Optimal Control of Network-Coupled Subsystems: Spectral Decomposition and Low-Dimensional Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we investigate the optimal control of network-coupled subsystems with coupled dynamics and costs. The dynamics coupling may be represented by the adjacency matrix, the Laplacian matrix, or any other symmetric matrix corresponding to an underlying weighted undirected graph. Cost couplings are represented by two coupling matrices which have the same eigenvectors as the coupling matrix in the dynamics. We use the spectral decomposition of these three coupling matrices to decompose the overall system into$({L+1})$systems with decoupled dynamics and cost, where$L$is the number of linearly independent eigendirections associated with nonzero eigenvalue triples of the three coupling matrices. Furthermore, the optimal control input at each subsystem can be computed by solving$({L_\text{dist}+1})$decoupled Riccati equations, where$L_\text{dist}\,(L_\text{dist}\leq L)$is the number of distinct nonzero eigenvalue triples of the three coupling matrices. A salient feature of the result is that, given the spectral decompositions of the couplings, the solution complexity does not directly depend on the number of subsystems. Therefore, the proposed solution framework provides a scalable method for synthesizing and implementing optimal control laws for large-scale network-coupled subsystems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".