Chaos, Solitons and Fractals: the interdisciplinary journal of Nonlinear

Science, and Nonequilibrium and Complex Phenomena

Control Costs of Long-range Interacting Multi-agent Systems with Noise Perturbation
--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number:

Article Type: Full length article

Section/Category: Complex systems and networks

Keywords: Multi-agent systems (MASs); long-range interactions (LRIs); noise; time cost; energy
cost

Corresponding Author: Yongzheng Sun

Xuzhou, CHINA

First Author: Xiangxin Yin

Order of Authors: Xiangxin Yin

Haifeng Dai

Lingzhi Zhao

Donghua Zhao

Rui Xiao

Yongzheng Sun

Abstract: As an important stage of collective dynamics, consensus is widespread in real-world

moving groups, where one of the long-term challenges is to optimize the control costs
of reaching consensus. However, current research on the consensus of multi-agents
systems (MASs) usually only considers direct interactions between agents and ignores
long-range interactions (LRIs), which may influence or even determine the collective
behavior of MASs. In our paper, a basic framework is developed for analyzing the
control costs for reaching consensus of MASs with LRIs and noise perturbation. The
theoretical estimate of the control cost from a time and energy perspective will depend
on the network topology, control parameters, noise strength, and network size, and the
convergence time of MASs with LRIs is shorter than that of general MASs. We provide
some numerical simulations to test our theory. We find that there is a trade-off between
time and energy costs regardless of whether MASs have LRIs or not, i.e., adjusting
control parameters to reduce time cost inevitably leads to an increase in energy cost.
Our results provide a new option for controlling MASs: designing control protocols
based on LRIs which in some cases have superior performance to typical controllers.

Suggested Reviewers: Xiwei Liu

xwliu@tongji.edu.cn

Xiaoyang Liu
liuxiaoyang1979@gmail.com

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Cover Letter

Dear Editors,

We would like to submit our manuscript entitled “Control Costs of Long-range Interacting Multi-agent
Systems with Noise Perturbation ” for your consideration of publication in the journal of Chaos,
Solitons & Fractals.

Consensus, an important phase in collective dynamics, is widespread in real-world moving groups such
as mobile robots, formation control, and sensor networks. Understanding the underline mechanism that
induces the collective behavior of the multi-agent system is a long-standing and challenging problem.
Recent self-propelled particles models can reproduce well the patterns of consensus, but neglect the
energy cost and the effects of long-range interactions.

This work, for the first time, proposes a basic framework for analyzing the time and energy costs for
achieving consensus of multi-agent systems with long-range interactions and noise perturbation. This
allows us to discover the important role that long-range interactions play in collective motion. We show,
both analytically and numerically, that long-range interactions can reduce the time cost significantly but
may increase the energy cost, i.e., there is a trade-off between time and energy costs.

Based on the Lyapunov function method of networked systems, this work establishes a relationship
between the time and energy costs for consensus and the diameters of network topologies. Our
numerical and theoretical results show that, there is a trade-off between time and energy costs of
long-range interacting multi-agent systems and long-range interactions can promote multi-agent systems
convergence. The simulation results show that under certain control choices, the controller based on
long-range interactions has superior control performance. In conclusion, considering long-range
interactions is a practicable option for controlling multi-agent systems.

Based on the above introduction of our work, we believe that it meets the publication criteria of Chaos,
Solitons & Fractals: nonlinear dynamics and non-equilibrium processes in physics and applied
mathematics ( multi-agent systems and networked control). Thus, we anticipate that it can be favorably
considered in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals.

Thank you for your consideration of our work. We’re looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours Sincerely,

Yongzheng Sun
School of Mathematics,
China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, China
Highlights (for review)

Highlights
Design finite-time control of long-range interacting multi-agent systems with or
without noise perturbation
New controller is proposed to dirve the long-range interacting multi-agent
systems to realize successful finite-time consensus and finite-time stochastic
consensus
Derive rigorous upper bound of the control time and energy cost theoretically
Revealing the positive effect of long-range interactions on the convergence time
for consensus of multi-agent systems
Discovering tradeoffs between time and energy costs for long-range interacting
multi-agent systems
Comparing the control cost of long-range interacting multi-agent systems with
that of conventional multi-agent systems, provides a new option for controlling multi-
agent systems: considering long-range interactions
Manuscript Click here to view linked References

Control Costs of Long-range Interacting Multi-agent

Systems with Noise Perturbation

Xiangxin Yina , Haifeng Daib , Lingzhi Zhaob , Donghua Zhaoc , Rui Xiaoa ,
Yongzheng Suna,∗
a School of Mathematics, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116,
China;
b School of Cyber Science and Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, 210096, China
c School of Mathematical Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, 221008, China

Abstract

As an important stage of collective dynamics, consensus is widespread in real-

world moving groups, where one of the long-term challenges is to optimize the
control costs of reaching consensus. However, current research on the consen-
sus of multi-agents systems (MASs) usually only considers direct interactions
between agents and ignores long-range interactions (LRIs), which may influ-
ence or even determine the collective behavior of MASs. In our paper, a basic
framework is developed for analyzing the control costs for reaching consensus of
MASs with LRIs and noise perturbation. The theoretical estimate of the control
cost from a time and energy perspective will depend on the network topology,
control parameters, noise strength, and network size, and the convergence time
of MASs with LRIs is shorter than that of general MASs. We provide some nu-
merical simulations to test our theory. We find that there is a trade-off between
time and energy costs regardless of whether MASs have LRIs or not, i.e., ad-
justing control parameters to reduce time cost inevitably leads to an increase in
energy cost. Our results provide a new option for controlling MASs: designing
control protocols based on LRIs which in some cases have superior performance
to typical controllers.
Keywords: Multi-agent systems (MASs), long-range interactions (LRIs),

∗ Corresponding author
Email address: yzsun@cumt.edu.cn (Yongzheng Sun)

Preprint submitted to Chaos, Solitons & Fractals September 15, 2023

noise, time cost, energy cost

1. Introduction

MASs have been widely used in many areas, such as formation control [1],
unmanned aerial vehicles aerial escort [2], and so on [3, 4]. Distributed coor-
dinated control, as one of the fundamental problems of MASs, has attracted
a lot of attention from researchers in recent decades. The problem of consen-
sus, which aims to design a protocol that drives the states of all agents to be
consensus, is a fundamental subject of distributed coordinated control [5, 6].
The convergence rate is a significant performance indicator for evaluating a
protocol with consensus problems. Olfati-Saber and Murray have shown that
the algebraic connectivity of the network topology measures the convergence
rate [7]. Therefore, increasing the algebraic connectivity is an important way
to enhance the convergence rate of the system [8]. However, the convergence
is always asymptotic, namely, the consensus time is unbounded, regardless of
the algebraic connectivity increases. In point of fact, the MASs are required to
reach consensus in finite time, so it is essential to solving the finite-time con-
sensus problem [9]. To deal with the finite-time consensus problem, a number
of control protocols based on different control strategies are designed such as
event-triggered control protocols [10], adaptive control protocols [11], sliding
mode control protocols [12], and impulsive control protocols [13]. The above
protocols are designed to save control time. The energy cost of finite-time con-
sensus, another important indicator of control costs, has received little attention
[14, 15].
When it comes to collective behavior in society, systems are often described
as MASs, for example, evolutionary game dynamics [16] and opinion dynamics
[17]. For social networks, peer pressure can influence or even determine group
behavior [18], which means that sometimes the influence of indirect interactions
cannot be ignored. And, social experiments have shown that at the individual
and local levels in the U.S. and Mexico, the higher the proportion of long ties

2
the higher the economic prosperity of individuals and regions [19]. Studies of
weather systems have shown the existence of atmospheric teleconnection pat-
terns for weather in different regions, such as the significant synchronization of
the occurrence of extreme rainfall events in monsoon systems in South-Central
Asia, East Asia, and Africa [20]. Understanding the underlying mechanisms of
atmospheric teleconnection models is important for weather forecasting, espe-
cially the prediction of extreme weather events. In addition to social networks
and the weather systems, similar indirect interactions are observed in a large
number of physical and biological systems, such as photoactive colloidal parti-
cles [21], Fermi gases [22], brain’s visual cortex [23], and so on. This type of
indirect interaction is characterized by the fact that the strength of the indirect
interaction is significantly lower than that of the direct interaction but its ef-
fect on the whole system cannot be ignored. The study of indirect interacting
systems has been an actively researched area in the last few years [24, 25, 26].
In networked dynamics systems, the indirect interaction between agents are
often described as LRIs. The fact that the system with LRIs means that each
node is affected by all other nodes whether they are neighbors or not. And the
influence is related to their topological distances, i.e., the longer the topological
distance, the smaller the effect [27]. Even if the influence is weak, it cannot be
ignored. However, current research on the collective behavior of networked sys-
tems with LRIs is sparse, and it is not yet clear whether LRIs promote or hinder
the collective behavior, or whether they change the collective behavior. Estra-
da proposed the D-path Laplacian matrix of graphs and used it in analyzing
the consensus problem of MASs [28]. Then, the Mellin and Laplace transforms
of the long-range interacting system were proposed [29]. And based on these
transforms, a new protocol was proposed to solve the second-order consensus
problem [30]. The local and global asymptotic stability conditions of long-range
interacting complex networks have been investigated [31]. These studies have
demonstrated that LRIs help accelerate the asymptotic behavior of networked
systems. In this paper, we will try to explore the effect of LRIs on the finite-time
consistency of MASs, especially on time and capacity costs.

3
 In real MASs, noise is pervasive, as communication and information transfer
between individuals is inevitably disturbed by random factors. Thus, it is nec-
essary to take the influence of noise into consideration. The effect of noise has
been widely investigated in the context of synchronization [32], stability [33],
flocking [34], and consensus [35]. Among these researches, additive and multi-
plicative noises are often used to model these uncertain disturbances [36, 37].
Additive noise, refers to an external disturbance and is independent of individ-
uals states [38], while multiplicative noise is proportional to the comparative
states between individuals and their neighbors [39, 40]. Up to now, the effect of
noise on long-range interacting MASs has not been investigated.
Inspired by the above discussion, this paper aims to analyze the control
costs of controlling MASs with LRIs and noise perturbation. Therein, time
and energy costs are two crucial elements to assess the designed protocols for
controlling MASs. Utilizing a classical potential function, the estimation of
control costs for reaching consensus are obtained, and we find that the control
costs rely mainly on the network size and network diameter. In contrast to
general MASs, MASs with LRIs can effectively reduce time costs. Moreover, the
control costs of stochastic long-range interacting MASs are also estimated. We
find there is a tradeoff between time and energy costs whether MASs have LRIs
or not i.e., when time costs are reduced by changing control parameters, this
inevitably leads to an increase in energy costs and vice versa. In other words, we
cannot find an optimal combination of control parameters that minimizes both
time and energy costs. Therefore, it is necessary to select appropriate control
parameters for different control requirements and in many cases controllers with
LRIs outperform general controllers. This means that it is relevant to consider
controllers with LRIs.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the model of MASs
with LRIs. In Section 3, we obtain sufficient conditions for realizing consensus
of long-range interacting MASs, and the estimates of control costs. We obtain
the time and energy cost of finite-time stochastic consensus in Section 4. We
use several numerical simulations to check the validity of our theoretical results

4
in Section 5. Finally, the main conclusions are outlined in Section 6.
Notations: In this paper, the algebraic connectivity of matric B is denoted
by λ2 (B), while its largest eigenvalue is denoted by λmax (A). W (t) defined
on a standard probability space (Ω, F, {Ft }t≥0 , P) is a 1-dimensional Brown
motion. When B is a vector or matrix, its transpose is B | . Euclidean norm
is denoted by k · k. ha, bi is the inner product of a and b. A ⊗ B denotes the
Kronecker product of A, B. E[·] is the mathematical expectation.

2. Preliminaries and problem statement

2.1. Preliminaries

Consider a MAS with N agents V = {v1 , v2 , . . . , vN }. The set of directed

edges E is defined as E = {(vi , vj )} ⊂ V × V. The adjacency matrix A is defined
as A = [aij ] ∈ RN ×N , whose elements aij > 0 if there is information exchanging
from agent vj to agent vi directly, otherwise, aij = 0. The node indexes belong
to a finite set I = {1, 2, . . . , N }. Moreover, we assume aii = 0, ∀i ∈ I, which
means there is no self-loop. Thus, the information exchange among different
agents can use the digraph G(A) = (V, E, A) to describe. The set of neighbors of
node i are denoted by Ni = {j ∈ V : (i, j) ∈ E}. The shortest path length from
vi to vj is denoted by d(vi , vj ), and the diameter of the graph can be defined as
dmax = max{d(vi , vj ) : i, j = 1, 2, . . . , N }. Furthermore, G(A) is an undirected
graph if A = A| . The degree matrix is denoted as D = diag{d1 , d2 , . . . , dN },
PN
where di = j=1 aij , i = 1, . . . , N is the degree of node i. Then, we can define
the Laplacian matrix of G(A) as LA = D − A. If there exists a path among any
two distinct individuals, we say G(A) is strongly connected.

Definition 1. [31] For all d ≤ dmax , the elements of d-path adjacency matrix
A[d] can be defined as:

 1, d(i, j) = d,
[d]
Aij = (1)
 0, otherwise.

5
Definition 2. [31] The elements of the corresponding d-path Laplacian matrix
L[d] are expressed as

 −A[d] , if i 6= j,
[d] ij
Lij = (2)
 PN A[d] , if i = j.
j=1 ij

To complete our theoretical analysis, the following lemmas need to be reviewed.

Lemma 1. [41] Suppose function f satisfies f (xj , xi ) = −f (xi , xj ), ∀ i, j ∈

N, j 6= i. Then, the following equation is satisfied for any group of numbers yi
and undirected graph G(A):
N N
X 1 X
aij yi f (xi , xj ) = − aij (yj − yi )f (xj , xi ).
j,i=1
2 j,i=1

Lemma 2. [41] For any real and symmetric matrix A, λmin = λ1 ≤ λ2 ≤

· · · ≤ λN = λmax denote the eigenvalues of A, then, λ1 x| x ≤ x| Ax ≤ λN x| x,
∀ x ∈ RN satisfies. Furthermore, if u1 is the right eigenvector corresponds to
|
eigenvalue λ1 , then minx6=0,x⊥u1 xx|Ax
x = λ2 .

Lemma 3. [42] For any 0 < q ≤ p, there exists two positive numbers ψ1 , ψ2
such that
ψ1 k · k p ≤ k · k q ≤ ψ2 k · k p ,

with k · kp,q is the Lp,q -norm for the n-dimensional space Rn . Specifically, ψ1 =
1, ψ2 = n1/q−1/p .

2.2. Problem statement

Suppose each node in the MASs are associated with an n-dimensional state
variable, which can be described as

ẋi = ui , i ∈ I. (3)

Typically, the protocol ui ∈ Rn is devised according to the state information

of its neighbors. Let x(0) = [x|1 (0), x|2 (0), . . . , x|N (0)]| , where xi (0) represents
the initial state of the ith node. For any initial state x(0), system (3) reach-
es the consensus asymptotically if there is an equilibrium point x∗ to satisfy

6
kxi (t) − x∗ || → 0 when t → ∞, ∀i ∈ I. In particular, if x∗ = Ave[x(0)] =
PN
1/N i=1 xi (0), we say system (3) reaches the average consensus asymptotical-
ly.
Now, we consider a new protocol that will be used to address the finite-time
consensus problem with LRIs and noise perturbation:
dX
max N dX
max N
[d] [d]
X X
ui =α εd Aij (xj − xi ) + β εd Aij sigθ (xj − xi ), (4)
d=1 j=1 d=1 j=1

|
where α, β ≥ 0, 0 < θ < 1, sigθ (x) = sign(x1 )|x1 |θ , . . . , sign(xn )|xn |θ ,
sign(x) is the sign function and εd is d-path coupling strength.

Remark 1. The proposed protocol (4) is based on finite-time control technology

and considers the influence of LRIs. We can see that when d(i, j) > 1 and εd >
0 (d = d(i, j)), agent vj is not the neighbor of vi but it still affects the state
of vi . If εd = 0 (∀d = 2, 3, . . . , dmax ), the influence of LRIs vanishes and
the proposed protocol (4) becomes an ordinary finite-time control protocol. We
assume εd > 0 (∀d = 1, 2, . . . , dmax ) to ensure the existence of LRIs. Meanwhile,
the intensities of LRIs among agents decrease with topological distances, i.e.,
ε1 ≥ ε2 ≥ · · · ≥ εdmax . In this paper, we suppose that 1 = ε1 ≥ ε2 ≥ · · · ≥
εdmax > 0.

Remark 2. The long-range interacting model, as compared with the Cucker-

Smale model, they are both supposed that each agent is affected by all the other
nodes. While for the long-range interacting model, its interaction weight between
two agents is in inverse proportion to the topological distance between them. The
difference between topological and metric interactions has been studied [43]. By
large-scale experiments of starlings, authors found that inter-agent interaction
relies on the topological distance, not the metric distance. Therefore, the long-
range interacting MASs are closer to real-world dynamical systems.

Definition 3. If there has a time function T0 , such that

kxj − xi k = 0, ∀i 6= j, ∀t ≥ T0 ,

then system (3) achieves the finite-time consensus.

7
Lemma 4. [44] Assume that function V (t) : [0, ∞) → [0, ∞) is differentiable
(the derivative of V (t) at 0 is actually its right derivative) and

dV (t)
≤ −KV α (t)
dt

where K > 0, 0 < α < 1. Then V (t) will arrive at 0 in finite time t∗ ≥
V 1−α (0)/(K(1 −α)) and V (t) ≡ 0 for all t ≥ t∗ .

Next, consider an n-dimensional stochastic differential equation:

dx = f (x)dt + g(x)dW (t),

here x ∈ Rn is a state vector, continuous functions f : Rn → Rn and g : Rn →

Rn×m satisfy f (0) = 0, g(0) = 0. For each V : Rn × R+ → R+ , the operator L
related to the above system can be defined as follows,

∂ ∂ 1 ∂2
L= + f (x(t), t) + g(x(t), t)g | (x(t), t) 2 .
∂t ∂x 2 ∂x

Definition 4. The settling time function T0 (x0 , w) of stochastic system (3) is

defined as:

P {kxi (t) − xj (t)k = 0} = 1, ∀i 6= j, ∀t ≤ T.

Lemma 5. [45] Suppose the unique global solution of system (3) can be found.
If there exists a Lyapunov function V : Rn → R+ , which is a twice continuously
differentiable and radially unbounded positive definite function, and real numbers
k > 0 and 0 < p < 1, such that

LV (x) ≤ −k(V (x))p ,

then the stochastic settling time satisfies E[T0 (x0 , w)] ≤ V (x0 )1−p /(k(1 − p)),
and the origin of system (3) is globally stochastically finite-time attractive.

PN
Lemma 6. For an undirected graph G(A), we have i=1 ẋi (t) = 0, i.e. the
states’ sum is time invariant.

8
 [d] [d]
Proof 1. Since Aij = Aji (d = 1, 2, . . . , dmax ), then we can calculate
N dX
max N dX
max N X
N
[d] [d]
X X X
εd Aij (xj − xi ) = εd Aij (xj − xi )
i=1 d=1 j=1 d=1 i=1 j=1
dX
max N X
N
[d]
X
= εd Aji (xj − xi )
d=1 j=1 i=1
dX
max N X
N
[d]
X
=− εd Aij (xj − xi )
d=1 i=1 j=1

= 0.

Note that
sig(xi − xj )θ = −sig(xj − xi )θ ,

we obtain
N dX
max N dX
max N
N X
[d] [d]
X X X
θ
εd Aij sig(xj − xi ) = εd Aij sig(xj − xi )θ
i=1 d=1 j=1 d=1 i=1 j=1
dX
max N X
N
[d]
X
= εd Aji sig(xj − xi )θ
d=1 j=1 i=1
dX
max N X
N
[d]
X
=− εd Aji sig(xi − xj )θ
d=1 j=1 i=1
dX
max N
N X
[d]
X
=− εd Aij sig(xj − xi )θ
d=1 i=1 j=1

= 0.
PN PN
Therefore, i=1 ẋi (t) = i=1 ui = 0.

3. Control cost of MASs

3.1. Time cost of MASs

Theorem 1. Let graph G(A) be an undirected and connected graph, and β > 0.
Using protocol (4), system (3) can reach finite-time consensus. The convergence
time has the following upper bound:
1−θ
V (0) 2
T0 ≤ θ+1 .
εmin β2θ−1 N 2 (1 − θ)

9
Proof 2. Combining Eqs. (3) and (4), we can obtain
dX
max N
[d]
X
dxi =α εd Aij (xj − xi )dt
d=1 j=1
(5)
dX
max N
[d]
X
θ
+β εd Aij sig(xj − xi ) dt.
d=1 j=1
PN PN
Let x∗ (t) = 1/N i=1 xi (t). From Lemma 6, x∗ (t) = 1/N i=1 xi (0),
i.e. x∗ (t) is time-invariant.
Thus, xi (t) can be broken down as

xi (t) = ei (t) + x∗ (t), i ∈ I,

then, in terms of the definition of ei (t), we can get

N
X
ei (t) = 0. (6)
i=1

From Eq. (5), the error system can be described as follows

dX
max N dX
max N
[d] [d]
X X
dei =α εd Aij (ej − ei )dt + β εd Aij sig(ej − ei )θ dt, (7)
d=1 j=1 d=1 j=1

let e(t) = [e|1 (t), e|2 (t), . . . , e|N (t)]| .

Consider a Lyapunov function:
N
1 | 1X |
V = e e= e ei . (8)
2 2 i=1 i
The time derivative can be calculated as
N dX
max N
[d]
X X
V̇ =α e|i εd Aij (ej − ei )
i=1 d=1 j=1
N dX
max N
[d]
X X
+β e|i εd Aij sig(ej − ei )θ ,
i=1 d=1 j=1

where
N dX
max N N dX
max N
[d] [d]
X X X X
e|i εd Aij sig(ej − ei )θ = εd Aij ei , sig(ej − ei )θ
i=1 d=1 j=1 i=1 d=1 j=1
dX
max XN X N n
1 [d]
X θ+1
≤ − εmin Aij |ejm − eim | .
2 i=1 j=1 m=1
d=1
(9)

10
Similarly, we have
N dX
max N N
X X [d] 1 X 2
e|i εd Aij (ej − ei ) ≤ − kej − ei k (10)
i=1 j=1
2 i,j=1
d=1

According to the definition of A[d] , we get

dX
max
[d]
Aij = 1, ∀i, j = 1, 2, . . . , N,
d=1

[d] [d]
as Aij takes the value of either 0 or 1, and only one of Aij takes 1, so

N dX N N n
!
max
X X [d] 1 X X θ+1
e|i εd Aij sig(ej θ
− ei ) ≤ − εmin |ejm − eim | .
i=1 j=1
2 i,j=1 m=1
d=1

As 0 < θ < 1, according to Lemma 3, we can derive

1
! θ+1 ! 12
n
X n
X
θ+1 2
|ejm − eim | ≥ |ejm − eim | = kej − ei k . (11)
m=1 m=1

Then, using Eq. (6), we obtain

N
X 2
kej − ei k = 4N V (t). (12)
i,j=1

Thus, combining Eqs. (9)–(12), we get

N N
1 X 2 1 X θ+1
V̇ ≤ − kej − ei k − εmin kej − ei k
2 i,j=1 2 i,j=1
  θ+1
2
N N
1 X 2 1 X 2
≤− kej − ei k − εmin  kej − ei k
2 i,j=1 2 i,j=1

1 θ+1
≤ −2N V − εmin β[4N V ] 2 .
2
From Lemma 4, the system (3) can realize the finite-time consensus by using
protocol (4), and the time cost can be estimated by
1−θ
V (0) 2
T0 ≤ θ+1 , (13)
εmin β2θ−1 N 2 (1 − θ)
PN |
where V (0) = 1/2 i=1 ei (0)ei (0), ei (0) = xi (0) − x∗ is the start state of ei .

11
Remark 3. For MASs without LRIs take a similar control protocol
N N
[1] [1]
X X
ui (t) = α Aij (xj − xi ) + β Aij sig(xj − xi )θ ,
j=1 j=1

we can derive its time cost

1−θ
V (0) 2
T0 ≤ 1+θ ,
β2θ−1 λ2 (LAe ⊗ In ) 2
(1 − θ)
h i
e = (A[1] )2/(θ+1)
where A and LAe is the corresponding Laplacian matrix.
ij
N ×N
As for A[1] is a 0 − 1 matrix, i.e. A
e = A[1] , L e = L[1] , the time cost can be
A

rewritten as
1−θ 1−θ
V (0) 2 V (0) 2
T0 ≤ 1+θ = 1+θ .
β2θ−1 λ2 (LB ⊗ In ) 2
(1 − θ) β2θ−1 λ2 (L[1] ⊗ In ) 2
(1 − θ)

Meanwhile, we know that λ2 (L[1] ⊗ In ) ≤ σ(G), which represents the minimal

degree of nodes in G. When the network size is large, we know that σ(G)  N ,
so T0  T 0 . This suggests that LRIs can significantly reduce the time cost.

3.2. Energy cost of MASs

In the following, we try to estimate the energy cost for consensus which is
R T PN 2
defined as E = 0 i=1 kui (t)k dt [42].

Based on the above discussion, we find that the upper bound on the time
cost of a MAS without noise perturbation is independent of the value of α (as
long as α ≥ 0), so we take α = 0 to obtain a more accurate upper bound on the
energy cost when calculating the energy cost.

Theorem 2. With the hypotheses of Theorem 1 and further assuming α = 0,

the upper bound of energy cost for consensus is

7−3θ
sup 21+θ βN 2 n2−θ θ+1
E = V 2 (0).
εmin (θ + 1)

Proof 3.
Z N
T X
2
E= kui (t)k dt
0 i=1

12
 2
Z N
T X dX
max N
[d]
X
θ
= β εd Aij sig(xj − xi ) dt
0 i=1 d=1 j=1
2
Z N
T X dX
max N
[d]
X
≤ β2 εd Aij sig(xj − xi ) θ dt
0 i=1 d=1 j=1
 2
Z N
T X n
X XN
θ
≤ β2  |xjm − xim |  dt
0 i=1 m=1 j=1
 2
Z T N X
X n XN
2 θ
=β  |ejm − eim |  dt.
0 i=1 m=1 j=1

From Lemmma 3, we have

 2  2
X n
N X XN XN X N
n X
θ θ
 |ejm − eim |  ≤  |ejm − eim | 
i=1 m=1 j=1 i=1 m=1 j=1

≤ 22θ N 4−θ n2−θ V θ (t).

Then,
Z T Z T
E ≤ β2 22θ N 4−θ n2−θ V θ (t)dt = β 2 22θ N 4−θ n2−θ V θ (t)dt
0 0
7−3θ
21+θ βN 2 n2−θ θ+1
= V 2 (0).
εmin (θ + 1)
Remark 4. Theorems 1 and 2 give the upper bounds of control costs, and both
of them rely on the control parameters, the smallest of coupling strengths and
network size. It is found that the time cost is negatively proportional to control
parameter β, the smallest of coupling strengths and network size, while the en-
ergy cost is in the opposite situation. In addition, the larger control parameter
θ can help decrease the energy cost, while increasing the time cost. We find that
adjusting the control parameters to save time cost always results in an increase
in the energy cost, and conversely, reducing the energy cost always results in
an increase in the time cost. Therefore, there is no optimal control parameter
that minimizes both time and energy costs. This means that there is a time and
energy cost trade-off. Therefore, optimal control parameters need to be selected
based on the importance of time and energy costs.

13
4. Control cost of stochastic MASs

4.1. Time cost of stochastic MASs

Noise is inevitable in real-world and man-made systems, thus, we consider

the finite-time stochastic consensus problem of long-range interacting MASs in
this section. In previous studies, aij was assumed to be time-invariant, howev-
er, aij becomes uncertain due to the random perturbation of noise. The noise
intensity is time-independent, which makes it impossible for individuals to accu-
rately measure the state of their neighbors. Thus, it is natural to suppose that
[d] [d] [d] [d] [d]
aij is also randomly perturbed as aij → aij (t) = aij + σij Ẇ (t). However, the
existence of noise brings remarkable difficulty in estimating the upper bounds of
energy consumption. The long-range interacting MASs with noise perturbation
can be modeled as
dX
max N
[d]
X
ẋi (t) = ui (t) + ηd σij (xj − xi )dW (t), i ∈ I, (14)
d=1 j=1

[d]
where ηd > 0 is d-path noise coupling strength, σij denotes d-path noise in-
h i
[d] [d] [d]
tensity, σij > 0 if and only if Aij > 0. B [d] = σij (d = 1, 2, . . . , dmax )
N ×N
[d]
indicates d-path noise intensity matrix and LB corresponds to noise intensity
Laplacian matrix. Notably, the noise used in this paper, proportional to the
inter-agent measurement error, is the multiplicative noise. And the influence of
noise vanishes when the states of all agents reach consensus.
|
Theorem 3. Let graph G(A) be undirected and connected, B [d] = B [d] (d =
Pdmax
1, 2, . . . , dmax ) and ηd (d = 1, 2, . . . , dmax ) is bounded. If α, β > 0 and d=1 εd λ2 (L[d] ⊗
In )/λmax (D)2 > 1/(2α), the system (14) can reach the finite-time stochastic
consensus by using the protocol (4). And the time cost has the following upper
bound: 1−θ
V (0) 2
E[T0 ] ≤ θ+1 ,
εmin β2θ−1 N 2 (1 − θ)
Pdmax [d]
where D = d=1 ηd LB ⊗ In .

14
Proof 4. From Eqs. (4) and (14), an Itô stochastic equation can be obtain
dX
max N dX
max N
[d] [d]
X X
dxi (t) =α εd Aij (xj − xi )dt + β εd Aij sig(xj − xi )θ dt
d=1 j=1 d=1 j=1
(15)
dX
max N
[d]
X
+ ηd σij (xj − xi )dW (t), i ∈ I.
d=1 j=1
PN
Let x∗ (t) = 1/N i=1 xi (t). Using the method similar to Lemma 6, we can
get
N dX
max N
[d]
X X
ηd σij (xj − xi )Ẇ = 0.
i=1 d=1 j=1
PN
So, x (t) is time invariant, i.e. x∗ (t) = 1/N
∗
i=1 xi (0).
Thus, we can decompose xi (t) as

xi (t) = ei (t) + x∗ (t), i ∈ I,

then depending on the definition of ei (t), we have

N
X
ei (t) = 0. (16)
i=1

From Eq. (15), the error dynamical system can be derived as follows
dX
max N dX
max N
[d] [d]
X X
dei =α εd Aij (ej − ei ) + β εd Aij sig(ej − ei )θ dt
d=1 j=1 d=1 j=1
(17)
dX
max N
[d]
X
+ ηd σij (ej − ei )dW, i ∈ I.
d=1 j=1

It’s apparent that ei (t) = 0 is the trivial solution of system (17). The group
|
disagreement vector is marked as e(t) = [e|1 (t), e|2 (t), . . . , e|N (t)] .
Consider the same Lyapunov function as Eq. (8)
N
1 | 1X |
V = e e= e ei .
2 2 i=1 i
According to the Itô formula, we have
dX
! dX
!| dX
!
max max max
1 [d] [d]
LV = − αe| εd L[d] ⊗ In e + e| ηd LB ⊗ In ηd LB ⊗ In e(t)
2
d=1 d=1 d=1
N dX
max N
[d]
X X
+β e|i εd Aij sig(ej − ei )θ .
i=1 d=1 j=1

15
 Pdmax [d]
Let D = d=1 ηd LB ⊗ In . Based on the definition of D, we know that D has
at least one positive eigenvalue, so λmax (D)2 > 0.
From the proof of Theorem 1, we have
N dX
max N
X X [d] θ+1
e|i εd Aij sig(ej − ei )θ ≤ −εmin 2θ [N V ] 2 ,
i=1 d=1 j=1

so, we have
dX
!
max  
θ+1
θ [d] 2
LV ≤ − βεmin 2 [N V ] 2 − 2α εd λ 2 L ⊗ In − λmax (D) . (18)
d=1

When constants α and εd satisfy the following condition:

Pdmax [d]
d=1 εd λ2 (L ⊗ In ) 1
> .
λmax (D)2 2α
Pdmax
Let ρ = 2α d=1 εd λ2 (L[d] ⊗ In ) − λmax (D)2 > 0, we obtain

θ+1
LV ≤ −βεmin 2θ [N V ] 2 . (19)

According to the above analysis, V in finite time converges to zero with prob-
ability 1. Thus, under protocol (4), the MASs reach the finite-time stochastic
consensus and the convergence time can be estimated by
1−θ
V (0) 2
E[T0 ] ≤ θ+1 , (20)
εmin β2θ−1 N 2 (1 − θ)
PN |
where V (0) = 1/2 i=1 ei (0)ei (0), ei (0) = xi (0) − x∗ is the initial state of
ei (t).
Next, using Itô formula, we obtain
Z t N
Z tX dX
max N
[d]
X
V (t) = V (0) + LV (s)ds + e|i (s) ηd σij (ej − ei )dW (s)
0 0 i=1 d=1 j=1
(21)
Z t N
Z tX dX
max N
[d]
X
≤ V (0) − ρV (s)ds + e|i (s) ηd σij (ej − ei )dW (s).
0 0 i=1 d=1 j=1

It is apparent that V (t) converges to 0 almost surely when t ≥ T0 , we have

Z t∧T0 Z t
V (s)ds = V (s ∧ T0 )ds.
0 0

16
Replacing t with T0 ∧ t, and taking expectations from both sides of Eq. (21),
then applying the Grönwall inequality, we can get

EV (T0 ∧ t) ≤ V (0)e−ρt (22)

Remark 5. We extend the results in the original network model with LRIs [31]
in this paper. Different from the original models, we take the noise into account
and propose the controller with LRIs in (4) which can drive finite-time consen-
sus. Theorem 3 gives a sufficient condition for long-range interacting MASs
to reach finite-time stochastic consensus. The results in Theorem 3 show that
the time cost relies on the smallest of coupling strengths εmin , the network size
N, the initial state and the control parameters θ, β. Specifically, the larger the
network size and the smaller the network diameter, the shorter the convergence
time for the system to reach consensus.

4.2. Energy cost of stochastic MASs

Theorem 4. With the hypotheses of Theorem 3, the estimate of the energy cost
for stochastic consensus is

E[E sup ] = 4α2 N 2 V (0) + 22θ+1 β 2 N 4−θ n2−θ V (0)θ .

Proof 5.
Z N
T0 ∧t X
E= kui (t)k2 dt
0 i=1
2
Z N
T0 ∧t X dX
max N dX
max N
[d] [d]
X X
= α εd Aij (xj − xi ) + β εd Aij sig(xj − xi ) θ ds
0 i=1 d=1 j=1 d=1 j=1
2 2
Z N
T0 ∧t X dX
max N Z N
T0 ∧t X dX N
max X
[d] [d]
X
≤2α 2
εd Aij (xj − xi ) ds + 2β 2
Aij sigθ (xj − xi ) ds
0 i=1 d=1 j=1 0 i=1 d=1 j=1
 2  2
Z N
T0 ∧t X n
X XN Z N
T0 ∧t X n
X XN
θ
≤2α2  (xjm − xim ) ds + 2β 2  |xjm − xim |  ds
0 i=1 m=1 j=1 0 i=1 m=1 j=1

=E1 + E2 .

17
Therein,
 2  2
Z N
T0 ∧t X n
X N
X Z N
T0 ∧t X n
X XN
E1 = 2α2  (xjm − xim ) ds = 2α2  (ejm − eim ) ds
0 i=1 m=1 j=1 0 i=1 m=1 j=1
Z N
T0 ∧t X n
X Z t
= 2α2 (N eim )2 ds = 4α2 N 2 V (s ∧ T0 )ds.
0 i=1 m=1 0

and
 2
Z N
T0 ∧t X n
X XN Z t
θ
E2 = 2β 2  |xjm − xim |  ds ≤ 2β 2 22θ N 4−θ n2−θ V θ (s ∧ T0 )ds.
0 i=1 m=1 j=1 0

We can find positive constant θ satisfying EV (t)θ ≤ (EV (t))θ , then

E[E] =E[E1 ] + E[E2 ]

Z t Z t
≤4α2 N 2 EV (s ∧ T0 )ds + 2β 2 22θ N 4−θ n2−θ E(V θ (s ∧ T0 ))ds
0 0
Z t Z t
≤4α2 N 2 EV (s ∧ T0 )ds + 2β 2 22θ N 4−θ n2−θ (EV (s ∧ T0 ))θ ds.
0 0

From Eqs. (20) and (22), we obtain

E[E] ≤ 4α2 N 2 V (0) + 22θ+1 β 2 N 4−θ n2−θ V (0)θ .

5. Simulation results

In this section, several numerical simulation results are presented to test the
usability of our theoretical analysis. The Euler-Maruyama numerical scheme
is used to settle the stochastic differential equations. Let d-path noise inten-
sity matrix B [d] = A[d] be a 0-1 matrix. In addition, the evolution process is
represented by the group error E(t) = ke(t)k.
To begin with, we validate our theoretical results by MASs with regular
topologies which are presented in Fig. 1. It’s apparent that the four topologies
are undirected and connected, but their diameters are different. Unless other-
wise stated, we take α = 0, β = 1, θ = 0.9, and x(0) = [0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, −0.2,
−0.3, −0.4, −0.5]| . Then, without the noise perturbation, graph G1 in Fig. 1 is
used as the network topology. Taking ε1 = 1, ε2 = 1/2 , ε3 = 1/4, the condition

18
 (G1 ) 1 2 3 (G2 ) 1 2 3

8 4 8 4

7 6 5 7 6 5

(G3 ) 1 2 3 (G4 ) 1 2 3

8 4 8 4

7 6 5 7 6 5

Figure 1: Four regular graphs with 8 nodes, where d(G1 ) = 3, d(G2 ) = 4,

d(G3 ) = 5 and d(G4 ) = 7.

0.5
xi(t)

-0.5
0 0.5 1
t

Figure 2: State trajectories xi (t) with topology G1 without noise perturbation.

19
εmin > 0 satisfies. The evolutions of agents’ states xi (t) are shown in Fig. 2. We
can see that all individual states eventually converge to the same value, which
means that the numerical simulation is consistent with the theory results.

(a)
1.2
θ=0.4
0.8 θ=0.6
E(t)
θ=0.8
0.4
0
(b)
10

5
E

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
t
Figure 3: (a) The group error E(t) and (b) energy cost E with different θ,
where θ = 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, respectively.

(a)
1.2
β=0.6
0.8 β=1.2
E(t)

β=1.8
0.4
0
(b)
10

5
E

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
t
Figure 4: (a) The group error E(t) and (b) energy cost E with different β,
where β = 0.6, 1.2, 1.8, respectively.

Next, the influence of control parameter θ on the control costs is studied,

we simulate the long-range interacting MASs with different control parameters
θ = 0.4, 0.6, 0.8. Fig. 3 shows the group error E(t) and energy cost E with

20
different θ, it can be read that with the increase of θ, the time cost increases
and the energy cost decreases. Then, we focus on the influence of the control
parameter β on the control costs. Fig. 4 shows the group error E(t) and energy
cost E versus t with β = 0.6, 1.2, 1.8. It can be seen that with the increase of β,
the time cost decreases and the energy cost increases. They both illustrate that
adjusting control parameters for saving time cost necessarily increases energy
cost, and conversely, saving energy cost causes time cost to increase.

Figure 5: (a) The group error E(t) and (b) energy cost E with four regular
topologies G1 , G2 G3 and G4 .

The effect of the interaction topologies and LRIs on the control costs are
analyzed. The graphs G1 , G2 , G3 and G4 given in Fig. 1 are used as examples of
network topologies, therein, εd = 1/d. Fig. 5 shows the group error E(t) and
energy cost for different network topologies without noise perturbation. The re-
sult implies that the smaller diameters of MASs, the faster the convergence rate.
Based on theoretical analysis, it’s known that the larger diameter corresponds
to the smaller εmin , while εmin is inversely proportional to the convergence time.
Meanwhile, Fig. 5(a) shows that LRIs can promote consensus, and the larger
the diameter, the greater effect of LRIs on the convergence rate. Networks with
large diameters mean fewer direct connections among agents and the effect of
LRIs becomes more significant. The energy cost is plotted in Fig. 5(b), it can

21
be found that the LRIs lead to the increase in energy cost. It means that LRIs
can save time cost but consume more energy. This suggests that the impact of
LRIs on control costs is two-fold; on the one hand LRIs save time costs and on
the other hand LRIs lead to more energy consumption.

0.06
=0.3, =0.7 (LRIs)
=0.3, =0.7
=0.7, =0.3 (LRIs)
0.04 =0.7, =0.3
J

0.02

0
0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9

Figure 6: Control costs indexes J of MASs with and without LRIs under dif-
ferent control parameters θ and weights, where θ = 0.3 ∼ 0.9 and the asterisks
are optimal control choices.

Although there is no optimal control parameter, we can still find relatively

optimal control parameters for different control requirements. Different control
requirements imply different emphasis on the time and energy costs of control.
Thus we can define a control cost index J = κT + µE, where κ and µ are
adjustable normalized weighting parameters and satisfy κ+µ = 1. According to
the definition of the control cost index, the smaller J is the smaller the time and
energy costs, i.e., the more effective the controller is. We simulate the evolution
of control cost indexes with control parameter θ for MASs with and without
LRIs under different control requirements, where θ = 0.3 ∼ 0.9. The variation
of the control cost index with θ under two opposite control requirements is
displayed in Fig. 6. Fig. 6 shows that the optimal control parameter selection
occurs when θ is close to 0.5, but different control requirements correspond to
different optimal control methods, one is optimal when LRIS is considered and

22
the other is optimal when LRIS is not considered. While when θ = 0.7 ∼ 0.9,
the control cost index of MASs with LRIs is significantly smaller than that of
MASs without LRIs, i.e., controllers with LRIs perform better than controllers
without LRIs. In short, when the control parameter θ can only take larger
values, considering LRIs gives superior control performance. This means that
it makes sense to consider LRIs when controlling MASs, which can effectively
improve control performance.

0.5
xi(t)

-0.5

-1
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
t

Figure 7: State trajectories xi (t) with topology G1 with noisy perturbation.

Then, we consider the evolution of agents’ states in noisy environments, take

graph G1 as the interaction topology and parameters α = 2, ηd = d/10. We can
Pdmax [d]
obtain d=1 εd λ2 (L ⊗ In ) = 2.5608, λmax (D) = 1.6449, so the sufficient
conditions for stochastic consensus is satisfied. Fig. 7 shows the evolutions
of agents’ states xi (t). It can be seen that the consensus is reached for the
stochastic MASs, which demonstrates that our control protocol is effective for
MASs with noisy perturbations.
Finally, the numerical results of MASs with scale-free topologies are given.
The influence of the network size N and degree index γd on the control costs are
investigated, we simulate the scale-free networks by taking group size N = 200 ∼
500, different degree index γd = 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 and initial conditions are chosen
from the range [−1, 1] randomly. The theoretical analysis implies that, with the

23
 (a)
0.4
γd=2.1
0.3 γd=2.3

T
γd=2.5
0.2
0.1
(b)
600
400
E

200
0
200 300 400 500
N

Figure 8: (a) The convergence time T and (b) energy costs E as a function
of network size N for scale-free networks, where group size N =200 ∼ 500,
different degree index γd = 2 .1,2.3,2.5, α = 0, β = 2, θ= 0.9, εd = 1/d.

increase of N , the time cost decreases while the energy cost increases. Fig. 8(a)
presents that the time cost t is a decreased function of the group size N , which
is consistent with the theoretical analysis. Meanwhile, the relative energy costs
E size is plotted as a function of the network in Fig. 8(b). We can see that the
increased network size increases the energy cost. Furthermore, the degree index
γd of network topology has a significant effect on control costs. Fig. 8(a) shows
that the network with a smaller degree index converges faster than those with a
larger degree index. Moreover, a network with a smaller degree index consumes
higher energy costs, as displayed in Fig. 8(b). It is common knowledge that a
smaller network degree index means better connectivity. Namely, the networks
have more edges, so the strengths of information exchange among agents are
stronger. Thus, it naturally consumes less time and more energy cost.

6. Conclusion

This paper investigates the control costs of long-range interacting MASs.

First of all, a new continuous finite-time consensus protocol is given to reach
the consensus of long-range interacting MASs. The sufficient conditions to guar-

24
antee consensus are derived, and estimates of control costs are given. Our results
show that the smaller control parameter θ and larger control parameter β are
effective to reduce the time cost. In addition, increasing the network diame-
ter will consume more time cost but save energy cost. In the simulation, we
consider the effect of the network size N and degree index γd on control costs.
The result shows that the networks with more nodes and smaller degree indexes
consume more energy. We find that regardless of whether MASs have LRIs or
not, there is always a trade-off between time and energy costs, i.e., there is no
optimal control parameter that minimizes both time and energy costs. And in
some cases, controllers with LRIs perform significantly better than controllers
without LRIs. In summary, controllers with LRIs are complementary to con-
trollers without LRIs, and they can effectively improve the poor performance
of controllers without LRIS under certain conditions. This provides us with a
new choice for controlling MASs: considering the influence of LRIs.
This paper is the first step in building a basic framework to estimate control
cost for stochastic MASs with LRIs. In future works, this idea will be extended
to more specific MASs, for example, the control costs high-order stochastic
MASs.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of

China (No. 12271519 and No. 2211001016) , the Natural Science Foundation
of Jiangsu Province (No. BK20211241).

References

[1] H. Su, J. Zhang, Z. Zeng, Formation-containment control of multi-robot

systems under a stochastic sampling mechanism, Sci. China-Technol. Sci.
63 (6) (2020) 1025–1034.

[2] Y. Jia, Y. Yang, Q. Li, W. Zhang, Aerial escort task using networked

25
 miniature unmanned aerial vehicles, Int. J. Control 94 (6) (2021) 1556–
1566.

[3] S. Lin, R. Jia, M. Yue, Y. Xu, On composite leader-follower formation con-

trol for wheeled mobile robots with adaptive disturbance rejection, Appl.
Artif. Intell. 33 (14) (2019) 1306–1326.

[4] P. Lu, F. Wen, Y. Li, D. Chen, Multi-agent modeling of crowd dynamics

under mass shooting cases, Chaos Solitons Fractals 153 (2021) 111513.

[5] L. D. Alvergue, A. Pandey, G. Gu, X. Chen, Consensus control for hetero-

geneous multiagent systems, SIAM J. Control Optim. 54 (3) (2016) 1719–
1738.

[6] J. Jung, S. Jin, Emergence of the consensus and separation in an agent-

based model with attractive and singular repulsive forces, SIAM J. Appl.
Dyn. Syst. 19 (3) (2020) 2103–2134.

[7] R. Olfati-Saber, R. M. Murray, Consensus problems in networks of agents

with switching topology and time-delays, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control
49 (9) (2004) 1520–1533.

[8] Y. Kim, M. Mesbahi, On maximizing the second smallest eigenvalue of

a state-dependent graph laplacian, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 51 (1)
(2006) 116–120.

[9] L. Wang, F. Xiao, Finite-time consensus problems for networks of dynamic

agents, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 55 (4) (2010) 950–955.

[10] X. Wu, B. Mao, X. Wu, J. Lu, Dynamic event-triggered leader-follower

consensus control for multiagent systems, SIAM J. Control Optim. 60 (1)
(2022) 189–209.

[11] D. Chen, X. Liu, W. Yu, Finite-time fuzzy adaptive consensus for hetero-
geneous nonlinear multi-agent systems, IEEE Trans. Netw. Sci. Eng. 7 (4)
(2020) 3057–3066.

26
[12] A. Sharafian, A. Sharifi, W. Zhang, Different types of sliding mode con-
troller for nonlinear fractional multi-agent system, Chaos Solitons Fractals
131 (2020) 109481.

[13] T. Long, S. Yang, Q. Wang, L. Ji, X. Liao, Finite-time consensus of non-

linear multi-agent systems via impulsive time window theory: a two-stage
control strategy, Nonlinear Dyn. 105 (4) (2021) 3285–3297.

[14] H. Dai, W. Li, C. Yang, G. Wen, Y. Sun, Time and energy costs for consen-
sus of multi-agent networks with undirected and directed topologies, IEEE
Trans. Netw. Sci. Eng. 8 (4) (2021) 3380–3391.

[15] L. Wang, J. Xi, Z. Yu, X. Liu, G. Liu, Limited-budget finite-time average

consensus design for multi-agent systems, IET Contr. Theory Appl. 14 (15)
(2020) 2197–2204.

[16] T. Liu, J. Wang, X. Zhang, D. Cheng, Game theoretic control of multiagent

systems, SIAM J. Control Optim. 57 (3) (2019) 1691–1709.

[17] P. Bolzern, P. Colaneri, G. De Nicolao, Multi-opinion markovian agent

networks: Parametrization, second order moment and social power, Auto-
matica 153 (2023) 111026.

[18] E. Estrada, E. Vargas-Estrada, How peer pressure shapes consensus, lead-

ership, and innovations in social groups, Sci Rep 3 (1) (2013) 1–6.

[19] E. Jahani, S. P. Fraiberger, M. Bailey, D. Eckles, Long ties, disruptive life

events, and economic prosperity, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 120 (28)
(2023) e2211062120.

[20] N. Boers, B. Goswami, A. Rheinwalt, B. Bookhagen, B. Hoskins, J. Kurths,

Complex networks reveal global pattern of extreme-rainfall teleconnections,
Nature 566 (7744) (2019) 373–377.

[21] J. Zheng, J. Chen, Y. Jin, Y. Wen, Y. Mu, C. Wu, Y. Wang, P. Tong,

Z. Li, X. Hou, et al., Photochromism from wavelength-selective colloidal
phase segregation, Nature 617 (7961) (2023) 499–506.

27
[22] V. Helson, T. Zwettler, F. Mivehvar, E. Colella, K. Roux, H. Konishi,
H. Ritsch, J.-P. Brantut, Density-wave ordering in a unitary fermi gas with
photon-mediated interactions, Nature (2023) 1–5.

[23] M. Kaschube, M. Schnabel, S. Löwel, D. M. Coppola, L. E. White, F. Wolf,

Universality in the evolution of orientation columns in the visual cortex,
Science 330 (6007) (2010) 1113–1116.

[24] C. Lagoin, U. Bhattacharya, T. Grass, R. Chhajlany, T. Salamon, K. Bald-

win, L. Pfeiffer, M. Lewenstein, M. Holzmann, F. Dubin, Extended bose–
hubbard model with dipolar excitons, Nature 609 (7927) (2022) 485–489.

[25] C. Chen, S. Liu, X.-q. Shi, H. Chaté, Y. Wu, Weak synchronization

and large-scale collective oscillation in dense bacterial suspensions, Nature
542 (7640) (2017) 210–214.

[26] A. S. Etémé, C. B. Tabi, A. Mohamadou, Synchronized nonlinear pattern-

s in electrically coupled hindmarsh–rose neural networks with long-range
diffusive interactions, Chaos Solitons Fractals 104 (2017) 813–826.

[27] E. Estrada, E. Hameed, N. Hatano, M. Langer, Path laplacian operators

and superdiffusive processes on graphs. i. one-dimensional case, Linear Alg.
Appl. 523 (2017) 307–334.

[28] E. Estrada, Path laplacian matrices: Introduction and application to the

analysis of consensus in networks, Linear Alg. Appl. 436 (9) (2012) 3373–
3391.

[29] E. Estrada, L. V. Gambuzza, M. Frasca, Long-range interactions and net-

work synchronization, SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. 17 (1) (2018) 672–693.

[30] L. V. Gambuzza, M. Frasca, E. Estrada, Second-order consensus protocols

based on transformed d-path laplacians, Appl. Math. Comput. 343 (2019)
183–194.

28
[31] S. Rakshit, S. Majhi, D. Ghosh, Synchronization in complex networks with
long-range interactions, J. Phys. A-Math. Theor. 53 (15) (2020) 154002.

[32] E. Rybalova, T. Vadivasova, G. Strelkova, A. Zakharova, Multiplexing noise

induces synchronization in multilayer networks, Chaos Solitons Fractals 163
(2022) 112521.

[33] K. Cui, Z. Song, S. Zhang, Stability of neutral-type neural network with

lévy noise and mixed time-varying delays, Chaos Solitons Fractals 159
(2022) 112146.

[34] R. Erban, J. Haskovec, Y. Sun, A cucker-smale model with noise and delay,
SIAM J. Appl. Math. 76 (4) (2016) 1535–1557.

[35] S. Liu, L. Xie, H. Zhang, Distributed consensus for multi-agent systems

with delays and noises in transmission channels, Automatica 47 (5) (2011)
920–934.

[36] Y. Zheng, W. Chen, L. Wang, Finite-time consensus for stochastic multi-

agent systems, Int. J. Control 84 (10) (2011) 1644–1652.

[37] X. Zong, T. Li, J. Zhang, Consensus conditions of continuous-time multi-

agent systems with additive and multiplicative measurement noises, SIAM
J. Control Optim. 56 (1) (2018) 19–52.

[38] X. Zong, T. Li, J. Zhang, Consensus conditions of continuous-time multi-

agent systems with time-delays and measurement noises, Automatica 99
(2019) 412–419.

[39] Y. Sun, W. Li, H. Shi, D. Zhao, S. Azaele, Finite-time and fixed-time con-
sensus of multiagent networks with pinning control and noise perturbation,
SIAM J. Appl. Math. 79 (1) (2019) 111–130.

[40] Y. Sun, D. Zhao, J. Ruan, Consensus in noisy environments with switching

topology and time-varying delays, Physica A 389 (19) (2010) 4149–4161.

29
[41] F. Jiang, L. Wang, Finite-time information consensus for multi-agent sys-
tems with fixed and switching topologies, Physica D 238 (16) (2009) 1550–
1560.

[42] Y. Sun, S. Leng, Y. Lai, C. Grebogi, W. Lin, Closed-loop control of complex

networks: A trade-off between time and energy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (19)
(2017) 198301.

[43] M. Ballerini, N. Cabibbo, R. Candelier, A. Cavagna, E. Cisbani, I. Giar-

dina, V. Lecomte, A. Orlandi, G. Parisi, A. Procaccini, et al., Interaction
ruling animal collective behavior depends on topological rather than metric
distance: Evidence from a field study, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105 (4)
(2008) 1232–1237.

[44] S. P. Bhat, D. S. Bernstein, Finite-time stability of continuous autonomous

systems, SIAM J. Control Optim. 38 (3) (2000) 751–766.

[45] W. Chen, L. Jiao, Finite-time stability theorem of stochastic nonlinear

systems, Automatica 46 (12) (2010) 2105–2108.

30
Declaration of Interest Statement

Declaration of interests

☒The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests: