Optimal networkdesign for synchronization ofKuramoto

oscillators

Mahyar Fazlyab a, Florian Dorfler b, Victor M. Preciado a

aUniversity of Pennsylvania, Department of Electrical and Systems Engineering, United States

bETH Zurich, Automatic Control Laboratory, Switzerland

Abstract

In this paper, we study the problem of designing the natural frequencies and the coupling weights in a network of nonidenticalKuramoto oscillators. We define an objective function which represents the cost of tuning the design variables, and considerphase cohesiveness, defined as the asymptotic maximum phase difference across all the edges, as our design constraint. In thiscontext, we develop a convex optimization framework to find the minimum cost design that guarantees a desired level of phasecohesiveness. To this end, we address two network design problems: (1) the nodal-frequency design problem, in which we designthe natural frequencies of the oscillators for a fixed network structure, and (2 ) the edge-weight design problem, in which wedesign the link weights assuming that the natural frequencies are known to belong to a convex uncertainty set. We illustrate theapplicability of the proposed framework by analyzing network design problems of practical interest, such as sparsity-promotingnetwork design, robust network design for distributed wireless analog clocks, and the Braess’ paradox in power grids.

Key words: Kuramoto oscillators, network design, frequency synchronization, phase cohesiveness, Braess’ paradox.

1 Introduction

Synchronization in networks of coupled oscillators isone of the most fundamental problems in networkeddynamical systems. Networks of coupled ocillatorspresent a rich dynamic behavior as reported in the vastliterature on this topic [12, 17, 33]. Many real worldphenomena can be modeled as a system of coupledoscillators: pacemaker cells in the heart [21], neuronsin the brain [35], clock synchronization in computingnetworks [1], mobile sensor networks [25], and powergrids [11, 16]. Considerable research in this field hasbeen focused on studying the effect of network struc-ture, coupling strengths, and nodal dynamics on var-ious characteristics of synchronization including syn-chronizability, robustness, and adaptability [9,20,32].

Various metrics have been proposed in the literature

? This paper was not presented at any IFAC meeting.Corresponding author Mahyar Fazlyab.

Email addresses: mahyarfa@seas.upenn.edu (MahyarFazlyab), dorfler@ethz.ch (Florian Dorfler),preciado@seas.upenn.edu (Victor M. Preciado).

to quantify and optimize the synchronization perfor-mance. A broad class of these metrics target the tran-sient response, such as the ability of the network toresynchronize after perturbations [10, 18, 23, 26]. Inthis context, synchronizability can be characterizedby the required effort to synchronize the network [30],the speed of convergence to the synchronized mani-fold, or the range of coupling values for which a net-work with uniform coupling strength would synchro-nize [26]. Using the master stability framework pro-posed in the seminal paper [26], it can be shown thatthe Laplacian algebraic connectivity and the eigen-ratio are two network-dependent measures that cap-ture synchronizability. Using these metrics, numer-ous works have been reported on optimizing synchro-nizability [8, 10, 15, 18, 22–24, 26, 27, 31]. In particu-lar, Nishikawa et al. [24] developed an extension ofthe master stability framework to the case of non-diagonalizable Laplacian matrices, and found a simplecondition on the eigenvalues of the Laplacian that ei-ther maximizes the ratio between the maximum andminimum stabilizing coupling strength, or minimizesthe synchronization cost (which has been defined asthe sum of the coupling strengths). In [10, 27], the

Preprint submitted to Automatica 30 April 2019

arX

iv:1

503.

0725

4v2

[m

ath.

OC

] 1

2 Fe

b 20

16

authors proposed a collection of rewiring algorithmsto enhance synchronizability. In the context of powergrids, the authors in [22] considered a power systemwith tunable parameters and used the maximal Lya-punov exponent to characterize the local stability ofthe swing equation in terms of these parameters. Theyused this characterization to specify the parameter val-ues in order to enhance the synchronizability of thenetwork.

In several real-world systems such as power grids, theindividual dynamics and the coupling strengths arenot uniform, and complete phase synchronization iscompromised by nonidentical node dynamics. In [13],phase cohesiveness, defined as the maximum steady-state phase difference across the edges of the network,was proposed as a condition of stable synchroniza-tion in networks of nonidentical Kuramoto oscillators.This metric quantifies partial phase synchronizationand explicitly accounts for the simultaneous effect ofthe network topology, the coupling strengths, and theindividual dynamics on the local stability of the syn-chronous solution. Therefore, we use phase cohesive-ness as our design criterion in order to develop an op-timization framework for designing the parameters ofthe network. For the exposition, we use the widelyadopted model of Kuramoto oscillators which governsthe dynamics of power grids [16]. More specifically, weaddress the following two design problems:

(1) Design of natural frequencies: In this problem, weassume that the network structure and the cou-pling strengths are given and the natural frequen-cies of the oscillators are the design variables. Thenetwork designer is able to tune the natural fre-quency of each oscillator by incurring a cost. Theobjective to minimize the tuning cost and guaran-tee a desired level of phase cohesiveness.

(2) Design of link weights: In this second problem, weassume that the natural frequencies of the oscilla-tors are given and the link weights are the designvariables. We assume that the network designer isable to tune the weights of each edge by incurringa cost. The objective of the designer is then todesign the edge weights in order to minimize thetuning cost, while guaranteeing a desired level ofphase cohesiveness. To be consistent with practi-cal aspects, we will also address the case in whichthe natural frequencies of the oscillators are un-certain with known bounds.

The framework herein proposed can be used in a widerange of practical applications. In power grids, cas-cading failures are initiated due to the loss of genera-tion power, or overloading of transmission lines. Thecommon remedial actions to contain a cascade arecost-effective redispatching of generation, load shed-

ding (i.e., tuning the natural frequencies in our frame-work), or switching on and off new lines [2,19]. In an-other power grid example, new generators and loadsare required to be connected to an existing grid, andfinding an optimal structure within the new facilitiesthat connect them to the rest of the grid is of inter-est. Another application can be found in the context ofclock synchronization in networks of distributed pro-cessors, where the natural frequencies of the proces-sors are subject to uncertainty as a result of manufac-turing defects. Therefore, the communication networkconnecting the processors must be designed to achievesynchronization with a pre-specified phase cohesive-ness, while ensuring robustness against uncertaintiesin the natural frequencies [29]. Other applications in-clude sparsity promoting network design [28], and theanalysis of the well-known Braess’ paradox (i.e., thecounter-intuitive phenomenon of losing synchroniza-tion as the result of adding new edges [36]). We willprovide numerical examples of these applications inSection 5.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section2, we provide some preliminaries and formally statethe network design problems. In Section 3, we developa convex, tractable framework to solve the network de-sign problems under consideration. Illustrative exam-ples are highlighted in Section 5. Concluding remarksare drawn in Section 6.

2 Problem statement

2.1 Preliminaries and notation

Notation: Let R, R+, and R++ be the set of real,nonnegative, and strictly positive numbers. Let 1nand 0n be the n-dimensional vector of unit and zeroentries. The set 1, . . . , n is denoted by [n]. Givenan n-tuple (x1, ..., xn), let x ∈ Rn be the associatedcolumn vector. The infinity norm of x is denoted as‖x‖∞ = maxi |xi|, the `1 norm as ‖x‖1 =

∑ni=1 |xi|,

and the `0 norm as ‖x‖0 = card(i ∈ [n] : xi 6= 0),where card(·) denotes the cardinality of a set. For vec-tors x and y, the inequality x ≤ y is component-wise. We define the vector-valued function sin(x) =(sin(x1), · · · , sin(xn))>. We denote by Sn×n the set ofn×n real, symmetric matrices. For square matrices Aand B, we write A B if and only if A−B is positivesemidefinite.

Elements of spectral graph theory : A graph is definedas G = (V, E), where V is a set of n nodes (or ver-tices) and E is a set of m undirected edges (or links).We assume that the graph is connected and has noself-loops. We consider graphs with weights associatedto both edges and nodes. We denote the weight of an

2

edge e = i, j ∈ E as we = wij . The weighted ad-jacency matrix of a undirected graph G, denoted byAG = [aij ], is an n × n symmetric matrix definedentry-wise as aij = wij if i, j ∈ E , and aij = 0,otherwise. The weighted Laplacian matrix of G is de-fined as L = diag (AG1n)−AG. The (unweighted) in-cidence matrix of G is defined for a directed and la-beled version of the undirected graph G, as follows.First, we label each edge in the graph with a uniquelabel e ∈ 1, . . . ,m and assign an arbitrary direc-tion to it. In other words, we substitute each undi-rected edge i, j ∈ E for an ordered pair (i, j), in ar-bitrary order. For the ordered pair (i, j), we say thati is the source and j is the sink of the directed edge.For the resulting directed graph, the incidence ma-trix B = [bie] ∈ Rn×m is defined component-wise asbje = 1 if j is the sink node of edge e, bie = −1if i is the source node of edge e, and bke = 0 oth-erwise. For x ∈ Rn, notice that

(B>x

)e

= xj − xifor a link (i, j) labeled e. For a weighted graph, we

define the edge-weight vector w = (w1, · · · , wm)>

,where we is the weight of the edge labeled e. TheLaplacian matrix of the weighted graph can be writ-ten as L = Bdiag (w)B> [4]. If the graph is con-nected, we have that ker

(B>)

= ker (L) = span (1n),and the second smallest eigenvalue of the Laplacian,called the algebraic connectivity, is strictly positive[4]. The Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse of the Lapla-

cian is defined as L† =(L+ 1

n1n1>n)−1 − 1

n1n1>n .For any connected graph with n vertices, the identityLL† = L†L = In − 1

n1n1>n holds.

2.2 Synchronization in networks of heterogeneous os-cillators

Consider a set of n Kuramoto oscillators coupled viaa connected weighted, undirected graph G. The tem-poral evolution of the network satisfies the followingset of nonlinear ODE’s,

θi(t) = ωi −n∑j=1

aij sin (θi(t)− θj(t)) ,∀i ∈ V, (1)

where θi(t) ∈ R is the angular position of the i-thKuramoto oscillator, ωi is its natural frequency, andaij ≥ 0 is the (ij)-th entry of the weighted adjacencymatrix of G. This dynamics can be written in matrixform as

θ(t) = f(θ(t)) = ω −BW sin(B>θ(t)), (2)

where θ(t) = (θ1(t), · · · , θn(t))>, ω = (ω1, · · · , ωn)>,B is the incidence matrix of G, W = diag (w)is the diagonal matrix of edge weights, and w =

(w1, . . . , wm)> where we is the weight of the e-th edgein the graph. For further reference, we denote theKuramoto model in (2) by K(B,w,ω). The followingdefinition characterizes the notion of synchronizationfor K(B,w,ω).

Definition 2.1 A solution to the coupled oscilla-tor model (1) is said to be frequency-synchronized

if limt→∞

|θi(t) − θj(t)| = 0, ∀i, j ∈ E. Similarly, a

frequency-synchronized solution to the coupled oscil-lator model (1) is said to be phase-synchronized iflimt→∞

|θi(t)− θj(t)|(mod 2π) = 0,∀i, j ∈ E.

Phase synchronization can only be achieved if allthe natural frequencies are identical; otherwise, onecould only achieve frequency synchronization. Fora frequency-synchronized solution, the angular fre-quencies of the oscillators converge towards a com-mon asymptotic frequency given by the average ofthe natural frequencies, i.e., ωs = 1

n

∑ni=1 ωi, [13].

Thus, the frequency-synchronized solution satisfieslimt→∞

(θ(t)− θs(t))(mod 2π) = 0n, where

θs(t) = (ωst)1n + θ?, (3)

for some θ? ∈ Rn such that θs(t) = f(θs(t)). It fol-lows from (3) and Definition 2.1 that in frequencysynchronization, we have that lim

t→∞|θi(t) − θj(t)| =

|θ?i − θ?j |,∀i, j ∈ E .

Definition 2.2 For any frequency-synchronized solu-tion θ(t) of the Kuramoto model K(B,w,ω), the cor-responding phase cohesiveness is defined as

ϕ(B,w,ω) = maxi,j∈E

limt→∞

|θi(t)− θj(t)|(mod 2π).

The phase cohesiveness can also be written as

ϕ(B,w,ω) = maxi,j∈E

|θ?i − θ?j | (mod 2π)

= ‖B>θ?‖∞ (mod 2π) (4)

In order to further characterize the phase cohesiveness,we study the relationship between θ? and the networkparameters B,w, and ω in the following subsection.

2.3 Fixed points and stability

We now study the synchronized solution givenby (3). Without loss of generality, we can as-sume that ωs = ω>1n = 0. Under this assump-tion, we have that θs(t) = θ?. It follows that

3

0n = θs = f(θs(t)) = f(θ?), i.e., the frequency-synchronized solution satisfies the fixed-point of (2),

ω −BW sin(B>θ?) = 0n. (5)

The following lemma will be used to characterize θ?,and is a generalization of the result in [13].

Lemma 2.1 Denote F ∈ Rm×(m−n+1) as the matrixwhose columns span the null space of B (i.e., BF = 0).Then, for any arbitrary r ∈ R, the fixed points of (2)satisfy the following equation

sin(B>θ?) = W r−1B>(BW rB>)†ω+W−1Fy, (6)

for some proper vector y ∈ R(m−n+1) that satisfies

‖W r−1B>(BW rB>)†ω +W−1Fy‖∞ ≤ 1, (7)

F>sin−1(W r−1B>(BW rB>)†ω +W−1Fy

)= 0m.

PROOF. In Appendix A.

The general result (6) includes special cases for differ-ent values of r. For instance, when r = 0, we recoverthe synchronization solution obtained by a primal-dual optimization approach ( see [37] Eq. (22) ) , andr = 1 corresponds to the synchronization conditionreported in [13]. The next lemma, proved in [13], pro-vides a sufficient condition for the stability of the fixedpoints satisfying (5).

Lemma 2.2 Any fixed point of (2) is locally exponen-tially stable if ‖B>θ?‖∞ < π

2 .

It follows from the last lemma and (4) that thecondition ϕ(B,w,ω) < π/2 is sufficient for localexponential stability of the fixed point. As a spe-cial case, in trees with uniform coupling weights,Fy = 0m and w = k1n−1 where k > 0 is thecoupling strength, the phase cohesiveness reducesto sin(ϕ(B, k1n−1,ω)) = k−1BT (BBT )†ω. Conse-quently the stability condition in Lemma 2.2 trans-lates into the condition k > ‖BT (BBT )†ω‖∞ for treegraphs.

Notice that θ? in Lemma 2.1 is characterized in termsof the implicit equations (6) and (7). These equationsare hard to solve for arbitrary topologies. In fact, itwas shown in [34] that even finding the number ofnonzero stable fixed points over the full space of phaseangles [0, 2π) is NP-hard. Nevertheless, the followingsynchronization criterion was proposed in [13].

Criterion 1 The Kuramoto model K(B,w,ω) has aunique and stable frequency-synchronized solution θ?

such that |θ?i − θ?j | ≤ γ < π/2 for every i, j ∈ E if∥∥B>L†ω∥∥∞ ≤ sin (γ) . (8)

where L = Bdiag(w)B>.

The above criterion implies that when ‖B>L†ω‖∞ <1, the phase cohesiveness satisfies

ϕ(B,w,ω) ≤ sin−1(‖B>L†ω‖∞). (9)

In other words, (9) provides us with a tight upperbound for phase cohesiveness in terms of B, w, and ω.In particular, the condition ‖B>L†ω‖∞ < 1 guaran-tees local stability, according to lemma 2.2.

Remark 2.1 It was shown in [13] that the criterion 1is provably correct for various network topologies andweights including the extremal cases of the sparsest(acyclic) and densest (complete) graphs. By statisticalmeans, it has also been shown that the inequality (8) isextremely accurate for a broad set of random networktopologies and weights, as well as for various standardpower network test cases [13].

In the next section, we use the upper bound in (9) todevelop the optimization framework for designing thenatural frequencies of the network.

3 Natural frequency design problem

Consider a Kuramoto model K(B,w,ω) with a givennetwork structure (B) and link weights (w). In thefrequency design problem, our objective is to designthe natural frequencies of the oscillators (ω) to achievea desired level of phase cohesiveness γd ∈ [0, π/2) at aminimum design cost. In our setup, we assume that thenetwork designer is able to tune the natural frequenciesby incurring a cost described by a convex function.This problem can be mathematically stated as follows.

Problem 1 (Cohesiveness-constrained fre-quency design) Assume we are given the followingelements: (i) a connected undirected network with in-cidence matrix B, (ii) a nonnegative vector of linkstrengths w0 ∈ Rm+ , (iii) a convex frequency-tuningcost function gV (ω) : Rn → R, (iv) a closed convexfeasible design set Fω ⊂ Rn, (v) a desired level of phasecohesiveness γd ∈ [0, π/2), and (vi) a synchronizingfrequency ωs ∈ R. Find the optimal vector of naturalfrequencies, denoted by ω?, that solves the following

4

optimization problem:

ω? = arg minω∈Fω

gV (ω) (10)

s.t. ‖B>L†ω‖∞ ≤ sin(γd),

1

n1>nω = ωs,

where L = Bdiag(w0)B>.

Then, by Criterion 1, the phase cohesiveness ofthe resulting network K(B,w0,ω

?) would satisfyϕ(B,w0,ω

?) ≤ γd with minimum tuning cost given bygV(ω?).

Problem 1 is a convex optimization problem, since thefunction ‖B>L†ω‖∞ is the point-wise maximum oflinear functions of ω, and hence, the feasible set ω ∈Fω : ‖B>L†ω‖∞ ≤ γd renders a convex set. Noticethat if ωs1n ∈ Fω, then ω? = ωs1n is the trivialoptimal solution. Therefore, we assume tha the feasibledesign set does not contain ω = ωs1n.

The problem of containing cascading failures in powersystems can be stated as Problem 1, where remedialactions such as redispatch or load shedding (tuning ω)are used to satisfy the constraints in (10). In this case,an example for the cost function gV(ω) is a penalty onthe amount of load that has to be shed.

4 Weight design problem

Consider a Kuramoto model K(B,w,ω) with a givennetwork structure (B) and natural frequencies (ω). Inthe weight design problem, our objective is to designthe link weights (w) to achieve a desired level of phasecohesiveness γd ∈ [0, π/2) at a minimum design cost.In our setup, we assume that the network designer isable to tune the link weights within a convex feasi-ble set Fw ⊂ Rm+ that includes connected graphs. In

other words, λ2(Bdiag(w)B>) > 0 for all w ∈ Fw.This spectral condition guarantees the connectivity ofthe resulting graph. Furthermore, the tuning cost isdescribed by a function fE(w), which we assume to beconvex.

In most practical settings, however, the natural fre-quencies are subject to uncertainties. For example, inthe context of power systems, the natural frequenciesof the nodes correspond to net power generation (con-sumption) in generator (load) buses, and therefore,are subject to fluctuations depending on demand gen-eration patterns [13]. Consequently, it is of practicalrelevance to extend the weight design problem in or-der to support uncertainties in the natural frequencies.

In this direction, we assume that the natural frequen-cies of the oscillators belong to a convex uncertaintyset, i.e., ω ∈ Ω ⊂ Rn. Notice that the original weightdesign problem corresponds to the particular case inwhich the set Ω is a singleton. We formalize the (ro-bust) weight design problem, as follows.

Problem 2 (Cohesiveness-constrained weightdesign) Assume we are given the following elements:(i) a connected undirected network with incidence ma-trix B, (ii) a compact convex set Ω ⊂ Rn such thatω ∈ Ω, (iii) a convex weight-tuning cost functionfE (w) : Rm+ → R, (iv) a compact convex feasible de-sign set Fw ⊂ Rm+ , and (v) a desired level of phasecohesiveness γd ∈ [0, π/2). Find the optimal vector oflink weights, denoted by w?, that solves the followingrobust optimization problem,

w? = arg minw∈Fw

fE (w) (11)

s.t. maxω∈Ω

‖B>(Bdiag(w)B>)†ω‖∞ ≤ sin(γd).

Then, by Criterion 1, the phase cohesiveness of theresulting network would satisfy maxω∈Ω ϕ(B,w?,ω) ≤γd, and the minimum design cost is given by fE(w

?).

In the context of power systems, Problem 2 corre-sponds to tuning the susceptance of the transmissionlines within a feasible range such that the phase co-hesiveness of the resulting network is bounded by γd,despite the fluctuations in power generations or con-sumption (ω) across the generators and load buses,respectively.

It can be verified that ‖B>(Bdiag(w)B>)†ω‖∞, ap-pearing in the constraint of (11), remains unchangedby the substitution ω ← ω − 1

n1n1>nω; hence, we can

include the assumption ω>1 = 0n in the uncertaintyset Ω.

Notice that solving (11) requires evaluating the termmaxω∈Ω ‖B>(B>diag(w)B)†ω‖ for every feasible so-lution w, which is not computationally tractable. Weuse robust optimization tools [3] to convert this prob-lem into a tractable form. The main idea behind thismethodology is to use duality theory to replace theterm maxω∈Ω ‖B>(B>diag(w)B)†ω‖ by its dual func-tions, i.e., a tight upper bound which does not involvethe uncertain parameter ω and is characterized by thecorresponding dual variables. Although this conver-sion can be done for any convex set Ω, for simplicityin our exposition, we study the particular case of Ωbeing an interval uncertainty set, i.e.,

Ω = ω ∈ Rn : ω ≤ ω ≤ ω, 1>nω = 0, (12)

5

where ω, ω ∈ Rn are the vectors of lower and upperbounds on the natural frequencies, respectively. Thenext theorem provides a tractable formulation akin to(11).

Theorem 4.1 Consider Problem 2 with Ω in (12). Letbk ∈ Rn be the k−th column of the incidence matrixB.Then, the following optimization problem is equivalentto (11),

min fE(w) (13)

s.t. ∀k ∈ [m],

λ>k ω − λ

>k ω ≤ sin(γd),

γ>k ω − γ>k ω ≤ sin(γd),

λ>k − λ>k + νk1

>n + b>k (Bdiag(w)B>)† = 0>n ,

γ>k− γ>k + ηk1

>n − b

>k (Bdiag(w)B>)† = 0>n ,

λk, λk, γk, γk ≥ 0n,

with optimization variables w ∈ Fw; λk,λk,γk,γk ∈Rn+; νk, ηk ∈ R, k ∈ [m].

PROOF. In Appendix B.

Note that the feasible set of the weight design prob-lem (11) (or the particular formulation in (13)) is notconvex in the design variable w, due to the pseudoin-verse operation appearing in the constraints. In whatfollows, we propose a convex outer approximation tothe feasible set of (13) (in the space of w) by virtueof the following lemma (which is a modification of aresult in [14]).

Lemma 4.2 Consider a weighted, connected, undi-rected graph G, with the Laplacian matrix L. Define L?

as the minimizer of the following semidefinite program,

L? = arg minL∈Sn×n

Tr(L) (14)

s.t.

L+1

n1n1>n In

In L

0.

Then, the Laplacian pseudo-inverse satisfiesL† = L?−1n1n1>n .

PROOF. In Appendix C.

We now use Lemma 4.2 to propose a tractable convexrelaxation of the optimization problem in (13). We reg-ularize the objective function in (13) with a penalty

function Tr(L), and include the linear matrix inequal-ity (LMI) in (14) as an additional constraint in (13).After these modifications, we obtain the following con-vex outer approximation to (13),

min fE(w) + αTr(L) (15)

s.t. ∀k ∈ [m],Bdiag(w)B> +1

n1n1>n In

In L

0,

λ>k ω − λ

>k ω ≤ sin(γd),

γ>k ω − γ>k ω ≤ sin(γd),

λ>k − λ>k + νk1

> + b>k L = 0>n ,

γ>k− γ>k + ηk1

> − b>k L = 0>n ,

λk, λk, γk, γk ≥ 0n,

where w ∈ Fw; L ∈ Sn×n; λk,λk,γk,γk ∈ Rn+;νk, ηk ∈ R are optimization variables, and α ∈ R++ isa regularization constant.

Remark 4.1 Notice that the regularization parameterα in (15) should be large enough in order to make theLMI constraint in (15) tight, i.e., the identity L? =(Bdiag(w?)B> + 1

n11>)−1 is enforced. On the otherhand, too large values of α compromises the optimalityof the objective function fE(w). In practice, we can usea bisection search aiming to find the smallest value ofα for which the LMI constraint is tight.

Remark 4.2 In order for Lemma 4.2 to be applicablein (15), the feasible set Fw must be chosen such thatλ2(Bdiag(w)B>) > 0 for all w ∈ Fw. In some prac-tical cases, we need to explicitly impose this constraintin our feasible design set (see, for example, Subsection5.1). The following constraint can be included in thedefinition of Fw to guarantee a strictly positive alge-braic connectivity [5],

Bdiag(w)B> +β

n1n1>n βIn, 0 < β 1. (16)

To see this, notice that the eigenvalues of the left-hand side of (16) is given by β, λ2, . . . , λn, whereλ2, . . . , λn are the eigenvalues of Bdiag(w)B>. Theabove LMI enforces that λ2(Bdiag(w)B>) ≥ β > 0;hence, the graph remains connected under (16). Fur-thermore, λ2(Bdiag(w)B>) is directly connected to thespeed of convergence towards the synchronous solu-tion [26]. Therefore, we can also increase the conver-gence rate to the synchronous solution by increasing β.

It can be verified that, if there is no uncertainty in thenatural frequencies ω (i.e., if ω = ω = ω), the convex

6

relaxation of the weight design formulation in (15) canbe formulated as stated next.

Corollary 4.3 Consider Problem 2 with Ω = ω fora given ω ∈ Rn. The following optimization problem isa convex outer approximation to (11),

minimizew∈Fw,L

fE(w) + αTr(L) (17)

subject to

Bdiag(w)B> +1

n11> In

In L

0,

‖B>Lω‖∞ ≤ sin(γd).

In the next section, we provide numerical simulationsto illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed frame-work in designing optimal networks of Kuramoto os-cillators from the point of view of phase cohesiveness.

5 Applications

In the following subsections, we illustrate the use of ouroptimization framework in several problems of practi-cal interest. Namely, we first consider the problem offinding the sparsest network able to achieve a desiredlevel of phase cohesiveness. We then study the prob-lem of designing the weights of the network when thenatural frequencies are uncertain. Lastly, we use ourframework to study the Braess’ paradox 1 in the con-text of power systems.

5.1 Sparsest network design

Consider a Kuramoto model K(B0,w0,ω0) whereB0 ∈ Rn×m0 is the incidence matrix of the connectiongraph G0 = (V, E0) with n nodes and m0 edges. Thevectors w0 ∈ Rm0

+ and ω0 ∈ Rn contain the weightsand natural frequencies of the Kuramoto network,respectively, which we assume to be fixed and given.Our goal is to achieve a desired level of phase cohe-siveness γd ∈ [0, π/2) by adding as few new edgesto the network as possible. We assume that we canonly add new edges from a candidate set of mc edgesEc ⊆ V × V \ E0, i.e., a subset of edges not presentin G0, which we describe using the incidence matrixBc ∈ Rn×mc . As part of the design problem, not onlywe need to decide the location of the newly addededges, but also their weights, which we describe bythe vector wc ∈ Fwc ⊂ Rmc

+ . In this framework,the Laplacian of the upgraded network is given byL = B0diag(w0)B>0 +Bcdiag(wc)B

>c .

1 According to this paradox, an increase in the capacityof certain lines may result in a loss of synchrony.

In accordance with the description above, our goal is tofind the sparsest wc such that the phase cohesivenessof the resulting network is at most γd. To this end,we penalize the number of newly added edges usingthe `0 norm of wc, ‖wc‖0. Therefore, the optimizationproblem to be solved is

w?c = arg min

wc∈Fwc

‖wc‖0 (18)

s.t. ϕ(B,w,ω0) ≤ γd,

where B is the incidence matrix of the set of selected(nonzero) edges E = E0 ∪e ∈ Ec : we > 0. The prob-lem in (18) is combinatorial and, in general, hard tosolve. A common convex relaxation for (18) is to sub-stitute the `0 norm by the `1 norm ‖wc‖1. Upon thissubstitution, we can use Corollary 2 to solve the re-laxed problem with fE(wc) = ‖wc‖1 as the cost func-tion. However, using the `1 norm would result in anoptimal network with a relatively large number of linkswith small weights. In order to promote sparsity, wepropose to use re-weighted `1 minimization algorithmin [7]. As the names implies, in this algorithm a se-quence of weighted `1 norm problems are solved, andin each round, the weights of the `1 norm are updatedin favor of promoting sparsity in the next round. There-weighted `1 minimization algorithm for solving (18)is summarized in Algorithm 1.

Algorithm 1 : sparse weight design

Given:L0 = B0diag(w0)B>0 , Ec, Bc = [b1, · · · ,bmc ], ω0, Fwc ,γd, α, kmax, and 0 < ε 1.

1: set p(1) = 1mc and Bc = Bc;2: for k = 1, . . . , kmax do

3: solve (19) to obtain w(k)c

w(k)c = arg min

wc∈Fw,L

mc∑e=1

p(k)e |wc,e|+ αTr(L) (19)

s.t.

L0 +Bcdiag(wc)B>c +

1

n11> In

In L

0,

‖[B0 Bc]>Lω0‖∞ ≤ sin(γd),

4: update p(k+1)e = (ε+ w

(k)c,e )−1, e ∈ [mc];

5: update Bc = [be]e : w(k)c,e>ε;

6: end for

Description of the algorithm: In Step 1, the coefficientsof the `1 norm are initialized at one (i.e., p(1) = 1mc

),

and the incidence matrix of the selected edges (Bc) in-cludes all the candidate edges Ec. In Step 3 of iterationk, the optimization problem (19) is solved to obtain

7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30(a) - Sparsity = 0 %

0

5

10

15

20

25

300 5 10 15 20 25 30

(b) - Sparsity = 33 %

0

5

10

15

20

25

300 5 10 15 20 25 30

(c) - Sparsity = 59 %

0

5

10

15

20

25

300 5 10 15 20 25 30

(d) - Sparsity = 92 %

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fig. 1. Evolution of the sparsity pattern for the numerical example in Subsection 5.1. In (a), we include the sparsitypattern of the adjacency matrix after the first iteration, which corresponds to a fully connected graph. Figures (b), (c)and (d) represent the networks obtained at iterations 3, 7, and 20, respectively.

0 5 10 15 200

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Time[sec]

|θi(t)−θj(t)|

Fig. 2. Time evolution of phases for the numerical exam-ple in Subsection 5.1. The phase cohesivness satisfies thedesign requirement, i.e., ϕ(B,w?,ω0) = 1.3119 < 1.413.

the optimal edge weights w(k)c . In Step 4, the com-

ponents of p(k) are updated inversely proportional to

the corresponding components of w(k)c . The constant

0 < ε 1 is used to avoid singularity. In Step 5, Bc isupdated to include the selected (nonzero) edges fromStep 3. Steps 2 to 6 are repeated for a specified numberof iterations, denoted by kmax.

In our numerical experiments, we assume that n = 30,L0 = 0n×n, Bc = BKn

, ω0,i = −1 + 2 i−1n−1 for i ∈ [n],

Fw = [0, 10]mc , and γd = 1.413 rad (so that sin(γd) =0.99), α = 2, kmax = 10, and ε = 0.01. In other words,the initial network is empty and the network designeris allowed to connect any pair of nodes to construct thesparsest synchronizable network (since sin(γd) . 1).To maintain the connectivity of the network, we in-clude the LMI (16) with β = 10−4 in the definitionof Fw. Fig. 1 illustrates the evolution of the sparsitypattern of the adjacency matrix as Algorithm 1 pro-gresses. The first iteration of the algorithm, in Fig. 1-(a), is a fully connected graph, while the sparsest graph

in the final iteration, in Fig. 1-(d), contains only 8% ofthe edges. Fig. 2 illustrates the time evolution of thephases for the designed sparse network, in Fig. 1-(d).The resulting phase cohesiveness satisfies the designconstraint sin(1.0378) = 0.8613 < 0.99 as expected.

5.2 Robust synchronization of distributed analogclocks

Consider a wireless sensor network consisting of n pro-cessors V = 1, · · · , n equipped with analog clocks.In order to efficiently perform distributed computa-tions across the network, the clocks are required to syn-chronize their phases. In this context, the Kuramotomodel can be used as a distributed synchronizationscheme for synchronizing the phases [29]. Therefore,we can use (2) as a model of analog clock synchroniza-tion, where B ∈ Rn×m is the incidence matrix of thecommunication graph, w ∈ Rm+ is the vector of con-nection strengths, and ω ∈ Rn is the vector of natu-ral frequencies of the clocks. The incidence matrix Bis determined by the geographical distribution of theprocessors and their communication range. In prac-tice, the natural frequencies ωi i ∈ [n], are uncertaindue to hardware imperfections and aging. Therefore,the communication graph must be designed in orderto synchronize the clocks in the presence of uncertain-ties in the natural frequencies. We consider the net-work design problem in (11) with sum of the weights∑me=1 we = ‖w‖1 as the cost function. For numerical

simulations, we consider the sensor network depictedin Fig. 3-(a) with n = 30 processors and m = 56 links.We assume that the natural frequencies are nominallyequal to 1 with 20% uncertainty, i.e., in (12) we haveω = −0.2 1n and ω = +0.2 1n. We then solve (15)with γd = π/10 rad, and the feasible design set be-ing the positive orthant, Fw = Rm+ . The resulting net-work is illustrated in Fig. 3-(b), where the optimalcost is ‖w?‖1 = 70.01. We then numerically simulate

8

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

(a) (c)(b)

0 1 2 3 4 5time[sec]

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

3i[rad

],i2

[m]

kB>3(t)k1 ! :=10 as t ! 1

Fig. 3. The sensor network of subsection 5.2. (a) the initial structure, (b) the designed structure, and (c) the time evolutionof phases for the designed network for the worst case realization of the natural frequencies.

the phase dynamics of the designed network using theworst-case vector of natural frequencies ω, where

ω = arg maxω∈Ω‖B>(Bdiag(w?)B>)†ω‖∞.

The resulting evolution is plotted in Fig. 3-(c). Weobserve that limt→∞ ‖B>θ(t)‖∞ = π/10 as expected;hence, the phase cohesiveness of the optimal networkis guaranteed to be less that π/10 for all ω ∈ Ω.

5.3 Braess’ paradox in power systems

In the context of network synchronization, the Braess’paradox describes the counter-intuitive phenomenonthat adding new links (or strengthening existing ones)may lead to loss of synchrony. To illustrate this fact,let us consider a lossless power network 2 representedin Fig. 4-(a) (originally proposed in [36]), which wewill refer to as G0. This network has 4 generators (or-ange nodes), 4 load buses (green nodes), and m0 = 10transmission lines (solid lines) . All nodes are assumedto have the same value of power demand/generation,in particular, ωi = 0.95 for generators and ωi = −0.95for load buses. Furthermore, all the edges in G0 areassumed to have identical capacity equal to 1. Forthese numerical values, the phase cohesiveness satisfiessin(ϕ(B0,w0,ω)) = 0.95, where B0 is the incidencematrix of G0, and w0 = 110.

We consider the problem of adding new lines to thenetwork (chosen from a set of candidate lines) in orderto decrease the phase cohesiveness below γd = π/3.

2 For a lossless power network, the steady state operat-ing point of the network is described by (5). Therefore,the results in this paper are applicable to lossless powernetworks.

(a)

(b)

6

5

1

3

2 7

6

5

1

8

3

2

4

7

4

8

Fig. 4. Power network of subsection 5.3. The load buses aredenoted by green nodes and the generators are denoted byred nodes. In (a) the dashed lines are the set of potentialnew edges to be added to the network, and the solid linesare the existing lines. In (b) the red lines denotes the addedlines after the optimization.

Notice that thermal limit constraints on the transmis-sion lines are precisely equivalent to bounds on phasecohesiveness [13]. The candidate lines are indicated bydashed lines in Fig. 4-(a). We denote the subgraphinduced by the candidate lines as Gc, their incidencematrix as Bc ∈ R8×7, and their weights as wc ∈ R7

+.

We would like to minimize the total capacity (mea-sured as the `1 norm of wc) added to the network.Hence, the optimization problem to be solved is

w?c (γd) = arg min

wc∈Fwc

‖wc‖1 (20)

s.t. ϕ(B,w,ω) ≤ γd,

9

0 10 20 30 40Time[sec]

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

3i[ra

d];

i2

[n]

(b) - w34 < 1:62

0 10 20 30 40Time[sec]

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

3i[ra

d];

i2

[n]

(c) - w34 > 1:62

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2w34

0.96

0.98

1

1.02

kB>L

y !k 1

(a)

Fig. 5. (a) Variation of ‖B>L†ω‖∞ as a function of w34.(b) Time evolution of phases when w34 < 1.62. (c) Timeevolution of phases when w34 > 1.62.

where B = [B0 Bc] and w = [w>0 w>c ]> are, respec-tively, the incidence matrix and weight vector of theaugmented network. We then solve (17) for fE(·) =‖ · ‖1, and Fwc

= R7+. The resulting network is de-

picted in Fig 4-(b). The selected (nonzero) edges arew28, w38, and w26, and the remaining candidate links(w34, w24, w16, and w18) are set to zero.

To relate the result of our optimization to the Braess’paradox, we run the following experiment: increase thecapacity of w34 from 1 to 2.2 and plot the variationof ‖B>0 L†ω‖∞ as a function of w34. This variation isplotted in Fig 5-(a) and observe how, as we increase thelink strength w34, the value of ‖B>0 L†ω‖∞ increasesmonotonically, and crosses the stability threshold atw34 ≈ 1.62. In other words, increasing the value of w34

has a detrimental effect on the network stability. Tovalidate our claims, we plot the time evolution of thephase dynamics for w34 = 1 < 1.62 (Fig. 5-(b)) andw34 = 2 > 1.62 (Fig. 5-(c)), in which we observe howthe network dynamics transition from a stable to anunstable regime. Similar results can be obtained whenwe increase w16.

Similarly, we consider the effect of adding a new lineconnecting nodes 2 and 4 by increasing its capac-ity from 0 to 1. In Fig. 6, we plot the variation of‖B>0 L†ω‖∞ as we increase w24, and observe thatwhen w24 ≈ 0.41 the network transition from a sta-ble to an unstable state. We validate this claim byplotting the time evolution of the phase dynamics forw24 = 0 < 0.41 (Fig. 6-(b)) and w34 = 0.8 > 0.41

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1w24

0.94

0.96

0.98

1

1.02

1.04

kB>L

y !k 1

(a)

0 10 20 30 40Time[sec]

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

3i[ra

d];

i2

[n]

(b) - w24 < 0:4

0 10 20 30 40Time[sec]

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

3i[ra

d];

i2

[n]

(c) - w24 > 0:4

Fig. 6. (a) Variation of ‖B>L†ω‖∞ as a function of w24.(b) Time evolution of phases when w24 < 0.41. (c) Timeevolution of phases when w24 > 0.41.

(Fig. 6-(c)). Similar results can be obtained when weincrease w28.

The above observations confirm that the optimizationproblem (20) has assigned zero weight to those linksthat are detrimental for phase cohesiveness. More gen-erally, our optimization framework which is based onCriterion 1 is capable of identifying those lines thatgive rise to Braess’ paradox.

6 Conclusions

In this paper, we have proposed a convex optimiza-tion framework for designing the natural frequenciesand the coupling weights in a network of nonidenticalKuramoto oscillators. We have used phase cohesive-ness as our design constraint, as it captures both thesteady-state performance and stability of the network.In this context, we have addressed the following net-work design problems: (i) the nodal-frequency designproblem, in which we design the natural frequencies ofthe oscillators for a given network, and (ii) the edge-weight design problem, in which we design the edgeweights. For the latter case, we have also developed arobust framework to design networks when the natu-ral frequencies are uncertain. We have illustrated theapplicability of our results using several network de-sign problems of practical interest, namely, a sparsity-promoting design problem (Subsection 5.1), the de-sign of a network of distributed wireless analog clocksin the presence of uncertainties (Subsection 5.2), anda power network design problem in which we illus-

10

trate how our framework is able to detect links whosepresence are detrimental for synchronization (i.e., theBraess’ paradox), as illustrated in Subsection 5.3.

A Proof of Lemma 2.1

It can be verified by substitution that the first sum-mand in the right hand side of (6) satisfies (5),

BW(W r−1B>(BW rB>)†ω

)= (BW rB>)(BW rB>)†ω

= (In −1

n1n1>n )ω

= ω,

where in the second line, we have used the factthat L(r)L(r)† = In − 1

n1n1>n for the Laplacian

matrix L(r) = BW rB>. The third equality fol-lows from the assumption 1>nω = 0. Therefore,sin(B>θ) = W r−1B>(BW rB>)†ω is a particular so-lution of (5). The second summand in (6),W−1Fy, is ahomogeneous solution of (5), sinceBW (W−1Fy) = 0.Since ‖sin(B>θ?)‖∞ ≤ 1, we have that

‖W r−1B>(BW rB>)†ω +W−1Fy‖∞ ≤ 1. (A.1)

Furthermore, for θ? to be realizable from (6), y mustbe chosen such that

B>θ? = sin−1(W r−1B>(BW rB>)†ω +W−1Fy

)∈ Im(B>),

or, equivalently, since Im(B>) ⊥ ker(B), we must havethat

F>sin−1(W r−1B>(BW rB>)†ω +W−1Fy

)= 0.

This corresponds to the geometric constraint that thesum of the phase differences along any cycle is equalto zero. The proof is complete.

B Proof of Theorem 4.1

We use the identity ‖x‖∞ = maxk∈[m]xk,−xk, x ∈Rm, to expand the inequality constraint in (11) as fol-lows,

minw∈Fw

fE (w) (B.1)

s.t. maxω∈Ω

b>k (Bdiag(w)B>)†ω ≤ sin(γd), k ∈ [m],

(B.2)

maxω∈Ω

− b>k (Bdiag(w)B>)†ω ≤ sin(γd), k ∈ [m].

(B.3)

For each fix w ∈ Fw and k ∈ [m], the left-hand side of(B.2) is a linear optimization problem in the space ofω ∈ Ω. For the specific choice of Ω as in (12), the k-thcorresponding Lagrangian relaxation is

Lk(ω,λk,λk, νk) = b>k (Bdiag(w)B>)†ω

+ λ>k (ω − ω) + λ>k (ω − ω)

+ νk1>nω, (B.4)

where νk ∈ R,λk,λk ∈ Rn+ are the corresponding La-grange multipliers. Notice that although the constraintset Ω is identical for all k ∈ [m], the individual ob-

jective functions (b>k (Bdiag(w)B>)†ω) depend on k;so do the Lagrange multipliers. The dual function of(B.4) is defined as

gk(λk,λk, νk) = maxω∈Rn

Lk(ω,λk,λk, νk). (B.5)

The Lagrangian function is an affine function of ω andhence, the dual function is infinite unless the functionaldependence of the Lagrangian on ω vanishes, i.e.,

b>k (Bdiag(w)B>)† − λ>k + λ>k + νk1> = 0. (B.6)

By imposing the above condition on (B.4), the dualfunction in (B.5) becomes finite and reads as

gk(νk,λk,λk) = λ>k ω − λ

>k ω. (B.7)

Finally, by weak duality [6], the dual function is a tightupper bound for the primal problem, i.e., the left-handside of (B.2), as follows

maxω∈Ω

b>k (Bdiag(w)B>)†ω ≤ gk(νk,λk,λk). (B.8)

The last inequality implies that the dual functiongk(νk,λk,λk) can be replaced by the left-hand side of(B.2) along with the side condition (B.6). If we repeatthe same procedure with the second set of constraints(B.3), we will arrive at the desired equivalent problem(13).

11

C Proof of Lemma 4.2

The matrix L + 1n1n1>n is positive definite for con-

nected graphs (see Subsection 2.1). Therefore, bySchur complement [6], the constraint in (14) is equiv-alent to

L− (L+1

n1n1>n )−1 0.

The lower bound on Tr(L) is achieved when the aboveinequality is tight, i.e., when L = (L + 1

n1n1>n )−1.

Using the identity L† = (L+ 1n1n1>n )−1− 1

n1n1>n , we

obtain L† = L? − 1n1n1>n .

References

[1] Roberto Baldoni, Angelo Corsaro, Leonardo Querzoni,Sirio Scipioni, and Sara Tucci Piergiovanni. Coupling-based internal clock synchronization for large-scaledynamic distributed systems. Parallel and DistributedSystems, IEEE Transactions on, 21(5):607–619, 2010.

[2] Clayton Barrows and Seth Blumsack. Transmissionswitching in the rts-96 test system. Power Systems, IEEETransactions on, 27(2):1134–1135, 2012.

[3] Dimitris Bertsimas, David B Brown, and ConstantineCaramanis. Theory and applications of robustoptimization. SIAM review, 53(3):464–501, 2011.

[4] Norman Biggs. Algebraic graph theory. Cambridgeuniversity press, 1993.

[5] Stephen Boyd. Convex optimization of graph laplacianeigenvalues. In Proceedings of the International Congressof Mathematicians, volume 3, pages 1311–1319, 2006.

[6] Stephen Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe. Convexoptimization. Cambridge university press, 2004.

[7] Emmanuel J Candes, Michael B Wakin, and Stephen PBoyd. Enhancing sparsity by reweighted `1 minimization.Journal of Fourier analysis and applications, 14(5-6):877–905, 2008.

[8] Andrew Clark, Basel Alomair, Linda Bushnell, andRadha Poovendran. Global practical node and edgesynchronization in kuramoto networks: A submodularoptimization framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.5797,2014.

[9] Mario di Bernardo, Franco Garofalo, and FrancescoSorrentino. Effects of degree correlation on thesynchronization of networks of oscillators. InternationalJournal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 17(10):3499–3506, 2007.

[10] Luca Donetti, Pablo I Hurtado, and Miguel A Munoz.Entangled networks, synchronization, and optimal networktopology. Physical Review Letters, 95(18):188701, 2005.

[11] F. Dorfler and F. Bullo. Synchronization and transientstability in power networks and non-uniform Kuramotooscillators. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization,50(3):1616–1642, 2012.

[12] F. Dorfler and F. Bullo. Synchronization in complexnetworks of phase oscillators: A survey. Automatica,50(6):1539–1564, 2014.

[13] F. Dorfler, M. Chertkov, and F. Bullo. Synchronization incomplex oscillator networks and smart grids. Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences, 110(6):2005–2010,2013.

[14] Laurent El Ghaoui, Francois Oustry, and MustaphaAitRami. A cone complementarity linearizationalgorithm for static output-feedback and related problems.Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on, 42(8):1171–1176, 1997.

[15] Mohammad Fardad, Fu Lin, and Mihailo R Jovanovic.Design of optimal sparse interconnection graphs forsynchronization of oscillator networks. Automatic Control,IEEE Transactions on, 59(9):2457–2462, 2014.

[16] Giovanni Filatrella, Arne Hejde Nielsen, and Niels FalsigPedersen. Analysis of a power grid using a kuramoto-likemodel. The European Physical Journal B, 61(4):485–491,2008.

[17] A. Jadbabaie, N. Motee, and M. Barahona. On the stabilityof the Kuramoto model of coupled nonlinear oscillators. InAmerican Control Conference, pages 4296–4301, Boston,MA, USA, June 2004.

[18] Louis Kempton, Guido Herrmann, and Mario di Bernardo.Self-organization of weighted networks for optimalsynchronizability. arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.07279, 2015.

[19] C Linnemann, David Echternacht, Christopher Breuer, andA Moser. Modeling optimal redispatch for the europeantransmission grid. In PowerTech, 2011 IEEE Trondheim,pages 1–8. IEEE, 2011.

[20] Peter J Menck, Jobst Heitzig, Jurgen Kurths, andHans Joachim Schellnhuber. How dead ends underminepower grid stability. Nature communications, 5, 2014.

[21] Donald C Michaels, Edward P Matyas, and Jose Jalife.Mechanisms of sinoatrial pacemaker synchronization: anew hypothesis. Circulation Research, 61(5):704–714,1987.

[22] Adilson E Motter, Seth A Myers, Marian Anghel, andTakashi Nishikawa. Spontaneous synchrony in power-gridnetworks. Nature Physics, 9(3):191–197, 2013.

[23] Adilson E Motter, Changsong Zhou, and Jurgen Kurths.Network synchronization, diffusion, and the paradox ofheterogeneity. Physical Review E, 71(1):016116, 2005.

[24] Takashi Nishikawa and Adilson E Motter. Maximumperformance at minimum cost in network synchronization.Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 224(1):77–89, 2006.

[25] Derek Paley, Naomi Ehrich Leonard, Rodolphe Sepulchre,Daniel Grunbaum, Julia K Parrish, et al. Oscillator modelsand collective motion. Control Systems, IEEE, 27(4):89–105, 2007.

[26] Louis M Pecora and Thomas L Carroll. Master stabilityfunctions for synchronized coupled systems. PhysicalReview Letters, 80(10):2109, 1998.

[27] Ali Ajdari Rad, Mahdi Jalili, and Martin Hasler. Efficientrewirings for enhancing synchronizability of dynamicalnetworks. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal ofNonlinear Science, 18(3):037104, 2008.

[28] Milad Siami and Nader Motee. Network sparsificationwith guaranteed systemic performance measures. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 48(22):246–251, 2015.

[29] Osvaldo Simeone, Umberto Spagnolini, Yeheskel Bar-Ness,and Steven H Strogatz. Distributed synchronization in

12

wireless networks. Signal Processing Magazine, IEEE,25(5):81–97, 2008.

[30] Emma Sjodin, Bassam Bamieh, and D Gayme. The price ofsynchrony: Evaluating the resistive losses in synchronizingpower networks. Preprint, 2014.

[31] Per Sebastian Skardal and Alex Arenas. Control ofcoupled oscillator networks with application to microgridtechnologies. Science advances, 1(7):e1500339, 2015.

[32] Francesco Sorrentino, Mario Di Bernardo, and FrancoGarofalo. Synchronizability and synchronization dynamicsof weighed and unweighed scale free networks with degreemixing. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos,17(07):2419–2434, 2007.

[33] S. H. Strogatz. From Kuramoto to Crawford: Exploringthe onset of synchronization in populations of coupledoscillators. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 143(1):1–20, 2000.

[34] Richard Taylor. Finding non-zero stable fixed points ofthe weighted kuramoto model is np-hard. arXiv preprintarXiv:1502.06688, 2015.

[35] Francisco Varela, Jean-Philippe Lachaux, EugenioRodriguez, and Jacques Martinerie. The brainweb: phasesynchronization and large-scale integration. Nature reviewsneuroscience, 2(4):229–239, 2001.

[36] Dirk Witthaut and Marc Timme. Braess’s paradox inoscillator networks, desynchronization and power outage.New journal of physics, 14(8):083036, 2012.

[37] Xinyang Zhou and Lijun Chen. A new perspective tosynchronization in networks of coupled oscillators: Reverseengineering and convex relaxation. IFAC-PapersOnLine,48(22):40–45, 2015.

13