1

Leader Tracking of Euler-Lagrange Agents on
Directed Switching Networks Using A
Model-Independent Algorithm

arXiv:1802.00906v2 [] 9 Feb 2018

Mengbin Ye

Brian D.O. Anderson, Life Fellow, IEEE

Abstract—In this paper, we propose a discontinuous distributed
model-independent algorithm for a directed network of EulerLagrange agents to track the trajectory of a leader with nonconstant velocity. We initially study a fixed network and show
that the leader tracking objective is achieved semi-globally
exponentially fast if the graph contains a directed spanning
tree. By model-independent, we mean that each agent executes
its algorithm with no knowledge of the parameter values of
any agent’s dynamics. Certain bounds on the agent dynamics
(including any disturbances) and network topology information
are used to design the control gain. This fact, combined with
the algorithm’s model-independence, results in robustness to
disturbances and modelling uncertainties. Next, a continuous
approximation of the algorithm is proposed, which achieves
practical tracking with an adjustable tracking error. Last, we
show that the algorithm is stable for networks that switch with
an explicitly computable dwell time. Numerical simulations are
given to show the algorithm’s effectiveness.
Index Terms—model-independent, euler-lagrange agent, directed graph, distributed algorithm, tracking, switching network

I. I NTRODUCTION
OORDINATION of multi-agent systems using distributed algorithms has been widely studied over the past
decade [1]. Of recent interest is the study of agents whose
dynamics are described using Euler-Lagrange equations of
motion, which from here onwards will be referred to as EulerLagrange agents (in some literature known as Lagrangian
agents). The non-linear Euler-Lagrange equation can be used
to model the dynamics of a large class of mechanical, electrical
and electro-mechanical systems [2]. Thus, there is significant motivation to study coordination problems with multiple
Euler-Lagrange agent. The interaction between agents may be
modelled using a graph [1], and the agents collectively form a
network. Directed networks capture unilateral interactions (e.g.
sensing or communication) between agents and are generally
more desirable when compared to undirected networks.
To better place our results in context, two existing approaches for designing coordination algorithms for Euler-

C

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council (ARC)
under the ARC grants DP-130103610 and DP-160104500, by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (grant 61375072), and by Data61-CSIRO
(formerly NICTA). M. Ye is supported by an Australian Government Research
Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.
M.Ye is with the Research School of Engineering, Australian National University. C.Yu and B.D.O.Anderson are with the Australian National University
and with Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou, China. B.D.O. Anderson is
also with Data61-CSIRO (formerly NICTA Ltd.), Canberra, Australia.
{Mengbin.Ye, Brian.Anderson, Brad.Yu}@anu.edu.au

Changbin Yu, Senior Member, IEEE

Lagrange networks are reviewed: model-dependent and adaptive algorithms. The aim is to give readers an idea of available
works; the list is not exhaustive. The papers [3]–[5] study
different coordination objectives, such as consensus or leader
tracking, using algorithms that require exact knowledge of the
agent models. Specifically, each agent’s algorithm requires
knowledge of its own Euler-Lagrange equation in order to
execute. The algorithms are therefore less robust to uncertainties in the model, e.g. some parameters in the EulerLagrange equation may be unknown or uncertain. Recently,
the more popular approach is for each agent to use an adaptive
algorithm. Specifically, an Euler-Lagrange equation can be
linearly parametrised [2] with respect to a set of constant
parameters of the equation, e.g. the mass of an arm on a
robotic manipulator agent. This parametrisation is then used
in an adaptive algorithm to allow the agent to estimate its own
set of constant parameters (which is assumed to be unknown)
while simultaneously achieving the multi-agent coordination
objective. Using adaptive algorithms, containment control was
studied in [6], [7], while leaderless consensus was studied in
[7], [8]. Leader tracking algorithms were studied in [9]–[13].
In contrast to the above works, which rely on direct knowledge (or adaptive identification) of an agent model, there
have been relatively few works studying model-independent
algorithms, that is, algorithms for obtaining robust controllers.
Furthermore, most results study model-independent algorithms
on undirected networks. The pioneering work in [14] considered leaderless position consensus, with time-delay considered
in [15]. Consensus to the intersection of target sets is studied
in [16]. Leader-tracking algorithms are studied in [17]–[20].
Rendezvous to a stationary leader with collision avoidance
is studied in [21]. For directed networks, several results are
available. Passivity analysis in [22] showed that synchronisation of the velocities (but not of the positions) is achieved
on strongly connected directed networks. Rendezvous to a
stationary leader and position consensus was studied in [23]
and [24], respectively, but the papers assumed that the agents
did not have a gravitational term in the dynamics. Leader
tracking is studied in [20] but restrictive assumptions are
placed on the leader. Preliminary work by the authors also
appeared in [25], and is further analysed below.
A. Motivation for Model-Independent Algorithms
Further study of model-independent algorithms is desirable
for several reasons. Given a unique Euler-Lagrange equation,

2

determining the minimum number of parameters in an adaptive
algorithm is difficult in general [26]. Moreover, the adaptive
algorithms require knowledge of the exact equation structure;
the algorithms can deal with uncertain constant parameters
associated with the agent dynamics but are not robust to
unmodelled nonlinear agent dynamics. Model-independent algorithms are reminiscent of robust controllers, which stand
in conceptual contrast to adaptive controllers. Stability and
indeed performance is guaranteed given limited knowledge of
upper bounds on parameters of the multiagent system, and
without use of any attempt to identify these parameters.
As will be shown in this paper, and similarly to [23], [24],
model-independent controllers are exponentially stable, with a
computable minimum rate of convergence. Exponentially stable systems are desired over systems which are asymptotically
stable, but not exponentially so, because exponentially stable
systems offer improved rejection to small amounts of noise
and disturbance. Some algorithms requiring exact knowledge
of the Euler-Lagrange equation have been shown to be exponentially stable [3], [5]. Further, adaptive controllers will yield
exponential stability if certain conditions are satisfied, e.g.
persistency of excitation. However, the above detailed works
using adaptive algorithms have not verified such conditions.
B. Contributions of this paper
In this paper, we propose a discontinuous modelindependent algorithm that allows a directed network of EulerLagrange agents to track a leader with arbitrary trajectory.
First, we assume that the network is fixed and contains a
directed spanning tree. Then, we relax this assumption to allow
for a network with switching/dynamic interactions. In order to
achieve stability, a set of scalar control gains must be sufficiently large, i.e. satisfy a set of lower bounding inequalities.
These inequalities involve limited knowledge of the bounds
on the agent dynamic parameters, limited knowledge of the
network topology, and a bound on the initial conditions (which
may be arbitrarily large). This last requirement means the
algorithm is semi-globally stable; a larger set of allowed initial
conditions simply requires recomputing of the control gains.
It is also shown that the algorithm is robust to heterogeneous,
bounded disturbances for each individual agent.
We now record the points of contrast between this paper
and the previously mentioned existing works. While several
results have been listed studying leader tracking, most involving model-independent algorithms have been studied on
undirected graphs. Those which do assume directed graphs
primarily use adaptive algorithms. Most model-independent
algorithms on directed networks consider position consensus
or rendezvous to a stationary leader; introduction of a moving
leader greatly increases the difficulty of the problem due to the
complex, nonlinear Euler-Lagrange dynamics. Additionally,
the work in [23], [24] did not consider the gravitational
term in the agent dynamics. The work [20] studies a modelindependent leader tracking algorithm on directed graphs,
with the restrictive assumption that the leader trajectory is
governed by a marginally stable linear time-invariant second
order system, and the system matrix known to all agents. A

major contribution of this paper is to allow for any arbitrary
leader trajectory which satisfies some mild and reasonable
smoothness and boundedness properties. In addition, [20] does
not establish an exponential stability property, whereas the
algorithm proposed in this paper does.
A preliminary version of this paper appeared in [25]. This
paper significantly extends the preliminary version in several
aspects. First, we introduce an additional control gain which
allows for an additional degree of freedom in selecting the
control gains to ensure stability. Moreover, increasing the
new gain ensures stability but at the same time, it does not
negatively affect convergence rate, unlike in [25]. Second, we
address the issues arising from the discontinuous nature of the
control algorithm by using an approximation of the signum
function. An explicit expression relating the tracking error
to the degree of approximation and control gain is derived.
Additionally, switching topology is considered. Details of
omitted proofs are also now provided.
The paper is structured as follows. Section II introduces
mathematical preliminaries, and the problem. The problem
with fixed network topology, and dynamic topology, is solved
in Section III and IV, respectively. Simulations are provided
in Section V and the paper concluded in Section VI.
II. BACKGROUND AND P ROBLEM S TATEMENT
A. Mathematical Notation and Matrix Theory
To begin with, definitions of notation and several results are
now provided. The Kronecker product is denoted as ⊗. Denote
the p × p identity matrix as I p and the n-column vector of all
ones as 1n . The l1 -norm and Euclidean norm of a vector x,
and matrix A, are denoted by k·k1 and k · k2 , respectively. The
signum function is denoted as sgn(·). For an arbitrary vector
x, the function sgn(x) is defined element-wise. A matrix A =
A> that is positive definite (respectively nonnegative definite)
is denoted by A > 0 (respectively A ≥ 0). For two symmetric
matrices A, B, A > B is equivalent to A − B > 0. For a
matrix A = A> , the minimum and maximum eigenvalues are
λmin (A) and λmax (A) respectively. The following inequalities
hold
λmin (A) > λmax (B) ⇒ A > B

(1a)

λmax (A + B) ≤ λmax (A) + λmax (B)

(1b)

λmin (A + B) ≥ λmin (A) + λmin (B)

(1c)

>

>

>

λmin (A)x x ≤ x Ax ≤ λmax (A)x x

(1d)

Definition 1. A function f (x) : D → R, where D ⊆ Rn , is
said to be positive definite in D if f (x) > 0 for all x ∈ D,
except f (0) = 0.
Lemma 1 (The Schur Complement [27]). Consider a symmetric block matrix, partitioned as


B C
A=
(2)
C> D
Then, A > 0 if and only if B > 0 and D − C > B −1 C > 0,
or equivalently, if and only if D > 0 and B − CD −1 C > 0.

3

Lemma 2. Suppose A > 0 is defined as in (2). Let
a quadratic function with arguments x, y be expressed as
W = [x> , y > ]A[x> , y > ]> . Define F := B − CD −1 C >
and G := D − C > B −1 C. Then, there holds
>

>

(3a)

>

>

(3b)

λmin (F )x x ≤ x F x ≤ W
λmin (G)y y ≤ y Gy ≤ W

Proof. We obtain (3b) by recalling Lemma 1 and observing
that W = y > Gy + [y > C > B −1 + x> ]B[B −1 Cy + x]. An
equally straightforward proof yields (3a).
Lemma 3. Let g(x, y) be a function given as
g(x, y) = ax2 + by 2 − cxy 2 − dxy

(4)

for real positive scalars c, d > 0. Then for a given Y > 0,
there exist a, b > 0 such that g(x, y) is positive definite for all
y ∈ [0, ∞) and x ∈ [0, X ].
Proof. Observing that cxy 2 ≤ cX y 2 for all x ∈ [0, X ], yields
g(x, y) ≥ ax2 + (b − cX )y 2 − dxy

(5)

if y ∈ [0, ∞) and x ∈ [0, X ] because c > 0. For any fixed
value of y = y1 ∈ [0, ∞), write ḡ(x) = ax2 + (b − cX )y12 −
dxy1 . The discriminant of ḡ(x) is negative if
d2
(6)
4a
which implies that the roots of ḡ(x) are complex, i.e. ḡ(x) > 0
and this holds for any y1 ∈ [0, ∞). We thus conclude that
for all y ∈ [0, ∞) and x ∈ [0, X ], if a, b satisfies (6), then
g(x, y) > 0 except the case where g(x, y) = 0 if and only if
x = y = 0.
b > cX +

Corollary 1. Let h(x, y) be a function given as
h(x, y) = ax2 + by 2 − cxy 2 − dxy − ex − f y

(7)

where the real positive scalars c, d, e, f and two further
positive scalars ε, ϑ are fixed. Suppose that for given Y, X
there holds Y − ε > 0, and X − ϑ > 0. Define the sets
U = {x, y : x ∈ [X − ϑ, X ], y > 0} and V = {x, y : x >
0, y ∈ [Y − ε, Y]}. Define the region R = U ∪ V. Then, there
exist a, b > 0 such that h(x, y) is positive definite in R.
Proof. Observe that h(x, y) = g(x, y)−ex−f y where g(x, y)
is defined in Lemma 3. Let a∗ , b∗ be such that they satisfy
condition (6) in Lemma 3 and thus g(x, y) > 0 for x ∈ [0, X ]
and y ∈ [0, ∞). Note that the positivity condition on g(x, y)
in Lemma 3 continues to hold for any a ≥ a∗ and any b ≥ b∗ .
Let a1 and b1 be positive scalars whose magnitudes will be
determined later. Define a = a1 + a∗ and b = b1 + b∗ . Define
z(x, y) , a1 x2 + b1 y 2 − ex − f y. Next, consider (x, ȳ) ∈ V,
where ȳ is some fixed value. It follows that
z(x, ȳ) = a1 x2 − ex + (b1 ȳ 2 − f ȳ)
2

(8)
2

Note the discriminant of z(x, ȳ) is Dx = e − 4a1 (b1 ȳ − f ȳ).
It follows that Dx < 0 if b1 ȳ 2 > f ȳ+e2 /4a1 . This is satisfied,
independently of ȳ ∈ [Y − ε, Y], for any b1 ≥ b1,y , a1 ≥ a1,y
where
e2
f
+
(9)
b1,y >
2
4a1,y (Y − ε)
Y −ε

because Y − ε ≤ ȳ. It follows that Dx < 0 ⇒ z(x, y) > 0 in
V. Now, consider (x̄, y) ∈ U for some fixed value x̄. It follows
that
z(x̄, y) = b1 y 2 − f y + (a1 x̄2 − ex̄)

(10)

and note the discriminant of z(x̄, y) is Dy = f 2 − 4b1 (a1 x̄2 −
ex̄). Suppose that a1 > e/X , which ensures that a1 x̄2 − ex̄ >
0. Then, Dy < 0 if b1 (a1 x̄2 − ex̄) > f /4. This is satisfied,
independently of x̄ ∈ [X − ϑ, X ], for any b1 ≥ b1,x , a1 ≥ a1,x
where
f
(11)
b1,x >
4(a1,x (X − ϑ)2 − e(X − ϑ))
It follows that Dy < 0 ⇒ z(x, y) > 0 in U. We conclude that
setting b = b∗ + max[b1,x , b1,y ] and a = a∗ + max[a1,x , a1,y ],
implies h(x, y) > 0 in R, except h(0, 0) = 0.
The results of Lemma 3 and Corollary 1 are almost intuitively obvious. However, the detailed statements in the proof
lay out explicit inequalities for a, b. These inequalities will
be used to show that for any given Euler-Lagrange network,
control gains can always be found to ensure leader tracking
is achieved.

B. Graph Theory
The agent interactions can be modelled by a weighted
directed graph which is denoted as G = (V, E, A), with the set
of nodes V = {v0 , v1 , . . . , vn }, and with a corresponding set
of ordered edges E ⊆ V × V. A directed edge eij = (vi , vj ) is
outgoing with respect to vi and incoming with respect to vj ,
and implies that vj is able to obtain some information from vi .
The precise nature of this information will be made clear in
the sequel. The weighted adjacency matrix A ∈ R(n+1)×(n+1)
of G has nonnegative elements aij . The elements of A have
properties such that aij > 0 ⇔ eji ∈ E while aij = 0
if eji ∈
/ E and it is assumed aii = 0, ∀i. The neighbour
set of vi is denoted by Ni = {vj ∈ V : (vj , vi ) ∈ E}.
The (n + 1) × (n + 1) Laplacian matrix, L = {lij }, of the
associated
Pn digraph G is defined as lij = −aij for j 6= i and
lij =
k=1,k6=i aik if j = i. A directed spanning tree is
a directed graph formed by directed edges of the graph that
connects all the nodes, and where every vertex apart from
the root has exactly one parent. A graph is said to contain a
spanning tree if a subset of the edges forms a spanning tree.
We make use of the following standard lemma.
Lemma 4 ( [28]). Let G contain a directed spanning tree,
and suppose there are no edges which are incoming to the
root vertex of the tree, which without loss of generality, is set
as v0 . Then the Laplacian of G can be partitioned as


0
0
L=
(12)
L11 L22
and ∃ Γ > 0 which is diagonal and ΓL22 + L>
22 Γ > 0.
For future use, denote the ith diagonal element of Γ as γi
and define γ̄ , maxi γi and γ , mini γi .

4

C. Euler-Lagrange Systems
The ith Euler-Lagrange agent’s equation of motion is:
M i (q i )q̈ i + C i (q i , q̇ i )q̇ i + g i (q i ) + ζ i = τ i

(13)

where q i (t) ∈ Rp is a vector of the generalised coordinates.
Note that from here onwards, we drop the time argument
t whenever there is no ambiguity. The inertia matrix is
M i (q i ) ∈ Rp×p , C i (q i , q̇ i ) ∈ Rp×p is the Coriolis and
centrifugal force matrix, g i ∈ Rp is the vector of (gravitational) potential forces and ζ i (t) is an unknown, timevarying disturbance. It is assumed that all agents are fullyactuated, with τ i ∈ Rp being the control input vector. For
each agent, the k th generalised coordinate is denoted using
(1)
(p)
superscript (k); thus q i = [qi , ..., qi ]> . It is assumed that
the systems described using (13) have the following properties
given below:
P1 The matrix M i (q i ) is symmetric positive definite.
P2 There exist scalar constants km , kM > 0 such that
km I p ≤ M i (q i ) ≤ kM I p , ∀ i, q i . It follows that
supqi kM i k2 ≤ kM and km ≤ inf qi kM −1
i k2 holds ∀ i.
P3 The matrix C i (q i , q̇ i ) is defined such that Ṁ i − 2C i is
skew-symmetric, i.e. Ṁ i = C i + C >
i .
P4 There exist scalar constants kC , kg > 0 such that
kC i k2 ≤ kC kq̇ i k2 , ∀ i, q̇ i and kg i k2 < kg , ∀i.
P5 There exists a constant kζ such that kζ i k2 ≤ kζ , ∀ i.
Properties P1-P4 are standard and widely assumed properties
of Euler-Lagrange dynamical systems, see [2] for details.
Property P5 is a reasonable assumption on disturbances.

We denote the neighbour set of agent i on GA as NAi . We
further assume that agent i can measure its own q i and q̇ i . A
second weighted and directed time-varying graph GB (t), with
the associated Laplacian LB (t), exists between the followers
to communicate estimates of the leader’s state. Denote the
neighbour set of agent i on GB (t) at time t as NBi (t). Note
that vj ∈ NBi (t) when agent j communicates directly to agent
i its estimates of the leader’s state at time t (the precise nature
of this estimate is described in Section III-A). Further note
that GA is not necessarily equal to GB and so NAi 6= NBi in
general. However the node sets of GA and GB are the same.
Remark 1 (Comparison of this paper to recent leader tracking
results). Almost all mechanical systems will have trajectories
which satisfy the mild Assumption 1. In comparison, more
restrictive assumption are made on the leader trajectory in
[13], [20]. In [13], [20], the leader trajectory is describable
by an LTI system, with system matrix defined as S. In [13], it
is assumed that all eigenvalues of S are purely imaginary.
In [20], it is assumed that S is marginally stable. More
importantly, both [13] and [20] assume that S is known to
all agents, which is a highly restrictive assumption. As will
become apparent in the sequel, we use a distributed observer
to allow every agent to obtain q 0 (t) and q̇ 0 (t) precisely. The
work [12] has similar assumptions to this paper, but uses an
adaptive algorithm and is therefore fundamentally different to
the model-independent controller studied in this paper.
III. L EADER T RACKING ON F IXED D IRECTED N ETWORKS
A. Finite-Time Distributed observer

D. Problem Statement
The leader is denoted as agent 0, i.e. vertex v0 , with q 0 (t)
and q̇ 0 (t) being its time-varying generalised coordinates and
generalised velocity, respectively. The objective is to develop
a model-independent, distributed algorithm which allows a
directed network of Euler-Lagrange agents to synchronise
and track the trajectory of the leader. The leader tracking
objective is said to be achieved if limt→∞ kq i (t)−q 0 (t)k2 = 0
and limt→∞ kq̇ i (t) − q̇ 0 (t)k2 = 0 for all i = 1, . . . , n.
By model-independent, we mean that the algorithm does not
contain M i , C i , g i ∀ i nor make use of an associated linear
parametrisation. Two mild assumptions are now given.
Assumption 1. The leader trajectory q 0 (t) is a C 2 function with derivatives q̇ 0 and q̈ 0 which are bounded as
k1n ⊗ q̇ 0 k2 ≤ kp and k1n ⊗q̈ 0 k2 ≤ kq . The positive constants
kp , kq are known a priori.
Assumption 2. All possible initial conditions lie in some fixed
but √
arbitrarily large set that
√ is known. In particular, kq i k2 ≤
ka / n and kq̇ i k2 ≤ kb / n, where ka , kb are known a priori.
These two assumptions are not unreasonable, as many
systems will have an expected operating range for q and q̇.
The follower agents’ capability to sense relative states
is captured by the directed graph GA with an associated
Laplacian LA . In Section III, we assume GA is fixed. Later in
Section IV, it is assumed that GA is dynamic, i.e. time-varying.
Thus, if aij > 0 then agent i can sense q i − q j and q̇ i − q̇ j .

Before we show the main result, we detail a distributed
finite-time observer developed in [29] which allows each
bi and v
bi be the ith
follower agent to obtain q 0 and q̇ 0 . Let r
agent’s estimated values for the leader position and velocity
respectively. Agent i ∈ {1, . . . , n} runs the observer
X

b˙ i = v
bi − ω1 sgn
bj )
r
bij (t)(b
ri − r
(14a)
j∈NBi (t)

b˙ i = −ω2 sgn
v

X


bj )
bij (t)(b
vi − v

(14b)

j∈NBi (t)

where bij are the elements of the adjacency matrix associated
with graph GB (t) and ω1 , ω2 > 0 are internal gains of the
observer. Clearly, if ai0 > 0 then agent i can directly sense
the leader, v0 and thus learns of q 0 and q̇ 0 . For such an agent i,
b0 (t) = q 0 (t) and v
b0 (t) = q̇ 0 (t); agent i
we set bi0 > 0 and r
still runs the distributed observer (14). We now give a theorem
for convergence of the observer, and explain below why all
followers execute (14) even if they learn of q 0 , q̇ 0 from GA .
Theorem 1 (Theorem 4.1 of [29]). Suppose that the leader
trajectory q 0 (t) satisfies Assumption 1. If at every t, GB (t)
contains a directed spanning tree, and ω2 > kq /n then, for
bi (t) = q 0 (t) and v
bi (t) = q̇ 0 (t)
some T1 < ∞, there holds r
for all i ∈ {1, . . . , n}, for all t ≥ T1 .
The key reason for agent i to run the distributed observer
even if ai0 > 0 (and thus agent i knows q 0 and q̇ 0 ) is to
ensure robustness to network changes over time (e.g. switching

5

topology due to loss of connection). We elaborate further. In
the case of a fixed GA , then agent i will know q 0 and q̇ 0
for all t and there will be no need for the observer. However,
we explore switching GA (t) in Section IV. Consider the case
where ai0 (t) = 1 for t ∈ [0, 10) and ai0 (t) = 0 for t ∈
[10, ∞). If agent i does not run (14), then for t ≥ 10, it would
not know q 0 (t) and q̇ 0 (t) because ai0 (t) = 0 ⇒ bi0 (t) = 0.
If agent i runs (14) from t = 0, then for all t ≥ T1 , it is
b1 (t) = q 0 (t) and v
b1 (t) = q̇ 0 (t) even if GA (t)
guaranteed that r
switches, so long as the connectivity condition in Theorem 1 is
satisfied. A second reason is that agent i may acquire states by
sensing over GA ; (14) acts as a filter for noisy measurements.
B. Model-Independent Control Law
Consider the following algorithm for the ith agent


X
aij (q i − q j ) + µ(q̇ i − q̇ j )
τi = −η

V̄µ (t) ≤ ηλmax (X)ke
q k22 +(kM +δ)

j∈NAi

bi ) + µ(q̇ i − v
bi ))
− β sgn ((q i − r

time, and exponential convergence results. In keeping with the
model-independent approach, define
 > 
 
1 −1
e
e
q
ηλmax (X)I np
(kM + δ)I np q
2µ
V̄µ = ˙
1 −1
1
µ
(k
(k
+
δ)I
+
δ)I
e˙
e
q
q
np
np
M
2
2 M
(17)
where1 , X = (ΓL22 + L>
22 Γ) ⊗ I p > 0 from Lemma 4
and the constant δ > 0 is sufficiently small such that
km − δ > 0. Without loss of generality, assume that Γ
is scaled such that γ̄ = 1. Let the matrix in (17) be
Lµ . By observing that (kM + δ)I np > M , then according
to Lemma 1, Lµ > 0 if and only if ηλmax (X)I np −
1 −2
> 0. It follows that Lµ > 0 for any
(kM + δ)I np p
2µ
µ ≥ µ∗1 where µ∗1 > (kM + δ)/2λmax (X). Since X > 0,
such a µ∗1 always exists. For convenience, we use V̄µ (t) to
e˙ (t)), and observe that there holds
denote V̄µ (e
q (t), q

(15)

where aij is the weighted (i, j) entry of the adjacency matrix
A associated with the weighted directed graph GA . The control
gains µ, η and β are strictly positive constants and their design
will be specified later. For simplicity, it is assumed that η > 1.
bi is replaced with q 0 and
Note that for all i, for all t > T1 , r
bi replaced with q̇ 0 .
v
ei = q i − q 0 . Let
Let us denote the new error variable q
> >
np×1
e = [e
e
q
q>
,
...,
q
]
∈
R
the
stacked
column vector of
1
n
ei . The leader tracking objective is therefore achieved if
all q
> >
e(t) = q
e˙ (t) = 0 as t → ∞. We denote g = [g >
q
1 , ..., g n ] ,
>
> >
>
>
>
> >
ζ = [ζ 1 , ..., ζ n ] , q = [q 1 , ..., q n ] , and q̇ = [q̇ 1 , ..., q̇ >
n]
as the np × 1 stacked column vectors of all g i , ζ i , q i and
q̇ i respectively. Let M (q) = diag[M 1 (q 1 ), ..., M n (q n )] ∈
Rnp×np , and C(q, q̇) = diag[C 1 (q 1 , q̇ 1 ), ..., C n (q n , q̇ n )] ∈
Rnp×np . Since M i > 0, ∀ i then M is also symmetric posibi −q 0 , ∀i = 1, ..., n
tive definite. Define an error vector, ei = r
> >
bi − q̇ 0 . Define e = [e>
∈ Rnp×1 ,
and ėi = v
,
1 ..., en ]
>
> >
np×1
ė = [ė1 , ..., ėn ] ∈ R
.
¨ = M i q̈ − M i q̈ and
ei yields M i q
e
The definition of q
i
i
0
combining the agent dynamics (13) and the control law (15),
the closed-loop system for the follower network, with nodes
v1 , . . . , vn , can be expressed as

¨ ∈a.e. K − M −1 [C q
e
e˙ + η(L22 ⊗ I p )(e
e˙ ) + g + ζ
q
q + µq

(16)
+ β sgn (s + µṡ) + M (1n ⊗ q̈ 0 ) + C(1n ⊗ q̇ 0 )]
where K denotes the differential inclusion, a.e. stands for
e − e. Here, L22 is the lower
“almost everywhere” and s = q
block matrix of LA as partitioned in (12). Filippov solutions
e and q
e˙ for (16) exist because the signum function is
of q
e and q
e˙ are
measurable and locally essentially bounded, and q
absolutely continuous functions of time [30].
C. An Upper Bound Using Initial Conditions
Before proceeding with the main proof, we calculate an
upper bound (which may not be tight) on the initial states
e˙ (0)k2 < Y using Assumpexpressed as ke
q (0)k2 < X and kq
tion 2. In the sequel, we show that these bounds hold for all


1 ˙ 2
ek2 +µ−1 ke
e˙ k2
kq
q k2 kq
2
(18)

for all t. Next, define
 > 1
 
e
e
1 q
ηλmin (X)I np µ−1 γ(km −δ)I np q
2
(19)
V µ=
µ−1 γ(km −δ)I np γ(km −δ)I np
e˙
e˙
q
2 q
Call the matrix in (19) N µ . Similarly to above, use Lemma 1
to show that N µ > 0 for any µ ≥ µ∗2 where µ∗2 >
q
2γ(km − δ)/λmin (X). Set µ∗3 = max{µ∗1 , µ∗2 }. Define
1
ρ1 (µ) = ηλmax (X) − µ−2 (kM + δ)
2
1
1
ρ2 (µ) = η λmin (X) − µ−2 γ(km − δ)
4
2

(20a)
(20b)

and verify that ρ1 (µ∗3 ) > ρ2 (µ∗3 ). Note that for any µ ≥ µ∗3
there holds V̄µ ≤ V̄µ∗3 and ρi (µ∗3 ) ≤ ρi (µ), i = 1, 2. Compute
1
V̄ ∗ = ηλmax (X)ka2 + (kM + δ)kb2 + µ∗3 −1 (kM + δ)ka kb
2
From Assumption 2, one has that ke
q (0)k2 ≤ ka and
e˙ (0)k2 ≤ kb . Thus, one concludes from (18) and the above
kq
equation that there holds V̄µ (0) ≥ V̄ ∗ for any µ ≥ µ∗3 . Because
we assumed η > 1, it follows from Lemma 2 and (3a) that
s
s
s
V̄µ (0)
V̄µ (0)
V̄ ∗ (0)
ke
q (0)k2 ≤
≤
<
, X1 (21)
∗
ρ1 (µ)
ρ1 (µ3 )
ρ2 (µ∗3 )
Following a similar method yields Y1 . Next, compute
1
Vb ∗ = ηλmax (X)X1 2 + (kM +δ)Y1 2 +(µ∗3 )−1 (kM +δ)X1 Y1
2
and observe that V̄ ∗ ≤ Vb ∗ . Lastly, compute the bound
q
X = Vb ∗ /ρ2 (µ∗3 )
(22)
and notice that ke
q (0)k2 ≤ X1 ≤ X . Similarly, Y is obtained
using (3b), with the steps omitted due to spatial limitations.
Because both sides of (22) are independent of µ, the values
Y and X do not change for all µ ≥ µ∗3 .
1 Note

that V̄µ is not a Lyapunov function

6

D. Stability Proof
Theorem 2. Suppose that the conditions in Theorem 1 are
satisfied. Under Assumptions 1 and 2, the leader-tracking is
achieved exponentially fast if 1) the network GA contains a
directed spanning tree with the leader as the root node, and
2) the control gains µ, η, β satisfy a set of lower bounding
inequalities2 . For a given GA containing a directed spanning
tree, there always exists µ, η, β which satisfy the inequalities.
Proof. The proof will be presented in four parts. In Part 1,
we study a Lyapunov-like candidate function V . In Part 2, we
analyse V̇ and show that it is upper bounded. Part 3 shows
that the system trajectory remains bounded for all time, and
exponential convergence is proved in Part 4.
Part 1: Consider the Lyapunov-like candidate function
1 ˙>
1 >
e Γp M q
e˙ = V1 +V2 +V3
e> Γp M q
e˙ + q
ηe
q Xe
q +µ−1 q
2
2
with X given below (17), and Γp = Γ ⊗ I p . Observe that
 >  1
 
1 −1
e
e
q
ηX
µ Γp M q
2
2
V = ˙
(23)
1 −1
1
µ
Γ
M
Γ
M
e
e˙
q
q
p
p
2
2

V =

Call the matrix in (23) H µ . From Lemma 1, and the assumed
properties of M i , there holds H µ > 0 if and only if ηX −
µ−2 Γp M > 0, which is implied by λmin (X) − µ−2 kM > 0.
This is because kM ≥ supq λmax (M ), and we assumed that
η > 1 and γ̄ = 1. For any µ ≥ µ∗4 , where
q
(24)
µ∗4 > 2kM /λmin (X)
there holds Lµ > H µ > N µ > 0 because µ∗4 ≥ µ∗3 as defined
below (19). Thus, although the eigenvalues λi (H µ ) depend on
q(t), there holds λmin (N µ ) ≤ λi (H µ ) ≤ λmax (Lµ ) for all i,
and for all t ≥ 0. Thus, for any µ ≥ µ∗4 , V > 0 and is radially
e˙ (t)) and
unbounded. For simplicity, let V (t) denote V (e
q (t), q
observe that V (t) < V̄µ (t), ∀ t because
V (t) ≤

2
1
1
2
e˙ (t)k2
ηλmax (X)ke
q (t)k2 + kM kq
2
2
e˙ (t)k2
q (t)k2 kq
+ µ−1 kM ke

(25)

Part 2: Let V̇ be the set-valued derivative of V with respect
to time, along the trajectories of the system (16). From (2) we
e˙ . The
obtain V̇ = V̇1 + V̇2 + V̇3 . We obtain V̇1 = ηe
q> X q
second summand yields
h i
>
¨
e˙ Γp M q
e˙ + µ−1 q
e> Γp Ṁ q
e˙ + µ−1 q
e> Γp M × K q
e
V̇2 ∈ µ−1 q
¨ from (16), and using Assumption P3, we obtain
e
Substituting q
h
>
e> (Γp L22 ⊗ I p )(µ−1 ηe
e˙ ) + µ−1 q
e˙ Γp M q
e˙
V̇2 ∈ K − q
q + ηq
e> Γp C > q
e˙ − µ−1 q
e> Γp (∆ + C(1n × q̇ 0 ))
+ µ−1 q
i
e> Γp sgn (s + µṡ)
− βµ−1 q
where ∆ = g + ζ + M (1n × q̈ 0 ). Similarly, V̇3 is
h i 1 >
>
¨ + q
e˙ Γp M × K q
e
e˙ Γp Ṁ q
e˙
V̇3 ∈ q
2
2 In

Remark 3, we detail an approach for designing the gains.

(26)

(27)

¨ from (16) and using Assumption P3 we obtain
e
Substituting q
h
>
>
e˙ (ΓL22 ⊗ I p )e
e˙ (ΓL22 ⊗ I p )q
e˙
V̇3 ∈ K − η q
q − µη q
i
>
>
e˙ Γp sgn (s + µṡ) − q
e˙ Γp (∆ + C(1n × q̇ 0 )) (28)
− βq
When combining V̇ ∈ V̇1 + V̇2 + V̇3 notice that V̇1 , the
e˙ of (26) and the first summand of
term −e
q > (ΓL22 ⊗ I p )q
e + µq
e˙ and y = e + µė. Recalling the
(28) cancel. Let x = q
e − e, we thus have
definition of s = q
h1
>
>
1
e˙ X q
e˙ − q
e˙ Γp M q
e˙
q > Xe
q + µ2 η q
V̇ ∈ −µ−1 K ηe
2
2
e> Γp C > q
e˙ + x> Γp C(1 ⊗ q̇ 0 ) − x> Γp ∆
−q
i
− βx> Γp sgn(x − y)
(29)
From the bounds on g, M and 1 ⊗ q̈ 0 , and because we
normalised γ̄ = 1, it follows that x> Γp ∆ ≤ ξkxk2 where
ξ = kg + kζ + kM kq . From Assumption P4, the property
e, it follows that kCk2 =
of norms and the definition of q
e˙ k2 + kp ). Thus
kC > k2 ≤ kC kq̇k2 ≤ kC (kq
2
e> Γp C > q
e˙ ≤ kC kp ke
e˙ k2 + kC ke
e˙ k2
q
q k2 kq
q k2 kq

(30a)

2
e˙ )> Γp C(1 ⊗ q̇ 0 ) ≤ kC kp ke
e˙ k2 + µkC kp kq
e˙ k2
(e
q + µq
q k2 kq
e+q
e˙ k2
+ µkC k 2 kµ−1 q
(30b)
p

Let ϕ(µ, η) = 21 µ2 ηλmin (X) − µkC kp − kM . Define the
functions V̇A (absolutely continuous) and V̇B (set-valued) as
2
1
2
e˙ k2 + ηλmin (X)ke
V̇A = −µ−1 ϕ(µ, η)kq
q k2
2
2
e˙ k2 − kC ke
e˙ k2
− 2kC kp ke
q k2 kq
q k2 kq
e˙ k2 )
, −µ−1 g(ke
q k2 , kq
(31a)
h
i
V̇B ∈ µ−1 K − βx> Γp sgn(x − y) + kC kp2 kxk2 + ξkxk2
(31b)

By applying the inequalities in (30), and the eigenvalue
inequalities noted in Section II-A, we conclude that
V̇ ≤ V̇A + V̇B

(32)

Part 3: In Part 3.1, we study V̇A and V̇B separately
to establish negative definiteness properties. Then, Part 3.2
studies V̇A + V̇B and proves a boundedness property.
Part 3.1: Consider the region of the state variables given
e˙ (t)k2 ∈ [0, ∞) where X > 0 was
by ke
q (t)k2 ∈ [0, X ] and kq
computed in Section III-C. One can compute a µ∗5 ≥ µ∗4 and
η1∗ such that ϕ(µ, η) > 0, ∀µ ≥ µ∗5 , η ≥ η1∗ . Note that Lµ >
e˙ k2 )
H µ > N µ > 0 continues to hold. Observe that g(ke
q k2 , kq
in (31a) is of the same form as g(x, y) in Lemma 3 with
e˙ k2 . With b = ϕ(µ, η) > 0, check if
x = ke
q k2 and y = kq
(2kC kp )2
∗ ∗
the inequality ϕ(µ5 , η1 ) > 2η∗ λmin
(X) + kC X holds. If the
1
inequality holds then V̇A in (31a) is negative definite in the
region and proceed to Part 3.2 However, if the inequality does
not hold, then there exists a µ∗6 ≥ µ∗5 and η2∗ ≥ η1∗ such that
ϕ(µ∗6 , η2∗ ) >

(2kC kp )2
+ kC X
2η2∗ λmin (X)

(33)

7

Recall from (17) and (22) that Vb ∗ is dependent on η, but
independent of µ because µ∗6 ≥ µ∗3 . One could leave η2∗ = η1∗
and find a sufficiently large µ∗6 to satisfy (33). Alternatively,
we could increase η. Notice that ρ2 (µ∗3 ) and Vb ∗ are both of
O(η). Thus, as η increases, X becomes independent of η,
whereas ϕ = O(η). We conclude that there exists a sufficiently
large η2∗ satisfying (33), and for which X1 , Y1 , X , Y need not
be recomputed. With µ∗6 , η2∗ satisfying (33), V̇A < 0 in the
aforementioned region.
Now consider V̇B over two time intervals, tP = [0, T1 ) and
tQ = [T1 , T2 ), where T1 is given in Theorem 1 and T2 is the
infimum of those values of t for which one of the inequalities
e˙ (t)k2 < Y fails. In Part 3.2, we argue that
ke
q (t)k2 < X , kq
without loss of generality, it is possible to take T2 > T1 . In
fact, we establish that the inequalities never fail; T2 does not
exist and thus tQ = [T1 , ∞)3 .
Consider firstly t ∈ tP . Observe that the set-valued function
−βx> Γp sgn(x − y) is upper bounded by the single-valued
function βkxk1 . Recalling V̇B in (31b) yields
√
e˙ k2 ) := V̇B (34)
q k2 + kq
V̇B ≤ ( nβ + kC kp2 + ξ)(µ−1 ke
√
because k · k2 ≤ k · k1 ≤ nk · k2 [27].
For t ∈ tQ , Theorem 1 yields that e(t) = ė(t) = 0, which
implies that y = 0. Thus, the set-valued term K[x> Γp sgn(x−
y)] in (31b) becomes the singleton K[x> Γp sgn(x)] =
{kΓp xk1 } (since Γp > 0 is diagonal). It then follows that
V̇B = −µ−1 βkΓp xk1 + kC kp2 kxk2 + ξkxk2

(35)

In other words, V̇B for t ∈ tQ is a continuous, single-valued
e and q
e˙ . For t ∈ tQ , we observe that
function in the variables q
2
−1
e˙ k1 < 0 if
q + µq
V̇B ≤ −µ (βγ − kC kp − ξ)ke
β > (kC kp2 + ξ)/γ

(36)

Part 3.2: To aid in this part of the proof, refer to Figure 1.
Consider firstly V̇ for t ∈ tP . Specifically, let V̇tP , V̇A +
V̇B , which gives
h
2
1
2
e˙ k2 + ηλmin (X)ke
V̇tP = −µ−1 ϕ(µ, η)kq
q k2
2
2
e˙ k2 − kC ke
e˙ k2
− 2kC kp ke
q k2 kq
q k2 kq
i
√
e˙ k2
− ( nβγ + kC kp2 + ξ) ke
q k2 + µkq
e˙ k2 )
, −µ−1 p(ke
q k2 , kq

(37)

Note that V̇ ≤ V̇tP , i.e. V̇ for t ∈ tP is a differential inclusion
which is upper bounded by a continuous function. Observe that
e˙ k2 ) is of the form of h(x, y) in Corollary 1 with
p(ke
q k2 , kq
e˙ k2 . Here,
x = ke
q k2 and y = kq
η), a = 12 ηλmin (X),
√ b = ϕ(µ,
2
c = kC , d = 2kC kp , e = ( nβ+kC kp +ξ) and f = µe. Thus,
for some given ϑ, ε, X , Y satisfying the requirements detailed
in Corollary 1, one can use (9) and (11) to find a µ, η such
e˙ k2 ) is positive definite in the region R. Note
that p(ke
q k2 , kq
that ϑ, ε can be selected by the designer. Choose ϑ > X − X1
and ε > Y − Y1 , and ensure that X − ϑ, Y − ε > 0. Note the
fact that X ≥ X1 and Y ≥ Y1 implies ϑ, ε > 0.
3 Establishing that T does not exist rules out the possibility of finite-time
2
escape for system (13).

Define the sets U, V and the region R as in Corollary 1
e˙ k2 . Define further sets Ū = {ke
with x = ke
q k2 and y = kq
q k2 :
˙
ek2 : kq
e˙ k2 > Y}. Define the compact
ke
q k2 > X } and V̄ = {kq
region S = U ∪ V \ Ū ∪ V̄, see Fig. 1 for a visualisation of S.
Note S ⊂ R. Using Corollary 1, and with precise calculation
details given in [31, Theorem 2], one can find a pair of gains
e˙ k2 ) is positive definite
η and µ which ensures that p(ke
q k2 , kq
˙
ek2 ) is positive definite in S. It
in R. This implies p(ke
q k2 , kq
follows that V̇tP is negative definite in S. Further define the
e˙ (t)k2 ∈ [0, Y − ε) as T , again
region ke
q (t)k2 ∈ [0, X − ϑ), kq
with visualisation in Fig 1.
Now we justify the fact that we can assume T2 > T1 . In
fact, in doing so, we show that the existence of T2 creates
a contradiction; the trajectories of (16) remain in T ∪ S for
all time. See Fig 1 for a visualisation. Although V̇ is sign
indefinite in T (i.e. V (t) can increase), notice from (25) that,
in T there holds
1
1
V (t) ≤ ηλmax (X)(X − ϑ)2 + kM (Y − ε)2
2
2
+ µ−1 kM (X − ϑ)(Y − ε) := Z
(38)
Recalling that δ > 0 and is arbitrarily small, one can easily
verify that Z < Vb ∗ because we selected ϑ, ε such that X1 >
X − ϑ and Y1 > Y − ε. In addition, recall V̇ is negative
definite in S and now observe the following facts. For any
trajectory starting in S that enters T at some time t̄ < T2 ,
there holds V (t) < V (0) for all t ≤ t̄. Any trajectory starting
in S that stays in S for all t up to T2 satisfies V (t) < V (0).
Any trajectory in T satisfies V (t) < Z. If any trajectory leaves
T and enters S at some t̂ < T2 , we observe that the crossover
point is in the closure of T . Because V is continuous (since the
e, q
e˙ are absolutely continuous), we have
Filippov solutions for q
V (t̂) ≤ Z. Because the trajectory enters S, where V̇ < 0, we
also have V (t̂+δ1 ) < V (t̂) ≤ Z, for some arbitrarily small δ1 .
This implies that all trajectories of (16) beginning4 in T ∪ S
satisfy V (t) ≤ max{Z, V (0)} < Vb ∗ for all t ≤ T2 .
On the other hand, at T2 , and in accordance with Lemma 2,
there holds
s
s
s
V (T2 )
Vb ∗
Vb ∗
ke
q (T2 )k2 ≤
<
<
=X
(39)
χ
χ
ρ2 (µ∗3 )
where χ = λmin ( 12 ηX − 21 µ−2 Γp M ) > ρ2 (µ∗3 ). One can
e˙ (T2 )k2 < Y using an argument paralleling
also show that kq
the argument leading to (39); we omit this due to spatial
limitations. The existence of (39) and a similar inequality for
e˙ (T2 )k2 contradicts the definition of T2 . In other words, T2
kq
e˙ (t)k2 < Y hold for all t.
does not exist and ke
q (t)k2 < X , kq
Part 4: Observe that V̇B changes at t = T1 to become
negative definite. Consider now t ∈ tQ = [T1 , T2 ). Recalling
that V̇ ≤ V̇A + V̇B , we have
h
2
1
2
e˙ k2 + ηλmin (X)ke
q k2
V̇ ≤ −µ−1 ϕ(µ, η)kq
2
2
e˙ k2 − kC ke
e˙ k2
− 2kC kp ke
q k2 kq
q k2 kq
i
e˙ k1 < 0
− (β − kC kp2 − ξ)ke
q + µq
(40)
4

e(0), q
e˙ (0) ∈ S ∪ T .
It is evident from (21) that q

8

ke
q (t)k

S

T2

X

X −ϑ

T

e˙ (t)k
kq
Y −ε

Y

Figure 1. Diagram for Part 3 of the proof of Theorem 2. The red region is
S, in which V̇ (t) < 0 for all t ≥ 0. The blue region is T , in which V̇ (t)
is sign indefinite. A trajectory of (16) is shown with the black curve. We
define t = T2 , if it exists, as the infimum of all t values for which one of the
e˙ (T2 )k < Y fails to hold, i.e. as the time at
inequalities ke
q (T2 )k < X or kq
which the system (16) first leaves S. By contradiction, it is shown in Part 3.2
e˙ (T2 )k < Y. I.e., T2 does
that the trajectory of (16) satisfies ke
q (T2 )k < X , kq
not exist and the trajectory remains in T ∪ S, ∀ t. The sign indefiniteness of
e˙ k in (37). These terms disappear
V̇ in T arises due to terms linear in ke
q k, kq
at t = T1 , when the finite-time observer converges. For all t > T1 , V̇ < 0
in T ∪ S as shown in Part 4. Exponential convergence to the origin follows.

e˙ (T1 )k2 < Y,
in the region D := S ∪ T . From the fact that kq
there holds V̇ (T1 ) < 0. The argument applied to the interval
[0, min{T1 , T2 }] above, culminating in (39), is now applied to
the interval tQ . Since V̇ < 0 in D and at T1 , the trajectory is
in D, we have V (T1 ) < V (T2 ) < Vb ∗ . It follows that (39)
continues to hold (and equally for the argument regarding
e˙ k2 ). It remains true that T2 does not exist, implying that the
kq
trajectory of (16) remains in D and V̇ < 0 for t ∈ [T1 , ∞).
Recall from below (24) that the eigenvalues of H µ are
uniformly upper bounded away from infinity and lower
bounded away from zero by constants. Specifically, there holds
2
2
>
>
e˙ ]> k2 ≤ V ≤ λmax (Lµ )k[e
e˙ ]> k2 .
λmin (N µ )k[e
q> , q
q> , q
Because D is compact, one can find a scalar a3 > 0
2
>
e˙ ]> k2 . It follows that V̇ ≤
such that V̇ ≤ −a3 k[e
q> , q
−[a3 /λmax (Lµ )]V in D. This inequality is used to conclude
that V decays exponentially fast to zero, with a minimum rate
e−a3 /λmax (Lµ )t [32]. Specifically, there holds




a3
e(0)
e(t)
q
λmax (Lµ ) q
−
t
k ˙
k2 e λmax (Lµ )
(41)
k ˙
k2 ≤
e(0)
e(t)
q
λmin (N µ ) q

e(t) = 0n and limt→∞ q
e˙ (t) = 0n
It follows that limt→∞ q
exponentially and the leader tracking objective is achieved.

Remark 2 (Additional degree of freedom in gain design). In
[25] we assumed that η = 1. There is more flexibility in this
paper since we allow η > 1; one can adjust separately, or
simultaneously, µ and η. While the interplay between µ, η, β,
and its effect on performance, is difficult to quantify, we
observe from extensive simulations that in general, one should
make β and µ as small as possible. Where possible, it is better
to hold µ constant and increase η to satisfy an inequality
involving both, e.g (33). Notice that λmax (H µ ) and a3 are
both O(η). Note that as µ increases λmax (H µ ) does not
increase but a3 does decrease. Thus, the convergence rate
a3 /λmax (Lµ ) is not negatively affected by increasing η but

is reduced by increasing µ. If only µ is adjusted to be large
(as in [25]) then velocity consensus is quickly achieved but
position consensus is achieved after a long time.
Remark 3 (Designing the gains). We summarise here the
process to design µ, η, β to satisfy inequalities detailed in the
proof of Theorem 2. First, one may select β to satisfy (36).
Then, µ should be set to satisfy (24). The quantities X and Y
discussed in Section III-C are then computed with η & 1;
we noted below (33) that X and Y are independent of η
as η increases. Having computed X and Y, the last step is
e˙ k2 ) and p(ke
e˙ k2 ) are
to adjust η to ensure g(ke
q k2 , kq
q k2 , kq
positive definite (see Part 3.1 of Theorem 2 proof). Details of
the inequalities to ensure positive definiteness are found in the
proofs of Lemma 3 and Corollary 1 in [31, Section II-A].
Remark 4 (Robustness). The proposed algorithm (15) is
robust in several aspects. First, the exponential stability
property implies that small amounts of noise produce small
departures from the ideal. Moreover, the signum term in the
controller offers robustness to the unknown disturbance ζ i (t).
In contrast, and as discussed in the introduction, adaptive
controllers are not robust to unmodelled agent dynamics.
Remark 5 (Controller structure). Consider the controller
(15). The term containing the signum function ensures exact
tracking of the leader’s trajectory. Consider Fig. 1. For t < T1 ,
the signum term results in the region T , where V̇ is sign
indefinite. This signum term can in fact drive an agent away
from its neighbours due to the nonzero error term ei (t),
t < T1 . However, for t < T1 , the linear terms of the
controller (and in particular adjustment of the gains η, µ)
ensure that V̇ < 0 in S. This ensures that the followers
remain in the bounded region S centred on the leader. Such a
controller gives added robustness. For example, if GB becomes
temporarily disconnected, all agents will remain close to the
leader so long as GA has a directed spanning tree. When
connectivity of GB is restored, perfect tracking follows; this is
illustrated in the simulation below.
E. Practical Tracking By Approximating the Signum Function
Although the signum function term in (15) allows the leadertracking objective to be achieved, it carries an offsetting disadvantage. Use of the signum function can cause mechanical
components to fatigue due to the rapid switching of the control
input. Moreover, chattering often results, which can excite
the natural frequencies of high-order unmodelled dynamics.
A modified controller is now proposed using a continuous
approximation of the signum function and we derive an
explicit upper bound on the error in tracking of the leader5 .
Consider the following continuous, model-independent algorithm for the ith agent, replacing (15):
X

τi = −η
aij (q i − q j ) + µ(q̇ i − q̇ j )
j∈N

Ai

bi ) + µ(q̇ i − v
bi )
− βz i (q i − r

(42)

5 We do not consider an approximation for (14) because the observer
involves computing state estimates, as opposed to the physical control input
for (13).

9

where z i (x) , x/(kxk2 + ) with  > 0 being the degree of
approximation. The function z i (x) approximates sgn(x) via
the boundary layer concept [33]. The networked system is:
¨ + Cq
e
e˙ + η(L22 ⊗ I p )(e
e˙ ) + g + ζ
Mq
q + µq
+ βz(s + µṡ) + M (1n ⊗ q̈ 0 ) + C(1n ⊗ q̇ 0 ) = 0

(43)

where z(s + µṡ) = [z 1 (s1 + µṡ2 )> , ..., z n (sn + µṡn )> ]> .
Note that kz i (xi )k2 < 1 for any  > 0.
The computation of the quantities X , Y in subsection III-C
is unchanged. Because of similarity, we do not provide a
complete proof here; a sketch is outlined and we leave the
minor adjustments to the reader. Consider the same Lyapunovlike function as in (23), with µ sufficiently large to ensure
H µ > 0. The derivative of (23) with respect to time, along
the trajectories of (43), is given by
h1
>
>
1
e˙ X q
e˙ − q
e˙ Γp M q
e˙
q > Xe
q + µ2 η q
V̇ = −µ−1 ηe
2
2

e> Γp C > q
e˙ + x> Γp C(1n ⊗ q̇ 0 ) + ∆
−q
n
i
X
+β
γi x>
(44)
i z i (xi + y i )
i=1

i=1

where p(·, ·) was defined in (37). This is because there holds
kx>
i z i (xi + y i )k2 < kxi k2 , and γ̄ = 1. In other words, any
µ, η which ensures boundedness of the trajectories of (16),
will also ensure that the trajectories of (43) remain bounded
in S ∪ T for all time.
Consider now t ∈ tQ , and observe that x>
i z i (xi ) =
2
kxi k2 /(kxi k2 + ). It follows that
n
X

x> Γp C(1n ⊗ q̇ 0 ) + ∆ + β
γi x >
i z i (xi )
i=1

=

>
γi x>
i (C i q̇ 0 + M i q̈ 0 + g i + ζ i ) + βγi xi z i (xi )

i=1

≤

βγ

n
X

n
2
X
kxk2
−
(kC kp2 + ξ)kxi k2
kx
k
+

i
2
i=1
i=1
n h
2
i
X
kxi k2
− kxi k2
≥ βγ
kxi k2 + 
i=1
n
X h kxi k2  i
> −βγn
= −βγ
kxi k2 + 
i=1

(48)
(49)

because kxi k2 /(kxi k2 + ) < 1 for all  > 0. From this,
we conclude that V̇ ≤ V̇A + βγn. Recall also that any µ, η
which ensures p(·, ·) is positive definite in S also ensures that
V̇A is negative definite in D. Similar to Part 4 of the proof of
Theorem 2, one has V̇ ≤ ψV + βγn, for some ψ > 0. We
conclude using [32, Lemma 3.4 (Comparison Lemma)] that
Z t
−ψt
e−ψ(t−τ ) .dτ
(50)
V (t) ≤ V (0)e
+ βγn
n


≤ e−ψt V (0) + βγn/ψ + βγn/ψ
(51)
which implies that V (t) decays exponentially fast to the
>
e˙ ]> : V ≤ βγn/ψ}. From the fact
bounded set {[e
q> , q
2

Let tP and tQ be defined as in Part 3.2 of the proof of
Theorem 2. One can compute that, for t ∈ tP , there holds
h
2
1
2
e˙ k2 + ηλmin (X)ke
V̇ ≤ −µ−1 ϕ(µ, η)kq
q k2
2
2
e˙ k2 − kC ke
e˙ k2 − (kC kp2 + ξ)kxk2
− 2kC kp ke
q k2 kq
q k2 kq
n
i
X
e˙ k2 )
−β
kxi k2 ≤ −µ−1 p(ke
q k2 , kq
(45)

n
X

If β satisfies (36) then there holds

n
X

2
h
kxi k2 i
γi − (kC kp 2 + ξ)kxi k2 + β
kxi k2 + 
i=1

2
e˙ k2 + µkC kp kq
e˙ k2
+ kC kp ke
q k2 kq

which in turn yields
h
2
1
2
e˙ k2 + ηλmin (X)ke
V̇ ≤ −µ−1 ϕ(µ, η)kq
q k2
2
2
e˙ k2 − kC ke
e˙ k2
− 2kC kp ke
q k2 kq
q k2 kq
n
n
2
X
X
kxi k2 i
−
(kC kp2 + ξ)kxi k2 + βγ
kxi k2 + 
i=1
i=1

(46)

>
e˙ ]> k2 , we conclude that the
that V ≥ λmin (N µ )k[e
q> , q
trajectories of (43) converge to the bounded set

 12 

βγn
> ˙>
> ˙>
e
e
(52)
Ω = [e
q , q ] : k[e
q , q ]k2 ≤
ψλmin (N µ )

IV. L EADER T RACKING ON DYNAMIC N ETWORKS
In this section, we consider the case where the sensing graph
GA (t) is dynamic, i.e. time-varying. We assume that there is a
finite set J of m possible network topologies, given as ḠA =
{GA,j = (V, Ej , Aj ) : j ∈ J }, where J = {1, . . . , m} is the
index set. We assume further that GA,j , ∀ j, contains a directed
spanning tree, with v0 as the root node and with no edges
incoming to v0 . Define σ(t) : [0, ∞) 7→ J as the piecewise
constant switching signal which determines the switching of
GA (t), with a finite number of switches. The switching times
are indexed as t1 , t2 , . . . and we assume that σ(t) is such that
ti+1 − ti > πd > 0 for all i, where πd is the dwell time.
The dynamic network is modelled by the graph GA (t) =
GA,σ(t) , which in turn implies that the Laplacian associated
with GA (t) is dynamic, given by LA (t) = LA,σ(t) . Denote
L22 (t) = L22,σ(t) as the lower block matrix of LA (t),
partitioned as in (12). It is straightforward to show that the
follower network dynamics is given by
h

¨ ∈a.e. K − M −1 C q
e
e˙ + η(L22,σ(t) ⊗ I p )(e
e˙ ) + g + ζ
q
q + µq
i

+ β sgn (s + µṡ) + M (1n ⊗ q̈ 0 ) + C(1n ⊗ q̇ 0 )
(53)
We now seek to exploit an established result which states
that a switched system is exponentially stable if the switching
is sufficiently slow [34], and its ‘frozen’ versions of the
various systems arising between switching instants are all
exponentially stable. Specifically, the following result holds

(47)

Theorem 3 ( [34, Theorem 3.2]). Consider the family of
systems ẋ = f j (x), j ∈ J . Suppose that, in a domain

10

D ⊆ Rn containing x = 0, ∃C 1 functions Vj : D 7→ R, j ∈ J ,
and positive constants cj , dj , Λj such that
2

2

cj kxk2 ≤ Vj (x) ≤ dj kxk2 ,

∀ x ∈ D, ∀ j ∈ J

L

(54)

1

and V̇j (x) ≤ −Λj Vj (x) , ∀ x ∈ D, ∀ j ∈ J . Define κ ,
supp,q∈J {Vp (x)/Vq (x) : x ∈ D}, and suppose further that
0 < κ < 1. Then, for x(0) ∈ D, the origin x = 0 of the
switched system ẋ = f σ(t) (x) is exponentially stable for every
switching signal σ(t) with dwell time πd > log(κ)/Λ, where
Λ = minj∈J Λj .

2

Under Assumptions 1 and 2, we know from the previous
Theorem 2 that for each j th subsystem,
h

¨ ∈a.e. K − M −1 C q
e
e˙ + η(L22,j ⊗ I p )(e
e˙ ) + g + ζ
q
q + µq
i
+ β sgn (s + µṡ) + M (1n ⊗ q̈ 0 ) + C(1n ⊗ q̇ 0 )
(55)
there exist control gains µj , ηj , βj which exponentially achieve
the leader tracking objective. In seeking to apply Theorem 3
to the system (53), we obtain, for each j ∈ J with Vj given in
(23), the values λmin (N µ,j ) = cj , λmax (Lµ,j ) = dj and Λj =
a3,j /λmax (Lµ,j ) where a3,j was computed below (40). It
follows that Λ = minj∈J a3,j /λmax (Lµ,j ), and one can also
obtain that κ = maxj∈J λmax (Lµ,j )/ minj∈J λmin (N µ,j ).
Theorem 4. Under Assumptions 1 and 2, with dynamic topology given by GA (t) = GA,σ(t) , the leader tracking objective
is achieved using (15) if 1) the control gains µ, η, β satisfy
a set of lower bounding inequalities, and 2) the dwell time
πd satisfies the inequality πd > log(κ)/Λ, where κ, Λ are as
defined in the immediately preceding paragraph.
Proof. By selecting µ = maxj∈J µj , η = maxj∈J ηj , and
β = maxj∈J βj , we guarantee each j th subsystem (55) is
exponentially stable, and also guarantee the boundedness of
the trajectories of (53) before the finite-time observer has
converged. After convergence of the finite-time observer, application of Theorem 3 using the quantities of κ and Λ outlined
above delivers the conclusion that (53) is exponentially stable,
i.e. the leader tracking objective is achieved.
V. S IMULATIONS
A simulation is now provided to demonstrate the algorithm
(15). Each agent is a two-link robotic arm and five follower
agents must track the trajectory the leader agent. The equations
of motion are given in [26, pp. 259-262]. The generalised
(1) (2)
coordinates for agent i are q i = [qi , qi ]> , which are
the angles of each link in radians. The agent parameters
and initial conditions are given in Table I, and are chosen
arbitrarily. Several aspects of the simulation are designed to
highlight the robustness of the algorithm. First, the topology
is assumed to be switching, with the graph GA (t) switching
periodically between the three graphs indicated in Fig. 2,
at a frequency of 1 Hz. Graph GB (t) switches between the
three graphs indicated in Fig. 3, also at a frequency of 1 Hz.
Moreover, if GA (t) = GA,i then GB (t) = GB,i for i = 1, 2, 3.
Additionally, GB (t) is entirely disconnected for t ∈ [10, 20)
of the simulation. Last, each agent has a disturbance ζ i (t) =
[sin(i × 0.1t), cos(i × 0.1t)]> for i = 1, . . . , 5. All edges of

GA1

3
4
5

L

GA2

3

L

1

4

1

2

5

2

GA3

3
4
5

Figure 2. In the simulation, graph GA (t) switches between the above three
graphs periodically at a rate of 1 Hz.

GA (t) and GB (t) have edge weights of 5. The control gains are
set as µ = 1.5, η = 16, β = 25; they are first computed using
the inequalities and then adjusted because the inequalities can
lead to conservative gain choices. For the observer, set ω1 = 1,
ω2 = 5. The leader trajectory is
#
"

 0.5 sin(t) − 0.2 sin(0.5t)
q 0 (t) =
sin(3t)
sin(4t)
0.4 2 sin(t) + sin(2t)
(2) + (3) + (4)
Figure 4 shows the generalised coordinates q (1) and q (2) . The
generalised velocities, q̇ (1) and q̇ (2) are shown in Fig. 5. The
well studied observer results are omitted [29]. Consider Fig. 4.
Clearly, q i (t) has almost tracked the leader by t = 10, but the
distributed observer graph GB (t) disconnects for t ∈ [10, 20).
As discussed in Remark 5, the controller (15) has robustness
to network failure, since the linear term in (15) ensures the
trajectories remain bounded as long as GB (t) is disconnected
(thus followers do not possess accurate knowledge of q 0 , q̇ 0 ).
In the simulation, we observe leader tracking is achieved
once GB (t) reconnects at t > 20. Figures 6 and 7 show the
generalised coordinates and generalised velocity, respectively,
for the same simulation set up but with an increase of µ = 4
from µ = 1.5. The effects are clear, when we compare to Fig. 4
and 5. First, the rate of velocity synchronisation relative to the
rate of position synchronisation is much larger when µ = 4.
On the other hand, overall convergence rate is decreased; it
takes longer for position and velocity synchronisation to occur,
with reasons presented in Remark 2. However, the increased
µ has a benefit of making the follower agents stay in a
smaller ball around the leader when GB (t) is disconnected
for t ∈ [10, 20), i.e. the tracking error for t ∈ [10, 20) is
smaller. This is because increasing µ decreases the size of
T , where V̇ is sign indefinite, as shown in Fig. 1. Last, we
show a simulation which utilises the continuous approximation
algorithm (42). The simulation setup is given above, and we
let  = 0.5. Figure 8 shows the generalised coordinates of the
resulting simulation, with a magnification of the plot for the
final 2 seconds of simulation. One can clearly see that practical
tracking is achieved, with a small error. The velocity plot is
omitted.
VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, a distributed, discontinuous modelindependent algorithm was proposed for a directed network
of Euler-Lagrange agents. It was shown that the leader
tracking objective is achieved semi-globally exponentially
fast if the directed graph contains a directed spanning tree,
rooted at the leader, and if three control gains satisfied a set

11

Table I
AGENT PARAMETERS USED IN SIMULATION
Agent
Agent
Agent
Agent
Agent

GB1
L

m1
0.5
0.2
0.5
1
0.25

1
2
3
4
5

m2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4

GB2

3

l1
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.45
0.8

L

3

L

l2
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.8
0.5

lc1
0.2
0.35
0.2
0.2
0.3

lc2
0.15
0.08
0.15
0.4
0.1

GB3

I1
0.1
0.15
0.1
0.15
0.45

(1)

I2
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.5
0.15

(2)

qi (0)
0.1
-0.4
0.9
-2.0
0.3

qi (0)
0.9
0.9
-1.2
-2.0
1.5

(1)

q̇i (0)
-0.5
0.1
0.3
-1.0
1.0

(2)

q̇i (0)
-0.6
-1.4
0.6
0.2
1.2

2

3

1

1

4

1

4

1

4

2

5

2

5

2

5

0
-1
0

Figure 3. Graph GB (t) switches between the above three graphs periodically
at a rate of 1 Hz; if GA (t) = GA,i then GB (t) = GB,i for i = 1, 2, 3.

5
agent1

10

15

agent2

20

Time
agent3

25

30

(s) agent4

35

40

agent5

45
Leader

2

1

0

0

-2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Time (s)

-1
-2
0

5
agent1

10

15

20

Time
agent3

agent2

25

30

(s) agent4

35

40

agent5

45
Leader

Figure 5. Plot of generalised velocity vs. time; the graph GB (t) is disconnected for t ∈ [10, 20).

2
1
0
0
-1

-2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Time (s)

-2
0

5
agent1

Figure 4. Plot of generalised coordinates vs. time; the graph GB (t) is
disconnected for t ∈ [10, 20).

10

15

agent2

20

Time
agent3

25

30

(s) agent4

35

40

agent5

45
Leader

2

0

of lower bounding inequalities. The algorithm was shown to
be robust to agent disturbances, unmodelled agent dynamics
and modelling uncertainties. A continuous approximation
of the algorithm was proposed to avoid chattering, and we
then extended the result to include switching topologies. A
numerical simulation illustrated the algorithm’s effectiveness.

-2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Time (s)

Figure 6. Plot of generalised coordinates vs. time; the graph GB (t) is
disconnected for t ∈ [10, 20). The gain µ has been increased from µ = 1.5
to µ = 4.

R EFERENCES
[1] W. Ren and Y. Cao, Distributed Coordination of Multi-agent Networks:
Emergent Problems, Models and Issues. Springer London, 2011.
[2] R. Ortega, J. A. L. Perez, P. J. Nicklasson, and H. Sira-Ramirez,
Passivity-based Control of Euler-Lagrange systems: Mechanical, Electrical and Electromechanical Applications. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
[3] S.-J. Chung and J.-J. Slotine, “Cooperative Robot Control and Concurrent Synchronization of Lagrangian Systems,” IEEE Transactions on
Robotics, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 686–700, 2009.
[4] Q. Hu, B. Xiao, and P. Shi, “Tracking control of uncertain euler–lagrange
systems with finite-time convergence,” International Journal of Robust
and Nonlinear Control, vol. 25, no. 17, pp. 3299–3315, 2015.
[5] Q. Yang, H. Fang, J. Chen, Z. Jiang, and M. Cao, “Distributed Global
Output-Feedback Control for a Class of Euler-Lagrange Systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 11 2017.
[6] Z. Meng, Z. Lin, and W. Ren, “Leader–Follower Swarm Tracking for
Networked Lagrange Systems,” Systems & Control Letters, vol. 61,
no. 1, pp. 117–126, 2012.

[7] J. Mei, W. Ren, and G. Ma, “Distributed Containment Control for
Lagrangian Networks With Parametric Uncertainties Under a Directed
Graph,” Automatica, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 653–659, 2012.
[8] A. Abdessameud, I. G. Polushin, and A. Tayebi, “Synchronization
of lagrangian systems with irregular communication delays,” IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 187–193, January
2014.
[9] G. Chen and F. L. Lewis, “Distributed Adaptive Tracking Control for
Synchronization of Unknown Networked Lagrangian Systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics,
vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 805–816, 2011.
[10] E. Nuno, R. Ortega, L. Basanez, and D. Hill, “Synchronization of
Networks of Nonidentical Euler-Lagrange Systems with Uncertain Parameters and Communication Delays,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 935–941, 2011.
[11] Z. Meng, D. V. Dimarogonas, and K. H. Johansson, “Leader–Follower
Coordinated Tracking of Multiple Heterogeneous Lagrange Systems
Using Continuous Control,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 30,

12

1

[21]

0

-1
0

5

10

agent1

15
agent2

20

25

Time
(s)
agent3

30

35

agent4

40

45

agent5

[22]

Leader

2

[23]

1
0
-1

[24]
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Time (s)

[25]
Figure 7. Plot of generalised velocity vs. time; the graph GB (t) is disconnected for t ∈ [10, 20). The gain µ has been increased from µ = 1.5 to
µ = 4.
agent1

agent2

agent3

agent4

agent5

1

[26]

Leader

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

0

[27]
[28]
43 44 45

-1

[29]

-2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2

40

45

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5

0

[30]
[31]

43

44

45

-2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Time (s)

Figure 8. Plot of generalised coordinates vs. time; the graph GB (t) is
disconnected for t ∈ [10, 20). The continuous approximation algorithm (42)
is used with  = 0.5.
no. 3, pp. 739–745, 2014.
[12] S. Ghapani, J. Mei, W. Ren, and Y. Song, “Fully distributed flocking with
a moving leader for Lagrange networks with parametric uncertainties,”
Automatica, vol. 67, pp. 67–76, 2016.
[13] A. Abdessameud, A. Tayebi, and I. Polushin, “Leader-Follower Synchronization of Euler-Lagrange Systems with Time-Varying Leader Trajectory and Constrained Discrete-time Communication,” IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, vol. Preprint, 2016.
[14] W. Ren, “Distributed Leaderless Consensus Algorithms for Networked
Euler–Lagrange Systems,” International Journal of Control, vol. 82,
no. 11, pp. 2137–2149, 2009.
[15] E. Nuno, I. Sarras, and L. Basanez, “Consensus in Networks of
Nonidentical Euler-Lagrange Systems using P+ d Controllers,” IEEE
Transactions on Robotics, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1503–1508, 2013.
[16] Z. Meng, T. Yang, G. Shi, D. V. Dimarogonas, Y. Hong, and K. H.
Johansson, “Set Target Aggregation of Multiple Mechanical Systems,”
in 2014 IEEE 53rd Annual Conference on Decision and Control. IEEE,
2014, pp. 6830–6835.
[17] J. Mei, W. Ren, and G. Ma, “Distributed Coordinated Tracking With a
Dynamic Leader for Multiple Euler-Lagrange Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 1415–1421, 2011.
[18] Y. Zhao, Z. Duan, and G. Wen, “Distributed finite-time tracking of
multiple Euler–Lagrange systems without velocity measurements,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 25, no. 11,
pp. 1688–1703, 2015.
[19] J. R. Klotz, Z. Kan, J. M. Shea, E. L. Pasiliao, and W. E. Dixon, “Asymptotic Synchronization of a Leader-Follower Network of Uncertain EulerLagrange Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems,
vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 174–182, June 2015.
[20] Z. Feng, G. Hu, W. Ren, W. E. Dixon, and J. Mei, “Distributed

[32]
[33]
[34]

Coordination of Multiple Unknown Euler-Lagrange Systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Control of Network Systems, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–
1, 2016.
P. F. Hokayem, D. M. Stipanović, and M. W. Spong, “Coordination
and Collision Avoidance for Lagrangian Systems With Disturbances,”
Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 217, no. 3, pp. 1085–1094,
2010.
N. Chopra, “Output Synchronization on Strongly Connected Graphs,”
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 57, no. 11, pp. 2896–
2901, Nov 2012.
M. Ye, C. Yu, and B. D. O. Anderson, “Model-Independent Rendezvous
of Euler-Lagrange Agents on Directed Networks,” in Proceedings of
IEEE 54th Annual Conference on Decision and Control, Osaka, Japan,
2015, pp. 3499–3505.
M. Ye, B. D. O. Anderson, and C. Yu, “Distributed model-independent
consensus of Euler–Lagrange agents on directed networks,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 27, no. 14, pp.
2428–2450, September 2017.
——, “Model-Independent Trajectory Tracking of Euler–Lagrange
Agents on Directed Networks,” in Proceedings of IEEE 55th Annual
Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), Las Vegas, USA, 2016, pp.
6921–6927.
M. W. Spong, S. Hutchinson, and M. Vidyasagar, Robot Modeling and
Control. Wiley New York, 2006, vol. 3.
R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis. Cambridge University
Press, New York, 2012.
H. Zhang, Z. Li, Z. Qu, and F. L. Lewis, “On Constructing Lyapunov
Functions for Multi-Agent Systems,” Automatica, vol. 58, pp. 39–42,
2015.
Y. Cao, W. Ren, and Z. Meng, “Decentralized Finite-time Sliding
Mode Estimators and Their Applications in Decentralized Finite-time
Formation Tracking,” Systems & Control Letters, vol. 59, no. 9, pp.
522–529, 2010.
J. Cortes, “Discontinuous Dynamical Systems,” Control Systems, IEEE,
vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 36–73, 2008.
M. Ye, B. D. O. Anderson, and C. Yu, “Leader Tracking of
Euler-Lagrange Agents on Directed Switching Networks Using
A Model-Independent Algorithm,” 2018, arXiv:1802.00906 [].
[Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.00906
H. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems. Prentice Hall, 2002.
C. Edwards and S. Spurgeon, Sliding Mode Control: Theory and
Applications, ser. Series in Systems and Control. CRC Press, 1998.
D. Liberzon, Switching in Systems and Control. Springer Science &
Business Media, 2012.

