MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377000432 · doi:10.1109/tcsi.2023.3274191

Distributed Fault Detection and Dynamic Event-Triggered Consensus for Heterogeneous Multiagent Systems Under Deception Attacks

2023· article· en· W4377000432 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I Regular Papers · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Control Multi-Agent Systems
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersBeijing Municipal Natural Science FoundationNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDeceptionComputer scienceObserver (physics)Control theory (sociology)Multi-agent systemLyapunov stabilityInformation exchangeLinear matrix inequalityConsensusBernoulli distributionFault (geology)Distributed computingRandom variableControl (management)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses on the problem of distributed fault detection and leader-following output consensus for heterogeneous multiagent systems subject to deception attacks. During the information exchange and dissemination, a malicious attacker can make full use of specialized computer technology and launch stochastic deception attacks against some vulnerable agents over the network. The attack signals in actual operation tend to be energy-constrained, and Bernoulli distribution can be used to describe the random features. Taking the attack information into account, the distributed fault detection observer and the dynamic consensus compensator are designed in two separate steps. In order to reduce unnecessary information transmission, a dynamic event-triggered mechanism with output-dependent threshold is introduced to the adjustment of consensus protocol. According to Lyapunov stability theory and linear matrix inequality (LMI) techniques, sufficient conditions are derived for developing the model gains of the observer and the compensator. Finally, a simulation example of RLC circuit systems is provided to illustrate the effectiveness of the obtained theoretical results.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it