1

On the optimal control of passive or non-expansive
systems

arXiv:1703.08153v2 [cs.SY] 22 Jan 2018

Timothy H. Hughes

Abstract—The positive-real and bounded-real lemmas solve
two important linear-quadratic optimal control problems for
passive and non-expansive systems, respectively. The lemmas
assume controllability, yet a passive or non-expansive system can
be uncontrollable. In this paper, we solve these optimal control
problems without making any assumptions. In particular, we
show how to extract the greatest possible amount of energy from
a passive but not necessarily controllable system (e.g., a passive
electric circuit) using state feedback. A complete characterisation
of the set of solutions to the linear matrix inequalities in
the positive-real and bounded-real lemmas is also obtained.
In addition, we obtain necessary and sufficient conditions for
a system to be non-expansive that augment the bounded-real
condition with new conditions relevant to uncontrollable systems.
Index Terms—Passive, non-expansive, optimal control, positivereal, bounded-real, controllability, observability.

I. I NTRODUCTION
The positive-real and bounded-real lemmas are recognised
as two of the most fundamental results in systems and control.
They relate to two important optimal control problems, for
passive and non-expansive systems, respectively [1]–[4]. In
the positive-real lemma, the solution to the optimal control
problem gives the least upper bound on the energy that
can be extracted from a passive system. The lemmas also
provide results on the solutions of important classes of Linear
Matrix Inequalities (LMIs) and Algebraic Riccati Equations
(AREs), the theory of spectral factorization, and the concepts
of positive-real and bounded-real functions. But the classical
versions of these lemmas consider only controllable systems.
In [5], it was emphasised that a passive system (e.g., a
passive electric circuit) can be uncontrollable, and a theory
of passive linear systems was developed that does not assume
controllability. In contrast to other papers on this subject (see
[6, Section 3.3] and the discussion following Theorem 13
in the present paper), [5] did not introduce any alternative
assumptions. But it did not consider the related optimal control
problem, nor did it consider non-expansive systems. It is the
purpose of this paper to solve the optimal control problems
considered in the positive-real and bounded-real lemmas in
the absence of any assumptions. In so doing, we characterise
the set of solutions to the LMIs in these two lemmas, and we
show how to use state feedback to extract the greatest amount
of energy from a passive (not necessarily controllable) linear
system. Also, in contrast with the case of controllable systems,
Timothy H. Hughes is with the College of Engineering, Mathematics and
Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn, Cornwall,
TR10 9EZ, UK, t.h.hughes@exeter.ac.uk
c 2017 IEEE.

we show that for there to exist a solution to the LMI in the
bounded-real lemma, and for a system to be non-expansive, it
is necessary but not sufficient for the H∞ norm of the system’s
transfer function to be bounded above by one. We also provide
a necessary and sufficient condition, by introducing two new
conditions relevant to uncontrollable systems.
The paper is structured as follows. Section II introduces
the notation, and contains preliminary system theoretic results
that are formalised using the behavioral approach [7]. In
Section III, we review the classical positive-real lemma and
the associated optimal control problem. We then state the main
results concerning this optimal control problem in Theorems
10, 12 and 13, which are proved in Sections IV and V. The
theorems explicitly characterise the solution to the optimal
control problem in terms of an ARE (relevant when the transfer
function H satisfies limξ→∞ (H(ξ) + H(−ξ)T ) > 0), and
a spectral factorization of H(ξ) + H(−ξ)T (relevant in the
general case). Section VI contains analogous results relevant
to non-expansive systems (Theorems 20, 22 and 23, which are
proved in Sections VII and VIII). In particular, we define the
new concept of a bounded-real pair of polynomial matrices,
which appears in our new necessary and sufficient condition
for a system to be non-expansive. Finally, some intermediate
results are provided in Appendices A–D.
II. N OTATION AND PRELIMINARIES
The notation in the paper is as follows. R (C) denotes the
real (complex) numbers; C+ (C+ ) denotes the open (closed)
right-half plane; C− (C− ) denotes the open (closed) left-half
plane. If λ ∈ C, then <(λ) (=(λ)) denotes its real (imaginary)
part, and λ̄ its complex conjugate. R[ξ] (R(ξ)) denotes the
polynomials (rational functions) in the indeterminate ξ with
real coefficients. Rm×n (resp., Cm×n , Rm×n [ξ], Rm×n (ξ))
denotes the m × n matrices with entries from R (resp., C,
R[ξ], R(ξ)). If H ∈ Rm×n , Cm×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. Rn×n
s
denotes the real n × n symmetric matrices. The block column
(block diagonal) matrix with entries H1 , . . . , Hn is denoted
col(H1 · · · Hn ) (diag(H1 · · · Hn )). We will use horizontal
and vertical lines to indicate the partition in block matrix
equations (e.g., see (43)). If M ∈ Cm×m , then M > 0
(M ≥ 0) indicates that M is Hermitian positive (non-negative)
definite, and spec(M ) := {λ ∈ C | det(λI−M ) = 0}.
A V ∈ Rn×n [ξ] is called unimodular if its determinant
is a non-zero constant (equivalently, V −1 ∈ Rn×n [ξ]). The
matrices P ∈ Rm×n [ξ]and Q ∈ Rm×q [ξ] are called left coprime if rank( P −Q (λ)) is the same for all λ ∈ C.

2

If H ∈ Rm×n (ξ), then (i) H ? (ξ) := H(−ξ)T ; (ii)
normalrank(H) := maxλ∈C (rank(H(λ))); and (iii) H is
called proper if limξ→∞ (H(ξ)) exists, and strictly proper if
limξ→∞ (H(ξ)) = 0. If Z ∈ Rr×n (ξ) and H := Z ? Z, then Z
is called a spectral factor of H if (i) Z is analytic in C+ ; and
(ii) Z(λ) has full row rank for all λ ∈ C+ . If H ∈ Rm×n (ξ),
then kHk∞ denotes its H∞ norm, and it is called boundedreal if kHk∞ ≤ 1 (i.e., H satisfies I − H(λ̄)T H(λ) ≥ 0 for
all λ ∈ C+ ). If m = n, then H is called positive-real if (i) H
is analytic in C+ ; and (ii) H(λ̄)T + H(λ) ≥ 0 for all λ ∈ C+ .
We let Lloc
R, Rk denote the (k-vector-valued)
2
 locally
k
square integrable functions, and if w ∈ Lloc
R,
R
then wT
2
denotes the function satisfying wT (t) = w(t)T for all t ∈ R.
We will consider state-space systems of the form

n
loc
m
loc
Bs = {(u, y, x) ∈ Lloc
R, Rd
2 (R, R ) ×L2 (R, R ) ×L2
such that
with A ∈ R

d×d

dx
dt

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

, B ∈ Rd×n , C ∈ Rm×d and D ∈ Rm×n , (1)

and we interpret differentiation in a weak sense (see [7, Section
n
2.3.2]). In particular, for any given u ∈ Lloc
2 (R, R ) and x0 ∈
d
R , there exists (u, y, x) ∈ Bs such that
Rt
x(t) = eA(t−t0 ) x0 + t0 eA(t−τ ) Bu(τ )dτ, and
(2)
Rt
A(t−t0 )
A(t−τ )
y(t) = Ce
x0 + Du(t) + t0 Ce
Bu(τ )dτ, (3)
for all t ≥ t0 . Moreover, if (u, y, x) ∈ Bs , then there exists
x0 ∈ Rd such that x satisfies (2) for (almost) all t ≥ t0 , so
x(t) is determined by (2) in this interval (and x(t0 ) = x0 ).
The external behavior of (1) is denoted by
Bs(u,y) := {(u, y) | ∃x such that (u, y, x) ∈ Bs },

(4)

and has the properties outlined in the following two lemmas,
which are easily shown from results in [8].
Lemma 1: Let Bs be as in (1) and A(ξ):=ξI−A. There
exist polynomial
  matrices P, Q,
 M,
 N, U, V, E, F,G such that
M N −D I −C
−P
Q
0
1.
=
;
U V
−B 0 A
−E −F G


M N
2.
is unimodular; and
U V
3. G is nonsingular.
Furthermore, whenever conditions 1–3 are satisfied, then the
(u,y)
(u,y)
external behavior Bs
in (4) satisfies Bs
= B, where
n
loc
m
d
d
B={(u, y)∈Lloc
2 (R, R )×L2 (R, R ) | P ( dt )u=Q( dt )y} (5)

and we call (A, B, C, D) a realization of (P, Q).
Lemma 2: Let B be as in (5) with P ∈ Rm×n [ξ] and
Q ∈ Rm×m [ξ] where Q is nonsingular and Q−1 P is proper.
(u,y)
Then there exists Bs as in (1) such that B = Bs
. Fur(u,y)
thermore, whenever Bs in (1) satisfies B = Bs
, then there
exist polynomial matrices M, N, U, V, E, F and G satisfying
conditions 1–3 of Lemma 1.
(u,y)
Remark 3: If Bs in (1) and B in (5) satisfy Bs
= B, then
−1
−1
H(ξ) := D + C(ξI − A) B satisfies Q P = H. However,
(u,y)
the condition Q−1 P = H only guarantees that Bs
takes
the form of (5) if P and Q are left coprime.
4
A system 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 [7, Definition 5.2.2]; and stabilizable if for any
w1 ∈ B there exists w ∈ B such that w(t) = w1 (t) for
all t ≤ t0 and limt→∞ w(t) = 0 [7, Definition 5.2.29]. The
behavior B in (5) is controllable (resp., stabilizable)
if and

only if P and Q are left coprime (resp., rank( P −Q (λ))
is the same for all λ ∈ C+ ) [7, Theorems 5.2.10 and 5.2.30].
We call the pair (A, B) controllable (resp., stabilizable) if Bs
is controllable
(resp.,

 stabilizable), which holds if and only if
rank( λI − A B ) = d for all λ ∈ C (resp., λ ∈ C+ ).
Finally, if Bs takes the form of (1), then we call the pair
(C, A) observable if (u, y, x) ∈ Bs and (u, y, x̂) ∈ Bs imply
(u,y)
x = x̂ [7, Definition 5.3.2]. If, in addition, Bs
takes
the form of (5), then we call (A, B, C, D) an observable
realization for (P, Q). With the notation

Vo := col C CA · · · CAd−1 ,
(6)
then (C, A) is observable if and only if rank(Vo ) = d [7,
Theorem 5.3.9].
Remark 4: It is easily shown that if Bs is controllable (resp.,
(u,y)
. Furthermore, if (C, A) is
stabilizable) then so too is Bs
(u,y)
is controllable (resp., stabilizable), then
observable and Bs
Bs is controllable (resp., stabilizable).
4
III. PASSIVE SYSTEMS
The positive-real lemma considers the optimal control problem concerning the available energy for a passive system:
Definition 5 (Available energy, Passive system): Let Bs be
as in (1) with m = n. For any given x0 ∈ Rd , let
Rt
σ
E+p (x0 ) = { t01 −(uT y)(t)dt | t1 ≥ t0 , (u, y, x) ∈ Bs ,
and x(t0 ) = x0 }.
σ

σ

Then the available energy Sa p satisfies (i) Sa p (x0 ) =
σ
σ
sup(E+p (x0 )) if E+p (x0 ) is bounded above; and (ii)
σ
σp
Sa (x0 ) = ∞ otherwise. If Sa p (x0 ) < ∞ for all x0 ∈ Rd ,
(u,y)
is called passive.
then Bs
In words, the available energy is the least upper bound on
the energy that can be extracted from t0 onwards.
The positive-real lemma provides the solution (if it exists)
to the optimal control problem in Definition 5, and several
necessary and sufficient conditions for passivity. These relate:
(a) the existence of real matrices X ≥ 0 such that


−AT X − XA C T − XB
:=
Ω(X)
(7)
C − BT X
D + DT
satisfies Ω(X) ≥ 0; (b) whether the transfer function
H(ξ) := D + C(ξI − A)−1 B

(8)

is positive-real; and (c) a second optimal control problem
concerning the required energy, defined as follows
Definition 6 (Required energy): Let Bs be as in (1) with
m = n. For any given x0 ∈ Rd , let
Rt
σ
E−p (x0 ) = { t10 (uT y)(t)dt | t1 ≤ t0 , (u, y, x) ∈ Bs ,
x(t1 ) = 0 and x(t0 ) = x0 }.

3

σ

σ

Then the required energy Sr p satisfies (i) Sr p (x0 ) =
σ
σ
sup(E−p (x0 )) if E−p (x0 ) is bounded above; and (ii)
σp
Sr (x0 ) = ∞ otherwise.
Also, if D + DT > 0, then, with the notation
Γ(X) := −AT X − XA
−(C T − XB)(D + DT )−1 (C − B T X),
T −1

and AΓ (X) := A − B(D + D )

(9)

T

(C − B X), (10)

the conditions (a)–(c) also relate to the spectral properties of
AΓ (X) for solutions X to the ARE Γ(X) = 0. Critically to
this paper, it is typically assumed that (A, B) is controllable
and (C, A) is observable.
Lemma 7 (Positive-real lemma): Let Bs be as in (1) with
σ
m = n, (A, B) controllable and (C, A) observable; let Sa p
σp
and Sr be as in Definitions 5 and 6, and let Ω and H be as
in (7)–(8). The following are equivalent:
σ
(u,y)
1. Sa p (x0 ) < ∞ for all x0 ∈ Rd (i.e., Bs
is passive).
σp
d
2. Sr (x0 ) < ∞ for all x0 ∈ R .
3. H is positive-real.
4. There exists X ∈ Rd×d
such that X ≥ 0 and Ω(X) ≥ 0.
s
σ
σ
5. Sa p (x0 ) = 12 xT0 X− x0 and Sr p (x0 ) = 12 xT0 X+ x0 , where
d×d
X− , X+ ∈ Rs satisfy (i) Ω(X− ) ≥ 0 and Ω(X+ ) ≥ 0;
and (ii) if X ∈ Rd×d
satisfies Ω(X) ≥ 0, then 0 < X− ≤
s
X ≤ X+ .
If, in addition, D+DT >0 and Γ(X), AΓ (X) are as in (9)–
(10), then 1–5 are equivalent to each of the following:
satisfying (i) X− ≥ 0;
6. There exists a unique X− ∈ Rd×d
s
(ii) Γ(X− ) = 0; and (iii) spec(AΓ (X− )) ∈ C− .
7. There exists a unique X+ ∈ Rd×d
satisfying (i) X+ ≥ 0;
s
(ii) Γ(X+ ) = 0; and (iii) spec(AΓ (X+ )) ∈ C+ .
σ
Moreover, if conditions 6 and 7 hold, then Sa p (x0 ) =
σ
p
1 T
1 T
2 x0 X− x0 and Sr (x0 ) = 2 x0 X+ x0 .
Proof: See [2, Sections 3–5].
It was shown in [5] that, if controllability and observability
are not assumed, then the positive-real condition is necessary
but not sufficient for there to exist a solution to the LMI in the
positive-real lemma (condition 4 in Lemma 7). A new condition was provided in terms of the polynomial matrices P, Q
describing the external behavior (see Lemma 1). Specifically,
it was shown that there exists a solution to the LMI if and
only if (P, Q) are a positive-real pair, defined as follows.
Definition 8 (Positive-real pair): Let P, Q ∈ Rn×n [ξ]. We
call (P, Q) a positive-real pair if the following hold:
T
T
(a) P (λ)Q(
 λ̄) +Q(λ)P (λ̄) ≥ 0 for all λ ∈ C+ .
(b) rank( P −Q (λ)) = n for all λ ∈ C+ .
T
?
?
(c) If p ∈ Rn [ξ]
 and λ ∈ C satisfy p (P Q + QP ) = 0
T
and p(λ) P −Q (λ) = 0, then p(λ) = 0.
(u,y)

Remark 9: If Bs is as in (1), then Bs
takes the form
indicated in Lemma 1. With P, Q as defined in Lemma 1, Q
is nonsingular, and H := Q−1 P satisfies (8). Then, condition
(a) of Definition 8 is equivalent to H being positive-real
[5, Sections 4–5]. Also, condition (b) is equivalent to the
(u,y)
stabilizability of Bs
. Finally, a physical interpretation of
condition (c) is given in [5, Sections 4–5]. This condition
relates to the fact that, if (i) (u, y,
R tx) ∈ Bs and t1 > t0
satisfy x(t0 ) = x(t1 ) = 0 and t01 (uT y)(t)dt = 0; (ii)

(0, ŷ, x̂) ∈ Bs ; and (iii) α ∈ R, then (αu, αy+ŷ, αx+x̂) ∈
(u,y)
B
is passive, then
R st1. ItT can then be shown that, if Bs
(u
ŷ)(t)dt
=
0.
4
t0
In this paper, we develop the results in [5] to solve the
optimal control problem of extracting the greatest possible
amount of energy from a passive system, and to characterise
the set of solutions to the LMI considered in the positive-real
lemma, in the absence of any controllability or observability
assumptions. The main results in this section are in the next
three theorems, which will be proved in Sections IV and V.
(u,y)
Theorem 10: Let Bs and Bs
be as in (1) and (4) with
σp
m = n; let Sa be as in Definition 5; and let Vo and Ω be as
in (6) and (7). The following are equivalent:
σ
(u,y)
1. Sa p (x0 ) < ∞ for all x0 ∈ Rd (i.e., Bs
is passive).
(u,y)
2. The external behavior Bs
takes the form of (5), where
(P, Q) is a positive-real pair.
3. There exists X ∈ Rsd×d such that X ≥ 0 and Ω(X) ≥ 0.
σ
4. Sa p (x0 ) = 21 xT0 X− x0 , where X− ∈ Rsd×d satisfies (i)
X− ≥ 0; (ii) Ω(X− ) ≥ 0; (iii) if z ∈ Rd , then Vo z =
0 ⇐⇒ X− z = 0; and (iv) if X ∈ Rsd×d satisfies X ≥ 0
and Ω(X) ≥ 0, then X− ≤ X.
Moreover, if (C, A) is observable and the above conditions
satisfies
hold, then (i) spec(A) ∈ C− ; and (ii) if X ∈ Rd×d
s
Ω(X) ≥ 0, then X− ≤ X.
Remark 11: We note from Theorem 10 that, for a passive
σ
system, z ∈ Rd satisfies Vo z = 0 if and only if Sa p (z) = 0.
In words, the available energy of the state z is zero if and
only if z is an unobservable mode (we call z an unobservable
mode if (0, 0, x) ∈ Bs where x(t) = eAt z for all t ∈ R). 4
The next theorem provides an explicit expression for the
available energy for the case with D + DT > 0.
σ
Theorem 12: Let Bs be as in (1) with m = n; let Sa p be
as in Definition 5; let Vo , Γ and AΓ be as in (6), (9) and (10),
respectively; and let D+DT >0. The following are equivalent:
σ
(u,y)
is passive).
1. Sa p (x0 ) < ∞ for all x0 ∈ Rd (i.e., Bs
d×d
satisfying (i) X− ≥ 0; (ii)
2. There exists X− ∈ Rs
Γ(X− ) = 0; (iii) if z ∈ Rd satisfies Vo z = 0, then
X− z = 0; and (iv) if λ ∈ C+ and z ∈ Cd satisfy
AΓ (X− )z = λz, then Vo z = 0.
σ
Moreover, if these conditions hold, then Sa p (x0 )= 21 xT0 X− x0 .
The final theorem provides an explicit expression for the
available energy in the general case.
σ
Theorem 13: Let Bs be as in (1) with m = n; let Sa p be
as in Definition 5; and let Vo and H be as in (6) and (8). The
following are equivalent:
σ
(u,y)
1. Sa p (x0 ) < ∞ for all x0 ∈ Rd (i.e., Bs
is passive).
d×d
2. There exists X− ∈ Rs
satisfying (i) X− ≥ 0; (ii) if
z ∈ Rd satisfies Vo z = 0, then X− z = 0; and (iii) there
exist real matrices L and W such that
(iiia) −AT X− − X− A = LT L, C − B T X− = W T L, and
D + DT = W T W ; and
(iiib) Z(ξ):=W +L(ξI−A)−1 B is a spectral factor of
H+H ? .
σ

Moreover, if these conditions hold, then Sa p (x0 )= 21 xT0 X− x0 .
In proving Theorems 10, 12 and 13, we show how to comσ
pute the available energy Sa p and obtain a linear state feed-

4

R∞
back law such that, with x0 := x(t0 ), then t0 −(uT y)(t)dt
σp
is arbitrarily close to Sa (x0 ) (see Remark 16).
We next present an example to illustrate the distinction
between the results in this section and other papers in the
literature that deal with similar objectives.
It has long been recognised that the controllability and observability assumptions in the positive-real lemma are unduly
restrictive, and there have been many notable attempts to relax
these assumptions. A comprehensive summary is provided in
[6, Section 3.3] (see also [9] for additional properties of the
LMI Ω(X) ≥ 0). These results focus on the equivalence
of the positive-real condition with the existence of solutions
to an LMI (similar to condition 3 of Theorem
X ∈ Rd×d
s
10) or an ARE (similar to condition 2 of Theorem 12) [10]–
[13]. None of these papers explicitly consider the optimal
control problem in Definition 5. Also, each of these papers
introduce alternative assumptions that are not necessary for
guaranteeing a solution to the optimal control problem. These
assumptions include: (i) spec(A) ∈ C− [12], [13]; (ii) (A, B)
is stabilizable [10], [11]; (iii) H + H ? is nonsingular [11]; (iv)
H(jω)+H(−jω)T > 0 for all ω ∈ R [10], [13] (note that this
implies (iii)); and (v) (C, A) is observable [10], [11]. A key
objective of this paper is to avoid such assumptions entirely.
We also note that several papers have sought to demonstrate
the equivalence of the conditions (a) H(jω) + H(−jω)T ≥ 0
for all ω ∈ R; and (b) there exists X ∈ Rd×d
(not necessarily
s
non-negative definite) such that Ω(X) ≥ 0 [14], [15]. The
papers [16], [17] consider a similar problem using the formalism of the behavioral approach. These papers again introduce
additional assumptions. Specifically, [14] assumes that A is
unmixed; and [15] assumes sign controllability.
Both of these

conditions imply the assumption (vi) jωI − A B has full
row rank for all ω ∈ R. Also, [17] assumes conditions (iii),
(v) and (vi); and [16] considers only single-input single-output
systems that satisfy conditions (v) and (vi).
However, there are physical systems that do not satisfy any
of the assumptions in these papers. For example, consider the
two electric circuits in Fig. 1. Note that, for each of these circuits, the pair (A, B) is not stabilizable. This implies that there
is no state feedback law that transfers the internal currents and
voltages to zero (however, there is a state feedback law that
transfers the external currents and voltages to zero, and so
(i,v)
the external behavior Bs
is stabilizable). Also, both circuits
violate assumptions (i), (ii) and (vi) in the previous discussion,
and the circuit on the right has H + H ? = 0 (and so violates
assumptions (iii) and (iv)). Now, consider the circuit on the
left. Following note A.1, we let




1 1 −1 −1
1 −1 1 1
0 1 0


0
 , so T −1 = 0 1 0 0 ,
T := 
0 0 1


0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0
1
0 0 0 1


and Ĉ := CT −1 = −1

0

0


0 .

We note that the final three columns of Vo T −1 are zero (so
this circuit also violates assumption (v)), and it follows from
Theorem 10 that X− = T T X̂− T where X̂− = diag λ 0
and λ is the least real positive number satisfying




2λ
0
−1
T
T
−Â X̂− − X̂− Â Ĉ − X̂− B̂
=  0 03×3 0  ≥ 0.
Ĉ − B̂ T X̂−
D + DT
−1
0
2
Thus, λ = 14 , and from Theorem 10 we conclude that, with
σ
x0 = x(0), then Sa p (x0 ) = 81 ((i1 + i2 − v3 − v4 )(0))2 . Note
that more energy can be extracted from this system than can
be extracted from the system BR = {(u, y) ∈ Lloc
2 (R, R) ×
t1
Lloc
(R,
R)
|
y
=
u}
(for
which
−u(t)y(t)dt
≤
0), despite
2
t0
the fact that both systems have the same transfer function.
In Remark 16, we will show how to extract the greatest
possible amount of energy from this circuit. Following that
remark, we let i = −(D + DT )−1 (C − B T X− )x = 21 (i1 +
i2 − v3 − v4 ). From the variation of the constants formula (2),


(cos(t)+e−t )(i1 −i2 )(0)+ sin(t)(v3 −v4 )(0)
 i1 
−t
1 (− cos(t)+e )(i1 −i2 )(0)− sin(t)(v3 −v4 )(0)
i2
v3 (t) = 2 − sin(t)(i −i )(0)+(cos(t)+e−t )(v −v )(0) ,
1

v4

2

3

4

sin(t)(i1 −i2 )(0)+(− cos(t)+e−t )(v3 −v4 )(0)

whereupon v(t) = − 12 e−tR((i1 + i2 − v3 − v4 )(0)) = −i(t). It
∞
can then be verified that 0 −i(t)v(t)dt = 81 ((i1 + i2 − v3 −
σp
2
v4 )(0)) = Sa (x0 ).
Now, consider the circuit on the right of Fig. 1. We let


 


0 1
0
A=
,B =
, C = 0 1 , and D = 0.
−1 0
2
σ

From Theorem 10, we find that Sa p (x(0)) = 41 ((i1 +i2 )(0)2 +
(v3 +v4 )(0)2 ). Again, Remark 16 explains how to extract the
greatest amount of energy from this circuit. In that remark,




h
i
2
0
0
1
√
A =
, B =
, C = 0 √1−
, D =,
2
2
1+
−1 −2
2 1+
2

(1−)

X−
= 2(1+
2 ) I, u = −

√1− (v3 +v4 ),
1+2

and u=−(v3 +v4 )=−y.

We then let i = u and v = y. In this case, i and v
are independent of , and it can be verified that i(t) =
−t
−t
te
− e−t )(v3 + v4 )(0) = −v(t) and
R ∞ (i1 +i2 )(0) + (te
σ
1
−i(t)v(t)dt = 4 ((i1 +i2 )(0)2 +(v3 +v4 )(0)2 ) = Sa p (x0 ).
0
We end this section with a remark about the optimal control
problem in Definition 6 concerning the required energy.
σ
Remark 14: The required energy Sr p (x0 ) is not considered
in Theorems 10, 12 and 13. If Bs is as in (1) and (A, B) is
σ
controllable, then Sr p (x0 ) corresponds to the energy required
to transfer the state to x0 from the origin. However, if Bs is
not controllable, then there exist x0 ∈ Rd which cannot be
reached from the origin, so the required energy for such states
is undefined. Indeed, the controllability of (A, B) is related
to the existence of an upper bound to the set of X ∈ Rd×d
s
which satisfy condition 3 of Theorem 10. Specifically,
if there


which transform the system into observer staircase form:
exist z ∈ Cd and λ ∈ C such that zT λI−A B = 0,


 
T
T
λ(t−t0 ) T
T dx
z x(t0 ) for
−1 0
0
0
0 then z dt = λz x, and so z x(t) = e
T
all
t
∈
R,
whence
z
x(t
)
=
6
0
implies
that
x(t) 6= 0




0
−1 0 −1 0 
1
Â := T AT −1 = 
−1 1 −1 −1 , B̂ := T B = 1 , for all t ∈ R. If, in addition, λ ∈ C− , then there are no
T
0 −1 0
0
1 trajectories satisfying z x(t0 ) 6= 0 and limt→−∞ (x(t)) = 0.

5

Rt
and x̃ be as in the previous paragraph, so t01 −(ũT ỹ)(t)dt =
R t1 T
σ
σ
k t0 (ỹ ỹ)(t)dt ≤ Sa p (z). If X− z = 0, then 0 = Sa p (z) ≥
R t1 T
k t0 (ỹ ỹ)(t)dt, so ỹ(t) = C̃eÃ(t−t0 ) z = 0 for all t ≥ t0 .
This implies C̃ Ãk z = 0 (k = 0, 1, 2, . . .), which implies
CAk z = 0 (k = 0, 1, 2, . . .), hence Vo z = 0.
σ
To prove 4(ii), note from Lemma B.3 that Sa p is a storσp
T
age
(with respect to u y). Thus, Sa (x(t1 )) ≤
R t1 function
σ
T
(u
y)(t)dt
+ Sa p (x(t0 )) for all (u, y, x) ∈ Bs and
t0
t1 ≥ t0 . From the variation of the constants formula (2)–
(3), for any given x0 ∈ Rd and u0 ∈ Rn , there exists a (u, y, x) ∈ Bs with x differentiable, x(t0 ) = x0 ,
σp
d
T
and
 Tu(t0 )T = u0 . Thus, (u y)(t
 0 ) − dt (Sa (x))(t0 ) =
1
x0 u0 Ω(X− )col x0 u0 ≥ 0, and so Ω(X− ) ≥ 0.
2
To prove 4(iv), note that if X ≥ 0 and Ω(X) ≥ 0, then
Fig. 1. Two electric circuits with uncontrollable and unobservable state-space
representations.

2

R t1
t0


t1
(uT y)(t)dt − (xT Xx)(t) t0

Rt 
= t01 ( xT uT Ω(X)col x


u )(t)dt, (12)

In fact, for a passive system, the following two conditions
are equivalent: (i) the LMI in condition 4 of Lemma 7 has
no upper bound; and (ii) there exists
0 6= z ∈ Cd and

T
λ ∈ C− such that z λI−A B = 0. To see that (ii) ⇒
(i), let X ∈ Rd×d
satisfy Ω(X) ≥ 0 and X̂ := zz̄T + z̄zT .
s
Then, for any given α > 0, 0 ≤ X + αX̂ ∈ Rd×d
satisfies
s
Ω(X +αX̂) = Ω(X)−α(λ+ λ̄)diag X̂ 0 ≥ 0. Conversely,
if (ii) does not hold, then there exists K ∈ Rd×n such
that spec(A + BK) ∈ C+ . Then, for any given x0 ∈ Rd ,
there exists a trajectory (u, y, x) ∈ Bs with u = Kx,
x(t0 ) = x0 and limt→−∞ (x(t)) = 0. Finally, for this
trajectory,Rit can be shown that (a) there exists X̂ ∈ Rsd×d
t0
such that −∞
(uT y)(t)dt ≤ 21 xT0 X̂x0 ; and (b) if X satisfies
R t0
condition 4 of Lemma 7, then 12 xT0 Xx0 ≤ −∞
(uT y)(t)dt.
It follows that (i) does not hold.
4
The following two sections provide the proofs of Theorems
10, 12 and 13. Then, in Sections VI–VIII, we state and prove
three analogous theorems relevant to non-expansive systems.

Rt
so 21 x(t1 )T Xx(t1 ) ≤ t01 (uT y)(t)dt+ 21 x(t0 )T Xx(t0 ). With
S(x0 ) := 21 xT0 Xx0 for all x0 ∈ Rd , it follows that S is a
storage function. Thus, xT0 Xx0 ≥ xT0 X− x0 for all x0 ∈ Rd
by Lemma B.3, which implies X ≥ X− .
4 ⇒ 3.
Immediate.
3 ⇒ 1.
Recall from the proof of 1 ⇒ 4(iv) that
S(x0 ) = 12 xT0 Xx0 is a storage function (with respect to uT y).
Condition 1 then follows from Lemma B.3.
It remains to show that, if (C, A) is observable and conditions 1–4 hold, then (i) spec(A) ∈ C− ; and (ii) if X ∈ Rd×d
s
satisfies Ω(X) ≥ 0, then X− ≤ X.
Condition (i) follows from [3, Theorem 3.7.5], as condition
4 implies that X− > 0 and −AT X− − X− A ≥ 0.
To see (ii), let X ∈ Rd×d
satisfy Ω(X) ≥ 0, and note that
s
(12) holds. Then, for any given x0 ∈ Rd and  > 0, there
exists (u, y, x) ∈ Bs with x(t0 ) = x0 and t1 ≥ t0 such that
R t1
σ
−(uT y)(t)dt=Sa p (x0 )−≤ 21 (xT0 Xx0 −x(t1 )T Xx(t1 )).
t0

IV. PASSIVE SYSTEMS AND THE AVAILABLE ENERGY

We will show that there exists M ∈ R (independent of )
such that x(t1 )T Xx(t1 ) ≥ M . This implies that xT0 X− x0 ≤
xT0 Xx0 + (1 − M ). Since  can be chosen to be arbitrarily
small, we conclude that X− ≤ X.
To obtain the bound M , let k > 0 be such that I + kD is
nonsingular; let C̃ and Ã be as in (11); let x(t1 ) = x1 ; and
let (ũ(t), ỹ(t), x̃(t)) = (u(t), y(t), x(t)) for all t0 ≤ t < t1 ,
and x̃(t) = eÃ(t−t1 ) x1 , ũ(t) = −k C̃x(t), and ỹ(t) = C̃x(t)
for all t ≥ t1 . Then (ũ, ỹ, x̃) ∈ Bs with
R Tx̃(t0T) = x0 . Next,
consider a fixed T > 0, and let Õ := 0 eÃ τ C̃ T C̃eÃτ dτ .
From earlier in the proof, (C̃, Ã) is observable since (C, A)
is, and so Õ > 0. Moreover,
R t1 +T
σ
σ
−(ũT ỹ)(t)dt = Sa p (x0 ) −  + kxT1 Õx1 ≤ Sa p (x0 ),
t0

In this section, we prove Theorem 10. The proof uses the
concept of storage functions and the results in Appendix B.
Proof of Theorem 10: That 2 ⇐⇒ 3 is shown in [5].
Here, we prove 1 ⇒ 4 ⇒ 3 ⇒ 1.
1 ⇒ 4.
First, consider a k > 0 such that I + kD is
nonsingular, and let z ∈ Rd be fixed but arbitrary. Then, let
C̃ := (I + kD)−1 C and Ã := A − kB(I + kD)−1 C; (11)
let x̃(t) = eÃ(t−t0 ) z for all t ∈ R; and let ũ = −k C̃ x̃ and
C̃ x̃. It can be verified
(ũ, ỹ, x̃) ∈ Bs , x̃(t0 ) = z, and
Rỹ t=
R t1 that
σ
1
T
T
−(ũ
ỹ)(t)dt
=
k
(ỹ
ỹ)(t)dt
≥ 0. Thus, Sa p (x0 ) =
t0
t0
1 T
d×d
with X− ≥ 0 by Lemma
2 x0 X− x0 for some X− ∈ Rs
B.4 (it is conventional to include the 12 ). It remains to show
that X− satisfies conditions 4(ii)–(iv).
The proof of 4(iii) is inspired by [2, Proof of Lemma 1].
Note initially that, since X− ≥ 0, then any given z ∈ Rd
σ
satisfies X− z = 0 ⇐⇒ zT X− z = 0 ⇐⇒ Sa p (z) = 0,
whence Vo z = 0 ⇒ X− z = 0 by Lemma B.5. Now, let ũ, ỹ,

so xT1 Õx1 ≤ /k. Now, let λ > 0 denote the least eigenvalue
of Õ. Also, if X ≥ 0 we let µ := 0, and otherwise we let
µ < 0 be the most negative eigenvalue of X. By Rayleigh’s
µ
, which gives
quotient, xT1 Xx1 ≥ µxT1 x1 ≥ µλ xT1 Õx1 ≥ kλ
the bound M := µ/(kλ).

6

V. E XPLICIT CHARACTERISATION OF THE AVAILABLE
ENERGY

In this section, we prove Theorems 12 and 13. We also show
how to compute the available energy of a passive system.
Proof of Theorem 12: With the notation


I
0
S(X) :=
,
(13)
(D + DT )−1 (B T X − C) I
then S(X) is nonsingular and


Γ(X)
0
S(X)T Ω(X)S(X) =
.
0
D + DT

(14)

Thus, Ω(X) ≥ 0 ⇐⇒ Γ(X) ≥ 0.
2 ⇒ 1.
From (14), X− ≥ 0 and Ω(X− ) ≥ 0, so
σ
Sa p (x0 ) < ∞ for all x0 ∈ Rd by Theorem 10.
σ
1 ⇒ 2.
Since Sa p (x0 ) < ∞ for all x0 ∈ Rd , then
σp
1 T
satisfying (i)
Sa (x0 ) = 2 x0 X− x0 for some X− ∈ Rd×d
s
X− ≥ 0, (ii) Ω(X− ) ≥ 0, and (iii) if z ∈ Rd , then X− z =
0 ⇐⇒ Vo z = 0, by Theorem 10. It remains to show that
conditions 2(ii) and 2(iv) are also satisfied.
To show condition 2(ii), we let σ(u, y) = uT y. From the
proof of Theorem 10, σ satisfies the conditions of Lemma
B.4, so (35) holds from the proof of that lemma. Also, for
any given t2 ≥ t1 ≥ t0 and (u, y, x) ∈ Bs with x(t0 ) = x0 ,
R t2
Rt
σ
−σ(u, y)(t)dt ≤ t01 −σ(u, y)(t)dt + Sa p (x(t1 ))
t0


Rt 
= Saσp (x0 ) − 12 t01 ( xT uT Ω(X− )col x u )(t)dt.
n
By taking the supremum over all t2 ≥ t1 and u ∈ Lloc
2 (R, R ),
and using (35) from the proof of Lemma B.4, we find that


R t1  T
uT Ω(X− )col x u )(t)dt
0≤
sup
−( x
t0
n
u∈Lloc
2 (R,R )

such that (u, y, x) ∈ Bs , x(t0 ) = x0 , (15)
for any given x0 ∈ Rd and t1 ≥ t0 ∈ R. Since Ω(X− ) ≥ 0,
then the above inequality must be satisfied with equality. We
let v := u + (D+DT )−1 (C − B T X− )x, so (13)–(15) imply
R t1 T
(x Γ(X− )x + vT (D+DT )v)(t)dt
0=
inf
t0
n
v∈Lloc
2 (R,R )

d dx
such that x ∈ Lloc
2 (R, R ), dt =AΓ (X− )x+Bv, x(t0 )=x0 .

From [18, Section 2.3], for any given t1 ≥ t0 , the above
infimum is equal to xT0 P (t0 −t1 )x, where P is an absolutely
continuous matrix function that satisfies P (0) = 0 and
−

dP
dt

= P AΓ (X− ) + AΓ (X− )T P
− P B(D + DT )−1 B T P + Γ(X− ). (16)

Since x0 ∈ Rd can be chosen arbitrarily, then P (t) = dP
dt (t) =
0 for all t < 0, and so Γ(X− ) = 0 by (16).
To show condition 2(iv), we consider the cases: (i) (C, A)
observable; and (ii) (C, A) not observable.


Case (i): (C, A) observable. We note that λI − A B
has full row rank for all λ ∈ C+ (see
 Remarks 4 and 9).
This implies that λI − AΓ (X− ) B has full row rank for
all λ ∈ C+ , so (AΓ (X− ), B) is stabilizable. The proof of this
condition is then identical to [4, Lemma 7].

Case (ii): (C, A) not observable. Consider the observer
staircase form (see note A.1), and let Bs and Ŝaσ be as in
Lemma B.5 (with σ(u, y) = uTy). It follows from Lemma
ˆ dˆ
B.5 that X− = T T diag X̂− 0 T where X̂− ∈ Rd×
with
s
σp
1 T
dˆ
x̂
X̂
x̂
=
Ŝ
(x̂
)
for
all
x̂
∈
R
.
With
a
− 0
0
0
2 0
Γ̂(X̂):=−AT11 X̂−X̂A11 −(C1T −X̂B1 )(D+DT )−1 (C1 −B1T X̂),
and AΓ̂ (X̂):=A11 −B1 (D+DT )−1 (C1 −B1T X̂),

(17)

it follows from case (i) that X̂− ≥ 0, Γ̂(X̂− ) = 0, and
spec(AΓ̂ (X̂− )) ∈ C− . Also, it can be verified that Γ(X− ) =
T T diag Γ̂(X̂− ) 0 T ; and


AΓ̂ (X̂− )
0
T AΓ (X− )T −1 =
,
(18)
Â21
A22
where Â21 := A21 −B2 (D+DT )−1 (C1T −B1T X̂− ). Now, suppose λ ∈ C+ and z ∈ Cd satisfy AΓ (X− )z = λz, and let T1
be as in note A.1. Since λI − AΓ̂ (X̂− ) is nonsingular for all
λ ∈ C+ , then (18) implies that T1 z = 0, and it is then easily
shown that Vo z = 0.
It remains to show that if X− satisfies condition 2, then
σ
Sa p (x0 ) = 21 xT0 X− x0 . To prove this, we assume that (C, A)
satisfies X ≥ 0,
is observable, and we show that if X ∈ Rd×d
s
X 6= X− , and Γ(X) = 0, then spec(AΓ (X)) 6∈ C− . The case
with (C, A) not observable can then be shown by considering
the observer staircase form as in the proof of case (ii) above.
If Γ(X) = 0, then Ω(X) ≥ 0, so Y := X −
X− ≥ 0 by Theorem 10. Also, by direct calculation,
AΓ (X− )T Y +Y AΓ (X− )+Y B(D+DT )−1 B T Y = 0. From
before, (AΓ (X− ), B) is stabilizable, so from [4, Proof of
Lemma A.1] we find that AΓ (X− ) + B(D+DT )−1 B T Y =
AΓ (X) satisfies spec(AΓ (X)) 6∈ C− .
Remark 15: From the proof of Theorems 10 and 12, in order
to find the matrix X− in those theorems, it suffices to find an
X− ∈ Rsd×d satisfying Γ(X− ) = 0 and spec(AΓ (X− )) ∈ C−
for the case with (C, A) observable. This can be obtained from
the controller staircase form [3, Theorem 3.3.4]:


 


A
A12
B
T AT −1 = 11
, T B= 1 , CT −1 = C1 C2 , (19)
0
A22
0
with (A11 , B1 ) controllable. Since (C, A) is observable, then
so too is (C1 , A11 ). Furthermore, D + C1 (ξI−A11 )−1 B1 =
D + C(ξI−A)−1 B, which is positive-real (see Remark 9).
Thus, with Γ̂ and AΓ̂ as in (17), there exists a unique X11 > 0
satisfying Γ̂(X11 ) = 0 and spec(AΓ̂ (X11 )) ∈ C− [2, Lemma
2]. This can be efficiently computed using the methods in [3,
Chapter 6]. Next, note that (A, B) is stabilizable since (C, A)
is observable (see Remarks 4 and 9), so spec(A22 ) ∈ C− [7,
Corollary 5.2.31]. Thus, from [3, Theorem 3.7.4], there exists
T
satisfying the Sylvester equation:
a unique real X12
T
T
AT22 X12
+X12
AΓ̂ (X11 )

= −AT12 X11 − C2T (D+DT )−1 (C1 −B1T X11 ),
and a unique real Z ≥ 0 satisfying the Lyapunov equation:
−(AT22 Z+ZA22 )
−1 T
−1
T
= (C2T −X12
X11
C1 )(D+DT )−1 (C2 −C1 X11
X12 ).

7

Then, with the notation
T −1

(C2 −B1T X12 ),

Â12 := A12 −B1 (D+D )


X12
T X11
and X− = T
T,
−1
T
T
X12
Z + X12
X11
X12
it can be verified that X− ≥ 0, Γ(X− ) = 0, and


AΓ̂ (X11 ) Â12
−1
T AΓ (X− )T =
.
0
A22

This implies that spec(AΓ (X− )) = spec(AΓ̂ (X11 )) ∪
4
spec(A22 ) ∈ C− , so X− is the matrix in Theorem 12.
To finish this section we prove Theorem 13.
Proof of Theorem 13: That 2 ⇒ 1 is immediate from
Theorem 10, since X− ≥ 0 satisfies Ω(X− ) ≥ 0. It remains
to show that 1 ⇒ 2, and if X− has the properties indicated in
σ
condition 2 then Sa p (x0 ) = 12 xT0 X− x0 . We will prove this for
the cases: (i) (C, A) observable and D+DT > 0; (ii) (C, A)
observable; and finally (iii) (C, A) not observable.
Case (i) (C, A) observable and D+D T > 0.
It
suffices to show that X− satisfies condition 2 in Theorem 12
if and only if X− satisfies condition 2 in the present theorem.
First, let X− satisfy condition 2 in Theorem 12. Since
D + DT > 0, then there exists a nonsingular W satisfying
W T W = D + DT . We let L := (W T )−1 (C − B T X− ), and
T
A − LT L = Γ(X− ) = 0.
we obtain −AT X− − X−
Now, let Z(ξ):=W +L(ξI−A)−1 B. From Theorems 10 and
12, spec(A)∈C− and spec(AΓ (X− ))∈C− . Also,

 


λI−A −B
λI−AΓ (X− ) −B
I
0
=
. (20)
L
W
0
W
W −1 L I
The matrices in (20) have full row rank for all λ ∈ C+ , so Z
is a spectral factor for H + H ? by Lemma D.1.
Next, let X− satisfy condition 2 in the present theorem.
Since W + L(ξI − A)−1 B is a spectral factor of H + H ? ,
then W is nonsingular. Thus, L = (W T )−1 (C − B T X− ), and
Γ(X− ) = −AT X− −X− A−LT L = 0. As before, spec(A) ∈
C− , so the matrices in (20) have full row rank for all λ ∈ C+
by Lemma D.1, and so spec(AΓ (X− )) ∈ C− .
Case (ii) (C, A) observable.
Let P and Q be as in
Theorem 10, and let P1 := P and Q1 := Q. If P1 and Q1 do
not satisfy the conditions of case (i), then we will construct
Pm , Qm ∈ Rnm ×nm [ξ] that do. Specifically, we consider the
following four statements:
(R1) Pi , Qi ∈ Rni ×ni [ξ] where (Pi , Qi ) is a positive-real
pair and Q−1
i Pi is proper.
(R2) Di := limξ→∞ (Q−1
i Pi (ξ)) is symmetric.
(R3) Pi is nonsingular and Di = diag Iri 0 .
(R4) Di = I or ni = 0.
By Theorem 10, P1 and Q1 satisfy condition (R1).
Then, using Lemmas D.2–D.4, 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 (Lemma D.2).
2) If, for i = k −1, (R2) is satisfied but (R3) is not, then (R2)
and (R3) are satisfied for i = k; and if Pk−1 is singular
then nk < nk−1 (Lemma D.3).

3) If, for i = k−1, (R2) and (R3) are satisfied but (R4) is not,
then deg (det (Qk )) < deg (det (Qk−1 )) (Lemma D.4).
This inductive procedure terminates in a finite number of steps
with matrices Pm and Qm that satisfy conditions (R1)–(R4).
The procedure is inspired by the sequence of transformations
outlined in [3, Section 8.4]. In contrast to [3], we also consider
the case of uncontrollable systems.
Next, we consider the following four statements:
(S1) There exist polynomial matrices Mi , Ni , Ui , Vi , Ei , Fi


 

Mi Ni −Di I −Ci
−Pi Qi 0
such that
=
,
Ui Vi −Bi 0 Ai
−Ei −Fi I
where Ai (ξ) := ξI−Ai , and the leftmost matrix is unimodular.


−ATi X−XAi CiT −XBi
(S2) With Ωi (X) :=
, then Xi
Ci −BiT X
Di +DiT
is a real matrix that satisfies (i) Xi ≥ 0; (ii) Ωi (Xi ) ≥ 0; and
(iii) if X is a real matrix that satisfies X ≥ 0 and Ωi (X) ≥ 0,
then Xi ≤ X.
(S3) Xi , Li and Wi are real matricessuch
 that
 Xi ≥ 0 and

−ATi Xi −Xi Ai CiT −Xi Bi
LTi 
Li Wi .
Ωi (Xi )=
=
Ci −BiT Xi
Di +DiT
WiT


λI − Ai −Bi
(S4)
has full row rank for all λ ∈ C+ .
Li
Wi
From notes A.1–A.2, there exist real matrices
Am , Bm , Cm , Dm such that condition (S1) holds. Then,
from case (i), there is a unique Xm for which there exist Lm
and Wm that satisfy conditions (S3) and (S4). Furthermore,
by Theorem 10, this Xm also satisfies condition (S2). Then,
using Lemmas D.2–D.4, we find that there are unique Xi
for which there exist Li and Wi that satisfy conditions
(S3) and (S4), and these Xi also satisfy condition (S2)
(i = m − 1, . . . , 1). Now, let

n
loc
n
loc
B̂s :={(u, y, x1 )∈Lloc
R, Rd1 |
2 (R, R ) ×L2 (R, R ) ×L2
dx1
dt

= A1 x1 + B1 u and y = C1 x1 + D1 u}.

Since P = P1 and Q = Q1 , then from note A.2 we conclude
(u,y)
(u,y)
. Thus, from
= Bs
that (C1 , A1 ) is observable and B̂s
note A.3, there exists a nonsingular T ∈ Rd×d such that
(34) holds. It can then be verified that X− := T T X1 T ,
L := L1 T , and W := W1 satisfy condition 2 in the present
theorem statement; and X− satisfies (a) Ω(X− ) ≥ 0; and (b)
if X ∈ Rsd×d satisfies X ≥ 0 and Ω(X) ≥ 0, then X− ≤ X.
Since X− is uniquely determined by conditions (a)–(b), then
σ
Sa p (x0 ) = 21 xT0 X− x0 by Theorem 10.
Case (iii) (C, A) not observable. Consider the observer
staircase form (see note A.1), so D + C1 (ξI−A11 )−1 B1 =
D+C(ξI−A)−1 B, and let T be as in note A.1 and B̂s and Ŝaσ
be as in Lemma B.5 (for the case σ(u, y) = uT y). It follows
from Lemma B.5 that X− = T T diag X̂− 0 T where X̂− ∈
ˆ ˆ
ˆ
σ
Rsd×d with 21 x̂T0 X̂− x̂0 = Ŝa p (x̂0 ) for all x̂0 ∈ Rd . From case
(ii), X̂− is the unique real matrix satisfying (a) X̂− ≥ 0; and
(b) there exist real matrices L̂, Ŵ such that
(b1) −AT11 X̂− −X̂− A11 =L̂T L̂, C1 −B1T X̂− =Ŵ T L̂, and
D + DT = Ŵ T Ŵ ; and
(b2) Ŵ +L̂(ξI−A11 )−1 B1 is a spectral factor of H+H ? .
Then, with L := [L̂ 0]T , and W := Ŵ , it can be verified that
condition 2 of the present theorem statement holds. Also, if

8

X− , L and W are real matrices satisfying condition 2, then
ˆ ˆ
X− = T T diag X̂− 0 T for some 0 ≤ X̂− ∈ Rsd×d with
 −1 T



(T )
0 −AT X− −X− A C T −X− B (T −1 ) 0
0
I
0
I
C−B T X−
D+DT


T
T
−A11 X̂− −X̂− A11 0 C1 −X̂− B1


0
0
0
=
.
T
T
C1 −B1 X̂−
0
D+D

R∞

x(t0 ) by
as t → ∞ and t0 −(uT y)(t)dt ≥ 21 x(t0 )T X−

(21).R Finally, it can be verified that X− → X− as  → 0,
∞
so t0 −(uT y)(t)dt can be made arbitrarily close to the
σ
supremum Sa p (x0 ) by taking  sufficiently small.
A similar argument holds for non-expansive behaviors
(considered in the next three sections). In this case, we let
A :=A, B :=B, C :=(1−)C, D :=(1−)D.
4

This implies that L = [L̂ 0]T , and W = Ŵ where L̂ and
Ŵ satisfy the aforementioned conditions (b1) and (b2). Then,
σ
σ
from case (ii) and Lemma B.5, Sa p (x0 ) = Ŝa p (T1 x0 ) =
1 T T
1 T
d
2 x0 T1 X̂− T1 x0 = 2 x0 X− x0 for all x0 ∈ R .
We conclude this section with a remark about computing
the optimal control.
Remark 16: If Bs in (1) satisfies m = n and D+DT > 0,
and AΓ (X− ) in Theorem 12 satisfies spec(AΓ (X− )) ∈ C− ,
then u :=R −(D+DT )−1 (C−B T X−)x and (u, y,
t1x) ∈
t
Bs imply t01 −(uT y)(t)dt = − 21 (xT X− x)(t) t0 and
R∞
dx
T
dt =AΓ (X− )x. Thus, if x(t0 ) = x0 , then t0 −(u y)(t)dt =
σp
Sa (x0 ).
If, on the other hand, D+DT is singular or
spec(AΓ (X− )) 6∈ C− , then there still exists a linear
state
law such that, with x0 := x(t0 ), then
R ∞ feedback
T
−(u
y)(t)dt
comes arbitrarily close to the supremum
t0
σ
Sa p (x0 ). This can be constructed as follows. First, it follows
from note A.1 and Lemma B.5 that no generality is lost in
assuming (C, A) is observable. We then let  > 0, and we
note that (I + D) is necessarily nonsingular. We define
p
A :=A − B(I + D)−1 C, B :=B(I + D)−1 1 + 2 ,

In addition to the results on passive systems, we also extend
the famous bounded-real lemma to systems that are neither
observable nor controllable. This lemma is concerned with
non-expansive systems, defined as follows.
Definition 17 (Non-expansive system): Let Bs be as in (1).
For any given x0 ∈ Rd , let
Rt
σ
E+g (x0 ) = { t01 (yT y − uT u)(t)dt | t1 ≥ t0 , (u, y, x) ∈ Bs ,

2

(1− )
C := √
(I + D)−1 C, D :=(D + I)(I + D)−1 , and
1+2

n
loc
n
loc
Bs :={(u , y , x)∈Lloc
R, Rd |
2 (R, R ) ×L2 (R, R ) ×L2
dx
dt

= A x + B u and y = C x + D u },
√
√
so u = (u+y)/ 1 + 2 and y = (y+u)/ 1 + 2 satisfy
Rt
R t1 T
(u y )(t)dt = t01 (uT y)(t)dt
t0
R t1 T

+ √1−
(u u + yT y )(t)dt, (21)
2
t0

VI. N ON - EXPANSIVE SYSTEMS

and x(t0 ) = x0 }.
σ
Sa g

σ

satisfies (i) Sa g (x0 ) =
Then the available storage
σg
σg
sup(E+ (x0 )) if E+ (x0 ) is bounded above; and (ii)
σ
σ
Sa g (x0 ) = ∞ otherwise. If Sa g (x0 ) < ∞ for all x0 ∈ Rd ,
then Bs is called non-expansive.
In our results, the following new concept of a bounded-real
pair plays a central role.
Definition 18 (Bounded-real pair): Let P ∈ Rm×n [ξ] and
Q ∈ Rm×m [ξ]. We call (P, Q) a bounded-real pair if the
following hold:
T
T
(a) Q(λ)Q(
 λ̄) −P (λ)P (λ̄) ≥ 0 for all λ ∈ C+ .
(b) rank( P −Q (λ)) = m for all λ ∈ C+ .
T
?
?
(c) If p ∈ Rm [ξ]
 and λ∈ C satisfy p (QQ − P P ) = 0
T
and p(λ) P −Q (λ) = 0, then p(λ) = 0.
Remark 19: It can be shown that, if (P, Q) is a boundedreal pair, then Q is nonsingular and kQ−1 P k∞ ≤1. But the
converse is not true. For example, if P (ξ) = Q(ξ) = ξ+1,
then kQ−1 P k∞ =1, and condition (b) in Definition 18 holds,
but not condition (c), so (P, Q) is not a bounded-real pair. 4
In this section, we provide necessary and sufficient conditions for a system to be non-expansive (in the absence of any
controllability and observability assumptions). These relate (a)
the existence of matrices X ∈ Rsd×d such that X ≥ 0 and


−AT X − XA − C T C −C T D − XB
Λ(X) :=
(22)
−DT C − B T X
I − DT D

and (u, y, x) ∈ Bs if and only if (u , y , x) ∈ Bs .
Also, with H(ξ) := D+C(ξI−A)−1 B and H (ξ) :=
D +C (ξI−A )−1 B , then H = (H+I)(I+H)−1 . It can
then be verified that H (jω) + H (−jω)T > 0 for all ω ∈ R, satisfies Λ(X) ≥ 0; and (b) the bounded-real pair concept.
D + DT > 0, and H has no poles in C+ . Since, in addition, Also, if I − DT D > 0, then, with the notation
(C, A) is observable and (A, B) is stabilizable, then it can
Π(X) := −AT X − XA − C T C
be shown that spec(A ) ∈ C− . It then follows from [11] that

−(C T D + XB)(I − DT D)−1 (DT C + B T X), (23)
there exists X−
∈ Rd×d
such that
s
and AΠ (X) := A + B(I − DT D)−1 (DT C + B T X), (24)




−AT X−
−X−
A −(CT −X−
B )(D +DT )−1 (C −BT X−
)=0,

conditions (a)–(b) also relate to the spectral properties of
and spec(A − B (D + DT )−1 (C − BT X−
)) ∈ C− ,
AΠ (X) for solutions X to the ARE Π(X) = 0. The results

and it follows that if u := −(D +DT )−1 (C −BT X−
)x in this section are presented in the next three theorems, which
(u , y , x) ∈ Bs , then x(t) → 0 as t → ∞, and we prove in Sections VII–VIII.
Rand
∞

(u,y)
x(t0 ). Thus, if u = (I +
−(uT y )(t)dt = 12 x(t0 )T X−
Theorem 20: Let Bs , Bs
, Vo and Λ be as in (1), (4), (6)
t0
√
σ
−1
2
D) ( 1√+  u − Cx) and (u, y, x)
∈
B
,
then
u
=
and
(22),
respectively;
and
let
Sa g be as in Definition 17. The
s

√
2
2
(u + y)/ 1 +  and y = (y + u)/ 1 +  , so x(t) → 0 following are equivalent:

9

σ

1. Sa g (x0 ) < ∞ for all x0 ∈ Rd (i.e., Bs is non-expansive).
(u,y)
2. The external behavior Bs
takes the form of (5), where
(P, Q) is a bounded-real pair.
3. There exists X ∈ Rd×d
such that X ≥ 0 and Λ(X) ≥ 0.
s
σ
4. Sa g (x0 ) = xT0 X− x0 , where X− ∈ Rd×d
satisfies (i)
s
X− ≥ 0; (ii) Λ(X− ) ≥ 0; (iii) if z ∈ Rd , then
Vo z = 0 ⇐⇒ X− z = 0; and (iv) if X ∈ Rd×d
satisfies
s
X ≥ 0 and Λ(X) ≥ 0, then X− ≤ X.
Moreover, if (C, A) is observable and the above conditions
hold, then (i) spec(A) ∈ C− ; and (ii) if X ∈ Rsd×d satisfies
Λ(X) ≥ 0, then X− ≤ X.
Remark 21: From [4, Theorems 3–6], if (A, B) is controllable, then (i) for a system to be non-expansive it is
necessary and sufficient for the H∞ norm of the system’s
transfer function to be bounded above by one; and (ii) the set
of solutions to the LMI in the bounded-real lemma (condition 3
in Theorem 20) is bounded. However, both of these conditions
can fail to hold when (A, B) is not controllable.
4
Theorem 22 provides an explicit solution to the optimal
control problem in Definition 17 in the case I − DT D > 0.
Theorem 22: Let Bs , Vo , H, Π and AΠ be as in (1), (6), (8),
σ
(23) and (24), respectively; let Sa g be as in Definition 17; and
T
let I − D D > 0. The following are equivalent
σ
1. Sa g (x0 ) < ∞ for all x0 ∈ Rd (i.e., Bs is non-expansive).
2. There exists X− ∈ Rd×d
satisfying (i) X− ≥ 0; (ii)
s
Π(X− ) = 0; (iii) if z ∈ Rd satisfies Vo z = 0, then
X− z = 0; and (iv) if λ ∈ C+ and z ∈ Cd satisfy
AΠ (X− )z = λz, then Vo z = 0.
σ
Moreover, if these conditions hold, then Sa g (x0 ) = xT0 X− x0 .
Theorem 23 solves the optimal control problem in Definition 17 in the general case.
Theorem 23: Let Bs , Vo and H be as in (1), (6) and (8),
σ
respectively; and let Sa g be as in Definition 17. The following
are equivalent:
σ
1. Sa g (x0 ) < ∞ for all x0 ∈ Rd (i.e., Bs is non-expansive).
satisfying (i) X− ≥ 0; (ii) if
2. There exists X− ∈ Rd×d
s
z ∈ Rd satisfies Vo z = 0, then X− z = 0; and (iii) there
exist real matrices L and W such that
(iiia) −AT X− −X− A−C T C = LT L, −DT C −B T X− =
W T L, and I − DT D = W T W ; and
(iiib) Z(ξ) := W + L(ξI−A)−1 B is a spectral factor of
I − H ? H.
σ
Moreover, if these conditions hold, then Sa g (x0 ) = xT0 X− x0 .
Remark 24: As is the case with the positive-real lemma,
there have been many notable attempts to relax the controllability and observability assumptions in the bounded-real
lemma. A particularly well known result is the so-called
strictly bounded-real lemma [6, Lemma 5.6.5]. This lemma
proves that, if Bs is as in (1) and spec(A) ∈ C− , and H, Π
and AΠ are as in (8), (23) and (24) then kHk∞ < 1 if and only
if I − DT D > 0 and there exists X ≥ 0 such that Π(X) = 0
and spec(AΠ (X)) ∈ C− .
4
VII. N ON - EXPANSIVE SYSTEMS AND THE AVAILABLE
STORAGE

To prove Theorem 20, we will employ transformations that
relate non-expansive and passive systems, and similar transformations that relate positive-real and bounded-real pairs.

Proof of Theorem 20: We will first show the two chains
of implications 1 ⇒ 4 ⇒ 3 ⇒ 1, and 4 ⇒ 2 ⇒ 3.
1 ⇒ 4 ⇒ 3 ⇒ 1.
First, let z ∈ Rd , and let
A(t−t0 )
x̃(t) = e
z for all t ∈ R, Rũ = 0, and ỹ = C x̃. Then
t
(ũ, ỹ, x̃) ∈ Bs , x̃(t0 ) = z, and t01 (ỹT ỹ − ũT ũ)(t)dt ≥ 0.

t1
R t1 T
Second, note that t0 (u u − yT y)(t)dt − xT Xx t =
0


R t1  T
uT Λ(X)col x u )(t)dt. With these two obser( x
t0
vations, the present implications can be shown in a similar
manner to the corresponding implications in Theorem 10.
2 ⇒ 3.
Consider the observer staircase form (see note
A.1), and let


−ÂT11 X̂−X̂ Â11 −Ĉ1T Ĉ1 −Ĉ1T D̂−X̂ B̂1
Λ̂(X̂) :=
.
−D̂T Ĉ1 −B̂1T X̂
I−D̂T D̂
ˆ ˆ

If there exists X̂ ∈ Rsd×dsatisfying X̂ ≥ 0 and Λ̂(X̂) ≥ 0,
then X := T T diag X̂ 0 T satisfies X ≥ 0 and Λ(X) ≥ 0.
Thus, it suffices to prove this implication for the case with
(C, A) observable. We will prove this for the cases: (i) m = n,
(ii) n < m, and (iii) m < n.
Case (i): m = n.
Let A(ξ) := ξI − A, and let
M, N, U, V, E, F and G be polynomial matrices satisfying
conditions (a) and (b) in note A.2. From note C.4, there exists
a signature matrix Σ and matrices
Q̂ := 12 (Q − P Σ) and P̂ := 12 (P Σ + Q)

(25)

such that Q̂ is nonsingular and Q̂−1 P̂ is proper. Now, let D :=
limξ→∞ (Q−1 P (ξ)) and D̂ := limξ→∞ (Q̂−1 P̂ (ξ)). Note that
(I − Q−1 P Σ)Q̂−1 P̂ = I + Q−1 P Σ, so by taking the limit as
ξ → ∞ we obtain (I − DΣ)D̂ = I + DΣ. Thus, if z ∈ Rm
and zT (I −DΣ) = 0, then zT (I +DΣ) = 0, so z = 0. Hence,
(I − DΣ) is nonsingular, and
D̂ = (I − DΣ)−1 (I + DΣ) = 2(I − DΣ)−1 − I.
Now, let


1
I
M̂ N̂
:= 2
0
Û V̂


M
√1 I
U
2
0

N
V


I−DΣ
−BΣ

(26)


√0 ,
2I

so all of the above matrices are unimodular. Then, with
√
Â := A + BΣ(I − DΣ)−1 C, B̂ := 2BΣ(I − DΣ)−1 ,
√
Ĉ := 2(I − DΣ)−1 C, Â(ξ) := ξI − Â,
Ê :=

√1 (EΣ
2

− F ), and F̂ :=

√1 (EΣ
2

+ F ),

it can be verified that (Ĉ, Â) is observable, and


 

M̂ N̂ −D̂ I −Ĉ
−P̂
Q̂ 0
=
.
Û V̂
−B̂ 0 Â
−Ê −F̂ I

(27)

(28)

Hence, (Â, B̂, Ĉ, D̂) is an observable realization for (P̂ , Q̂)
(see note A.2). Since Q̂ := 12 (Q − P Σ) and P̂ := 12 (P Σ + Q),
then it follows from notes C.2–C.4 that (P̂ , Q̂) is a positivereal pair. Thus, from Lemma 1 and Theorem 10, there exists
X ∈ Rsd×d such that X > 0 and


−ÂT X−X Â Ĉ T −X B̂
Ω̂(X) :=
(29)
Ĉ−B̂ T X
D̂+D̂T

10

satisfies Ω̂(X) ≥ 0. Furthermore, with


I
0
S=
,
− √12 C √12 (I − DΣ)Σ

(30)

then it can be verified that S T Ω̂(X)S = Λ(X), which is nonnegative definite since Ω̂(X) is. This proves case
 (i).
Case (ii): m > n. Let P̂ := P 0m×(m−n) and Q̂ := Q.
It is easily shown from note C.1 that (P̂ , Q̂) is a boundedreal pair. Also, with Â=A, B̂= B 0d×(m−n) , Ĉ=C, and
D̂= D 0m×(m−n) , it can be verified that (A, B, C, D) is
an observable realization for (P, Q) if and only if (Â, B̂, Ĉ, D̂)
is an observable realization for (P̂ , Q̂). With
 T

−Â X−X Â−Ĉ T Ĉ −Ĉ T D̂−X B̂
:=
Λ̂(X)
,
(31)
−D̂T Ĉ−B̂ T X
I−D̂T D̂

then Λ̂(X) = diag Λ(X) I . From case (i), there exists
X > 0 such that Λ̂(X) ≥ 0. This X also satisfies Λ(X) ≥ 0.
Case (iii): m  < n.
. In this case, let  P̂ :=
:=
P
0
col
diag
(n−m)×n , Q̂
 Q I(n−m)×(n−m) , Â=A,

B̂=B, Ĉ=col C 0(n−m)×d , and D̂=col D 0(n−m)×n ;
and let Λ(X) and Λ̂(X) be as in (22) and (31), respectively.
Then (P̂ , Q̂) is a bounded-real pair (this is easily shown from
note C.1), Λ(X) = Λ̂(X), and the proof is similar to case (ii).
4 ⇒ 2.
We will prove this for the two cases (i) (C, A)
observable; and (ii) (C, A) not observable.
Case (i): (C, A) observable. We consider the case m =
n. The proofs for the cases m > n and m < n are then
similar to the corresponding cases in the proof of 2 ⇒ 3. Let
Σ, P̂ , Q̂, Â, B̂, Ĉ, D̂, and Ω̂(X) be as in case (i) of the proof of
2 ⇒ 3. Then, from that proof, (Â, B̂, Ĉ, D̂) is an observable
realization of (P̂ , Q̂), and Ω̂(X− ) ≥ 0. Thus, (P̂ , Q̂) is a
positive-real pair by Theorem 10, so (P, Q) is a bounded-real
pair by notes C.2–C.4.
Case (ii): (C, A) not observable. Consider the observer
staircase form (see note A.1), and let Λ̂ be as in (31). Then
ˆ dˆ
, Λ̂(X̂− ) ≥ 0
X− = T T diag X̂− 0 T where X̂− ∈ Rd×
s
(u,y)
=
and X̂− ≥ 0. Also, with B̂s as in note A.1, then Bs
(u,y)
B̂s
as shown in that note. Condition 2 then follows from
case (i).
It remains to prove conditions (i)–(ii) in the final paragraph
of the present theorem statement. To see (i), let λ ∈ C+ and
z ∈ Cd satisfy (λI − A)z = 0, and note that z̄T (AT X +
XA)z = (λ+λ̄)z̄T Xz. Since −AT X − XA − C T C ≥ 0,
then z̄T C T Cz ≤ −2<(λ)z̄T Xz ≤ 0, so Cz = 0. If (C, A)
is observable, then z = 0, so spec(A) ∈ C− . The proof
of condition (ii) is similar to the corresponding condition in
Theorem 10, using the observations in the second paragraph
of this proof.
VIII. E XPLICIT CHARACTERISATION OF THE AVAILABLE
STORAGE FOR A NON - EXPANSIVE SYSTEM

1 ⇒ 2.
First, we note from Theorem 20 that (P, Q) is
σ
a bounded-real pair since Sa g (x0 ) < ∞. We will show that
this implies condition 2 for the cases: (i) (C, A) observable
and m = n; (ii) (C, A) observable and m > n; (iii) (C, A)
observable and m < n; then finally (iv) (C, A) not observable.
Case (i) (C, A) observable, m = n.
Let
Σ, P̂ , Q̂, Â, B̂, Ĉ, and D̂ be as in case (i) in the proof
of 2 ⇒ 3 in Theorem 20. From that proof, (P̂ , Q̂) is
a positive-real pair, and (Â, B̂, Ĉ, D̂) is an observable
realization of (P̂ , Q̂). From Theorem 12, with the notation
Γ̂(X) := −ÂT X−X Â−(Ĉ T −X B̂)(D̂+D̂T )−1 (Ĉ−B̂ T X),
and AΓ̂ (X) := Â − B̂(D̂ + D̂T )−1 (Ĉ − B̂ T X),
there exists X ∈ Rsd×d such that X ≥ 0, Γ̂(X) = 0, and
spec(AΓ̂ (X)) ∈ C− . It can then be verified that Π(X) =
Γ̂(X) and AΠ (X) = AΓ̂ (X), so condition 2 holds.
Case (ii) (C, A) observable, m > n. Let P̂ , Q̂, Â, B̂, Ĉ,
and D̂ be as in case (ii) in the proof of 2 ⇒ 3 in Theorem
20; so (P̂ , Q̂) is a bounded-real pair, and (A, B, C, D) is an
observable realization for (P, Q) if and only if (Â, B̂, Ĉ, D̂)
is an observable realization for (P̂ , Q̂). Also, let
Π̂(X) := −ÂT X − X Â − Ĉ T Ĉ
− (Ĉ T D̂ + X B̂)(I − D̂T D̂)−1 (D̂T Ĉ + B̂ T X),
T

−1

and ÂΠ̂ (X) := Â + B̂(I − D̂ D̂)

T

T

(D̂ Ĉ + B̂ X).

(32)
(33)

It can be verified that Π̂(X) = Π(X) and ÂΠ̂ (X) = AΠ (X),
so this case follows from case (i).
Case (iii) (C, A) observable, m < n.
In this case, we
let P̂ , Q̂, Â, B̂, Ĉ, and D̂ be as in case (iii) in the proof of
2 ⇒ 3 in Theorem 20. Then, with Π̂(X) and ÂΠ̂ (X) as in
(32)–(33), we obtain Π̂(X) = Π(X) and ÂΠ̂ (X) = AΠ (X).
The proof then follows the argument in case (ii).
Case (iv) (C, A) not observable. This can be proved in
the manner of case (ii) in the proof of 1 ⇒ 2 in Theorem 12.
Finally, with a similar proof to the corresponding implication in Theorem 12, we find that if X− satisfies condition 2
σ
of the present theorem, then Sa g (x0 ) = xT0 X− x0 .
Proof of Theorem 23: 2 ⇒ 1.
This follows from
Theorem 20, since X− ≥ 0 and Λ(X− ) ≥ 0.
For the remainder of the proof, we let (C, A) be observable
and m = n. The cases m > n and m < n can be shown by
augmenting to the case m = n as in the proof of Theorem 22.
The case (C, A) not observable can be shown with a similar
argument to the corresponding implication in Theorem 13.
σ
1 ⇒ 2.
Since Sa g (x0 ) < ∞ for all x0 ∈ Rd , then
(P, Q) is a bounded-real pair by Theorem 20. Next, let
Σ, P̂ , Q̂, Â, B̂, Ĉ, and D̂ be as in case (i) in the proof of 2
⇒ 3 in Theorem 20 (so I − DΣ is nonsingular and (Ĉ, Â)
is observable), and let Ĥ(ξ) := D̂ + Ĉ(ξI − Â)−1 B̂. Then
(P̂ , Q̂) is a positive-real pair, so from Theorems 10, 13 there
exist real matrices X− , L̂, and Ŵ with X− ≥ 0 such that

This section contains the proofs of Theorems 22 and 23. The
proofs provide methods for calculating the available storage
for a non-expansive system by using the results in Section V. (a) −ÂT X− −X− Â = L̂T L̂, Ĉ − B̂ T X− = Ŵ T L̂, D̂+ D̂T =
Proof of Theorem 22: 2 ⇒ 1.
This follows from
Ŵ T Ŵ ; and
Theorem 20, since X− ≥ 0 and Λ(X− ) ≥ 0.
(b) Ẑ(ξ):=Ŵ +L̂(ξI−Â)−1 B̂ is a spectral factor of Ĥ+Ĥ ? .

11

Then, let L := L̂− √12 Ŵ C and W := √12 Ŵ (I−DΣ)Σ, and it
can be verified that condition (iiia) holds. Also,
 



I
0
λI−A −B
λI−Â −B̂
=
.
1
1
L
W
L̂
Ŵ − √2 C √2 (I−DΣ)Σ
From Theorem 10, spec(Â) ∈ C− . Also, from Theorem 20,
spec(A) ∈ C− . Since, in addition, (I−DΣ) is nonsingular,
then a similar argument to the proof of Lemma D.1 shows
that Z is a spectral factor of I − H ? H.
Finally, we prove that if X− satisfies condition 2, then
σ
Sa g (x0 ) = xT0 X− x0 . It suffices to show that X− is
uniquely determined by condition 2. To show this, we let
Σ, P̂ , Q̂, Â, B̂, Ĉ, D̂ and Ĥ be as in the previous paragraph.
Following that paragraph, if X− satisfies
√ condition 2, then
L̂ := L + W Σ(I − DΣ)−1 C and Ŵ := 2W Σ(I − DΣ)−1
satisfy the aforementioned conditions (a) and (b). From Theorem 13, these conditions uniquely determine X− .
R EFERENCES
[1] J. C. Willems, “Dissipative dynamical systems, Part I: General theory,”
Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., vol. 45, pp. 321–351, 1972.
[2] ——, “Dissipative dynamical systems, Part II: Linear systems with
quadratic supply rates,” Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., vol. 45, pp. 352–
393, 1972.
[3] B. D. O. Anderson and S. Vongpanitlerd, Network Analysis and Synthesis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
[4] B. P. Molinari, “The time-invariant linear-quadratic optimal control
problem,” Automatica, vol. 13, pp. 345–357, 1977.
[5] T. H. Hughes, “A theory of passive linear systems with no assumptions,”
Automatica, vol. 86, pp. 87–97, 2017.
[6] B. Brogliato, R. Lozano, B. Maschke, and O. Egeland, Dissipative
Systems Analysis and Control. London : Springer-Verlag, 2007.
[7] J. W. Polderman and J. C. Willems, Introduction to Mathematical
Systems Theory: A Behavioral Approach. New York : Springer-Verlag,
1998.
[8] T. H. Hughes, “Behavioral realizations using companion matrices and
the Smith form,” SIAM Journal on Control Optim., vol. 54, no. 2, pp.
845–865, 2016.
[9] M. K. Çamlibel, L. Iannelli, and F. Vasca, “Passivity and complementarity,” Mathematical Programming, vol. 145, no. 1-2, pp. 531–563, 2014.
[10] J. Collado, R. Lozano, and R. Johansson, “On Kalman-YakubovichPopov lemma for stabilizable systems,” IEEE Trans. on Automatic
Control, vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 1089–1093, July 2001.
[11] W. Sun, P. P. Khargonekar, and D. Shim, “Solution of the positive
real control problem for linear time-invariant systems,” IEEE Trans. on
Automatic Control, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 2034–2046, October 1994.
[12] L. Pandolfi, “An observation on the positive real lemma,” Journal of
Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 255, no. 2, pp. 480–490,
Mar 2001.
[13] S. Kunimatsu, K. Sang-Hoon, T. Fujii, and M. Ishitobi, “On positive
real lemma for non-minimal realization systems,” Proceedings of the
17th IFAC World Congress, Seoul, pp. 5868–5873, 2008.
[14] A. Ferrante and L. Pandolfi, “On the solvability of the positive real
lemma equations,” Systems and Control Letters, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 211–
219, October 2002.
[15] A. Ferrante, “Positive real lemma: Necessary and sufficient conditions
for the existence of solutions under virtually no assumptions,” IEEE
Trans. on Automatic Control, vol. 50, pp. 720–724, May 2005.
[16] M. K. Çamlibel, J. C. Willems, and M. N. Belur, “On the dissipativity of
uncontrollable systems,” in Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE Conference
on Decision and Control, Hawaii, Dec. 2003.
[17] D. Pal and M. N. Belur, “Dissipativity of uncontrollable systems, storage
functions, and Lyapunov functions,” SIAM Journal on Control Optim.,
vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 2930–2966, 2008.
[18] B. D. O. Anderson and J. B. Moore, Linear Optimal Control. PrenticeHall, 1971.
[19] B. P. Molinari, “Nonnegativity of a quadratic functional,” SIAM Journal
on Control, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 792–806, July 1975.

A PPENDIX A
O BSERVABLE REALIZATIONS OF BEHAVIORS
In this appendix, we present several results on observable
realizations which are used in the proofs of the main theorems.
These results build on Lemmas 1 and 2.
A.1 Let Bs and Vo be as in (1) and (6); let the columns of
ˆ
d×(d−d)
S
be a basis for the nullspace of Vo ; let S =
2
 ∈ R
S1 S2 be nonsingular; and let S −1 =: T = col T1 T2
(partitioned compatibly with S). Then,
 

T1
A S1
T2

S2




A11
=
A21



0
, C S1
A22

 
S2 = C1


0 ,

and (C1 , A11 ) is observable [7, Corollary 5.3.14]. Furthermore, with the notation B1 := T1 B, B2 := T2 B, and
ˆ

n
loc
n
loc
d
B̂s ={(u, y, x̂) ∈ Lloc
2 (R, R ) ×L2 (R, R ) ×L2 (R, R )

such that

dx̂
dt

= A11 x̂ + B1 u and y = C1 x̂ + Du},

then it is easily shown from the variation of the constants
(u,y)
(u,y)
. Thus, if P and Q are
= B̂s
formula (2)–(3) that Bs
as in Lemma 2, then it follows from Lemmas 1–2 that there
exists an observable realization for (P, Q).
A.2 Let Bs be as in (1) and A(ξ) = ξI − A. Then
(A, B, C, D) is an observable realization for (P, Q) if and only
if P ∈ Rm×n [ξ], Q ∈ Rm×m [ξ], and there exist polynomial
matrices M, N, U, V, E, F and G such that (a) conditions 1
and 2 of Lemma 1 hold; and (b) G = Id . To see this,
note from the final block column in condition 1 of Lemma
1 that, for any given λ ∈ C and z ∈ Cd , then Cz = 0 and
(λI − A)z = 0 if and only if G(λ)z = 0. It then follows from
[7, Theorem 5.3.7] that G in Lemma 1 is unimodular if and
only if (C, A) is observable. Furthermore, if G is unimodular,
then by pre-multiplying
both sides in condition 1 of Lemma

1 by diag I G−1 we obtain polynomial matrices satisfying
conditions (a) and (b).
A.3 Let P and Q be as in Lemma 2. If (A, B, C, D) and
(Â, B̂, Ĉ, D̂) are two observable realizations of (P, Q), then
there exists a nonsingular T ∈Rd×d such that
Â = T AT −1 , B̂ = T B, Ĉ = CT −1 , and D̂ = D.
ˆ ˆ

(34)

To see this, let A ∈ Rd×d and Â ∈ Rd×d ; let Vo be as in
ˆ
(6); and let V̂o := col(Ĉ Ĉ Â · · · Ĉ Âd−1 ). It follows from
the variation of the constants formula (2)–(3) that, for any
ˆ
given z ∈ Rd , there exists ẑ ∈ Rd such that ĈeÂt ẑ = CeAt z
for all t ∈ R. Suppose initially that dˆ ≤ d. Since z is
ˆ
arbitrary, there must exist T ∈ Rd×d such that Ĉ Âk T = CAk
(k = 0, 1, . . .). In particular, Vo = V̂o T . As (C, A) and (Ĉ, Â)
are observable, then Vo and V̂o have full column rank, so
dˆ = d and T = (V̂oT V̂o )−1 V̂oT Vo , which is nonsingular (with
T −1 = (VoT Vo )−1 VoT V̂o ). In particular, Ĉ = CT −1 . Also,
since Vo A = V̂o ÂT , then Â = (V̂oT V̂o )−1 V̂oT Vo AT −1 =
T AT −1 . Finally, from the variation of the constants formula
(2)–(3), we require Vo B = V̂o B̂, so B̂ = T B. A similar
argument applies when dˆ ≥ d, and completes the proof.

12

A PPENDIX B
S TORAGE FUNCTIONS
The storage function concept features in many classical
proofs of the positive-real lemma, e.g., [1], [2]. Here, in
contrast to [1], [2], we present results on storage functions
without any controllability assumptions.
We consider the following optimal control problem.
Definition B.1: Let Bs be as in (1); let σ(u, y) := uT Σ11 u+
2uT Σ12 y +yT Σ22 y for some Σ11 ∈ Rn×n
, Σ12 ∈ Rn×m and
s
d
Σ22 ∈ Rm×m
;
and,
for
any
given
x
∈
R
,
let
0
s
Rt
σ
E+
(x0 ) = { t01 −σ(u, y)(t)dt | t1 ≥ t0 , (u, y, x) ∈ Bs ,
and x(t0 ) = x0 }.
Then the available storage Saσ with respect to the supply rate
σ
σ
σ satisfies (i) Saσ (x0 ) = sup(E+
(x0 )) if E+
(x0 ) is bounded
σ
above; and (ii) Sa (x0 ) = ∞ otherwise.
Note, with Σ11 = I, Σ12 = 0 and Σ22 = −I (resp., Σ11 =
σ
σ
Σ22 = 0, Σ12 = 12 I), then Saσ = Sa g (resp., Saσ = Sa p ). As in
[1], we define a storage function with respect to σ as follows.
Definition B.2: Let Bs be as in (1), and let σ be as in
Definition B.1. We say S is a storage function with respect
to the supply rate σ if (i) S(x0 ) ∈ R and S(x0 ) ≥ 0 for
all x0 ∈ Rd ; (ii) S(0) = 0; and
R t (iii) if (u, y, x) ∈ Bs and
t1 ≥ t0 ∈ R, then S(x(t1 )) ≤ t01 (σ(u, y))(t)dt + S(x(t0 )).
The next lemma proves that the boundedness of the available
storage is equivalent to the existence of a storage function.
Lemma B.3: Let Bs be as in (1); and let σ and Saσ be as in
Definition B.1. The following hold:
1. If Saσ (x0 ) < ∞ for all x0 ∈ Rd , then Saσ is a storage
function with respect to σ.
2. If there exists a storage function with respect to σ (denoted
S), then Saσ (x0 ) ≤ S(x0 ) < ∞ for all x0 ∈ Rd .
Proof: See [1, Theorem 1].
In the next lemma, we prove that the available storage
Saσ (x0 ) is a quadratic form in x0 , under an assumption which
is satisfied by both passive and non-expansive systems.
Lemma B.4: Let Bs be as in (1); and let σ and Saσ be as
in Definition B.1. Also, for any given z ∈ Rd and t0 ∈ R,
let there exist
R t t1 ≥ t0 , and (u, y, x) ∈ Bs with x(t0 ) = z,
such that − t01 (σ(u, y))(t)dt ≥ 0. If Saσ (x0 ) < ∞ for all
x0 ∈ Rd , then there exists X ∈ Rd×d
with X ≥ 0 such that
s
Saσ (x0 ) = xT0 Xx0 for all x0 ∈ Rd .
Proof: For any given x1 , x2 ∈ Rd , we let W (x1 , x2 ) :=
1
σ
σ
4 (Sa (x1 + x2 ) − Sa (x1 − x2 )). We then let ej denote the jth
column of the identity matrix Id , we let the ijth entry of X
be defined as Xij := W (ei , ej ) (i, j = 1, . . . , d), and we will
show that X is symmetric and Saσ (z) = zT Xz for all z ∈ Rd .
To prove this, we will show that, for any given x1 , x2 ∈ Rd
and λ ∈ R, then
(i) W (λx1 , x2 ) = λW (x1 , x2 ); and
(ii) Saσ (x1 + x2 ) + Saσ (x1 − x2 ) = 2(Saσ (x1 ) + Saσ (x2 )).
From [19, Lemma 3], condition (ii) implies that, for any given
x1 , x2 , z ∈ Rd , then (iia) W (x1 , x2 ) = W (x2 , x1 ); (iib)
W (x1 + x2 , z) = W (x1 , z) + W (x2 , z); and (iic) Saσ (z) =
W (z, z). Together with condition (i), we conclude that W is
a symmetric bilinear form, and X is symmetric. We then let

z ∈ Rd and we denote
of z by zi ,P
and it follows
Pd the ith entry P
d
d
that Saσ (z) = Saσ ( i=1 zi ei ) = W ( i=1 zi ei , j=1 zj ej ) =
Pd Pd
Pd Pd
T
i=1
j=1 zi W (ei , ej )zj =
i=1
j=1 zi Xij zj = z Xz.
It remains to show conditions (i) and (ii). We first show
that, for any given t1 ≥ t0 ,
R t2
Saσ (x0 )=
−(σ(u, y))(t)dt,
sup
t0
n
u∈Lloc
2 (R,R ),t2 ≥t1

such that (u, y, x) ∈ Bs , x(t0 ) = x0 . (35)
To see
R tthis, let t1 ≥ t0 and (u, y, x) ∈ Bs with x(t0 ) = x0 satisfy t01 −(σ(u, y))(t)dt = Saσ (x0 ) −  for some  > 0. Then,
from the conditions in the lemma statement, there exist t2 ≥ t1
and (ũ, ỹ, x̃) ∈ Bs such that ũ(t) =R u(t), ỹ(t) = y(t), and
t
x̃(t) = x(t) for all t0 ≤ t ≤ t1 ; and t12 −(σ(ũ, ỹ))(t)dt ≥ 0.
Rt
It follows that t0 −(σ(ũ, ỹ))(t)dt ≥ Saσ (x0 )− for all t ≥ t1 .
Rt
But Saσ (x0 ) ≥ t0 −(σ(ũ, ỹ))(t)dt, and  > 0 can be made
arbitrarily small by choosing t1 and u. This proves (35).
To prove (i), we let x1 , x2 ∈ Rd and λ ∈ R be fixed but
arbitrary, and we show that Saσ (λx1 + x2 ) + λSaσ (x1 − x2 ) ≤
Saσ (λx1 − x2 ) + λSaσ (x1 + x2 ). To see this, suppose instead
that there exists  > 0 such that
Saσ (λx1 +x2 )+λSaσ (x1 −x2 )
= Saσ (λx1 −x2 )+λSaσ (x1 +x2 ) + . (36)
There exist (ua , ya , xa ) ∈ Bs with xa (t0 ) = λx1 + x2 ,
(ub , yb , xb ) ∈ Bs with xb (t0 ) = x1 − x2 , and t1 ≥ t0 , with
Saσ (λx1 + x2 ) + λSaσ (x1 − x2 )
Rt
≤ t01 (−σ(ua , ya ) − λ(σ(ub , yb )))(t) + /2. (37)
Now, let (uc , yc , xc ) := (λ−1)/(1+λ)(ua , ya , xa )+2λ/(1+
λ)(ub , yb , xb ) and (ud , yd , xd ) := 2/(1 + λ)(ua , ya , xa ) +
(1−λ)/(1+λ)(ub , yb , xb ). It can be verified that σ(ua , ya )+
λσ(ub , yb ) = σ(uc , yc ) + λσ(ud , yd ), xc (t0 ) = λx1 − x2 and
xd (t0 ) = x1 + x2 . It follows from (36)–(37) that
Saσ (λx1 + x2 ) + λSaσ (x1 − x2 )
Rt
≤ t01 (−σ(uc , yc ) − λ(σ(ud , yd )))(t) + /2
≤ Saσ (λx1 −x2 )+λSaσ (x1 +x2 ) + /2
= Saσ (λx1 + x2 ) + λSaσ (x1 − x2 ) − /2,
a contradiction. Substituting −x2 for x2 in the
above argument gives Saσ (λx1 −x2 )+λSaσ (x1 +x2 )
≤
Saσ (λx1 +x2 )+λSaσ (x1 −x2 ), and completes the proof of (i).
To see (ii), suppose instead that there exists  > 0 such that
Saσ (x1 +x2 )+Saσ (x1 −x2 )+ = 2(Saσ (x1 )+Saσ (x2 )).
Let t1 ≥ t0 and (ua , ya , xa ), (ub , yb , xb ) ∈ Bs with
xa (t0 )=x1 and xb (t0 )=x2 be such that
R t1
−(σ(ua , ya ))(t)dt + 8 > Saσ (x1 ), and
t0
R t1
−(σ(ub , yb ))(t)dt + 8 > Saσ (x2 ).
t0
Similar to [19, p. 796], we let (ũa , ỹa , x̃a ) = (ua , ya , xa ) +
(ub , yb , xb ) and (ũb , ỹb , x̃b ) = (ua , ya , xa ) − (ub , yb , xb ).

13

Then (ũa , ỹa , x̃a ), (ũb , ỹb , x̃b ) ∈ Bs , x̃a (t0 )=x1 +x2 , and
x̃b (t0 )=x1 −x2 , whence
Saσ (x1 +x2 )+Saσ (x1 −x2 )
Rt
Rt
≥ t01 −(σ(ũa , ỹa ))(t)dt + t01 −(σ(ũb , ỹb ))(t)dt
Rt
Rt
= 2( t01 −(σ(ua , ya ))(t)dt + t01 −(σ(ub , yb ))(t)dt)
> 2(Saσ (x1 )+Saσ (x2 )− 4 ) = Saσ (x1 +x2 )+Saσ (x1 −x2 )+ 2 ,
a contradiction. Thus, Saσ (x1 +x2 )+Saσ (x1 −x2 )
≤
2(Saσ (x1 )+Saσ (x2 )). A similar argument shows that
Saσ (x1 +x2 )+Saσ (x1 −x2 )
≥
2(Saσ (x1 )+Saσ (x2 )), and
completes the proof of (ii).
We next consider a related optimal control problem concerning the observer staircase form in note A.1:
Lemma B.5: Let Bs be as in (1); let σ and Saσ be as in
Definition B.1; let Saσ (x0 ) < ∞ for all x0 ∈ Rd ; let T1 and
B̂s be as in note A.1; and let
R t1
Ŝaσ (x̂0 ) :=
sup
−(σ(u, y))(t)dt,
t0
n
t1 ≥t0 ,u∈Lloc
2 (R,R )

such that (u, y, x̂) ∈ B̂s , x̂(t0 ) = x̂0 . (38)
Then Saσ (x0 ) = Ŝaσ (T1 x0 ) for all x0 ∈ Rd . In particular, with
Vo as in (6), then z ∈ Rd and Vo z = 0 imply Saσ (z) = 0.
Proof: Let T = col T1 T2 be as in note A.1. It can
be shown from the variation of the constants formula (2)–(3)
that (i) if (u, y, x) ∈ Bs satisfies x(t0 ) = x0 , then there exists
(u, y, x̂) ∈ B̂s with x̂(t0 ) = T1 x0 ; and (ii) if (u, y, x̂) ∈
ˆ
B̂s satisfies x̂(t0 ) = x̂0 , and x̂1 ∈ Rd−d , then
there exists

−1
(u, y, x) ∈ Bs with x(t0 ) = T col x̂0 x̂1 . Now, consider
a fixed but arbitrary x0 ∈ Rd . It follows from (i) that
R t1
Saσ (x0 ) ≤
sup
−(σ(u, y))(t)dt,
t0
n
t1 ≥t0 ,u∈Lloc
2 (R,R )

such that (u, y, x̂) ∈ B̂s , x̂(t0 ) = T1 x0 ,
i.e., Saσ (x0 ) ≤ Ŝaσ (T1 x0 ). Similarly, from (ii), it can be shown
that Saσ (x0 ) ≥ Ŝaσ (T1 x0 ), so Saσ (x0 ) = Ŝaσ (T1 x0 ). Finally, if
Vo z = 0, then it can be shown that T1 z = 0. As Ŝaσ is a
storage function by Lemma B.3, then Saσ (z) = Ŝaσ (0) = 0.
A PPENDIX C
P OSITIVE - REAL AND BOUNDED - REAL PAIRS

C.2 Let P, Q ∈ Rn×n [ξ]; let Jn be as in (39); let Y ∈
T
R
[ξ] and S ∈ R2n×2n be nonsingular

with SJ
 n S = Jn ;
n×n
and let P̂ , Q̂ ∈ R
[ξ] satisfy P̂ −Q̂ := Y P −Q S.
Then (P, Q) is a positive-real pair if and only if (P̂ , Q̂) is a
positive-real pair (this follows from note C.1).
C.3 Let P, Q ∈ Rn×n [ξ]; let Jn and Σn,n be as in (39);
let Y ∈ Rn×n [ξ] and S ∈ R2n×2n be nonsingular
with


SJn S T = Σn,n ; and let P̂ , Q̂ ∈ Rn×n [ξ] satisfy P̂ −Q̂ :=
Y P −Q S. Then (P, Q) is a bounded-real pair if and only
if (P̂ , Q̂) is a positive-real pair (this follows from note C.1).
C.4 Let Σ ∈ Rn×n be a signature matrix (i.e., Σ is
diagonal with diagonal entries ±1), let P, Q ∈ Rn×n [ξ], and
let Q̂ := 12 (Q − P Σ) and P̂ := 12 (P Σ + Q). Then (P, Q)
is a bounded-real pair if and only if (P̂ , Q̂) is a positive-real
pair (this follows from note C.3). Also, if P, Q ∈ Rn×n [ξ]
and Q−1 P is proper, then there necessarily exists a signature
matrix Σ and matrices Q̂ := 12 (Q−P Σ) and P̂ := 12 (P Σ+Q)
such that Q̂ is nonsingular and Q̂−1 P̂ is proper. To obtain
such matrices Σ, P̂ and Q̂, we let P̃ := 12 (P + Q) and
Q̃ := 12 (Q − P ), so P = P̃ − Q̃ and Q = P̃ + Q̃. We
then let S1 and S2 ∈ Rn×n be matrices that select columns
from P̃ and Q̃ to achieve the maximal determinantal degree.
I.e., (i) S1 and S2 are diagonal matrices with all entries either
0 or 1; (ii) S1 +S2 = I; and (iii) deg(det (P̃ S1 + Q̃S2 )) takes
its maximum value among all matrices S1 and S2 that satisfy
(i) and (ii). We then let P̂ := P̃ S2 + Q̃S1 , Q̂ := P̃ S1 + Q̃S2 ,
and Σ := S2 − S1 , so Σ is a signature matrix. The method in
[5, Proof of Theorem 9] then proves that Q̂−1 P̂ is proper.
n×n

A PPENDIX D
E XPLICIT CHARACTERISATION OF THE AVAILABLE
ENERGY: SUPPLEMENTARY LEMMAS
In this final appendix, we present four supplementary lemmas used in the proof of Theorem 13.
Lemma D.1: Let Bs and H be as in (1) and (8) with m = n;
let spec(A) ∈ C− ; let X− , L and W be real matrices that
satisfy condition 2(iiia) of Theorem 13; and let


ξI − A −B
Z(ξ) := W + L(ξI − A)−1 B and Y (ξ) :=
.
L
W

Here, we provide several results relating to the new concepts
of positive-real and bounded-real pairs.
C.1 Let P ∈ Rm×n [ξ] and Q ∈ Rm×m [ξ]; and let




1 0 In
I
0
Jn :=
, Σm,n := n
,
(39)
0 −Im
2 In 0




Ψ(η, ξ) := P −Q (η)Σm,n P −Q (ξ)T , and
(40)



 T
:=
P −Q (η)Jn P −Q (ξ) if m = n. (41)
Φ(η, ξ)

Then Z ? Z=H+H ? , and Z is a spectral factor for H + H ? if
and only if Y (λ) has full row rank for all λ ∈ C+ .
Proof: That Z ? Z = H + H ? follows
 by pre-multiplying
Ω(X) in (7) by B T (−ξI− AT )−1 I and post-multiplying
by col (ξI − A)−1 B I . Since spec(A) ∈ C− , then Z is
analytic in C+ . Finally, consider a fixed but arbitrary λ ∈ C+ ,
so λI − A is nonsingular. It remains to show that Z(λ) has
full row rank if and only if Y (λ) does. This follows from

 


0
λI − A
λI − A −B (λI − A)−1 B I
=
,
Z(λ)
L
L
W
I
0

Then (P, Q) is a positive-real pair (resp., bounded-real pair)
if and only if (i) Φ(λ,
 λ̄) ≤ 0 (resp., Ψ(λ, λ̄) ≤ 0) for all
λ ∈ C+ ; (ii) rank( P −Q (λ)) = n for all λ ∈ C+ ; and
T
(iii) if p ∈ Rn [ξ] and λ ∈ C satisfy p(ξ)
Φ(ξ, −ξ) = 0

T
T
(resp., p(ξ) Ψ(ξ, −ξ) = 0) and p(λ) P −Q (λ) = 0,
then p(λ) = 0.

since the rightmost matrix in this equation is nonsingular.
The final three lemmas relate to the decomposition in case
(ii) in the proof of Theorem 13. We refer back to that proof
for definitions of conditions (R1)–(R4) and (S1)–(S4).
Lemma D.2: Let Pk−1 , Qk−1 satisfy (R1) for i = k−1, and
let Dk−1 := limξ→∞ (Q−1
k−1 Pk−1 (ξ)). The following hold.

14

T
1. Let Pk := Pk−1 − 12 Qk−1 (Dk−1 −Dk−1
) and Qk := Qk−1 .
Then (R1) and (R2) hold for i = k.
2. Let Ak , Bk , Ck , Dk satisfy (S1) for i=k; and let
Ak−1 :=Ak , Bk−1 :=Bk , and Ck−1 :=Ck . Then:
a) (S1) holds for i=k−1.
b) Let Xk−1 , Lk−1 , Wk−1 , Xk , Lk , and Wk be real matrices with Xk = Xk−1 ≥ 0, Lk = Lk−1 , and
Wk = Wk−1 . Then (i) (S3) holds for i = k−1 if and
only if (S3) holds for i = k; and (ii) (S4) holds for
i = k−1 if and only if (S4) holds for i = k.
Proof: Condition 1.
Clearly, Q−1
=
k Pk
−1
1
T
), so Q−1
P
is
proper
Qk−1 Pk−1 − 2 (Dk−1 −Dk−1
k
k
and limξ→∞ (Q−1
= limξ→∞ (Q−1
k Pk (ξ))
k−1 Pk−1 (ξ)) −
1
1
T
T
2 (Dk−1 −Dk−1 ) = 2 (Dk−1 +Dk−1 ). Next, let


I
0
.
S= 1
T
2 (Dk−1 −Dk−1 ) I

 

Then Pk −Qk = Pk−1 −Qk−1 S, and it follows from
note C.2 that (Pk , Qk ) is a positive-real pair.
Condition 2.
Let Ak , Mk , Nk , Uk , Vk , Ek , Fk be as in
(S1) for the case i = k; and let Ek−1 := Ek − 12 Fk (Dk−1 −
T
Dk−1
), Fk−1 := Fk , Mk−1 := Mk , Nk−1 := Nk , Uk−1 :=
Uk , and Vk−1 := Vk . By post-multiplying both sides of
 the
relationship in (S1) for the case i=k by diag S −1 I , we
find that (S1) holds for i=k−1. Finally, condition 2b follows
T
since Dk + DkT = Dk−1 + Dk−1
. Thus, with Ωi (Xi ) as in
(S3), then Ωk (Xk ) = Ωk−1 (Xk−1 ).
Lemma D.3: Let Pk−1 , Qk−1 satisfy (R1)–(R2) for i=k−1,
and let nk := normalrank(Pk−1 ), mk := nk−1 − nk , and
rk :=rank(Dk−1 ). The following hold.
1. There exists a nonsingular T ∈ Rnk−1 ×nk−1 ; unimodular
Y ∈ Rnk−1 ×nk−1 [ξ] and Q̃22 ∈ Rmk ×mk [ξ]; Q̃12 ∈
Rnk ×mk [ξ]; and Pk , Qk satisfying (R1)–(R3) for i=k, with




P 0
Q Q̃12
Y Pk−1 T = k
, Y Qk−1 (T −1 )T = k
. (42)
0 0
0 Q̃22

2. Let Ak , B
 k , Ck , Dk satisfy (S1) for i=k; and 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−1 , Lk−1 and Wk−1 satisfy (S3) for i = k−1;
partition T as T =: T1 T2 with T1 ∈ Rnk−1 ×nk and
T2 ∈ Rnk−1 ×mk ; and let Xk := Xk−1 , Lk := Lk−1 , and
Wk := Wk−1 T1 . Then (i) Wk−1 T2 = 0; (ii) (S3) holds
for i = k; and (iii) if (S4) holds for i = k−1, then (S4)
holds for i = k.
c) Let Xk , Lk and Wk satisfy (S3) for i = k; and
 let
Xk−1 := Xk , Lk−1 := Lk , and Wk−1 := Wk 0 T −1 .
Then (i) (S3) holds for i = k−1; and (ii) if (S4) holds
for i = k, then (S4) holds for i = k−1.
Proof: Condition 1. Since (Pk−1 , Qk−1 ) is a positivereal pair and Qk−1 is nonsingular, then H := Q−1
k−1 Pk−1
is positive-real (see Remark 9). Since, in addition, Dk−1
is symmetric, then Dk−1 ≥ 0 by Theorem 10, so there
T
exists T1a ∈ Rnk−1 ×rk such that T1a
Dk−1 T1a = Irk by
Sylvester’s law of inertia (as rank(Dk−1 ) = rk ). Now, let the
columns of T2 ∈ Rnk−1 ×mk be a basis for the nullspace of

H (i.e., T2 has full column rank and HT2 = 0). Then, since
the nullspace of H is contained in the nullspace of Dk−1 ,
nk−1 ×(nk −rk )
there
such that the columns
 exists T1b ∈ R
of T1b T2 are a basis for the
nullspace
of Dk−1 . With


T1 = T1a T1b , then T  = T1 T2 is nonsingular and
T T Dk−1 T = diag Irk 0 . Also, from [3, Theorem 8.4.1],
T T HT = diag Ĥ 0 , where Ĥ ∈ Rnk ×nk (ξ) is positivereal and nonsingular.
From [7, Theorem B.1.1], there exists a unimodular Y ∈
Rnk−1 ×nk−1 [ξ] such that Q̃ := Y Qk−1 (T −1 )T is upper triangular. Let P̃ := Y Pk−1 T , and note
 that Q̃ is nonsingular with

Q̃−1 P̃ = T T HT = diag Ĥ 0 . Since P̃ = Q̃diag Ĥ 0 ,

then P̃ and Q̃ (partitioned compatibly with diag Ĥ 0 ) take
the form indicated in (42). To show that Q̃22 in (42) is unimodular, we letλ ∈ C and p̂ ∈ Rmk [ξ] satisfy p̂(λ)T Q̃22 (λ) = 0,
and pT := 0 p̂T Y . It canbe verified that p T (Pk−1 Q?k−1 +
?
Qk−1 Pk−1
) = 0 and p(λ)T Pk−1 −Qk−1 (λ) = 0. Since
(Pk−1 , Qk−1 ) is a positive-real pair, this implies p(λ) = 0.
Since, in addition, Y is unimodular, then p̂(λ) = 0, and
it follows that Q̃22 is unimodular. It is then easily shown
from notes C.1 and C.2 that (Pk , Qk ) is a positive-real pair.

Moreover, T T HT = T T Q−1
Pk−1 T = diag Q−1
Pk 0 =
k−1
k

diag Ĥ 0 where Ĥ is nonsingular
and limξ→∞ (Ĥ(ξ)) =

T T Dk−1 T = diag Irk 0 . Thus, Pk , Qk satisfy (R1)–(R3)
for i = k.
Condition 2. Let Ak , Mk , Nk , Uk , Vk , Ek , Fk be as in
(S1) for the case i = k; and let
#
"
h
i 
 Mk Q̃12 Nk  T 
−1
Mk−1 Nk−1
Y
0
T 0 .
0 Q̃22 0
Uk−1 Vk−1 :=
0 I
0 I
Uk

0

Vk

It can be verified that each of these four matrices is unimodular. Also, with Ai as in (S1) for i = k − 1 and i = k, then

 −D 0 −C  −1
k
k
 T h−Dk−1 I −Ck−1 i
T
0 0
I
0
0
0
T 0
T
=
0 T 0 .
0 I −Bk−1 0 Ak−1
− Bk 0 0 Ak





0

0 I

−1



Thus, with Ek−1 := Ek 0 T
and Fk−1 := Fk 0 T T ,
it can be verified that (S1) holds for i=k−1. To see 2b, note
T
T
initially that T2T Wk−1
Wk−1 T2 = T2T (Dk−1 + Dk−1
)T2 = 0,
so Wk−1 T2 = 0. Next, note that
 ξI−A −B 0  hξI−Ak−1 −Bk−1 i I 0
k
k
(43)
Lk
Wk 0 =
Lk−1
Wk−1 [0 T ].
We denote the rightmost matrix in (43) by S; we let
Ωk−1 (Xk−1 ) and Ωk (Xk ) be as in (S3),
 and we note that
S T Ωk−1 (Xk−1 )S = diag Ωk (Xk ) 0 . This shows 2b(ii).
Also, since S is nonsingular, then 2b(iii) holds. The proof of
2c is similar, noting that (43) also holds in this case.
Lemma D.4: Let Pk−1 , Qk−1 satisfy (R1)–(R3) for i=k−1,
with mk := nk−1 − rk−1 > 0. The following hold.
1. There exists 0 < K ∈ Rmk×mk such that
−1
limξ→∞ ( 1ξ Pk−1
Qk−1 (ξ)) = diag 0 K .

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


Irk−1 D̂12
−1
lim (Qk Pk (ξ)) =: Dk =
.
(44)
ξ→∞
D̂21 D̂22

15

3. Let Ak , Bk , Ck , Dk satisfy (S1) for i = k; partition
Finally, that deg (det (Qk )) < deg (det (Qk−1 )) will follow
Bk , Ck compatibly
with
D
as
B
=
,
C
=
from
condition 3a, noting from the final two block columns
B̂
B̂
k
k
k
1
2

in (S1) that deg (det (Qi )) = deg (det (Ai )).
col Ĉ1 Ĉ2 ; and let
Condition 3. Let Ak , Mk , Nk , Uk , Vk , Ek , Fk be as in


Ak − B̂1 Ĉ1
B̂2 K −1 − B̂1 D̂12 K −1
(S1) for the case i = k, partition these matrices compatibly as
Ak−1 :=
,
#
#
"
"
D̂21 Ĉ1 − Ĉ2 D̂21 D̂12 K −1 − D̂22 K −1
−I −D̂12 −Ĉ1
M̂11 M̂12 N̂1




I
−1
M̂21 M̂22 N̂2 , and −D̂21 −D̂22 −Ĉ2 ,
B̂1
0
−Ĉ1 −D̂12 K
Bk−1 :=
, and Ck−1 :=
.
− B̂1 −B̂2 0 Ak
Û1 Û2 V̂
0
K −1
−D̂21 I
and let
Then:



I
D̂12
0 0
M̂11 M̂12 N̂1 0
h
i
a) (S1) holds for i = k−1.
0 I
Mk−1 Nk−1
 M̂21 M̂22 N̂2 0 D̂21 D̂22 + Kξ
.
Uk−1 Vk−1 = − Û −Û −V̂ 0
b) Let Xk−1 , Lk−1 and Wk−1 satisfy (S3) for i =
−I 0
B̂1
B̂2
1
2
0
I
0 −I
D̂21 D̂22 + K(1 + ξ) 0 I
k−1; partition Lk−1 and Wk−1 compatibly

with
Ak−1 , Bk−1 , Ck−1 and Dk−1 as Lk−1 := L̃1 L̃2 and It can be verified that each of the above matrices is unimodular


Wk−1 := W̃1 W̃2 ; and let Lk := L̃1 + W̃1 Ĉ1 , and (the modulus of the determinant of the rightmost matrix
 is


F
0
Wk := W̃1 L̃2 K + W̃1 D̂12 . Then (i) W̃2 = 0; (ii) equal to det (K)). Also, with Ek−1 := col
k

 and
Xk−1 has the form Xk−1 = diag Xk K −1 ; (iii) with Fk−1 (ξ) := col Ek (ξ) 0 + col ξ Û2 (ξ) I 0 K , it can
Xk as in condition (ii), then (S3) holds for i = k; and be verified that (S1) holds for i = k−1. Now, let Lk−1 , Wk−1
T
Wk−1
Wk−1 = D + DT =
(iv) if (S4) holds for i = k−1, then (S4) holds for i = k. be as in condition
 3b. Since
T
c) Let Xk , Lk and Wk satisfy (S3) for i =
 k; parti diag 2Irk−1 0 , then W̃2 W̃2 = 0, which proves 3b(i). To
show 3b(ii), we partition Xk−1 compatibly with Ak−1 as
tion Wk compatibly
with
D
as
W
=
Ŵ
Ŵ
k
k
1
2

;


:= Lk − Ŵ1 Ĉ1 (Ŵ2 − Ŵ1 D̂12 )K −1 ,
and let Lk−1
X11 X12



Xk−1 =
.
T
Wk−1 := Ŵ1 0 and Xk−1 := diag Xk K −1 .
X12
X22
Then (i) (S3) holds for i = k−1; and (ii) if (S4) holds


T
Since Ck−1
− Xk−1 Bk−1 = LTk−1 Wk−1 = LTk−1 W̃1 0 ,
for i = k, then (S4) holds for i = k−1.
−1
Proof: Condition 1. Since (Pk−1 , Qk−1 ) is a positive- then X12 = 0 and X22 = K . Now, note that
"
#
−1
 h

0
0
real pair and Pk−1 is nonsingular, then Pk−1
Qk−1 is positivei I0 00
ξI−Ak −B̂1 −B̂2 0
K
0
ξI−A
−B
k−1
k−1
−1
0
0
0 −I =
real. Hence, if Pk−1
Qk−1 has a pole at infinity, then it is simLk−1
Wk−1
Ĉ1 I
D̂12
0 .
Lk
Ŵ1 Ŵ2 0
−1
1
Ĉ2 D̂21 ξK+D̂22 I
ple and the residue matrix J := limξ→∞ ( ξ (Pk−1 Qk−1 )(ξ))
is real and non-negative definite [3, Theorem 2.7.2]. Thus, We denote the rightmost matrix in this equation by S, we let
there exist real matrices J, D̂ and strictly proper real-rational Ωk−1 (Xk−1 ) and Ωk (Xk ) be as in (S3), and by direct calcula
matrices G, H (partitioned compatibly with Dk−1 ) such that tion we obtain S T Ωk−1 (Xk−1 )S = diag Ωk (Xk ) 0 . This
i 
h
i
h

proves 3b(iii). Condition 3b(iv) then follows since the rightJ J12
−1
G11 G12
11 D̂12
(ξ)
+
Pk−1
Qk−1 (ξ) = J11
ξ + D̂
T
G
G
J
most matrix in the above displayed equation is nonsingular.
21
22
22
D̂ D̂
h 12
i  21 22
Next, let Xk , Lk , Wk , Xk−1 , Lk−1 and Wk−1 be as in
Irk −1 0
11 H12
Q−1
+ H
(45)
k−1 Pk−1 (ξ) =
H21 H22 (ξ).
0
0
condition 3c. We recall that the rightmost matrix in the above
then find
By considering the first block row in the equation 0 = displayed equation (denoted S) is nonsingular.
 We
−1 T
−1
−1
−1
1
Ω
(X
)
0
that
Ω
(X
)=(S
)
diag
S
,
so 3c(i)
limξ→∞ ( ξ (Qk−1 Pk−1 Pk−1 Qk−1 )(ξ)), we obtain J11 = 0
k
k
k−1
k−1
−1
holds,
and
3c(ii)
follows
since
S
is
nonsingular.
and J12 = 0. Then, by considering the bottom right block
−1
in the equation limξ→∞ ((Pk−1
Qk−1 Q−1
k−1 Pk−1 )(ξ)) = I, we
find that J22 limξ→∞ (ξH22 (ξ)) = I, which implies that J22
is nonsingular. By letting K := J22 , we obtain condition 1.
Timothy H. Hughes received the M.Eng. degree
−1
Condition 2.
Since Q−1
k Pk (ξ) = Pk−1 Qk−1 (ξ) −
in mechanical engineering, and the Ph.D. degree in
−1
diag 0 Kξ , then Qk Pk is proper and positive-real by [3,
control engineering, from the University of Cambridge, U.K., in 2007 and 2014, respectively. From
Theorem 8.4.3], and limξ→∞ ((Q−1
P
)(ξ))
is
equal
to
the
k
k
2007 to 2010 he was employed as a mechanical enmatrix D̂ in (45). Then, the top left block in the equation
gineer at The Technology Partnership, Hertfordshire,
−1
−1
I = limξ→∞ ((Pk−1 Qk−1 Qk−1 Pk−1 )(ξ)) gives D̂11 = Irk−1 .
U.K; and from 2013 to 2017 he was a Henslow
Research Fellow at the University of Cambridge,
Next, note that Pk −Qk = Pk−1 −Qk−1 S where
supported by the Cambridge Philosophical Society.




He is currently a lecturer in the Department of
S
−I
0
0
Mathematics at the University of Exeter, U.K.
S = 11
, with S11 (ξ) =
.
−I
0
0 −Kξ
With Jn as defined in Appendix C, it can be verified that S
is unimodular and SJn S ? = Jn , and it is then easily shown
that (Pk , Qk ) satisfy conditions (b) and (c) in Definition 8.
Since, in addition, Q−1
k Pk is positive-real, then (Pk , Qk ) also
satisfies condition (a) in Definition 8, so (Pk , Qk ) is a positivereal pair.

