Optimal Consensus Seeking in a Network of Multiagent Systems: An LMI Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, an optimal control design strategy for guaranteeing consensus achievement in a network of multiagent systems is developed. Minimization of a global cost function for the entire network guarantees a stable consensus with an optimal control effort. In solving the optimization problem, it is shown that the solution of the Riccati equation cannot guarantee consensus achievement. Therefore, a linearmatrix-inequality (LMI) formulation of the problem is used to address the optimization problem and to simultaneously resolve the consensus achievement constraint. Moreover, by invoking an LMI formulation, a semidecentralized controller structure that is based on the neighboring sets, i.e., the network underlying graph, can be imposed as an additional constraint. Consequently, the only information that each controller requires is the one that it receives from agents in its neighboring set. The global cost function formulation provides a deeper understanding and insight into the optimal system performance that would result from the global solution of the entire network of multiagent systems. Simulation results are presented to illustrate the capabilities and characteristics of our proposed multiagent team in achieving consensus.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".