Professional Documents
Culture Documents
7, JULY 2012
Abstract—This paper presents three design techniques for coop- plications include formation of mobile robots [1], multipoint
erative control of multiagent systems on directed graphs, namely, surveillance [2], UAV formation flying [3], wireless sensor
Lyapunov design, neural adaptive design, and linear quadratic networks [4], etc. Applications of cooperative control of multi-
regulator (LQR)-based optimal design. Using a carefully con-
structed Lyapunov equation for digraphs, it is shown that many vehicle systems are summarized by Murray [5].
results of cooperative control on undirected graphs or balanced From the control point of view, a natural way to control a
digraphs can be extended to strongly connected digraphs. Neural networked multiagent system is to use the centralized approach,
adaptive control technique is adopted to solve the cooperative provided that the state information of all agents can be obtained.
tracking problems of networked nonlinear systems with unknown A central controller gathers all state information, makes the
dynamics and disturbances. Results for both first-order and high-
order nonlinear systems are given. Two examples, i.e., cooperative control decision, and sends corresponding control commands
tracking control of coupled Lagrangian systems and modified to each agent. Centralized control is essentially the control of
FitzHugh–Nagumo models, justify the feasibility of the proposed a single system, albeit complex, which is, by now, well de-
neural adaptive control technique. For cooperative tracking con- veloped. However, in most applications of multiagent systems,
trol of the general linear systems, which include integrator dy- the complete state information cannot be observed by a cen-
namics as special cases, it is shown that the control gain design
can be decoupled from the topology of the graphs, by using the tral controller, due to communication constrains and/or sensor
LQR-based optimal control technique. Moreover, the synchro- restrictions, such as the limited sensing range of a wireless
nization region is unbounded, which is a desired property of the sensor. Another drawback of the centralized control approach is
controller. The proposed optimal control method is applied to that the complexity of the central controller increases with the
cooperative tracking control of two-mass–spring systems, which number of agents and the coupling between agents. Moreover,
are well-known models for vibration in many mechanical systems.
any variations in the network topology, such as adding or
Index Terms—Consensus, cooperative control, Laplacian poten- dropping an agent or a communication link, may require the
tial, multiagent system, neural adaptive control, optimal control. redesign of the controller. On the other hand, for the distributed
control (or cooperative control) approach, no central controller
I. I NTRODUCTION is needed, and each agent maintains its own controller using
the state information of itself and its neighbors. All agents are
I N THE PAST few decades, an increasing number of in-
dustrial, military, and consumer applications call for the
cooperation of multiple interconnected agents. The agents can
trying to cooperate as a unit. This is inspired by collective
animal behaviors, such as schooling of fish, flocking of birds,
herding of quadrupeds, and swarming of insects. It is believed
be autonomous mobile robots, robot manipulators, spacecraft,
that an individual animal in a group tends to navigate relative
unmanned air vehicles (UAVs), or wireless sensors. Such ap-
to its nearby neighbors. Compared to centralized control, the
distributed control approach enjoys many advantages, such as
robustness, flexibility, and scalability [6]. Therefore, the dis-
Manuscript received March 30, 2011; revised June 6, 2011; accepted
June 7, 2011. Date of publication June 20, 2011; date of current version
tributed control approach is more promising to the multiagent
February 17, 2012. This work was supported in part by the Air Force Office of systems.
Scientific Research under Grant FA9550-09-1-0278, by the National Science Cooperative control of multiagent systems has attracted ex-
Foundation under Grant ECCS-1128050, by the Army Research Office under
Grant W91NF-05-1-0314, and by a General Research Fund project from the
tensive attention from the control community for the last two
Research Grants Council of Hong Kong under CityU 117310. decades. A seminal work by Tsitsiklis et al. [7] studied asyn-
H. Zhang was with the Automation and Robotics Research Institute, chronous distributed optimization algorithms for distributed
University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76118 USA. He is now
with the City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong (e-mail:
decision making problems. In 1995, Vicsek et al. [8] reported
hzhang24@cityu.edu.hk). interesting simulation results of collective behaviors of a group
F. L. Lewis is with the Automation and Robotics Research Institute, Univer- of autonomous agents, which showed that, by using the nearest
sity of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76118 USA (e-mail: lewis@uta.edu).
Z. Qu is with the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer neighbor rule, all agents eventually move in the same direc-
Science, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816 USA (e-mail: tion. This simulation observation was later studied theoretically
qu@eecs.ucf.edu). by Jadbabaie et al. [9]. This paper initiated great interest in
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. theoretical research on cooperative control of networked multi-
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TIE.2011.2160140 agent systems. Some important early works are, to name a few,
Fax and Murray [10], Olfati-Saber and Murray [11], Ren and In the literature, most early research focused on consensus of
Beard [12], and Moreau [13]. first-order or second-order integrators [15]. Results considering
Since cooperative control has been investigated by re- the consensus of high-order linear systems are being developed,
searchers from different fields, including biology, computer among which are [29] and [18]. Wang and Cheng [29] solved
science, and physics, various terms are used in the literature, the leaderless consensus problem of high-order integrator dy-
such as flocking, consensus, synchronization, formation, ren- namics using pole placement methods. Ren et al. [18] proposed
dezvous, etc. In this paper, we adopt two familiar control a model reference consensus algorithm for networked high-
terminologies to cleanly categorize the cooperative control of order integrators. Although pinning control [30] deals with
multiagent systems into two classes, namely, the cooperative nonlinear dynamics, the dynamics of all nodes are assumed
regulator problem and the cooperative tracking problem. For to be identical. A recent paper [31] reported neural adaptive
the cooperative regulator problem, distributed controllers are control for the first-order leaderless consensus problem with
designed for each agent, such that all agents are eventually unknown nonlinear systems on undirected graphs. The co-
driven to an unprescribed common value. This value may be operative tracking control of networked first-order nonlinear
a constant, or may be time varying, and is generally a function systems with unknown dynamics was solved in [28], where
of the initial states of the agents in the communication network an unknown disturbance occurs in the dynamics of each agent
[14]. This problem is known as (leaderless) consensus, syn- and the communication graph is a strongly connected digraph.
chronization, or rendezvous in the literature [15]. On the other Results in [28] were extended to general high-order nonlinear
hand, a leader agent is considered in the cooperative tracking systems in [24]. In examples at the end of Section IV, the
problem. The leader agent acts as a command generator, which proposed control methods are applied first to the cooperative
generates the desired reference trajectory and ignores informa- tracking control of coupled Lagrangian systems and then to the
tion from the follower agents. All other agents attempt to follow cooperative tracking control of modified FitzHugh–Nagumo
the trajectory of the leader agent. This problem is known as models. The FitzHugh–Nagumo model is important in that it
leader-following consensus [16], synchronization to a leader can model the dynamics of the membrane potential in neuronal
[17], model reference consensus [18], leader-following control systems and many other chaotic oscillators arising in electrical
[19], pinning control [20], or synchronized tracking control circuits and chemical industries.
[21], [22]. The state of the art of these two problems is reported The third cooperative control technique in this paper, LQR-
in survey papers [5], [6], [14], [15], [23]. based optimal design [25], is presented in Section V. We
The purpose of this paper is to present three recently de- consider the cooperative tracking problem of multiagent sys-
veloped analysis/design techniques for the cooperative control tems with general linear dynamics, which include integrator
of multiagent systems, namely, generalized Laplacian potential dynamics of any order as special cases. It is shown that LQR-
and Lyapunov analysis of cooperative regulator problems (see based optimal control design of the feedback gain at each
Section III), neural adaptive design for cooperative tracking node guarantees synchronization on any digraph containing a
problems (see Section IV) [24], and linear quadratic regulator spanning tree and yields an unbounded synchronization region,
(LQR)-based optimal design for cooperative tracking problems which is a desired property of the controller. This work is
(see Section V) [25]. A tutorial of graph theory is also given in motivated by Li et al. [32] and Tuna [33] where the cooperative
Section II as a mathematical background. regulator problems were considered. An example shows how
The graph Laplacian potential was introduced in [26] for to apply the proposed optimal control method to control the
undirected graphs to measure the total disagreement among all movement of a group of two-mass–spring systems, which is a
agents. Later, it was extended to balanced digraphs in [11], typical model of many mechanical vibratory systems.
using the concept of mirror graph. For a connected undirected The following notations will be used throughout this paper.
graph, a zero Laplacian potential implies the consensus of all For vector x ∈ Rn , x > 0 means that x is a positive vector with
agents [26]. In Section III, the concept of Laplacian potential is each entry being a positive real number. For matrix P ∈ Rn×n ,
extended to general directed graphs, and the relation between P > 0 (P ≥ 0) means that P is positive definite (positive
the Laplacian potential and Lyapunov analysis for consensus semidefinite). N (Q) is the null space of matrix Q. span(x) is a
problems is disclosed. Using the generalized Laplacian poten- vector space spanned by vector x. rank(Q) is the rank of matrix
tial, we introduce a Lyapunov-related technique, which can ex- Q. diag{ai } is a diagonal matrix with diagonal entries ai . The
tend many consensus results on undirected graphs or balanced defect of matrix L, denoted by def(L), is the dimension of
digraphs to strongly connected digraphs. Two examples illus- N (L). σ(Q) denotes singular values of matrix Q. The maximal
trate the role of Laplacian potential in the Lyapunov analysis singular value and minimum singular value are denoted as
for consensus/synchronization problems. This section shows σ̄(·) and σ(·), respectively. Im ∈ Rm×m is the identity matrix
the importance of the first left eigenvector of the Laplacian and I is the identity matrix with appropriate dimensions. The
matrix in defining suitable potential functions and Lyapunov Kronecker product is denoted by ⊗.
functions on graphs and in preserving passivity properties on
graphs. Similar technique of weighting a Lyapunov function
II. G RAPH T HEORY: A T UTORIAL
using the left eigenvector was also reported in [27].
In Section IV, neural adaptive design techniques for coop- Graph theory is a very useful mathematical tool in the
erative tracking control problems are proposed for both first- research of multiagent systems. The topology of a communi-
order [28] and high-order (order ≥ 2) nonlinear systems [24]. cation network can be expressed by a graph, either directed
3028 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 59, NO. 7, JULY 2012
or undirected, according to whether the information flow is Lemma 3 [35, Lemma 2]: Zero is a simple eigenvalue of L,
unidirectional or bidirectional. if and only if the directed graph has a spanning tree.
A weighted directed graph (digraph) G = (V, E, A) consists Lemma 4 [36, p. 283]: An undirected graph is connected
of a nonempty finite set of N nodes V = {v1 , v2 , . . . , vN }, a if and only if zero is a simple eigenvalue of the Laplacian
set of edges or arcs E ⊂ V × V, and an associated weighted matrix L.
adjacency matrix A = [aij ] ∈ RN ×N . In this paper, the consid-
ered graphs are assumed to be time invariant, i.e., A is constant. III. L APLACIAN P OTENTIAL AND LYAPUNOV A NALYSIS OF
An edge (vj , vi ) is graphically denoted by an arrow with head C OOPERATIVE R EGULATOR P ROBLEMS
node i and tail node j, and it implies the information flows
Graph Laplacian potential was introduced in [26] for undi-
from node j to node i. Edge (vi , vi ) is called self-edge. Node
rected graph with 0-1 adjacency elements. Later, it was ex-
j is called a neighbor of node i if (vj , vi ) ∈ E. The set of
tended to weighted undirected graphs [11]. It is a measure of
neighbors of node i is denoted as Ni = {j|(vj , vi ) ∈ E}. Each
total disagreement among all nodes. In this section, we extend
entry aij of adjacency matrix is the weight associated with edge the concept of Laplacian potential to directed graphs and show
(vj , vi ) and aij > 0 if (vj , vi ) ∈ E. Otherwise, aij = 0. In this how to apply Laplacian potential in the Lyapunov analysis of
paper, we only consider the case of simple graph without self- consensus problems for both undirected graphs and directed
edges. Thus, aii = 0 ∀i ∈ N where N = {1, 2, . . . , N }. For graphs.
undirected graph, we have aij = aji and A = AT .
Define the in-degree of node i as di = N j=1 aij and in- A. Graph Laplacian Potential
degree matrix as D = diag{di } ∈ RN ×N . Then, the graph
Laplacian matrix is L = D − A. Let 1N = [1, 1, . . . , 1]T ∈ In this section, we review the notion of graph Laplacian
potential for undirected graphs and balanced graphs. Then, a
RN ; then, L1N = 0. Accordingly, define the out-degree of
generalized Laplacian potential is defined which is suitable for
node i as doi = N j=1 aji and the out-degree matrix as D =
o
N ×N
general digraphs. The generalization depends on weighting the
diag{di } ∈ R
o
. Then, the graph column Laplacian matrix terms in the Laplacian potential by the elements of the first left
can be defined as Lo = Do − AT . A node is balanced
N if its eigenvector of the Laplacian matrix.
N
in-degree equals its out-degree, i.e., a
j=1 ij = j=1 aji . Definition 1 [11]: The graph Laplacian potential is
A directed graph is balanced if all its nodes are balanced. defined as
Since for undirected graph, AT = A, all undirected graphs are
balanced.
N
VL = aij (xj − xi )2 . (1)
In a directed graph, a sequence of successive edges in the i,j=1
form {(vi , vk ), (vk , vl ), . . . , (vm , vj )} is a direct path from
node i to node j. An undirected path is defined similarly. A
digraph is said to have a spanning tree, if there is a node ir For undirected graph, this has a clear physical interpretation.
(called the root), such that there is a directed path from the root For example, we shall consider agents in an undirected graph
to any other node in the graph. A digraph is said to be strongly being connected through springs, and aij is the spring constant
connected, if there is a direct path from node i to node j, for all for the spring connecting node i and node j. Then, the graph
distinct nodes vi , vj ∈ V. A digraph has a spanning tree if it is Laplacian potential (1) is nothing but the total spring potential
strongly connected, but not vice versa. A digraph (undirected energy stored in the graph. Intuitively, if the undirected graph is
graph) is said to be connected, if, for any orderless pair of connected, then VL = 0 implies xi = xj ∀i, j ∈ N .
nodes, there is a directed (undirected) path connecting them. The next lemma relates the graph Laplacian potential with
For a digraph, its underlying graph is the graph obtained by graph Laplacian matrix L.
replacing all directed edges with undirected edges. A digraph is Lemma 5: Let x = [x1 , x2 , . . . , xN ]T ; then, the following
weakly connected if its underlying graph is connected. can be obtained:
Matrix A = [aij ] ∈ Rn×n is irreducible if it is not cogredient 1) for general
digraphs,
N we have
to a lower triangular matrix,i.e., there is no permutation matrix VL = aij (xj − xi )2 = xT (L + Lo )x (2)
∗ 0 i,j=1
U such that A = U U T . Matrix A = [aij ] ∈ Rn×n is
∗ ∗ where Lo is the graph column Laplacian;
called a singular (nonsingular) M -matrix, if aij < 0 ∀i = j, 2) for undirected graphs, we have
and all eigenvalues of A have nonnegative (positive) real parts.
Note that here we abuse the notation aij as entries of a general
N
VL = aij (xj − xi )2 = 2xT Lx (3)
matrix A, without making any confusion with the adjacency
i,j=1
matrix A.
The following results of graph theory are used in this paper. 3) for balanced digraphs, we have
Lemma 1 [34]: If the digraph G is strongly connected, then
the Laplacian matrix L is an irreducible singular M -matrix and
N
VL = aij (xj − xi )2 = xT (L + LT )x. (4)
zero is a simple eigenvalue of L.
i,j=1
Lemma 2 [11, Th. 1]: If digraph G is strongly connected,
then rank(L) = n − 1.
ZHANG et al.: LYAPUNOV, ADAPTIVE, AND OPTIMAL DESIGN TECHNIQUES FOR SYSTEMS ON GRAPHS 3029
N N N xT P Lx = pi xi aij (xi − xj )
xT Lx = x2i aij − aij xi xj i=1 j=1
i=1 j=1 i,j=1
N
N
= pi aij xi (xi − xj ).
= aij xi (xi − xj ) i,j=1
i,j=1
N N
N
N
N Since pT L = 0 implies pi j=1 aij = j=1 pj aji , we have
T
x L x= o x2i aji − aij xi xj
i=1 j=1 i,j=1
N
N
pi xi aij (xi − xj )
N
N
N
= aij x2j − aij xi xj i=1 j=1
N = x2i pj aji − pi aij xi xj
= aij xj (xj − xi ). i=1 j=1 i,j=1
i,j=1
N
N
N
= x2j pi aij − pi aij xi xj
Therefore
j=1 i=1 i,j=1
N
N
xT (L + Lo )x = aij (xi − xj )2 . = pi aij xj (xj − xi ).
i,j=1 i,j=1
under the term “mirror graph.” The same notation VL will be =2 pi xi aij (xi − xj )
used for graph Laplacian potential in this paper, regardless of i=1 j=1
i,j=1
Laplacian L is an irreducible singular M -matrix and rank(L) =
N − 1 [34, Th. 4.31]. Then, def(L) = dim(N (L)) = 1
Moreover, P > 0 and Q ≥ 0. [37, Corollary 2.5.5]. Since L1N = 0, N (L) = span{1N }.
3030 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 59, NO. 7, JULY 2012
N where P = diag{pi } is defined in Lemma 6. Then
V = x2i = xT x.
i=1 V̇ = 2xT P ẋ = −2xT P Lx = −xT (P L + LT P )x.
ZHANG et al.: LYAPUNOV, ADAPTIVE, AND OPTIMAL DESIGN TECHNIQUES FOR SYSTEMS ON GRAPHS 3031
By Lemma 6, P L + LT P ≥ 0; hence, V̇ ≤ 0. By LaSalle The following lemma states an important property of passive
invariance principle [38], the trajectories converge to the largest systems.
invariant set S = {x ∈ RN |V̇ = 0}. By Lemma 8 and Lemma Lemma 13 [39]: System (8) is passive if and only if there
9, it is straightforward that S = {x∗ ∈ RN |x∗ = α1N ∀α ∈ exist a C 1 storage function Vi : Rn → R with Vi (xi ) ≥ 0 and
R}. Therefore, x(t) → α1N for some α ∈ R as t → ∞. Vi (0) = 0 and a function Si (xi ) ≥ 0 such that
Remark 3: Note that, in Lemma 10, Lemma 11, and Lemma
12, the derivative of the Lyapunov function is exactly the asso-
T
∂Vi
ciated negative graph Laplacian potential. We have introduced Lfi Vi (xi ) = fi (xi ) = −Si (xi )
∂xi
in the proof of Lemma 12 a technique for Lyapunov analysis
for consensus on directed graphs. The method relies on using a
T
∂Vi
Lyapunov function whose quadratic terms are weighted by the Lgi Vi (xi ) = gi (xi ) = hTi (xi ).
elements pi of the first left eigenvector of the graph Laplacian ∂xi
matrix L. This is equivalent to using the Lyapunov equation
(5) whose solution P is a diagonal matrix of the pi . This
highlights the importance of the first left eigenvector elements The group of agents is said to output synchronize if
in studying decreasing flows on graphs. Through an example in limt→∞ yi (t) − yj (t) = 0 ∀i, j ∈ N . This does not imply
Section III-B2, we show the importance of the elements pi in that all outputs yi go to zero.
preserving passivity properties on digraphs. Compared to the following control law used in [39]
Remark 4: For simplicity, some results in this paper only
consider the scalar case xi ∈ R. For xi ∈ Rn , the results can
ui = (yj − yi ) (9)
be modified using the Kronecker product.
j∈Ni
2) Synchronization of Passive Nonlinear Systems: This sec-
tion explores the technique mentioned in Remark 3 for the
analysis of synchronization of passive nonlinear systems [39]. It where the edge weights take the values of zero and one, here, in
is shown that the analysis of passive systems on digraphs can be this section, we consider a more general control law
accomplished by using a Lyapunov function based on storage
functions that are weighted by the elements pi of the first left
eigenvector of the graph Laplacian matrix L. This highlights
N
the importance of the elements pi in preserving the passivity ui = aij (yj − yi ) = aij (yj − yi ), i∈N (10)
j∈Ni j=1
properties of systems on digraphs. Similar techniques are used
in [40].
Passive systems is important because many mechanical sys-
tems built from masses, springs, and dampers have the passivity where aii = 0 and aij > 0 if there is an edge from node j to
property [39]. Many mechanical systems built from masses, node i (j = i); otherwise, aij = 0.
springs, and dampers have the passivity property [41] and can In the next theorem, we extend Chopra and Spong’s results
be modeled by passive nonlinear systems, such as the robot to general strongly connected digraphs which may not be
manipulator. Note also that the single-integrator dynamics is a connected.
special type of passive systems. Theorem 1: Consider the system (8) with control (10). Sup-
Chopra and Spong [39] studied the output synchronization pose that the digraph G is strongly connected. Then, the group
of multiagent systems, with each agent modeled by an input of agent output synchronizes.
affine nonlinear system that is input–output passive. One of Proof: Define p = [p1 , p2 , . . . , pN ]T as in Definition 2,
their results assumed that the digraph is strongly connected and such that pT L = 0. Consider the Lyapunov function
balanced. Using the technique indicated in Remark 3, we relax candidate
this condition to general strongly connected digraphs where
balance is not necessary.
V = 2(p1 V1 + p2 V2 + · · · + pN VN ) (11)
The problem formulation in [39] is briefly presented as
follows. Consider the N agents with each agent i (i ∈ N )
modeled by passive nonlinear system where Vi denotes storage functions defined in Lemma 13.
Then
ẋi = fi (xi ) + gi (xi )ui
yi = hi (xi ) (8)
N
V̇ = 2 pi −Si (xi ) + yiT ui
i=1
where xi ∈ Rn , ui ∈ Rm , and yi ∈ Rm are state, control input,
and output, respectively. The nonlinear functions fi (·), gi (·),
N
N
N
and hi (·) are assumed to be sufficiently smooth with fi (0) = 0 = −2 pi Si (xi ) + 2 pi aij yiT (yj − yi ). (12)
and gi (0) = 0. i=1 i=1 j=1
3032 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 59, NO. 7, JULY 2012
N N
Since pT L = 0 implies that pi j=1 aij = j=1 aji pj , it then A. Cooperative Tracking Control of First-Order
follows that Nonlinear Systems
1) Problem Formulation: Consider a group of N (N > 1)
N
N
pi aij yiT (yj − yi ) agents with nonidentical dynamics. The dynamics of the ith
i=1 j=1 node is
N
N
N ẋi = fi (xi ) + ui + ζi ∀i ∈ N (13)
= aij pi yiT yj − pi yiT yi aij
i,j=1 i=1 j=1 where xi (t) ∈ R is the state of node i; fi (·) : R → R is locally
Lipschitz in R with fi (0) = 0 and it is assumed to be unknown;
N
N
N
= aij pi yiT yj − yiT yi aji pj ui ∈ R is the control input/protocol; and ζi ∈ R is an external
i,j=1 i=1 j=1 disturbance, which is unknown but is assumed to be bounded.
In addition, dynamics (13) is assumed to be forward complete,
N
N
i.e., for every initial condition and every bounded (locally) input
= aij pi yiT yj − aij pi yjT yj
ui and disturbance ζi , the solution xi (t) exists for all t ≥ 0.
i,j=1 i,j=1
The leader/control node is described by
N
= aij pi yjT (yi − yj ). ẋ0 = f0 (x0 , t) (14)
i,j=1
where x0 ∈ R is the state; and f0 (x0 , t) : R × [0, ∞) → R is
Equation (12) can be written as locally Lipschitz in x0 and piecewise continuous in t with
f0 (0, t) = 0 for all x0 ∈ R and t ≥ 0, and it is assumed to
N
N
be unknown to all nodes in graph G. The control node can
V̇ = − 2 pi Si (xi ) + pi aij yiT (yj − yi ) be considered as a command generator or an exosystem that
i=1 i,j=1
generates a desired reference trajectory. System (14) is also
N assumed to be forward complete.
+ aij pi yjT (yi − yj ) Then, the cooperative tracking problem can be described as
i,j=1 follows.
N
N Definition 3 [28]: Design controllers ui for all nodes in
= −2 pi Si (xi ) − pi aij (yi − yj )T (yi − yj ) ≤ 0. graph G, such that xi (t) → x0 (t) as t → ∞ ∀i ∈ N .
i=1 i,j=1 Due to the unknown nonlinearity fi (xi ) and disturbance ζi ,
exact tracking cannot be obtained. The concept of cooperative
Following the same development as in proof of [39, Th. 2], uniform ultimate boundedness (UUB) will be used, and it was
output synchronization of the group is achieved. first proposed in [28] as follows. This extends the traditional
Remark 5: Theorem 1 extends the result [39, Th. 2] to concept of UUB [38] to cooperative systems.
general strongly connected graphs. This is achieved by simply Definition 4: (Cooperative UUB) [28]: The control node tra-
modifying the Lyapunov function [39, eq. (7)] to (11), which jectory x0 (t) given by (14) is cooperative uniformly ultimately
weights the node storage functions by the elements pi of the bounded with respect to solutions of node dynamics (13) if
first left eigenvector of the graph Laplacian matrix L. This there exists a compact set Ω ⊂ R, so that ∀xi (t0 ) − x0 (t0 ) ∈
shows the importance of the elements pi in preserving the Ω, there exist a bound B and a time tf (B, xi (t0 ) − x0 (t0 )),
passivity properties of systems on digraphs. both independent of t0 , such that xi (t) − x0 (t) ≤ B ∀i ∈ N
∀t ≥ t0 + tf .
2) Controller Design: Cooperative tracking problem of
IV. N EURAL A DAPTIVE D ESIGN FOR nonlinear systems (13) and (14) was studied in [28] by ap-
C OOPERATIVE T RACKING P ROBLEM plying neural adaptive control techniques [42]. Neural network
While Section III considers consensus problem, where all (NN) was introduced to approximate the unknown nonlinearity
nodes converge to an unprescribed common value, this section fi (xi ), and neural adaptive tuning law was developed to handle
devotes to the cooperative tracking problem, where an active the unknown disturbance and NN approximation error.
leader is considered and all nodes try to follow the leader The local control protocol for node i is designed as
node. The systems considered in this section are nonlinear
ui = cei − ŴiT φi (xi ) (15)
with unknown dynamics and unknown disturbances. Thus, the
tracking control must be robust. We show how to use neural where c > 0 is the control gain; Ŵi ∈ Rvi is the current esti-
adaptive design technique to solve cooperative tracking control mates of NN weights; φi (xi ) ∈ Rvi is a suitable basis set of vi
problems, first for the first-order nonlinear systems [28] and functions and will be denoted in the sequel as φi for short; and
then for the high-order nonlinear systems [24]. It is worth ei is the local neighborhood synchronization error defined by
mentioning that the dynamics for each agent can all be different.
The section is based on using properly constructed Lyapunov ei = aij (xj − xi ) + gi (x0 − xi )
functions based on the graph properties. j∈Ni
ZHANG et al.: LYAPUNOV, ADAPTIVE, AND OPTIMAL DESIGN TECHNIQUES FOR SYSTEMS ON GRAPHS 3033
with the pinning gain gi ≥ 0. Note that gi ≥ 0∀i ∈ N , and B. Cooperative Tracking Control of High-Order
when gi > 0, the control node can send its state information Nonlinear Systems
to node i.
This section extends the result in Section IV-A to high-order
For node i, the NN weight estimates Ŵi in (15) are generated
nonlinear systems. In addition to the neural adaptive control
by the following NN adaptive tuning law:
techniques used in Section IV-A, sliding mode variables are
˙ introduced to handle the high-order systems.
Ŵ i = −Fi φi eTi pi (di + gi ) − κFi Ŵi (16) 1) Problem Formulation: Different from systems consid-
ered in Section IV-A, the dynamics of the ith (i = 1, 2, . . . , N )
with Fi = Πi Ivi , where Ivi ∈ Rvi ×vi is the identity matrix, node is generalized as
Πi > 0 and κ > 0 are scalar tuning gains, pi > 0 is defined in
Lemma 14, and di is the in-degree of node i. ẋi,1 = xi,2
Throughout this section, the considered communication
graph satisfies the following assumption. ẋi,2 = xi,3
Assumption 1: The digraph G contains a spanning tree, and ..
the root node ir can get information from the leader node, i.e., .
gir > 0. ẋi,M = fi (xi ) + ui + ζi (18)
Lemma 14: Under Assumption 1, L + G is nonsingular,
where G = diag{gi } ∈ RN . Define where xi,m ∈ R (m = 1, 2, . . . , M ) is the mth state of node i;
xi = [xi,1 , xi,2 , . . . , xi,M ]T ∈ RM is the state vector of node
q = [q1 , . . . , qN ]T = (L + G)−1 1, i; fi (·) : RM → R is locally Lipschitz in RM with fi (0) =
0 and it is assumed to be unknown; ui ∈ R is the control
P = diag{pi } = diag{1/qi },
input/protocol; and ζi ∈ R is an external disturbance, which is
Q = P (L + G) + (L + G)T P. (17) also unknown, but is assumed to be bounded. In other words,
each agent is modeled by an M th order integrator incorporated
Then P > 0 and Q > 0. with an unknown nonlinear dynamics and an external distur-
Proof: Under Assumption 1, all eigenvalues of L + G bance. System (18) is also assumed to be forward complete.
have positive real parts [32, Lemma 5]; thus, L + G is non- The dynamics of the leader/control node is described by
singular M -matrix [34, Th. 4.25]. Then, the results follow from
the same development as in [34, Th. 4.25]. ẋ0,1 = x0,2
Just as the importance of Lyapunov equation (5) in the ẋ0,2 = x0,3
analysis of cooperative regulator problems, Lyapunov equation
(17) plays an important role in the analysis of cooperative ..
.
tracking problems.
3) Main Result: By applying the control protocol (15) and ẋ0,M = f0 (x0 , t) (19)
the NN adaptive tuning law (16), the performance of the closed-
loop system is given by the following theorem. This result where x0,m ∈ R (m = 1, 2, . . . , M ) is the mth state of the
is from [28], except that, here, the communication graph is leader node; x0 = [x0,1 , x0,2 , . . . , x0,M ]T ∈ RM is the state
relaxed to have a spanning tree. vector of the leader node; and f0 (x0 , t) : RM × [0, ∞) → R
Theorem 2 [28]: Consider the networked systems (13) under is piecewise continuous in t and locally Lipschitz in x0 with
Assumption 1 and some other assumptions (see [28, Assump- f0 (0, t) = 0 for all t ≥ 0 and all x0 ∈ RM and it is unknown to
tion 1]). Apply the neural adaptive control protocol given by all nodes i (i = 1, 2, . . . , N ) in graph G. Forward completeness
(15) and (16). Select the NN tuning gain κ = (1/2)cσ(Q) and is also assumed for system (19).
the control gain c so that Then, the high-order cooperative tracking problem can be
described as follows.
1 Definition 5 [24]: Design controllers ui for all the nodes
cσ(Q) > ΦM σ̄(P )σ̄(A) in graph G, such that xi,m (t) → x0,m (t) as t → ∞ ∀i =
2
1, 2, . . . , N and ∀m = 1, 2, . . . , M .
where P > 0 and Q > 0 are defined in Lemma 14 and ΦM is Denote the mth order disagreement variable for node i as
one of the upper bounds of the overall NN activation functions δi,m = xi,m − x0,m and δ m = [δ1,m , δ2,m , . . . , δN,m ]T . Then,
φ = [φT1 , . . . , φTN ]T [28, Assumption 1]. the cooperative tracking problem is solved if limt→∞ δi,m (t) =
Then, there exist numbers of neurons v̄i , i ∈ N such that, 0 ∀i ∈ N and ∀m = 1, 2, . . . , M . Similar concept of
for vi ≥ v̄i , the control node x0 (t) is cooperative uniformly Definition 4 can be extended to high-order systems as follows.
ultimately bounded and all nodes synchronize to x0 (t) with Definition 6: For any m = 1, 2, . . . , M and i = 1, 2, . . . , N ,
bounded errors. the tracking errors δi,m are said to be cooperative uniformly ul-
The proof of Theorem 2 can be found in [28]; thus, it is timately bounded if there exist compact sets Ωm ⊂ R contain-
omitted here. However, it is worth mentioning that the proof is ing the origin, so that for any δi,m (t0 ) ∈ Ωm , there exist bounds
based on the Lyapunov equation (17). Readers are also referred B m and time Tm (B m , δ 1 (t0 ), δ 2 (t0 ), . . . , δ M (t0 )), such that
to [28] for simulation results. δi,m (t) ≤ B m ∀t ≥ t0 + Tm .
3034 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 59, NO. 7, JULY 2012
We shall make the following assumptions in this section. activation functions φ = [φT1 , . . . , φTN ]T [24, Assumption 1];
Assumption 2: P1 is defined in (20) for any β > 0; G, P , and Q are defined as
1) There exists a positive number XM > 0 such that in Lemma 14; and λ̄ = [λ1 , λ2 , . . . , λM −1 ]T .
x0 (t) ≤ XM ∀t ≥ t0 . 3) Main Result:
2) There exists a continuous function g(·) : RM → R, such Theorem 3: Consider the distributed system (18) and the
that |f0 (x0 , t)| ≤ |g(x0 )| ∀x0 ∈ RM ∀t ≥ t0 . leader node (19). Suppose that Assumption 1 and Assumption 2
3) For each node i, the disturbance ζi is unknown but hold. Using the distributed control law (21) and the distrib-
bounded. Thus, the overall disturbance vector ζ = uted NN tuning law (22), we have the following result: The
[ζ1 , ζ2 , . . . , ζN ]T is also bounded by ζ ≤ ζM where ζM tracking errors δi,m ∀i ∈ N ∀m = 1, 2, . . . , M are cooperative
can be unknown. uniformly ultimately bounded, which implies that all nodes in
2) Controller Design: In addition to the control techniques graph G synchronize to the leader node with bounded residual
used in Section IV-A, sliding mode variables are introduced errors.
to deal with the high-order cooperative tracking problem. For Compared to [24], Theorem 3 relaxes the assumption of
node i, the sliding mode variable ri is strong connected digraph to digraph containing a spanning
tree. Detailed proof of Theorem 3 can be found in [24]. We
ri = λ1 ei,1 + λ2 ei,2 + · · · + λM −1 ei,M −1 + ei,M shall point out that two Lyapunov equations, namely, Lyapunov
equation (17) and Lyapunov equation (20), are used in the
where the design parameter λi is chosen such that the polyno- proof. Note that Lyapunov equation (17) depends on the graph
mial sM −1 + λM −1 sM −2 + · · · + λ1 is Hurwitz and the neigh- properties and the Lyapunov equation (20) depends on the
borhood synchronization error ei,m is defined as controller design properties.
4) Examples:
ei,m = aij (xj,m − xi,m ) + gi (x0,m − xi,m ) Example 1—Second-Order Lagrangian Systems: The
j∈Ni
second-order Lagrangian dynamics describe a wide variety of
with the pinning gain gi ≥ 0. When gi > 0, the node i can get industrial systems, including robot manipulators [41], [43],
information from the leader node. vehicle motion systems, autonomous ground vehicles (AGVs),
Some notations need to be defined before we present the and industrial flow processes. These dynamics capture force
control protocol. Define control inputs to a system with inertias, gravity terms, stiff-
ness and damping, and centripetal/coriolis forces. In industrial
0 IM −2 processes, the dynamics are often unknown or partially known
Λ= . due to degradation over time of model parameters. In this
−λ1 −λ2 · · · − λM −1 example, we consider industrial processes or platoon of AGV
Then, Λ is Hurwitz. Given any positive number β > 0, there with several Lagrangian systems, and the objective is to make
exists a matrix P1 > 0, such that Lyapunov equation (20) holds them all track a prescribed motion trajectory.
The leader node is modeled as the inertial system in La-
ΛT P1 + P1 Λ = −βI. (20) grangian form
The distributed control law for each node i is designed as m0 q̈0 + d0 q̇0 + k0 q0 = u0 (23)
1 where q0 and q̇0 are angular (or position) and angular velocity
ui = (λ1 ei,2 + · · · + λM −1 ei,M ) − ŴiT φi (xi ) + cri
d i + gi (or velocity), respectively. We denote q0,1 = q0 and q0,2 =
(21) q̇0 , for the consistency of the follower node dynamics. The
where di is the in-degree of node i, c > 0 is the control gain, objective is to make all the systems synchronize to a sinu-
Ŵi ∈ Rvi is the current estimates of NN weights, and φi (xi ) ∈ soidal motion having angle and angular velocity components
Rvi is a suitable basis set of vi functions and will be denoted q0,1 = q0 = sin(2t) and q0,2 = q̇0 = 2 cos(2t). The command
in the sequel as φi for short. The NN adaptive tuning law is generator dynamics are assumed to be known, so the prescribed
designed to be trajectory is achieved using the computed-torque control law
˙
Ŵ i = −Fi φi ri pi (di + gi ) − κFi Ŵi (22) u0 = (k0 − 4m0 ) sin 2t + 2d0 cos 2t.
where κ > 0 is a positive tuning gain and the design parameter The follower nodes are four single-link robot arms, and each
Fi = FiT ∈ Rvi ×vi denotes arbitrary positive definite matrices. consists of a rigid link coupled through a gear train to a dc
The control gain c shall satisfy motor, as shown in Fig. 1 [41, Fig. 7.2]. The dynamics of the
2
robot arms can be modeled as the second-order Lagrangian
2 γ 2 dynamics
c> + 2 + h
σ(Q) κ β
q̇i,1 = qi,2
with γ = −(1/2)ΦM σ̄(P )σ̄(A), h = (σ̄(P )σ̄(A)/σ(D +
q̇i,2 = Ji−1 [ui − Bi qi,2 − Mi gli sin(qi,1 )] , i = 1, 2, 3, 4
G))λ̄, and = −(1/2)((σ̄(P )σ̄(A)/σ(D + G))ΛF λ̄ +
σ̄(P1 )), where ΦM is one of the upper bounds of the overall NN (24)
ZHANG et al.: LYAPUNOV, ADAPTIVE, AND OPTIMAL DESIGN TECHNIQUES FOR SYSTEMS ON GRAPHS 3035
where the states qi,1 and qi,2 are the angle and angular velocity fact that the cooperative adaptive controllers did not use any
of the link, respectively, Ji is the total rotational inertias of the knowledge of the follower system dynamics. The adaptive
link and the motor, Bi is the overall damping coefficient, Mi is portion of the cooperative controllers estimated the unknown
the total mass of the link, g is the gravitational acceleration, and dynamics sufficiently well to cause synchronization.
li is the distance from the joint axis to the link center of mass Example 2—Chaotic Oscillators in Wave Dynamics and
for node i. In this example, the follower dynamical coefficients, Chemical Reaction–Diffusion: Chaotic oscillators are impor-
namely, Ji , Bi , Mi , and li , are assumed to be unknown. The tant in describing dynamical phenomena arising in action
systems are linked through a communication graph topology potential propagation in nervous systems, entrainment and
given by Fig. 2. phase locking in electrical circuits, traveling wave systems, and
The adaptive controller in Theorem 3 was used. chemical reaction–diffusion systems. These nonconservative
Simulation results are as follows. For the simulation, the oscillators with nonlinear damping are very difficult to control
parameters of the systems are taken as m0 = 1, d0 = 2, toward desired trajectories. In many applications, such as in
k0 = 0.5, [J1 , J2 , J3 , J4 ]T = [6.9667, 7.7, 8.46, 10.2]T , biological nervous systems, it is desired for multiple networked
[B1 , B2 , B3 , B4 ] = [30.5, 30.5, 30.5, 30.5]T , g = 9.8, and
T
oscillators to synchronize to produce prescribed overall system
[l1 , l2 , l3 , l4 ]T = [0.8, 1, 1.2, 1.5]T . These parameters were dynamics. A standard model that captures many features of
used only for simulation and were not known by the controller. chaotic oscillators is the FitzHugh–Nagumo model [44]. The
Fig. 3 shows that, using the cooperative adaptive controllers, FitzHugh–Nagumo model was formulated to model the dynam-
all the follower systems synchronized to the leader’s trajectory. ics of the membrane potential in neuronal systems.
Figs. 4 and 5 show the details of the motion trajectories of We consider a cooperative tracking problem with the leader
all systems. Synchronization has been achieved despite of the node modeled by a modified FitzHugh–Nagumo model, i.e., the
3036 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 59, NO. 7, JULY 2012
Fig. 6. Phase portrait for all nodes for t = [0.6, 50]s. Fig. 7. Profiles of the global position vector x1 = [x0,1 , . . . , x4,1 ]T .
Let there be four follower nodes on graph G (see Fig. 2). Each
node is a third-order dynamics (18) with
Fig. 10. Bounded synchronization region for arbitrary stabilizing control gain.
Fig. 14. Profiles of the displacements yi,1 of mass 1. Fig. 17. Profiles of the velocities ẏi,2 of mass 2.
R EFERENCES
[1] M. Defoort, T. Floquet, A. Kokosy, and W. Perruquetti, “Sliding-mode for-
mation control for cooperative autonomous mobile robots,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 3944–3953, Nov. 2008.
[2] D. Cruz, J. McClintock, B. Perteet, O. Orqueda, Y. Cao, and R. Fierro,
“Decentralized cooperative control—A multivehicle platform for research
in networked embedded systems,” IEEE Control Syst. Mag., vol. 27, no. 3,
Fig. 15. Profiles of the velocities ẏi,1 of mass 1. pp. 58–78, Jun. 2007.
[3] X. Wang, V. Yadav, and S. Balakrishnan, “Cooperative UAV formation
flying with obstacle/collision avoidance,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Tech-
nol., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 672–679, Jul. 2007.
[4] J. Chen, X. Cao, P. Cheng, Y. Xiao, and Y. Sun, “Distributed collabora-
tive control for industrial automation with wireless sensor and actuator
networks,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 4219–4230,
Dec. 2010.
[5] R. Murray, “Recent research in cooperative control of multivehicle sys-
tems,” J. Dyn. Syst., Meas., Control, vol. 129, no. 5, pp. 571–583,
Sep. 2007.
[6] W. Ren and C. Cao, Distributed Coordination of Multi-agent Networks:
Emergent Problems, Models, and Issues. London, U.K.: Springer-
Verlag, 2011.
[7] J. Tsitsiklis, D. Bertsekas, and M. Athans, “Distributed asynchronous de-
terministic and stochastic gradient optimization algorithms,” IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control, vol. AC-31, no. 9, pp. 803–812, Sep. 1986.
[8] T. Vicsek, A. Czirók, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen, and O. Shochet, “Novel
type of phase transition in a system of self-driven particles,” Phys. Rev.
Lett., vol. 75, no. 6, pp. 1226–1229, Aug. 1995.
[9] A. Jadbabaie, J. Lin, and A. Morse, “Coordination of groups of mobile
autonomous agents using nearest neighbor rules,” IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 988–1001, Jun. 2003.
[10] J. Fax and R. Murray, “Information flow and cooperative control of ve-
Fig. 16. Profiles of the displacements yi,2 of mass 2. hicle formations,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1465–
1476, Sep. 2004.
[11] R. Olfati-Saber and R. Murray, “Consensus problems in networks of
of distributed neural adaptive controllers for a group of net- agents with switching topology and time-delays,” IEEE Trans. Autom.
worked nonlinear systems. Each agent is modeled as an inte- Control, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1520–1533, Sep. 2004.
[12] W. Ren and R. Beard, “Consensus seeking in multiagent systems un-
grator incorporated with an unknown nonlinear dynamics and der dynamically changing interaction topologies,” IEEE Trans. Autom.
an unknown disturbance. Both first-order systems and high- Control, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 655–661, May 2005.
3040 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS, VOL. 59, NO. 7, JULY 2012
[13] L. Moreau, “Stability of multiagent systems with time-dependent commu- [40] M. Arcak, “Passivity as a design tool for group coordination,” IEEE Trans.
nication links,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 169–182, Autom. Control, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 1380–1390, Aug. 2007.
Feb. 2005. [41] M. Spong, S. Hutchinson, and M. Vidyasagar, Robot Modeling and Con-
[14] W. Ren, R. Beard, and E. Atkins, “Information consensus in multivehicle trol. New York: Wiley, 2006.
cooperative control,” IEEE Control Syst. Mag., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 71–82, [42] F. Lewis, S. Jagannathan, and A. Yeildirek, Neural Network Control of
Apr. 2007. Robot Manipulators and Nonlinear Systems. London, U.K.: Taylor &
[15] W. Ren, R. Beard, and E. Atkins, “A survey of consensus problems in Francis, 1999.
multi-agent coordination,” in Proc. Amer. Control Conf., Portland, OR, [43] F. Lewis, D. Dawson, and C. Abdallah, Robot Manipulator Control:
2005, pp. 1859–1864. Theory and Practice, 2nd ed. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2004.
[16] W. Zhu and D. Cheng, “Leader-following consensus of second-order [44] J. Rinzel, “A formal classification of bursting mechanisms in excitable
agents with multiple time-varying delays,” Automatica, vol. 46, no. 12, systems,” in Mathematical Topics in Population Biology, Morphogenesis
pp. 1994–1999, Dec. 2010. and Neurosciences, E. Teramoto and M. Yamaguti, Eds. New York:
[17] W. Wang and J. Slotine, “A theoretical study of different leader roles in Springer-Verlag, 1987, pp. 267–281.
networks,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 1156–1161, [45] F. Lewis and V. Syrmos, Optimal Control, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley,
Jul. 2006. 1995.
[18] W. Ren, K. Moore, and Y. Chen, “High-order and model reference con-
sensus algorithms in cooperative control of multivehicle systems,” J. Dyn.
Syst., Meas., Control, vol. 129, no. 5, pp. 678–688, Sep. 2007.
[19] Y. Hong, G. Chen, and L. Bushnell, “Distributed observers design for Hongwei Zhang (S’10–M’11) received the B.E. and
leader-following control of multi-agent networks,” Automatica, vol. 44, M.E. degrees from the Department of Automation,
no. 3, pp. 846–850, Mar. 2008. Tianjin University, Tianjin, China, in 2003 and 2006,
[20] X. Wang and G. Chen, “Pinning control of scale-free dynamical net- respectively, and the Ph.D. degree from the De-
works,” Phys. A, vol. 310, no. 3/4, pp. 521–531, 2002. partment of Mechanical and Automation Engineer-
[21] R. Cui, S. S. Ge, and B. Ren, “Synchronized tracking control of multi- ing, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin,
agent system with limited information,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Decision Hong Kong, in 2010.
Control, Atlanta, GA, 2010, pp. 5480–5485. From July 2009 to December 2010, he was a
[22] R. Cui, S. S. Ge, and B. Ren, “Synchronized altitude tracking control of Visiting Scholar and subsequently a Postdoctoral Re-
multiple unmanned helicopters,” in Proc. Amer. Control Conf., Baltimore, searcher with the Automation & Robotics Research
MD, 2010, pp. 4433–4438. Institute, University of Texas at Arlington. Since
[23] R. Olfati-Saber, J. Fax, and R. Murray, “Consensus and cooperation in
February 2011, he has been with the City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon,
networked multi-agent systems,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 215–233,
Hong Kong, as a Postdoctoral Researcher. His current research interests are co-
Jan. 2007.
operative control, neural adaptive control, approximate dynamic programming,
[24] H. Zhang and F. Lewis, “Synchronization of networked higher-order non-
and optimal control.
linear systems with unknown dynamics,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Decision
Dr. Zhang serves as a Reviewer for many refereed journals, including
Control, Atlanta, GA, 2010, pp. 7129–7134.
Automatica, Systems & Control Letters, IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON I NDUS -
[25] H. Zhang, F. Lewis, and A. Das, “Optimal design for synchronization
TRIAL E LECTRONICS , IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON N EURAL N ETWORKS , and
of cooperative systems: State feedback, observer and output feedback,”
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 1948–1952, Aug. 2011. IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON S YSTEMS , M AN , AND C YBERNETICS —PART B:
[26] R. Olfati-Saber and R. Murray, “Consensus protocols for networks C YBERNETICS.
of dynamic agents,” in Proc. Amer. Control Conf., Denver, CO, 2003,
pp. 951–956.
[27] Y. Igarashi, T. Hatanaka, M. Fujita, and M. Spong, “Passivity-based output
Frank L. Lewis (S’78–M’81–SM’86–F’94) re-
synchronization in SE (3),” in Proc. Amer. Control Conf., Seattle, WA,
2008, pp. 723–728. ceived the B.S. degree in physics/electrical engi-
[28] A. Das and F. Lewis, “Distributed adaptive control for synchronization neering and the M.S.E.E. degree from Rice Univer-
of unknown nonlinear networked systems,” Automatica, vol. 46, no. 12, sity, Houston, TX, the M.S. degree in aeronautical
pp. 2014–2021, 2010. engineering from the University of West Florida,
[29] J. Wang and D. Cheng, “Consensus of multi-agent systems with higher Pensacola, and the Ph.D. degree from the Georgia
order dynamics,” in Proc. 26th Chin. Control Conf., Hunan, China, 2007, Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
pp. 761–765. He is a Distinguished Scholar Professor and
[30] X. Li, X. Wang, and G. Chen, “Pinning a complex dynamical network to Moncrief-O’Donnell Chair with the Automation and
its equilibrium,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers, vol. 51, no. 10, Robotics Research Institute (ARRI), University of
pp. 2074–2087, Oct. 2004. Texas at Arlington (UTA). He works in feedback
[31] Z. Hou, L. Cheng, and M. Tan, “Decentralized robust adaptive control control, intelligent systems, distributed control systems, and sensor networks.
for the multiagent system consensus problem using neural networks,” He is an elected Guest Consulting Professor with South China University of
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, Cybern. B, Cybern., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 636–647, Technology, Guangzhou, China, and Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai,
Jun. 2009. China. He is the holder of six U.S. patents and the author of 216 journal papers,
[32] Z. Li, Z. Duan, G. Chen, and L. Huang, “Consensus of multiagent systems 330 conference papers, 14 books, 44 chapters, and 11 journal special issues.
and synchronization of complex networks: a unified viewpoint,” IEEE Dr. Lewis was a recipient of the Fulbright Research Award, National Sci-
Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 213–224, Jan. 2010. ence Foundation Research Initiation Grant, American Society for Engineer-
[33] S. Tuna, LQR-Based Coupling Gain for Synchronization of Linear ing Education Terman Award, International Neural Network Society Gabor
Systems, 2008, Arxiv preprint arXiv: 0801.3390. Award 2009, the U.K. Institute of Measurement and Control Honeywell Field
[34] Z. Qu, Cooperative Control of Dynamical Systems: Applications to Au- Engineering Medal 2009, the 2010 IEEE Region 5 Outstanding Engineering
tonomous Vehicles. London, U.K.: Springer-Verlag, 2009. Educator Award, and the 2010 UTA Graduate Dean’s Excellence in Doctoral
[35] Z. Lin, B. Francis, and M. Maggiore, “Necessary and sufficient graphi- Mentoring Award. He was also a recipient of the Outstanding Service Award
cal conditions for formation control of unicycles,” IEEE Trans. Autom. from Dallas IEEE Section and selected as Engineer of the Year by Fort (Ft.)
Control, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 121–127, Jan. 2005. Worth IEEE Section. He was listed in Ft. Worth Business Press Top 200
[36] W. Ren and R. Beard, Distributed Consensus in Multi-vehicle Coopera- Leaders in Manufacturing. He served on the National Academy of Engineering
tive Control: Theory and Applications. London, U.K.: Springer-Verlag, Committee on Space Station in 1995. He is the founding member of the Board
2008. of Governors of the Mediterranean Control Association. He helped win the
[37] D. Bernstein, Matrix Mathematics: Theory, Facts, and Formulas, 2nd ed. IEEE Control Systems Society Best Chapter Award (as the Founding Chairman
Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 2009. of Dallas–Fort Worth Chapter), the National Sigma Xi Award for Outstanding
[38] H. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice- Chapter (as the President of UTA Chapter), and the U.S. Small Business
Hall, 2002. Administration Tibbetts Award in 1996 (as the Director of ARRI’s Small
[39] N. Chopra and M. Spong, “Passivity-based control of multi-agent sys- Business Innovation Research Program). He is a Fellow of the International
tems,” in Advances in Robot Control: From Everyday Physics to Human- Federation of Automatic Control (IFAC) and a Fellow of the U.K. Institute of
Like Movements, S. Kawamura and M. Svinin, Eds. Berlin, Germany: Measurement and Control. He is a Professional Engineer in the state of Texas
Springer-Verlag, 2006, pp. 107–134. and a Chartered Engineer in the U.K.
ZHANG et al.: LYAPUNOV, ADAPTIVE, AND OPTIMAL DESIGN TECHNIQUES FOR SYSTEMS ON GRAPHS 3041