Protocol selection for second-order consensus against disturbance
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
Noticing that both the absolute and the relative velocity protocols can solve the second-order consensus of multi-agent systems, this paper aims to investigate which of the above two protocols has better anti-disturbance capability, in which the anti-disturbance capability is measured by the L 2 gains from disturbance to consensus errors. More specifically, by the orthogonal transformation technique, the analytic expression of the L 2 gain of a second-order multi-agent system with the absolute velocity protocol is firstly derived, followed by the counterpart with the relative velocity protocol. It is shown that both the L 2 gains for the absolute and the relative velocity protocols are determined only by the minimum non-zero eigenvalues of Laplacian matrices and the tunable gains of position-like and velocity-like states. Then, we establish the graph conditions to tell which protocol has better anti-disturbance capability. Moreover, we propose a two-step scheme to improve the anti-disturbance capability of second-order multi-agent systems. Finally, numerical tests are given for different types of interaction graphs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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