A Maximum Principle for Single-Input Boolean Control Networks Michael Margaliot School of Electrical Engineering Tel Aviv University, Israel Joint work with Dima Laschov 1 Layout 2 Boolean Networks (BNs) Applications of BNs in systems biology Boolean Control Networks (BCNs) Algebraic representation of BCNs An optimal control problem A maximum principle An example Conclusions Boolean Networks (BNs) or x1 x2 and A BN is a discrete-time logical dynamical system: x1 (k 1) f1 ( x1 (k ), xn (k )), (1) xn (k 1) f n ( x1 (k ), xn (k )), where xi () {True,False} and f i is a Boolean function. → A finite number of possible states. 3 A Brief Review of a Long History BNs date back to the early days of switching theory, artificial neural networks, and cellular automata. 4 BNs in Systems Biology S. A. Kauffman (1969) suggested using BNs for modeling gene regulation networks. Modeling 5 gene expressed/not expressed network interactions Analysis state-variable True/False Boolean functions stable genetic state robustness attractor basin of attraction BNs in Systems Biology BNs have been used for modeling numerous genetic and cellular networks: 1. Cell-cycle regulatory network of the budding yeast (F. Li et al, PNAS, 2004); 2. Transcriptional network of the yeast (Kauffman et al, PNAS, 2003); 3. Segment polarity genes in Drosophila melanogaster (R. Albert et al, JTB, 2003); 4. ABC network controlling floral organ cell fate in Arabidopsis (C. Espinosa-Soto, Plant Cell, 2004). 6 BNs in Systems Biology 5. 6. 7 Signaling network controlling the stomatal closure in plants (Li et al, PLos Biology, 2006); Molecular pathway between dopamine and glutamate receptors (Gupta et al, JTB, 2007); BNs with control inputs have been used to design and analyze therapeutic intervention strategies (Datta et al., IEEE MAG. SP, 2010, Liu et al., IET Systems Biol., 2010). Single—Input Boolean Control Networks where: x1 (k 1) f1 ( x1 (k ), xn (k ), u (k )), xn (k 1) f n ( x1 (k ), xn (k ), u (k )), xi (), u() {True,False} fi is a Boolean function Useful for modeling biological networks with a controlled input. 8 Algebraic Representation of BCNs State evolution of BCNs: x(k ) f ... f ( f ( x(0), u(0)), u(1))...). Daizhan Chen developed an algebraic representation for BNs using the semi—tensor product of matrices. 9 Semi—Tensor Product of Matrices Definition Kronecker product of A R mn and B R pq a11 B A B a B n1 a1n B ( mp )( nq ) R . ann B Let lcm(a, b) denote the least common multiplier of a, b. For example, lcm(6,8) 24. Definition semi-tensor product of A R mn and B R pq Aâ B ( A Iα / n )( ) (B B IIαα//pp)) where α lcm(n, p). 10 ( mα / n )( nα / n ) ( pα / p )( qα / p ) Semi—Tensor Product of Matrices Aâ B ( A Iα / n )(B Iα / p ). A generalization of the standard matrix product to matrices with arbitrary dimensions. Properties: Aâ ( Bâ C ) ( Aâ B)â C ( A B)â C ( Aâ C ) ( B â C ) 11 Semi—Tensor Product of Matrices Aâ B ( A Iα / n )(B Iα / p ). 0 1 Example Suppose that a, b { , }. 1 0 v a â b â v v 0 w v w ( I 2 )( I1 ) v w v w 0 Then 0 vw v w vw 0 w vw v vw All the minterms of the two Boolean variables. 12 Algebraic Representation of Boolean Functions Represent Boolean values as: 1 True e , 0 1 0 False e . 1 2 Theorem (Cheng & Qi, 2010). Any Boolean function f :{e1, e2}n {e1, e2} may be represented as f ( x1,..., xn ) M f â x1 â x2 â ...â xn is the structure matrix of f . where M f R Proof This is the sum of products representation of f . 2 x 2n 13 Algebraic Representation of Single-Input BCNs Theorem Any BCN x1 (k 1) f1 ( x1 (k ), xn (k ), u (k )), xn (k 1) f n ( x1 (k ), xn (k ), u (k )), may be represented as x(k 1) Lâ u(k )â x(k ) where 14 n1 L R2 2 n is the transition matrix of the BCN. BCNs as Boolean Switched Systems x(k 1) L â u(k ) â x(k ) u (k ) e 1 x(k 1) L1 â x(k ) 15 u (k ) e 2 x(k 1) L2 â x(k ) Optimal Control Problem for BCNs Fix an arbitrary x(0) and an arbitrary final time Denote U u(0), u( N 1), u(i) e , e . Fix a vector r R2 . Define a cost-functional: J (u) rT x( N , u). (4) Problem: find a control u U that maximizes J . 1 N 0. 2 n Since x( N , u) contains all minterms, any Boolean function of the state at time N may be represented as rT x( N , u). 16 Main Result: A Maximum Principle Theorem Let u * be an optimal control. Define the adjoint : 1, N R 2 by: n (s) ( Lâ u (s))T â (s 1), ( N ) r, and the switching function m : 0,1 by: 1 (5) N 1 R m(s) T (s 1)â Lâ â x* (s). 1 Then 17 e1 , if m(s) 0, u *( s) 2 e , if m(s) 0. (6) Comments on the Maximum Principle e1 , if m(s) 0, u *( s) 2 e , if m(s) 0. 18 (6) The MP provides a necessary condition for optimality. Structurally similar to the Pontryagin MP: adjoint, switching function, two-point boundary value problem. The Singular Case e1 , if m(s) 0, u *( s) 2 e , if m(s) 0. (6) Theorem If m(s) 0, then there exists an optimal control u * satisfying u *(s) e1, and there exists an optimal control w * satisfying w *(s) e2 . 19 Proof of the MP: Transition Matrix x(k 1) L â u(k ) â x(k ) Recall so x(k 2) Lâ u(k 1)â x(k 1) L â u (k 1)â L â u (k )â x(k ). More generally, x( k ; u ) C ( k , j ; u ) â x( j ; u ) C (k , j; u) L â u(k 1) â L â u(k 2) â ...â L â u( j ). C (k , j; u) is called the transition matrix from time j to time k corresponding to the control u. 20 Proof of the MP: Needle Variation Suppose that u * is an optimal control. Fix a time p {0,1,..., N 1} and v {e1 , e2}. Define jp v, u( j ) u *( j ), otherwise. u( j) v 0 21 p N 1 j Proof of the MP: Needle Variation Then x *( N ) C ( N , p 1; u*) â Lâ u *( p) â x *( p) x( N ) C ( N , p 1; u ) â L â u ( p) â x( p) C ( N , p 1; u*) â L â v â x *( p) This yields x *( N ) x( N ) C( N , p 1; u*) â L â (u *( p) v) â x *( p) so J (u*) J (u ) r T ( x *( N ) x( N )) r T C ( N , p 1; u*) â L â (u *( p) v) â x *( p) ? 22 Proof of the MP: Needle Variation J (u*) J (u ) r T ( x *( N ) x( N )) r T C ( N , p 1; u*) â L â (u *( p) v) â x *( p). ? Recall the definition of the adjoint (s) ( Lâ u (s))T â (s 1), ( N ) r, so J (u*) J (u ) r T ( x *( N ) x( N )) T ( p 1) â L â (u *( p) v) â x *( p). This provides an expression for the effect of the needle variation. 23 Proof of the MP J (u*) J (u) T ( p 1)â Lâ (u *( p) v)â x *( p). Suppose that 1 * m( p) ( p 1)â L â â x ( p) 0. 1 If u *( p) e1, take v e2 . Then 1 0 T J (u*) J (u ) ( p 1) â L â ( ) â x *( p) 0 1 T 0, so u is also optimal. This proves the result in the singular case. The proof of the MP is similar. 24 An Example Consider the BCN x1 (k 1) u(k ) x2 (k ) x2 (k 1) u(k ) x1 (k ) x2 (k ) x1 (0) x2 (0) False. Consider the optimal control problem with N 3 and r [1 0 0 0]T . This amounts to finding a control steering the system to x1 (3) x2 (3) True. 25 An Example The algebraic state space form: x(k 1) L â u(k ) â x(k ) x(0) [0 0 0 1]T with 0 0 L 1 0 26 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 . 1 0 An Example Analysis using the MP: 1 * m(2) (3) â L â â x (2) 1 1 * T r â L â â x (2) 1 T [0 1 0 1]â x* (2). This means that m(2) 0, so u *(2) e1. Now (2) ( L â u * (2))T (3) [0 1 0 1]T . 27 An Example We can now calculate 1 * m(1) (2) â L â â x (1) 1 [1 0 0 0]â x* (1). T This means that m(1) 0, so u *(1) e2 . Proceeding in this way yields u *(2) e1, u *(1) e2 , u *(0) e1. 28 Conclusions We considered a Mayer –type optimal control problem for single –input BCNs. We derived a necessary condition for optimality in the form of an MP. Further research: (1) analysis of optimal controls in BCNs that model real biological systems, (2) developing a geometric theory of optimal control for BCNs. For more information, see http://www.eng.tau.ac.il/~michaelm/ 29