1

H 2 Optimal Coordination of Homogeneous Agents Subject
to Limited Information Exchange
Daria Madjidian, Leonid Mirkin, and Anders Rantzer

Abstract—Controllers with a diagonal-plus-low-rank structure constitute a scalable class of controllers for multi-agent systems. Previous
research has shown that diagonal-plus-low-rank control laws appear as
the optimal solution to a class of multi-agent H 2 coordination problems,
which arise in the control of wind farms. In this paper we show that
this result extends to the case where the information exchange between
agents is subject to limitations. We also show that the computational
effort required to obtain the optimal controller is independent of the
number of agents and provide analytical expressions that quantify the
usefulness of information exchange.
Index Terms—Distributed control, time-delay systems, sampled-data
systems, dead-time compensation.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Large-scale systems are characterized by the presence of numerous
subsystems (agents) having their own sensory and actuation abilities.
Control of such systems, also known as distributed control, is being
revived over the last decade due to networking and integration trends,
efficiency demands, etcetera. A major challenge in distributed control
design is to cope with constraints on information exchange between
agents. Such constraints can be due to physical limitations (e.g.,
agents might only have access to local measurements) or they can be
introduced artificially in order to reduce information processing and
improve the implementational scalability of the control law.
In general, information exchange restrictions have adverse effects
on the tractability of control design problems [1–3]. Yet these
effects can be alleviated in situations when the information exchange
topology “agrees” with the structure of the problem (the plant
and control goals) [4–6]. It is thus important to understand what
scalable information structure fits the considered application. The
best studied in this context are sparsity-based information topologies
(decentralized control), with non-zero elements corresponding to
permitted information exchange between agents, see [7, 8] and the
references therein. There are also applications, where interaction
takes place through the average behavior of agents. For instance, in
power systems generators must coordinate their power production to
balance the total load on the network [9]. Hence, the power generated
by a unit is directly coupled to the total net power imbalance.
Control structures based on aggregate (e.g., average) information
are appealing from a large scale perspective due to its implementational scalability and low communication demands. Variations of
this information structure have been studied in the context of the
control of ensembles [10], biological systems [11], broadcast control
[12], robust control [13], etcetera. Moreover, controllers with such
information exchange mechanisms are shown to be optimal in H 1
This research was supported by the Swedish Research Council through
the LCCC Linnaeus Center, the European Commission through the project
AEOLUS, the Bernard M. Gordon Center for Systems Engineering at the
Technion, and B. and G. Greenberg Research Fund (Ottawa).
D. Madjidian is with the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. E-mail:
dariam@mit.edu.
L. Mirkin is with the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Technion—IIT,
Haifa 32000, Israel. E-mail: mirkin@technion.ac.il.
A. Rantzer is with the Department of Automatic Control, Lund University,
Box 118, SE–221 00 Lund, Sweden. E-mail: anders.rantzer@control.lth.se.

problems over symmetrically interconnected systems [14] and in LQR
coordination problems arising in the control of wind farms [15].
The result of [15] is the starting point of the current research,
so we shall discuss it in more details. Specifically, a homogeneous
group of autonomous agents that are coupled through a constraint on
their average behavior was studied. It was shown that the optimal
(centralized) solution consists of a diagonal (i.e., fully decentralized)
term complemented by a rank-one component, which coordinates
the agents based on their weighted-average state measurements. An
additional scalability property attractive in large-scale applications
is that the computational effort required to obtain the solution is
independent of the number of agents.
In this paper we provide additional insight into the class of
diagonal-plus-low-rank control laws by expanding the class of problems for which they are optimal. A potential limitation of the solution
of [15] is that it assumes instantaneous information exchange between
the agents. This might not be feasible in applications, where communication resources are limited. To account for these limitations, we
modify the problem formulation by imposing additional constraints
on the off-diagonal elements of the controller (Section II). Such
constraints include time-delays, sampled-data processing, bandwidth
limitations, etc. In Section III, we provide an abstract solution to the
multi-agent problem in terms of the solution to a local, uniformly
constrained control problem for a stand-alone agent. The main
result is that the scalability properties, that were discussed above
for the case of perfect information exchange in [15], extend to the
case with limited information exchange as well. In particular, the
optimal control law has a diagonal-plus-rank-one structure and can
be obtained by solving a single local control problem. Based on
established results in the literature, in Section IV we provide complete
analytical solutions for two classes of communication constraints:
delayed information exchange (÷IV-A) and sampled-data information
exchange (÷IV-B). An illustrative example is presented then in
Section V and concluding remarks, justifying a direction for the
future research, are provided in Section VI.
Notation: The transpose of a matrix M is denoted by M 0 . By
ei we refer to the i th standard basis of an Euclidean space and by
In to the n  n identity matrix (we drop the dimension subscript
when the context is clear). The lower linear fractional transformation
[16, Sec. 10.1] is denoted as Fl .; /. The notation ˝ is used for the
Kronecker product of matrices:
3
2
a11 B    a1m B
7
6 :
::
::
A ˝ B ´ 4 ::
5;
:
:
ap1 B    apm B
where aij stands for the .i; j / entry of A. In particular, In ˝ M
is a compact notation for the block-diagonal matrix having n equal
P
diagonal entries, M ; Pi .ei ei0 /˝Mi is the block-diagonal matrix with
diagonal entries Mi ; i ei ˝ Mi is the block-column matrix built of
blocks Mi with the same column dimension. The H 2 -norm of a
system G is denoted kGk2 . The H 2 space and its norm are welldefined notions for both time-invariant [16, Sec. 4.3] and periodically
time-varying [17, Sec. 9.1] linear systems.

2

´

w

G´w G´u
Gxw Gxu

K

x

´
uN

x

u

(a) Without coordination

K

say Kc , of the space of causal linear systems. In other words, we
require that
Kij 2 Kc ; whenever i ¤ j
(6)

w

G´w G´u
0 0 ˝ Im
Gxw Gxu

where the partitioning of K is compatible with that of the signals
x and u. Several commonly considered communication constraints,
such as time delays, sampling, and bandwidth limitations, may
be expressed as in (6). Delays and sampling constraints will be
addressed explicitly in Section IV.
The problem formulation considered in this paper is

u

(b) With coordination, via uN D 0

Fig. 1. Aggregate standard state-feedback H 2 problems

minimize
stabiliz. K

We study the problem of coordinating  uncoupled homogeneous
systems (agents), described by the following dynamics:
(1)

where xi .t/ 2 Rn are (measured) state vectors, ui .t/ 2 Rm are control
inputs, and wi .t/ 2 Rn are exogenous disturbances. Associated with
each agent is the local regulated variable
´i .t/ ´ C´ xi .t/ C D´u ui .t/;

(2)

which reflects the local objectives of the agent.
Aggregating (1)–(2) for i D 1; : : : ;  , the local problems can be cast
as the standard state-feedback H 2 problem [16, ÷14.8.1] depicted in
Fig. 1(a). Here w , ´, u, and x are the aggregate disturbance, regulated
output,Pcontrol input, and measured state vector, respectively (e.g.,
w ´ iD1 ei ˝ wi ), and the generalized plant
3
2


I ˝ A I ˝ B w I ˝ B u
G´w .s/ G´u .s/
D 4 I ˝ C´
0
I ˝ D´u 5 :
Gxw .s/ Gxu .s/
0
0
I n
Each sub-block of this generalized plant is block diagonal due to
decoupled dynamics and objectives of the agents. Hence, if no other
requirements were imposed, the optimal solution K would be block
diagonal as well.
Coordination among the agents is imposed by requiring that

X
i D1

i ui .t/ µ u.t/
N
 0;

(3)

where i may be viewed as a mass of the i th system. This constraint
effectively requires the “center of mass” of all agents to behave as
PN
x.t/
D Ax.t/
N C Bw w.t/;
N
(4)
P
where xN ´ i i xi and wN ´ i i wi .t/.
Complementing the setup in Fig. 1(a) with constraint
(3), we end

0
up with the setup depicted in Fig. 1(b), where  ´ 1     .
The problem of minimizing the H 2 norm of the system T´w from w
to ´, under the constraint that the system Tuw
from w to uN is zero,
N
is equivalent to the problem studied in [15]. It was show that the
solution has the following scalable form
P

ui .t/ D F˛ .xi .t/

i x.t//;
N

(7a)

subject to Tuw
N D0

II. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION

xP i .t/ D Axi .t/ C Bw wi .t/ C Bu ui .t/

kT´w k2

(5)

where F˛ is the LQR gain associated with the local, uncoordinated,
problems. In this control law, the only information needed to
coordinate the agents is the center of mass state, xN . This information,
however, must be accessible instantaneously, which might not be
feasible if communication resources are limited.
To account for potential communication limitations, in this paper
we propose to introduce additional constraints upon the controller.
Because inter-agent communication takes place through the offdiagonal elements of K , we constrain them to belong to a subspace,

(7b)

K satisfies (6) for a given subspace Kc

(7c)

where T´w and Tuw
N are the closed-loop transfer functions in Fig. 1(b)
from w to ´ and uN , respectively. We implicitly assume here that the
H 2 norm is a well-defined notion for a given Kc .
Remark 2.1: The coordination constraint (3) can be replaced by
the more general requirement uN D FN xN , where FN can be viewed as a
“gain” shaping the “A” matrix of the center of mass in (4). However,
this requirement can be reduced to (3) by a mere shift of the control
variables as ui D vi C FN xi . We therefore can consider the simpler
version, (3), without any loss of generality.
O
III. A BSTRACT S OLUTION
In this section we solve (7) in a general form, without specifying a
particular form of the constraint set Kc . The only information about
Kc that is required to formulate the solution is the assumption that
it is a linear subspace. We also need to assume that
A 1 : A is Hurwitz,
A 2 : Bw is square and nonsingular,
A 3 : 0  D 1 and none of the entries of  is zero.

Assumption A 1 is necessary for the stabilizability of the overall
system because the dynamics of the center of mass (4) are not affected
by the control signal. A 2 effectively says that the null space of Gxw
is trivial. It is made to avoid technical issues related to uniqueness
of the corresponding optimal H 2 solution (see [16, ÷14.8.1]). The
normalization part in A 3 is introduced to simplify the exposition and
can be relaxed. Finally, if i D 0, then the i th system is not a part
of the coordination problem and can therefore be excluded from the
analysis.
The solution of (7) is based on the solution to the H 2 statefeedback problem associated with the generalized plant
2
3


A Bw Bu
G˛11 .s/ G˛12 .s/
4
G˛ .s/ D
D C´ 0 D´u 5
G˛21 .s/ G˛22 .s/
I
0
0

and a controller K˛ . The problem is formulated as follows:
minimize
stabiliz. K˛

kFl .G˛ ; K˛ /k2

subject to K˛ 2 Kc

(8a)
(8b)

For various Kc of interest, problem (8) can be solved by available
techniques (see Section IV for two particular cases). Meanwhile, we
do not elaborate on these solutions. What we need is to assume that
A 4 : problem (8) is well posed,

in the sense that its optimal solution K˛;opt exists and is unique. The
resulting optimal performance is ˛ ´ kFl .G˛ ; K˛;opt /k2 . We also
need the quantity
p
tr.Bw0 XN Bw /  ˛ ;
0 ´ kG˛11 k2 D

3

Q́
uN

where XN  0 is the solution to the Lyapunov equation
0

A XN C XN A C C´0 C´ D 0:

The solution to (7), which is the main result of the paper, is given
in the following theorem, whose proof is presented in ÷III-A:
Theorem 3.1: Let A 1–4 hold true. Then the optimal achievable
kT´w k22 D .

1/

2
˛

C

2
0

ui D K˛;opt .xi

i x/;
N

(10)

P

where xN D i i xi .
O
A noteworthy outcome of Theorem 3.1 is that the two scalability
properties of the solution of [15], which studied a version of (7)
without communication constraints (7b), extend to the case when
these constraints are added. First, we only need to solve the
local uncoordinated problem (8) to form the optimal control law in
Theorem 3.1. In other words, the computational effort is independent
of the number of agents  . Second, although the optimal control
law (15) is not decentralized (due to the presence of xN ), the only
global computation needed to form it is a single (scaled) averaging
operation, exactly as in (5).

We start with a technical result, which reduces the (unorthodox)
constraint (6) on the off-diagonal parts of the controller to a uniform
constraint on the whole K .
Lemma 3.2: Let A 2,3 hold. Then (7c) is satisfied together with
(7b) only if the whole K 2 Kc .
Proof: A 2 implies that Gxw .s/ D I ˝ ..sI A/ 1 Bw / is square
and nonsingular. Because Gxu is strictly causal, the loop in Fig. 1(b)
is well posed and we have that
1

Gxw D 0 () .0 ˝ I /K D 0;

which involves only the controller. Thus, (7b) holds iff

X

i D1

X i
Kij ;
j

i Kij D 0 () Kjj D

i ¤j

for all j D 1; : : : ;  . Because Kc is a subspace, the latter equality
combined with (6) implies that Kjj 2 Kc as well.
Remark 3.1: Assumption A 2 can in principle be relaxed here.
It can be shown that if it does not hold, the admissible diagonal
elements of K that are not in Kc do not affect T´w anyway. But the
solution is not unique then.
O
Having reduced (7) to a problem with uniformly constrained K ,
we may apply the technique used in [15] to decouple the coordination
constraint (7b). Namely, let U 2 R be a unitary matrix such that
U D e1 , i.e. U 0 comprises the left singular vectors of . Define
new state vector xQ ´ .U ˝ In /x , control input uQ ´ .U ˝ Im /u,
exogenous input wQ ´ .U ˝ In /w , and regulated signal Q́ ´ .U ˝
Ip /´. The relation between these “tilded” signals is the same as
the relation between their originals, which can be verified using the
equality .U ˝ In1 /.I ˝ M / D .I ˝ M /.U ˝ In2 / holding for every
M 2 Rn1 n2 . For example, the transfer function from wQ to Q́ is
0

G Q́ wQ .s/ D .U ˝ Ip /G´w .s/.U ˝ In /
D .U ˝ Ip / I ˝ .C´ .sI

D .U U 0 / ˝ .C´ .sI

Because KQ is a linear invertible function of K and Kc is a subspace,
K 2 Kc iff KQ 2 Kc and because U is unitary, kT Q́ wQ k2 D kT´w k2
for every K . Thus, (7) can be solved via solving the H 2 problem
associated with the system in Fig. 2.
The advantage of the latter is that it is decoupled. Indeed, the
coordination constraint in terms of uQ reads uN D uQ 1 , so that (7b)
prespecifies the first component of uQ and has no effect on the
others. Therefore, the H 2 problem for the setup in Fig. 2 splits into
 independent problems, the first of which is solved by the zero
controller and the others are  1 copies of (8). Consequently, the
optimal KQ opt D .I e1 e10 / ˝ K˛;opt , from which
Kopt D .I

A. Proof of Theorem 3.1

Gxu K/

uQ

Fig. 2. Decoupled problem in transformed coordinates

and it is attained by the control law

0
Tuw
N D . ˝ I /K.I

KQ

xQ

(9)

wQ

G´w G´u
0 e10 ˝ Im
Gxw Gxu

A/

A/

1

1


Bw / .U 0 ˝ In /

Bw / D G´w .s/:

Taking into account that .0 ˝I /u D .e10 ˝I /uQ , the system in Fig. 1(b)
can then be equivalently presented as shown in Fig. 2, where
KQ ´ .U ˝ Im / K .U 0 ˝ In /:

0 / ˝ K˛;opt :

(11)

This controller produces the control law (10). The optimal cost is
then in the form (9) and this completes the proof.
B. Cost distribution among agents
In this subsection we study how the overall optimal performance
is distributed among the agents and how different components of w
affect local regulated variables ´i . To this end, consider the closedloop systems T´i wj from the j th exogenous input wj to ´i under the
optimal controller (11). It is readily verified that

Kopt .I Gxu Kopt / 1 D .I 0 / ˝ K˛;opt .I G˛22 K˛;opt / 1 ;

from which

T´w D I ˝ G˛11 C .I ˝ G˛12 /Kopt I
D I ˝ T˛;opt C .0 / ˝ .G˛11

Gxu Kopt /

1

T˛;opt /;

.I ˝ G˛21 /



where T˛;opt ´ Fl .G˛ ; K˛;opt /. Hence, T´i wj D .ei0 ˝I /T´w .ej ˝I /
can be expressed as
(
T˛;opt C 2i .G˛11 T˛;opt / if j D i
T´i wj D
i j .G˛11 T˛;opt /
otherwise
The following result says that under a mild technical assumption the
H 2 norm of T´i wj is a function of 0 D kG˛11 k2 and the optimal
performance ˛ of (8):
Proposition 3.3: Let K˛;opt G˛22 K˛;opt 2 Kc . Then
kT´i wj k22 D

2
˛ ıij

C 2i j2 .

2
0

2
˛ /;

where ıij is the Kronecker delta.
Proof: Let T˛ ´ Fl .G˛ ; K˛ /. Differentiating it with respect to
to K˛ yields
dT˛ D G˛12 .I

K˛ G˛22 /

1

dK˛ .I

G˛22 K˛ /

1

G˛21 :

It follows from A 4 that T˛;opt ? S, where
S ´ G˛12 .I

K˛;opt G˛22 /

1

Kc .I

G˛22 K˛;opt /

1

G˛21 :

To see this, split T˛;opt D TS C TS ? , where TS and TS ? are the
orthogonal projections of T˛;opt on S and its orthogonal complement,
respectively. In particular, TS D G˛12 .I K˛;opt G˛22 / 1 KS .I
G˛22 K˛;opt / 1 G˛21 for some KS 2 Kc . Let d be an infinitesimal

4

positive step. Then, the choice K˛ D K˛;opt KS d results in T˛ D
T˛;opt TS d , so that kT˛ k2 D .1 d/2 kTS k2 CkTS ? k2  kT˛;opt k2
with the equality attainable iff TS D 0.
Next, set K˛ D K˛;opt K˛;opt G˛22 K˛;opt . Then K˛ 2 Kc , and
T˛;opt ? G˛12 .I

1

K˛;opt G˛22 /

? G˛12 K˛;opt .I

K˛ .I
1

G˛22 K˛;opt /

G˛22 K˛;opt /
G˛21 D T˛;opt

1

G˛21

T˛;opt k22 D kG˛11 k22

kT˛;opt k22 D

2
0

2
˛;

from which the result follows immediately.
Remark 3.2: The assumption in Proposition 3.3 can be expected
to hold whenever Kc is a uniform constraint in (8). In particular, this
is true for the two examples considered in Section IV. In general,
the assumption is weaker than the quadratic invariance condition [5],
which requires K˛ G˛22 K˛ 2 Kc for all K˛ 2 Kc .
O
2 norm of T
The
overall
cost
of
the
i
th
agent,
which
is
the
H
´
´
w
i


T´i w1    T´i w , is an immediate corollary of Proposition 3.3:
Corollary 3.4: If the condition of Proposition 3.3 holds, then
kT´i w k22

D

2i 02

2i / ˛2 :

C .1

This cost can be interpreted from two points of view. First, the
quantity 0 can be thought of as the optimal cost of (7) in the absence
of information exchange between subsystems. Indeed, in this case
(7b) must be satisfied by each agent, resulting in the optimal law
ui D 0. From this viewpoint, the quantity
BoC

´

2
0

kT´i w k22 D .1

2i /.

2
0

2
˛/

´ kT´i w k22

2

opt

D 2i .

2
0

2

opt / C .1

2i /.

e

–

xi

sh

˘.s/ 
i

e

sh

i xN

Fig. 3. A realization of the optimal controller for the i th system

2
˛

Problem (8) in this case is a well-understood H 2 problem with
single loop delay, which can be solved by available methods1 [18, 19].
In this case A 4 can be replaced with


A j!I Bu
has full column rank 8! 2 R,
A 5:
C´
D´u
0 D
A 6 : D´u
´u D I .

Indeed, given A 1 , assumption A 5 is necessary for the well-posedness
of the unconstrained local problems. The normalization assumption
A 6 is introduced to simplify the exposition and can be relaxed to
0 D
D´u
´u > 0. If A 1,5,6 hold true, then the algebraic Riccati equation
0
A0 X˛ CX˛ ACC´0 C´ .X˛ Bu CC´0 D´u /.Bu0 X˛ CD´u
C´ / D 0; (12)

has a unique stabilizing solution 0  X˛  XN and the solution to (8)
is
 1
(13)
K˛;opt .s/ D I C F˛ ˘.s/ F˛ eAh e sh ;

0 C / and
where F˛ ´ .Bu0 X˛ C D´u
´
Z h
˘.s/ ´
e .sI A/ dBu

(14a)

0

0

characterizes the benefit of cooperation for the i th agent. If the
number of agents increases, the (normalized) i ’s normally decrease
[15, ÷III-C.3] and coordination becomes more beneficial per agent.
Another way to look at kT´i w k2 in Corollary 3.4 is to compare
it with the performance of the i th agent attainable via solving (7a)
without the coordination constraint (7b). No coordination is required
in this case, so that the optimal controller is block-diagonal and the
coordination constraint
p (6) is void. The optimal performance of each
agent is then opt D tr.Bw0 X˛ Bw /  ˛ , where X˛ is the stabilizing
solution of the corresponding Riccati equation (in fact, of (12) defined
in the next section). The addition of the coordination requirement
(7b) naturally leads to a performance deterioration. The quantity
CoC

eAh

F˛

G˛11 ;

and consequently, by the Pythagorean theorem,
kG˛11

ui

2

opt /

can then be interpreted as the cost of satisfying the coordination
constraint (7b). The first term in the right-hand side of this expression
is exactly the cost of coordination in the absence of communication
constraints (6), see [15, Prop. 3.2]. This term normally vanishes as the
number of agents  ! 1. The second term in the expression for CoC
quantifies the deterioration of the local cost due to communication
constraints. This term actually grows with the decrease of i . Since
2 2
2
2
2
C o C D i . 0
˛/ C . ˛
opt /, it decreases with the increase of
the number of coordinating agent, although does not vanish as in the
case when no communication constraints are imposed.
IV. PARTICULAR C ASES OF C OMMUNICATION C ONSTRAINTS
A. Delayed information exchange
Communication limitations can be accounted for by artificially
introducing a sufficiently large time-delay, say h > 0, into the
communication channels. In terms of (6), this corresponds to
˚
Kc D Kdel ´ K W K.s/ D e sh Kh .s/ for a causal Kh

for some h > 0, which is a linear subspace and is quadratically
invariant with respect to any causal linear plant.

D .sI

A/

1

.Bu

eAhBu e

sh

/

(14b)

is a stable FIR (finite impulse response) dead-time compensator. The
optimal attainable H 2 performance with this controller is
 
Z h
 
A0 h
Ah
A0 t 0
At
2
0
e
X
e
C
e
C
C
e
d

Bw
D
tr
B
˛
´ ´
˛
w
0

0 A0 h N
0 N
X Bw / tr Bw
e .X X˛ / eAh Bw :
D tr.Bw

Theorem 3.1 yields then that the optimal controller solving (7a) is
in the form presented in Fig. 3. This control law can be also described
by the following equation in the time domain:
ui .t/ D F˛ xO i .t/

i F˛ eAh x.t
N

h/;

(15)

where
xO i .t/ ´ eAh xi .t

h/ C

Z

t

eA.t

/

Bu ui . /d

(16)

t h

is the mean-squared prediction of xi .t/ in (1) based on xi ./,  
t h, cf. [20, Lesson 16].
Remark 4.1: Although distributed-delay systems, like ˘ in (14a),
can be safely implemented, see [21] and the references therein, their
implementation might be numerically involved. The implementation
in our case, however, is simplified because the matrix A is Hurwitz
(by A 1 ). Indeed, in this case ˘ can be implemented in the equivalent
form (14b), whose singularities at the eigenvalues of A are removable.
This transfer function can be implemented as
P i .t/ D Ai .t/ C Bu ui .t/

eAhBu ui .t

h/;

(17)

which is a combination of a (stable) finite-dimensional system and a
pure delay element, whose implementations are standard. Although
this implementation involves pole-zero cancellations of all eigenvalues of A, the cancellations are stable. Hence, the implementation via
(17) is internally stable and thus admissible.
O
1 Although these references study output-feedback versions of the problem,
their adjustment to the “state feedback” case is fairly straightforward.

5

B. Sampled-data information exchange
Another possibility to reduce the burden of communication, apart
from using delays, is to exchange information only at some sampling
instances. This leads to the following set:
˚
Kc D Ksd ´ K W K D Hh Kd Sh for a discrete causal Kd ;

where Sh and Hh are sampling (A/D) and hold (D/A) devices,
respectively, which are assumed to be synchronized and with a
sampling period h > 0. Hereafter, we assume that Sh is the ideal
sampler transforming analog signals to discrete sequences as
xd D Sh x () xd Œk D x.kh/;

8k 2 Z;

and Hh is the zero-order hold transforming discrete sequences to
piecewise constant analog signals as
u D Hh ud () u.kh C / D ud Œk

8k 2 Z;  2 .0; h:

The set Ksd is a subspace and quadratically invariant with respect to
any causal system.
The sampled-data version of (8) can be viewed as a particular case
(state feedback) of the standard sampled-data H 2 problem extensively
studied in the literature, see [22] and the references therein. The wellposedness assumption A 4 can be replaced by


A Bu
has full column rank,
A 7:
C´ D´u
which, together with A 1 , guarantees that the sampled-data problem
associated with (1) and (2) is non-singular [22, Cor. 5.2 (ii)]. If these
two conditions hold, the discrete ARE
XO ˛ D AO0 XO ˛ AO C QO
O
O BO u0 XO˛ BO u C R/
.AO0 XO˛ BO u C S/.

1

.BO u0 XO ˛ AO C SO 0 /:

(18)

has a stabilizing solution XO ˛  0, where


AO BO u

and




QO SO
SO 0 RO

´





´

eAh

Z

0

h

Rh
0

eAt dtBu



D




I 0 exp

 
 0
A 0
t
exp
Bu0 0

 C´ D´u



A Bu
0 0

 
h


C´0
0
D´u

 

A Bu
exp
t dt:
0 0

The optimal performance level in (8) is then



Z h Z t
1
2
0
A0  0
A
A0 t O
At
D
tr
B
d
tB
e
C
C
e
d

C
e
X
e
w
´
˛
˛
w
´
h
0
0


Z h

1
0
0
0
XN eA t XN eAt C eA t XO ˛ eAt dtBw
D tr Bw
h
0


Z h
1
0
0 N
D tr.Bw
X Bw /
tr Bw0
eA t .XN XO ˛ / eAt dtBw
h
0
and it is attained by the static control law
K˛;opt D Hh FO˛ Sh :

where
O
FO˛ ´ .BO u0 XO˛ BO u C R/

1

.BO u0 XO ˛ AO C SO 0 /:
i x.kh/
N



where F˛ is the continuous-time state feedback gain, the same as
that appearing in (13), and the optimal performance level


Z h
1
0
2
0 N
tr Bw0
eA t .XN X˛ / eAt dtBw ;
˛ D tr.Bw X Bw /
h
0

where X˛ is the stabilizing solution of (12). Performance of (20) is
better than that of (19), while communication demands are the same.
Another potential modification of Ksd is to combine sampled-data
and delay constraints. Problem (8) can then be solved by the approach
of [24], both in the case of the zero-order and the optimal holds. O
V. I LLUSTRATIVE E XAMPLE
Consider a formation of homogeneous vehicles described by
1
.i C wi /;
(21)
s2
where, pi is the position of the i th vehicles, i is its thrust, and wi
is a disturbance. The objectives are twofold:
P
1) the formation center of mass, defined as pN ´ 1 iD1 pi , follows
a reference trajectory rN .t/ with bounded two first derivatives,
2) each vehicle tracks a fixed position relative to the center of mass,
P
ri ´ pN C ıi for given constants ıi ¤ ıj and such that i ıi D 0.
pi D

We assume that each vehicle has perfect measurements of pi and
pPi and that it knows ıi and rN and its first two derivatives, but
that communication between vehicles is subject to sampled data
constraints with the sampling period h, as described in ÷IV-B.
We start with the first objective. It is readily
seen that the center
of
P
P
mass verifies pN D .N C w/=s
N 2 with N ´ 1 i i and wN ´ 1 i wi .
The 2DOF state-feedback control law for this system,
N D s 2 rN

with N ´ pN

(19)

at every k D 0; 1; : : : and  2 .0; h.
Remark 4.2: One may think of several alterations of the subspace
Ksd . For example, the waveform of the control signal, i.e., the D/A
part of the controller, may be considered a part of the design. Because

.1 s C 0 /N

(22)

rN , renders the closed-loop error system
N D

s2

1
w;
N
C 1 s C 0

(23)

independent of rN . By an appropriate choice of the gains 0 > 0 and
1 > 0 we can affect the disturbance sensitivity of the error behavior.
Because  is the average of the local thrusts i , the implementation
of (22) requires coordination between the vehicles. It is readily seen
that all i that realize (22) can be parametrized as
i D .s 2 C 1 s C 0 /Nr

.1 s C 0 /pi C 0 ıi C ui ;
(24)
P
where ui is an arbitrary signal satisfying i ui D 0 (remember the
P
assumption i ıi D 0). The term 0 ıi is added to (24) to render
ui D 0 in the case when the perfect tracking conditions pN D rN and
pi D ri are met. Substituting i from (24) into (21), we end up with
stable agents, in terms of deviation variables, of the form
yi ´ pi

Theorem 3.1 yields the control law
ui .kh C / D FO˛ xi .kh/

the D/A part is implemented only locally, this alterations does not
affect the inter-agent communication. A version of (8) in which the
hold device is a part of the design was solved in [23]. The solution
assumes A 5,6 to guarantee that assumption A 4 holds and results in
the control law

ui .kh C / D F˛ e.ACBu F˛ / xi .kh/ i x.kh/
N
;
(20)

rN

ıi D

1
.ui C wi /:
s 2 C 1 s C 0

These systems correspond to (1) with





yi
0
and
A Bw Bu D
xi D
yPi
0

1 0 0
1 1 1

(25)



although Bw above does not satisfy A 2 , the optimal solution to the
corresponding H 2 problem is still unique, see [16, Prop. 14.9]).

6

Having set the average dynamics of the platoon, we use the
remaining degrees of freedom to minimize the H 2 cost function based
on the regulated signals
3
3 2 p
2 p
q1 .pi ri /
q1 .yi N /
p
p
Q́ i D 4 q2 .pPi rPi / 5 D 4
q2 .yPi PN / 5
R
i rN
ui 1 yPi 0 yi

for some weights q1  0 and q2  0. The term i rRN penalizes
the deviation of i from the “ideal” thrust, which meets both our
objectives under zero disturbances. As in any realistic situation rRN D 0
in steady state, this term can be regarded as a penalty on the i th thrust.
P
p
Define now the unit vector  ´
i ei =  and the aggregate
P
output y ´ i ei yi . It can be verified that
X
1X
1
N D
ei .yi N / D .I 0 /y
yi D p 0 y H)


i
i
Because .I 0 /2 D I 0 , we have that
X
X
.yi N /2 D y 0 .I 0 /y D
yi2
i

i

 N 2 :

The last term here, N 2 , does not depend on ui as long as (3) holds.
Hence, the optimization problem with the regulated outputs Q́ i is
equivalent, modulo a shift in the attainable performance, to that with
the regulated variable
2
3 2 p
3
2 3
p
q1 yi
q1
0
0
p
p
5D4 0
´i D 4
q2 yPi
q2 5 xi C 4 0 5 ui ;
1
ui 1 yPi 0 yi
0
1
which is in form (2). In other words, the second objective can be
cast as problem (7) with Kc D K
 sd . This will
 result in ui acting as
(19) for some calculated FO˛ D f˛1 f˛2 . The control law (24)
then reads (using the fact that yi i yN D pi pN ıi )


i .t/ D rRN .t/ C .0 f˛1 /ıi 0 pi .t/ rN .t/
1 pPi .t/ rPN .t/


NP
(26)
C f˛1 pi .kh/ p.kh/
N
C f˛2 pPi .kh/ p.kh/

for t 2 Œkh; .k C 1/h/, which uses sampled global and analog local
measurements indeed. By an appropriate choice of the weights q1
and q2 we may then tune the behavior of the individual cars, say to
strike a trade-off between maintaining a rigid formation and reducing
the energy consumption. Our main point in this section, however, is
to show how a more sophisticated problem can be handled within the
proposed framework, so simulation results are not presented here.
VI. C ONCLUDING R EMARKS
We have studied a large-scale state-feedback H 2 problem, in which
a homogeneous group of autonomous agents is coupled through
a constraint on their average behavior and where the information
exchange between the agents is limited. It has been shown that for
a range of communication restrictions, which includes time-delays,
sampled-data processing, and bandwidth limitations, the problem can
be reduced to an H 2 problem of the same dimension as that of
a single agent. Moreover, the optimal controller for the original
large-scale problem is composed of a diagonal (decentralized) term
complemented by a rank-one coordination component. This structure,
as well as the computational scalability of the solution, are the same
as in the case without communication restrictions studied in [15].
A key step in proving our main result was to show that the
communication limitations in combination with the hard constraint on
the agents to coordinate their behavior, prevent each agent from using
its full set of available information. This property sets a fundamental
limitation on the achievable performance. In particular, unlike the
case with perfect information exchange, the cost of coordination

per agent does not vanish as the number of agents grows. A
natural question is how this performance limitation changes when
the coordination constraint is replaced with a coordination incentive
(soft constraints). It is also of interest to understand if the diagonalplus-rank-one structure and the computational scalability carry over
to this case.
R EFERENCES
[1] D. D. Šiljak, Decentralized Control of Complex Systems. San Diego:
Academic Press, 1991.
[2] M. Mesbahi and M. Egerstedt, Graph Theoretic Methods in Multiagent
Networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.
[3] S. Yüksel and T. Başar, Stochastic Networked Control Systems: Stabilization and Optimization under Information Constraints.
Basel:
Birkhäuser, 2013.
[4] Y.-C. Ho and K.-C. Chu, “Team decision theory and information
structures in optimal control problems—Part I,” IEEE Trans. Automat.
Control, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 15–22, 1972.
[5] M. Rotkowitz and S. Lall, “A characterization of convex problems in
decentralized control,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, vol. 51, no. 2, pp.
274–286, 2006.
[6] P. Massioni and M. Verhaegen, “Distributed control for identical dynamically coupled systems: A decomposition approach,” IEEE Trans.
Automat. Control, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 124–135, 2009.
[7] L. Lessard and S. Lall, “Optimal control of two-player systems with
output feedback,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, vol. 60, no. 8, pp.
2129–2144, 2015.
[8] C. W. Scherer, “Structured H1 -optimal control for nested interconnections: A state-space solution,” Syst. Control Lett., vol. 62, no. 12, pp.
1105–1113, 2013.
[9] J. D. Glover, M. S. Sarma, and T. J. Overbye, Power System Analysis
and Design, 4th ed. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2008.
[10] R. Brockett, “Control of stochastic ensembles,” in Åström Symposium on
Control, B. Wittenmark and A. Rantzer, Eds. Lund: Studentlitteratur,
1999, pp. 199–216.
[11] L. B. Wood, A. Das, and H. H. Asada, “Broadcast feedback control of
cell populations using stochastic Lyapunov functions with application to
angiogenesis regulation,” in Proc. 2008 American Control Conf., Seattle,
WA, 2008, pp. 2105–2111.
[12] S. Azuma, R. Yoshimura, and T. Sugie, “Broadcast control of multiagent systems,” Automatica, vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 2307–2316, 2013.
[13] A. I. Zečević and D. D. Šiljak, “Global low-rank enhancement of
decentralized control for large-scale systems,” IEEE Trans. Automat.
Control, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 740–744, 2005.
[14] M. Hovd and S. Skogestad, “Control of symmetrically interconnected
plants,” Automatica, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 957–973, 1994.
[15] D. Madjidian and L. Mirkin, “Distributed control with low-rank coordination,” IEEE Trans. Control of Network Systems, vol. 1, no. 1, pp.
53–63, 2014.
[16] K. Zhou, J. C. Doyle, and K. Glover, Robust and Optimal Control.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1995.
[17] S. Bittanti and P. Colaneri, Periodic Systems: Filtering and Control.
London: Springer-Verlag, 2009.
[18] D. L. Kleinman, “Optimal control of linear systems with time-delay and
observation noise,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, vol. 14, no. 5, pp.
524–527, 1969.
[19] L. Mirkin and N. Raskin, “Every stabilizing dead-time controller has
an observer-predictor-based structure,” Automatica, vol. 39, no. 10, pp.
1747–1754, 2003.
[20] J. M. Mendel, Lessons in Estimation Theory for Signal Processing,
Communication, and Control. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
1995.
[21] O. Troeng and L. Mirkin, “Toward a more efficient implementation of
distributed-delay elements,” in Proc. 52nd IEEE Conf. Decision and
Control, Florence, Italy, 2013, pp. 294–299.
[22] H. L. Trentelman and A. A. Stoorvogel, “Sampled-data and discretetime H2 optimal control,” SIAM J. Control Optim., vol. 33, no. 3, pp.
834–862, 1995.
[23] L. Mirkin, H. Rotstein, and Z. J. Palmor, “H 2 and H 1 design of
sampled-data systems using lifting. Part I: General framework and
solutions,” SIAM J. Control Optim., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 175–196, 1999.
[24] L. Mirkin, T. Shima, and G. Tadmor, “Sampled-data H 2 optimization of
systems with I/O delays via analog loop shifting,” IEEE Trans. Automat.
Control, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 787–791, 2014.

