IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Scaling in bidirectional platoons with dynamic
controllers and proportional asymmetry

arXiv:1410.3943v3 [] 19 Jan 2016

Ivo Herman, Dan Martinec, Zdeněk Hurák and Michael Sebek
Abstract—We consider platoons composed of identical vehicles with
an asymmetric nearest-neighbor interaction. We restrict ourselves to
intervehicular coupling realized with dynamic arbitrary-order onboard
controllers such that the coupling to the immediately preceding vehicle is
proportional to the coupling to the immediately following vehicle. Each
vehicle is modeled using a transfer function and we impose no restriction
on the order of the vehicle. The platoon is described by a transfer function
in a convenient product form. We investigate how the H-infinity norm and
the steady-state gain of the platoon scale with the number of vehicles. We
conclude that if the open-loop transfer function of the vehicle contains two
or more integrators and the Fiedler eigenvalue of the graph Laplacian is
uniformly bounded from below, the norm scales exponentially with the
growing distance in the graph. If there is just one integrator in the open
loop, we give a condition under which the norm of the transfer function is
bounded by its steady-state gain—the platoon is string-stable. Moreover,
we argue that in this case it is always possible to design a controller for
the extreme asymmetry—the predecessor following strategy.
Index Terms—Vehicular platoon, string stability, asymmetric control,
scaling, transfer functions.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Vehicular platoons are chains of automatic cars that are supposed
to travel with tight spacing in a highway lane. They are expected to
increase the safety and capacity of highways. A number of theoretical
results are available in the literature, but experiments with short
vehicular platoons were described too [1] (PATH project) or [2]
(SARTRE project). Majority of the practical results rely on intervehicular communication. The most commonly adopted approaches
are Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) [1], [3], leader
following [4] and leader’s velocity transmission [5], [6]. However,
the communication can be delayed, disturbed or even denied by an
intruder.
In the absence of intervehicular communication, the only available
information is the one measured by the onboard sensors, especially
the intervehicular distances. It turns out that certain properties of
such platoons need not scale well for a growing number of vehicles. Among the strategies, the time-headway policy is scalable
[7] but the platoon’s length grows with the speed of the leader.
Among fixed-distance approaches such as the predecessor following
and symmetric or asymmetric bidirectional control, an unpleasant
phenomenon known as string instability can occur. This means that a
disturbance affecting a given vehicle can be amplified as it propagates
along the platoon (string) of vehicles. For the predecessor following
strategy, string instability occurs for an arbitrary model of a vehicle
as long as there are least two integrators in the open loop [8]. If
measurements of the distance from both the immediately preceding
and the immediately following vehicles are available, we call the
corresponding control bidirectional. In this paper we are going to
revolve around the role of asymmetry of bidirectional coupling.
Recent works suggest that in a bidirectional platoon with secondorder open-loop dynamics, a good trade-off between the settling time
and peaks in the transient response can be achieved if the asymmetry
of coupling is imposed differently on the measured intervehicular
distances and their first derivatives—relative velocities. However,
these results are only obtained by numerical simulations [9] or the
The authors are with the Faculty of Electrical Engineering (the first
two are doctoral students), Czech Technical University in Prague. E-mail:
ivo.herman@fel.cvut.cz. Supported by Czech Science Foundation within
GACR 13-06894S (I. H.).

1

results are based on reasonable conjectures [10]. Moreover, they
are valid only for particular system models—double integrators. No
general knowledge is available so far.
In contrast, if the coupling assumes identical asymmetry for both
the distances and their first derivatives, a nonzero lower bound
on the formation eigenvalues can be achieved [5]. This guarantees
controllability [6] of the formation of an arbitrary size. On the
other hand, for a double integrator model, the H∞ norm of a
particular transfer function related to disturbance attenuation grows
exponentially in the number of vehicles [11]. Later this bad scaling
was attributed to the presence of the uniform bound on eigenvalues
if there are at least two integrators in the open loop [12]. Hence, the
uniform boundedness of eigenvalues plausible from the perspective
of faster transient response must be paid for by very bad scaling in
the frequency domain.
If symmetric coupling is implemented, the norm grows only
linearly [13], [14] but the step response suffers from very long
transients—the eigenvalues get arbitrarily close to the origin. This
can be alleviated using a wave-absorbing controller implemented on
either end of the platoon [15]. Finally, it is also the sensitivity of the
platoon to the noise that depends on the number of integrators in the
open loop [16].
In this paper we consider platoons composed of identical vehicles
with an asymmetric nearest-neighbor interaction. We restrict ourselves to the case when the coupling to the immediately preceding
vehicle is proportional to the coupling to the immediately following
vehicle (see eq. (1)). Each vehicle is modeled by a transfer function
and we impose no restriction on the order or structure of the model.
We investigate how the H∞ norm and the steady-state gain of the
platoon scale with the number of vehicles. If the vehicle contains
two or more integrators and the eigenvalues of the graph Laplacian
are uniformly bounded from below, the norm scales exponentially
with the growing distance in the graph (Sec. IV-A). If there is
just one integrator in the open loop, we give a condition under
which the norm of the transfer function is bounded by its steadystate gain—the platoon is string-stable (Sec. IV-B). In addition, in
this case it is possible to design a string-stable controller for the
extreme asymmetry—the predecessor following strategy, which offers
some implementation advantages compared to general asymmetric
bidirectional control (see Sec. IV-C).
The novelty is that our results hold for an arbitrary LTI model
(order and structure) of the individual vehicle. Thus, we do not limit
ourselves to a single or double integrator as in [5], [6], [9], [11],
[16]. In fact, our work generalizes those results to arbitrary transfer
function models of individual vehicles. The main distinguishing
feature is the number of integrators in the open loop. We extend
the result on exponential scaling from our paper [12] to an arbitrary
transfer function in the formation. Moreover, we add a discussion
of scaling when only one integrator in the open loop is present
in the agent model and also a steady-state gain is analyzed. This
paper therefore should give a broader qualitative overview of what is
achievable with proportional asymmetry for general vehicle models.

II. V EHICLE AND PLATOON MODELLING
Consider N identical vehicles indexed as i = 1, 2, . . . , N , with
i = 1 corresponding to the platoon leader. The leader drives independently of the platoon. The vehicles have identical transfer functions
b(s)
G(s) = a(s)
of an arbitrary type and order with positions yi as the
outputs. The input to the vehicle is produced by a dynamic controller
q(s)
b(s)q(s)
R(s) = p(s)
. The open-loop model M (s) = R(s)G(s) = a(s)p(s)
is a series connection of the controller and the vehicle models.

2

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL

Definition 1 (Number of integrators in the open loop). Let the openloop model be factored as M (s) = 1/sη M (s) with M (0) < ∞.
Then η ∈ N0 is the number of integrators in the open loop.
The number η is also known as type number of the system. For
1
instance, the model M (s) = s(s+a)
is a system with one integrator
in the open loop and M (s) = s2s+1
has η = 2. We call the well(s+b)
known cases with M (s) = 1 a single-integrator system for η = 1
and a double-integrator system for η = 2, respectively.
The input to the controller is the combined front and rear intervehicular spacing error
ei = (yi−1 − yi ) − i (yi − yi+1 ) + ri .

(1)

We call the nonnegative weight i of the rear spacing error the
constant of bidirectionality. The general external input ri can represent, for instance, a measurement noise or a reference such as
the reference distance dref . In such a case ri = −dref + i dref
and the distances ∆i = yi−1 − yi are regulated to dref . The
leader’s control input is just r1 and the controller of the trailing
vehicle has the input eN = (yN −1 − yN ) + rN . Since we use
a dynamic controller, the control law can also access the relative
velocity and other derivatives of the distances (for instance by using
a PD controller R(s) = αs + β).
A. Laplacian properties
The regulation errors in (1) are given in a vector form as
e = −Ly + r with e = [e1 , . . . , eN ]T , y = [y1 , . . . , yN ]T and
r = [r1 , . . . , rN ]T . The matrix L = [lij ] ∈ RN ×N is the Laplacian
of a path graph and has the following structure


0
−1


 .

0

L =  ..

0

0
1 + 2

0
−2

0
0

..
.

..
.

..

...
...

−1
0

1 + N −1
−1

.

...
...








−N −1 
..
.

(2)

1

It is a non-symmetric tridiagonal matrix. Next we state some useful
properties of L, mainly taken from the literature.
Lemma 1. Laplacian L in (2) and its eigenvalues λi have the
following properties:
a) The eigenvalues λi are all real and λi ≥ 0, ∀i.
b) With the eigenvalues ordered as λ1 ≤ λ2 ≤ . . . ≤ λN , the
smallest eigenvalue λ1 = 0 and this eigenvalue is simple.
c) The eigenvalues are upper-bounded by λmax , that is, λi ≤
λmax ≤ 2 max(lii ).
d) Let Lr be the matrix obtained from L by deleting the first
row and the first column (both correspond to the leader). Then
λi (L) = λi (Lr ) for all λi 6= 0.
e) Suppose that i ≤ max < 1 ∀ i. Then the nonzero eigenvalues
λ2 , . . . , λN are upper-bounded by λi ≤ λmax = 2(1 +
max ), ∀i ≥ 1 and lower-bounded by
1 (1 − max )2
> 0,
∀i ≥ 2.
(3)
2 1 + max
The bounds are uniform, that is, they do not depend on N .
f) Let Lk be a matrix obtained from L by deleting kth row and
column. Let the eigenvalues of Lk , 1 < k < n, be µ1 < µ2 <
. . . < µn−1 . Then
λi ≥ λmin ≥

λj+2 ≥ µj ≥ λj , j = 1, 2, . . . , N − 2.

(4)

Proof: The properties a)-d) are discussed in [12, Lem. 1], e) is
proved in [12, Thm. 1]. The statement f) follows from [17, Thm.
5.5.6], which gives conditions of interlacing for totally nonnegative

1

2

...

C

...

...

O

...

R(s)

G(s)

N

Leader
...

+

R(s)

rC

G(s)

...

TCO(s)

+

yO

Fig. 1: Block diagram showing the transfer function TCO (s).
matrices. L is similar to a totally nonnegative matrix [17, pp.
6,7]. Both L and Lk can be transformed to totally nonnegative
matrices using similarity transform with signature matrices S =
diag[1, −1, . . . , 1, −1]. The results are |L| and |Lk | with the absolute
values taken element-wise. Since |Lk | is a principal submatrix of |L|,
interlacing occurs. Since L is similar to |L| and Lk to |Lk |, their
eigenvalues interlace.
The property e) is an instance of uniform boundedness—the lower
bound on eigenvalues λmin > 0 does not depend on N [5], [11],
[12]. Applying f) repeatedly, the interlacing holds for any principal
submatrix. The eigenvalue λ2 is known as the Fiedler eigenvalue.
Remark 1. In [12] we considered a more general model with
different controller weight µi for each vehicle such that Lµ = W L,
W = diag[µ1 , µ2 , . . . , µN ]. For the clarity of presentation we
restricted ourselves here to L in (2) and µi = 1 ∀i, although all the
results (apart from the steady-state gain) would remain unchanged.
B. Transfer functions
We are interested in how the vector of external inputs r (acting
at the inputs of the controller) affects the vector of positions y of
vehicles. This is in general described by a transfer function matrix
y(s) = T(s)r(s). The (O, C)th element of matrix T(s) is denoted
O (s)
by TCO (s) = yrC
, C = 1, . . . , N, O = 1, . . . , N . The transfer
(s)
function TCO (s) therefore describes the effect of the external input
rC acting at a vehicle indexed C (called a control vehicle) on
the position yO of the vehicle with an index O (called an output
vehicle)—see Fig. 1. We will be interested in how its H∞ norm
defined as kTCO (s)k∞ = supω≥0 |TCO (ω)| scales with a growing
number N of vehicles and the distance dCO in a graph. We use the
statement ”from C to O” with the meaning of ”from the input rC
of the vehicle C to the output yO of the vehicle O”. The indices
C and O can be chosen arbitrarily. Note that due to bidirectional
architecture, for any selection of C, O the transfer function TCO (s)
depends on the whole formation.
Since the graph of a platoon is a path graph, there is only one
directed path from the node C to the node O. This path is a sequence
of
edges with the weights wi,j . The weight of the path is wCO =
QO−1
j=C wj,j+1 . In our case wi,i+1 = 1 and wi+1,i = i , so
(
1
for C ≤ O,
wCO = QC−1
(5)

for C > O.
i
i=O
The number of edges on the directed path from the node C to the
node O is called the graph distance dCO between C and O. We use
the following product form of TCO (s) that we derived in [18, Thm.
5]
QN−dCO−1
[b(s)q(s)]dCO+1 i=1
[a(s)p(s)+γi b(s)q(s)]
,
TCO (s) = wCO
QN
i=1 [a(s)p(s) + λj b(s)q(s)]
(6)
where λj is the jth eigenvalue of L. The coefficients γi ∈ R, γi ≤
γi+1 , are the eigenvalues of the matrix L̂ ∈ RN −dCO −1×N −dCO −1
that is obtained from L by deleting all the rows and columns
corresponding to the nodes on the path from C to O, see [18, Thm.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL

3

10]. Note that L̂ is a principal submatrix of L, hence interlacing in
the sense of Lemma 1 f) holds. For instance, for a formation with
C = 3, O = 4 and N = 5, we delete the third and the fourth rows
and columns of L to get L̂ with the eigenvalues γi = [0, 1, 1 + 2 ],
0
0
0
0
0

0
0 
0
0
−1 1 + 2 −2


−1 1 + 3 −3
0  =⇒ L̂ = −1 1 + 2
L= 0
0
0
−1 1 + 4 −4 
0
0
0
0
0
−1
1







0
0 . (7)
1

Using the statement d) in Lemma 1, we can exclude the leader from
the formation (and also get rid of λ1 = 0 and γ1 = 0). Whenever we
analyze a transfer-function norm, we will work with Lr and all the
indices will start from 2. The leader can be again included afterwards
by multiplying the transfer function TCO (s) by M (s).
Remark 2. Throughout the paper we assume that the overall system
is asymptotically stable for all N . It follows from (6) that the polynomial a(s)p(s)+λj b(s)q(s) must be stable for any λj ∈ [λmin , λmax ],
λj ∈ R (similarly to [19]). Note that a(s)p(s) + λj b(s)q(s) is a
standard form for the denominator in the root-locus theory for the
system λj M (s) with the gain λj . Thus, we just need to stabilize the
single-agent system λj M (s) for a bounded interval of the real gain
λj ∈ [λmin , λmax ]. If λmin > 0, we can stabilize even a formation of
unstable agents. From (4) it follows that also γi ∈ [λmin , λmax ], ∀i,
so if the system is asymptotically stable, all its zeros are in the left
half-plane too.
III. S TEADY- STATE GAIN OF TRANSFER FUNCTIONS
Besides the H∞ norm, another important control-related characteristic of a platoon is the steady-state gain TCO (0). By the internal
model principle [20] we assume that η ≥ 1 to enable the vehicles
to track the leader’s constant velocity. With at least one integrator in
M (s) we get a(0)p(0) = 0. After excluding the leader, the steadystate gain follows from (6) as
QN −dCO −1
[b(0)q(0)]dCO +1 i=2
[γi b(0)q(0)]
TCO (0) = wCO
QN
j=2 [λj b(0)q(0)]
QN −dCO −1
γi
= wCO i=2
.
(8)
QN
λ
j
j=2
This shows that the steady-state gain does not depend on the
dynamic model of an individual agent, it is only a function of the
structure of the network (λj and γi are both obtained from L). We
can now apply the previous result to get the steady-state gain of the
transfer function TCO (s) in vehicular platoons.
Theorem 1. The steady-state gain of the platoon is given by



P
Q
wCO 1 + C−2 i C−j
for C ≤ O
i=1
j=1


TCO (0) =
wCO 1 + PO−2 Qi O−j
for O < C
i=1
j=1

(9)

The proof is in Appendix A. Note that for C ≤ O, the steady-state
gain does not depend on O as wCO = 1 for C ≤ O. We can discuss
several cases relevant for the platoon control.
Corollary 1. If there is max such that i ≤ max < 1 ∀i, then
TCO (0) is upper bounded as TCO (0) ≤ 1−1max . This holds for all
N and for all C, O.
Qi
i
Proof: We can bound the
in (9) as
j=1 C−j ≤ max .
 product

PC−2 i
Then TCO (0) ≤ wCO 1 + i=1 max
≤ wCO 1−1max ,
P∞ i
1
since
=
. The same holds for
i=0 max
1−max

(a) Varying C and O, O = C .

(b) Fixed C = 15, varying O.

Fig. 2: Steady-state gains for different choices of C and O and for
asymmetry  = 0.9.


PO−2 Qi
≤ wCO 1−1max . If C ≤ O,
wCO 1 + i=1
j=1 O−j
Q
dCO
then wCO = 1. If C > O, then wCO = O
i=C−1 i ≤ max < 1.
Therefore, TCO (0) ≤ wCO 1−1max ≤ 1−1max .
The bound on TCO (0) for the predecessor-following control strategy is one (note max = 0), which is the minimum amidst all control
strategies. For the symmetric bidirectional control we use (9) to get
the steady-state gain equal to C −1, which shows that it is unbounded
in N . This can be explained by the fact that all the vehicles ahead
of the vehicle C have to increase the distance to neighbors by one.
The steady-state gains for a fixed control node and a varying output
node for several strategies are in Fig. 2b, while the gain from C to
C is in Fig. 2a. Although the gain grows with C, for a fixed C, it
does not grow with the number N of agents.
One might also be interested in the change of the intervehicular
distance ∆O = yO−1 − yO as an effect of the input rC . Then
O (s)
T∆ (s) = ∆
= TC,O−1 (s) − TC,O (s). Using (9) and (5), its
rC (s)
Q
steady-state gain is T∆ (0) = 0 for O ≥ C and T∆ (0) = − C−1
i=O i
for O ≤ C. This means that all the vehicles ahead of C have
to increase their steady-state distances (unless i = 0, ∀i), while
distances of the cars behind C remain unchanged. In asymmetric
control with i Q
≤ max < 1 ∀i the change in distance will be less
than one since C−1
i=O i < 1.
IV. S CALING OF H∞

NORMS IN PLATOONS

In this section we investigate how the H∞ norm of an arbitrary
transfer function TCO (s) changes when more vehicles are added (N
grows). Define two types of transfer functions
λj b(s)q(s)
a(s)p(s) + γi b(s)q(s)
, Zij (s) =
.
a(s)p(s) + λj b(s)q(s)
a(s)p(s) + λj b(s)q(s)
(10)
From the product (6), we can form dCO + 1 transfer functions of
type Tj (s) and N − dCO − 1 of type Zij (s), up to the gain. Let
Tmin (s) be the transfer function of the closed-loop system

Tj (s) =

Tmin (s) =

λmin b(s)q(s)
a(s)p(s) + λmin b(s)q(s)

(11)

with λmin acting as a proportional gain (λmin > 0 is the lower bound
on λi , i ≥ 2) Similarly, for the upper bound on eigenvalues λmax let
Tmax (s) be the corresponding closed loop. Note that |Tj (0)| = 1
due to at least one integrator in the open loop, hence kTj (s)k∞ ≥ 1.
The next technical Lemma is proved in Appendix B.
Lemma 2. Let λ√
j M (ω0 ) = αj + βj for some frequency ω0 > 0,
αj , βj ∈ R,  = −1. Then
a) If |Ti (ω0 )| > 1, then |Tj (ω0 )| > 1 ∀λj ≥ λi and αj <
−1/2.
b) If |Ti (ω0 )| ≤ 1, then |Tj (ω0 )| ≤ 1 ∀λj ≤ λi and αj ≥
−1/2.
c) |Zij (ω0 )| ≥ |Zij (0)| for {αj ≤ −1 and γi ≥ λj }
d) |Zij (ω0 )| ≥ |Zij (0)| for {−1 < αj ≤ − 12 and γi ≤ λj }
e) |Zij (ω0 )| ≤ |Zij (0)| for {αj > − 12 and γi ≥ λj }

4

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL

A. Exponential growth
It was proven in [12] that the response of the last vehicle grows
exponentially in N due to the presence of a uniform nonzero lower
bound on the eigenvalues. However, the analysis was done only for
one transfer function in the platoon and one input—the movement
of the leader. The next theorem proven in Appendix C extends the
exponential scaling to an arbitrary transfer function in a finite platoon.
The test involves only the closed-loop Tmin (s) of an individual agent.
Theorem 2. If kTmin (s)k∞ > 1 and the eigenvalues of L are
uniformly bounded from zero, then there are two real constants
0 < ξ ≤ 1 and ζ > 1 depending only on λmin , λmax and M (s) such
that kTCO (s)k∞ > ζ dCO TCO (0) ξ 2 . That is, the norm kTCO (s)k∞
grows exponentially with the graph distance dCO .
The effect of the input rC applied at the control node gets
exponentially amplified with the graph distance between C and O.
Hence, it is amplified as it propagates further from the control node
even in a platoon with fixed N . Figure 3 shows scaling for a thirdorder model with varying asymmetry in a given range. If O < C,
then TCO (0) given in (9) might decrease faster than ζ dCO grows
and the norm might be less than one (Fig. 3c). If C ≤ O, then
kTCO (s)k∞  1 for large dCO (Fig. 3a). In Fig. 3b we show how
kTCO (s)k∞ changes with a graph distance — C = 3 is kept fixed
and O is varied, so that dCO grows with growing O.
Two integrators in the open loop (η = 2) are necessary for
tracking of the leader moving with a constant velocity [21, Lem.
3.1]. However, for at least two integrators in the open-loop we have
kTmin (s)k∞ > 1 [8, Thm. 1]. For Laplacian with uniformly bounded
eigenvalues this means that kTCO (s)k∞ grows exponentially with the
distance dCO and there is no linear controller which could prevent
this. Thus, we cannot have a good behavior with a uniform bound
and two integrators. The main results of [8], [11], [12] are special
cases of Theorem 2, since asymmetric Laplacian with i ≤ max < 1
has uniformly bounded eigenvalues, see Lemma 1 e). Nevertheless,
even a platoon with η = 1 can exhibit exponential scaling.

B. Design of a string stable controller
So far we have discussed situations in which the system scales
badly. In this section we provide a test for the string stability. One of
the most common string stability conditions in vehicular platoons
yi (s)
is yi−1
≤ 1 ∀ i, used e.g., in [1] (see [22] for other
(s)
∞
definitions). In other words, the effect of disturbance at one vehicle
must be attenuated when propagated along the platoon. However, in
a bidirectional platoon the signal can propagate in both directions.
Definition 2 (Bidirectional string stability). The bidirectional platoon
is string-stable if for an input rC acting at vehicle C the output yO
at vehicle O satisfies
yO (s)
yO−1 (s)

≤ 1, ∀ O ≥ C;
∞

yO−1 (s)
yO (s)

≤ 1, ∀ O < C. (12)
∞

We can now state a very simple sufficient condition for the
bidirectional string stability, again involving only a norm of the closed
loop of an individual agent. The proof is in Appendix D.
Theorem 3. If kTmax (s)k∞ = 1, then kTCO (s)k∞ = |TCO (0)|
and the platoon is bidirectionally string-stable.
The first part states that the H∞ norm of TCO (s) equals its steadystate gain (which is only a function of the interconnection structure).
If λmax is independent of N , the bidirectional string stability holds
for all N , all i and for every TCO (s).

The condition kTmax (s)k∞ = 1 provides a simple way how to
tune a SISO controller for a vehicle model G(s) in a platoon of arbitrary size. To achieve kTmax (s)k∞ = 1, there must be at most one
integrator in the open loop. Systems with one integrator in the open
loop were used in [6], [23], despite the fact that they cannot track
the leader’s position. This is usually overcome using leader’s velocity
as the reference velocity. However, this is a centralized information
and the leader’s velocity needs to be broadcast perpetually, which
requires a communications infrastructure.
C. Design of a predecessor following controller
For a platoon with uniformly bounded eigenvalues it follows from
Theorem 2 that kTmin k∞ = 1 is necessary for string stability. Denote
a standard closed-loop as T (s) = M (s)/(1 + M (s)).
Lemma 3. If there is a bidirectionally-string-stable asymmetric
control for a given G(s), then there always exists a predecessor
following controller ( = 0) achieving kT (s)k∞ = 1.
As an example of the closed loop, take T (s) = Tmin (s) since
kTmin (s)k∞ = 1—the gain of the controller was just decreased to
λmin . Since such a system might have a slow transient response, the
controller can be redesigned.
The simulation results are in Fig. 4. We designed two controllers
1
for the system model G(s) = s2 +0.5s
. The controller R1 (s) =
2.4s+1
achieves
kT
(s)k
=
1
for
predecessor
following (PF).
∞
0.125s+1
In addition to that, it also has a positive impulse response, which is
very useful in platoon control. Both properties together guarantee
string stability for PF in L∞ -induced norm [24]. The necessary
conditions for positive response are dominant real pole and no real
zero right from this pole [25]. The controller R2 (s) = 1.5 is a simple
proportional controller. A controller with a lower gain was used in
[6]. It is apparent from Fig. 4 that for the same maximal control
effort, the PF achieves the best transient response among the cases
shown.
Although in general we cannot guarantee better transients of PF
compared to asymmetric bidirectional control, we think that PF offers
many advantages: 1) no need for a rear-distance sensor, 2) developed
theory for a closed-loop controller design (e. g., H∞ approach), 3)
easier handling of heterogeneity, 4) faster convergence time for the
same maximal control effort—with the same controller the PF has
a larger spectral gap (larger λmin ). The performance could then be
compared by simulations. Note that although the PF can have a better
transient, a bidirectional architecture might still be required, e.g., for
safety reasons. Then Theorem 3 gives a condition for design.
V. C ONCLUSION
We investigated asymmetric control of vehicular platoons where
proportional asymmetry is used—the front spacing error is proportional to the rear spacing error. First we analyzed scaling of steadystate gain of an arbitrary transfer function in a platoon. It was proved
that it grows without bound with N for a symmetric bidirectional
control scheme, while it stays bounded in a presence of asymmetry.
We proved that for more than one integrator in the open loop, the
asymmetric bidirectional control is not scalable, because the H∞
norm of any transfer function grows exponentially with the graph
distance. If we allow the vehicles to know the leader’s velocity (which
requires permanent communication), only one integrator in the open
loop can be present. Then we provide a simple design method for
tuning the controller to achieve bidirectional string stability. In this
case also a string-stable predecessor following controller can always
be designed. This paper thus gave an overview of the achievable
performance in bidirectional control with proportional asymmetry.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL

(a) C = 3, O ≥ C , i ∈ [0.4, 0.6]

5

(b) kTCO (s)k∞ for a), C = 3

(c) C = 105, O ≤ C , i ∈ [0.4, 0.6] (d) C = 105, C ≥ O, i ∈ [1.4, 1.6]

Fig. 3: Scaling of |TCO (ω)| as a function of C kept fixed and O varying with N = 110. The model is a PI controller R = s+1
designed for
s
1
a vehicle model G = s2 +5s
, hence η = 2 and the vehicle can track the leader moving with constant velocity. i were randomly generated in
the given range. Fig. 3b shows kTCO (s)k∞ for the pairs C, O used in a) in semilog. coordinates. It is clear that the norm scales exponentially.

(a) Pred.fol. with R1 (s)

(b) Asym., R1 (s),  = 0.9

(c) Asym., R2 (s),  = 0.9

(d) Control effort

Fig. 4: Responses to leader’s step in position for different architectures for N = 150. In 4d: blue - pred. fol., red - asym. with R1 (s), green
- asym. with R2 (s) for the first three vehicles.

A PPENDIX B

A PPENDIX A
Proof of Theorem 1: As stated in Sec. II.B., we will work with
Lr = [lij ]. We begin by calculating the product in the denominator
of (8). The product of all λi ’s equals det Lr . The recursive rule to
calculate the determinant of tridiagonal matrix is [26, Lem. 0.9.10]
Dn = ln,n Dn−1 − ln,n+1 ln+1,n Dn−2 , where Dn is the determinant
of the submatrix of size n. We begin from bottom right corner of Lr .
Then D1 = 1 (the bottom-right element) and D2 = 1. Then D3 can
be calculated as D3 = (1 + N −2 )D
Q2 − N −2 D1 = 1. By induction,
the determinant of Lr is det Lr = N
j=2 λj = 1 for any size of Lr .
Now we calculate the product in the numerator of (8). It equals the
determinant of L̂. Suppose that C ≤ O. If O < C, then the indices
C and O are swapped and only the weight of the path is different.
The matrix L̂ reads L̂ = diag(L1 , L2 ) with


1 + 2

 −1

L1 =  .
 ..
0

−2
1 + 3

0
−3

..
...

0
0

..
.

..
.

..

..
.

...

0

−1

.

Proof of Lemma 2: Proof of a): The proof can be found as a
part of the proof of [12, Thm. 3]. It also follows from the proof that
|Ti (ω0 )| > 1 ⇔ α < −1/2.
Proof of b) follows from a). Suppose that |Tj (ω0 )| > 1 for λj <
λi . Then by a) also |Ti (ω0 )| > 1, which contradicts the assumption
|Ti (ω)| ≤ 1. Hence, |Tj (ω0 )| ≤ 1.
Proof of statements c)-e): The transfer function Zij (s) can be
1+γi M (s)
written as Zij (s) = 1+λ
. Its squared modulus at ω0 is using
j M (s)
γi
κij = λj given as
1 + κij (αj + βj )
1 + (αj + βj )

1
−
1
2αj + 1 +
κij

|Zij (ω0 )|2 =


= κ2ij 1+

(αj + 1)2 + βj2

2

1
κij


.

(15)




.


(13)

1 + C−1

The matrix L2 has the same structure as Lr , hence det L2 = 1. The
dimensions are L1 ∈ R(C−2)×(C−2) and L2 ∈ R(N −O−1)×(N −O−1) .
The determinant of L1 of size n × n can be recursively calculated
as det L1,n = (1 + n ) det L1,n−1 − n det L1,n−2 . Let us start
from the bottom right corner again. Then det L1,1 = 1 + C−1 and
det L1,2 = 1 + C−1 + C−1 C−2 . The determinant
det L1,3 = (1 + C−3 ) det L1,2 − C−3 det L1,1
= 1 + C−1 + C−1 C−2 + C−1 C−2 C−3 .

Denote the numerator mij =



1
κij

−1



2αj + 1 +

1
κij



. The

square of the steady-state gain is |Zij (0)|2 = κ2ij . If mij > 0, then
|Zij (ω0 )|2 > |Zij (0)|2 = κ2ij since (αj +1)2 +βj2 > 0. If mij ≤ 0,
then |Zij (ω0 )|2 ≤ |Zij (0)|2 . Let us analyze
c)-e).

 the statements
c) If αj ≤ −1 and γi ≥ λj , then κ1ij − 1 ≤ 0 and also


2αj + 1 + κ1ij ≤ 0, hence mij ≥ 0 which proves the statement
1
c).
 d) If −1 < αj ≤ − 2 and γi ≤ λj , so κij ≤ 1, then
1
− 1 ≥ 0 and also 2αj + 1 + κ1ij ≥ 0, mij > 0 and d)
κij


is proved. e) If αj > − 12 and γi ≥ λj , then κ1ij − 1 ≤ 0 and


2αj + 1 + κ1ij ≥ 0, hence mij ≤ 0 and e) is proved.

(14)
A PPENDIX C

The pattern
is now apparent and the determinant of L1 is det L1 =
P
Q
i
1 + C−2
i=1
j=1 C−j . The sum goes from 1 to C − 2 because
we excluded the leader from the formation and the vehicle C is
part of the path from C to O, so C − 2 vehicles remain. Since
det L̂ = det L1 det L2 , 
the steady state gain is then TCO (0) =
P
Qi
L1 det L2
= wCO 1 + C−2
wCO det det
i=1
j=1 C−j .
Lr

Proof of Theorem 2: In the proof we work with reduced
Laplacian Lr . Let ω0 be a frequency at which |Tmin (ω0 )| > 1.
The key idea is to form Tj (s) and Zij (s) from (6) as follows:
1) Take each term a(s)p(s) + λj b(s)q(s) from the denominator
of (6). Let αj + βj = λj M (ω0 ). Since |Tmin (ω0 )| > 1,
from Lemma 2 a) we know that αj < − 12 .

6

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL

αj<-1

-1<αj<-0.5

function in (12) can be written as

λj
γi

To Tλj(s)

Growth of λj and γi

Fig. 5: Matching of λj and γi to form Zij (s). Dashed pairs are the
two Zij (s) for which |Zij (ω0 )| > 1 is not guaranteed.
2) If αj ≤ −1, then find γi such that γi ≥ λj . Form Zij (s) using
such γi and λj . Then by c) in Lemma 2 for such Zij (s) holds
|Zij (ω0 )| ≥ |Zij (0)|.
3) If −1 < αj ≤ − 21 , then find γi such that γi ≤ λj . Form Zij (s)
using these γi and λj . Then by Lemma 2 d) |Zij (ω0 )| ≥
|Zij (0)|.
4) Form as much Zij (s)’s as possible using the steps 2) and 3).
Use (dCO +1) remaining terms a(s)p(s)+λj b(s)q(s) to form
Tj (s).
Lemma 1 f) allows us to find (N − dCO − 3) Zij (s)’s to satisfy
either c) or d) in Lemma 2 — we pair γi with λi+2 for αj ≤ −1 and
γi with λi for −1 < αj ≤ 0.5 (see Fig. 5). These Zij (s)’s all have
gain greater than one at ω0 . The remaining two Zij (s)’s might have
gain less than one. Since λj and γi are bounded, there is a lower
bound ξ such that |Zij (ω)| ≥ ξ for these two.
The transfer function TCO (s) given in (6) is using such Tj ’s and
Zij ’s written as
N −dCO −1

TCO (s) = wCO

Y
i=2,j∈J

Zij (s)

N
Y
j=2,j ∈J
/

1
λj

N
Y

Tj (s). (16)

j=2,j ∈J
/

The set
Q J is the 1set of λj used to form some of Zij ’s. The terms
wCO N
and steady-state gain of Zij (0) do not affect the
j=2,j ∈J
/
λj
shape of the magnitude frequency response, only its value.
Since kTmin (s)k∞ > 1, it follows from a) in Lemma 2 that for
all transfer functions Tj (s) we have |Tj (ω0 )| > 1. Due to the lower
and upper bounds on eigenvalues, there is a minimum ζ > 1 of
modulus frequency response |Tj (ω0 )|, attained for some λj with
λmin ≤ λj ≤ λmax . Then we
modulus of
Q get the lower bound ondthe
CO +1 . Clearly,
product of Tj (s) in (16) as N
j=2,j ∈J
/ |Tj (ω0 )| ≥ ζ
this part of (16) scales exponentially with dCO .
All but two blocks Zij (s) amplify at ω0 , so
QN
−dCO −1
|Zij (ω0 )| ≥ ξ 2 (excluding the steady-state gain) and
i=1
the norm of TCO (s) is from (16) kTCO (s)k∞ ≥ ξ 2 TCO (0) ζ dCO .

A PPENDIX D
Proof of Theorem 3: First we prove that if kTmax (s)k∞ = 1,
then kTCO (s)k∞ = |TCO (0)|. As in the proof of Theorem 2, we will
form Zij ’s and Tj ’s in a suitable way. Let αj + βj = λj M (ω0 ) at
some frequency ω0 . Since kTmax (s)k∞ = 1, it follows from Lemma
2 b) that |Tj (ω0 )| ≤ 1 ∀ω0 , ∀λj ≤ λmax and αj ≥ − 21 , ∀ω0 .
Using Lemma 1 f) we can pair all γi with unique λj such
that γi ≥ λj to form Zij (s). Then e) in Lemma 2 implies that
|Zij (ω0 )| ≤ |Zij (0)| for all i, j. Since αj ≥ − 21 for all ω0 , we
have that kZij (s)k∞ = |Zij (0)| for all pairs γi ≥ λj . All remaining
terms Tj (s) in (16) by Lemma 2b) satisfy |Tj (ω0 )| ≤ 1 for all
ω0 . Hence, all transfer functions in the product (16) have their norm
norm less than or equal to one and kTCO (s)k∞ = |TCO (0)| .
Now let us go back to bidirectional string stability. Consider O ≥
C and let rC be the input at the control node. Then the first transfer

yO (s)
rC (s)TC,O (s)
TC,O (s)
=
=
yO−1 (s)
rC (s)TC,O−1 (s)
TC,O−1 (s)
Q −dCO −1
a(s)p(s) + γj,O b(s)q(s)
b(s)q(s) N
j=1
=
.
QN −dCO
a(s)p(s) + γj,O−1 b(s)q(s)
j=1

(17)

Let L̂O−1 and L̂O be the submatrices of L corresponding to the paths
from C to O − 1 and from C to O, respectively. Their eigenvalues
are γj,O−1 and γj,O , respectively. Beacuse of the fact that L̂O is a
submatrix of L̂O−1 , the eigenvalues of L̂O−1 and L̂O must interlace
in a sense of f) in Lemma 1. We can pair γj,O−1 and γj,O by Lemma
1 f) such that γj,O−1 ≤ γj,O and form Zij (s) as above. Then,
a(s)p(s)+γj,O b(s)q(s)
≤ 1 ∀j. Only one term in (17) with a
a(s)p(s)+γj,O−1 b(s)q(s)
form

∞
b(s)q(s)
a(s)p(s)+γi,O−1 b(s)q(s)

remains. Its H∞ norm is less than or

yO (s)
equal to one by b) in Lemma 2. The steady-state gain of yO−1
(s)
is one, since by Theorem 1 the steady-state gain is identical for all
yO (s)
the vehicles behind the control node. Hence, k yO−1
k ≤ 1 for
(s) ∞
C ≤ O.
The other direction (C ≥ O) has the ratio of outputs with the
same structure as (17), the only difference is its steady-state gain. It
follows from (9) that the steady-state gain is


PO−3 Qi
1 + i=1
j=1 O−j−1
TC,O−1 (0)
 < 1. (18)
= O−1 
PO−2 Qi
TC,O (0)
1 + i=1
j=1 O−j

Since the norm kyO−1 (s)/yO (s)k∞ is at most 1, bidirectional string
stability was proved.
R EFERENCES
[1] V. Milanés, S. Shladover, J. Spring, C. Nowakowski, H. Kawazoe,
and M. Nakamura, “Cooperative adaptive cruise control in real traffic
situations,” IEEE Transactions on Inteligent Transportation Systems,
vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 296–305, 2014.
[2] E. Coelingh and S. Solyom, “All aboard the robotic road train,” IEEE
Spectrum, vol. 49, no. 11, pp. 34–39, 2012.
[3] G. Naus, R. Vugts, J. Ploeg, R. van de Molengraft, and M. Steinbuch,
“Cooperative adaptive cruise control, design and experiments,” in American Control Conference 2010, no. 1, 2010, pp. 6145–6150.
[4] A. Peters, R. H. Middleton, and O. Mason, “Leader tracking in homogeneous vehicle platoons with broadcast delays,” Automatica, no. 1992,
Oct. 2013.
[5] H. Hao and P. Barooah, “On achieving size-independent stability margin
of vehicular lattice formations with distributed control,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 2688–2694, 2012.
[6] P. Barooah, P. G. P. Mehta, and J. J. P. Hespanha, “Mistuning-Based
Control Design to Improve Closed-Loop Stability Margin of Vehicular
Platoons,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 54, no. 9, pp.
2100–2113, Sep. 2009.
[7] R. H. Middleton and J. H. Braslavsky, “String Instability in Classes of
Linear Time Invariant Formation Control With Limited Communication
Range,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 55, no. 7, pp.
1519–1530, 2010.
[8] P. Seiler, A. Pant, and K. Hedrick, “Disturbance propagation in vehicle
strings,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 49, no. 10, pp.
1835–1841, 2004.
[9] H. Hao, H. Yin, and Z. Kan, “On the robustness of large 1-D network
of double integrator agents,” in American Control Conference (ACC),
2012, Montreal, Canada, 2012, pp. 6059–6064.
[10] C. E. Cantos and J. J. P. Veerman, “Transients in the Synchronization
of Oscillator Arrays,” Arxiv preprint:1308.4919v4, pp. 1–11, 2014.
[11] F. Tangerman, J. Veerman, and B. Stosic, “Asymmetric decentralized
flocks,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 57, no. 11, pp.
2844–2853, 2012.
[12] I. Herman, D. Martinec, Z. Hurak, and M. Sebek, “Nonzero Bound on
Fiedler Eigenvalue Causes Exponential Growth of H-Infinity Norm of
Vehicular Platoon,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 60,
no. 8, pp. 2248–2253, 2015.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL

[13] J. Veerman, B. Stosic, and A. Olvera, “Spatial instabilities and size
limitations of flocks,” Networks and Heterogeneous Media, vol. 2, no. 4,
pp. 1–14, 2007.
[14] H. Hao and P. Barooah, “Stability and robustness of large platoons of
vehicles with double-integrator models and nearest neighbor interaction,”
International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 23, pp.
2097–2122, 2012.
[15] D. Martinec, I. Herman, Z. Hurák, and M. Šebek, “Wave-absorbing
vehicular platoon controller,” European Journal of Control, vol. 20, pp.
234–248, 2014.
[16] B. Bamieh, M. R. Jovanović, P. Mitra, and S. Patterson, “Coherence
in Large-Scale Networks: Dimension-Dependent Limitations of Local
Feedback,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 57, no. 9, pp.
2235–2249, 2012.
[17] S. Fallat and C. Johnson, Totally Nonnegative Matrices. Princeton
University Press, 2011.
[18] I. Herman, D. Martinec, and M. Sebek, “Zeros of Transfer Functions
in Network Control with Higher-Order Dynamics,” in 19th IFAC World
Congress, Cape Town, South Africa, 2014, pp. 9177–9182.
[19] J. A. Fax and R. Murray, “Information flow and cooperative control of
vehicle formations,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 49,
no. 9, pp. 1465–1476, Sep. 2004.
[20] P. Wieland, R. Sepulchre, and F. Allgöwer, “An internal model principle
is necessary and sufficient for linear output synchronization,” Automatica, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 1068–1074, May 2011.
[21] S. K. Yadlapalli, S. Darbha, and K. R. Rajagopal, “Information flow and
its relation to the stability of the motion of vehicles in a rigid formation,”
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 51, no. 8, pp. 1315–1319,
2006.
[22] J. Ploeg, N. van de Wouw, and H. Nijmeijer, “Lp String Stability of Cascaded Systems: Application to Vehicle Platooning,” IEEE Transactions
on Control Systems Technology, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 786–793, 2014.
[23] F. Lin, M. Fardad, and M. R. Jovanović, “Optimal control of vehicular
formations with nearest neighbor interactions,” IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 2203–2218, 2012.
[24] J. Eyre, D. Yanakiev, and I. Kanellakopoulos, “A Simplified Framework
for String Stability Analysis of Automated Vehicles,” Vehicle System
Dynamics, 1998.
[25] S. Darbha, “On the synthesis of controllers for continuous time LTI
systems that achieve a non-negative impulse response,” Automatica,
vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 159–165, 2003.
[26] R. Horn and C. Johnson, Matrix analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1990.

7

