4.7 Article

A Mean Square Consensus Protocol for Linear Multi-Agent Systems With Communication Noises and Fixed Topologies

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL
卷 59, 期 1, 页码 261-267

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TAC.2013.2270873

关键词

Consensus; linear time-invariant; mean square; multi-agent systems; noise

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61370032, 61004099, 61225017, 61273326, 61175076, 61273352]
  2. Beijing Natural Science Foundation [4123105]
  3. Beijing Nova Program [Z121101002512066]
  4. Chinese Academy of Sciences
  5. SKLMCCS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mean square consensus of linear multi-agent systems with communication noises is studied in this note. Each agent is modeled by a continuous-time linear time-invariant dynamics and the fixed communication topology is described by a digraph. The proposed consensus protocol is composed of two parts: the agent's own state feedback and the relative states between agent and its neighbor agents. Due to the existence of communication noises, the relative states cannot be obtained accurately. To attenuate the noise effect, a time-varying gain vector at(t) K is applied to the inaccurate relative states. It is proved that: 1) if the communication topology has a spanning tree and every node has at least one parent node, then the proposed protocol can solve the mean square consensus problem if and only if a(t) satisfies integral(infinity)(0) a(s) ds = infinity and integral(infinity)(0) a(2) (s) ds < infinity; and all roots of the polynomial whose coefficients are the elements of vector K are in the left half complex plane; 2) if the communication topology has a spanning tree and there exists one node without any parent node, then the condition integral(infinity)(0) a(2) (s) ds < infinity is only sufficient but not necessary; and 3) if the communication topology has no spanning tree, then the proposed protocol cannot solve the mean square consensus problem.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据