been to obtain conditions
on the presence and location of excitation and disturbance signals and conditions on the parameterized model
set such that a unique representation of the full network
can be obtained. A property called global network identifiability has been defined to ensure this unique representation, and results have been derived to analyze this
property for the case of dynamic networks allowing correlated noises on node signals, as well as rank-reduced
noise. Three key ingredients for a network identifiable
model set are: presence and location of external excitation signals, modeled correlations between disturbances,
and prior (structural) knowledge on the network that is
incorporated in the model set.

In more general situations, the required information for
determining p and for reordering the node signals can
be retrieved from data, Twr and Φv̄ (ω). In particular we
can observe that on the basis of
v̄ = (I − G)−1 v
and invertibility of (I − G), it is clear that rank Φv̄ =
rank Φv = p, and more specifically, by using the monicity property of H̃, that rank Φ∞
v̄ = rank Λ̃ = p. So for a
particular model M (θ0 ), p can be obtained directly from
Φv̄∞ (θ0 ).
A similar situation occurs for the ordering of signals as
assumed in Assumption 1, as is formulated next.

9

Proposition 4 Consider a network model M0 = M (θ0 )
according to Definition 5, with rank Φv̄ (θ0 ) = p. If either
one of the following conditions is satisfied:

Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledge discussions with
Michel Gevers and Manfred Deistler on the topic and
presentation of this paper, and Manfred Deistler in particular for the suggestion of using signal spectra as a
basis of model equivalence in identifiability.

(1) G∞ (θ0 ) = 0;
(2) G∞ (θ0 ) has a known pattern of 0’s, that guarantees
that there are no algebraic loops, and Φ∞
v (θ0 ) is diagonal;
(3) Each row of [G∞ (θ0 ) R∞ (θ0 )] has at most K
nonzero elements, and
for each i = 1, · · · L, the matrix Ťi∞ (θ0 ) (23) has
full row rank,

Appendix
A

Proof of Proposition 1

Since in the considered situation
∞
then on the basis of Twr
(θ0 ) and Φ∞
v̄ (θ0 ) a permutation
matrix Π can be constructed that reorders the node signals

Twe (θ) := (I − G(θ))−1 H(θ)

12

has an upper p × p part which is monic, while
Φv̄ (θ) = Twe (θ)Λ(θ)Twe (θ)∗

where ĤB = Twe . As a result, Twe is uniquely determined from Φv̄ , and the proof follows along the same
steps as in the proof of Proposition 1.

(A.1)

it follows that (A.1) satisfies the conditions of the unique
spectral factorization in Lemma 1a, if p < L. If p = L it
satisfies the conditions of the standard spectral factorization. Therefore Twe and Λ are uniquely determined
by Φv̄ , or in other words
(
{Φv̄ (θ1 ) = Φv̄ (θ0 )} =⇒

Twe (θ1 ) = Twe (θ0 )

Now we turn to the situation p < L.
When applying the spectral decomposition of Lemma 1b
to Φv it follows that
Φv̄ (z, θ) = (I − G(θ))−1 H̆(θ)Λ̆(θ)H̆(θ)∗ (I − G(θ))−∗

.

Λ(θ1 ) = Λ(θ0 )

with H̆ square and monic, and structured according to

Since Twr (θ1 ) = Twr (θ0 ) is in the premise of (9) and
Λ(θ1 ) = Λ(θ0 ) is implied by the premise of the equality of the spectra, as indicated above, the result follows
directly.
2
B

"
H̆ =

Ha

0

Hb − Γ I

#
, and Λ̆ =

Γ

Λ

" #T
I

.

Γ

Since by assumption Φ∞
v is diagonal, it follows that Γ :=
limz→∞ Hb (z) = 0 and

Proof of Proposition 2

First we treat the full-rank situation that p = L.

"
Λ̆ =

#
Λ 0

.

0 0

In this situation
Φv̄ (z, θ) := (I − G(θ))−1 H(θ)Λ(θ)H(θ)∗ (I − G(θ))−∗

As a result

and using the property that H is monic leads to

∞
−1
Φ∞
Λ̆(θ)(I − G∞ (θ))−T
v̄ = (I − G (θ))

∞
−1
Φ∞
Λ(θ)(I−G∞ (θ))−T .
v̄ (θ) := lim Φv̄ (z, θ) = (I−G (θ))
z→∞

The algebraic loop condition now implies that ΠT (I −
G∞ (θ))−1 Π is upper unitriangular 3 and (leaving out
arguments θ for brevity):

D

with Λ̆(θ) diagonal. Then exactly the same reasoning as
above with a permutation of the signals to turn (I −
G∞ )−1 into a unitriangular matrix, shows that Λ̆ and
therefore also Λ is uniquely determined from Φv̄ .
∗
With Λ known, the decomposition Φv̄ = Twe ΛTwe
uniquely determines Twe from Φv̄ . The proof then follows the same same steps as in the proof of Proposition
1.
2

Π T Φ∞
v̄ Π =
T
T
Π (I − G∞ )−1 Π · Π
ΛΠ · ΠT (I − G∞ )−T Π .
|
{z
} | {z } |
{z
}
L

" #
I

LT

With D being diagonal and L upper unitriangular, this
represents a unique LDLT decomposition of the permuted spectrum. As a result Λ is uniquely determined
from Φv̄ .

C

Proof of Proposition 3

This proof consists of 2 steps. The first step is to use Twr
to uniquely determine the feedthrough of G, i.e.

Spectral factorization of Φv̄ leads to a unique decomposition
Φv̄ = Ĥ Λ̂Ĥ ∗
with Ĥ monic, stable and minimum-phase, but Λ̂ not
necessarily diagonal. Since Λ̂ is full rank, there is a nonsingular matrix B such that Λ̂ = BΛB T , leading to the
unique spectral decomposition:

∞
∞
Twr
(θ1 ) = Twr
(θ0 ) ⇒ G∞ (θ1 ) = G∞ (θ0 ).

(C.1)

The left hand side of the above implication can be written as
∞
(I − G∞ (θ0 ))Twr
(θ1 ) = R∞ (θ0 ).
(C.2)
Consider row i of the matrix equation (C.2), and apply
the following reasoning for each row separately. By inserting the permutation matrices Pi and Qi , defined in
(21)-(22), we obtain for row i:

Φv̄ = ĤBΛB T Ĥ ∗ ,
3

upper unitriangular is upper triangular with 1’s on the
diagonal.

∞
(I − G∞ (θ0 ))Pi−1 Pi Twr
(θ1 )Qi = R∞ (θ0 )Qi

13

(C.3)

leading to

and postmultiplication with Q leads to
(1)

(1)

(2)

h
i
h
i
(I−G(θ))−1 D(θ) F (θ) = (I−G(θ0 ))−1 D(θ0 ) F (θ0 ) ,

(2)

(I − G∞ (θ0 ))i? Ti (θ1 ) + (I − G∞ )i? Ti (θ1 ) =
h
i
∞ (2)
= R∞ (1)
,
(C.4)
R
(θ
)
0
i?
i?
"
∞
with Pi Twr
(θ1 )Qi =

(1)

Ti (θ1 )

with D(θ) diagonal and full rank for all θ ∈ Θ0 .
The left square L × L blocks in both sides of the equation can now be inverted to deliver D(θ)−1 (I − G(θ)) =
D(θ0 )−1 (I −G(θ0 )). Due to zeros on the diagonal of G(θ)
and G(θ0 ) and the diagonal structure of D(θ) and D(θ0 ),
it follows that D(θ) = D(θ0 ) and consequently G(θ) =
G(θ0 ). Then by (D.1) it follows that U (θ) = U (θ0 ) and
M (θ) = M (θ0 ).
b) For part (b) it needs to be shown that the implication
under (a) holds true for any M (θ0 ) in M. It is direct
that this is true, following a similar reasoning as above,
if we extend the parameter set to be considered from Θ0
to Θ.
2

#

. Note that, as defined
(2)
Ti (θ1 )
"
#
IK−βi
(1)
∞
by (23), Ťi (θ) = Ti (θ)
.
0

When considering the left 1×(K −βi ) block of the vector
equation (C.4), while using the expression for Ťi∞ (θ)
above, we can write
(1)

(1)

(I − G∞ (θ0 ))i? Ťi∞ (θ1 ) + ρ(θ1 ) = R∞ i? ,

(C.5)
E

with ρ(θ1 ) the left 1 × (K − βi ) block of (I −
(2) (2)
(1)
G∞ )i? Ti (θ1 ). Now ρ(θ1 ) and R∞ i? are independent
of parameter θ0 , which implies that, if Ťi∞ (θ1 ) has
full row rank, then all the parametrized elements in
(I − G∞ (θ0 ))i? are uniquely determined.

We will first provide the proof for situation (1).
The left hand side of the implication (18) can be written
as
(I − G(θ))T = U (θ),
(E.1)
where we use shorthand notation T = T (θ0 ), G(θ) =
G(θ1 ) and U (θ) = U (θ1 ). Consider row i of the matrix
equation (E.1), and apply the following reasoning for
each row separately. By inserting the permutation matrices Pi and Qi , defined in (25),(26) we obtain for row i:

Then the second step is to determine Λ and Twe . By
writing the spectrum of v̄ as
∞ −1 ∞
Φ∞
H (θ)Λ(θ)(H ∞ (θ))T (I − G∞ )−T
v̄ = (I − G )

we obtain through pre- and post-multiplication:
"
∞ T
(I − G∞ )Φ∞
v̄ (I − G ) =

Λ(θ)

Proof of Theorem 2

(I − G(θ))i? Pi Pi−1 T Qi = Ui? (θ)Qi

Λ(θ)ΓT (θ)

#

leading to

Γ(θ)Λ(θ) Γ(θ)Λ(θ)ΓT (θ)
h
i
(1)
(2)
= Ui?
U (θ)i? ,
(E.3)
" (1) #
"
#
T
I
K+p−β
(1)
i
−1
with Pi T Qi =
. Note that Ťi = Ti
.
(2)
Ti
0
(1)

∗
Φv̄ = Twe (θ)ΛTwe
(θ).

(2)

(2)

+ (I − G)i? Ti

(C.6)
Sufficiency:
When considering the left 1 × (K + p − βi ) block of the
vector equation (E.3), while using the expression for Ťi
above, we can write

The proof then follows the same steps as the proof of
Proposition 1.
2
Proof of Theorem 1

(1)

(1)

(I − G(θ))1? T̆i + ρ = Ui? ,

a) It will be shown that under the condition of the theorem, the equality T (q, θ) = T (q, θ0 ) implies M (θ) =
M (θ0 ) for all θ ∈ Θ. With the definition of Θ0 , the
equality of the T -matrices implies that we can restrict
to θ ∈ Θ0 . That same equality induces
(I − G(θ))−1 U (θ) = (I − G(θ0 ))−1 U (θ0 )

(1)

(I − G(θ))i? Ti

where Γ := limz→∞ Hb (z, θ). For given G∞ (from step
1), and given Φv̄ , this equation provides a unique Λ, such
that Twe can be uniquely obtained from

D

(E.2)

(E.4)
(2)

(2)

with ρ the left 1 × (K + p − βi ) block of (I − G)i? Ti .
(1)
Now ρ and Ui? are independent of θ, which implies
that, if Ťi has full row rank, then all the parametrized
elements in (I − G(θ))i? are uniquely determined. Then
through (E.3) the parametrized elements in Ui? (θ) are
also uniquely determined.

(D.1)

14

Situation of diagonal Λ and no algebraic loops
(Proposition 2).
If Φ∞
v is diagonal then also Λ̃ is diagonal. We consider
(F.2). Based on the algebraic loop condition, we can
construct a permutation matrix Π such that ΠT (I −
G∞ )−1 Π is upper unitriangular. Then:

By assumption we know that one solution to (E.1) is
given by G(θ0 ) and U (θ0 ). Since the solution is unique,
and G(θ0 ) and U (θ0 ) are a possible solution we know
that G(θ0 ) and U (θ0 ) must be the only solution. This
proves the validity of the implication (18).
Necessity of condition 2:
If the matrix Ťi (θ0 ) is not full row rank, then it has a nontrivial left nullspace. Let the rational transfer matrix
X 6= 0 of dimension 1 × αi be in the left nullspace of Ťi .
Then there also exists a proper, rational and stable Xp
in the left nullspace of Ťi . Then (E.4) can also be written
as


(1)
(1)
(I − G(θ))i? + Xp Ťi + ρ = Ui? .
(E.5)

Π T Φ∞
v̄ Π =
ΠT (I − G∞ )−1 Π · |ΠT{zΛ̃Π} · ΠT (I − G∞ )−T Π .
|
{z
}
|
{z
}
L

D

LT

With D being diagonal and L upper unitriangular, this
represents a unique LDLT decomposition of the permuted spectrum. As a result Λ̃ is uniquely determined
from Φ∞
v̄ .

By the formulated assumptions (a) and (b) it holds that
each parameterized transfer function can be any proper
rational transfer function, and that these parameterized
transfer functions do not share any parameters. This
implies that G(θ1 )i? ∈ M and (G(θ1 )i? − Xp ) ∈ M refer
to two different model rows of G in the model set, that
generate the same network transfer function T . Hence
implication (18) can not hold.
2

Situation of algebraic loops (Proposition 3).
The proof of Proposition 3 shows that under the given
conditions, G∞ is uniquely determined from Twr . Then
(F.2) leads to the expression
∞ ∗
[I − G∞ ]Φ∞
v̄ [I − G ] = Λ̃.

Necessity of condition 1:
If αi +βi > K +p, then Ťi (θ0 ) will be a tall matrix which
can never have a full row rank. Then because of the
necessity of the row rank condition on Ťi (θ0 ), necessity
of condition 1 follows immediately.
2

(F.3)

showing that Λ̃ can be uniquely determined.
In all three situations considered, the matrix Λ̃ is
∞
uniquely determined from Φ∞
v̄ and possibly Twr . Then
there exists a permutation matrix Π that reorders the
signals v in such a way that ΠΛ̃ΠT is a matrix of which
the left upper p × p part is full rank. If we apply this
reordering of signals, determined by Π, to the node signals w, then we arrive at a permuted model that has
the ordering property, according to Assumption 1.

Proof of situation (2): For all θ ∈ Θ:
For every θ ∈ Θ we can construct T (θ) with related Ťi (θ)
of full row rank, and the reasoning as presented before
fully applies. If for some θ ∈ Θ we can not construct this
full row rank Ťi (θ) there exists a model in the model set
which is not identifiable, and hence the model set is not
globally network identifiable in M.
2

References
F

Proof of Proposition 4

J. Adebayo, T. Southwick, V. Chetty, E. Yeung, Y. Yuan,
J. Gonçalves, J. Grose, J. Prince, G.-B. Stan, and
S. Warnick. Dynamical structure function identifiability conditions enabling signal structure reconstruction. In Proc. 51st IEEE Conf. Decision and Control
(CDC), pages 4635–4641, 2012.
A.S. Bazanella, M. Gevers, and L. Miskovic. Closed-loop
identification of mimo systems: a new look at identifiability and experiment design. European J. Control,
16(3):228–239, May–June 2010.
P. E. Caines and C. W. Chan. Feedback between stationary stochastic processes. IEEE Trans. Automatic
Control, 20(4):498–508, 1975.
A. Chiuso and G. Pillonetto. A Bayesian approach to
sparse dynamic network identification. Automatica,
48(8):1553–1565, 2012.
A.G. Dankers. System identification in dynamic networks. PhD dissertation, Delft University of Technology, 2014.

The expression for Φv̄ is given by (discarding arguments
θ0 ):
Φv̄ = [I − G]−1 H̃ Λ̃H̃ ∗ [I − G]−∗ .
(F.1)
while Twr = [I − G]−1 R. Because H̃ is monic, the expression for Φ∞
v̄ reduces to:
∞ −1
Φ∞
Λ̃[I − G]−∗ .
v̄ = [I − G ]

(F.2)

We are now going to show that under the different con∞
ditions, Λ̃ can be uniquely derived from Φ∞
v̄ and Twr .
Situation of strictly proper modules (Proposition
1).
Since we know that G∞ = 0 it follows immediately from
(F.2) that Φ∞
v̄ = Λ̃, showing that Λ̃ can be directly
obtained from Φ∞
v̄ .

15

21(6):837–840, 1976.
P.M.J. Van den Hof, A.G. Dankers, P.S.C. Heuberger,
and X. Bombois. Identification of dynamic models in
complex networks with prediction error methods - basic methods for consistent module estimates. Automatica, 49(10):2994–3006, 2013.
H. H. M. Weerts, A. G. Dankers, and P. M. J. Van den
Hof. Identifiability in dynamic network identification. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 48(28):1409–1414, 2015.
Proc. 17th IFAC Symp. System Identification, Beijing, China.
H. H. M. Weerts, P. M. J. Van den Hof, and A. G.
Dankers. Identifiability of dynamic networks with part
of the nodes noise-free. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(13):
19–24, 2016a. Proc. 12th IFAC Intern. Workshop on
Adaptation and Learning in Control and Signal Processing (ALCOSP 2016).
H.H.M. Weerts, P.M.J. Van den Hof, and A.G. Dankers.
Identification of dynamic networks operating in the
presence of algebraic loops. In Proc. 55th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pages 4606–4611, Las
Vegas, AZ, 2016b.
D.C. Youla. On the factorization of rational matrices.
IRE Trans. Information Theory, 7:172–189, 1961.
Y. Yuan. Decentralised Network Prediction and Reconstruction Algorithms. PhD dissertation, University of
Cambridge, 2012.
Y. Yuan, G-B. Stan, S. Warnick, and J. Gonçalves. Robust dynamical network structure reconstruction. Automatica, 47:1230–1235, 2011.

A.G. Dankers, P.M.J. Van den Hof, X. Bombois, and
P.S.C. Heuberger. Errors-in-variables identification
in dynamic networks - consistency results for an instrumental variable approach. Automatica, 62:39–50,
2015.
A.G. Dankers, P.M.J. Van den Hof, P.S.C. Heuberger,
and X. Bombois. Identification of dynamic models
in complex networks with predictior error methods
- predictor input selection. IEEE Trans. Automatic
Control, 61(4):937–952, 2016.
M. Deistler, B. D. O. Anderson, A. Filler, Ch. Zinner,
and W. Chen. Generalized linear dynamic factor models: An approach via singular autoregressions. European J. Control, 16(3):211 – 224, 2010.
M. Deistler, W. Scherrer, and B. D. O. Anderson. The
structure of generalized linear dynamic factor models.
Empirical Economic and Financial Research, 2015.
Beran, J. and Feng, Y. and Hebbel, H. (eds.).
M. Gevers, A.S. Bazanella, and A. Parraga. Structural
conditions for the identifiability of dynamical networks. 2016. Submitted for publication.
J. Gonçalves and S. Warnick. Necessary and sufficient
conditions for dynamical structure reconstruction of
LTI networks. IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, 53(7):
1670–1674, August 2008.
E. J. Hannan and M. Deistler. The Statistical Theory of
Linear Systems. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1988.
D.P. Hayden, Y. Yuan, and J.M. Gonçalves. Network reconstruction from intrinsic noise. CoRR,
abs/1310.0375, 2013. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/
1310.0375.
L. Ljung. On the consistency of prediction error identification methods. In R.K. Mehra and D.G. Lainiotis, editors, System Identification: Advances and Case
Studies, pages 121–164. New York, 1976.
L. Ljung. System Identification: Theory for the User.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1999.
D. Materassi and M. Salapaka. On the problem of reconstructing an unknown topology via locality properties
of the Wiener filter. IEEE Trans. Automatic Control,
57(7):1765–1777, 2012.
C.J. Quinn, N. Kiyavash, and T.P. Coleman. Equivalence between minimal generative model graphs and
directed information graphs. In Proc. IEEE Intern.
Symp. Information Theory, pages 293–297, 2011.
B.M. Sanandaji, T.L. Vincent, and M.B. Wakin. Exact
topology identification of large-scale interconnected
dynamical systems from compressive observations. In
Proc. American Control Conference (ACC), pages
649–656, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2011.
B.M. Sanandaji, T.L. Vincent, and M.B. Wakin. A review of sufficient conditions for structure identification in interconnected systems. In Proc. 16th IFAC
Symp. System Identification, pages 1623–1628, 2012.
T. Söderström and P. Stoica. System Identification.
Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead, UK, 1989.
T. Söderström, L. Ljung, and I. Gustavsson. Identifiability conditions for linear multivariable systems operating under feedback. IEEE Trans. Automatic Control,

16

