IEEE Paper, 18 Apr 05: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
Takeaways for our paper: | Takeaways for our paper: | ||
* Eventual connectivity is sufficient for consensus in presence of switching and time delays | * Eventual connectivity is sufficient for consensus in presence of switching and time delays | ||
* Different approach from Moreau | |||
<td> | <td> | ||
Related papers: | Related papers: |
Revision as of 16:22, 18 April 2005
Present: Fax, Murray, Olfati-Saber
Agenda
- Discuss papers we came up with last time
- Add new papers to the list that we think we should read
- Include papers from ACC 2005
- Discuss common themes
- Set agenda for next meeting
Discussion of papers
ViscekThis is the paper that Ali cites and so everyone cites it. In the physics community, this is cited correctly. In controls, this paper is often credited with things that aren't really in the paper. Deals with alignment in flocking behavior. Position of agenda matters (who are your neighbors). Uses a completely nonlinear protocol as his alignment rule. Agents move with velocity v in the plane. Looks at effects of change in density and change in noise. Some further work on crowd control (published in Nature) using similar tools (purely computational). |
Takeaways for our paper
|
Related papers
|
TabuadaCurrently at Notre Dame. Alex cited this in this thesis. Was done in the context of nonholonomic vehicle. What graphs would you set up to enable meaningful controls. Started with acyclic graphs. Paper was never accepted into a journal. |
Takeaways for our paper
|
Related papers
|
FaxWould be nice to see more work in the area of performance and observer structure. Various follow-on results have not yet been followed up. Getting information from different sources (potentially at different times). Action (Alex): look at papers that cite this one (google scholar) and make sure we understand what further results have been achieved. |
Takeaways for our work
|
Related papers
|
Olfati-SaberWe can use this paper for the basic definitions that we want to include. This paper also highlights the role of balanced graphs (and more generally the difference between directed and undirected). For balanced graphs, we can solve average consensus for any linear function. |
Takeaways for our work
|
Related papers
|
JadbabaieOne of the early papers to look at switching and the stability properties in this case. We might be able to say this in a bit more consistent terminology with current work. First order linear process (so it doesn't quite apply to Viscek's model). Relies on undirected tools, makes use of tools from matrix theory. |
Takeaways for our paper:
|
Related papers:
|
MoreauExtends the results of Jadbabie:
Basic point is to define a disagreement metric in a Laplacian-like framework, you can show that disagreement metric contracts. Then look for conditions underwhich is reaches zero. Doesn't care about directed versus undirected. Shows that almost everything converges; we should point out that speed of convergence is not discussed. |
Takeaways for our paper:
|
Related papers
|
|
Takeaways for our paper: |
Related papers: |
|
Takeaways for our paper: |
Related papers: |
|
Takeaways for our paper: |
Related papers: |
|
Takeaways for our paper: |
Related papers: |
|
Takeaways for our paper: |
Related papers: |
|
Takeaways for our paper: |
Related papers: |
New papers to consider
Common themes
"Protocols" for concensus and cooperation
- Distributed setting (doesn't require complete connectivity)
Laplacians and Graph Theory
- Introduce Laplacian by average consensus example
- Role of lamba_2 in performance
Continuous versus Discrete
- Are they solving the same problem?
Role of Consensus in Distributed Estimation
- Tie to distributed Kalman Filtering
- Might also talk about role of observers/predictors here
Open Problems
- Performance
Agenda for next meeting
Original plan:
- List tools
- Open problems
- Outline paper
Revised plan: