1

Consensus tracking in multi agent system with
nonlinear and non identical dynamics via event
driven sliding modes
Abhinav Sinha and Rajiv Kumar Mishra

arXiv:1712.01152v2 [] 5 Dec 2017

Abstract
In this work, leader follower consensus objective has been addressed with the synthesis of an event based
controller utilizing sliding mode robust control. The schema has been partitioned into two parts viz. finite time
consensus problem and event triggered control mechanism. A nonlinear multi agent system with non identical
dynamics has been put forward to illustrate the robust capabilities of the proposed control. The first part incorporates
matching of states of the followers with those of the leader via consensus tracking algorithm. In the subsequent
part, an event triggered rule is devised to save computational power and restrict periodic updating of the controller
involved while ensuring desired closed loop performance of the system. Switching of the event based controller is
achieved via sliding mode control. Advantage of using switched controller like sliding mode is that it retains its
inherent robustness as well as event triggering approach aids in saving energy expenditure. Efficacy of the proposed
scheme is confirmed via numerical simulations.
Index Terms
Multi Agent System (MAS), Cooperative control, decentralized control, Riemann sampling, Lebesgue sampling,
event triggered sliding modes, sliding mode control, mismatched disturbances, inter event time, formation control

I. I NTRODUCTION
ECENTLY distributed cooperative control for Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) has attracted researchers
from control and allied sciences fraternity from around the globe because of having potential
application across various fields like formation control of robots, intelligent transportation systems, attitude
alignment of spacecraft, cooperative attack of multiple missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) [1] for
rescue operation, distributed computing and distributed sensor networks, etc. In an interconnection of
several autonomous agents, a perturbation in a single agent can affect the entire network. The decentralized
control approach has been proved effective to control such systems. A high degree of autonomy can only
be achieved if each of the agents can be controlled via robust design techniques, and at the same time, an
efficient coordination control is also possible to reach a common goal. Several autonomous agents form
a class of dynamic system where they interact with each other over a communication network to reach a
common goal. In comparison to a single autonomous agent, MAS provides higher degree of redundancy
and improves the operational efficiency. A particularly challenging problem in this field is commonly
known as consensus tracking, i.e., consensus with a leader (agent in swarm whose dynamics has to be
imitated by others). In this problem, a group of followers tracks the states of a virtual leader in finite
time using only local interactions. A group of agents should possess the ability to communicate with
their neighbours and are required to accomplish some tasks together as a single entity. If all the agents
in the group can be made to come to a common ground, the agents are said to have reached consensus
or an agreement. This means the agents have achieved consensus about some state dependent parameter
of interest to meet a requirement collectively. A consensus algorithm or protocol is an interaction rule

R

Rajiv Kumar Mishra is with School of Electronics Engineering, KIIT University, India. email: rajivmishra86@gmail.com
Abhinav Sinha is with School of Mechatronics and Robotics, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur (Howrah).
email:abhinavsinha876@gmail.com
This manuscript was originally created on July 9, ‘2017.

2

that specifies the information exchange between an agent and all of its neighbors on the network [2].
Another challenging problem is referred to as formation control. The objective of the formation control
is to stabilize the relative distance or velocity amongst agents to a given value. In this work, the leader
has its dynamics independent of the followers and the followers are required to track the leader’s state
in spite of the presence of uncertainties and disturbances. The communication amongst these agents is
achieved via wireless means connected over a shared network with limited resources. In such scenario,
continuous updating of the control signal can consume more energy. Hence, an event triggering approach
is incorporated which updates the control signal only when some condition (predefined) gets violated. This
aids in the efficient utilization of shared resources, less computational power expenditure and increases
the life of hardware as well. Event based schema involves switching every time a predefined threshold
gets crossed over. This switching is implemented by a sliding mode controller known for its inherent
disturbance rejection capabilities.
Observations in nature such as a flock of birds, a school of fish, and a swarm of insects have led to
the development of algorithms for collective behavior of MAS. The first flocking behavior was simulated
by Reynolds [3]. Subsequently, there are various early contributions in this field. A brief literature survey
goes here.
In [4], the consensus problem of second order MAS has been addressed based on the graph having
directed spanning tree. A Laplacian matrix based approach to observing the flow of information amongst
agents has been proposed in [5] to investigate cooperative control of a group of agents modelled as a
network. The solution to the problem of linear leader follower multi agent networks has been proposed
in [6] based on observer design. The dynamic consensus tracking for directed network topology using
proportional- derivative algorithm has been proposed in [7]. The nonlinear dynamics of MAS has been
approximated using adaptive neural network [8] and fuzzy logic [9] and consensus has been investigated.
The leader follower consensus control has also been proposed where dynamics of a virtual leader is
controlled and followers are made to follow desired trajectory [10]. The consensus problem of a second
order MAS with directed communication topology, as opposed to undirected communication topology has
also been addressed in literature using terminal sliding mode control [11]. The sliding mode controllers are
applied for finite time distributed tracking of second order MAS in [12]. Moreover, an observer based event
triggered consensus problem has been investigated for position tracking of MAS in [13]. The containment
control problem for Euler-Lagrange systems has been addressed in [14]. The Distributed H∞ consensus
and control has been investigated in [15]. In [16], a distributed finite time consensus control for higher
order MAS has been dealt with.
Event based sampling and control has become popular in energy constrained applications. As opposed
to periodic update of controller, control signal is updated only when the measurement error crosses a
predefined threshold. The event based broadcasting of state information for multi agent coordination
control has been described in [17]. Event triggered leader follower tracking control for MAS has been
investigated in [18]. An event based controller for rendezvous problem of MAS has been studied in [19].
A novel event driven sliding mode control for distributed cooperative control of MAS having nonidentical dynamics has been addressed in this work. The paper is organized as follows. Section II introduces
preliminaries of graph theory and event triggered sliding mode control. Governing dynamics of the multi
agent system has been discussed in section III, followed by the synthesis of proposed controller in section
IV. Numerical simulations are given in section V. Section VI provides the concluding remarks.
II. P RELIMINARIES
A brief background that is necessary for the foregoing discussion is presented in this section. A
familiarity with spectral graph theory and event based sliding mode control is introduced.

3

A. Spectral Graph Theory applied to Multi Agent Systems
A directed graph, also known as digraph [20] is represented here by G = (V, E, A). V is the nonempty
set that contains finite number of vertices or nodes [21], [22] such that V = {1, 2, ..., N }. E denotes edges
that are directed and represented as E = {(i, j) ∀ i, j ∈ V & i 6= j}. A is the weighted adjacency matrix
such that A = a(i, j) ∈ RN × N .
The existence of an edge (i, j) is only possible if and only if the vertex i receives the information supplied
by the vertex j, i.e., (i, j) ∈ E. Hence, i and j are referred to as neighbours. Let us consider a set Ni that
contains labels of vertices that are neighbour of the vertex i. For the adjacency matrix A, a(i, j) ∈ R+ ∪{0}.
If (i, j) ∈ E ⇒ a(i, j) > 0. If (i, j) ∈
/ E or i = j ⇒ a(i, j) = 0.
The Laplacian matrix L [23], [24], [20] lies at the heart of the consensus problem andPis given by
L = D − A where D is a diagonal matrix, i.e, D = diag(d1 , d2 , ..., dn ) whose entries are di = nj=1 a(i, j).
A directed path from vertex j to vertex i defines a sequence comprising of edges (i, i1 ), (i1 , i2 ), ..., (il , j)
with distinct vertices ik ∈ V, k = 1, 2, 3, ..., l. B is also a diagonal matrix with entries 1 or 0. If there
exists an edge between leader agent and any other agent, the entry is 1 and 0 otherwise. Furthermore,
it can be inferred that the path between two distinct vertices is not uniquely determined. However, if a
distinct node in V contains directed path to every other distinct node in V, then the directed graph G is
said to have a spanning tree.
Physically, each agent in the multi agent system is represented by a vertex or node and the line of
communication between any two agents is represented as a directed edge. The relationship between G
and V establishes the following lemmas.
Lemma 1: Consider a directed graph G and its Laplacian matrix L. The set of eigenvalues of L contains
at least one zero eigenvalue. Other nonzero eigenvalues of L have positive real parts. L has a simple zero
eigenvalue only when G has a spanning tree. Also, G is said to be balanced if the following criterion is
met.
L1N = 1TN L = 0N
(1)
where 1N denotes a column vector of all 1s, i.e, [1, 1, ..., 1]T and 0N denotes a column vector of all 0s,
i.e, [0, 0, ..., 0]T . Both 1N and 1N ∈ RN . If elements of L be denoted as l(i, j), then l(i, j) ∈ RN × N
Lemma 2: The matrix L + B has full rank when G has a spanning tree with leader as the root. This
implies non singularity of L + B and is used in the synthesis of controller in later stages.
B. Event triggered Sliding Mode Control
Sliding Mode Control (SMC) [25], [26] is known for its inherent robustness. The switching nature of
the control is used to nullify bounded disturbances and matched uncertainties. The switching happens
about a surface (hyperplane) in state space known as sliding surface (hyperplane). The control forces the
system monotonically towards the sliding surface and this phase is regarded as reaching phase. When the
system reaches the sliding surface it remains there for all future time, thereby ensuring that the system
dynamics remain independent of bounded disturbances and matched uncertainties. The controller has
reaching phase (trajectories in phase plane emanate and move towards the switching surface) and sliding
phase (trajectories in the phase plane that reach the switching surface try to remain there).
1) Reaching Phase: Let the hyperplane discussed be given as σ(x). In order to drive state trajectories
onto this manifold, a proper discontinuous control effort u(t, x) needs to be synthesized that satisfies the
following inequality.
σ T (x)σ̇(x) ≤ −ηkσ(x)k
(2)

4

with η being positive and is called the reachability constant.
∵
∂σ
∂σ
ẋ =
f (t, x, u)
(3)
σ̇(x) =
∂x
∂x
∴
∂σ
σ T (x) f (t, x, u) ≤ −ηkσ(x)k
(4)
∂x
It is clear that the control u can be synthesized from the above equation.
2) Sliding Phase: The motion of state trajectories confined on the switching manifold is known as
sliding. A sliding mode is said to exist if the state velocity vectors are directed towards the manifold in its
neighbourhood [27], [25]. Under this circumstance, the manifold is called attractive [27], i.e., trajectories
starting on it remain there for all future time and trajectories starting outside it tends to it in an asymptotic
manner.
∂σ
f (t, x, u)
∵ σ̇(x) =
∂x
Hence, in sliding motion
∂σ
f (t, x, u) = 0
(5)
∂x
Then u = ueq (say) be a solution and is generally referred to as the equivalent control. This ueq is not
the actual control applied to the system but can be thought of as a control that must be applied on an
average to maintain sliding motion. It is mainly used for analysis of sliding motion [28].
In practice, individual autonomous agents in MAS are often equipped with small digital microcontrollers
to reduce the cost. These microcontrollers have limited computing and communication capabilities. According to traditional sampled data control systems theory, samples of a measured output are obtained in
periodic fashion with a fixed sampling rate. In addition to this a zero order hold operator is needed to
maintain the control input signal constant between successive sample instants. This sampling technique is
known as periodic sampling and is generally done along the time axis, also known as Riemann sampling
[29]. An alternative and more efficient way to obtain samples along dependent variable axis (vertical
axis), known as Lebesgue sampling [29]. Under this technique, sampling interval is no longer periodic
and samples are obtained only when a noticeable change, also referred to as an event occurs. As a result,
the controller does not need to update itself periodically, but a hold type operator is still needed to maintain
the value constant between successive sample instants. The continuous sampling and transmission, along
with the occupancy of central processing unit to perform computations when the signal is constant (not
changing too frequently) lead to significant waste of available resources. The optimum utilization of
communication, computing and energy expenses is a concern in various applications with increasing
number of systems getting networked. One mitigation strategy adopted is event based control wherein
control is applied only when the system calls for it depending upon some event. Event based sampling is a
tradeoff between performance and sampling frequency. More formal presentation and earlier contributions
on event based control are presented in [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38].
As a consequence of combining event based strategies with sliding mode control, the robustness of the
system has been retained while maintaining lower computational expense. However, the system trajectories
tend to move away from the sliding manifold till the control is updated again but remain bounded within
a band. Detailed discussion has been carried out in later sections.
III. S YSTEM DYNAMICS
Let us take into account a multi agent system with a virtual leader and a finite number of followers that
are interconnected in a well defined topology. Under this topology, information of the leader’s state is not

5

available globally. However, local information is obtained by communication between follower agents.
In such a system, the dynamics of the leader and followers are given by a nonlinear differential equation
described below.
ẋ0 = f (t, x0 ) + u0 + ς0
(6)
ẋi = f (t, xi ) + ui + ςi

;

i∈N

(7)

where f : R+ × X → Rm denotes the uncertain nonlinear dynamics of each agent in the multi agent
system. Here the map f is taken to be continuous in t. Also X ⊂ Rm is a domain in which origin is
contained.
x0 represents the state of the virtual leader and u0 is the control associated with it. Also u0 satisfies
ku0 k ≤ Λ for some Λ ∈ R+ . This makes quite a practical case when upper limits on hardware constraints
are known but the information on real time control effort is not concrete. Quite similarly xi and ui are
state of ith follower and the associated control respectively. ς0 and ςi are bounded disturbances that may
creep in the system.
In this study, the dynamics of the leader is independent of that of the followers. Moreover, the dynamics
of follower agents considered need not be identical. Quite generally, every agent whether leader or any
follower can have a dynamics totally different from the other. In literature, such agents are referred as
heterogenous agents. Furthermore, it is assumed throughout the discussion that the functions described
by (6) and (7) are locally Lipschitz on some fairly large domain DL with Lipschitz contsant L̄, i.e.,
kf (x1 ) − f (x2 )k ≤ L̄kx1 − x2 k

(8)

∀t ∈ R+ ∪ {0}; x1 , x2 ∈ X and L̄ ∈ R+
IV. S YNTHESIS OF THE PROPOSED CONTROLLER
The prime focus of this work is to ensure accurate trajectory tracking of the leader agent by other agents
in finite time with minimum computational expense. The consensus tracking aims to maintain follower’s
state in consistence with leader’s state in finite time by local communication. However, the leader moves
independently of followers.
Let us define the tracking error for ith agent as
ei (t) = xi (t) − x0 (t)

(9)

In terms of graph theory, the error candidate modifies to [39]
e¯i (t) = (L + B)ei (t) = (L + B)(xi (t) − x0 (t))

(10)

It is required that this error candidate vanishes quickly to ensure a common agreement between agents and
they attain accurate tracking. Furthermore, formation control is also addressed in this work to demonstrate
one possible application. The error candidate for formation control can be suitably modified as
e¯i (t) = (L + B)(xi (t) − x0 (t) − αi )

(11)

where αi denotes the distance between leader and ith follower.
The controller that guarantees finite time consensus is synthesized on archetype of variable structure
control techniques with a slight modification. For any sliding mode controller design [27], [25] is a two
step process: the design of a sliding surface where trajectories are required to be confined in finite time,
and a control to force the trajectories onto this surface. By the theory of sliding modes, the surface variable
for ith agent is given as
σi (t) = e¯i (t) = (L + B)ei (t) = (L + B)(xi (t) − x0 (t))
⇒ σ̇i (t) = e¯˙i (t) = (L + B)ėi (t) = (L + B)(ẋi (t) − ẋ0 (t))

6

⇒ σ̇i (t) = (L + B)(f (t, xi ) + ui (t) + ςi − f (t, x0 ) − u0 (t) − ς0 )
⇒ σ̇i (t) = (L + B)(f (xi (t)) + ui (t) + ςi − f (x0 (t)) − u0 (t) − ς0 )
⇒ ui (t) = −(L + B)−1 (K|σi (t)|τ sign(σi (t)) + f (xi (t))
− f (x0 (t)) − u0 (t) + ςi − ς0 ) (12)
where K|σi (t)|τ sign(σi (t)) is the discontinuous forcing function and K is adjustable gain which can be
tuned as per design needs. The exponent τ ∈ (0, 1) and is a design parameter facilitating additional tuning.
The sudden increase of interest in the event driven design of circuits and systems is due to its better
performance in applications where resources are constrained. In networked control system like MAS
connected over shared network consisting of rapid information exchange between nodes, resources such
as bandwidth and processor time are always constrained. In such scenario, event based control is expected
to yield better results. The control gets updated only when an event (noticeable change) occurs, thereby
significantly minimizing computational requirement and power consumption. The event based control is
a good candidate if the requirement is to execute different task in time shared manner and also where
control is expensive. It is also advantageous in situations when steady state needs to be upper bounded
at start regardless of any initial condition and how the state evolves.
It has often been described as an alternative to periodic sampling owing to its nature. Next sample instant is
dependent on the triggering of an event. Hence, our control law given in (12) is modified for ∀t ∈ [tk , tk+1 [
as below.
ui (t) = −(L + B)−1 (K|σi (tk )|τ sign(σi (tk )) + f (xi (tk ))
− f (x0 (tk )) − u0 (tk ) + ςi − ς0 ) (13)
The error introduced due to discretization of the control is given by
¯(t) = x(tk ) − x(t)

(14)

such that at tk , ¯(t) = 0. It should be noted that tki is the triggering instant for ith agent. Note that
henceforth ¯0 (t) and ¯i (t) shall correspond to the error described by (14) for leader and follower agents
respectively.
From (9), ei (t) = xi (t) − x0 (t), so ei (tk ) = xi (tk ) − x0 (tk ).
Similarly, let us define
e˜i (t) = ei (tk ) − ei (t)
(15)
Theorem 1: Consider the system described by (6), (7), error candidates (9), (10), (14), sliding manifold
(hyperplane) σi in the notions of sliding mode and control law of (13).
(i) Sliding mode is said to exist in vicinity of the sliding surface if the surface is an essential attractor.
In other words, reachability to the surface is ascertained for some reachability constant η > 0.
(ii) The event driven sliding mode control law (13) provides stability to the system in the sense of
Lyapunov if gain K is selected as
K > sup{z̃ − L̄kei (tk )k + kHkL̄k¯
i (t)k
− kHkL̄k¯0 (t)k + kHkL̄kei (tk )k}

(16)

Proof: (i) Let us consider a Lyapunov candidate V such that
1
V = σiT (t)σi (t)
2

(17)

7

Time derivative of this candidate, given in (15) for t ∈ [tk , tk+1 [ along the state trajectories yield
V̇ = σiT (t)σ̇i (t)
= σiT (t)e¯˙i (t) = σiT (t)(L + B)ėi (t)
= σiT (t)(L + B)(ẋi (t) − ẋ0 (t))

(18)

= σiT (t)(L + B)(f (xi (t)) + ui (t) + ςi − f (x0 (t))
− u0 (t) − ς0 )
From (13), we can simplify the above expression as
V̇ = σiT (t){(L + B)f (xi (t)) − K|σi (tk )|τ sign(σi (tk ))
− f (xi (tk )) + f (x0 (tk )) + u0 (tk ) − ςi + ς0
+ (L + B)(ςi − ς0 ) − (L + B)f (x0 (t)) − (L + B)u0 (t)}

(19)

Let (L + B) = H (say). It should be noted that u0 (t) is bounded and leader is not triggered. Also the
disturbances are upper bounded by a finite positive quantity.
∴ we can write (19) as
V̇ = σiT (t){z − K|σi (tk )|τ sign(σi (tk ))
+ (H){f (xi (t)) − f (x0 (t))} − {f (xi (tk )) − f (x0 (tk ))}}

(20)

where z = u0 (tk ) − (L + B)u0 (t) + (L + B)(ςi − ς0 ) − (ςi − ς0 ) and kzk∞ ≤ z̃ for some z̃ > 0. (17)
can be further simplified as
V̇ = σiT (t){z − K|σi (tk )|τ sign(σi (tk )) + Hf (xi (t))
− Hf (xi (tk )) + Hf (xi (tk )) − Hf (x0 (t)) + Hf (x0 (tk ))
− Hf (x0 (tk )) − f (xi (tk )) + f (x0 (tk ))}
V̇ ≤ σiT (t){z̃ − K|σi (tk )|τ sign(σi (tk )) + H{f (xi (t))
− f (xi (tk ))} + Hf (xi (tk )) − H{f (x0 (t)) − f (x0 (tk ))}
− Hf (x0 (tk )) − f (xi (tk )) + f (x0 (tk ))}
V̇ ≤ σiT (t){z̃ − K|σi (tk )|τ sign(σi (tk )) − L̄kxi (tk ) − x0 (tk )k
+ kHkL̄kxi (t) − xi (tk )k − kHkL̄kx0 (t) − x0 (tk )k
+ kHkL̄kxi (tk ) − x0 (tk )k}
V̇ ≤ σiT (t){z̃ − K|σi (tk )|τ sign(σi (tk )) − L̄kei (tk )k
+ kHkL̄k¯
i (t)k − kHkL̄k¯0 (t)k + kHkL̄kei (tk )k}
V̇ ≤ −KσiT (t)|σi (tk )|τ sign(σi (tk )) + kσiT (t)kz̃
− kσiT (t)kL̄kei (tk )k + kσiT (t)kkHkL̄k¯
i (t)k
− kσiT (t)kkHkL̄k¯0 (t)k + kσiT (t)kkHkL̄kei (tk )k

(21)

8

As long as σi (t) > 0 or σi (t) < 0, the condition sign(σi (t)) = sign(σi (tk )) is strictly met ∀t ∈ [tk , tk+1 [.
Hence, when trajectories are just outside the sliding surface,
V̇ ≤ −K|σi (tk )|τ kσiT (t)k + kσiT (t)kz̃ − kσiT (t)kL̄kei (tk )k
i (t)k − kσiT (t)kkHkL̄k¯0 (t)k
+ kσiT (t)kkHkL̄k¯
+ kσiT (t)kkHkL̄kei (tk )k

(22)

V̇ ≤ kσiT (t)k{−K|σi (tk )|τ + z̃ − L̄kei (tk )k
+ kHkL̄k¯
i (t)k − kHkL̄k¯0 (t)k + kHkL̄kei (tk )k}
∴ V̇ ≤ −ηkσiT (t)k = −ηkσi (t)k

(23)

where η > 0 and K > sup{z̃ − L̄kei (tk )k + kHkL̄k¯
i (t)k − kHkL̄k¯0 (t)k + kHkL̄kei (tk )k}.
This implies that the sliding manifold is an attractor and trajectory continuously decrease towards it
∀t ∈ [tk , tk+1 [. This completes the proof of reachability.

(ii) Now, it requires to be shown that if negative definiteness of time derivative of the Lyapunov candidate
(17) be ascertained, stability in the sense of Lyapunov can be guaranteed. At instant tk , the control signal
gets updated, thereby nullifying the discretization errors. Hence, k¯
i (tk )k → 0 and k¯0 (tk )k → 0
When σi (t) = 0 and t = tk , it follows that
σi (t) = e¯i (t) = (L + B)ei (t) = 0
⇒ (L + B)(xi (t) − x0 (t)) = 0
⇒ xi (t) − x0 (t) = 0

(24)

(23) is a direct consequence of Lemma 2, wherein (L + B) is of full rank and thus, is invertible. Hence,
xi (t) − x0 (t) = 0
⇒ xi (tk ) − x0 (tk ) = 0
⇒ ei (tk ) = 0

(25)

∵ k¯
i (tk )k → 0, k¯0 (tk )k → 0 and from (25), we can conclude that (22) can be written as
V̇ ≤ kσiT (t)k(−K|σi (tk )|τ + z̃)

(26)

From the results of part (i), it is clear that V̇ < 0, concluding that stability in the sense of Lyapunov can
be ensured. This concludes the proof of stability.

The inter event time is denoted as Tik = tk+1 − tk . As the sampling is not uniform, Tik 6= constant
∀k ∈ [0, ∞[. The triggering instants are said to be admissible if tk+1
− tki ≥ Tik , which implies that there
i
exists a positive lower bound on inter execution time and Zeno phenomenon does not exist. Since the
control is updated at tk instants only, for time instants in [tk , tk+1 [, trajectories deviate from the sliding
surface. However, this deviation is assumed to be bounded by a small finite quantity.
The triggering rule is of particular interest as sampling is done only when this criterion is fulfilled. The
main idea is to trigger when state deviates from the stable equilibrium by a designer fixed threshold, i.e,
kei k > c0 or f (ei ) = kei k − c0 . This c0 affects the performance of the closed loop system and represents
the ultimate set in which the state vector x(t) remains confined around the stable equilibrium.
Here, a novel triggering rule is proposed which not only depends on error but also on square of its
derivative. Adding a derivative term introduces anticipatory property. Many a times, the direction in

9

which error changes is of little importance than actual rate of change. Hence, the triggering rule used in
this work is defined to be
g = kγ1 ei + γ2 ė2i k − (c0 + c1 e−βt )
(27)
such that γ1 > 0, γ2 > 0, c0 ≥ 0, c1 ≥ 0, c0 + c1 > 0 and β ∈ (0, λ2 (L))
Here λ2 (L) is the second eigenvalue if all the eigenvalues of L are arranged in ascending order. This
means λ1 (L) < λ2 (L) < λ3 (L) < ... < λn (L)
The second term (c0 + c1 e−βt ) ensures a finite positive lower bound on inter event execution time and
hence there is no Zeno behaviour, i.e., no two consecutive events occur at same time.
The following theorem establishes the existence of a finite lower bound for inter event execution time for
each agent triggered separately.
Theorem 2: Consider the system described by (6), (7), the control given in (13) and the discretization
error as defined in (14). The sequence of triggering instants {tki }∞
k=0 for each agent respects the triggering
rule given in (27). Consequently, Zeno phenomenon is not exhibited and the inter event execution time
for each agent Tik is bounded below by a finite positive quantity.
Proof: Between k th and (k + 1)th sampling instant in the execution of control, the discretization error is
non zero. Tik is the time it takes the discretization error to rise from 0 to some finite value. Thus,
d
d
d
k¯
i (t)k ≤ k ¯i (t)k ≤ k xi (t)k
dt
dt
dt
d
⇒ k ¯i (t)k ≤ kf (t, xi ) + ui + ςi k
dt
Substituting the control input (13) in the above inequality, we get
k

d
¯i (t)k ≤ kf (t, xi ) − (L + B)−1 {K|σi (tk )|τ sign(σi (tk ))
dt
+ f (xi (tk )) − f (x0 (tk )) − u0 (tk ) + ςi − ς0 } + ςi k
≤ kf (xi (t)) − (L + B)−1 {K|σi (tk )|τ sign(σi (tk ))
+ f (xi (tk )) − f (x0 (tk )) − u0 (tk ) + ςi − ς0 } + ςi k
≤ L̄kxi (t)k + kH−1 kK + kH−1 kL̄kxi (tk )k
+ kH−1 kL̄kx0 (tk )k + kH−1 kkςi k + kH−1 kkς0 k
+ kςi k
≤ L̄(kxi (tk )k + k¯
i (t)k) + kH−1 kK
+ kH−1 kL̄kxi (tk )k + f
≤ L̄k¯
i (t)k + (1 + kH−1 k)L̄kxi (tk )k + f
⇒k

d
¯i (t)k ≤ L̄k¯
i (t)k + Ωkxi (tk )k + f
dt

(28)

where H = L + B, Ω = (1 + kH−1 k)L̄ and f = H{L̄kx0 (tk )k + kςi k + kς0 k} + kςi k
For t ∈ [tk , tk+1 [, the solution to this differential inequality can be understood by using Comparison

10

Lemma [40] with initial condition k¯
i (t)k = 0. Comparison Lemma [40], [41] is particularly useful when
information on bounds on the solution is more important than the solution itself.
∵ Ω and f are always positive, the solution to the differential inequality of (17) qualifies to be a finite
positive value [42]. Thus,
k¯
i (t)k ≤ φ(t) ; φ(t) ∈ R+
(29)
This implies that Tik is always lower bounded by some positive quantity, and hence this concludes the
proof.

Moreover, the results established in this proof hold locally over some fairly large compact domain. Under
varied settings, the design parameters can be tuned selectively to attain desired closed loop performance.
From (17), as long as g < 0, next sample is not taken and system is said to deliver acceptable closed
loop performance.
Iteratively, the triggering sequence can be described as
tk+1
= inf{ti ∈ [tki , ∞[ : g ≥ 0}
i

(30)

A finite but not necessarily constant delay ∆ might occur during sampling and is unavoidable due to
+ ∆[. It has
hardware characteristics. In such cases the control is maintained constant ∀ti ∈ [tki + ∆, tk+1
i
been assumed that ∆ is negligible and has been neglected innocuously. Hence for our case, control is
[.
constant in the interval [tki , tk+1
i
V. N UMERICAL S IMULATIONS
A typical communication topology that is used for information exchange among agents is shown in
figure (1). The matrices associated with the topology under consideration are given below.

Fig. 1. Topology of MAS- a digraph with leader indexed with 0 and followers indexed with 1, 2, 3 and 4


0
0
A=
0
0

1
0
B=
0
0

1
0
D=
0
0

0
0
1
0

1
0
0
1

0
1
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
1
0


0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
1

(31)

(32)

(33)

11



1
0
L=
0
0



0 −1 0
0
0 0

−1 1 0
0 −1 1

2 0 −1
0 1
0
L+B =
0 −1 1
0 0 −1


0
0

0
1

(34)

(35)

This numerical simulation has been carried out in Mathworks MATLABTM . Separate cases have been
dealt for system operating under influence of an unknown but bounded disturbance, and system operation
free from any perturbation. An application to formation control has also been shown to further aid the
proposition. The topology shown for demonstration bears Laplacian with real eigenvalues. It is worthy to
note that the same discussion applies and can be extended to Laplacian with complex eigenvalues too.
For simulation purposes, dynamics of the leader and follower agents considered here are described as
ẋ0 = u0 cos(t) + 0.2sin(x0 ) + ς0

(36)

where u0 is the control input of the leader and is taken to be
2cos(0.1πt)
1 + e−t
Note that upper bounds on u0 is finite and can be easily calculated.
u0 =

ẋ1 = 0.1sin(x1 )1/3 + cos2 (2πt) + e−t + u1 (t) + ς1
ẋ2 = 0.1sin(x2 ) + cos(2πt) + u2 (t) + ς2
ẋ3 = −x3 cos(t) − sin(x3 ) − cos(x3 ) + u3 (t) + ς3
ẋ4 = sin(x4 ) + cos(e−x4 t ) + u4 (t) + ς4

(37)

(38)
(39)
(40)
(41)

These dynamics are locally Lipschitz over some failrly large domain DL . Typical parameter values are
tabulated below. These values are valid for all the cases described in this section.
Numerical values of parameters
c0 10−4
x1 (0)
10
c1 0.2499 x2 (0)
−7
γ1 0.8
x3 (0)
4
γ2 0.8
x4 (0)
−9
K 15
x0 (0)
0
β 1
ςmax matched
(i) 0.3
τ 0.5
ςmax mismatched (ii) 9
A. System without any external disturbance
When the system is free from any perturbation, the consensus tracking is achieved in finite time. It is
also clear from figure (2) that the convergence to the leader’s trajectory is very fast.

12

Fig. 2. Leader- follower consensus in finite time

Fig. 3. Error profile of follower agents

Fig. 4. Sampling interval - consensus tracking by follower agent 1

Figure (3) is the error profile of follower agents. Since the convergence is quite fast, the error variables
die out rapidly. Having used a novel triggering rule, the controller updates are minimal. Control effort is
required only when necessary. Figures (4 − 7) show plots of sampling interval for follower agents. No
Zeno behaviour is exhibited. Figure (8) shows the event based sampling instants of each follower agent
during consensus. When the sliding mode gets enforced, an increase in sampling is observed.

13

Fig. 5. Sampling interval - consensus tracking by follower agent 2

Fig. 6. Sampling interval - consensus tracking by follower agent 3

Fig. 7. Sampling interval - consensus tracking by follower agent 4

Thus, from the plots shown above, it is very clear that consensus tracking has been achieved in finite
time. As soon as finite time consensus tracking gets enforced, the error variable reduces to zero. It should
be noted that the initial conditions are taken as large values or perturbations far from the stable equilibrium.
A similar result follows for initial points very close to the origin.

14

Fig. 8. Lebesgue sampling instants of each follower agent during consensus

B. System operating in the presence of external disturbance
External disturbances may be matched (that are those disturbances which stay within the range space
of the input function) or mismatched (that are those disturbances which lie outside the range space of
the input function). Sliding mode is known to reject any disturbance that is matched. Here, we show two
examples of matched and mismatched perturbations acting on the system but robustness of the closed
loop dynamics is not compromised.
Let a disturbance acting on the system be of the form
ς = ςmax sin(π 2 t2 ) = 0.3 sin(π 2 t2 )

(42)

tries to corrupt the system dynamics. This disturbance is upper bounded by 0.3 and is matched. Figure
(9) depicts that this disturbance is rejected completely without any ill effect on the closed loop dynamics.

Fig. 9. Consensus tracking in presence of matched disturbance

Consider a mismatched disturbance (ςmax = 9) affects the system. It can be inferred from figure (10)
that although the trajectory gets corrupted, consensus tracking is still achievable in finite time that is not
very different from the case when system acts under no disturbance. The initial points are taken as same
as that in the previous case. Once again, a good performance has been maintained.

15

Fig. 10. Consensus tracking in presence of mismatched disturbance

C. Application to formation of agents
Figure (11) shows a practical application of formation control of MAS. It is evident from the plot that
formation is also achieved in finite time and therefore the control is robust.

Fig. 11. Formation of agents in MAS

The plot of sampling interval under formation control (figure (12)) shows that less computation is
required with proposed triggering.

16

Fig. 12. Sampling interval - agents in formation

Effects of disturbance have also been investigated for formation control. Figure (13) and figure (15)
show formation under the influence of matched and mismatched disturbances.

Fig. 13. Formation of agents in MAS under matched disturbance

Fig. 14. Sampling interval - agents in formation under influence of matched disturbance

Figure (14) and figure (16) show the sampling instants of each follower agent when the system is
influenced by a matched disturbance and a mismatched disturbance respectively of the nature described
by (42).

17

Fig. 15. Formation of agents in MAS under mismatched disturbance

Fig. 16. Sampling interval - agents in formation under influence of mismatched disturbance

VI. C ONCLUDING REMARKS
The distributed cooperative control problem of leader follower Multi Agent System has been addressed
in this work. The dynamics of this MAS is highly nonlinear non identical and hence a sturdy controller
is required to drive the agents to a consensus in finite time. The dynamics of this MAS has been treated
analytically through basics of directed graphs. The proposed controller has been developed on the notion
of sliding mode based on event triggering. This helped achieve low computational power and control by
exception. Lyapunov candidate has been chosen such that its negative definiteness proves the stability
of the proposed control. If the number of agents on the network is large, then centralized control takes
significant computational time and perturbation in an autonomous agent can affect whole network. The
added advantage of using sliding mode control is that the robustness of classical sliding mode techniques
has been retained and incorporating event triggering strategy helped save computational expenses and
power consumption. The inter event execution time is lower bounded by a finite positive value that
ensures desired closed loop performance, admissible triggering instants and excludes Zeno phenomenon.
Finally, through simulation results, the efficacy of the controller has been demonstrated.
R EFERENCES
[1] Abhinav Sinha and Rajiv Kumar Mishra, “Robust altitude tracking of a miniature helicopter UAV based on sliding mode,” in 2015
International Conference on Innovations in Information, Embedded and Communication Systems (ICIIECS), March 2015, pp. 1–6.

18

[2] S. R. Olfati, J. A. Fax and R. M. Murray, “Consensus and cooperation in networked multi-agent systems,” in Proc. IEEE, no. 95.
[3] C. W. Reynolds, “Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model,” pp. 25–34, 1987.
[4] W. Ren and E. Atkins, “Distributed multi-vehicle coordinated control via local information exchange,” International Journal of Robust
and Nonlinear Control, no. 17, pp. 1002–1033, 2007.
[5] M. Ji and M. Egerstedt, “A graph-theoretic characterization of controllability for multi-agent systems,” in Proc. American Control
Conference, 2007, pp. 4588–4593.
[6] Y. Hong, G. Chen and L. Bushnell, “Distributed observers design for leader following control of multi-agent networks,” Automatica,
no. 44, pp. 846–850, 2008.
[7] C. Douligeris and G. Develekos, “Consensus tracking under direct interaction topologies: Algorithms and experiments,” IEEE
Transactions on Control Systems Technology, no. 18, pp. 230–237, 2010.
[8] Y. J. Liu, S. C. Tong, D. Wang, T. S. Li and C. L. P. Chen, “Adaptive neural output feedback controller design with reduced-order
observer for a class of uncertain nonlinear siso systems,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, no. 22, pp. 1328–1334, 2011.
[9] Y. J. Liu, S. C. Tong and C. L. P. Chen, “Adaptive fuzzy control via observer design for uncertain nonlinear systems with un modeled
dynamics,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, no. 21, pp. 275–288, 2013.
[10] X. Lu, R. Lu, S. Chen and J. Lu, “Finite-time distributed tracking control for multi-agent systems with a virtual leader,” IEEE
Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, no. 60, pp. 352–362, 2013.
[11] A. M. Zou, K. D. Kumar and Z. G. Hou, “Distributed consensus control for multi agent systems using terminal sliding mode and
chebyshev neural networks,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, no. 23, pp. 334–357, 2013.
[12] C. E. Ren and C. L. P. Chen, “Sliding mode leader-following consensus controllers for second-order non-linear multi-agent systems,”
IET Control Theory and Application, no. 9, pp. 1544 – 1552, 2015.
[13] H. Jiangping, J. Geng and H. Zhu, “An observer-based consensus tracking control and application to event-triggered tracking,”
Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, no. 20, pp. 559–570, 2015.
[14] J. Mei, W. Ren and G. Ma, “Distributed containment control for lagrangian networks with parametric uncertainties under a directed
graph,” Automatica, no. 48, pp. 653–659, 2012.
[15] P. Lin and Y. M. Jia, “Distributed robust H∞ consensus control in directed networks of agents with time-delay,” Systems and Control
Letters, no. 57, pp. 643–653, 2008.
[16] H. Du, G. Wen, G. Chen, J. Cao, and F. E. Alsaadi, “A distributed finite-time consensus algorithm for higher-order leaderless and
leader-following multiagent systems,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 1625–1634,
July 2017.
[17] G. S. Seyboth, D. V. Dimarogonas, and K. H. Johansson, “Event-based broadcasting for multi-agent average consensus,” Automatica,
vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 245 – 252, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005109812004852
[18] Y. Cheng and V. Ugrinovskii, “Event-triggered leader-following tracking control for multi variable multi-agent systems,” Automatica,
no. 70, pp. 204–210, 2016.
[19] Y. Fan, G. Feng, Y. Wang, and C. Song, “Distributed event-triggered control of multi-agent systems with combinational
measurements,” Automatica, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 671 – 675, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0005109812005468
[20] Gary Chartrand, Linda Lesniak, Ping Zhang, Graphs & Digraphs, Sixth Edition, ser. Textbooks in Mathematics. CRC Press- Taylor
and Francis Group, 2015.
[21] N. Deo, Graph Theory with Applications to Engineering and Computer Science (Prentice Hall Series in Automatic Computation).
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1974.
[22] Bollobas Bella, Modern Graph Theory. Springer- Verlag, 1998. [Online]. Available: http://www.springer.com/in/book/9780387984889
[23] Fan R. K. Chung, Spectral Graph Theory, ser. CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics. AMS and CBMS, 1997, vol. 92.
[Online]. Available: http://bookstore.ams.org/cbms-92
[24] Jonathan L. Gross, Jay Yellen, Ping Zhang, Handbook of Graph Theory, Second Edition, ser. Discrete Mathematics and Its
Applications. CRC Press- Taylor and Francis Group, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b16132
[25] K. David Young, Vadim I. Utkin and Umit Ozguner, “A control engineer’s guide to sliding mode control,” IEEE transactions on Control
Systems Technology, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 328–342, May 1999.
[26] Vadim I. Utkin, Sliding Modes in Control and Optimization. Springer, 1992.
[27] S. H. Żak, Systems and Control. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, 10016: Oxford University Press, 2003.
[28] Yan, Xing-Gang, Spurgeon, Sarah K., Edwards, Christopher, Variable Structure Control of Complex Systems. Springer, 2017.
[29] K. J. Astrom and B. M. Bernhardsson, “Comparison of riemann and lebesgue sampling for first order stochastic systems,” in Proceedings
of the 41st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2002., vol. 2, Dec 2002, pp. 2011–2016 vol.2.
[30] A. Astholfi and L. Marconi, Analysis and design of nonlinear control systems (in honour of Alberto Isidori). Springer- Verlag, 2007.
[31] A. K. Behera and B. Bandyopadhyay, “Event based robust stabilization of linear systems,” in IECON 2014 - 40th Annual Conference
of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, Oct 2014, pp. 133–138.
[32] Dawei Shi, Ling Shi and Tongwen Chen, Event based state estimation- A Stochastic Perspective. Springer, 2016.
[33] M. Mazo and P. Tabuada, “Decentralized event-triggered control over wireless sensor/actuator networks,” IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 2456–2461, Oct 2011.
[34] P. Tabuada, “Event-triggered real-time scheduling of stabilizing control tasks,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 52, no. 9,
pp. 1680–1685, Sept 2007.
[35] K. J. Aström, Event Based Control. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 127–147.
[36] A. Anta and P. Tabuada, “To sample or not to sample: Self-triggered control for nonlinear systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 2030–2042, Sept 2010.
[37] P. Tallapragada and N. Chopra, “On event triggered tracking for nonlinear systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 58,
no. 9, pp. 2343–2348, Sept 2013.

19

[38] M. Lemmon, Event-Triggered Feedback in Control, Estimation, and Optimization. London: Springer London, 2010, pp. 293–358.
[39] Nan Liu, Rui Ling, Qin Huang, and Zheren Zhu, “Second-order super-twisting sliding mode control for finite-time leader-follower
consensus with uncertain nonlinear multiagent systems,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2015, p. 8, 2015. [Online].
Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/292437
[40] Hasan K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems, Third Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 2002.
[41] Alexander G. Ramm, Nguyen S. Hoang, Dynamical Systems Method and Applications: Theoretical Developments and Numerical
Examples. Wiley, 2011.
[42] A. Girard, “Dynamic event generators for event-triggered control systems,” CoRR, vol. abs/1301.2182, 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.2182

