4.7 Article

Robust Dynamic Average Consensus Algorithms

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL
卷 64, 期 11, 页码 4615-4622

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TAC.2019.2901819

关键词

Heuristic algorithms; Steady-state; Convergence; Upper bound; Laplace equations; Adaptive systems; Optimization; Distributed average tracking; dynamic average consensus; finite-time convergence; initialization error; multi-agent systems; weighted directed graph

资金

  1. ONR [N00014-16-1-2106]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This technical note considers the dynamic average consensus problem, where a group of networked agents are required to estimate the average of their time-varying reference signals. Almost all existing solutions to this problem require a specific initialization of the estimator states, and such constraints render the algorithms vulnerable to network disruptions. Here, we present three robust algorithms that do not entail any initialization criteria. Furthermore, the proposed algorithms do not rely on the full knowledge of the dynamics generating the reference signals nor assume access to its time derivatives. Two of the proposed algorithms focus on undirected networks and make use of an adaptive scheme that removes the explicit dependence of the algorithm on any upper bounds on the reference signals or its time derivatives. The third algorithm presented here provides a robust solution to the dynamic average consensus problem on directed networks. Compared to the existing algorithms for directed networks, the proposed algorithm guarantees an arbitrarily small steady-state error bound that is independent of any bounds on the reference signals or its time derivatives. The current formulation allows each agent to select its own performance criteria, and the algorithm parameters are distributedly selected such that the most stringent requirement among them is satisfied. A performance comparison of the proposed approach to existing algorithms is presented.

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