Minimal‐time complex consensus for multi‐agent systems with time delay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper studies the minimum time consensus problem for discrete‐time multi‐agent systems with complex Laplacian delay networks such that each agent can find its complex consensus value in a minimum number of steps using its local observations. The stability analysis is first provided and the convergence condition is derived for complex weighted networks with time delays. Specifically, the delayed multi‐agent system is modeled by employing the augmented graph representation. Via adding virtual agents in the augmented systems, the complex consensus is obtained in the networks with bounded time delay if the communication topology digraph of the system has a spanning tree. A decentralized algorithm is proposed for the minimal‐time computation of complex consensus based on the information from the robot itself without relying on the external environment. The algorithm hinges on the minimal polynomial of the matrix concerning the augmented graph. Furthermore, the rearrangement of the virtual agents in the augmented system provides an upper bound for the number of agents required to compute the consensus value. Simulation examples demonstrate the effectiveness of our results. The advantage of this approach is that it can be easily deployed on a group of agents to rapidly achieve a complex consensus setting within any delayed networks.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".