Automatica. Vol. 30. No. 5. pp.

847-864, 1994
Copyright ~) 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd
Peqlamoa Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
(l(105-11)08/94 17.(10 + 0.(l(I

Proportional and Proportional-derivative

Canonical Forms for Descriptor Systems with
Outputs*
G. LEBRET't" and J. J. LOISEAU't

Canonical forms for generalized systems under the action of the generalized
Morse's transformations group and some proportional plus derivative
groups are described. Their invariants are geometrically characterized.
Relations with the Kronecker's theory o f matrix pencils are established.

Key Words---Canonical forms; classification; invariance; linear differential equations; linear systems;
multivariable systems; state feedback; state space; system theory,

recent one, more oriented towards the geometric

A b n r K t m W e construct a new canonical form for descriptor
systems (E, A, B, C) under proportional state feedback,
proportional output injection and changes of bases in the
input space, the output space, the state space (domain) and
the state equation space (codomain). Geometric charac-
terizations of the invariants are given. Four pencils are
introduced in order to point out the relationships with
Kronecker's theory of matrix pencils. This finally allows us to
define canonical forms under proportional plus derivative
action.
1. INTRODUCTION
WE CONSIDER linear time-invariant (E, A, B, C)
systems (usually called descriptor, implicit,
generalized systems) described by the equations:
E$c = Ax + Bu (1)
y = Cx (2)
where u ~ / - R " , y~-R p, x ~ R n. ~ i s
the domain of E and A. Their codomain will be
noted by _~ ( ~ R~). E can be noninvertible and
even nonsquare. Without loss of generality B is
assumed to be monic and C epic. We note
X = Ker C, ~ = I m B .
The study of descriptor systems has seen a lot
of contributions for some years. A first survey on
the topic was done by Lewis (1986) [for a more
*Received 28 March 1991; revised 4 January 1993;
received in final form 12 July 1993. This paper was not
presented at any IFAC meeting. This paper was recom-
mended for publication in revised form by Associate Editor
Vladimir Ku~era under the direction of Editor Huibert
Kwakernaak. Corresponding author Dr J. J. Loiseau. Tel.
+33 40 37 16 49; Fax +33 40 37 25 22; E-mail
ioiseau@lan.ec-nantes, fr.
t Laboratoirc d'Automatique de Nantes, Unit6 de
Recherche Associ6e au CNRS (URA 823), Ecole Centrale
de Nantes, Universit6 de Nantes, 1 rue de la No~, 44072
Nantes Codex 03, France.
approach, see Lewis (1992)]. A central question
in the accurate understanding of the structure of
systems is the definition of canonical forms
under some "control group", and their related
invariants (which usually are integers and/or
polynomials).
In this context, Van Der Weiden and Bosgra
(1980) gave a form deduced from Kronecker's
theory of matrix pencils (see Gantmacher, 1959).
They used a decomposition of the state space
into a dynamical part and a static one which
allowed them to use directly the results of Morse
(1973) for strictly proper systems.
More recently, a canonical form was intro-
duced (Loiseau et al., 1991) for descriptor
systems without output equation. The authors
first show that proportional plus derivative
actions on a triple (E, A, B, 0) correspond to
Kronecker's transformations, and give a canoni-
cal form under proportional feedback only. The
beginnings of the generalization to descriptor
systems with outputs has been exposed (Loiseau
and Lebret, 1990).
In the present paper we go much more deeply
into the study of the canonical form of
quadruples, under the action of the proportional
group 3:
3" = {(W, V, G, S, F, R) of appropriate
dimensions/W, V, G, S are invertible}
where
V is a change of the basis of the domain o~.
W is a change of the basis of the codomain _~.
G is a change of the basis of the input space
S is a change of the basis of the output space

847
848 G. LEBRET and J. J. LOISEAU
F is a proportional state feedback: ~---~ o//.
R is a proportional output injection: ~---~ ~.
In other words, each (W, V, G, S, F, R) e ~r
transforms (E, A, B, C) in:
(W-~EV, W-~(A + BF + RC)V, W - ' B G , SCV).
In Section 2, we construct this proportional
form. The invariants which describe the orbit of
the quadruple under the action of sr are then
geometrically characterized in the domain and in
the codomain. This allows us to prove the
canonicity of the form. In Section 3, a link with
Kronecker's theory of pencils is established. We
show that the knowledge of the proportional
form is equivalent to the knowledge of four
matrix pencils. In Section 4, we derive from
these matrix pencils three canonical forms under
proportional plus derivative actions. Section 5 is
devoted to the conclusion.
2. PROPORTIONAL CANONICAL FORM
2.1. Construction of the form
We shall first construct a "nice" particular
form under the action of the group if, in three
steps. Crucial in step 2 is the use of the result of
Loiseau et al. (1991) who give a canonical form
for a triple ( E , A , B , 0 ) = (E, A, B). Let us
recall it:
a change of basis in
There exists,
the domain: P
a change of basis in
the eodomain: Q
a change of basis in /
/ (/~, fi~,/}, (~) has the particular form given in
the input space: G
a proportional state
feedback: F 1
such that (P-~EQ, P - l ( A + BF)Q, P-~BG) =
(Eo A~, B~) where (Eo Ac, B~) is the canonical
form of (E, A, B) under the action of these four
types of transformations. This is a 6-block
diagonal form: six types of invariants, cor-
responding to the dimensions of these blocks,
are necessary and sufficient to describe it.
Let us now construct our form for
(e, A, B, C)
Step 1. Let N be a matrix representation of the
canonical projection _~--~~ / ~ .
/~ be the left inverse of B (/~B = 0).
As in Jaffe and Karcanias (1981), define I~' =
[B]" I~ corresponds to a change of basis in the
codomain so (if', 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) is an element of
and it transforms (E, A, B, C) in:
sP'-A=t 6(0 J ~= o
where ~(s) is a matrix pencil s [ , - M, with [,
and/14 real matrices.
t~=C.
Step 2. Now, let us apply the dual result ot
Loiseau et al. (1991) to the triple (NE, NA, C).
There exist a change of the basis of the domain
V, a change of the basis of the codomain W, a
change of the basis of the output space S and an
output injection R such that:
{ s(NE)c - (NA)c = W-~[sNE - (NA + RC)]V
Cc = s c v
((NE)o (NA)c, Cc) is described by six types of
blocks associated with the invariants noted:
(s - Oli)k~J, ei, i, ~i, mi, qi. These blocks will be
called Lkij, L~,, L,, Le,, Le~,, Lo,. So, let us
define:
(if', I?,0, S, 0,/~) is an element ~-and it
transforms (E, ,4,/~, t~) in:
[s(NE)~-(NA)~] ~=~= [?,,,]
s/~-'4-- L ~p(s) J
where ~(s) is a matrix pencil s L - M (L and M
are real matrices).
~=Cc
Fig. 1.
Note that, for s(NE)c - (NA)c and C~, only one
general block of each type is represented in Fig.
1. Each square [ ] represents the other blocks
of the same type.
Now, to obtain the final form, we must
normalize the submatrix sL - M of s/~ - fi,.
Step 3. To normalize sL - M we proceed in two
steps which are detailed below. First we
normalize the matrix L (note that this will
change the matrix M). Second, we cancel the
transformed matrix M with a static state
feedback.
Normalization of the matrix L. Obviously, by
row operations on the matrix/~ all the columns
of L except the grey tinted ones (see Fig. 1) can
be cancelled, without changing the upper top
part of s / ~ - A. We still have to normalize the
remaining grey columns coming from blocks Lx,,
2i~ {e, r~, iT} of s E - , 4 . They are denoted tp~,,
~,~, and tp0, (see Fig. 1). To carry out the
normalization, an algorithm and eight types of
elementary transformations are described in
Lebret and Loiseau (1991).
The aim of this algorithm simply consists in
describing the elementary transformations which
permit to normalize the matrix L for the
following elementary problem. Note that our
 Canonical forms for descriptor systems 849

kl I

' 'i I;bJ~,

A
Bffi

i
1

sL-M \,
t

FIG. 1. The intermediate system (E, A, B, C).

problem of normalization can be viewed as a

combination of such elementary problems. ~=c~
"s(NE)c (NA)c 1
- u
c~,
s~-A =
sL - M J
The problem is to find the element of 3-, for
L/ti ~= which the term a~ can be reduced to zero while
keeping unchanged the remaining part. The
following examples describe such elementary
~, ~;,j transformations.

Example 1. e 1=1; e 2 = 2

, [o-a ]
=
[ 1 F-~
1
1
1
]ils l s

--s- ......
1
s 1
~-
o
0
0
1
ooo
1 0
1
-a

1
o old
=
[ls' s 1

Example 2. e = l; ~ = 2

1
1 1S ' lloIl
0 ''l -~1 -~l sl 1 01]
0
1 s 1 0
~ ~ ~[;~ ]:l' ooo o1~ s 1
 850 G. LEBRET and J. J. LOISEAU

Example 3. e = l ; ~ = 1
1
1
0
-t:t
: s olD ]
1
oo 01~ o011 ]
Example 4. ml = 2; m2 = 1

[ Ills l]II'
0

11 --s-tr~ 0 0
-o~

0
1
Vq
1ll1 'l o
= s

--s--
1 0
0
,
Example 5. ql = 2; q2 = 2

E~' ~',lr~-~~
~ ~]E~ o~

'11' 1
s,s, s as
1l , 1 =
s, s

l l 0'
0 1 0 00 0 0
,0001
00 0

Example 6. ~ = 1; ~ = 1

1 0 0
0 s-- 1

c I LIJLi o 1 I I-i-1.
Normalization of the matrix M. Note that the The blocks L,h, are split in two and give (Fig. 2)
initial M is changed through the previous

I1 1
normalization. Thanks to the special form of B,
a simple static state feedback makes its
cancellation obvious. Lm, = s
STOP (of the global construction).
Finally, in accordance with the result of Step s 1
3, a block Lx,, ill ~ {e, fit, ~}, will be either and
unchanged or enlarged by a line of the
normalized matrix of L and as a consequence,
associated with a element of B. This is precisely
described below. $ .
The blocks L~, are split in two and give (Fig. L,, I 1 B,, =
2)
[1)
The blocks L,~, are split in two and give (Fig. 2)

and

(iSll
Ly, = 1
s
Br' =
Lq

Ca,= [1 0
s
 Canonical forms for descriptor systems 851

ki t

Scffi
SEc'Ac=

c~=

FIG. 2. The proportional canonical form of (E, A, B, C).

(;
and show that these indices are invariant through the

j
action of ft. We shall do it in a geometric way.
Let us introduce the following algorithms:
Lp.= 1 Bp,-- In the domain:
S ba~ = Ker E l
Cp [1 0 O] 5e~' = E-~(A(Ker C O 5e.-~) + Im B) ~--* (3)
We are now able to state our main result. 6e..__~ ~3r= 0
(fit' = E-t(A(Ker C n ~-,-t) + Im B)
Theorem 2.1. Any (E,A, B, C) quadruple (1)
and (2) can be given through the action of ~r the (4)
equivalent block-diagonal form shown in Fig. 2. T--~ }
Note the following important particular cases: ~ = K e r C A A _ ~ ( E T , _ I +ImB) ~ (5)
o i = l corresponds to a zero column in
sEc -Ac and Cc T.**_{ ~ = K e r C
i = 1 corresponds to a zero row in sEc- Ac ~d"" = Ker C n A-t(E~d/'.-I + Im B)
and B~ (6)
q ~ = l corresponds to a zero column in
sE~ -Ac but a nonzero column in C~ In the codomain:
n~ = 1 corresponds to a zero row in sE~- A~ y = O
but a nonzero row in Be. ~t,=m(KerCnE_l_6e~,_,)+imB}---~ (7)
2.2. Characterizationof the invariants
3e**._~-~ ' = I m B
The particular form introduced in the previous
section has nine different types of blocks which
- t~=A(KerCnE-t_ff,-i)+lmB
are characterized by several indices (namely the (8)
dimension of the block and the value of a~i, for
the first one). To prove the canonicity of this o / ~ = Im E 1
form under the action of the group ~-, we shall ~f~,=E(KerCnA_l(T._~,_i +imB) )~--* (9)
852 G. LEBRET and J. J. LOISEAU

One can remark that if E = 1 (strictly proper

- t_~V+,=E(KerCnA-~(~_,-~+ImB))
(10)
(3), (7) and (9) were defined by Malabre (1987).
(4), (5) and (6) were introduced by Oz~aldiran
(1985). The fact that (3) and (4) have the same
limit Ae* [resp. (5) and (6) the same limit
o//.. . . . . ] is a consequence of the following
inclusions
case) these eight algorithms reduce to the two
well-known algorithms (Wonham, 1979) of the
strictly proper case which give ~',~., the greatest
(A, B)-invariant subspace included in the kernel
of C, and 5e~, the least (C,A)-invariant
subspace containing the image of B.
We shall now characterize the indices (size of
each block) which appear in Theorem 2.1 in
terms of the dimensions of the steps of these
algorithms.

~ ) = 5a ) ~ ~ ,--... ,.~' ~ ~ " . . . , Proposition 2.1. { ( s - te~)k'q is the list of the

~ ) ~ ~r ~ ~) . . . = ~ , = ~"- ..,
o~()CE ~)CE ~1 C E ' ' " ~/.t IEE~-/a , , ,
~'=_~)~ ~_ ' . . . ~_ " ~ y " . . .
invariant factors of (El/'*/E~ * IIm + BF +
RCll ~"*/~*), the map induced in the quotient
spaces ~ * / ~ * and E~*/E~t* where F and R are
such that (A + BF + RC)~* ~ E~* and ~* =
~* n if*, and:

In the domain: In the codomain :

or* n 5e.-~ ~
card {o~ -> #} = dim o//..Nff~,_lj V#->I {y* n ~ - '
card {oi -> #} = dim _~, n ~ff-t~-2}
/
V# ->2

card {y~ -> #} = dim [ ~ , n ~ " - ' J vt~ -> 1 c a r d ( y i - > # } = d i m { ~_: n -n_fC._~j
ff"-I~ V#->I

card {~, >- #} = dim [ ~ + ~ j V/~ -> 2 card {~i -> # } = dim ~ ~,- i

card {~, - #} = dim [ i f ; + ~ q j V#-I card {~i -> #} = dim t ~ - , + - ~ - ] ) V#->I

~ger E n W/'~-- I'[ linE+- ~

card{m~=#}=dim[ ~er~- ~ j V#->I card{m~=#}=dim[imE +~._lJ V#->I

card {ni = #} = dim ~'lm B n '~'-' ],

~Ker E + E - ' ( I m B) n
card {n, = #) = dim [ Im B n w.-' J v# -> 1
e~[/'~.--2~ V#->2
~Im E + ~ , - i
= dim [ i - ~ - ~ ~---ff-:i_
~} V # > I

Ker C + ~t.
card {p~ = #} = dim [ ~ e r ~+~-ff:-_~ j V# -> 1
~Im B n
card {Pi = #} = dim [ I ~ - ~-;
y"-'} V#_> 1

Ker E n ~t.-i } ~"E Ker C + Im E n ~ " - ' "1,

card {qi = # } = dim [ ~ ~ ~/.,_ ~ V# >- 1 card {qi = # } = dim t ~ Im E
V#>_2
~"Ker C + 5e~- ~
= dim t ~ e r C---+ ~ , - i j V#---1.

Note that the indices or,.= 1 and qi = 1 can only
be characterized in the domain, and the indices
~i = 1 and ni = 1, in the codomain.
Proof of proposition 2.1. The characterization of
the polynomials { ( s - c~;)k'~) is due to Malabre
(1987). The other relations can be obtained by
counting vectors on our special form
(EoA,., Be, C,.) [see also Loiseau (1985) for
ideas].
 Canonical forms for descriptor systems 853

Let us decompose and _~ into nine parts, Im B = t~ {;[,J} t~) {;,.,}

nr
t~ {_Xp,}.
Pr

Yr nl Pr
according to the domain and codomain of each
block of (E~, Ac, B~, Cc) (see Fig. 2). By a simple recurrence, one can also obtain

kq o~ Yi

X e ~ i @ ~ m i @ ~ n i @ ~ p i @ ~ q i
~i mi ni Pr ql
x @ { ~ , ,X 1 .. .,x~7"}
~r>..

x @ {X ~r,
1 ..
.,X[:7"}
8~>~

X @ &, e _~m,@ ~_., @ _~,,,@ _~, X @ ~

~Xm i
u+l
.....
mi
Xmi}
~i rni ni Pi q~ mi>lz

where ~ stands for the direct sum of subspaces. X @

I'X/~ + 1
L ni ~
, xnr--l~
ni .I
Now, let us note respectively ni>/~+l

{X ,,,
1 x~...... xti}, {_xli, _x~,,
2 ..... ,~**i} x ~9 {x,,",+' . . . . . x~,~}
pi>lz
for
/'r~+ 1 . xqfl.
! 2 X @ I.~qr ~'"" ~ qiJ
qr>#
,1.ie {ki/, Yi, ~i, mi, Pi}, {Xz, , X,, ..... X~i),

1 2
{~r~,, x_~...... x_~?') for Z~ { ~ , q~}
kq or Yr
and
x @ {x[,..... x~-~}
! 2
{ X , , , X3. , . . . . . X~I-'},
X- 1 ~xr,
xr, 2 , -xx~}
~.r
x @ { % ..... x~i-~')}
for ,~ie{~i, ni} the "natural" bases of the
subspaces ~x, and -~x, in which each block of
(E~, A~, B~, C~) has the form given in Fig. 2 (the
X @ ~Xm,
~ #+! . . . . . xml}
mi>~
unions of all these bases are bases of and _~).
X ~) ,tX~+~ X nr-I~,
In these particular bases (E~, A~, B~, C~) has a nr>l.~+ 1
very simple form which makes easy the
computation of Ker E, Im E, Ker C, Im B and of X @ l~Pi ~ "" Pi)
Pi>~
the eight algorithms (3)-(10) since all these
subspaces are invariant under the action of x ~ ,-,,, ,...,Xq~i}
qi>/~+ 1
proportional state feedback or proportional
output injection
or>/~+ 1 OF'~/~+ 1
(Ker E = Ker E . . . . . . ~(E, A, B, C)
x ~ {x~7 "+', . . . , x~'~,, ~ ~r~,
= ~V(E~, a~, ~ , C 0 - - - ) .
So one can verify (look at Fig. 2) that in these x ~9 txm'-"
E mi 1. . . ~ xm:} ~ ~m,
mi>F+l mi~D+l
particular bases
oi mi
x @ .~,,-r-, X"'-'~ ~ ~.,
Ker E = ~ {xo,} ~ {Xmi } @ {xql} hi> p 4- i nr~P"t- I
oi rni qi
x ~ {x,~7 "+' . . . . . xg',} ~B ~,,,
pi>l~ P i ~ lz
ki/ . .
x ~ ~:'-"
L qi ~" " " ~ x~i} ~ ~,,
x @ 1-~,
x ~ ..... ~-~i-,}~ ~-~, q/>lu+ I qr~/~+l
~>-2
~'/J = @ f- ~./--P'+I , x~i} ~
x ,.,>-~ {X_~m,
. . . . . sml} .~ {~., ..... ~:~j} oi>~
lJvt ~
oF,=/~
~o,

x @ _~,,,@ _~,,, / yi--#+l

~,Xor " ~ Yi)
Pi qr ?t>#
X @ [l"mi--#+l
l ~ mr
.., xml} ~ ~rm,
mi>~ mi~p
ki/ " "

Ici-- 1 X @ [ynr--~t
, X~r } E~n i . ~ ni )
ni>~4-1 ni~tz+l

X l~pr
~mr ~ni ~nr p92 {X2pr ..... x P l } pi>#

X @ { X 2q . . . . . . Xqql}
X ~ [l'qr--la+l
k~qi
.,x~l} ~ ~,
qi>--2 qr>~ qi~
854 G. LEBRET and J. J. LOlSEAU

Naturally one deduces from these relations that = card { ~i > # } + card { ~i = # }
-: +" =e++,,e+o,e+,,,, = card { ~i > # } (Q.E.D.)

be* = 9-* = @ ~oi @ ~yi @ ~mi @ ~ n i @ ~pi @ ~qi

Characterization of the indices Pi: we have to
Oi Yi mi ni Pi qi ( Ker C + 9-`u '~
and verify that dim \ K e r C + be`u-l} = card {p~ =/~}

~ * = r* n be* = @ ~,,, @ ~,~,. Ker C + 9 TM

Due to the lack of space, only the algorithms

of the domain have been detailed here. Those of
the codomain give similar expressions.
x @ ( X +,,
! . . .,x~i-'}@~m,
+i_>2 rni
We have now all the needed information to
compute the relations, in the domain, of @ ~,, @ { x # , . . . , x~9
ni pi>,u
Proposition 2.1. In fact, we will not develop the
proof of each relation: the technique is always X @ ~pi @ ( X2 . . . . . . xql} @ ~qi
pi<~z,u qi>`u qi<--,u
the same, it amounts to counting vectors. So let
us illustrate it for the characterization, in the Ker C + be,u-1
domain, of the indices ~ and Pi.
Characterization of the indices ~i: we have to
be* + y,u-~ ~ @ (x~. . . . . . x~i-'} @ SCm,
verify that dim be, + o~V.,u_~]= card {~i -> #} ~i>--2 mi
be* + ~,u-i x @ ~., @ {x~,. . . . . x~i}
ni pi>,u - 1

x @ ,+,,, @ {xL ..., x,i~,, @ ~,.

pi<--,u-- 1 qi>,u qi~,u
x @ (xL . . . . . xfl -'u+'} @ o
gi>,u- 1 t.+:i--<,U- 1 Thus one can verify that
X @ { X ~1. . . ., . X~I -'u-t-l} @ 0
~>,U-- 1 ~i--<,u-- 1
{ KerC+9-'u ]
dim \Ker C + be,u-1]
mi ni Pi ql
= dim { p,. . . . . xPpl} 3gp,
be* + ~V',u-1

, - d i m ( ,, ~ _ , {Xp2. . . . . . xPl} p:`u@-, ~p,)

x @ {:i,
X 1 ,, .,x~i -'u+'} @ o
~>u-I

x @ { ~ ,X, 1 .. .,x~i - ' u } @ o

~i--<,U- 1 =dim t@
\pi>`u
{ p......x~i} @ ~p. @
Pi=`U ' pi<,u__l
~,, )
~;>,u ~Ji-<,u
- dim (, x2 ( p. . . . . . x~i}
mi ni Pi qi
Thus one can verify that @ {x~. . . . . . x;i} @
pi=`u pi <-`u--I
++)
be* + or,u-i ] = card {Pi = #} (Q.E.D.)
dim be, + oW,u-1/
The algorithms (3)-(10) are invariant under
I .... @ 0) proportional feedback, proportional output in-
= dim (e,~_~ {x~,, x~i-'u+l} ~:,u-'
jection and changes of basis in the different
spaces. This shows that the indices {oi}, {Yi},
-dim(@ \~i>,u '
...
'
x ,-,) e
~i-,u
o) /
{~/}, {~i}, {mi}, {ni}, {Pi}, {qi} and the
polynomials {(s - oci)k'j} constitute a complete set
of invariants for the quadruple (E, A, B, C)
dim (+,@>,u{x~ . . . . . x~:-'u+'}
under the transformation group 3 . In other
words, this proves the canonicity of the form
x @ (xL} @ o) described in Theorem 2.1: we shall therefore call
~=,U ~ <-,U-1 it the proportional canonical form (P-canonical
-dim (@ {x~,. . . . . x~i -'u} @ 0 +o)
~i~,u-- 1
form) of (E, A, B, C).
When E = I, our canonical form (naturally)
 Canonical forms for descriptor systems
reduces to Morse's famous canonical form of
strictly proper system (Morse, 1973). In this
case, feedback and output injection have been
used to derive a maximally unobservable and
uncontrollable system. A dynamical inter-
pretation has been given to the invariants
(Morse, 1973): they correspond to controllability
and observability indices of some subsystems of
(A, B, C).
Such interpretation cannot be generalized to
our more general situation. On the one hand, it
appears that controllability and observability are
not sufficient to distinguish the different
subsystems of the proportional canonical form.
Notions like existence or uniqueness of solutions
may also play some role. On the other hand,
there is no unanimity among the various
contributors about the definition of control-
lability and observability of singular systems. A
synthesis was proposed by Cobb (1984) for
regular systems (det (sE - A) ~ 0). Oz~aldiran
(1985) defined reachability for regularizable
systems by state feedback. Frankowska (1990)
extended these works to general descriptor
systems (even if E and A are not square).
Indeed, the following example illustrates the
complexity of the situation.
Example 7
Xl = 0
fC 1 = - - X 2
y=xl
which corresponds to the system
sE - A = ~
c = Fi~ .
According to Frankowska the only solution
with y = 0 is x -- 0, and therefore the system is
observable. (Note that the system obtained by
transposition is not reachable.)
According to the characterization of Cobb,
Ker E tq Ker C ~: 0 and therefore the system is
not observable.
As was pointed out by Loiseau and Lebret
(1990), our form is actually a new canonical form
which, for instance, is different from that of Van
der Weiden and Bosgra (1980). We shall now
give more insight into this new canonical form
within the context of Kroneeker's theory of
singular pencils.
3. RELATION TO KRONECKER'S THEORY
The aim of this section is to look into the
links between the P-canonical form and normal
AUTO 30:5-H
855
Kronecker's forms of some matrix pencils (see
Gantmacher, 1959, for an exposition o[
Kronecker's theory). We show that our form is
much more than a simple generalization of what
occurs for a strictly proper system. It is well
known (Morse, 1973) that in this case, the
Morse's canonical form corresponds to the
Kronecker's normal form of the system matrix
(Thorp, 1973). More information is needed here
to establish the connection.
For descriptor systems, four pencils derived
from the quadruple (E, A, B, C) are introduced.
The available geometric characterization (Lo-
iseau, 1985; Malabre, 1987) of the Kronecker's
invariants of a given pencil s E - 0-O is then used
for each of these four pencils. This allows us to
show the equivalence between the union of the
invariants of the four pencils and those of the
P-canonical form.
Finally, we show that from three of the four
pencils, we can deduce a proportional plus
derivative canonical form and two other
semiproportional plus derivative canonical
forms, each having a particular dynamic interest.
3.1. System matrix, restrictedmatrixpencil, input
restrictedmatrixpencil and output restricted
matrixpencil
In the strictly proper case, the Morse's
canonical form of an (A, B, C) system cor-
responds to the Kronecker's normal form of the
system matrix [SlScA oB] (Morse, 1973;
Thorp, 1973). The knowledge of these forms is
also equivalent to the knowledge of the
Kronecker normal form of the restricted pencil
n(sl-A)K and that of d i m ( I m B ) [or
d i m ( I m C ) or d i m ~ ] (see Karcanias and
Kouvaritakis, 1979; Karcanias and MacBean,
1981; Loiseau, 1985).
For descriptor systems, this is no longer the
case. Look at this simple example.
Example 8.
sEl-ml=[; 0 01 ~] [; ~]
S sE2 - A2 =
10 o, c2= 0
These two systems have the same system matrix
which Kronecker's invariants are a column
minimal index el = 2 and an infinite elementary
divisor of order vt = 2. But they do not have the
same P-canonical form: the invariants of the first
system are at = 2 and q~ = 2, and, the invariants
of the second system are y~ = 2 and p~ = 2.
We shall show that the Kronecker's normal
856 G. LEBRET and J. J. LOISEAU

forms of the four following pencils are necessary For the row minimal indices:
and sufficient to obtain the P-canonical form.
Let us introduce card {~-> g} = dim N~,+ N~+t V~O.

For the infinite elementary divisors:

P~m(S) is the system matrix pencil (Rosenbrock, card { v; -> ~ + l } = dim ~]nM~q Vg~O.
1970).
P~(s) = N(sE - A ) K For the set of finite elementary divisors,
P~(s) is the so-called restricted pencil [or the {(s- o~i)~q} of s~:- H are the finite elementary
system matrix pencil of the system restricted to divisor of _DOwhere _H is defined through the
Ker C and _~/Im B (Kracanias and Kouvaritakis, following commutative diagram.
1979)].
) = [ N (SeC m ) ]
"1 t-
Pi~(s) is the input restricted pencil (or the system U ,
matrix pencil of the system restricted to
~ / I m B).
where and qJ are canonical projections.
Po~(S) = [(sE - A ) K - B]
Let us now apply these characterizations to
Por(S) is the output restricted pencil (or the the four pencils P,m(S), Pr(S), Pir(S) and Po,(s).
system matrix pencil of the system restricted to The corresponding Kroneeker's invariant will be
Ker C). denoted {elm}, {r/i~m} and so on.
The geometry associated with a general pencil
s[~- H and the geometric characterizations of For the system matrix pencil Psm(S).
the invariants of its Kronecker's normal form are Proposition 3.1 (Malabre, 1989). For Psm(S)=
well-known (Loiseau, 1985; Malabre, 1988). We
shall apply them to our four pencils. We then [ S E_c A o B ] , the system matrix Pencil-
shall see how the geometry and the invariants of
each pencil are related to the geometry and the ff# = P x ~ +1 V~ ~ 0 o~/~= p x , , ~ V~ ~---0
invariants of the P-canonical form. Let us first
recall the general result for a pencil s E - H ~ ' = I1;1.~t +1 Vp -> 0 _b"'= 071.~ V~ -> 0
where E and H are defined from some space OF
where
to some other one W'.
Geometry associated with sE - H. ~", Y", b"", Y" are defined in Section 2.2
(3)-(10).
In the domain OF Px : ~ if) ad ~ ~ denotes the natural projection

{ o=o

M~ +~ = IE-~HM~ Vp --- 0
on ~ along R.
Dx: _~---~~ ~ ~ is the insertion map of ~ into
~ .
oF For any map F such that (A + BF + RC)OF* ~-
,d~'+~ = H-~EM~ Vp->O. EOF*, the finite elementary divisors of P~m(S) are
In the codomain those of the map (EOF*/E~t* I [ A + B F +
RCH OF*/~*) which is the map induced by
w EOF* [A + BF + RC[ OF* in the isomorphic sub-
spaces OF*/~* and EOF*/E~t*

{ o=o
~+~ = HE-I~ ~>0.
card {eism->0} = dim (F* n KerE}

card {eism->/~} = dim [OF, n ~ , - 1 j V/u - 1

Characterization of the Kronecker's invariants
o/ s~= - ~.
For the column minimal indices: card {~i~m>- O} = d i m _5,,,+ I m E
{_.~*+T t'-l}
card{e~_>/z)=dim t -M--~--n~-~-J Vg---0. card {them-> g} = dim 9~* + OF" Vp -> 1
 Canonical forms for descriptor systems
card{vi,m_>l}=dim~ K e r E }
t Ker E ~ OF*
f Im B
+ & m ~ I m B n _~, ~
card {Vi~m--- # + 1}
fKerENOF~'~ . fImBAOF~'-I1
= d i m / K e r E ~ OF,~ + &m / ~I B"~
Note that the algorithms (~t0, (~t2), ( ~ ) and
(~2) give only four of the algorithms introduced
in Section 2.2. This explains that the system
matrix alone will not give all the information
about the invariants of the P-canonical form:
the two other algorithms of the domain (or of
the codomain) are necessary to find all the
remaining information. From the geometric
characterizations we then obtain the following
relations.
Proposition 3.2.
{eism} = {Gi -- 1} U {y~} {~ism)=
{Vi~m}= {mi} O {ni} O {Pi + 1} O {qi}
{~i
the finite elementary divisors of P~m(S) are those
of the map (EOF*/E~* IIA + BF + RCII OF*/~*)
defined in Proposition 2.1.
Proof. Obvious for the finite divisors.
{ OF*ns
c a r d {Eism ->/g} = d i m oF * n g"-'J
= dim OF*n
[ OF* n o .
+ dim t ~-; ~ ~T--~-_I}
= card {o~ ~ # + 1) +card {y~ ~ # )
= card {o~ - 1 -> #} + card {y~ -> #}
which is equivalent to {Calm}= {a,- - 1} U {y~}.
The same type of proof gives {them} and {V~m).
Note that
card {Vism= # + 1}
[ KerEAOF~' ~ fImBnEOF~'-~
= dim [ K-~rE N ~--~x J + &m ~ i - m - B ~
and that _~' = E/4/'~'-~.
The system matrix does not give all the
information needed to construct the P-canonical
form. We cannot recognize the o~s from the y~s
among the e~mS (and we cannot recognize the
~s and the ~s among the thins, and the mis, and
nis, the p~s and the q~s among the v~ms). To do
so, we need other relations.
857
For the restricted matrix pencil P,(s).
Proposition 3.3. For Pr(s)=N(sE-A)K: the
matrix restricted pencil to Ker C and ~ / I m B.
Ker C n = KM~ V# >-0
~ff'~'= KM~ V# > 0
_~" + Im B = N - ~ V#_>0
_~" = N - I ~ V # -> 0
V#-I.
where
~-~, W ~', ff~', _~' are defined in Section 2.2.
K:Ker C--~ is the insertion map of Ker C
into ~.
N:_~--*_~/Im B is the canonical projection
from _~ on to _~/Im B.
For any map F such that (A + BF + RC)g/*c
E/"*, the finite elementary divisors of Pr(s) are
those of the map (EW*/E~ * I I A + B F +
RCII ~*/9~*) which is the map induced by
E ~ * IA + BF + RCI W* in the isomorphic sub-
spaces /4r*/~* and E~f*/E~t*
* n
-- 1} U {~i) card{ci~>#}=dim
{7 -~,~-~j V#~0
card {T/i~> #} = dim [_3., + _~,+lj V# > 0
card (Vir -> # + 1}
= dim ~ Ker E n ~f'~'} ~Im B n _~'+l~
tKerEn~-; +dimt i-m-Bn~-; J
V# ->0.
The proof is omitted here, since it is quite
similar to that of Proposition 3.1 (Malabre,
1989).
Proposition 3.4.
{ei,} = { a , - 1} U {y, - 1}
(v,,} = {m,} u ( n , - 1) u {p,.- 1} U {qi- 1}
the finite elementary divisors of P r ( s ) a r e those
of the map (EOF*/E~* [JA + BF + RC[[ OF*/~*)
defined in Proposition 2.1.
For the proof, one can use the same type of
arguments as for Proposition 3.2.
However, even after this extra information
brought by Pr(s), we do not yet have the four
additional algorithms missing from the system
matrix. In fact, we can show that the relations of
Propositions 3.2 and 3.4, together, are not
sufficient enough to separate the lists {mi}, {ni},
{Pi} and {qi} from the lists {Vista} and {vir}.
Indeed, consider the following Example 9.
 858 G. LEBRET and J. J. LOISEAU

Example 9. Proposition 3.6.

sEI-AI=[~ ;] BI =[~] {ei(io} = {air} = {oi - 1} U {Yi - 1}

(Tli(ir)} = {?~isrn} = {Ci -- I } tJ {~i}

sE2-A2=[; ~3 B2 = [ ? ] . {rio0} = {m,} U {hi}U{pi} U {q,- I}

the finite elementary divisors of P~Js) are those
Cl=[1 O] C2=[0 1]. of the map ( E ~ * / E ~ * IIA + BF + RCII ~ * / ~ * )
These two systems have the same defined in Proposition 2.1.

Pr(s) = N [ s E - A i r = 1 Once again the informations given by the

and their
have the same Kronecker normal form
[ 1s
01 ! 1 .
0 0
But the invariants of the P-canonical form of the
first system are q x = 2 and n ~ = l , and the
invariants of the second system are q~ = 1 and
n1=2.
For the input restricted matrix pencil Pi,(s).
Proposition 3.5. For Pir(S)=[N(sE-~A)]: the
L -- L . . J
matrix pencil restricted to ~ / I m B.
~"=~ V#_>O ~"=.d~ V#->O
~" +im B = N-q-~ '+~ V # > O
_if" = N - q - ~ V# --- 0
where
: ~ / I m B ~ ~ / I m B ~ ~ is the insertion map
of _~/Im B into ~ / I m B ~ ~.
N:~--->_~/ImB is the canonical projection
from _~ on to _~/Im B.
For any map F such that (A + BF + RC)~*
E~*, the finite elementary divisors of P~r(S) are
those of the map (ET'*/E~* IIA + B F +
RCII ~'*/~*) which is the map induced by
EV* IA + BF + RCI ~* in the isomorphic sub-
spaces ~ * / ~ * and E ~ * / E ~ *
card{ei(ir)>#}=dim I ~.~)-~--ff j
three pencils P~m(s), Pr(S), Pit(S) are not
sufficient to recover our P-canonical form. We
shall see in Theorem 3.1 that the knowledge of
Pot(S) is also necessary to find all the desired
information of the P-canonical form (especially
to obtain the lists {mi}, {ni}, {Pi} and {q~}).
For the output restricted matrix pencil Po,(S).
Proposition 3.7. For Por(S)= [(sE - A ) K - B]:
the matrix pencil restricted to Ker C.
ker C fq 6eu = Kpk~t~ +t V# -- 0
Ig"= KPkM~ V#>-0
where
K : K e r C - - - ~ is the insertion map of K e r C
into ~.
Pk : Ker C ff~ ~d~ Ker C denotes the natural
projection on Ker C along ~d.
For any map F such that (A + BF + R C ) ~ r* c
E~'*, the finite elementary divisors of Pot(s) are
those of the map (E#r*/E~ * I I A + B F +
RCII W*/~*) which is the map induced by
E~Ir* IA + BF + RCI ~* in the isomorphic sub-
spaces ~e'*/~* and E~e'*/E~*
card {ei(or)> 0} -- dim { ~t'* N Ker E}
card {eioo--- #} = dim ~., N 6e"-IJ V# -> 1
card O7ioo>- #} = d i m _~, + o/~,+1 V#---0
card {V~(oo ~ # + 1}
V/'t-->O . f K e r E tq /"I { I m B N ~f'"}
= d,m +dim t I m B n _ff-Z

card {~7~oo~0} = dim _~* + Im E V# ->0.

Proposition 3.8.
card {r/mo -> #} = dim [ ~.+-~--~ j V# > 1 {e,(oO} = {eim~}= {oi - 1} U {Yi}
{hi(or)} = {nir} = {Ci -- 1} U {~, - 1}
card {v,-(io-> # + 1) (Vi(or)} = {mi} U {ni}U{Pi}U {q,- 1}
= dim ~ Ker E N ~u } ~ Im B '1 r ~'
the finite elementary divisors of Pojs) are those
t K e r E ~ ~--~ + dim t i m B Cl ~* J
of the map ( E ~ * / E ~ * IIA + BF + RCll ~ * / ~ * )
V# ~0. defined in Proposition 2.1.
 Canonical forms for descriptor systems 859

TABLE1. GEOMETRYOFTHEPENCILS Conversely i.e. obtaining our P-canonical

form from knowledge of the invariants of the
Algorithms of Algorithmsof
Pencils the domain the codomain four pencils, needs more development. This is
covered in the next section.
[,e A -0B] ('r) (F)
N(sE- A)K C~ N ~), (110 (_St),(~_ + ~) 3.2. Relation with Kronecker' s theory

Theorem 3.1. There exists a bijection between

[(sE-A)K-B! ) the set of the invariants of the P-canonical form:
o} (o,} (r,} (C,}
We have described the geometry of the four {mi} {ni} {Pi} {q,}
matrix pencils Pro(s), P~(s), P~r(S), Por(S), the
geometric characterization of their invariants and the set of the Kronecker's invariants of the
and their finks with those of the P-canonical four pencils Psm(S), Pr(s), Pir(S) and Pot(S):
form. Let us now summarize the results (Table ({(s -- Ol~LPsm~,
- ,,,o, {eism), {~ism}, {Vista},
1).
Geometry of the pencils (expressed in and ((s - Otri
- Jr], {Eir}, { ~ i r ) , {Vir),
4). Notice that the four pencils (Table 1) are ((s - (e,0.). (n,(.o}. {v,0o}.
necessary to obtain exactly the geometry of the kV
P-canonical form introduced in Section 2.2.
(($- (~'/)or}, {ei(or)},{l~i(or),{Vi(or)}}.
This explains that the information of the This relation can also be expressed in terms of
P-canonical form is equivalent to that of these equivalence under the action of the associated
four pencils together. transformation groups.
Relations between the invariants of the P-
canonical form and the Kronecker's invariants of Corollary 3.1. Two quadruples (E, A, B, C) and
the four pencils. Table 2 summarizes how one (E', A', B', C') are equivalent under the pro-
obtains the Kronecker's invariants of the four portional group 3- if and only if their associated
pencils Psm(s), Pr(S), Pir(S) and Po~(S) from the system matrix pencil, restricted matrix pencil,
invariants of the P-canonical form. The finite input restricted matrix pencil and output
elementary divisors (FED) are deduced from the restricted matrix pencil are, respectively,
invariants factors. The columns minimal indices equivalent in the Kronecker sense.
(CMI) are deduced from the lists {o,.} and {y~}.
The row minimal indices (RMI) are deduced Proof (of Theorem 3.1). We already noticed
from the lists {~} and {~}. The infinite that it is easy to obtain the Kronecker's
elementary divisors (IED) are deduced from the invariants of the pencils P,m(S), Pr($), Pit(S) and
lists {mi}, {n, {pi} and {qi}. Por(S) from the P-canonical form. Let us now
Note that the Kronecker's normal form of look at the converse:
each pencil can be deduced from the P-canonical (1) obvious for {(s - ai)kO}:
form, in a somewhat trivial way. Indeed, to ((s -- = ~,Jsm~ {(S -- ff/)f/J}
obtain Psm(S) one has only to mix the rows of Cc
and those of s e t - Ac, and the columns of Bc . {(s. . . ((s cri)orjr
and those of s E , - Ac, in the P-canonical form. (2) for {cri} and {y~}:
For the input restricted pencil Pir(S), one just
has to delete the rows of (sE~ - A c ) correspond- {eism} = {o~ - 1} U {Yi} card {et~m> ju}
ing to ImB~ and to get rid of Be. A similar = card {oi->/~ + 1} + card {yi -> ~} V/z>0
treatment can be done for Por(S) (deleting the
{eir} = {oi - 1} U {y; - 1} card {eir-/z}
columns corresponding to ~XKerCc) and for
P~(s) (doing both). =card {o~->/~ + 1} +card {yi->/z + 1} V/t>-0

TABLE 2. RELATIONSBETWEENTHE INVARIANTS

Pencils FED CMI RMI lED

o'] .,-:', {~.=} = {a, - I} U (y,} (n..,*} = (C, -- I} U (~,} {v~,m) = ( m A u (n~) u (p~ + 1) u {q~)
N(sE - A)K ((s - ~,)k~j} {e~,} = ( o , - I) U (r,-- I} (~,} = (C, - I} U {~, - I} {vi,} = {rni} u {n i - 1} u {Pi- 1} u { q l - 1}
[N(Se_CA)
] { ( s - ~,) ' } {e,(~O} = (a, - l} U {r, -- I ) (V/Or)) = {nil} U {Pli -- l } U {Pi} U {qi}
[(sE-A)K-B] {(s-a~) k} {e,(,,o} = (o, - I} u (y,} (~,(,,,)} = (~, - I} U {~, -- I } {Vi(or)} = (fni} U {hi} [.~{Pi} U {qi -- l}
860 G. LEBRET and J. J. LOISEAU
SO
card { ~,i = # )
= card { ~'i ~/z } - card {)'i > # + 1 }
= card { ei~m -> # } - card { ei~ -> # } V# >-0
and
card (oi = # + 1)
= card {o~ > # + 1} - card {o~ > # + 2}
= card {eir ~> It/} - - card {eism ~># + 1)
This means that from {ei~m) and ( e ~ ) w e can
deduce {oi} and {Yi}.
Remarks. (1) Since o~ = 0 has no sense, the list
{ o ~ - 1} is a well defined list of non-negative
integers.
(2) The same result can be obtained with
{e,(i,)}{e,(o,)}.
(3) For {~i} and {~i}: by duality we obtain:
card {~i = # }
= card {Ths. - #} - card {~h~- #}
card { ~,- = # + 1 }
= card {rhr ~ #} - card {t/~m ----# + 1}
This means that from {Them} and {r/i~} we can
deduce {/} and {~i}.
(4) For {mi}, {ni}, {Pi} and {qi}:
{Vir} = {mi} U { n i - 1} U {Pi- 1} U {qi- 1}
and
(V/Or) } -----" {mi} U { n , - 1} U {p,} U {qi}
SO:
card {Pi =/~} + card {qi ~ !.t }
= card {vitir) >/~ } - card {Vir -----/.4} V#-->I
{Vism} = {mi} U {ni} D {Pi + 1} U {qi}
and
{Vi(or)} = (mi} U {ni} U {Pi} U { q i - 1}
so:
card {p~ = # - 1} + card {q,- = #}
= card {'Via m ~ # } -- card {Vitor) > #}
Now, card {pi=O} = 0 . Thus (12) with # = 1
gives card {qi = 1}. Then (11) with # = 1 gives
card {Pi = 1}; (12) with # = 2 gives card {qi = 2}.
Finally, from (11) and (12) we obtain card {pi =
# - 1 } and c a r d { q i = # } V#-I. Now, from
{vista} = {mi} U {hi} O {Pi + 1} O {qi} we have:
card {mi >- # ) + card {ni >- #}
= card {Vi$ m ~ ~,~} -- (card {Pi ~ # - 1)
+ card (qi - # } ) V# - 1 .
From
{Vir} = {mi} U {ni - 1} U { P i - 1} U { q , - 1}
we have:
card {mi -> #} + card {ni >- # + 1}
= card {vir - #} - (card {Pi >- # + 1}
+ card {qi >- I~ + 1}) V# -> 1.
V# ~ 0. As {Pi} and {qi} are now known, it is very easy
to calculate card {n~ = #} and card {mi = #}.
This means that the knowledge of
{Vism)(Vir}{Vi(ir)} and {Vi(or)} is sufficient to
separate the lists {mi}, {ni}, {Pi} and {q;}.
In the proper case, the knowledge of Morse's
canonical form of an (A, B, C) system is
equivalent to the knowledge of any of these
forms:
the Kronecker normal form of Psm(s)
the Kronecker normal form of Pr(s) and the
V# -> 0 knowledge of dim (Im B) and dim (Ker C)
the Kronecker normal form of P~r(S) and the
knowledge of dim (Im B)
V#>0. the Kronecker normal form of Por(S) and the
knowledge of dim (Ker C).
So, this important Corollary 3.1 is nothing else
than the generalization of the relation between
Kronecker's theory of matrix pencils and
Morse's canonical form for strictly proper
systems. In the case of singular systems, four
informations are necessary and sufficient to
characterize the P-canonical form.
The restricted matrix pencil Pr(s) was intro-
duced by Karcanias and Kouvaritakis (1979) in
the strictly proper case. The equivalence
between the first two forms was shown by
(11) Loiseau (1985). The other two pencils do not
give more information in this particular case. In
the general case of singular systems, Pir(S) and
Por(S) bring greater precision.
As a final remark, let us consider a
consequence of Corollary 3.1 for a triple
(E, A, B).
V~ ~ 1 . Corollary 3.2. Two triples (E1,A~,B1) and
(E2, A2, B2) are equivalent under the propor-
(12)
tional group (changes of bases in the domain,
the codomain and the input space, and static
state feedback) if and only if their associated
system matrix pencil [sEi-AiBi] and their
restricted matrix pencil N ( s E i - A~) are respec-
tively equivalent in the Kronecker sense.
We wish to emphasize that this result for the
triple (E, A, B) is of great interest. In particular
it gives additional interpretations of the different
invariants of the canonical form introduced by
Loiseau et al. (1991).
 Canonical forms for descriptor systems
4. PROPORTIONAL PLUS DERIVATIVE
CANONICAL FORMS
We have shown that knowledge of the
P-canonical form is equivalent to knowledge of
the Kronecker's normal form of four pencils
associated with (E, A, B, C). Now, from an
inverse point of view, we can ask the following
question: "To what transformations on the
system do the Krnoecker's transformations on
Pr(s), Pir(s) and Po~(s) correspond?"
We shall see that Kronecker's equivalence for
P~(s), Pi~(s) and Por(S) respectively corresponds
to (three) different equivalences for the system
matrix pencil Psm(S). With these three equiv-
alences are associated three canonical forms: a
proportional plus derivative (PD) canonical form
and two semiproportional plus derivative canon-
ical forms. This will finally allow us to give a
corollary of Theorem 3.1, in terms of these new
canonical forms.
The aim of this section is to show that the
action of the proportional group 3- on the system
is also equivalent to the action of four groups on
the system matrix.
Theorem 4.1. Given two quadruples
(E, A, B, C) and (E', A', B', C'), the following
assertions are equivalent:
(1) The pencils N ( s E - A ) K and N ' ( s E ' -
A ' ) K ' are equivalent in the Kronecker's
sense and dim (Im B) = dim (Im B'),
dim (Im C) = dim (Im C').
Where N (resp. N') is the canonical
projection from from _~ (resp. _~') on to
_~/Im B (resp. _~'/Im B') K (resp. K') is the
insertion map of Ker C (resp. Ker C') into ga
(resp. ~').
(2) The quadruples (E, A, B, C) and
(E', A', B', C') are equivalent in the follo-
wing (PD) sense:
There exist isomorphisms (/5, {~, t~, S) and
morphisms (#p, FD, Rp, RD) such that:
E' =/5(E + 8PD + f oC)O_-'
A' =/5(m + B ~ + R p C ) O - '
B' = #Bt~
C t = SCO- 1.
Remarks. (1) The first assertion is equivalent to
the existence of two isomorphisms P and Q such
that
P(N(sE - A ) K ) Q = N'(sE' - A ' ) K '
and
dim (Im B) = dim (Im B')
and
dim (Im C) = dim (Im C').
(2) This theorem is an extension of the
861
theorem established for (E, A, B) triples (Lo-
iseau et al., 1991).
Proof.
(2) (1)
There exists t~ such that B ' = P B O ~
Im B' = Im PB =/5 Im B ~ Ker N' =/5 Ker N
:>Ker(N'/5)=KerN. As N'/5 and N are
canonical projections, they are epic.
Moreover, since B'=/SBt~ with /5 and t~
isomorphisms, the maps B', B and also N'/5
and N have the same dimensions. So there
exists an isomorphism P such that N ' P = PN
There exists S such that C' = SBQ-1
c'-'(o) =
, c'-'(o) = O_c'-'(o)
:~Ker C' = Q Ker C :~Im K' = Q Im K
~ Im K' = Im QK.
As K' and QK are insertion maps, they are
monic. Moreover C' = SBQ-~ implies that the
maps C', C and also K' and Q K have the
same sizes. So there exists an isomorphism Q
such that K' Q -~ = QK. Thus
N'(sE' - A ' ) K ' = N'/5(s(E + B#o + RoC)
- (a + B~ +/~pC))0-tK '
= P N ( s ( E + BPo + oC)
- (A + B g + RpC))KQ
= P[N(sE - A)K]Q.
Finally we have dim (Im B) = dim (Im B'),
dim (Im C) = dim (Im C') and N'(sE' - A ' ) K ' =
P[N(sE - A)KIQ.
(1)=>(2)
First, note that dim (Im B) = dim (Im B'),
dim (Im C) = dim (Im C'), and the existence
of isomorphisms (P, Q) such that P [ N ( s E -
A)K]Q = N'(sE' - A ' ) K ' imply that dim =
dim ~ ' and dim _~ = dim _~'. So P N and N'
are epic maps of the same sizes. There then
exists an isomorphism/5 such that PN = N'/5.
This also implies that an isomorphism t~
exists such that B'=/SB(~. As KQ and K'
are monic maps of the same sizes, there
also exists an isomorphism Q such that
K Q = Q - I K '. This also implies that an
isomorphism S exists such that C ' = SCQ -~.
Thus, P[N(sE - A)K]Q = N'(sE' - A ' ) K '
N(sE - A )K = N/5-'(sE' - A')O. K
~ N[(sE - A) - / 5 - 1 ( s E ' - A'){~]K = 0.
Finally, as (E, A, B, C) and (E', A', B', C') are
quadruples of same dimensions, this implies that
there exist morphisms (#l,,Fo, Re, Ro) such
that:
sE' - A' = P[s(E + BFo + RoC)
- (a + B ~ +/~pC)]0 -1.
862 G. LEBRET and J. J. LOISEAU

This clearly shows that the Kronecker's normal (1) The pencils [(sE-A)K B] and [(sE'-
form of the restricted matrix pencil N(sE -A)K A')K' B'] are equivalent in the Kronecker
and the knowledge of d i m ( I m B ) and sense and dim (Im C) = dim (Im C').
dim (Im C) are equivalent to the canonical form (2) The quadruples (E, A, B, C) and (E', A', B',
of the system matrix under the action of the C') are equivalent in the following LEFT-
group of transformations used in (2). This is PD sense: There exists isomorphisms
nothing else but the "proportional plus deriva- (/5, Q, ~) and morphisms (/~p,/~o) such
tive canonical form" (PD) of (E, A, B, C). that:
Let us now show that the pencils P~r(s) and
Po~(S) also lead to canonical forms under some
proportional plus derivative actions. []
sE' - A '
Theorem 4.2. Given two quadruples
(E, A, B, C) and (E', A', B', C'), the following
assertions are equivalent. Clearly, Theorems 4.2 and 4.3 define two new
(1) The pencils equivalences on the set of system matrix pencils
[N(sE CA)] and
[N'(sE-'A
L -C' ')]
Psm(S). These two equivalences are associated
with two groups of transformations which allow
the action of proportional plus derivative state
are equivalent in the Kronecker sense and feedback in the first case or the action of a
dim (Im B) = dim (Im B'). proportional plus derivative output injection in
(2) The quadruples (E, A, B, C) and the second case:
(E', A', B', C') are equivalent in the follow- --The Kronecker's form of P~r(s) corresponds to
ing RIGHT-PD sense: there exists iso- a Proportional Plus Derivative State feedback
morphisms (/5, Q, (~) and morphisms (PDSF) canonical form of Psm(S).
(Fe, Fo) such that: --The Kronecker's form of Pot(S)corresponds to
a Proportional Plus Derivative Output
/5[SEcA -0B][(~ 0 injection (PDOI) canonical form of Psm(s).
Now, as a direct consequence of Theorems
= [sE' - A' 4.1-4.3, let us express Theorem 3.1 in terms of
oq the PD, PDSF and PDOI canonical forms.

Pro Take [A]; which Corollary 4.1. Two quadruples (E, A, B, C) and
(E',A', B', C'), have the same proportional
give canonical form, that is, there exist isomorphisms
(P, Q, t~, ~) and morphisms (Fp, Fo, Rp, Ro)
such that

SO [Po PRp][sE-A -B 0
S JL - C
a 0 sE' - A '
o
and
if and only if:
--Their system matrices have the same
Kronecker's normal form:
there exist two isomorphisms (Pt, Q1) such
Now apply Proposition 2.1 (Loiseau et al., 1991)
that:
on that triple 0:, &, B): this directly gives the
result. []
rsE-A oB]Q1 [sE'-A'-B'].
P'[ -C =L -C'
By duality we directly obtain

Theorem 4.3. Given two quadruples (E, A, B, --They have the same proportional plus
C) and (E', A', B', C'), the following assertions derivative canonical form:
are equivalent. there exist isomorphisms (P2, Q2, G2, $2) and
 Canonical forms for descriptor systems
morphisms (F~, FD2,Rp2, RD2)such that:
& generalization. However, the notions of observ-
X (Fm+sFm)Q2 G2
L -C'
--They have the same (PDSF) canonical form:
there exist isomorphisms (/3, Q3, G3) and
morphisms (F~, Fo3) such that:
p3[sE'-c A -0B][(F~ 4-Q3sFD3)Q3 O31
I _c 0"1
- - T h e y have the same (PDOI) canonical form:
there exist isomorphisms (/4, Q4, $4) and
morphisms (Re4, Rm) such that:
$4 J -
=[sE'-A'L
-C' oB']"
Proof. Immediate from Theorems 3.1, 3.2, 3.3
and 3.4 because P~m(S) and Pr(s) together give
dim (Im B) and dim (Im C). []
In other words, the equivalence of quadruples
under the proportional group cannot be reduced
to the Kronecker's equivalence of their system
matrices: more information, given by the three
types of proportional plus derivative equiv-
alences is necessary to characterize the action of
the group 3..
5. CONCLUSION
A new canonical form for descriptor systems
E:~ = Ax + Bu with an output equation y = Cx
has been introduced. The transformation group
corresponds to the action of proportional state
feedback, proportional output injection and
changes of bases in the domain, the codomain,
the input and the output spaces. The systems
have been considered in a general form. They
are not necessarily square, and we do not make
any restrictive assumption such as regularity,
regularizability or controllability. In other
words, we have characterized through nine
independent lists of invariants the orbit of any
(E, A, B, C) quadruple, under the action of the
proportional group 3 . These invariants have
been geometrically characterized with the help
of four algorithms of the domain or, equiv-
alently, with four algorithms of the codomain.
863
If E = I , this algebraic P-canonical form
reduces to the Morse's canonical form for strictly
proper systems. It can be viewed as its
ability and reachability are not as simple for
general descriptor systems; therefore no dynam-
ical sense has been given to the subsystems
which appear in the P-canonical form. The
dynamical interpretation of these nine types of
subsystem is an important subject for future
study.
To go deeper into the description of this form,
the relation with Kronecker's theory of pencils
has been established. The knowledge of this
proportional form is equivalent to the knowledge
of the Kronecker's canonical forms of four
pencils derived from (E, A, B, C): the system
matrix pencil, the matrix pencil restricted to
Ker C and ~ / I m B, the matrix pencil restricted
to Ker C and the matrix pencil restricted to
~ / I m B. This generalizes the link between the
Morse's canonical form and the Kronecker's
form of the system matrix pencil of a strictly
proper system.
In an inverse point of view, we show that the
Kronecker's canonical form of the matrix pencil
restricted to Ker C and ~ / I m B corresponds to
the proportional plus derivative canonical form
of (E,A, B, C). In the same way, the
Kronecker's canonical forms of the two other
restricted matrix pencils correspond to canonical
forms of (E, A, B, C) under a combination of
proportional derivative and Kronecker's actions.
Then we finally derive a correspondence
between the proportional canonical form of
(E, A, B, C) and the four canonical forms of the
system under different combinations of propor-
tional, derivative and Kronecker's transfor-
mations.
Acknowledgements---G. Lebret is sponsored by C.N.R.S.
and the R~gion des Pays de Loire. The authors gratefully
acknowledge M. Malabre for helpful conservations.
REFERENCES
Cobb, D. (1984). Controllability, observability and duality in
singular systems. IEEE Trar~. Aut. Control, AC-29,
1076-1082.
Frankowska, H. (1990). On controllability and observability
of implicit systems. Syst. Control Left., 14, 219-225.
Gantmacher, F. R. (1959). The Theory of Matrices, Vol. 2.
Chelsea, New York.
Jaffe, S. and N. Karcanias (1981). Matrix pencil charac-
terization of almost (A, B)-invariant subspaces: A
classification of geometric concepts. Int. J. Control, 33,
51-93.
Karcanias, N. and B. Kouvaritakis (1979). The output
zeroing problem and its relationship to the invariant zero
structure. Int. J. Control, 30, 395-415.
Karcanias, N. and P. MacBean (1981). Structural invariants
and canonical forms of linear multivariable systems. In
Marshall (Ed.), 3rd IMA Conference on Control Theory.
Academic Press, New York, pp. 257-282.
864 G. LEBRET and J. J. LOISEAU
Lewis, F. (1986). A survey of linear singular systems.
Circuits, Syst. Signal Processing, 5, 3-36.
Lewis, F. (1992). A tutorial on the geometric analysis of
linear time invariant implicit systems. Automatica, 28,
119-137.
Lebret, G. and J. J. Loiseau (1991). Proportional and
proportional-derivative canonical forms for singular
systems with outputs. Internal Report no. 91-25,
Laboratoire d'Automatique de Nantes.
Loiseau, J. J. (1985). Some geometric considerations about
the Kronecker normal form. Int. J. Control, 42,
1411-1431.
Loiseau, J. J. and G. Lebret (1990). A new canonical form
for descriptor system with outputs. In A. Bensoussan and
J. L. Lions (Eds), Analysis and Optimization of Systems,
Vol. 144: Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Springer, New York.
Loiseau, J. J., K. Ozc~aldiran, M. Malabre and N. Karcanias
(1991). Feedback canonical forms of singular systems.
Kyberentika, 27, 189-305.
Malabre, M. (1987). A structural approach for linear singular
systems. In F. Lewis (Ed), Proc. Int. Syrup. on Singular
Systems. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
Malabre, M. (1988). Geometric algorithms and structural
invariants for linear singular systems. In R. Vichneretsky,
P. Borne and J. Vignes (Eds), Proc. 12th IMCAS World
Congress. Imprimerie GERFIDN, Paris.
Malabre, M. (1989). Generalized linear systems: geometric
and structural approaches. Linear Algebra and its
Applicatiot~v, 122,-124, 591-621.
Morse, A. S. (1973). Structural invariants of linear
multivariable systems. SLAM. J. Control, 11, 446-465.
C)zealdiran, K. (1985). Control of descriptor systems. Ph.D.
thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
Rosenbrock, H. (1970). State-space and Multivariable
Theory. Wiley, New York.
Thorp, S. (1973). The singular pencil of linear dynamical
systems. Int. J. Control, 18, 577-596.
Van Der Weiden, A. J. J. and O. H. Bosgra (1980). The
determination of structural properties of a linear
multivariable system by operation of system similarity. Int.
J. Control, 32, 489-537.
Wonham, W. M. (1979). Linear Multivariable Control: A
Geometric Approach, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin.