This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.
Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CYBERNETICS
Some Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for
Synchronization of Second-Order
Interconnected Networks
Yuting Feng , Zhisheng Duan , Yuezu Lv , and Wei Ren , Fellow, IEEE
Abstract—This paper presents some necessary and sufficient
conditions for the synchronization of second-order interconnected
networks, where fixed inner-linked connections with information
communication exist. First, a novel derivation of the condi-
tions for a second-order polynomial with complex coefficients
to be Hurwitz is provided. Based on this, a sufficient and
necessary condition is proposed for the synchronization of the
coupled complex network. Next, the design method of the syn-
chronization protocol is constructively given, where the upper
and lower bounds of the control gains are obtained through
the properties of the polynomial. In addition, we consider some
special cases where the second-order model is a double inte-
grator, or general multiagent model without fixed interactions.
Finally, the simulation result is given to verify the theoretical
analysis.
Index Terms—Algebraic graph theory, distributed control,
interconnected networks, second-order synchronization.
I. I NTRODUCTION
HE COMPLEX network is widespread in both nature
T and human activities. Due to its theoretical impor-
tance and extensive applications in society, great efforts
have been devoted to study the collective behaviors of com-
plex systems [1], [2]. Among these, consensus and syn-
chronization are two fundamental problems. Many different
approaches for the consensus of multiagent system have been
proposed [8]–[11]. At the same time, a number of stud-
ies on synchronization of complex networks have attracted
more and more attention [3]–[7]. For complex networks with
inner-linked connections, extra control can be implemented to
achieve certain complicated goals [12]–[17]. Examples of cou-
pled network are common in the real world. The brain network
Manuscript received December 28, 2017; revised April 2, 2018 and June
23, 2018; accepted August 2, 2018. This work was supported in part by
the National Key Research and Development Program of China under Grant
2017YFB1301001, and in part by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China under Grant U1713223, Grant 11332001, Grant 61673026, and
Grant 61528301. This paper was recommended by Associate Editor Q. Liu.
(Corresponding author: Zhisheng Duan.)
Y. Feng, Z. Duan, and Y. Lv are with the State Key Laboratory for
Turbulence and Complex Systems, Department of Mechanics and Engineering
Science, College of Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
(e-mail: fengyuting@pku.edu.cn; duanzs@pku.edu.cn; yzlv@pku.edu.cn).
W. Ren is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of California at Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521 USA (e-mail:
ren@ece.ucr.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TCYB.2018.2864625
2168-2267 c 2018 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
and transportation network are typical complex networks,
where the inner connections and the control imposed can affect
the whole function of the coupled network.
To achieve consensus or synchronization of the complex
network, a series of works has been investigated in the past
few decades. Olfati-Saber and Murray [8] first solved the con-
sensus problem for first-order integrator dynamics based on
the algebraic graph theory. Ren and Beard [9] then extended
the results in [8] and presented the directed spanning tree
condition for the directed network. In recent years, litera-
ture related to consensus works on second-order dynamics
systems has been widely studied [18]–[23], [25]–[27]. In [18],
the network is modeled as simple double integrators, where
sufficient conditions are obtained to ensure consensus. Yu
et al. [20] showed that both real and imaginary parts of the
eigenvalues of the Laplacian matrix were crucial for achiev-
ing consensus. Reference [22] introduced the concept of the
consentability for discrete multiagent systems with double
integrators. The flocking problem with nonequal velocity and
position couplings of double integrators has been consid-
ered in [23] and [24], and the designated convergence rate
was guaranteed. References [25] and [26] solved the second-
order consensus problem with heterogeneous unknown inertias
and control gains by using the Lyapunov function method.
Huang et al. [27] established a novel protocol for the con-
sensus of the second-order multiagents systems with sampled
position data.
Recently, some works about the synchronization of general
second-order network have been popularly investigated, since
the analysis of double integrators cannot meet the require-
ment of social applications. Synchronization of oscillators is
an example where more general dynamics must be taken into
consideration. Zhu et al. [28] have solved the problem of
the general double-integrator synchronization problem with a
stable open-loop pole. Fruhnert and Corless [29] obtained a
sufficient condition on the synchronization of the second-order
system, and the robustness over a variety of communication
topologies has been considered. Hou et al. [30] studied the
conditions for general second-order systems with communi-
cation delay. However, to the authors’ best knowledge, there
has been no consideration for the synchronization problem of
second-order dynamics with inner connections between agents.
Considering that the unified model for both multiagent
systems and complex networks has broad applications in the
real world, there are many systems that can be treated as a
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CYBERNETICS

coupled network. Take the multirobot system, for example, [aij ] ∈ RN×N of a directed graph is defined by aii = 0 for
where a series of simple robots can accomplish complicated i = 1, 2, . . . , N and aij = 1 if (j, i) ∈ E. Its graph Laplacian

tasks with better robustness compared to the case of using a matrix L = [lij ] ∈ RN×N is defined such that lii = N j=1 aij
center robot only. Furthermore, multiple inner-linked simple and lij = −aij , i = j.
robots are cheaper than a single expensive powerful robot. In Throughout this paper, let IN be the N × N identity matri-
addition, multirobot systems are more fault-tolerant and more ces, and 1N ∈ RN and 0N ∈ RN denote the all-one column
flexible when there are some disturbances or attacks. vector and all-zero column vector, respectively. Re(c) and
Motivated by the above observations, this paper aims Im(c) are the real and imaginary parts of a complex number
to solve the synchronization problem of second-order c, respectively. |c| denotes its modulus.
interconnected networks. The main contributions of this paper Lemma 1 [9]: The Laplacian matrix has at least one zero
are listed as follows. eigenvalue and all other nonzero eigenvalues have positive
1) A novel unified framework for a coupled general second- real parts. Furthermore, zero is a simple eigenvalue of the
order network is established. We obtain a necessary Laplacian matrix if and only if the corresponding graph G has
and sufficient condition for the synchronization of the a directed spanning tree.
interconnected second-order dynamics. With the help of
geometric decomposition and polynomial properties, the B. Problem Formulation
synchronization problem can be transformed into the In this paper, we consider the following general second-
asymptotical stability problem. The reach of synchro- order model:
nization depends on both the real and imaginary part
of the eigenvalues of both inherent connections and the ẋi = vi
communication topology. This proposed model is more 
N
  
N
 
v̇i = a aij xj − xi + b aij vj − vi + ui (1)
meaningful in an engineering networked system since it
j=1 j=1
focuses on general second-order dynamics rather than
double integrators. where xi (t) ∈ the position state, vi (t) ∈ Rn is the veloc-
Rn is
2) A very important problem in the study of the second- ity state of the ith agent, and i = 1, 2, . . . , N. For inner-linked
order synchronization protocols is the characterization of topology G1 , aij is the (i, j)th entry of the corresponding adja-
all possible consensus gains. In this paper, all possible cency matrix A. Constants a, b, ∈ R are the coupling strengths
gains are described by two inequalities, and the spe- of the inherent connections, and ui is the control input. For
cific lower and upper bounds of the gains are obtained. notational simplicity, n = 1 is considered throughout this
Therefore, the proposed conditions can provide guidance paper, but all of the results obtained can be easily generalized
for how to choose the coupling gains. It is interesting to to the case n > 1 using the Kronecker product.
see that even two topologies do not have spanning trees, Definition 1: Second-order synchronization in the
and the synchronization can be still achieved sometimes. multiagent system (1) is said to be achieved if, for any
3) A more detailed analysis on the synchronization condi- initial condition
   
tion for the important special cases is discussed. Some lim xi (t) − xj (t) = 0, lim vi (t) − vj (t) = 0
important results in [20], [23], and [28]–[30] can be t→∞ t→∞

seen as special cases of this paper. In addition, when ∀i, j = 1, . . . , N.

the communication topology is undirected or has special The distributed control law used in this paper is proposed as
forms like all-to-all or star-shaped topology, the inequal- 
N 
N
   
ities can be simplified accordingly. Furthermore, it can ui = k1 a ij xj − xi + k2 a ij vj − vi (2)
be seen whether the “positive” or “negative” roles of j=1 j=1
the inherent couplings on the control gains are revealed where k1 > 0 and k2 > 0 are gain coefficients to be designed.
under these cases. For communication topology G2 , a ij is the (i, j)th entry of the
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Some pre- corresponding adjacency matrix A . There are two different
liminaries and the model formulation are given in Section II. types of topologies in the proposed model. For the coupled
Section III presents the main results, in which some necessary complex network, topology G1 is given in advance, which
and sufficient conditions for the synchronization of the coupled represents the inner relationship between agents. Topology
second-order network are proved. The numerical examples are G2 denotes information exchange among the controllers. With
given for illustration in Section IV. Section V concludes this control involved, the synchronization problem and other com-
paper. plicated tasks like tracking or obstacle avoidance can be
achieved.
II. P RELIMINARIES AND P ROBLEM S TATEMENT Then, the closed-loop system (1) and (2) can be equivalently
A. Graph Theory rewritten as follows:
Consider a directed graph G, where V = 1, 2, . . . , N and ẋi = vi
E ⊆ V × V denote the vertex set and edge set of G. If agent i 
N 
N 
N 
N

can receive information from agent j, then an edge is denoted v̇i = −a lij xj − b lij vj − k1 lij xj − k2 lij vj (3)
by a pair of nodes (j, i) in G. The adjacency matrix A = j=1 j=1 j=1 j=1
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

FENG et al.: SOME NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS FOR SYNCHRONIZATION 3

where L1 = [lij ] ∈ RN×N is the Laplacian matrix of graph G1 where θ1 and θ2 are row vectors with corresponding dimen-
and L2 = [lij ] ∈ RN×N is the Laplacian matrix of graph G2 . sions. L˜1 = L¯1 − 1N−1 θ1 and L˜2 = L¯2 − 1N−1 θ2 .
The main goal of this paper is to find a necessary and suffi- Let
cient condition for the synchronization of the coupled network.
To be specific, the difficulty lies in how to design the con- ξ = [x2 , . . . , xN ]T − x1 1N−1 , η = [v2 , . . . , vN ]T − v1 1N−1 .
trol gains k1 , k2 and the communication graph G2 to achieve Then, the synchronization problem is equivalent to ξ → 0 and
synchronization. η → 0.
Remark 1: The proposed model in this paper is different Since
from most existing literature. We introduce distributed con- ⎡ ⎤
x1   
trol, which is often utilized in the multiagent system into the ⎢ξ ⎥
complex network. If the inner connection gains a = b = 0, ⎢ ⎥= P 0 x . (7)
⎣ v1 ⎦ 0 P v
the model has been degenerated into a multiagent system, and
η
only control topology needs to be considered. If the control
gains k1 = k2 = 0, how to design or adjust the inner coupling With the linear transformation (6), the closed-loop
gains becomes the central issue. The former problem is stud- system (3) is transformed to
ied as the consensus problem of the multiagent system, while ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤
x˙1 0 1 0 0 x1
the latter problem is the synchronization problem of the com- ⎢ v˙1 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 ∗ ∗ ⎥⎢ v1 ⎥
plex network. These two problems’ essential difference lies in ⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥.
⎣ ξ̇ ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 0 IN−1 ⎦⎣ ξ ⎦
the inner-linked topology being fixed while the communica- ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ η
η̇ 0 0 −aL1 − k1 L2 −bL1 − k2 L2
tion topology can be designed. The proposed unified model in
(8)
this paper is more general and has more applications.
Remark 2: Pinning control is utilized to solve the synchro- Define
nization of complex networks with inherent connections in  
0(N−1)×(N−1) IN−1
a lot of literature. It imposes controllers on only a fraction à = . (9)
−aL˜1 − k1 L˜2 −bL˜1 − k2 L˜2
of nodes and introduces the definition of a virtual leader. In
essence, the inner connection topology is transformed into the Denote λij , i = 1, 2, . . . , N, j = 1, 2 as eigenvalues of B. First,
leader–follower topology by adding some directed lines from some relationships between the eigenvalues of à and B are
the virtual leader. When the couplings of the network are weak, reviewed.
pinning control costs increase. Decentralized control is also Lemma 2: The synchronization of the general second-order
used in complex networks, but for those networks whose cou- dynamics (4) is achieved if and only if matrix B has only two
plings are strong already, decentralized control is redundant. zero eigenvalues and all other eigenvalues have negative real
Meanwhile, decentralized control indicates that actually there parts; i.e.,
is no control network. Therefore, distributed control has been
Re(λij ) < 0, i = 1, 2, . . . , N − 1; j = 1, 2. (10)
adopted in this paper to handle the synchronization problem
of the coupled network with inner connections. Proof: From (6)–(8), since λ(B) = {λ(Ã), 0, 0} by defining
λN1 = λN2 = 0, the convergence of system (4) is equal to the
III. N ECESSARY AND S UFFICIENT C ONDITIONS stability of matrix Ã, which means all eigenvalues of à have
OF THE S YNCHRONIZATION negative real parts, then the result holds.
Let x = [x1 , x2 , . . . , xN ]T and v = [v1 , v2 , . . . , vN ]T . Then, Remark 3: Lemma 2 gives a necessary and sufficient condi-
system (3) can be written in the matrix form as tion to ensure the synchronization of the coupled second-order
    system. However, it does not show any relationship between
ẋ
=B
x
(4) the eigenvalues of à and that of L1 and L2 . A natural question
v̇ v is: on what kind of communication graph can synchronization
where be reached? Furthermore, how can the inner couplings affect
  the choice of the control gains? The following results address
0N×N IN
B= . (5) these issues.
−aL1 − k1 L2 −bL1 − k2 L2 Assumption 1: Suppose that Laplacian matrices L1 and L2
Set can be transformed to be upper triangular simultaneously by
    a same unitary matrix U.
1 0TN−1 l θ1
P= , L1 = 11 Remark 4: Generally, it is very difficult to verify
−1N−1 IN−1 ϑ1 L¯1
  Assumption 1 for two arbitrary Laplacian matrices L1 and L2
l θ2 corresponding to two arbitrary graphs G1 and G2 . However,
L2 = 11
ϑ2 L¯2 it should be noted that if the connection topology has some
where θ1 and θ2 are row vectors with corresponding dimen- special structures, Assumption 1 can be satisfied naturally. As
sions. Taking the transformation matrix P, then we have discussed in [23] and [24], if G1 belongs to the concatenated-
    directed-star topology, which means the Laplacian matrix of
−1 0 θ1 −1 0 θ2 G1 can be written as L1 = 1IN − 1, where  ∈ R1×N is
PL1 P = , PL2 P = (6)
0N−1 L˜1 0N−1 L˜2 the arbitrary non-negative row vector, then the topology of
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CYBERNETICS

G2 can be arbitrary, with arbitrary edge weights. Moreover, and

although this assumption is strong in some sense, there are  
still so many open problems and challenges to be explored di = 2 b2 pi qi + bk2 (pi q̃i + qi p̃i ) + k22 p̃i q̃i − 4(aqi + k1 q̃i ).
under the assumption of upper triangular conditions, as can
be seen from [13], [14], [23], and [24]. From Lemma 3, the real parts of the eigenvalues in (14) are
In order to research the eigenvalues of matrix Ã, we   
  1 1
consider its characteristic equation, i.e., Re λij = − (bpi + k2 p̃i ) ± √ ci + ci + di
2 2
  2 2 2
 
λI2(N−1) − Ã i = 1, 2, . . . , N − 1, j = 1, 2.
 
 λI −IN−1 
=  ˜ N−1 ˜  By Lemma 2
aL1 + k1 L2 λIN−1 + bL1 + k2 L2 
˜ ˜
   
 I 0  1
 N−1 Re λij < 0 ⇔ − (bpi + k2 p̃i )
=  −aL˜1 −k1 L˜2  2
 IN−1   
λ
  1
 λI −IN−1  ± √ ci + c2i + di2 < 0. (15)
×  ˜ N−1 ˜  2 2
aL1 + k1 L2 λIN−1 + bL˜1 + k2 L˜2 
     
 
= λ2 IN−1 + bL˜1 + k2 L˜2 λ + aL˜1 + k1 L˜2  √
Since (1/2 2)( ci + c2i + di2 ) > 0 always holds,
      
= U ∗ λ2 IN−1 + bL˜1 + k2 L˜2 λ + aL˜1 + k1 L˜2 |U| √ 
−(1/2)(bpi + k2 p̃i ) ± (1/2 2)( ci + c2i + di2 ) < 0 is equal

N−1
 2
 N−1
   
= λ + (bλi + k2 μi )λ + (aλi + k1 μi )  fi (λ) √
to −(1/2)(bpi +k2 p̃i )+(1/2 2)( ci + c2i + di2 ) < 0, which
i=1 i=1  
=0 (11) √
leads to (1/2 2)( ci + c2i + di2 ) < (1/2)(bpi + k2 p̃i ).
where λi and μi , i = 1, . . . , N − 1 are eigenvalues of matrices Therefore, bpi + k2 p̃i > 0 and 4(bpi + k2 p̃i )4 − 4(bpi +
L1 and L2 , respectively. The fifth equality is obtained since k2 p̃i )2 ci − di2 > 0 are required. With the expression of ci , di
U ∗ U = I, |U| = ±1. above, we have
Lemma 3 [23]: Consider a complex value a+di ∈ C, where  
a, d ∈ R, and d = 0. Its square roots are given by (aqi + k1 q̃i )2 − b2 pi qi + k22 p̃i q̃i + bk2 (pi q̃i + qi p̃i )
 
1  d × (aqi + k1 q̃i ) < (bpi + k2 p̃i )2 (api + k1 p̃i ).
±√ a+ a +d + 
2 2
√ i .
2 a + a2 + d2 Thus
Lemma 4: Equation (10) is equivalent to the following two  
inequalities: (aqi + k1 q̃i )2 − (bpi + k2 p̃i ) abq2i + (bk1 + ak2 )qi q̃i + k1 k2 q̃2i
< (bpi + k2 p̃i )2 (api + k1 p̃i ).
bpi + k2 p̃i > 0 (12)
(aqi + k1 q̃i )2 < (bpi + k2 p̃i ) After simple calculation, (15) holds if and only if (12) and (13)
 
× ab|λ2i | + k1 k2 |μ2i | + (bk1 + ak2 )(pi p̃i + qi q̃i ) (13) are true.
Remark 5: Lemma 4 provides conditions which are neces-
where λi = pi + qi i, μi = p̃i + q̃i i, and |λi |, |μi | are the sary and sufficient for the synchronization of the closed-loop
modules of λi and μi , respectively. network (3). It also reveals the relationship between the
Proof: According to (11), the 2(N−1), eigenvalues of matrix matrix à and the inner fixed matrix L1 and communica-
à are tion Laplacian matrix L2 . In order to further explore the
 lower and upper bounds of the control gains k1 and k2 ,
−(bλi + k2 μi ) ± (bλi + k2 μi )2 − 4(aλi + k1 μi ) a theorem is established to achieve synchronization, which
λij = reveals how the inherent network structure, communication
2
i = 1, 2, . . . , N − 1, j = 1, 2. (14) network, and the chosen coupling gains affect synchronization
behavior.
Assume λi = pi + qi i, μi = p̃i + q̃i i, where pi , qi , p̃i , q̃i ∈ R Theorem 1: Suppose the communication graph G2 contains
and pi , p̃i ≥ 0. Denote a directed spanning tree, and Assumption 1 holds. Then,
second-order synchronization of networks (1) with the cooper-
(bλi + k2 μi )2 − 4(aλi + k1 μi ) = ci + di i ative protocol (2) can be achieved if and only if the following
where inequalities hold.
    For β ∗ ≥ 0, the coupling gains are chosen as
ci = b2 p2i − q2i + k22 p̃2i − q̃2i + 2bk2 (pi p̃i − qi q̃i )
k1 > 0, k2 > max r2 (i). (16)
− 4(api + k1 p̃i ) i=1,...,N−1
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

FENG et al.: SOME NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS FOR SYNCHRONIZATION 5

For β ∗ < 0, if ∃ βi ≤ 0, the coupling gains are chosen as When Ai = 0, solving (21), where
−(2bpi p̃i α1i + b(pi q̃i + p̃i qi )α2i )
k1 > −β ∗ , k2 > max r2 (i) (17) r1,2 (i) =  
i=1,...,N−1 2 p̃i |μi |2 k1 + ap̃i (p̃i pi + q̃i qi )

if ∀ βi > 0, the coupling gains are chosen as (17) or |α2i | 4k1 p̃i |μi |2 + 4ap̃i (p̃i pi + q̃i qi ) + b2 (pi q̃i − p̃i qi )2
  ±  
2 p̃i |μi |2 k1 + ap̃i (p̃i pi + q̃i qi )
∗ ∗ b2 (pi q̃i − p̃i qi )2
− β > k1 > max 0, −β − (23)
i=1,...,N−1 4p̃i |μi |2
max r1 (i) < k2 < max r2 (i) (18) are the two roots of the polynomial. To further simplify the
i=1,...,N−1 i=1,...,N−1 roots, we obtain
if ∃ βi → ∞, which indicates ∃ Ai = 0, the coupling gains bpi b(qi α2i + pi α1i )p̃i
r1,2 (i) = − −
can be chosen as 2p̃i 2(p̃i α1i + q̃i α2 )p̃i
!
4Ai + b2 (pi q̃i − p̃i qi )2
− β ∗ ≤ k1 ≤ −β ∗ ±|α2i |
⎧ 4A2i
⎪
⎪ k2 > max r2 (i) !
⎪
⎪ i=1,...,s
⎪ bpi α2i
2
⎨ max r1 (i) < k2 < max r2 (i) =− + βi ± + βi2 (24)
k2 = i=s+1,...,t i=s+1,...,t
pi p̃i Ai
⎪
⎪ −b(pi q̃i − p̃i qi )α2i k2 > −b2 pi q̃i α2i
⎪
⎪ where βi  [(b(pi q̃i − p̃i qi )α2i )/2Ai ].
⎪
⎩ 2 p̃i
+b pi qi α2i − (α2i )2 , i = t + 1, . . . , N − 1 Case 1: When k1 > −β ∗ (β ∗ < 0), which indicates all
(19) Ai > 0 and
> 0. Noticing (12), we have k2 > −(bpi /p̃i ).
Thus, we obtain k2 > maxi=1,...,N−1 r2 (i). In this situation, k1
where β ∗  maxi=1,...,N−1 [(a(p̃i pi + q̃i qi ))/(|μi |2 )], β ∗  can be chosen as k1 > max{0, −β ∗ }.
mini=1,...,N−1 [(a(p̃i pi + q̃i qi ))/(|μi |2 )], Ai  p̃i |μi |2 k1 + Case 2: When k1 < −β ∗ (β ∗ < 0), which indicates all Ai <
ap̃i (p̃i pi + q̃i qi ), α2i  aqi + k1 q̃i . In case (19), Ai > 0, i = 0. Choose k1 > maxi=1,...,N−1 {0, −[(a(p̃i pi + q̃i qi ))/(|μi |2 )] −
1, . . . , s; Ai < 0, i = s + 1, . . . , t; Ai = 0, i = t + 1, . . . , N − 1. [(b2 (pi q̃i − p̃i qi )2 )/(4p̃i |μi |2 )]}. According to the properties of
βi and r1,2 (i) refer to (24). the polynomial, when all βi > 0, k2 can also be chosen as
Proof: First, the closed-loop synchronization of system (3) maxi=1,...,N−1 r1 (i) < k2 < maxi=1,...,N−1 r2 (i).
can be achieved if and only if (10) is satisfied. Then, based Case 3: When −β ∗ ≤ k1 ≤−β ∗ , Ai can be larger,
on Lemma 4, inequality (13) is a quadratic polynomial with smaller, or equal to zero. Assume that Ai > 0, i = 1, . . . , s;
respect to k2 as Ai < 0, i = s+1, . . . , t; Ai = 0, i = t+1, . . . , N−1. Therefore,
the coupling gain k2 can be chosen as the intersection
Ai k22 + Bi k2 + Ci > 0 (20) of the following three situations, k2 > maxi=1,...,s r2 (i),
where maxi=s+1,...,t r1 (i) < k2 < maxi=s+1,...,t r2 (i), (2bpi p̃i (api +
k1 p̃i )+b(pi q̃i + p̃i qi )α2i )k2 > −(b2 p2i (api +k1 p̃i )+b2 pi qi (aqi +
Ai = p̃2i (api + k1 p̃i ) + p̃i q̃i (aqi + k1 q̃i ) k1 q̃i ) − (aqi + k1 q̃i )2 ) for i = t + 1, . . . , N − 1.
= p̃i |μi |2 k1 + ap̃i (p̃i pi + q̃i qi ) Considering all of the above situations, we obtain the
different choices of the control gains with respect to
Bi = 2bpi p̃i (api + k1 p̃i ) + b(pi q̃i + p̃i qi )(aqi + k1 q̃i ) different parameters. To be specific, first, calculate the
Ci = b2 p2i (api + k1 p̃i ) + b2 pi qi (aqi + k1 q̃i ) − (aqi + k1 q̃i )2 . term β ∗ , if β ∗ ≥ 0, choose k1 > 0 and k2 >
maxi=1,...,N−1 r2 (i). Otherwise, calculate the term −β ∗ and
Set α1i  api + k1 p̃i and α2i  aqi + k1 q̃i . Then, (20) has the
mini=1,...,N−1 βi , if there exists βi ≤ 0, choose k1 >
following expression:
−β ∗ and k2 > maxi=1,...,N−1 r2 (i). If mini=1,...,N−1 βi >
 
0, then both k1 > −β ∗ , k2 > maxi=1,...,N−1 r2 (i) or
p̃2i α1i + p̃i q̃i α2i k22 + (2bpi p̃i α1i + b(pi q̃i + p̃i qi )α2i )k2
−β ∗ > k1 > maxi=1,...,N−1 {0, −[(a(p̃i pi + q̃i qi ))/(|μi |2 )] −
+ b2 p2i α1i + b2 pi qi α2i − α2i
2
> 0. (21) [(b2 (pi q̃i − p̃i qi )2 )/(4p̃i |μi |2 )]}, maxi=1,...,N−1 r1 (i) < k2 <
maxi=1,...,N−1 r2 (i) or case 3 (where Ai = 0 has been
Through some calculation, the discriminant of the polyno- considered) meet the requirement. Therefore, second-order
mial (20) is synchronization of the coupled system (1) with cooperative

= B2i − 4Ai Ci protocol (2) can be achieved if and only if (16)–(19) are
  satisfied. This completes the proof.
= α2i
2
4k1 p̃i |μi |2 + 4ap̃i (p̃i pi + q̃i qi ) + b2 (pi q̃i − p̃i qi )2 . Remark 6: It is notable that even if all Ai equal zero, which
(22) means that it is highly possible that β ∗ and β ∗ are equal to
zero, the coupling gains k1 and k2 can be chosen according
Since the communication graph G2 contains a directed span- to (19) as well. That is, k1 = 0, k2 satisfies the third inequality
ning tree, according to Lemma 1, p̃i > 0, i = 1, . . . , N − 1. in case 3 (where Ai = 0, i = 1, . . . , N − 1).
Let β ∗  maxi=1,...,N−1 [(a(p̃i pi + q̃i qi ))/(|μi |2 )], β ∗  Remark 7: Theorem 1 presents specific lower and upper
mini=1,...,N−1 [(a(p̃i pi + q̃i qi ))/(|μi |2 )]. bounds of the control gains on the basis of Lemma 4, and
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CYBERNETICS

Corollary 2: Consider the general second-order multiagent

system

ẋi = vi , v̇i = −axi − bvi + ui . (27)

Then, the synchronization of (27) with cooperative protocol (2)

can be achieved if and only if the communication graph G2
contains a spanning tree and the following inequalities for k1
(a) (b) and k2 hold. For a > 0, the coupling gains satisfy
Fig. 1. Network topologies for example 1. (a) Inherent connections.  
(b) Communication graph. ap̃i
k1 > max 0, − 2
i=1,...,N−1 |μi |
⎛ ! ⎞
2
b (k q̃ )
k2 > max ⎝− + βi + + βi2 ⎠.
1 i
(28)
i=1,...,N−1 p̃i Ai

For a < 0, b/Ai ≤ 0, the coupling gains can be chosen

as (28) or

ap̃i  
k1 = − max , 2bp̃ i (a + k1 p̃i ) + bk1 q̃2
i k2
i=1,...,N−1 |μ2 |
 i 
> − b2 (a + k1 p̃i ) − (k1 q̃i )2 . (29)

Fig. 2. Illustration of the gains k1 and k2 . For a < 0, b/Ai > 0, the coupling gains can be chosen as
(28) or (29) or
 
the design method is constructively given. Note that both the ap̃i ap̃i b2 q̃2i
− 2 > k1 > max 0, − 2 −
real and imaginary parts of the eigenvalues of two Laplacian |μi | i=1,...,N−1 |μi | 4p̃i |μi |2
matrices play important roles in achieving synchronization. ⎛ ! ⎞
2
It is noteworthy that the assumption that G2 has a spanning b (k q̃ )
max ⎝− + βi − + βi2 ⎠ < k2
1 i
tree sometimes can be released. While pi and p̃i are not equal i=1,...,N−1 p̃i Ai
to zero simultaneously, and the inner couplings a and b are ⎛ ! ⎞
2
greater than 0, synchronization can also be achieved under b (k q̃ )
< max ⎝− + βi + + βi2 ⎠
1 i
(30)
some situations, as illustrated by Example 1. i=1,...,N−1 p̃i Ai
Example 1: Consider system (3) with N = 4. Network
topologies are shown in Fig. 1. As Example 1 illustrated, L1
and L2 do not have spanning trees, while the union of them where Ai = p̃i (|μi |2 k1 + ap̃i ), βi = [(bk1 q̃2i )/2Ai ].
contains them. Synchronization can be achieved when a, b > 0 Proof: In this situation, we can assume that there is no
(see Fig. 2). However, on what conditions can the “spanning fixed interconnections between agents. The closed-loop system
tree” assumption be released and need further study in the of (2) and (27) can be rewritten in the matrix form as
future work.     
ẋ 0N×N IN x
Corollary 1: Consider the double-integrator system (1) = (31)
v̇ −aIN − k1 L2 −bIN − k2 L2 v
with a = b = 0, that is
which means pi = 1, qi = 0, i = 1, . . . , N. From Theorem 1,
ẋi = vi , v̇i = ui (25)
it is easy to have β ∗ = maxi=1,...,N−1 [(ap̃i )/(|μ2i |)], Ai =
then the synchronization is achieved with protocol (2) if and p̃i (|μi |2 k1 +ap̃i ), βi = [(bk1 q̃2i )/2Ai ]. Therefore, by solving the
only if the communication graph G2 has a spanning tree and inequalities (16)–(19), the necessary and sufficient conditions
the following inequalities for k1 and k2 hold: for synchronization are stated in (28) and (30).
Remark 8: Zhu et al. [28] presented the result of (27) for
k22 q̃2 the special case of b ≥ 0. Fruhnert and Corless [29] provided
> max  2 i 2  . (26) a similar conclusion with no restrictions on a and b, though
k1 i=1,...,N−1 q̃ + p̃ p̃i
i i
only the necessary condition was given. Hou et al. [30] solved
Proof: From Theorem 1 and a = b = 0, we have β ∗ = 0, the consensus problem of (27), and did not give lower or upper
βi = 0, i = 1, . . . , N − 1. Therefore, from (16), we obtain a bounds of the coupling gains k1 and k2 . In Corollary 2, both
necessary and sufficient condition, and the result is consistent necessary and sufficient conditions are given and the bounds
with [20]. of the gains are also obtained.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

FENG et al.: SOME NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS FOR SYNCHRONIZATION 7

Corollary 3: Consider the double-integrator agents with

general nonequal velocity and position couplings

n 
n
ẋi = vi , v̇i = −k1 lij xj − k2 lij vj . (32)
j=1 j=1

Both topologies G1 and G2 have directed spanning trees and

Assumption 1 holds. Then, a necessary and sufficient condition
for the convergency is (a) (b)
k22 q2i Fig. 3. Network topologies for simulation. (a) Inherent connections.
> . (33)
k1 p̃i (p̃i pi + q̃i qi ) (b) Communication graph.

Proof: The closed-loop system of (32) and (2) can be

rewritten in the matrix form as
    
ẋ 0N×N IN x
= . (34)
v̇ −k1 L1 −k2 L2 v
From Theorem 1, by simple calculation, one has Ai =
k1 p̃i (p̃i pi + q̃i qi ), βi = 0, β ∗ = [(k1 (p̃i pi + q̃i qi ))/(|μi |2 )].
By solving the inequalities (16)–(19), the necessary and suf-
ficient conditions for consensus of (32) are stated in (33). We
note that this model has been studied in [23], and the result
in Corollary 3 is consistent with it.
In the following, some theorems conclude for the special
cases with two topologies.
Theorem 2: For system (3) with L1 and L2 in Theorem 1,
Fig. 4. States of the network when k1 = 1 and k2 = 3.5.
assume G1 and G2 are both undirected and connected. To
ensure synchronization, a sufficient and necessity condition
on the gains is
& ' & ' N), qi = 0, i = 1, . . . , N−1. By choosing an undirected com-
api bpi munication graph, it is easy to have q̃i = 0, i = 1, . . . , N. The
k1 > max 0, − , k2 > max 0, − . (35)
i=1,...,N−1 p̃i i=1,...,N−1 p̃i result is obvious.
Proof: Two topologies are undirected and connected, that is,
the Laplacian matrices L1 and L2 are symmetric, which means IV. S IMULATION
the eigenvalues of them are all real, then qi = q̃i = 0, i = Considering the network (3) with N = 4, the structures are
1, . . . , N−1. According to Theorem 1, Ai = p̃i (|μi |2 k1 +ap̃i pi ), shown in Fig. 3.
α2i = βi = 0, β ∗ = maxi=1,...,N−1 (api /p̃i ). Thereafter, (35) is The corresponding two Laplacian matrices are
given to ensure synchronization. ⎛ ⎞
Remark 9: It is notable that when a and b are greater than 0, 1 0 0 −1
⎜ −1 1 0 0 ⎟
control gains k1 and k2 only need to be larger than 0, and the L1 = ⎜
⎝ 0
⎟
synchronization is achieved naturally. In this case, the inner −1 1 0 ⎠
couplings play positive roles. While a and b are less than 0, 0 0 −1 1
⎛ ⎞
k1 and k2 must be greater than certain positive numbers which 0 0 0 0
means the inherent couplings play negative roles. ⎜ −1 1 0 0 ⎟
L2 = ⎜
⎝ −1 0 1 0 ⎠.
⎟
Theorem 3: For system (3) with L1 and L2 in Theorem 1,
assume G1 is a directed star topology (or all-to-all topology). −1 0 0 1
Then, the communication graph can be chosen as an undi-
The eigenvalues of Laplacian matrices L1 and L2 are
rected graph, and satisfying L1 and L2 can be upper triangular
{λ1 , λ2 , λ3 } = {1 ± i, 2}, λ4 = 0, and {μ1 , μ2 , μ3 } = {1},
simultaneously. The synchronization can be obtained if and
μ4 = 0, respectively. It is easy to verify that they can simulta-
only if the following inequalities hold:
& ' ( & ') neously be upper triangular. Without loss of generality, assume
a Na p1 = p2 = 1, p3 = 2; q1 = 1, q2 = −1, q3 = 0; and
k1 > max 0, − , or k1 > max 0, −
i=1,...,N−1 p̃i i=1,...,N−1 p̃i p̃1 = p̃2 = p̃3 = 1, q̃1 = q̃2 = q̃3 = 0. Next, four different
& ' ( & ') choices of inner connections are discussed.
b Nb
k2 > max 0, − or k2 > max 0, − . Case 1: Let a = 2, b = 1. Applying Theorem 1, we have
i=1,...,N−1 p̃i i=1,...,N−1 p̃i
(36) k1 > 0, k2 > 0. In this situation, the inner couplings have
positive effects.
Proof: When G1 is a star-shaped topology (all-to-all topol- Case 2: Let a = 2, b = −1. Through√ simple calculation, we
ogy), the eigenvalues of its Laplacian matrix are pi = 1 (pi = have k1 > 0, k2 > max{2, 1 + [(2( k1 + 3 + 1))/(k1 + 2)]}.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CYBERNETICS

Fig. 9. vi of the network when k1 = 5 and k2 = 1.5.

have a more strict requirement in this case, since the inner

coupling gains play a relative negative role here.
Case 4: Let a = −2, b = 1. In this situation, by sim-

States of the network when k1 = 1 and k2 = 2.5.

√ calculation, one has k1 > 4, k2 > max{0, −1 + [(2(1 +
ple
Fig. 5. k1 − 1))/(k1 √
− 2)]}. In detail, when 4 < k1 < 8, k2 >
−1 + [(2(1 + k1 − 1))/(k1 − 2)], while choosing k1 > 8,
k2 > 0 is enough. As shown in Figs. 7–9, the synchronization
conditions of state vi are described.

V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, synchronization of second-order
interconnected networks has been studied. By means of
the polynomial properties, necessary and sufficient conditions
associated with the inherent connections, coupling gains,
and the eigenvalues of the Laplacian matrices have been
established to achieve synchronization. Besides, lower and
upper bounds of the gains are obtained which implies that
all of the possible synchronization gains can be described.
Fig. 6. States of the network when k1 = 8 and k2 = 2.5. In addition, detailed discussions on the special models and
special topologies are proposed, as well as the explicit
conditions for synchronization. In future works, we will take
into account other issues such as time delays, together with
the considered unified model.

Fig. 7. vi of the network when k1 = 10 and k2 = 0.5.
Fig. 8. vi of the network when k1 = 5 and k2 = 0.5.
√ specific, when 0 < k1 < 6, k2 should satisfy k2 >
To be
[(2( k1 + 3 + 1))/(k1 + 2)]. When k1 is chosen as k1 > 6,
k2 > 2 is enough. The following simulation results show the
synchronization conditions of states xi and vi under different
control gains.
When k1 = 1, according to the theoretical result, k2 > 3
is needed. It can be seen that consensus is achieved in Fig. 4
while failing in Fig. 5. While k1 increases, synchronization is
obtained under the lower k2 as Fig. 6 shows.
Case 3: Let a = −2, b = −1. Applying Theorem 1, we
have k1 > 4, k2 > 2. Compared with case 1, the control gains
R EFERENCES
[1] W. Ren and R. W. Beard, Distributed Consensus in Multi-Vehicle
Cooperative Control. London, U.K.: Springer, 2008.
[2] R. Olfati-Saber, J. A. Fax, and R. M. Murray, “Consensus and coop-
eration in networked multi-agent systems,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 95, no. 1,
pp. 215–233, Jan. 2007.
[3] W. Yu, P. DeLellis, G. Chen, M. Di-Bernardo, and J. Kurths, “Distributed
adaptive control of synchronization in complex networks,” IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control, vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 2153–2158, Aug. 2012.
[4] C. Yu, J. Qin, and H. Gao, “Cluster synchronization in directed
networks of partial-state coupled linear systems under pinning control,”
Automatica, vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 2341–2349, Sep. 2014.
[5] J. Zhou and T. Chen, “Synchronization in general complex delayed
dynamical networks,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers, vol. 53,
no. 3, pp. 733–744, Mar. 2006.
[6] Z. Duan, J. Wang, G. Chen, and L. Huang, “Stability analysis and decen-
tralized control of a class of complex dynamical networks,” Automatica,
vol 44, no. 4, pp. 1028–1035, Apr. 2008.
[7] S. Su, Z. Lin, and A. Garcia, “Distributed synchronization control of
multiagent systems with unknown nonlinearities,” IEEE Trans. Cybern.,
vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 325–338, Jan. 2016.
[8] R. Olfati-Saber and R. M. Murray, “Consensus problems in networks of
agents with switching topology and time-delays,” IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1520–1533, Sep. 2004.
[9] W. Ren and R. W. Beard, “Consensus seeking in multiagent systems
under dynamically changing interaction topologies,” IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 655–661, May 2005.
[10] Z. Li, Z. Duan, G. Chen, and L. Huang, “Consensus of multiagent
systems and synchronization of complex networks: A unified viewpoint,”
IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 213–224,
Jan. 2010.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
FENG et al.: SOME NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS FOR SYNCHRONIZATION
[11] Y. Lv, Z. Li, Z. Duan, and J. Chen, “Distributed adaptive output
feedback consensus protocols for linear systems on directed graphs
with a leader of bounded input,” Automatica, vol. 74, pp. 308–314,
Dec. 2016.
[12] M. Razeghi-Jahromi and A. Seyedi, “Stabilization of networked control
systems with sparse observer-controller networks,” IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 1686–1691, Jun. 2015.
[13] F. Sorrentino, “Synchronization of hypernetworks of coupled dynamical
systems,” New J. Phys. vol. 14, no. 3, Mar. 2012, Art. no. 033035.
[14] Z. Xu and W. He, “Local synchronization of multiplex networks with
delayed couplings,” in Proc. 35th Chin. Control Conf. TCCT, 2016,
pp. 7479–7484.
[15] K. Ogata, Modern Control Engineering, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA: Prentice-Hall, 2001.
[16] Y. Feng, Z. Duan, W. Ren, and G. Chen, “Consensus of multi-agent
systems with fixed inner connections,” Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control,
vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 154–173, 2017, doi: 10.1002/rnc.3859.
[17] Y. Feng, Y. Lv, and Z. Duan, “Distributed adaptive consensus pro-
tocols for linearly coupled Lur’e systems over a directed topol-
ogy,” IET Control Theory Appl., vol. 11, no. 15, pp. 2465–2474,
Sep. 2017.
[18] W. Ren and E. Atkins, “Distributed multi-vehicle coordinated control via
local information exchange,” Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control, vol. 17,
nos. 10–11, pp. 1002–1033, Jul. 2007.
[19] Q. Song, F. Liu, J. Cao, and W. Yu, “M-matrix strategies for pinning-
controlled leader-following consensus in multiagent systems with non-
linear dynamics,” IEEE Trans. Cybern., vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1688–1697,
Dec. 2013.
[20] W. Yu, G. Chen, and M. Cao, “Some necessary and sufficient con-
ditions for second-order consensus in multi-agent dynamical systems,”
Automatica, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 1089–1095, Jun. 2010.
[21] W. Yu, H. Wang, F. Cheng, X. Yu, and G. Wen, “Second-order consensus
in multiagent systems via distributed sliding mode control,” IEEE Trans.
Cybern., vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1872–1881, Aug. 2017.
[22] Y. Zhanga and Y.-P. Tian, “Consentability and protocol design of multi-
agent systems with stochastic switching topology,” Automatica, vol. 45,
no. 5, pp. 1195–1201, May 2009.
[23] W. Li and G. Chen, “The designated convergence rate problem of con-
sensus or flocking of double-integrator agents with general non-equal
velocity and position couplings,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 62,
no. 1, pp. 412–418, Jan. 2017.
[24] W. Li, “The designated convergence rate problems of consensus or
flocking of double-integrator agents with general nonequal velocity
and position couplings: Further results and patterns of convergence
rate contours,” IEEE Trans. Cybern., vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 1325–1335,
May 2017.
[25] J. Mei, W. Ren, and G. Ma, “Distributed coordination for second-
order multi-agent systems with nonlinear dynamics using only relative
position measurements,” Automatica, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 1419–1427,
May 2013.
[26] J. Mei, W. Ren, and J. Chen, “Distributed consensus of second-order
multi-agent systems with heterogeneous unknown inertias and control
gains under a directed graph,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 61,
no. 8, pp. 2019–2034, Aug. 2016.
[27] N. Huang, Z. Duan, and G. Chen, “Some necessary and suffi-
cient conditions for consensus of second-order multi-agent systems
with sampled position data,” Automatica, vol. 63, pp. 148–155,
Jan. 2016.
[28] J. Zhu, Y.-P. Tian, and J. Kuang, “On the general consensus protocol of
multi-agent systems with double-integrator dynamics,” Linear Algebra
Appl., vol. 431, nos. 5–7, pp. 701–715, Aug. 2009.
[29] M. Fruhnert and M. Corless, “Robust consensus control with guaranteed
rate of convergence using second-order Hurwitz polynomials,” Int. J.
Control, vol. 90, no. 10, pp. 2284–2296, 2017.
[30] W. Hou, M. Fu, H. Zhang, and Z. Wu, “Consensus conditions for
general second-order multi-agent systems with communication delay,”
Automatica, vol. 75, pp. 293–298, Jan. 2017.
9
Yuting Feng received the B.S. degree in mathe-
matics from the School of Mathematical Sciences,
Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China, in 2014.
She is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree in dynam-
ics and control with Peking University, Beijing,
China.
She held visiting position with the City University
of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, in 2018. Her cur-
rent research interests include cooperative control
of multiagent systems, synchronization of complex
networks, and adaptive control.
Zhisheng Duan received the M.S. degree in math-
ematics from Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot,
China, in 1997 and the Ph.D. degree in control the-
ory from Peking University, Beijing, China in 2000.
From 2000 to 2002, he was a Postdoctoral Fellow
with Peking University, where he has been a Full
Professor since 2008. His current research interests
include robust control, stability of interconnected
systems, flight control, and analysis and control of
complex dynamical networks.
Dr. Duan was a recipient of the 2001 Chinese
Control Conference Guan-ZhaoZhi Award, the 2011 First Class Award in
Natural Science from the China Ministry of Education, and the Outstanding
Youth Research Fund of the Natural Science of Foundation of China in 2012.
He is currently a Cheung Kong Scholar Chair Professor of the China Ministry
of Education and an Executive Council Member of the Chinese Association
of Automation.
Yuezu Lv received the B.S. and Ph.D. degrees
in mechanical systems and control from Peking
University, Beijing, China, in 2013 and 2018, respec-
tively.
He is currently an Assistant Professor with
the School of Mathematics, Southeast University,
Nanjing, China. He held a visiting position with
the City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, in
2017. His current research interests include coopera-
tive control of multiagent systems, adaptive control,
and robust control of uncertain systems.
Dr. Lv was a Finalist for Zhang Si-Ying (CCDC) Outstanding Youth Paper
Award in 2015.
Wei Ren (F’16) received the Ph.D. degree in elec-
trical engineering from Brigham Young University,
Provo, UT, USA, in 2004.
He is currently a Professor with the Department
of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University
of California at Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA.
From 2004 to 2005, he was a Postdoctoral Research
Associate with the Department of Aerospace
Engineering, University of Maryland at College
Park, College Park, MD, USA. From 2005 to 2010,
he was an Assistant Professor and from 2010 to
2011, he was an Associate Professor with the Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA. He
has authored two books entitled Distributed Coordination of Multiagent
Networks (Springer-Verlag, 2011) and Distributed Consensus in Multi-Vehicle
Cooperative Control (Springer-Verlag, 2008). His current research interests
include distributed control of multiagent systems and autonomous control of
unmanned vehicles.
Dr. Ren was a recipient of the National Science Foundation CAREER
Award in 2008. He is currently an Associate Editor of Automatica, Systems
and Control Letters, and the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON C ONTROL OF
N ETWORK S YSTEMS.