The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consensus Problems on Networks With Antagonistic Interactions
Abstract
In a consensus protocol an agreement among agents is achieved thanks to the collaborative efforts of all agents, expresses by a communication graph with nonnegative weights. The question we ask in this paper is the following: is it possible to achieve a form of agreement also in presence of antagonistic interactions, modeled as negative weights on the communication graph? The answer to this question is affirmative: on signed networks all agents can converge to a consensus value which is the same for all agents except for the sign. Necessary and sufficient conditions are obtained to describe cases in which this is possible. These conditions have strong analogies with the theory of monotone systems. Linear and nonlinear Laplacian feedback designs are proposed.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815478 · Cited by 17,557
Consensus Problems in Networks of Agents With Switching Topology and Time-Delays
Olfati-Saber, R., & Murray, R. M. (2004) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.2004.834113 · Cited by 12,788 · cited 5×
“When instead is structurally balanced , as the agreement subspace is nontrivial, just like in the case of nonnegative weights, see [38].”
BackgroundInfluentialHorn, R. A., & Johnson, C. R. (1985) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511810817 · Cited by 10,280
Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model
Reynolds, C. W. (1987) · Proceedings of the 14th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques · doi:10.1145/37401.37406 · Cited by 7,714
Novel Type of Phase Transition in a System of Self-Driven Particles
Vicsek, T., Czirók, A., Ben-Jacob, E., Cohen, I., & Shochet, O. (1995) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.75.1226 · Cited by 7,380
Parallel and Distributed Computation: Numerical Methods
Bertsekas, D. P., & Tsitsiklis, J. N. (1989) · DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) · Cited by 5,293
Spin glasses: Experimental facts, theoretical concepts, and open questions
Binder, K., & Young, A. P. (1986) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.58.801 · Cited by 5,177
Degroot, M. H. (1974) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1974.10480137 · Cited by 4,004
Information consensus in multivehicle cooperative control
(2007) · IEEE Control Systems · doi:10.1109/mcs.2007.338264 · Cited by 3,156
Graph Theoretic Methods in Multiagent Networks
Mesbahi, M., & Egerstedt, M. (2010) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400835355 · Cited by 2,897 · cited 3×
“In the consensus literature [36], [38], [40], this property is normally referred to as “balanced” tout-court (see [14], though).”
Background
Cited by
Does My Rebuttal Matter? Insights from a Major NLP Conference
Gao, Y., Eger, S., Kuznetsov, I., Gurevych, I., & Miyao, Y. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1129 · Cited by 48
Excess reciprocity distorts reputation in online social networks
Livan, G., Caccioli, F., & Aste, T. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-03481-7 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Altafini, C.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control
- Published
- 2013-04
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 935-946
- ISSN
- 0018-9286 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-2523
- OpenAlex
- W1967509640
- Cited by
- 2,109
- References
- 40
- FWCI
- 46.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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 Problems on Networks With Antagonistic Interactions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tac.2012.2224251
- The paper
- Altafini, C. (2013). Consensus Problems on Networks With Antagonistic Interactions. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. https://doi.org/10.1109/tac.2012.2224251
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.
