1

Minimum-Rank Dynamic Output Consensus Design
for Heterogeneous Nonlinear Multi-Agent Systems

arXiv:1605.03651v1 [cs.SY] 12 May 2016

Dinh Hoa Nguyen, Member, IEEE

Abstract—In this paper, we propose a new and systematic
design framework for output consensus in heterogeneous MultiInput Multi-Output (MIMO) general nonlinear Multi-Agent
Systems (MASs) subjected to directed communication topology.
First, the input-output feedback linearization method is utilized
assuming that the internal dynamics is Input-to-State Stable
(ISS) to obtain linearized subsystems of agents. Consequently,
we propose local dynamic controllers for agents such that the
linearized subsystems have an identical closed-loop dynamics
which has a single pole at the origin whereas other poles are
on the open left half complex plane. This allows us to deal with
distinct agents having arbitrarily vector relative degrees and to
derive rank-1 cooperative control inputs for those homogeneous
linearized dynamics which results in a minimum rank distributed
dynamic consensus controller for the initial nonlinear MAS.
Moreover, we prove that the coupling strength in the consensus
protocol can be arbitrarily small but positive and hence our
consensus design is non-conservative. Next, our design approach
is further strengthened by tackling the problem of randomly
switching communication topologies among agents where we
relax the assumption on the balance of each switched graph and
derive a distributed rank-1 dynamic consensus controller. Lastly,
a numerical example is introduced to illustrate the effectiveness
of our proposed framework.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Cooperative control of multi-agent systems (MASs) has
gained much attention recently since there are a lot of practical
applications, e.g., power grids, wireless sensor networks, transportation networks, systems biology, etc, can be formulated,
analyzed and synthesized under the framework of MASs. One
of the key features in MASs is the achievement of a global
objective by performing local measurement and control at each
agent and simultaneously collaborating among agents using
that local information.
Employing the principle of relatively exchanged local information, a very important and extensively studied subject
in MASs is the consensus problem where agents’ states or
outputs come to a non-zero agreement. A huge collection of
results can be found for consensus of MASs, ranging from single integrator dynamics of agents with fixed and time-varying
communication topology [1]–[4] to general linear agents [5]
and to nonlinear agents with disturbances, uncertainties, time
delays, etc [6], [7].
For linear MASs, one way to develop a systematic consensus control design is to employ the LQR method, e.g. [8]–[11].
The paper [8] designed optimal consensus laws for network
Dinh Hoa Nguyen is currently with Control System Laboratory, Department of Advanced Science and Technology, Toyota Technological Institute, 2-12-1 Hisakita, Tempaku-ku, Nagoya 468-8511, Japan. e-mail:
dinhhoa_nguyen@toyota-ti.ac.jp, hoadn.ac@gmail.com.

of integrators utilizing two LQR cost functions. LQR-based
consensus designs for leader-follower MASs was presented in
[9] in which only local LQR problems were solved and no
global LQR problem was considered. Next, in our previous
research [10], we introduced an LQR-based method to design
a distributed consensus controller for general linear MASs
but the obtained controller is only sub-optimal. Recently, we
have proposed an approach in [11] to achieve a consensus
design with a non-conservative coupling strength where an
alternative MAS model namely edge dynamics was presented
that helps transforming the consensus design into an equivalent
stability synthesis which can be derived by LQR method. This
advanced result will be employed subsequently in the current
article.
In nonlinear MASs, many efforts have recently been conducted for consensus problem, of which most are based on
passivity theory and internal model principle, e.g. [6], [12]–
[16], just to name a few. Consensus designs with linear and
nonlinear output couplings were introduced in [6] for heterogeneous SISO affine nonlinear MASs under the assumption of
passive dynamics of agents. This work was then extended in
[12] where the balanced condition of inter-agent communication graph was relaxed to be strongly connected graph. Robust
static output-feedback consensus controllers for heterogeneous
SISO affine relative-degree-two passive sector-bounded MASs
in presence of communication constraints were investigated in
[14]. In [15], distributed output tracking consensus controllers
were proposed based on internal model principle and passivity
for heterogeneous MIMO affine nonlinear networks of agents
with relative degree one and two. In a recent work, [16] proposed a method to design distributed output tracking consensus
controllers for heterogeneous SISO nonlinear MASs utilizing
internal model principle and nonlinear controller forms that
satisfying global Lipschitz conditions. Although the passive
property can be found in a wide class of nonlinear systems,
this approach requires the number of inputs and outputs of
a nonlinear agent to be the same and further assumptions
or conditions must be satisfied. Moreover, finding the energy
function or the Lyapunov function to show the passivity of
nonlinear agents is not always easy.
Some other researches on consensus of nonlinear MASs
consider specific problems, e.g. [17], [18]. A special class of
homogeneous leader-follower MIMO affine MASs was studied
in [17] and sufficient conditions for static consensus controllers were given based on Lipschitz assumption for agents
and Lyapunov theory. Tracking consensus controller based on
internal model principle and a specific, complicated selection
of control input were introduced in [18] for a very special class

2

of heterogeneous SISO relative-degree-one nonlinear MASs.
These results are quite difficult to extend to more general
contexts.
On the other hand, our current article proposes a systematic
framework to design linear dynamic output consensus controllers for leaderless heterogeneous MIMO general nonlinear
MASs, following the idea of designing low-rank consensus
controller with non-conservative coupling strength in our previous work [11]. It is worth noting that there are essential
differences between the current paper and [11] as follows.
First, the current article deals with heterogeneous nonlinear
MASs while [11] considered homogeneous linear MASs.
Second, this paper proposes consensus designs for MASs with
directed and switching communication topologies, but [11]
developed consensus controllers for MASs with undirected
and fixed structures. Third, the consensus controllers proposed
in this paper can be freely designed to have rank 1, however
the ones in [11] could not.
The remarkable features of our proposed framework are
as follows. First, it gives us a distributed dynamic output
consensus controller design for heterogeneous MIMO general
nonlinear MASs with arbitrary vector relative degree that: (i)
has an arbitrarily small but positive coupling strength; (ii) has
minimum rank, i.e., rank-1. Second, the communication topology among agents is directed and can be randomly switching
of which the component graphs need not to be balanced. To
the best of our knowledge, there have not been similar results
in the literature so far, and thus the aforementioned properties
clearly show the contributions of this paper.
II. P RELIMINARIES
A. Notations and Symbols
The following notations and symbols will be used in the paper. R, R− , and C stand for the sets of real, non-positive real,
and complex number. Re(x) denotes the real part of a complex
number x. Moreover, 1n and 0n denote the n × 1 vector with
all elements equal to 1 and 0, respectively; and In denotes
the n × n identity matrix. Next, Lf h(x) , (∂h(x)/∂x)f (x)
represents the notation for Lie derivative, and ⊗ stands for
the Kronecker product. On the other hand, λ(A) and λmin (A)
denotes the eigenvalue set and the eigenvalue with smallest,
non-zero real part of A, respectively. In addition, ≻ and 
denote the positive definiteness and positive semi-definiteness
of a matrix. Lastly, K∞ denotes the class of scalar function
γ(x) : R+ → R+ which is continuous, strictly increasing,
unbounded, and γ(0) = 0; and KL denotes the class of scalar
function γ(x, t) : R+ × R+ → R+ such that γ(., t) ∈ K∞ for
each t and γ(x, t) ց 0 as t → ∞.
B. Graph Theory
Denote (G, V, E) the directed graph representing the information structure in a multi-agent system composing of N
agents, where each node in G stands for an agent and each edge
in G represents the interconnection between two agents; V and
E represent the set of vertices and edges of G, respectively.
There is an edge eij ∈ E if agent i receives information
from agent j. The neighboring set of a vertex i is denoted

by Ni , {j : eij ∈ E}. Moreover, let aij be elements of
the adjacency matrix A of G, i.e., aij > 0 if eij ∈ E and
aij = 0 if eij ∈
/ E. The in-degree of a vertex i is denoted by
PN
degin
,
i
j=1 aij , then the in-degree matrix of G is denoted
by D = diag{degin
i }i=1,...,N . Consequently, the Laplacian
matrix L associated to G is defined by L = DP− A. The outN
degree of a vertex i is denoted by degout
, j=1 aji . Then
i
out
G is said to be balanced if degin
∀ i = 1, . . . , N.
i = degi
A directed path connecting vertices i and j in G is a set of
consecutive edges starting from i and stopping at j. Then G is
said to have a spanning tree if there exists a node called root
node from which there are directed paths to every other node.
Lemma 1: [19] The Laplacian matrix L always has a zero
eigenvalue with associated eigenvector 1N , and all non-zero
eigenvalues of L have positive real parts. Furthermore, L has
only one zero eigenvalue if and only if G has a spanning tree.
If the communication topology among agents is varied with
time then we will write the time-varying terms with the time
index t, e.g., Ni (t), aij (t), G(t), L(t), etc.
C. Consensus of Linear MASs
Let us consider an MAS composing of N identical linear
agents whose dynamics is described by
ẋi = Axi + Bui , i = 1, . . . , N,

(1)

where xi ∈ Rn , ui ∈ Rm , A ∈ Rn×n , B ∈ Rn×m . A common
consensus protocol for (1) is
X
ui = −µK
aij (xi − xj ), i = 1, . . . , N,
(2)
j∈Ni

m×n

where K ∈ R
is the consensus controller gain matrix, µ
is the coupling strength.
Lemma 2: [20], [21] A necessary and sufficient condition
for the MAS with agent dynamics (1) to reach consensus
defined as follows,
lim kxi (t) − xj (t)k = 0 ∀ i, j = 1, . . . , N,

t→∞

by the control law (2) is that its communication graph G has a
spanning tree and A−µλk BK are stable for all k = 2, . . . , N,
where λk are non-zero eigenvalues of L.
The following proposition shows a consensus design for
linear MASs with non-conservative coupling strength, which
serves as a basis for consensus design of nonlinear MASs with
non-conservative coupling strength in the next sections.
Proposition 1: Suppose that the following conditions are
satisfied: (i) the directed graph G representing the communication structure in the MAS (1) has a spanning tree; (ii)
(A, B) is controllable; (iii) λ(A) ∈ R− . Then this MAS
reaches consensus by the controller (2) for any µ > 0 and
K = RB T P , where R ∈ Rm×m , R ≻ 0, and P ∈ Rn×n ,
P ≻ 0 is the unique solution of the following Riccati equation,
P A + AT P + Q − P BRB T P = 0,
n×n

1/2

(3)

in which Q ∈ R
, Q  0, and (Q , A) is observable.
Proof: Based on the result of Lemma 2, the MAS
(1) will reach consensus if condition (i) is satisfied and

3

A − µλk BRB T P are stable for all k = 2, . . . , N, where λk
are non-zero eigenvalues of L. Note that K = RB T P is in
fact an LQR controller gain, and from optimal control theory
[22], it is known that all eigenvalues of A − BRB T P are
shifted to the left of the imaginary axis. On the other hand,
Re(λk ) > 0 ∀ k = 2, . . . , N since G has a spanning tree
[20], [21]. Therefore, by scaling with a scalar parameter µλk
with positive real part for all k = 2, . . . , N , the controller gain
µλk RB T P still shifts all eigenvalues of A to the left though
it could be more or less depending on whether µλk > 1 or
µλk < 1. Since we have assumed that λ(A) ∈ R− , this means
all eigenvalues of A−µλk BRB T P belong to the open left half
complex plane for all k = 2, . . . , N , and thus the consensus
is achieved in the MAS (1).

[16]) or random switches (e.g., [24], [25]). For the clarity of
approach representation, we first employ assumption A1 and
will investigate the scenario of switching topologies later in a
separated section.
Consequently, we employ the input-output feedback linearization method [26] to derive linearized models of agents
and accordingly convert the output consensus problem of
initial nonlinear MAS to a state consensus problem of a new
linearized MAS. More specifically, the nonlinear models of
agents are changed by a diffeomorphism Φi (xi ) = [ξiT , ηiT ]T
to normal forms
ξ˙i,1 = ξi,2 ,
ξ˙i,2 = ξi,3 ,
..
.
˙ξi,r = αi (ξi , ηi ) + βi (ξi , ηi )ui ,

III. O UTPUT C ONSENSUS OF H ETEROGENEOUS SISO
N ONLINEAR MAS S WITH F IXED D IRECTED T OPOLOGY
In this section, we present a novel approach to design
distributed controller for output consensus problem in heterogeneous SISO nonlinear MASs with fixed topology. The SISO
affine nonlinear MASs will be investigated first in Section
III-A then SISO general nonlinear MASs will consequently
be studied in Section III-B based on the results obtained for
affine ones.
A. Heterogeneous SISO Affine Nonlinear MASs
Consider a network of N heterogeneous SISO affine nonlinear agents whose models are described as follows,
ẋi = fi (xi ) + gi (xi )ui ,
yi = hi (xi ), i = 1, . . . , N,

(4)

where xi ∈ Rni , ui ∈ R, and yi ∈ R are the state vector,
input, and output of the ith agent, respectively; fi , gi ∈ Rni
and hi ∈ R are vector-valued and scalar-valued of continuous,
differentiable nonlinear functions.
Definition 1: The affine nonlinear agent (4) is said to have
relative degree ri > 0 if
Lgi Lkfi hi (xi ) = 0 as k = 0, . . . , ri − 2,

Lgi Lkfi hi (xi ) 6= 0 as k = ri − 1.

(5)

Definition 2: A multi-agent system with dynamics of agents
described by (4) is said to reach an output consensus if
lim |yi (t) − yj (t)| = 0 ∀ i, j = 1, . . . , N.

t→∞

(6)

The control design problem is to find a distributed control
strategy for the agents (4) such that their outputs cooperatively
reach consensus while they unidirectionally exchange information through a directed graph G. Throughout this section, we
utilize the following assumption of G.
A1: The directed graph G is time-invariant and has a spanning
tree.
Remark 1: In some practical situations, the directed graph
G could be time-varying due to the link failures, packet
losses, etc. This phenomenon of varied topology is usually
modeled in the literature as deterministic switches (e.g., [23],

(7)

i

η̇i = ϑi (ξi , ηi ),
yi = ξi,1 , i = 1, . . . , N,
hi (x), k = 1, . . . , ri , ξi =
where ξi,k , Φi,k (xi ) , Lfk−1
i
T
ri
ni −ri
[ξi,1 , . . . , ξi,ri ] ∈ R , ηi ∈ R
; αi (ξi , ηi ) , Lrfii hi (x),
ri −1
βi (ξi , ηi , di ) , Lgi Lfi hi (x), ϑi (ξi , ηi ) ∈ Rni −ri . To avoid
the finite-escape-time (FET) phenomenon and guarantee the
internal stability of the closed-loop system, we employ the
following assumption [27],
A2: The internal dynamics η̇i = ϑi (ξi , ηi ) is input-to-state
stable (ISS), i.e., there exist some functions γi,1 ∈ KL
and γi,2 ∈ K∞ such that
kηi (t)k2 ≤ γi,1 (kηi (0)k2 , t) + γi,2 (kξi (t)k∞ ).
Then the design problem becomes finding a control law for
the linearized multi-agent system (7) such that linearized states
ξi,1 of agents are consensus. In light of assumption A2, we
are able to set the control input for the ith agent as follows,
ui =

1
[−αi (ξi , ηi ) + ûi ], i = 1, . . . , N,
βi (ξi , ηi )

(8)

where ûi ∈ R is a new control input for the linearized
subsystem. Since the dynamics of linearized subsystems are
different, a static consensus controller cannot be derived.
Instead, we will propose a dynamic controller which is able
to make ξi,1 , i = 1, . . . , N converge to a common value, i.e.,
output consensus for (4) is achieved. Define
r = max ri , i = 1, . . . , N.
i=1,...,N

(9)

Consequently, each agent is equipped with the following
dynamic controller,
φ̇i = Di ξi + Ei φi + Gi vi ,
αi (ξi , ηi )
, i = 1, . . . , N,
ui = Hi φi −
βi (ξi , ηi )

(10)

where φi ∈ Rr−ri is the controller’s state vector in which
φi,1 = ûi , vi ∈ R is a new control input, and

T
Gi = 0 0 · · · 0 1 ∈ Rr−ri ,


Hi = 1/βi (ξi , ηi ) 0 · · · 0 ∈ R1×(r−ri ) ,

4




0
0
0
···
0
0
0
0
···
0 


 ..
.
.
..  ∈ R(r−ri )×ri ,
..
..
Di =  .
. 


0
0
0
···
0 
0 −b2 −b3 · · · −bri


0
1
···
0
 0
0
···
0 


 ..
.
..  ∈ R(r−ri )×(r−ri ) ,
..
Ei =  .
. 


 0
0
···
1 
−bri +1 −bri +2 · · · −br

of which b2 , . . . , br are coefficients of the following characteristic equation whose poles are in R− ,
r

s + br s

r−1

+ · · · + b2 s = 0.

(11)

Note that the free coefficient is chosen to be 0 to ensure a
non-zero consensus. Denote ξˆi = [ξiT , φTi ]T , then the overall
linearized dynamics of agents are made identical by the
dynamic controllers (10), and has the following representation,
˙
ξˆi = Aξˆi + Bvi ,
(12)


ui = 0 Hi ξˆi − αi (ξi , ηi )/βi (ξi , ηi ), i = 1, . . . , N,

where

0
0


A =  ...

0
0

1
0
..
.

0
1
..
.

···
···

0
−b2

0
−b3

···
···

0
0
..
.




0

0

 

r

 ∈ Rr×r , B = 
· · · ∈ R .

0
1 
1
−br


We are now ready to state a foundation result of this paper
in the following theorem where the coupling strength in the
consensus law for nonlinear MASs is non-conservative.
Theorem 1: The heterogeneous SISO affine nonlinear MAS
(4) reaches an output consensus by the local dynamic controllers (10) and the cooperative controls
X
vi = −µ(r̂B T P1 )
aij (ξˆi (t) − ξˆj (t)),
(13)
j∈Ni

for any µ > 0, where r̂ > 0 and P1 ∈ Rr×r is the unique
positive definite solution of the following Riccati equation
P1 A + AT P1 + Q1 − r̂P1 BB T P1 = 0,
1/2

(14)

of which Q1 ∈ Rr×r , Q1  0, and (Q1 , A) is observable.
Proof: Since the incorporated models of linearized agents
in (12) are homogeneous, linear, and all of their poles are in
R− , we can immediately apply the result of Proposition 1 in
Section II-C for designing a distributed consensus controller
for (12) under the form of (13). Note that in the current
situation each linearized agent is SISO, so the weighting
matrix R becomes a scalar parameter that we denoted by
r̂. Consequently, in combination with the local dynamic controllers (10), it gives us the output consensus of the initial
nonlinear MAS (4).
The control design for the whole system is demonstrated
in Figure 1, where C(s) represents the transfer function of
identical linearized systems (12).

Cooperative control
X
aij ξˆj
µ(r̂B T P1)

ξˆj

(i,j)∈E

PSfrag replacements

ξˆi
ui

vi

ξi

yi

Agent ith

C(s)
−

αi
βi
Φi(xi)

Local dynamic controller

Fig. 1. Block diagram of distributed output consensus design for SISO affine
nonlinear MASs based on input-output feedback linearization.

Remark 2: It can be seen in Theorem 1 that µ can be
arbitrarily chosen as long as it is positive. On the other hand,
in other researches, e.g., [5], [20], [21], [28], µ is lower
bounded by 1/Re(λmin (L)) which can be extremely big as the
number of agents increases and the inter-agent communication
topology is sparse and hence is very conservative. Moreover,
λmin (L) is a global information and therefore to make the consensus law fully distributed, other methods need to be further
developed to estimate this global term, e.g., adaptive designs
[25]. This unexpectedly increases the complexity of the control
design and implementation. Nevertheless, this conservatism is
removed in our work, which makes our consensus design nonconservative and more effective in design and implementation.
Remark 3: The output consensus design in Theorem 1 relies on the output yi , its first-order and higher-order derivatives
which may not be available in some practical systems. In that
cases, local estimation techniques can be employed to obtain
the approximated values of those unmeasurable derivatives.
Let us denote θi = C ξˆi the partial information that could be
exchanged among agents with C ∈ R1×r , then we can employ
a decentralized Luenberger observer [29] for each agent as
follows,
ξˇ˙i = Aξˇi + Bvi + M (θi − θ̌i ),
(15)
θ̌i = C ξˇi , i = 1, . . . , N,
where M ∈ Rr . Denote ei = ξˆi − ξˇi the error vector between
the real state ξˆi and the estimated state ξˇi . Then by subtracting
(12) with (15), we obtain the following error model,
ėi = (A − M C)ei .

(16)

As a result, by selecting the observer gain M such that A −
M C is stable, e(t) → 0 as t → ∞, i.e., ξ̌i → ξ̂i as t → ∞.
Lastly, the cooperative control input vi is modified by
X
aij (ξˇi (t) − ξˇj (t)),
(17)
vi = −µ(r̂B T P1 )
j∈Ni

where ξ̌ is obtained from the local observer (15).
In Theorem 1, a local rank-r Riccati equation (14) needs
to be solved to obtain the consensus controller, which would
cost more computational time than expected for high relative
degree nonlinear agents. Hence, we next propose a method

5

to derive a minimum rank distributed consensus controller
by solving a local rank-1, i.e., scalar Riccati equation. The
controller is therefore fully analytical, which requires no
additional time for solving Riccati equation.
First, we choose b2 , . . . , br such that matrix A defined in
(III-A) has only one eigenvalue at the origin while other
eigenvalues belong to the open left half complex plane. Let
ν T ∈ R1×r be the left eigenvector of A associated with the
eigenvalue 0. Second, select Q1 = νq1 ν T where q1 > 0.
1/2
Suppose that (Q1 , A) is still observable. Then, the rank-1
distributed dynamic consensus controller is derived as follows.
Theorem 2: The heterogeneous SISO affine nonlinear MAS
(4) reaches an output consensus by the distributed dynamic
consensus controllers (10) with the rank-1 cooperative inputs
vi , i = 1, . . . , N , synthesized as follows,
X
p
aij (ξˆi (t) − ξˆj (t)).
(18)
vi = −µ q1 r̂ν T
j∈Ni

Furthermore, the consensus speed, i.e., the smallest non-zero
absolute of real parts of closed-loop eigenvalues, is equal to
o
n p
(19)
min µ q1 r̂B T νRe(λmin (L)), λmin (−A) .

Proof: First, we prove the rank-1 consensus controller’s
formula. Let P1 = νp1 ν T , p1 > 0, then substituting Q1 and
P1 back to the Riccati equation (14), we obtain

ν p1 ν T A + AT νp1 + q1 − r̂ν T BB T νp21 ν T = 0, (20)

which is equivalent to the vanishment of the expression inside
the bracket. Since ν T A = 0, √
this implies q1 − r̂ν T BB T νp21 =
√
0, which leads to p1 = q1 / r̂B T ν. Since (14)
√ has a unique
√
positive semidefinite solution, P1 = ν q1 /( r̂B T ν)ν T is
indeed that unique one. Consequently, substituting this value
of P1 into the cooperative control input (13) gives us (18).
Obviously, rank(vi ) = 1, so together with (10) we derive a
rank-1 distributed dynamic consensus controller.
Next, we reveal how to obtain the consensus speed. Employing the same process in the proof of Theorem 3 in [11],
we can easily show that the eigenvalue set of the closed-loop
dynamics of the linearized MAS is given by


[
[
p

−µγ q1 r̂B T ν  (λ(A)\{0}) .
(21)
γ∈λ(L),γ6=0

Thus, the consensus speed is determined by (19).
Remark 4: It can be observed from Theorem 2 that µ, the
pole of A closest to the imaginary axis, and q1 and r̂ are
parameters that affect to the consensus speed. Hence, we may
adjust them to obtain an expected consensus speed.
B. Heterogeneous SISO General Nonlinear MASs

In this scenario, the models of agents are in the following
general form
ẋi = fi (xi , ui ),
yi = hi (xi ), i = 1, . . . , N,

(22)

where xi ∈ Rni , ui ∈ R, and yi ∈ R are the state vector,
input, and output of the ith agent, respectively; fi ∈ Rni and

hi ∈ R are vector-valued and scalar-valued of continuous,
differentiable nonlinear functions.
Definition 3: The general nonlinear agent (22) is said to
have relative degree ri if
∂ k
L hi (xi ) = 0 as k = 0, . . . , ri − 1,
∂ui fi
∂ k
L hi (xi ) 6= 0 as k = ri .
∂ui fi

(23)

The dynamic distributed controller (10) for affine nonlinear
MASs cannot be utilized in this scenario. However, it is
possible if we consider the following augmented models of
agents which are affine,
x̃˙ i = f˜i (x̃i ) + g̃(x̃i )u̇i ,
yi = h̃i (x̃i ), i = 1, . . . , N,

(24)

where x̃i , [xTi , ui ]T , f˜i (x̃i ) , [fi (xi , ui )T , 0]T , g̃i (x̃i ) ,
[0Tni , 1]T , h̃i (x̃i ) , hi (xi ). Consequently, it can be easily
checked that the relative degree of the augmented affine nonlinear agents (24), in the sense of Definition 1, are ri + 1, i =
1, . . . , N . Similarly to the case of affine nonlinear MASs, we
employ the input-output linearization feedback approach with
diffeomorphisms Φ̃i (x̃i ) = [ξ˜iT , η̃iT ]T assumed that the internal
dynamics η̃i is ISS. Then the linearized subsystems of agents
are obtained by the following control inputs
u̇i =

1
[−α̃i (ξ˜i , η̃i ) + ũi ], i = 1, . . . , N,
˜
β̃i (ξi , η̃i )

(25)

where β̃i (ξ˜i , η̃i ) , Lg̃i Lfr˜i h̃i (x̃i ); α̃i (ξ˜i , η̃i ) , Lfr˜i +1 h̃i (x̃i );
i
i
ũi ∈ R is a new control input for the linearized subsystem of
the augmented nonlinear agents (24). Let r be defined as in
(9). Then we propose the following dynamic controller
φ̃˙ i = D̃i ξ˜i + Ẽi φ̃i + G̃i ṽi ,
α̃i (ξ˜i , η̃i )
wi = H̃i φ̃i −
,
β̃i (ξ˜i , η̃i )
u̇i = wi , i = 1, . . . , N,

(26)

where φ̃i ∈ Rr−ri is a vector of controller’s states in which
φ̃i,1 = ũi ; ṽi ∈ R is a new control input; wi ∈ R is an
additional state of the controller; Ẽi and G̃i are defined as
follows,


0
0
0
···
0
0
0
0
···
0 


 ..
..
..
.. 
D̃i =  .
∈ R(r−ri )×(ri +1) ,
.
.
. 


0
0
0
···
0 
0 −b̃2 −b̃3 · · · −b̃ri +1


0
1
···
0
 0
0
···
0 


 ..
..
.. 
Ẽi =  .
 ∈ R(r−ri )×(r−ri ) ,
.
.


 0
0
···
1 
−b̃ri +2 −b̃ri +2 · · · −b̃r+1

T
G̃i = 0 0 · · · 0 1 ∈ Rr−ri ,


H̃i = 1/β̃i (ξ˜i , η̃i ) 0 · · · 0 ∈ R1×(r−ri ) ,

6

of which b̃2 , . . . , b̃r+1 are coefficients of the following characteristic equation whose poles are in R− ,
sr+1 + b̃r+1 sr + · · · + b̃2 s = 0.

(27)

This controller can be viewed as a cascade of two controllers
in which the first one composes of the first two equations
in (26) while the second one is an integrator corresponding to
the last equation (26). Subsequently, the closed-loop linearized
dynamics of agents are made homogeneous by the dynamic
controllers (26), and has the following representation,
ζ̇i = Ãζi + B̃ṽi ,
(28)


wi = 0 H̃i ξˆi − α̃i (ξ˜i , η̃i )/β̃i (ξ˜i , η̃i ), i = 1, . . . , N,

where


T
ζi = ξ˜iT φ̃Ti
,


0
1
0
···
0
0
0
1
···
0 


 ..
..
..
.. 
Ã =  .
 ∈ R(r+1)×(r+1) , (29)
.
.
.


0
0
0
···
1 
0 −b̃2 −b̃3 · · · −b̃r+1

T
B̃ = 0 0 · · · 0 1 ∈ Rr+1 .

The control design for the whole system is demonstrated
in Figure 2, where C̃(s) represents the transfer function of
identical linearized systems in (28) from the inputs ṽi to the
outputs wi , i = 1, . . . , N .
Cooperative control
PSfrag replacements

µ(r̃B̃ T P̃1)

X

ζj

aij ζj

ζi
wi
C̃(s)
ξ˜i

−

1
s

(30)

Furthermore, the consensus speed is equal to
n p
o
min µ q̃1 r̃B̃ T ν̃Re(λmin (L)), λmin (−Ã) .

(31)

j∈Ni

Proof: The proof of this theorem is the same as that of
Theorem 2, so we omit it for brevity.
IV. O UTPUT C ONSENSUS OF H ETEROGENEOUS MIMO
N ONLINEAR MAS S WITH F IXED D IRECTED T OPOLOGY

Consider a MAS composing of N heterogeneous MIMO
affine nonlinear agents whose models are described as follows,
ẋi = fi (xi ) + Gi (xi )ui ,
yi = hi (xi ), i = 1, . . . , N,

ui

yi

Agent ith

α̃i
β̃i
Φ̃i(x̃i)

Local dynamic controller

Fig. 2. Block diagram of distributed output consensus design for SISO
general nonlinear MASs based on input-output feedback linearization.

Similarly to the scenario of SISO affine nonlinear MASs, we
can design rank-1 distributed dynamic consensus controllers
for the MAS (22). Let us select b̃2 , . . . , b̃r+1 such that matrix
Ã defined in (29) has only one eigenvalue at the origin while
other eigenvalues belong to the open left half complex plane.
Denote ν̃ T ∈ R1×(r+1) the left eigenvector of Ã associated
with the eigenvalue 0. Consequently, choose Q̃1 = ν̃ q̃1 ν̃ T ,
1/2
where q̃1 > 0. Assuming that (Q̃1 , Ã) is still observable,
then the rank-1 distributed dynamic consensus controller in
this case is introduced in the following theorem.
Theorem 3: The heterogeneous SISO general nonlinear
MAS (22) reaches an output consensus by the distributed dynamic consensus controllers (26) with the rank-1 cooperative

(32)

where xi ∈ Rni , ui ∈ Rmi , and yi ∈ Rp are the state, input,
and output vectors of the ith agent, respectively; fi (xi ) ∈ Rni ,
hi (xi ) ∈ Rp , and Gi ∈ Rni ×mi are vector-valued and
matrix-valued of continuous, differentiable nonlinear functions; hi (xi ) = [hi,1 (xi ), . . . , hi,p (xi )]T , hi,τ (xi ) ∈ R ∀ τ =
1, . . . , p; Gi (xi ) = [gi,1 (xi ), . . . , gi,mi (xi )], gi,j (xi ) ∈
Rni ∀ j = 1, . . . , mi . The communication topology G among
agents is also assumed to satisfy assumption A1 in Section III.
The output dimensions of all agents are equal to be meaningful
in the context of output consensus, which is defined as follows.
Definition 4: The outputs of agents whose models are described by (32) are said to reach a consensus if
lim kyi (t) − yj (t)k = 0 ∀ i, j = 1, . . . , N.

t→∞

(i,j)∈E

ṽi

inputs ṽi , i = 1, . . . , N , synthesized as follows,
X
p
aij (ζi (t) − ζj (t)).
ṽi = −µ q̃1 r̃ν̃ T

(33)

In the use of input-output feedback linearization for nonlinear systems [26], the dimensions of input and output are
usually assumed to be equal, however we consider here a more
general context where those dimensions may be different.
Accordingly, the definition of vector relative degree [26] can
be modified as follows.
Definition 5: The MIMO nonlinear system (32) is said to
have an extended vector relative degree {ri,1 , ri,2 , . . . , ri,p } at
a point x̂i ∈ Rni if the following conditions hold.
(i) Lgi,j Lkfi hi,l (xi ) = 0 ∀ k = 0, . . . , ri,l −2; j = 1, . . . , mi ;
1 ≤ l ≤ p; and for all xi in a neighborhood of x̂i .
(ii) rank(Πi (xi )) = p at the point x̂i , where Πi (xi ) is defined
in (34).
Note that condition (ii) above is satisfied if and only if p ≤
mi , i.e., the extended vector relative degree is only defined for
the MIMO affine nonlinear systems that have the number of
outputs not more than the number of inputs. If p = mi then it
reduces to the vector relative degree in [26] since condition (ii)
means Πi (xi ) is invertible at x̂i . Furthermore, this extended
vector relative degree allows us to treat a scenario that the
vector relative degree in [26] cannot, where some agents in a
MIMO affine nonlinear MASs have the same number of inputs
and outputs but other agents do not.
To design a distributed output consensus controller for
the MAS (32), we also try to obtain linearized models of

7
r



−1

hi,1 (xi )
Lgi,1 Lfi,1
i

ri,2 −1
hi,2 (xi )
Lgi,1 Lfi
Πi (xi ) = 
..


.
r −1
hi,p (xi )
Lgi,1 Lfi,p
i

r

agents and then design the consensus controller based on those
models. Similarly to the scenario of SISO nonlinear MASs,
we utilize the input-output feedback linearization technique for
nonlinear
(32) that can be processed as follows. Denote
Pagents
p
r
, i = 1, . . . , N. Consequently, the agents’
κi =
i,l
l=1
models are changed to normal forms by a diffeomorphism
Φi (xi ) = [ξiT , ηiT ]T where
Φi (xi ) , [Φ1i,1 (xi ), . . . , Φ1i,ri,1 (xi ), . . . , Φpi,1 (xi ), . . . ,
Φpi,ri,p (xi ), Φi,κi +1 (xi ), . . . , Φi,ni (xi )]T ,
l
ξi,j
, Φli,j (xi ) , Lj−1
fi hi,l (xi )
∀ j = 1, . . . , ri,l ; ∀ l = 1, . . . , p,

(35)

η̇i = ϑi (ξi , ηi ) +

k=1
mi
X

l
βi,k
(ξi , ηi )ui,k ,

χi,k (ξi , ηi )ui,k ,



.



(34)

ui = Πi (ξi , ηi )† (−α̌i (ξi , ηi ) + ǔi ),

(38)

where ǔi = [ǔi,1 , . . . , ǔi,p ]T ∈ Rp is a new control input
vector. As a result, the input-output decoupling is achieved
for each agent as follows,
ξ˙l = ξ l ,
i,2

l
l
ξ˙i,2
= ξi,3
,
..
.
l
ξ˙i,r
= ǔi,l ,
i,l

(39)
mi
X

χi,k (ξi , ηi )ui,k ,

l
yil = ξi,1
, ∀ l = 1, . . . , p; i = 1, . . . , N.

l
,
ξi,3

mi
X



k=1

l
l
ξ̇i,1
= ξi,2
,

l
ξ̇i,r
= αli (ξi , ηi ) +
i,l

−1

η̇i = ϑi (ξi , ηi ) +

The linearized model for agent ith is as follows,
=
..
.

r

hi,1 (xi )
Lgi,mi Lfi,1
i
ri,2 −1
hi,2 (xi )
Lgi,mi Lfi
..
.
r −1
hi,p (xi )
Lgi,mi Lfi,p
i

nonlinear system (agent) (32) can be input-output decoupled
by the following controller

i,1

p
p
1
1
, . . . , ξi,1
, . . . , ξi,r
, . . . , ξi,r
ξi , [ξi,1
]T ,
i,1
i,p
ηi , [Φi,κi +1 (xi ), . . . , Φi,ni (xi )]T .

l
ξ̇i,2

−1

hi,1 (xi ) · · ·
Lgi,2 Lfi,1
i
ri,2 −1
hi,2 (xi ) · · ·
Lgi,2 Lfi
..
..
.
.
ri,p −1
hi,p (xi ) · · ·
Lgi,2 Lfi

(36)

At this point, we can see that the consensus design for
output vectors of nonlinear agents (32) is decomposed into
independent consensus designs of individual outputs of agents
that is similar to SISO affine nonlinear MASs in Section III-A.
Hence, all steps of designing consensus controller for SISO
affine nonlinear MASs can be adopted straightforwardly. Thus,
to avoid the complexity and duplication in representing results,
we skip the details here. Similar situation applies to MIMO
general nonlinear MASs.

k=1

l
yil = ξi,1
∀ l = 1, . . . , p; i = 1, . . . , N,

V. O UTPUT C ONSENSUS OF H ETEROGENEOUS
N ONLINEAR MAS S UNDER S WITCHING T OPOLOGY
where ui,k is the kth control input of the ith agent, k =
In this section, we aim at investigating the consensus design
1, . . . , mi , and
for heterogeneous nonlinear MASs subjected to randomly
r −1
r
l
hi,l (xi ), switching topologies described by continuous-time Markov
hi,l (xi ), βi,k
(ξi , ηi ) , Lgi,k Lfi,l
αli (ξi , ηi ) , Lfi,l
i
i
chains. Due to space limitation, only results for SISO affine
ni −κi
,
ϑi (ξi , ηi ) ∈ R
nonlinear MASs are presented.
χi,k (ξi , ηi ) , [Lgi,k Φi,κi +1 (xi ), . . . , Lgi,k Φi,ni (xi )]T .
Since the communication topology is randomly switching,
The following assumption is employed to avoid the FET G is time-varying and is denoted by G(t). Suppose that G(t)
switches among the elements of a finite set of ℓ topologies
phenomenon.
S
G , {G1 , . . . , Gℓ }, where the switching process is repreA3: The internal dynamics ηi in (36) is ISS for all i =
sented
by a continuous-time Markov chain with a switching
1, . . . , N .
signal σ(t) ∈ {1, . . . , ℓ}. Denote Q = [qij ] ∈ Rℓ×ℓ and
Then the ri,l -th equations, l = 1, . . . , p, in the linearized
π = [π1 , . . . , πℓ ]T the transition rate matrix and the stationary
model (36) of agents can be collected and written in the
distribution of this Markov process. Here, we assume that the
following form
Markov process is ergodic, so π is unique, πk > 0 ∀ k =
ξˇ˙i = α̌i (ξi , ηi ) + Πi (ξi , ηi )ui ,
(37) 1, . . . , ℓ, and each state of the Markov chain can be reached
from any other state. Furthermore, we can also assume that the
p
2
T
p
1
,
.
.
.
,
ξ
,
ξ
]
∈
R
,
α̌
(ξ
,
η
)
=
where ξ̌i = [ξi,r
i
i
i
Markov process starts from π [24]. As a result, the distribution
i,ri,2
i,ri,p
i,1
[α1i (ξi , ηi ), . . . , αpi (ξi , ηi )]T ∈ Rp , Πi (ξi , ηi ) ∈ Rp×mi is of σ(t) is equal to π for all t ≥ 0.
defined in (34). Since rank(Πi (ξi , ηi )) = p, there exists a
Let us denote the union of all possible topologies by G∪ ,
[
right inverse Πi (xi )† of Πi (xi ) defined by Πi (ξi , ηi )† ,
Gk . The following assumption is utilized.
Πi (ξi , ηi )T (Πi (ξi , ηi )Πi (ξi , ηi )T )−1 . Accordingly, the MIMO k=1,...,ℓ

8

• A4: G∪ has a spanning tree and is balanced.
The consensus of agents in this context is defined as follows.
Definition 6: The nonlinear MAS (4) with a randomly
switching topology G(t) is said to reach a mean-square
consensus for any initial condition of agents and any initial
distribution of the continuous-time Markov process if


lim E kxi (t) − xj (t)k2 = 0, ∀ i, j = 1, . . . , N, (40)
t→∞

where E[·] denotes the expectation taken with some chosen
probability measure.
Remark 5: Note that assumption A4 is milder than the
frequently used one in literature (see e.g., [24], [25]) which
assumes the balance of Gk ∀ k = 1, . . . , ℓ. This relaxation on
the switching topologies is an advantage that greatly broaden
the class of MAS topologies under random switches to achieve
consensus.
Consequently, the following theorem shows that our proposed distributed rank-1 consensus controller design in Section III-A can be generalized to this scenario of switching
topologies.
Theorem 4: Under assumption A4, the nonlinear MAS (4)
reaches a mean-square consensus in the sense of Definition 6
by the distributed dynamic consensus controller (10) with the
following rank-1 cooperative input
X
p
aij (t)(ξˆi (t) − ξˆj (t)).
(41)
vi (t) = −µ q1 r̂ν T
j∈Ni (t)

Moreover, the consensus speed is specified by
p

π ∗ µ q1 r̂B T νλmin L∪ + LT∪ ,
∗

(42)

where π = min πk , L∪ is the Laplacian matrix associated
k=1,...,ℓ

with G∪ .
Proof: Denote

1
ξˆave = (ξˆ1 (0) + · · · + ξ̂N (0)),
N
δi (t) = ξˆi (t) − ξˆave , k = i, . . . , N,
T

δ(t) = δ1 (t)T , . . . , δN (t)T .

It is then followed from substituting the rank-1 cooperative
input (41) to the homogeneous linearized systems (12) that
δ̇(t) = [IN ⊗ A − µL(t) ⊗ (Br̂B T P1 )]δ(t).
Let us define the following Lyapunov functions


V (t) = E δ(t)T (IN ⊗ P1 )δ(t) ,


Vk (t) = E δ(t)T (IN ⊗ P1 )δ(t)1{σ(t)=k} , k = 1, . . . , ℓ,

where 1· is the Dirac measure. Obviously, V (t) =
P
ℓ
k=1 Vk (t). Consequently, using Lemma 4.2 in [30], we
obtain

dVk (t) = E (dδ(t))T (IN ⊗ P1 )δ(t)1{σ(t)=k}

+δ(t)T (IN ⊗ P1 )dδ(t)1{σ(t)=k}
+

ℓ
X
j=1

qjk Vj (t)dt + o(dt),

where o(·) stands for the Little-o notation. Accordingly,

V̇k (t) = E δ(t)T [IN ⊗ (P1 A + AP1 )


−µ(L(t) + LT (t)) ⊗ (P1 Br̂B T P1 )]δ(t)1{σ(t)=k}


= E −µδ(t)T [(L(t) + LT (t)) ⊗ (νq1 ν T )]δ(t)1{σ(t)=k} ,

since P1 A = νp1 ν T A = 0 as shown in the proof of Theorem
2. Hence,
"
!
#
ℓ
X
V̇ (t) = E −µδ(t)T
πk (Lk + LTk ) ⊗ (νq1 ν T ) δ(t)

k=1


≤ −π ∗ µE δ(t)T [(L∪ + LT∪ ) ⊗ (νq1 ν T )]δ(t) ,
Pℓ
since πk ≥ π ∗ ∀ k = 1, . . . , ℓ, and
k=1 Lk = L∪ . On
the other hand, L∪ + LT∪ can be regarded as a Laplacian
matrix of an connected undirected graph due to assumption
A4. Therefore, there exists an orthogonal matrix U ∈ RN ×N
such that L∪ + LT∪ = U ΛU T where Λ = diag{λi }i=1,...,N
is a diagonal matrix whose
h diagonalielements are eigenvalues
of L∪ + LT∪ and U = √1N 1N , U2 with U2 ∈ RN ×(N −1) .
Subsequently,

δ(t)T [(L∪ + LT∪ ) ⊗ (νq1 ν T )]δ(t)

= δ(t)T (U ⊗ In )[Λ ⊗ (νq1 ν T )](U T ⊗ In )δ(t)

= δ(t)T (U2 ⊗ In )diag{λi νq1 ν T }i=2,...,N (U2T ⊗ In )δ(t)
p
≥ λmin L∪ + LT∪
q1 r̂B T νδ(t)T (U2 ⊗ In )(IN −1 ⊗ P1 )
× (U2T ⊗ In )δ(t)
p
q1 r̂B T νδ(t)T (IN ⊗ P1 )δ(t).
= λmin L∪ + LT∪

This leads to

V̇ (t) ≤ −π ∗ µ

p

q1 r̂B T νλmin L∪ + LT∪ V (t).

Thus,
to 0 with the speed

√ V (t) exponentially converges
π ∗ µ q1 r̂B T νλmin L∪ + LT∪ , i.e., the mean-square consensus is achieved with the speed specified in (42).
VI. N UMERICAL E XAMPLE
To illustrate the proposed approach, let us consider a simple
MAS composing of 5 distinct SISO affine nonlinear agents
described by the following dynamics,
5
T
• Agent 1: f1 (x1 ) = [−x1,1 − x1,1 + x1,2 , x1,3 , 0] ,
T
g1 (x1 ) = [0, 0, 1] , h1 (x1 ) = x1,2 .
3
T
• Agent 2: f2 (x2 ) = [−x2,1 − x2,1 + x2,2 , x2,3 , 0] ,
T
g2 (x2 ) = [0, 0, 1] , h2 (x2 ) = x2,2 .
2
• Agent 3: f3 (x3 ) = [x3,1 x3,2 +x3,1 x3,3 , x3,2 +x3,3 , x3,1 +
T
T
x3,2 x3,3 ] , g3 (x3 ) = [1, 0, 0] , h3 (x3 ) = x3,2 .
3
T
• Agent 4: f4 (x4 ) = [−4x4,1 − x4,1 + x4,2 , x4,3 , 0] ,
T
g4 (x4 ) = [0, 0, 1] , h4 (x4 ) = x4,2 .
T
5
• Agent 5: f5 (x5 ) = [−2x5,1 − x5,1 + x5,2 , x5,3 , 0] ,
T
g5 (x5 ) = [0, 0, 1] , h5 (x5 ) = x5,2 .
It can be verified that the relative degrees of agents 1, 2, 4, 5
are 2 and of agent 3 is 3, then the maximum relative degree
of agents is 3 and hence by following the consensus design in
Section III-A, agents 1, 2, 4, 5 will be equipped with dynamic
consensus controllers whereas agent 3 will be incorporated
with a static consensus controller.

9

For agent i, i ∈ {1, 2, 4, 5}: αi (ξi , ηi ) = 0, βi (ξi , ηi ) = 1.

The matrices of local dynamic controller is: Di = 0 −b2 ;
Ei = −b3 ; Gi = 1; Hi = 1/βi (ξi , ηi ).
For agent 3: α3 (ξ3 , η3 ) = x3,1 (x3,2 + x3,3 ) + (6x23,2 +
3x3,3 )(x23,2 + x3,3 ) + 3x3,2 (x3,1 + x3,2 x3,3 ), β3 (ξ3 , η3 ) = 1.
A. Fixed Directed Topology
The communication topology among agents and the associated Laplacian matrix in this case are presented in Figure 3.

simulation results in Figure 5 that the consensus speeds of
agents as q1 = 10 and q1 = 10 are similar and are faster
than when q1 = 1. This is explained by the consensus speed
determined
in (19) as follows. We have λmin (−A) = 2 while
√
√
µ q1 r̂B T νRe(λmin (L)) = 1.5 q1 , and hence when q1 = 1
√
the consensus speed is equal to 1.5 q1 = 1.5, but when q1 =
10 or q1 = 100 the consensus speed is equal to λmin (−A) = 2
which is independent of q1 .
q =100
1

0
−1



5

1
−1


L= 0

0
0

3

0
1
0
0
0

−1
0
1
−1
0

0
0
−1
1
−1


0
0


0

0
1

−2

0

10

15

20

25

15

20

25

15

20

25

1

4

0
−1
−2

Fig. 3.

5

q =10
Output

2

1

0

5

10

q =1

Communication structure in the MAS.

1

0

Consequently, we would like to demonstrate the distributed
minimum rank, i.e., rank-1 consensus controller in Theorem
2 that shows the advanced features of our proposed approach.
Let us choose b2 = 2 and b3 = 3 then matrix A of
homogeneous linearized system has only one
 zero eigenvalue

with the associated left eigenvector ν T = 2 3 1 .
First, we attempt to verify the coupling strength µ to the
consensus of agents by selecting r̂ = 1, q1 = 1 and varying
µ. The simulation results for the rank-1 consensus controller
in this case are displayed in Figure 4. It can be seen that even
when µ is very small, the consensus among agents is still
achieved. This confirms our claim on the non-conservative
design of arbitrarily small but positive coupling strength.
Furthermore, the consensus speed is slower as µ is smaller.
That is because it solely depends on µ when µ is varied and
small, which is deduced from the expression of consensus
speed (19).
µ=0.5
0
−1
−2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Output

µ=0.1

−1
−2

0

5

10

Time [s]

Fig. 5. Consensus of the given nonlinear MAS by a distributed rank-1
controller as q1 is changed.

B. Switching Directed Topology
Here we assume that the communication topology among
agents is randomly switched between two directed graphs
G1 and G2 shown in Figure 6, where the random process
is described by a continuous-time
Markov chain with gen

−1 1
erator matrix Q =
and the invariant distribution
1 −1
1 1
π = [ 2 , 2 ]. It can be seen that neither G1 nor G2 is balanced
and none of them has a spanning tree, but their union graph G∪
is balanced and has a spanning tree. Next, the parameters of
the distributed rank-1 consensus controllers are r̂ = 1, µ = 1,
q = 1. Then the simulation result is exhibited in Figure 7. We
can observe that the outputs of nonlinear agents still reach a
consensus in spite of the switching topology. This confirms
our result in Theorem 4.
G1

0

G∪

G2

−1

2

1
−2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2

1

2

1

200

µ=0.05

5

3

5

3

5

0

4

3
4

4

−1
−2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Time [s]

Fig. 4. Consensus of the given nonlinear MAS by a distributed rank-1
controller with non-conservative coupling strength µ.

Next, we would like to check the effects of the parameters
q and r̂ to the consensus speed. Since the roles of q and r̂
are similar in the consensus speed formula (19), let us choose
r̂ = 1, µ = 1, and change q1 . Then we can observe from

Fig. 6.

Switching topologies of the given nonlinear MAS.

VII. C ONCLUSIONS

AND

D ISCUSSIONS

This article has proposed a systematic framework to design
distributed dynamic rank-1 consensus controllers for a fairly
general class of heterogeneous MIMO nonlinear MASs subjected to fixed and randomly switching directed topologies.
The framework has been developed based on the input-output

10

0.5

0

Output

−0.5

−1

−1.5

−2
1st agent
2nd agent
3rd agent
4th agent
5th agent

−2.5

−3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Time [s]

Fig. 7. Consensus of the given nonlinear MAS under a randomly switching
topology by a distributed rank-1 controller.

feedback linearization and LQR methods with the following
appealing properties. First, distributed dynamic consensus controllers are derived for heterogeneous MIMO nonlinear MASs
with arbitrary vector relative degree. Second, the coupling
strength in the consensus controller can be arbitrarily small
but positive which allows us to achieve consensus with any
speed. Third, the dynamic consensus controller has minimum
rank, i.e., rank-1 which is very computationally efficient. And
last, the proposed design works well under randomly switching
topologies where the switched graphs are unnecessary to be
balanced, which greatly relaxes the assumptions on switching
topologies.
The current results can be further developed in several directions that are worth investigating. One issue is the robustness
and adaptability of the consensus controller in the presence
of time delays, unmeasured disturbances or noises, and model
uncertainties. Another direction is to design dynamic consensus controllers for heterogeneous nonlinear MASs under some
constraints for control inputs or state flows.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to sincerely thank the anonymous
reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions that
significantly help to improving the quality of the paper.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Jadbabaie, J. Lin, and A. Morse, “Coordination of groups of mobile
autonomous agents using nearest neighbor rules,” IEEE Transaction on
Automatic Control, vol. 48(6), pp. 988–1001, 2003.
[2] R. Olfati-Saber and R. M. Murray, “Consensus problems in networks of
agents with switching topology and time-delays,” IEEE Transaction on
Automatic Control, vol. 49(9), pp. 1520–1533, 2004.
[3] R. Olfati-Saber, J. A. Fax, and R. M. Murray, “Consensus and cooperation in networked multi-agent systems,” Proceeding of the IEEE, vol.
95(1), pp. 215–233, 2007.
[4] W. Ren, R. W. Beard, and E. M. Atkins, “Information consensus in
multivehicle cooperative control,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol.
27(2), pp. 71–82, 2007.
[5] F. Xiao and L. Wang, “Consensus problems for high-dimensional multiagent systems,” IET Control Theory and Applications, vol. 1(3), pp.
830–837, 2007.
[6] N. Chopra and M. W. Spong, “Passivity-based control of multi-agent
systems,” in Advances in Robot Control: From Everyday Physics to
Human-Like Movements. S. Kawamura and M. Svinin, Eds. New York:
Springer-Verlag, 2006, pp. 107–134.

[7] Y. Su and J. Huang, “Cooperative global robust output regulation for
nonlinear uncertain multi-agent systems in lower triangular form,” IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 60(9), pp. 2378–2389, 2015.
[8] Y. Cao and W. Ren, “Optimal linear-consensus algorithms: An LQR
perspective,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part
B: Cybernetics, vol. 40(3), pp. 819–830, 2010.
[9] H. Zhang, F. L. Lewis, and A. Das, “Optimal design for synchronization
of cooperative systems: State feedback, observer and output feedback,”
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 56(8), pp. 1948–1952,
2011.
[10] D. H. Nguyen and S. Hara, “Hierarchical decentralized stabilization for
networked dynamical systems by LQR selective pole shift,” in Proc. of
19th IFAC World Congress, 2014, pp. 5778–5783.
[11] D. H. Nguyen, “Reduced-order distributed consensus controller design
via edge dynamics,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, (Conditionally accepted). Available online at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.06346.
[12] N. Chopra, “Output synchronization on strongly connected graphs,”
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 57(11), pp. 2896–2901,
2012.
[13] G.-B. Stan and R. Sepulchre, “Analysis of interconnected oscillators
by dissipativity theory,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol.
52(2), pp. 256–270, 2007.
[14] U. Münz, A. Papachristodoulou, and F. Allgöwer, “Robust consensus
controller design for nonlinear relative degree two multi-agent systems
with communication constraints,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, vol. 56(1), pp. 145–161, 2011.
[15] C. D. Persis and B. Jayawardhana, “On the internal model principle in
the coordination of nonlinear systems,” IEEE Transactions on Control
of Network Systems, vol. 1(3), pp. 272–282, 2014.
[16] F. D. Priscoli, A. Isidori, L. Marconi, and A. Pietrabissa, “Leaderfollowing coordination of nonlinear agents under time-varying communication topologies,” IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems,
vol. 2(4), pp. 393–405, 2015.
[17] W. Yu, G. Chen, and M. Cao, “Consensus in directed networks of agents
with nonlinear dynamics,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol.
56(6), pp. 1436–1441, 2011.
[18] Z. Ding, “Consensus output regulation of a class of heterogeneous
nonlinear systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol.
58(10), pp. 2648–2653, 2013.
[19] W. Ren and R. W. Beard, “Consensus seeking in multi-agent systems
under dynamically changing interaction topologies,” IEEE Transaction
on Automatic Control, vol. 50(5), pp. 655–661, 2005.
[20] Z. Li, Z. Duan, G. Chen, and L. Huang, “Consensus of multiagent
systems and synchronization of complex networks: A unified viewpoint,”
IEEE Transaction on Circuits and Systems-I: Regular Papers, vol. 57(1),
pp. 213–224, 2010.
[21] C.-Q. Ma and J.-F. Zhang, “Necessary and sufficient conditions for
consensusability of linear multi-agent systems,” IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, vol. 55(5), pp. 1263–1268, 2010.
[22] B. D. O. Anderson and J. B. Moore, Optimal Control: Linear Quadratic
Methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990.
[23] H. Kim, H. Shim, J. Back, and J. H. Seo, “Consensus of output-coupled
linear multi-agent systems under fast switching network: Averaging
approach,” Automatica, vol. 49, pp. 267–272, 2013.
[24] K. You, Z. Li, and L. Xie, “Consensus condition for linear multi-agent
systems over randomly switching topologies,” Automatica, vol. 49, pp.
3125–3132, 2013.
[25] Z. Li, G. Wen, Z. Duan, and W. Ren, “Designing fully distributed
consensus protocols for linear multi-agent systems with directed graphs,”
IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control, vol. 60(4), pp. 1152–1157,
2015.
[26] A. Isidori and A. J. Krener, “On feedback equivalence of nonlinear
systems,” Systems and Control Letters, vol. 2, pp. 118–121, 1982.
[27] E. D. Sontag, “Input to state stability: Basic concepts and results,” in
Nonlinear and Optimal Control Theory. Springer, 2006, pp. 163–220.
[28] K. H. Movric and F. L. Lewis, “Cooperative optimal control for multiagent systems on directed graph topologies,” IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, vol. 59(3), pp. 769–774, 2014.
[29] D. H. Nguyen, “A sub-optimal consensus design for multi-agent systems
based on hierarchical LQR,” Automatica, vol. 55, pp. 88–94, 2015.
[30] M. D. Fragoso and O. L. V. Costa, “A unified approach for stochastic and
mean square stability of continuous-time linear systems with markovian
jumping parameters and additive disturbances,” SIAM Journal of Control
and Optimization, vol. 44(4), pp. 1165–1191, 2005.

