Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Inventory Consensus Control in Supply Chain Networks using Dissipativity-Based Control and Topology Co-Design

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Distributed supply chains can be synchronized by one convex co-design that picks both controller gains and communication links from per-chain dissipativity data alone.

desk verdict A solid consensus co-design paper whose advertised bullwhip/ripple benefit rests on an asserted proxy rather than a proved link. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06580 v1 pith:RX7W6YFL submitted 2025-02-10 eess.SY cs.SY

Shirantha Welikala , Hai Lin , Panos J. Antsaklis This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY MSC 93A1493D2593C5590B05
keywords inventoryconsensussupplychainnetworksdissipativity-basedcontrolequilibrium-independentdissipativitytopologyco-designlinearmatrixinequalitiesbullwhipeffectripple
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

This paper seeks to establish that the inventory-consensus problem for parallel supply chains can be solved by co-designing the distributed controllers and the communication topology together, in a single convex optimization. The scheme needs only each supply chain's dissipativity data — a quantitative input–output 'energy' bookkeeping of the chain — rather than an exact global model, which makes the design scalable and compositional. The guarantee is that the closed-loop network attenuates demand and waste disturbances to a prespecified level, expressed as an $L_2$-gain bound from the disturbance signal $r(t)$ to the consensus error $z(t)$. If the claim holds, supply chain operators get a computationally efficient recipe that simultaneously synchronizes inventories, decides which communication links are worth keeping, and positions the network against the bullwhip and ripple effects.

What carries the argument

The central object is equilibrium-independent dissipativity (EID): a system property asserting that the change in a positive storage function is bounded by a quadratic supply rate evaluated on deviations from any equilibrium, not just the origin. Each supply chain's error dynamics (24) are made EID with an input-feedforward–output-feedback passivity (IF-OFP) supply rate by the local LMI of Theorem 1. The idea that carries the global step is the compositionality of dissipativity: the network storage function is a weighted sum of the chains' storage functions, so the network-level supply rate follows from the per-chain supply rates together with the interconnection matrix $M$ in (31). Theorem 2 exploits this to assemble the consensus gains $K_{ij}$ from per-chain data, using the change of variables $L_{\eta y}^{ij} = X_i^{11}B_i\bar{K}_{ij}$ to keep every block of the LMI (37) linear in the decision variables; the co-design objective stays convex, which is what makes the joint controller-and-topology optimization computationally tractable.

What would settle it

In the paper's simulator, apply the DCC-U controller and compute, at each echelon, the bullwhip ratio (variance of orders placed divided by variance of customer demand) and a ripple metric such as the time to restore target inventory after the transportation and inventory failures injected at $t=240$ and $t=480$; if these metrics do not improve relative to the LSSC, LSFC, and GCC baselines while consensus PMAE does improve, the asserted link between consensus-error attenuation and bullwhip/ripple mitigation would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 2: after each supply chain's error dynamics are made dissipative (equilibrium-independent, with an IF-OFP passivity supply rate) by the local state-feedback controllers of Theorem 1, the closed-loop supply chain network (29)–(31) satisfies the robustness constraint $\|z\|_2^2/\|r\|_2^2 \le \gamma^2$ with $\gamma^2 \le \bar{\gamma}$, where $r(t)$ collects the demand and waste disturbances and $z(t)$ is the consensus error across the chains. The controller $K$ that achieves this is obtained from the LMI problem (36)–(38), whose objective jointly minimizes the $L_2$-gain $\gamma^2$ and the $\ell^1$-norm of the coupling gains weighted by communication costs, thereby selecting the topology by driving unnecessary links to zero. The synthesis requires only the per-chain dissipativity indices, not the full network model, and the numerical study reports that the resulting distributed designs outperform steady-state, local-feedback, and fully-connected global consensus baselines in consensus error over 1000 Monte Carlo realizations that include injected transportation and inventory failures.

Load-bearing premise

The practical payoff rests on equating the bullwhip and ripple effects with the $L_2$-gain bound from disturbances to consensus error stated in (33), an identification the simulations never measure directly, since they report only consensus error rather than any bullwhip or ripple metric.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Inventory consensus can be guaranteed to a prespecified disturbance-to-error gain $\bar{\gamma}$ while the optimization simultaneously drops communication links that do not earn their cost, so the network ends up sparser than the fully-connected baseline.
  • The design is compositional and local: each chain's local controller is designed from its own passivity indices, and the global problem is a single LMI whose dimension scales with the number of chains without needing the global plant model.
  • The optimal topologies found in the simulations prefer non-adjacent links over adjacent ones and place more information flow at corner inventories, giving concrete, non-obvious rules for where to put communication in a supply chain network.
  • Because the method enforces $L_2$-gain attenuation from the demand and waste disturbances to the consensus error, it is designed to damp order amplification upstream (bullwhip effect) and disruption propagation in all directions (ripple effect) in the control-theoretic sense of constraint (33).
  • The method also absorbs transportation and inventory failures better than steady-state, local-feedback, and fully-connected consensus strategies, as seen in the cumulative average consensus-error metric.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct testable extension is to measure the bullwhip ratio (variance of echelon orders over variance of end demand) and a ripple metric (inventory recovery time after the injected failures at $t=240$ and $t=480$) in the same simulator; the paper's link between consensus-error attenuation and these supply-chain phenomena is checkable without new theory.
  • The same dissipativity-based interconnection synthesis should transfer to other consensus problems with delay dynamics and per-agent local controllers — production–inventory networks with returns, fleets of storage devices, or water-distribution systems — wherever each agent can be made IF-OFP by a local LMI.
  • Reading the sparsity objective as feature selection, the co-design effectively chooses which inventory-state differences matter most for synchronization; the cost matrix $C$ lets a designer encode link prices directly, an interpretation the paper leaves implicit.
  • The method currently takes mean demand and mean waste levels as known inputs for the steady-state component (18); an adaptive loop that estimates and updates these means online, which the authors list as future work, would make the scheme self-tuning under shifting demand regimes.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a dissipativity-based co-design of distributed inventory consensus controllers and communication topologies for a network of parallel supply chains. Each chain is modeled as a series of transportation/inventory links with delays, waste, and demand disturbances; local state-feedback controllers are designed to enforce equilibrium-independent dissipativity, and a global LMI problem then synthesizes the consensus coupling gains together with a sparse communication topology. The main theoretical claim is Theorem 2: the closed-loop SCN satisfies an L2-gain bound from the aggregate disturbance to a consensus-error output when the global controller is synthesized by the LMI co-design problem. The paper also claims that this robustness property mitigates bullwhip and ripple effects, and presents simulations of a three-chain network comparing the proposed DCC-C and DCC-U strategies with local steady-state control, local feedback control, and global consensus control.

Significance. If the main theorem and its application to bullwhip/ripple mitigation were fully established, the paper would offer a computationally attractive, scalable way to co-design control and topology using only per-chain dissipativity data, with a public simulator and an unusually complete set of LMI derivations. The paper also gives credit to the prior framework in [46],[47] and includes the proof of Proposition 2 in the appendix. However, the claimed practical benefit is not demonstrated: the L2-gain notion is applied to consensus error, not to bullwhip or ripple, and no direct bullwhip or ripple metric is simulated. There is also an input-output dimension mismatch between the local dissipativity certificates used in the simulations and the interconnection structure required by the global co-design theorem. These are load-bearing gaps that prevent the paper, in its present form, from supporting its headline claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.E, Eq. (33)] The claim that attenuating the L2-gain from r(t) to z(t) mitigates the bullwhip and ripple effects is not established. The output z(t) in Eq. (30) is a vector of pairwise differences of inventory errors, so any disturbance component common to all chains cancels in z: if N identical chains receive the same demand and waste realizations, z(t) is identically zero even if within-chain orders amplify demand variance arbitrarily. Bullwhip is precisely within-chain demand-to-order amplification, and ripple is disruption propagation through the network; neither is a function of between-chain consensus error. Section V reports only the consensus metrics PMAE, APMAE, and CAPMAE and never measures order variance, bullwhip, or ripple. The paper needs either a theorem that connects the r-to-z gain to a formal bullwhip/ripple metric or new simulations that measure those effects directly.
  2. [Remark 7, Theorem 3 vs. Section III.E, Theorem 2] There is a structural mismatch between the local dissipativity certificates used in the numerical DCC methods and the input-output pair required by the global co-design theorem. The networked system in Eq. (31) uses the virtual output y_i(t)=C_i x_i(t) of dimension n, with M_{ηy}=BK and K_{ij}∈R^{n×n}; Theorem 2 therefore requires X_i-EID from η_i(t) to C_i x_i(t). Remark 7 and Theorem 3, however, replace C_i by I and certify X_i-EID from η_i(t) to the full state x_i(t) of dimension n_i. The paper asserts in Remark 7 that this extension "does not impact the networked system view" or the global design, but no output-reduction lemma is provided, and because chains have different n_i when delays differ, full-state outputs cannot be fed into the consensus controller (28) and the interconnection matrices in Eq. (31). Since the DCC simulations use Theorem 3 for local control design, the simulated system does not instantiate the hypotheses of Theorem 2 as proved.
  3. [Section IV.C, Theorem 3] The proof of Theorem 3 is explicitly omitted, with the text stating "The proof is omitted here." This theorem supplies the local controllers used in all proposed DCC simulations, so the omission is not merely cosmetic. A journal version should either provide the complete proof (including the derivation of the necessary condition (44) from Remark 9) or state precisely which parts are assumed and which are routine algebra.
  4. [Section IV.B and Theorem 2] The proof of Theorem 2 is a direct specialization of Proposition 2 to the SCN interconnection (31), and Proposition 2 is itself the prior result from [46],[47]. Although the appendix proves Proposition 2, the novelty of Theorem 2 over [46],[47] should be delineated more carefully; as written, the global co-design result reads as an application of the existing framework rather than a new synthesis result. The authors should state explicitly which ingredients are new: the supply-chain model, the steady-state control law, the local tuning conditions, or the topology objective formulation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V.C] The Monte Carlo comparison reports point values of final CAPMAE without confidence intervals, standard errors, or any statistical significance test; with 1,000 realizations, such information would substantially strengthen the claim that DCC-U outperforms the baselines.
  2. [Section V.B and Theorem 3] The parameters used in the co-design objective—the cost matrix C, the scaling c0, and the prespecified scalars p_i in Theorem 3—are not reported in the simulation setup, so the topologies in Figs. 9 and 10 cannot be reproduced. The paper should list these values and ideally provide a sensitivity study for c0 and p_i.
  3. [Section V.D] The claim that DCC-U provides the "fastest convergence to a consensus" is qualitative; no convergence-time or settling-time metric is defined or measured. A quantitative criterion would make the comparison more precise.
  4. [Throughout] The symbol ρ_i is used both for the inventory decay rate in Section III.A and for the passivity index in Theorem 3; this notational conflict should be resolved (for example, by using different letters for the local passivity indices).
  5. [Corollary 1 and Proposition 3 proof] There are minor typos: "discrte-time" in Corollary 1, "are are" in the proof of Proposition 3, and the caption of Fig. 13 says "Average PCMAE" while the text defines CAPMAE. These should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: The core LMI results are proved in-line; the bullwhip/ripple claim is an external-validity gap, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The central synthesis result, Theorem 2, is proven by applying Proposition 2 to the SCN interconnection matrices (31), and Proposition 2's proof is given in Appendix III using the subsystem X-EID storage functions and the interconnection relation (52). Although the text says 'Following [46], [47]' when introducing Proposition 2, the result is not imported as an unverified black box; its proof appears in this paper, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. Theorem 1 is a direct application of Corollary 1, whose proof is in Appendix II, and Proposition 1 is proved in Appendix I. The robustness constraint (33) is enforced directly as the LMI (37) with decision variable gamma, and the simulation metric PMAE measures the same consensus-error output z(t) defined in (30)-(31), so the reported performance is the design objective, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No equation is defined in terms of another equation it is supposed to derive. The only notable concern is external validity: Section III.E asserts that attenuation from disturbance r(t) to consensus-error output z(t) 'will minimize both the bullwhip effect and the ripple effect in the closed-loop SCN (29)-(31),' but no bullwhip or ripple metric is defined or simulated in Section V, and common-mode disturbances cancel in z by construction. This is an unsupported modeling claim about what the L2-gain bound means for supply-chain performance, not a circular reduction in the mathematics. Therefore, the circularity score is 0.

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

The method introduces no new physical or abstract entities. The free parameters are design knobs and simulation scenario choices, not fitted constants. The main load-bearing assumptions are the dissipativity conditions inherited from the authors' prior network co-design framework and the asserted equivalence between consensus-error L2 gain and bullwhip/ripple mitigation.

free parameters (5)
  • gamma_bar = not specified in paper
    Prespecified upper bound on the squared L2 gain in constraint (33), chosen by the user, not fitted to data.
  • c0 = not specified in paper
    Scaling coefficient between the topology cost and control objective in (36), selected by hand.
  • C (communication cost coefficients) = not specified in paper
    Prespecified cost coefficient matrix derived from the reference topology in Fig. 8, used to induce sparsity in (36).
  • p_i = not specified in paper
    Strictly positive prespecified design parameters in Theorem 3 and the global LMI (37), introduced to make the LMI formulation bilinear-free.
  • Simulation scenario parameters = rho=0.1, x_ref=500, delay bounds, smoothing alphas, demand/waste means
    Illustrative choices in Section V.A used to instantiate the numerical study; they are not fitted to real data and are not claimed to be calibrated.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Supply chain dynamics are linear with time-invariant integer transportation delays and time-invariant decay rates, with modeling errors absorbed into waste terms.
    Assumed in Section III.A, equations (9)-(15). If delays are time-varying or nonlinear effects are large, the error dynamics (22) do not follow.
  • domain assumption Disturbances have known fixed means, and the steady-state control law (18) uses only those means.
    Assumed in Section III.B. The steady-state controller cannot compensate unknown-mean demand or waste without an adaptive layer, which the paper defers to future work.
  • domain assumption Mitigating bullwhip and ripple effects is equivalent to enforcing the L2-gain bound (33) from total disturbance r to consensus error z.
    Introduced in Section III.E. The paper never measures bullwhip or ripple directly, so the practical interpretation rests on this mapping.
  • domain assumption Assumptions 1 and 2 from Section II.B hold: the network-level specification has Y22 < 0 and each subsystem has X11_i > 0 or X11_i < 0.
    Required by Proposition 2, which underlies the global co-design in Theorem 2. The paper argues these are mild, but does not prove they hold for every supply chain instance.
  • standard math The LMI equivalence lemma from [44, Lm. 1] and the networked synthesis result in Proposition 2 are valid.
    The paper reproduces a proof of Proposition 2 in Appendix III, but the central matrix equivalence lemma is cited from the authors' prior work [44].
  • domain assumption Each local error dynamics can be made X_i-EID with the prescribed passivity indices using the LMI in Theorem 1 or Theorem 3.
    Theorem 3's proof is omitted, and the feasibility of the local LMI for arbitrary supply chain parameters is not established.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inventory Consensus Control in Supply Chain Networks using Dissipativity-Based Control and Topology Co-Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RX7W6YFL

@misc{pith2026250206580,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inventory Consensus Control in Supply Chain Networks using Dissipativity-Based Control and Topology Co-Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RX7W6YFL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06580}
}
read the original abstract

Recent global and local phenomena have exposed vulnerabilities in critical supply chain networks (SCNs), drawing significant attention from researchers across various fields. Typically, SCNs are viewed as static entities regularly optimized to maintain their optimal operation. However, the dynamic nature of SCNs and their associated uncertainties have motivated researchers to treat SCNs as dynamic networked systems requiring robust control techniques. In this paper, we address the SCN inventory consensus problem, which aims to synchronize multiple parallel supply chains, enhancing coordination and robustness of the overall SCN. To achieve this, we take a novel approach exploiting dissipativity theory. In particular, we propose a dissipativity-based co-design strategy for distributed consensus controllers and communication topology in SCNs. It requires only the dissipativity information of the individual supply chains and involves solving a set of convex optimization problems, thus contributing to scalability, compositionality, and computational efficiency. Moreover, it optimizes the robustness of the SCN to various associated uncertainties, mitigating both bullwhip and ripple effects. We demonstrate our contributions using numerical examples, mainly by comparing the consensus performance with respect to standard steady-state control, feedback control, and consensus control strategies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06580 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. In particular, here, the corresponding interconnection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [46]

    A Distributed Consensus Algorithm for Task Allocation in Supply Chain Management,

    M. P. Fanti, A. M. Mangini, and W. Ukovich, “A Distributed Consensus Algorithm for Task Allocation in Supply Chain Management,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 566–571, 2012

    work page 2012

  2. [47]

    Distributed Control of Stochastic Manufacturing Processes Based on Consensus Algorithms,

    K. Tsumura, B. M. Nguyen, H. Wakayama, Y . Maeno, and S. Hara, “Distributed Control of Stochastic Manufacturing Processes Based on Consensus Algorithms,” in American Control Conf., 2019, pp. 573–578

    work page 2019

  3. [1]

    X = 0 1 2 I 1 2 I 0 , then it is passive

    work page

  4. [2]

    X = −νI 1 2 I 1 2 I −ρI , then it is strictly passive (ν and ρ respectively are input feedforward and output feedback passivity indices) [45]

    work page

  5. [3]

    X = γ2I 0 0 −I , then it is finite-gain L2-stable (γ is the L2-gain) [45]

    work page

  6. [4]

    perish rates,

    X = −aI a+b 2b I a+b 2b I − 1 b I (or X = −abI a+b 2 I a+b 2 I −I ) with b > a (or b > aand b >0), then it is sector bounded ( a and b are sector bound parameters) [39]; in an equilibrium-independent manner. For notational conve- nience, the above Cases 2 and 3 are also denoted as the system (1) being IF-OFP( ν, ρ) and L2G( γ), respectively. A necessary a...

    work page

  7. [5]

    Risk Assessment of Maritime Supply Chains within the Context of the Maritime Silk Road,

    M. Jiang, Y . Liu, J. Lu, Z. Qu, and Z. Yang, “Risk Assessment of Maritime Supply Chains within the Context of the Maritime Silk Road,” Ocean and Coastal Management , vol. 231, p. 106380, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [6]

    Math- ematical Modeling and Optimal Control for a Class of Dynamic Supply Chain: A Systems Theory Approach,

    H. Taboada, Y . A. Daviz ´on, J. F. Esp ´ıritu, and J. S ´anchez-Leal, “Math- ematical Modeling and Optimal Control for a Class of Dynamic Supply Chain: A Systems Theory Approach,” Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 11, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 59 references
  1. [7]

    It is suboptimal to use all the communication links

  2. [8]

    More information is required at the inventories located at the corners of the SCN as opposed to those located at the middle of the SCN

  3. [9]

    P P A + P BL P A⊤P + L⊤B⊤P P + C⊤X22C C ⊤X21 P X 12C X 11 # ≥ 0 This can be written as Γ − Φ⊤ΘΦ ≥ 0 where Γ ≜

    Communication links between non-adjacent inventories are preferred as opposed to those between adjacent in- ventories. These observations provide crucial yet non-trivial intuitions regarding suitable communication topologies for distributed 11 Fig. 11: Consensus performance (P...

  4. [10]

    Impact of COVID-19 on the Food Supply Chain,

    S. Aday and M. S. Aday, “Impact of COVID-19 on the Food Supply Chain,” Food Quality and Safety , vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 167–180, 2020

    2020

  5. [11]

    The Russia-Ukraine Conflict: Its Implications for the Global Food Supply Chains,

    S. Jagtap, H. Trollman, F. Trollman, G. Garcia-Garcia, C. Parra-L ´opez, L. Duong, W. Martindale, P. E. S. Munekata, J. M. Lorenzo, A. Hdaifeh, A. Hassoun, K. Salonitis, and M. Afy-Shararah, “The Russia-Ukraine Conflict: Its Implications for the Global Food Supply Chains,” Foo...

    2022

  6. [12]

    How Climate Change Is Disrupting the Global Supply Chain,

    J. Leslie, “How Climate Change Is Disrupting the Global Supply Chain,” Yale Environment 360, mar 2022

    2022

  7. [13]

    Challenges and Recent Developments in Supply and Value Chains of Electric Vehicle Batteries: A Sustainability Perspective,

    M. A. Rajaeifar, P. Ghadimi, M. Raugei, Y . Wu, and O. Heidrich, “Challenges and Recent Developments in Supply and Value Chains of Electric Vehicle Batteries: A Sustainability Perspective,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling , vol. 180, p. 106144, 2022

    2022

  8. [14]

    Cooperative Control in Production and Logistics,

    L. Monostori, P. Valckenaers, A. Dolgui, H. Panetto, M. Brdys, and B. C. Cs ´aji, “Cooperative Control in Production and Logistics,” Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 39, pp. 12–29, 2015

    2015

  9. [15]

    Learning to Order for Inventory Systems with Lost Sales and Uncertain Supplies,

    B. Chen, J. Jiang, J. Zhang, and Z. Zhou, “Learning to Order for Inventory Systems with Lost Sales and Uncertain Supplies,” arXiv e-prints , p. 2207.04550, 2022. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2207.04550

    2022 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Mathematical Programming Models for Supply Chain Production and Transport Plan- ning,

    J. Mula, D. Peidro, M. D ´ıaz-Madro˜nero, and E. Vicens, “Mathematical Programming Models for Supply Chain Production and Transport Plan- ning,” European Journal of Operational Research , vol. 204, no. 3, pp. 377–390, 2010

    2010

  11. [17]

    An Integrated Inven- tory–Transportation System with Modified Periodic Policy for Multiple Products,

    W. W. Qu, J. H. Bookbinder, and P. Iyogun, “An Integrated Inven- tory–Transportation System with Modified Periodic Policy for Multiple Products,” European Journal of Operational Research , vol. 115, no. 2, pp. 254–269, 1999

    1999

  12. [18]

    Industrial Aspects and Literature Survey: Combined Inventory Manage- ment and Routing,

    H. Andersson, A. Hoff, M. Christiansen, G. Hasle, and A. Løkketangen, “Industrial Aspects and Literature Survey: Combined Inventory Manage- ment and Routing,” Computers and Operations Research, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 1515–1536, 2010

    2010

  13. [19]

    Supply-Chain Networks: A Complex Adaptive Systems Perspective,

    A. Surana, S. Kumara, M. Greaves, and U. N. Raghavan, “Supply-Chain Networks: A Complex Adaptive Systems Perspective,” Intl. Journal of Production Research, vol. 43, no. 20, pp. 4235–4265, 2005

    2005

  14. [20]

    Applicability of Optimal Control Theory to Adaptive Supply Chain Planning and Scheduling,

    D. Ivanov, A. Dolgui, and B. Sokolov, “Applicability of Optimal Control Theory to Adaptive Supply Chain Planning and Scheduling,” Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 73–84, 2012

    2012

  15. [21]

    A Survey on Control Theory Applications to Operational Systems, Supply Chain Manage- ment, and Industry 4.0,

    D. Ivanov, S. Sethi, A. Dolgui, and B. Sokolov, “A Survey on Control Theory Applications to Operational Systems, Supply Chain Manage- ment, and Industry 4.0,” Annual Reviews in Control , vol. 46, pp. 134– 147, 2018

    2018

  16. [22]

    Control Theory Concepts Applied to Retail Supply Chain: A System Dynamics Modeling Environment Study,

    B. Janamanchi and J. R. Burns, “Control Theory Concepts Applied to Retail Supply Chain: A System Dynamics Modeling Environment Study,” Modelling and Simulation in Engineering , vol. 2013, p. 421350, 2013

    2013

  17. [23]

    Greedy Initialization for Distributed Persistent Monitoring in Network Systems,

    S. Welikala and C. G. Cassandras, “Greedy Initialization for Distributed Persistent Monitoring in Network Systems,” Automatica, vol. 134, p. 109943, 2021

    2021

  18. [24]

    The Bullwhip Effect in Supply Chains,

    H. L. Lee, V . Padmanabhan, and S. Whang, “The Bullwhip Effect in Supply Chains,” MIT Sloan Management Review , vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 93–102, 1997

    1997

  19. [25]

    studies a simple two-stage manufacturer-retailer model using a moving average demand estimator, concluding that centralizing demand information can minimize the bullwhip effect. Conversely, [28] demonstrates that standard order-up- to policies inherently generate the bullwhip ...

    2025 arXiv

  20. [26]

    A Robust Optimization Approach to Postdisaster Relief Logistics Planning Under Uncertainties,

    Y . Liu and P. Jiang, “A Robust Optimization Approach to Postdisaster Relief Logistics Planning Under Uncertainties,” in Proc. of IEEE Intl. Conf. on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management , 2015, pp. 194–198

    2015

  21. [27]

    Supply Chain Management During and Post-COVID-19 Pandemic: Mitigation Strategies and Practical Lessons Learned

    A. Raj, A. A. Mukherjee, A. B. L. de Sousa Jabbour, and S. K. Srivastava, “Supply Chain Management During and Post-COVID-19 Pandemic: Mitigation Strategies and Practical Lessons Learned.”Journal of business research, vol. 142, pp. 1125–1139, 2022

    2022

  22. [28]

    Optimal Control for a Remanu- facturing Reverse Logistics System under Buy-Back Policy,

    X. Sun, Y . Zhou, Y . Niu, and G. Sun, “Optimal Control for a Remanu- facturing Reverse Logistics System under Buy-Back Policy,” in Proc. of Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications , vol. 1, 2006, pp. 1197–1202

    2006

  23. [29]

    H∞ Consensus for Multiagent- Based Supply Chain Systems Under Switching Topology and Uncertain Demands,

    Q.-K. Li, H. Lin, X. Tan, and S. Du, “ H∞ Consensus for Multiagent- Based Supply Chain Systems Under Switching Topology and Uncertain Demands,” IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems , vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 4905–4918, 2020

    2020

  24. [30]

    The Production Routing Problem Under Uncertain Environment,

    C. Wang, Y . Ni, and X. Yang, “The Production Routing Problem Under Uncertain Environment,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 15 375–15 387, 2021

    2021

  25. [31]

    Bifurcation Analysis and Synchronisation Issues in a Three-Echelon Supply Chain,

    K. R. Anne, J. C. Chedjou, and K. Kyamakya, “Bifurcation Analysis and Synchronisation Issues in a Three-Echelon Supply Chain,” Intl. Journal of Logistics Research and Applications , vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 347–362, 2009

    2009

  26. [32]

    The Impact of Information Sharing, Random Yield, Correlation, and Lead Times in Closed Loop supply Chains,

    T. Hosoda, S. M. Disney, and S. Gavirneni, “The Impact of Information Sharing, Random Yield, Correlation, and Lead Times in Closed Loop supply Chains,” European Journal of Operational Research , vol. 246, no. 3, pp. 827–836, 2015

    2015

  27. [33]

    A Multi-Structural Framework for Adaptive Supply Chain Planning and Operations Control with Structure Dynamics Considerations,

    D. Ivanov, B. Sokolov, and J. Kaeschel, “A Multi-Structural Framework for Adaptive Supply Chain Planning and Operations Control with Structure Dynamics Considerations,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 200, no. 2, pp. 409–420, 2010

    2010

  28. [34]

    Quantifying the Bullwhip Effect in a Simple Supply Chain: The Impact of Forecasting, Lead Times, and Information,

    F. Chen, Z. Drezner, J. K. Ryan, and D. Simchi-Levi, “Quantifying the Bullwhip Effect in a Simple Supply Chain: The Impact of Forecasting, Lead Times, and Information,” Management Science, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 436–443, 2000

    2000

  29. [35]

    proposes distributed consensus tracking control tech- niques for variable-order fractional SCNs, employing multi- agent neural network-based methods to achieve synchroniza- tion among supply chains. Similarly, [19] investigates the H∞ consensus problem for SCNs under switching...

  30. [36]

    Ripple Effect in the Time-Critical Food Supply Chains and Recovery Policies,

    D. Ivanov, B. Sokolov, I. Solovyeva, A. Dolgui, and F. Jie, “Ripple Effect in the Time-Critical Food Supply Chains and Recovery Policies,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 1682–1687, 2015

    2015

  31. [37]

    H∞ Control of Two-Time-Scale Markovian Switching Production-Inventory Systems,

    Q.-K. Li, Y .-G. Li, and H. Lin, “ H∞ Control of Two-Time-Scale Markovian Switching Production-Inventory Systems,” IEEE Trans. on Control Systems Technology, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1065–1073, 2018

    2018

  32. [38]

    Measuring and Avoiding the Bullwhip Effect: A Control Theoretic Approach,

    J. Dejonckheere, S. M. Disney, M. R. Lambrecht, and D. R. Towill, “Measuring and Avoiding the Bullwhip Effect: A Control Theoretic Approach,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 147, no. 3, pp. 567–590, 2003

    2003

  33. [39]

    An H∞ Control Method of the Bullwhip Effect for a Class of Supply Chain System,

    X.-Y . Huang, N.-N. Yan, and H.-F. Guo, “An H∞ Control Method of the Bullwhip Effect for a Class of Supply Chain System,” Intl. Journal of Production Research, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 207–226, 2007

    2007

  34. [40]

    Measuring and Eliminating the Bullwhip in Closed Loop Supply Chains Using Control Theory and Internet of Things,

    C. I. Papanagnou, “Measuring and Eliminating the Bullwhip in Closed Loop Supply Chains Using Control Theory and Internet of Things,” Annals of Operations Research , vol. 310, no. 1, pp. 153–170, 2022

    2022

  35. [41]

    The Bullwhip Effect: Progress, Trends and Directions,

    X. Wang and S. M. Disney, “The Bullwhip Effect: Progress, Trends and Directions,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 250, no. 3, pp. 691–701, 2016

    2016

  36. [42]

    The Ripple Effect in Supply Chains: Trade-Off ‘Efficiency-Flexibility-Resilience’ in Disruption Man- agement,

    D. Ivanov, B. Sokolov, and A. Dolgui, “The Ripple Effect in Supply Chains: Trade-Off ‘Efficiency-Flexibility-Resilience’ in Disruption Man- agement,” Intl. Journal of Production Research, vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 2154– 2172, 2014

    2014

  37. [43]

    Ripple Effect in the Supply Chain: An Analysis and Recent Literature,

    D. I. Alexandre Dolgui and B. Sokolov, “Ripple Effect in the Supply Chain: An Analysis and Recent Literature,” Intl. Journal of Production Research, vol. 56, no. 1-2, pp. 414–430, 2018

    2018

  38. [44]

    Dynamical Investigation and Distributed Consensus Tracking Control of a Variable-Order Fractional Supply Chain Network Using a Multi-Agent Neural Network-Based Control Method,

    T.-C. Sun, A. Yousefpour, Y . Karaca, M. O. Alassafi, A. M. Ahmad, and Y .-M. Li, “Dynamical Investigation and Distributed Consensus Tracking Control of a Variable-Order Fractional Supply Chain Network Using a Multi-Agent Neural Network-Based Control Method,” Fractals, vol. 30...

    2022

  39. [45]

    Distributed Consensus Tracking Control of Chaotic Multi-Agent Supply Chain Network: A New Fault-Tolerant, Finite-Time, and Chatter-Free Approach,

    Z. Liu, H. Jahanshahi, C. V olos, S. Bekiros, S. He, M. O. Alassafi, and A. M. Ahmad, “Distributed Consensus Tracking Control of Chaotic Multi-Agent Supply Chain Network: A New Fault-Tolerant, Finite-Time, and Chatter-Free Approach,” Entropy, vol. 24, no. 1, 2022

    2022

  40. [48]

    On Relationships Among Passivity, Positive Realness, and Dissipativity in Linear Systems,

    N. Kottenstette, M. J. McCourt, M. Xia, V . Gupta, and P. J. Antsaklis, “On Relationships Among Passivity, Positive Realness, and Dissipativity in Linear Systems,” Automatica, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1003–1016, 2014

    2014

  41. [49]

    Compositional Design and Verification of Large-Scale Systems Using Dissipativity Theory,

    M. Arcak, “Compositional Design and Verification of Large-Scale Systems Using Dissipativity Theory,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine , vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 51–62, 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    Y ALMIP : A Toolbox for Modeling and Optimization in MATLAB,

    J. Lofberg, “Y ALMIP : A Toolbox for Modeling and Optimization in MATLAB,” in Proc. of IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation , 2004, pp. 284–289

    2004

  43. [51]

    S. Boyd, L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V . Balakrishnan, Linear Matrix Inequalities in System and Control Theory . SIAM, 1994

    1994

  44. [52]

    Dissipative Dynamical Systems Part I: General Theory,

    J. C. Willems, “Dissipative Dynamical Systems Part I: General Theory,” Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis , vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 321– 351, 1972

    1972

  45. [53]

    Non-Linear Networked Systems Analysis and Synthesis using Dissipativity Theory,

    S. Welikala, H. Lin, and P. J. Antsaklis, “Non-Linear Networked Systems Analysis and Synthesis using Dissipativity Theory,” inProc. of American Control Conf., 2023, pp. 2951–2956. 14

    2023

  46. [54]

    On-line Estimation of Stability and Passivity Metrics,

    ——, “On-line Estimation of Stability and Passivity Metrics,” in Proc. of 61st IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control , 2022, pp. 267–272

    2022

  47. [55]

    Dissipativity-Based Decentralized Co-Design of Distributed Controllers and Communication Topologies for Vehicular Platoons,

    S. Welikala, Z. Song, H. Lin, and P. J. Antsaklis, “Dissipativity-Based Decentralized Co-Design of Distributed Controllers and Communication Topologies for Vehicular Platoons,” Automatica (Submitted), 2023

    2023

  48. [56]

    Dissipativity-Based Decentralized Co-Design of Distributed Controllers and Communication Topologies for Vehicular Platoons,

    ——, “Dissipativity-Based Decentralized Co-Design of Distributed Controllers and Communication Topologies for Vehicular Platoons,” arXiv e-prints , p. 2312.06472, 2023. [Online]. Available: http: //arxiv.org/abs/2312.06472

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Optimal Composition of Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Teams for Coverage Problems with Performance Bound Guarantees,

    C. Sun, S. Welikala, and C. G. Cassandras, “Optimal Composition of Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Teams for Coverage Problems with Performance Bound Guarantees,” Automatica, vol. 117, p. 108961, 2020

    2020

  50. [58]

    A Generalized Distributed Analysis and Control Synthesis Approach for Networked Systems with Arbitrary Interconnections,

    S. Welikala, H. Lin, and P. J. Antsaklis, “A Generalized Distributed Analysis and Control Synthesis Approach for Networked Systems with Arbitrary Interconnections,” in Proc. of 30th Mediterranean Conf. on Control and Automation , 2022, pp. 803–808

    2022

  51. [59]

    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. on Automatic Control, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1520–1533, 2004. Shirantha Welikala (Member, IEEE) received the B.Sc. degree in electrical and electronic...

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.