Notions of equivalence for

linear multivariable systems

A.I.G. Vardulakis1 and N. Karampetakis1, E. Antoniou2 and S. Vologiannidis3
http://anadrasis.web.auth.gr

1. Department of Mathematics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki

54124, Greece, email : avardula@math.auth.gr, karampet@math.auth.gr
2. Department of Sciences, Alexander Technological Educational Institute of
Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece, Email: eantonio@gen.teithe.gr
3. DataScouting Unlimited, Vakhou 30, 54629, Thessaloniki, Greece, Email:
svol@datascouting.com
Contents

Transformations that preserve :
 thefinite zero structure of polynomial matrices,
 both the finite and infinite zero structure of
polynomial matrices
and their extension to system matrices.

Discrete time systems and elementary divisors.

Conclusions
Гантмахер Феликс Howard Harry Israel Gohberg
Рувимович Rosenbrock

Jan Willems Paul Fuhrmann Wiliam Wolovich

Similarity
Definition [Gantmacher 1959] Two constant matrices A1 , A2 ∈ ℝ p× p , are
similar if there exists an invertible matrix M , such that
A1 = MA2 M −1
or equivalently
( sI p − A1 ) = M ( sI p − A2 ) M −1 M ( sI p − A2 ) = ( sI p − A1 ) M

• It is an equivalence relation
• Invariants : eigenvalues with their algebraic and geometric multiplicities
• Canonical form : By placing as columns in M the generalized
eigenvectors of A1 we get its Jordan Canonical form.

λi 1 ⋯ 0 
J = diag {J ij } 0 λ ⋱ ⋮ 
i =1,…, v J ij =  i  ∈ ℂvij ×vij
j =1,…, vi ⋮ ⋱ 1
0 ⋯ 0 λ 
 i
A real alternative of M, J is also possible.
 Similarity – Geometrical interpretation
Consider the homogeneous system of the form
ρ x1 (t ) = A1 x1 (t ) ⇔ ( ρ I n − A1 ) x1 (t ) = 0n ,1
where ρ := d / dt A1 ∈ ℝ n×n .

x1 (t ) = Mx2 (t )

We get a new description of the form

ρ x2 (t ) = A2 x2 (t ) ⇔ ( ρ I n − A2 ) x2 (t ) = 0
where A2 = M −1 A1M .
System similarity
The classical time domain approach uses state space representations of the form
ρ x1 (t ) = A1 x1 (t ) + B1u(t )
y (t ) = C1 x (t ) + D1u(t )
where ρ := d / dt A1 ∈ ℝ p× p , B1 ∈ ℝ p×m , C1 ∈ ℝ l × p , D1 ∈ ℝ m×l ,
x1 (t ) : ℝ → ℝ p is the state vector and u (t ) : ℝ → ℝ l , y (t ) : ℝ → ℝ m are
respectively the input and output vectors.

x1 (t ) = Mx2 (t )

It is easy to see that the above change of coordinates results in a new description
of the form
ρ x2 (t ) = A2 x2 (t ) + B2 u(t )
y (t ) = C2 x2 (t ) + D2 u(t )
where A2 = M −1 A1M , B2 = M −1B1 , C2 = C1M and D2 = D1 .

The definition of the state of a system is nonunique !

System similarity
5 or in system matrix terms

 sI p − A2 B2   M −1 0   sI p − A1 B1   M 0
= 
 −C
 2

D2   0 I l   −C1 D1   0 I m 

M 0   sI p − A2 B2   sI p − A1 B1   M 0
0 =
 I l   −C2 D2   −C1 D1   0 I m 

 x1 ( t )   M 0   x2 ( t )   x1 ( 0 )   M 0   x2 ( 0 ) 
 =    =  
 −u ( t )   0 I m   −u ( t )   y2 ( t )   0 I m   y1 ( t ) 
X u2
Controllability Observability Yu
X u1
Commute
Unimodular equivalence
Definition [Gantmacher 1959, Rosenbrock 1970] Two polynomial matrices
Ai ( s ) ∈ ℝ[ s ] p×q , i = 1,2 are unimodular equivalent, if there exist unimodular
matrices (determinant constant) U ( s ) ∈ ℝ[ s ] p× p ,V ( s ) ∈ ℝ[ s ]q×q , such that
A1 ( s ) = U ( s ) A2 ( s )V ( s ).

Pre or post multiplication of a polynomial matrix by a unimodular one,

corresponds to performing row or column elementary operations
on the matrix.
a) Multiplication of any i-th row (column) by the number c<>0,
b) Addition to any i-th row (column) of the j-th row (column) multiplied
by any polynomial w(s),
c) Interchange of any two rows (columns).
• It is an equivalence relation
 − 13 −1   103 s 2 − 145 s + 4 10 s − 5 s
3 2 2
  83 1 − 13 s   1 0 
 3 − 3 s 3 − 9 s  1 2 2  3 1 
= 2
 10   − s − s − 1 2
s − 6
s + 4  − − 1
+ s
3 
 0 ( s − 2 ) 
2
 
10 2

 
 

10 5 10 5  8 3   

U (s) A( s ) V ( s) S AC( s ) ( s )
 Unimodular equivalence – Canonical form
Theorem [Gantmacher 1959] Given a polynomial matrix A( s ) , there exist
unimodular matrices U ( s ) , V ( s ) such that
A( s ) = U ( s ) S Aℂ( s ) ( s )V ( s )
where
S Aℂ( s ) ( s ) = diag{ε1 ( s ),…, ε r ( s ), 0}
vi
mij
is the Smith form of A( s ) and ε i ( s ) = ∏ ( s − λ j ) are monic polynomials
j =1
such that ε i ( s ) | ε i +1 ( s ) , i = 1,…, r − 1.
mij
The roots of ε i ( s ) are the finite zeros of A( s ) , whereas the factors ( s − λ j ) of
ε i ( s ) , are the finite elementary divisors of A( s ) .
The finite elementary divisor structure and therefore the zeros and their
multiplicities form a complete set of invariants for unimodular equivalence.

∃M ∈ℝ p× p
( sI p − A1 ) = U ( s ) ( sI p − A2 )V ( s ) ⇔ ( sI p − A1 ) = M ( sI p − A2 ) M −1
Finite Jordan pairs
Theorem ([Gohberg et. al.], pp.184) Let (C s0 ∈ R r×n , J s0 ∈ R n×n ) be a matrix pair where
J s0 is a Jordan matrix with unique eigenvalue s0 . Then the following conditions are
necessary and sufficient in order that (C s0 , J s0 ) be a Jordan pair of A( s )
corresponding to s0 : s0 1 0 ⋯ 0
(a) det A ( s ) has a zero at s0 of multiplicity n , 0 s0 1 ⋯ 0
(b) ∈ ℝ n×n
J s 0 := ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋱ ⋮
 Cs0 
  0 0 0 ⋯ 1
C J
 s s  0 0 0 ⋯ s0
rank  0 0  = n
⋮
  A ( s ) = Aq s q + ⋯ + A1s + A0
 Cs J sn−1 
(c)  0 0 
AqCs0 J sq0 + ⋯ + A1Cs0 J s0 + A0Cs0 = 0
Taking a Jordan pair (C si ∈ R r×ni , J si ∈ R ni ×ni ) for every eigenvalue si , i = 1, 2,.., k of
A ( s ) we define a finite Jordan pair ( C ∈ R r×n , J ∈ R n×n ) of A ( s ) as
(
C = Cs1 C s2 ⋯ C sk ) ; J = blockdiag J s1 ( J s2 ⋯ J sk )
where n = n1 + n2 + ⋯ nk is the total number of finite zeros (eigenvalues) of A ( s ) (order
accounted for).
 Construction of the smooth solution space
The column span of Ψ = Ce Jt defines a solution space B C of
A ( ρ ) β ( t ) = 0, ρ := d / dt (Σ)
with dimension :
dim B C = n := total number of finite zeros of A( s ) (order accounted for)
B C is known as the smooth solution space of (Σ) defined by (Gohberg et. al. 1982) and
(Vardulakis 1991).

 103 ρ 2 − 145 ρ + 4 3
ρ 2 − 52 ρ   β1 ( t )   0 
= 
10
 1 2 2 
− 10 ρ − 5 ρ
 − 10 ρ − 5 ρ + 4  2 ( )   0 
1 2 6
β t
 
  

A( ρ ) β (t )

e 2 t ( t − 1)  2 t  t − 1 k −1  k − 2 
2 1
 1 −1  0 2 
t  e2t 2 t  1 k  1
 → B = e  1 , e  t + 1 B = 2  1 , 2  k + 2 
C f
Ce = 
Jt
e =  2t
 1 1  e e ( t + 1) 
2t
       
The column span of Ψ = CJ k defines a solution space B f of
A (σ ) β ( k ) = 0, σβ ( k ) = β ( k + 1)
with dimension :
dim B f = n := total number of finite zeros of A( s ) (order accounted for)
B f is known as the forward solution space of (A(σ)) defined by (Gohberg et. al.
1982).
Unimodular equivalence – Geometrical interpretation
Theorem [Polderman and Willems 1998] Consider two homogeneous
systems of the form
A1 ( ρ ) β1 ( t ) = 0, A2 ( ρ ) β 2 ( t ) = 0
p×q
where ρ := d / dt and A1 ( ρ ) , A2 ( ρ ) ∈ ℝ [ ρ ] . A1 ( ρ ) , A2 ( ρ ) define the
same smooth behavior B if and only if there exists a unimodular matrix
q× q
V ( ρ ) ∈ ℝ [ ρ ] such that V ( ρ ) A1 ( ρ ) = A2 ( ρ ) .

Consider two homogeneous systems of the form

A1 ( ρ ) β1 ( t ) = 0, A2 ( ρ ) β 2 ( t ) = 0
p×q
where ρ := d / dt and A1 ( ρ ) , A2 ( ρ ) ∈ ℝ [ ρ ] . There exists a bijective map
of the form β 2 ( t ) = V ( ρ ) β1 ( t ) between the smooth behavior spaces
defined by A1 ( ρ ) , A2 ( ρ ) if and only if A1 ( ρ ) , A2 ( ρ ) are unimodular
equivalent.
 Unimodular equivalence – Left MFDs
AL ( ρ ) β ( t ) = BL ( ρ ) u ( t )
y (t ) = I p β (t )

  AL ( s ) BL ( s )  p× p p ×m 

L = P ( s) = 
− I 0
 L
: A ( s ) ∈ ℝ [ s ] , rankAL ( s ) = p , BL ( s ) ∈ ℝ [ s ] 
  p p ,m  

Definition [Kailath 1980, Smith 1981] Let P1 ( s ) , P2 ( s ) ∈ L × L

 ALi ( s ) BLi ( s ) 
Pi ( s ) =  
 − I p 0 p ,m 
Then P1 ( s ) , P2 ( s ) are called unimodular equivalent if and only if there exist a
p× p
unimodular polynomial matrix TL ( s ) ∈ ℝ [ s ] such that
 AL2 ( s ) BL2 ( s )   TL ( s ) 0 p , p   AL1 ( s ) BL1 ( s ) 
  =    
 −I p 0 p ,m   0 p , p I p  −I p 0 p ,m 

•Same input decoupling zeros, (A L2 (s) ) (

BL2 ( s ) = TL ( s ) AL1 ( s ) BL1 ( s ) )
−1 −1
•Same transfer function AL2 ( s ) BL2 ( s ) = AL1 ( s ) BL1 ( s )
 Unimodular equivalence – Right MFDs
AR ( ρ ) β ( t ) = I m u ( t )
y ( t ) = BR ( ρ ) β ( t )
  AR ( s ) Im  m ×m p ×m 

R = P ( s) =   R
: A ( s ) ∈ ℝ [ s ] , rankA ( s ) = p , B ( s ) ∈ ℝ [ s ] 
 −
 R B ( s ) 0 p ,m 
R R


Definition [Kailath 1980, Smith 1981] Let P1 ( s ) , P2 ( s ) ∈ R × R

 ARi ( s ) Ip 
Pi ( s ) =  
 − BR ( s ) 0 p ,m 
 i 
Then P1 ( s ) , P2 ( s ) are called unimodular equivalent if and only if there exist a
m ×m
unimodular polynomial matrix TR ( s ) ∈ ℝ [ s ] such that
 AR2 ( s ) I p   AR1 ( s ) I p   TR ( s ) 0m ,m 
 = 
 − BR ( s ) 0 p ,m   − BR ( s ) 0 p ,m   0m ,m I

 2   1  m 

 AR2 ( s )   AR1 ( s ) 
•Same output decoupling zeros,  = T (s)
 − BR ( s )   − BR ( s )  R
•Same transfer function  2   1 
−1 −1
BR2 ( s ) AR2 ( s ) = BR1 ( s ) AR1 ( s )
 Strict System Equivalence (PMDs)– Rosenbrock 1970
otherwise called Unimodular Strict System Equivalent
Ai ( ρ ) β ( t ) = Bi ( ρ ) u ( t ) i=1,2
y ( t ) = Ci ( ρ ) β ( t ) + Di ( ρ ) u ( t )
Let
 Ai ( s ) − Bi ( s ) 
Pi ( s ) =   , i = 1,2
Ci ( s ) Di ( s ) 
be the system matrices of two PMDs Σi , where Ai ( s ) ∈ ℝ[ s ]r ×r , Bi ( s ) ∈ ℝ[ s ]r ×l
, Ci ( s ) ∈ ℝ[ s ]m×r , Di ( s ) ∈ ℝ[ s ]m×l .

Definition [Rosenbrock 1970] Σ1 and Σ 2 are strictly system equivalent, if there

r ×r p ×r
exist unimodular matrices M ( s ) , N ( s ) ∈ ℝ [ s ] and X ( s ) ∈ ℝ [ s ] ,
r ×m
Y ( s ) ∈ ℝ [ s ] such that
 M ( s ) 0   A1 ( s ) B1 ( s )   N ( s ) Y ( s )   A2 ( s ) − B2 ( s ) 
 X ( s ) I   −C ( s ) D ( s )   0  = 
 p   1 1   I m   C 2 ( s ) D2 ( s ) 
Strict System Equivalence – Invariants
• Input Decoupling Zeros ( A1 ( s ) B1 ( s ) )

 A1 ( s ) 
• Output Decoupling Zeros  
− C
 1  ( s )
• Input-Output Decoupling Zeros

• Order of Σ n = deg A1 ( s )

• Rosenbrock degree {
d r = max deg Pj11, j22 ,..., qjɶqɶ ( s )
i ,i ,...,i
}
• System Zeros { i ,i ,...,i
}
gcd Pj11, j22 ,..., qjɶqɶ ( s ) , q = qɶ = greatest value of q s.t. Pj11, j22 ,..., qjɶqɶ ( s ) ≠ 0
i ,i ,...,i

• System Poles A1 ( s )
−1
• Transfer function matrix G1 ( s ) = C1 ( s ) A1 ( s ) B1 ( s ) + D1 ( s )

• Transmission Zeros-Poles
Invariants – Geometric interpretation
• Karcanias, 1976. ‘Geometric Theory of zeros and its use in feedback analysis’,
Ph.D. Thesis, Electrical Engineering Department, UMIST, U.K.
• MacFarlane and Karcanias 1976, Poles and zeros of linear multivariable
systems: a survey of the algebraic, geometric and complex variable theory, Int. J.
Control, Vol. 24, 33-74.
• Desoer CA, Schulman JD (1974) Zeros and poles of matrix transfer functions
and their dynamical interpretations. IEEE Trans, vol CAS–21, No1, pp 3–8.
• Karcanias and Kouvaritakis, 1979 The output zeroing problem and its
relationship to the invariant zero structure: a matrix pencil approach", Int. J.
Control, Vol. 30, pp.395-415
• F.M. Callier, V.H.L. Cheng, and C.A. Desoer, Dynamic interpretation of poles
and zeros of transmission for distributed multivariable systems. IEEE Trans.
Circuits and Systems, CAS-28:300-306, April 1981
• C. B. Schrader and M. K. Sain, 1989, Research on System Zeros: A Survey,
International Journal of Control, Volume 50, Number 4, pp. 1407-1433
• Bourles H., Fliess M. (1997) "Finite poles and zeros of linear systems: an
intrinsic approach", Internal. J. Control, vol. 68, pp. 897-922
Special forms of Strict System Equivalence in different
system descriptions – Smith 1981

System similarity of state space systems coincides with strict system

equivalence [Rosenbrock 1970, pp.56]
Unimodular equivalence of MFDs coincides with strict system
equivalence [Smith 1981]
Unimodular equivalence
Disadvantage : connect polynomial matrices of the same dimension!

s+2 0 
( 

s + 5s + 6 )
2
 0 s
 + 3 
A1 ( s )

A2 ( s )

1 0   −1 1  s + 2 0  1 s + 3 
 =  0  1 s + 2 
2
+ + s +
 
  
 3 − s − 2 s + 3

  

0 s 5 s 6
Aɶ1 ( s ) U (s) A2 ( s ) V (s)

 s + 2 1  1 0  s +2 0  1 s + 3 
 s + 3 1  =
 
  0 s + 5s + 6   0
2
s + 3   1 s + 2 

  
 

M (s) Aɶ1 ( s ) A2 ( s ) N (s)

 Strict System Equivalence – extended (Rosenbrock 1970)
I q − ri β i1 ( t ) = 0u ( t )
Ai ( ρ ) βi2 ( t ) = Bi ( ρ ) u ( t )
y ( t ) = 0 βi1 ( t ) + Ci ( ρ ) β i2 ( t ) + Di ( ρ ) u ( t )
Let
 Ai ( s ) − Bi ( s ) 
Pi ( s ) =   , i = 1,2
C
 i ( s ) D i ( s ) 
be the system matrices of two PMDs Σi , where Ai ( s ) ∈ ℝ[ s ]ri ×ri ,
Bi ( s ) ∈ ℝ[ s ]ri ×l , Ci ( s ) ∈ ℝ[ s ]m×ri , Di ( s ) ∈ ℝ[ s ]m×l .
Definition [Rosenbrock 1970] Σ1 and Σ 2 are strictly system equivalent, if there
r ×r p ×r
exist unimodular matrices M ( s ) , N ( s ) ∈ ℝ [ s ] and X ( s ) ∈ ℝ [ s ] ,
r ×m
Y ( s ) ∈ ℝ [s] such that
 I q − r1 0 0   I q − r2 0 0 
 M (s) 0      N ( s) Y ( s)
 X (s)  0 A ( s ) B ( s ) = 0 A2 ( s ) B2 ( s )  
 Ip  1 1 
 0 I m 
 −C1 ( s ) D1 ( s )   0 −C2 ( s ) D2 ( s ) 
 0
where q is chosen to satisfy
{
q ≥ max deg A1 ( s ) ,deg A2 ( s ) }
 Extended Unimodular Equivalence – Pugh and Shelton 1978
A natural generalization of unimodular equivalence (Smith 1981)

Disadvantage of u.e. : connect polynomial matrices of the same dimensions.

Disadvantage of s.s.e. : extra pseudo-states

Let P( m, l ) be the class of polynomial matrices with dimensions ( r + m ) × ( r + l ) ,

for all r = 1, 2,….

Definition [Pugh and Shelton 1978] Two polynomial matrices A1 ( s ) ,

A2 ( s ) ∈ P( m, l ) are extended unimodular equivalent (e.u.e.) if there exist
polynomial matrices of appropriate dimensions M ( s ) , N ( s ) such that
M ( s ) A1 ( s ) = A2 ( s ) N ( s )
where the compound matrices
 A1 ( s ) 
[ M ( s) A2 ( s)] ,  
 − N ( s)
have full rank and no zeros in ℂ i.e. zero coprime.

Invariants : Same Smith form apart of a trivial expansion – same normal

rank defect.
 Fuhrmann System Equivalence – Fuhrmann 1977

Let P( m, l ) be the class of polynomial matrices with dimensions ( r + m ) × ( r + l ) ,

for all r = 1, 2,….
Definition [Fuhrmann 1977] Σ1 and Σ 2 are strictly system equivalent, if there
r ×r1 p×r1
exist polynomial matrices M ( s ) , N ( s ) ∈ ℝ [ s ] 2 and X ( s ) ∈ ℝ [ s ] ,
r ×m
Y ( s ) ∈ ℝ [ s ] 2 such that
 M ( s ) 0   A1 ( s ) B1 ( s )   A2 ( s ) − B2 ( s )   N ( s ) Y ( s ) 
 X ( s ) I   −C ( s ) D ( s )  =  C ( s ) D ( s )   0 I 
 p  1 1   2 2  m 
where the compound matrices
 A1 ( s ) 
[ M ( s ) A 2 ( s ) ]
, 
 − N ( s)
have full rank and no zeros in ℂ i.e. zero coprime.

Fuhrmann Strict System Equivalence and Rosenbrock Strict System

Equivalence give rise to the same equivalence relation (Levy et.al. 1977)

Share the same invariants

Geometric Interpretation of Strict System Equivalence
Ai ( ρ ) β ( t ) = Bi ( ρ ) u ( t ) (*)
i=1,2
y ( t ) = Ci ( ρ ) β ( t ) + Di ( ρ ) u ( t )

Define X ui , i = 1, 2 as the sets of all (smooth) solutions of (*) corresponding to

the input u.
Definition [Pernebo 1977] Σ1 and Σ 2 are strictly system equivalent, if and only
if there exists a bijective mapping of the form
β 2 ( t ) = N ( ρ ) β1 ( t ) + Y ( ρ ) u ( t )
between X u1 and X u2 (where ρ := d / dt , N ( ρ ) , Y ( ρ ) are polynomial matrices).
The map is such that the diagram
X u2
ց
↑ Yu
ր
X u1
commutes. Yu is the set of outputs corresponding to the input u.
Alternative forms of the Definition of s.s.e.

• Wolovich W.A., 1974, Linear Multivariable Systems, New York,

Springer Verlag.
• M. Morf, 1975, Extended system matrices-Transfer functions and
system equivalence, IEEE Conference on Decision and Control
including the 14th Symposium on Adaptive Processes, Vol. 14, pp. 199
-206.
• B. Levy, S.-Y. Kung, M. Morf and T. Kailath, 1977, A unification of
system equivalence definitions, 1977 IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control including the 16th Symposium on Adaptive Processes and A
Special Symposium on Fuzzy Set Theory and Applications, Vol.16, pp.
795 -800.
• Diederich Hinrichsen and Dieter Pratzel-Wolters, 1980, Solution
modules and system equivalence, International Journal of Control, 32,
pp. 777-802
 Verghese, George
Tomas Kailath

Vardulakis,
Antonis-Ioannis

Nicos Karcanias
Clive Pugh

• G.C. Verghese and T. Kailath, 1981, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,26, pp. 434-439
• A. I. G. Vardulakis, D. N. J. Limebeer, and N. Karcanias, “Structure and smith-MacMillan form of
a rational matrix at infinity,” International Journal of Control, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 701–725, 1982.
 Biproper equivalence
Although unimodular equivalence operations preserve the finite zero
structure of polynomial matrices, they will in general destroy the
corresponding structure at infinity.
Definition [P. D. P. Van Dooren 1979, Vardulakis et. al. 1982] Two rational
matrices Ai ( s ) ∈ ℝ( s ) p×q , i = 1,2 , are equivalent (at infinity) if there exist
biproper rational matrices U ( s ) ∈ ℝ pr ( s ) p× p ,V ( s ) ∈ ℝ pr ( s ) q×q , such that
A1 ( s ) = U ( s ) A2 ( s )V ( s )
i.e. lim s→∞ U ( s ) = U ∈ ℝ p× p ,det U ≠ 0 (similar for V(s)).

Pre or post multiplication of a rational matrix by a biproper one,

corresponds to performing row or column elementary operations
on the matrix.
a) Multiplication of any i-th row (column) by the number c<>0,
b) Addition to any i-th row (column) of the j-th row (column) multiplied
by any proper rational function w(s),
c) Interchange of any two rows (columns).
 Biproper equivalence – Canonical form
Theorem [Vardulakis et.al. 1982] Given a rational matrix A( s ) , there exist
biproper matrices U ( s ) , V ( s ) such that
A( s ) = U ( s ) S A∞( s ) ( s )V ( s )
where
 1 1 
S A∞( s ) ( s ) = diag  s q1 ,⋯, s qk , qˆ +1 ,⋯, qˆ ,0 p − r , q − r 
 sk sr 
is the Smith-MacMillan form at infinity of A( s ) and
n = q1 ≥ q2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ qk ≥ 0 are the orders of the poles at ∞ and
qˆr ≥ qˆr −1 ≥ ⋯ ≥ qˆk +1 ≥ 0 are the orders of the respective zeros.

The indices qi, i=1,r form a complete set of invariants for biproper
equivalence.

1 0 s s2 + s + 1 − 1s s + 1 − 1
s 2 + s + 1 s2 0
s2
=
1
s 2 − 1 1 −1 −s − 1 1 1 0 1
s3 s s2

Us As Vs S∞

As s
Connection between the Smith form at infinity and
the Smith form at C of polynomial matrices
Define the dual polynomial matrix of A ( s )
1
Aɶ ( s ) = s q A   = A0 s q + A1s q −1 + ⋯ + Aq
s

The infinite elementary divisors of A( s) are given by (Hayton et.al.1988 & Vardulakis 1991):
µ
s j , j = 1, 2,3,.., r
µ j = q − q j , j = 1, 2,..., k with q1 = q ≥ q2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ qk
where qi are the orders of the poles of A( s ) at s = ∞ defined above.
The first kind of IED, i.e. the ones with degrees µ j = q − q j > 0, j = 2,3,.., k we call
infinite pole IEDs, since are connected with the orders of the poles q j , j = 1, 2,..., k of
A( s ) at s = ∞ .

1 0 s s2 + s + 1 −1 − s −1 − s − s 2 s 2−2 0
=
s − s3 1 −s 2 −s 2 − s 1 s 0 s 2+2

Ṽ s
0 s
Ũs Ãs S Ãs
Connection between the Smith form at infinity and
the Smith form at C
Define the dual polynomial matrix of A ( s )
1
Aɶ ( s ) = s q A   = A0 s q + A1s q −1 + ⋯ + Aq
s

The infinite elementary divisors of A( s) are given by (Hayton et.al.1988 & Vardulakis 1991):
µ j = q, j = k + 1, k + 2,.., v
µ j = q + qˆ j , j = v + 1,τ + 2,..., r with qˆv +1 ≤ qˆv + 2 ≤ ⋯ ≤ qˆr
where qˆi are the orders of the zeros of A( s) at s = ∞ defined above.
The second kind of IED, i.e. the ones with degrees µ j = q + qˆ j > 0, j = v + 1, v + 2,..., r we
call infinite zero IEDs, since are connected with the orders of the zeros
qˆ j , j = v + 1, v + 2,..., r of A( s ) at s = ∞ .

1 0 s s2 + s + 1 −1 − s −1 − s − s 2 s 2−2 0
=
s − s3 1 −s 2 −s 2 − s 1 s 0 s 2+2

Ṽ s
0 s
Ũs Ãs S Ãs
Infinite Jordan pairs
Theorem (Gohberg et. al.1982 ,pp.185) Let (C ∞ ∈ R r× µ
, J ∞ ∈ R µ ×µ
) be a matrix pair
where J ∞ is a Jordan matrix with unique eigenvalue s0 = 0 . Then, the following
conditions are necessary and sufficient in order that ( C∞ , J ∞ ) be an infinite Jordan pair
of A ( s ) : 1
Aɶ ( s ) = s q A   = A0 s q + A1s q −1 + ⋯ + Aq
(a) det Aɶ ( s ) has a zero at s0 = 0 of multiplicity µ , s
(b)
 C∞ 
 C J 
rank  ∞ ∞  = µ
 ⋮ 
 µ −1 
(c)  C∞ J ∞ 
A0C∞ J ∞q + ⋯ + Aq −1C∞ J ∞ + AqC∞ = 0

( )
Taking a finite Jordan pair C∞i ∈ R r×µi , J ∞i ∈ R µi ×µi for different algebraic multiplicities
of the eigenvalue si = 0, i = 1, 2,.., r of Aɶ ( s ) we define an infinite Jordan pair
(C ∞ ∈ R r×µ , J ∞ ∈ R µ ×µ ) of A ( s ) as
C∞ = ( C∞1 C∞ 2 ⋯ C∞r ) ∈ R r×µ ; J ∞ = diag ( J ∞1 J ∞ 2 ⋯ J ∞r ) ∈ R µ ×µ
where µ = µ1 + µ 2 + ⋯ + µ r is the total number of infinite elementary divisors
(eigenvalues) of A ( s ) (order accounted for).
Infinite Jordan pairs
Theorem (Gohberg et. al.1982 ,pp.185) Let (C∞ ∈ R r× µ
, J ∞ ∈ R µ ×µ
) be a matrix pair
where J ∞ is a Jordan matrix with unique eigenvalue s0 = 0 . Then, the following
conditions are necessary and sufficient in order that ( C∞ , J ∞ ) be an infinite Jordan pair
of A ( s ) :
(a) det Aɶ ( s ) has a zero at s0 = 0 of multiplicity µ ,
(b)
 C∞ 
 C J 
rank  ∞ ∞  = µ
 ⋮ 
 µ −1 
(c)  C∞ J ∞ 
A0C∞ J ∞q + ⋯ + Aq −1C∞ J ∞ + AqC∞ = 0
It is easily seen from the above that ( C∞ , J ∞ ) is an infinite Jordan pair of A ( s ) iff it is
a finite Jordan pair of its dual polynomial matrix Aɶ ( s ) corresponding to its zero
(eigenvalue) at s = 0 .
 Geometric interpretation of finite and infinite zeros in
continuous time systems
qˆr −1
The column span of Ψ = ∑ Cɶ Jɶ δ ( ) ( t ) where
∞ ∞, z
i
∞, z
i

i =0

Cɶ ∞ , z := Cɶ ∞ , v +1 , Cɶ ∞ , v + 2 ,..., Cɶ ∞ , r  ∈ R r×µ

z

Jɶ∞ , z := blockdiag  Jɶ∞ , v +1 , Jɶ∞ , v + 2 ,..., Jɶ∞ , r  ∈ R µ ×µ

z z

and Cɶ ∞ , l ( Jɶ∞ ,l ) , with l = v + 1, v + 2,..., r , consists of the first qˆl columns

(the first qˆl × qˆl block) of the matrix C∞ , l ( J ∞ , l ), defines a solution space B ∞
with dim B ∞ = µ z = ∑ ir=v +1qˆi .
Therefore to each infinite Jordan block of order µ j = q + qˆ j , j = v + 1, v + 2,..., r
corresponds qˆ j linear independent impulsive solutions.
∞
The solution space B of
A ( ρ ) β ( t ) = 0, ρ := d / dt (Σ)
has dimension :
r
dim B = µ z =
∞
∑ qˆ
i =v+1
i
:= total number of infinite zeros of A( s ) (order accounted for)
∞
B is known as the impulsive solution space of (Σ) defined by (Vardulakis 1991).
∞
The whole solution space B = B + B
C
of (Σ) has dimension
r k
dim B = dim B + dim B = n + µ z = deg det A ( s ) +
C ∞
∑ qˆ = deg det A ( s ) + ∑q
i i = δ M ( A ( s ))
i = v +1 i =1
Strict equivalence – An extension of Matrix Similarity

H.J.S. Smith C. Jordan J. J. Sylvester K. Weierstrass Leopold Kronecker

1826-1883 1838-1922 1814-1897 1823-1891
1815-1897

• H.J.S. Smith in 1861 (invariant factors of an integer matrix - Smith

normal form of these matrices).
• C. Jordan in 1870 (normal form for similarity classes).
• Sylvester in 1851 (study of the elementary divisors of sE-A, where E,A
are symmetric matrices)
• Weierstrass in 1868 (extend this methods by obtaining a canonical
form for a matrix pencil sE-A, with det(sE-A) not identically zero – define
the elementary divisors of a square matrix and proved that they
characterize the matrix up to similarity)
• Kronecker in 1890 (extend the results to nonregular matrix pencils)
 Strict equivalence – Weierstrass canonical form

Definition [Gantmacher 1959] Two regular matrix pencils sEi − Ai , i = 1,2, with
Ei , Ai ∈ ℝ p× p , are strictly equivalent if there exist non singular matrices
M , N ∈ ℝ p× p such that
sE1 − A1 = M ( sE2 − A2 ) N .

Weierstrass canonical form

Every matrix pencil sE − A ∈ ℝ[ s ] p× p , is strictly equivalent to a pencil of the
form
K ( s ) = diag{sI n − J C , sJ ∞ − I µ }
sI n − J C corresponds to the finite zeros (elementary divisors)
sJ ∞ − I µ corresponds to the infinite elementary divisors
J C = diag{J ij }, i = 1,…, v, j = 1,…, vi J ∞ = diag{J i∞ }, i = 1,…, µ
λi 1 ⋯ 0  0 1 ⋯ 0
0 λ ⋱ ⋮  0 0 ⋱ ⋮ 
J ij =  i  ∈ ℂvij ×vij J i∞ =   ∈ ℝ µi ×µi
⋮ ⋱ 1 ⋮ ⋱ 1
0 ⋯ 0 λ  0 ⋯ 0 0
 i  
 Strict equivalence – Kronecker canonical form
Definition [Gantmacher 1959] Two matrix pencils sEi − Ai , i = 1,2, with
Ei , Ai ∈ ℝ p×q , are strictly equivalent if there exist non singular matrices
M ∈ ℝ p× p , N ∈ ℝ q×q , such that
sE1 − A1 = M ( sE2 − A2 ) N .

Kronecker canonical form

Every matrix pencil sE − A ∈ ℝ[ s ] p×q , is strictly equivalent to a pencil of the
form
K ( s ) = diag{sI n − J C , sJ ∞ − I µ , Lε ( s ), Lη ( s )}

{
Lε ( s ) = blockdiag Lε1 , Lε 2 ,..., Lε r } {
Lη ( s ) = blockdiag Lη1 , Lη2 ,..., Lηl }
Lε i ( s ) = sM ε i − N ε i ∈ R[ s ]ε i ×(ε i +1) , Lηi ( s ) = sM ηTi − NηTi ∈ R[ s ](ηi +1)×ηi

1 0 ⋯ 0 0 1 ⋯ 0
M ε i =  ⋮ ⋱ ⋱ ⋮  ∈ R ε i ×(ε i +1) ; Nηi =  ⋮ ⋱ ⋱ ⋮  ∈ Rηi ×(ηi +1) .
   
0 ⋯ 1 0 0 ⋯ 0 1 
ε i (ηi ) are the right (left) Kronecker indices
Restricted system equivalence (Rosenbrock 1974)
Let the descriptor state space representations of the form
ρ E1 x1 (t ) = A1 x1 (t ) + B1u(t )
y (t ) = C1 x (t ) + D1u (t )
where ρ := d / dt , E1 , A1 ∈ ℝ p× p , B1 ∈ ℝ p×m , C1 ∈ ℝ l × p , D1 ∈ ℝ m×l ,
x1 (t ) : ℝ → ℝ p is the state vector and u (t ) : ℝ → ℝ l , y (t ) : ℝ → ℝ m are
respectively the input and output vectors.

Premultiplying by M x1 (t ) = Nx2 (t )

It is easy to see that the above change of coordinates results in a new description
of the form
ρ Ex2 (t ) = A2 x2 (t ) + B2u (t )
y (t ) = C2 x2 (t ) + D2u (t )
where E2 = ME1 N , A2 = MA1 N , B2 = MB1 , C2 = C1 N and D2 = D1 .
Restricted system equivalence (Rosenbrock 1974)
5 or in system matrix terms
 sE2 − A2 B2   M 0   sE1 − A1 B1   N 0
 −C  =
 2 D2   0 I l   −C1 D1   0 I m 

 M −1 0   sE2 − A2 B2   sE1 − A1 B1   N 0
  =
 0 I l   −C 2 D2   −C1 D1   0 I m 

 x1 ( t )   N 0   x2 ( t )   E1 x1 ( 0 )   M −1 0   E2 x2 ( 0 ) 
 =    =  
 ( )  0
− u t I m   −u ( t )   2( )   0
y t I m   y1 ( t ) 

Controllability Observability X u2
Yu
x1 ( 0 ) = Nx2 ( 0 ) ⇒ E1 x1 ( 0 ) = E1 Nx2 ( 0 ) = M −1 E2 x2 ( 0 ) X u1
Commute
Strong equivalence – Verghese et.al. 1981
Disadvantage of strict equiv. : connect matrix pencils of same dimension
Strong equivalence
 sE1 − A1 0 
( sE2 − A2 ) = M   N
 0 I
Operations of strong equivalence (can eliminate non-dynamic variables)

 sE2 − A2 B2   M 0   sE1 − A1 B1   N R
=
 −C
 2 D2   Q I l   −C1 D1   0 I m 
det M ≠ 0,det N ≠ 0 QE1 = 0 = E1 R

Definition Two systems are termed strongly equivalent if one can

be obtained from the other by some sequence of allowed
transformations (i.e. operations of strong equivalence, and/or trivial
augmentations, and/or trivial deflations).
X u2
Yu
X u1
Commute
 Constant system equivalence – Anderson et.al. 1985
Disadvantage of str.eq. : lack of a closed-form expression as a system-
matrix transformation (the operation of trivial deflation (or inflation) has
not been formally embodied within the operations of strong equivalence)

Definition [Anderson et. al. 1985] Two descriptor systems are constant system
equivalent if there exist invertible matrices M , N and constant matrices X , Y of
appropriate dimensions such that
I 0 0  I 0 0 
M 0      N Y 
 X I   0 sE1 − A1 − B1  =  0 sE2 − A2 − B2   0 I 
 m
0 C D   0 C D   l
 1 1   2 2 
 Complete equivalence – Pugh et.al. 1987
Strict equivalence preserves both the finite and infinite elementary
divisors.

Identity block has no dynamic significance – Pugh et.al. 1987 – we are

interested only for the finite and infinite zeros.

Definition [Pugh et. al. 1987] Two matrix pencils sEi − Ai , i = 1,2, with
Ei , Ai ∈ P( m, l ), are completely equivalent if there exist constant matrices M , N
of appropriate dimensions such that
M ( sE1 − A1 ) = ( sE2 − A2 ) N
where the compound matrices
 sE1 − A1 
[ M sE 2 − A2] 
, 
 − N 
have full rank and no zeros in ℂ ∪ {∞}.

Preserve both the finite and infinite zero structure.

If Σ1, Σ2 are completely equivalent then they are extended
unimodular equivalent and extended causal equivalent.
Complete system equivalence – Pugh et.al. 1987

Definition [Pugh et. al. 1987] Two descriptor systems are completely system
equivalent if there exist constant matrices M , N , X , Y of appropriate
dimensions such that
 M 0   sE1 − A1 − B1   sE2 − A2 − B2   N Y 
 X I  C  =  0 I 
 m  1 D1   C 2 D 2  l
where the compound matrices
 sE1 − A1 
[ M sE2 − A2 ] ,  
 − N 
have full rank and no zeros in ℂ ∪ {∞} .

5 or the system matrices are complete equivalent

Complete System Equivalence – Invariants
• Finite and Infinite Input Decoupling Zeros ( sE1 − A1 B1 )

 sE1 − A1 
• Finite and Infinite Output Decoupling Zeros  
 −C1 
• Finite and Infinite Input-Output Decoupling Zeros
r

• Generalized order of Σ n + µ = deg A1 ( s ) + ∑ qˆi

i =1
• Rosenbrock degree

• Finite and Infinite System Zeros

• Finite and Infinite System Poles sE1 − A1

−1
• Transfer function matrix G1 ( s ) = C1 ( sE1 − A1 ) B1 + D1

• Finite and Infinite Transmission Zeros-Poles

 sE1 − A1 
• Input and output minimal indices ( sE1 − A1 B1 )  −C 
 1 
Invariants – Geometric interpretation
G. Verghese, Infinite frequency behavior in generalized dynamical systems, Ph.D.
dissertation. Stanford Univ.. Stanford. CA, 1978.
A. C. Pugh and V. Krishnaswamy. Algebraic and dynamic characterizations
of poles and zeros at infinity., Int. J. Contr., 1984.
N. P. Karampetakis, The output zeroing problem for general polynomial matrix
descriptions, International Journal of Control, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 1069–1086, 1998.
Geometric interpretation of Complete System Equivalence

Definition [Hayton et. al. 1986] Let P1 , P2 be two descriptor systems. They are
said to be fundamentally equivalent if there exists :
a) a constant injective map
 x2 ( s )   N Y   x1 ( s ) 
 =   −u ( s ) 
 − u ( s )   0 I  
b) a constant surjective map
 E2 x2 ( 0 − )   M 0   E1 x1 ( 0 − ) 
 =  − y (s) 
 − y ( s )   X I   

If P1, P2 are fundamentally equivalent then both maps are bijective.

Theorem P1, P2 are fundamentally equivalent if and only if they

are complete system equivalent.
 Extended causal equivalence – Walker 1988
Disadvantage of bicausal equivalence : Connect polynomial matrices
with the same dimensions
Disadvantage of constant equivalence : Needs trivial inflation/deflations

Definition [Walker 1988] Two polynomial matrices A1 ( s ) , A2 ( s ) ∈P( m, l ) are

extended causal equivalent (e.u.e.) if there exist proper polynomial matrices of
appropriate dimensions M ( s ) , N ( s ) such that
M ( s ) A1 ( s ) = A2 ( s ) N ( s )
where the compound matrices
 A1 ( s ) 
[ M ( s ) A2 ( s)],  
 − N ( s ) 
have full rank and no zeros in ∞ i.e. zero coprime at infinity.

Preserves the infinite zero structure.

System Equivalence (PMDs) – Anderson et.al. 1984,
Coppel and Cullen 1985
Ai ( ρ ) β ( t ) = Bi ( ρ ) u ( t )
y ( t ) = Ci ( ρ ) β ( t ) + Di ( ρ ) u ( t ) i=1,2

 Ai ( ρ ) Bi ( ρ ) 0   β i ( t )   0 
    
−
 i C ( ρ ) Di ( ρ ) I  − u ( t )  =  0  u (t )
 0 − I 0   y (t )   I 
  
  
 
Ti ( ρ ) ξi ( t ) Ui

y ( t ) = ( 0 0 I ) ξi ( t )
 

Vi

Normalized form of the systems

 Ai ( s ) − Bi ( s ) 0 0 
C ( s ) D ( s ) − I 0  Ti ( s ) − U i 
Pi ( s ) =  =
i i m
 0 Il 0 − I l   Vi 0 
 0 0 Im 0 

 System equivalence – Coppel and Cullen 1985
Two separate transformations :
a) System equivalence (preserves the finite zero structure – it is the
extended strict system equivalence)
b) System equivalence at infinity (preserves the infinite zero structure)

Definition [Coppel and Cullen 1985] P1 ( s ) , P2 ( s ) are said to be system

equivalence at infinity if there exist causal rational matrices M ( s ) , N ( s ) , X ( s )
, Y ( s ) such that
 M ( s ) 0  T1 ( s ) − U1  T2 ( s ) − U 2   N ( s ) Y ( s ) 
 X ( s) I   V  =  0 
  1 0   2V 0  I l 
 T (s) 
where  M ( s ) T2 ( s ) has a causal right inverse and  1  has a causal
 − N ( s )
left inverse.
 Full Equivalence – Ratcliffe 1982, Hayton et.al. 1988
Disadvantage of system equivalence : two transformations

Definition [Ratcliffe 1982, Walker 1988] Let A1 ( s ), A2 ( s ) ∈ P( m, l ). Then

A1 ( s ), A2 ( s ) are fully equivalent (FE) if there exist polynomial matrices
M ( s ), N ( s ) of appropriate dimensions, such that
M ( s ) A1 ( s ) = A2 ( s ) N ( s )
is satisfied and the compound matrices
 A1 ( s ) 
[ M ( s) A2 ( s )],  
 − N ( s)

1) have full rank and no zeros in ℂ ∪ {∞}

 A1 ( s ) 
2) δ M [ M ( s ) A2 ( s )] = δ M A2 ( s ) , δ M   = δ M A1 ( s )
 − N ( s ) 
δ M denotes the McMillan degree i.e. the total number of poles of the rational
matrix involved.
Preserves the finite and infinite zero structure (complete set of
invariants only for regular matrices !).
 Geometric interpretation of Full Equivalence – Pugh et.al. 2007
Given two auto regressive (AR) representations
Ai ( ρ )ξi = 0
where Ai ( s ) ∈ ℝ pi ×qi [ s ], for i = 1,2, their behaviors are
Bi = {ξi ∈ ℓ qimp
i
: Ai ( ρ )ξi = 0}
where ℓ imp is the space of impulsive - smooth distributions.
Definition [Pugh et.al. 2007] The systems described above are fundamentally
equivalent if there exists a bijective polynomial differential map
N ( ρ ) : B1 → B 2 .
Theorem [C. Pugh, E. Antoniou and N. Karampetakis 2007] The systems
described by the above AR – representations are fundamentally equivalent iff
there exists a polynomial differential operator N ( s ) ∈ ℝ q2 ×q1 [ s ] satisfying the
following conditions
1) ∃M ( s ) ∈ ℝ p2 × p1 [ s ] : M ( s ) A1 ( s ) = A2 ( s ) N ( s ).
 A1 ( s ) 
2) δ M 
N ( s )  = δ M ( A1 ( s )) and δ M [ M ( s ) A2 ( s ) ] = δ M ( A2 ( s )).
  Full equiv.
 A1 ( s ) 
3) 
N ( s )  , [ M ( s ) A2 ( s ) ] have full rank and no zeros in ℂ ∪ {∞}.
 
q1 − p1 = q2 − p2 . A1 ( s ), A2 ( s ) ∈ P( m, l )
 Full system equivalence – Hayton et. al. 1990

Definition [Hayton et. al. 1990] The normalized system matrices Pi ( s ) i = 1,2
are normal full system equivalent if there exist polynomial matrices M ( s ) ,
N ( s ) , X ( s ) , Y ( s ) such that the relation
 M ( s ) 0  T1 ( s ) − U1  T2 ( s ) − U 2   N ( s ) Y ( s ) 
 X ( s) I   V  =  0 
  1 0   2V 0  I l 
is a full equivalence relation.

Definition [Hayton et. al. 1990] The normalized system matrices Pi ( s ) i = 1,2
are full system equivalent if there exist polynomial matrices M ( s ) , N ( s ) ,
X ( s ) , Y ( s ) such that the relation
 M ( s ) 0   A1 ( s ) B1 ( s )   A2 ( s ) B2 ( s )   N ( s ) Y ( s ) 
 X ( s ) I   −C ( s ) D ( s )  =  −C ( s ) D ( s )   0 I 
  1 1   2 2   l 
is a full equivalence relation.

Coincides with strong system equivalence!

Full System Equivalence – Invariants
f . e.  A1 ( s ) B1 ( s ) 0 
• Finite and Infinite Input Decoupling Zeros( T1 ( s ) U1 ) =  −C ( s ) 
D1 ( s ) I 
 1
• Finite and Infinite Output Decoupling Zeros  A1 ( s ) B1 ( s ) 
 T1 ( s )  f . e.  
  =  −C1 ( s ) D1 ( s ) 
• Finite and Infinite Input-Output Decoupling Zeros  − V1   0 I 
r 
• Generalized order of Σ n + µ = deg A1 ( s ) + ∑ qˆi
i =1
• Rosenbrock degree

• Finite and Infinite System Zeros  A1 ( s ) B1 ( s ) 0 

 
T1 ( s ) =  −C1 ( s ) D1 ( s ) I 
• Finite and Infinite System Poles  0
 I 0 
−1
• Transfer function matrix G1 ( s ) = V1T1 ( s ) U1 =
−1
• Finite and Infinite Transmission Zeros-Poles = C1 ( s ) A1 ( s ) B1 ( s ) + D1 ( s )
Geometrical Interpretation of full system equivalence
Definition [C. Pugh, N. Karampetakis, A.I. Vardulakis and G.E. Hayton 1994]
Let Pi ( s ) , i = 1,2 be the normalized form of two PMDs. The PMDs are said to
be fundamentally equivalent if there exists bijective polynomial differential map
of the form
ξ2 (t ) = N ( ρ )ξ1 (t ) + Y ( ρ )u(t )
and they have the same output y (t ) .

Two PMDs are fundamentally equivalent if and only if they are normal
full system equivalent.
Full Unimodular equivalence – Karampetakis and Vardulakis 1992

Definition [Karampetakis and Vardulakis 1992] Given two system matrices

 ARi ( s ) Ip 
Pi ( s ) =  
 − BR ( s ) 0 p ,m 
 i 
Then P1 ( s ) , P2 ( s ) are called fully unimodular equivalent if there exists a
m×m
unimodular polynomial matrix TR ( s ) ∈ ℝ [ s ] such that
 AR2 ( s ) I p   AR1 ( s ) I p   TR ( s ) 0m ,m 
 = 
 − BR ( s ) 0 p ,m   − BR ( s ) 0 p ,m   0m ,m I

 2   1  m 

 AR2 ( s )   AR2 ( s ) 
     AR2 ( s ) 
where  − BR2 ( s )  has no infinite zeros and δ M  − BR2 ( s )  = δ M  .
 − BR ( s ) 
 T (s)   T (s)   2 
 R   R 
Full Unimodular equivalence – Karampetakis and Vardulakis 1992

Definition [Karampetakis and Vardulakis 1992] Let P1 ( s ) , P2 ( s ) ∈ L × L

 ALi ( s ) BLi ( s ) 
Pi ( s ) =  
 − I p 0 p ,m 
Then P1 ( s ) , P2 ( s ) are called fully unimodular equivalent if and only if there
p× p
exist a unimodular polynomial matrix TL ( s ) ∈ ℝ [ s ] such that
 AL2 ( s ) BL2 ( s )   TL ( s ) 0 p , p   AL1 ( s ) BL1 ( s ) 
  =    
 −I p 0 p ,m   0 p , p I p  −I p 0 p ,m 
( )
where AL2 ( s ) BL2 ( s ) TL ( s ) has no infinite zeros and
δ M ( AL2 ( s ) BL2 ( s ) TL ( s ) ) = δ M ( AL2 ( s ) BL2 ( s ) ) .
Special cases of full system equivalence
Geometric interpretation of finite and infinite elementary
divisors in discrete time systems – Lewis 1984, Antoniou
et.al. 2004, Karampetakis 2004.

( )
Theorem [Antoniou et. al. 1998] If CF ∈ ℝ r×n , J f ∈ ℝ n×n is a finite (resp.

( )
C∞ ∈ ℝ r×µ , J ∞ ∈ ℝ µ ×µ is an infinite) Jordan pair of A( s ) ∈ ℝ [ s ]
r ×r
, where

n = deg det ( A ( s ) ) µ
(resp. = rankcol C∞ J ∞( )
k µ −1
k =0
) then the columns of the matrix
( )
Ψ F k = CF J Fk , k = 0,1,..., N
( )
Ψ ∞ k = C∞ J ∞N − k , k = 0,1,..., N
are linearly independent solutions of A (σ ) β ( k ) = 0 for N ≥ n ( N ≥ µ ) .

dim B = n + µ = rq
r ×r
A ( s ) = A0 + A1s + ⋯ + Aq s ∈ ℝ [ s ] q
Divisor equivalence – Karampetakis et.al. 2004

Definition [N. Karampetakis, S. Vologiannidis and A.I. Vardulakis 2004] Two

regular matrices Ai ( s ) ∈ ℝ[ s ]ri ×ri , i = 1,2 with r1 deg A1 ( s ) = r2 deg A2 ( s ) , are
said to be divisor equivalent if there exist polynomial matrices M ( s ), N ( s ) of
appropriate dimensions, such that
M ( s ) A1 ( s ) = A2 ( s ) N ( s )
is satisfied and the compound matrices
 A1 ( s ) 
[ M ( s ) A 2 ( s ) ]
, 
 − N ( s ) 
have no finite and infinite elementary divisors.

Preserves the finite and infinite elementary divisor structure (extends

the strict equivalence to regular polynomial matrices).
Geometric interpretation of divisor equivalence –
Vardulakis and Antoniou 2003
Definition [Vardulakis and Antoniou 2003] Two AR-representations
Ai ( ρ ) ξi = 0,
where Ai ( s ) ∈ ℝ[ s ]ri ×ri , i = 1,2 with r1 deg A1 ( s ) = r2 deg A2 ( s ) will be called
fundamentally equivalent over the finite time interval k = 0,1,2,..., N , iff there
exists a bijective polynomial map between N (σ ) : B NA1 (σ ) → B NA2 (σ ) .

If A1 (σ ), A2 (σ ) ∈ Rc [σ ]ri ×ri are divisor equivalent, then the corresponding AR-

representations are fundamentally equivalent.
Conclusions
• A review of the main results concerning equivalence transformations
of polynomial matrices and their system theoretic counterparts has
been presented.
• Due to space limitations, we haven’t cover every aspect of the
subject i.e. linearization problem, n-D polynomial matrices and system
matrices.
• The present work will serve as a reference point for further studies
which will extend the existing theory and address open questions.