On reciprocal systems and controllability
Timothy H. Hughes a

arXiv:1712.09436v2 [cs.SY] 4 Apr 2018

a

Department of Mathematics, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn, Cornwall, TR10 9EZ, UK

Abstract
In this paper, we extend classical results on (i) signature symmetric realizations, and (ii) signature symmetric and passive
realizations, to systems which need not be controllable. These results are motivated in part by the existence of important
electrical networks, such as the famous Bott-Duffin networks, which possess signature symmetric and passive realizations that
are uncontrollable. In this regard, we provide necessary and sufficient algebraic conditions for a behavior to be realized as the
driving-point behavior of an electrical network comprising resistors, inductors, capacitors and transformers.
Key words: Reciprocity; Passive system; Linear system; Controllability; Observability; Behaviors; Electrical networks.

1

Introduction

This paper is concerned with reciprocal systems (see,
e.g., Casimir, 1963; Willems, 1972; Anderson and Vongpanitlerd, 2006; Newcomb, 1966; van der Schaft, 2011).
Reciprocity is an important form of symmetry in physical systems which arises in acoustics (Rayleigh-Carson
reciprocity); elasticity (the Maxwell-Betti reciprocal
work theorem); electrostatics (Green’s reciprocity); and
electromagnetics (Lorentz reciprocity), where it follows
as a result of Maxwell’s laws (Newcomb, 1966, p. 43).
Special cases of reciprocal systems include reversible
systems, as arise in thermodynamics; and relaxation
systems, such as viscoelastic materials (Willems, 1972).
In addition, reciprocity is a property of important
classes of electrical, mechanical and structural systems,
such as lightly damped flexible structures (Ferrante and
Ntogramatzidis, 2013). Our focus in this paper is on
linear reciprocal systems. In contemporary systems and
control theory, a linear reciprocal system is typically
defined as a system with a symmetric transfer function.
A fundamental result in systems and control theory
states that if the transfer function is also proper, then
the system possesses a so-called signature symmetric
realization (see Willems, 1972; Anderson and Vongpanitlerd, 2006; Fuhrmann, 1983; Youla and Tissi, 1966).
However, this result is subject to one notable caveat:
the system is assumed to be controllable.
Email address: t.h.hughes@exeter.ac.uk (Timothy H.
Hughes).
1
c 2018. This manuscript is made available under the
CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Preprint submitted to Automatica

Practical motivation for developing a theory of reciprocity that does not assume controllability arises from
electrical networks. Notably, the driving-point behavior
of an electrical network comprising resistors, inductors,
capacitors and transformers (an RLCT network) is necessarily reciprocal, and also passive, 2 but it need not be
controllable (see Çamlibel et al., 2003; Willems, 2004;
Hughes, 2017d). Indeed, as noted by Çamlibel et al.
(2003), it is not known what (uncontrollable) behaviors can be realized as the driving-point behavior of an
RLCT network. In addition, an RLCT network need not
possess an impedance function, so the conventional definition of a reciprocal system as one with a symmetric
transfer function is inappropriate for such networks.
The purpose of this paper is to address the aforementioned limitations with the theory of reciprocity. The
paper is structured as follows. In Section 3, we review
the classical theory of reciprocal systems in more detail,
with a particular focus on passive and reciprocal systems, to highlight the limitations of the existing theory
and the contributions of this paper. In Sections 4 and
5, we proceed to develop a theory of reciprocal systems
which addresses these limitations. Sections 6 and 7 are
then concerned with systems that are both reciprocal
and passive, such as RLCT networks. The main results
are summarised in the following two paragraphs.
In Section 4, we provide a formal definition of reciprocity (Definition 5), which was first proposed by
Newcomb (1966). The main advantage of this definition
2

A system is passive if the net energy that can be extracted
from the system into the future is bounded above (this bound
depending only on the past trajectory of the system).

5 April 2018

then spec(M ) := {λ ∈ C | det(λI−M ) = 0}; and if, in
addition, M is symmetric, then M > 0 (M ≥ 0) indicates that M is positive (non-negative) definite. A matrix Σ ∈ Rn×n is called a signature matrix if it is diagonal
and all of its entries are either 1 or −1. A V ∈ Rn×n [ξ]
is called unimodular if det (V ) is a non-zero constant
(equivalently, V is nonsingular with V −1 ∈ Rn×n [ξ]). If
H ∈ Rn×n (ξ), then H is called positive-real if H is analytic in C+ and H(λ̄)T + H(λ) ≥ 0 for all λ ∈ C+ .

is that it does not assume the existence of a symmetric
transfer function. This is particularly fitting in the context of electrical networks as these need not possess an
impedance function. We then provide a 2-part theorem
which we call the reciprocal behavior theorem. In part 1
(Theorem 7), we provide necessary and sufficient conditions for a system to be reciprocal in terms of the differential equations describing the system. We also prove
that, for any given reciprocal system, it is possible to
permute the system’s variables to obtain a system with
a proper symmetric transfer function. Part 2 (Theorem
9) then proves the existence of a signature symmetric realization for any given system with a proper symmetric
transfer function (irrespective of controllability).

The (k-vector-valued) locally integrable functions
are denoted Lloc
R, Rk (Polderman and Willems,
1
1998, Defns. 2.3.3, 2.3.4), and we equate any two locally integrable functions that differ only on a set
of measure zero. The (k-vector-valued) infinitely differentiable functions with bounded support on the
left (resp., bounded support on the right, bounded

support) are denoted D+ R, Rk (resp., D− R, Rk ,
D R, Rk ). The convolution operator
is denoted by

k
?; i.e., if w1 , w2 ∈ D+ R, R , then (w1 ? w2 )(t) =
R∞
w (τ )T w2 (t − τ )dτ .
−∞ 1

Section 6 contains another 2-part theorem: the passive
and reciprocal behavior theorem. Part 1 (Theorem 17)
provides necessary and sufficient algebraic conditions for
a system to be passive and reciprocal in terms of the differential equations describing the system. This theorem
also answers the first open problem posed in Çamlibel
et al. (2003) in the more general setting of multi-port
networks: it is shown that a behavior B is realizable as
the driving-point behavior of an RLCT network if and
only if B is passive and reciprocal. Part 2 (Theorem 18)
then proves the existence of a passive and signature symmetric realization for any given passive system with a
proper symmetric transfer function. The results in this
section build on earlier results in (Hughes, 2017c,a) on
systems which are passive but not necessarily reciprocal.
The extension to consider passive and reciprocal systems
is by no means trivial, and depends on a number of supplementary lemmas that are provided in Section 7 and
Appendix B. Finally, the proofs in the paper, together
with existing results in the literature, provide an algorithm for constructing an RLCT network realization of
an arbitrary given reciprocal and passive behavior. This
is illustrated by two examples in Section 8.

A main contribution of this paper is to develop a theory
of reciprocal systems which doesn’t assume controllability, observability, or the existence of a transfer function.
This is relevant to electric networks which can possess
uncontrollable and unobservable internal modes, and
whose driving-point currents and voltages need not adhere to the conventional system theoretic input-output
view. The natural framework to formalise these issues
is the behavioral approach (Polderman and Willems,
1998). Accordingly, the remainder of this section contains relevant definitions and results on behaviors.
We consider behaviors (systems) defined as the set of
weak solutions (see Polderman and Willems, 1998, Section 2.3.2) to a differential equation:
p×q
q
d
[s]. (2.1)
B = {w ∈ Lloc
1 (R, R ) | R( dt )w=0}, R ∈ R

2

Notation and Preliminaries

The behavior B is called controllable if, for any two trajectories w1 , w2 ∈ B and t0 ∈ R, there exists w ∈ B
and t1 ≥ t0 such that w(t) = w1 (t) for all t ≤ t0 and
w(t) = w2 (t) for all t ≥ t1 (Polderman and Willems,
1998, Definition 5.2.2). From (Polderman and Willems,
1998, Theorem 5.2.10), B in (2.1) is controllable if and
only if rank(R(λ)) is the same for all λ ∈ C.

We denote the real and complex numbers by R and C,
and the open and closed right-half plane by C+ and C+ .
If λ ∈ C, then λ̄ denotes its complex conjugate. The polynomials, rational functions, and proper (i.e., bounded at
infinity) rational functions in the indeterminate ξ with
real coefficients are denoted R[ξ], R(ξ), and Rp (ξ). The
m×n matrices with entries from R (resp., R[ξ], R(ξ),
Rp (ξ)) are denoted Rm×n (resp., Rm×n [ξ], Rm×n (ξ),
Rm×n
(ξ)), and n is omitted if n = 1. We denote the
p
block column and block diagonal matrices with entries
H1 , . . . , Hn by col(H1 · · · Hn ) and diag(H1 · · · Hn );
and we will use horizontal and vertical lines to indicate
the partition in block matrix equations (e.g., see (B.5)).
If H ∈ Rm×n , Rm×n [ξ], or Rm×n (ξ), then H T denotes
its transpose, and if H is nonsingular (i.e., det (H) 6=
0) then H −1 denotes its inverse. If H ∈ Rm×n , then
rank(H) denotes its rank; and if G ∈ Rm×n (ξ), then
normalrank(G) := maxλ∈C (rank(G(λ))). If M ∈ Rm×m ,

We pay particular attention to state-space systems:

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

dx
dt
d×d

= Ax + Bu and y = Cx + Du},

, B ∈ Rd×n , C ∈ Rn×d and D ∈ Rn×n .

(2.2)

Here, we call the pair (A, B) controllable if Bs is controllable; and we call the pair (C, A) observable if
(u, y, x) ∈ Bs and (u, y, x̂) ∈ Bs imply x = x̂ (Polderman and Willems, 1998, Definition 5.3.2). These
concepts are equivalent to the well known algebraic

2

for k = 0, 1, 2, . . .. 3 Note that the equivalence of
transfer functions (condition (i)) is necessary but not
sufficient. E.g., let B = 0, C = 1 and D = 1, so
D + C(ξI − A)−1 B = 1 for all A ∈ R. If A = −1, then
(u,y)
(u, y) ∈ Bs
if and only if there exists k1 ∈ R such that
(u,y)
y(t) = u(t) + k1 e−t . But if A = 0, then (u, y) ∈ Bs
if
and only if there exists k2 ∈ R such that y(t) = u(t)+k2 .

conditions for controllability/observability of a pair of
matrices (see Polderman and Willems, 1998, Chapter 5).
We also consider behaviors obtained by transforming
and/or eliminating variables in a behavior B as in (2.1).
For example, associated with the state-space system Bs
(u,y)
in (2.2) is the corresponding external behavior Bs
=
{(u, y) | ∃x with (u, y, x) ∈ Bs }. More generally, if T1 ∈
Rp1 ×q , . . . , Tn ∈ Rpn ×q are such that col(T1 · · · Tn ) ∈
Rq×q is a nonsingular real matrix, and m is an integer
satisfying 1 ≤ m ≤ n, then we denote the projection of
B onto T1 w, . . . , Tm w by

3

Signature symmetric realizations of symmetric transfer functions

The following fundamental result in systems and control
theory states that any given controllable system with a
proper symmetric transfer function has a so-called signature symmetric realization.

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

Lemma 3 Let B̂ in (2.3) be controllable. Then the following are equivalent.

A representation for the behavior B (T1 w,...,Tm w) can be
obtained by the so-called elimination theorem (see Appendix A). In particular, by eliminating the state variables x from Bs , we obtain a behavior of the form

1. Q̂−1 P̂ is symmetric.
2. There exists Bs as in (2.2) and a signature matrix
(u,y)
; (ii) (A, B) is
Σi ∈ Rd×d such that (i) B̂ = Bs
controllable; (iii) (C, A) is observable; and (iv) AΣi =
Σi AT , Σi C T = B, and D = DT .

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

P̂ , Q̂ ∈ Rn×n [ξ], Q̂ nonsingular and Q̂−1 P̂ proper. (2.3)

PROOF. If B̂ in (2.3) is controllable, then there exists
Bs as in (2.2) which satisfies (i)–(iii) in condition 2 (see
Hughes, 2017c, Appendix D). Furthermore, D + C(ξI −
A)−1 B = (Q̂−1 P̂ )(ξ), and it is then easily verified that
if A, B, C and D are as in condition 2 then Q̂−1 P̂ is symmetric. This proves that 2 ⇒ 1. The proof of 1 ⇒ 2 then
follows from (Willems, 1972, Theorem 6) (alternatively,
see Anderson and Vongpanitlerd, 2006; Fuhrmann, 1983;
Youla and Tissi, 1966; Reis and Willems, 2011). This
proof proceeds by first showing that, if Â ∈ Rd×d , B̂ ∈
Rd×n , Ĉ ∈ Rn×d and D̂ ∈ Rn×n are such that D̂ +
Ĉ(ξI − Â)−1 B̂ is symmetric, (Â, B̂) is controllable, and
(Ĉ, Â) is observable, then there exists a nonsingular
symmetric P ∈ Rd×d such that P Â = ÂT P , Ĉ T =
P B̂ and D̂ = D̂T . Note that, with the notation V̂o =
col(Ĉ Ĉ Â . . . Ĉ Âd−1 ) and V̂c = [B̂ ÂB̂ . . . Âd−1 B̂],
then P V̂c = V̂oT , whereupon P can be computed from the
explicit formula P = V̂oT V̂cT (V̂c V̂cT )−1 (Anderson and
Vongpanitlerd, 2006, Section 7.4). Since P is symmetric,
then there exists a signature matrix Σi ∈ Rd×d and a
nonsingular T ∈ Rd×d such that P = T T Σi T . We then
let A := T ÂT −1 , B := T B̂, C := ĈT −1 and D := D̂.

More specifically, from (Hughes, 2016, Sections 2 and 4)
we have the following lemma on behavioral realizations.
Lemma 1 Let Bs be as in (2.2) and A(ξ):=ξI−A. There
exist polynomial matrices P̂ , Q̂, Y, Z, U, V, E, F, G where
#
# "
#"
"
−P̂ Q̂ 0
Y Z −D I −C
;
=
1.
−E −F G
−B 0 A
U V
#
"
Y Z
is unimodular; and
2.
U V
3. G is nonsingular.
Furthermore, if conditions 1–3 hold and B̂ is as in (2.3),
(u,y)
then Bs
= B̂, and we say that (A, B, C, D) is a realization of (P̂ , Q̂). Also, if B̂ is as in (2.3), then there exists
Bs as in (2.2) and polynomial matrices Y, Z, U, V, E, F
and G satisfying conditions 1–3.
Remark 2 For a given behavior B̂ as in (2.3), algorithms for computing a realization (A, B, C, D)
for (P̂ , Q̂) (i.e., a state-space system Bs such that
(u,y)
Bs
= B̂) are described in (Fuhrmann et al., 2007,
Section 4.7) and (Hughes, 2016, Section 4). Such behavioral realizations are not unique. Indeed, it is easily
shown from (Hughes, 2017a, Note A.3) that (Â, B̂, Ĉ, D̂)
is another realization for (P̂ , Q̂) if and only if (i)
D̂ + Ĉ(ξI − Â)−1 B̂ = D + C(ξI − A)−1 B; and (ii) there
ˆ
ˆ
exist matrices T1 ∈ Rd×d and T2 ∈ Rd×d such that
i
i
k
CA T1 = Ĉ Â for i = 0, 1, 2, . . ., and Ĉ Â T2 = CAk

Of particular interest are controllable systems with
proper symmetric transfer functions that are positivereal. These arise as the impedances of electrical networks containing resistors, inductors, capacitors and
3

In fact, by the Cayley Hamilton theorem, it can be shown
that these two conditions hold if and only if they hold for
ˆ
i = 0, 1, . . . , d and k = 0, 1, . . . , d.

3

transformers (RLCT networks). In fact, such systems
have a particular physical relevance, since every known
physical system with a non-symmetric positive-real
impedance actually contains active components (see
Ferrante et al., 2016). A second fundamental result
in systems and control theory is that any controllable
system with a proper symmetric positive-real transfer
function has a so-called passive and signature symmetric
realization, in accordance with the following lemma.

behavior is described by the state-space realization
−2
0
dx 
√0
=
 3
dt
0
0

v=

Lemma 4 Let B̂ in (2.3) be controllable. Then the following are equivalent:

i8

v2 =

3 di2
4 dt

i4 =

2 dv4
3 dt

v3 =

i5 = 3

dv5
dt

i2
v7 = i7
i6

v3
3
√
2 v2
6

i

x + i, where
q
√
√
2
3i5 2i6 )
3 i4

To conclude this section, we discuss some recent developments in the literature on uncontrollable systems, and we
contrast these with the results in the present paper. Motivation for developing a theory of reciprocity that does
not assume controllability was provided in the behavioral literature in Çamlibel et al. (2003); Willems (2004).
Indeed, as previously noted, Çamlibel et al. (2003) stated
an open problem that we solve in this paper: what behaviors are realizable as the port (driving-point) behavior
of a circuit containing a finite number of passive resistors, capacitors, inductors and transformers? This question concerns (not necessarily controllable) systems that
are both passive and reciprocal. There have since been
papers that have considered the question of uncontrollable passive systems (e.g., Hughes, 2017c), and uncontrollable (cyclo)-dissipative systems (e.g., Pal and Belur,
2008). 4 But no papers have considered uncontrollable
reciprocal systems. For example, consider the behavior
d
loc
B̃ := {(i, v) ∈ Lloc
1 (R, R) ×L1 (R, R) | ( dt + 1)i =
d
dv
( dt +1)( dt +v)}. It has been shown in (Hughes, 2017c,b)
that B̃ can be realized as the driving-point behavior of an
electrical network containing resistors, inductors, transformers and gyrators (an RLCTG network). The present
paper provides the first proof that (i) this behavior has

i8 = 4v8

1 di3
6 dt

√

3
√1
2 0
2

+

The aforementioned RLCT networks indicate the importance of removing the assumptions of controllability, observability, and existence of a proper symmetric transfer
function from Lemmas 3 and 4. This is the objective of
this paper. Theorem 9 (resp., 18) generalizes Lemma 3
(resp., 4) to systems that need not be controllable. Also,
Theorems 7 and 17 extend the results to systems that
do not necessarily possess a proper symmetric transfer
function. In particular, Theorem 17 provides necessary
and sufficient conditions for a behavior to be realizable
by an RLCT network, thereby answering the first open
problem in Çamlibel et al. (2003).

Using the reactance extraction approach, any realization of the form of Lemma 4 gives rise to an RLCT network whose impedance is equal to Q̂−1 P̂ (see Anderson
and Vongpanitlerd, 2006). However, Lemma 4 contains
several notable assumptions that are not satisfied by
many RLCT networks. First, the theorem assumes the
existence of a proper symmetric transfer function, yet
not all RLCT networks possess a proper impedance (see
Hughes, 2017c, Section 3). Second, the theorem assumes
the system is controllable, but not all RLCT networks
have controllable driving-point behaviors. Examples include the famous Bott-Duffin networks and their simplifications (see Hughes and Smith, 2014, 2017; Hughes,
2017d). One such network is provided in Fig. 1, whose

1 di3
2 dt

q

√ 
− 2
q00 
 3


 2i
 0 
√1
2



This realization satisfies conditions (iv) and (v) of
Lemma 4, but is neither controllable nor observable.

PROOF. See (Willems, 1972, Theorem 7).

v3 =

√
− 200

v1
x = col( √
2

1. Q̂−1 P̂ is positive-real and symmetric.
2. There exists Bs as in (2.2) and a signature matrix
(u,y)
Σi ∈ Rd×d such that (i) B̂ = Bs
; (ii) (A, B) is
controllable; (iii) (C, A) is observable;
"
# "
#T
−A −B
−A −B
(iv)
+
≥ 0; and
C D
C D
(v) AΣi = Σi AT , Σi C T = B, and D = DT .

i1

h

√

0
0 −√3 0
0
0
0
0 − 2 √0
√

0
0
2 − 3
√0
x
2 √
0
0
0
0 
0
0
0 −√ 2 0
0
3
0
0 −2

i3 = i5
dv
i6 = 2 dt6

4

A system is cyclo-dissipative if it has a (not necessarily
non-negative) storage function with respect to some supply
rate. It is shown in (Hughes, 2017a) that a system is passive
(in the sense of Definition 13 of the present paper) if it is
cyclo-dissipative with respect to the energy supplied to the
system, and the associated storage function is non-negative.

i7
i4

Fig. 1. Bott-Duffin realization of the driving-point behavior
d
d2
d
d
d2
d
( dt
+ 1)( dt
2 + dt + 1)i = ( dt + 1)( dt2 + dt + 4)v

4

a signature symmetric realization; and (ii) it can be realized without gyrators (i.e., by an RLCT network).

Remark 6 Our objective in this paper is to develop
a concept of reciprocity that is consistent with the existence of signature symmetric realizations, and the
driving-point behaviors of RLCT networks. We note
that a behavior is reciprocal if and only if its controllable part is reciprocal (this follows from Definition 5
and Lemma 11). In particular, it will follow from Theorems 9 and 17 that whether a system has a signature
symmetric realization depends only on its controllable
part, and whether the driving-point behavior of an
electric network can be realized without gyrators also
depends only on its controllable part.

In fact, as discussed by Willems (2004), the subject of
uncontrollable reciprocal systems is related to a subtle
yet significant question in the development of the theory
of uncontrollable (cyclo)-dissipative systems: whether to
allow unobservable storage functions. In particular, both
Çamlibel et al. (2003) and Pal and Belur (2008) define
(cyclo)-dissipativity in terms of the existence of an observable storage function. Yet, in Willems (2004, Section VI), it is demonstrated that systems that are not
(cyclo)-dissipative in accordance with this definition can
nevertheless possess an unobservable storage function.
Moreover, unobservable storage functions arise in electrical networks. In fact, if we consider an uncontrollable
behavior with a state-space realization that satisfies the
signature symmetry of condition (v) of Lemma 4, then it
can be shown that this realization is both uncontrollable
and unobservable. It can also be shown that any RLCT
realization of an uncontrollable behavior necessarily has
an unobservable storage function, corresponding to the
energy stored in the network’s inductors and capacitors.

The next theorem shows that any given reciprocal system B can be transformed into a system of the form of
(2.3) that is also reciprocal (condition 3 in Theorem 7).
In addition, a necessary and sufficient condition for reciprocity is provided in terms of the polynomial matrices
P and Q (condition 2 in Theorem 7).
Theorem 7 (Reciprocal behavior theorem, part 1)
Let B be as in (4.1). The following are equivalent:
1. B is reciprocal.
2. P QT = QP T .
3. There exist real matrices T1 ∈ Rr×n and T2 ∈
R(n−r)×n such that (i) col(T1 T2 ) is a permutation
matrix; and (ii) B̂ := B (col(T1 i −T2 v),col(T1 v T2 i))
takes the form of (2.3) and Q̂−1 P̂ is symmetric.

Given the aforementioned issues with the question of unobservable storage functions, the approach in this paper
is aligned with Hughes (2017c). That paper provided a
theory of passivity that does not assume controllability
or observability (and also removes other alternative assumptions prevalent in the literature). We refer to that
paper for results pertaining to passivity. In this paper,
our focus is on developing the theory of (not necessarily
controllable) reciprocal systems.
4

Remark 8 A well known result in behavioral theory is
that any behavior B of the form of (4.1) necessarily has
an input-output partition. However, condition 3 of Theorem 7 is not a trivial application of this result. Specifically, in the definition of a reciprocal system (Definition
5), the system’s variables are partitioned into two sets,
with an equal number of variables in each set (in the context of electrical networks, these two sets correspond to
the driving-point currents and voltages). Condition 3 of
Theorem 7 implies that if the system is reciprocal then
it is possible to choose as input a subset of the variables
from one of the sets together with the complementary
variables from the other set. Note from the example in
(Hughes, 2017c, Remark 11) that this need not be true
if the system is not reciprocal.

Reciprocal behaviors

Following the motivation outlined in the previous sections, our focus in this paper is on systems of the form:
n
loc
n
d
d
B={(i, v)∈Lloc
1 (R, R ) ×L1 (R, R ) | P ( dt )i=Q( dt )v},
with P, Q ∈ Rn×n [ξ], normalrank([P −Q]) = n. (4.1)

The driving-point behavior of any passive electrical circuit necessarily has the above form, where i denotes the
driving-point currents and v the corresponding drivingpoint voltages (see Hughes, 2017b). We note that the
partitioning (i, v) need not be an input-output partition
in the sense of (Polderman and Willems, 1998, Definition 3.3.1). Specifically, Q need not be nonsingular, and
if Q is nonsingular then Q−1 P need not be proper. In
this more general setting, it is not possible to define a
reciprocal system as a system whose transfer function
is symmetric. Instead, we adopt the following definition
from (Newcomb, 1966, Definition 2.7).

We will also show that the system B̂ in condition 3 of
(u,y)
Theorem 7 has a state-space realization B̂ = Bs
with
the properties described in the next theorem.
Theorem 9 (Reciprocal behavior theorem, part 2)
Let B̂ be as in (2.3). Then the following are equivalent.
1. B̂ is reciprocal.
2. There exists Bs as in (2.2) and a signature matrix
(u,y)
Σi ∈ Rd×d such that (i) B̂ = Bs
; and (ii) AΣi =
T
T
T
Σi A , Σi C = B, and D = D .

Definition 5 (Reciprocal system) Let B be as
in (4.1). B is called reciprocal if, for any given
(ia , va ), (ib , vb ) ∈ B ∩ (D+ (R, Rn ) × D+ (R, Rn )), then
vb ? ia = ib ? va .

The two-part reciprocal behavior theorem (Theorems 7
and 9) is proved in Section 5. Then, in Sections 6–7, we
consider behaviors that are both reciprocal and passive.

5

Remark 10 We emphasise that Lemma 3 is concerned
only with controllable systems, whereas Theorem 9 is
applicable to any system of the form of (2.3), irrespective
of controllability. Note that, if B̂ in (2.3) is not control(u,y)
lable, and Bs in (2.2) satisfies B̂ = Bs
, then (A, B)
cannot be controllable, so Lemma 3 does not apply.

d
Then ẑ2 ∈ D− (R, Rn ), i2 (t0 − τ ) = (M (− dt
)ẑ2 )(τ ) and
d
v2 (t0 − τ ) = (N (− dt )ẑ2 )(τ ) for all τ ∈ R. Thus,

5

It follows from (van der Schaft and Rapisarda, 2011,
Section 2.2) that

(v2 ? i1 )(t0 ) =
(i2 ? v1 )(t0 ) =

Reciprocity and signature symmetric realizations

The purpose of this section is to prove the reciprocal
behavior theorem, parts 1 and 2 (Theorems 7 and 9).
We first present the following lemma on the so-called
controllable and autonomous parts of a behavior.

R∞
R−∞
∞
−∞

(v2 ?i1 −i2 ?v1 )(t0 ) =

d
d
(N (− dt
)ẑ2 )(τ )T (M ( dt
)z1 )(τ )dτ, and
d
d
(M (− dt
)ẑ2 )(τ )T (N ( dt
)z1 )(τ )dτ.

R∞
−∞

d
ẑ2 (τ )T ((N T M −M T N )( dt
)z1 )(τ )dτ.

Since t0 is arbitrary, then we conclude that B is reciprocal if and only if the above integral is zero for all
z1 ∈ D+ (R, Rn ) and ẑ2 ∈ D− (R, Rn ). In particular, if
N T M = M T N , then B is reciprocal. Conversely, note
that if the above integral is zero for all z1 ∈ D+ (R, Rn )
d
and ẑ2 ∈ D− (R, Rn ), then (N T M − M T N )( dt
)z1 ≡ 0
for all z1 ∈ D (R, Rn ) (since otherwise the integral is
d
strictly positive with ẑ2 = (N T M − M T N )( dt
)z1 ). It
then follows from (Polderman and Willems, 1998, Sections 2.5.6 and 3.3) that N T M = M T N .

Lemma 11 Let B be as in (4.1). The following hold:
1. There exist F, P̃ , Q̃, U, V ∈ Rn×n [ξ] such that
(i) P = F P̃ and Q = F Q̃; and
"
#
P̃ −Q̃
(ii)
is unimodular.
U V
Also, if F, P̃ , Q̃, U, V ∈ Rn×n [ξ] satisfy (i)–(ii);
d
n
loc
n
Bc := {(i, v) ∈ Lloc
1 (R, R ) × L1 (R, R ) | P̃ ( dt )i =
d
Q̃( dt
)v}; and
d
n
loc
n
Ba := {(i, v) ∈ Lloc
1 (R, R ) × L1 (R, R ) | P ( dt )i =
d
d
d
Q( dt )v and U ( dt )i = −V ( dt )v},
then (i, v) ∈ B ⇐⇒ there exist (i1 , v1 ) ∈ Bc and
(i2 , v2 ) ∈ Ba with i = i1 +i2 and v = v1 +v2 .
2. There exist M, N ∈ Rn×n [ξ] such that
(i) P M = QN ; and
(ii) rank(col(M N )(λ)) = n for all λ ∈ C.
Also, if M, N ∈ Rn×n [ξ] satisfy (i)–(ii), then (i, v) ∈
B ∩ (D+ (R, Rn ) × D+ (R, Rn )) if and only if there
d
exists z ∈ D+ (R, Rn ) such that i = M ( dt
)z and v =
d
N ( dt )z. In particular, (i, v) ∈ Bc .

4 ⇒ 3.
First, bring col(M N ) into column proper
form. In other words, let U be a unimodular matrix with
"

M

#
U =: W,

N
in which the leading coefficient matrix W L of W has
full column rank (see Wolovich, 1974, Section 2.5).
Next, partition W L compatibly with col(M N ) as
W L = col(W1L W2L ), let r denote the rank of W1L ,
permute the columns of W1L so the first r columns are
linearly independent, and then permute the rows so
the first r rows are linearly independent. This gives
permutation matrices T = col(T1 T2 ) ∈ Rn×n and
S = [S1 S2 ] ∈ Rn×n and an X ∈ Rr×(n−r) such that

PROOF. This requires only minor modifications to the
proof of Lemma 17 in (Hughes, 2017c).


M̂11
" # 

M̂
M̂21
=
 N̂11
N̂

N̂21

PROOF OF THEOREM 7 (see p. 5). We let M and
N be as in Lemma 11, and we will show the equivalence
of conditions 1–3 to the additional condition:
4. M T N = N T M .



T1 0
" #


 0 −T  M
h
i
M̂22 
2


U S1 S2
 := 

 0 T1  N
N̂12 



N̂22
T2 0

M̂12



Specifically, we will prove 1 ⇐⇒ 4 ⇐⇒ 3 ⇐⇒ 2.
is in column proper form, and its leading coefficient matrix col(M̂ L N̂ L ) takes the form

1 ⇐⇒ 4.
From Lemma 11, there exist z1 , z2 ∈
D+ (R, Rn ) such that


 

L
L
M̂11
M̂11
X
T1 0
 
"
"
# 
#
M̂ L M̂ L   0 −T  W L h
i
M̂ L
2

 21
22 
1
=
=


S
S
1
2
 N̂ L N̂ L   0 T1  W L
N̂ L
2
12 
 11


L
L
N̂21
N̂21
X
T2 0

d
d
d
d
i1 =M ( dt
)z1 , i2 =M ( dt
)z2 , v1 =N ( dt
)z1 and v2 =N ( dt
)z2 .

Now, consider a fixed but arbitrary t0 ∈ R, and let
ẑ2 (t) = z2 (t0 − t) for all t ∈ R.

6

L
where M̂11
is nonsingular. It is then easily verified that
T
M̂ N̂ − N̂ T M̂ = (U S)T (M T N − N T M )(U S) = 0.
We will show that M̂ L is nonsingular, and it follows
that N̂ M̂ −1 is proper (see Rapisarda and Willems,
1997, Section 2). We then let P̂ := [P T1T QT2T ] and
Q̂ := [QT1T −P T2T ], we recall that P M = QN , and
it is then easily verified that P̂ M̂ = Q̂N̂ . This implies
that Q̂ is nonsingular with Q̂−1 P̂ = N̂ M̂ −1 , which
is symmetric since N̂ M̂ −1 = (M̂ −1 )T M̂ T N̂ M̂ −1 =
(M̂ −1 )T N̂ T M̂ M̂ −1 = (M̂ −1 )T N̂ T . Finally, with
i1 := T1 i, v1 := T1 v, i2 := T2 i and v2 := T2 v, then it
is easily shown that B̂ takes the form indicated in the
present theorem statement.

PROOF OF THEOREM 9 (see p. 5). That 2 ⇒ 1 follows from Theorem 7, noting from the proof of Lemma
3 that (Q̂−1 P̂ )(ξ) = D + C(ξI − A)−1 B, which is symmetric. To see that 1 ⇒ 2, note initially that if B̂ is controllable then the result follows from Lemma 3 and Theorem 7. Otherwise, following (Hughes, 2017a, Notes A.1
and A.3) and (Polderman and Willems, 1998, Corollary
5.2.25), we can construct a realization (Ã, B̃, C̃, D) of
(P̂ , Q̂) such that (C̃, Ã) is observable; and
"
Ã =

Ã11 Ã12



Since (Ã, B̃, C̃, D) is a realization for (P̂ , Q̂), then so too
is (Â, B̂, Ĉ, D) (this follows from Remark 2, as Ĉ Âk =
[C̃ Ãk 0] for k = 0, 1, 2, . . .). Also, S Â = ÂT S and S B̂ =
Ĉ T . Finally, as P is symmetric, there exists a real matrix
R and a signature matrix Σ̃i such that P = RT Σ̃i R, and
we define T and Σi (partitioned compatibly) as

3 ⇒ 4. Let M̂ , N̂ ∈ Rn×n [ξ] be such that the columns
of col(M̂ N̂ ) are a basis for the right syzygy of [P̂ −Q̂]
(see Willems, 2007, p. 85). Similar to before, we find
that M̂ is nonsingular and N̂ M̂ −1 = Q̂−1 P̂ , which is
symmetric. Also, there exists a unimodular U such that

N

U=

0 T2T

0 −T2T T1T 0

#" #
M̂


R


T :=  0
0



Σ̃i 0 0



√1 I − √1 I  , and Σi :=  0 −I 0 .


2
2 
√1 I √1 I
0
0
I
2
2
0

0



.

N̂

Then S = T T Σi T , and A := T ÂT −1 , B := T B̂, C :=
ĈT −1 satisfy the conditions of the present theorem. 2

This follows from (Willems, 2007, pp. 84–85), noting
from the definition of B and B̂ that the columns of the
matrix on the right hand side of the above equation span
the right syzygy of [P −Q]. It can then be verified that
U T (M T N − N T M )U = M̂ T N̂ − N̂ T M̂ = 0. Since U is
nonsingular, this implies that M T N − N T M = 0.
3 ⇐⇒ 2.



h
i

Ã22 0 
 , Ĉ := C̃1 C̃2 0 ,
ÃT12 P 0 ÃT22


 
P 0 0
B̃1


 



B̂ := 
 0  , and S :=  0 0 I  .
C̃2T
0 I 0

L
L
L
N̂12
]z = 0. It folSince M̂11
is nonsingular, then [N̂11
L
L
lows that col(M̂ N̂ )z = 0. But col(M̂ L N̂ L ) has full
column rank as col(M̂ N̂ ) is in column proper form, and
we conclude that z = 0.

0

Ã11 Ã12 0


Â := 
 0

#
"
i
−X
L T
L
L T
L
w
0 = I 0 ((M̂ ) N̂ − (N̂ ) M̂ )
I
"
#
h
i −X
L T
L
L
= (M̂11 ) N̂11
w.
N̂12
I

T1T

0

h
i
, C̃ = C̃1 C̃2 ,

where (Ã11 , B̃1 ) is controllable, (C̃1 , Ã11 ) is observable,
and Q̂−1 P̂ (ξ) = C̃1 (ξI − Ã11 )−1 B̃1 + D, which is symmetric. It then follows from the proof of Lemma 3 that
there exists a symmetric P such that P Ã11 =ÃT11 P ,
C̃1T =P B̃1 , and D=DT . Now, let

h

"

, B̃ =

" #
B̃1

0 Ã22

To complete the proof of the present implication, it remains to show that if z ∈ Rn and M̂ L z = 0 then z = 0.
To see this, we denote the column degree of the jth column of col(M̂ N̂ ) by dˆj , and we note that the entry in
the ith row and jth column of (M̂ L )T N̂ L − (N̂ L )T M̂ L
ˆ ˆ
is the coefficient of ξ di +dj in the entry in the ith row and
T
jth column of M̂ N̂ − N̂ T M̂ , which is necessarily zero.
L
Now, let z ∈ Rn satisfy M̂ L z = 0. Then M̂11
[I X]z = 0.
L
Since M̂11 is nonsingular, it follows that there exists
w ∈ Rn−r such that z = col(−X I)w. But

" #
M

#

The proof is analogous to 4 ⇐⇒ 3.

Remark 12 Note that the proofs of Lemma 3 and Theorem 9 provide an algorithm for the construction of the
realization (A, B, C, D) and the signature matrix Σi in
Theorem 9. Specifically, P in the proof of that theorem
can be obtained from the explicit formula in the proof
of Lemma 3, whereupon R and Σ̃i can be obtained from
an eigenvalue decomposition for P .

2

7

6

1. B is passive and reciprocal.
2. (P, Q) is a positive-real pair and P QT = QP T .
3. B is the driving-point behavior of an RLCT network.

Passive and reciprocal behaviors

In this section, we present our main results concerning
passive and reciprocal systems. We define passivity in
accordance with (Hughes, 2017c, Definition 5) as follows.

In our final theorem, we generalize Lemma 4 to systems
that need not be controllable.

Definition 13 (Passive system) B in (4.1) is called
passive if, given any (i, v) ∈ B and any t0 ∈ R, there
exists a K ∈ R (dependent on (i, v) and t0 ) such that, if
t1 ≥ t0 and (ĩ, ṽ) ∈ B satisfies (ĩ(t), ṽ(t)) = (i(t), v(t))
Rt
for t < t0 , then − t01 ĩT (t)ṽ(t)dt < K.
Rt
Remark 14 Here, − t01 ĩT (t)ṽ(t)dt is the net energy
supplied to the system between t0 and t1 , and the bound
K is necessarily non-negative (as the integral is zero
when t1 = t0 ). Thus, Definition 13 formalises the concept that a system is passive if the net energy that can
be extracted from the system into the future is bounded
above (this bound depending only on the past trajectory of the system). It is shown in Hughes (2017a) that
this definition is consistent with the existence of a nonnegative quadratic state storage function with respect
to the energy supplied to the system.

Theorem 18 (Passive and reciprocal behavior
theorem, part 2) Let B̂ be as in (2.3). Then the following are equivalent.
1. B̂ is passive and reciprocal.
2. There exists Bs as in (2.2) and a signature matrix
Σi ∈ Rd×d such that
(u,y)
(i) B̂ = Bs
;
"
# "
#T
−A −B
−A −B
(ii)
+
≥ 0; and
C D
C D
(iii) Σi A = AT Σi , Σi B = C T , and D = DT .
The two-part passive and reciprocal behavior theorem
(Theorems 17 and 18) is proved in Section 7. The proofs
can be combined with existing results in the literature to
obtain a passive and reciprocal realization for any given
passive and reciprocal system of the form of (2.3), and
to obtain an RLCT realization for an arbitrary given
passive and reciprocal system of the form of (4.1). This
will be illustrated by two examples in Section 8.

The following concept of a positive-real pair was introduced by Hughes (2017c), where it was shown that B in
(4.1) is passive if and only if (P, Q) is a positive-real pair.
Definition 15 (Positive-real pair) Let P, Q
Rn×n [ξ]. We call (P, Q) a positive-real pair if:

∈

7

(a) P (λ)Q(λ̄)T + Q(λ)P (λ̄)T ≥ 0 for all λ ∈ C+ ;
(b) rank([P −Q](λ)) = n for all λ ∈ C+ ; and
(c) if p ∈ Rn [ξ] and λ ∈ C satisfy p(ξ)T (P (ξ)Q(−ξ)T +
Q(ξ)P (−ξ)T ) = 0 and p(λ)T [P −Q](λ) = 0, then
p(λ) = 0.

The purpose of this section is to prove Theorems 17
and 18. These two theorems will be proved in reverse
order. First, we prove the following result, which uses
the supplementary lemmas in Appendix B.

Remark 16 Note that, in contrast with reciprocity, it
is possible for the controllable part of a system to be
passive yet for the system itself to not be passive. E.g.,
let Bs be as in (2.2) with B = 0, C = 1 and D = 1, so
D+C(ξI−A)−1 B = 1 for all A ∈ R (i.e., the controllable
part of the system is independent of A). From Remark
(u,y)
2, if A = −1, then for any given (u, y) ∈ Bs , there
R t1
R t1
exists k1 ∈ R such that − t0 (uy)(t)dt = t0 −(u(t) +
k1 −t 2
2 e )

k2

Lemma 19 Let B̂ in (2.3) be passive and reciprocal.
(u,y)
and
Then there exists Bs as in (2.2) such that B̂ = Bs
the following properties both hold:
1. there
exists X ∈ Rd×d #such that X > 0 and
"
−XA − AT X C T − XB
≥ 0; and
C − BT X
D + DT
2. there exists a symmetric nonsingular S ∈ Rd×d such
that SA = AT S, SB = C T , and D = DT .

k2

+ 41 e−2t dt ≤ 81 e−2t0 , so this system is passive.
(u,y)
But if A = 0, then there exists (u, y) ∈ Bs
with u =
R
t1
k2
− 2 = −y for all t ∈ R, in which case − t0 (uy)(t)dt =
k22
4 (t1

Proof of the passive and reciprocal behavior
theorem

PROOF. We will prove this first for the case in which
D + DT > 0, and then for the general case.

− t0 ), so this system is not passive.

In the following theorem, we state necessary and sufficient algebraic conditions for B in (4.1) to be passive and
reciprocal. We also show that these conditions are equivalent to B being realizable by an RLCT network, thus
solving the first open problem in Çamlibel et al. (2003).

Case (i): D + D T > 0. We let Â, B̂, Ĉ, D and S be
as in the proof of Theorem 9, and we let A = Â, B = B̂
and C = Ĉ. From that proof, condition 2 of the present
(u,y)
theorem statement holds. Also, B̂ = Bs
is passive and
(C, A) is detectable. Thus, from Lemma B.2, there exists
K ∈ Rd×d such that K > 0 and Υ(K) ≥ 0, where Υ(K)
is as in (B.1). It can then be verified that X := K −1
satisfies condition 1 of the present theorem statement.

Theorem 17 (Passive and reciprocal behavior
theorem, part 1) Let B be as in (4.1). The following
are equivalent:

8

"
#
−X̃ Ã − ÃT X̃ C̃ T − X̃ B̃

Case (ii): general case.
Let P1 := P̂ and Q1 :=
Q̂, and consider the following three statements (c.f.,
Hughes, 2017a, proof of Theorem 13):

C̃ − B̃ T X̃

D̃ + D̃T

≥ 0; and

2. there exists a symmetric nonsingular S̃ ∈ Rd×d such
that S̃ Ã = ÃT S̃, S̃ B̃ = C̃ T , and D̃ = D̃T .

(R1) Pi , Qi ∈ Rni ×ni [ξ] where (Pi , Qi ) is a positivereal pair and Q−1
i Pi is proper and symmetric.
(R2) Pi , Qi are as in (R1), Pi is nonsingular, and
limξ→∞ ((Q−1
i Pi )(ξ)) = diag(Iri 0).
(R3) Pi , Qi are as in (R1), and either ni = 0 or
limξ→∞ ((Q−1
i Pi )(ξ)) = I.

Since X̃ > 0, then there exists a nonsingular R̃ ∈ Rd×d
such that X̃ = R̃T R̃. As S̃ is symmetric and nonsingular, then so too is (R̃−1 )T S̃ R̃−1 . By considering an eigenvalue decomposition, we conclude that there exists a signature matrix Σi = diag(I −I) ∈ Rd×d , a diagonal matrix 0 < W ∈ Rd×d , and an orthogonal matrix V ∈ Rd×d
(i.e., V T = V −1 ), such that (R̃−1 )T S̃ R̃−1 = V Σi W V T .
Here, Σi W = W Σi is a diagonal matrix containing the
eigenvalues of (R̃−1 )T S̃ R̃−1 , which are necessarily real
since (R̃−1 )T S̃ R̃−1 is symmetric. Now, let

By (Hughes, 2017c, Theorem 7) and Theorem 7 of
this paper, P1 , Q1 satisfy condition (R1). Then, using
Lemmas B.4 and B.5 (see Appendix B), we construct
P2 , . . . , Pm , Q2 , . . . , Qm such that condition (R1) is satisfied, ni ≤ ni−1 , and deg (det (Qi )) ≤ deg (det (Qi−1 )),
for i = 2, . . . , m; and
(1) if, for i = k − 1, (R2) is not satisfied, then (R2)
is satisfied for i = k, and if Pk−1 is singular then
nk < nk−1 (Lemma B.4); and
(2) if, for i = k−1, (R2) is satisfied but (R3) is not, then
deg (det (Qk )) < deg (det (Qk−1 )) (Lemma B.5).

Ŷ =

h

−Â −B̂
Ĉ D̂

i

:=

V T R̃ 0
0 I



 h−Ã −B̃ i 
C̃

V T R̃ 0
0 I

D̃

−1

.

Then (Â, B̂, Ĉ, D̂) is a realization for (P̂ , Q̂), and

This inductive procedure terminates in a finite number of
steps with polynomial matrices Pm and Qm that satisfy
conditions (R1)–(R3). An example is given in Section 8.

Ŷ =

Next, we consider the following three statements:

R̃−1 V 0
0
I



T h−X̃ Ã −X̃ B̃ i 
C̃

R̃−1 V 0
0
I

D̃



,

which implies that Ŷ + Ŷ T ≥ 0. Next, let

(S1) There exist polynomial matrices Ai (ξ):=ξI − Ai ,
Y
, Vi , Ei , Fi , and
and
i , with Gi nonsingular,
#
"i , Zi , U#i"
# G"
Yi Zi −Di I −Ci
−Pi Qi 0
,
=
−Ei −Fi Gi
Ui Vi −Bi 0 Ai
where the leftmost matrix is unimodular.
(S2) The matrix Xi ∈ Rdi ×di satisfies Xi > 0 and
"
#
−ATi Xi −Xi Ai CiT −Xi Bi
Ωi (Xi ) :=
≥ 0.
Ci −BiT Xi
Di +DiT
(S3) There exists a symmetric Si ∈ Rdi ×di such that
Si Ai = ATi Si , Si Bi = CiT and Di = DiT .

Y =

−A −B 
C

D

:=

W 1/2 0
0
I



 h−Â −B̂ i 
Ĉ

W 1/2 0
0
I

D̂

−1

.

Then (A, B, C, D) is also a realization for (P̂ , Q̂). Also,
with the notation G := R̃−1 V W −1/2 , then GT S̃G =
W −1/2 V T (R̃−1 )T S̃ R̃−1 V W −1/2 = W −1/2 Σi W W −1/2 =
Σi A = G−1 ÃG, B = G−1 B̃, and C = C̃G. Thus,
Σi A = GT S̃ ÃG = GT ÃT S̃G = AT Σi , Σi B = GT S̃ B̃ =
GT C̃ T = C T , and D = DT , which implies that
diag(−Σi I)Y is symmetric. Note that W 1/2 is diagonal
since W is, and partition W 1/2 compatibly with Σi as
W 1/2 = diag(F1 F2 ). Also, partition Y and Ŷ compatibly with diag(−Σi I) = diag(−I I I) as follows:

From case (i) and Lemma 1, there exist real matrices
Am , Bm , Cm , Dm , Xm and Sm such that (S1)–(S3) hold
for i = m. Then, using Lemmas B.4 and B.5, we find that
there exist real matrices Ai , Bi , Ci , Di , Xi and Si such
that (S1)–(S3) hold for i = m − 1, . . . , 1. Since P = P1
and Q = Q1 , then letting A = A1 , B = B1 , C = C1 , D =
D1 , S = S1 and X = X1 , we obtain a state-space real(u,y)
ization B̂ = Bs
with the required properties. 2

Y =

hF1

0 0
0 F2 0
0 0 I

i −Â11
−Â21
Ĉ1

−Â12 −B̂1
−Â22 −B̂2
Ĉ2
D̂

F1−1 0 0
0 F2−1 0
0
0 I




.

Then, let
i h −1 i

h
B̂2
F2 0
Z11 := − F1 Â11 F1−1 , Z22 := F02 I0 −ĈÂ22 −D̂
0 I
2
h −1 i
F 0 h−Â21 i −1
F2 0
Z12 := − F1 [Â12 B̂1 ]
, and Z21 := 02 I
F1 .
Ĉ

PROOF OF THEOREM 18 (see p. 8). That 2 ⇒ 1
follows from Theorem 9 and (Hughes, 2017c, Theorem
13), noting that condition 3 of that theorem holds with
X = I. To see that 1 ⇒ 2, consider the realization in
Lemma 19. From that theorem, (P̂ , Q̂) has a realization
(Ã, B̃, C̃, D̃) with the following properties:

0

I

1

Since diag(−Σi I)Y = diag(−I I I)Y is symmetric,
then we conclude that Z11 and Z22 are both symmetric,
T
and Z12 = −Z21
. Thus, Y +Y T = diag(2Z11 2Z22 ), and
to complete the proof it remains to show that Z11 ≥ 0

1. there exists X̃ ∈ Rd×d such that X̃ > 0 and

9

and Z22 ≥ 0. To prove this, we recall that Ŷ + Ŷ T ≥ 0, so

−Â11 −ÂT11

whence vb,1 ? ia,1 − ib,1 ? va,1 = 0.

"
# "
#T
−Â22 −B̂2
−Â22 −B̂2
≥ 0, and
+
≥ 0.
Ĉ2
D̂
Ĉ2
D̂

Since Z11 and Z22 are both symmetric, then their eigenvalues are all real. Now, let λ < 0, and let z be a
real vector with Z11 z = λz. Then ẑ := F1−1 z satisfies
−Â11 ẑ = λẑ. Thus, ẑT (−Â11 − ÂT11 )ẑ = 2λẑT ẑ ≤ 0.
Since (−Â11 − ÂT11 ) ≥ 0, then we conclude that ẑ = 0.
It follows that the eigenvalues of Z11 are all real and
non-negative, whence Z11 ≥ 0. A similar argument then
shows that Z22 ≥ 0, and completes the proof. 2

2 ⇒ 3.

We will show the following:

(a) If λ0 ∈ C+ and z ∈ Cn satisfy Q(λ0 )z = 0, then
Qz = 0.
(b) There exists a nonsingular matrix T ∈ Rn×n and a
unimodular matrix Ŷ such that
"
#
h
i
h
i T
0
,
P −Q = Ŷ P̂ −Q̂
0 (T T )−1
where P̂ and Q̂ have the compatible partitions
"
P̂ =

PROOF OF THEOREM 17 (see p. 8). That 1 ⇐⇒
2 follows from (Hughes, 2017c, Theorem 9) and Theorem
7 of the present paper.

P̂11 0

#
and Q̂ =

"
#
Q̂11 0

0 I

,

0 0

and where Q̂11 is nonsingular, Q̂−1
11 P̂11 is symmetric,
and (P̂11 , Q̂11 ) is a positive-real pair.
(c) With P̂11 and Q̂11 as in (b), then the limit
limξ→∞ ((1/ξ)(Q̂−1
11 P̂11 )(ξ)) exists and is nonnegative definite. Also, with the notation K :=
limξ→∞ ((1/ξ)(Q̂−1
:= P̂11 (ξ) −
11 P̂11 )(ξ)), P̃ (ξ)
Q̂11 (ξ)Kξ, and Q̃(ξ) := Q̂11 (ξ), then Q̃−1 P̃ is proper
and symmetric and (P̃ , Q̃) is a positive-real pair.

If B takes the form of B̂ in (2.3), then from Theorem 18
it follows that B is passive and reciprocal if and only if B
has a state-space realization with the properties outlined
in condition 2 of that theorem. From (Anderson and
Vongpanitlerd, 2006, Sections 4.4 and 9.4), this holds if
and only if B is the driving-point behavior of an RLCT
network. It remains to consider the case in which B does
not take the form of B̂ in (2.3), i.e., P, Q in (4.1) are such
that Q is singular or Q−1 P is not proper.

Now, let P̃ , Q̃ and K be as defined in (c). It follows
from Theorem 18 and (Anderson and Vongpanitlerd,
2006, Sections 4.4 and 9.4) that there exist RLCT networks N1 and N2 whose driving-point
behaviors
take


d
ñ
loc
ñ
the form {(i, v) ∈ Lloc
R,
R
×L
R,
R
|
P̃
(
=
1
1
dt )i


d
loc
ñ
loc
ñ
Q̃( dt )v} and {(i, v) ∈ L1 R, R ×L1 R, R
|
di
= v}, respectively. Next, let T be as in (b), partiK dt
tion T and T −1 compatibly with P̂ as T = col(T1 T2 )
and T −1 = [T̂1 T̂2 ], and consider the behavior corresponding to the set of locally integrable solutions to

3 ⇒ 1.
That B is passive follows from (Hughes,
2017b, Theorem 6). It remains to show that B is reciprocal. As explained in (Hughes, 2017b, Section 2), any
given RLCT network corresponds to a cascade loading
of two networks: (i) N1 , in which all of the elements (resistors, inductors, capacitors and transformers) are removed and every single element port is replaced with
an external port; and (ii) N2 , which contains each of
the elements in the original circuit (disconnected from
each other). Furthermore, the driving-point behaviors
of N1 and N2 are both reciprocal. 5 Now, let B and
B̃ be fixed but arbitrary reciprocal behaviors, and let
(i) (col(ia,1 ia,2 ), col(va,1 va,2 )) ∈ B, (ia,3 , va,3 ) ∈ B̃,
(col(ib,1 ib,2 ), col(vb,1 vb,2 )) ∈ B, and (ib,3 , vb,3 ) ∈ B̃;
(ii) ia,3 = −ia,2 , va,3 = va,2 , ib,3 = −ib,2 , and vb,3 =
vb,2 ; and (iii) ia,1 , ia,2 , va,1 , va,2 , ib,1 , ib,2 , vb,1 , and vb,2
have compact support on the left. Then it suffices to
show that vb,1 ? ia,1 = ib,1 ? va,1 . To prove this, note
that, since B and B̃ are reciprocal, then



d
0 0
0 P̃ ( dt )
0 0
0
0
I −T1T −T2T
0
0 0
0
−I
0 0
0
0
d
0 0 0
0
K dt
0 0 I
0
0

0
0
0
T1
T
 2

0
I
0
0
−I

d 
0 −Q̃( dt )  i
v
0
0
 ṽa
 ṽb
0
0
 ĩ
0
0
 a
0
0
 ĩ

0 −I
0 −I

b
ṽa1
ṽa2

0
−I




 =0,


(7.1)

which is the driving-point behavior of the RLCT network
in Fig. 2. We then let

vb,1 ? ia,1 + vb,2 ? ia,2 − ib,1 ? va,1 − ib,2 ? va,2 = 0,
and vb,3 ? ia,3 − ib,3 ? va,3 = 0,

"
U :=
"

5

To see this, note initially that the behavior of the network
N1 has the same form as the driving-point behavior of a
transformer (Anderson and Newcomb, 1966). It is then easily verified that the driving-point behaviors of resistors, inductors, capacitors and transformers are all reciprocal, and
so too are the driving-point behaviors of N1 and N2 .

Z(ξ) :=

Ŷ 0

#"
#
I Z

0 I

0 I

, with

−Q̃(ξ)T̂1T P̃ (ξ)+Q̃(ξ)Kξ 0 Q̃(ξ) −Q̃(ξ)
0

0

I

0

#
,

0

and it is clear that U is unimodular. Then, following Apd
pendix A, we pre-multiply both sides in (7.1) by U ( dt
),

10

we note that T̂1T T1T = I and T̂1T T2T = 0, and we find
that the driving-point behavior of N is the set of locally
integrable solutions to the differential equation

ĩa
i

Na1

ṽa1 = K

ṽa

"
Ŷ

d
d
d
d
) + Q̃( dt
)K dt
)T1 −Q̃( dt
)T̂1T
(P̃ ( dt

T2

0

#" #
i



 

v
0
−ĩa =−T1
−T2
−ĩb

v

= 0.

T1T
0
0

T2T





i
0 ṽa 
ṽb
0

v

ṽa1

Na2

dĩa1
dt

ṽa2
d
d
P̃ ( dt
)ĩa2 = Q̃( dt
)ṽa2

ĩb = 0
ṽb

But from (b) and (c), the leftmost matrix in this equation
d
is equal to [P −Q]( dt
). In other words, the drivingpoint behavior of N is B.
It remains to show conditions (a)–(c). To show condition
(a), we let P̂ := P − Q and Q̂ := P + Q. Since (P, Q)
is a positive-real pair, then Q̂(λ)Q̂(λ̄)T − P̂ (λ)P̂ (λ̄)T =
2(P (λ)Q(λ̄)T + Q(λ)P (λ̄)T ) ≥ 0 for all λ ∈ C+ . Now,
suppose λ0 ∈ C+ and w ∈ Cn satisfy wT Q̂(λ0 ) =
0. Then −wT P̂ (λ0 )P̂ (λ̄0 )T w̄ ≥ 0, which implies that
wT P̂ (λ0 ) = 0. But this implies that wT [P −Q](λ0 ) =
0, whence w = 0 since (P, Q) is a positive-real pair. We
conclude that Q̂(λ) is nonsingular for all λ ∈ C+ , and
so I − (Q̂−1 P̂ )(λ)((Q̂−1 P̂ )(λ̄))T ≥ 0 for all λ ∈ C+ .
This implies that (Q̂−1 P̂ )T is bounded-real in accordance with (Youla et al., 1959, Definition 16), and so
Q̂−1 P̂ is bounded-real by (Youla et al., 1959, Corollary
7(c)). It then follows from (Youla et al., 1959, proof
of Theorem 7) that, if λ0 ∈ C+ and w ∈ Cn satisfy (I − (Q̂−1 P̂ )(λ0 ))w = 0, then (I − Q̂−1 P̂ )w = 0.
Now, let λ0 ∈ C+ and z ∈ Cn satisfy Q(λ0 )z = 0.
Then (P + Q)−1 (λ0 )Q(λ0 )z = 12 (I − (P + Q)−1 (λ0 )(P −
Q)(λ0 ))z = 0, whence (I − (P + Q)−1 (P − Q))z = 0,
and so Qz = 12 (P + Q)(I − (P + Q)−1 (P − Q))z = 0.

Fig. 2. RLCT network realization of the behavior in (7.1).

and it follows that
"
#
P̂11 (λ)(Q̂11 (λ̄))T +Q̂11 (λ)(P̂11 (λ̄))T Q̂11 (λ)(P̂21 (λ̄))T
P̂21 (λ)(Q̂11 (λ̄))T

This implies that P̂21 (λ)(Q̂11 (λ̄))T = 0. Since this relationship holds for all λ ∈ C+ , and Q̂11 is nonsingular,
then we conclude that P̂21 = 0.
Next, it follows from (Hughes, 2017a, proof of Lemma
D.3 condition 1) that P̂22 is unimodular since (P̂ , Q̂) is
a positive-real pair. Accordingly, we let

Ŷ = Y

n×r

P̂ =

P̂11 P̂12

"
#
I P̂12

,

and we find that Ŷ is unimodular and [P −Q] has the
form indicated in condition (b). Finally, it is easily shown
that (P̂11 , Q̂11 ) is a positive-real pair, and P̂ Q̂T − Q̂P̂ T =
Ŷ −1 (P QT − QP T )(Ŷ −1 )T = 0 so Q̂−1
11 P̂11 is symmetric.
The proof of condition (c) follows from (Hughes,
2017a, Proof of Lemma D.4), noting in addition that
(Q̃−1 P̃ )(ξ) = (Q̂−1
11 P̂11 )(ξ) − Kξ, which is symmetric
P̂
and
K are symmetric. 2
since Q̂−1
11
11
8

Examples

First, consider the problem of realising the driving-point
behavior of the Bott Duffin networks in Fig. 1. From
Lemma 1, we find that this corresponds to the set of
solutions to the differential equation:

normalrank(QT1T )

Next, note
∈R
and
=
normalrank(QT ) = r. Then, by considering the upper
echelon form for QT1T (see Hughes, 2017c, Note A4), we
obtain a unimodular Y ∈ Rn×n such that Y QT T =: Q̂
takes the form indicated in condition (b), where Q̂11 ∈
Rr×r [ξ] is nonsingular. Now, let P̂ := Y P T −1 . It is
then easily shown that (P̂ , Q̂) is a positive-real pair since
(P, Q) is. Accordingly, we consider a fixed but arbitrary
λ ∈ C+ , we partition P̂ compatibly with Q̂ as
"

−1

0 P̂22

To show condition (b), we let r := normalrank(Q), and
we first show that there exists a nonsingular matrix T =
col(T1 T2 ) ∈ Rn×n with T1 ∈ Rr×n such that QT2T = 0.
Accordingly, we let the columns of W ∈ Rn×(n−r) [ξ] be a
basis for the right syzygy of Q (see Willems, 2007, p. 85),
and we pick a fixed but arbitrary λ0 > 0. Then W (λ0 ) ∈
Rn×(n−r) has full column rank and Q(λ0 )W (λ0 ) = 0,
whence QW (λ0 ) = 0 by condition (a). We then let T be
a nonsingular matrix whose final n−r rows are W (λ0 )T .
that QT1T
T

≥0.

0

2

2

d
d
d
d
d
d
( dt
+ 1)( dt
2 + dt + 1)i = ( dt + 1)( dt2 + dt + 4)v. (8.1)

We begin by finding a Bs as in (2.2) and matrices X, S ∈
Rd×d as in Lemma 19, and we then find a passive and reciprocal realization for this behavior as in Theorem 18.
Finally, we obtain an RLCT network realization from
this passive and reciprocal realization using results in
Anderson and Vongpanitlerd (2006). This realization
procedure works in the general case, and relies on algorithms for: 1. computing a state-space realization for a

#
,

P̂21 P̂22

11

v1c = i1c

i1

v1d = i1d

i1c

i3

i1d
v1

 
v1
0
 v2   0

 
 v3   0
−i =−1
 a 
 −i   0
b
1
−ic


i
0

0
v̂

0
 v̂1a  



 v̂1b =
−1
 −i  

c

−id

v̂

0
0

0
0

0

4
√
4

−

0
0

−4
√
4 617

0

1

0 0

1
−1

617−20
√
4 617

i





i2

617−20 
i1a 
√
4 617



i1b 

0

 v1c 


0

√√ 617



√√

0



v2

0
0
0
0
−1
1

0
0
0
0
0
−1

1
0
0
0
0
0

0
1
0
0
0
0

v3
 
i1
−1
−1 i2 
 
1  i3 
 
0 
va  ia = 0
0  vb 
vc
0
va

v1d

0

vb

ib

vc

ic

c
id = ic − dv
dt

v̂1b

v̂1a

vd = vc −

i1a

−di1a
dt

v1a =

i1b

did
dt

−di1b
dt

v1b =

v

ṽ1a


 ṽ 

ṽ1a  
 ṽ  
 1b =
 î  

2a

î2b

ṽ

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1
−4
√
4 617

−2
4
√
4 617

0
−4
√
4 617

v2a



ib
0
 id 
0
 v  = 1
e
1
vf



4
−1 √
4 617 

i
−4 
 i1a 
2
√
4
617 
 i1b 
4

0
√

4
617 v2a 

0
0
v2b
0
0

0
0
0
−1



vb
−1
1   vd 
0   −ie 
−if
0

−1
0
0
0

vf = 0

ve

v2b

î2b

vd

id

ṽ1b

ie

d
( dt
+ 1)ie =
d
+ 1)ve
( dt

if

î2a

Fig. 4. RLCT network realization example 2.
ĩ2a

i2a =


ĩ2b

−dv2a
dt

0


ĩ2a

 ĩ2b  = 0

v2c
0

i2b =

0
0

−

√√

617+4
√
4
617

√√0

−dv2b
dt



Then, following Lemma B.1, we let Υ(K) and AΥ (K)
be as in (B.1) with Ã, B̃ and C̃ substituted for A, B and
C, and we obtain symmetric matrices




v2a
617+4 
√
  v2b 
4 617

−i2c
0

K1 =

i2c
v2c = i2c

where K1 > 0, K− ≥ 0, Υ(K1 ) ≥ 0, Υ(K− ) ≥ 0, and
spec(AΥ (K− )) ∈ C̄− . Here, K1 is obtained by computing the available energy for the system dx
dt = Ax+Bi, v =
Cx + Di to obtain the matrix X in Lemma B.1. Also,
K− can be obtained by computing the available energy
T
T
T
T
for the system dx̂
dt = A x̂ − C u, y = −B x̂ + D u (see
Lemma B.1). Next, note from Lemma B.1 that there exists α > 0 such that, for any given 0 <  ≤ α, then
K := K1 + (1 − )K− satisfies K > 0, Υ(K ) ≥ 0, and
spec(AΥ (K )) ∈ C̄− . In this case,

Fig. 3. RLCT network realization example 1.

behavior (see Remark 2); 2. computing the available energy of a passive system (see (Hughes, 2017a, Remark
15)); 3. computing the null space and column space of
a real matrix; 4. computing a Cholesky decomposition
of a positive-definite matrix; 5. computing an eigenvalue
decomposition of a symmetric matrix; and 6. solving
Lyapunov and Sylvester equations (as in Anderson and
Vongpanitlerd, 2006, Theorems 3.7.3 and 3.7.4).

K=

We first obtain a state-space realization for the behavior in (8.1), and we transform this into controller staircase form (see Polderman and Willems, 1998, Corollary
5.2.25). In this case, we find that B has a state-space
(i,v)
realization B = Bs , where Bs is the set of solutions to
= Ãx + B̃i, v = C̃x + Di, where
h0 1 0i
h0i
Ã = −4 −1 0 , B̃ = 1 , C̃ = [−3 0 1] , D = 1.
0 −1

3K− + K1
1 h 11 −7 −3i
−7 35 15 ,
=
4
48 −3 15 27

and it can be verified that K > 0, Υ(K) ≥ 0, and
spec(AΥ (K)) ∈ C̄− . Now, following the proof of Theorem 9, we augment the matrices Ã, B̃ and C̃ to obtain an
(i,v)
unobservable state-space realization B = B̂s , where
B̂s corresponds to the set of solutions to the equation

dx
dt

0

1 h 1 −1 −1i
1 h 2 −1 0i
−1 5 5 , and K− =
−1 5 0 ,
4 −1 5 9
9 0 0 0

dx̂
dt

0

12

= Âx̂ + B̂i, v = Ĉ x̂ + Di, where


Â =

0
−4
0
0

1
−1
0
0

0
0
−1
0

0
0
0
−1



0
, B̂ =

1
0
1

A = G−1 ÂG, B = G−1 B̂, and C = ĈG, which gives

, Ĉ = [−3 0 1 0] ,


and, as before, D = 1. Then, in Lemma B.2, we let
Ã11 , Ã21 , Ã22 , B̃1 , B̃2 and C̃1 be obtained by partitioning
Â, B̂ and Ĉ (here, Ã11 is formed from the first three
rows and columns of Â, and so forth), and we find that
1
T
[7 − 11 − 9] solves the Sylvester equation in
K12
= 18
that lemma, and ∇ = 12 solves the Lyapunov equation
Ψ(∇) = 0 in that lemma. Accordingly, we obtain


A=


−4
√
4
617
4
−4
√
√
−1
4
617
617
2
0
−4
√4
√
4
617
617
−1

4
√
4
617

−4
√
0
617 
,
0
0
4
0 −1− √
617



−2



B=

1
4
√
4
617 
−1  ,
4
√
4
617



and

C = B T Σi . These satisfy the conditions of Theorem 18.
Next, we use the results in (Anderson and Vongpanitlerd, 2006, Sections 9.2 and 9.4) to obtain an RLCT
network which realizes the behavior in (8.1). We let

7
1
11
7 
48 − 48 − 16 18
7
35
5
11 
−
 48 48 16 − 18  ,
9
1 
− 1 5
16 16
16 − 2
7
11
1 16
18 − 18 − 2
9


K̂ =

"
M :=

"
M=

,

M11 =
M21 =
M22 =

Σi =

V =

√

0 −Σi

#
,

T
M11 −M21

#
,

0
0

#

1 −1



617−20
√
4
617

0 0

−4
√
4
√√ 617  ,
617−20
√
4
617





1
−2
0
−4
4
, and
√−4
√
√
4
4
617
617
617


h √√
i
√√ 0
617+4 ,
617+4
√
0
4
√
4
617
617

where the factorization for M11 is obtained by (i) finding a matrix T ∈ R3×2 such that the columns of M11 T
span the column space of M11 ; then (ii) computing a
Cholesky decomposition for T T M11 T . The factorization
of M22 can be found similarly. Finally, using (Anderson
and Vongpanitlerd, 2006, Sections 9.2 and 9.4), we find
that B is realized by the RLCT network in Fig. 3.

0
0
0
617+13
0
0
0

32
, W = 0
 , and
0
1 √ 0
617−13
0
0
0
32
 √

√ √√
√ √√
√
−2
2
617−13
−2
2
617+13
2 7
√
√7
√ √
√ √
4
4
51
51 617
 51 √ √51√ 617

√ √√
 5

7
617−13
7
617+13 
3
 √
√
√ √
√
√
−
4
 2 17 √2 34 4 617

17 √2 34 617

.
√
√
 √
43 617−295
43 617+295 
1
√
√ √
 4 1 3 − 4√6 √

4
4
2 3

√ √ 617
√ 4 √6 617 
11 617+185
11 617−185
1
1
√ √
√ √
4
2
4 2 4 617
4 2 4 617
0
0
1
0

√√

−4
√
4
617



√
√ 
357 √ 3
4 3
√20
√
−
−
7
119
3 357
119

2
√3
√6

0
−√
17
17
2√17  .
8
3 
√
0
0

4
3 3
3
0
0
0
4

1

0
0 −1
0 0
0 0

1
−1

"

Then, following the proof of Theorem 18, we compute
an eigenvalue decomposition of (R−1 )T ŜR−1 to obtain

−1

0

where M11 ∈ R3×3 and M22 ∈ R2×2 are symmetric, and
M11 , M22 ≥ 0. In this case, we have

Next, using a Cholesky decomposition we obtain



X̂ = RT R, with R = 



"
1

M21 M22

which satisfies Ŝ Â = ÂT Ŝ and Ŝ B̂ = Ĉ T . We have
thus obtained a state-space realization Bs as in (2.2) and
matrices X, S ∈ Rd×d as in Lemma 19.

√

, and Σ =

−B −A

−3 −3 0 0
−3 0 0 0
0 0 01
0 0 10

#

C

and we conclude that M + M T ≥ 0 and ΣM is symmetric. It follows that M takes the form

which satisfies K̂ > 0 and −K̂ ÂT − ÂK̂ − (K̂ Ĉ T −
B̂)(D + DT )−1 (Ĉ K̂ − B̂ T ). We then let X̂ = K̂ −1 . Also,
following Remark 12, we obtain the matrix

Ŝ =

D



0
0
0
1



Our final example considers the behavior B in (4.1), with

P (ξ) =



1 1 −1
0 ξ 0
ξ+1 1 0


, Q(ξ) =



0
0
0
−1 ξ 2 +1 ξ 2
ξ+2 ξ−1 2ξ+1

,

for which Q is singular. We use this example to illustrate
both the proof of Theorem 17 and the inductive procedure described in Lemma 19. Again, the realization procedure works in the general case. In addition to the previously listed algorithms, it relies on the computation of
an upper echelon form for a polynomial matrix.

Following the proof of Theorem 18, let G := R−1 V W −1/2 ,

13

d
d
to the differential equation ( dt
+ 1)ie = ( dt
+ 1)ve can
be obtained by the method outlined in the first example.

First, following the proof of Theorem 17, we obtain matrices T = [T1 T2 ]T and Ŷ ∈ R3×3 [ξ], where
T1 =

h1 0i
01
00

, T2 =

h−1i
−1
1

"
, Ŷ (ξ) =

9

0
−1#
1
1
−ξ −1 − 2 ξ− 2 0
,
1
1−ξ
−2
0
0

and we find that




P T −1 = Ŷ P01 10 , and QT T = Ŷ Q01 00 , where



1
1
3
1 2 3
1 2
ξ +ξ+ 2
2
2
, Q1 (ξ)= 23ξ + 22 ξ+ 2
P1 (ξ)=
3
2
−ξ −ξ −ξ−1 −ξ−1

This paper developed a theory of reciprocal systems
which does not assume controllability. Necessary and
sufficient algebraic conditions were established for a system to be reciprocal, both in terms of the high order differential equations describing the system, and in terms
of a state-space realization. Analogous results were obtained for systems that are both passive and reciprocal. Notably, we answered the first open problem in
(Çamlibel et al., 2003) by proving that a behavior is realizable as the driving-point behavior of an RLCT network if and only if it is passive and reciprocal.



−1

.

−ξ −2ξ −2ξ−1 0

Here, for any given λ > 0, then T ∈ R3×3 is a nonsingular
matrix such that T2 is a basis for the right nullspace of
Q(λ). Also, Ŷ and Q1 are obtained by computing an
upper echelon form for QT T . It then follows from the
proof of Theorem 17 that B is realized by a network of
the form shown in Fig. 2, where Na,1 is a short circuit,
and Na,2 is a network whose driving-point behavior is
d
d
)i1 = Q1 ( dt
)v1 .
the set of solutions to P1 ( dt

A

0 0
0 ξ


=

1 2 3
3
1
−1− 2 ξ
2 ξ + 2 ξ+ 2
3
2
2
−ξ −2ξ −2ξ−1 ξ +ξ

"
U R̂ =

P3 (ξ) = Q2 (ξ)−P2 (ξ)

0 ξ


=

.


.

Next, we find that (P3 , Q3 ) satisfies condition (R1) on p.
9, but not condition (R2). Thus, following Lemma B.4,
we let T̂ = [T̂1 T̂2 ] and W ∈ R2×2 [ξ], where
T̂1 =

[10] ,

T̂2 =



1
−1




and W (ξ) =

1−ξ



1
−2

−2ξ 2 −2 −1−ξ

P



4 0
0 0

, Q3 (T̂ −1 )T = W −1

Q4

1
0 −2



,

(A.1)

Finally, if B is as in (2.1) and T ∈ Rq×q is a nonsingular
real matrix, then it is easily shown that B (T w) = {z ∈
d
q
−1
)( dt
Lloc
)z=0}.
1 (R, R ) | (RT

,

and we find that
P3 T̂ = W −1

#

where the rightmost matrix is partitioned compatibly with col(w1 w2 ), and M2 has full row rank.
Then, from (Polderman and Willems, 1998, Theorem
2.5.4), B̂ is the set of locally integrable solutions to
d
d
d
R1 ( dt
)w1 = 0 and M2 ( dt
)w2 = −R2 ( dt
)w1 . Now,
d
n1
)
|
R
(
let B := {w1 ∈ Lloc
(R,
R
)w
1 dt
1 = 0}.
1
Since M2 has full row rank, then it is easily shown
that for any w1 ∈ D+ (R, Rn1 ) there exists w2 ∈
d
d
D+ (R, Rn2 ) such that M2 ( dt
)w2 = −R2 ( dt
)w1 , whence
(B̂∩(D+ (R, Rn1 )×D+ (R, Rn2 )))(w1 ) = B∩D+ (R, Rn1 ).
But it may not be the case that B̂ (w1 ) = B (see, e.g.,
Polderman, 1997, Example 2.1). If B̂ (w1 ) = B, then w2
is called properly eliminable (Polderman, 1997). From
(Polderman, 1997, Example 3.1), if Bs is as in (2.2),
then x is properly eliminable. Also, the internal currents
and voltages in any given RLCT network are properly
eliminable (Hughes, 2017b, Section 6).



1 2
1
1 2
1
2 ξ +ξ+ 2
2 ξ +ξ+ 2
3
2
3
2
−ξ −ξ −ξ−1 −ξ −ξ −ξ−1

R1 0
R 2 M2

In this case, limξ→∞ ((Q−1
2 P2 )(ξ)) = diag(1 0), so again
we apply Lemma B.5. Here, limξ→∞ ( 1ξ (P2−1 Q2 )(ξ)) =
diag(0 1), and we let K = 1, Q3 = P2 , and
0 0

The elimination theorem

loc
n2
n1
Let B̂ = {(w1 , w2 ) ∈ Lloc
1 (R, R ) × L1 (R, R ) |
d
R̂( dt )col(w1 w2 )}. From (Polderman and Willems,
1998, Theorem 6.2.6), there exists a unimodular U with

Next, note that limξ→∞ ((Q−1
1 P1 )(ξ)) = diag(1 0),
which is singular. Thus, (P1 , Q1 ) satisfies conditions
(R1)–(R2) on p. 9, but not condition (R3). Then, following Lemma B.5, we find that limξ→∞ ( 1ξ (P1−1 Q1 )(ξ)) =
diag(0 1), and accordingly we let K = 1, Q2 = P1 , and
P2 (ξ) = Q1 (ξ) − P1 (ξ)

Conclusions

2

B

,

where P4 (ξ) = Q4 (ξ) = ξ + 1. In this case, T̂ ∈ R2×2 is
a nonsingular matrix such that T̂2 is a basis for the right
nullspace of P3 , and the matrices W and Q4 are obtained
from the upper echelon form for Q3 (T̂ −1 )T . It can then
be verified that B is realized by a network of the form of
Fig. 4. Here, a network realization for the set of solutions

The passive and reciprocal behavior theorem,
supplementary lemmas

In this appendix, we present four supplementary lemmas
used to prove the results in Sections 6 and 7. In the first
two lemmas, for any given symmetric K ∈ Rd×d , we let
Υ(K) := −KAT −AK−(KC T −B)(D+DT )−1 (CK−B T ),
and AΥ (K) := AT −C T (D+DT )−1 (B T −CK). (B.1)

14

(u,y)

that AΥ (K )T = AΥ (K− )T + ZC T (D+DT )−1 C, and
letting Â12 := T1 ZC T (D+DT )−1 C T̂2 , we find that

Lemma B.1 Let Bs be as in (2.2), and let B̂ := Bs
be passive, (C, A) be observable, D + DT > 0, and
Υ(K), AΥ (K) be as in (B.1). Then there exists K ∈ Rd×d
such that K > 0, Υ(K) ≥ 0, and spec(AΥ (K)) ∈ C− .

T

T AΥ (K ) T
PROOF. Since (C, A) is observable then there exists
X ∈ Rd×d such that X > 0 and −AT X − XA − (C T −
XB)(D + DT )−1 (C − B T X) = 0 (see Hughes, 2017c,
Theorem 13). Now, let K1 := X −1 ∈ Rd×d , so K1 > 0
and Υ(K1 ) = 0. Thus, from (Hughes, 2017a, Theorems
10 and 11), there exists K− ≥ 0 such that Υ(K− ) = 0,
spec(AΥ (K− )) ∈ C− , and K− ≤ K1 (here, the available
T
T
T
energy Sa for the system dx
dt = A x−C u, y = −B x+
T
T
d
D u satisfies Sa (x0 ) = x0 K− x0 for all x0 ∈ R ). Now,
let  be a fixed but arbitrary real number in the interval
0 <  < 1, and let K := (1−)K− +K1 . Since K1 > 0
and (1 − )K− ≥ 0, then K > 0. Also,

−1

=

"
#
A1 +T1 ZC T (D+DT )−1 C T̂1 Â12
0

.

A2

Thus, spec(AΥ (K )) = spec(A1 +T1 ZC T (D+DT )−1 C T̂1 )
∪spec(A2 ). Since spec(A1 ) ∈ C− , then there exists a 0 <
α < 1 such that spec(A1 +T1 ZC T (D+DT )−1 C T̂1 ) ∈
C− for all 0 <  ≤ α. For any such , then K := K satisfies the conditions of the present theorem statement. 2
(u,y)

Lemma B.2 Let Bs be as in (2.2), and let B̂ := Bs
be passive, (C, A) be detectable (i.e., col(C λI − A) has
full column rank for all λ ∈ C+ ), D +DT > 0, and Υ(K)
be as in (B.1). Then there exists K ∈ Rd×d such that
K > 0 and Υ(K) ≥ 0.

Υ(K ) = (1−)Υ(K− ) + Υ(K1 )
+ (1−)(K− −K1 )C T (D+DT )−1 C(K− −K1 ) ≥ 0,

PROOF. By the observer staircase form (see Hughes,
2017c, note D2), there exists a T ∈ Rd×d such that

and so Υ(K ) ≥ 0. To complete the proof of the present
theorem, we will show that there exists 0 < α < 1 such
that spec(AΥ (K )) ∈ C− for all 0 <  ≤ α. To see this,
note that Z := K1 − K− satisfies Z ≥ 0 and
T

T

T −1

−ZAΥ (K− ) − AΥ (K− ) Z = ZC (D + D )

"
T AT

−1

=

Ã11 0

#

"
, TB =

Ã21 Ã22

B̃1
B̃2

#

i
h
, CT −1 = C̃1 0 ,

CZ.

Next, let T ∈ Rd×d be nonsingular with T AΥ (K− )T T −1 =
diag(A1 A2 ) where spec(A1 ) ∈ C− and spec(A2 ) ∈ jR
(here, the rows of T1 span the stable left eigenspace
of AΥ (K− )T ), and partition T compatibly as T =
col(T1 T2 ). Then the row space of T2 is spanned by the
left Jordan chains corresponding to the imaginary axis
eigenvalues of AΥ (K− ). Consider one such Jordan chain:
zT1 AΥ (K− )T = jωzT1 , and
zTk AΥ (K− )T = jωzTk + zTk−1 (k = 2, 3, . . . , N ).

with (C̃1 , Ã11 ) observable. As (C, A) is detectable, then
it is easily shown that spec(Ã22 )∈C− . Now, let


˜
n
loc
n
loc
B̃s = {(u, y, x̃)∈Lloc
R, Rd |
1 (R, R ) ×L1 (R, R ) ×L1
dx̃
dt = Ã11 x̃ + B̃1 u and y = C̃1 x̃ + Du},
Υ̃(K̃) := −K̃ ÃT11 − Ã11 K̃
− (K̃ C̃1T − B̃1 )(D + DT )−1 (C̃1 K̃ − B̃1T ),
and ÃΥ̃ (K̃) = ÃT11 − C̃1T (D + DT )−1 (B̃1T − C̃1 K̃).
(u,y)

It follows from (Hughes, 2017c, Note D3) that B̃s
=
(u,y)
Bs
, which is passive, whence from Lemma B.1 there
˜ ˜
exists K11 ∈ Rd×d such that K11 > 0, Υ̃(K11 ) ≥ 0, and
spec(ÃΥ̃ (K11 )) ∈ C− . Since, in addition, spec(Ã22 ) ∈
C− , then by (Anderson and Vongpanitlerd, 2006, Theorem 3.7.4) there exists a unique real K12 which satisfies
the Sylvester equation

Then AΥ (K− )z̄1 = −jωz̄1 and AΥ (K− )z̄k = −jωz̄k +
z̄k−1 (k = 2, 3, . . . , N ). Thus, for k = 1,
zTk ZC T (D+DT )−1 CZz̄k
= zTk (−ZAΥ (K− )−AΥ (K− )T Z)z̄k = 0, (B.2)
whence CZz̄1 = 0. This implies that (−ZAΥ (K− ) −
AΥ (K− )T Z)z̄1 = 0, so AΥ (K− )T Zz̄1 = −ZAΥ (K− )z̄1 =
jωZz̄1 . It follows that C(Zz̄1 ) = 0 and A(Zz̄1 ) =
AΥ (K− )T (Zz̄1 ) = jωZz̄1 , and so Zz̄1 = 0 since (C, A)
is observable. Next, note that (B.2) holds for k = 2,
and similar to before we find that Zz̄2 = 0. Proceeding
by induction, we obtain Zz̄k = 0, whence zTk Z = 0
(k = 1, 2, . . . , N ). Since the vectors z1 . . . zN span the
row space of T2 , then T2 Z = 0. Thus, by partitioning
T̂ := T −1 compatibly with T as T̂ = [T̂1 T̂2 ], noting

T
T
Ã22 K12
+ K12
ÃΥ̃ (K11 )

= −Ã21 K11 − B̃2 (D + DT )−1 (B̃1T − C̃1 K11 );
and there exists a non-unique ∇ > 0 which satisfies
−1
−1
T
Ψ(∇) := −∇ÃT22 − Ã22 ∇ − K12
K11
Υ̃(K11 )K11
K12
−1
−1
T
T
−(B̃2 −K12
K11
B̃1 )(D+DT )−1 (B̃2 −K12
K11
B̃1 )T ≥ 0.

15

Remark 20 With Pk , Qk , Pk−1 and Qk−1 as in
the above lemma, then the driving-point behavior
d
d
Pk−1 ( dt
)i = Qk−1 ( dt
)v can be realized by a transformer
terminated on a network with driving-point behavior
d
d
Pk ( dt
)î = Qk ( dt
)v̂ (see the final example in Section 8).

It can then be verified that
"
#"
#"
#
−1
I
0
K
0
I
K
K
11
12
11
K:=T −1
(T −1 )T >0,
−1
T
K12
K11
I
0 ∇ 0
I
"
#
0
−1 Υ̃(K11 )
and Υ(K) = T
(T −1 )T ≥ 0.
2
0
Ψ(∇)

Lemma B.5 Let Pk−1 , Qk−1 satisfy (R1)–(R2) for
i=k−1, with mk := nk−1 −rk−1 > 0. The following hold.
1. There exists 0 < K ∈ Rmk ×mk such that diag(0 K) =
−1
limξ→∞ ( 1ξ Pk−1
Qk−1 (ξ)).
2. Let Pk (ξ) := Qk−1 (ξ) − Pk−1 (ξ)diag(0 Kξ),
and Qk := Pk−1 . Then (R1) holds for i = k;
deg (det (Qk )) < deg (det (Qk−1 )); and there exist
D̂12 ∈ Rrk−1 ×mk , D̂21 ∈ Rmk ×rk−1 , D̂22 ∈ Rmk ×mk
such that

Remark B.3 It is easily shown that K in Lemma B.2
satisfies spec(AΥ (K))=spec(AΥ̃ (K11 ))∪spec(A22 )∈C− .
The final two lemmas concern the decomposition in the
proof of Lemma 19. We refer to that proof for the definition of statements (R1)–(R3) and (S1)–(S3).
Lemma B.4 Let Pk−1 , Qk−1 satisfy (R1) for i = k−1,
and let nk := normalrank(Pk−1 ), mk := nk−1 − nk , and
rk := rank(limξ→∞ (Q−1
k−1 Pk−1 (ξ))). The following hold.

"
lim (Q−1
k Pk (ξ)) =: Dk =

1. There exists a nonsingular T ∈ Rnk−1 ×nk−1 ; unimodular W ∈ Rnk−1 ×nk−1 [ξ] and Q̃22 ∈ Rmk ×mk [ξ];
Q̃12 ∈ Rnk ×mk [ξ]; and Pk , Qk satisfying (R1) and
(R2) for i=k, with
W Pk−1 T =

#
"
Pk 0
0 0

"
, W Qk−1 (T

−1 T

) =

Qk Q̃12

ξ→∞

#

Yk−1 Zk−1
Uk−1 Vk−1

#

.

(B.4)

D̂21 D̂22

. (B.3)

0 Q̃22

"

PROOF. Condition 1 follows from (Hughes, 2017a,
Lemma D.3, condition 1), noting that T T Q−1
k−1 Pk−1 T =
−1
diag(Q−1
P
0),
so
Q
P
is
symmetric
since
Q−1
k
k
k
k
k−1 Pk−1
is. To see condition 2a, we let Ak , Yk , Zk , Uk , Vk , Ek , Fk
and Gk be as in (S1) for i = k. Following (Hughes,
2017a, Lemma D.3, proof of condition 2), we let
"

#

3. Let Ak , Bk , Ck , Dk satisfy (S1) for i = k; partition
Bk , Ck compatibly with Dk as Bk = [B̂1 B̂2 ], Ck =
col(Ĉ1 Ĉ2 ); and let

2. Let Ak , Bk , Ck , Dk satisfy (S1) for i = k; and let
Ak−1 :=Ak , Bk−1 :=[Bk 0]T −1 , Ck−1 :=(T −1 )T col(Ck 0),
and Dk−1 :=(T −1 )T diag(Dk 0)T −1 . Then:
(a) (S1) holds for i = k−1.
(b) Let Xk satisfy (S2) for i = k; and let Xk−1 :=
Xk . Then (S2) holds for i = k−1.
(c) Let Sk satisfy (S3) for i = k; and let Sk−1 := Sk .
Then (S3) holds for i = k−1.



Irk−1 D̂12

Ak−1 :=

Bk−1

Ak − B̂1 Ĉ1

B̂2 K −1 − B̂1 D̂12 K −1

#

,
D̂21 Ĉ1 − Ĉ2 D̂21 D̂12 K −1 − D̂22 K −1
"
#
"
#
−Ĉ1 −D̂12 K −1
B̂1 0
:=
, and Ck−1 :=
.
−D̂21 I
0
K −1

Then:
(a) (S1) holds for i = k−1.
(b) Let Xk satisfy (S2) for i = k; and let Xk−1 :=
diag(Xk K −1 ). Then (S2) holds for i = k−1.
(c) Let Sk satisfy (S3) for i = k; and let Sk−1 :=
diag(−Sk K −1 ). Then (S3) holds for i = k−1.

−1 T
T
PROOF. First, note that Q−1
k−1 Pk−1 = Pk−1 (Qk−1 )
T
T
implies that Pk−1 Qk−1 = Qk−1 Pk−1 , and hence
−1
T
Pk−1
Qk−1 = QTk−1 (Pk−1
)−1 . Conditions 1 and 2 then
follow from (Hughes, 2017a, Lemma D.4, conditions 1
−1
and 2), as Q−1
k Pk (ξ) = Pk−1 Qk−1 (ξ) − diag(0 Kξ), so
−1
Q−1
k Pk is symmetric since Pk−1 Qk−1 and diag(0 Kξ)
are. For condition 3a, we let Ak , Yk , Zk , Uk , Vk , Ek , Fk
and Gk be as in (S1) for i = k. Following (Hughes, 2017a,
Lemma D.4, proof of condition 3), we partition the two
matrices on the left-hand side of (S1) compatibly as



#
# Yk Q̃12 Zk "
 TT 0
W −1 0 


.
:=
 0 Q̃22 0 
0 I
0 I
Uk 0 Vk
"

It can be verified that each of the above matrices is unimodular. Also, with Ak−1 (ξ) := ξI − Ak−1 , Ek−1 :=
[Ek 0]T −1 , Fk−1 := [Fk 0]T T , and Gk−1 := Gk , it can
be verified that (S1) holds for i = k − 1.
The proof of condition 2b follows from (Hughes, 2017a,
Lemma D.3, proof of condition 2(c)): with R :=
diag(I T −1 ), then Ωk−1 (Xk−1 ) = RT diag(Ωk (Xk ) 0)R.
Finally, condition 2c is straightforward to check. 2

"

Ŷ11 Ŷ12 Ẑ1
Ŷ21 Ŷ22 Ẑ2
Û1 Û2 V̂

16

#

"
and

−I −D̂12 −Ĉ1
I
−D̂21 −D̂22 −Ĉ2
− B̂1 −B̂2 0 Ak

#
,

(B.5)

and we let
"

Yk−1 Zk−1



#
=

Uk−1 Vk−1

Ŷ11 Ŷ12 Ẑ1
 Ŷ21 Ŷ22 Ẑ2

0
0

−Û1 −Û2 −V̂ 0
0
I
0 −I

 I
D̂21



D̂12
D̂22 +Kξ



0 0
0 I

B̂1
B̂2
−I 0
D̂21 D̂22 +K(1+ξ) 0 I

.

It can be verified that each of the above matrices is unimodular. Then, with Ek−1 := col(Fk 0),
Fk−1 (ξ) := col(Ek (ξ) 0) + col(ξ Û2 (ξ) I)[0 K], and
Gk−1 :=diag(Gk I), we find that (S1) holds for i=k−1.
The proof of condition 3b is identical to (Hughes,
2017a, Lemma D.3, proof of condition 3(c)). Finally,
condition 3c is straightforward to check (noting that
T
limξ→∞ (Q−1
k Pk (ξ)) is symmetric, so D̂12 = D̂21 , and
D̂11 and D̂22 are symmetric). 2
Remark 21 With Pk , Qk , Pk−1 and Qk−1 as in
the above lemma, then the driving-point behavior
d
d
Pk−1 ( dt
)i = Qk−1 ( dt
)v can be realized by a parallel
connection of networks with driving-point behaviors
d
d
d
ĩ = diag(0 K dt
)ṽ and Qk ( dt
)î = Pk ( dt
)v̂.
References
Anderson, B. D. O., Newcomb, R. W., 1966. Cascade
connection for time-invariant n-port networks. Proceedings of the IEE 113 (6), 970 – 974.
Anderson, B. D. O., Vongpanitlerd, S., 2006. Network
Analysis and Synthesis, A Modern Systems Theory
Approach, 3rd Edition. Dover Publications.
Casimir, H. B. G., 1963. Reciprocity theorems and irreversible processes. Proceedings of the IEEE 51 (11),
1570–1573.
Çamlibel, M. K., Willems, J. C., Belur, M. N., Dec.
2003. On the dissipativity of uncontrollable systems.
In: Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Hawaii.
Ferrante, A., Lanzon, A., Ntogramatzidis, L., Oct 2016.
Foundations of not necessarily rational negative imaginary systems theory: Relations between classes of
negative imaginary and positive real systems. IEEE
Trans. on Automatic Control 61 (10), 3052–3057.
Ferrante, A., Ntogramatzidis, L., 2013. Some new results
in the theory of negative imaginary systems with symmetric transfer matrix function. Automatica 49 (7),
2138–2144.
Fuhrmann, P. A., 1983. On symmetric rational transfer
functions. Linear Algebra Appl. 50, 167 – 250.
Fuhrmann, P. A., Rapisarda, P., Yamamoto, Y., 2007.
On the state of behaviours. Linear Algebra Appl.
424 (2 - 3), 570 – 614.
Hughes, T. H., 2016. Behavioral realizations using companion matrices and the Smith form. SIAM Journal
on Control Optim. 54 (2), 845–865.
Hughes, T. H., 2017a. On the optimal control of passive or non-expansive or passive systems. To ap-

17

pear in IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, DOI:
10.1109/TAC.2018.2819656.
Hughes, T. H., 2017b. Passivity and electric circuits:
a behavioral approach. IFAC JournalsOnline, Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress, Toulouse
50 (1), 15500–15505.
Hughes, T. H., 2017c. A theory of passive linear systems
with no assumptions. Automatica 86, 87–97.
Hughes, T. H., Sept. 2017d. Why RLC realizations of
certain impedances need many more energy storage
elements than expected. IEEE Trans. on Automatic
Control 62 (9), 4333–4346.
Hughes, T. H., Smith, M. C., July 2014. On the minimality and uniqueness of the Bott-Duffin realization
procedure. IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control 59 (7),
1858–1873.
Hughes, T. H., Smith, M. C., 2017. Controllability of
linear passive network behaviors. Systems and Control
Letters 101, 58 – 66.
Newcomb, R. W., 1966. Linear Multiport Synthesis, 1st
Edition. McGraw Hill.
Pal, D., Belur, M. N., 2008. Dissipativity of uncontrollable systems, storage functions, and Lyapunov functions. SIAM Journal on Control Optim. 47 (6), 2930–
2966.
Polderman, J. W., 1997. Proper elimination of latent
variables. Systems and Control Letters 32 (5), 262–
269.
Polderman, J. W., Willems, J. C., 1998. Introduction
to Mathematical Systems Theory: A Behavioral Approach. New York : Springer-Verlag.
Rapisarda, P., Willems, J. C., 1997. State maps for linear systems. SIAM Journal on Control Optim. 35 (3),
1053 – 1091.
Reis, T., Willems, J. C., 2011. A balancing approach to
the realization of systems with internal passivity and
reciprocity. Systems and Control Letters 60, 69 – 74.
van der Schaft, A. J., 2011. On the relationship between
port-Hamiltonian and gradient systems. Proceedings
of the 18th IFAC World Congress, Milano, 3321–3326.
van der Schaft, A. J., Rapisarda, P., 2011. State maps
from integration by parts. SIAM Journal on Control
Optim. 49 (6), 2415 – 2439.
Willems, J. C., 1972. Dissipative dynamical systems,
Part II: Linear systems with quadratic supply rates.
Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 45, 352 – 393.
Willems, J. C., Dec. 2004. Hidden variables in dissipative
systems. In: Proceedings of the 43rd IEEE Conference
on Decision and Control, Bahamas. pp. 358–363.
Willems, J. C., 2007. The behavioral approach to open
and interconnected systems. IEEE Control Systems
Magazine 27, 46–99.
Wolovich, W. A., 1974. Linear Multivariable Systems,
1st Edition. New York : Springer-Verlag.
Youla, D. C., Castriota, L. J., Carlin, H. J., 1959.
Bounded real scattering matrices and the foundations
of linear passive network theory. IRE Transactions on
Circuit Theory 6 (1), 102–124.
Youla, D. C., Tissi, P., 1966. N-port synthesis via reac-

tance extraction, Part I. IEEE International Convention Record 14 (7), 183–205.

18

