MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133940770 · doi:10.1109/tac.2020.3030758

On Zeno Behavior in Event-Triggered Finite-Time Consensus of Multiagent Systems

2020· article· en· W3133940770 on OpenAlexafffund
Hao Yu, Tongwen Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsZeno's paradoxesMulti-agent systemComputer scienceEvent (particle physics)State (computer science)ConsensusInterval (graph theory)Quantum Zeno effectFunction (biology)Control theory (sociology)Topology (electrical circuits)MathematicsControl (management)AlgorithmArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article studies Zeno behavior, where an infinite number of events occur in a finite-time interval, in the event-triggered multiagent systems that aim at achieving consensus in finite time. Two popular scenarios in the first-order multiagent systems with model-based event-triggered controllers are considered. One is that the event trigger in each agent samples the absolute information, and decides when to broadcast the information to its neighbors, and the other is that the update of control signals is only scheduled by the local event triggers via directly using the (combined) relative information. The events are triggered when the measurement error between the agent, and model states violates a given threshold function. Both cases are studied, where the threshold is generated by the agent state or by the model state. Then, sufficient conditions on the existence of Zeno behavior in event-triggered finite-time consensus of multiagent systems are provided. For the triggering conditions with the thresholds given by agent states, the system must exhibit Zeno behavior; while in the case of using model states, the existence of Zeno behavior is influenced by the properties of the communication topology, and the threshold functions. Finally, several simulations, and examples are provided to illustrate the effectiveness of the theoretical 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations79
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Automatic ControlSame topicDistributed Control Multi-Agent SystemsFrench-language works237,207