On the internal signature and minimal electric network realizations of reciprocal
behaviors
Timothy H. Hughesa
a College

of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn, Cornwall, TR10 9EZ, UK

arXiv:1804.01489v1 [] 4 Apr 2018

Abstract
In a recent paper, it was shown that (i) any reciprocal system with a proper transfer function possesses a signaturesymmetric realization in which each state has either even or odd parity; and (ii) any reciprocal and passive behavior
can be realized as the driving-point behavior of an electric network comprising resistors, inductors, capacitors and
transformers. These results extended classical results to include uncontrollable systems. In this paper, we establish new
lower bounds on the number of states with even parity (capacitors) and odd parity (inductors) for reciprocal systems
that need not be controllable.
Keywords: Reciprocity; Passive system; Linear system; Controllability; Observability; Behaviors.
1. Introduction
It is well known that any symmetric transfer function
H possesses a so-called signature symmetric realization
in which the states are partitioned into a number with
even parity (n1 ) and a number with odd parity (n2 ) [1, 2].
Furthermore, the numbers n1 and n2 are related to the
properties of Hankel, Sylvester, and Bezoutian matrices
associated with H (see [3, 4, 5]). In [5], a physical consequence of these results was provided, which related to
electric networks comprising resistors, inductors, capacitors and transformers (RLCT networks). Specifically, it
was shown that the number of capacitors (resp., inductors)
is bounded below by n1 (resp., n2 ) in any RLCT network
whose impedance is H.
In [6, 7, 8, 9], it was noted that there are many important RLCT networks that are uncontrollable. Moreover, there are RLCT networks which do not possess an
impedance. Also, even if the impedance does exist, then it
does not fully determine the driving-point behavior when
the RLCT network is uncontrollable. In [6, Definition 4],
a definition of reciprocity was provided which does not assume the existence of a transfer function (of relevance to
RLCT networks which do not possess an impedance), and
it was shown that any RLCT network is reciprocal. That
paper then developed a theory of reciprocal systems that
extends the classical results on signature symmetric realizations to systems that need not be controllable (see, e.g.,
[6, Theorem 8]). In particular, it was shown that any behavior that is reciprocal and passive (in accordance with
[6, Definitions 4 and 11]) can be realized as the drivingpoint behavior of an RLCT network [6, Theorem 13].
The results in this paper establish new lower bounds on
the number of states with even parity (capacitors) and odd
parity (inductors) for reciprocal systems. These bounds
Preprint submitted to Elsevier

coincide with the aforementioned known lower bounds when
the system is controllable, but they are higher for uncontrollable systems. In Theorem 8, we show that, for any
signature symmetric realization of a reciprocal system, the
number of states with even (resp., odd) parity is bounded
below by the sum of the number of uncontrollable modes
and the number of positive (resp., negative) eigenvalues
of a Bezoutian matrix derived from the high order differential equations describing the system. Theorem 9 shows
that, for RLCT realizations of passive and reciprocal behaviors, both an inductor and a capacitor are required to
realize each uncontrollable mode. These theorems prove
that the realization provided in Theorem 8 (resp., Theorem 13) of [6] is minimal in the sense that it contains the
least possible numbers of states with even parity (resp.,
capacitors) and states with odd parity (resp., inductors).
To prove these results, we use the concept of the extended
Cauchy index of a real-rational function, first defined in
[5], and the related concept of the McMillan degree. In
particular, we obtain new bounds concerning the McMillan degree and extended Cauchy index of functions of the
form S T HS where H is a symmetric real-rational function
and S is a real matrix (see Theorem 13).
2. Notation and preliminaries
We denote the real numbers by R. The polynomials,
rational functions, and proper (i.e., bounded at infinity)
rational functions in the indeterminate ξ with real coefficients are denoted R[ξ], R(ξ), and Rp (ξ). The m×n
matrices with entries from R (resp., R[ξ], R(ξ), Rp (ξ))
(ξ)),
are denoted Rm×n (resp., Rm×n [ξ], Rm×n (ξ), Rm×n
p
and n is omitted if n = 1. If H ∈ Rm×n , Rm×n [ξ], or
Rm×n (ξ), then H T denotes its transpose, and if H is nonsingular (i.e., det (H) 6= 0) then H −1 denotes its inverse. If
April 5, 2018

H ∈ Rm×n , then #col(H) denotes the numbers of columns
(n); #row(H) denotes the number of rows (m); rank(H)
denotes the dimension of its column space: {z ∈ Rm |
∃y ∈ Rn with z = Hy}; and nullity(H) denotes the dimension of its nullspace: {z ∈ Rn | Hz = 0}. As is
well known, rank(H) is also the dimension of the column space of H T ; rank(H) + nullity(H) = #col(H); and
rank(H) + nullity(H T ) = #row(H). If M ∈ Rm×m is
symmetric, then all of the eigenvalues of M are real; M >
0 (M ≥ 0) indicates that M is positive (non-negative)
definite; and π(M ) (resp., ν(M )) denotes the number of
strictly positive (resp., strictly negative) eigenvalues of
M . A matrix Σ ∈ Rn×n is called a signature matrix if
it is diagonal and all of its diagonal entries are either 1
or −1. We denote the block column and block diagonal
matrices with entries M1 , . . . , Mn by col(M1 · · · Mn ) and
diag(M1 · · · Mn ).
If H ∈ Rm×n (ξ), then δ(H) denotes its McMillan degree. If, in addition, H is symmetric, then γ(H) denotes
its extended Cauchy index (see Definition 11). If R ∈
Rm×n [ξ] has full row rank, then ∆(R) denotes the maximal
degree among all m×m determinants formed from columns
of R, and normalrank(R) := maxλ∈C (rank(R(λ))).
We consider behaviors (systems) defined as the set of
weak solutions (see [10, Section 2.3.2]) to a differential
equation of the form:
p×q
q
d
[s],
B = {w ∈ Lloc
1 (R, R ) | R( dt )w=0}, R ∈ R

3. Reciprocity and minimality
This section contains the formal statement of our main
results (Theorems 8 and 9), which extend classical results
on the minimal realization of reciprocal behaviors (Lemmas 6 and 7) to systems which need not be controllable.
Motivation for considering such uncontrollable behaviors
was outlined in [6]. There, it was noted that many important reciprocal physical systems are uncontrollable, for
example, the famous Bott-Duffin electric networks. That
paper established a theory of reciprocal systems that extended classical results on signature symmetric realizations
of behaviors to include such uncontrollable systems. However, [6] did not address the question of minimality, which
is the focus of the current paper.
An equally important topic is passivity of uncontrollable behaviors, which was considered in [7]. Both [6] and
[7] considered behaviors of the form:
n
loc
n
d
d
B={(i, v)∈Lloc
1 (R, R ) ×L1 (R, R ) | P ( dt )i=Q( dt )v},

with P, Q ∈ Rn×n [ξ], normalrank([P −Q]) = n.

In [11], it was shown that the driving-point behavior
of any passive electrical circuit necessarily has the above
form, where i denotes the driving-point currents and v the
corresponding driving-point voltages. We note that the
partitioning (i, v) need not be an input-output partition
in the sense of [10, Definition 3.3.1], as Q need not be
nonsingular, and if Q is nonsingular then Q−1 P need not
be proper. In this general setting, the papers [6, 7] defined
reciprocity and passivity as follows.

(1)

q
where Lloc
1 (R, R ) denotes the (q-vector-valued) locally integrable functions [10, Defns. 2.3.3, 2.3.4]. B is called controllable if, for any two trajectories w1 , w2 ∈ B and t0 ∈ R,
there exists w ∈ B and t1 ≥ t0 such that w(t) = w1 (t) for
all t ≤ t0 and w(t) = w2 (t) for all t ≥ t1 [10, Definition
5.2.2]. A particular focus is on state-space systems:

n
loc
n
loc
R, Rd |
Bs = {(u, y, x)∈Lloc
1 (R, R ) ×L1 (R, R ) ×L1

A∈R

dx
dt =
d×d

Definition 1 (Reciprocal system). Let B be as in (4).
B is called reciprocal if, whenever (i
a , va ), (ib , vb ) ∈ B have
R∞
bounded support on the left, then −∞ vb (τ )T ia (t − τ )dτ =
R∞
T
−∞ ib (τ ) va (t − τ )dτ for all t ∈ R.

Ax + Bu and y = Cx + Du},

, B ∈ Rd×n , C ∈ Rn×d , D ∈ Rn×n .

Definition 2 (Passive system). B in (4) is called passive if, given any (i, v) ∈ B and any t0 ∈ R, there exists a
K ∈ R (dependent on (i, v) and t0 ) such that, if t1 ≥ t0
and (ĩ, ṽ) ∈ B satisfies (ĩ(t), ṽ(t)) = (i(t), v(t)) for t < t0 ,
Rt
then − t01 ĩT (t)ṽ(t)dt < K.

(2)

Here, we call the pair (A, B) controllable if Bs is controllable; and we call the pair (C, A) observable if (u, y, x) ∈
Bs and (u, y, x̂) ∈ Bs imply x = x̂ [10, Definition 5.3.2].
We denote the behavior obtained by eliminating the
(u,y)
:= {(u, y) | ∃x such
state-variable x from Bs by Bs
(u,y)
that (u, y, x) ∈ Bs }. It can be shown that B̂ = Bs
takes the form

It is shown in [6] that B̂ in (3) is reciprocal if and only
if the transfer function Q̂−1 P̂ is symmetric. The paper
[6] then provided the following extension of a classical result on the existence of signature symmetric realizations
to systems that need not be controllable.

n
loc
n
d
d
B̂={(u, y)∈Lloc
1 (R, R ) ×L1 (R, R ) | P̂ ( dt )u=Q̂( dt )y},

P̂ , Q̂ ∈ Rn×n [ξ], Q̂ nonsingular , Q̂−1 P̂ proper.

(4)

Lemma 3. Let B̂ be as in (3). Then the following are
equivalent.

(3)

More generally, for any given T1 ∈ Rp1 ×q , . . . , Tn ∈
R
such that col(T1 · · · Tn ) ∈ Rq×q is a nonsingular
matrix, and integer 1 ≤ m ≤ n, we denote the projection
of B onto T1 w, . . . , Tm w by
pn ×q

1. B̂ is reciprocal.
2. There exists Bs as in (2) and a signature matrix Σi ∈
(u,y)
Rd×d such that (i) B̂ = Bs
; and (ii) AΣi = Σi AT ,
T
T
B = Σi C , and D = D .

B (T1 w,...,Tm w) = {(T1 w, . . . , Tm w) | ∃(Tm+1 w, . . . , Tn w)
such that w ∈ B}.
2

If Bs is as in Lemma 3, then we say that the entries in
x corresponding to +1 (resp., −1) entries in Σi have even
(resp., odd) parity, so the number of states of even (resp.,
odd) parity is equal to π(Σi ) (resp., ν(Σi )).
Moreover, from [6, 11, 7], the driving-point behavior of
any given RLCT network is necessarily passive and reciprocal, and we have the following result on the realization
of passive and reciprocal behaviors.

Theorem 8. Let B̂ be as in (3), and let Bs in (2) be such
(u,y)
that (i) B̂ = Bs
; and (ii) the signature matrix Σi satisfies AΣi = Σi AT , B = Σi C T , and D = DT . Then
π(Σi ) ≥ π(Bez(Q̂, P̂ )) + ζ(Q̂, P̂ ),
and ν(Σi ) ≥ ν(Bez(Q̂, P̂ )) + ζ(Q̂, P̂ ).
Theorem 9. If B in (4) is the driving-point behavior of
an RLCT network N , then N contains at least π(Bez(Q, P ))+
ζ(Q, P ) capacitors and at least ν(Bez(Q, P )) + ζ(Q, P ) inductors.

Lemma 4. Let B in (4) be passive and reciprocal. Then
there exists an RLCT network whose driving-point behavior is B.

These two theorems will be proven in Section 5, using
results on the extended Cauchy index and McMillan degree
of real-rational functions that are established in Section 4.

If B̂ in Lemma 3 is controllable, then it can be shown
that the number of states with even and odd parity are related to the properties of Hankel, Sylvester, and Bezoutian
matrices associated with the polynomial matrices P̂ and
Q̂ in (3) (see [3, 5]). The most relevant results for this
paper involve the Bezoutian matrix Bez(Q̂, P̂ ) defined as
follows.

Remark 10. Using the results of Theorem 8, it is easily verified that the realization in [6, proof of Theorem 8]
is minimal, in the sense that the number of states with
even and odd parity achieve the lower bounds established
in Theorem 8. Similarly, using the results in Theorem
9, it can be verified that the RLCT network realization
in [6, proof of Theorem 13] is minimal, in the sense that
the numbers of capacitors and inductors achieve the lower
bounds in Theorem 9. However, we note that the lower
bounds in Theorem 9 do not apply to networks that contain gyrators in addition to resistors, inductors, capacitors and transformers (RLCTG networks). Specifically, if
B in (4) is passive, then B can be realized as the drivingpoint behavior of an RLCTG network that contains exactly rank(Bez(Q, P )) + ζ(Q, P ) energy storage elements
(inductors or capacitors). This is ζ(Q, P ) fewer energy
storage elements than are required to realize B with a reciprocal (i.e., RLCT) network.

Definition 5. Let P, Q ∈ Rn×n [ξ], and let m be the maximum of the degrees of the entries in P and Q. Then
Bez(Q, P ) is the block matrix whose block entries (Bez)ij
satisfy
m

m

XX
Q(z)P (w)T −P (z)Q(w)T
(Bez)ij z i−1 wj−1 .
=
z−w
i=1 j=1
It is easily verified that, for any given P, Q ∈ Rn×n [ξ],
Bez(Q, P ) is uniquely specified by Definition 5. Also, if
Q is nonsingular with Q−1 P symmetric, then Bez(Q, P )
is symmetric. Then, from results in [3, 5, 6], we have the
following lemma.
Lemma 6. Let B̂ in (3) be controllable, and let Bs in (2)
(u,y)
be such that (i) B̂ = Bs
; (ii) (A, B) is controllable;
(iii) (C, A) is observable; and (iv) the signature matrix Σi
satisfies AΣi = Σi AT , B = Σi C T , and D = DT . Then

4. The extended Cauchy index and the McMillan
degree
To prove Theorems 8 and 9, we will use the concepts of
the McMillan degree and extended Cauchy index of a realrational transfer function H, which we denote by δ(H) and
γ(H), respectively. The extended Cauchy index is defined
for symmetric real-rational transfer functions as follows:

π(Σi ) ≥ π(Bez(Q̂, P̂ )),
and ν(Σi ) ≥ ν(Bez(Q̂, P̂ )).
Similarly, if B in (4) is controllable, then the following
result follows from [5].

Definition 11. Extended Cauchy Index, [5] Let H ∈
Rn×n (ξ) be symmetric. The extended Cauchy index of H
(denoted γ(H)) is the difference between the number of
jumps in the eigenvalues of H(ξ) from −∞ to +∞ less the
number of jumps in the eigenvalues of H(ξ) from +∞ to
−∞ as ξ increases from a point a through +∞ and then
from −∞ to a again, for any a ∈ R that is not a pole of
H.

Lemma 7. Let B in (4) be controllable. If B is the drivingpoint behavior of an RLCT network N , then N contains
at least π(Bez(Q, P )) capacitors and at least ν(Bez(Q, P ))
inductors.
The purpose of this paper is to extend Lemmas 6 and
7 to include systems that need not be controllable. We
will show that none of the lower bounds in those two lemmas are achievable when the corresponding behaviors are
uncontrollable. Our main results are stated in the following two theorems. Here, for a given B of the form of (4),
the notation ζ(Q, P ) denotes the number of uncontrollable
modes of B (see Appendix A).

The extended Cauchy index and McMillan degree can be
computed using matrix Bezoutians as follows:

3

Lemma 12. Let P, Q ∈ Rn×n [ξ], and let H = Q−1 P be
symmetric. Then

Hence, π(S T P S)≤π(P ) and ν(S T P S)≥ν(P )−nullity(S T ).
An entirely similar argument then shows that ν(S T P S) ≤
ν(P ) and π(S T P S) ≥ π(P ) − nullity(S T ), and completes
the proof of case (a).
Case (b): P nonsingular.
Let the columns
of X2

be a basis for the null space of S, and let X = X1 X2 ∈
Rn×n be nonsingular, so SX1 has full column rank. Then
diag X1T S T P SX1 0 = X T S T P SX, which implies that

δ(H) = π(Bez(Q, P )) + ν(Bez(Q, P )) = rank(Bez(Q, P )),
and γ(H) = π(Bez(Q, P )) − ν(Bez(Q, P )).
Proof. See [5, Section 9].
We now state the main result in this section.
Theorem 13. Let H ∈ Rm×m (ξ) be symmetric, and let
S ∈ Rm×n . Then
γ(H)+δ(H) ≥ γ(S T HS)−δ(S T HS)+2δ(S T H),

(5)

and γ(H)−δ(H) ≤ γ(S T HS)+δ(S T HS)−2δ(S T H).

(6)

π(S T P S) = π(X T S T P SX) = π(X1T S T P SX1 ), and
ν(S T P S) = ν(X T S T P SX) = ν(X1T S T P SX1 ).

By Sylvester’s law of inertia, there exists a nonsingular

R ∈ Rm×m such that P = RT diag Iπ(P ) −Iν(P ) R, so

X1T S T P SX1 = (RSX1 )T diag Iπ(P ) −Iν(P ) (RSX1 ).

The proof of Theorem 13 will use the following generalization of Sylvester’s law of inertia.
Lemma 14. Let P ∈ Rm×m be symmetric, and let S ∈
Rm×n . Then
π(P ) − nullity(S T ) ≤ π(S T P S) ≤ π(P ),

(7)

and ν(P ) − nullity(S T ) ≤ ν(S T P S) ≤ ν(P ).

(8)

Since, in addition, RSX1 has full column rank, then

π(P ) − nullity((RSX1 )T ) ≤ π(S T P S) ≤ π(P ), and
ν(P ) − nullity((RSX1 )T ) ≤ ν(S T P S) ≤ ν(P ),
by case (a).
 But R and X are nonsingular, and RSX =
RSX1 0 , so nullity((RSX1 )T ) = nullity((RSX)T ) =
nullity(S T ). This proves case (b).
Case (c): general case.
By Sylvester’s law of inertia, there exists a nonsingular
R
∈ Rm×m such thatP =

T
R diag Iπ(P ) −Iν(P ) 0 R. Let R =: col R1 R2 with

R1 ∈ R(π(P )+ν(P ))×m , so (R1 S)T diag Iπ(P ) −Iν(P ) R1 S =
S T P S. Thus,

Proof. This result was shown in [12]. We present an
independent proof here that uses only basic linear algebra
and the classical Sylvester’s law of inertia. We prove the
result for three different cases of increasing
generality.

Case (a): P = diag In1 −In2 and
S has full

column rank.
Let S = col S1 S
2 be partitioned

compatibly with P = diag In1 −In2 ; let the columns
for the null space of S1 ; and let Y :=
of Y2 be a basis
Y1 Y2 ∈ Rm×m be nonsingular. If z is a real vector
satisfying S2 Y2 z = 0, then SY col(0 z) = 0. Since S has
full column rank and Y is nonsingular, then this implies
that z = 0. It follows that (S2 Y2 )T (S2 Y2 ) > 0. Next,
let ((S2 Y2 )T (S2 Y2 ))−1 (S2 Y2 )T =: (S2 Y2 )+ (which is the
Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse of S2 Y2 ), and let




I
0
Z := Y1 Y2
.
−(S2 Y2 )+ S2 Y1 I

π(P ) − nullity((R1 S)T ) ≤ π(S T P S) ≤ π(P ), and
ν(P ) − nullity((R1 S)T ) ≤ ν(S T P S) ≤ ν(P )
from case (b). But R is nonsingular, so R1 has full row
rank, and so nullity((R1 S)T ) ≤ nullity(S T ). This proves
case (c).


Prior to proving Theorem 13, we note that, if H ∈
Rn×n (ξ) is proper, then the McMillan degree of H may
Then Z is nonsingular, and
also be computed using Hankel matrices. The same is


+
true of the extended Cauchy index (providing H is also
S1 (I − Y2 (S2 Y2 ) S2 )Y1
0
.
(9)
SZ =
+
symmetric).
Specifically, any H ∈ Rpn×n (ξ) is uniquely
(I − (S2 Y2 )(S2 Y2 ) )S2 Y1 S2 Y2
determined by its Markov parameters, which are the terms
Since (S2 Y2 )T (I−(S2 Y2 )(S2 Y2 )+ )=0, then (SZ)T P (SZ) =
in the formal series expansion H(ξ) = W−1 + W0 /ξ +
diag X11 −(S2 Y2 )T (S2 Y2 ) for some real symmetric maW1 /ξ 2 + . . .. We let Hr (H) be the block matrix
rank(S1 )×rank(S1 )
trix X11 ∈ R
. Also, by Sylvester’s law


W0
W1 · · ·
Wr−1
of inertia, π(S T P S) = π((SZ)T P (SZ)) and ν(S T P S) =
 W1
W2 · · ·
Wr 
ν((SZ)T P (SZ)). Since, in addition, 0 > −(S2 Y2 )T (S2 Y2 ) ∈


Hr (H) =  .
 , (r = 1, 2, . . .).
.
..
nullity(S1 )×nullity(S1 )
..
R
, and nullity(S1 ) = #col(S)−rank(S1 ) =
 ..

.
rank(S)−rank(S1 ) ≥ #row(S)− #row(S1 )− nullity(S T )+
Wr−1 Wr · · · W2(r−1)
nullity(S1T ), then
Then there exist unique integers d and N with d ≥ N
π((SZ)T P (SZ)) ≤ rank(X11 ) ≤ rank(S1 ) ≤ n1 , and
such that rank(Hr (H)) = d for all r ≥ N . The integer d
ν((SZ)T P (SZ)) ≥ #col((S2 Y2 )T S2 Y2 )
is equal to δ(H). Also, if H is symmetric, then γ(H) =
T
π(Hr (H)) − ν(Hr (H)) for all r ≥ d [5, Section 9].
≥ #row(S) − #row(S1 ) − nullity(S )
PROOF OF THEOREM 13 We prove this first for
= n2 − nullity(S T ).
the case that H is proper, and then for the general case.
4

Case (a): H proper.
First, let n = δ(H), so
δ(S T H) ≤ n and δ(S T HS) ≤ n by note B4. Also, let Ŝ be
the block diagonal matrix containing exactly n diagonal
blocks all equal to S, i.e., Ŝ := diag(S · · · S). Then, note
that Hn (S T H) = Ŝ T Hn (H) and Hn (S T HS) = Ŝ T Hn (H)Ŝ.
It follows that
δ(H) + γ(H) = 2π(Hn (H)),
δ(H) − γ(H) = 2ν(Hn (H)),
δ(S T HS) + γ(S T HS) = 2π(Ŝ T Hn (H)Ŝ),
δ(S T HS) − γ(S T HS) = 2ν(Ŝ T Hn (H)Ŝ),

π(Bez(Q̂, P̂ )) = 12 (δ(S T HS) + γ(S T HS)), and
ν(Bez(Q̂, P̂ )) = 12 (δ(S T HS) − γ(S T HS)).
Next, note that H = M −1 N where M = AΣi and N = I.
Since, in addition, AΣi = Σi AT , then from Definition 5 we
obtain Bez(M, N ) = Σi . Thus, π(Σi ) = 21 (δ(H) + γ(H))
and ν(Σi ) = 12 (δ(H) − γ(H)). Then, from Lemma 12 and
Theorem 13,
π(Σi ) ≥ π(Bez(Q̂, P̂ )) + δ(S T H) − δ(S T HS), and

δ(S T H) = rank(Ŝ T Hn (H)),
δ(H) = rank(Hn (H)),

ν(Σi ) ≥ ν(Bez(Q̂, P̂ )) + δ(S T H) − δ(S T HS).
But S T H = CA−1 and δ(S T HS) = δ(Q̂−1 P̂ ), so by note
B2 it remains to show that δ(CA−1 ) = ∆([−P̂ Q̂]). To see
this, we note initially from [6, Lemma 1] that there exist
polynomial matrices U, V, Y, Z, E, F , and G such that


 

Y Z −D I −C
−P̂
Q̂
0
=
,
(12)
U V −B 0 A
−E −F G

and δ(S T HS) = rank(Ŝ T Hn (H)Ŝ).
It therefore suffices to show that
ν(Hn (H)) ≥ rank(Ŝ T Hn (H)) − π(Ŝ T Hn (H)Ŝ), and (10)
π(Hn (H)) ≥ rank(Ŝ T Hn (H)) − ν(Ŝ T Hn (H)Ŝ).

by note B3 and [5, Lemma 13], so

(11)

To see (10), let n1 := π(Hn (H)) and n2 := ν(Hn (H)),
so by Sylvester’s law of inertia there exists a nonsingular
real matrix R such that Hn (H) = RT diag(In1 −In2 0)R.
Thus, the matrix X formed from the first n1 + n2 rows of
R has full row rank and satisfies Hn (H) = X T ΣX where
Σ := diag(In1 −In2 ). It follows that

in which G is nonsingular and the leftmost matrix is unimodular. By pre-multiplying both sides of this equation
by the inverse of the leftmost matrix, and comparing the
rightmost block column in the resulting equation, we obtain a relationship of the form


 
−C
W1
G=
,
A
W2

nullity((X Ŝ)T ) = #row(X Ŝ) − rank(X Ŝ)
= n1 + n2 − rank(Ŝ T X T ),

 
where rank(Ŝ T X T ) = rank( Ŝ T X T diag In1 −In2
0 )

in which col(W1 W2 )(λ) has full column rank for all λ ∈ C.
In particular, since A is nonsingular, then so too is W2 ,
and CA−1 = W1 W2−1 which is proper. It follows from
note B2 that #col(A) = ∆([−C T AT ]) = deg (det (G)) +
δ(W1 W2−1 ) = deg (det (G)) + δ(CA−1 ). Also, from (12),


−D I −C
∆([−P̂ Q̂]) + deg (det (G)) = ∆
−B 0 A

= rank(Ŝ T Hn (H)R−1 )
= rank(Ŝ T Hn (H)).

But Ŝ T Hn (H)Ŝ = (X Ŝ)T Σ(X Ŝ), so π(Ŝ T Hn (H)Ŝ) ≥
n1 −nullity((X Ŝ)T ) from Lemma 14, whereupon we obtain
(10). A similar argument then proves (11).
Case (b): General case.
This can be shown
using a Möbius transformation to convert to the case with
H proper, in the manner of [5, p. 224].


= #col(A),
whereupon we conclude that ∆([−P̂ Q̂]) = δ(CA−1 ). 
PROOF OF THEOREM 9 (see p. 3). We let B̃
denote the behavior of N , and we will show that there
exist compatible partitions of the driving-point currents
and voltages as (ia , ib ) and (va , vb ); compatible partitions
of the inductor currents and voltages as (iLa , iLb ) and
(vLa , vLb ); compatible partitions of the capacitor currents
and voltages as (iCa , iCb ) and (vCa , vCb ); a state-space
model Bs as in (2); and a signature matrix Σi := diag(−I I)
in which the number of −1 (resp., +1) entries is equal to
the number of entries in iLa (resp., vCa ); such that AΣi =
Σi AT , B = Σi C T , D = DT , and B̃ (col(ia −vb ),col(va ib )) =:
(u,y)
B̂ = Bs
. But it is easily shown that B̂ also takes
the form of (3), where (i) Q̂(z)P̂ (w)T − P̂ (z)Q̂(w)T =
Q(z)P (w)T − P (z)Q(w)T , so Bez(Q, P ) = Bez(Q̂, P̂ ) by
Definition 5; and (ii) there exists a nonsingular S ∈ R2n×2n

5. Reciprocity and minimality, proof of Theorems
8 and 9
PROOF OF THEOREM 8 (see p. 3). Let A(ξ) =
ξI − A, and first note that
Q̂−1 P̂ = D + CA−1 B = D + (CΣi )(AΣi )−1 B.
With the notation
H := (AΣi )−1 and S := B,
then H is symmetric and Q̂−1 P̂ = D + S T HS. It then follows that γ(Q̂−1 P̂ ) = γ(S T HS) and δ(Q̂−1 P̂ ) = δ(S T HS)
5

(u,y)

=
and it follows that B (col(ia −vb ),col(va ib )) =: B̂ = B̃s
(u,y)
. Furthermore, it is straightforward to verify that
Bs

such that [−P̂ Q̂] = [−P Q]S, so it is easily shown from
notes A1–A2 that ζ(Q̂, P̂ ) = ζ(Q, P ). The present theorem then follows from Theorem 8.
To see that B̂ has a state-space representation of the
form indicated in the previous paragraph, we first note
from [11, Theorem 5] that there exist partitions of the
driving-point, inductor and capacitor currents and voltages as in that paragraph such that, with the notation

A = −Σ1 Ω−1/2 M22 Σ1 Ω−1/2 , B = −Σ1 Ω−1/2 M21 Σe ,
C = M12 Σ1 Ω−1/2 and D = M11 Σe
Thus, with Σi = Σ1 , then it follows from (16) that AΣi =
Σi AT , B = Σi C T and D = DT .


e=col(ia vb ), r=col(va ib ), e1a =col(iLa vCa ),
Appendix A. Behaviors and state-space realizations

r1a =col(vLa iCa ), e1b =col(vLb iCb ) and r1b =col(iLb vCb );
with Σe , Σ1 and Σ2 signature matrices that, partitioned
compatibly with e, e1a and e1b , respectively, take the form

In this appendix, we present a number of relevant results on behaviors and state-space realizations. For references, see [10, 14, 15].

Σe =diag(I −I), Σ1 =diag(−I I), and Σ2 =diag(−I I);

A1 Let B be as in (4). Then, by [6, Lemma 10], there
exist F, P̃ , Q̃, U, V ∈ Rn×n [ξ] such that

and with Λ1 (resp., Λ2 ) the diagonal matrix whose entries correspond to the inductances and capacitances relating to the corresponding entry in e1a (resp., e1b ); then
B̃ (e,r,e1a ,r1a ,e1b ,r1b ) is determined by equations of the form:

(i) P = F P̃ and Q = F Q̃; and


P̃ −Q̃
(ii)
is unimodular.
U
V

e2a =Σ1 e1a , r2a =−Σ1 r1a , r2b =Σ2 r1b and e2b =−Σ2 e1b , (13)
r1a = Λ1 dedt1a , e1b = Λ2 drdt1b ,

   
M11 M12
0
r
e
and M21 M22 M23  e2a  = r2a  .
T
r2b
e2b
0
−M23
0

(14)

Also, if F, P̃ , Q̃, U, V ∈ Rn×n [ξ] satisfy (i)–(ii), then (i, v) ∈
B ⇐⇒ there exist (i1 , v1 ) ∈ Bc and (i2 , v2 ) ∈ Ba with
i = i1 +i2 and v = v1 +v2 , where
d
n
loc
n
Bc := {(i, v) ∈ Lloc
1 (R, R ) × L1 (R, R ) | P̃ ( dt )i =
d
Q̃( dt )v} and
d
n
loc
n
Ba := {(i, v) ∈ Lloc
1 (R, R ) × L1 (R, R ) | P ( dt )i =
d
d
d
)v and U ( dt
)i = −V ( dt
)v}.
Q( dt

(15)

Here, (15) describes the driving-point behavior of a
network containing only resistors and transformers, so



Σe
0
0
M11 M12
0
M21 M22 M23   0 −Σ1 0 
T
0
−M23
0
0
0
Σ2

A2 In note A1, we define ζ(Q, P ) := deg (det (F )), and
it is easily shown that this is invariant of the specific choice
of decomposition in that lemma. Here, ζ(Q, P ) represents
is symmetric by [13, Theorem 2.8.1]. In particular,
the number of uncontrollable modes of B. Specifically,
for any given decomposition as in note A1, it is easily
M11 Σe and M22 Σ1 are symmetric,
n
loc
n
shown that Ba is a subspace of Lloc
1 (R, R )×L1 (R, R ) of
T
M21 Σe = −Σ1 M12
, and
dimension ζ(Q, P ) (see [10, Theorem 3.2.16]); and i1 and i2
(resp., v1 and v2 ) are uniquely determined by i (resp., v).
M23 Σ2 = Σ1 M23 .
(16)
To see this, suppose that (a) (i1a , v1a ), (i1b , v1b ) ∈ Bc ; (b)
T
Moreover, Ω := Λ1 + Σ1 M23 Σ2 Λ2 Σ2 M23
Σ1 satisfies Ω > 0
(i2a , v2a ), (i2b , v2b ) ∈ Ba ; (c) i1a + i2a = i1b + i2b ; and (d)
T
d
d
and ΩΣ1 = Λ1 Σ1 + M23 Λ2 Σ2 M23
, which is symmetric. In
v1a + v2a = v1b + v2b . Then P̃ ( dt
)(i1a − i1b )− Q̃( dt
)(v1a −
d
d
particular, it follows that Ω (partitioned compatibly with
v1b ) = 0, so P̃ ( dt )(i2a − i2b ) − Q̃( dt )(v2a − v2b ) = 0 by
Σ1 ) takes the form Ω = diag(Ω11 Ω22 ) where Ω11 , Ω22 > 0.
d
d
(c)–(d). Since, in addition, U ( dt
)(i2a − i2b ) + V ( dt
)(v2a −
Next, from [11, proof of Theorem 5], B̃ (Σe e,r,e1a ) = B̃s

v
)
=
0,
and
condition
(ii)
of
note
A1
holds,
then
i
2b
2a = i2b
n
loc
n
loc
R, Rdand
| v = v by [10, Theorem 3.2.16], whence i = i
where B̃s = {(u, y, x̃) ∈ Lloc
1 (R, R ) ×L1 (R, R ) ×L1
2a
2b
1a
1b
dx̃
and v1a = v1b .
dt = Ãx̃ + B̃u and y = C̃ x̃ + D̃u}, with
Ã = −Ω−1 Σ1 M22 Σ1 , B̃ = −Ω−1 Σ1 M21 Σe ,

Appendix B. McMillan degree

C̃ = M12 Σ1 and D̃ = M11 Σe .
1/2

Here, we provide several useful properties concerning
the McMillan degree of a real-rational function.

1/2

Finally, we let Ω1/2 , Ω11 and Ω22 denote the positivedefinite square roots of Ω, Ω11 and Ω22 , respectively, so
1/2
1/2
Ω1/2 = diag(Ω11 Ω22 ), and Ω1/2 commutes with Σ1 . We
then let Bs be as in (2) with

B1 Let P, Q, P̃ and Q̃ be as in note A1 with Q nonsingular. Then Q−1 P = Q̃−1 P̃ , and if, in addition, Q−1 P is
proper, then δ(Q−1 P )= deg (det (Q̃)) [3, Section 3].

A := Ω1/2 ÃΩ−1/2 , B := Ω1/2 B̃, C := C̃Ω−1/2 , D := D̃,
6

B2 Let P and Q be as in note A1. If Q is nonsingular, then Q−1 P is proper if and only if ∆([−P Q]) =
deg (det (Q)) [10, proof of Theorem 3.3.22]. In particular,
if Q−1 P is proper and P̃ , Q̃ and F are as in note A1, then
δ(Q−1 P ) = ∆([−P̃ Q̃]) and ∆([−P Q]) = ζ(Q, P ) +
δ(Q−1 P ) (see notes A1 and B1).
B3 If X ∈ Rm×n and Y ∈ Rm×n (ξ), then δ(X + Y ) =
δ(Y ) [13, Chapter 3].
B4 If S ∈ Rk×l , T ∈ Rm×n and Y ∈ Rl×m (ξ), then
δ(SY T ) ≤ δ(Y ) [13, Chapter 3].
References
[1] J. C. Willems, Dissipative dynamical systems, Part II: Linear
systems with quadratic supply rates, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.
45 (1972) 352 – 393.
[2] T. Reis, J. C. Willems, A balancing approach to the realization
of systems with internal passivity and reciprocity, Systems and
Control Letters 60 (2011) 69 – 74.
[3] R. R. Bitmead, B. D. O. Anderson, The matrix Cauchy index:
properties and applications, SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 33 (4) (1977) 655 – 672.
[4] P. A. Fuhrmann, On symmetric rational transfer functions, Linear Algebra Appl. 50 (1983) 167 – 250.
[5] T. H. Hughes, M. C. Smith, Algebraic criteria for circuit realisations, in: K. Huper, J. Trumpf (Eds.), Mathematical System
Theory - Festschrift in Honor of Uwe Helmke on the Occasion
of his Sixtieth Birthday, CreateSpace, 2012, pp. 211–228.
[6] T. H. Hughes,
On reciprocal systems and controllability,
Automatica,
in
review.
Preprint
https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.09436.
[7] T. H. Hughes, A theory of passive linear systems with no assumptions, Automatica 86 (2017) 87–97.
[8] T. H. Hughes, M. C. Smith, Controllability of linear passive
network behaviors, Systems and Control Letters 101 (2017) 58
– 66.
[9] M. K. Çamlibel, J. C. Willems, M. N. Belur, On the dissipativity
of uncontrollable systems, in: Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control, Hawaii, 2003.
[10] J. W. Polderman, J. C. Willems, Introduction to Mathematical
Systems Theory: A Behavioral Approach, New York : SpringerVerlag, 1998.
[11] T. H. Hughes, Passivity and electric circuits: a behavioral
approach, IFAC PapersOnline, Proceedings of the 20th IFAC
World Congress, Toulouse 50 (1) (2017) 15500–15505.
[12] J. Dancis, A quantitative formulation of Sylvester’s law of inertia. III, Linear Algebra Appl. 80 (1) (1986) 141 – 158.
[13] B. D. O. Anderson, S. Vongpanitlerd, Network Analysis and
Synthesis, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
[14] P. Rapisarda, J. C. Willems, State maps for linear systems,
SIAM Journal on Control Optim. 35 (3) (1997) 1053 – 1091.
[15] T. H. Hughes, Behavioral realizations using companion matrices
and the Smith form, SIAM Journal on Control Optim. 54 (2)
(2016) 845–865.

7

