Decentralized H∞ consensus protocol for a class of high-order multiagent systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a consensus protocol for a class of high-order multiagent systems under directed networks. It is supposed that each agent is exposed to an external disturbance additive to its control input. Based on the optimization theory, the consensus protocol gains are designed in order to attenuate the effects of the external disturbances on the performance of the multiagent system. The main problem of existing high-order consensus protocols in the literature is the dependency of the design on the information of coupling matrices associated with networks topologies. Despite existing high-order consensus protocols in the literature, the proposed consensus protocol can be designed in a fully decentralized manner based on no global information. The main idea of the design is to propose an control formulation in which the coupling information of the agents is considered as exogenous signals, while the coupling effects of these signals lead to achieving consensus in the multiagent system. Numerical examples verify the effectiveness of the proposed consensus protocol. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it