On a frame theoretic measure of quality of LTI
systems

arXiv:1703.07539v1 [math.OC] 22 Mar 2017

Mohammed Rayyan Sheriff, Debasish Chatterjee

Abstract—It is of practical significance to define the notion
of a measure of quality of a control system, i.e., a quantitative
extension of the classical notion of controllability. In this article
we demonstrate that the three standard measures of quality
involving the trace, minimum eigenvalue, and the determinant of
the controllability grammian achieve their optimum values when
the columns of the controllability matrix from a tight frame.
Motivated by this, and in view of some recent developments in
frame theoretic signal processing, we provide a measure of quality
for LTI systems based on a measure of tightness of the columns
of the reachability matrix .

AB
B
(a)

2

A′ B ′
A′ B ′
B′
(b)

Figure 1: Comparison of the orientation of the columns of
C(A,B,T ) and C(A′ ,B ′ ,T )
We see that for the system (A′ , B ′ ), since the vectors
2
B , A′ B ′ , A′ B ′ form small angles with each other, intuitively,
the transfer of the system state to final states xT that is
in approximately orthogonal directions to these vectors will
demand control with higher magnitudes. In contrast, for the
system (A, B) the vectors are spread out in space and will in
general require lower control magnitude. Such a collection of
vectors are called as tight frames. It turns out that tight frames
have many practical advantages over generic collection of
vectors [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] from signal processing perspective.
In this article we shall establish that if the columns of C(A,B,T )
constitute a tight frame, one also gets several control theoretic
advantages.
In particular, we provide a notion of quantitative controllability, which we shall refer to as the Measure Of Quality
(MOQ) of a control system. Intuitively speaking, any measure
of quality should relate to some important characteristics of
the system like average control energy / control effort required,
robustness to input / noise, ability to control the systems with
sparse controls etc We shall see below that such intuitive ideas
are indeed justified.
mT
Let us define the control effort
−→ R of a control
 J :R
sequence u(0), . . . , u(T − 1) , defined by
′

I. I NTRODUCTION
Let us consider a linear time invariant controlled system
x(t + 1) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) for t = 1, 2, . . . ,

A2 B

(1)

where A ∈ Rn×n and B ∈ Rn×m , with n and m some
positive integers 1 . For T ∈ N, let Rn×T m ∋ C(A,B,T ) ≔
B AB · · · AT −1 B . Then the reachable space R(A,B)
and the reachability index τ of the LTI system (1) are defined
by

R(A,B) ≔ image C(A,B,n) ,


τ ≔ min t ∈ N| image C(A,B,t) = R(A,B) .

We say that the control system (1) is controllable in the classi-
cal sense if it admits a control sequence u(0), . . . , u(T − 1)
that can transfer the states of the system (1) from x(0) = x0 to
x(T ) = xT for preassigned values of x0 , xT whenever T ≥ τ .
It is common knowledge that the LTI system (1) is controllable
if and only if the matrix C(A,B,τ ) is of rank n.
However, in most of the practical scenarios, information
about the system behavior provided by the classical notion
of controllability is limited. In particular, no assessment of
“how controllable” is a given LTI system is provided by the
classical ideas. Naturally, together with knowing whether a
control system is controllable or not, one would also like to
know how controllable or how good is the control system. In
other words, there is a clear need to quantify the notion of
controllability.
For instance, let us consider two second order LTI systems
described by the pairs (A, B) and (A′ , B ′ ) such that for T = 3
the columns of the matrices C(A,B,T ) , C(A′ ,B ′ ,T ) are as shown
in the following figure.
1 The set of n×n real symmetric positive definite and positive semi definite
n×n
matrices are denoted by Rn×n
respectively, image(M ) is the
++ and R+
column space of the matrix M , tr(M ) is the trace of the matrix M , x⊤ is
the transpose of the vector x, kxk2 is the ℓ2 -norm of the vector x.

−1
 TX
2
J u(0), . . . , u(T − 1) ≔
ku(t)k2 ,
t=0

is a quantity of practical significance. For example, the value
of the control effort in an electronic circuit system would
involve information of the amount of power drawn to control
the system. One of the primary objectives in controlling a
dynamical system efficiently could be to minimize the required
control effort. Therefore, let us consider the following optimal
control problem:

minimize J u(0), . . . , u(T − 1)
u(t)

subject to x(0) = 0, x(T ) = x,
x(t) evolves according to (1).

(2)

Let the grammian G(A,B,T ) be defined by
G(A,B,T ) ≔

T
−1
X
t=0

other examples of the tight frames of R2 are shown in figure
below.

⊤
At BB ⊤ (A⊤ )t = C(A,B,T ) C(A,B,T
).

We know that the optimal control problem (2) admits
 an
unique optimal control sequence u∗ (0), . . . , u∗ (T − 1) with
the optimum control effort J(A, B, x) given by:
⊤
⊤ ⊤
+
u∗ (T − 1) · · · u∗ (0)
≔ C(A,B,T
) x,

∗
∗
⊤ −1
J(A, B, x) ≔ J u (0), . . . , u (T − 1) = x G(A,B,T ) x.
(3)
We briefly review some of the most well known MOQ’s
studied in the literature [6], [7], [8]; they capture someinformation pertaining to optimum control effort needed to control
the system:

(i) tr G−1
(A,B,T ) : This is proportional to the average optimal control effort needed to transfer the system state
from origin (i.e., x0 = 0,) to a random point that is
uniformly distributed
on the unit sphere.

(ii) λ−1
G
:
This
gives the maximum control effort
(A,B,T )
min
needed to transfer the system state from origin to any
point on the unit
 sphere.
(iii) det G(A,B,T ) : This proportional to the volume of the
ellipsoid containing points to which the system state
can be transferred to from the origin using at most unit
control effort.
A finite value of the MOQ in (i) and (ii), and a nonzero
value in (iii), implies that the system (1) is controllable in the
classical sense. In addition, since these quantities also contain
some information about the optimal control effort, they can be
considered as valid candidates for an MOQ. However, these
MOQ’s are increasingly difficult to compute as the size of
the system becomes larger, and since they arise primarily in
the context of the optimal control problem (2), they do not
provide meaningful insights about properties such as immunity
to noise, robustness, ability to generate sparse controls etc.
For the dynamical system (1), we shall motivate the notion
of an MOQ from the perspective of the orientation of the
columns of the matrix C(A,B,T ) . We shall prove in this article
that the three MOQ’s discussed above achieve their optimum
value when the columns of the matrix C(A,B,T ) constitute
a tight frame. We provide an MOQ for the system (1) as
a measure of the tightness of the columns of C(A,B,T ) , and
provide a sufficient condition for the classical controllability
of the system (1) in terms of the proposed MOQ.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 2: Tight frames of R2 .
The collection of vectors pointing towards the corners
of platonic solids also constitute tight frames; several other
examples may be found in [9].
The study of frames was started by Duffin and Schaeffer
[10] and improvised greatly by work of Daubechies et al.
in [11]. Recent work on characterization of tight frames as
minimizers of a certain potential function was done in [9]
and [12]. The growing interest in developing the theory of
tight frames is mainly because, tight frames possess several
desirable properties. For example, the representation of signals
using tight frames exhibits better resilience to noise and
quantization [2], [3]. Tight frames are also considered to
be good for representing signals sparsely, and are the ℓ2 optimal dictionaries for representing vectors that are uniformly
distributed over spheres [1, Proposition 2.13, p. 10]. These
are just a few among the plethora of useful properties of
tight frames that make them relevant and important for many
applications.
We now formally discuss the concept of tight frames, their
properties, and their characterization.
Definition 2. The fame operator G(v1 ,...,vK ) : Hn −→ Hn of
a sequence (v1 , . . . , vK ) of vectors is defined by
G(v1 ,...,vK ) (v) ≔

K
X
i=1

hv, vm ivm .

The following result provides the necessary and sufficient
conditions for tightness of a frame.
Theorem 3. [12, Proposition 1, p. 2, ] [9, Theorem 2.1, p. 4]
A sequence of vectors (v1 , . . . , vK ) ⊂ Hn is a tight frame to
Hn with some constant a > 0, if and only if
• The lengths kvi k of the frame vectors satisfy
K

2

II. R EVIEW

max kvi k ≤ a ≔

OF TIGHT FRAMES

Definition 1. For an n dimensional Hilbert space Hn with an
inner product h·, ·i, a sequence of vectors (v1 , . . . , vK ) ⊂ Hn
is said to be a frame of Hn if it spans Hn ; a frame is said
to be tight, if there exists a number
that for every
P a > 0 such
2
|hv,
v
i|
holds.
v ∈ Hn , the equality a kvk2 = K
i
i=1

A classical example of a tight frame is an orthonormal basis
of Hn that satisfies the definition with a = 1 and K = n. Some

i=1,...,K
•

1X
2
kvi k .
n i=1

The frame operator satisfies G(v1 ,...,vK ) = aIn , where In
is the identity operator on Hn .

A. Characterization of Tight Frames
We observe that the definition of a tight frame does not give
a direct method to compute them. One of the ways to compute
tight frames is by minimizing a certain potential function that

is motivated from physical examples briefly outlined in [9],
[12]. The following definitions are relevant for this article:

We get the following analogue of Theorem 6.

Definition 4. The frame force FF : Hn × Hn −→ Hn
experienced by a point u ∈ Hn due to another point v ∈ Hn
is defined by

Proposition 7. For any sequence of vectors (v1 , . . . , vK ) ⊂
Hn , we have
1
NFP(v1 , . . . , vK ) ≥ .
n

FF (u, v) ≔ 2 hu, vi (u − v).

The preceding inequality is satisfied with the equality if and
only if (v1 , . . . , vK ) is a tight frame of Hn .

Definition 5. The frame potential function FP : HnK −→ R
of a sequence of vectors (v1 , . . . , vK ) is defined by
FP(v1 , . . . , vK ) ≔

K X
K
X
i=1 j=1

tr G2(v1 ,...,vK ) = FP(v1 , . . . , vK ) and it also follows that,

|hvj , vi i|2 .

Observe that the frame force between any two points in
Hn pushes them towards orthogonality. In this sense we can
say that a tight frame is the “most orthogonal” collection of
vectors in Hn ; alternatively, a tight frame is a collection of
vectors that are maximally spread out in the space. It was
established in [12], [9] that finite tight frames for Hn are in an
equilibrium configuration under the frame force, and hence are
the local minimizers of the associated frame potential. Thus,
tight frames are characterized as the minimizers of the frame
potential, and can be computed by variational techniques. This
particular fact is the assertion of the following theorem.
Theorem 6. [12, Proposition 4, p. 8] For any sequence of
vectors (v1 , . . . , vK ) ⊂ Hn , the following holds
2
 K
1 X
2
kvi k
≤ FP(v1 , . . . , vK ).
n i=1
The preceding inequality is satisfied with equality if and only
if (v1 , . . . , vK ) is a tight frame of Hn .
From Theorem 6 we conclude that tight frames are not only
local, but are global minimizers of the frame potential, subject
to the constraint that the length of each vector in the sequence
is fixed. Thus, we can say that the frame potential of a given
sequence (v1 , . . . , vK ) gives us a measure of its tightness.
However, the lower bound of the frame potential given by
Theorem 6 depends on the sequence itself. This restricts the
use of the frame potential of a sequence as a measure of its
tightness when comparing two generic frames. For example,

let us consider the frames
F1 ≔ √
(1, 0)⊤
, (1, 1)⊤ and
√

F2 ≔ (10, 0)⊤ , (−5, −5 3)⊤ , (−5, 5 3)⊤ of R2 . From
Definition 5, the frame potential of the frames F1 and F2
are 7 and 45000 respectively. Even though 7 < 45000, from
the second assertion of Theorem 3 we see that the frame F1 is
not tight, where as F2 is a tight frame. To address this issue,
we normalize the frame potential by appropriately scaling the
vectors so that the frame potential calculated this way is a
constant for every tight frame.
Let (v1 , . . . , vK ) ⊂ Hn be any sequence of vectors, we define the Normalized Frame Potential ( NFP ) of the sequence
(v1 , . . . , vK ) using its frame operator as
NFP(v1 , . . . , vK ) ≔ 

tr G2(v1 ,...,vK )
2 .
tr G(v1 ,...,vK )

Proof. From [13, Lemma 1, p. 7]

tr G(v1 ,...,vK ) =

i=1

Then

kvi k2 .

FP(v1 , . . . , vK )
NFP(v1 , . . . , vK ) =  P
2 ,
K
2
kv
k
i
i=1

and the assertion follows immediately from Theorem 6.
The NFP of the frames F1 and F2 are 7/9 and 1/2
respectively, which clearly indicates that the frame F2 is tighter
than the frame F1 . Our NFP (4) allows us to compare the
tightness of any two arbitrary sequences of vectors in Hn and
therefore can be regarded as a valid measure of tightness of
the given sequence of vectors.
III. M AIN R ESULTS
We would like to find the optimal orientations of the
columns of the matrix C(A,B,T ) , that optimize the three mea
sure of qualities discussed in Section I, namely, tr G−1
(A,B,T ) ,
λ−1
min (G(A,B,T ) ) and det(G(A,B,T ) ). Let us consider a generic
sequence (v1 , . . . , vK ) ⊂ Rn of vectors. Then the three
MOQ’s stated above evaluated for the generic sequence
(v1 , . . . , vK ) are given in terms of the corresponding frame
−1
operator G(v1 ,...,vK ) by tr G−1
(v1 ,...,vK ) , λmin G(v1 ,...,v
 K)

and det G(v1 ,...,vK ) respectively. Let α1 , . . . , αK be a
non increasing
sequence of positive real numbers such that
P
α
α1 ≤ n1 K
i=1 i .
In order to find the optimal orientation of the vectors,

we optimize the three objective functions tr G−1
,
(v
,...,v
)
1
K


−1
λmin G(v1 ,...,vK ) and det G(v1 ,...,vK ) , subject to the constraint that the lengths of the vectors are fixed, i.e., hvi , vi i =
αi for all i = 1, . . . , K. Thus, we have the following three
optimization problems:


minimize tr G−1
(v1 ,...,vK )
vi

subject to

hvi , vi i = αi

for all i = 1, . . . , K,

(5)

span(v1 , . . . , vK ) = Rn .

minimize
vi

(4)

K
X

subject to



λ−1
min G(v1 ,...,vK )

hvi , vi i = αi for all i = 1, . . . , K,
span(v1 , . . . , vK ) = Rn .

(6)

maximize
vi

subject to



det G(v1 ,...,vK )

hvi , vi i = αi for all i = 1, . . . , K,
span(v1 , . . . , vK ) = Rn .

(7)

Theorem 8. A sequence of vectors (v1 , . . . , vK ), that is
feasible for the optimization problems (5), (6) and (7) is an
optimal solution if and only if it is a tight frame of Rn .
Proof. For the non increasing finite sequences λ ≔
(λ1 , . . . , λn ), and α ≔ (α1 , . . . , αK ) of positive real numbers
we define the relation λ ≻ α if the following two conditions
hold:
m
m
X
X
λi ≥
αi for all m = 1, . . . , n − 1, and
i=1

i=1

K
X

i=1

λi =

(8)

αi .

i=1

The conditions of (8) are analogue of the standard majorization
conditions [14, Chapter 1].
n×n
For a symmetric non negative definite matrix G ∈ R+
,
we define λ(G) ≔ λ1 (G), . . . , λn (G) to be the non increasingP
sequence
 of the eigenvalues of the matrix G. Let
K
a ≔ n1 i=1 αi .
We will use the following result related to the decomposition
of non-negative definite matrices.
Lemma 9. [15, Theorem 4.6] [13, Theorem 2.8, p. 4] For
any given sequence of positive real numbers α and a non
n×n
with K ≥ n, the following
negative definite matrix G ∈ R++
statements are equivalent:
n
• There exists a sequence of vectors (v1 , . . . , vK ) ⊂ R
such that G = G(v1 ,...,vK ) and hvi , vi i = αi for all i =
1, 2, . . . , K.
• λ(G) ≻ α.
On the one hand, for any sequence of vectors (v1 , . . . , vK )
that are feasible for the optimization problems (5), (6) and (7),
n×n
from Lemma 9 it follows that G(v1 ,...,vK ) ∈ R++
and λ(G) ≻
α. On the other hand, for any symmetric positive definite
matrix G such that λ(G) ≻ α, we conclude again from Lemma
9 that there exists a sequence of vectors (v1 , . . . , vK ) ⊂ Rn
such that G = G(v1 ,...,vK ) , span(v1 , . . . , vK ) = Rn , and
hvi , vi i = αi for all i = 1, . . . , K. Therefore, under the
mapping
n×n
Rn×K ∋ (v1 , . . . , vK ) 7−→ G(v1 ,...,vK ) ∈ R+
,

(9)

the optimization problems:
minimize
G ∈ Rn×n
++

tr(G−1 )

subject to λ(G) ≻ α,

λ−1
min (G)

subject to

λ(G) ≻ α,

maximize

det(G)

subject to

λ(G) ≻ α,

G ∈ Rn×n
++

Note that the optimization problems (5), (6) and (7) are
optimization problems over sequences of vectors. The next
Theorem characterizes and provides solutions of (5), (6) and
(7); in its proof we get equivalent optimization problems with
non negative definite matrices as variables.

n
X

minimize

(10)

G ∈ Rn×n
++

(11)

(12)

are equivalent to (5), (6) and (7) respectively.
Claim 10. G∗ ≔ aIn is the unique (corresponding to a given
α) optimal solution of the optimization problem (10).
Proof. Let us consider the following optimization problem:
minimize

tr(G−1 )

subject to

tr(G) = na.

G ∈ Rn×n
++

(13)

The optimization problem (13) is the same as (22) in [1, p. 17]
with ΣV = In , whose solution is given in (25) of the same
article. Therefore, from [1] we conclude that G∗ ≔ aIn is the
unique optimal solution to the problem (13).
It is easy to see that for a symmetric non negative definite
matrix G, the condition that λ(G) ≻ α is sufficient for the
equality tr(G) = na to hold. Therefore, the optimum value
tr(G∗ −1 ) in the optimization problem (13) is a lower bound
of the optimal value (if it exists) of the problem (10).
However, it can be easily verified that λ(G∗ ) ≻ α; thus, G∗
is feasible for the optimization problem (10), and the objective
function evaluated at G = G∗ is equal to tr(G∗ −1 ), which is
a lower bound of the optimal value of (10). Therefore, the
optimization problem (10) admits an optimal solution. Since
G∗ is the unique solution to (13), we conclude that G∗ is the
unique optimal solution to (10) as well.
Claim 11. G∗ ≔ aIn is the unique (corresponding to a given
α) optimal solution of the optimization problem (11).
Proof. The objective function and the constraint in problem
(11) can be explicitly characterized in terms of the eigenvalues
of the variable matrix G. Then under the map
n×n
R++
∋ G 7−→ λ(G),

(14)

we get the following optimization problem equivalent to (11).
−1
minimize
min{λ1 , . . . , λn }
λi >0
(15)
subject to λ ≻ α.
For every sequence (λ1 , . . . , λn ) that
for the optiPK
Pnis feasible
mization problem (15), we see that i=1 λi = i=1 αi = na.
Therefore,
min{λ1 , . . . , λn } ≤ a, leading to,
−1
min{λ1 , . . . , λn }
≥ a−1 .

Therefore, the value a−1 is a lower bound of the optimal
value (if it exists) of the optimization problem (15). Let us

define λ∗i ≔ a for all i = 1, 2, . . . , n. It can be easily verified
that
(λ∗1 , . . . , λ∗n ) ≻ α and
(16)
−1
min{λ∗1 , . . . , λ∗n }
= a−1 .

From (16) it follows that the sequence (λ∗1 , . . . , λ∗n ) is
feasible for the optimization problem (15), and that the
objective function evaluated at (λ∗1 , . . . , λ∗n ) is equal to the
lower bound a−1 . Therefore, we conclude that the optimization
problem (15) admits an optimal solution, and that the sequence
(λ∗1 , . . . , λ∗n ) is an optimal solution. It should also be noted that
(λ∗1 , . . . , λ∗n ) is the unique sequence of positive real numbers
that satisfies (16). Therefore, the sequence (λ∗1 , . . . , λ∗n ) is the
unique optimal solution of the problem (15).
Due to the equivalence of the optimization problems (11)
and (15), we conclude that the optimization problem (11) also
admits an optimal solution. A non negative definite symmetric
matrix G∗ is an optimal solution of the problem (11) if and
only if it satisfies
λi (G∗ ) = a

for all i = 1, 2, . . . , n,

(17)

and we know for a fact that aIn is the only matrix that satisfies
(17) that is also feasible for the problem (11). Thus, G∗ = aIn
is the unique optimal solution of the problem (11).
Claim 12. G∗ ≔ aIn is the unique (corresponding to a given
α) optimal solution to the optimization problem (12).
Proof. Writing the objective function and the constraints of the
optimization problem (12) in terms of the eigenvalues λ(G)
of the matrix G, we get the following optimization problem
equivalent to (12).
n
Y

maximize
λi >0

λi

(18)

i=1

λ ≻ α.

subject to

For every sequence (λ1 , . . . , λn ) that is feasible for the problem (18), it follows that
n
Y

i=1

λi ≤

n
1 X

n

i=1

λi

n

=

K
1 X

n

αi

i=1

n

= an .

(19)

Therefore, the value an is an upper bound to the optimal value
(if it exists) of the optimization problem (18). Let us define
λ∗i ≔ a for all i = 1, 2, . . . , n, it follows that
(λ∗1 , . . . , λ∗n ) ≻ α, and
n
Y
λ∗i = an .

(20)

i=1

It should also be noted that (λ∗1 , . . . , λ∗n ) is the unique sequence of positive real numbers that satisfies (20). Therefore,
the optimization problem (18) admits an unique optimal solution and the sequence (λ∗1 , . . . , λ∗n ) is the unique optimizer.
Equivalently, as we have seen in the proof of Claim 11,
G∗ ≔ aIn is the unique optimal solution to the optimization
problem (12).

Due to the equivalence of the optimization problem pairs
(5)-(10), (6)-(11) and (7)-(12), we conclude from the Claims
10, 11, and 12 that a sequence (v1 , . . . , vK ) of vectors is an
optimal solution if and only if its frame operator satisfies
G(v1 ,...,vK ) = aIn , which in turn is true if and only if
(v1 , . . . , vK ) is a tight frame (from Theorem 3).
In addition to the fact that tight frames are optimal solutions of the optimization problems (5), (6) and (7), we have
previously listed some desirable properties of tight frames
for representation of generic vectors in Section II. Most of
the reachability(both ballistic and servomechanism [16, p. 7475]) control problems arising in practice, involve solving the
following linear equation for various values of x0 and xT :
xT − AT x0 =

T
−1
X
i=0

Ai B u(T − 1 − i)

(21)

either directly or indirectly. This is equivalent to expressing the
vector xT − AT x0 as a linear combination of the columns of
C(A,B,T ) . We would like to have the the columns of C(A,B,T )
to be oriented as tightly as possible in order to inherit those
advantages. Thus, a measure of quality of the LTI system (1)
should be the measure of tightness of the columns of the matrix
C(A,B,T ) ; this is a key proposal of this article.
Definition 13. We define a measure of quality η(A, B, T ) for
the LTI system (1) as a measure of the tightness of the columns
of C(A,B,T ) ; defined by
η(A, B, T ) ≔

tr G2(A,B,T )
2 .
tr G(A,B,T )

(22)

From Proposition 7, for any LTI system given by the pair
(A, B) ∈ (Rn×n × Rn×m ) and N ∋ T ≥ τ , we have
η(A, B, T ) ≥ 1/n,

(23)

and equality holds only when the columns of matrix C(A,B,T )
constitute a tight frame for Rn . A direct application of the
Proposition 7 gives us the following sufficient condition for
the controllability of the LTI system in terms of the MOQ
η(A, B, T ).
1
Proposition 14. For the LTI system (1), if η(A, B, T ) < n−1
for some T ∈ N, then the LTI system is controllable in the
classical sense.

Proof. Suppose not, i.e., the system (A, B) is not controllable
1
but satisfies η(A, B, T ) < n−1
for some T ∈ N. Let vi be the
th
i column of the matrix C(A,B,T ) for i = 1, . . . , mT . Then
span(v1 , . . . , vmT ) is a d dimensional subspace of Rn , where
d ≤ n − 1. In particular, each vi belongs to this subspace,
which is a Hilbert space in its own right. From Proposition 7
we conclude that
1
1
,
η(A, B, T ) = NFP(v1 , . . . , vmT ) ≥ ≥
d
n−1
which is a contradiction. The assertion follows.

R EFERENCES
[1] M. R. Sheriff and D. Chatterjee, “Optimal dictionary for least squares
representation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.02074, 2016.
[2] L. Shen, M. Papadakis, I. A. Kakadiaris, I. Konstantinidis, D. Kouri, and
D. Hoffman, “Image denoising using a tight frame,” IEEE transactions
on image processing, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 1254–1263, 2006.
[3] W. Zhou, S. Yang, C. Zhang, and S. Fu, “Adaptive tight frame based
multiplicative noise removal,” SpringerPlus, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 122, 2016.
[4] T. Strohmer and R. W. Heath, “Grassmannian frames with applications
to coding and communication,” Applied and computational harmonic
analysis, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 257–275, 2003.
[5] R. B. Holmes and V. I. Paulsen, “Optimal frames for erasures,” Linear
Algebra and its Applications, vol. 377, pp. 31–51, 2004.
[6] P. Müller and H. Weber, “Analysis and optimization of certain qualities of controllability and observability for linear dynamical systems,”
Automatica, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 237–246, 1972.
[7] C. Johnson, “Optimization of a certain quality of complete controllability
and 0bservability for linear dynamical systems’,” 1969.
[8] F. Pasqualetti, S. Zampieri, and F. Bullo, “Controllability metrics,
limitations and algorithms for complex networks,” IEEE Transactions
on Control of Network Systems, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 40–52, 2014.
[9] J. J. Benedetto and M. Fickus, “Finite normalized tight frames,” Advances in Computational Mathematics, vol. 18, no. 2-4, pp. 357–385,
2003.
[10] R. J. Duffin and A. C. Schaeffer, “A class of nonharmonic fourier series,”
Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 72, no. 2, pp.
341–366, 1952.
[11] I. Daubechies, A. Grossmann, and Y. Meyer, “Painless nonorthogonal
expansions,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1271–
1283, 1986.
[12] P. G. Casazza, M. Fickus, J. Kovačević, M. T. Leon, and J. C. Tremain,
“A physical interpretation of tight frames,” in Harmonic analysis and
applications. Springer, 2006, pp. 51–76.
[13] P. G. Casazza and N. Leonhard, “Classes of finite equal norm parseval
frames,” Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 451, pp. 11–32, 2008.
[14] A. W. Marshall, I. Olkin, and B. C. Arnold, Inequalities: theory of
majorization and its applications. Springer, 1979, vol. 143.
[15] J. Antezana, P. Massey, M. Ruiz, D. Stojanoff et al., “The schur-horn
theorem for operators and frames with prescribed norms and frame
operator,” Illinois Journal of Mathematics, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 537–560,
2007.
[16] R. W. Brockett, Finite dimensional linear systems. SIAM, 2015.

