MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772804860 · doi:10.1109/tsmc.2017.2774841

Distributed Consensus of Linear Multiagent Systems: Laplacian Spectra-Based Method

2017· article· en· W2772804860 on OpenAlexafffund
Yuanye Chen, Yang Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Systems · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsNetwork topologyLaplace operatorNorm (philosophy)Stability (learning theory)Multi-agent systemFrequency domainComputer scienceFunction (biology)Domain (mathematical analysis)Linear systemLaplacian matrixMathematical optimizationTopology (electrical circuits)MathematicsApplied mathematicsArtificial intelligenceCombinatoricsMachine learningMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The consensusability problems of general linear multiagent systems considering directed topologies are explored from a frequency domain perspective in this paper. By investigating the properties of Laplacian spectra, a consensus criterion is established based on the stability of several complex weighted closed-loop systems. Furthermore, for single-input multiagent systems, frequency domain consensusability criteria are proposed on the basis of the stability margins, which depend on the H∞norm of the complementary sensitivity function determined by the agents' unstable poles. The corresponding design procedure is also developed. A numerical example is also presented to validate the proposed consensusability results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics SystemsSame topicDistributed Control Multi-Agent SystemsFrench-language works237,207