Protocol selection for second-order consensus against disturbance
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".