Dimensional-invariance principles in coupled dynamical
systems: A unified analysis and applications

arXiv:1703.07955v2 [cs.SY] 28 Mar 2018

Zhiyong Sun and Changbin Yu

Abstract
In this paper we study coupled dynamical systems and investigate dimension properties of the subspace spanned
by solutions of each individual system. Relevant problems on collinear dynamical systems and their variations
are discussed recently by Montenbruck et. al. in [1], while in this paper we aim to provide a unified analysis
to derive the dimensional-invariance principles for networked coupled systems, and to generalize the invariance
principles for networked systems with more general forms of coupling terms. To be specific, we consider two types
of coupled systems, one with scalar couplings and the other with matrix couplings. Via the rank-preserving flow
theory, we show that any scalar-coupled dynamical system (with constant, time-varying or state-dependent couplings)
possesses the dimensional-invariance principles, in that the dimension of the subspace spanned by the individual
systems’ solutions remains invariant. For coupled dynamical systems with matrix coefficients/couplings, necessary and
sufficient conditions (for constant, time-varying and state-dependent couplings) are given to characterize dimensionalinvariance principles. The proofs via a rank-preserving matrix flow theory in this paper simplify the analysis in [1],
and we also extend the invariance principles to the cases of time-varying couplings and state-dependent couplings.
Furthermore, subspace-preserving property and signature-preserving flows are also developed for coupled networked
systems with particular coupling terms. These invariance principles provide insightful characterizations to analyze
transient behaviors and solution evolutions for a large family of coupled systems, such as multi-agent consensus
dynamics, distributed coordination systems, formation control systems, among others.

I. I NTRODUCTION
In this paper we consider the following coupled dynamical systems consisting of n individual systems
ẋi (t) =

n
X

κij (t)xj (t),

(1)

i=1

where xi ∈ Rd is the state for system i, κij is a coupling weight scalar or matrix between systems j and i (when
i = j, then it is a coefficient scalar/matrix κii for system i). The coupling/coefficient weights could be constant,
time-varying, or state-dependent. The system (1) serves as a very general model to describe many different types
of coupled/networked systems, such as formation control systems [2]–[4], network computation systems [5], [6],
multi-agent consensus dynamics [7], [8].
Coupled dynamical systems are often operated in a networked manner, where each individual system interacts
with other systems to perform a global or common task. Networked control systems in the general model (1) have
This work was supported by the Australian Research Council under grant DP130103610 and DP160104500.
Z. Sun and C. Yu are with Research School of Engineering, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia. C. Yu is also
with Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou, China. Emails: sun.zhiyong.cn@gmail.com, brad.yu@anu.edu.au

been attracting increasing attention in the recent decade and can be found in a variety of applications. Depending on
the actual control task, the coupling terms can be designed to reflect information flows between spatially distributed
systems, communication requirements or constraints, or cooperative interactions incorporating local tasks to achieve
a global task [8].
This paper builds on recent work of [9] and [1], and aims to identify several invariance principles (some
were developed in [1]) for the solutions of each system arising from different couplings and interactions between
individual systems. Invariance principles for distance-based formation systems [3] (which can be described as a
special case of (1)) were discussed in [9], which show that all individual agents’ solutions span a linear subspace
with a constant dimension over time. A more recent paper [1] provided a comprehensive study on this invariance
principle for coupled linear systems, by starting with the collinear dynamical systems with constant coefficients
and couplings. In this paper, we discuss two types of coupled dynamical systems that can be represented by
(1), one with scalar couplings, and the other with matrix couplings, respectively. These principles relate to the
invariance of the dimensions of the subspaces spanned by the solutions of each individual system, which are thus
termed as dimensional-invariance principles. We aim to provide a unified analysis to establish such invariance
principles, by using a different approach from rank-preserving matrix flow theory which simplifies the analysis in
[1]. Furthermore, as compared to [1] which discussed networked systems with constant couplings, we also provide
several generalizations of the dimensional-invariance principle to more general coupling terms (that include timevarying and state-dependent couplings) and to more elaborated invariance principles such as subspace-preserving
property and signature-preserving principles (their definitions will become clear in the context in later sections).
These invariance principles are fundamental yet universal properties for coupled dynamical systems. We note that
in most papers on coupled/networked control systems, the focus has been on the stability and convergence analysis,
while transient behaviors are largely ignored. The results revealed from the dimensional-invariance principles provide
us with additional insights on the transient behaviors and evolutions of all individual solutions, and could assist
the convergence and stability analysis of the overall coupled dynamical systems. An example is the distance-based
formation control system described by gradient flows from potential functions of interest, which show that an
initially collinear formation remains collinear for all time under such flows (see e.g. [3]).
The invariance principles also provide feasible coupling conditions to guarantee that the solutions of individual
systems are constrained in some smaller dimensional spaces, which could find particular applications in several
practical scenarios. For example, collinear solutions of a coupled dynamical system are of particular interests. In
[2], a line formation, in which individual systems’ states are confined in a 1-D subspace, is studied with insights to
more general formations on other dimensions. As another example, for a coupled dynamical system that describes
the coordination of multiple mobile antennas, collinear solutions have practical significance to align directions of all
antennas in a single line [10]. Motivated by these practical applications, the theory of collinear dynamical systems
was studied in [1]. The dimensional-invariance principles, established in [9] (for multi-agent formation systems)
and [1] (for constant couplings) and generalized in this paper (for general couplings), will provide an insightful
framework to facilitate these applications.
The remaining parts of this paper are structured as follows. In Section II, we prove that the solutions of scalar-

coupled dynamical systems have the dimensional-invariance (and furthermore, subspace-preserving) principles,
which thus generalizes the results in [1]. In Section III, matrix-coupled dynamical systems are discussed, for
which necessary and sufficient conditions are given to guarantee the dimensional-invariance principle. The subtle
difference between the subspace-preserving property and (the more general) dimensional-invariance principle is also
elaborated in this section. Applications of the invariance principles in general formation control systems are shown
in Section IV. Section V presents the conclusions of this paper. In the appendix sections, we present preliminary
background on rank-preserving flows, some extensions and proofs, and a brief review of several popular networked
dynamical systems that fit in the general model (1).
A. Assumptions and solution issues of (1)
To address the solution issue of the coupled dynamical system (1), we impose the following mild assumption.
Assumption 1. The coefficient/coupling terms κij are continuous scalar/matrix functions.
The above mild assumption guarantees the existence and uniqueness of the solutions for system (1) [11, Chapter
1.2]. Note that we do not impose additional assumptions on κij ’s. They can be constant, time-varying, statedependent or other general continuous functions. Note also that the system (1) can be a coupled time-invariant
linear system (when κij is constant), a coupled time-varying linear system (when κij (t) is time-varying), or
a coupled nonlinear system (when the coupling term κij depends on the state x). For example, in multi-agent
formation and swarm control, the coupling term κij is usually a function of system states x, written as κij (x).
(See detailed expressions in Table I in the Appendix.) An example on distance-based formation control systems
described by (1) in which κij is a function of x will be discussed in Section IV.
II. C OUPLED

DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS WITH SCALAR - WEIGHTED COUPLINGS

Consider the following coupled dynamical systems with scalar couplings
ẋi (t) =

n
X

wij (t)xj (t),

(2)

i=1

where wij is a scalar (constant or time-varying) coupling weight between agents j and i. Note that we do not
require wij = wji , i.e., the coupling weight could be asymmetric.
A. Main results
In this section we show that the coupled dynamical system (2) has the following dimensional-invariance principle.
Theorem 1. The coupled dynamical system (2) has the dimensional-invariance principle in the sense that
rank(X(t)) = r, (r ≤ d), ∀t ≥ 0,
if rank(X(0)) = r.
where X = [x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ] ∈ Rd×n .

(3)

⊤
⊤ ⊤
dn
Proof. Define the composite vector x = [x⊤
1 , x2 , . . . , xn ] ∈ R . In order to obtain a compact form of the system

ẋ, we define the matrix W (t) = {wij (t)} ∈ Rn×n . Therefore, a compact form of (2) can be written as
ẋ(t) = (W (t) ⊗ Id )x(t),

(4)

where ⊗ denotes the Kronecker product. The vector differential equation (4) on the real vector space Rdn can be
stated equivalently as the following differential flow on the matrix space Rd×n (without involving the Kronecker
product term)
Ẋ(t) = X(t)W ⊤ (t).

(5)

Since the solution of (2) is well defined, the existence and uniqueness of the solution to (5) is also well guaranteed.
Then according to Lemma 2 (in Appendix I), the rank-preserving property of the matrix flow (5) follows by
observing B(t) = W ⊤ (t) and A(t) = 0, which implies the dimensional-invariance property of the solutions to (2)
in the sense of (3).
A similar result on the invariance principle of (2) with constant couplings ωij was established in [1] with a
different proof, while Theorem 1 has provided a more general result that also extends to time-varying couplings
ωij (t). We now show a stronger result, that if initial conditions are chosen from some subspace, then the solutions
of the coupled system (2) will always be in that subspace.
Corollary 1. In addition to the rank-invariance principle proved in Theorem 1, the solutions of the coupled
dynamical systems (2) are subspace-preserving in the sense that
span([x1 (t), x2 (t), . . . , xn (t)])
= span([x1 (0), x2 (0), . . . , xn (0)]) ∀t ≥ 0.

(6)

Proof. The expression of the system equation Ẋ in (5) satisfies the matrix differential equation in (20) with
W (t) := B ⊤ (t). Therefore, the statement follows from Lemma 4 (in Appendix II).
B. Interpretations and implications
The system (2) describes a very general form of coupled dynamical systems which encompass many control
systems that have been actively studied in the literature. Examples include the distributed system for networked
function computation [5], [6], multi-agent consensus systems initialled in [7] (undirected graphs), and developed in
e.g. [8] (directed graphs) and [12] (time-varying couplings), and distributed formation control systems [2]–[4]. The
results established in this section indicate that, the solutions for individual systems coupled in the form (2) will
span a subspace of the same dimension as that spanned by initial conditions, and solutions will be constrained in
that subspace over time.
The dimensional-invariance principle for a particular distance-based formation control system [3] has been proved
in our previous paper [9]. We note that such a principle also holds for a large family of formation control systems,

including those covered in [4]. In a later section we will show, by this example, how this invariance principle could
assist our understanding on the evolutions of agents’ positions in a multi-agent formation system.
Table I in the Appendix reviews several typical coupled dynamical systems with scalar couplings reported in
the literature that can be described by the general form (2). As a consequence of Theorem 1 and Corollary 1, all
systems reviewed in Table I satisfy the dimensional-invariance and subspace-preserving property.
III. C OUPLED

DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS WITH MATRIX - WEIGHTED COUPLINGS

In this section we consider the following dynamical systems with matrix couplings
ẋi (t) =

n
X

Wij (t)xj (t)

j=1

= Wi1 (t)x1 (t) + Wi2 (t)x2 (t) + · · · + Win (t)xn (t),

(7)

where Wij (t) ∈ Rd×d is the state coefficient or coupling matrix: i.e., Wii (t) is the coefficient matrix for system i,
and Wij (t) is the coupling matrix from systems j to system i.
A. Main results
The main result in this section is the following theorem:
Theorem 2. The coupled dynamical systems (7) have the dimensional-invariance principle in the sense of (3) if
and only if the coefficient and coupling matrices Wij (t) satisfy the following condition
Wii (t) = A(t) + bii (t)Id , i = 1, 2, . . . , n;

(8)

Wij (t) = bji (t)Id , i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n, i 6= j,

(9)

for some matrix A(t) ∈ Rd×d and scalars {bij (t)}, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n.
The proof can be found in Appendix III. Again, we emphasize that the coupling matrices Wii can be constant or
time-varying. We note that in [1], an equivalent condition for coupled dynamical systems’ solutions to be collinear
(or to be r-coplanar with dimension r) was obtained, via a somewhat more complicated proof. Here, we provide a
unified analysis for the coupling condition via the rank-preserving flow theory, which provides additional insights to
the dimensional-invariance principle for matrix-coupled dynamical systems. We have further generalized the results
in [1] from time-invariant couplings to time-varying couplings.
The following corollary further characterizes the solution property for the case of n coupled dynamical systems.
Corollary 2. Suppose the coupled system (7) consists of n individual systems, and initial conditions x(0) for all
the coupled systems are chosen to satisfy X(0) ∈ S(n) (i.e. the real symmetric matrix space). Then the coupled

dynamical systems (7) have both the dimensional-invariance principle and signature-preserving property

1

if and

only if the coefficient and coupling matrices Wij (t) satisfy the following condition
Wii (t) = A(t) + aii (t)Id , i = 1, 2, . . . , n;

(10)

Wij (t) = aij (t)Id , i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n, i 6= j,

(11)

for some matrix A(t) = {aij (t)} ∈ Rd×d .
Proof. By invoking Lemma 3 (in Appendix II), the above condition can be proved by modifying B in the proof
of Theorem 2 as A⊤ .
B. Interpretations and implications
The coupled dynamical systems (7) with matrix weights are also very general that can describe many different
types of distributed/networked control systems. Examples include the matrix-weighted consensus dynamics [13],
bearing-based formation control systems [14], or networked linear systems for synchronization [15].
To guarantee the invariance of the dimensions of the subspaces spanned by individual systems’ solutions, the
coefficient matrices for each individual system should have the same matrix structure, with the difference being a
scalar multiple of an identity matrix (hence a diagonal matrix with the same diagonal entry bii (t)). Furthermore, the
couplings should also be a scalar multiple of an identity matrix (hence a diagonal matrix with the same diagonal
entry bji (t)). Since the condition is necessary and sufficient, for other types of couplings between individual systems
that are not in the forms of (8) and (9), the dimensional-invariance principles cannot be guaranteed.
We also note a difference of the invariance principles between the scalar-coupling case and the matrix-coupling
case. As proved in Corollary 1, the solutions of coupled system (2) with scalar couplings not only span a subspace
of the same dimension to that of their initial conditions, but also evolve in that same subspace spanned by initial
conditions. However, this subspace-preserving property is not guaranteed for the solutions of the coupled system (7)
with matrix couplings. Theorem 2 only shows the invariance of the dimension of the spanned subspace, while the
solutions may also evolve in a different subspace with the same dimension. Similarly to [16] and [1], we introduce
the concept of Grassmannian subspace to illustrate the difference. The Grassmannian, denoted as Gr(r, d), is a space
which parameterizes all linear subspaces of a given dimension r in a vector space V (in this paper, we restrict our
attention of V to the d-dimensional Euclidean space Rd ) [17, Page 21]. For example, for r = 1, the Grassmannian
Gr(1, d) is the space of all lines through the origin in the d-dimensional space, and it is the same as the projective
space of d − 1 dimensions. For the solutions of coupled dynamical system (7), they will remain collinear if they
start collinearly, but the line that passes through the solutions of all individual systems may not be identical over
time. In other words, the solutions will evolve in Gr(r, d) if they start at a subspace of dimension r. In constant,
solutions of the coupled system (2) with scalar couplings will remain in the same line (or subspace) as spanned by
their initial positions.
1 The signature of a real symmetric matrix refers to the number (counted with multiplicity) of its positive, negative and zero eigenvalues. See
its precise definition in the Appendix.

For some typical coupled dynamical systems with matrix coefficient/couplings reported in the literature that can
be described by the general form (7), see Table II in the Appendix.
IV. A PPLICATIONS

IN CONVERGENCE ANALYSIS FOR FORMATION CONTROL SYSTEMS WITH GENERALIZED
CONTROLLERS

Consider a multi-agent formation control system in the following form
ẋi = −

X

(kxi − xj k2 − d2kij )(xi − xj ),

i = 1, . . . , n

(12)

j∈Ni

where xi ∈ Rd is the position of agent i that lives in Rd , Ni denotes agent i’s neighboring set, and dkij is the desired
distance that agents i and agent j aim to achieve. In the literature, the above control system (12) is usually called
distance-based formation control system [18], since the target formation shape is described by a set of interagent
distances.
The collinearity-preserving property for the solutions of the formation control systems (12) was repeatedly
observed with different perspectives in several previous papers (e.g., see [2], [3], [19]). In [9], we have generalized
this collinearity-preserving property, and proved a general dimensional-invariance principle for the formation control
system (12). Inspired by the results in Theorem 1, one can also consider the following formation control systems
with generalized controllers
ẋi = −

X

gij (eij (xi , xj ))(xi − xj ),

i = 1, . . . , n

(13)

j∈Ni

where gij is a continuous function of the distance error eij (xi , xj ), which is defined as eij = kxi − xj k2 − d2kij .
The local exponential stability of the general formation control system (13) has been discussed in [4].
The following results are direct consequences of Theorem 1 for the general multi-agent formation system (13).
Corollary 3. For 2-D formations, if all the agents start with collinear positions, they will always be in that
collinear subspace spanned by their initial positions under the general control law described by (13). Similarly,
for 3-D formations, if all the agents start with coplanar (resp. collinear) positions, then they will always be in that
coplanar (resp. collinear) subspaces spanned by their initial positions under the control law (13).
Conversely, one can also obtain the following dimensional-invariance principle for formation systems (13) with
non-collinear/non-coplanar initial positions.
Corollary 4. For 2-D/3-D formations, if all the agents start with non-collinear/non-coplanar positions, they will
always be non-collinear/non-coplanar under the general control law described by (13).
Figures 1 and 2 show intuitive explanations of the above two corollaries.
The global analysis of stability and convergence for the formation control system (12) has been discussed in
several papers (e.g. [19], [4], [20]), which turns out to be a very challenging problem. The dimensional-invariance
(and subspace-preserving) principles as shown in the above two corollaries will hopefully present additional

Initially collinear positions

Initially coplanar positions

A 2-D formation

A 3-D formation

(a)

(b)

Fig. 1. The sets of collinear or coplanar positions are invariant for 2-D/3-D formation control systems (13).

Non-collinear initial positions

Non-coplanar initial positions

A 2-D formation
(a)

A 3-D formation
(b)

Fig. 2. If all agents start at non-collinear (non-coplanar) positions, then their positions will be non-collinear (non-coplanar) for any finite time.

insights for the convergence and stability analysis of general formation control systems (13). In addition, we can
conclude that for any formation control system, if it can be written in the form of (2), then agents cannot escape
collinear/coplanar positions if they start with collinear/coplanar positions. If one needs to design formation controllers
to avoid such an invariance property and to enable agents to escape collinear/coplanar positions even if they start
collinearly/coplanarly, then one needs to modify the formation controllers such that they cannot be described by
(2). For typical examples of formation control systems without the collinear/coplanar invariance property, see [21],
[22].
V. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper we have extended the invariance principles reported in [9] and [1] to networked coupled systems
with general couplings. A unified analysis via the rank-preserving matrix flow theory is provided to establish general
invariance principles for coupled dynamical systems (with scalar couplings and with matrix couplings), in relation
to the dimensions of the subspaces spanned by their individual solutions. For coupled dynamical systems with scalar
couplings, we prove that their individual solutions satisfy the dimensional-invariance principle (and furthermore,
the subspace-preserving principle). For coupled dynamical systems with matrix coefficients/couplings, necessary
and sufficient conditions are given to guarantee the dimensional-invariance principle. The results presented in this
paper generalize the findings in [1] from constant couplings to time-varying and even state-dependent couplings.
The interpretations and implications for the obtained invariance principles are also discussed, with an application
to the convergence analysis of formation control systems.

A PPENDIX I: BACKGROUND

ON RANK - PRESERVING MATRIX FLOW

In this section we will briefly review some background on the rank-preserving flow theory [16, Chapter 5].
For integers 1 ≤ r ≤ min(M, N ), let
M(r, M × N ) = {X ∈ RM×N |rank(X) = r}

(14)

denote the set of real M × N matrices of fixed rank r. The following results will be useful in later analysis.
Lemma 1. M(r, M × N ) is a smooth and connected manifold of dimension r(M + N − r), if max(M, N ) > 1.
The tangent space of M(r, M × N ) at an element X is
TX M(r, M × N ) = {∆1 X + X∆2 |∆1 ∈ RM ×M , ∆2 ∈ RN×N }.

(15)

The proof can be found in [16, Page 133]. A matrix differential equation Ẋ = F (t, X) evolving on the matrix
space RM×N is said to be rank-preserving if the rank of every solution X(t) is constant as a function of t, that is,
rank(X(t)) = rank(X(0)) for all t ≥ 0. The following lemma characterizes such rank-preserving flows (cf. Lemma
1.22 in Chapter 5 of [16]).
Lemma 2. Let I ⊂ R be an interval and let A(t) ∈ RM×M , B(t) ∈ RN ×N with t ∈ I be a continuous time-varying
family of matrices. Then
Ẋ(t) = A(t)X(t) + X(t)B(t), X(0) ∈ RM×N

(16)

is rank-preserving. Conversely, every rank-preserving differential equation on RM×N is of the form (16) for matrices
A(t) and B(t).
The proof of Lemma 2 is based on the fact that (16) defines a time varying vector field on the subset of the
tangent space of M(r, M × N ) described by (15). The full proof can be found in [16, Page 139]. Note that I can
be an open or closed time interval, as long as the solutions of system (16) exist and are well defined over the
specified interval. If the existence and uniqueness of solutions to (16) (and the coupled system (1)) are guaranteed
for all the time, one can extend the time interval to be any I ⊆ [0, ∞).
Remark 1. The above lemma on rank-preserving flows implies that the limit value X(∞) (if it exists) has rank
less than or equal to rank(X(0)).

2

To avoid ambiguity, in this paper we only consider the case that I is a finite

time interval. When we say t ≥ 0, we implicitly exclude the case of t = ∞.
A PPENDIX II: E XTENSIONS

ON RANK - PRESERVING MATRIX FLOW

This section presents some extensions on the rank-preserving flow theory. The following lemma further characterizes rank-reserving flows on a symmetric matrix space. Let S(N ) denote the N × N real symmetric matrix
2 One typical example of rank(X(∞)) < rank(X(0)) comes from the formation control problem with unrealizable shapes [23]: If the
triangle inequality does not hold for the desired distances in a triangular shape control problem, then all the agents will converge to a stable
collinear equilibrium for which rank(X(∞)) = 1, even if they start with noncollinear positions with rank(X(0)) = 2. Note that for such flows
the rank-preserving property still holds for any finite time but at the limit t = ∞ the rank reduces.

space. For integers r ∈ [1, N ], let
S(r, N ) = {X ∈ RN ×N |rank(X) = r}

(17)

denote the set of real symmetric N × N matrices of fixed rank r.
For a real symmetric matrix X ∈ S(N ), its signature, denoted by a pair of three integers (p, q, s), is defined as
the numbers of positive, negative and zero eigenvalues (counting multiplicity), respectively. 3 Note that there holds
p + q = r for any X ∈ S(r, N ). A matrix flow Ẋ(t) is called signature-preserving in S(N ) if the pair (p, q, s) for
its solutions X(t) remains constant.
Lemma 3. Let I ⊂ R be an interval and let A(t) ∈ RN ×N with t ∈ I be a continuous time-varying family of
matrices. Then
Ẋ(t) = A(t)X(t) + X(t)A⊤ (t), X(0) ∈ S(N )

(18)

is a rank-preserving (and hence signature-preserving) flow on S(N ). Conversely, every rank-preserving (and hence
signature-preserving) differential equation on S(N ) is of the form (18).
Proof. The rank-preserving property of X(t) follows from Lemma 2 by letting B(t) = A⊤ (t). The tangent space
of S(r, N ) at an element X is
TX S(r, N ) = {∆X + X∆⊤ |∆ ∈ RN ×N }.

(19)

Therefore (18) defines a time varying vector field on each subset of the tangent space of S(r, N ). Thus for any
initial condition X(0) ∈ S(N ), the solution X(t) of (18) satisfies X(t) ∈ S(N ), for t ∈ I. Since the solution X(t)
evolves continuously over time, any change of the values p, q will involve a cross-zero scenario or sign change of
the corresponding eigenvalues, which will reduce the rank of the symmetric matrix. However, this will violate the
rank-preserving property of X(t) and thus it is impossible. Thus, the signature-preserving property is therefore a
direct consequence of the rank-preserving property and the fact that X(t) ∈ S(N ). Conversely, suppose X(t) is
rank-preserving and X(t) ∈ S(N ) (and therefore is signature-preserving). Then it defines a vector field F (t, X) on
S(r, N ), with F (t, X) ∈ TX S(r, N ) as in (19). Letting ∆ := A(t) ∈ RN ×N completes the proof.
In the following we present a more refined principle, termed subspace-preserving principle, for matrix differential
systems.
Lemma 4. Let I ⊂ R be an interval and let B(t) ∈ RN ×N with t ∈ I be a continuous time-varying family of
matrices. Then
Ẋ(t) = X(t)B(t), X(0) ∈ RM×N

(20)

3 Note that there is another definition of signature for real symmetric matrices, defined as µ = p − q, i.e., the difference between the number
of positive eigenvalues (counting multiplicity) and the number of negative eigenvalues (counting multiplicity). With this definition of matrix
signature, the signature-preserving property in Lemma 3 still holds.

is subspace-preserving in the sense that span(X(t)) = span(X(0)). Conversely, every subspace-preserving differential equation on RM×N is of the form (16) for some matrices B(t).
Proof. We rewrite (20) as Ẋ ⊤ (t) = B ⊤ (t)X ⊤ (t), which has a unique solution given by X ⊤ (t) = ΦB ⊤ (t) (t, 0)X ⊤ (0),
where ΦB ⊤ (t) (t, 0) is the state transition matrix associated with the coefficient matrix B ⊤ (t) (see [11, Chapter 1.3]).
Therefore, the solution to the system (20) can be written as X(t) = X(0)Φ⊤
B ⊤ (t) (t, 0). Since the state transition
matrix Φ⊤
B ⊤ (t) is non-singular [11, Chapter 1.3], this implies that span(X(t)) = span(X(0)), ∀t ∈ I. For the
converse statement, note that span(X(t)) = span(X(0)) implies that there exists a non-singular matrix Φ such that
X(t) = X(0)Φ. In the context of matrix differential equation, the transpose of the matrix Φ is the state transition
matrix associated with a matrix B ⊤ (t) in a matrix differential equation in the form of (20).
Remark 2. Correspondingly, one can also show that a matrix differential equation in the form Ẋ(t) = A(t)X(t), X(0) ∈
RM×N , where A(t) ∈ RM×M is a continuous matrix, is row-subspace-preserving, in the sense that span(X ⊤ (t)) =
span(X ⊤ (0)). The proof is similar to that of Lemma 4 and is omitted here.
A PPENDIX III: P ROOFS

OF

T HEOREM 2

In this section we present the proof for Theorem 2.
Proof. Define X = [x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ] ∈ Rd×n . We now determine conditions for the coefficient/coupling matrix Wij
such that the coupled linear dynamical system (7) possesses the required dimensional-invariance property. From
Lemma 2, this is equivalent to saying that the matrix differential system Ẋ should take the following form
Ẋ = [ẋ1 , ẋ2 , . . . , ẋn ]
= A(t)[x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ] + [x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ]B(t)

(21)

for some A(t) ∈ Rd×d and B(t) = {bij(t) } ∈ Rn×n .
Expanding the expression of Ẋ in (21), one can obtain the equivalent formula in (23) (in the next page).
Note also that from (7) the matrix differential system (21) can be written as (24) (in the next page). Note that
to keep a short display of the equations we have suppressed the expression of time t in Eqs. (23) and (24), but the
matrices A and B can be time-varying. In order to guarantee the dimensional-invariance principle, each coefficient

term in the system (24) should take the identical form as in (23), which implies
W11 (t) = A(t) + b11 (t)Id ,
W12 (t) = b21 (t)Id ,
W13 (t) = b31 (t)Id ,
..
.
Wii (t) = A(t) + bii (t)Id ,
Wij (t) = bji (t)Id , i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n, i 6= j,
..
.
Wnn (t) = A(t) + bnn (t)Id ,

(22)

which is the necessary and sufficient condition to guarantee the dimensional-invariance property for the coupled
dynamical system (7).
A PPENDIX IV: A

BRIEF REVIEW OF COUPLED SYSTEMS THAT CAN BE DESCRIBED BY

(2) AND (7)

We review and summarize in Table I and Table II several popular coupled dynamical systems reported in the vast
literature, which can be described by (2) and (7), respectively. As a consequence of Theorem 1 and Corollary 1, for
all the coupled or networked control systems with scalar couplings reviewed in Table I, dimensional-invariance (and
furthermore, subspace-preserving) principles are guaranteed. For coupled/networked control systems reviewed in
Table II, if the matrix condition in Theorem 2 is satisfied, then they also possess the dimensional-invariance property.
For example, for the synchronization control of identical networked linear systems with matrix coefficients/couplings
[15] (i.e., for the Type I system, with Ai := A, ∀i and Wij = bij Id ), the matrix condition of Theorem 2 is satisfied
and the solutions of such networked control systems possess the dimensional-invariance principle. In contrast, for
the Type II coupled systems for linear system synchronization, the condition (11) in Theorem 2 would be violated
and thus the dimensional-invariance property is not guaranteed.





Ẋ = A[x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ] + [x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ] 


b11
b21
..
.

b12
b22
..
.

...
...
..
.

b1n
b2n
..
.

bn1

bn2

...

bnn







= [(A + b11 Id )x1 + b21 x2 + · · · + bn1 xn , b12 x1 + (A + b22 Id )x2 + · · · + bn2 xn , . . . , b1n x1 + b2n x2 + · · · + (A + bnn Id )xn ]
(23)
Ẋ = [ẋ1 , ẋ2 , . . . , ẋn ] = [W11 x1 + W12 x2 + · · · + W1n xn , W22 x2 + W21 x1 + · · · + W2n xn , . . . , Wn1 x1 + Wn2 x2 + · · · + Wnn xn ]
(24)

TABLE I
C OUPLED DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS THAT CAN BE DESCRIBED BY (2)

Ref.
[5], [6], etc.
[7], [8], [12], etc.

Coupled/networked control systems
Network distributed computation

System
X dynamics equation
ẋi =
wij xj , i = 1, . . . , n
ẋi =

Multi-agent consensus

X j∈Ni
aij (xj − xi ),

i = 1, . . . , n

j∈Ni

aij : weighted adjacency matrix

Coefficient/coupling term
wij
wij = aij , i 6= j,
X
wii = −
aij
j∈Ni

including undirected/directed graphs,
[2], [3], [4], etc.

static/time-varying/switching topologies
X
ẋi = −
gij (xi − xj ), i = 1, . . . , n

Distance-based formation
shape control

j∈Ni

eij = kxi − xj k2 − d2ij ,
[24], [25], [26], etc.

[27], [28], etc.

gij = eij , or gij = gij (eij )
X
uij (t, x)(xi − xj ),
ẋi = −

Multi-agent coordination/
affine formation/swarming

j∈Ni

i = 1, . . . , n

j∈Ni

Multi-agent networks with
trust-based interactions

ẋi =

X

wij = gij , i 6= j,
X
wii = −
gij

wij = uij , i 6= j,
X
uij
wii = −
j∈Ni

τij (xj − xi ),

i = 1, . . . , n

j∈Ni

∂Fij (kxi − xj k)
ẋj ,
∂xj
X
(xj − xi ), i = 1, . . . , n
or ẋi = τi

wij = τij , i 6= j,
X
wii = −
τij

τ̇ij = −

j∈Ni

τ̇i = −

X ∂Fij (kxi − xj k)
ẋj
∂xj
j∈N

j∈Ni

or wij = τi , (i, j) ∈ E ,
wij = 0, (i, j) ∈
/ E,
X
wii = −
τi

i

ACKLONOGEMENT
We thank the Associate Editor and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive suggestions which help improve
the presentation and clarity of this paper. The first author would like to thank the late Professor Uwe Helmke for
his valuable and insightful discussions on this topic. This paper is dedicated to the memory of him.
R EFERENCES
[1] J. M. Montenbruck and S. Zeng, “Collinear dynamical systems,” Systems & Control Letters, vol. 105, pp. 34–43, 2017.
[2] B. D. O. Anderson and U. Helmke, “Counting critical formations on a line,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 52, no. 1,
pp. 219–242, 2014.
[3] L. Krick, M. E. Broucke, and B. A. Francis, “Stabilisation of infinitesimally rigid formations of multi-robot networks,” International
Journal of Control, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 423–439, 2009.
[4] Z. Sun, S. Mou, B. D. O. Anderson, and M. Cao, “Exponential stability for formation control systems with generalized controllers: A
unified approach,” Systems & Control Letters, vol. 93, pp. 50–57, 2016.
[5] Z. Costello and M. Egerstedt, “The degree of nonholonomy in distributed computations,” in Proc. of the 53rd Annual Conference on
Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 6092–6098, IEEE, 2014.
[6] Z. Costello and M. Egerstedt, “From global, finite-time, linear computations to local, edge-based interaction rules,” IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 2237–2241, 2015.

j∈Ni

TABLE II
C OUPLED DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS THAT CAN BE DESCRIBED BY (7)

Ref.

Coupled/networked control systems

[1]

Collinear dynamical systems

[13], [29], etc.

Matrix-weighted consensus

System dynamics equation
n
X
Aij xj , i = 1, . . . , n
ẋi =
ẋi =

X

Coefficient/coupling term

Qij (xj − xi ),

i = 1, . . . , n

j∈Ni

Qij ∈ Rd×d
[15], [30], [31], etc.

Synchronization control
for networked linear systems

Wij = Aij

j=1

Type I: ẋi = Ai xi −

X

j∈Ni

bij (t)(xi − xj )

j∈Ni
d×d
i = 1, . . . , n, Ai ∈ RX
, bij (t) ∈ R
Type II: ẋi = Ai xi −
Bij (t)(xi − xj )
j∈Ni

i = 1, . . . , n,

Wij = Qij , i 6= j,
X
Wii = −
Qij

Ai , Bij (t) ∈ Rd×d

Wij = bij Id , i 6= j,
X
Wii = Ai −
bij Id
j∈Ni

Wij = Bij , i 6= j,
X
Wii = Ai −
Bij
j∈Ni

[7] R. Olfati-Saber and R. M. Murray, “Consensus problems in networks of agents with switching topology and time-delays,” IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1520–1533, 2004.
[8] W. Ren, R. W. Beard, and E. M. Atkins, “Information consensus in multivehicle cooperative control,” IEEE Control Systems, vol. 27,
no. 2, pp. 71–82, 2007.
[9] Z. Sun, U. Helmke, and B. D. O. Anderson, “Rigid formation shape control in general dimensions: an invariance principle and open
problems,” in Proc. of the IEEE 54th Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 6095–6100, IEEE, 2015.
[10] W. L. Stutzman and G. A. Thiele, Antenna theory and design. John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
[11] R. W. Brockett, Finite dimensional linear systems. SIAM, 1970.
[12] S. Martin and A. Girard, “Continuous-time consensus under persistent connectivity and slow divergence of reciprocal interaction weights,”
SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 2568–2584, 2013.
[13] S. E. Tuna, “Synchronization under matrix-weighted laplacian,” Automatica, vol. 73, pp. 76–81, 2016.
[14] S. Zhao and D. Zelazo, “Bearing rigidity and almost global bearing-only formation stabilization,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 1255–1268, 2016.
[15] L. Scardovi and R. Sepulchre, “Synchronization in networks of identical linear systems,” Automatica, vol. 45, no. 11, pp. 2557–2562,
2009.
[16] U. Helmke and J. B. Moore, Optimization and dynamical systems. Springer, 1994.
[17] J. M. Lee, Manifolds and differential geometry, vol. 107. American Mathematical Society, 2009.
[18] K.-K. Oh, M.-C. Park, and H.-S. Ahn, “A survey of multi-agent formation control,” Automatica, vol. 53, pp. 424–440, 2015.
[19] K.-K. Oh and H.-S. Ahn, “Distance-based undirected formations of single-integrator and double-integrator modeled agents in n-dimensional
space,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 1809–1820, 2014.
[20] X. Chen, M.-A. Belabbas, and T. Basar, “Global stabilization of triangulated formations,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization,
vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 172–199, 2017.
[21] M.-C. Park, K.-K. Oh, and H.-S. Ahn, “Modified gradient control for acyclic minimally persistent formations to escape from collinear
position,” in Proc. of the IEEE 51st Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 1423–1427, IEEE, 2012.
[22] H. Garcia de Marina, Z. Sun, M. Cao, and B. D. O. Anderson, “Controlling a triangular flexible formation of autonomous agents,” in
Proc. of the 20th IFAC World Congress, 2017.
[23] Z. Sun, S. Mou, U. Helmke, and B. D. O. Anderson, “Convergence analysis for rigid formation control with unrealizable shapes: The 3
agent case,” in Proc. of the 2014 Australian Control Conference, pp. 1–6, 2014.
[24] X. Chen, “Swarm aggregation under fading attractions,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 10, pp. 5198–5204, 2017.
[25] X. Chen, M. A. Belabbas, and T. Basar, “Controllability of formations over directed time-varying graphs,” IEEE Transactions on Control
of Network Systems, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 407–416, 2017.

[26] Z. Lin, L. Wang, Z. Chen, M. Fu, and Z. Han, “Necessary and sufficient graphical conditions for affine formation control,” IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 2877–2891, 2016.
[27] T. Setter, A. Gasparri, and M. Egerstedt, “Trust-based interactions in teams of mobile agents,” in Proc. of the 2016 American Control
Conference (ACC), pp. 6158–6163, IEEE, 2016.
[28] T. Setter, A. Gasparri, and M. Egerstedt, “Trust in multi-agent networks: From self-centered to team-oriented,” in Proc. of the 2017
American Control Conference (ACC), pp. 997–1002, IEEE, 2017.
[29] M. H. Trinh, C. V. Nguyen, Y.-H. Lim, and H.-S. Ahn, “Matrix-weighted consensus and its applications,” Automatica, vol. 89, pp. 415 –
419, 2018.
[30] Z. Li, Z. Duan, G. Chen, and L. Huang, “Consensus of multiagent systems and synchronization of complex networks: A unified viewpoint,”
IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 213–224, 2010.
[31] P. Wieland, R. Sepulchre, and F. Allgöwer, “An internal model principle is necessary and sufficient for linear output synchronization,”
Automatica, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 1068–1074, 2011.

