4.7 Article

Bipartite consensus tracking control for periodically-varying-delayed multi-agent systems with uncertain switching topologies?

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2023.107226

关键词

Bipartite consensus; Multi-agent systems; Time-varying delay; Switching topology; Lyapunov functional

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper studies the bipartite tracking control problem for multi-agent systems, proposing novel consensus criteria and a bipartite tracking controller for uncertain switching topologies and time delays. An improved monotone-delay-interval-based Lyapunov functional is constructed, establishing lower conservatism consensus conditions. A new zero equation is introduced to deal with the double integral term, avoiding the need for the quadratic function negative-determination lemma. Simulation examples based on quadrotors and spacecraft formation flying model are presented to demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method.
This paper studies the bipartite tracking control problem for multi-agent systems (MASs). The purpose of this paper is to propose novel consensus criteria and further design the bipartite tracking controller subject to uncertain switching topologies and time delays. By constructing an improved monotone-delay-interval-based Lyapunov functional (MDIBLF), we establish lower conservatism consensus conditions than those of previous results. Moreover, the periodically-varying delay is considered in consensus tracking protocol for MASs. It is highlighted that a new zero equation is introduced to deal with the double integral term in the Lyapunov functional. And the quadratic function negative-determination lemma is not required in our method. Applying the proposed approach, we obtain a bipartite controller for the followers to track the leader. Finally, to demonstrate the superiority of the presented method, two simulation examples based on quadrotors and spacecraft formation flying model are introduced. & COPY; 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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