MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394862989 · doi:10.1109/tac.2024.3389075

A Robust Distributed MPC Framework for Multiagent Consensus With Communication Delays

2024· article· en· W4394862989 on OpenAlexafffund
Henglai Wei, Changxin Liu, Yang Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMulti-agent systemComputer scienceDistributed computingControl theory (sociology)ConsensusRobustness (evolution)Robust controlControl (management)Control systemArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the consensus problem of linear discrete-time Multi-Agent Systems (MASs) under the conditions of input constraints and bounded time-varying communication delays. We propose a novel consensus framework for such constrained MASs that incorporates an offline optimal consensus design for unconstrained systems to achieve optimal consensus convergence, along with an online robust Distributed Model Predictive Control (DMPC) to accommodate constraints. Our framework accomplishes near-optimal consensus performance by minimizing the divergence between the online DMPC input and the pre-designed optimal consensus input, all while adhering to control input constraints. Notably, we explicitly integrate the knowledge of communication topology into the offline consensus protocol design, thereby enhancing the analysis of consensus convergence in MASs. More specifically, each agent is equipped with an offline consensus protocol based on the estimated states of its immediate neighbors. Furthermore, we demonstrate that estimation errors propagated over time due to imprecise neighboring information, remain bounded under mild assumptions. In addition, we confirm that with the appropriate design of the cost function and constraints, the feasibility of the related optimization problem can be recursively assured. We also provide a consensus convergence result for the constrained MASs under conditions of bounded varying delays. Lastly, we present two numerical examples that verify the effectiveness of the proposed distributed consensus algorithm.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations20
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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