Localized high-order consensus destabilizes large-scale networks

Bassam Bamieh; Emma Tegling; Henrik Sandberg

arxiv: 1907.02465 · v1 · pith:Q263MNDUnew · submitted 2019-07-04 · 🧮 math.OC

Localized high-order consensus destabilizes large-scale networks

Emma Tegling , Bassam Bamieh , Henrik Sandberg This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 09:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC

keywords consensus algorithmshigh-order integratorslocalized feedbackalgebraic connectivitynetwork stabilityRouth-Hurwitz criteriongraph Laplaciansdirected graphs

0 comments

The pith

No consensus algorithm using only relative neighbor differences can stabilize high-order integrator networks of arbitrary size.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proves that when each agent has integrator dynamics of order three or higher, any protocol that computes control inputs from relative differences to a bounded number of neighbors will drive the closed-loop system unstable once the network grows past a finite size. This occurs in all graph families whose algebraic connectivity, the smallest nonzero Laplacian eigenvalue, shrinks toward zero with added nodes, including every planar graph. The same local rule set that produces convergence on a small network therefore produces divergence on a larger one. The argument relies on Routh-Hurwitz analysis of the characteristic polynomial whose roots are set by the Laplacian spectrum and extends to certain directed graphs with normal Laplacians as well as to leader-follower problems on undirected networks.

Core claim

When agents obey n-fold integrator dynamics with n at least three and each agent receives feedback from only a fixed number of neighbors, no consensus law built on relative state differences can keep the network at equilibrium for every network size belonging to a graph class whose algebraic connectivity tends to zero.

What carries the argument

Routh-Hurwitz stability test applied to the characteristic polynomial whose factors are determined by the eigenvalues of the graph Laplacian under localized relative-difference feedback.

If this is right

Any algorithm that succeeds on a small planar network with n greater than or equal to three will destabilize the same local rule on a sufficiently larger planar network.
Leader-follower consensus under localized feedback becomes unstable on every growing undirected network once agent order reaches three.
The instability result applies to all directed graphs whose Laplacians are normal.
The limitation is independent of the specific choice of relative-difference gains; the order of the dynamics alone forces poles into the right half-plane for large enough networks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Designers of distributed controllers for vehicle platoons or power networks may need to incorporate global or non-local information once agent dynamics exceed second order.
Similar scaling arguments could be examined for other distributed tasks such as formation control or synchronization when the open-loop poles lie at the origin with multiplicity greater than two.
Numerical checks on path graphs or grid graphs with increasing length would provide direct illustrations of the predicted instability threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The networks are taken from graph families in which the smallest nonzero Laplacian eigenvalue shrinks to zero as the number of nodes grows.

What would settle it

Exhibiting one localized relative-difference protocol that keeps third-order integrator agents asymptotically stable on a sequence of planar graphs whose size increases without bound would disprove the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.02465 by Bassam Bamieh, Emma Tegling, Henrik Sandberg.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Simulation of 3 rd order consensus in graph depicted in (a), subject to random initial accelerations. In (b) the network’s 34 agents converge to an equilibrium. In (c) a 35th node has been added, indicated by red color in the graph. This addition leads to instability. The plots (b) and (c) show position trajectories relative to Agent no. 1. Note the different scales. V. CONCLUSIONS This paper’s results sho… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We study the problem of distributed consensus in networks where the local agents have high-order ($n\ge 3$) integrator dynamics, and where all feedback is localized in that each agent has a bounded number of neighbors. We prove that no consensus algorithm based on relative differences between states of neighboring agents can then achieve consensus in networks of any size. That is, while a given algorithm may allow a small network to converge to consensus, the same algorithm will lead to instability if agents are added to the network so that it grows beyond a certain finite size. This holds in classes of network graphs whose algebraic connectivity, that is, the smallest non-zero Laplacian eigenvalue, is decreasing towards zero in network size. This applies, for example, to all planar graphs. Our proof, which relies on Routh-Hurwitz criteria for complex-valued polynomials, holds true for directed graphs with normal graph Laplacians. We survey classes of graphs where this issue arises, and also discuss leader-follower consensus, where instability will arise in any growing, undirected network as long as the feedback is localized.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper shows that fixed-gain localized feedback for n≥3 integrator consensus becomes unstable on large sparse graphs once algebraic connectivity drops near zero.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper proves an impossibility: for agents with dynamics of order three or higher, localized feedback using only neighbor differences cannot achieve consensus on networks that grow without bound on graphs where algebraic connectivity goes to zero. While small networks might work, adding agents eventually causes instability for any fixed gains. The argument uses Routh-Hurwitz on the closed-loop polynomial s^n + λ p(s) and shows that small nonzero Laplacian eigenvalues λ push roots into the unstable half-plane. This covers normal Laplacians, including undirected graphs and some directed ones, and extends to the leader-follower case on undirected networks. It also surveys the graph classes where the problem appears, such as planar graphs. What stands out is the direct extension of earlier first- and second-order results to higher order with an explicit size-dependent instability mechanism. The logic is internally consistent for the stated setting. The main limitation is the restriction to normal Laplacians, so the claim does not apply to arbitrary directed graphs. The result also assumes gains stay fixed as the network grows, which matches the localized premise but leaves size-dependent or adaptive laws outside its scope. The abstract does not give the explicit polynomial coefficients, but the stress-test description indicates no hidden circularity or fitting issues. This paper is for researchers in distributed control and multi-agent systems who design scalable protocols for vehicles, power grids, or sensor arrays. A reader working on consensus would get concrete guidance on what cannot work. It deserves peer review because the negative result is specific, the method is standard, and the implications for large-network design are direct.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proves that no consensus protocol based solely on relative differences between neighboring agents can achieve asymptotic consensus for networks of agents with high-order (n ≥ 3) integrator dynamics when feedback is localized (bounded degree) and the network belongs to a graph family whose algebraic connectivity λ₂ → 0 as N → ∞ (e.g., planar graphs). The argument proceeds by writing the closed-loop characteristic polynomial in the form s^n + λ p(s) (deg p = n-1), then invoking the Routh-Hurwitz criterion on complex-valued polynomials to show that any fixed gain vector places at least one root in the right half-plane once |λ| is sufficiently small. The result is stated for directed graphs whose Laplacians are normal and is extended to the leader-follower setting on undirected graphs.

Significance. If the central derivation is correct, the paper supplies a sharp negative result on the scalability of localized high-order consensus, showing that instability is inevitable in any sufficiently large network from the indicated graph classes. The explicit use of Routh-Hurwitz criteria for complex polynomials is a technical strength that may be reusable in other multi-agent stability analyses. The result has clear implications for the design of distributed controllers in large-scale systems such as vehicle platoons or sensor networks.

major comments (2)

[Proof of the main theorem (likely §3 or §4)] The manuscript states that the closed-loop polynomial takes the form s^n + λ · p(s) with deg p = n-1, but the explicit construction of the coefficient vector of p(s) in terms of the local gains is not supplied in sufficient detail to verify that the Routh-Hurwitz array indeed produces a sign change for every fixed gain tuple once |λ| < ε for some ε > 0. This step is load-bearing for the claim that instability occurs for any fixed gains.
[Leader-follower section] The extension to leader-follower consensus asserts instability in any growing undirected network, yet the argument appears to rely on the same λ₂ → 0 property; it is unclear whether the leader pinning term alters the smallest nonzero eigenvalue in a way that could keep it bounded away from zero, which would require a separate eigenvalue bound.

minor comments (2)

Notation for the polynomial p(s) should be introduced with an explicit equation number when first defined, and the dependence on the gain vector k should be stated.
The survey of graph classes (planar, etc.) would benefit from a short table listing the asymptotic behavior of λ₂ for each family.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and positive assessment of the significance of our negative result on localized high-order consensus. We address the two major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Proof of the main theorem (likely §3 or §4)] The manuscript states that the closed-loop polynomial takes the form s^n + λ · p(s) with deg p = n-1, but the explicit construction of the coefficient vector of p(s) in terms of the local gains is not supplied in sufficient detail to verify that the Routh-Hurwitz array indeed produces a sign change for every fixed gain tuple once |λ| < ε for some ε > 0. This step is load-bearing for the claim that instability occurs for any fixed gains.

Authors: We agree that the coefficient construction of p(s) requires more explicit detail for verification. For high-order integrator agents with local gains k = (k_0, k_1, ..., k_{n-1}), the mode corresponding to Laplacian eigenvalue λ has closed-loop polynomial s^n + λ p(s), where p(s) = k_{n-1} s^{n-1} + ... + k_1 s + k_0 exactly. The Routh-Hurwitz array for this complex polynomial exhibits a sign change for sufficiently small |λ| > 0 (with the threshold depending on the fixed k but always positive) because the lower-order terms dominate the stability conditions. We will revise the manuscript to include the explicit mapping from gains to coefficients of p(s) together with a general Routh array expansion demonstrating the sign change. revision: yes
Referee: [Leader-follower section] The extension to leader-follower consensus asserts instability in any growing undirected network, yet the argument appears to rely on the same λ₂ → 0 property; it is unclear whether the leader pinning term alters the smallest nonzero eigenvalue in a way that could keep it bounded away from zero, which would require a separate eigenvalue bound.

Authors: For localized pinning (fixed gains on a bounded number of agents), the effective matrix L + Π satisfies λ_min(L + Π) → 0 as N → ∞ in the same graph families. This follows because a fixed number of pinned nodes does not alter the global connectivity scaling; standard eigenvalue bounds for bounded-degree graphs with O(1) modifications preserve the decay of the smallest nonzero eigenvalue. We will add a short lemma with the explicit bound for the pinned Laplacian to make this rigorous. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; direct stability proof

full rationale

The paper's central result is a mathematical proof that localized high-order consensus protocols destabilize large networks whose algebraic connectivity λ₂ → 0. The derivation proceeds by writing the closed-loop characteristic polynomial as sⁿ + λ p(s) (deg p = n-1), then applying Routh-Hurwitz criteria to show that for any fixed gains the polynomial has roots with positive real part once |λ| is sufficiently small. This step is an analytic consequence of the polynomial form and the Routh-Hurwitz test; it does not invoke fitted parameters, rename known empirical patterns, or rest on self-citations whose content is itself unverified. The graph-class condition (planar graphs, etc.) is merely the setting in which λ₂ → 0 occurs, not an input that is redefined as output. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to the paper's own assumptions or prior self-citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The result rests on standard linear systems theory and graph Laplacian properties; no free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

standard math Routh-Hurwitz stability criterion extends to complex-coefficient polynomials arising from normal graph Laplacians
Invoked to conclude instability once algebraic connectivity falls below a threshold determined by the agent dynamics.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5714 in / 1300 out tokens · 38532 ms · 2026-05-25T09:09:09.383886+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Theorem 3: If n ≥ 3, no control on the form (2) is admissible under Assumptions A1–A3 if the graph G is such that Re{λ2}→0 as N→∞. Proof relies on Routh-Hurwitz criteria for polynomials with complex coefficients and the condition an−1an−2Re{λl}−an−3 becoming negative for small Re{λ2}.
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Lemma 9 (Algebraic connectivity of planar graphs): λ2 ≤ 8 q w_max / N; similar bounds for lattices (λ2 ≤ c / N^{2/d}) and trees (λ2 ≤ π² w_max / (diam{G}+1)²).

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Information ﬂow and cooperative control of vehicle formations,

J. A. Fax and R. M. Murray, “Information ﬂow and cooperative control of vehicle formations,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control , vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1465–1476, Sept 2004

work page 2004
[2]

Consensus problems in networks of agents with switching topology and time-delays,

R. Olfati-Saber and R. M. Murray, “Consensus problems in networks of agents with switching topology and time-delays,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1520–1533, Sept 2004

work page 2004
[3]

Coordination of groups of mobile autonomous agents using nearest neighbor rules,

A. Jadbabaie, J. Lin, and A. S. Morse, “Coordination of groups of mobile autonomous agents using nearest neighbor rules,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 988–1001, June 2003

work page 2003
[4]

Consensus and cooperation in networked multi-agent systems,

R. Olfati-Saber, J. A. Fax, and R. M. Murray, “Consensus and cooperation in networked multi-agent systems,” Proc. of the IEEE , vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 215–233, Jan 2007

work page 2007
[5]

High-order consensus algorithms in cooperative vehicle systems,

W. Ren, K. Moore, and Y . Chen, “High-order consensus algorithms in cooperative vehicle systems,” in IEEE International Conf. on Networking, Sensing and Control , 2006, pp. 457–462

work page 2006
[6]

High-order and model reference consensus algorithms in cooperative control of multi-vehicle systems,

W. Ren, K. L. Moore, and Y . Chen, “High-order and model reference consensus algorithms in cooperative control of multi-vehicle systems,” J Dyn Syst Meas Control , vol. 129, no. 5, pp. 678–688, Sep 2007

work page 2007
[7]

Leader-following consensus of multi-agent systems under ﬁxed and switching topologies,

W. Ni and D. Cheng, “Leader-following consensus of multi-agent systems under ﬁxed and switching topologies,” Syst. Control Lett. , vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 209 – 217, 2010

work page 2010
[8]

Average consensus over high-order multiagent systems,

H. Rezaee and F. Abdollahi, “Average consensus over high-order multiagent systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control , vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 3047–3052, Nov 2015

work page 2015
[9]

Consensus in leaderless networks of high-order-integrator agents,

F. Jiang, L. Wang, and Y . Jia, “Consensus in leaderless networks of high-order-integrator agents,” in American Control Conf. , June 2009, pp. 4458–4463

work page 2009
[10]

Fixed-time consensus tracking for multi-agent systems with high-order integrator dynamics,

Z. Zuo, B. Tian, M. Defoort, and Z. Ding, “Fixed-time consensus tracking for multi-agent systems with high-order integrator dynamics,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control , vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 563–570, Feb 2018

work page 2018
[11]

Coherence in large-scale networks: Dimension-dependent limitations of local feedback,

B. Bamieh, M. R. Jovanovi ´c, P. Mitra, and S. Patterson, “Coherence in large-scale networks: Dimension-dependent limitations of local feedback,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control , vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 2235 – 2249, Sept. 2012

work page 2012
[12]

Consensus and coherence in fractal networks,

S. Patterson and B. Bamieh, “Consensus and coherence in fractal networks,” IEEE Trans. Control Netw. Syst., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 338–348, Dec 2014

work page 2014
[13]

Fundamental limits and tradeoffs on distur- bance propagation in large-scale dynamical networks,

M. Siami and N. Motee, “Fundamental limits and tradeoffs on distur- bance propagation in large-scale dynamical networks,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 4055–4062, 2016

work page 2016
[14]

On Fundamental Limitations of Dynamic Feedback Control in Regular Large-Scale Networks

E. Tegling, P. Mitra, H. Sandberg, and B. Bamieh, “On fundamental limitations of dynamic feedback control in regular large-scale net- works,” 2019, arXiv preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.02880

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[15]

Information ﬂow and its relation to stability of the motion of vehicles in a rigid formation,

S. K. Yadlapalli, S. Darbha, and K. R. Rajagopal, “Information ﬂow and its relation to stability of the motion of vehicles in a rigid formation,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control , vol. 51, no. 8, pp. 1315– 1319, Aug 2006

work page 2006
[16]

Analysis and applications of spectral properties of grounded Laplacian matrices for directed networks,

W. Xia and M. Cao, “Analysis and applications of spectral properties of grounded Laplacian matrices for directed networks,” Automatica, vol. 80, pp. 10 – 16, 2017

work page 2017
[17]

Tondl, Some problems of rotor dynamics

A. Tondl, Some problems of rotor dynamics . Prague: Czechoslovak academy of sciences, 1965

work page 1965
[18]

R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis . New York: Cambridge University Presss, 1985

work page 1985
[19]

Simple eigenvalues of graphs and digraphs,

K. Guo, “Simple eigenvalues of graphs and digraphs,” PhD Thesis, Simon Fraser University, 2015, Available: http://summit.sfu.ca/item/14931

work page 2015
[20]

The Laplacian spectrum of graphs,

B. Mohar, “The Laplacian spectrum of graphs,” in Graph Theory, Combinatorics, and Applications . Wiley, 1991, pp. 871–898

work page 1991
[21]

A. E. Brouwer and W. H. Haemers, Spectra of Graphs , New York, NY , 2012

work page 2012
[22]

Spectral partitioning works: Planar graphs and ﬁnite element meshes,

D. A. Spielman and S.-H. Teng, “Spectral partitioning works: Planar graphs and ﬁnite element meshes,” Linear Algebra Appl. , vol. 421, no. 2, pp. 284 – 305, 2007, special Issue in honor of Miroslav Fiedler

work page 2007
[23]

Spectral partitioning, eigenvalue bounds, and circle pack- ings for graphs of bounded genus,

J. Kelner, “Spectral partitioning, eigenvalue bounds, and circle pack- ings for graphs of bounded genus,” SIAM J. Comput. , vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 882–902, 2006

work page 2006
[24]

The Laplacian spectrum of a graph,

R. Grone, R. Merris, and V . Sunder, “The Laplacian spectrum of a graph,” SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 218–238, 1990

work page 1990

[1] [1]

Information ﬂow and cooperative control of vehicle formations,

J. A. Fax and R. M. Murray, “Information ﬂow and cooperative control of vehicle formations,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control , vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1465–1476, Sept 2004

work page 2004

[2] [2]

Consensus problems in networks of agents with switching topology and time-delays,

R. Olfati-Saber and R. M. Murray, “Consensus problems in networks of agents with switching topology and time-delays,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1520–1533, Sept 2004

work page 2004

[3] [3]

Coordination of groups of mobile autonomous agents using nearest neighbor rules,

A. Jadbabaie, J. Lin, and A. S. Morse, “Coordination of groups of mobile autonomous agents using nearest neighbor rules,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 988–1001, June 2003

work page 2003

[4] [4]

Consensus and cooperation in networked multi-agent systems,

R. Olfati-Saber, J. A. Fax, and R. M. Murray, “Consensus and cooperation in networked multi-agent systems,” Proc. of the IEEE , vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 215–233, Jan 2007

work page 2007

[5] [5]

High-order consensus algorithms in cooperative vehicle systems,

W. Ren, K. Moore, and Y . Chen, “High-order consensus algorithms in cooperative vehicle systems,” in IEEE International Conf. on Networking, Sensing and Control , 2006, pp. 457–462

work page 2006

[6] [6]

High-order and model reference consensus algorithms in cooperative control of multi-vehicle systems,

W. Ren, K. L. Moore, and Y . Chen, “High-order and model reference consensus algorithms in cooperative control of multi-vehicle systems,” J Dyn Syst Meas Control , vol. 129, no. 5, pp. 678–688, Sep 2007

work page 2007

[7] [7]

Leader-following consensus of multi-agent systems under ﬁxed and switching topologies,

W. Ni and D. Cheng, “Leader-following consensus of multi-agent systems under ﬁxed and switching topologies,” Syst. Control Lett. , vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 209 – 217, 2010

work page 2010

[8] [8]

Average consensus over high-order multiagent systems,

H. Rezaee and F. Abdollahi, “Average consensus over high-order multiagent systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control , vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 3047–3052, Nov 2015

work page 2015

[9] [9]

Consensus in leaderless networks of high-order-integrator agents,

F. Jiang, L. Wang, and Y . Jia, “Consensus in leaderless networks of high-order-integrator agents,” in American Control Conf. , June 2009, pp. 4458–4463

work page 2009

[10] [10]

Fixed-time consensus tracking for multi-agent systems with high-order integrator dynamics,

Z. Zuo, B. Tian, M. Defoort, and Z. Ding, “Fixed-time consensus tracking for multi-agent systems with high-order integrator dynamics,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control , vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 563–570, Feb 2018

work page 2018

[11] [11]

Coherence in large-scale networks: Dimension-dependent limitations of local feedback,

B. Bamieh, M. R. Jovanovi ´c, P. Mitra, and S. Patterson, “Coherence in large-scale networks: Dimension-dependent limitations of local feedback,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control , vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 2235 – 2249, Sept. 2012

work page 2012

[12] [12]

Consensus and coherence in fractal networks,

S. Patterson and B. Bamieh, “Consensus and coherence in fractal networks,” IEEE Trans. Control Netw. Syst., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 338–348, Dec 2014

work page 2014

[13] [13]

Fundamental limits and tradeoffs on distur- bance propagation in large-scale dynamical networks,

M. Siami and N. Motee, “Fundamental limits and tradeoffs on distur- bance propagation in large-scale dynamical networks,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 61, no. 12, pp. 4055–4062, 2016

work page 2016

[14] [14]

On Fundamental Limitations of Dynamic Feedback Control in Regular Large-Scale Networks

E. Tegling, P. Mitra, H. Sandberg, and B. Bamieh, “On fundamental limitations of dynamic feedback control in regular large-scale net- works,” 2019, arXiv preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.02880

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

[15] [15]

Information ﬂow and its relation to stability of the motion of vehicles in a rigid formation,

S. K. Yadlapalli, S. Darbha, and K. R. Rajagopal, “Information ﬂow and its relation to stability of the motion of vehicles in a rigid formation,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control , vol. 51, no. 8, pp. 1315– 1319, Aug 2006

work page 2006

[16] [16]

Analysis and applications of spectral properties of grounded Laplacian matrices for directed networks,

W. Xia and M. Cao, “Analysis and applications of spectral properties of grounded Laplacian matrices for directed networks,” Automatica, vol. 80, pp. 10 – 16, 2017

work page 2017

[17] [17]

Tondl, Some problems of rotor dynamics

A. Tondl, Some problems of rotor dynamics . Prague: Czechoslovak academy of sciences, 1965

work page 1965

[18] [18]

R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis . New York: Cambridge University Presss, 1985

work page 1985

[19] [19]

Simple eigenvalues of graphs and digraphs,

K. Guo, “Simple eigenvalues of graphs and digraphs,” PhD Thesis, Simon Fraser University, 2015, Available: http://summit.sfu.ca/item/14931

work page 2015

[20] [20]

The Laplacian spectrum of graphs,

B. Mohar, “The Laplacian spectrum of graphs,” in Graph Theory, Combinatorics, and Applications . Wiley, 1991, pp. 871–898

work page 1991

[21] [21]

A. E. Brouwer and W. H. Haemers, Spectra of Graphs , New York, NY , 2012

work page 2012

[22] [22]

Spectral partitioning works: Planar graphs and ﬁnite element meshes,

D. A. Spielman and S.-H. Teng, “Spectral partitioning works: Planar graphs and ﬁnite element meshes,” Linear Algebra Appl. , vol. 421, no. 2, pp. 284 – 305, 2007, special Issue in honor of Miroslav Fiedler

work page 2007

[23] [23]

Spectral partitioning, eigenvalue bounds, and circle pack- ings for graphs of bounded genus,

J. Kelner, “Spectral partitioning, eigenvalue bounds, and circle pack- ings for graphs of bounded genus,” SIAM J. Comput. , vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 882–902, 2006

work page 2006

[24] [24]

The Laplacian spectrum of a graph,

R. Grone, R. Merris, and V . Sunder, “The Laplacian spectrum of a graph,” SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 218–238, 1990

work page 1990