Collaborative Indirect Influencing and Control on Graphs using Graph Neural Networks

Brandon C. Fallin; Cristian F. Nino; Max L. Gardenswartz; Warren E. Dixon

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 25 references

Collaborative Indirect Influencing and Control on Graphs using Graph Neural Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A team of influencing nodes with a message-passing graph neural network adapted online can regulate a target node with unknown, unstructured dynamics to follow a desired trajectory, with an exponential convergence guarantee.

desk verdict A plausible and well-constructed first Lb-GNN for indirect influence, but the main theorem has a fixable gap in the compact-domain continuation argument and gain conditions that cannot be verified in practice. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14409 v1 pith:QRJWWKV3 submitted 2025-07-18 eess.SY cs.SY

Max L. Gardenswartz , Brandon C. Fallin , Cristian F. Nino , Warren E. Dixon This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.SY MSC 93C4093D3093A1668T07

keywords graphneuralnetworksindirectinfluencebacksteppingcontroladaptiveLyapunovstabilitymulti-agentsystemsdistributeduncertainnonlineardynamics

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper addresses the indirect influence problem: a target node has no control input, so a team of influencing nodes must push it toward a desired trajectory by moving themselves. The proposed solution embeds a message-passing graph neural network (GNN) into a backstepping controller, with the network's weights adapted online by a distributed Lyapunov-based update law. The central claim is Theorem 5.3: if the gain conditions and the stated assumptions hold, then the tracking error and the network-weight estimation error converge exponentially to a uniform ultimate bound. The practical interest is that no offline training data are needed and each node only exchanges messages with neighbors, so the learning scales with network size. A 360-second simulation with four influencing nodes reports a root-mean-square target tracking error of 0.61 m.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ensemble Lb-GNN Φ, built from message-passing layers with per-node weight vectors θ_i; its node outputs bφ_i replace the unknown interaction function F(R_i) in the backstepping error dynamics. The backstepping error η_i = y_{d,i} − y_i, with y_{d,i} = k1 e + x_d, turns the influencer state into a virtual control for the target. The adaptive law (15) is a projected gradient rule with consensus-type coupling between neighboring nodes, and a first-order Taylor expansion of the ideal GNN output around the current weights produces the strictly increasing remainder bound ρ used to dominate the truncation error. The stability argument runs through the Lyapunov function V(z) = (1/2) z^T P z with P = blkdiag{I_n, I_{nN}, $Γ^{{−1}}$}, and the compact sets D, S, and U, which are used to guarantee that GNN inputs stay in the domain where universal approximation holds.

What would settle it

Take a target with known drift h and interaction g, fix a GNN architecture and search space ℧, compute the true reconstruction error ε and the tightest Taylor-remainder function ρ over the compact domain, and check the Theorem 5.3 inequality; if the gains satisfy it but some trajectory starting in S leaves D or fails to enter U, the theorem is false. A second, purely algebraic check is the proof step from (36) to (37)-(38), which appears to invert the eigenvalue ratio √(λ2/λ1) to √(λ1/λ2) and then combine the inequalities as though they had the same sign; resolving that step is required for the printed continuation argument to establish the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that a deep GNN can serve as the function approximator inside an adaptive backstepping law for indirect influence, not merely as an offline-trained controller. The influencing nodes approximate the unknown ensemble function H(R), which bundles the target's drift, the target-influencer interaction, and influencer-influencer coupling, using a message-passing GNN whose outputs at node i are bφ_i. The adaptive law (15) with projection keeps the weights in a compact search space while the backstepping controller (13) uses the GNN output and its derivatives. Using the Lyapunov function V(z) = (1/2) z^T P z, the paper proves that the ensemble state z = [e; η; eθ] exponentially converges to the ultimate-bound set U defined in (25), provided Assumptions 3.1–4.2 hold, the gains are chosen per Proposition 5.2, and λ3 > λ4 + (1/k2) ρ(√(λ2υ/(λ1λ4))).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the user can choose gains satisfying λ3 > λ4 + (1/k2) ρ(√(λ2υ/(λ1λ4))), but ρ and ε depend on the unknown target dynamics, the GNN architecture, and the chosen parameter search space, so the condition cannot actually be computed or verified by a user.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If Theorem 5.3 is right, a team of N agents can influence a target with no direct actuation using only relative-state measurements and local message passing, with no offline training phase.
The output of the theorem is an explicit uniform ultimate bound U, so in principle a user can tune gains to push the guaranteed tracking error below a mission tolerance.
Because the GNN shares information through message passing, adding more influencing nodes distributes the learning workload instead of concentrating it in a single leader.
The same online learning framework can be applied to targets whose dynamics change during operation, since the weight law keeps adapting in real time.
This is claimed as the first Lb-GNN closed-loop stability result for the indirect influence problem, giving a template for combining GNN universal approximation with Lyapunov-based adaptive control.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The sufficient gain condition in Theorem 5.3 depends on ρ and ε, quantities that depend on the very unknown dynamics being learned and on the chosen GNN architecture; a user therefore cannot check the condition in practice, so the paper's guarantee is formal rather than directly actionable.
A testable extension is to build a conservative upper bound for ρ and ε from the known bounds in Assumption 3.1 and the chosen weight space ℧, turning the uncheckable inequality into a computable gain-selection procedure.
The same construction should extend to multiple targets or directed communication graphs, but the ensemble function H would then need a modified equivariance and separability condition, so the extension is not automatic.
The Taylor-remainder bound ρ grows with the norm of the GNN input, implying a trade-off between the operating radius of the agents and the achievable ultimate bound; the paper does not quantify this trade-off.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First Lb-GNN for indirect influence; the idea is sensible and the Lyapunov backstepping template is mostly executed cleanly. That said, Theorem 5.3 as printed does not close the compact-domain continuation step, and the gain conditions are not checkable in practice.

What's new: previous Lb-DNN herding controllers used feedforward networks; here message-passing GNN shares learned information across influencing nodes, and the control law (13) with distributed adaptive law (15) is a natural extension. The stability analysis follows the standard template: universal approximation, Taylor remainder bounds, Lyapunov function, uniform ultimate boundedness. The paper is honest about the open challenge of choosing the parameter search space ℧, and it does not oversell the simulation (one scenario, no baselines).

Soft spots, in proportion: the stress-test note is correct. Equation (37) inverts the eigenvalue ratio; (38) has the wrong sign before sqrt(υ/λ4). With printed signs, the chain does not imply z(t) remains in D. These look like typos — the corrected argument seems to close — but as submitted the theorem is not fully proven. A referee should ask for the corrected continuation argument and for a cleaner statement of the set S.

Bigger conceptual concern: the stability conditions (Proposition 5.2 and λ3 > λ4 + (1/k2)ρ(...)) depend on ρ, ε, and θ, none of which a user can compute because they depend on the unknown target dynamics, the GNN architecture, and the chosen compact set. So the theorem guarantees existence of gains but gives no way to choose them. That is not fatal — it is common in this literature — but it should be stated clearly.

Also: the universal approximation and Taylor remainder machinery rely on the authors' own preprint [20], which is not yet peer-reviewed. The reliance is explicit, not hidden, but it loads a lot onto an unverified result. The simulation has no code, no baselines, no error bars; the RMS numbers are consistent with the claim but not strong evidence.

Bottom line: this is a plausible, incremental but useful step for multi-agent herding. The main theorem needs a corrected proof and the checkability caveat. I would send it to review — a serious referee can verify the algebra — and I'd expect major revision before acceptance. Worth a reading group if you work on GNN-based adaptive control.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript considers N cooperating agents with dynamics ẏ_i=f(Q_i)+u_i that must make a target node x_0 track a desired trajectory x_d, where the target evolves with unknown drift h(x_0) and unknown interaction terms g(x_0,y_i)(x_0−y_i). The target is indirectly controlled through backstepping: the desired agent trajectory is y_{d,i}=k_1e+x_d, and each agent implements the GNN-based controller in Eq. (13) with the projection-based adaptive law in Eq. (15). The main analytical claim (Theorem 5.3) is that, under Assumptions 3.1–4.2, the sufficient gain conditions of Proposition 5.2, and the extra condition λ3>λ4+(1/k2)ρ(sqrt(λ2υ/(λ1λ4))), every trajectory starting in S stays in D and converges exponentially to the ultimate bound U in the sense of Eq. (36). The paper closes with a four-node simulation reporting an RMS tracking error of 0.61 m.

Significance. The contribution is a meaningful step: it is, to the authors' knowledge, the first Lyapunov-based GNN controller for the indirect influence problem, and the backstepping/adaptive framework is designed so that information sharing is distributed through message passing. The paper is explicit about the controller, the update law, the Lyapunov function, and the ultimate bound, and the derivation of the Lyapunov inequality up to Eq. (33) follows a standard and mostly consistent template. The simulation provides concrete quantitative evidence of tracking. However, the proof of Theorem 5.3 has a locally fixable but load-bearing gap in the compact-domain continuation argument, and the theorem's key sufficient condition depends on the unknown bounding function ρ and reconstruction error ε; for these reasons the formal guarantee, as stated, is not yet fully established or checkable.

major comments (3)

[Theorem 5.3, proof, Eqs. (37)-(38)] The continuation argument is not valid as printed. Eq. (37) states ||z(t)|| < sqrt(λ1/λ2)||z(t0)|| + sqrt(λ2υ/(λ1λ4)), but taking square roots in Eq. (36) gives the coefficient sqrt(λ2/λ1) on ||z(t0)||, not sqrt(λ1/λ2). Eq. (38) states ||z(t0)|| < sqrt(λ1/λ2)ρ^{-1}(k2(λ3−λ4)−ρ(0)) + sqrt(υ/λ4), but the set S in Eq. (24) contains a minus sign before sqrt(υ/λ4), not a plus sign. The following sentence also concludes a bound on ||z(t0)|| where the argument requires a bound on ||z(t)||. With the corrected coefficient, corrected sign, and corrected variable, the intended chain closes; as printed, it does not establish that z(t)∈D, which is the step that keeps the GNN approximation valid and allows the solution to be extended to all t≥t0. This gap is load-bearing for the global claim of Theorem 5.3.
[Theorem 5.3, gain condition after Eq. (33)] The theorem's extra sufficient condition λ3>λ4+(1/k2)ρ(sqrt(λ2υ/(λ1λ4))) is not checkable by a user. The function ρ is introduced in Eq. (30) as an upper bound on the Taylor remainder χ, so it depends on the unknown target dynamics, the GNN architecture, the activation functions, and the parameter search space ℧; the reconstruction error ε is likewise unknown. Since a user cannot compute ρ or ε, the paper does not provide a way to verify the hypothesis of Theorem 5.3 before deployment. The authors should either give computable bounds for ρ and ε, specify additional regularity that makes them available, or explicitly state that the theorem is a conditional guarantee whose hypotheses are not verifiable in practice.
[Section VI, simulation] The simulation does not satisfy the sufficient conditions of Proposition 5.2, so it does not validate the theorem's assumptions. For the simulated target interaction bound g=0.1 and N=4, Proposition 5.2 requires k1>2+(N^3+N+ε1)/(gN)=172+2.5ε1 for any ε1>0, while the simulation uses k1=3.5. The paper should either select gains satisfying the stated sufficient conditions, or explicitly state that the simulation is only an exploratory demonstration and not a validation of the theorem.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] 'Indirect influence problemma' is a typo; it should read 'indirect influence problem'.
[Eqs. (22)-(30)] The notation for ρ is confusing: the text says 'Let ρ denote a strictly increasing function and define ρ(·) ≜ ρ(·) − ρ(0)', which uses the same symbol for the shifted and unshifted functions. Use distinct symbols, and define ρ before its first use in Eq. (22).
[Proposition 5.2] The proposition lists ε1 as an element of R; since the sufficient condition requires ε1>0, it should be stated as ε1∈R_{>0}.
[Theorem 5.3] The phrase 'z exponentially converges to U' should be 'z converges exponentially to the ball U' or 'exponential ultimate boundedness', because Eq. (36) contains the persistent term λ2υ/(λ1λ4).
[Overall dependency on [20]] The proof imports Lemma 5.1, the universal approximation property, and the derivative formulas from the companion preprint [20]; as a completeness matter, the exact statements of these results should be included or summarized in an appendix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity: the stability theorem is a conditional Lyapunov argument, not a fit or a renaming; the only deduction-chain concern is the self-cited Lb-GNN lemmas from the authors' preprint [20].

full rationale

The central derivation is a Lyapunov analysis of the closed-loop error dynamics in (19). The control law (13), adaptive law (15), sets S and D in (24) and (22), and ultimate bound U in (25) are all defined in the paper, and the proof proceeds by bounding terms, completing squares, and applying a comparison argument to obtain (33)-(36). This is not a fitted-parameter prediction or a renaming of a known result: U is not tuned to the simulation, and the theorem does not define S in terms of the conclusion. Two non-circular concerns are flagged. First, Remark 4.3 explicitly concedes that 'determining a search space ℧ for an arbitrary ε remains an open challenge' and that ℧ is 'arbitrarily selected ... at the expense of guarantees of the approximation accuracy'; this makes the Theorem 5.3 gain condition involving ρ and ε uncheckable in practice, but it is an acknowledged limitation rather than a circular step. Second, the proof's continuation argument as printed contains ratio and sign errors: (37) uses sqrt(lambda1/lambda2) where taking square roots in (36) gives sqrt(lambda2/lambda1), and (38) has a plus sign before sqrt(upsilon/lambda4) whereas the definition of S in (24) has a minus sign. As printed, the proof does not fully establish that z remains in D for all t >= t0; this is a correctness gap, not a circularity. The only deduction-chain weakness is the reliance on the authors' own arXiv preprint [20] for the GNN universal approximation property ([20, Lemma 3]) and the Taylor remainder bound ([20, Lemma 5]), which are load-bearing in (12) and (30). These are self-citations by the same research group and are not machine-checked or independently reproduced. I treat this as a small burden on the derivation rather than construction-level circularity, because those lemmas are auxiliary properties of GNNs and do not themselves assert the target stability result; the backstepping and Lyapunov structure is derived in the present paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theorem itself introduces no fitted parameters, but its practical applicability relies on several unverifiable quantities: the reconstruction error epsilon, the bounding function rho, and the arbitrarily chosen search space Omega. The simulation gains are hand-tuned. The approximation and derivative lemmas are imported from the self-cited preprint [20], which is neither machine-checked nor code-reproducible.

free parameters (5)

k1 = 3.5 (simulation)
User-defined gain; theorem only requires sufficiently large value, simulation value chosen empirically.
k2 = 12 (simulation)
User-defined gain; chosen empirically in simulation.
k3 = 0.001 (simulation)
User-defined gain; theorem only requires k3 > 0, simulation value chosen empirically.
Gamma_i = 2 * I_p (simulation)
Adaptation gain matrix, chosen empirically in simulation.
theta bound = 10 (simulation)
Bound on the parameter search space, chosen arbitrarily; affects the ultimate bound.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption GNN universal approximation property (Assumption 4.1 and [20, Lemma 3])
The function H must be less separating than the 2-WL test and the input space compact. Invoked in Section IV-A to model F(R_i) by phi*_i + epsilon_i.
domain assumption Boundedness of target dynamics (Assumption 3.1)
Assumes known bounds gbar and hbar on ||g|| and ||h||. Used throughout the Lyapunov analysis in Section V.
domain assumption Boundedness of desired trajectory (Assumption 3.2)
Assumes known bounds on x_d and its derivative; needed for the compactness argument and error bounds.
domain assumption Strict convexity of the loss function (Assumption 4.2)
Ensures uniqueness of ideal weights theta*; cited from [20, Assumption 3].
ad hoc to paper Existence and invertibility of the bounding function rho in (30)
The gain conditions in Theorem 5.3 require a strictly increasing invertible rho that bounds the Taylor remainder; rho is unknown and unverifiable.
ad hoc to paper Compact parameter search space Omega with theta* in Omega (Remark 4.3)
The universal approximation property holds only over compact sets; Omega is chosen arbitrarily and the approximation error epsilon is not guaranteed to be small.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Collaborative Indirect Influencing and Control on Graphs using Graph Neural Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QRJWWKV3

@misc{pith2026250714409,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Collaborative Indirect Influencing and Control on Graphs using Graph Neural Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QRJWWKV3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14409}
}

read the original abstract

This paper presents a novel approach to solving the indirect influence problem in networked systems, in which cooperative nodes must regulate a target node with uncertain dynamics to follow a desired trajectory. We leverage the message-passing structure of a graph neural network (GNN), allowing nodes to collectively learn the unknown target dynamics in real time. We develop a novel GNN-based backstepping control strategy with formal stability guarantees derived from a Lyapunov-based analysis. Numerical simulations are included to demonstrate the performance of the developed controller.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14409 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Visualization of the trajectories of the target node and the influencing nodes for t ∈ [0, 360] s. The target node’s interaction dynamics were selected as g(x0, yi) = 0.1 exp(− 1 1,000,000 (x0 − yi) ⊤(x0 − yi)) s −1 . [4]. The inter-agent interaction dynamics were selected as f(Qi) = 50P j∈Ni yi−yj ∥yi−yj ∥3 m/s [3]. The target drift dynamics were selected such that h(x0) = [−0.057 cos(x0,1), 0.03 sin(x0,2), −0.008 … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Visualization of the position tracking error of the target node for t ∈ [0, 360] s. norm of the tracking error converges to within an ultimate bound of approximately 1 m after 5 seconds. VII. CONCLUSION In this work, we developed the first Lb-GNN-based control law for the indirect influence problem. Our method enables a team of cooperative nodes to regulate a target node to within a neighborhood of a desired traject… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[20]

Lyapunov-based graph neural networks for adaptive control of multi- agent systems,

B. C. Fallin, C. F. Nino, O. S. Patil, Z. I. Bell, and W. E. Dixon, “Lyapunov-based graph neural networks for adaptive control of multi- agent systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15360 , 2025

arXiv 2025
[1]

Biologically inspired herding of animal groups by robots,

A. J. King, S. J. Portugal, D. Str ¨ombom, R. P. Mann, J. A. Carrillo, D. Kalise, G. de Croon, H. Barnett, P. Scerri, R. Groß, D. R. Chadwick, and M. Papadopoulou, “Biologically inspired herding of animal groups by robots,” Methods Ecol. Evol. , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 478–486, 2023

work page 2023
[2]

Bazzan and F

A. Bazzan and F. Klugl, Multi-Agent Systems for Traffic and Transporta- tion Engineering. IGI Global, 2009

work page 2009
[3]

Adaptive multirobot implicit control of heterogeneous herds,

E. Sebasti´an, E. Montijano, and C. Sag ¨u´es, “Adaptive multirobot implicit control of heterogeneous herds,” IEEE Trans. Robot. , vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 3622–3635, 2022

work page 2022
[4]

Single agent indirect herding of multiple targets with unknown dynamics,

R. Licitra, Z. Bell, and W. Dixon, “Single agent indirect herding of multiple targets with unknown dynamics,” IEEE Trans. Robot. , vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 847–860, 2019

work page 2019
[5]

Containment control with multiple stationary or dynamic leaders under a directed interaction graph,

Y . Cao and W. Ren, “Containment control with multiple stationary or dynamic leaders under a directed interaction graph,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Decis. Control, 2009, pp. 3014–3019

work page 2009
[6]

The generalized Weierstrass approximation theorem,

M. H. Stone, “The generalized Weierstrass approximation theorem,” Math. Mag., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 167–184, 1948

work page 1948
[7]

Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks,

K. Hornik, “Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks,” Neural Netw., vol. 4, pp. 251–257, 1991

work page 1991

Show all 25 references

[8]

Universal approximation with deep narrow networks,

P. Kidger and T. Lyons, “Universal approximation with deep narrow networks,” in Conf. Learn. Theory , 2020, pp. 2306–2327

2020
[9]

Goodfellow, Y

I. Goodfellow, Y . Bengio, and A. Courville, Deep Learning. MIT Press, 2016, vol. 1

2016
[10]

The power of deeper networks for expressing natural functions,

D. Rolnick and M. Tegmark, “The power of deeper networks for expressing natural functions,” in Int. Conf. Learn. Represent. , 2018

2018
[11]

Deep learning,

Y . LeCun, Y . Bengio, and G. Hinton, “Deep learning,” Nature, vol. 521, no. 7553, pp. 436–444, 2015

2015
[12]

Deep adaptive indirect herding of multiple target agents with unknown interaction dynamics,

C. F. Nino, O. S. Patil, J. Philor, Z. Bell, and W. E. Dixon, “Deep adaptive indirect herding of multiple target agents with unknown interaction dynamics,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Decis. Control , 2023, pp. 2509–2514

2023
[13]

Distributed target tracking under partial feedback using Lyapunov-based deep neural networks,

C. F. Nino, O. S. Patil, S. C. Edwards, Z. I. Bell, and W. E. Dixon, “Distributed target tracking under partial feedback using Lyapunov-based deep neural networks,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Decis. Control , 2024, pp. 5274–5279

2024
[14]

Cooperative approxi- mate optimal indirect regulation of uncooperative agents with Lyapunov- based deep neural network,

W. Makumi, Z. Bell, J. Philor, and W. E. Dixon, “Cooperative approxi- mate optimal indirect regulation of uncooperative agents with Lyapunov- based deep neural network,” in AIAA SciTech, 2024

2024
[15]

Approximate optimal indirect control of an unknown agent within a dynamic environment using a Lyapunov-based deep neural network,

J. Philor, W. Makumi, Z. Bell, and W. E. Dixon, “Approximate optimal indirect control of an unknown agent within a dynamic environment using a Lyapunov-based deep neural network,” in Proc. Am. Control Conf., 2024, pp. 3430–3435

2024
[16]

Decentralized, unlabeled multi-agent navigation in obstacle-rich environments using graph neural networks,

X. Ji, H. Li, Z. Pan, X. Gao, and C. Tu, “Decentralized, unlabeled multi-agent navigation in obstacle-rich environments using graph neural networks,” in IEEE Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. (IROS) , 2021, pp. 8936– 8943

2021
[17]

Graph neural networks for decentralized controllers,

F. Gama, E. Tolstaya, and A. Ribeiro, “Graph neural networks for decentralized controllers,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , 2021, pp. 5260–5264

2021
[18]

Graph neural networks for decentralized multi-robot path planning,

Q. Li, F. Gama, A. Ribeiro, and A. Prorok, “Graph neural networks for decentralized multi-robot path planning,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. (IROS) , 2020, pp. 11 785–11 792

2020
[19]

Graph networks as learnable physics engines for inference and control,

A. Sanchez-Gonzalez, N. Heess, J. T. Springenberg, J. Merel, M. Ried- miller, R. Hadsell, and P. Battaglia, “Graph networks as learnable physics engines for inference and control,” in Proc. 35th Conf. Mach. Learn. , 2018, pp. 4470–4479

2018
[21]

Expressive power of invariant and equivariant graph neural networks,

W. Azizian and M. Lelarge, “Expressive power of invariant and equivariant graph neural networks,” Proc. Int. Conf. Learn. Represent. , 2020

2020
[22]

W. L. Hamilton, Graph Representation Learning . Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2020

2020
[23]

Single- agent indirect herding of multiple targets using metric temporal logic switching,

D. Le, X. Luo, L. Bridgeman, M. Zavlanos, and W. E. Dixon, “Single- agent indirect herding of multiple targets using metric temporal logic switching,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Decis. Control , 2020, pp. 1398–1403

2020
[24]

Krstic, I

M. Krstic, I. Kanellakopoulos, and P. V . Kokotovic, Nonlinear and Adaptive Control Design . New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1995

1995
[25]

H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems, 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, 2002

2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [20]

Lyapunov-based graph neural networks for adaptive control of multi- agent systems,

B. C. Fallin, C. F. Nino, O. S. Patil, Z. I. Bell, and W. E. Dixon, “Lyapunov-based graph neural networks for adaptive control of multi- agent systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15360 , 2025

arXiv 2025

[2] [1]

Biologically inspired herding of animal groups by robots,

A. J. King, S. J. Portugal, D. Str ¨ombom, R. P. Mann, J. A. Carrillo, D. Kalise, G. de Croon, H. Barnett, P. Scerri, R. Groß, D. R. Chadwick, and M. Papadopoulou, “Biologically inspired herding of animal groups by robots,” Methods Ecol. Evol. , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 478–486, 2023

work page 2023

[3] [2]

Bazzan and F

A. Bazzan and F. Klugl, Multi-Agent Systems for Traffic and Transporta- tion Engineering. IGI Global, 2009

work page 2009

[4] [3]

Adaptive multirobot implicit control of heterogeneous herds,

E. Sebasti´an, E. Montijano, and C. Sag ¨u´es, “Adaptive multirobot implicit control of heterogeneous herds,” IEEE Trans. Robot. , vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 3622–3635, 2022

work page 2022

[5] [4]

Single agent indirect herding of multiple targets with unknown dynamics,

R. Licitra, Z. Bell, and W. Dixon, “Single agent indirect herding of multiple targets with unknown dynamics,” IEEE Trans. Robot. , vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 847–860, 2019

work page 2019

[6] [5]

Containment control with multiple stationary or dynamic leaders under a directed interaction graph,

Y . Cao and W. Ren, “Containment control with multiple stationary or dynamic leaders under a directed interaction graph,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Decis. Control, 2009, pp. 3014–3019

work page 2009

[7] [6]

The generalized Weierstrass approximation theorem,

M. H. Stone, “The generalized Weierstrass approximation theorem,” Math. Mag., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 167–184, 1948

work page 1948

[8] [7]

Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks,

K. Hornik, “Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks,” Neural Netw., vol. 4, pp. 251–257, 1991

work page 1991