This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAC.2020.3032496, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control
Cooperative Output Regulation of Heterogeneous
Multiagent Systems: A Global Distributed
Control Synthesis Approach
Ahmet Taha Koru1 , Selahattin Burak Sarsılmaz2 , Tansel Yucelen3 , and Eric Norman Johnson1
Abstract—Agent-wise local design methods to synthesize dis-
tributed control gains focus on the individual dynamics of each
agent to guarantee the overall stability of the system. They are
powerful tools due to their scalability. However, the agent-wise
local design methods are incapable of maximizing the overall
system performance through, for example, decay rate assignment.
On the other hand, design methods, which are predicated on
a global condition, leads to non-convex optimization problems.
This paper considers a global design of an internal model-
based distributed dynamic state feedback control law for the
linear cooperative output regulation problem. We present a
convex formulation of this global design problem based on a
structured Lyapunov inequality. Then, the existence of solutions
to the structured Lyapunov inequality is investigated. Specifically,
we analytically show that the solutions exist for the systems
satisfying the agent-wise local sufficient condition. Finally, we
compare the proposed method with the agent-wise local design
method through numerical examples in terms of conservatism,
performance maximization, graph dependency, and scalability.
I. I NTRODUCTION
A. Literature Review
Distributed control approaches to the cooperative output
regulation of heterogeneous linear time-invariant (LTI) mul-
tiagent systems draws the attention of the researchers in the
last decade [1]–[8]. In particular, the authors of [3], [5], and
[8] study the internal model-based distributed dynamic state
feedback control law. They present global and agent-wise
local sufficient conditions on the existence of a control law
that solves the linear cooperative output regulation problem.
The control gains are synthesized using the algebraic Riccati
equation (ARE) in [3] and using linear matrix inequalities
(LMIs) in [5]. Both methods meet the agent-wise local suffi-
cient condition. However, the existing literature lacks a global
design approach.
Global design methods consider the overall closed-loop
dynamics of the multiagent system. When all matrices de-
termining the agent dynamics are represented in a compact
form, the resulting overall control gain matrix has a particular
* This research was supported in part by the Dynamics, Control, and
Systems Diagnostics Program of the National Science Foundation under
Grants CMMI-1657637.
1 A. T. Koru and E. N. Johnson are with the Department of Aerospace
Engineering at Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
(emails: ahtakoru@gmail.com, eric.johnson@psu.edu).
2 S. B. Sarsılmaz is with the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics
at the University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA (email: burak@uw.edu).
3 T. Yucelen is with the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the
University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA (email: yucelen@usf.edu).
0018-9286 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on November 01,2020 at 13:55:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1
structure. Consequently, the gain synthesis for a distributed
control law is known to be NP-hard since forcing some entries
of the control gain matrix to be zero yields a nonconvex
feasible set [9]. Some research results restrict the Lyapunov
functions to be in a structured form to make the problem
tractable, e.g., [10] and [11]. As a result, the design becomes
an optimization over a convex subset of the nonconvex feasible
set. One of the main questions that arises is the existence of
a solution to the structured Lyapunov inequality [12].
The linear algebra literature has attempted to address this
question for the last several decades (see, e.g., [13]–[16] and
references therein). For a given Hurwitz matrix A, there exist
symmetric positive definite matrices P such that AT P + P A
is symmetric negative definite. Such matrices P are so-called
stability factors for A [16]. References [13]–[15] investigate
the existence of diagonal stability factors. The necessary
and sufficient conditions in [16] further this investigation by
considering block diagonal matrices. There are more control-
theoretic results recently. Reference [17] presents a sufficient
H∞ condition for the existence of solutions to block diag-
onally structured Lyapunov inequality. The authors of [18]
study the diagonal stability of a class of systems with a
cyclic interconnection structure. The main result of [19] is
a necessary and sufficient condition for a diagonal solution to
the ARE.
B. Contribution
In this paper, we propose a global design method to synthe-
size gains of the internal model-based dynamic state feedback
control law for the heterogeneous LTI multiagent systems
based on a structured Lyapunov inequality. The resulting
feasible set is convex in decision variables and solvable by
polynomial-time algorithms. We also show that the agent-wise
local sufficient condition implies the existence of solutions
to the structured Lyapunov inequality. Hence, for a given
fixed (i.e., time-invariant) augmented directed graph, the set of
stabilizing controllers satisfying the agent-wise local sufficient
condition is a subset of the one whose elements are the results
of the proposed global method.
In what follows, we concisely compare the agent-wise local
and global design in four categories. Section V illustrates each
item through numerical examples.
• Conservatism: The global design presented in this paper
is less conservative than the agent-wise local design. The
reason is twofold. On one hand, the agent-wise local
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAC.2020.3032496, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control
2

sufficient condition implies the existence of solutions the follower agents. The notation IN stands for the index set
to the structured Lyapunov inequality for a given fixed {1, 2, . . . , N }. The augmented graph Ḡ is the extension of the
augmented directed graph. On the other hand, the global graph G by including the leader node. Finally, the following
design can synthesize control gains that may violate the definition tailors the internal model concept, which is given in
agent-wise local sufficient condition (see the first example Definition 1.22 and Remark 1.24 of [20], for the purpose of
in Section V). this paper.
• Global Performance: The global design can optimize
Definition 1. Given any square matrix A0 , a pair of matrices
the distributed control gains considering a broad set of
(G1 , G2 ) is said to incorporate a p-copy internal model of the
global performance criteria besides local ones. Examples
matrix A0 if G1 and G2 are given by
include decay rate assignment (once again, we refer to
the first example in Section V), pole placement in LMI G1 = diag(βl ), G2 = diag(σl ),
regions, and norm minimization. The drawback of the h×h h
local design is the lack of information about the global where βl ∈ R and σl ∈ R , for l = 1, . . . , p, satisfy the
performance. following conditions:
• Graph Dependency: The agent-wise local design re- i) The pair (βl , σl ) is controllable.
quires graph-wise global information. However, this in- ii) The minimal polynomial of A0 is equal to the character-
formation is not the exact structure of the graph but the istic polynomial of βl .
spectral radius of a matrix depending on the graph. There-
fore, the agent-wise local design ensures the stability of II. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
the system over a family of graphs that share similar Consider the cooperative output regulation of a group of N
properties. Dissimilarly, the global design depends on follower agents over a fixed directed graph G with dynamics
the exact structure of the graph. Additional optimization given by
constraints regarding a family of graphs overcome this
disadvantage by trading-off with more computational cost ẋi (t) = Ai xi (t) + Bi ui (t) + Ei w(t),
(see the second example in Section V). xi (0) = xi0 , t ≥ 0, (1a)
• Scalability: The main disadvantage of the global design ei (t) = Ci xi (t) − F w(t), (1b)
is its computational complexity as it synthesizes all
control gains simultaneously. On the contrary, the agent- where xi (t) ∈ Rni is the state, ui (t) ∈ Rmi is the input,
wise local design breaks the problem into smaller sub- ei (t) ∈ Rp is the tracking error, and w(t) ∈ Rq is the
problems that consider the agents one by one. Therefore, exogenous signal that yields the reference input to be tracked
it depends less on the system scale (see the third example (i.e., F w(t)) and the external disturbance to be rejected (i.e.,
in Section V). Ei w(t)). The exosystem with the following dynamics
ẇ(t) = A0 w(t), w(0) = w0 , t≥0 (2)
C. Notation and Definitions generates the exogenous signal.
The notation of this paper is standard. Specifically, R, Rn , The tracking error ei (t) is assumed to be available to a
R n×m
respectively stand for the sets of all real numbers, n- nonempty proper subset of all agents. Each agent has also
dimensional real column vectors, and n × m real matrices; access to the relative output error; that is, ei (t) − ej (t) for all
Sn+ denotes the set of all n × n symmetric positive definite j ∈ Ni . Based on the available information to each agent, a
matrices. In addition, we use X  0 (, ≺, ) to denote local virtual regulating error is employed
a symmetric positive definite (positive semidefinite, negative  
definite, negative semidefinite) matrix. The element-wise order 1 X
evi (t) , aij (ei (t) − ej (t)) + gi ei (t)
Y > 0 (≥) means that the all entries of the vector/matrix di + gi
j∈Ni
Y are positive (nonnegative), and “,” denotes equality by
definition. We also write In for the n × n identity matrix, as in [8]. The nonnegative real number gi represents whether
0n×m for the n × m matrix with zero entries, 1n for the n × 1 the agent i observes the leader node (gi > 0) or not (gi = 0).
vector of all ones, ρ(·) for the spectral radius of a square A positive gi corresponds to the weight of an edge from the
matrix, ⊗ for Kronecker product, and diag(Xi ) to denote the leader node to the agent i in the fixed augmented directed
block diagonal matrix whose elements on the main diagonal graph Ḡ. Throughout the paper, Ḡ also consists of the weights
are Xi ’s for all i in the corresponding index set. For matrix gi and aij .
X = [xij ], the absolute value notation denotes |X| = [|xij |]. For each agent, consider now the dynamic state feedback
The notation O(·), so called “big O notation” in computer control law given by
science, characterizes the functions according to their growth żi (t) = G1i zi (t) + G2i evi (t), zi (0) = zi0 , t ≥ 0, (3a)
rate. For the graph definitions, we only mention the important
ui (t) = K1i xi (t) + K2i zi (t), (3b)
ones here, where we follow [8] for the rest. In particular, we
write A = [aij ] ∈ RN ×N to denote the adjacency matrix, D = where zi (t) ∈ Rnz , K1i ∈ Rmi ×ni , K2i ∈ Rmi ×nz , G1i ∈
PN
diag(di ) with di = j=1 aij to denote in-degree matrix of Rnz ×nz , and G2i ∈ Rnz ×p . Next, we state the definition of
the graph G, which models the information exchange between the linear cooperative output regulation problem from [3].

0018-9286 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on November 01,2020 at 13:55:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAC.2020.3032496, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control
3

Definition 2. Given the system in (1), together with the gfi (s) = Cfi (sI − Afi )−1 Bfi .
exosystem in (2), and the fixed augmented directed graph Ḡ,
The following lemma states that the property (a) of Defini-
find a distributed control law in (3) such that:
tion 2 implies the property (b) under mild conditions.
a) The closed-loop system matrix due to (1) and (3) is
Hurwitz. Lemma 1 (Theorem 4.1 in [8], global condition). If As-
b) For any initial condition of the closed-loop system and sumptions 1-3 hold and Ag is Hurwitz, then the dynamic state
the exosystem, limt→∞ ei (t) = 0 for all i ∈ IN . feedback control law in (3) solves the problem in Definition
2.
This paper makes the following assumptions:
Remark 1. As in the linear output regulation problem,
Assumption 1. The leader system matrix A0 has no eigen- the internal model-based approach is known to be robust
value with negative real part. against plant uncertainties in decentralized and distributed
Assumption 2. The pair (G1i , G2i ) contains a p-copy in- output regulation problems (see, e.g., [22]–[25]).
ternal model of A0 for all i ∈ IN . We now state the agent-wise local sufficient condition,
Assumption 3. The fixed augmented directed graph Ḡ has which is presented in [3]. Later, in [8], the condition of Afi
a spanning tree. being Hurwitz is included in the theorem to fill a gap.
Assumptions 1 and 2 are standard in linear output regulation Lemma 2 (Theorem 2 in [3], agent-wise local sufficient
theory (see Chapter 1 in [20]); and, so is Assumption 3 in condition). Let Assumption 3 hold, and let γ , 1/ρ(FA)
multiagent systems literature (see Remark 3.2 in [21]). when ρ(FA) 6= 0; γ , ∞ otherwise. If Afi is Hurwitz and
In this paper, we formulate the control gain synthesis of the kgfi k∞ < γ (6)
distributed dynamic state feedback control law considering the
global condition (i.e., the property (a) of Definition 2) as a for all i ∈ IN , where kgfi k∞ is the H∞ norm of gfi (s), then
convex optimization problem through a structured Lyapunov the matrix Ag is Hurwitz.
inequality. Moreover, we investigate the existence of solutions
The existence of a P  0 to the Lyapunov inequality ATg P +
to the structured Lyapunov inequality.
P Ag ≺ 0 is necessary and sufficient for the property (a) of
Definition 2. Yet, the feasible set is non-convex due to the
III. G LOBAL D ISTRIBUTED C ONTROL S YNTHESIS structure of K in Ag for the decision variables P and K. On
Now, we briefly overview the related results of [3] and [8]. the other hand, the dual of the structured Lyapunov inequality
The details of the derivation of the overall closed-loop system
and the exosystem-free local agent dynamics can be found in
ATg P + P Ag ≺ 0, (7a)
[8]. The overall closed-loop system in the compact form is  
diag(P1i ) diag(Poi )
η̇(t) = Ag η(t) + Bg wa (t), (4a) P ,  0, (7b)
∗ diag(P2i )
e(t) = Cg η(t) + Dg wa (t), (4b)
yields convex formulations of the control gain synthesis prob-
where Ag , A + BK, and lem, where P1i ∈ Sn+i and P2i ∈ Sn+z necessarily, and
T Poi ∈ Rni ×nz for all i ∈ IN . Now, we present the main
η(t) , xT1 (t), . . . , xTN (t), z1T (t), . . . , zN
T

(t) , results of this section.
T
e(t) , eT1 (t), . . . , eTN (t) , wa (t) , 1N ⊗ w(t),

Lemma 3. Consider a fixed augmented directed graph Ḡ as
in Assumption 3. There exist matrices P in the form of (7b)
with the following matrices
  and K in the form of (5c) such that (7a) holds if and only if
diag(Ai ) 0 there exist matrices
A, , (5a)
diag(G2i )Wdiag(Ci ) diag(G1i ) 
diag(Q1i ) diag(Qoi )

    Q,  0, (8)
diag(Bi ) diag(Ei ) ∗ diag(Q2i )
B, , Bg , , (5b)
0 −diag(G2i )WFa 
Y , diag(Y1i ) diag(Y2i ) ,

(9)
 
K , diag(K1i ) diag(K2i ) , (5c)
  where Q1i ∈ Sn+i and Q2i ∈ Sn+z necessarily, Qoi ∈ Rni ×nz ,
Cg , diag(Ci ) 0 , Dg , −Fa , Fa , IN ⊗ F, (5d) Y1i ∈ Rmi ×ni , and Y2i ∈ Rmi ×nz for all i ∈ IN , such that
F , diag (di + gi )−1 , W , (IN − F A) ⊗ Ip .


(5e)
QAT + AQ + Y T B T + BY ≺ 0. (10)
The matrix F is well-defined, since di + gi > 0 for all i ∈ IN
Proof: The “if” part: Since Q  0, so is Q−1 . By
owing to Assumption 3. The matrices, which define the local
Sylvester’s law of inertia, we have (A + BY Q−1 )T Q−1 +
agent dynamics, are given by
  Q−1 (A + BY Q−1 ) ≺ 0 from congruence transformation of
Ai + Bi K1i Bi K2i (10) with Q−1 . The matrix Q−1 has the form of (7b), which
Afi = ,
G2i Ci G1i can be verified by Theorem 2.1 of [26]. Moreover, Y Q−1
takes the form of (5c). Hence, (7a) holds with P , Q−1 and
 
0  
Bfi = , Cfi , Ci 0 , K , Y Q−1 . The proof of the “only if” part is similar.
−G2i

0018-9286 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on November 01,2020 at 13:55:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAC.2020.3032496, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control
Theorem 1. Consider a fixed augmented directed graph Ḡ
as in Assumption 3. If there exist matrices Q in (8) and Y in
(9) such that the LMI in (10) holds and if the control gains
are recovered as
h i−1
Ki , K1i K2i = Y1i Y2i Q∗1i Q
   oi
Q2i (11)
for all i ∈ IN , then Ag is Hurwitz. If, in addition, Assumptions
1 and 2 hold, then the dynamic state feedback control law in
(3) solves the problem in Definition 2.
Proof: Let T be a permutation matrix such that
    
Ini 0ni ×nzi
T , diag diag , (12)
0nzi ×ni Inzi
h i
with nzi = nz for all i ∈ IN . The matrix Q∗1i Q Q2i
oi
 0 that the converse is not true by presenting a K ∈ KS but
h i
Q1i Qoi
in (11) for all i ∈ IN since diag ∗ Q2i = T QT T is
congruent to Q. By (11), Y1i = K1i Q1i + K2i QToi and Y2i =
K1i Qoi + K2i Q2i for all i ∈ IN . Hence, Y = KQ, where K
has the form of (5c). Thus, (7) holds with P , Q−1 and K,
by the proof of Lemma 3. This proves the first statement of
the theorem. The second statement follows from Lemma 1.
Remark 2. We restrict Q to be in form of (8) which is
a proper subset of the set of all symmetric positive definite
matrices. This leads to conservatism in control synthesis. How-
ever, (11) recovers the control gains owing to this restriction.
Consequently, the distributed control gain synthesis condition
is an LMI instead of a bilinear matrix inequality (BMI).
Hence, the problem becomes tractable with polynomial-time
algorithms such as SeDuMi [27].
The LMI (10) is in a standard form. It is straightforward
to apply well-known optimal control design methods, e.g.,
H∞ / H2 minimization, and pole placement in LMI regions
[28]. Those methods can be applied to a subset of agents
i ∈ IN as local performance criteria by considering the
quintuples (Q1i , Qoi , Q2i , Y1i , Y2i ) or to overall system as a
global performance criterion by considering Q and Y . As
an example, the decay rate λ of the overall system can be
maximized by modifying the condition (10) to
QAT + AQ + Y T B T + BY + 2λQ ≺ 0,
and using a bisection algorithm over λ. The iterations will
converge to the global maximum λ∗S in the convex set defined
by (8) and (13) with (9). The optimal control gains are K ∗ =
Y ∗ Q∗−1 , where (13) is feasible with Q∗ , Y ∗ and λ∗S .
Another approach to synthesize distributed control gains is
to utilize nonlinear solvers. These solvers linearize the concave
parts of the constraint set at a feasible K [29]. Although
nonlinear solvers do not require a structured Lyapunov func-
tion, finding an initial K for a BMI problem is difficult [30].
Furthermore, effectiveness of nonlinear solvers highly depends
on the initial guess as they optimize in its neighborhood. The
decay rate λ∗S is the global maximum in the aforementioned
convex set, which is a subset of the overall non-convex set.
Therefore, K ∗ is a good initial guess for such algorithms.
0018-9286 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on November 01,2020 at 13:55:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
4
IV. O N THE E XISTENCE OF S OLUTIONS TO THE
S TRUCTURED LYAPUNOV I NEQUALITY
Although Section III presents a convex formulation of the
global design problem, there may not exist K satisfying (7). In
fact, it does exist for all control gains satisfying the agent-wise
local sufficient condition. Let Assumption 3 hold throughout
this section. Let the sets
KL , {K | Afi is Hurwitz and (6) is feasible ∀i ∈ IN } ,
KS , {K | (7) is feasible} ,
denote all stabilizing controllers in the feasible set of the
agent-wise local sufficient condition and in the structured
Lyapunov inequality, respectively. Mathematically speaking,
we prove that K ∈ KL implies K ∈ KS ; hence KL ⊆ KS
for a fixed augmented directed graph Ḡ. Example 1 shows
K 6∈ KL . Therefore, the method presented in this manuscript
is less conservative than the agent-wise local design. However,
KS = KL if G contains no loop (i.e., acyclic), see Remark 7.
We derive the result by three steps:
1) Deriving an LMI involving ρ(FA) and FA.
2) Presenting an inequality from the literature.
3) Proving that whenever K ∈ KL , there exists a P  0 in
the form of (7b) such that (7a) holds; hence, K ∈ KS .
Step 1: The agent-wise local sufficient condition considers
the spectral radius of the matrix FA, whereas the matrix
itself appears in the overall closed-loop dynamics. Therefore,
the relationship between ρ(FA) and FA determines the rela-
tionship between the agent-wise local sufficient condition and
the structured Lyapunov inequality. Corollary 1 presents this
relationship in terms of an LMI. We start with the definition
of an M-matrix.
Definition 3 (Definition 1.2 in Chapter 6 of [31]). Any
matrix Ξ of the form Ξ = pI − B is called an M-matrix,
where B ≥ 0 and p ≥ ρ(B).
Lemma 4 (Theorem 4 in [14]). If I − |B| is a nonsin-
gular M-matrix1 , there exists a diagonal R  0 such that
R − B T RB  0.
Corollary 1. For any positive real number c < γ, there
(13) exists a diagonal R  0 such that
1
Ψ, R − F ARAT F T  0. (14)
c2
Proof: The matrix cFA ≥ 0; thus, |cAT F T | = cAT F T .
The matrix IN − cAT F T is a nonsingular M-matrix since
ρ(cAT F T ) = cρ(FA) = c/γ < 1. We conclude from Lemma
4 that there exists a diagonal R  0 satisfying (14).
The existence of a diagonal R  0 satisfying (14) suffices to
derive the main result of this section. However, if needed, LMI
solvers can be used to construct such a matrix. Furthermore,
an analytical construction is possible for a special case (see
Appendix).
1 In [14], M-matrices are nonsingular by definition. Thus, we add “non-
singular” term to the theorem which is not mentioned in the original script.
Note that Ξ in Definition 3 is nonsingular if and only if p > ρ(B).
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAC.2020.3032496, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control
5

Step 2: Solvability of the ARE characterizes the H∞ norm P B(FARA

b T T b T P + CgT (R−1 ⊗ Ip )Cg .
F ⊗ Ip )B (18)
of an LTI system and the stability of its system matrix [32].
We utilize the following lemma, which is widely used in LMI We now conclude from (16), (17), and (18) that
applications, to show that the ARE is an upper bound over the (A
b + B(FA
b ⊗ Ip )Cg )T P + P (A
b + B(FA
b ⊗ Ip )Cg )  M,
structured Lyapunov inequality with a proper construction of
the stability factor P . hence, (7a) is feasible.
Lemma 5 (See Lemma 6.2 in [33]). For any real matrices Remark 3. Theorem 2 constructs a function such that
B, C, and any symmetric positive definite matrix R, with " #
diag(ri−1 Pb1i ) diag(ri−1 Pboi )
compatible dimensions, P = fR (P1 , . . . , PN ) =
b b ,
∗ diag(ri−1 Pb2i )
BC + C T B T  BRB T + C T R−1 C.
where P is a stability factor of Ag . We employ this function
Step 3: Now, we prove the existence of solutions to the to prove the existence of solutions to the structured Lyapunov
structured Lyapunov inequality. inequality. In future research, this function may lead novel
Theorem 2. KL ⊆ KS for a fixed augmented directed graph agent-wise local design methods which contain information
Ḡ. about the stability/performance of the overall system with
more general dynamics, e.g., networked control systems [35],
Proof: Fix K ∈ KL . Hence, the pair (K1i , K2i ) satisfies switching networks [36], and nonlinear agent dynamics [37].
the hypotheses of Lemma 2 for each agent. There exists a
positive real number γ
b such that Remark 4. A similar function can be constructed concern-
ing the dual problem. Let Q b i  0 such that Qb i AT + Af i Q bi +
fi
γ̄ , max kgfi k∞ < γ
b < γ. 1 T T
i∈IN b2 Bf i Bf i + Qi Cf i Cf i Qi ≺ 0. Inequality (10) is feasible for
b b
γ
As per Lemma 2.2 in [32], which is also known as bounded the matrix
" #
real lemma, there exists Pbi  0 such that the LMI represen- diag(ri Q
b 1i ) diag(ri Q
b oi )
¯
Q = fR (Q1 , . . . , QN ) =
tation of the ARE b 2i ) ,
b b
∗ diag(ri Q
1 T b
ATfi Pbi + Pbi Afi + 2 Pbi Bfi Bfi T
Pi + Cfi Cfi ≺ 0 (15) along with Y = KQ.
γ
b
is feasible for all i ∈ IN . For any positive real number ri , Remark 5. Theorem 2 can be considered as an alternative
ri 1 T proof of Lemma 2 without employing small-gain theorems.
T
Mi , ATfi Pi + Pi Afi + 2 Pi Bfi Bfi Pi + Cfi Cfi ≺ 0
γ
b ri Remark 6. An open problem here is whether the structured
holds as it is the multiplication of (15) by 1/ri , where Pi , Lyapunov inequality in (7) implies Afi is Hurwitz for all i ∈
ri−1 Pbi . For the following partition IN or not. We know that Ag being Hurwitz does not imply
  that Afi is Hurwitz for all i ∈ IN ; see the detailed discussion
P1i Poi in Appendix A of [8].
Pi = , P1i ∈ Sn+i , P2i ∈ Sn+z , Poi ∈ Rni ×nz
∗ P2i
Remark 7. The sets KS and KL are equal if G contains no
and the permutation matrix T in (12), the stability factor P , loop. To show this, we begin with KL ⊆ KS ⊆ KG where
T T diag(Pi )T  0 takes the form of (7b). Similarly, M , KG , {K | Ag is Hurwitz}. Lemma 2 does not require (6)
T T diag(Mi )T yields in this case, see Remark 4.5 in [8]. Thus, KL = KG from

1
 Lemma 1 in [38]. Consequently, KL = KS = KG .
T bT P
M = A P + PA + PB
b b b R ⊗ Ip B
b2
γ
+CgT (R−1 ⊗ Ip )Cg ≺ 0 (16) V. I LLUSTRATIVE N UMERICAL E XAMPLES
In this section, we compare the agent-wise local design and
in a compact form, where
  the presented method through three numerical examples. We
b , diag(Ai + Bi K1i ) diag(Bi K2i ) ,
A
set each nonzero aij and gi to one.
diag(G2i Ci ) diag(G1i )
 
0 Example 1: Conservatism and Maximizing a Global
B
b, , R , diag(ri ).
−diag(G2i ) Performance Criterion
Note that Ag = A b + B(FA
b ⊗ Ip )Cg . Let R be the one in
Corollary 1 for c = γ
b. Then, inequality (14) yields 1 3 4
P B(FARA
b T T
F ⊗ Ip )Bb T P  1 P B(Rb ⊗ Ip )B b T P, (17)
b2
γ
0 2 5
from the spectrum property of the Kronecker product (see
Proposition 7.1.10 in [34]). Furthermore, as per Lemma 5,
Fig. 1. Ḡ of Example 1 and Ḡ1 of Example 2.
P B(FA
b ⊗ Ip )Cg + CgT (FA ⊗ Ip )T B
bT P 

0018-9286 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on November 01,2020 at 13:55:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAC.2020.3032496, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control
6

λ = 0.05 λ = 0.5 λ=2

1.0 0.5 0.5
0 0 0
ei1 (t)

ei1 (t)

ei1 (t)
−1.0 −0.5
−0.5
−2.0 −1.0
−3.0 −1.0 −1.5
−4.0 −1.5 −2.0
0 20 40 60 80 0 2 4 6 8 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
λ = 0.05 λ = 0.5 λ=2
1.8 0.4 0.5
1.2 0 0
ei2 (t)

ei2 (t)

ei2 (t)
0.6 −0.5
−0.4
0 −1.0
−0.6 −0.8 −1.5
−1.2 −1.2 −2.0
0 20 40 60 80 0 2 4 6 8 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time (sec) Time (sec) Time (sec)

Fig. 2. The tracking error ei (t) = [ei1 (t), ei2 (t)]T of Example 1 for control gains designed with various decay rates λ in (13).

This example is borrowed from [5] and modified. Specifi- Example 2: Graph-Dependent Design
cally, consider a group of five agents with the matrices
 0.3 −2
  1.8 −0.8  1 3 4
Ai = −0.2 , Bi = , i = 1, 3, 5,
 0.1
−0.1 1.2
 0.9 1.6
0 1],
Ci = 0.4 1.4 , Ei = [ 0.5 i = 1, 3, 5,
h 6 0 1i
0 2 5
h0 1 0 i
Ai = 00 1 , Bi = 01 , i = 2, 4,
0 0 −2
h 01 00 i
Ci = [ 10 01 00 ] , Ei = 01 , i = 2, 4 Fig. 3. Ḡ2 of Example 2.
10

and a leader with the matrices
A0 = [ 00 10 ] , F = [ 10 01 ] .
The pair (G1i , G2i ) given by
0 1 0 0
G1i = 0000 , G2i =
0001
0000
contains a 2-copy internal model of A0 for all i ∈ IN . For the
fixed augmented directed graph seen in Figure 1, γ = 1.11.
From Theorem 1, we calculate the distributed control gains as
K1 =
 −0.77 −8.47 −1.27 −9.11 −1.17 −8.02
 regulation problem not only for Ḡ1 and Ḡ2 but also for any
4.76 1.05 −0.97 −11.23 1.30 12.23 ,
 −0.47 −1.50 0.10 −0.18 −0.88 −0.39 −2.31
 fixed augmented directed graph whose γ ≥ 1.10. The agent-
K2 = 9.72 −6.52 0.04 2.11 16.25 −1.23 −11.98
 −0.94 −9.98 −1.80 −11.31 −1.71 −10.60

K3 = 5.93 1.36 −1.34 −14.07 1.89 15.69 , (19c)
 −0.51 −0.89 0.11 −0.21 −0.94 −0.31 −1.15 
K4 =
 4.91 −4.91 −0.10 1.46 7.30 −1.45 −8.81
K5 = −0.99 −9.65 −1.78 −10.53 −1.74 −10.51

5.41 1.26 −1.27 −12.31 1.80 13.79 . (19e)
With these matrices, kgf4 k∞ = 1.123 ≥ γ which violates the
agent-wise local sufficient condition. Hence, we here conclude
that KL is a proper subset of KS .
The agent-wise local design does not contain any informa-
tion about the global decay rate. Designing the control gains
with Theorem 6 of [5] ends up with a decay rate λ = 0.078.
On the other hand, the bisection method maximizes the decay
rate of the overall system up to λ = 2.12 when it is applied
to the LMI in (13). Figure 2 shows the simulation results for
different decay rates.
Both approaches are graph-wise global. The structured
Lyapunov inequality in (7) depends on the whole structure of
the graph, whereas the agent-wise local sufficient condition
depends on ρ(FA) as in (6). Thus, the agent-wise local
design is more tolerant of graph variations. To be specific, the
resulting control gains solve the cooperative output regulation
0 0 problem for a family of graphs. As an example, consider
10 ,
00 the agent and leader matrices as well as its 2-copy internal
01
model in Example 1, and the fixed augmented directed graphs
Ḡ1 and Ḡ2 seen in Figures 1 and 3, respectively. Let Fj
and Aj describe the structure of Ḡj , for j = 1, 2. We note
here γ1 = 1.11 and γ2 = 1.10, where γj , 1/ρ(Fj Aj ).
Control gains for which Afi is Hurwitz and kgfi k∞ < 1.10
for all i ∈ IN ensure the solvability of the cooperative output
(19a)
, (19b) wise local design does not change the size of the optimization
problem.
, (19d) On the other hand, the control gains in (19) only guarantees
the solvability of the problem over Ḡ1 . If the resulting gains
are required to be used in different setups, we may employ
the design with a common Lyapunov function. Consider the
matrices given by
 
diag(Ai ) 0
A(j) = ,
diag(G2i )Wj diag(Ci ) diag(G1i )
where Wj = (IN − Fj Aj ) ⊗ Ip , j = 1, 2. Searching for
a common Lyapunov function, QA(j)T + A(j) Q + Y T B T +
BY ≺ 0, j = 1, 2, yields the control gains given by
K1 = −4.87 −0.59 0.76 13.19 −1.02 −15.22
 
0.29 −10.28 −1.23 −15.26 −0.83 −7.59 ,
K2 = −0.70 −2.49 0.11 −0.21 −1.36 −0.53 −4.52
 
16.42 −11.05 0.11 2.96 31.35 −1.83 −21.93 ,

0018-9286 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on November 01,2020 at 13:55:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAC.2020.3032496, IEEE
 −6.49 −0.70 0.99 17.46 −1.24 −19.21

K3 = 0.36 −13.07 −1.46 −18.85 −1.00 −9.62 ,
K4 =
 −0.99 −1.64 0.11 −0.31 −1.53 −0.44 −2.12

10.90 −10.77 0.06 2.26 14.75 −2.33 −15.86
 −2.73 −0.51 0.41 5.56 −0.75 −8.02

K5 = 0.37 −6.01 −0.91 −8.58 −0.56 −3.61 ,
which solves the cooperative output regulation problem over
both fixed augmented directed graphs Ḡ1 and Ḡ2 . However,
the number of constraints is doubled.
We synthesize the control gains to be used in different fixed
graphs. For the agent-wise local design, the existence of a
common Lyapunov function should be discussed to guarantee
the stability under arbitrary switching. For the global approach
presented within the context of this example, the solvability of
the cooperative output regulation problem may require addi-
tional conditions despite the existence of a common Lyapunov
function. Therefore, the cooperative output regulation problem
under switching graphs needs further investigation in both
cases.
Example 3: Scalability
0 1 2 3
Fig. 4. The path graph for N agents.
This example compares the scalability properties of the
proposed method and the agent-wise local design; in par-
ticular, it investigates the relationship between computational
complexity and the number of agents N . For this purpose,
consider N agents with homogeneous dynamics over the
fixed augmented directed graph seen in Figure 4. We use
the quadruple (A1 , B1 , C1 , E1 ) and the pair (G11 , G21 ) of
Example 1 for the agents, and the pair (A0 , F ) for the leader.
Since γ depends on N , it is the function γ(N ) in this example.
For any N ≥ 2, the agent-wise local design is to calculate
the control gains such that Af1 is Hurwitz and kgf1 k∞ <
γ(N ). Since the agents have homogeneous dynamics, the
computational complexity of the agent-wise local design is
independent of the system scale, and in O(1), once γ(N )
is calculated. However, the calculation of γ(N ) has a com-
putational complexity O(N 2 ) with recent algorithms; see,
e.g., [39]. Therefore, the overall design is in O(N 2 ). It is
possible to make the method independent of the system scale
by employing the condition kgf1 k∞ ≤ 1 as Remark 4.5 in [8]
suggests. However, synthesizing such control gains may not
be possible since it is a very conservative condition.
On the other hand, the number of decision variables (#v )
and the total number of rows (#r ) in the LMI conditions
of Theorem 1 increase linearly with respect to N . The
computational complexity is in O(#2v #2.5 3.5
r + #r ) for the
semidefinite programming solver toolbox SeDuMi [40]. As
a result, the computational complexity grows at the order
of 4.5 with respect to N , and is in O(N 4.5 ). Therefore, it
is more expensive to design large scale systems with the
proposed method. The computation time with an average
laptop computer for various system scales can be seen in
Figure 5. We see that it takes approximately ten minutes
to solve the problem for N = 100 with the global design,
0018-9286 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on November 01,2020 at 13:55:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Transactions on Automatic Control
7
whereas it takes about 0.15 seconds with the agent-wise local
, design for the same system scale.
The Global Design The Agent-wise Local Design
600 0.8
Time (sec)
450 0.6
300 0.4
150 0.2
0 0
0 25 50 75 100 0 250 500 750 1000
Number of Agents N Number of Agents N
Fig. 5. Computation time with respect to the system scale for the global
design and the agent-wise local design.
VI. C ONCLUSION
We showed that the global distributed control synthesis
problem is convex in decision variables when the Lyapunov
inequality is structured. We proved that satisfaction of the
agent-wise local sufficient condition implies the existence
··· N
of solutions to the structured Lyapunov inequality. (i) The
proposed method was less conservative than the agent-wise
local design for a fixed augmented directed graph. Besides,
it could maximize overall system performance. Therefore, the
proposed method was very efficient when high performance
was a demand. Moreover, nonlinear solvers could utilize the
results of this global approach as an initial guess for better
solutions by removing the restrictions on the stability factor
P . In terms of scalability, however, it took long for this
global approach to solve a given large scale problem, whereas
it took much shorter for the agent-wise local design. (ii)
Future research can focus on extensions of the global design
to more general dynamics, e.g., networked control systems,
switching networks, and nonlinear agent dynamics. (iii) The
proof technique in Theorem 2 may also help to develop agent-
wise local design methods for more general dynamics with
respect to the discussion in Remarks 3, 4 and 5.
A PPENDIX
Lemma 6 (Theorem 2.3 in Chapter 6 of [31], items (D16)
and (I27)). Let Ξ = [ξij ] ∈ RN ×N such that ξij ≤ 0 when
i 6= j. Then, the following statements are equivalent:
• Ξ is a nonsingular M-matrix.
• Every real eigenvalue of Ξ is positive.
• There exists z > 0 with Ξz > 0.
Lemma 7 (Lemma 4.1 in Chapter 6 of [31]). Let Ξ =
[ξij ] ∈ RN ×N such that ξij ≤ 0 when i 6= j. The matrix Ξ is
an M-matrix if and only if Ξ + I is a nonsingular M-matrix
for any positive real number .
The matrix FA is nonnegative; thus, ρ(FA) (i.e., 1/γ)
is an eigenvalue of FA, and corresponding left- and right-
eigenvectors are nonnegative (see Theorem 1.1 in Chapter 2
of [31]). The following proposition considers the case where
the eigenvectors are positive.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TAC.2020.3032496, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control
8

Proposition 1 (Analytic construction of R). Let Assump-
T bility factors and Lyapunov semistability of block triangular matrices,”
tion 3 hold. Suppose the right- vr , [vr1 , . . . , vrN ] and
T Linear Algebra and its Applications, vol. 172, pp. 1–25, 1992.
the left-eigenvector vl , [vl1 , . . . , vlN ] of FA correspond-
ing to 1/γ are positive. Let c be a positive real number,
R , diag(vri /vli ), and Ψ be the matrix defined in (14). Then,
Ψ  0 when c < γ, and Ψ  0 when c = γ.
1 1
Proof: Clearly, vr = Rvl . Let Ξ , R− 2 ΨR− 2 =
T
1
c2 IN − R−1/2 FARAT F T R−1/2 , and z , [z1 , . . . , zN ]
√ [20] J. Huang, Nonlinear output regulation: Theory and applications.
with zi = vri vli > 0. Then, we have the identities
1 1
R− 2 z= vl and R− 2 vr = z. After algebraic manipulations,
Ξz = c12 − γ12 z.
Case (i) c < γ. The vectors z > 0 and Ξz > 0. By
Lemma 6, Ξ is a nonsingular M-matrix. Note that Ξ is
symmetric. Therefore, Ξ  0 by Lemma 6. From congruence
1 [23] X. Wang, Y. Hong, J. Huang, and Z.-P. Jiang, “A distributed control
transformation by R 2 , Ψ  0.
Case (ii) c = γ. Let  > 0 be given. Ξz = 0 which yields
(Ξ + I)z = z > 0. From Lemma 6, we conclude that Ξ + I
is a nonsingular M-matrix; therefore, Ξ is an M-matrix from
Lemma 7 since  > 0 is arbitrary. Then, Ξ  0 by item
(C8) of Theorem 4.6 in Chapter 6 of [31]. From congruence
1 of linear uncertain multiple multivariable systems with performance
transformation by R 2 , Ψ  0.
R EFERENCES
[1] Y. Su and J. Huang, “Cooperative output regulation of linear multi-agent
systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 57, no. 4, pp.
1062–1066, 2012.
[2] ——, “Cooperative output regulation of linear multi-agent systems by
output feedback,” Systems & Control Letters, vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 1248–
1253, 2012.
[3] C. Huang and X. Ye, “Cooperative output regulation of heterogeneous
multi-agent systems: An H∞ criterion,” IEEE Transactions on Auto-
matic Control, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 267–273, 2014.
[4] Y. Li, X. Wang, J. Xiang, and W. Wei, “Synchronised output regu-
lation of leader-following heterogeneous networked systems via error
feedback,” International Journal of Systems Science, vol. 47, no. 4, pp.
755–764, 2016.
[5] F. A. Yaghmaie, F. L. Lewis, and R. Su, “Output regulation of linear
heterogeneous multi-agent systems via output and state feedback,”
Automatica, vol. 67, pp. 157–164, 2016.
[6] H. Cai, F. L. Lewis, G. Hu, and J. Huang, “The adaptive distributed
observer approach to the cooperative output regulation of linear multi-
agent systems,” Automatica, vol. 75, pp. 299–305, 2017.
[7] M. Lu and L. Liu, “Cooperative output regulation of linear multi-
agent systems by a novel distributed dynamic compensator,” IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 6481–6488,
2017.
[8] S. B. Sarsilmaz and T. Yucelen, “A distributed control approach for het-
erogeneous linear multiagent systems,” International Journal of Control,
available online.
[9] V. Blondel and J. N. Tsitsiklis, “NP-hardness of some linear control
design problems,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 35,
no. 6, pp. 2118–2127, 1997.
[10] D. Stipanovic and D. D. Šiljak, “Robust stability and stabilization
of discrete-time non-linear systems: the LMI approach,” International
Journal of Control, vol. 74, no. 9, pp. 873–879, 2001.
[11] D. D. Šiljak and A. Zečević, “Control of large-scale systems: Beyond
decentralized feedback,” Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 29, no. 2, pp.
169–179, 2005.
[12] A. I. Zecevic and D. D. Šiljak, “Global low-rank enhancement of
decentralized control for large-scale systems,” IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 740–744, 2005.
[13] M. Araki, “Application of M-matrices to the stability problems of
composite dynamical systems,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and
Applications, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 309–321, 1975.
[14] P. J. Moylan, “Matrices with positive principal minors,” Linear Algebra
and its Applications, vol. 17, pp. 53–58, 1977.
[15] D. Hershkowitz, “Recent directions in matrix stability,” Linear Algebra
and its Applications, vol. 171, pp. 161–186, 1992.
[16] D. Carlson, D. Hershkowitz, and D. Shasha, “Block diagonal semista-
[17] A. Sootla and J. Anderson, “On existence of solutions to structured
Lyapunov inequalities,” in American Control Conference (ACC), 2016,
2016, pp. 7013–7018.
[18] M. Arcak and E. D. Sontag, “Diagonal stability of a class of cyclic
systems and its connection with the secant criterion,” Automatica,
vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 1531–1537, 2006.
[19] A. Aleksandrov and O. Mason, “Diagonal Riccati stability and applica-
tions,” Linear Algebra and its Applications, vol. 492, pp. 38–51, 2016.
Philedelphia, PA, USA: SIAM, 2004.
[21] F. L. Lewis, H. Zhang, K. Hengster-Movric, and A. Das, Cooperative
control of multi-agent systems: Optimal and adaptive design approaches.
London, England: Springer-Verlag, 2014.
[22] E. Davison, “The robust decentralized control of a general servomecha-
nism problem,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 21, no. 1,
pp. 14–24, 1976.
approach to a robust output regulation problem for multi-agent linear
systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 55, no. 12, pp.
2891–2895, 2010.
[24] Y. Su, Y. Hong, and J. Huang, “A general result on the robust cooper-
ative output regulation for linear uncertain multi-agent systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 1275–1279, 2012.
[25] X. Wang, Y. Su, and D. Xu, “Cooperative robust output regulation
constraint,” Automatica, vol. 95, pp. 137–145, 2018.
[26] T.-T. Lu and S.-H. Shiou, “Inverses of 2× 2 block matrices,” Computers
& Mathematics with Applications, vol. 43, no. 1-2, pp. 119–129, 2002.
[27] J. F. Sturm, “Using SeDuMi 1.02, a MATLAB toolbox for optimization
over symmetric cones,” Optimization methods and software, vol. 11, no.
1-4, pp. 625–653, 1999.
[28] M. Chilali and P. Gahinet, “H∞ design with pole placement constraints:
an LMI approach,” IEEE Transactions on automatic control, vol. 41,
no. 3, pp. 358–367, 1996.
[29] Q. T. Dinh, S. Gumussoy, W. Michiels, and M. Diehl, “Combining
convex–concave decompositions and linearization approaches for solv-
ing BMIs, with application to static output feedback,” IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 1377–1390, 2011.
[30] Y. Wang, R. Rajamani, and A. Zemouche, “Sequential LMI approach for
the design of a BMI-based robust observer state feedback controller with
nonlinear uncertainties,” International journal of robust and nonlinear
control, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1246–1260, 2018.
[31] A. Berman and R. J. Plemmons, Nonnegative matrices in the mathemat-
ical sciences. Philedelphia, PA, USA: SIAM, 1994, vol. 9.
[32] K. Zhou and P. P. Khargonekar, “An algebraic Riccati equation approach
to H∞ optimization,” Systems & Control Letters, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 85–
91, 1988.
[33] K. Gu, V. L. Kharitonov, and J. Chen, Stability of time-delay systems.
Boston, MA, USA: Birkhäuser, 2003.
[34] D. S. Bernstein, Matrix Mathematics, 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ, USA:
Princeton University Press, 2008.
[35] A. T. Koru, E. N. Johnson, T. Yucelen, and S. B. Sarsilmaz, “On
cooperative control of linear multiagent systems over networks with
limited bandwidth,” in 2020 American Control Conference (ACC), 2020,
pp. 1659–1664.
[36] Y. Su and J. Huang, “Cooperative output regulation with application to
multi-agent consensus under switching network,” IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), vol. 42, no. 3, pp.
864–875, 2012.
[37] A. Isidori, L. Marconi, and G. Casadei, “Robust output synchronization
of a network of heterogeneous nonlinear agents via nonlinear regulation
theory,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 59, no. 10, pp.
2680–2691, 2014.
[38] F. A. Yaghmaie, F. L. Lewis, and R. Su, “Output regulation of hetero-
geneous linear multi-agent systems with differential graphical game,”
International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 26, no. 10,
pp. 2256–2278, 2016.
[39] D. Bini and V. Pan, “Practical improvement of the divide-and-conquer
eigenvalue algorithms,” Computing, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 109–123, 1992.
[40] D. Peaucelle, D. Henrion, Y. Labit, and K. Taitz, “User’s guide for
SeDuMi interface 1.04,” LAAS-CNRS, Toulouse, 2002.

0018-9286 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Auckland University of Technology. Downloaded on November 01,2020 at 13:55:16 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.