Game-Theoretic Multi-Agent Control and Network Cost Allocation Under Communication Constraints

Multi-agent networked linear dynamic systems have attracted the attention of researchers in power systems, intelligent transportation, and industrial automation. The agents might cooperatively optimize a global performance objective, resulting in social optimization, or try to satisfy their own selfish objectives using a noncooperative differential game. However, in these solutions, large volumes of data must be sent from system states to possibly distant control inputs, thus resulting in high cost of the underlying communication network. To enable economically viable communication, a game-theoretic framework is proposed under the communication cost, or sparsity, constraint, given by the number of communicating state/control input pairs. As this constraint tightens, the system transitions from dense to sparse communication, providing the tradeoff between dynamic system performance and information exchange. Moreover, using the proposed sparsity-constrained distributed social optimization and noncooperative game algorithms, we develop a method to allocate the costs of the communication infrastructure fairly and according to the agents’ diverse needs for feedback and cooperation. Numerical results illustrate utilization of the proposed algorithms to enable and ensure economic fairness of wide-area control among power companies.

[1]  Yonina C. Eldar,et al.  Sparsity Constrained Nonlinear Optimization: Optimality Conditions and Algorithms , 2012, SIAM J. Optim..

[2]  Michael Chertkov,et al.  Sparse and optimal wide-area damping control in power networks , 2013, 2013 American Control Conference.

[3]  Sandeep K. Shukla,et al.  Communication network modeling and simulation for Wide Area Measurement applications , 2012, 2012 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT).

[4]  M. Dufwenberg Game theory. , 2011, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[5]  Konstantin Avrachenkov,et al.  Cooperative network design: A Nash bargaining solution approach , 2015, Comput. Networks.

[6]  Jason R. Marden,et al.  Designing Games for Distributed Optimization , 2013, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process..

[7]  Arun G. Phadke,et al.  Synchronized Phasor Measurements and Their Applications , 2008 .

[8]  João M. F. Xavier,et al.  D-ADMM: A Communication-Efficient Distributed Algorithm for Separable Optimization , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing.

[9]  Laurent Lessard,et al.  Optimal decentralized state-feedback control with sparsity and delays , 2013, Autom..

[10]  Victor M. Becerra,et al.  Optimal control , 2008, Scholarpedia.

[11]  R. Myerson Conference structures and fair allocation rules , 1978 .

[12]  Paul T. Myrda,et al.  NASPInet - The Internet for Synchrophasors , 2010, 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[13]  Pramod P. Khargonekar,et al.  Introduction to wide-area control of power systems , 2013, 2013 American Control Conference.

[14]  Walid Saad,et al.  Author manuscript, published in "IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications (2009) Saad-ITransW-2009" A Distributed Coalition Formation Framework for Fair User Cooperation in Wireless Networks , 2022 .

[15]  A. Nouweland Group Formation in Economics: Models of Network Formation in Cooperative Games , 2005 .

[16]  Aranya Chakrabortty,et al.  Ensuring economic fairness in wide-area control for power systems via game theory , 2016, 2016 American Control Conference (ACC).

[17]  Joe H. Chow,et al.  A toolbox for power system dynamics and control engineering education and research , 1992 .

[18]  T. Başar,et al.  Dynamic Noncooperative Game Theory , 1982 .

[19]  Gabor Karsai,et al.  Toward a Science of Cyber–Physical System Integration , 2012, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[20]  Moustafa Chenine,et al.  Survey on priorities and communication requirements for PMU-based applications in the Nordic Region , 2009, 2009 IEEE Bucharest PowerTech.

[21]  Fu Lin,et al.  On the optimal design of structured feedback gains for interconnected systems , 2009, Proceedings of the 48h IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) held jointly with 2009 28th Chinese Control Conference.

[22]  Aranya Chakrabortty,et al.  Cost allocation strategies for wide-area control of power systems using Nash Bargaining Solution , 2014, 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control.

[23]  Jong-Shi Pang,et al.  Nonconvex Games with Side Constraints , 2011, SIAM J. Optim..

[24]  Hiroaki Mukaidani,et al.  A numerical analysis of the Nash strategy for weakly coupled large-scale systems , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[25]  Ekkehard W. Sachs,et al.  Computational Design of Optimal Output Feedback Controllers , 1997, SIAM J. Optim..

[26]  S. Shankar Sastry,et al.  Characterization and computation of local Nash equilibria in continuous games , 2013, 2013 51st Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton).

[27]  David J. Vowles,et al.  SIMPLIFIED 14-GENERATOR MODEL OF THE SE AUSTRALIAN POWER SYSTEM , 2010 .

[28]  Bhiksha Raj,et al.  Greedy sparsity-constrained optimization , 2011, 2011 Conference Record of the Forty Fifth Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers (ASILOMAR).

[29]  Fu Lin,et al.  Design of Optimal Sparse Feedback Gains via the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[30]  D. L. LUKJZS A Global Theory for Linear-Quadratic Differential Games * , 2003 .

[31]  W. Saad Coalitional Game Theory for Distributed Cooperation in Next Generation Wireless Networks , 2010 .

[32]  Stephen P. Boyd,et al.  Convex Optimization , 2004, Algorithms and Theory of Computation Handbook.

[33]  Isa Emin Hafalir,et al.  Efficiency in coalition games with externalities , 2007, Games Econ. Behav..

[34]  Cooperative Games with Transferable Utility , 2015 .

[35]  Tomohiko Kawamori,et al.  Nash bargaining solution under externalities , 2016, Math. Soc. Sci..