Graphs and Networks for the Analysis of Autonomous Agent Systems
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Universite´ catholique de Louvain Ecole Polytechnique de Louvain Departement´ d’Ingenierie´ Mathematique´ Center for Systems Engineering and Applied Mechanics Graphs and Networks for the Analysis of Autonomous Agent Systems Julien M. Hendrickx Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Docteur en sciences appliqu´ees Dissertation committee: Prof. Brian D.O. Anderson, ANU (Australia) Prof. Vincent D. Blondel, Advisor, UCL Prof. Karl Henrik Johansson, KTH (Sweden) Prof. Rodolphe Sepulchre, ULg Prof. Paul Van Dooren, Chair, UCL Prof. Sandro Zampieri, University of Padova (Italy) February 2008 2 Acknowledgments First of all, I would like to thank my advisor Vincent Blondel for his invaluable support and help, for providing me so much useful advice, many ideas and op- portunities, and giving me a great liberty in my research at the same time. I am also very grateful for his careful reading of the thesis, especially when time was running short for me. I would also like to thank all the members of my thesis committee for their questions and feedback, which have helped me greatly in improving this thesis. My gratitude goes to Brian Anderson and his team, and to John Tsitsiklis, with whom I had the pleasure to collaborate during this PhD, and thanks to whom I could spend some months at A.N.U. and at M.I.T. Visiting other labs and teams is always an enjoyable and interesting ex- perience from which much can be learned. I am therefore also thankful to Rodolphe Sepulchre (ULg), Stephen Morse (Yale), Magnus Egerstedt (Georgia Tech), Pierre-Alexandre Bliman (INRIA) and Karl Henrik Johansson (KTH) who did me the honor of inviting me in their universities or research centers. Working at Cesame has been a pleasure, and I would like to thank all the people who made these years enjoyable. In particular, I am grateful to Chris- tel, Sergey, Emmanuel and Tzvetan with whom I have shared my office, and to Brieux and Thomas with whom I have often shared the building at some im- probable times. Mich`ele, Isabelle and Lydia of the secretary staff also deserve a special attention for their great work. Writing a thesis takes several iterations. I would like to thank Rapha¨el Jungers for his careful reading of the first draft, and for his many suggestions. I am also grateful to him for the different collaborations and the many inter- esting discussions we had. I also really appreciated the detailed remarks and suggestions of Paul Van Dooren and Sandro Zampieri concerning both the text and the mathematical notations and proofs. The advices of Laure Ninove and Jean-Charles Delvenne during the writing and the whole PhD were very useful too. Besides, Brainstorming sessions with Jean-Charles were very rewarding experiences. It would have been very difficult to accomplish this work without the sup- port of my parents, family and friends, who I would like to thank all. Last but certainly not least, I am extremely grateful to Sylvie for her con- stant understanding, help and support throughout these last years, and for the many hours spent rereading this thesis. 3 Pecunia nervus belli: This thesis has been financially supported by a F.R.S.- FNRS (Fund for Scientific Research) fellowship. On various occasions, the support of the Concerted Research Action “Large Graphs and Networks” of the Communaut´efran¸caise de Belgique, and of the Belgian Programme on Interuniversity Attraction Poles (initiated by the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office) has been appreciated. 4 Contents 1 General Introduction 9 Key Contributions 14 List of Publications 16 Preliminary 21 I Rigidity and Persistence of Directed Graphs 25 Prologue 27 2 Introduction to Rigidity and Persistence 29 2.1 Shape maintenance in formation control . 29 2.2 Rigidity and distances preservation . 30 2.3 Persistence and unilateral distance constraints . 31 2.4 OutlineofpartI .......................... 38 3 Rigidity of Graphs 39 3.1 Rigidity ............................... 40 3.2 Infinitesimal rigidity . 42 3.3 Generic rigidity of graphs . 45 3.4 Minimal rigidity for a characterization of rigid graphs . 47 3.5 Force based approach to rigidity matrix . 50 3.6 Tensegrity.............................. 51 3.7 Historyandliterature ....................... 55 4 Persistence of Directed Graphs 57 4.1 Agentbehavior ........................... 58 4.2 Persistence and constraint consistence . 61 4.3 Infinitesimal persistence . 63 5 6 CONTENTS 4.4 Characterization and generic character . 65 4.5 Degrees of freedom . 70 4.6 Minimal persistence . 74 4.7 Double edges . 75 4.8 Historyandliterature ....................... 76 5 Structural Persistence 77 5.1 Convergence to equilibrium . 77 5.2 Structural persistence . 79 5.3 Characterizing structural persistence . 80 5.4 Toward a simpler characterization . 83 5.5 Historyandliterature ....................... 86 6 Particular Classes of Graphs 87 6.1 Acyclicgraphs ........................... 87 6.2 2-dimensional minimally persistent Graphs . 93 6.3 Two-dimensional graphs with three d.o.f. 104 6.4 Historyandliterature . 108 7 Further Research Directions 109 7.1 Formation control research issues . 109 7.2 Open questions in graph theory . 127 8 Conclusions 133 II Consensus in Multi-Agent Systems with Distance Dependent Topologies 135 9 Introduction 137 9.1 Examples of systems involving consensus . 138 9.2 Representative convergence results . 149 9.3 State-dependent communication topology . 155 9.4 OutlineofpartII.......................... 158 10 Continuous-time Opinion Dynamics 161 10.1 Finite number of discrete agents . 161 10.2 System on a continuum . 169 11 Discrete-Time Opinion Dynamics 183 11.1 Finite number of discrete agents . 183 11.2 System on a continuum . 189 11.3 Relation between discrete and continuous . 195 CONTENTS 7 12 Extensions 199 12.1 Typeofextensions ......................... 199 12.2Convergence............................. 204 12.3 Equilibrium stability . 207 12.4 Order preservation . 215 13 Conclusions 223 13.1 On our analysis of opinion models . 223 13.2 On the mathematical analysis . 225 13.3 On practical applications . 226 Bibliography 231 List of Figures 243 A Definitions related to Part I 247 8 CONTENTS Chapter 1 General Introduction A natural trend when designing a system is either to make it monolithic or hierarchic. A monolithic system is one designed as a whole to accomplish a certain task. A hierarchic system is one in which blocks are designed to accom- plish particular tasks, and those blocks are articulated and controlled according to a certain hierarchy. Many of the complex devices that we use are hierar- chical. Think for example of a computer where the controller leads the CPU, computing unit of the processor, and where the CPU itself controls all other devices such has the hard-disk or the screen. Large computer programs are also designed hierarchically, with large functions implemented by many smaller ones. Similarly, the main decisions about an airplane in flight are made by the pilot that transmits them to the appropriate actuators via piloting devices. This thesis is also written in a hierarchical way, with a main file containing different parts that contains chapters etc. Finally many industrial plants also work in a hierarchical (and often centralized) way with a control room where all measures outputs are shown and where levers and buttons (or computers) can be used to control the plant. Nature provides however many examples of sophisticated group behaviors that would never be achievable by individual members of the group, and that are produced in the absence of clear or fixed hierarchy. Fish and birds move sometimes as a group with such an efficient and smooth coordination that they can give the impression of being one single large animal (see Figure 1.1). There is no obvious leader or commanding chain in such groups, and the member interactions depend on the opportunity of the moment, and not according to some pre-specified order. Group of ants are also known to accomplish impres- sive tasks without clear organization. In addition to what they are able to build and move, they can also find as a group acceptable solutions to shortest paths problems, something that no single ant could do. As an other example, think 9 10 CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION of the kind of problems a group of persons can tackle as opposed to what a single person can do. Such systems have a large robustness with respect to the addition or removal of agents. A school of fish remains approximately the same when the number of fish is increased or decreased by 25%, but removing (or adding) one single piece of a computer may lead to dramatic consequences. Whoever had to fight with insects also knows that removing 75% of them may decrease but certainly not suppress the nuisance. Finally, the complementarity between different agent may also improve the efficiency. Characteristics offering an advantage for one task may be a draw- back for other tasks. The collaboration between different agents having different characteristics may thus lead to the accomplishment of different tasks that no single agent would be able to do. This specialization may however lead to a decrease in robustness if some sort of agent has too few representatives. The use of multi-agent systems and of its increased robustness properties comes however at a cost: that of complexity. Describing and predicting the behavior of a system of equal entities interacting with each other without clear hierarchy may be extremely difficult, even if the systems observed in nature are sometimes simple. In mechanics for example, describing the behavior of a single point mass body is usually a simple task, but describing the evolution of a sys- tem with three or more bodies interacting with each other may be delicate, as it can present chaotic behavior. This inherent complexity might actually be the reason why hierarchical structures are often designed, while non-hierarchical structures are often rather observed.