arXiv:1511.01331v1 [cs.SY] 4 Nov 2015

Novel Distributed Robust Adaptive Consensus Protocols for
Linear Multi-agent Systems with Directed Graphs and
External Disturbances ⋆
Yuezu Lv a, Zhongkui Li a, Zhisheng Duan a , Gang Feng b
a

State Key Laboratory for Turbulence and Complex Systems, Department of Mechanics and Engineering Science, College of
Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
b

Department of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Abstract
This paper addresses the distributed consensus protocol design problem for linear multi-agent systems with directed graphs
and external unmatched disturbances. A novel distributed adaptive consensus protocol is proposed to achieve leader-follower
consensus for any directed graph containing a directed spanning tree with the leader as the root node. It is noted that the
adaptive protocol might suffer from a problem of undesirable parameter drift phenomenon when bounded external disturbances
exist. To deal with this issue, a distributed robust adaptive consensus protocol is designed to guarantee the ultimate boundedness
of both the consensus error and the adaptive coupling weights in the presence of external disturbances. Both adaptive protocols
are fully distributed, relying on only the agent dynamics and the relative states of neighboring agents.
Key words: Multi-agent systems, cooperative control, consensus, distributed control, adaptive control, robustness.

1

Introduction

In recent years, the consensus problem of multi-agent
systems has been an emerging research topic in the field
of control, due to its wide applications in many areas
such as satellite formation flying, cooperative unmanned
systems, and distributed reconfigurable sensor networks
[1]. There has been remarkable progress in achieving consensus for different scenarios; see [1,2,3,4,5,6] and the references therein. For the consensus problem, the critical
task is to design distributed consensus protocols based
on local information, i.e., local state or output information of each agent and its neighbors.
In this paper, we consider the consensus problem
of multi-agent systems with general linear time in⋆ This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grants 61104153, 11332001,
61225013, a Foundation for the Author of National Excellent Doctoral Dissertation of PR China, and the State Key
Laboratory of Complex System Intelligent Control and Decision. Corresponding author Zhongkui Li.
Email addresses: yzlv@pku.edu.cn (Yuezu Lv),
zhongkli@pku.edu.cn (Zhongkui Li), duanzs@pku.edu.cn
(Zhisheng Duan), megfeng@cityu.edu.hk (Gang Feng).

Preprint submitted to Automatica

variant dynamics. Previous works [7,8,9,10,11,12] have
presented various static and dynamic consensus protocols, which are proposed in a distributed fashion,
using only the local information of each agent and its
neighbors. However, those consensus protocols involves
some design issues. To be specific, the design of those
consensus protocols generally requires the knowledge
of some eigenvalue information of the Laplacian matrix
associated with the communication graph, that is, the
smallest nonzero eigvenvalue of the Laplacian matrix
for undirected graphs and the smallest real part of the
nonzero eigenvalues of the Laplacian matrix for directed
graphs. Note that the nonzero eigenvalue information of
the Laplacian matrix is global information in the sense
that each agent has to know the entire communication
graph to compute it. Therefore, although these consensus protocols are proposed and can be implemented in
a distributed fashion, they cannot be designed by each
agent in a distributed fashion. In other words, those
consensus protocols in [7,8,9,10,11,12] are not fully
distributed.
To remove the limitation of requiring global information of the communication graph, distributed adaptive
consensus protocols are reported in [13,14,15,16], which,

5 November 2015

sus protocol is designed in Section 3 for general directed
leader-follower graphs. A novel robust adaptive consensus protocol is presented in Section 4 to deal with external disturbances. Simulation results are presented in
Section 5. Section 6 concludes this paper.

depending on only local information of each agent and
its neighbors, are fully distributed. It is worth noting
that the adaptive protocols in [13,14,15,16] are applicable to only undirected communication graphs or leaderfollower graphs where the subgraphs among followers
are undirected. Due to the asymmetry of the Laplacian
matrices, it is much more difficult to design distributed
adaptive consensus protocols for general directed communication graphs. By including monotonically increasing functions to provide additional design flexibility, a
distributed adaptive consensus protocol is derived in [17]
to achieve consensus for general leader-follower directed
graphs containing a directed spanning tree. The robustness of the distributed adaptive protocols with respect
to uncertainties or external disturbances is an important
issue. The adaptive protocol in [17] can only be modified
to be applicable to external disturbances satisfying the
matching condition; see [19]. To the best of our knowledge, how to design distributed robust adaptive consensus protocols for the case with directed graphs and general unmatched disturbances is still open.

2

Mathematical Preliminaries

Let Rn×m be the set of n × m real matrices and the
superscript T donates transpose for real matrices. IN
represents the identity matrix of dimension N and I denotes the identity matrix of an appropriate dimension.
1 donates a column vector with all entries equal to 1.
diag(a1 , · · · , aN ) represents a diagonal matrix with elements ai , i = 1, · · · , N, on its diagonal while λmin (A)
donates the minimal eigenvalue of A. The matrix inequality A > B means A and B are symmetric matrices and A − B is positive definite. A ⊗ B represents the
Kronecker product of matrices A and B. A nonsingular
M -matrix A = [aij ] means that aij < 0, i 6= j, and all
eigenvalues of A have positive real parts.

In this paper, we aim to design distributed robust
adaptive consensus protocols for linear multi-agent systems with directed communication graphs. A novel distributed adaptive protocol is presented and shown to
achieve leader-follower consensus for directed communication graphs containing a directed spanning tree with
leader as the root node. This novel adaptive protocol
is fully distributed, relying on only the agent dynamics
and the relative state information of neighboring agent.
In the presence of external disturbances, it is pointed
out the adaptive protocol might suffer from a problem
of the parameter drift phenomenon [18]. Therefore, the
adaptive protocol is not robust in the presence of external disturbances. To deal with this instability issue, a
robust adaptive protocol is presented, which can guarantee the ultimate boundedness of both the consensus
error and the adaptive coupling weights. The existence
condition of the proposed adaptive protocols are also discussed. Compared to the previous works [17] and [19],
the contribution of this paper is at least two-fold. First,
the adaptive protocol proposed in this paper replaces
the multiplicative functions in the adaptive protocol in
[17] by novel additive functions. In this case, a simple
quadratic-like Lyapunov function, rather than the complicated integral-like one in [17], can be used to derive
the result. Second, in contrast to the adaptive protocol
in [19] which works only for the case with disturbances
satisfying the restrictive matching condition, the robust
adaptive consensus protocol given in this paper is applicable to the case of general bounded disturbances. It
should be mentioned that the methods used to derive
the results in this paper are quite different from those in
[17] and [19].

Lemma 3 ([23]) If a and b are nonnegative real numbers and p and q are positive real numbers such that
1
1
ap
bq
p + q = 1, then ab ≤ p + q , and the equality holds if
and only if ap = bq .

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The
mathematical preliminaries used in this paper is summarized in Section 2. The distributed adaptive consen-

Lemma 4 ([24]) For a system ẋ = f (x, t), where f (·)
is locally Lipschitz in x and piecewise continuous in t, assume that there exists a continuously differentiable func-

A directed graph G consists of a node set V and an
edge set E ⊆ V ×V, in which an edge is represented by an
ordered pair of distinct nodes. For an edge (vi , vj ), node
vi is called the parent node, node vj the child node, and
vi is a neighbor of vj . A path from node vi1 to node vil
is a sequence of ordered edges of the form (vik , vik+1 ),
k = 1, · · · , l − 1. A directed graph contains a directed
spanning tree if there exists a node called the root such
that the node has directed paths to all other nodes in
the graph.
Suppose there are N nodes in the directed graph G.
The adjacency matrix A = [aij ] ∈ RN ×N of G is defined
by aij = 1 if (vi , vj ) ∈ E and 0 otherwise. The Laplacian
PN
matrix L = [lij ] ∈ RN ×N is defined as lii = j=1 aij
and lij = −aij , i 6= j.
Lemma 1 ([20]) Zero is an eigenvalue of L with 1 as a
right eigenvector and all nonzero eigenvalues have positive real parts. Furthermore, zero is a simple eigenvalue
of L if and only if G has a directed spanning tree.
Lemma 2 ([21,22]) Consider a nonsingular M matrix L. There exists a diagonal matrix G so that
G ≡ diag(g1 , · · · , gN ) > 0 and GL + LT G > 0.

2

T T
Let ξ , [ξ1T , · · · , ξN
] and x , [xT1 , · · · , xTN ]T . Then,
we get

tion V (x, t) such that along any trajectory of the system,
α1 (kxk) ≤ V (x, t) ≤ α2 (kxk),

ξ = (L1 ⊗ IN )(x − 1 ⊗ x0 ).

V̇ (x, t) ≤ −α3 (kxk) + ǫ,

Since the graph G satisfies Assumption 1, it follows from
Lemma 1 that L1 is a nonsingular M -matrix and that
the leader-follower consensus problem is solved if and
only if ξ asymptotically converges to zero. Hereafter, we
refer to ξ as the consensus error. Substituting (2) into
(1) yields

where ǫ > 0 is a constant, α1 and α2 are class K∞ functions, and α3 is a class K function. Then, the solution
x(t) of ẋ = f (x, t) is uniformly ultimately bounded.
3

(3)

Distributed Adaptive Consensus Protocol
Design

ξ˙ = [IN ⊗ A + L1 (C + ρ) ⊗ BK] ξ,

Consider a group of N +1 identical agents with general
linear dynamics, consisting of N followers and a leader.
The dynamics of the i-th agent are described by

ċi = ξiT Γξi ,

i = 1, · · · , N,

(4)

(1)

where C , diag(c1 , · · · , cN ) and ρ , diag(ρ1 , · · · , ρN ).

where xi ∈ Rn is the state, ui ∈ Rp is the control input,
A and B are constant matrices with compatible dimensions.

The following theorem provides a result on the design
of the adaptive consensus protocol (2).

ẋi = Axi + Bui ,

i = 0, · · · , N,

Without loss of generality, let the agent in (1) indexed
by 0 be the leader whose control input is assumed to be
zero, i.e., u0 = 0, and the other agents be the followers.
The communication graph G among the N + 1 agents is
assumed to satisfy the following assumption.

Theorem 1 Suppose that the communication graph G
satisfies Assumption 1. Then, the leader-follower consensus problem of the agents in (1) can be solved under the adaptive protocol (2) with K = −B T P −1 , Γ =
P −1 BB T P −1 , and ρi = ξiT P −1 ξi , where P > 0 is a solution to the following linear matrix inequality (LMI):

Assumption 1 The graph G contains a directed spanning tree with the leader as the root node.

P AT + AP − 2BB T < 0.

Under Assumption 1, the Laplacian matrix
L asso#
"
0 01×N
.
ciated with G can be partitioned as L =
L2 L1
In light of Lemma 1 and the definition of M -matrix, it
is easy to verify that L1 ∈ RN ×N is a nonsingular M matrix.

Moreover, each coupling weight ci converges to some finite steady-state value.
Proof Consider the Lyapunov function candidate:

The objective of this paper is to design distributed
consensus protocols such that the N agents in (1) achieve
leader-follower consensus in the sense of limt→∞ kxi (t)−
x0 (t)k = 0, ∀ i = 1, · · · , N.

V1 =

ċi = ξiT Γξi ,

i = 1, · · · , N,

N
X
1
i=1

Based on the relative states of neighboring agents,
we propose a distributed adaptive consensus protocol to
each follower as
ui = (ci + ρi )Kξi ,

(5)

2

gi (2ci + ρi )ρi +

N
λ0 X 2
c̃ ,
2 i=1 i

(6)

where G , diag(g1 , · · · , gN ) is a positive definite matrix such that GL1 + LT1 G > 0, λ0 denotes the smallest eigenvalue of GL1 + LT1 G, and c̃i , ci − α, where α
is a positive constant to be determined later. It follows
from Assumption 1 and Lemma 1 that L1 is a nonsingular M -matrix. Thus we know from Lemma 2 that such
a positive definite matrix G does exist. Since ci (0) > 0,
it follows from ċi ≥ 0 that ci (t) > 0 for any t > 0. Then,
it is not difficult to see that V1 is positive definite.

(2)

PN
where ξi , j=0 aij (xi − xj ), ci (t) denotes the timevarying coupling weight associated with the i-th follower
with ci (0) ≥ 0, K ∈ Rp×n and Γ ∈ Rn×n are the feedback gain matrices, and ρi are smooth functions to be
determined.

The time derivative of V1 along the trajectory of (4)

3

consensus error ξ asymptotically converges to zero. That
is, the consensus problem is solved.

is given by
V̇1 =

N
X

[2gi (ci + ρi )ξiT P −1 ξ̇i + gi ρi ċi ]

Remark 1 Contrary to the consensus protocols in
[7,8,10,11] which use the nonzero eigenvalues of the
Laplacian matrix, the design of the proposed adaptive
protocol (2) relies on only the agent dynamics and the
relative states of neighbors, which can be conducted by
each agent in a fully distributed way. As shown in [7],
a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence
of the solution P > 0 to the LMI (5) is that (A, B)
is stabilizable. Therefore, the existence condition of an
adaptive protocol (2) satisfying Theorem 1 is that (A, B)
is stablizable.

i=1

+ λ0

N
X
i=1

(ci − α)ċi

= ξ T [(C + ρ)G ⊗ (P −1 A + AT P −1 )

− (C + ρ)(GL1 + LT1 G)(C + ρ) ⊗ Γ]ξ

(7)

+ ξ T (ρG ⊗ Γ)ξ + ξ T [λ0 (C − αI) ⊗ Γ]ξ

≤ ξ T [(C + ρ)G ⊗ (P −1 A + AT P −1 )

− λ0 (C + ρ)2 ⊗ Γ]ξ + ξ T (ρG ⊗ Γ)ξ

Remark 2 In contrast to the distributed adaptive protocols in [13,14,15,16] which are applicable to only
undirected graphs, the proposed adaptive protocol (2)
works for the case with general directed graphs satisfying Assumption 1. It is worth mentioning that similar
distributed adaptive protocols were designed in the previous works [17] and [19] for directed graphs satisfying
Assumption 1. In comparison to the adaptive protocols
in [17] and [19], the novel adaptive protocol (2) has
two distinct features. First, different from the adaptive
protocol in [17] which uses multiplicative functions to
provide additional design flexibility, the adaptive protocol (2) introduces additive functions ρi instead. As a
consequence, a simple quadratic-like Lyapunov function
as in (6), instead of the complicated integral-like Lyapunov function in [17], can be used to show Theorem 1.
Second, contrary to the adaptive protocol in [19] which
can only deal with external disturbances satisfying the
restrictive matching condition, the proposed adaptive
protocol (2) can be modified to be applicable to general
bounded external disturbances, which will be detailed in
the following section.

+ ξ T [λ0 (C − αI) ⊗ Γ]ξ.

By using Lemma 3, we can get that
ξ T (ρG ⊗ Γ)ξ ≤ ξ T (

λ0 2
1 2
ρ ⊗ Γ)ξ + ξ T (
G ⊗ Γ)ξ,
2
2λ0
(8)

and
λ0 2
λ0
C ⊗ Γ)ξ + ξ T ( I ⊗ Γ)ξ.
2
2
(9)
Substituting (8) and (9) into (7) yields
ξ T (λ0 C ⊗ Γ)ξ ≤ ξ T (

V̇1 ≤ξ T [(C + ρ)G ⊗ (P −1 A + AT P −1 )
λ0
1 2
λ0
G ) ⊗ Γ]ξ.
−
− ( (C + ρ)2 + λ0 αI −
2
2
2λ0
(10)
gi2
λ0
Choose α ≥ α̂ + 2 + maxi=1,··· ,N 2λ2 , where α̂ > 0 will
0
be determined later. Then, it follows from (10) that
V˙1 ≤ ξ T [(C + ρ)G ⊗ (P −1 A + AT P −1 )
λ0
− ( (C + ρ)2 + λ0 α̂I) ⊗ Γ]ξ
2
≤ ξ T [(C + ρ)G ⊗ (P −1 A + AT P −1 )
√
− 2α̂λ0 (C + ρ) ⊗ Γ]ξ.

4
(11)

Theorem 1 in the previous section shows that the
adaptive protocol (2) is applicable to any directed graph
satisfying Assumption 1 for the case without external
disturbances. In many circumstances, the agents might
be subject to various external disturbances, for which
case it is necessary and interesting to investigate whether
the adaptive protocol (2) is robust.

p
−1
choose α̂ to be sufLet ξ˜ = ( (C + ρ)G ⊗ P
√ )ξ and
ficiently large such that 2α̂λ0 G−1 ≥ 2I. Then we can
get from (11) that
V˙1 ≤ ξ˜T (IN ⊗ (AP + P AT − 2BB T ))ξ˜
≤ 0,

Distributed Robust Adaptive Consensus Protocols

The dynamics of the i-th agent are described by

(12)

ẋi = Axi + Bui + ωi ,

where the last inequality comes directly from the LMI
(5). Therefore, we can get that V1 (t) is bounded and so
is each ci . Noting that ċi ≥ 0, we can know that each
coupling weight ci converges to some finite value. Noting
that V̇1 ≡ 0 is equivalent to ξ̃ ≡ 0 and thereby ξ ≡ 0.
By LaSalle’s Invariance principle [25], it follows that the

i = 0, · · · , N,

(13)

where ωi ∈ Rn denotes external disturbances associated
with the i-th agent, which satisfy the following assumption.
Assumption 2 There exist positive constants υi such
that kωi k ≤ υi , i = 1, · · · , N , and kBu0 + ω0 k ≤ v0 .
4

where ε > 1. The upper bound of the consensus error ξ
will be given in the proof.

Note that due to the existence of disturbances ωi in
(13), the relative states will not converge to zero any
more but rather can only be expected to converge into
some small neighborhood of the origin. Since the derivatives of the adaptive gains ci in (2) are of nonnegative
quadratic forms in terms of the relative states, in this
case it is easy to see from (2) that ci will keep growing to
infinity, which is called the parameter drift phenomenon
in the classic adaptive control literature [18]. Therefore,
the adaptive protocol (2) is not robust in the presence
of external disturbances.

Proof Consider the Lyapunov function candidate:
V2 =

i=1

i

i = 1, · · · , N,

2

gi (2di + ρi )ρi +

N
λ0 X ˜2
d ,
2 i=1 i

(18)

where d˜i , di − α, where α is a positive constant to
be determined later, and the rest of the variables are
defined as in (6). Since gi > 0, di (t) ≥ 1 for any t > 0,
and ρi ≥ 0, it can be similarly shown as in the proof of
Theorem 1 that V2 is positive definite.

In the following, we aim to make modification on (2)
to propose a distributed robust adaptive protocol which
can guarantee the ultimate boundedness of the consensus error and adaptive weights for the agents in (13).
We propose a new robust distributed adaptive consensus protocol as follows:
ui = (di + ρi )Kξi ,
d˙i = −ϕi (di − 1)2 + ξ T Γξi ,

N
X
1

By following similar steps in deriving Theorem 1, we
can obtain the time derivative of V2 along (15) as
V̇2 ≤ ξ T [(D + ρ)G ⊗ (Q−1 A + AT Q−1 − Γ)]ξ

(14)

+ 2ξ T [(D + ρ)GL1 ⊗ Q−1 ]ω
− ξ T [ϕ(D − I)2 G ⊗ Q−1 ]ξ

where di (t) denotes the time-varying coupling weight
associated with the i-th follower with di (0) ≥ 1, ϕi ,
i = 1, · · · , N , are small positive constants, and the rest
of the variables are defined as in (2).

−

N
X
i=1

(19)

λ0 ϕi (di − α)(di − 1)2 ,

Substituting (14) into (13), it follows that

where α is chosen to be sufficiently large as in the proof
of Theorem 1 and ϕ , diag(ϕ1 , ..., ϕN ).

ξ˙ = [IN ⊗ A + L1 (D + ρ) ⊗ BK] ξ + (L1 ⊗ In )ω
(15)
d˙i = −ϕi (di − 1)2 + ξ T Γξi , i = 1, · · · , N,

By choosing α > 1 and using Lemma 3, we can get
that

i

− (di − α)(di − 1)2
= −(di − 1)3 + (α − 1)(di − 1)2
3 2
4 2
= −(di − 1)3 + [( ) 3 (di − 1)2 ][( ) 3 (α − 1)]
4
3
(20)
16
1
3
3
≤ −(di − 1) + (di − 1) + (α − 1)3
2
27
1
16
3
3
= − (di − 1) + (α − 1) .
2
27

where C , diag(c1 , · · · , cN ), ω , [ω1T − (Bu0 +
T
ω0 )T , · · · , ωN
− (Bu0 + ω0 )T ]T , and the rest of the
variables are defined as in (4).
In light of Assumption 2, we have that
v
uN
uX
kωk ≤ t (vi + v0 )2 .

(16)

i=1

Note that

Note that di (0) ≥ 1 and d˙i ≥ 0 when di = 1 in (15).
Then, it is not difficult to see that di (t) ≥ 1 for any t > 0.

2ξ T [(D + ρ)GL1 ⊗ Q−1 ]ω
p
p
p
p
= 2ξ T [(D − I) ϕG ⊗ Q−1 ]( ϕ−1 GL1 ⊗ Q−1 )ω
p
p
√
1 √
+ 2ξ T ( √ G ⊗ Q−1 )( 2GL1 ⊗ Q−1 )ω
2
p
p
p
1 p
T
+ 2ξ ( √
ρG ⊗ Q−1 )( 2ρGL1 ⊗ Q−1 )ω
2
p
p
≤ ξ T [(D − I)2 ϕG ⊗ Q−1 ]ξ + k( ϕ−1 GL1 ⊗ Q−1 )ωk2
p
√
1
+ ξ T (G ⊗ Q−1 )ξ + 2k( GL1 ⊗ Q−1 )ωk2
2
p
p
1 T
+ ξ (ρG ⊗ Q−1 )ξ + 2k( ρGL1 ⊗ Q−1 )ωk2 ,
2
(21)

The following theorem presents a result on design of
the robust adaptive consensus protocol (14).
Theorem 2 Suppose that Assumptions 1 and 2 hold.
Then, both the consensus error ξ and the coupling
weights di , i = 1, · · · , N , in (15) are uniformly ultimately bounded under the adaptive protocol (14) with
K = −B T Q−1 , Γ = Q−1 BB T Q−1 , and ρi = ξiT Q−1 ξi ,
where Q > 0 is a solution to the LMI:
AQ + QAT + εQ − 2BB T < 0,

(17)

5

where we have used the fact that di > 1 and α > 1
to get the first inequality, and Lemma 3 to get the last
inequality. From (23) and (24), we can obtain that

where we have used Lemma 3 several times to get the
last inequality, and
p
p
2k( ρGL1 ⊗ Q−1 )ωk2
q √
p
1
≤ 2k ρ G ⊗ In k2 k(G 4 L1 ⊗ Q−1 )ωk2
q √
p
1
1
≤ k ρ G ⊗ In k4 + 2k(G 4 L1 ⊗ Q−1 )ωk4
2
p
1
1 T
≤ ξ (ρG ⊗ Q−1 )ξ + 2k(G 4 L1 ⊗ Q−1 )ωk4 ,
2
(22)
where we have used matrix norm properties to get the
first inequality, and Lemma 3 to get the second inequality, and to get the last inequality we have used the fact
that
q √
q
√
k ρ G ⊗ In k4 = max ( ρi gi )4

1
V̇2 ≤ −δV2 + δV2 + W (ξ) − ξ T (G ⊗ Q−1 )ξ
2
N
X
λ0
−
ϕi (di − 1)3 + Π1
2
i=1
1
≤ −δV2 + W̄ (ξ) − ξ T (G ⊗ Q−1 )ξ + Π,
2

where
Π=

W̄ = ξ T [(D + ρ)G ⊗ (Q−1 A + AT Q−1

+ (1 + δ)Q−1 − Q−1 BB T Q−1 )]ξ,

i=1

Substituting (20), (21), and (22) into (19) yields

By choosing δ such that ε ≥ 1 + δ, we can obtain that
W̄ (ξ) ≤ 0. Then, it follows from (25) that

V̇2 ≤ ξ T [(D + ρ)G ⊗ (Q−1 A + AT Q−1 − Γ)]ξ

1
V̇2 ≤ −δV2 − ξ T (G ⊗ Q−1 )ξ + Π.
2

N
X
1
λ0
+ ξ [(ρ + )G ⊗ Q−1 ]ξ −
ϕi (di − 1)3 + Π1
2
2
i=1
T

N
X
λ0
1
ϕi (di − 1)3 + Π1 ,
≤ W (ξ) − ξ T (G ⊗ Q−1 )ξ −
2
2
i=1
(23)
where we have used the fact that D ≥ I,
N
X
16λ0

and

(26)

In light of Lemma 4, we can conclude from (26) that
both the consensus error ξ and the adaptive gains di are
uniformly ultimately bounded. Further, from (26), we
can get that V̇2 ≤ −δV2 if kξk2 ≥ λmin (Q−12Π
) min gi .
i=1,··· ,N

p
p
ϕi (α − 1)3 + k( ϕ−1 GL1 ⊗ Q−1 )ωk2

27
p
p
√
1
+ 2k( GL1 ⊗ Q−1 )ωk2 + 2k(G 4 L1 ⊗ Q−1 )ωk4 .
i=1

N
X
2λ0 δ 3
δλ0
[
+
(α − 1)2 ] + Π1 ,
2
27ϕ
2
i
i=1

and

i=1,··· ,N

N q
X
√
( ρi gi )4 = ξ T (ρG ⊗ Q−1 )ξ.
≤

Π1 =

(25)

Therefore, ξ converges to the set




2Π
D1 = ξ : kξk2 ≤

λmin (Q−1 ) min gi 

(27)

i=1,··· ,N

with a convergence rate faster than e−δt .

W (ξ) , ξ T [(D + ρ)G ⊗ (Q−1 A + AT Q−1 + Q−1 − Γ)]ξ
≤ 0.

Remark 3 As shown in Proposition 1 in [8], there exists a Q > 0 satisfying (17) if and only if (A, B) is controllable. Thus, a sufficient condition for the existence of
(14) satisfying Theorem 2 is that (A, B) is controllable,
which, compared to the existence condition of (2) satisfying Theorem 1, is more stringent. Theorem 2 shows that
the modified adaptive protocol (14) does ensure the ultimate boundedness of both the consensus error ξ and the
adaptive gains di . That is, the adaptive protocol (14) is
robust in the presence of external disturbances. The upper bound of the consensus error ξ as given in (27) depends on the dynamics of each agent, the communication
graph, the upper bounds of the disturbances, and the parameters ϕi . We should choose appropriately small ϕi to
get an acceptable upper bound of ξ.

Note that for any positive δ, we have the following
assertion:
δλ0
δλ0
δλ0
(di − α)2 ≤
(di − 1)2 +
(α − 1)2
2
2
2
2λ0 1
δλ0
3λ0 ϕi 2
= [(
) 3 (di − 1)2 ][( 2 ) 3 δ] +
(di − α)2
4
9ϕi
2
δλ0
2λ0 δ 3
λ0
+
ϕi (di − 1)3 +
(α − 1)2 ,
≤
2
27ϕ2i
2
(24)

6

Remark 4 Compared to the robust adaptive protocol in
[19] which are only applicable to the case with matching
disturbances, the adaptive protocol (14) works for general
external disturbances. This is a favorable consequence of
introducing novel additive functions ρi , rather than multiplicative ones as in [19], into (14). It is worth noting
that the procedures in showing Theorem 2 is quite different from those in [19].

1

0.5

0

xi−x0

−0.5

−1

−1.5

−2

−2.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

t (s)

5

Simulation
Fig. 2. The consensus errors xi − x0 , i = 1, · · · , 6.

Consider a network of second-order integrators, described by (1), with
1.9
1.8

xi1
xi2

#

, A=

"

0

1

0

0

#

, B=

" #
0
1

1.7

.

1.6
1.5
ci

xi =

"

1.4
1.3

The communication graph is given as in Fig. 1, which
clearly satisfies Assumption 1.

1.2
1.1
1

0

20

40

60

80

100

t (s)

1

0

2

Fig. 3. The adaptive coupling weights ci .

3

Further, consider the case where the second-order
integrators are perturbed by external disturbances.
For illustration, the disturbances associated
with
"
#
0.1 sin(2t)
the agents are assumed to be ω0 =
,
0.3 sin(4t)
"
#
"
#
0.2 sin(3.5t)
0.15 cos(4t)
ω1 =
, ω2 =
, ω3 =
0.3 cos(2.5t)
0.2 sin(5t)
"
#
"
#
"
#
0.3 sin(x32 )
0.3e−2t
0.2 sin(4t)
, ω4 =
, ω5 =
,
0.6 sin(3t)
0.15 cos(3t)
0.25 cos(3t)


0.3 sin(5t)
, and the control input of the leader
ω6 = 
0.4

4

5

6

Fig. 1. The leader-follower directed communication graph.

Solving the LMI (5) by using the LMI toolbox
of
" Matlab gives #a feasible solution matrix P =
1.7559 −0.5853
. Then, the feedback gain matrices
−0.5853 0.5853
of (2) are given by

h

i
K = −0.8543 −2.5628 ,

Γ=

"
#
0.7298 2.1893
2.1893 6.5678

x261 +1

is assumed to be u0 = e−0.1t . Solving the LMI (17)
#
"
0.2622 −0.3517
and then
with ε = 2 gives Q =
−0.3517 0.7395
"
#
h
i
25.1412 18.7386
K = −5.0141 −3.7372 , Γ =
. In
18.7386 13.9665
(14), let ϕi = 0.1 and di (0) = 1.5, i = 1, · · · , 6. The
consensus errors xi − x0 , i = 1, · · · , 6, under the robust
adaptive protocol (14) are depicted in Fig.4 and the
coupling weights di are shown in Fig. 5, both of which
are obviously bounded.

.

Let ci (0) = 1, i = 1, · · · , 6. The consensus errors xi −
x0 , i = 1, · · · , 6, of the second-order integrators under
the adaptive protocol (2) are depicted in Fig. 2 and the
adaptive coupling weights ci are shown in Fig. 3.

7

[3] R. Olfati-Saber and R. Murray (2004). Consensus problems
in networks of agents with switching topology and timedelays. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control vol. 49 no.
9 (1520–1533).

6

4

xi−x0

2

[4] T. Li, M. Fu, L. Xie, and J. Zhang (2011). Distributed
consensus with limited communication data rate. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control vol. 56 no. 2 (279–292).

0

−2

[5] Z. Li, Z. Duan, and G. Chen (2011). On H∞ and H2
performance regions of multi-agent systems. Automatica vol.
47 no. 4 (797–803).

−4

−6

0

50

100
t (s)

150

[6] M. Guo and D. V. Dimarogonas (2013). Consensus with
quantized relative state measurements. Automatica vol. 49
no. 8 (2531–2537).

200

Fig. 4. The consensus errors under the robust adaptive protocol (14).

[7] Z. Li, Z. Duan, G. Chen, and L. Huang (2010). Consensus of
multiagent systems and synchronization of complex networks:
A unified viewpoint. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and
Systems I: Regular Papers vol. 57 no. 1 (213–224).
[8] Z. Li, Z. Duan, and G. Chen (2011). Dynamic consensus
of linear multi-agent systems. IET Control Theory and
Applications vol. 5 no. 1 (19–28).

2.6

2.4

[9] S. Tuna (2009). Conditions for synchronizability in arrays
of coupled linear systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control vol. 54 no. 10 (2416–2420).

2.2

di

2

[10] J. Seo, H. Shim, and J. Back (2009). Consensus of high-order
linear systems using dynamic output feedback compensator:
Low gain approach. Automatica vol. 45 no. 11 (2659–2664).

1.8

1.6

1.4

0

50

100
t (s)

150

[11] H. Zhang, F. Lewis, and A. Das (2011). Optimal design
for synchronization of cooperative systems: State feedback,
observer, and output feedback. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control vol. 56 no. 8 (1948–1952).

200

Fig. 5. The coupling weights di in the presence of disturbances.

[12] C. Ma and J. Zhang (2010). Necessary and sufficient
conditions for consensusability of linear multi-sgent systems.
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control vol. 55 no. 5 (1263–
1268).

6

[13] Z. Li, W. Ren, X. Liu, and L. Xie (2013). Distributed
consensus of linear multi-agent systems with adaptive
dynamic protocols. Automatica vol. 49 no. 7 (1986–1995).

Conclusion

In this paper, we have presented novel distributed
adaptive consensus protocols for linear multi-agent systems with external disturbances and directed graphs
containing a directed spanning tree with the leader as
the root. The adaptive consensus protocols, depending
on only the agent dynamics an the relative state information of neighboring agents, can be designed and implemented in a fully distributed way. One contribution
of this paper is that the new distributed adaptive protocol is robust in the presence of general bounded external disturbances. An interesting topic for future investigation is to design fully distributed adaptive protocols
for nonlinear multi-agent systems or the case with local
output information of each agent and its neighbors.

[14] Z. Li, W. Ren, X. Liu, and M. Fu (2013). Consensus
of multi-agent systems with general linear and Lipschitz
nonlinear dynamics using distributed adaptive protocols.
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control vol. 58 no. 7 (1786–
1791).
[15] H. Su, G. Chen, X. Wang, and Z. Lin (2011). Adaptive
second-order consensus of networked mobile agents with
nonlinear dynamics. Automatica vol. 47 no. 2 (368–375).
[16] W. Yu, W. Ren, W. X. Zheng, G. Chen, and J. Lv (2013).
Distributed control gains design for consensus in multi-agent
systems with second-order nonlinear dynamics. Automatica
vol. 49 no. 7 (2107–2115).
[17] Z. Li, G. Wen, Z. Duan, and W. Ren (2014). Designing fully
distributed consensus protocols for linear multi-agent systems
with directed communication graphs. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, contionally accepted.
[18] P. A. Ioannou and J. Sun (1996). Robust Adaptive Control.
New York NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc..

References

[19] Z. Li, Z. Duan (2014). Distributed robust adaptive consensus
protocols for linear multi-agent systems with directed
graphs and external disturbances. The 2014 Chinese Control
Conference, in press.

[1] W. Ren, R. Beard, and E. Atkins (2007). Information
consensus in multivehicle cooperative control. IEEE Control
Systems Magazine vol. 27 no. 2 (71–82).

[20] W. Ren and R. Beard (2005). Consensus seeking in
multiagent systems under dynamically changing interaction
topologies. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control vol. 50
no. 5 (655–661).

[2] Y. Hong, G. Chen, and L. Bushnell (2008). Distributed
observers design for leader-following control of multi-agent
networks. Automatica vol. 44 no. 3 (846–850).

8

[21] Z. Qu (2009). Cooperative Control of Dynamical Systems:
Applications to Autonomous Vehicles. London, UK: SpingerVerlag.
[22] H. Zhang, F. L. Lewis, and Z. Qu (2012). Lyapunov, adaptive,
and optimal design techniques for cooperative systems
on directed communication graphs. IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics vol. 59 no. 7 (3026–3041).
[23] D. S. Bernstein (2009). Matrix Mathematics: Theory, Facts,
and Formulas. Princeton University Press.
[24] M. Corless and G. Leitmann (1981). Continuous state
feedback guaranteeing uniform ultimate boundedness
for uncertain dynamic systems. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control vol. 26 no. 5 (1139–1144).
[25] M. Krstic, I. Kanellakopoulos, and P. Kokotovic (1995).
Nonlinear and Adaptive Control Design. New York: John
Wiley Sons.

9

