This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Consensus seeking in diffusive multidimensional networks with a repeated interaction pattern and time-delays

Hoang Huy Vu2, Quyen Ngoc Nguyen2, Chuong Van Nguyen3, Tuynh Van Pham2, Minh Hoang Trinh1 Department of Automation Engineering, School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Hanoi University of Science and Technology (HUST), Hanoi, Vietnam. E-mails: {hoang.vh200250,quyen.nn200518} @sis.hust.edu.vn, tuynh.phamvan@hust.edu.vn.Viterbi School of Engineering – Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern California, USA. E-mail: vanchuong.nguyen@usc.edu.AI Department, FPT University, Quy Nhon AI Campus, An Phu Thinh New Urban Area, Quy Nhon City, Nhon Binh Ward, Binh Dinh 55117, Vietnam. Corresponding author. E-mail: minhth19@fe.edu.vn.
Abstract

This paper studies a consensus problem in multidimensional networks having the same agent-to-agent interaction pattern under both intra- and cross-layer time delays. Several conditions for the agents to globally asymptotically achieve a consensus are derived, which involve the overall network’s structure, the local interacting pattern, and the values of the time delays. The validity of these conditions is proved by direct eigenvalue evaluation and supported by numerical simulations.

Index Terms:
consensus and synchronization, matrix-weighted consensus, multi-layer networks

I Introduction

In recent years, the demand for understanding complex and large-scale structures such as social, traffic, material, or brain networks has raised increasing attention on modeling, analyzing, and synthesizing multilayer networks [1]. A multilayer network consists of multiple agents (or subsystems) interacting via dd-dimensional single-layer networks (d2)(d\geq 2). The dynamic of each agent is captured by a set of state variables corresponding to dd layers, and the agent-to-agent influences govern the entire network’s behavior. If the network contains only intra-layer interactions (interactions of state variables belonging to the same layer) and inter-layer interactions (couplings of state variables from different layers of the same agent), we refer to the network as a multiplex. A multilayer network contains cross-layer interactions - the couplings of the state variables lying in different layers and from distinct agents [2]. In a diffusive network, the variation of each agent’s state variables depends on the differences between the agent’s state and its neighboring agents. Figure 1 illustrates a two-layer network of four agents.

Consensus algorithms, because of their simplicity and generality, were extensively used to study the dynamics of single-layer networks (monoplexes) [3]. For multilayer networks, [4, 5, 6] considered the consensus and synchronization on multiplexes. The authors in [7, 8, 9] proposed matrix-weighted consensus in which the state variable in a layer of an agent is updated based on a weighted sum of relative states from every layer, taken for all neighboring agents. Time delay is a source of uncertainty that usually affects the performance of communication networks [10]. As a result, many studies have focused on delayed single-layer consensus networks [3, 11]. On the other hand, there is not much research on delays in multilayer consensus systems. The consensus and synchronization on multiplexes with time delays were studied in [12].

This paper attempts to derive consensus conditions for the matrix-weighted consensus model [8] with heterogeneous time delays. We assume that all agent-to-agent interactions have the same graph pattern and time delays may exist in both intra- and cross-layer interactions. We first prove that if there is no intra-layer time delay and the maximum magnitude of all eigenvalues of the adjacency matrix corresponding to cross-layer interactions is smaller than unity, the network globally asymptotically achieves a consensus. The result reveals that significant delays from weak cross-layer interactions cannot destabilize a multilayer consensus network. Second, the network is considered with both intra- and cross-layer time delays. The stability of an equation involving two different constant time delays was considered in [13], where the authors derived a necessary and sufficient condition based on the root of a transcendental equation. In this paper, due to the interweaving of the (complex) eigenvalues of the overall network and the local interaction graph, the method developed in [13] cannot be applied. Instead, we examine the network when two-time delays are equal and determine a corresponding delay margin. Then, we show that when intra- and cross-layer time delays do not exceed a calibrated delay margin, the network asymptotically achieves a consensus. The delay margin is tight in the sense that once one of the time delays exceeds the margin and the other is equal to the delay margin, the consensus network becomes unstable. Finally, the delayed two-layer network is considered and several detailed consensus conditions are determined by the graph’s parameters.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II contains theoretical background and problem formulation. Section III provides consensus conditions and the corresponding analysis for networks with a general interaction pattern matrix. Two-layer networks are considered and simulated in Section IV. Lastly, Section V concludes the paper.

II Problem formulation

Consider a diffusive multi-layer network of n2n\geq 2 agents. Each agent i{1,,n}i\in\{1,\ldots,n\} is a dd-dimensional subsystem with the state vector 𝐱i=[xi1,,xid]d\mathbf{x}_{i}=[x_{i1},\ldots,x_{id}]^{\top}\in\mathbb{R}^{d} (d2)(d\geq 2). The interaction between two agents ii and jj in the network is modeled by a matrix weight 𝐀ij=𝐀jid×d\mathbf{A}_{ij}=\mathbf{A}_{ji}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d},

𝐀ij=[aijpq]d×d=[aij11aij12aij1daij21aij22aij2daijd1aijd2aijdd],\displaystyle\mathbf{A}_{ij}=[a_{ij}^{pq}]_{d\times d}=\begin{bmatrix}a_{ij}^{11}&a_{ij}^{12}&\ldots&a_{ij}^{1d}\\ a_{ij}^{21}&a_{ij}^{22}&\ldots&a_{ij}^{2d}\\ \vdots&\vdots&&\vdots\\ a_{ij}^{d1}&a_{ij}^{d2}&\ldots&a_{ij}^{dd}\end{bmatrix}, (1)

where i,j{1,,n}i,j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}, iji\neq j, and p,q{1,,d}p,q\in\{1,\ldots,d\}. Thus, each element aijpq=ajipqa_{ij}^{pq}=a_{ji}^{pq}\in\mathbb{R} captures the influence from the pp-th layer to the qq-th layer in the network. The elements aijpp,p=1,,da_{ij}^{pp},~{}p=1,\ldots,d represent intra-layer interactions (same layer), while the aijpq,pqa_{ij}^{pq},~{}p\neq q stand for cross-layer interactions between two agents i,ji,~{}j. We use an undirected graph 𝒢=(𝒱,)\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E}) to describe the interaction topology between agents in the network, i.e., each agent ii is represented by a vertex ii in the vertex set 𝒱={1,,n}\mathcal{V}=\{1,\ldots,n\}, each edge (i,j)(i,j)\in\mathcal{E} exists if the matrix weight 𝐀ij𝟎d×d\mathbf{A}_{ij}\neq\mathbf{0}_{d\times d}. Assume that the graph 𝒢\mathcal{G} does not exist any self-loop, i.e., edges connecting a vertex with itself. The undirectedness assumption implies that if (i,j)(i,j)\in\mathcal{E}, then (j,i)(j,i)\in\mathcal{E}. Let 𝒩i={j𝒱|(i,j)}\mathcal{N}_{i}=\{j\in\mathcal{V}|~{}(i,j)\in\mathcal{E}\} denote the neighbor set of vertex ii. A path i1i2iki_{1}i_{2}\ldots i_{k} in 𝒢\mathcal{G} is a sequence of vertices ik𝒱,k=1,,k,i_{k}\in\mathcal{V},~{}k=1,\ldots,k, joining the starting vertex i1i_{1} to the end vertices iki_{k} by k1k-1 edges (ir,ir+1)(i_{r},i_{r+1})\in\mathcal{E}, r=1,,k1r=1,\ldots,k-1. The graph 𝒢\mathcal{G} is connected if and only if for any pairs of vertices in 𝒱\mathcal{V}, there exists a path connecting them.

Define the network adjacency matrix 𝐖=[wij]n×n\mathbf{W}=[w_{ij}]\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n} of 𝒢\mathcal{G} with elements wij=1w_{ij}=1 if (i,j)(i,j)\in\mathcal{E} and wij=0w_{ij}=0, otherwise. Then, the Laplacian matrix of 𝒢\mathcal{G} is defined as 𝐋=[lij]=diag(𝐖𝟏n)𝐖n×n\mathbf{L}=[l_{ij}]=\text{diag}(\mathbf{W}\mathbf{1}_{n})-\mathbf{W}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: A two-layer network of four agents

We consider the consensus algorithm in the multi-layer network, where each agent updates its state variables according to a weighted sum of both intra-layer and cross-layer state differences. Moreover, it is supposed that the intra-layer interactions and cross-layer interactions are having constant time delays τ1,τ20\tau_{1},\tau_{2}\geq 0. As a result, the equation governing the network dynamics under the matrix-weighted consensus algorithm is given as

x˙iq(t)\displaystyle\dot{x}_{iq}(t) =j=1najiqq(xjq(tτ1)xiq(tτ1))\displaystyle=\sum_{j=1}^{n}a_{ji}^{qq}(x_{jq}(t-\tau_{1})-x_{iq}(t-\tau_{1}))
+j=1np=1,pqdajipq(xjp(tτ2)xip(tτ2)),\displaystyle\quad+\sum_{j=1}^{n}\sum_{p=1,p\neq q}^{d}a_{ji}^{pq}(x_{jp}(t-\tau_{2})-x_{ip}(t-\tau_{2})), (2)

for all i𝒱i\in\mathcal{V} and q{1,,d}q\in\{1,\ldots,d\}.

We assume that the multilayer network is representable by a pair of graphs: the network graph 𝒢\mathcal{G} (the global graph), and an agent-to-agent interaction graph \mathcal{H} (the local graph). The graph \mathcal{H} encodes the mutual influences between the relative states of any two adjacent agents in the network. The multi-layer networks with a repeated pattern are described in the following assumptions.

Assumption 1

The network graph 𝒢\mathcal{G} is undirected and connected.

Assumption 2

The interaction matrices are the same 𝐀ij=𝐀=[apq]d×d\mathbf{A}_{ij}=\mathbf{A}=[a^{pq}]_{d\times d} for all edges (i,j)(i,j)\in\mathcal{E}. Furthermore, all intra-layer interactions have the same weight aijqq=1,(i,j),q=1,,da_{ij}^{qq}=1,~{}\forall(i,j)\in\mathcal{E},~{}\forall q=1,\ldots,d.

Refer to caption
(a)
Refer to caption
(b)
Figure 2: (a) - The network graph 𝒢=(𝒱,)\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E}), and (b) - the interaction pattern \mathcal{H} corresponding to the two-layer network in Fig. 1.

Note that 𝐀ij=𝐀ji=𝐀=[aij]d×d\mathbf{A}_{ij}=\mathbf{A}_{ji}=\mathbf{A}=[a_{ij}]_{d\times d} and \mathcal{H} is a graph of dd vertices with self-loops. Moreover, as all agent-to-agent interactions are represented by the same graph \mathcal{H}, we will refer to \mathcal{H} as the interaction pattern of the network. Figure 1 illustrates a four-agent network consisting of the network graph 𝒢\mathcal{G} and the interaction pattern \mathcal{H}.

The problem studied in this paper can be stated as follows.

Problem 1

Consider a network satisfying the Assumptions 1 and 2. Determine the condition for the system (II) in terms of the intra- and cross-layer time delays τ1\tau_{1} and τ2\tau_{2} to asymptotically reach a consensus.

III Consensus conditions

In this section, we consider the delayed consensus system (II) and derive some consensus conditions. We next examine specific networks of two- or three-layers and provide stability conditions related to the cross-layer interactions.

III-A Delay-free network

To derive a consensus condition, the system without time delays τ1=τ2=0\tau_{1}=\tau_{2}=0 is investigated. The following theorem gives a necessary and sufficient consensus condition.

Theorem 1

Suppose that Assumptions 1 and 2 hold. The nn-agent system (II) with τ1=τ2=0\tau_{1}=\tau_{2}=0 achieves a consensus if and only if the matrix 𝐀-\mathbf{A} is Hurwitz.

Proof:

The nn-agent system can be represented in matrix form as follows

𝐱˙(t)=(𝐋𝐀)𝐱(t),\displaystyle\dot{\mathbf{x}}(t)=-(\mathbf{L}\otimes\mathbf{A})\mathbf{x}(t), (3)

where 𝐱=vec(𝐱1,,𝐱n)\mathbf{x}=\text{vec}(\mathbf{x}_{1},\ldots,\mathbf{x}_{n}). Let ζ1,,ζd\zeta_{1},\ldots,\zeta_{d} be eigenvalues of 𝐀\mathbf{A}, and suppose that 𝐀\mathbf{A} has a Jordan normal form 𝐀=𝐓A𝐉A𝐓A1\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{T}_{\rm A}\mathbf{J}_{\rm A}\mathbf{T}^{-1}_{\rm A}. Then, matrix 𝐋𝐀=(𝐔𝚲𝐔)(𝐓A𝐉A𝐓A1)=(𝐔𝐓A)(𝚲𝐉𝐀)(𝐔𝐓1)A\mathbf{L}\otimes\mathbf{A}=(\mathbf{U}\bm{\Lambda}\mathbf{U}^{\top})\otimes(\mathbf{T}_{\rm A}\mathbf{J}_{\rm A}\mathbf{T}^{-1}_{\rm A})=(\mathbf{U}\otimes\mathbf{T}_{\rm A})(\bm{\Lambda\otimes\mathbf{J}_{\rm A}})(\mathbf{U}^{\top}\otimes\mathbf{T}^{-1})_{\rm A} has eigenvalues λiηj\lambda_{i}\eta_{j}, i=1,,n,i=1,\ldots,n, and j=1,,dj=1,\ldots,d. Taking the change of variables 𝐳=(𝐔𝐓A1)𝐱\mathbf{z}=(\mathbf{U}^{\top}\otimes\mathbf{T}^{-1}_{\rm A})\mathbf{x}, it follows that

𝐳˙(t)=(𝚲𝐉A)𝐳(t),\displaystyle\dot{\mathbf{z}}(t)=-(\bm{\Lambda}\otimes\mathbf{J}_{\rm A})\mathbf{z}(t), (4)

Noting that [z1,,zd][z_{1},\ldots,z_{d}]^{\top} corresponds to the consensus space im(𝟏n𝐈d)(\mathbf{1}_{n}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{d}), and these variables remain unchanged under (4). Meanwhile, 𝐳=[zd+1,,zdn]\mathbf{z}^{\prime}=[z_{d+1},\ldots,z_{dn}]^{\top} corresponds to the disagreement space, 𝐳˙=(𝚲𝐀)𝐳\dot{\mathbf{z}}^{\prime}=-(\bm{\Lambda}^{\prime}\otimes\mathbf{A}){\mathbf{z}}^{\prime}, and 𝚲=diag(λ2,,λn)\bm{\Lambda}^{\prime}=\text{diag}(\lambda_{2},\ldots,\lambda_{n}).

Thus, if at least an eigenvalue ζk\zeta_{k} of 𝐀\mathbf{A} has a nonpositive real part, then λiζk-\lambda_{i}\zeta_{k} has nonnegative real part. It follows that 𝐳\mathbf{z}^{\prime} may not converge to zero or even grow unbounded. On the other hand, if all eigenvalues of 𝐀-\mathbf{A} has negative real parts, then (𝚲𝐀)-(\bm{\Lambda}^{\prime}\otimes\mathbf{A}) is Hurwitz, 𝐳(t)\mathbf{z}^{\prime}(t) exponentially converges to 𝟎dnd\mathbf{0}_{dn-d}. Equivalently, the system exponentially achieves a consensus if and only if all eigenvalues of 𝐀\mathbf{A} have negative real parts. ∎

III-B Network with cross- and intra-layer time-delays

We consider the matrix-weighted consensus system under delays. Using the notation

𝐀cross=𝐀diag(a11,,add),\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross}=\mathbf{A}-\text{diag}(a^{11},\ldots,a^{dd}),

the equation (II) can be written for each agent ii as follows

𝐱˙i(t)\displaystyle\dot{\mathbf{x}}_{i}(t) =j=1n(𝐱j(tτ1)𝐱i(tτ1))\displaystyle=\sum_{j=1}^{n}(\mathbf{x}_{j}(t-\tau_{1})-\mathbf{x}_{i}(t-\tau_{1}))
+j=1n𝐀cross(𝐱j(tτ2)𝐱i(tτ2)),\displaystyle\quad+\sum_{j=1}^{n}\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross}(\mathbf{x}_{j}(t-\tau_{2})-\mathbf{x}_{i}(t-\tau_{2})), (5)

for i=1,,ni=1,\ldots,n. The nn-agent network can be written as follows

𝐱˙(t)=(𝐋𝐈d)𝐱(tτ1)(𝐋𝐀cross)𝐱(tτ2),\displaystyle\dot{\mathbf{x}}(t)=-(\mathbf{L}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{d})\mathbf{x}(t-\tau_{1})-(\mathbf{L}\otimes\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross})\mathbf{x}(t-\tau_{2}), (6)

Taking the Laplace transformation of the system (II) under the assumption that all initial conditions are zero gives

s𝐗(s)=(𝐋𝐈d)eτ1s𝐗(s)(𝐋𝐀crosseτ2s)𝐗(s)\displaystyle s\mathbf{X}(s)=-(\mathbf{L}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{d})e^{-\tau_{1}s}\mathbf{X}(s)-(\mathbf{L}\otimes\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross}e^{-\tau_{2}s})\mathbf{X}(s)
(s𝐈dn+(𝐋𝐈d)eτ1s+𝐋𝐀crosseτ2s)𝐗(s)=𝟎dn.\displaystyle(s\mathbf{I}_{dn}+(\mathbf{L}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{d})e^{-\tau_{1}s}+\mathbf{L}\otimes\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross}e^{-\tau_{2}s})\mathbf{X}(s)=\mathbf{0}_{dn}.

Since each zero of the matrix s𝐈dn+𝐋𝐈deτ1s+(𝐋𝐀cross)eτ2ss\mathbf{I}_{dn}+\mathbf{L}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{d}e^{-\tau_{1}s}+(\mathbf{L}\otimes\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross})e^{-\tau_{2}s} is correspondingly a pole of the system (6), we have the following result on the consensus condition of the delay consensus system (6).

Lemma 1

The system (6) globally asymptotically achieves a consensus if and only if the polynomials det((s+λieτ1s)𝐈d+λi𝐀crosseτ2s)\text{det}((s+\lambda_{i}e^{-\tau_{1}s})\mathbf{I}_{d}+\lambda_{i}\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross}e^{-\tau_{2}s}), i=2,,ni=2,\ldots,n are Hurwitz.

Proof:

Let 𝐔\mathbf{U} be the orthonormal matrix that diagonalizes 𝐋\mathbf{L}, i.e., 𝐋=𝐔𝚲𝐔\mathbf{L}=\mathbf{U}\mathbf{\Lambda}\mathbf{U}^{\top}, where diag(0,λ2,,λn)\text{diag}(0,\lambda_{2},\ldots,\lambda_{n}), and 0<λ2λn0<\lambda_{2}\leq\ldots\leq\lambda_{n} are eigenvalues of 𝐋\mathbf{L}, the poles of (6) are roots of

|s𝐈dn+(𝐋𝐈d)eτ1s+𝐋𝐀crosseτ2s|\displaystyle|s\mathbf{I}_{dn}+(\mathbf{L}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{d})e^{-\tau_{1}s}+\mathbf{L}\otimes\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross}e^{-\tau_{2}s}| =0\displaystyle=0
|s𝐈dn+(𝚲𝐈d)eτ1s+𝚲𝐀crosseτ2s|\displaystyle|s\mathbf{I}_{dn}+(\mathbf{\Lambda}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{d})e^{-\tau_{1}s}+\mathbf{\Lambda}\otimes\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross}e^{-\tau_{2}s}| =0\displaystyle=0
sdi=2ndet((s+λieτ1s)𝐈d+λi𝐀crosseτ2s)\displaystyle s^{d}\prod_{i=2}^{n}\text{det}((s+\lambda_{i}e^{-\tau_{1}s})\mathbf{I}_{d}+\lambda_{i}\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross}e^{-\tau_{2}s}) =0.\displaystyle=0.

Note that for the eigenvalue s=0s=0, we can find dd independent eigenvectors, which are columns of 𝟏n𝐈d\mathbf{1}_{n}\otimes\mathbf{I}_{d}. Since these eigenvectors span the consensus space, the eigenspaces corresponding to the remaining eigenvalues span the disagreement space. Thus, the system (6) globally asymptotically achieves a consensus if and only if each equation

det((s+λieτ1s)𝐈d+λi𝐀crosseτ2s)=0,\displaystyle\text{det}((s+\lambda_{i}e^{-\tau_{1}s})\mathbf{I}_{d}+\lambda_{i}\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross}e^{-\tau_{2}s})=0, (7)

i=2,,ni=2,\ldots,n, has only roots with negative real parts. ∎

Let μk=ak+ȷbk\mu_{k}=a_{k}+\jmath b_{k}, ak,bka_{k},b_{k}\in\mathbb{R}, k=1,,d,k=1,\ldots,d, be eigenvalues of 𝐀cross\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross}, and consider the Jordan decomposition of 𝐀cross\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross} as 𝐀cross=𝐓𝐉𝐓1\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross}=\mathbf{T}\mathbf{J}\mathbf{T}^{-1}, where 𝐓d×d\mathbf{T}\in\mathbb{R}^{d\times d}.

Lemmas 2 and 3 will be used to derive a stability result for the system (6).

Lemma 2

Suppose that Assumptions 1 and 2 hold. If all eigenvalues μk\mu_{k} of 𝐀cross\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross} satisfy |μk|<1,i=1,,d|\mu_{k}|<1,~{}\forall i=1,\ldots,d, then 𝐀-\mathbf{A} is Hurwitz.

Proof:

Since 𝐀=𝐈d𝐀cross-\mathbf{A}=-\mathbf{I}_{d}-\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross}, the eigenvalues of 𝐀-\mathbf{A} are correspondingly 1μk-1-\mu_{k}, which have nagative real parts due to |μk|<1,i=1,,d|\mu_{k}|<1,~{}\forall i=1,\ldots,d. ∎

Remark 1

Using the Gershgorin circle theorem, a sufficient condition for |μk|<1,k|\mu_{k}|<1,\forall k is 𝐀cross<1\begin{Vmatrix}\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross}\end{Vmatrix}_{\infty}<1.

Lemma 3

[13, Cor. 2.4] Consider the polynomial

P(λ,eλτ1,,eλτm)\displaystyle P\left(\lambda,e^{-\lambda\tau_{1}},\cdots,e^{-\lambda\tau_{m}}\right)
=\displaystyle= j=1npj(0)λnj+i=1m(eλτij=1npj(i)λnj),\displaystyle\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{n}p_{j}^{(0)}\lambda^{n-j}+\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{m}\left(e^{-\lambda\tau_{i}}\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{n}p_{j}^{(i)}\lambda^{n-j}\right), (8)

where i=1,,m,j=1,,ni=1,\ldots,m,j=1,\ldots,n, τi0\tau_{i}\geq 0 and pj(i)p_{j}^{(i)} are constants. As (τ1,τ2,,τm)\left(\tau_{1},\tau_{2},\cdots,\tau_{m}\right) varies, the sum of the orders of the zeros of P(λ,eλτ1,,eλτm)P\left(\lambda,e^{-\lambda\tau_{1}},\cdots,e^{-\lambda\tau_{m}}\right) in the open RHP can change only if a zero appears on or crosses the imaginary axis.

First, we consider the situation when intra-layer interactions are delay-free, i.e., τ1=0\tau_{1}=0, and prove the following theorem.

Theorem 2

Suppose that Assumptions 1 and 2 hold, τ1=0\tau_{1}=0, and |μk|<1|\mu_{k}|<1, k=1,,d\forall k=1,\ldots,d. Then, the system (6) globally asymptotically achieves a consensus.

Proof:

Each equation det((s+λi)𝐈d+λi𝐀crosseτ2s)=0,i=1,,n,\text{det}((s+\lambda_{i})\mathbf{I}_{d}+\lambda_{i}\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross}e^{-\tau_{2}s})=0,~{}i=1,\ldots,n, is equivalent to dd equations

fi,k(s,eτ2s)=s+λi+λi(ak+ȷbk)eτ2s=0,\displaystyle f_{i,k}(s,e^{-\tau_{2}s})=s+\lambda_{i}+\lambda_{i}(a_{k}+\jmath b_{k})e^{-\tau_{2}s}=0, (9)

Notice that for the quasi-polynomial (9), based on Lemma 2, the polynomial fi,k(s,eτs)f_{i,k}\left(s,e^{-\tau s}\right) is Hurwitz stable (having all roots with negative real parts) for τ2=0\tau_{2}=0 and |μk|2=ak2+bk2<1|\mu_{k}|^{2}=a^{2}_{k}+b^{2}_{k}<1. From Lemma 3, suppose that fi,k(s,eτ2s)f_{i,k}\left(s,e^{-\tau_{2}s}\right) is unstable, there must exist some 0<τ<τ20<\tau^{*}<\tau_{2} such that f(s,eτs)f\left(s,e^{-\tau^{*}s}\right) has a root on the imaginary axis.

Let s=ȷω,ωs=\jmath\omega,~{}\omega\in\mathbb{R}, be a root of Eqn. (9), then

ȷω+λi+λi(ak+bkȷ)(cos(τ2ω)ȷsin(τ2ω))=0,\displaystyle\jmath\omega+\lambda_{i}+\lambda_{i}(a_{k}+b_{k}\jmath)(\cos(\tau_{2}\omega)-\jmath\sin(\tau_{2}\omega))=0, (10)

which is equivalent to

akcos(τ2ω)+bksin(τ2ω)\displaystyle a_{k}\cos(\tau_{2}\omega)+b_{k}\sin(\tau_{2}\omega) =1,\displaystyle=-1, (11a)
aksin(τ2ω)+bkcos(τ2ω)\displaystyle-a_{k}\sin(\tau_{2}\omega)+b_{k}\cos(\tau_{2}\omega) =ωλi.\displaystyle=\frac{\omega}{\lambda_{i}}. (11b)

Taking the sum of square of both sides of two equations (11a) and (11b) gives ak2+bk2=ω2λi2+1a^{2}_{k}+b^{2}_{k}=\frac{\omega^{2}}{\lambda_{i}^{2}}+1, which has no real roots as ak2+bk21<0a^{2}_{k}+b^{2}_{k}-1<0. This implies that τ20\forall\tau_{2}\geq 0, the equation (9) has the same numbers of poles with negative real parts whenever |μk|=ak2+bk2<1|\mu_{k}|=\sqrt{a_{k}^{2}+b_{k}^{2}}<1. Therefore, the system (II) globally asymptotically achieves a consensus if maxk=1,,d|μk|<1\max_{k=1,\ldots,d}|\mu_{k}|<1. ∎

Second, in case the cross-layer interactions are delay-free, i.e., τ1>0\tau_{1}>0, τ2=0\tau_{2}=0, we have the following theorem, which provides a sufficient consensus condition.

Theorem 3

Suppose that Assumptions 1 and 2 hold, |μk|=|ak+ȷbk|<1|\mu_{k}|=|a_{k}+\jmath b_{k}|<1, ak0a_{k}\geq 0k=1,,d\forall k=1,\ldots,d, and τ2=0\tau_{2}=0. The system (6) globally asymptotically achieves a consensus if 0τ1<π2λmax(1+bmax)0\leq\tau_{1}<\frac{\pi}{2\lambda_{\max}(1+b_{\max})}, where λmax=maxi=1,,nλi\lambda_{\max}=\max_{i=1,\ldots,n}\lambda_{i} and bmax=maxk=1,,d|bk|b_{\max}=\max_{k=1,\ldots,d}|b_{k}|.

Proof:

Substituting τ2=0\tau_{2}=0 and 𝐀cross=𝐓𝐉𝐓1\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross}=\mathbf{T}\mathbf{J}\mathbf{T}^{-1} into Eqn. (7), and μk=ak+ȷbk\mu_{k}=a_{k}+\jmath b_{k}, Eqn. (7) is equivalent to dd equations

s+λi(ak+ȷbk)+λieτ1s=0,k=1,,d.\displaystyle s+\lambda_{i}(a_{k}+\jmath b_{k})+\lambda_{i}e^{-\tau_{1}s}=0,~{}k=1,\ldots,d. (12)

Substituting s=σ+ȷωs=\sigma+\jmath\omega into Eqn. (12) yields

σ\displaystyle\sigma =λiakλieστ1cos(τ1ω),\displaystyle=-\lambda_{i}a_{k}-\lambda_{i}e^{-\sigma\tau_{1}}\cos(\tau_{1}\omega), (13a)
ω\displaystyle\omega =λibkλieστ1sin(τ1ω).\displaystyle=-\lambda_{i}b_{k}-\lambda_{i}e^{-\sigma\tau_{1}}\sin(\tau_{1}\omega). (13b)

It follows from (13) that (σ+λiak)2+(ω+λibk)2=λi2e2στ1(\sigma+\lambda_{i}a_{k})^{2}+(\omega+\lambda_{i}b_{k})^{2}=\lambda_{i}^{2}e^{-2\sigma\tau_{1}}. Thus, |ω+λibk|λieστ1|\omega+\lambda_{i}b_{k}|\leq\lambda_{i}e^{-\sigma\tau_{1}}, or

λi(eστ1+bk)ωλi(eστ1bk).\displaystyle-\lambda_{i}(e^{-\sigma\tau_{1}}+b_{k})\leq\omega\leq\lambda_{i}(e^{-\sigma\tau_{1}}-b_{k}). (14)

Assume that σ0\sigma\geq 0, then eστ11e^{-\sigma\tau_{1}}\leq 1, we have

λi(1+bk)\displaystyle-\lambda_{i}(1+b_{k}) ωλi(1bk).\displaystyle\leq\omega\leq\lambda_{i}(1-b_{k}). (15)

Since |bk|=|μk|2ak2<1|b_{k}|=\sqrt{|\mu_{k}|^{2}-a_{k}^{2}}<1, it follows that cos(τ1ω)cos(λi(1+|bk|)τ1)cos(λmax(1+bmax)τ1)>cos(π2)=0\cos(\tau_{1}\omega)\geq\cos(\lambda_{i}(1+|b_{k}|)\tau_{1})\geq\cos(\lambda_{\max}(1+b_{\max})\tau_{1})>\cos\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right)=0. It follows from Eqn. (13a) that σ<0\sigma<0, which contradicts our assumption that σ0\sigma\geq 0. Thus, we conclude that σ<0\sigma<0, or equivalently, the system globally asymptotically achieves a consensus. ∎

Finally, we study the consensus on the multilayer network with two time delays. In the first step, we consider the case τ1=τ2=τ\tau_{1}=\tau_{2}=\tau and determine the maximal time-delay τmax\tau_{\max} at which the system is marginally stable. Then, in the second step, we prove that the system globally asymptotically achieves a consensus for all τ1,τ20\tau_{1},\tau_{2}\geq 0 that do not exceed a delay margin which is calibrated from τmax\tau_{\max}.

Lemma 4

Suppose that Assumptions 1 and 2 hold, |μk|<1|\mu_{k}|<1, k=1,,d,\forall k=1,\ldots,d, and τ1=τ2=τ\tau_{1}=\tau_{2}=\tau. The system (6) globally asymptotically achieves a consensus if and only if τ<τmax=cλmaxζmax,\tau<\tau_{\max}=\frac{c}{\lambda_{\max}\zeta_{\max}}, where λmax=maxi=1,,nλi\lambda_{\max}=\displaystyle\max_{i=1,\ldots,n}\lambda_{i}, ζmax=maxk=1,,d|ζk|\zeta_{\max}=\max_{k=1,\ldots,d}|\zeta_{k}|, c=mink=1,,dmin{|π2+αk|,|π2+αk|}c=\min_{k=1,\ldots,d}\min\{|-\frac{\pi}{2}+\alpha_{k}|,|\frac{\pi}{2}+\alpha_{k}|\}, and αk=argζk\alpha_{k}=\arg\zeta_{k}.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: The eigenvalues of 𝐀\mathbf{A} and 𝐀cross\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross} are located in the blue circle and the red circle, respectively.
Proof:

The equation det((s+λieτ1s)𝐈d+λi𝐀crosseτ2s)=0\text{det}((s+\lambda_{i}e^{-\tau_{1}s})\mathbf{I}_{d}+\lambda_{i}\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross}e^{-\tau_{2}s})=0 is equivalent to dd equations

s+λieτ1s+λiμkeτ2s\displaystyle s+\lambda_{i}e^{-\tau_{1}s}+\lambda_{i}\mu_{k}e^{-\tau_{2}s} =0,\displaystyle=0, (16a)
s+λi(1+μk)eτs\displaystyle s+\lambda_{i}(1+\mu_{k})e^{-\tau s} =0,\displaystyle=0, (16b)

i=2,,n,k=1,,n\forall i=2,\ldots,n,~{}k=1,\ldots,n, where we have substitute τ1=τ2=τ\tau_{1}=\tau_{2}=\tau into Eqn. (16b). Let s=σ+ȷωs=\sigma+\jmath\omega and μk=ak+ȷbk\mu_{k}=a_{k}+\jmath b_{k}, the roots of Eqn. (16b) satisfy

σ\displaystyle\sigma =rikeτσcos(τωαk)\displaystyle=-r_{ik}e^{-\tau\sigma}\cos(\tau\omega-\alpha_{k}) (17a)
ω\displaystyle\omega =rikeτσsin(τωαk).\displaystyle=r_{ik}e^{-\tau\sigma}\sin(\tau\omega-\alpha_{k}). (17b)

where rik=λi(1+ak)2+bk2=λi|ζk|r_{ik}=\lambda_{i}\sqrt{(1+a_{k})^{2}+b_{k}^{2}}=\lambda_{i}|\zeta_{k}|, cosαk=1+ak(1+ak)2+bk2\cos\alpha_{k}=\frac{1+a_{k}}{\sqrt{(1+a_{k})^{2}+b_{k}^{2}}}, and sinαk=bk(1+ak)2+bk2\sin\alpha_{k}=\frac{b_{k}}{\sqrt{(1+a_{k})^{2}+b_{k}^{2}}}. As depicted in Fig. 3, we have αk[0,π2)\alpha_{k}\in[0,\frac{\pi}{2}). The system globally asymptotically achieves a consensus if and only if σ<0,ω\sigma<0,~{}\forall\omega.

(Necessity) Suppose that σ<0,ω\sigma<0,~{}\forall\omega, it follows that cos(τωαk)=cos(τrikeτσsin(τωαk)αk)>0,ω\cos(\tau\omega-\alpha_{k})=\cos(\tau r_{ik}e^{-\tau\sigma}\sin(\tau\omega-\alpha_{k})-\alpha_{k})>0,~{}\forall\omega. This implies

π2+αk<τrikeτσsin(τωαk)<π2+αk,ω,-\frac{\pi}{2}+\alpha_{k}<\tau r_{ik}e^{-\tau\sigma}\sin(\tau\omega-\alpha_{k})<\frac{\pi}{2}+\alpha_{k},~{}\forall\omega,

which is satisfied if

τrikeτσ<min{|π2+αk|,|π2+αk|}:=ck.\displaystyle\tau r_{ik}e^{-\tau\sigma}<\min\left\{\left|-\frac{\pi}{2}+\alpha_{k}\right|,\left|\frac{\pi}{2}+\alpha_{k}\right|\right\}:=c_{k}.

It follows that

τ<ckrikeτσ<ckrikcλmaxζmax.\displaystyle\tau<\frac{c_{k}}{r_{ik}}e^{\tau\sigma}<\frac{c_{k}}{r_{ik}}\leq\frac{c}{\lambda_{\max}\zeta_{\max}}. (18)

(Sufficiency) Suppose that τ<cλmaxζmax\tau<\frac{c}{\lambda_{\max}\zeta_{\max}}, because σ2+ω2=λi2(1+μk)2e2τσ\sigma^{2}+\omega^{2}=\lambda_{i}^{2}(1+\mu_{k})^{2}e^{-2\tau\sigma}, it follows that |ω|rkieτσ|\omega|\leq r_{ki}e^{-\tau\sigma}. If σ0\sigma\geq 0, then eτσ1e^{-\tau\sigma}\leq 1 and τ|ω|<c\tau|\omega|<c. Thus,

ckαkcαk<τωαk<cαkckαk.-c_{k}-\alpha_{k}\leq-c-\alpha_{k}<\tau\omega-\alpha_{k}<c-\alpha_{k}\leq c_{k}-\alpha_{k}.

Note that

ck={π2αk,if αk0,π2+αk,if αk<0.\displaystyle c_{k}=\begin{cases}\frac{\pi}{2}-\alpha_{k},&\text{if }\alpha_{k}\geq 0,\\ \frac{\pi}{2}+\alpha_{k},&\text{if }\alpha_{k}<0.\end{cases}

ckαkc_{k}-\alpha_{k} and ckαk-c_{k}-\alpha_{k} both belong to (π2,π2)\left(-\frac{\pi}{2},\frac{\pi}{2}\right). It follows that cos(τω)>min{cos(c+αk),cos(c+αk)}0\cos(\tau\omega)>\min\{\cos(c+\alpha_{k}),\cos(c+\alpha_{k})\}\geq 0, and σ<0\sigma<0, which is a contradiction. Therefore, σ<0\sigma<0. ∎

Theorem 4

Suppose that all assumptions of Lemma 4 hold. Then, the system (6) globally asymptotically achieves a consensus if one of the following conditions is satisfied

  • (i)

    0τ1τ2<τmax20\leq\tau_{1}\leq\tau_{2}<\frac{\tau_{\max}}{\sqrt{2}}, where τmax\tau_{\max} is given as in Lemma 4.

  • (ii)

    0τ1τ2<τmax=cλmaxζmax,0\leq\tau_{1}\leq\tau_{2}<\tau_{\max}^{\prime}=\frac{c}{\lambda_{\max}\zeta_{\max}^{\prime}}, where ζmax=maxk=1,,d(1+|ak|+|bk|)\zeta_{\max}^{\prime}=\max_{k=1,\ldots,d}(1+|a_{k}|+|b_{k}|), λmax\lambda_{\max} and cc are defined as in Lemma 4.

Proof:

We first consider the case 0τ1τ2<τmax0\leq\tau_{1}\leq\tau_{2}<\tau_{\max}. From the Eqn. (16a), it follows that

σ\displaystyle\sigma =λieστ1cos(ωτ1)\displaystyle=-\lambda_{i}e^{-\sigma\tau_{1}}\cos(\omega\tau_{1})
λieστ2(akcos(ωτ2)+bksin(ωτ2)),\displaystyle\qquad\quad-\lambda_{i}e^{-\sigma\tau_{2}}(a_{k}\cos(\omega\tau_{2})+b_{k}\sin(\omega\tau_{2})), (19a)
ω\displaystyle\omega =λieστ1sin(ωτ1)\displaystyle=\lambda_{i}e^{-\sigma\tau_{1}}\sin(\omega\tau_{1})
+λieστ2(aksin(ωτ2)bkcos(ωτ2)).\displaystyle\qquad\quad+\lambda_{i}e^{-\sigma\tau_{2}}(a_{k}\sin(\omega\tau_{2})-b_{k}\cos(\omega\tau_{2})). (19b)

Suppose that σ0\sigma\geq 0, we have 0<eστ2eστ110<e^{-\sigma\tau_{2}}\leq e^{-\sigma\tau_{1}}\leq 1.

  • If the conditions in the statement (i) are satisfied, it follows from Eqn. (19b) that

    ω2\displaystyle\omega^{2} =λi2((eστ1sin(ωτ1)+akeστ2sin(ωτ2))2\displaystyle=\lambda_{i}^{2}\Big{(}(e^{-\sigma\tau_{1}}\sin(\omega\tau_{1})+a_{k}e^{-\sigma\tau_{2}}\sin(\omega\tau_{2}))^{2}
    +e2στ2bk2cos2(ωτ2))(12+12)\displaystyle\qquad+e^{-2\sigma\tau_{2}}b_{k}^{2}\cos^{2}(\omega\tau_{2})\Big{)}(1^{2}+1^{2})
    2λi2((1+ak)2+bk2)e2στ1\displaystyle\leq 2\lambda_{i}^{2}((1+a_{k})^{2}+b_{k}^{2})e^{-2\sigma\tau_{1}}

    It follows that |ω|2λi|ζk||\omega|\leq\sqrt{2}\lambda_{i}|\zeta_{k}|, and thus,

    0τ1|ω|τ2|ω|<2τmaxλi|ζk|c<π2.\displaystyle 0\leq\tau_{1}|\omega|\leq\tau_{2}|\omega|<\sqrt{2}\tau_{\max}\lambda_{i}|\zeta_{k}|\leq c<\frac{\pi}{2}.
  • If the conditions in statement (ii) are satsified, it follows from Eqn. (19b) that |ω|λi(1+|ak|+|bk|)|\omega|\leq\lambda_{i}(1+|a_{k}|+|b_{k}|), which implies that

    0τ1|ω|τ2|ω|<τmaxλi(1+|ak|+|bk|)c<π2.\displaystyle 0\leq\tau_{1}|\omega|\leq\tau_{2}|\omega|<\tau_{\max}^{\prime}\lambda_{i}(1+|a_{k}|+|b_{k}|)\leq c<\frac{\pi}{2}.

As a result, in both (i) and (ii), we have

cos(τ1ω)cos(τ2ω)>cos(c)>cos(π2)=0.\displaystyle\cos(\tau_{1}\omega)\geq\cos(\tau_{2}\omega)>\cos(c)>\cos\left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right)=0. (20)

Combining with (19a), we have

σ\displaystyle\sigma <λieστ2[(1+ak)cos(τ2ω)+bkcos(τ2ω))\displaystyle<-\lambda_{i}e^{-\sigma\tau_{2}}[(1+a_{k})\cos(\tau_{2}\omega)+b_{k}\cos(\tau_{2}\omega))
=rikeστ2cos(τ2ωαk).\displaystyle=-r_{ik}e^{-\sigma\tau_{2}}\cos(\tau_{2}\omega-\alpha_{k}).

Since cαk<τ2ωαi<cαk-c-\alpha_{k}<\tau_{2}\omega-\alpha_{i}<c-\alpha_{k}, it follows that cos(τ2ωαk)>0\cos(\tau_{2}\omega-\alpha_{k})>0. This implies σ<0\sigma<0, and we have a contradiction.

Therefore, if 0τ1τ2<τmax0\leq\tau_{1}\leq\tau_{2}<\tau_{\max}, we have σ<0\sigma<0, i.e., the system asymptotically achieves a consensus. ∎

Remark 2

In [13], a two-time-delay system governed by the equation

x˙(t)=ax(t)b(x(tτ1)+x(tτ2)),\displaystyle\dot{x}(t)=-ax(t)-b(x(t-\tau_{1})+x(t-\tau_{2})), (21)

where a>0,0<τ1<τ2a>0,0<\tau_{1}<\tau_{2}, has been studied. The authors gave a necessary and sufficient condition for stability of (21) by specifying a bound of the parameter bb, which depends on the solution of a transcendental equation. In this paper, the characteristic equation (9) has a similar form to (21). However, the coefficients associated with the delay terms are not identical and the approach in [13] is inapplicable. Although Theorem 4 provides only a sufficient condition for asymptotic convergence, our analysis is simpler and relies on only simple computations.

Refer to caption
(a)
Refer to caption
(b)
Refer to caption
(c)
Figure 4: Simulations of delayed two-layer consensus network of four agents (II) with τ1=0\tau_{1}=0 and the matrix 𝐀\mathbf{A} has |μk|<1|\mu_{k}|<1.

IV Two-layer networks and simulation results

This section provides specific consensus conditions for two-layer matrix-weighted networks with time delays and illustrates the theoretical results by simulations.

The corresponding matrix capturing the agent-to-agent interaction pattern is 𝐀=[1a12a211]\mathbf{A}=\begin{bmatrix}1&a^{12}\\ a^{21}&1\end{bmatrix}. Thus 𝐀cross=𝐈2+𝐀=[0a12a210]\mathbf{A}_{\rm cross}=-\mathbf{I}_{2}+\mathbf{A}=\begin{bmatrix}0&a^{12}\\ a^{21}&0\end{bmatrix} has a pair of pure imaginary (real) eigenvalues when a12a21<0a^{12}a^{21}<0 (resp., a12a21>0a^{12}a^{21}>0). We can state the following result, which can be considered as a corollary of Lemma 4, Theorem 3 and Theorem 4.

Refer to caption
(a)
Refer to caption
(b)
Refer to caption
(c)
Figure 5: Simulations of delayed two-layer consensus network of four agents (II) with τ1=0\tau_{1}=0 and the matrix 𝐀\mathbf{A} has an eigenvalue |μk|=1|\mu_{k}|=1.
Refer to caption
(a)
Refer to caption
(b)
Refer to caption
(c)
Figure 6: Simulations of delayed two-layer consensus network of four agents (II) with τ1=0\tau_{1}=0 and the matrix 𝐀\mathbf{A} has eigenvalues |μk|>1|\mu_{k}|>1.
Refer to caption
(a)
Refer to caption
(b)
Refer to caption
(c)
Refer to caption
(d)
Refer to caption
(e)
Refer to caption
(f)
Figure 7: Simulations of delayed 4-agent 2-layer network with τ1,τ20\tau_{1},\tau_{2}\geq 0 under consensus algorithm (II).
Corollary 1

Suppose that Assumptions 1 and 2 hold, and |a12a21|<1|a^{12}a^{21}|<1. Then, the two-layer consensus system globally asymptotically achieves a consensus if

  • (i)

    τ1=0\tau_{1}=0 (and this is also a necessary condition); or

  • (ii)

    τ2=0\tau_{2}=0, and 0τ1<π2λmax(1+|a12a21|):=τmax0\leq\tau_{1}<\frac{\pi}{2\lambda_{\max}(1+\sqrt{|a^{12}a^{21}}|)}:=\tau_{\max}; or

  • (iii)

    1<a12a21<0-1<a^{12}a^{21}<0, 0τ1τ2<τmax0\leq\tau_{1}\leq\tau_{2}<\tau_{\max}.

Next, consider a network of 4 agents having the interaction graph as depicted in Fig. 1. We have

𝐋=[2110131111200101].\mathbf{L}=\begin{bmatrix}2&-1&-1&0\\ -1&3&-1&-1\\ -1&-1&2&0\\ 0&-1&0&1\end{bmatrix}.

Simulations for intra-layer delay-free two-layer networks (τ1=0\tau_{1}=0):

We conduct several simulations of the consensus algorithm with 𝐀1=[110.51]\mathbf{A}_{1}=\begin{bmatrix}1&1\\ 0.5&1\end{bmatrix}. In this case, 𝐀\mathbf{A} has eigenvalues satisfying |μk|<1,k=1,2|\mu_{k}|<1,~{}k=1,2. The simulation results for τ2=2,5,10\tau_{2}=2,5,10 are shown in Fig. 4. Clearly, xik,k=1,2,x_{i}^{k},~{}k=1,2, consent on two values (consensus states) in all three cases.

Next, consider 𝐀2=[120.51]\mathbf{A}_{2}=\begin{bmatrix}1&2\\ 0.5&1\end{bmatrix}. Correspondingly, |μk|=1|\mu_{k}|=1. Simulation results in Fig. 5 show that cross-layer time delays do not destabilize the system but perturb the system from the consensus set.

Finally, we consider 𝐀2=[1211]\mathbf{A}_{2}=\begin{bmatrix}1&2\\ 1&1\end{bmatrix}. In this case, |μk|>1|\mu_{k}|>1. Simulation results in Fig. 6 show that cross-layer time delays destabilize the consensus system.

Simulations for two time-delay networks (τ1,τ20\tau_{1},\tau_{2}\geq 0):

We simulate the two-layer network under the presence of two time-delays τ1,τ20\tau_{1},\tau_{2}\geq 0 with matrix 𝐀1\mathbf{A}_{1}. Corresponding to Corollary 1, we have τmax=0.23\tau_{\max}=0.23. The simulation result in Fig. 7 shows that the states xik,k=1,2,x_{i}^{k},~{}k=1,2, approach to two sinusoidal trajectories for τ1=τ2=τmax\tau_{1}=\tau_{2}=\tau_{\max} (i.e., the system has a pair of purely imaginary eigenvalues), two common constant values (or the consensus state) for 0<τ1τ2τmax0<\tau_{1}\leq\tau_{2}\leq\tau_{\max}, and is unstable in case τ1=τmax<τ2\tau_{1}=\tau_{\max}<\tau_{2} (Fig. 7(d,e)), or τ2=τmax<τ1\tau_{2}=\tau_{\max}<\tau_{1} (Fig. 7(f)).

Thus, the simulation results are consistent with the theoretical analysis.

V Conclusions

In this paper, we have derived several consensus conditions for a multilayer network with a repeated agent-to-agent interaction pattern and two different time delays in both intra- and cross-layer interactions. Some specific conditions are given for two-layer networks. For further studies, it will be interesting to consider time delays for networks with different inter-agent patterns.

References

  • [1] G. Bianconi, Multilayer networks: Structure and function.   Oxford University Press, 2018.
  • [2] M. Kivelä, A. Arenas, M. Barthelemy, J. P. Gleeson, Y. Moreno, and M. A. Porter, “Multilayer networks,” Journal of complex networks, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 203–271, 2014.
  • [3] R. Olfati-Saber, J. A. Fax, and R. M. Murray, “Consensus and cooperation in networked multi-agent systems,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 215–233, 2007.
  • [4] W. He, G. Chen, Q.-L. Han, W. Du, J. Cao, and F. Qian, “Multiagent systems on multilayer networks: Synchronization analysis and network design,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 1655–1667, 2017.
  • [5] S. Lee and H. Shim, “Consensus of linear time-invariant multi-agent system over multilayer network,” in Proc. of the 17th International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems (ICCAS).   IEEE, 2017, pp. 133–138.
  • [6] F. Sorrentino, L. Pecora, and L. Trajković, “Group consensus in multilayer networks,” IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 2016–2026, 2020.
  • [7] S. E. Tuna, “Synchronization under matrix-weighted Laplacian,” Automatica, vol. 73, pp. 76–81, 2016.
  • [8] M. H. Trinh, C. V. Nguyen, Y.-H. Lim, and H.-S. Ahn, “Matrix-weighted consensus and its applications,” Automatica, vol. 89, pp. 415–419, 2018.
  • [9] H.-S. Ahn, Q. V. Tran, M. H. Trinh, M. Ye, J. Liu, and K. L. Moore, “Opinion dynamics with cross-coupling topics: Modeling and analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 632–647, 2020.
  • [10] E. Fridman, “Tutorial on lyapunov-based methods for time-delay systems,” European Journal of Control, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 271–283, 2014.
  • [11] R. Cepeda-Gomez and N. Olgac, “An exact method for the stability analysis of linear consensus protocols with time delay,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 1734–1740, 2011.
  • [12] A. Singh, S. Ghosh, S. Jalan, and J. Kurths, “Synchronization in delayed multiplex networks,” Europhysics Letters, vol. 111, no. 3, p. 30010, 2015.
  • [13] S. Ruan and J. Wei, “On the zeros of transcendental functions with applications to stability of delay differential equations with two delays,” Dynamics of Continuous, Discrete and Impulsive Systems Series A: Mathematical Analysis, vol. 10, pp. 863–874, 2003.