arxiv: v1 [cs.sy] 11 Sep 2018

Transcription

1 Planar Cooperative Extremum Seeking with Guaranteed Convergence Using A hree-robot Formation Anna Skobeleva, Baris Fidan, Valeri Ugrinovskii, Ian R Petersen arxiv:893674v [cssy] Sep 8 Abstract In this paper, a combined formation acquisition and cooperative extremum seeking control scheme is proposed for a team of three robots moving on a plane he extremum seeking task is to find the maximizer of an unknown twodimensional function on the plane he function represents the signal strength field due to a source located at maximizer, and is assumed to be locally concave around maximizer and monotonically decreasing in distance to the source location aylor expansions of the field function at the location of a particular lead robot and the maximizer are used together with a gradient estimator based on signal strength measurements of the robots to design and analyze the proposed control scheme he proposed scheme is proven to exponentially and simultaneously (i) acquire the specified geometric formation and (ii) drive the lead robot to a specified neighborhood disk around maximizer, whose radius depends on the specified desired formation size as well as the norm bounds of the Hessian of the field function he performance of the proposed control scheme is evaluated using a set of simulation experiments I INRODUCION he problem of signal source localization using mobile sensory agents has been studied from various perspectives and following various technical approaches [5] [8], [6], [8] [] In source localization, the field of interest is unknown and thus the main challenge is to estimate the gradient of the field and then choose an appropriate algorithm that would drive the agent or the formation to a point where the gradient is zero he classical extremum seeking control approach studied in [], [3], [], [6], [] employs a zero-mean dither signal to extract gradient information from the field measurements A dither signal is introduced as a part the velocity control and can be of a sinusoidal [], [6] or stochastic [] shape While the above technique does not require any position information, the motion pattern is inefficient and agents are unable to come to a complete stop at the source location, but rather they continue moving in its vicinity Examples of dither free extremum seeking control techniques for a single agent can be found in [4], [9], [5] he authors of [4] and [9] propose to estimate the field s gradient with a difference of two time distinct measurements taken by the agent and a sliding mode controller for the Anna Skobeleva and Valeri Ugrinovskii are with School of Engineering and Information echnology, University of New South Wales, Canberra, Australia Baris Fidan is with the Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering Department, University of Waterloo, ON, Canada Ian Petersen is with College of Engineering and Computer Science, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia annaskobeleva@studentadfaeduau his research was supported by the Australian Research Council under grant DP6 agent s angular velocity While sliding mode control is robust to measurement noise and computationally efficient, the chattering effect is a well-known drawback of this approach Using a group of agents instead of a single robot allows for better gradient estimation using a combination of the measurements across the platforms and eliminates the need for auxiliary movements making the search more time and energy efficient In [7], the gradient is estimated from distributed field measurements using least squares and is further refined by applying a Kalman filter to the history data he virtual leader is then moving in the direction of the steepest descent/ascent of the gradient In their subsequent work [4], the authors propose Kalman filter schemes to estimate both the gradient and the Hessian of the unknown field A significant drawback of this approach is its high computational complexity and sensitivity to communication delays and faults A source seeking approach utilizing a circular formation of unicycle-like agents is considered in the series of papers [6], [4], [], [3] hese papers exploit the circular shape of the formation with agents being uniformly distributed around the circle to approximate the field s gradient at the formation centre as an average of the weighted measurements taken by the agents he reference trajectory for the formation centre is calculated by integrating the estimated gradient value An additional consensus algorithm is used to agree on the estimated gradient direction In [], the formation center trajectory is generated with a gradient-ascent algorithm, and in [3], the authors provide simulation results for scenarios with noisy field measurements, multiple maximum points, and time-varying fields In the simulation results of [3], the formation converges to a neighbourhood of the maximum point or one of the local maximum points, for such scenarios he signal field extremum seeking task of our current paper is the same as that of the aforementioned papers, and we also use a formation control basic cooperative approach However, different from earlier works, (i) we focus on use of a seed formation with minimal number (three) of robot agents needed for providing static estimates of the field gradient, (ii) we consider formation acquisition and extremum seeking as simultaneous control goals without assuming satisfaction of the desired geometric formation initially, (iii) we formally establish guaranteed convergence results to a certain neighborhood of the extremum point he rest of the paper is organized as follows: he simultaneous formation acquisition and extremum seeking control problem is defined in Section II Section III provides background on the aylor expansion of functions of vectors,

2 the proposed distributed control design and convergence analysis Section IV provides the results of simulation tests he paper is concluded with the final remarks in Section V II P ROBLEM D EFINIION he main task we study in this paper is to have a team of three robot agents A, A, A to search for and move towards a signal source located at an unknown position x < Leaving the detailed motion dynamics, low level dynamic control design, and implementation issues to future studies, we consider the following velocity integrator kinematics of the robot agents in this paper: x i (t) = vi (t), i {,, }, () where xi (t) = [xix (t), xiy (t)] P and vi (t) = [vix (t), viy (t)] < denote, respectively, the position and velocity of agent Ai at time instant t Simultaneously with the above main signal source seeking task, the three robot agents are desired to acquire and maintain a pre-defined geometric formation defined in terms of the desired values ri of their relative positions ri (t) = [rix (t), riy (t)] = xi (t) x (t), Fig III S IMULANEOUS E XREMUM S EEKING AND F ORMAION ACQUISIION A aylor Expansions of Functions of D Vectors he control design we present in the following subsections to solve Problem utilizes aylor expansions for the function f ( ) and its gradient f ( ) In this subsection, we summarize these expansion formulations he following fact is a special case of heorem 5 in [] for f ( ) : < 7 [, ): Proposition : Assume that f is continuously differentiable up to order within a given open set X < Consider two vectors x, x X and the difference vector h = x x here exists a number τ such that i {, } () he signal strength at any point x = [xx, xy ] P due to the signal source at x is denoted by f (x), where f ( ) : < 7 [, ) is an unknown function which satisfies the following assumptions Assumption : (i)h he function f, its gradient f = i [ x f, y f ] = f f xx, xy f f = xx xy f, and its Hessian " xy f = xy f f xx f xx xy f xx xy f xy Illustration of Problem # f (x) = f (x ) + h f (x ) + h f (x + τ h)h Proposition further has the following corollary: Corollary : Assume that f is continuously differentiable up to order 3 within a given open set X < Consider two vectors x, x X and the difference vector h = x x here exist numbers τ, τ such that are continuous, and the entries of f are continuously differentiable (ii) he function f has a single maximum at a point x (iii) here exists a scalar MH > such that x <, k f (x)k MH (iv) At x, f (x ) is negative definite (v) here exists a scalar LH > such that x, x <, k f (x ) f (x )k LH kx x k (vi) here exists a scalar GH > such that x, x <, k f (x ) f (x )k GH Next, we formulate the simultaneous formation acquisition and extremum seeking problem explained above Problem : Consider three robot agents A, A, A with motion kinematics (), and a signal source located at an unknown position x < he signal strength distribution due to this source is represented by an unknown function f ( ) : < 7 [, ) which satisfies Assumption Assume that the agents can sense their positions xi (t) and the signal strengths fi (t) = f (xi (t)) (i {,, }) and communicate among themselves he problem is to design control laws to produce the velocities vi such that x (t) converges to a bounded neighbourhood of the unique maximizer x of f ( ) f (x) ˆ f (x + τ h, x + τ h)h, = f (x ) + ˆ f (ξ, ξ ) for ξ, ξ X is defined by where xx f (ξ ) xy f (ξ ) ˆ f (ξ, ξ ) = xy f (ξ ) xy f (ξ ) (3) B Control Algorithm Extending the gradient search and aylor expansion based approach of [] to the two dimensional setting of this paper, we propose the following distributed control law for the agents A, A, A : v (t) = K g(t), v (t) = K (r (t) r ) + K g(t), v (t) = K (r (t) r ) (4) + K g(t), where Ki = ki I for some positive gain scalar gain ki, ri (t) is the measurable relative position as defined in () and ri is

3 its desired value for the formation acquisition task in Problem, for i {, }, and g(t) = R f (t) f (t) (t) r, R(t) = (t) f (t) f (t) r (5) (t) is an instantaneous approximation of the gradient f(x (t)), calculated using the measurements of x i (t), f i (t), i {,, } Note that for the instantaneous approximation (5) to be well defined the matrix R(t) needs to be invertible he invertibility of R(t) is analyzed in the next subsection C Invertibility of R(t) In this subsection we establish some practical conditions for the formation matrix R(t) in (5) to be invertible hese conditions will ensure that the control algorithm (4), (5) is implementable Assumption : Given initial positions of the agents, choose indexing A, A, A of these agents and the orientation of the formation described by the matrix R r = r (6) such that: (i) r and r = r () have the same direction; (ii) x () = x () + r and x () are on the same halfplane with respect to the x ()x () Figure illustrates a formation setting satisfying Assumption and observing the triangle x (t) x (t)x (t), that is formed by vectors r and r (t), we have: If θ () > θ, then θ θ (t) θ (), t; If θ () θ, then θ () θ (t) θ, t We can repeat the analysis above for the case when θ (π, π) We conclude that θ (t) is always between θ () and θ herefore, sin(θ (t)) min(sin(θ ), sin(θ ())) t Corollary : For any t, det(r(t)) min( ρ, ρ ) r (t) r (t) Proof: Note that det(r()) = ρ r () r () and det(r ) = ρ r r Hence, the result directly follows from Lemma and the fact that det(r(t)) = r (t) r (t) = r (t) r (t) sin θ (t) We conclude that if the Assumption is satisfied, then R(t) is non singular herefore, R (t) exists and (5) is implementable for all t D Formation Acquisition and Extremum Seeking Convergence Analysis In this subsection we show that the formation control task is achieved exponentially fast hen, we analyze stability and convergence properties of the extremum seeking dynamics Defining relative position errors with respect to the desired formation δ i (t) = r i (t) r i, i {, }, (7) from (), (4), we have δ i (t) = ẋ i (t) ẋ (t) = K i δ i (t), i {, }, (8) and hence δ i (t) = δ i e kit, t, i {, }, (9) where δ i = δ i () (9) further implies that r i (t) = ri + δ i e kit, t, i {, } () Fig A target formation setting satisfying Assumption Lemma : Denote the counterclockwise angles from r to r and from r (t) to r (t), respectively, by θ and θ (t) If Assumption is satisfied, for all t, the sign of sin(θ (t)) is the same as the signs of ρ = sin(θ ), ρ = sin(θ ()) and the following inequality holds: sin(θ (t)) min( ρ, ρ ) Proof: If θ (, π) is as illustrated in Figure, then by Assumption (ii), θ () (, π) Using the notation x i (t) = x (t) + r i Next, we analyze of the extremum seeking convergence properties Combining (), (4) and (5), the dynamics of the agent A are given by ẋ (t) = K R f (t) f (t) (t) () f (t) f (t) o analyse the right hand side of equation (), we use the aylor expansions of f and f around x and x, respectively First, we obtain an expansion of f i = f(x i ) around x with a reminder in the integral form [3]: f i f = r i f(x ) + ( ξ i )r i f(x + ξ i r i )r i dξ i, () for i {, }, where ξ i comes from parametrization of the segment [x, x i ]: x i = x + ξ i r i 3

4 Later in the analysis, we will consider a special case of () corresponding to δ i = In this case, r i = ri, x i = x + ri and f i = fi = f(x + ri ), and () becomes f i f = r i f(x )+ for i {, } () and () imply that ẋ =K f(x ) ( ξ i )r i f(x +ξ i r i )r i dξ i, (3) + K R ( ξ )r f(x + ξ r )r dξ ( ξ )r f(x + ξ r )r dξ Next, defining the extremum seeking error (4) z(t) = x (t) x, (5) we apply Corollary to further expand the term f(x ) in (4) around the unknown extremum point x : f(x ) = f(x ) + ˆ f(ξ, ξ )(x x ) = f(x )z + ( ˆ f(ξ, ξ ) f(x ))z, (6) where ξ, ξ are certain points on the segment [x, x ], noting that f(x ) = at the extremum point x Combining (4), (5), (6), we obtain ż =ẋ = K f(x )z + B β z where + K R ( ξ )r f(x + ξ r )r dξ ( ξ )r, f(x + ξ r )r dξ (7) ( ) B β = K ˆ f(ξ, ξ ) f(x ) (8) o combine the differential equations for the formation and extremum seeking errors in a single compact equation, we further define δ = [δ, δ ] and the six dimensional stacked error vector χ = [ δ z ] = [ δ δ z ], (9) and consider an uncertain system: K O O χ = O K O χ } O O K f(x ) {{} A + O O I (φ + φ (t)) }{{} B = Aχ + B(φ + φ + φ 3 (t)), () with three uncertainty inputs φ, φ and φ 3 (t) defined as: φ = B β z = B β C χ, C = O O I ; φ (t) = K R ( ξ )r f(x + ξ r )r dξ ( ξ )r ; f(x + ξ r )r dξ φ = K R ( ξ )r f(x + ξ r )r dξ ( ξ )r f(x + ξ r)r dξ, R r = r ; φ 3 (t) = φ (t) φ () Lemma : he uncertainty inputs φ (t), φ in () satisfy φ (t) α C χ, α = G H k, φ α, [ α = ] K R ( ξ )r f(x + ξ r )r dξ ( ξ )r f(x + ξ r)r dξ k M H R ( r + r ), t () Further, the uncertainty input φ 3 (t) is exponentially decaying to zero φ 3 (t) = εe βt, (3) where ε, β > Proof of Lemma is provided in the Appendix Further analysis of the error dynamics in () is carried out using the approach based on the robust stability theory, employing the Lyapunov function and S-procedure techniques Choose V (χ) = χ P χ as a candidate Lyapunov function Let τ, γ, γ > be three constants Further consider: V τ( φ α C χ ) = χ P (Aχ + Bφ + Bφ + Bφ 3 ) τ( φ α χ C C χ) = χ (P A + A P + τα C C )χ + χ P Bφ + χ P Bφ + χ P Bφ 3 τ φ Using the fact that χ P Bφ = τ χ P B τφ τ χ P BB P χ + τ φ, χ P Bφ = χ P B γ φ χ P BB P χ γ γ + γ φ, χ P Bφ 3 = χ P B γ φ 3 χ P BB P χ γ γ we can rewrite (4) as an inequality: + γ φ 3, (4) 4

5 V τ( φ α C χ ) χ (P A + A P + τα C C + τ P BB P + γ P BB P + γ P BB P )χ + γ φ + γ φ 3 (5) Now suppose that for some λ >, the Linear Matrix Inequality P A + A P + ταc C P B P B P B + λp B P τi B P γ I B P γ I < (6) admits a solution P = P >, τ >, γ >, γ > hen we have the following theorem as our main result heorem : Suppose the function f satisfies conditions (i)-(vi) in Assumption Also, suppose that there exist K, K, K and λ > such that the LMI (6) is feasible; ie, there exists a matrix P > and constants τ >, γ >, γ > such that (6) holds hen the simultaneous extremum seeking and formation acquisition algorithm converges in the sense that lim t x (t) x (t) = r, lim t x (t) x (t) = r and lim sup x (t) x t γ km H R ( r + r ) 4λσ min (P ) he proof of heorem is provided in the Appendix IV SIMULAION RESULS (7) he proposed extremum seeking control scheme is tested Matlab Simulink environment We first set up the simulation using a field function with elliptical level sets of the form f(x, y) = e (x ) 7 (y ) 7 (8) Control gains values used for simulations are k = k = 5, k = 7 and the formation size r, = 4 meters Search results for the field (8) are shown in figure 3 For the function (8) with λ =, LMI (6) has a solution τ = τ γ = 49, γ = γ γ = 859 and σ min ( P ) = σmin(p ) γ = he numerical value of the theoretical bound in (7) obtained from the LMI solution is lim t x (t) x = 53 meters Final extremum seeking control error from simulation is 8 meters Simulation experiments have shown that the proposed control algorithm works for fields with more general level sets, that are only locally convex Simulation results for the field (9) are presented in figure 4 Both simulation experiments have shown that the agents successfully acquire the desired formation shape and converge to the neighbourhood of the maximum of the field Fig 3 Simulation results for the field with elliptical level sets ( ) f(x, y) =e x ( ) y + e ((x )+(y )) 77 ( (x )+(y )) 43 + e (x ) (y ) 5 V CONCLUSION (9) We have presented a simultaneous formation acquisition and extremum seeking control scheme for a team of three robots to locate a maximum point of a two dimensional signal field We have shown that the proposed algorithm guarantees convergence to a specified neighbourhood of the maximum of the field while ensuring that the desired formation is 5

6 ˆ xx f(ξ f(ξ, ξ ) = ) xy f(ξ ) xy f(ξ ) xy f(ξ ) xx f(ξ + ) xy f(ξ ) = xy f(ξ ) xy f(ξ ) f(ξ ) + f(ξ ) (3) Using (3), we rewrite B β as: B β =K [ + K [ ] ( f(ξ ) f(x )) ] ( f(ξ ) f(x )) Using (3) and Assumption (vi), the norm of B β is: (3) ( B β K ( f(ξ ) f(x )) + ( f(ξ ) f(x ))) K ( f(ξ ) f(x ) ) + f(ξ ) f(x ) G H k, (3) Hence, we find a bound on the φ uncertainty input as: φ α C χ, (33) where α = G H k he bound on the uncertainty input φ follows from the definition (), Assumption (iii) and the properties of definite integrals Fig 4 Simulation results for a field with non-circular level sets acquired and maintained Our analytical results are supported by simulations, which have demonstrated that the field only has to be locally convex for the algorithm to work In future studies, we plan to extend our control method to unicycle robot kinematics and use control techniques that would allow a formation to rotate and change its size in order to improve extremum seeking performance and applicability to more general non-concave settings We also plan to study the effects of measurement noise and work on a practical implementation of the proposed scheme A Proof of Lemma APPENDIX o find an upper bound on the uncertainty [ input φ (t), note ] that the matrix ˆ xx f(ξ f(ξ, ξ ) = ) xy f(ξ ) xy f(ξ ) xy f(ξ ) satisfies: From the definition of φ (): φ K R ( ( ξ )r f(x + ξ r)r dξ + ( ξ )r f(x + ξ r )r dξ ) We know from the property of define integrals that: ( ξ i )ri f(x + ξ ri )ri dξ i ( ξ i )ri f(x + ξ ri )ri dξ i ( ξ i ) ri f(x + ξ ri ) ri dξ i M H r i, where ( ξ i ), f(x + ξ r i ) M H (34) (35) 6

7 From (34) and (35), we obtain the bound on φ : φ k M H R ( r + r ) (36) Next, we establish a bound on the uncertainty input φ 3 (t) By adding [ and subtracting K R ( ξ )r f(x + ξ r )r dξ ], ( ξ )r f(x + ξ r )r dξ we rewrite φ 3 (t) as : where φ 3 (t) = φ 3(t) + φ 3 (t), (37) φ 3(t) = K (R R ) ( ξ )r f(x + ξ r )r dξ ( ξ )r, f(x + ξ r )r dξ [ ( φ 3 (t) = K r R f(x + ξ r )r ( r f(x + ξ r )r ) ] r f(x + ξ r)r ( ξ )dξ ) r f(x + ξ r)r ( ξ )dξ (38) From Assumption (iii): φ 3(t) k M H R(t) R ( r + r ) (39) We know that r i (t) converges to a constant value ri, therefore ( r + r ) is bounded Also, from (9), R(t) R exponentially fast and we show in the next subsection that R (t) R at the same rate Hence, φ 3(t) exponentially fast as t o find a bound on φ 3 (t), we analyse the function under the integral sign: ri f(x + ξ i r i )r i ri f(x + ξ i ri )ri =ri f(x + ξ i r i )r i ri f(x + ξ i ri )r i + ri f(x + ξ i ri )r i ri f(x + ξ i ri )r i =ri ( f(x + ξ i r i ) f(x + ξ i ri ))r i + ri f(x + ξ i ri )r i ri f(x + ξ i ri )ri Using Assumption (v) r i ( f(x + ξ i r i ) f(x + ξ i r i ))r i r i f(x + ξ i r i ) f(x + ξ i r i ) r i L H r i r i, (4) (4) r i (t) ri exponentially fast and r i is bounded herefore, ri ( f(x + ξ i r i ) f(x + ξ i ri ))r i exponentially fast as t Using Assumption (iii) ri f(x + ξ i ri )r i ri f(x + ξ i ri )ri M H r i ri r i + ri (4) Next, we note that r i + ri r i ri + r i hus ri f(x + ξ i ri )r i ri f(x + ξ i ri )ri M H ( r i ri + ri r i ri ), (43) with r i (t) ri exponentially fast and ri is a constant herefore, we conclude that ri f(x + ξ i ri )r i ri f(x + ξ i ri )r i exponentially fast as t From (39), (4) and (43), we conclude that φ 3 (t) = φ 3(t) + φ 3 (t), as t (44) exponentially fast Hence, we can define a bound on φ 3 (t) as where ε, β are some positive constants φ 3 (t) = εe βt, (45) B Proof that R (t) R exponentially Let us introduce the notation q = R For any x R, x = R R x, hence x R R x = R x x (46) q Next, since from (9) R(t) R exponentially, then there exist a time t q such that R(t) R q, t > t q (47) herefore, using (46) and (47), we obtain R(t)x = R x (R R(t))x R x (R R(t))x q, t > t q (48) his implies that R (t) < q, t > t q herefore, we conclude that for all t > t q R (t) R = R (t)(r(t) R )R q (R(t) R ) hus, R (t) R at the same rate as R(t) R C Proof of heorem (49) If LMI (6) admits a solution P = P >, τ >, γ >, γ >, then for all φ, φ, φ 3 and all t > t ε V + λv < τ( φ α C χ ) + γ φ + γ φ 3, (5) and taking into account (), (3), we obtain that for all admissible φ, φ, φ 3 and t > t ε, V + λv < γ α + γ ε e βt (5) 7

8 According to the Gronwall-Bellman Lemma [], inequality (5) implies that: V (t) e λt V () + γ α t e λ(t τ) dτ t + γ ε e βτ e λ(t τ) dτ e λt V () + γ α ( e λt ) λ + γ ε (e βt e λt ) β λ (5) his implies that for any initial condition χ() the trajectories of the system (), (), (3) satisfy lim ( δ (t) + δ (t) + z(t) ) γ α t λσ min (P ) (53) Note that from (9), δ (t), δ (t) exponentially fast herefore, we can rewrite (53) as lim t ( z(t) ) γ α λσ min (P ) γ km H R ( r + r ) λσ min (P ) (54) REFERENCES [] Kartik B Ariyur and Miroslav Krstic Real-time optimization by extremum-seeking control John Wiley & Sons, 3 [] Lara Brinón-Arranz and Luca Schenato Consensus-based sourceseeking with a circular formation of agents In Proc European Control Conference, pages , 3 [3] Lara Briñón-Arranz, Luca Schenato, and Alexandre Seuret Distributed source seeking via a circular formation of agents under communication constraints IEEE rans on Control of Network Systems, 3():4 5, 6 [4] Lara Brinón-Arranz, Alexandre Seuret, and Carlos Canudas-de Wit Collaborative estimation of gradient direction by a formation of auvs under communication constraints In Proc Decision and Control and European Control Conference (CDC-ECC), 5th IEEE Conference on, pages , [5] M Cao, BDO Anderson, and AS Morse Localization with imprecise distance information in sensor networks Systems and Control Letters, 55: , Nov 6 [6] Jennie Cochran and Miroslav Krstic Nonholonomic source seeking with tuning of angular velocity IEEE rans on Automatic Control, 54(4):77 73, 9 [7] S Dandach, B Fidan, SDasgupta, and B D O Anderson A continuous time linear adaptive source localization algorithm robust to persistent drift Systems and Control Letters, 58():7 6, Jan 9 [8] B Fidan, SDasgupta, and B D O Anderson Guaranteeing practical convergence in algorithms for sensor and source localization IEEE rans on Signal Processing, 56(9): , Sep 8 [9] Lina Fu and U Ozguner Sliding mode in constrained source tracking with non-holonomic vehicles In Variable Structure Systems, 8 VSS 8 International Workshop on, pages 3 34 IEEE, 8 [] Hassan K Khalil Noninear systems Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, (5):5, 996 [] S Lang Calculus of Several Variables Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA, 987 [] Jinbiao Lin, Shiji Song, Keyou You, and Miroslav Krstic Stochastic source seeking with forward and angular velocity regulation Automatica, 83: , 7 [3] Jerrold Eldon Marsden and Anthony romba Vector calculus Macmillan, 3 [4] Alexey S Matveev, Hamid eimoori, and Andrey V Savkin Navigation of a unicycle-like mobile robot for environmental extremum seeking Automatica, 47():85 9, [5] Christopher G Mayhew, Ricardo G Sanfelice, and Andrew R eel Robust source-seeking hybrid controllers for autonomous vehicles In American Control Conference, 7 ACC 7, pages 85 9 IEEE, 7 [6] Brandon J Moore and Carlos Canudas-de Wit Source seeking via collaborative measurements by a circular formation of agents In Proc American Control Conference, pages , [7] Petter Ogren, Edward Fiorelli, and Naomi Ehrich Leonard Cooperative control of mobile sensor networks: Adaptive gradient climbing in a distributed environment Automatic Control, IEEE ransactions on, 49(8):9 3, 4 [8] P Pathirana, N Bulusu, A Savkin, and S Jha Node localization using mobile robots in delay-tolerant sensor networks IEEE ransactions on Mobile Computing, pages 85 96, May-June 5 [9] N Patwari, J N Ash, S Kyperountas, A O Hero, R L Moses, and N S Correal Locating the nodes: cooperative localization in wireless sensor network IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, pages 54 69, July 5 [] S I Roumeliotis and G A Bekey Distributed multirobot localization IEEE ransactions on Robotics and Automation, pages , Oct [] Anna Skobeleva, V Ugrinovskii, and Ian R Petersen Cooperative extremum seeking for a one-dimensional non-linear map using a tworobot formation In Australian and New Zealand Control Conference (ANZCC), 7 IEEE, 7 [] Chunlei Zhang, Daniel Arnold, Nima Ghods, Antranik Siranosian, and Miroslav Krstic Source seeking with non-holonomic unicycle without position measurement and with tuning of forward velocity Systems & Control Letters, 56(3):45 5, 7 [3] Chunlei Zhang, Antranik Siranosian, and Miroslav Krstić Extremum seeking for moderately unstable systems and for autonomous vehicle target tracking without position measurements Automatica, 43():83 839, 7 [4] Fumin Zhang and Naomi Ehrich Leonard Cooperative filters and control for cooperative exploration IEEE rans on Automatic Control, 55(3):65 663, 8