Research article

Dynamic event-triggered consensus control for nonlinear multi-agent systems under DoS attacks


  • Received: 27 October 2023 Revised: 23 December 2023 Accepted: 22 January 2024 Published: 04 February 2024
  • In this paper, we investigated leader-following consensus control for nonlinear multi-agent systems (MASs) experiencing denial-of-service (DoS) attacks. We proposed a distributed control strategy incorporating an adaptive scheme and a state feedback control gain to eliminate the effects of system nonlinear dynamics and uncertainties. In addition, we introduced a dynamic event-triggered control (DETC) to minimize the utilization of communication resources. Finally, we provided simulation results to show the validity of the proposed approach.

    Citation: Qiushi Wang, Hongwei Ren, Zhiping Peng, Junlin Huang. Dynamic event-triggered consensus control for nonlinear multi-agent systems under DoS attacks[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(2): 3304-3318. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024146

    Related Papers:

    [1] Mingxia Gu, Zhiyong Yu, Haijun Jiang, Da Huang . Distributed consensus of discrete time-varying linear multi-agent systems with event-triggered intermittent control. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(1): 415-443. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024019
    [2] Duoduo Zhao, Fang Gao, Jinde Cao, Xiaoxin Li, Xiaoqin Ma . Mean-square consensus of a semi-Markov jump multi-agent system based on event-triggered stochastic sampling. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(8): 14241-14259. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023637
    [3] Na Zhang, Jianwei Xia, Tianjiao Liu, Chengyuan Yan, Xiao Wang . Dynamic event-triggered adaptive finite-time consensus control for multi-agent systems with time-varying actuator faults. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(5): 7761-7783. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023335
    [4] Siyu Li, Shu Li, Lei Liu . Fuzzy adaptive event-triggered distributed control for a class of nonlinear multi-agent systems. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(1): 474-493. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024021
    [5] Wangming Lu, Zhiyong Yu, Zhanheng Chen, Haijun Jiang . Prescribed-time cluster practical consensus for nonlinear multi-agent systems based on event-triggered mechanism. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(3): 4440-4462. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024196
    [6] Dong Xu, Xinling Li, Weipeng Tai, Jianping Zhou . Event-triggered stabilization for networked control systems under random occurring deception attacks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(1): 859-878. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023039
    [7] Run Tang, Wei Zhu, Huizhu Pu . Event-triggered distributed optimization of multi-agent systems with time delay. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(12): 20712-20726. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023916
    [8] Yilin Tu, Jin-E Zhang . Event-triggered impulsive control for input-to-state stability of nonlinear time-delay system with delayed impulse. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2025, 22(4): 876-896. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2025031
    [9] Xiaoxiao Dong, Huan Qiao, Quanmin Zhu, Yufeng Yao . Event-triggered tracking control for switched nonlinear systems. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(8): 14046-14060. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023627
    [10] Jinxin Du, Lei Liu . Adaptive fuzzy fixed time formation control of state constrained nonlinear multi-agent systems against FDI attacks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(3): 4724-4741. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024207
  • In this paper, we investigated leader-following consensus control for nonlinear multi-agent systems (MASs) experiencing denial-of-service (DoS) attacks. We proposed a distributed control strategy incorporating an adaptive scheme and a state feedback control gain to eliminate the effects of system nonlinear dynamics and uncertainties. In addition, we introduced a dynamic event-triggered control (DETC) to minimize the utilization of communication resources. Finally, we provided simulation results to show the validity of the proposed approach.



    In recent years, multi-agent consensus control has been recognized as a vital element of distributed collaborative control for applications such as distributed computing, unmanned aerial vehicle formation, and intelligent transportation systems. Researchers have shown significant interest in this area, and a wide range of control mechanisms have been explored in the past few years. These control mechanisms include adaptive [1,2,3,4], fault-tolerant [5], impulse [6,7], and sliding mode [8] methods.

    In practical systems, the stability of the system state is susceptible to disruption from unexpected factors, including nonlinear dynamics and system uncertainties. Existing research has primarily focused on continuous-time systems, where the state information of intelligent agents is continuously transmitted between nodes, leading to significant network usage and energy consumption. However, the development of event-triggered control solves this problem by avoiding constant communication. Earlier studies on event-triggered control that can be found have investigated centralized, distributed, and self-triggered event-triggered control techniques [9,10,11]. One researcher proposed an adaptive event-triggered control scheme for strongly connected networks that dynamically adjusted the triggering time interval on the basis of sampled data [12]. Another mechanism using a dynamic event-triggering mechanism was proposed to reduce communication resource wastage compared with traditional event-triggering mechanisms [13]. Others have assumed that system parameters such as the efficiency factor of the executor, external disturbances, and precursor control input signals are all unknown and introduced a fault-tolerant control to obtain sufficient conditions for consistent tracking [14]. However, these findings primarily investigate traditional event triggering mechanisms. In [15,16], researchers proposed a dynamic event-triggered mechanism, which can significantly reduce the number of triggers and conserve communication resources. researchers respectively proposed centralized and distributed dynamic event-triggered mechanisms in [15,16], while scholars suggested both centralized and distributed mechanisms in [17], verifying their superiority.

    However, the rapid growth of network information technologies has also led to a rise in cyber attacks. Among them, denial-of-service (DoS) attacks are the most common, being relatively easy to execute in the attack space. These attacks usually target the controller or exhaust the resources of the target system directly, resulting in the system being unable to provide normal services or communication. In some cases, these attacks cause the system to crash. Therefore, countering DoS attacks has received significant research attention. Researchers studied the multi-agent systems(MASs) under DoS attacks in given attack frequency and upper bounds on attack duration [18,19]. Compared with linear systems, nonlinear MASs are more widely used in real life. Among these, a secure controller based on event triggering was proposed to solve the lead-following consensus problem of second-order nonlinear systems [20]. This is more common than linear systems. Another proposal was for an event-triggered adaptive fault-tolerant control strategy, which reduced the computational cost of heterogeneity [21]. For nonperiodic DoS attacks, the upper bounds of network attacks, actuator failures, attack duration, and frequency are obtained. Another method uses a security mechanism employing a prediction-based switching observer scheme to address the issue of invalidation in event-triggered mechanisms during attack intervals [22]. A novel framework for observer-based event-triggered containment control, taking into account the occurrence of DoS attacks, has also been introduced [23]. This framework establishes a resilient event-triggered controller, using a specially designed observer. The goal is to achieve consistent control of MASs in the presence of DoS attacks.

    Based on these observations, we aim to explore the security consensus problem of nonlinear MAS with external disturbances under DoS attacks in this paper. Our contributions are as follows.

    1) In this paper, a nonlinear system with external disturbances is considered, and the effects of the nonlinear dynamics and uncertainty of the system are eliminated by designing an adaptive scheme and state-feedback control gains by updating the laws of the adaptive parameters online.

    2) Compared with [22,23], a dynamic variable is introduced to adjust the triggering instances under DoS attacks. Therefore, the event-triggered mechanism proposed in this paper is more flexible and can effectively save communication resources. In addition, continuous communication between agents is not required to determine whether a trigger condition satisfies the trigger condition.

    Notation R is the set of real numbers, and RN×N is the set of N×N real matrix. represents a Euclidean norm of vectors or matrices. The superscripts A1 and AT represent the inverse and transpose of matrix A. λmax(A) is the maximum eigenvalue, and λmin(A) is the minimum eigenvalue of matrix A. D+() denotes the righthand derivative of a function, and is Kronecker product. diag{A1,,An} is the diagonal matrix. is the intersection of sets, and denotes the union of sets.

    For a given MAS, the digraph G is (V,E), where V={1,2,,N} is the set of nodes, and EV×V represents the edge set of followers. The information exchange between each node can be described by the adjacency matrix A and the Laplacian matrix L. A=[aij]RN×N if agents i and j communicate with one another, aij=1; otherwise aij=0 and L=[lij]Rn×n where L=DA, The degree matrix D=diag(di) with di=Ni=1aij. In this paper, we assume that the agents are linked by a balancing topology, i.e., aij=aji. If the agent i communicates with the leader, then bi=1; otherwise, bi=0.

    For a leader-following system, the dynamics of the leader are described by the equation

    ˙x0=Ax0+f(t,x0(t)). (2.1)

    The ith follower system is

    ˙xi=Axi+Bui(t)+f(t,xi(t))+wi. (2.2)

    In the preceding, x(t)Rn are positions of the agent, ui(t)R is the control input, ARn×n and BRn×p are system matrices, f(x) is a nonlinear function, and wi is the uncertainty input satisfying

    wiςi1|u|+ςi2|x|+γi, (2.3)

    where ςi1<1, ςi2 and γi are unknown constants.

    Lemma 1. If the nonlinear function f(t,xi(t)),i=1,2,..., is continuously differentiable in a region SR2 and xi(t0)S, then for any xi(t0)S, the following formula is satisfied:

    f(xi(t),t)f(xi(t0),t)=f()xi×(xi(t)xi(t0)), (2.4)

    where f()=f(xi(t0))+Δ(xi(t)xi(t0)), 0<Δ<1.

    Assumption 1. If there is a continuously differentiable function f(t,xi(t)) and the highest order s{1,2,N}, there exist bounded positive scalars δix, such that

    |f(zi)xi|δixxis, (2.5)

    where xis=|xi|s+|xi|s1++1,s1. We also need some assumptions to ensure that the purpose is achieved.

    Assumption 2. A,B can be stabilized, and the digraph G is strongly connected.

    Next, we define the position errors ei(t):

    ei(t)=Nj=0,jiaij(xi(t)xj(t))+bi(xi(t)x0(t)). (2.6)

    According to Definition 1, we have

    ˙ei(t)=Nj=0,jiaij(˙xi(t)˙xj(t))+bi(˙xi(t)˙x0(t))=Nj=0,jiaij(A(xixj)+B(uiuj)+[f(t,xi(t))f(t,xj(t))]+(wiwj))+bi(A(xix0)+Bui)+wi+bi[f(t,xi(t))f(t,x0(t))]=Nj=0,jiAaij((xixj)+bi(xix0))+Baij(uiuj)+aijf(zi)xi(xi(t)xj(t0))+aij(wiwj))+bi(Bui+wi))+bi[f(zi)xi(xi(t)x0(t))]=Nj=0,jiA(aij(xixj)+bi(xix0))+f(zi)xi[aij(xi(t)xj(t0))+bi(xi(t)x0(t))]+aij(B(uiuj))+(wiwj))+bi(Bui+wi)). (2.7)

    We also have

    ˙e(t)=(L+L0)(Bu(t)+w(t))+(A+f(zi)x)e(t), (2.8)

    where e(t)=[e1(t),e2(t),,ei(t)], f(zi)x=diagNi=1[f(zi)xi], L0=diagNi=1[bi]. L is defined as

    lij={Nk=1,kiaik,j=iaij,ji. (2.9)

    , then Eq (2.8) can be expressed as

    ˙e(t)=(A+ΔA)e(t)+ˉL(Bu(t)+w(t)), (2.10)

    where A=[IN×N000], ˉL=[0L+L0], ΔA=[000f(zi)x].

    Definition 1. MAS (2.1) and (2.2) are said to have consensus if each agent's position state in the system satisfies

    limtxi(t)x0(t)=0,i=1,2,,N. (2.11)

    The distributed adaptive control input is

    ui(t)=kiei(t)ˉeiΨi(t), (2.12)

    where ˉei=Nj=1ajieji,aii=ai0+Nj=1,jiaij. ki is the control gain determined based on the linear matrix inequality(LMI)

    (A+ˉLBK)TP+P(A+ˉLBK)0, (2.13)

    where P=[P00N×N0N×NIN×N]>0,K=diag[ki],andP0 is a positive definition matrix. Ψi(t) is defined as

    Ψi={11ςi1(ςi1|kiei|+ςi2|xis|+γi|ei|+2ˆδix|e|2xis|ei|2),ei00,ei=0 (2.14)

    where ˆδix is the estimate of unknown parameters δix. The following describes the updated laws for the adaptive parameters:

    dˆδidt=|ei|2xis. (2.15)

    Since δi is an unknown constant, defined as ˜δi(t)=ˆδi(t)δi, the adaptive error systems are described by

    d˜δidt=dˆδidt. (2.16)

    It follows from Eq (2.12) that

    u(t)=ke(t)ˉeΨ(t), (2.17)

    where k(t)=[k1(t),k2(t),]T and ˉe=[ˉe1,ˉe2ˉen]. According to Eqs (2.11) and (2.15), we have

    ˙e(t)=(A+ˉLBK)e(t)+ΔAe(t)ˉL(BˉevΨ(t))ˉLw(t). (2.18)

    Next, we define the event trigger time series as {tjk} for the jth agent. Therefore, the next triggering time tik+1 for the ith agent can be expressed as

    tik+1=inf{t>tik|Hi(t)0}. (2.19)

    The function Hi() is given by

    Hi()=θiχi(t)+αiqi(t)2ηiei(t)2, (2.20)

    where θi>0, αi,ηiRn>0. qi(t) is defined as the measurement error according to Eq (2.6):

    qi(t)=ei(tik)ei(t). (2.21)

    χi(t) satisfies

    ˙χi(t)=βiχi(t)+ηiei(t)2αiqi(t)2, (2.22)

    where βi>0, initial value χi(0)>0 could be randomly selected, and ti0=0.

    Remark 1: The internal dynamic variable updates according to internal variables such as self-feedback, measurement error, and neighborhood error. In comparison with the conventional static triggering strategy [22,23], the dynamic event triggered control protocol we proposed can more effectively reduce network communication and save resources.

    A DoS attack aims to block the communication channels so the targeted system cannot exchange information normally. Communication channels are not the only things affected by DoS attacks because the attacks can damage communication equipment along with hindering data transmission, measurement, and control channels simultaneously. DoS attacks are extremely destructive to the system, but their energy consumption requires attackers to replenish energy supplies after the attack is over, which takes time. Therefore, the time series can be split into two sections based on whether a DoS assault was launched. In the absence of the DoS attack, the system functions and communicates properly. However, in the presence of a DoS attack, communication is cut off, and the controller stops functioning. Here, we assume that the time interval of DoS attacks is {tm}mN, where tm is the moment of the DoS attack, and [tm,tm+Δm] is the mth DoS time interval, and Δm is the time duration of the mth attack. The DoS attack interval is the same for all multi-agents. Thus, the set time instants where communication is blocked (the interval of the DoS attack) are

    Ξa(t0,t)={mN[tm,tm+Δm]}[t0,t]. (3.1)

    Similarly, the sequence of time intervals without attacks is given by

    Ξs(t0,t)=[t0,t]Ξa(t0,t). (3.2)

    Because of the recovery mechanism, the MAS cannot immediately restore communication after the end of a DoS attack, and due to the event-triggering mechanism, there is an upper bound for the time when the two events occur consecutively. We assume that they can exist at the same time. Therefore, the actual DoS attack lasts longer, and consequently, the mth DoS attack's actual time frame may be described as [tm,tm+ˉΔm]. The new time period of the DoS attack is as follows:

    ˜Ξa(t0,t)={mN[tm,tm+ˉΔm]}[t0,t] (3.3)
    ˜Ξs(t0,t)=[t0,t]˜Ξa(t0,t) (3.4)

    Assumption 2. Define na(t0,t) as the number of attacks in the period [t0,t], so the attack frequency Fa(t0,t)>0 satisfies

    Fa(t0,t)=na(t0,t)tt0. (3.5)

    Assumption 3. Define Na(t0,t) as the total time interval of the DoS attack in the period [t0,t]. The constants T00,F00,0<1T1<1,0<1F1<1 are such that

    |Ξa(t0,t)|Ξ0+tt0T1and (3.6)
    Na(t0,t)F0+tt0F1, (3.7)

    where 1T1 is the attack strength.

    Lemma 1. Previous research considers Eq (2.1) and this DoS attack model under Assumptions 2 and 3 [18]. If the Lyapunov function V1(t),V2(t) satisfies

    {˙V1(t)l0V(t)+τ0t˜Ξs˙V2(t)l1V(t)+τ1t˜Ξa, (3.8)

    where l0,l1,τ0,τ1 are positive constants. T1,F1 defined in Assumption 3 satisfies

    1T1<l0ηl0+l11F1<η2lnκ+(l0+l1)ρ, (3.9)

    where 0<η<l0 is the time to restore communication. ρ>0, κ1 is a constant satisfying

    {κV2((tm+ˉΔm))V1(tm+ˉΔm)0κV1(tm)V2(tm+1)0. (3.10)

    Thus, we say that V(t) are bounded.

    Remark 2: Lemma 1 gives an upper bound on DoS attack frequency and duration, ensuring that the Lyapunov function remains stable over the entire time span [18].

    Remark 3: The DoS attack considered in this paper mainly attacks the communication channels between agents. Thus, when the DoS attack comes, there is no information interaction between neighboring agents, and the event-triggering control is not triggered. In addition, we consider a DETC. Compared with the traditional event-triggering control, we introduce a dynamic variable that uses communication resources more effectively. In the simulation section below, we compare our method with the traditional event-triggering mechanism.

    In this section, we prove system stability. Our presentation has two sections: the stability study of the MAS (2.1) and (2.2) under a DoS attack and the proof of non-Zeno behavior.

    Theorem 1. For the MAS (2.1) and (2.2) under DoS attacks, we consider Assumption 1 and the controller (2.12). If the LMI (2.13) satisfies (A+ˉLBK)TP+P(A+ˉLBK)ξiP, where ξiRn=σiηi,σi>1, then a feasible solution exists and the MAS is said to achieve leader-following consensus.

    Proof of Theorem 1. The system stability proof is also divided into two parts. The communication of the system is damaged under a DoS attack, but the system is not always in an impassable state. The proof is divided between DoS attacks and non-DoS attacks, as per the prior section. When there are non-DoS attacks in the system, we consider the Lyapunov function

    W(t)=V(t)+Ni=1χi(t)=eT(t)Pe(t)+Ni=1κ1i~δ2i+Ni=1χi(t). (4.1)

    It follows from Eqs (2.20)–(2.22) that

    ˙χi=βiχiθiχi. (4.2)

    The preceding implies that

    χi(t)χi(0)e(βi+θi)t>0, (4.3)

    which leads to W(t)>0.

    The derivative of W is

    ˙W(t)=eT[(A+ˉLBK)TP+P(A+ˉLBK)]e+2eTPΔAe2eTPˉLˉeΨ(t)+2eTPˉLw(t)+Ni2κ1i˙˜δi˜δi+Ni=1˙χi(t). (4.4)

    According to Eq (2.3), the condition in Assumption 1, and the control protocol in {Eq (2.12)}, we have

    ˙W(t)eT[(A+ˉLBK)TP+P(A+ˉLBK)]e+2Ni=1|e|2f(zi)xi2Ni=1|e|2Ψi+2Ni=1|e|(ςi1|u|+ςi2|x|+δi)+Ni2κ1i˙˜δi˜δi+Ni=1˙χi(t)eT[(A+ˉLBK)TP+P(A+ˉLBK)]e+2Ni=1δix|e|2xis2Ni=1|e|2(1ςi1)Ψi+2Ni=1|e|(ςi1|kiei|+ςi2|x|+δi)+Ni2κ1i˙˜δi˜δi+Ni=1˙χi(t). (4.5)

    Choosing Ψi(t) as in Eq (2.15), we obtain

    ˙W(t)eT[(A+ˉLBK)TP+P(A+ˉLBK)]e2Ni=1δix|e|2xis+Ni2κ1i˙˜δi˜δi+Ni=1˙χi(t)eT[(A+ˉLBK)TP+P(A+ˉLBK)]e+Ni=1˙χi(t). (4.6)

    On the other hand

    Ni=1ξieTi(t)Pei(t)λmax(P)Ni=1ξiei(t)2. (4.7)

    Based on the condition in Theorem 1, Eq (2.22), and Eq (4.6), we have

    ˙W(t)Ni=1(ξiηi)ei(t)2Ni=1αiqi(t)2Ni=1βiχiNi=1ηi(σi1)ei(t)2Ni=1βiχi, (4.8)

    then

    ˙W(t)(σM1)Ni=1ξiei(t)2Ni=1βiχil0W(t)+τ0, (4.9)

    where l0=min([(σM1)/λmax(P)],1, βm)>0, σM=max[σi], βm=min[βi], τ0=Ni=1κ1i~δ2i, l0,andτ0 are positive constants.

    When there are DoS attacks in the system, then communication and control channel blockages exist. In this case, the control input becomes 0, ui(t)=0, so the Lyapunov function can be expressed as

    V(t)=eT(t)Pe(t)+Ni=1κ1i~δ2i. (4.10)

    Similar to (4.4), (4.10) can be written as

    ˙V(t)V(t)+2Ni=1δix|e|2xis+2Ni=1|e|(ςi2|x|+δi)l1V(t)+τ1, (4.11)

    where l1=1, and τ1=2Ni=1δix|e|2xis+2Ni=1|e|(ςi2|x|+δi). According to the conditions of (3) and Assumption 1, we know that τ1 has an upper bound. From Lemma 1, we know that the system stabilizes in a limited time under a DoS attack. The proof is completed.

    Next is the proof of no Zeno behavior. We assume that there is a positive constant T0 such that limktik=T0. Based on the property of limit, we know that for any ε0>0, there exists N(ε0) such that tik(T0ε0,T0+ε0),kN(ε0). This means tiN(ε0+1)tiN(ε0)<2ε0.

    According to (4.11), W(t) gradually decreases to 0, Then ξmλmin(P)ei(t)2V(t)<W(t). Therefore, we have

    ei(t)W0ξmλmin(P)=ϖ0. (4.12)

    Because ei(t) and qi(t) are bounded, the Dini derivative of qi(t) is

    D+qi(t)˙qi(t)=Nj=1aij(˙xi(t)˙xj(t))+bi(˙xi(t)˙x0(t))A+ΔAei(t)+ˉLBNj=1(ui(t))+ˉLwi(t)ˉAϖ0+ˉLBM1+LM2=ˆW0, (4.13)

    where ˉA=A+ΔA. According to Eqs (2.3), (2.12), and (2.14), we obtain ui(t). wi(t) has an upper bound, and M1,M2 is their upper bound.

    Since only the trigger condition in {Eq (2.19)} is met and the event is triggered when qi(t) is reset to 0, then qi(t)ηiαiei(t)2+θiαiχiθiαiχi,tik,k=1,2, which implies that

    qi(tik)θiαiχi(tik)=θiαiχi(0)eβi+θi2tik, (4.14)

    then, we can obtain

    tiN(ε0+1)tiN(ε0)1ˆW0θiαiχi(0)eβi+θ12tiN(ε0+1). (4.15)

    If ε0>0 is a solution of

    1ˆW0θiαiχi(0)eβi+θi2TO=2ε0eβi+θi2ε0, (4.16)

    then

    tiN(ε0+1)tiN(ε0)1ˆW0θiαiχi(0)eβi+θi2(T0+ε0)=2ε0. (4.17)

    As a result, the aforementioned assumption is false, concluding the evidence that the agent i does not have Zeno behavior.

    To show the efficacy of the proposed control strategy, we present a simulation example in this section. Our simulation uses MASs composed of six agents as shown in Figure 1, where agent 1 is the leader, and others are followers. The system is

    ˙xi(t)=Axi(t)+Bui(t)+(sin(xi(t))+1.5cos(2.5t))+wi
    Figure 1.  Graph G in the example.

    The system parameters are set as

    A=[0I3A1A2],B=[0I3]
    A1=[00002ϕ2000ϕ2],A2=[02ϕ02ϕ00000]
    ςi1=0.1×1+i2,ςi2=0.5×1+i2

    In this example, we consider the flight of an aircraft, ϕ=0.002 is the angular velocity of the aircraft, and I3 represents the identity matrix of 3 × 3.

    αi=87.5,βi=0.004,θi=3.5
    ηi=[0.210.1050.1050.210.210.105]

    Figures 2 and 3 show the response curves and consistency errors of the system state for all agents. They show that the followers' states converge toward those of the leader as time progresses. Figures 3 and 4 show the control input curves and event trigger time instant for all agents. There are four times DoS attacks, with T0=3,F0=4. The duration of the DoS attack is |Ξa(0,40)|=3.5. In Table 1, we can see that the dynamic event-triggered mechanism proposed in this paper has far fewer triggering instances in the same time than the other two literatures [22,23], which can effectively save communication resources. In addition, continuous communication between agents is not required to determine whether a trigger condition satisfies a trigger condition. Considering the static event-triggered control protocol, we have

    tik+1=inf{t>tik|qi(t)2ρei(t)20}
    tik+1=inf{t>tik|qi(t)ϱei(t)0}
    Figure 2.  The control input's response curves.
    Figure 3.  The consensus errors' response curves.
    Figure 4.  Position's response curves.
    Figure 5.  Event trigger time instant for all agents.
    Table 1.  Compared with the traditional triggering protocols in [0, 40 s].
    Agent i 1 2 3 4 5 6
    [22] 260 1897 1914 1704 1635 1861
    [23] 1632 1899 1917 1694 1633 1869
    Our DETC 50 65 70 106 42 6

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    where ρ and ϱ are positive constants. Our DETC effectively reduces communication frequency.

    In this paper, we propose a dynamic event-triggered adaptive control approach to address the leader-following consensus problem for nonlinear MASs experiencing DoS attacks. We have presented a distributed control strategy and adaptive update laws to ensure system stability in the presence of uncertainties. The Lyapunov stability theory is used to derive conditions for achieving consensus. The DoS attacks considered here mainly target the MASs' communication channels. In reality, there are other types, scales, and levels of DoS attacks. Formulating mathematical models of these other types of DoS attacks and solving these models is the direction of our future research.

    The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

    This research was funded in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 62273109, in part by the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation under Grant 2023A1515010168, Grant 2019A1515010830, in part by the Key Special Foundation for General Universities in Guangdong Province under Grant 2022ZDZX1018, and in part by the Maoming Science and Technology Plan Foundation under Grant 2022S043.

    The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.



    [1] X. Wang, G. H. Yang, Distributed fault-tolerant control for a class of cooperative uncertain systems with actuator failures and switching topologies, Inform. Sci., 370 (2016), 650–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.11.002 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2015.11.002
    [2] S. Chen, DWC. Ho, L. Li, M. Liu, Fault-Tolerant Consensus of Multi-Agent System With Distributed Adaptive Protocol, IEEE Trans. Cybern., 45 (2014), 2142–2155. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2014.2366204 doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2014.2366204
    [3] X. Jin, X. Zhao, J. Yu, X. Wu, J. Chi, Adaptive fault-tolerant consensus for a class of leader-following systems using neural network learning strategy, Neural Networks, 121 (2020), 474–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2019.09.028 doi: 10.1016/j.neunet.2019.09.028
    [4] M. Khalili, X. Zhang, M. M. Polycarpou, T. Parisini, Y. Cao, Distributed adaptive fault-tolerant control of uncertain multi-agent systems, Automatica, 87 (2018), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2017.09.002 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2017.09.002
    [5] H. Yang, M. Staroswiecki, B. Jiang, J. Liu, Fault tolerant cooperative control for a class of nonlinear multi-agent systems, Syst. Control Letters, 60 (2011), 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sysconle.2011.02.004 doi: 10.1016/j.sysconle.2011.02.004
    [6] W. He, F. Qian, J. Lam, G. Chen, Q. L. Han, J. Kurths, Quasi-synchronization of heterogeneous dynamic networks via distributed impulsive control: Error estimation, optimization and design, Automatica, 62 (2015), 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2015.09.028 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2015.09.028
    [7] W. He, G. Chen, Q. L. Han, F. Qian, Network-based leader-following consensus of nonlinear multi-agent systems via distributed impulsive control, Inform. Sci., 380 (2017), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.06.005 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2015.06.005
    [8] H. Hou, Q. Zhang, Finite-time synchronization for second-order nonlinear multi-agent system via pinning exponent sliding mode control, ISA Trans., 65 (2016), 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2016.07.004 doi: 10.1016/j.isatra.2016.07.004
    [9] D. V. Dimarogonas, E. Frazzoli, Distributed event-triggered control strategies for multi-agent systems, in 2009 47th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), (2009), 906–910. https://doi.org/10.1109/ALLERTON.2009.5394897
    [10] D. V. Dimarogonas, E. Frazzoli, Distributed event-triggered control for multi-agent systems, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 57 (2011), 1291–1297. 10.1109/TAC.2011.2174666 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2011.2174666
    [11] G. S. Seyboth, D. V. Dimarogonas, K. H. Johansson, Control of multi-agent systems via event-based communication, IFAC Proceed Volumes, 44 (2011), 10086–10091. https://doi.org/10.3182/20110828-6-IT-1002.01496 doi: 10.3182/20110828-6-IT-1002.01496
    [12] D. Liu, A. Hu, H. Shao, Adaptive event-triggered control for consensus of multi-agent systems, Comput. Eng. Appl., 53 (2017), 44–48. https://doi.org/10.3778/j.issn.1002-8331.1503-0235 doi: 10.3778/j.issn.1002-8331.1503-0235
    [13] D. Liu, G. H. Yang, A dynamic event-triggered control approach to leader-following consensus for linear multiagent systems, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst., 51 (2021), 6271–6279. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2019.2960062 doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2019.2960062
    [14] X. Wang, G. Yang, Distributed fault-tolerant control for a class of cooperative uncertain systems with actuator failures and switching topologies, Inform. Sci., 370–371 (2016), 650–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.11.002 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2015.11.002
    [15] K. Zhang, Z. Hu, F. Song, X. Yang, Y. Liu, Consensus of input constrained multi-agent systems by dynamic time-varying event-triggered strategy with a designable minimal inter-event time, in IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems Ⅱ: Express Briefs, (2023), 1. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSII.2023.3332593
    [16] M. Li, Y. Long, T. Li, H. Liang, C. L. P. Chen, Dynamic event-triggered consensus control for input constrained multi-agent systems with a designable minimum inter-event time, IEEE J. Autom. Sin., (2023), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/JAS.2023.123582
    [17] H. Zhang, A. Wang, W. Ji, J. Qiu, H. Yan, Optimal consensus control for continuous-time linear multiagent systems: A dynamic event-triggered approach, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst., (2023), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2023.3279137
    [18] F. Zhi, G. Hu, Distributed secure average consensus for linear multi-agent systems under DoS attacks, in 2017 American control conference (ACC), (2017), 2261–2266. https://doi.org/10.23919/ACC.2017.7963289
    [19] F. Zhi, G. Hu, Distributed secure leader-following consensus of multi-agent systems under DoS attacks and directed topology, in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation (ICIA), (2017), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICInfA.2017.8078885
    [20] T. Dong, Y. A. Gong, Leader-following secure consensus for second-order multi-agent systems with nonlinear dynamics and event-triggered control strategy under DoS attack, Neurocomputing, 416 (2020), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2019.01.113 doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2019.01.113
    [21] X. G. Guo, P. M. Liu, J. L. Wang, C. K. Ahn, Event-triggered adaptive fault-tolerant pinning control for cluster consensus of heterogeneous nonlinear multi-agent systems under aperiodic DoS attacks, IEEE Trans. Network Sci. Eng., 8 (2021), 1941–1956. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSE.2021.3077766 doi: 10.1109/TNSE.2021.3077766
    [22] Y. C. Sun, G. H. Yang, Event-triggered distributed state estimation for multiagent systems under DoS attacks, IEEE Trans. Cybern., 52 (2020), 6901–6910. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2020.3034456 doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2020.3034456
    [23] Y. Ma, W. Che, C. Deng, Z. Wu, Observer-based event-triggered containment control for MASs under DoS attacks, IEEE Trans. Cybern., 52 (2021), 13156–13167. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2021.3104178 doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2021.3104178
    [24] T. Hao, Y. J. Wu, X. Z. Jin, Robust adaptive leader-following control of a class of multi-agent systems, in 2020 Chinese Control And Decision Conference (CCDC), (2020), 2967–2972. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCDC49329.2020.9164753
    [25] Z. Liang, G. H. Yang, Adaptive fault-tolerant control for nonlinear multi-agent systems with DoS attacks, Inform. Sci., 526 (2020), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2020.03.083 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2020.03.083
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(1460) PDF downloads(86) Cited by(0)

Figures and Tables

Figures(5)  /  Tables(1)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog