arXiv:1605.03648v1 [math.OC] 12 May 2016

Robust Consensus of Linear Multi-Agent Systems under
Input Constraints or Uncertainties ⋆
Dinh Hoa Nguyen, Tatsuo Narikiyo, Michihiro Kawanishi,
Control System Laboratory, Department of Advanced Science and Technology, Toyota Technological Institute, 2-12-1
Hisakata, Tempaku-ku, Nagoya 468-8511, Japan.

Abstract
This paper proposes a new approach to analyze and synthesize robust consensus control laws for general linear leaderless multiagent systems (MASs) subjected to input constraints or uncertainties. First, the MAS under input constraints or uncertainties is
reformulated as a network of Lur’e systems. Next, two scenarios of communication topology are considered, namely undirected
and directed cyclic structures. In each case, a sufficient condition for consensus and the design of consensus controller gain
are derived from solutions of a distributed LMI convex problem. Finally, a numerical example is introduced to illustrate the
effectiveness of the proposed theoretical approach.
Key words: Multi-agent Systems; Consensus; Robustness; Input Constraints; Input Uncertainties; Lur’e Networks;
Distributed LMI.

1

Introduction

Multi-agent systems (MASs) and their cooperative control problems have gained much attention 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. A key feature 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. One of the most important and intensively
investigated issues in MASs (and their applications) is
the consensus problem due to its attraction in both theoretical and applied aspects [12–14].
Since all real control systems are subjected to physical
constraints on their inputs or states, MASs are not exception. Therefore, the MAS consensus under input or
state constraints is a significant and realistic problem.
Likewise, the MAS consensus in presence of input or
state uncertainties is realistic and worth studying. Practical examples include consensus of vehicles with lim⋆ This paper was not presented at any IFAC meeting. Corresponding author: D. H. Nguyen.
Email addresses: hoadn.ac@gmail.com (Dinh Hoa
Nguyen), n-tatsuo@toyota-ti.ac.jp (Tatsuo Narikiyo),
kawa@toyota-ti.ac.jp (Michihiro Kawanishi).

Preprint submitted to Automatica

ited speeds and limited working space, smart buildings
energy control with temperature and humidity are required in specific ranges, just to name a few. However,
most of the early researches on MASs were not aware of
those practical issues, and it has not been until recently
that some studies have considered the cooperative control of MASs in presence of input or state constraints on
each agent [4–6, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18–20].
A constrained consensus problem was investigated in [9]
where the states of agents are required to lie in individual closed convex sets and the final consensus state must
belong to the non-empty intersection of those sets. Accordingly, a projected consensus algorithm was proposed
and then applied to distributed optimization problems.
Following this research line, [5] extended the result in [9]
to the context where communication delays exist. In another work, [4] studied the state increment by utilizing
the model predictive control (MPC) method. In fact,
using the MPC framework we can also incorporate input or state constraints, however the computational cost
could be high. Therefore, distributed and fast MPC algorithms need to be developed to fit into the context of
large-scale MASs. Another direction to deal with input
or state constraints is to employ the so-called discarded
consensus algorithms [6, 18]. Nevertheless, a disadvantage of these approaches as well as in [5, 9] is that the
initial states of agents must belong to some sets specified by the constraints, or in other words the consensus

23 January 2018

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 dePN
in
noted by degi , 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 = D − A. The out-degree of a vertex i is denoted
P
by degout
, N
i
j=1 aji . Then G is said to be balanced if
in
out
degi = degi ∀ i = 1, . . . , N. 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.
G is undirected if and only if aij = aji ∀ i, j = 1, . . . , N .

is only local. Moreover, only agents with single integrator dynamics were considered in [6, 18].
To achieve the global or semi-global consensus in presence of input or state constraints, some consensus laws
were presented in [8, 15], but they were only for leaderfollower MASs. Another way to tackle the input or state
constraints to derive global consensus is to reformulate the constrained MAS as a network of Lur’e systems [16,19,20]. The paper [16] considered linear agents
with bounded-constraint inputs and obtained a sufficient
condition for global consensus, but agents is limited to
be single-input and the network is undirected. Next, [20]
and [19] investigated consensus problems where outputs
of agents are incrementally bounded or passive, with
directed and undirected topologies. Consequently, sufficient conditions for global consensus were derived in the
form of LMI convex problems.
Following the ideas of achieving global consensus by reformulating the considered MAS as a network of Lur’e
systems in [16, 19, 20], this paper proposes a new approach to design robust consensus controllers for general linear homogeneous leaderless MASs in presence of
input constraints or uncertainties. The contributions of
this paper are threefold. First, the proposed approach is
applicable for leaderless MASs with general linear dynamics of agents, and the class of nonlinearities induced
by the input constraints or uncertainties is broader than
those in [16, 19, 20]. Second, the consensus controller
gain is computed from the solution of a distributed lowdimension convex problem with LMI constraints. Third,
the proposed approach can be used for global consensus analysis and synthesis under both scenarios of undirected networks and a special class of directed networks.

2.2

Consider a MAS including of N identical agents with
the following linear dynamics
ẋi = Axi + Bui , i = 1, . . . , N,

2.1

(1)

where xi ∈ Rn is the state vector, ui ∈ Rm is the control
input, A ∈ Rn×n , B ∈ Rn×m . The following assumptions will be employed.
A1: (A, B) is stabilizable.
A2: All eigenvalues of A is on the closed left half complex
plane.
A3: G is balanced and contains a spanning tree.
Assumptions A1-A2 are necessary and sufficient such
that the consensus can be achieved and stable (see e.g.
[7]). And assumption A3 implies that G is connected if
it is undirected.
T
T


Denote x = xT1 , . . . , xTN , u = uT1 , . . . , uTN . The
whole MAS at the initial state is then described by

The following notation and symbols will be used in the
paper. R and C stand for the real and complex sets, and
j denotes the complex unit. Moreover, 1n denotes the
n × 1 vector with all elements equal to 1, and In denotes the n × n identity matrix. Next, ⊗ stands for the
Kronecker product, diag{} denotes diagonal or blockdiagonal matrices, and sym(A) denotes A + AT for any
real matrix A. Lastly, ≻ and  denote the positive definiteness and positive semi-definiteness of a matrix, and
similar meanings are used for ≺ and .
2

Problem Description

ẋ = Ax + Bu.

(2)

It has recently been proved in our previous research [10]
that without any further requirement on the control input or agents’ states, the MAS (2) can reach consensus
in the sense of (5) by a control law in the following form,

Problem Setting

u = (L ⊗ K)x,

Graph Theory

(3)

with a properly synthesized K. Nevertheless, in real applications the inputs of agents are usually bounded in
some certain ranges due to physical limitations of agents,
and may contain some uncertainties because of uncertain communication links. As a result, the control law (3)
can no longer guarantee the consensus of agents. Therefore, to take into account the aforementioned practical
issues, we will consider in this research the following control scenario:

Denote (G, V, E) the graph representing the information
structure in an MAS 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

2

• Input constraint/uncertainty: For all i ∈ [1, N ],
ui,k = fi,k (zi,k ) ∀ k = 1, . . . , m where zi,k ∈ R is the
aggregated signal that the kth input of agent i received; fi,k : R → R is a continuous function that
satisfies the following sector-bounded condition:

Theorem 1 The robust consensus is achieved for the
MAS (2) with an undirected communication graph by
the control law (6) if there exist matrices X ∈ Rn×n ,
Y ∈ Rm×n and Z ∈ Rm×m such that the following LMI
problem is feasible with a given ǫ > 0,

(fi,k (zi,k ) − δk,1 zi,k )(fi,k (zi,k ) − δk,2 zi,k ) ≤ 0,
(4)
∀ k = 1, . . . , m; ∀ i = 1, . . . , N,

#
sym(AX + λ2 B∆2 Y ) + ǫX BZ + 21 λ2 Y T (∆1 − ∆2 )
 0,
T
−Z
BZ + 21 λ2 Y T (∆1 − ∆2 )
#
"
sym(AX + λN B∆2 Y ) + ǫX BZ + 12 λN Y T (∆1 − ∆2 )
 0,
T
−Z
BZ + 12 λN Y T (∆1 − ∆2 )
"

where δk,1 , δk,2 ∈ R are known constants, δk,1 < δk,2 .
Consequently, in presence of input constraints or uncertainties described above, each agent try to collaborate
with others to achieve a consensus defined as follows.

X ≻ 0,
Z ≻ 0, Z is diagonal,

(8)
where ∆1 = diag{δk,1 }k=1,...,m , ∆2 = diag{δk,2 }k=1,...,m ,
λ2 ≤ λ3 ≤ · · · ≤ λN are non-zero eigenvalues of L.
Furthermore, the controller gain K is calculated by

Definition 1 The MAS with linear dynamics of agents
represented by (1) and the information exchange among
agents represented by G is said to reach a consensus if
lim kxi (t) − xj (t)k = 0 ∀ i, j = 1, . . . , N.

t→∞

K = Y X −1 .

(5)

(9)

PROOF. Consider a Lyapunov function V (x) = xT Px
where P , P1 ⊗ P2 , P1 ∈ RN , P1  0, P2 ∈ Rn , P2 ≻ 0.
Taking the derivative of V (x) gives us

Next, we introduce the control design problem investigated in this paper.
• Design problem (Robust consensus under input
constraints or uncertainties): For the given linear
MASs with dynamics of agents represented by (1) and
the information exchange among agents represented
by G, find a control strategy to achieve consensus of
agents in the sense of (5) under the input constraints or
uncertainties (4), for any initial conditions of agents.

Hence, for all ǫ > 0 we have

3

We now seek P such that V̇ (x) + ǫV (x) ≤ 0 as long
as (4) holds. Using the S-procedure [1], such P exists if
there exist γ1,1 , . . . , γ1,m , . . . , γN,1 , . . . , γN,m which are
non-negative such that


V̇ (x) = xT PA + AT P x + 2xT PBu.


V̇ (x) + ǫV (x) = xT PA + AT P + ǫP x + 2xT PBu.

Robust Consensus Analysis and Design under
Input Constraints or Uncertainties

Under the input constraints or uncertainties (4), we propose to use the following consensus control law
u = f ((L ⊗ K)x) ,

V̇ (x) + ǫV (x) −

N X
m
X

γi,k (ui,k − δk,1 zi,k )(ui,k − δk,2 zi,k )

i=1 k=1

(6)

≤ 0,

T
T
where f (y) , [f1T (y1 ), . . . , fN
(yN )]T , fi (yi ) , [fi,1
(yi,1 ),
T T
T
T
T
. . . , fi,N (yi,N )] , ∀ y = [y1 , . . . , yN ] . Then the MAS
(2) with this control strategy can be rewritten in the
following form
ẋ = Ax + Bu,
z = (L ⊗ K)x,
(7)
u = f (z),
which can be seen as a network of Lur’e systems. Note
that this Lur’e network is different from that in [19, 20]
and the nonlinearity is more general.

(10)

Let γi,k = γk > 0 ∀ i = 1, . . . , N and Γ = diag{γk }k=1,...,m ,
then (10) is satisfied if
V̇ (x) + ǫV (x) −

N
X

(ui − ∆1 zi )T Γ(ui − ∆2 zi ) ≤ 0,

i=1

⇔

#" #
" #T "
x
P1 P2 x
u

PT2 P3

u

0⇔

"

P1 P2
PT2 P3

#

 0,

(11)

where P1 = PA + AT P + ǫP − (LT L) ⊗ (KT Γ∆1 ∆2 K),
P2 = PB + 21 LT ⊗ (KT Γ(∆1 + ∆2 )), P3 = −IN ⊗ Γ.

The following theorem presents a sufficient condition for
robust consensus under input constraints or uncertainties and how to design the consensus controller gain K.

Subsequently, employing Schur complement [1] to (11)

3



˜ i Y ) + ǫX BZ + Y T ∆
ˆi
sym(AX + 21 B ∆
−Yi
0




ˆ iY
Z T BT + ∆
−Z
0
0


  0, ∀ i = 2, . . . , N.

1
T ˆ 

˜
Yi
0
sym(AX + 2 B ∆i Y ) + ǫX BZ + Y ∆i 

ˆ iY
0
0
Z T BT + ∆
−Z

where Z , Γ−1 . Then using Schur complement again
with (17) and noting that λi , i = 3, . . . , N − 1 can be
represented as convex combinations of λ2 and λN since
λ2 ≤ λ3 , . . . , λN −1 ≤ λN , we obtain (8). Next, we have
seen that (16) implies (10) and hence

T
results in P1 − P2 P−1
3 P2  0, which is equivalent to

P1 ⊗ (AT P2 + P2 A + ǫP2 ) + P12 ⊗ (P2 BΓ−1 B T P2 )
1
+ sym( (P1 L) ⊗ [P2 B(∆1 + ∆2 )K])
2
1
+ (LT L) ⊗ [KT Γ(∆1 − ∆2 )2 K]  0.
(13)
4

V̇ (x) + ǫV (x)
≤

Let us choose P1 = IN − N1 1N 1TN then we can easily show
that P12 = P1 , LT P1 = LT , and P1 L = L for balanced
graphs. Therefore, (13) is equivalent to

(18)
Therefore, from Lasalle’s invariance principle we
can conclude that ξ globally exponentially converges
to the largest
n
o invariance set contained in
x ∈ RnN V̇ (x) = 0 for any initial condition. Fur-

thermore, it can be seen from (18) that V̇ (x) = 0 if and
only if V (x) = 0 which is equivalent to x = 1N ⊗ x̄,
x̄ ∈ Rn , i.e., the consensus is achieved.

Remark 2 When the inputs of agents are subjected to
boundedness, fi becomes the vector-valued saturation
functions and hence δk,1 = 0, δk,2 = 1 ∀ k = 1, . . . , m.
This particular case was investigated in [11] by a different control design. The method presented in this paper
is more general and is applicable for more contexts than
the one in [11].

T

P1 ⊗ (XA + AX + ǫX + BΓ B )
1
+ (LT L) ⊗ [Y T Γ(∆1 − ∆2 )2 Y ]
4
1
+ sym( L ⊗ [B(∆1 + ∆2 )Y ])  0,
2

γi,k (ui,k − δk,1 zi,k )(ui,k − δk,2 zi,k ) ≤ 0,

⇒ V̇ (x) ≤ −ǫV (x) ≤ 0.

Next, denote X , P2−1 and multiply IN ⊗ X both to the
left and to the right of (14), we obtain
−1

m
N X
X

i=1 k=1

P1 ⊗ (AT P2 + P2 A + ǫP2 + P2 BΓ−1 B T P2 )
1
+ (LT L) ⊗ [KT Γ(∆1 − ∆2 )2 K]
4
1
+ sym( L ⊗ [P2 B(∆1 + ∆2 )K])  0.
(14)
2

T

(12)

(15)

where Y , KX. For undirected graph G, L = LT , so let
us denote U ∈ RN ×N the orthogonal matrix that diagonalizes L. Accordingly, applying a congruence transformation with U ⊗ In to (15) gives us

Remark 3 Recently, there are several existing researches, e.g. [2], [17], which propose different distributed
methods to approximate the whole eigen-spectrum of the
Laplacian matrix. These methods can be employed to
estimate λ2 and λN before solving the LMI problem (8).
As a result, we can solve (8) in a distributed fashion.

1
XAT + AX + ǫX + BΓ−1 B T + λ2i Y T Γ(∆1 − ∆2 )2 Y
4
1
+ sym( λi B(∆1 + ∆2 )Y )  0,
(16)
2

Remark 4 The results in [16] can be considered as a
special case of our result in Theorem 1 with single-input
agents, input saturation, and Z = Im . Our result are
for all i = 2, . . . , N , since U T P1 U = diag{0, 1, . . . , 1},
much more general with the following properties: (i) its
U T LU = diag{0, λ2 , . . . , λN }, and U T L2 U = diag{0, λ22 ,
robustness to any constraint or uncertainty specified by
2
. . . , λN }. By some simple mathematical manipulations,
(4); (ii) its applicability for leaderless MASs with general
we can rewrite (16) as follows,
linear dynamics of agents; (iii) an additional variable Z
is introduced in the LMI problem (8), which makes the
XAT + AX + ǫX + λi (Y T ∆2 B T + B∆2 Y )
LMIs less restrictive (cf. identity matrix in LMI problems
1
1
(8) and (12) in [16]); (iv) the term ǫX in the upperT
−1
T
+ (BZ + λi Y (∆1 − ∆2 ))Z (ZB + λi (∆1 − ∆2 )Y ) left blocks of the matrices in the LMI problem (8) makes
2
2
the consensus speed faster since V̇ (x) is exponentially
 0,
(17)

4

Denote Xi , XAT +AX+ǫX+BΓ−1B T + 21 λi,r sym(B(∆1 +
∆2 )Y ) + 14 (λ2i,r + λ2i,ℓ )Y T Γ(∆1 − ∆2 )2 Y . Subsequently,
#
"
Xi −Yi
 0. On the other hand,
(20) is equivalent to
Yi Xi
using Schur complement for Xi , we obtain

converged instead of being asymptotically converged as
in [16].
Next, we present a design for directed networks in the
following theorem.
Theorem 5 The robust consensus is achieved for the
MAS (2) with a directed cyclic unweighted communication graph by the control law (6) if there exist matrices
X ∈ Rn×n , Y ∈ Rm×n and Z ∈ Rm×m such that the
LMI problem (12) is feasible with a given ǫ > 0, where
for all i = 2, . . . , N ,
1
2π(i − 1)
Yi , − sin
sym(B(∆1 + ∆2 )Y ),
2
N
s 

ˆ i , 2 1 − cos 2π(i − 1) (∆1 − ∆2 ),
∆
N


2π(i − 1)
˜
ˆ i.
∆i , 1 − cos
(∆1 + ∆2 ) − ∆
N

Xi  0
"
#
˜ ) + ǫX BZ + Y T ∆
ˆi
sym(AX + 12 B ∆Y
⇔
 0,
ˆ iY
Z T BT + ∆
−Z
(21)
where Z , Γ−1 . As a result, we obtain (12).

(19)

4

Consider a building temperature control problem where
the target is to make the temperatures of different rooms
be identical by allowing the exchange of their temperatures through a communication network. For simplicity,
the dynamics of each room can be described by a firsta
order transfer function T s+1
, a > 0, T > 0, where the
delays of the heating or cooling processes are ignored.
Consequently, each room is equipped with an integrator controller for the consensusability, i.e., the model of
a
.
each agent is s(T s+1)

Accordingly, the controller gain K is calculated by (9).
PROOF. Here, we employ the same Lyapunov function
as in the proof of Theorem 1, so all the steps until Eq.
(15) are also applied for this scenario. Afterward, we note
that L is a circulant matrix since G is an unweighted
directed cyclic graph. Therefore, the sets of eigenvectors
of LT L, L, and LT are the same. Denote V ∈ RN ×N
the unitary matrix whose columns are eigenvectors of
L and Λ , diag{0, λ2 , . . . , λN }. Consequently, we have
L = V ΛV ∗ , LT = V Λ∗ V ∗ , LT L = V Λ∗ ΛV ∗ , and P1 =
V diag{0, 1, . . . , 1}V ∗ .

4.1

In the first scenario, the communication structure among
rooms is undirected and all-to-all, and hence the eigenvalues of Laplacian matrix L are {0, 3, 3}. Using ǫ = 0.1
and solving the LMI problem (8) using CVX [3], we obtain
K = [−0.1579, −1.0934]. Then the simulation results are
shown in Figure 1, which reveal that the temperatures
of all rooms reach a consensus while the control inputs
satisfy the given constraints.

1
XAT + AX + ǫX + (λi,r + jλi,ℓ )B(∆1 + ∆2 )Y
2
1
−1 T
+ BΓ B + (λi,r − jλi,ℓ )Y T (∆1 + ∆2 )B T
2
1 2
2
+ (λi,r + λi,ℓ )Y T Γ(∆1 − ∆2 )2 Y  0.
(20)
4
and λi,ℓ =
Furthermore, we have λi,r = 1 − cos 2π(i−1)
N
− sin 2π(i−1)
since
L
is
a
circulant
matrix
with
the folN
lowing form
1 −1 0 · · · 0 0


0

 .
L=
 ..

0

−1

0
0

Consequently, we verify the agents’ responses with a different undirected structure described by 2 ↔ 1 ↔ 3,
and the eigenvalues of the associated Laplacian matrix
are {0, 1, 3}. Resolving the LMI problem (8) using CVX
[3] gives us K = [−0.0350, −0.5946]. Accordingly, the
agents also reach consensus as seen in Figure 2. However, the consensus value and the responses of agents
are distinct with the above case of all-to-all undirected
communication topology.







.


0 · · · 1 −1

0 ··· 0 1

1 −1 · · ·
.. . .
.
.

0
..
.

0
..
.

Consensus under Input Constraints

Then we illustrate the input-constrained consensus design in Theorem 1 and Theorem 5 with a simulation of
which a = 10, T = 50, N = 3, and agents’ inputs are
bounded in [−0.2, 0.1].

Let λi,r and λi,ℓ be the real and imaginary parts of
λi , i = 2, . . . , N , respectively. Then applying a congruence transformation with V ∗ ⊗ In to (15) gives us



Numerical Example

Next, we consider the scenario where the interconnections among agents is described by a directed cyclic

5

1st room
2nd room
3rd room

27
26

Temperature [ oC ]

Temperature [ oC ]

28

25
24
23
22

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

27

1st room
2nd room
3rd room

26
25
24
23

500

0

50

100

150

200

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0
−0.1
1st room
2nd room
3rd room

−0.2
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

400

450

500

1st room
2nd room
3rd room

−0.2
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Time [s]

27

Fig. 3. Consensus of temperatures under input constraint
with directed cyclic communication structure.

agents’ inputs in the interval [0.7, 1.2]. Results for an example with K1 = 1.1797, K2 = 1.0279, K3 = 0.7179 are
shown in Figure 4.

1st room
2nd room
3rd room

26
25
24
23
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Temperature [ oC ]

Temperature [ oC ]

350

0

500

Fig. 1. Consensus of temperatures under input constraint
with all-to-all undirected communication structure.

Time [s]
0.2

Control inputs

300

−0.1

Time [s]

0.1
0
−0.1

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

27

1st room
2nd room
3rd room

26
25
24
23
0

1st room
2nd room
3rd room

−0.2

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Time [s]
0.02

500

Control inputs

Time [s]

Fig. 2. Consensus of temperatures under input constraint
with an undirected communication structure.

0
−0.02
1st room
2nd room
3rd room

−0.04
−0.06

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Time [s]

graph. In this case, we obtain K = [−0.0953, −1.1379]
by solving the LMI problem (12) using CVX [3]. Then
the simulation results are displayed in Figure 3. We can
observe that the temperature of all rooms reach consensus despite the presence of the bounded input constraint
and the directed communication topology. Furthermore,
the consensus value, consensus speed, and the transient
responses of rooms’ temperatures are different from the
previous cases of undirected communication structure.
4.2

250

Time [s]

Control inputs

Control inputs

Time [s]

Fig. 4. Consensus of temperatures under uncertain input
with an undirected communication structure.

Next, we investigate another context where the agents
are interconnected through a directed cyclic graph. In
this situation, solving the LMI problem (12) using CVX [3]
gives us K = [−0.0444, −0.5154]. Then we also see that
the consensus of agents is obtained for any uncertainty
of each agent’s input in [0.7, 1.2]. The simulation results
with the same uncertain parameters K1 , K2 , K3 as above
are displayed in Figure 5 for comparison.

Consensus under Input Uncertainties

In this section, we assume that the control inputs of
agents contain some uncertainties which may be due to
the uncertain communication links. More specifically,
δk,1 and δk,2 are assumed to be 0.7 and 1.2, respectively.
This means the inputs of agents are multiplied with uncertain parameters K1 , K2 , K3 ∈ [0.7, 1.2]. Then we utilize the same undirected structure described by 2 ↔ 1 ↔
3 as in the previous section and solve the LMI problem (8) using CVX [3] to obtain K = [−0.0059, −0.0760].
Subsequently, we randomly generate the uncertainties
on the inputs of agents and simulate the whole MAS to
see the agents’ responses. We observe that the consensus among agents is achieved for all uncertainties of the

Overall, we can conclude that the consensus of agents
under input constraints or uncertainties depends on the
interconnection structure among agents. This is obvious
since the communication topology affects to the eigenspectrum of the Laplacian matrix L which directly influences the solutions of the LMI problems (8) and (12)
and hence the consensus controller gain K. It is apparently different from the circumstance of consensus without any constraints or uncertainties since the consensus
value is the average of initial conditions of agents interconnected by a connected undirected graph regardless
of its structure.

6

Temperature [ oC ]

[4] J. Lee, J-S Kim, H. Song, and H. Shim. A constrained
consensus problem using mpc. International Journal of
Control, Automation, and Systems, 9(5):952–957, 2011.

1st room
2nd room
3rd room

27
26
25

[5] P. Lin and W. Ren. Constrained consensus in unbalanced
networks with communication delays. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, 59(3):775–781, 2014.

24
23
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

[6] Z-X. Liu and Z-Q. Chen. Discarded consensus of network
of agents with state constraint. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, 57(11):2869–2872, 2012.

Time [s]

Control inputs

0.1
0.05

[7] C-Q. Ma and J-F. Zhang. Necessary and sufficient conditions
for consensusability of linear multi-agent systems. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 55(5):1263–1268, 2010.

0
−0.05
1st room
2nd room
3rd room

−0.1
−0.15
−0.2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

[8] Z. Meng, Z. Zhao, and Z. Lin. On global consensus of linear
multi-agent systems subject to input saturation. In Proc. of
2012 American Control Conference, pages 4516–4521, 2012.

500

Time [s]

Fig. 5. Consensus of temperatures under uncertain input
with directed cyclic communication structure.

5

[9] A. Nedic, A. Ozdaglar, and P. A. Parrilo. Constrained
consensus and optimization in multi-agent networks. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 55(4):922–938, 2010.

CONCLUSION

[10] D. H. Nguyen.
Reduced-order distributed consensus
controller design via edge dynamics. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, 2016. DOI: 10.1109/TAC.2016.2554279.

A new approach has been proposed in this paper to analyze and synthesize robust consensus controllers for linear leaderless MASs subjected to input constraints or
uncertainties. The remarkable features of this approach
are as follows. First, it is available for leaderless MASs
with general linear dynamics of agents unlike the existing results for special cases of single integrator or singleinput agents. Second, the robust consensus design under sector-bounded input constraints or uncertainties is
derived in the form of a distributed low-dimension LMI
problem which can be efficiently solved by off-the-shelf
optimization software. Third, the proposed approach
can deal with for both undirected and a special class of
directed networks.

[11] D. H. Nguyen, T. Narikiyo, and M. Kawanishi. Multi-agent
system consensus under input and state constraints. In Proc.
of 2016 European Control Conference, 2016.
[12] R. Olfati-Saber, J. A. Fax, and R. M. Murray. Consensus and
cooperation in networked multi-agent systems. Proceeding of
the IEEE, 95(1):215–233, 2007.
[13] R. Olfati-Saber and R. M. Murray. Consensus problems in
networks of agents with switching topology and time-delays.
IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control, 49(9):1520–1533,
2004.
[14] W. Ren, R. W. Beard, and E. M. Atkins. Information
consensus in multivehicle cooperative control. IEEE Control
Systems Magazine, 27(2):71–82, 2007.
[15] H. Su, M. Z. Q. Chen, J. Lam, and Z. Lin. Semi-global
leader-following consensus of linear multi-agent systems with
input saturation via low gain feedback. IEEE Transactions
on Circuits and Systems-I, 60(7):1881–1889, 2013.

The next researches would study more general classes of
directed networks and take into account other practical
issues such as time delays, disturbances, etc., together
with the considered constraints and uncertainties.

[16] K. Takaba. Synchronization of linear multi-agent systems
under input saturation. In Proc. of 21st International
Symposium on Mathematical Theory of Networks and
Systems, pages 1076–1079, 2014.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

[17] T-M-D Tran and A. Y. Kibangou. Distributed estimation of
laplacian eigenvalues via constrained consensus optimization
problems. Systems and Control Letters, 80:56–62, 2015.

This research is partially supported by Hitech Research
Center, projects for private universities, supplied from
the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and
Technology, Japan.

[18] M. Wang and K. Uchida. Consensus problem in multi-agent
systems with communication channel constraint on signal
amplitude. SICE Journal of Control, Measurement, and
System Integration, 6(1):007–013, 2013.
[19] F. Zhang, H. L. Trentelman, and J. M. A. Scherpen.
Fully distributed robust synchronization of networked Lur’e
systems with incremental nonlinearities.
Automatica,
50(10):2515–2526, 2014.

References
[1] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe.
Cambridge University Press, 2004.

[20] F. Zhang, W. Xia, H. L. Trentelman, K. H. Johansson, and
J. M. A. Scherpen. Robust synchronization of directed Lure
networks with incremental nonlinearities. In Proc. of 2014
IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control, pages
276–281, 2014.

Convex optimization.

[2] M. Franceschelli, A. Gasparri, A. Giua, and C. Seatzu.
Decentralized estimation of laplacian eigenvalues in multiagent systems. Automatica, 49:1031–1036, 2013.
[3] M. Grant, S. Boyd, and Y. Ye. cvx: Matlab software for
disciplined convex programming. Stanford University, 2015.
[Online] Available at http://www.cvxr.com/cvx/.

7

