Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 541

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Consensus Computation in Unreliable Networks: A System Theoretic Approach

Open access
Pasqualetti, F., Bicchi, A., Bullo, F.·2012·IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control

Abstract

This paper addresses the problem of ensuring trustworthy computation in a linear consensus network. A solution to this problem is relevant for several tasks in multi-agent systems including motion coordination, clock synchronization, and cooperative estimation. In a linear consensus network, we allow for the presence of misbehaving agents, whose behavior deviate from the nominal consensus evolution. We model misbehaviors as unknown and unmeasurable inputs affecting the network, and we cast the misbehavior detection and identification problem into an unknown-input system theoretic framework. We consider two extreme cases of misbehaving agents, namely faulty (non-colluding) and malicious (Byzantine) agents. First, we characterize the set of inputs that allow misbehaving agents to affect the consensus network while remaining undetected and/or unidentified from certain observing agents. Second, we provide worst-case bounds for the number of concurrent faulty or malicious agents that can be detected and identified. Precisely, the consensus network needs to be 2k+1 (resp.k+1) connected forkmalicious (resp. faulty) agents to be generically detectable and identifiable by every well behaving agent. Third, we quantify the effect of undetectable inputs on the final consensus value. Fourth, we design three algorithms to detect and identify misbehaving agents. The first and the second algorithm apply fault detection techniques, and affords complete detection and identification if global knowledge of the network is available to each agent, at a high computational cost. The third algorithm is designed to exploit the presence in the network of weakly interconnected subparts, and provides local detection and identification of misbehaving agents whose behavior deviates more than a threshold, which is quantified in terms of the interconnection structure.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tac.2011.2158130

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 541

Metadata

Authors
Pasqualetti, F., Bicchi, A., & Bullo, F.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control
Published
2012-01
Volume
57
Issue
1
Pages
90-104
ISSN
  • 0018-9286 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-2523
OpenAlex
W2112668583
Cited by
541
References
4
FWCI
43.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Consensus Computation in Unreliable Networks: A System Theoretic Approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tac.2011.2158130
The paper
Pasqualetti, F., Bicchi, A., & Bullo, F. (2012). Consensus Computation in Unreliable Networks: A System Theoretic Approach. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. https://doi.org/10.1109/tac.2011.2158130

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.