A Survey of Riccati Equation Results in Negative Imaginary Systems
Theory and Quantum Control Theory

arXiv:1703.10281v1 [] 30 Mar 2017

Ian R. Petersen
Abstract— This paper presents a survey of some new applications of algebraic Riccati equations. In particular, the paper
surveys some recent results on the use of algebraic Riccati
equations in testing whether a system is negative imaginary
and in synthesizing state feedback controllers which make the
closed loop system negative imaginary. The paper also surveys
the use of Riccati equation methods in the control of quantum
linear systems including coherent H ∞ control.

I. I NTRODUCTION
The algebraic Riccati equation has been applied in a range
of applications in modern control theory including the linear
quadratic regulator problem, the linear quadratic Gaussian
problem and the H ∞ control problem; e.g., see [1]–[3]. In
particular, it has played a major role in robust control theory;
e.g., see [2], [4]. In this paper, we survey some results in
which the Riccati equation plays a role in the emerging areas
of negative imaginary systems theory and quantum linear
systems theory.
The theory of negative imaginary systems is an emerging
theory which is attracting interest among control theory researchers; e.g., see [5]–[17]. This theory is broadly applicable
to problems of robust vibration control for flexible structures;
e.g., see [5], [7], [18], [19]. Such flexible structures can be
modelled by high order linear systems models with highly
resonant dynamics [20]–[22]. A particular problem in the
control of such systems is the fact that unmodelled spillover
dynamics can severely degrade control system performance
or lead to instability if the controller is not designed to be
robust against this type of uncertainty; e.g., see [23], [24]. In
addition, uncertainties in resonant frequencies and damping
levels can cause similar problems of poor control system
performance or instability. Negative imaginary systems theory provides a way of analyzing robustness and designing
robust controllers for such flexible structures in the case of
collocated force actuators and position sensors; e.g., see [18],
[19], [25]–[32]. Although much of the theory of negative
imaginary systems revolves around the use of linear matrix
inequalities (LMIs), a number of recent results have emerged
in which Riccati equations are used instead of LMIs; see
[19].
Quantum feedback control systems have been an active
area of research in recent years; e.g., see [33]–[38]. In
particular, there has been considerable interest in the feedback control and modeling of linear quantum systems; e.g.,
see [35], [36], [36], [39]–[51]. Linear quantum systems
commonly arise in the area of quantum optics; e.g., see [52]–
[54]. Feedback control of quantum systems aims to achieve

closed loop properties such as stability [55], robustness [39]
and entanglement [45], [56].
An important class of linear quantum stochastic models
describe the Heisenberg evolution of the (canonical) position
and momentum, or annihilation and creation operators of
several independent open quantum harmonic oscillators that
are coupled to external coherent bosonic fields; e.g., see [52],
[51], [53], [57], [39]–[41], [44], [45], [48], [50], [58]–[60]).
These linear stochastic models describe quantum optical
devices such as optical cavities [54], [52], linear quantum
amplifiers [53], and finite bandwidth squeezers [53]. In
particular, we consider linear quantum stochastic differential
equations driven by quantum Wiener processes; see [53].
Further details on quantum stochastic differential equations
and quantum Wiener processes can be found in [61]–[63].
Some recent papers on the feedback control of linear
quantum systems have considered the case in which the
feedback controller itself is also a quantum system. Such
feedback control is often referred to as coherent quantum
control; e.g., see [36], [37], [39], [40], [42]–[44], [64]–[67].
In particular, some recent results on the coherent H ∞ control
problem and the coherent LQG control problem involve the
use of the Riccati equation and in this paper, we survey some
of these results; e.g., see [39], [68], [69].
II. T HE R ICCATI E QUATION IN N EGATIVE I MAGINARY
S YSTEMS T HEORY
Negative imaginary (NI) systems theory is an emerging
area of robust control theory which is concerned with the
analysis and robust control of flexible systems with colocated force actuators and position sensors.
Definition 1: [5], [6], [70] A square transfer function
matrix M (s) is NI if the following conditions are satisfied:
1) M (s) has no pole in Re[s] > 0.
2) For all ω > 0 such that s = jω is not a pole of M (s),
j (M (jω) − M (jω)∗ ) ≥ 0.

(1)

3) If s = jω0 with ω0 > 0 is a pole of M (s), then it is
a simple pole and the residue matrix K = lim (s −
s−→jω0

jω0 )jM (s) is Hermitian and positive semidefinite.
4) If s = 0 is a pole of M (s), then lim sk M (s) = 0 for
s−→0

all k ≥ 3 and lim s2 M (s) is Hermitian and positive
s−→0
semidefinite.
The following definition defines the strict negative imaginary property which is needed in the NI stability result.

Definition 2 (See [5].): A square real-rational proper
transfer function matrix N (s) is termed strictly negative
imaginary (SNI) if
1) N (s) has no poles in ℜ[s] ≥ 0;
2) j[N (jω) − M ∗ (jω)] > 0 for ω ∈ (0, ∞).
We now present the main stability result of negative
imaginary systems theory that guarantees the robustness and
stability of control systems involving the positive-feedback
interconnection of an NI system and an SNI system; see also
[5]–[7].
Theorem 1 ( [5], [6]): Consider an NI transfer function
matrix M (s) with no poles at the origin and an SNI transfer
function matrix N (s), and suppose that M (∞)N (∞) = 0
and N (∞) ≥ 0. Then, the positive-feedback interconnection
of M (s) and N (s) is internally stable if and only if
λmax (M (0)N (0)) < 1.

loop system in NI. Consider the following state space representation for a linear uncertain system given as follows;
ẋ = Ax + B1 w + B2 u,
z = C1 x,
W (s) = ∆(s)Z(s),

(5)

where we assume that W (s) and Z(s) are the Laplace
transforms of the signals w(t) and z(t).
Here, A ∈ Rn×n , B1 ∈ Rn×m , B2 ∈ Rn×r , C1 ∈
m×n
R
, and ∆(s) is an strictly negative imaginary uncertainty
transfer function matrix; e.g., see [5], [70]. Also, suppose that
K ∈ Rr×n is a state feedback matrix such that u = Kx.
Then the closed-loop interconnection of the system (5) with
the state feedback control law is given by
·

(2)

x = (A + B2 K)x + B1 w,
z = C1 x.

An important result in the theory of negative imaginary
systems is the following result which is referred to as the
negative-imaginary lemma. This lemma can be used for
testing if a given system is negative imaginary. It is also
used in the proof of the above stability theorem.
Theorem 2 (Negative Imaginary Lemma, [5], [6], [19].):
Let (A, B, C, D) be a minimal state-space realization of an
m × m real-rational proper transfer function matrix M (s),
where A ∈ Rn×n , B ∈ Rn×m , C ∈ Rm×n , D ∈ Rm×m .
Then, M (s) is NI if and only if D = DT and there exist
matrices P = P T ≥ 0, W ∈ Rm×m , and L ∈ Rm×n
such that the following linear matrix inequality (LMI) is
satisfied:
P A + AT P
B T P − CA



 
−LT L
P B − AT C T
=
T T
−W T L
−(CB + B C )


−LT W
≤ 0.
−W T W
(3)

The following result is our first result in the theory of
negative imaginary systems which uses the Riccati equation.
This result is an alternative version of the negative imaginary
lemma which uses the Riccati equation rather than the LMI
(3).
Theorem 3 ( [19]): Suppose the
 function matrix
 transfer
A B
such that CB +
M (s) has a minimal realization
C D
B T C T > 0. Then M (s) is NI if and only if D = DT and
there exists a matrix P ≥ 0 that solves the algebraic Riccati
equation
P A0 + AT0 P + P BR−1 B T P + Q = 0

(4)

where
A0 = A − BR−1 CA,
T

T

R = CB + B C , and
Q = AT C T R−1 CA.

In our next result, we use an algebraic Riccati equation
to synthesize a state feedback controller such that the closed

(6)

and
W (s) = ∆(s)Z(s).

(7)

Our aim is to construct the matrix K such that the corresponding closed-loop system (6) is stable and satisfies the NI
property. From this, it follows that the closed-loop uncertain
system will be stable for any SNI uncertainty ∆(s) [5],
[7] providing the corresponding DC gain condition (2) is
satisfied.
Consider the following Schur transformation:


A11 A12
T
−1
, (8)
Af = U (A − B2 (C1 B2 ) C1 A)U =
0
A22


Bf 1
,
(9)
Bf = U T (B2 (C1 B2 )−1 − B1 R−1 ) =
Bf 2


B11
B̃1 = U T B1 =
,
(10)
B22
where U is a unitary matrix.
The transformation (8) can be constructed such that A11
has all of its eigenvalues in the closed left half of the complex
plane and A22 has all of its eigenvalues in the open right half
of the complex plane; i.e., A22 is an anti-stable matrix.
Theorem 4 ( [19]): Given an uncertain system (5) with
C1 B2 non-singular and R = C1 B1 +B1T C1T > 0, define Af ,
Bf , B̃1 , U , A11 , A12 , A22 , Bf 1 , Bf 2 , B11 and B22 as in
(8)-(10), where A22 is the anti-stable block of the Af matrix.
Then there exists a static state-feedback matrix K such that
the closed-loop system (6) is NI if there exist matrices T ≥ 0
and S ≥ 0 such that
−A22 T − T AT22 + Bf 2 RBfT2 = 0,
−A22 S −

SAT22

+ B22 R

−1

T
B22

= 0.

(11)
(12)

and T − S > 0. Furthermore, a static state-feedback matrix
K which makes the closed-loop system (6) NI and stabilizes
the anti-stable matrix A22 is given by
K = (C1 B2 )−1 (B1T P − C1 A − R(B2T C1T )−1 B2T P ), (13)



0
where P = U Pf U and Pf =
0
satisfies the algebraic Riccati equation
T

0
(T − S)−1



≥ 0

Pf Af + ATf Pf − Pf Bf RBfT Pf + Pf B̃1 R−1 B̃1T Pf = 0.
(14)
III. T HE R ICCATI E QUATION IN L INEAR Q UANTUM
S YSTEMS T HEORY
We consider a class of linear quantum system models.
These linear quantum system models take the form of
quantum stochastic differential equations (QSDEs) which are
derived from the quantum harmonic oscillator; e.g., see [39],
[68], [69]. We will survey a number of results involving
Riccati equations which arise in the theory of such quantum
linear systems.
A. Quantum Harmonic Oscillators
We begin by considering a collection of n independent
quantum harmonic oscillators which are defined on a Hilbert
space H = L2 (Rn , C); e.g., see [50], [62], [71]. Elements
of the Hilbert space H, ψ(x) are the standard complex
valued wave functions arising in quantum mechanics where
x is a spatial variable. Corresponding to this collection of
harmonic
oscillators is a vector of annihilation operators

T
. The adjoint of the operator
a = a1 a2 . . . an
ai is denoted a∗i and is referred to as a creation operator.
The quantum harmonic oscillators described above are
assumed to be coupled to m external independent quantum fields modelled by bosonic annihilation field operators
A1 (t), A2 (t), . . . , Am (t) which are defined on separate Fock
spaces Fi defined over L2 (R) for each field operator [56],
[61]–[63]. For each annihilation field operator Aj (t), there
is a corresponding creation field operator A∗j (t), which
is defined on the same Fock space and is the operator
adjoint of Aj (t). The field annihilation operators are also
collected
into a vector of
T operators defined as follows: A =

A1 A2 . . . Am
.
In order to describe the joint evolution of the quantum
harmonic oscillators and quantum fields, we first specify the
Hamiltonian operator for the quantum system which is a
Hermitian operator on H of the form



1 †
a
T
H=
a a
M
(15)
a#
2

where M ∈ C2n×2n is a Hermitian matrix of the form


M1 M2
M=
(16)
M2# M1#

and M1 = M1† , M2 = M2T . Also, we specify the coupling
operator for the quantum system to be an operator of the
form




a
(17)
L = N1 N2
a#
where N1 ∈ Cm×n and N2 ∈ Cm×n . Also, we write




 

N1 N2
L
a
a
=N
=
.
L#
a#
a#
N2# N1#

In addition, we define a scattering matrix which is a unitary
matrix S ∈ Cn×n .
The Heisenberg evolution of the operator vectors a, and
a† is described the following QSDEs (e.g., see equations (1)
and (2) in [72] and equations (7) and (9) in [47]):


a
d
=
a#
T ! T





1
a
a
T
†
,L
dt
L
−ı
, H dt +
a#
a#
2
"

T #T



1
a
a
#
T
Ldt +
, L dA#
+ L ,
a#
a#
2



a
†
dA.
(18)
−
,
L
a#
Using (15) and (17), these equations then lead to the following QSDEs, which describe the dynamics of the quantum
system under consideration:






da(t)
a(t)
dA(t)
=
F
dt
+
G
;
da(t)#
a(t)#
dA(t)#






dAout (t)
a(t)
dA(t)
=
H
dt
+
K
,
dAout (t)#
a(t)#
dA(t)#
(19)
where
F

=

H

=





F1
F2#

F2
F1#

H1
H2#

H2
H1#



G1 G2
;
; G=
G#
G#
1
2



K1 K2
. (20)
; K=
K2# K1#



Here,
F
G
H
K

1
= −iJM − JN † JN ;
 2

S
0
†
= −JN
;
0 −S #
= N;


S 0
=
.
0 S#

(21)

The QSDEs (19), (20) define the general class of linear
quantum systems considered. Such quantum systems can
be used to model a large range of devices and networks
of devices arising in the area of quantum optics including
optical cavities, squeezers, optical parametric amplifiers,
cavity QED systems, beam splitters, and phase shifters; e.g.,
see [35]–[37], [39], [44], [46], [48], [51]–[54], [67].
B. Coherent Quantum H ∞ Control
We formulate a coherent quantum control problem in
which a linear quantum system is controlled by a feedback
controller which is itself a linear quantum system. Such a
controller is said to be physically realizable; e.g., see [39],
[68], [69]. The fact that the controller is to be a quantum
system means that any controller synthesis method needs
to produce controllers which are physically realizable. The

problem we consider is the quantum H ∞ control problem in
which it is desired to design a coherent controller such that
the resulting closed loop quantum system is stable and attenuates specified disturbances acting on the system; see [39],
[43]. In the standard quantum H ∞ control problem such as
considered in [39], [43], the quantum noises are averaged
out and only the external disturbance is considered. We now
formulate the coherent quantum H ∞ control problem for a
general class of quantum systems of the form (19), (20).
We consider quantum plants described by linear complex
quantum stochastic models of the following form defined in
an analogous way to the QSDEs (19), (20):



da(t)
da(t)#



=

F
+

dz (t) =
dy (t) =



a(t)
a(t)#



G0

H1
H2
+









dt

G1

a(t)
a(t)#
a(t)
a(t)#

K20

G2










dv (t)
 dw (t)  ;
du (t)

dt + K12 du (t) ;
dt

K21

0






dv (t)
 dw (t) 
du (t)

(22)

where all of the matrices in these QSDEs have a form as in
(20). Here, the input

dw(t) =



βw (t)dt + dA(t)
#
(t)dt + dA(t)#
βw



represents a disturbance signal where βw (t) is an adapted
process; see [39], [42], [62]. The signal u(t) is a control
input of the form

du(t) =



βu (t)dt + dB(t)
βu# (t)dt + dB(t)#



(20) as follows:


dac (t)
dac (t)#

dv(t) =

dC(t)
dC(t)#



represents any additional
in the plant. The
 quantum noise

dA(t)
dB(t)
dC(t)
quantities
,
and
are
dA(t)#
dB(t)#
dC(t)#
quantum noises.
In the coherent quantum H ∞ control problem, we consider
controllers which are described by QSDEs of the form (19),

Fc
+




du(t)
 dû(t)  =
dū(t)







ac (t)
ac (t)#
Ḡc

Ĝc



dt
Gc




dw̄c
 dŵc 
dy

dt




Hc 
 Ĥc  ac (t)#
ac (t)
H̄c



Kc 0
0
dw̄c
+  0 K̂c 0   dŵc 
dy
0
0 K̄c

(23)

where all of the matrices in these QSDEs have a form as in
(20). Here the quantities




dBc (t)
dAc (t)
, dŵc =
dw̄c =
dBc (t)#
dAc (t)#
are controller quantum noises. Also, the outputs du0 and
du1 are unused outputs of the controller which have been
included so that the controller can be physically realizable.
Corresponding to the plant (22) and (23), we form the closed
loop quantum system by identifying the output of the plant
dy with the input to the controller dy, and identifying the
output of the controller du with the input to the plant du.
This leads to the following closed-loop QSDEs:


F
G2 Hc
η (t) dt
dη (t) =
Gc H2
Fc




dv (t)
G0
G2 0
 dw̄c (t) 
+
Gc K20 Ḡc Ĝc
dŵc (t)


G1
dw (t) ;
+
Gc K21


H1 K12 Hc η (t) dt
dz (t) =


dv (t)


+ 0 K12 0  dw̄c (t) 
(24)
dŵc (t)
where

where βu (t) is an adapted process. The quantity


=


a(t)
 a(t)# 

η (t) = 
 ac (t)  .
ac (t)#


For a given quantum plant of the form (22), the coherent
quantum H ∞ control problem involves finding a physically
realizable quantum controller (23) such that the resulting
closed loop system (24) is such that the following conditions
are satisfied:
(i) The matrix


F
G2 Hc
(25)
Fcl =
Gc H2
Fc
is Hurwitz;

(ii) The closed loop transfer function
Γcl (s) = Hcl (sI − Fcl )−1 Gcl
satisfies
kΓcl (s)k∞ < 1

(26)

where
Hcl =



H1

K12 Hc



, Gcl =



G1
Gc K21



.

Theorem 5: (See also [3], [39].) Suppose that the plant
(22) satisfies the following conditions:
†
K12 > 0;
(i) E1 = K12
†
(ii) E2 = K21 K21
> 0;

F − iωI G2
is full rank for all ω;
(iii) The matrix
H1
K12 

F − iωI G1
(iv) The matrix
is full rank for all ω.
H2
K21
Then the above coherent H ∞ control problem has a solution
if and only if the Riccati equations
†
†
(F − G2 E1−1 K12
H1 )† X + X(F − G2 E1−1 K12
H1 ) +

X(G1 G†1 − G2 E1−1 G′2 )X +
†
H1† (I − K12 E1−1 K12
)H1 = 0;

(27)

†
†
(F − G1 K21
E2−1 H2 )Y + Y (F − G1 K21
E2−1 H2 ) +
Y (H1† H1 − H2† E2−1 H2 )Y +
†
G1 (I − K21
E2−1 K21 )G†1 = 0.
(28)

have positive-semidefinite stabilizing solutions X and Y
such that the spectral radius of XY is strictly less than one.
In this case, the matrices Fc , Gc , and Hc in the controller
system (23) can be constructed according to the formulas:
Fc

=

Gc

=

Hc

=

F + G2 Hc − Gc H2 + (G1 − Gc K21 )G†1 X;
†
(I − Y X)−1 (Y H2† + G1 K21
)E2−1 ;
†
†
(29)
−E1−1 (G2 X + K12 H1 ).

C. Riccati Equations in the Physical Realizability of Linear
Quantum Systems
In the coherent quantum H ∞ control problem considered
above (see also, [39], [43], [69], [73] as well in other
coherent quantum control problems such as the coherent
quantum LQG problem [40]), it is required that the controller
be a physically realizable quantum system. One way to
achieve this is to first design a classical linear controller and
then to add additional quantum noises to the controller to
make it physically realizable; e.g., see [39], [69], [74]. In
this section, we consider a result from [74] in which the
Riccati equation plays a key role in this problem when it is
desired to minimize the number of added quantum noises to
make a system physically realizable.
Here, we consider quantum linear systems described by
QSDEs of the following form (see [39]):
dx(t)

= Ax(t)dt + Bdw(t);

dy(t)

= Cx(t)dt + Ddw(t).

(30)


T
Here, x(t) = x1 (t) · · · xn (t)
is a column vector
of n self-adjoint system variables which are operators on
the underlying Hilbert space. The components of vector x
are either position operators qi or momentum operators pi ,
which are related to the annihilation and creation operators
considered above as follows:
qi = ai + a∗i ;

pi = −ıai + ıa∗i .

Similarly, dw(t) is a column vector of nw self-adjoint,
non-commutative operators representing the input to the
system and dy(t) is a column vector of ny self-adjoint,
non-commutative operators representing the output of the
system. The components of vector w are either input field
position operators Qi or input field momentum operators Pi ,
which are related to the input field annihilation and creation
operators considered above as follows:
Qi = Ai + A∗i ;

Pi = −ıAi + ıA∗i .

Also, the components of the vector y are either output field
position operators Qout
or output field momentum operators
i
Piout , which are related to the output field annihilation and
creation operators considered above as follows:
Qout
= Aout
+ Aout∗
;
i
i
i

Piout = −ıAout
+ ıAout∗
.
i
i

We consider the problem of implementing an arbitrary,
strictly proper, LTI system as a quantum system (for example
when implementing a coherent controller) by introducing
vacuum noise sources. The resulting quantum systems are
described by the following QSDEs which are a special case
of (30):
dx(t)

=

dy(t) =

Ax(t)dt + Bu du(t)
+ Bv1 dv1 (t) + Bv2 dv2 (t);
Cx(t)dt + dv1 (t).

(31)

Here, u(t) (a column vector with nu components) represents the inputs to the system. Also, v1 (t) and v2 (t) (column
vectors with nv1 and nv2 components respectively) are
quantum Wiener processes corresponding to the introduced
vacuum noise inputs. For convenience, the vacuum noises
are partitioned into two vectors v1 (t) and v2 (t) such that
nv1 = nu . Then, nv = nv1 + nv2 is the total number of
introduced vacuum noise inputs. Subsequently, we will refer
to v1 as the direct feedthrough quantum noises and to v2 as
the additional quantum noises.
Definition 3: The system described by (30) is physically
realizable if there exists a quadratic Hamiltonian operator
H = 21 x(0)T Rx(0), where R is a real, symmetric, n × n
matrix, and a coupling operator vector L = Λx(0), where Λ
is a complex-valued 21 nw × n coupling matrix such that the
matrices A, B, C and D are given by:

A = 2Θ R + Im Λ† Λ ;
(32a)
 †

T
B = 2iΘ −Λ Λ Γ;
(32b)



#
0
Σny
Λ+Λ
;
(32c)
C = PT
0
Σny −iΛ + iΛ#


(32d)
D = Iny ×ny 0ny ×(nw −ny ) .

Here:

J
0

Θ = .
 ..

0

0
J
..
.
0

···
···
..
.
···



0
0

..  ;
.

J=

J




0 1
.
−1 0

(33)

 i 
=  P diag(M ); M
=  21 11 −i
Γnw ×nw
;
I 12 ny × 21 ny 0 21 ny × 12 (nw −ny ) ;
P
is
=
Σny
the
appropriately
dimensioned  square
permuta-
a
a
·
·
· a2m
tion
matrix
such
that
P
1
2

= a1 a3 · · · a2m−1 a2 a4 · · · a2m and diag(M )
is an appropriately dimensioned square block diagonal
matrix with each diagonal block equal to the matrix M .
(Note that the dimensions of P and diag(M ) can always be
determined from the context in which they appear.) Im (.)
denotes the imaginary part of a matrix and † denotes the
complex conjugate transpose of a matrix.
The following theorem shows how a Riccati equation with
a skew-symmetric solution can be used to determine if a
given transfer function can be physically realized with only
direct feedthrough noises and no additional quantum noises.
Theorem 6: Consider a system with strictly proper transfer function matrix:
G(s) = C̃(sI − Ã)−1 B̃u .
Suppose the algebraic Riccati equation (ARE)
X B̃u Θnu B̃uT X − ÃT X − X Ã − C̃ T Θny C̃ = 0

(34)

has a non-singular, real, skew-symmetric solution X. Here,
the matrices Θnu and Θny are defined as in (33). Then there
exists matrices {A, Bu , C} such that
G(s) = C(sI − A)−1 Bu
and the corresponding system (31) is physically realizable
with only the direct feedthrough quantum noises v1 and no
additional quantum noises v2 .
R EFERENCES
[1] H. Kwakernaak and R. Sivan, Linear Optimal Control Systems. Wiley,
1972.
[2] K. Zhou, J. Doyle, and K. Glover, Robust and Optimal Control. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996.
[3] I. R. Petersen, B. D. O. Anderson, and E. A. Jonckheere, “A first
principles solution to the non-singular H ∞ control problem,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 1, no. 3, pp.
171–185, 1991.
[4] I. R. Petersen, V. A. Ugrinovskii, and A. V. Savkin, Robust Control
Design using H ∞ Methods. Springer-Verlag London, 2000.
[5] A. Lanzon and I. R. Petersen, “Stability robustness of a feedback interconnection of systems with negative imaginary frequency response,”
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 1042–
1046, 2008, arXiv:1401.7739.
[6] J. Xiong, I. R. Petersen, and A. Lanzon, “A negative imaginary lemma
and the stability of interconnections of linear negative imaginary
systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 55, no. 10,
pp. 2342 – 2347, 2010.
[7] I. R. Petersen and A. Lanzon, “Feedback control of negative-imaginary
systems,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 54 –
72, 2010, arXiv:1401.7745.
[8] J. Xiong, I. R. Petersen, and A. Lanzon, “On lossless negative
imaginary systems,” Automatica, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 1213 – 1217,
2012.

[9] J. Xiong, A. Lanzon, and I. R. Petersen, “Negative imaginary lemmas
for descriptor systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 491–496, 2016.
[10] M. Opmeer, “Infinite-dimensional negative imaginary systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 56, no. 12, pp. 2973–2976,
2011.
[11] P. Benner and M. Voigt, “Spectral characterization and enforcement
of negative imaginariness for descriptor systems,” Linear Algebra and
its Applications, vol. 439, no. 4, pp. 1104–1129, 2013.
[12] A. Ferrante and L. Ntogramatzidis, “Some new results in the theory of
negative imaginary systems with symmetric transfer matrix function,”
Automatica, vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 2138–2144, 2013.
[13] M. Liu and J. Xiong, “On α-and d-negative imaginary systems,”
International Journal of Control, vol. 88, no. 10, pp. 1933–1941, 2015.
[14] ——, “On non-proper negative imaginary systems,” Systems & Control
Letters, vol. 88, pp. 47–53, 2016.
[15] A. Ferrante, A. Lanzon, and L. Ntogramatzidis, “Foundations of
not necessarily rational negative imaginary systems theory: Relations
between classes of negative imaginary and positive real systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 3052–3057,
2016.
[16] A. Buscarino, L. Fortuna, and M. Frasca, “Forward action to make a
system negative imaginary,” Systems & Control Letters, vol. 94, pp.
57–62, 2016.
[17] A. Dey, S. Patra, and S. Sen, “Absolute stability analysis for negativeimaginary systems,” Automatica, vol. 67, pp. 107–113, 2016.
[18] C. H. Cai and G. Hagen, “Stability analysis for a string of coupled
stable subsystems with negative imaginary frequency response,” IEEE
Transactions On Automatic Control, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 1958–1963,
Aug. 2010.
[19] M. A. Mabrok, A. G. Kallapur, I. R. Petersen, and A. Lanzon, “A
generalized negative imaginary lemma and Riccati-based static statefeedback negative imaginary synthesis,” Systems and Control Letters,
vol. 77, no. 63-68, 2015.
[20] D. Halim and S. O. R. Moheimani, “Spatial resonant control of
flexible structures-application to a piezoelectric laminate beam,” IEEE
Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 37–53,
2001.
[21] H. R. Pota, S. O. R. Moheimani, and M. Smith, “Resonant controllers
for smart structures,” Smart Materials and Structures, vol. 11, no. 1,
pp. 1–8, 2002.
[22] A. Preumont, Vibration Control of Active Structures, 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2002.
[23] S. P. Bhat and D. K. Miu, “Precise point-to-point positioning control of
flexible structures,” ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement,
and Control, vol. 112, pp. 667–674, 1990.
[24] P. Dang, F. L. Lewis, K. Subbarao, and H. Stephanou, “Shape control
of flexible structure using potential field method,” in 17th IEEE
International Conference on Control Applications, San Antonio, TX,
September 2008, pp. 540–546.
[25] B. Bhikkaji, S. O. R. Moheimani, and I. R. Petersen, “A negative
imaginary approach to modeling and control of a collocated structure,”
IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 717–
727, 2012.
[26] T. McKelvey and S. O. R. Moheimani, “Estimation of phase constrained MIMO transfer functions with application to flexible structures with mixed collocated and non-collocated actuators and sensors,”
in Proceedings of the 16th IFAC World Congress, Prague, Czech
Republic, July 2005, pp. 219–224.
[27] S. Moheimani, B. Vautier, and B. Bhikkaji, “Experimental implementation of extended multivariable PPF control of an active structure,”
IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 14, no. 3, pp.
433–455, 2006.
[28] I. A. Mahmood, S. O. R. Moheimani, and B. Bhikkaji, “A new
scanning method for fast atomic force microscopy,” IEEE Transactions
On Nanotechnology, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 203–216, Mar. 2011.
[29] M. A. Mabrok, A. G. Kallapur, I. R. Petersen, and A. Lanzon, “Spectral conditions for negative imaginary systems with applications to
nano-positioning,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 19,
no. 3, pp. 895–903, 2014.
[30] M. Mabrok, A. Lanzon, A. Kallapur, and I. Petersen, “Enforcing
negative imaginary dynamics on mathematical system models,” International Journal of Control, vol. 86, no. 7, pp. 1292–1303, 2013.
[31] M. Mabrok, A. G. Kallapur, I. R. Petersen, and A. Lanzon, “Generalized negative imaginary lemma for descriptor systems,” Journal

[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]

[36]

[37]
[38]

[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]

[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]

[57]

of Mechanics Engineering and Automation, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 17–21,
2012.
J. Xiong, J. Lam, and I. R. Petersen, “Output feedback negative
imaginary synthesis under structural constraints,” Automatica, vol. 71,
pp. 222–228, 2016.
V. Belavkin, “On the theory of controlling observable quantum systems,” Automation and Remote Control, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 178–188,
1983.
H. M. Wiseman, “Quantum theory of continuous feedback,” Physical
Review A, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 2133–2150, 1994.
A. Doherty and K. Jacobs, “Feedback-control of quantum systems
using continuous state-estimation,” Physical Review A, vol. 60, pp.
2700–2711, 1999.
M. Yanagisawa and H. Kimura, “Transfer function approach to quantum control-part I: Dynamics of quantum feedback systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 48, no. 12, pp. 2107–2120,
2003.
——, “Transfer function approach to quantum control-part II: Control
concepts and applications,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
vol. 48, no. 12, pp. 2121–2132, 2003.
D. Dong and I. R. Petersen, “Quantum control theory and applications:
A survey,” IET Control Theory & Applications, vol. 4, no. 12, pp.
2651–2671, 2010, arXiv:0910.2350.
M. R. James, H. I. Nurdin, and I. R. Petersen, “H ∞ control of
linear quantum stochastic systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 1787–1803, 2008.
H. I. Nurdin, M. R. James, and I. R. Petersen, “Coherent quantum
LQG control,” Automatica, vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 1837–1846, 2009.
J. Gough, R. Gohm, and M. Yanagisawa, “Linear quantum feedback
networks,” Physical Review A, vol. 78, p. 062104, 2008.
A. I. Maalouf and I. R. Petersen, “Bounded real properties for a class
of linear complex quantum systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 786 – 801, 2011.
——, “Coherent H ∞ control for a class of linear complex quantum
systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 56, no. 2, pp.
309–319, 2011.
H. Mabuchi, “Coherent-feedback quantum control with a dynamic
compensator,” Physical Review A, vol. 78, p. 032323, 2008.
N. Yamamoto, H. I. Nurdin, M. R. James, and I. R. Petersen,
“Avoiding entanglement sudden-death via feedback control in a quantum network,” Physical Review A, vol. 78, no. 4, p. 042339, 2008,
arXiv:0806.4754.
I. R. Petersen, “Cascade cavity realization for a class of complex
transfer functions arising in coherent quantum feedback control,”
Automatica, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1757–1763, 2011.
A. J. Shaiju and I. R. Petersen, “A frequency domain condition for the
physical realizability of linear quantum systems,” IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 2033 – 2044, 2012.
H. I. Nurdin, M. R. James, and A. C. Doherty, “Network synthesis
of linear dynamical quantum stochastic systems,” SIAM Journal on
Control and Optimization, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 2686–2718, 2009.
J. Gough and M. R. James, “The series product and its application to
quantum feedforward and feedback networks,” IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, vol. 54, no. 11, pp. 2530–2544, 2009.
J. E. Gough, M. R. James, and H. I. Nurdin, “Squeezing components
in linear quantum feedback networks,” Physical Review A, vol. 81, p.
023804, 2010.
H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Measurement and
Control. Cambridge University Press, 2010.
D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Optics. Berlin; New York:
Springer-Verlag, 1994.
C. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum Noise. Berlin: Springer, 2000.
H. Bachor and T. Ralph, A Guide to Experiments in Quantum Optics,
2nd ed. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH, 2004.
I. R. Petersen, V. Ugrinovskii, and M. R. James, “Robust stability of
uncertain linear quantum systems,” Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society A, vol. 370, no. 1979, pp. 5354–5363, 2012.
H. Nurdin, I. R. Petersen, and M. R. James, “On the infeasibility of
entanglement generation in Gaussian quantum systems via classical
control,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 57, no. 1, pp.
198–203, 2012, arXiv:1107.3174.
V. P. Belavkin and S. C. Edwards, “Quantum filtering and optimal
control,” in Quantum Stochastics and Information: Statistics, Filtering
and Control (University of Nottingham, UK, 15 - 22 July 2006), V. P.
Belavkin and M. Guta, Eds. Singapore: World Scientific, 2008.

[58] H. M. Wiseman and A. C. Doherty, “Optimal unravellings for feedback
control in linear quantum systems,” Physics Review Letters, vol. 94,
pp. 070 405–1 – 070 405–1, 2005.
[59] N. Yamamoto, “Robust observer for uncertain linear quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 74, pp. 032 107–1 – 032 107–10, 2006.
[60] G. Sarma, A. Silberfarb, and H. Mabuchi, “Quantum stochastic calculus approach to modeling double-pass atom-field coupling,” Physical
Review A, vol. 78, p. 025801, 2008.
[61] R. Hudson and K. Parthasarathy, “Quantum Ito’s formula and stochastic evolution,” Communications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 93, pp.
301–323, 1984.
[62] K. Parthasarathy, An Introduction to Quantum Stochastic Calculus.
Berlin: Birkhauser, 1992.
[63] L. Bouten, R. van Handel, and M. James, “An introduction to quantum
filtering,” SIAM J. Control and Optimization, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 2199–
2241, 2007.
[64] H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, “All-optical versus electro-optical
quantum-limited feedback,” Physical Review A, vol. 49, no. 5, pp.
4110–4125, 1994.
[65] S. Lloyd, “Coherent quantum feedback,” Physical Review A, vol. 62,
no. 022108, 2000.
[66] A. I. Maalouf and I. R. Petersen, “Coherent H ∞ control for a
class of linear complex quantum systems.” in 2009 American Control
Conference, St Louis, Mo, June 2009.
[67] J. E. Gough and S. Wildfeuer, “Enhancement of field squeezing using
coherent feedback,” Physical Review A, vol. 80, p. 042107, 2009.
[68] I. R. Petersen, “Quantum linear systems theory,” in Proceedings of the
19th International Symposium on Mathematical Theory of Networks
and Systems, Budapest, Hungary, July 2010.
[69] ——, “Control and robustness for quantum linear systems,” in Proceedings of the 2013 Chinese Control Conference, Xian, China, July
2013.
[70] M. A. Mabrok, A. G. Kallapur, I. R. Petersen, and A. Lanzon,
“Generalizing negative imaginary systems theory to include free
body dynamics: Control of highly resonant structures with free body
motion,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 59, no. 10,
pp. 2692–2707, October 2014, arXiv:1305.1079.
[71] P. A. Meyer, Quantum Probability for Probabilists, 2nd ed. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 1995.
[72] L. A. D. Espinosa, Z. Miao, I. R. Petersen, V. Ugrinovskii, and
M. R. James, “Physical realizability of multi-level quantum systems,”
in Proceedings of the 2012 Australian Control Conference, Sydney,
Australia, November 2012, arXiv:1208.3516.
[73] I. R. Petersen, “Quantum linear systems theory,” Open Automation
and Control Systems Journal, vol. 8, pp. 67–93, 2016.
[74] S. L. Vuglar and I. R. Petersen, “Quantum noises, physical realizability and coherent quantum feedback control,” IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 998–1003, 2017.

