Coordination of Multi-Agent Systems under Switching Topologies
via Disturbance Observer Based Approach

arXiv:1601.03290v1 [math.OC] 13 Jan 2016

Yutao Tang

∗∗

Abstract
In this paper, a leader-following coordination problem of heterogeneous multi-agent systems is
considered under switching topologies where each agent is subject to some local (unbounded) disturbances. While these unknown disturbances may disrupt the performance of agents, a disturbance
observer based approach is employed to estimate and reject them. Varying communication topologies
are also taken into consideration, and their byproduct difficulties are overcome by using common
Lyapunov function techniques. According to the available information in difference cases, two disturbance observer based protocols are proposed to solve this problem. Their effectiveness is verified by
simulations.
Keywords: multi-agent system; disturbance observer; switching topology; common Lyapunov
function.

1

Introduction

In the past decades there has been a large literature in the study of multi-agent systems due to its
wide applications such as cooperative control of unmanned aerial vehicles, communication among sensor
networks, and formation of mobile robots (see [1, 2] and the references therein). As an important topic
of multi-agent systems, the leader-following problem is actively studied by many authors, e.g. [3–5]. In
this formulation, one or multiple agents are selected as leaders to generate desired trajectories for those
followers and lead the whole group to achieve collective tasks [6–12].
It has been well-recognized that disturbance rejection is of fundamental importance in the applicability
of designed controllers. While there are always disturbances in real applications, it is necessary to take
them into consideration and attenuate or eliminate them for multi-agent control design. In [13] for
first-order multi-agent systems, it was shown that under bounded unknown external disturbances the
steady-state errors of any two agents can reach a small region and is called lazy consensus. Later, the
authors of [14] proposed an H∞ analysis approach to investigate robust consensus problem of high-order
multi-agent systems with external disturbances. In [15], consensus of multi-agent systems with exogenous
disturbances was considered, and an observer was constructed to compensate the negative effect of those
disturbances. However, most of these results were obtained for special dynamic systems, and there are
few general consensus results emphasizing disturbance rejection with an exception [16], where the authors
considered leader-following consensus with disturbance rejection from the viewpoint of output regulation
[17] and solved it for linear multi-agent systems with a fixed topology.
∗∗ Yutao

Tang is with School of Automation, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing 100876, China.

E-mail : yttang@amss.ac.cn

1

Also note that, in centralized or decentralized setup, there is usually no need to partition and treat
those disturbances and references in a separate way. However, in multi-agent systems, it would be better
to distinguish those two kinds of signals and not to model them in the same manner. Intuitively, the
reference is globally set up to drive all agents to complete a common task, while the disturbances are
usually local and harmful to such cooperation. Thus, another motivation of this paper is to formulate a
problem that treats those two kinds of signals by different approaches.
Hence, we aim to investigative a coordination problem of heterogeneous multi-agent systems under
switching topologies, where the reference is given by a traditional leader. At the same time, those
followers may be subject to local disturbances modeled by some other autonomous systems. Since the
disturbances are often unmeasurable, a disturbance observer based (DOB) approach [18, 19] is employed
to tackle this problem. DOB approach stems from feedforward control, and can be perceived as a
composite controller comprising a feedforward compensation part to reject those disturbances, based on
disturbance observation and a feedback rule to regulate the plant to achieve other goals. Although it has
been investigated by many publications (see [20] and references therein), there is no corresponding result
to our knowledge for heterogeneous multi-agent systems.
To sum up, the main contributions of the present paper are at least twofold:
• We extend the conventional leader-following consensus [2, 6] to general linear multi-agent systems
with local disturbances (which may be unbounded). When there are no such disturbances, these
results are consistent with existing consensus results. Here we consider heterogeneous multi-agent
systems under switching topologies, while many existing results were derived for only second order
dynamic systems [21] or for fixed graph cases [16].
• We extend the conventional disturbance observer based (DOB) approach [19] to its distributed
version for multi-agent systems with both reference tracking and disturbance rejection. When
there is only one agent, our problem becomes the conventional DOB formulation. Even for the
centralized case, we propose different full-order and reduced-order disturbance observers to solve
this problem without using the derivative of the plant’s states as that in [20]. It is also remarkable
that these disturbance observers can allow both bounded disturbances (e.g., constant and harmonic
signals in existing literature) and unbounded disturbances (e.g. ramping and polynomial signals).
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, some preliminaries are given and our problem is
formulated. Then main results are presented in Section 3, where two types of control laws are constructed.
Finally, simulations and our concluding remarks are provided in Sections 4 and 5, respectively.
Notations: Let Rn be the n-dimensional Euclidean space, Rn×m be the set of n × m real matrices.
0

n×m

represents an n × m zero matrix. diag{b1 , . . ., bn } denotes an n × n diagonal matrix with diagonal

elements b1 , · · · , bn ; col(a1 , . . ., an ) = [aT1 , . . ., aTn ]T for column vectors ai (i = 1, . . ., n). A weighted
directed graph (or weighted digraph) G = (N , E, A) is defined as follows, where N = {1, . . ., n} is the set
of nodes, E ⊂ N × N is the set of edges, and A ∈ Rn×n is a weighted adjacency matrix [22]. (i, j) ∈ E
denotes an edge leaving from node i and entering node j. The weighted adjacency matrix of this digraph
G is described by A = [aij ]i, j=1,...,n , where aii = 0 and aij ≥ 0 (aij > 0 if and only if there is an edge from
agent j to agent i). A path in graph G is an alternating sequence i1 e1 i2 e2 · · ·ek−1 ik of nodes il and edges
em = (im , im+1 ) ∈ E for l = 1, 2, . . ., k. If there exists a path from node i to node j then node i is said to
be reachable from node j. The neighbor set of agent i is defined as Ni = {j : (j, i) ∈ E} for i = 1, ..., n.
A graph is said to be undirected if aij = aji (i, j = 1, . . ., n). The weighted Laplacian L = [lij ] ∈ Rn×n
P
of graph G is defined as lii = j6=i aij and lij = −aij (j 6= i).
2

2

Problem formulation

In this paper, we consider N + 1 agents and N of them are followers of the form:
ẋi = Ai xi + Bi ui + Ei di
yi = Ci xi + Di ui ,

i = 1, . . . , N

(1)

where xi ∈ Rni , yi ∈ Rl , and ui ∈ Rmi are the state, output, and input of the ith subsystem, respectively.
di ∈ Rqi is the local disturbance of agent i governed by
d˙i = Si di .

(2)

The reference signal is given by a leader (denoted as agent 0) described as
ṙ = S0 r,

y0 = F0 r,

r ∈ Rn0

(3)

Without loss of generality, we assume (F0 , S0 ) is detectable and S0 , . . . , SN have no eigenvalues lying in
the open left half plane. Let ei = yi − y0 (i = 1, . . . , N ), we aim to design proper controllers such that for
any initial condition xi (0), di (0), r(0), the tracking error ei will converge to zero as time goes to infinity
in spite of these disturbances.
Unlike in centralized cases, we do not assume the availability of y0 (hence r) to all agents in our
problem. An agent can get access to y0 unless there is an edge between this agent and the leader.
This makes it much difficult to achieve collective behaviors. Associated with this multi-agent system,
a dynamic digraph G can be defined with the nodes N = {0, 1, ..., N } to describe the communication
topology, which may be switching. If the control ui can get access to the information of agent j at time
instant t, there is an edge (j, i) in the graph G, i.e., aij > 0. Also note that a0i = 0 for i = 1, ..., N , since
the leader won’t receive any information from the followers. Denote the induced subgraph associated
with all followers as Ḡ.
We say a communication graph is connected [6] if the leader (node 0) is reachable from any other node
of G and the induced subgraph Ḡ is undirected. Given a communication graph G, denote H ∈ RN ×N as the
submatrix of its Laplacian L by deleting the first row and first column. By Lemma 3 in [6], H is positive
definite if the communication graph is connected. Denote its eigenvalues as λ1 ≥ λ2 ≥ · · · ≥ λN > 0.
In multi-agent systems, the connectivity graph G may be time-varying. To describe the variable
interconnection topology, we denote all possible communication graphs as G1 ,. . . ,Gκ , P = {1, . . . , κ}, and
define a switching signal σ : [0, ∞) → P, which is piece-wise constant defined on an infinite sequence
of nonempty, bounded, and contiguous time-intervals. Assume ti+1 − ti ≥ τ0 > 0, ∀i, where ti is
the ith switching instant and t0 = 0. Here τ0 is often called the dwell-time. Therefore, Ni and the
connection weight aij (i, j = 0, 1, . . . , N ) are time-varying. Moreover, the Laplacian Lσ(t) associated with
the switching interconnection graph Gσ(t) is also time-varying (switched at ti , i = 0, 1, . . .), though it is a
time-invariant matrix in each interval [ti , ti+1 ). The following assumption on the communication graph
is often made [6].
Assumption 1 The graph Gσ(t) is switching among a group of connected graphs.
The coordination problem of these heterogeneous multi-agent systems composed of (1), (2), and (3)
under switching topologies is described as follows. Given these multi-agent systems and the communication graph Gσ(t) , find a proper distributed control law such that for all initial conditions of the closed-loop
system, we have
lim ei (t) = 0,

t→+∞

3

i = 1, . . . , N.

(4)

Remark 1 While a large literature in multi-agent systems only considered a globally reference tracking
problem [23, 24] or treated those disturbances and the referenced signal in the same manner [16], both
reference tracking and disturbance rejection are considered in this formulation while local disturbances
are modeled by separate autonomous systems. When di = 0, this formulation is consistent with existing
consensus results for general linear dynamics, e.g., [23], which include the well-known consensus for
integrators [1] as its special case.

3

Main results

In this section, we employ a two-phase design procedure to achieve the coordination goal. First, we
construct a distributed observer for each agent and transform such a coordination problem of this multiagent system into N decentralized sub-tasks. Then, those sub-tasks will be completed via DOB approach
together with both full-order and reduced-order controllers.
The following lemma is useful and can be proved from the convergent-input convergent-state property
of the first subsystem [25].
Lemma 1 Consider the linear time-varying system
x̄˙ = Āx̄ + B̄v̄
v̄˙ = S̄(t)v̄
ē = C̄ x̄ + F̄ v̄.
If Ā is Hurwitz and the subsystem v̄˙ = S̄(t)v̄ is uniformly exponentially stable, then for any x̄(0) = x̄0
and v̄(0) = v̄0 , it holds limt→+∞ ē(t) = 0.
By letting vi , col(di , r) and some mathematical manipulations, this leader-following coordination
problem is equivalent to the following N sub-problems:
ẋi = Ai xi + Bi ui + Ēi vi
(5)

v̇i = S̄i vi
ei = Ci xi + Di ui + F̄i vi

where Ēi = [Ei , 0ni ×l ], S̄i = block diag{Si , S0 }, and F̄i = [0l×qi , −F0 ]. vi is the exogenous signal for
agent i including its local disturbance di and the global reference r.
The following equations known as regulator equations [26] play a key role in solving the coordination
problem of multi-agent systems.
Assumption 2 For each i = 1, . . . , N , there exist constant matrices Xi1 , Xi2 , Ui1 , and Ui2 satisfying
Xi1 Si = Ai Xi1 + Bi Ui1 + Ei
0 = Ci Xi1 + Di Ui1
and
Xi2 S0 = Ai Xi2 + Bi Ui2
0 = Ci Xi2 + Di Ui2 − F0 .
Remark 2 Similar conditions have been used in [16, 27]. A sufficient condition to the solvability of these
linear matrix equations is that, for any eigenvalue of Si (denoted as λ), i = 0, . . . , N ,
#
"
Ai − λI Bi
= ni + p.
rank
Ci
Di
4

Specially, when all agents are homogenous without local disturbances, Xi2 can be taken as the identity
matrix which was implicitly used in [2] and [9].
Note that (Ai , Bi ) is stabilizable, there exists Ki1 such that Ai + Bi Ki1 is Hurwitz. Denote Ki2 ,
Ui1 − Ki1 Xi1 , Ki3 , Ui2 − Ki1 Xi2 . By Theorem 1.7 in [26], the full-information controller ui = Ki1 xi +
Ki2 di + Ki3 r trivially solves the output regulation problem of the ith subsystem (5), and hence achieves
the leader-following coordination goal of the whole multi-agent system in a centralized setup. Inspired by
the separate principle for single linear systems [17], we follow a similar design and replace the unavailable
quantities in the full-information control law by their estimations.
Since not all agents can directly get access to the reference signal (i.e., the leader), we first construct
the following distributed observer for agent i to estimate r, and transform the original coordination
problem into several decentralized ones:
η̇i = S0 ηi + L0 F0 ηvi ,
where ηvi =

PN

j=0

(6)

aij (t)(ηi − ηj ), η0 = r, i = 1, . . . , N , and L0 is a constant matrix to be designed.

Letting η̄i , ηi − r and denoting η̄ = col(η̄1 , . . . , η̄N ) gives
η̄˙ = [IN ⊗ S0 + Hσ(t) ⊗ (L0 F0 )]η̄.

(7)

The following lemma shows the effectiveness of this distributed observer.
Lemma 2 Under Assumption 1, there exists a constant matrix L0 such that the system (7) is uniformly
exponentially stable in the sense of ||η̄|| ≤ c0 e−λ0 t for some positive constants c0 and λ0 .
Proof. For this purpose, we only have to determine an L0 such that, for each i, there exist two constants
c̄0i and λ̄0i such that ||ηi − v|| ≤ c0i e−λ0i t .
Note that Hσ(t) is positive definite and constant during each interval [ti , ti+1 ) under Assumption 1.
We first consider this problem in each interval. Assume σ(t) = p for t ∈ [ti , ti+1 ), there exists a unitary
matrix Up such that Λp , UpT Hp Up = diag{λp1 , . . . , λpN }. Let η̂ = (UpT ⊗ IN )η̄, then,
η̂˙ = (IN ⊗ S0 + Λp ⊗ L0 F0 )η̂
that is, η̂˙ i = (S0 + λpi L0 F0 )η̂i for i = 1, . . . , N , where λpi > 0 for i = 1, ..., N are the eigenvalues of Hp
(p ∈ P). Since (S0 , F0 ) are detectable, there exists [28] a positive definite symmetric matrix P satisfying
P S0 + S0T P − 2F0T F0 < 0.

(8)

Note that the minimum eigenvalue of Hp for all p is well-defined. Denoting it as λ̄ > 0 and taking
L0 = −µ∗ P −1 F0T with µ∗ , max{ λ̄1 , 1} gives
(S0 + λpi L0 F0 )T P + P (S0 + λpi L0 F0 )
= S0T P + P S0 − 2µ∗ λpi F0T F0
= S0T P + P S0 − 2F0T F0 − 2(µ∗ λpi − 1)F0T F0
≤ S0T P + P S0 − 2F0T F0
Since S0T P + P S0 − 2F0T F0 is negative definite, under Assumption 1, there exists a positive constant c,
such that
(S0 + λpi L0 F0 )T P + P (S0 + λpi L0 F0 ) ≤ −cP
5

(9)

By letting Vη =

PN

i=1

η̂iT P η̂i , we can derive V̇η ≤ −cVη . Recalling the dwell-time assumption this

inequality holds for all t. Note that η̄ T η̄ = η̂ T η̂, it follows
||ηi − v||2 ≤ η̂ T η̂ ≤ λmin (P )−1 Vη (t) < λmin (P )−1 Vη (0)e−ct
The conclusion is readily obtained.
Remark 3 Although η0 = r appears in (6), y0 = F0 η0 will suffice this design. When y0 = r (i.e.,
F0 = Ip ), it means that the state of the leader can be directly obtained when some agent is connected
to it. This circumstance has been partly considered in [16]. We extend these results using only output
measurements of the leader to deal with the cases when only partial states are available. Similar control
laws were proposed in [6] when the followers are all integrators, while here we consider general linear
agents and also local disturbances.
After building distributed observers for those followers, it is natural to replace r by its estimation
ηi . The following lemma guarantees the validity of this substitution and shows how it transforms the
coordination problem of these multi-agent systems into N decentralized estimation and regulation subtasks.
Lemma 3 Under Assumptions 1 and 2, ui = Ki1 xi + Ki2 di + Ki3 ηi , η̇i = S0 ηi + L0 F0 ηvi will solve
the output regulation problem of system (5), and hence the leader-following coordination problem of this
multi-agent system with the selected L0 , where Ki1 , Ki2 , Ki3 are matrices defined in the centralized case.
Proof. Under Assumption 2, letting x̄i = xi − Xi1 di − Xi2 r gives
x̄˙ i = (Ai + Bi Ki1 )x̄i + Bi Ki3 η̄i
η̄˙ i = S0 η̄i + L0 F0 ηvi

(10)

ei = (Ci + Di Ki1 )x̄i + Di Ki3 η̄i
or in compact form
x̄˙ = Āx̄ + B̄ η̄
η̄˙ = (IN ⊗ S0 + Hσ(t) ⊗ L0 F0 )η̄

(11)

e = C̄ x̄ + D̄η̄
where x̄ = col(x1 , . . . , xN ) and
Ā = block diag{A1 + B1 K11 , . . . , AN + BN KN 1 },

B̄ = block diag{B1 K13 , . . . , BN KN 3 },

C̄ = block diag{C1 + D1 K11 , . . . , CN + DN KN 1 }, D̄ = block diag{D1 K13 , . . . , DN KN 3 }.
Since Ā is Hurwitz, by Lemmas 1 and 2, ei = yi − y0 will converge to zero as t → ∞.
Next, we aim to solve those decentralized reference tracking and disturbance rejection problems. As
having been pointed out before that the disturbances are often unmeasurable, the control law in Lemma 3
is not implementable. To tackle this problem, we employ the disturbance observer based (DOB) approach
which has been well-studied in its centralized version by many authors [18, 20].
Basically, we seek to reconstruct an estimation of the disturbances that affect the tracking performance, and then use these estimations to achieve disturbance rejection. Hence, the following assumption
comes naturally.
Assumption 3 For each i = 1, . . . , N , the pair

[Ci , 0

6

l×qi

],

"

Ai

Ei

0ni

Si

#!

is detectable.

We first consider the output feedback cases, where only yi is available through measurement, and
propose a composite control law in the following form.
ξ˙i = Ai ξi + Ei ζi + Bi ui − Li1 (yi − ŷi )
ζ̇i = Si ζi − Li2 (yi − ŷi )
η̇i = S0 ηi + L0 F0 ηvi
ui = Ki1 ξi + Ki2 ζi + Ki3 ηi ,

i = 1, . . . , N

(12)

where ŷi = Ci ξi + Di ui , i = 1, . . . , N , and Li1 , Li2 are constant matrices such that
"
#
Ai + Li1 Ci Ei
Aci ,
Li2 Ci
Si
is Hurwitz.
It is time to give our first main theorem.
Theorem 1 Under Assumptions 1-3, the leader-following coordination problem of the multi-agent system
composed of (1), (2), and (3) can be solved by the control law (12).
Proof. Let x̂i = ξi − xi , dˆi = ζi − di , and x̄i = xi − Xi1 di − Xi2 r. Under the control law (12), the
closed-loop system of agent i is of the form:
x̄˙ i = (Ai + Bi Ki1 )x̄i + Bi Ki1 x̂i + Bi Ki2 dˆi + B̄i Ki3 η̄i
x̂˙ i = (Ai + Li1 Ci )x̂i + Ei dˆi
˙
dˆi = Li2 Ci x̄i + Si dˆi

(13)

η̄˙ i = S0 η̄i + L0 F0 ηvi
ei = (Ci + Di Ki1 )x̄i + Di Ki1 x̂i + Di Ki2 dˆi + Di Ki3 η̄i
Let x̄ = col(x1 , . . . , xN ), v̄ = col{x̂1 , . . . , x̂N , dˆ1 , . . . , dˆN , η̄1 , . . . , η̄N }, and the whole multi-agent system
can be put into a compact form as
x̄˙ = Āx̄ + B̄v̄
v̄˙ = S̄v̄

(14)

e = C̄ x̄ + F̄ v̄
where Ā = block diag{A1 + B1 K11 , . . . , AN + BN KN 1 }, S̄ = block diag{Ac1 , . . . , AcN , IN ⊗ S + Hσ(t) ⊗
L0 F0 }, B̄ = [B̄1 , B̄2 , B̄3 ], C̄ = block diag{C1 + D1 K11 , . . . , CN + DN KN 1 }, F̄ = [F̄1 , F̄2 , F̄3 ] and B̄k =
block diag{B1 K1k , . . . , BN KN k }, F̄k = block diag{D1 K1k , . . . , DN KN k } (k = 1, 2, 3). Since Ā and Aci
are Hurwitz, by Lemmas 1 and 2, ei = yi − y0 will converge to zero as t → ∞. The proof is thus
completed.
Remark 4 When Ei = 0 for all agents, it reduces to the well-studied leader-following consensus problem
considering only reference tracking problem. Then, the relevant results in [1] and [2] are actually special
cases of this theorem for integrators. Even when the leader has a general linear dynamics as in [23], we
consider both reference tracking and local disturbance rejection problems under switching topologies.
Remark 5 When N = 1, this problem becomes a centralized reference tracking and disturbance rejection
problem. While most of existing DOB results focus on rejecting those disturbances [19, 20], our design
also incorporates the reference tracking aspects. Those DOB controllers can admit not only bounded
disturbances (e.g., constants and sinusoidal signals) but also unbounded disturbances (e.g., ramping signals
and polynomials) under switching topologies.
7

In many circumstances, the state xi may be available for us by direct measurement or other treatments. Thus, there exists a certain degree of redundancy in the controller (12), which still produces the
estimations of xi . To remove such redundancies and save our controller’s order, we propose a reducedorder DOB control law to facilitate our design.
For this multi-agent system, the reduce-order disturbance observer is given as follows.
ζ̇i = (Si + Li Ei )ζi + (Li Ai − Si Li − Li Ei Li )xi + Li Bi ui
η̇i = S0 ηi + L0 F0 ηvi
ui = Ki1 xi + Ki2 (ζi − Li xi ) + Ki3 ηi ,

i = 1, . . . , N

(15)

where Kij , i = 1, . . . , N, j = 1, 2, 3, and Li are gain matrices to be determined later.
With this reduced-order controller, the following theorem can be derived.
Theorem 2 Under Assumptions 1–3, there exist constant matrices Kij and Li , i = 1, . . . , N, j = 1, 2, 3,
such that the leader-following coordination problem of this multi-agent system is solved by the control law
(15).
Proof. The proof is similar with that of Theorem 1. Let dˆi = ζi − Li xi − di , and x̄i = xi − Xi1 di − Xi2 r.
Under the control law (15), the closed-loop system of agent i is with the form of
x̄˙ i = (Ai + Bi Ki1 )x̄i + Bi Ki2 dˆi + B̄i Ki3 η̄i
˙
dˆi = (Si + Li Ei )dˆi

(16)

η̄˙ i = S0 η̄i + L0 F0 ηvi
ei = (Ci + Di Ki1 )x̄i + Di Ki2 dˆi + Di Ki3 η̄i

Let x̄ = col(x1 , . . . , xN ), v̄ = col{dˆ1 , . . . , dˆN , η̄1 , . . . , η̄N }. By some mathematical manipulations, the
whole multi-agent system can be put into a compact form as
x̄˙ = Āx̄ + B̄v̄
v̄˙ = S̄v̄

(17)

e = C̄ x̄ + F̄ v̄
where
Ā = block diag{A1 + B1 K11 , . . . , AN + BN KN 1 }
B̄ = block diag{B1 K13 , . . . , BN KN 3 },
C̄ = block diag{C1 + D1 K11 , . . . , CN + DN KN 1 },
F̄ = block diag{D1 K13 , . . . , DN KN 3 },
S̄ = block diag{S1 + L1 E1 , . . . , SN + LN EN , IN ⊗ S + Hσ(t) ⊗ L0 F0 }.
According to Lemma 1 and 2,we only have to find proper Kij and Li such that Ā and Si + Li Ei are
all Hurwitz. Then, by similar arguments as that in Theorem 1, ei = yi − y0 will converge to zero as
t → ∞. In fact, such gain matrices indeed exist. Take Kij as defined in Theorem 1, and the detectability
of (Ei , Si ) will suffice the selection of Li , which is obvious by PBH-test under Assumption 3. Thus the
conclusion follows readily.
Remark 6 As having been pointed before, unlike in existing cooperative output regulation result [16], the
disturbances are locally modeled by different autonomous systems from that of the global reference. A
8

0

1

2

3

0

(a) The graph G1

1

2

3

(b) The graph G2

Figure 1: The communication graphs.
similar setup has been used in [29] and [30]. This separate modeling method results in two dissimilar
treatments, distributed observers for the global reference and DOB approach for the local disturbances,
which may enhance the effectiveness of our design and bring a better performance. Also, even for the
case when N = 1, we proposed different reduced-order disturbance observers from that in [20] to solve this
problem without using the derivative of the plant’s states.

4

Simulations

As an example, we consider the coordination problem for a multi-agent system consisting of three followers
and one leader. The follower agents are the mass-damper-spring systems with unit mass described by:
ÿi + gi ẏi + fi yi = ui + Ei di ,

i = 1, 2, 3

where di is the local disturbance. Those disturbances are modeled by S1 = [0, 1; 0, 0], E1 = [1, 0];
S2 = 0, E2 = 1; S3 = [0, 1; −1, 0], E3 = [1, 0]. The leader is specified by a harmonic oscillator: ṙ1 =
r2 , ṙ2 = −r1 , y0 = r1 . We assume here the interconnection topology is switching between graph G1 and G2
described by Fig. 1. The switchings are periodically carried out in the following order {G1 , G2 , G1 , G2 , · · · }
with switching period t = 5.
Letting xi1 = yi , xi2 = ẏi , then,
ẋi1 = xi2 ,

ẋi2 = −fi xi1 − gi xi2 + ui + Ei di ,

yi = xi1 .

Apparently, the coordination laws in [6] and [23] will not work for these agents. Even the discontinuous
rule ([13]) fails to solve this problem because of unbounded disturbances in Agent 1. Nevertheless, as
Assumptions 1-3 are satisfied, it can be solved by the methods given in last sections.
For simulations, the system parameters are taken as f1 = 1, g1 = 1, f2 = 0, g2 = 1 and f3 = 1, g3 = 0.
By solving the regulator equations in Assumption 2 and also the Lyapunov inequality (8), we choose
proper gain matrices for the controllers as showed in Table 1. While the initials for the plant is generated
between [−1, 1]2 , the initials for controllers are set at their origins. The simulation results using full-order
and reduced-order disturbance observer based control are showed in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, respectively. We
list the outputs of agents at serval time points in Table 2. It can be found that after 21s, the agents can
track the leader and reject those disturbances with an error tolerance 2 × 10−3 .

5

Conclusions

A leader-following coordination problem was solved for a class of heterogeneous multi-agent systems
subject to local disturbances under switching topologies. By devising a distributed observer, this problem
was transformed into several decentralized estimation and regulation sub-tasks, and eventually solved by
two disturbance observer based control laws. Our future work will include nonlinear cases and with more
general graphs.
9

Simulation 1
Agent 1

K11 = [0, 0]

K12 = [−1, 0]

L11 = [−1.9813; −1.4628]
K21 = [−1, 0]

Agent 2

Agent 3

K13 = [0, 1]

L0 = [−1.3522; −0.4142]

L12 = [−3.1445; −1.0000]

K22 = −1

K23 = [0, 1]

L21 = [−1.7321; −1.0000]
K31 = [0, −1]

Simulation 2

L0 = [−1.3522; −0.4142]

L22 = −1.0000

K32 = [−1, 0]

L31 = [−2.1607; −1.8343]

L1 = [0, −1; 0, −1]
L2 = [0, −1]

K33 = [0, 1], L0 = [−1.3522; −0.4142]

L32 = [−0.8860; 1.1023]

L3 = [0, −1; 0, 0]

Table 1: Gain matrices for each agent in simulations.
3

3
Agent 1
Agent 2
Agent 3

Referece
Agent 1
Agent 2
Agent 3

2

Tracking errors of all agents

2

Output of all agents

1

0

-1

-2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-3
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

5

10

t(s)

15

20

25

30

t(s)

(a)

(b)

Figure 2: Tracking performance with output feedback control law (12).
3

3
Agent 1
Agent 2
Agent 3

Referece
Agent 1
Agent 2
Agent 3

2

Tracking errors of all agents

2

Output of all agents

1

0

-1

-2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-3
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

5

10

t(s)

15

20

25

30

t(s)

(a)

(b)

Figure 3: Tracking performance with reduced-order DOB feedback control law (15).
Sampling time

t=6s

t=12s

t=15s

t=18s

t=21s

t=24s

t=27s

t=30s

Reference output

-0.2794

-0.5366

0.6503

-0.7510

0.8367

-0.9056

0.9564

-0.9880

Agent 1

-0.8507

-0.6008

0.6295

-0.7574

0.8347

-0.9064

0.9562

-0.9882

Agent 2

-0.6961

-0.5803

0.6395

-0.7532

0.8365

-0.9057

0.9565

-0.9881

Agent 3

-0.3552

-0.5100

0.6400

-0.7494

0.8364

-0.9058

0.9565

-0.9882

Agent 1

-0.3054

-0.6109

0.6292

-0.7574

0.8347

-0.9064

0.9562

-0.9882

Agent 2

-0.6476

-0.5807

0.6395

-0.7532

0.8365

-0.9057

0.9565

-0.9881

Agent 3

-0.1382

-0.4240

0.6205

-0.7466

0.8363

-0.9058

0.9566

-0.9882

Simulation 1

Simulation 2

Table 2: Outputs of each agent in simulations.

10

References
[1] R. Olfati-Saber, J. A. Fax, and R. M. Murray, “Consensus and cooperation in networked multi-agent
systems,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 215–233, 2007.
[2] W. Ren and R. Beard, Distributed Consensus in Multi-Vehicle Cooperative Control: Theory and
Applications.

London: Springer-Verlag, 2008.

[3] N. E. Leonard and E. Fiorelli, “Virtual leaders, artificial potentials and coordinated control of
groups,” in Decision and Control, 2001. Proceedings of the 40th IEEE Conference on, vol. 3. IEEE,
2001, pp. 2968–2973.
[4] W. Ren and R. W. Beard, “Consensus seeking in multiagent systems under dynamically changing
interaction topologies,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 655–661, 2005.
[5] A. Clark, B. Alomair, L. Bushnell, and R. Poovendran, “Minimizing convergence error in multiagent systems via leader selection: A supermodular optimization approach,” Automatic Control,
IEEE Transactions on, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 1480–1494, 2014.
[6] Y. Hong, J. Hu, and L. Gao, “Tracking control for multi-agent consensus with an active leader and
variable topology,” Automatica, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 1177–1182, 2006.
[7] H. Zhang, F. L. Lewis, and A. Das, “Optimal design for synchronization of cooperative systems:
state feedback, observer and output feedback,” Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 56,
no. 8, pp. 1948–1952, 2011.
[8] Y. Lou and Y. Hong, “Target containment control of multi-agent systems with random switching
interconnection topologies,” Automatica, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 879–885, 2012.
[9] Z. Meng, Z. Zhao, and Z. Lin, “On global leader-following consensus of identical linear dynamic
systems subject to actuator saturation,” Systems & Control Letters, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 132–142,
2013.
[10] Z. Peng, D. Wang, G. Sun, and H. Wang, “Distributed cooperative stabilisation of continuous-time
uncertain nonlinear multi-agent systems,” International Journal of Systems Science, vol. 45, no. 10,
pp. 2031–2041, 2014.
[11] G. Wen, G. Hu, W. Yu, J. Cao, and G. Chen, “Consensus tracking for higher-order multi-agent
systems with switching directed topologies and occasionally missing control inputs,” Systems &
Control Letters, vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 1151–1158, 2013.
[12] Y. Tang, “Robust consensus tracking of heterogeneous multi-agent systems under switching topologies,” Journal of Systems Science and Complexity,

2015. [Online]. Available:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.03124.pdf
[13] D. Bauso, L. Giarré, and R. Pesenti, “Consensus for networks with unknown but bounded disturbances,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 1756–1770, 2009.
[14] Y. Liu and Y. Jia, “Consensus problem of high-order multi-agent systems with external disturbances:
An h∞ analysis approach,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 20, no. 14,
pp. 1579–1593, 2010.

11

[15] X. Zhang and X. Liu, “Further results on consensus of second-order multi-agent systems with exogenous disturbance,” Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 60, no. 12,
pp. 3215–3226, 2013.
[16] Y. Su and J. Huang, “Cooperative output regulation of linear multi-agent systems by output feedback,” Systems & Control Letters, vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 1248–1253, 2012.
[17] W. M. Wonham, Linear Multivariable Control: A Geometric Approach. New York : Springer-Verlag,
1979.
[18] M. Nakao, K. Ohnishi, and K. Miyachi, “A robust decentralized joint control based on interference
estimation,” in Proceedings of the 1987 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.,
vol. 4, 1987, pp. 326–331.
[19] W. Chen, D. J. Ballance, P. J. Gawthrop, and J. O’Reilly, “A nonlinear disturbance observer for
robotic manipulators,” Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 932–938,
2000.
[20] S. Li, J. Yang, W. Chen, and X. Chen, Disturbance Observer-based Control: Methods and Applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2014.
[21] J. Hu and G. Feng, “Distributed tracking control of leader–follower multi-agent systems under noisy
measurement,” Automatica, vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 1382–1387, 2010.
[22] M. Mesbahi and M. Egerstedt, Graph Theoretic Methods in Multiagent Networks.

Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press, 2010.
[23] W. Ni and D. Cheng, “Leader-following consensus of multi-agent systems under fixed and switching
topologies,” Systems & Control Letters, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 209–217, 2010.
[24] Y. Tang, “Leader-following coordination problem with an uncertain leader in a multi-agent system,”
Control Theory Applications, IET, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 773–781, 2014.
[25] E. D. Sontag, “Input-to-state stability: Basic concepts and results,” in Nonlinear and optimal control
theory. Berlin: Springer, 2008, pp. 163–220.
[26] J. Huang, Nonlinear Output Regulation: Theory and Applications.

Philadelphia: SIAM, 2004.

[27] X. Wang, “Distributed formation output regulation of switching heterogeneous multi-agent systems,”
International Journal of Systems Science, vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 2004–2014, 2013.
[28] S. P. Boyd, L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V. Balakrishnan, Linear Matrix Inequalities in System and
Control Theory.

Philadelphia: SIAM, 1994.

[29] X. Wang, D. Xu, and Y. Hong, “Semi-global leader-following consensus of nonlinear multi-agent
systems with actuating disturbances,” in Control & Automation (ICCA), 11th IEEE International
Conference on. IEEE, 2014, pp. 123–127.
[30] Y. Tang, Y. Hong, and X. Wang, “Distributed output regulation for a class of nonlinear multi-agent
systems with unknown-input leaders,” Automatica, vol. 62, pp. 154–160, 2015.
[31] Y. Tang, “Output consensus of nonlinear multi-agent systems with unknown control directions,”
Kybernetika, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 335–346, 2015.
12

