Randomized Transmission Protocols for Protection against
Jamming Attacks in Multi-Agent Consensus ⋆
Ahmet Cetinkaya a , Kaito Kikuchi b , Tomohisa Hayakawa b , Hideaki Ishii a

arXiv:1802.01281v1 [cs.SY] 5 Feb 2018

a
b

Department of Computer Science, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Yokohama, 226-8502, Japan

Department of Systems and Control Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo 152-8552, Japan

Abstract
Multi-agent consensus under jamming attacks is investigated. Specifically, inter-agent communications over a network are assumed to
fail at certain times due to jamming of transmissions by a malicious attacker. A new stochastic communication protocol is proposed
to achieve finite-time practical consensus between agents. In this protocol, communication attempt times of agents are randomized and
unknown by the attacker until after the agents make their communication attempts. Through a probabilistic analysis, we show that the
proposed communication protocol, when combined with a stochastic ternary control law, allows agents to achieve consensus regardless
of the frequency of attacks. We demonstrate the efficacy of our results by considering two different strategies of the jamming attacker: a
deterministic attack strategy and a more malicious communication-aware attack strategy.
Key words: Jamming attacks, randomized methods, multi-agent consensus

1 Introduction
Nowadays, control systems heavily utilize information and
communication technologies. Especially, the Internet of
Things is becoming widespread and remote sensing/control
operations can now take place over wireless networks. With
these new developments, the risk of cyber attacks against
control systems is also increasing. Communication channels used in control systems are vulnerable to cyber attacks
and ensuring cyber security of control systems has become
a very important challenge (Sandberg et al., 2015).
Networked control systems are threatened by different types
of cyber attacks. For instance, on a vulnerable network, measurement and control data can be altered by a malicious attacker (Fawzi et al., 2014). In certain situations, attackers
can even inject false data into the system without being noticed (Mo et al., 2010). These attacks require the attacker to
be knowledgeable about the system dynamics. In the context
⋆ This work was supported in part by the JST CREST Grant
No. JPMJCR15K3 and by JSPS under Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research Grant No. 15H04020. The material in this paper was
presented at the 56th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control,
2017, Melbourne, Australia.
Email addresses: ahmet@sc.dis.titech.ac.jp (Ahmet
Cetinkaya), kikuchi@dsl.mei.titech.ac.jp (Kaito Kikuchi),
hayakawa@sc.e.titech.ac.jp (Tomohisa Hayakawa),
ishii@c.titech.ac.jp (Hideaki Ishii).

Preprint submitted to Automatica

of multi-agent systems, the presence of faulty or even malicious agents not following the given protocols may affect the
global behavior of the overall system. There is a rich history
in computer science on the development of resilient consensus algorithms (e.g., Lynch (1996), Azadmanesh and Kieckhafer (2002)). Recently, this problem has gained interest in
systems and control as well (LeBlanc et al., 2013; Tseng and
Vaidya, 2015; Dibaji et al., 2016; Dibaji and Ishii, 2017).
On the other hand, attackers who have limited information about the control system can resort to denial-of-service
(DoS) attacks to prevent communication over networks. For
instance, malicious routers in a network may intentionally
drop measurement and control data (Awerbuch et al., 2008;
Mahmoud and Shen, 2014). Moreover, denial-of-service on
wireless networks can also happen in the form of jamming
attacks. A jamming attacker can block the transmissions on a
wireless channel by emitting strong interference signals (Xu
et al., 2005; Pelechrinis et al., 2011). Recently, researchers
explored the effect of jamming and other types of denial-ofservice attacks on networked control systems (De Persis and
Tesi, 2016; Shisheh-Foroush and Martínez, 2016; Cetinkaya
et al., 2017a; Cetinkaya et al., 2017b; Feng and Tesi, 2017).
Moreover, the effect of jamming on multi-agent consensus
has also been explored (Senejohnny et al., 2015; Senejohnny
et al., 2017).
One of the main challenges in studying the multi-agent con-

February 6, 2018

bound for the interval between two consecutive successful
communication times of an agent. Here in this paper, such
an upper-bound is not available and there is a positive probability that any finite number of consecutive communication
attempts can be blocked by a jamming attacker. This difference is due to the fact that we do not consider a bound
for attack frequencies and our communication protocol involves randomization of transmission times. We also note
that although there are several works that deal with random
connectivity issues and randomly switching graph topologies in multi-agent systems (e.g., Tahbaz-Salehi and Jadbabaie (2010), Zhang and Tian (2010), You et al. (2013)),
the analysis techniques in this paper are completely different
from those works due to our approach of intentionally randomizing the inter-agent communication times to mitigate
jamming attacks which occur at uncertain times.

sensus problem under jamming attacks is that the attacker’s
actions cannot be known a priori. To account for the uncertainty in the generation of attacks, the works (Senejohnny et
al., 2015; Senejohnny et al., 2017) characterized jamming
attacks through their average duration and frequency. It is
shown there that multi-agent consensus can be achieved if
the duration and the frequency of attacks satisfy certain conditions. Specifically, these works consider a self-triggered
control framework, where each agent attempts to communicate with its neighbors and update its local control input
only when a triggering condition is satisfied. For consensus,
it is required that the ratio of the duration of the attacks to
the total time is less than one. This ensures that the jamming does not span the entire time. Note that under the selftriggering framework, the communication attempt times for
the agents are deterministic. Thus, an attacker who is knowledgeable on the multi-agent system can determine those time
instants. This allows the attacker to block the communication by turning on the jamming attack very briefly at those
instants without violating the duration condition. To avoid
this issue, a restriction on the attack frequency becomes necessary. Specifically, the frequency of the attacks is required
to be less than the frequency of the communication attempts
by the agents.

Our analysis for consensus relies on first establishing that under randomized transmissions, all agents can communicate
with their neighbors infinitely many times in the long run.
This is shown for the deterministic and the communicationaware attacks using different techniques. In the case of deterministic attacks, the independence of attacks and communication attempts plays an important role. Another big
role is played by the uniform distribution of random communication attempt times. On the other hand, in the case
of communication-aware attacks, the timing of attacks depends on all previous history of the communication times of
agents. In the analysis of this case, we construct a filtration
that represents the progression of the actions of the agents
and those of the attacker. By utilizing this filtration, we
show that our protocol can achieve a positive probability of
at least one successful inter-agent transmission during carefully selected sufficiently long intervals spanning the time
domain. We then utilize the monotone-convergence theorem
for sets to show that even in communication-aware attacks,
each agent can make infinitely many successful communications in the long run. This result allows us to show that
with suitable choice of control parameters, each agent would
be able to select appropriate control actions and apply them
long enough to reach consensus in finite time.

Motivated by the discussion above, our goal in this paper is
to develop a new consensus framework to deal with attack
scenarios where the jamming is turned on and off very frequently. In particular, we use the ternary control laws previously used in (De Persis and Frasca, 2013; Senejohnny et
al., 2015; Senejohnny et al., 2017). However, instead of the
self-triggering method utilized in those works, we propose a
stochastic communication protocol that can achieve consensus regardless of the frequency of the attacks. In this protocol, each agent attempts to communicate with its neighbors
at random time instants. These time instants are hence unknown by the attacker.
We consider two attack strategies that are restricted by their
average duration but not by their frequency. In the first strategy, the starting time and the duration of the jamming attacks are deterministic and do not depend on the time instants at which the agents try to communicate. On the other
hand, in the second strategy the attacker is aware of the
communication attempts of the agents and can preserve energy by turning off jamming right after a communication
attempt is blocked. We show that in both strategies, our
proposed stochastic communication protocol guarantees infinitely many successful communications in the long run.
Furthermore, by using a probabilistic analysis, we show that
almost-sure finite-time practical consensus is achieved regardless of attack frequency as long as the average ratio of
attack durations is less than hundred-percent.

In this paper, we show that randomization in inter-agent
communications enables agents to reach consensus regardless of the frequency of jamming attacks. In recent works,
randomization in communication has been exploited in different ways. For instance, randomized gossip algorithms is
used in Boyd et al. (2006) to allow networked operation under limited computation and communication resources. Furthermore, the work by Dibaji et al. (2016) introduced randomness in quantization as well as in communication times
to increase resiliency against malicious nodes in multi-agent
systems. Such advantages of using probabilistic methods
have been found in resilient consensus in computer science
and are often referred to as "impossibility results" (e.g.,
Lynch (1996)). In addition, random frequency hopping techniques are utilized by Navda et al. (2007) and Pöpper et al.
(2010) to mitigate jamming in wireless networks.

Our approach for analyzing the consensus under jamming
differs largely from those in the literature. In particular,
for the deterministic communication strategy proposed in
(Senejohnny et al., 2015; Senejohnny et al., 2017), bounds
on attack frequency can be used for establishing an upper-

2

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we explain
the multi-agent consensus problem under jamming attacks.
We propose a stochastic communication protocol and provide conditions for consensus under jamming attacks in Section 3. Then we discuss our protocol’s efficacy under deterministic and communication-aware attacks in Section 4. In
Section 5, we present numerical examples to demonstrate
our results. Finally, we conclude the paper in Section 6.

Figure 1. Communication attempt times of 3 agents represented
with {tik }k∈N0 , i ∈ {1, 2, 3}, together with the jamming attacks
represented with {ak }k∈N0 and {τk }k∈N0 .

We note that part of the results in Sections 3 and 4 appeared in our preliminary report (Kikuchi et al., 2017) without proofs. In this paper, we provide complete proofs and
more detailed discussions in Sections 3 and 4. Furthermore,
new numerical examples are presented in Section 5.

Dε with ε > 0 given by
n
o
X
Dε , x ∈ Rn :
(xj − xi ) < ε, i ∈ V .

The notation used in the paper is fairly standard. Specifically,
we denote positive and nonnegative integers by N and N0 ,
respectively. Furthermore, we use (·)T to denote transpose,
|S| to denote the Lebesgue measure of a set S ⊂ R, and
A \ B to denote the set of elements that belong to set A, but
not to set B. The notations P[·] and E[·] respectively denote
the probability and the expectation on a probability space
(Ω, F , P). Moreover, we use 1[E] : Ω → {0, 1} for the
indicator of the event E ∈ F , that is, 1[E](ω) = 1, ω ∈ E,
and 1[E](ω) = 0, ω ∈
/ E. To simplify the presentation, we
omit the ω ∈ Ω in the notation of random variables in certain
equations.

In what follows we first discuss the jamming attacks on the
communication channels between the agents, and then we
explain our proposed control and communication protocols
for achieving consensus under jamming.
2.1 Jamming Attacks
We consider scenarios where the communication channels
between the agents are disabled by a jamming attacker.
Specifically, we assume that when there is a jamming attack,
communication on all links E fail. This setup allows us to
model attacks on a shared network that the agents use for
communication. We note that the results presented in the paper can also be extended with small modifications to more
general cases where the communication links are attacked
individually by multiple attackers.

2 Multi-Agent Consensus Under Jamming Attacks
In this paper, we investigate the consensus problem for a
multi-agent system composed of n agents with scalar dynamics. The communication topology of the multi-agent
system is represented by an undirected connected graph
G = (V, E), where V = {1, . . . , n} represents the set of
nodes corresponding to the n agents, and E ⊂ V × V is the
set of edges corresponding to the communication links between the agents. Let Ni be the set of neighbors and di be
the degree of node i. We use L ∈ Rn×n to denote the Laplacian matrix associated with G. Note that L is a symmetric
matrix since G is an undirected graph.

We follow the approach of De Persis and Tesi (2016), Senejohnny et al. (2015), Senejohnny et al. (2017) and use the
sequences {ak ≥ 0}k∈N0 and {τk ≥ 0}k∈N0 to characterize
the starting time instants and durations of the sequence of
attacks, respectively. Specifically, ak represents the starting
time instant for the kth attack, and τk represents its duration. For each k ∈ N0 , these scalars are assumed to satisfy
ak+1 > ak + τk (see the time sequence at the bottom of
Figure 1).

The evolution of the states of the multi-agent system is characterized through the scalar dynamics
i

i

ẋ (t) = u (t),

t ≥ 0,

(2)

j∈Ni

Now, let Ak , [ak , ak + τk ] denote the kth attack interval
(or instant if τk = 0), during which the attacker prevents all
transmissions on the communication channels between the
agents. For any time interval [τ, t] ⊂ [0, ∞), we use A(τ, t)
to denote the set of times under jamming attacks, that is,

(1)

where xi (t) and ui (t) respectively denote the state and the
local control input for agent i.

A(τ, t) , ∪k∈N0 Ak ∩ [τ, t].

In this paper we design a piecewise-constant control input
ui (t) for each agent i, as well as a protocol for the communication between the agents so that the agents achieve practical consensus, that is, x(t) , [ x1 (t) x2 (t) · · · xn (t) ]T
representing the agent states converges in finite time to a
vector x∗ ∈ Rn belonging to the approximate consensus set

(3)
c

Furthermore, for the same interval [τ, t], A (τ, t) denotes
the complement of A(τ, t) in the sense that it is the set of
times where there is no attack, that is,
c

A (τ, t) , [τ, t] \ A(τ, t).

3

(4)

P
j
i
Now, let avei (t) ,
j∈Ni (x (t) − x (t)) and signε :
R → {−1, 0, 1} be defined by

Conducting jamming attacks requires energy for transmitting interfering radio signals (Xu et al., 2005). Thus, an attacker with limited resources would not be able to continuously jam the communication channels for a long time. In
such cases, the attacker may repeat cycles of jamming and
idling to preserve energy. The following assumption from
Senejohnny et al. (2015) provides a characterization of the
duration of jamming for various attack scenarios.


sign(z), if |z| ≥ ε,
signε (z) ,
0,
otherwise,
with ε > 0 given in (2). The local control input ui (t) for
each agent i is given by ui (t) = 0 for t ∈ [0, ti0 ) and

Assumption 2.1. There exist κ ≥ 0 and ρ ∈ (0, 1) such
that for each τ ≥ 0 and t ≥ τ ,
|A(τ, t)| ≤ κ + ρ(t − τ ),

ui (t) =

(5)

θki

Notice that (5) implies lim supt→∞ |A(0, t)|/t ≤ ρ. As a
consequence, the scalar ρ ∈ (0, 1) can be considered as an
upper-bound on the ratio of the duration of attacks in long
intervals, and it is related to the average energy used by
the attacker. Under Assumption 2.1, jamming attacks are
allowed to start at arbitrary time instants as long as (5) holds.
Note also that the longest duration for continuous jamming
allowed under Assumption 2.1 can be obtained as κ/(1−ρ).
Here, the scalar κ can be selected to model the attacker’s
capabilities for continuous jamming.

(8)

On the other hand, if the ith agent successfully communicates with its neighbors at time tik and learns that the
neighbor states are sufficiently far from its state, then a
nonzero control input value is selected. This nonzero value
is fixed as the control input for the interval [tik , tik + θki ),
and then the control input is set back to zero for the interval
[tik + θki , tik+1 ). Here, θki denotes the length of the control input application duration and it is always upper-bounded by
the constant T i > 0 in (8). In fact θki can either be tik+1 − tik
or T i , and the first case where θki = tik+1 − tk+1 happens
only if the next communication attempt time tik+1 is close
to tik so that tik+1 − tik ≤ T i . In that case if new information
is obtained from neighbors at time tik+1 (i.e., if ϕik+1 = 1),
then the control input is updated again. If communication
at time tik+1 fails, then θki = T i and the control input is
unchanged for a duration of length T i .

To achieve consensus we employ the ternary control approach previously used in De Persis and Frasca (2013), Senejohnny et al. (2015), Senejohnny et al. (2017). However, instead of the self-triggering method utilized in those studies,
we propose a stochastic communication protocol. In what
follows, we first explain the control framework. We then
discuss our communication protocol in detail in Section 3.
Each agent i ∈ V attempts communicating with its neighbors Ni at times tik ≥ 0, k ∈ N0 . In particular, at a communication attempt time tik , agent i sends an information
request to all of its neighbors and asks for their states. If
there is no jamming at time tik , then the neighbors of agent i
receive the request and send back their states, which will be
used in the update of agent i’s local control input. In the case
where there is a jamming attack at time tik , agent i cannot
send/receive information, and the control input is set to 0.

Example 2.2. In Figure 2, we show an example trajectory
for the control input u2 (t) of agent 2. In this example, we
have ϕ20 = ϕ22 = ϕ23 = ϕ24 = 1 indicating that communication attempts at times t20 , t22 , t23 , t24 are not attacked and thus
successful. At a successful communication time t2k , agent 2
sets its control input based on the neighbor agents’ states.
Control input is then applied for a duration θk2 . This duration
depends on the next communication attempt time t2k+1 and
whether the attempt at t2k+1 is successful or not. In particular, if t2k+1 − t2k > T 2 , then θk2 = T 2 (e.g., θ02 = θ32 = T 2 ).
If t2k+1 − t2k ≤ T 2 , then θk2 is determined depending whether

We use ϕik ∈ {0, 1} to indicate whether the communication
attempt at time tik is successful or not. In particular, ϕik = 0
indicates a failure at time tik due to a jamming attack, and
ϕik = 1 implies that agent i successfully communicates with
its neighbors at time tik . Observe that
k ∈ N0 .

i
t
− tik , if tik+1 − tik ≤ T i , ϕik+1 = 1,
, k+1
i
T ,
otherwise.

Observe that when there is no jamming at time tik (i.e., if
ϕik = 1), the control input for agent i takes values from
{−1, 0, 1} depending on the states of agent i and its neighbors at that time. If agent i’s
Pstate is sufficiently close to
its neighbors’ states so that | j∈Ni (xj (tik ) − xi (tik ))| < ε,
then the control input is set to 0. If there is a jamming attack
at transmission time tik , then the control is also set to 0 in
the interval [tik , tik+1 ).

2.2 Stochastic Ternary Control

c

(7)

for k ∈ N0 , where θki is given with T i > 0 by

where |A(τ, t)| represents the total duration of the attacks
in the interval [τ, t].

ϕik = 1[tik ∈ A (0, tik )],

 i
ϕk signε (avei (tik )), t ∈ [tik , tik + θki ),
0,
t ∈ [tik + θki , tik+1 ),

(6)

In this paper communication attempt times tik are random
variables, and consequently, ϕik are also random variables.

4

3 Stochastic Communication Protocol for Consensus
Under Jamming Attacks
3.1 Stochastic Communication Protocol
We propose a communication protocol where each agent
attempts to communicate with its neighbors at random times
that are unknown to the attacker until the agents attempt
communication at those times.

Figure 2. Control input trajectory of agent 2 versus time. Jamming
attack intervals are denoted with shaded (pink) regions.

the communication attempt at t2k+1 is successful or not.
If communication attempt at time t2k+1 is successful, then
θk2 = t2k+1 − t2k (e.g., θ22 = t23 − t22 ); otherwise we have
θk2 = T 2 (e.g., θ42 = T 2 ). Notice that in all cases θk2 is
upper-bounded by T 2 .

Definition 3.1 (Stochastic communication protocol). For
each agent i ∈ V, let ∆i > 0 be a fixed scalar, and set tik ,
k ∈ N0 , to be independent random variables such that tik is
distributed uniformly in the interval [k∆i , (k + 1)∆i ).

To achieve consensus under the control law (7), it is important to design the times tik , k ∈ N0 , i ∈ V, at which the
agents attempt to communicate with each other. In this paper, we take a stochastic approach and design these times in
Section 3 as random variables.

In this communication protocol, each agent i attempts to
make transmission to its neighbors once in every ∆i period. The communication attempt time tik for the interval
[k∆i , (k + 1)∆i ) is selected randomly at time k∆i by agent
i. Due to uniform distribution of tik , k ∈ N0 , we have
E[tik+1 −tik ] = ∆i , that is, the duration between consecutive
communication attempts are ∆i in expectation. We remark
that the attacker is allowed to know how tik is distributed, but
not the value of tik until the communication is attempted. In
the example of Figure 1 with 3 agents, the attacker is able
to block the first communication attempts of agents 1 and
3. However, the first attempt of agent 2 is successful. Thus,
for this example, ϕ10 = ϕ30 = 0 and ϕ20 = 1.

Remark 2.3. In Senejohnny et al. (2015), the communication attempt times tik , k ∈ N0 , i ∈ V, are determined
based on a deterministic self-triggering approach. There, the
minimum interval between consecutive communication attempts for each agent is given by ∆∗ > 0. It is observed in
(Senejohnny et al., 2015) that if the attacker is allowed to
attack at a frequency larger than the maximum frequency of
communication attempts (given by ∆1∗ ), then all communication may be blocked even if Assumption 2.1 is satisfied.
This is because as tik are deterministic times, an attacker
that is knowledgeable on how tik are decided may be able to
generate a strategy to pinpoint tik with attacks of very short
durations and preserve energy for the rest of the time. To
avoid this problem, Senejohnny et al. (2015) considers the
additional assumption that there exist η ≥ 0 and σ < ∆1∗
such that
I(τ, t) ≤ η + σ(t − τ ),

3.2 Finite-time Consensus Analysis
In the ternary control approach, the speed of change in each
agent’s state is at most 1. Therefore, agents need to apply
the ternary control input to their dynamics for sufficiently
long durations to get closer to their neighbors. Notice that
the duration of control input application is affected by the
number of successful communication attempts. In particular,
it is likely that an agent i would apply control input to its
dynamics for a longer duration, if that agent makes many
successful communications with its neighbors.

(9)

for all τ ≥ 0 and t ≥ τ , where I(τ, t) ∈ N0 denotes the
number of attack intervals An in the time frame [τ, t]. The
scalar σ > 0 in (9) represents an upper-bound on the attack
frequency in the long run. Note that since σ < ∆1∗ , the
assumption (9) guarantees that the attack frequency in large
time frames is smaller than the frequency of communication
attempts. By utilizing ρ from (5) and σ from (9), the main
result in (Senejohnny et al., 2015) shows that consensus is
achieved if
ρ + σ∆∗ < 1.

For the consensus analysis, we want to establish a relation
between two quantities: 1) the total duration each agent i
applies a control input and 2) the total number of successful
communications between agent i and its neighbors.
PN
Consider the sum k=0 ϕik θki , which corresponds to the total duration of control input application by agent i after the
first N + 1 communication attempts. This duration is affected by not only the random times agent i attempts to communicate, but also the times and durations of the jamming
attacks. Since the attack times and durations are uncertain,
it is not possible to obtain exact statistics for the duration
PN
i i
k=0 ϕk θk . However, interestingly, this duration possesses
a lower-bound for sufficiently small values of T i . Specifically, the following result shows that it is lower-bounded by

(10)

In the following section, we propose a stochastic communication protocol, where communication attempt times tik ,
k ∈ N0 , i ∈ V, are decided randomly. We show that in this
case even if (9) and (10) are not satisfied due to high frequency attacks, consensus can still be achieved.

5

if avei (π i (t)) ≥ ε, then

T i /2 multiplied by the total number of successful communications over the first N attempts. Its proof is presented in
the appendix.

X

i

Lemma 3.2. Suppose T i ∈ (0, ∆2 ). Then for all N ∈ N
and i ∈ V, we have
N
X

k=0

(xj (t) − xi (t))

j∈Ni

≥

X

j∈Ni
i


xj (π i (t)) − xi (π i (t)) − 2di (t − π i (t))

= ave (t) − 2di (t − π i (t)) ≥ ε − 2di (t − π i (t)). (15)

N −1
Ti X i
ϕk .
ϕik θki ≥
2

(11)

Since t < µi (t) for i ∈ W(t), we have 2di (t − π i (t)) <
2di (µi (t) − π i (t)). Furthermore, since µi (t) − π i (t) ≤ T i
and T i < 2dε i , we have µi (t) − π i (t) < 2dε i . Hence, it
follows from (15) that if avei (π i (t)) ≥ ε, then

k=0

We are ready to present the first main result of this paper. The
theorem below provides conditions under which the multiagent system (1), (7) achieves consensus. In particular, they
are given in terms of T i of the control law, as well as ∆i
and ϕik , associated with the communication protocol.

X

(xj (t) − xi (t)) > ε − 2di

j∈Ni

ε
= 0.
2di

(16)

Similarly, we can show that if avei (π i (t)) ≤ −ε, then
Theorem 3.3. Consider the multi-agent system (1), (7) with
i
T i ∈ (0, min{ 2dε i , ∆2 }) where ε > 0. Assume that under
the stochastic communication protocol, it holds
P

∞
hX
k=0

i
ϕik ≥ M = 1, M ∈ N0 ,

i ∈ V.

X

(xj (t) − xi (t)) < −(ε − 2di

j∈Ni

ε
) = 0.
2di

(17)

Noting that |avei (π i (t))| ≥ ε for i ∈ W(t), we obtain from
(16) and (17) that signε (avei (π i (t))) = sign(avei (t)), i ∈
W(t). Consequently, we have avei (t)signε (avei (π i (t))) =
|avei (t)|, i ∈ W(t). It then follows from (14) that

(12)

Then x(t) converges in finite time to a vector x∗ ∈ Rn
belonging to the set Dε given by (2), almost surely.

X

V̇ (x(t)) = −

|avei (t)|,

t ≥ T.

i∈W(t)

Proof. First, let π i (t) , max{tik : tik ≤ t, k ∈ N0 }, t ≥ ∆i .
Here, π i (t) corresponds to the last communication attempt
time before time t. Now let T , maxi∈V ∆i and let

c
W(t) , i ∈ V : |avei (π i (t))| ≥ ε, π i (t) ∈ A (0, t),
i

i

t ∈ [π (t), µ (t)) , t ≥ T ,

Since |avei (t)| ≥ ε − 2di (t − π i (t)) ≥ ε − 2di T i , i ∈ W(t),
we have
X
X
1
|ε − 2di T i | ≤ −α
V̇ (x(t)) ≤ −
i∈W(t)

i∈W(t)

= −α

(13)

X

i

g (t),

t ≥ T,

(18)

i∈V

with µi (t) , max{tik + θki : tik ≤ t, k ∈ N0 }. Observe that
W(t) corresponds to the set of agents that have a nonzero
control input ui (t) at time t.

where α , mini∈V (ε − 2di T i ) and

c
g i (t) , 1 |avei (π i (t))| ≥ ε, π i (t) ∈ A (0, t),

t ∈ [π i (t), µi (t)) .

Now, let V (x) , (1/2)xT Lx, x ∈ Rn . By (1), (7),
V̇ (x(t)) = xT (t)Lu(t)
X
avei (t)signε (avei (π i (t))),
=−

By integrating both sides of (18),
(14)

V (x(t)) ≤ V (x(T )) − α

i∈W(t)

Z tX

g i (s)ds,

t ≥ T.

(19)

T i∈V

for t ≥ T , where u(t) , [ u1 (t) u2 (t) · · · un (t) ]T .

The ternary control (7) satisfies |ui (t)| ≤ 1, and as a
result, uT (t)u(t) ≤ n. Noting that the symmetric ma1
trix L possesses a symmetric square root L 2 , we ob1
1
tain V̇ (x(t)) = xT (t)Lu(t) = xT (t)L 2 L 2 u(t) ≤
n
1
T
T
2 (x (t)Lx(t) + u (t)Lu(t)) ≤ V (x(t)) + 2 λmax (L),

Our next goal is to show avei (t)signε (avei (π i (t))) =
|avei (t)|, i ∈ W(t). To this end, we need to show that
signε (avei (π i (t))) = sign(avei (t)), i ∈ W(t). Notice that

6

for t ∈ [0, T ]. Letting Y (t) , V (x(t)) + n2 λmax (L), we
obtain Ẏ (t) = V̇ (x(t)). Therefore, we have Ẏ (t) ≤ Y (t),
t ∈ [0, T ], and thus Y (T ) ≤ Y (0)eT . This implies that
V (x(T )) ≤ v, where
n T n
)e − .
2
2

v , (V (x(0)) +

almost surely. Next, let
i

β , inf{t ≥ T :

g i (s)ds ≤

T i∈V



1 |avei (π i (t))| ≥ ε = 0,

f2i (s)ds ≥

T

Z

∞

∆i

f2i (s)ds − (T − ∆i ).

(22)

h
i
c
Furthermore, by noting that 1 tik ∈ A (0, tik ) = ϕik ,
Z

∞

f2i (s)ds ≥

∆i

=
≥

∞ Z
X

∞ Z
X
k=1

i
tik +θk

i
k=1 tk
∞
X

i
tik +θk

tik

ϕik ds =



ϕik θki − T i ≥

k=0

∞
X

k=1
∞
X

k=0

∞
X
k=0




ϕik θki − ϕi0 θ0i

ϕik θki − min{

ε ∆i
,
}.
2di 2
(23)

Now, let C > 0 and M̃ , 2( αv + C + T − ∆i +
i
min{ ε , ∆ })/T i . By (12), for every h > 0, we have
P∞ 2dii 2
i
k=0 ϕk ≥ M̃ + 2h/T , almost surely. On the other
i
i
hand, since T < ∆ /2, by Lemma 3.2, we have
PN
PN −1 i
Ti
i i
k=0 ϕk θk ≥ 2
k=0 ϕk , for all N ∈ N. As a consequence, for every h > 0,
∞
X

ϕik θki

k=0

=

∞

f i (s)ds ≥
T

v
+ C + h,
α

i ∈ V.

In this section, we consider two different attack strategies
that a jamming attacker may follow. We show that consensus
can be achieved in both cases.

(24)

4.1 Consensus Under Deterministic Attacks
First, we consider the attack strategy where the starting time
and the duration of the jamming attacks do not depend on the
time instants at which the agents try to communicate. In particular, concerning the sequences {ak }k∈N0 and {τk }k∈N0 ,
we assume the following.

almost surely. It follows from (22)–(24) that for every h > 0,
Z

i∈V

4 Deterministic Jamming and Communication-Aware
Jamming

Ti
T i 2h
≥
M̃ +
2
2 Ti

ε ∆i
v
+ C + T − ∆i + min{ i ,
} + h,
α
2d 2

t ≥ max β i ,

For the proof of Theorem 3.3, we utilize the function
(1/2)xT (t)Lx(t) and explore its evolution. This approach
is also utilized by De Persis and Frasca (2013), Senejohnny
et al. (2015), and Senejohnny et al. (2017). However, there
are some key differences. An important role is played by
Lemma 3.2 for showing that infinite number of successful
inter-agent communications implies almost-sure finite-time
consensus. Notice also that the analysis is facilitated by the
i
choice of parameters T i ∈ (0, min{ 2dε i , ∆2 }), i ∈ V. In
i
particular, T i < ∆2 allows us to relate the total nonzero
control duration with the total number of successful communications of agent i through Lemma 3.2. Furthermore,
T i < 2dε i ensures a certain decay for the Lyapunov-like
function (1/2)xT (t)Lx(t) after a successful communication by agent i.

h
i
c
1 π i (s) ∈ A (0, s) ds
ϕik θki =

i ∈ V.

Condition (12) in Theorem 3.3 is concerned with the number of successful communication attempts. In particular, (12)
guarantees that each agent can achieve infinitely many successful communications in the long run. In Section 4, we
will show that (12) holds and consensus can be achieved
under different attack strategies that satisfy Assumption 2.1
on the average duration of jamming.

g i (s) = f1i (s)f2i (s) and
∞

v
+ C},
α

Since t ≥ π i (t), we have |avei (t)| < ε, t ≥ maxi∈V β i .
Thus, x(t) ∈ Dε , t ≥ maxi∈V β i . Finally, as P[β i < ∞] =
1, i ∈ V, we have P[maxi∈V β i < ∞] = 1, implying x(t)
converges to a vector in Dε in finite time, almost surely.

(21)



i
i i
i
We
h define f1c(s) , 1 |ave (π (s))| i≥ ε and f2 (s) ,
1 π i (s) ∈ A (0, s), s ∈ [π i (s), µi (s)) , s ≥ T . Note that
Z

f i (s)ds ≥

As a consequence of (25), we have P[β i < ∞] = 1, i ∈ V.
Therefore, by (21),

(20)

v
.
α

t

T

Now, since V (x(T )) ≤ v and V (x(t)) ≥ 0, it follows from
(19) that for all t ≥ T ,
Z tX

Z

(25)

7

First, let Bki , {ω ∈ Ω : ϕ̂ik (ω) = 1}, k ∈ N0 , and
T
S
i
E , ∞
l=0
k≥l Bk . Furthermore, for each k ∈ N0 , let

Assumption 4.1. The sequences {ak }k∈N0 and {τk }k∈N0 ,
which characterize the jamming attacks, are decided deterministically, that is, for every ω ∈ Ω and k ∈ N0 ,
ak (ω) = āk ,

τk (ω) = τ̄k ,

βki : Ω → {0, 1, . . . , γ i −1} be a random variable distributed
according to P[βki = l] = 1/γ i for each l ∈ {0, 1, . . . , γ i −
1}, and define t̂ik , tikγ i +β i , k ∈ N0 .

(26)

k

where āk ≥ 0 and τ̄k ≥ 0 for k ∈ N0 are fixed scalars.

Note that t̂ik is a random variable distributed uniformly
i
ˆ i , (k + 1)∆
ˆ i ). Since B i = Sγ −1 {ti i
in [k ∆
k
l=0
kγ +l ∈
c
ˆ i , (k + 1)∆
ˆ i )}, we have B i ⊇ {t̂i ∈ Ac (k ∆
ˆ i , (k +
A (k ∆
k
k
i
ˆ
1)∆ )}. Hence,

Assumption 4.1 is useful to model scenarios where the attacker cannot detect the transmissions on the communication
channels. Note that the attacker may still be knowledgeable
on certain properties of the multi-agent system such as the
number of agents, communication topology, as well as the
scalars ∆i , i ∈ V, used in the communication protocol.

c
ˆ i , (k + 1)∆
ˆ i )]
P[Bki ] ≥ P[t̂ik ∈ A (k ∆
ˆ i , (k + 1)∆
ˆ i )]
= P[t̂i ∈
/ A(k ∆
k

Our analysis relies on a few key definitions. First, let
n
o
γ i , min k ∈ N : k∆i > κ/(1 − ρ) ,

i ∈ V.

ˆ i − |A(k ∆
ˆ i , (k + 1)∆
ˆ i )|
∆
=
,
ˆi
∆

(27)

ˆ i > κ/(1 − ρ), we obtain
By Assumption 2.1 and ∆

ˆ i > 0 and ϕ̂i ∈ {0, 1}, k ∈ N0 , by
Now define ∆
k
ˆ i , γ i ∆i ,
∆
(
0, if ϕikγ i = 0, · · · , ϕi(k+1)γ i −1 = 0,
ϕ̂ik ,
1, otherwise.

ˆ i − κ − ρ∆
ˆi
κ
∆
= 1−ρ−
> 0, k ∈ N0 .
i
ˆ
ˆ
∆
∆i
P
i
i i
As a consequence, ∞
k=0 P[Bk ] = ∞. Now, since t0 , t1 , . . .
are independent and the sequences {ak }k∈N0 and {τk }k∈N0
i
i
are deterministic (by Assumption 4.1), the events
P B0 , B1i, . . .
are independent. Therefore, it follows from ∞
P[B
k] =
k=0
∞ and the Borel-Cantelli Lemma (see Theorem 3.22 of
KarrP
(1993)) that P[E] = 1. Consequently, noting
that {ω ∈
P∞
∞
i
i
Ω:
k=0 ϕ̂k (ω) ≥ M } ⊇ E, we obtain P[ k=0 ϕ̂k ≥
M ] ≥ P[E]. Hence, (31) holds. Finally, (12) follows from
(30) and (31).
P[Bki ] ≥

(28)
(29)

ˆ i is an integer multiple of ∆i that is
With these definitions, ∆
ˆ i , (k+
selected to be larger than κ/(1−ρ). In the interval [k ∆
i
i
ˆ
1)∆ ), agent i makes γ number of communication attempts
with its neighbors, and moreover, ϕ̂ik takes the value 0 if all
of these attempts fail and 1 if one or more of these attempts
ˆ i , and ϕ̂i are used
are successful. We emphasize that γ i , ∆
k
only for the purpose of analysis, and their values are not
needed in our stochastic communication protocol.

Proposition 4.2 implies that agents can achieve infinitely
many successful communications with their neighbors in the
long run under any deterministic attack strategy satisfying
(5) in Assumption 2.1.

We now show that under Assumptions 2.1 and 4.1, agents
can successfully communicate with their neighbors infinitely
many times in the long run, almost surely.

The proof of Proposition 4.2 relies on a few essential principles. First of all, we do not directly compute the successful
communications in each ∆i -length interval. Instead, we look
ˆ i -length intervals and compute how many of
at the longer ∆
these intervals include successful communications. This is
ˆ i is chosen for the analysis to
useful due to the fact that ∆
be larger than the longest possible duration κ/(1 − ρ) of a
continuous jamming attack. Regardless of how large κ ≥ 0
ˆ i as given
and ρ ∈ (0, 1) can be, there always exists such a ∆
i
ˆ
in (28). We remark again that since ∆ is needed only for
the analysis, its value is not necessary for the multi-agent
operation.

Proposition 4.2. For any jamming attacks described by sequences {ak }k∈N0 and {τk }k∈N0 that satisfy Assumptions
2.1 and 4.1, the equality in (12) holds.
Proof. It follows from (29) that for every i ∈ V,
P

∞
hX
k=0

∞
i
hX
i
ϕik ≥ M ≥ P
ϕ̂ik ≥ M ,

M ∈ N0 .

(30)

k=0

In what follows, we show (12) by proving that
P

∞
hX
k=0

i
ϕ̂ik ≥ M = 1,

M ∈ N0 ,

i ∈ V.

k ∈ N0 .

In the proof of Proposition 4.2, we also take advantage of the
uniform distribution of the communication attempt times in
each ∆i -length interval. The probability of at least one sucˆ i -length interval [k ∆
ˆ i , (k +
cessful communication in a ∆

(31)

8

ˆ i ) is lower-bounded by the probability of an event that
1)∆
we construct in the proof. This is the event that one of
communication attempt times that is selected uniformly randomly from the γ i number of attempt times in the interˆ i , (k + 1)∆
ˆ i ) does not face a jamming attack. The
val [k ∆
uniform distribution property of the attempt times over the
ˆ i -length intervals allows
∆i -length intervals and thus the ∆
derivation of the probability bound.

Figure 3. Attack times for the communication-aware attack strategy.

The proof of Proposition 4.2 also relies on the fact that the
attacks are deterministic, and hence the attack times do not
depend on the communication attempt times.

to interfere at the randomly chosen communication attempt
times for sure, he has to keep jamming until t̄k in each
interval [k∆, (k + 1)∆).

Next, by using Proposition 4.2 and Theorem 3.3, we show
that under deterministic attacks, the multi-agent system (1),
(7) achieves consensus in finite time, almost surely.

To characterize ak , τk , k ∈ N0 , for this strategy, first let
n
sk , max s ∈ [0, ∆] :

Theorem 4.3. Consider the multi-agent system (1), (7) with
i
T i ∈ (0, min{ 2dε i , ∆2 }) where ε > 0. For any jamming
attacks described by sequences {ak }k∈N0 and {τk }k∈N0 that
satisfy Assumptions 2.1 and 4.1, x(t) converges in finite time
to a vector x∗ ∈ Rn belonging to the set Dε given by (2),
almost surely.

o
|A(τ, k∆)| + s ≤ κ + ρ(k∆ + s − τ ), τ ∈ [0, k∆] ,

for k ∈ N0 . Note that sk ∈ [0, ∆] denotes the largest duration that a jamming attack starting at k∆ can last without
violating the condition (5) in Assumption 2.1. Now, let

Proof. By Proposition 4.2, we have (12). Thus, the result
follows from Theorem 3.3.

sk , min{t̄k − k∆, sk },

k ∈ N0 .

Observe that sk gives the duration of the attack in the interval
[k∆, (k + 1)∆) for this strategy. In particular, the jamming
attack is turned on for t ∈ [k∆, k∆ + sk ], and turned off for
t ∈ (k∆ + sk , (k + 1)∆). Hence, ak , τk can be given by

We emphasize again that the result does not depend on the
frequency of attacks. In particular, the proposed stochastic
communication protocol allows us to deal with attack scenarios where the jamming is turned on and off very frequently.

ak = k∆,

4.2 Consensus Under Communication-Aware Attacks

τk = sk ,

k ∈ N0 .

(32)

Consequently, the set of time instants where communication
is not possible in the interval [k∆, (k + 1)∆) is then given
by the set Ak , [ak , ak + τk ] = [k∆, k∆ + sk ]. We remark
that the communication-aware jamming described by (32)
satisfies (5) in Assumption 2.1 by construction.

We now explore an attack strategy where the attacker can
sense communication attempts on the channel and turns the
jamming on and off based on the activity of the agents. Here,
we consider a simpler setup where the ∆i = ∆, i ∈ V,
with ∆ > 0. In this setup, kth communication attempt time
of each agent is in the interval [k∆, (k + 1)∆), i.e., tik ∈
[k∆, (k + 1)∆), i ∈ V. Let t̄k , maxi∈V {tik }.

To illustrate the properties of the communication-aware attack strategy, we show an example attack scenario in Figure 3. Here, the attacker is able to block all communications
that are attempted in the interval [0, ∆) by jamming the network between times 0 and t̄0 = maxi∈V ti0 . After blocking,
the attacker turns off jamming and waits until the next interval [∆, 2∆). In the interval [∆, 2∆), the duration of the
attack is relatively large, because agent 2 attempts communication towards the end of the interval. The attacker has to
use large energy resources for this interval. As a result, the
attacker cannot conduct an attack with very long duration
in the interval [2∆, 3∆), since Assumption 2.1 holds only
for a short duration of length τ2 . And after that, the attacker
has to turn off jamming to save resources. Therefore, in the
interval [2∆, 3∆), it happens that agent 1 can successfully
communicate after the jamming is turned off. As a result,
we have ϕ10 = 0, ϕ11 = 0, ϕ12 = 1.

We consider an attack strategy where the attacker knows
about the communication protocol as well as ∆. The attacker
generates an attack so that for each interval [k∆, (k + 1)∆),
i) the jamming attack starts from t = k∆,
ii) the jamming attack continues until time t̄k as long as
Assumption 2.1 is satisfied.
Under this strategy, for the interval [k∆, (k + 1)∆), the
attacker turns off jamming right after all communication
attempts are blocked. This allows the attacker to preserve
energy to be used later. Furthermore, the attacker can block
transmissions among the agents in a more thorough way
than the deterministic strategy. Clearly, if the attacker wants

9

We show in the following that the agents achieve consensus
under the communication-aware attack strategy given in (32)
by using our proposed stochastic communication protocol.

where the right-hand side represents the conditional probability of a successful communication at time ti(k+1)γ−1 .
Hence, to prove (34) it suffices to show

ˆ i > 0, and ϕ̂i ∈ {0, 1}, k ∈ N0 ,
Now, consider γ i ∈ N, ∆
k
i ∈ V, given by (27)–(29) with ∆i = ∆. Note that in this
ˆi = ∆
ˆ j for all i, j ∈ V,
subsection, we have γ i = γ j , ∆
since all agents attempt communication at the same time.
We can thus simplify the notation by setting

i
] ≥ 2q γ ,
P[ϕi(k+1)γ−1 = 1|Hk−1

γ , γ1,

ˆ ,∆
ˆ 1.
∆

k ∈ N0 .

(37)

To show (37), we first consider the case γ = 1. In this case,
ˆ = ∆ and |A(k∆, (k + 1)∆)| = τk < ∆, almost surely.
∆
Moreover, we have

(33)

i
i
] = P[ϕik = 1|Hk−1
]
P[ϕi(k+1)γ−1 = 1|Hk−1
i
= P[tik ∈
/ A(k∆, (k + 1)∆)|Hk−1
]

The analysis of consensus under communication-aware
jamming attacks is quite different from the case with deterministic jamming attacks. Here, we utilize a filtration representing the timing of the attacks and communication attempt
instants. In particular, we consider the filtration {Hki }k∈N0 ,
where Hki denotes the σ-algebra generated by the random
variables a0 , a1 , . . . a(k+1)γ−1 , τ0 , τ1 , . . . , τ(k+1)γ−1 , and
ti0 , ti1 , . . . , ti(k+1)γ−1 . Notice that ϕij , j ∈ {0, . . . , (k +
1)γ − 1}, are Hki -measurable random variables, because
ϕij is determined by aj , τj , and tij . Consequently, ϕ̂ij ,
j ∈ {0, . . . , k}, are also Hki -measurable. In the statement
of the results below, in addition to {Hki }k∈N0 , we also use
i
i
, {∅, Ω}.
, which we define as H−1
the σ-algebra H−1

i
≥ P[{tik ≥ k∆ + ∆} ∩ {τk < ∆}|Hk−1
].

i
Now, since P[τk ≥ ∆] = 0, we have P[τk ≥ ∆|Hk−1
] = 0,
i
almost surely. As a result, P[{tk ≥ k∆ + ∆} ∩ {τk ≥
i
i
∆}|Hk−1
] ≤ P[τk ≥ ∆|Hk−1
] = 0. Hence,
i
P[tik ≥ k∆ + ∆|Hk−1
]
i
= P[{tik ≥ k∆ + ∆} ∩ {τk < ∆}|Hk−1
]
i
+ P[{tik ≥ k∆ + ∆} ∩ {τk ≥ ∆}|Hk−1
]
i
= P[{tik ≥ k∆ + ∆} ∩ {τk < ∆}|Hk−1
].

i
i
].
] ≥ P[tik ≥ k∆ + ∆|Hk−1
P[ϕi(k+1)γ−1 = 1|Hk−1

=

γ

≥ 2q ,

k ∈ N0 ,

i ∈ V,

i
] ≥ P[tik ≥ k∆ + ∆] =
P[ϕi(k+1)γ−1 = 1|Hk−1

=

e
∆
,
∆

ˆ
e , (1 − ρ)(∆ − ∆),
∆
γ+1

∆,

κ
.
1−ρ

∆−∆
∆

ˆ − ∆)
e
ˆ −∆
(1 − ρ)(∆
2∆
∆
≥
=
= 2q,
∆
∆
∆

(41)

which shows that (37) holds when γ = 1.

(34)

e < ∆, we let
Now, consider the case γ ≥ 2. By noting ∆

where
q,

(40)

i
Since, tik is independent of Hk−1
, we have P[tik ≥ k∆ +
i
∆|Hk−1
] = P[tik ≥ k∆ + ∆]. It then follows from (40) that

Lemma 4.4. Consider the stochastic communication protocol in Definition 3.1. For the attacks given by (32), we have
i
1 | Hk−1
]

(39)

By using (38) and (39), we obtain

In what follows our main objective is to show that the agents
can communicate with their neighbors infinitely many times
in the long run satisfying (12), even though the network
faces communication-aware jamming attacks described in
(32). We show this by establishing several key results. First,
we investigate the probability of successful communications
ˆ (k + 1)∆),
ˆ k ∈ N0 . The following
in the intervals [k ∆,
result provides a positive lower-bound for the conditional
ˆ (k+1)∆)
ˆ
probability of a successful communication in [k ∆,
i
given Hk−1 (i.e., the information on all previous intervals).

P[ϕ̂ik

(38)

n

o
e (k + 1)∆ , k ∈ N.
Fk , ω ∈ Ω : tik ∈ (k + 1)∆ − ∆,

(35)

ˆ i , (k +1)∆)
ˆ = [kγ∆, (k +1)γ∆),
Proof. In the interval [k ∆
agent i attempts communication with its neighbors for γ
number of times at time instants tikγ , tikγ+1 , . . . , ti(k+1)γ−1 .
It follows from the definition of ϕ̂ik in (29) and (33) that

Observe that Fk ∈ F denotes the event that the random
e units of
communication attempt time tik falls on the last ∆
time in the interval [k∆, (k + 1)∆). Consider the interval
ˆ (k + 1)∆).
ˆ Notice that the communication attempts in
[k ∆,
this interval occur at time instants tikγ , tikγ+1 , . . . , ti(k+1)γ−1 .
Let the events Gk ∈ F , k ∈ N0 , be given by

i
i
P[ϕ̂ik = 1|Hk−1
] ≥ P[ϕi(k+1)γ−1 = 1|Hk−1
],

Gk , Fkγ ∩ Fkγ+1 ∩ · · · ∩ F(k+1)γ−2 ,

(36)

10

k ∈ N0 .

(42)

Thus, since ti(k+1)γ−1 is independent of A(bk , ck ), Gk , and
i
Hk−1
, we obtain

It follows that
i
]
P[ϕi(k+1)γ−1 = 1|Hk−1

i
]
P[{ϕi(k+1)γ−1 = 1} ∩ Gk |Hk−1
i
e
≥ P[t
> dk − 2∆]

i
= P[{ϕi(k+1)γ−1 = 1} ∩ Gk |Hk−1
]
i
+ P[{ϕi(k+1)γ−1 = 1} ∩ Gck |Hk−1
]
i
].
≥ P[{ϕi(k+1)γ−1 = 1} ∩ Gk |Hk−1

(k+1)γ−1

i
e ∩ Gk |Hk−1
]
· P[{|A(bk , ck )| ≥ (γ − 1)(∆ − ∆)}
i
e ∩ Gk |H
= 2qP[{|A(bk , ck )| ≥ (γ − 1)(∆ − ∆)}
k−1 ].
(49)

(43)

In the remainder of the proof, we will show
i
i
P[{ϕi(k+1)γ−1 = 1} ∩ Gk |Hk−1
] ≥ 2qP[Gk |Hk−1
]

(44)

Here, we have Gk ⊆ {ω ∈ Ω : |A(bk , ck )| ≥ (γ − 1)(∆ −
e
e and hence {|A(bk , ck )| ≥ (γ −1)(∆− ∆)}∩G
∆)}
k = Gk .
This is because, for every outcome ω ∗ ∈ Gk , the first γ − 1
e
communication attempts of agent i happen in the last ∆
units of time in their respective intervals, and thus
by
(32),


the total duration of the attacks in the interval bk , ck is at
e units of time, implying ω ∗ ∈ {ω ∈
least (γ − 1)(∆ − ∆)
e
Ω : |A(bk , ck )| ≥ (γ − 1)(∆ − ∆)}.
Using {|A(bk , ck )| ≥
e ∩ Gk = Gk , we obtain (44) from (49).
(γ − 1)(∆ − ∆)}

and
i
P[Gk |Hk−1
] = P[Gk ] = q γ−1 .

(45)

We will then use (43)–(45) to show (37).
To establish (44), we first simplify the presentation and define the time instants bk , kγ∆, ck , (k + 1)γ∆ − ∆, and
dk , (k + 1)γ∆, for k ∈ N0 . Observe that [bk , ck ) gives
the union of the first γ − 1 number of ∆-length intervals
ˆ (k + 1)∆),
ˆ and moreover, [ck , dk ) gives the last ∆in [k ∆,
length interval. Hence,
i
]
P[{ϕi(k+1)γ−1 = 1} ∩ Gk |Hk−1
i
/ A(ck , dk )}
= P[{t(k+1)γ−1 ∈
i
e
≥ P[{t(k+1)γ−1 > dk − 2∆}

∩

Next, we show (45). First of all, we note that Gk is indei
pendent of Hk−1
. Therefore,
i
P[Gk |Hk−1
] = P[Gk ].

To compute P[Gk ], we note that tikγ , tikγ+1 , . . . , ti(k+1)γ−2
are independent, and thus, the events Fkγ , Fkγ+1 , · · · ,
F(k+1)γ−2 are also independent. As a result,

i
Gk |Hk−1
]

e ∩ Gk |Hi ]].
∩ {|A(ck , dk )| ≤ ∆ − 2∆}
k−1

(46)

P[Gk ] = P[Fkγ ∩ Fkγ+1 ∩ · · · ∩ F(k+1)γ−2 ]
∆
e γ−1
= q γ−1 .
= P[Fkγ ] · · · P[F(k+1)γ−2 ] =
∆

By noting that [kγ∆, (k + 1)γ∆) = [bk , dk ) = [bk , ck ) ∪
[ck , dk ), we obtain |A(ck , dk )| = |A(bk , dk )| − |A(bk , ck )|.
It then follows from Assumption 2.1 that
ˆ − |A(bk , ck )|.
|A(ck , dk )| ≤ κ + ρ∆

ˆ − ∆ + 2∆}
e
= {|A(bk , ck )| ≥ κ + ρ∆
e
= {|A(bk , ck )| ≥ (γ − 1)(∆ − ∆)}.

(51)

Hence, (45) follows from (50) and (51). Finally, we use
(43)–(45) to obtain (37), leading us to (34).

(47)
i
In (34), the conditional probability term P[ϕ̂ik = 1 | Hk−1
]
i
is an Hk−1 -measurable random variable. Furthermore, its
expectation gives the probability of having ϕ̂k = 1, i.e.,
i
P[ϕ̂k = 1] = E[P[ϕ̂ik = 1 | Hk−1
]]. Hence, Lemma 4.4 implies P[ϕ̂k ] > 0, k ∈ N0 . In other words, for each interˆ (k + 1)∆),
ˆ our stochastic communication protocol
val [k ∆,
guarantees a positive probability for a successful communication.

e < ∆, we use (47) to show that the events
Noting that 2∆
e ∈ F and {|A(bk , ck )| ≥ (γ −
{|A(ck , dk )| ≤ ∆ − 2∆}
e
1)(∆ − ∆)} ∈ F satisfy
e
{|A(ck , dk )| ≤ ∆ − 2∆}
e
ˆ − |A(bk , ck )| ≤ ∆ − 2∆}
⊇ {κ + ρ∆

(50)

In the proof of Lemma 4.4, we consider the interval
ˆ i , (k + 1)∆)
ˆ that is composed of γ number of ∆-length
[k ∆
intervals. In each of these ∆-length intervals, agent i attempts to communicate once. In our approach, we find a
i
lower bound for P[ϕ̂ik = 1 | Hk−1
] (the conditional probability that at least 1 out of γ communication attempts is
successful). This is done by computing a lower bound for
i
P[ϕi(k+1)γ−1 = 1|Hk−1
], which is the conditional probability that the last attempt is successful. The key method in

(48)

As a consequence of (46) and (48), we obtain
i
]
P[{ϕi(k+1)γ−1 = 1} ∩ Gk |Hk−1
e
≥ P[{ti
> dk − 2∆}
(k+1)γ−1

e ∩ Gk |Hi ].
∩ {|A(bk , ck )| ≥ (γ − 1)(∆ − ∆)}
k−1
11

i
-measurable, from (55), we obtain
HÑ−1

deriving this bound is the construction of the event Gk given
in (42). Here, Gk is the event that the first γ − 1 number of
e units
communication attempts of agent i happen in the last ∆
of time in their respective ∆-length intervals. If Gk happens, then it means that the attacker needs to use sufficiently
large jamming resources to block those first γ − 1 attempts.
As a result, the attacker would not have enough resources
left to guarantee blocking the last attempt. This allows us to
i
compute a lower bound of P[{ϕi(k+1)γ−1 = 1} ∩ Gk |Hk−1
].
i
i
We then use the inequality P[ϕ(k+1)γ−1 = 1|Hk−1 ] ≥
i
P[{ϕi(k+1)γ−1 = 1} ∩ Gk |Hk−1
] to arrive at the result (34).
This result is crucial in proving the following lemma.

P

k=0

P[

{ϕ̂ik

= ϕk+1 }] ≤

N
Y

j=1

k=0


1 − 2q (1 − ϕj ) ,
γ

−1
h ÑY


{ϕ̂ik = ϕk+1 } = E
1[ϕ̂ik = ϕk+1 ]
k=0

i

i
.
· E 1[ϕ̂iÑ = ϕÑ +1 ]|HÑ
−1

i
]ϕ
= P[ϕ̂iÑ = 1|HÑ
−1 Ñ +1

i
+ P[ϕ̂iÑ = 0|HÑ
](1 − ϕÑ +1 )
−1

≤ ϕÑ +1 + (1 − 2q γ )(1 − ϕÑ+1 )
= 1 − 2q γ (1 − ϕÑ +1 ).

(52)

P

Ñ
\

{ϕ̂ik = ϕk+1 }

k=0

k=0


=E

−1
i
P[∩N
k=0 {ϕ̂k = ϕk+1 }]

= P[ϕ̂i0 = ϕ1 ] = P[ϕ̂i0 = 1]ϕ1 + P[ϕ̂i0 = 0](1 − ϕ1 )
(53)

=P

i
By Lemma 4.4, we have P[ϕ̂i0 = 0|H−1
] = 1 − P[ϕ̂i0 =
i
γ
i
1|H−1 ] ≤ 1 − 2q . Hence, P[ϕ̂0 = 0] = E[P[ϕ̂i0 =
i
i
0|H−1
]] = E[1 − P[ϕ̂i0 = 1|H−1
]] ≤ E[1 − 2q γ ] = 1 − 2q γ .
As a result, ϕ1 + P[ϕ̂i0 = 0](1 − ϕ1 ) ≤ ϕ1 + (1 − 2q γ )(1 −
ϕ1 ) = 1 − 2q γ (1 − ϕ1 ). Thus, we have (52) for N = 1.

{ϕ̂ik = ϕk+1 }] ≤

Ñ
Y

j=1

k=0


1 − 2q γ (1 − ϕj ) .

Ñ
\

(54)

Ñ

Y

{ϕ̂ik = ϕk+1 } = E
1[ϕ̂ik = ϕk+1 ]

k=0

k=0



{ϕ̂ik = ϕk+1 } 1 − 2q γ (1 − ϕÑ +1 ) .

(58)

Proposition 4.6. Consider the attack strategy described by
(32). Under the stochastic communication protocol in Definition 3.1, we have

k=0

Ñ

Y
i
.
=E
1[ϕ̂ik = ϕk+1 ]|HÑ
−1

k=0

Ñ\
−1




1 − 2q γ (1 − ϕÑ +1 )
1 ϕ̂ik = ϕk+1

Lemma 4.5 provides an upper bound for the probability of
the event that the random variables ϕ̂i0 , ϕ̂i1 , . . . , ϕ̂iN −1 take
the particular values ϕ1 , ϕ2 , . . . , ϕN ∈ {0, 1}, respectively.
This result is important because the upper-bound can be
given in terms of the scalar q, which depends on ρ and
κ characterizing the attacker’s capabilities as well as the
parameter ∆ of the communication protocol. Notice that if
the sequence ϕ1 , ϕ2 , . . . , ϕN is formed of m number of 1s
and N − m number of 0s, then the probability bound in (52)
is given by (1−2q γ )N −m . The following result is built upon
this observation.

We will show that (52) holds for N = Ñ + 1. Observe

P



Ñ
−1
Y

Finally, by using (54) and (58), we obtain (52) with N =
Ñ + 1, which completes the proof.

Next, assume (52) holds for N = Ñ > 2, that is
Ñ\
−1



−1


 ÑY

1 − 2q γ (1 − ϕÑ +1 )
≤E
1 ϕ̂ik = ϕk+1

Proof. We show (52) by induction. First, we consider the
case where N = 1. In this case, we obtain

P[

(57)

It then follows from (56) and (57) that

for ϕ1 , ϕ2 , . . . , ϕN ∈ {0, 1} and N ∈ N.

≤ ϕ1 + P[ϕ̂i0 = 0](1 − ϕ1 ).

(56)

i
By Lemma 4.4, we have P[ϕ̂iÑ = 0|HÑ−1
] = 1 − P[ϕ̂iÑ =
i
1|H−1
] ≤ 1 − 2q γ . Thus,
h 
 i i
i
E 1 ϕ̂iÑ = ϕÑ +1 |HÑ
= P[ϕ̂iÑ = ϕÑ+1 |HÑ
]
−1
−1

Lemma 4.5. Consider the attack strategy described by
(32). Under the stochastic communication protocol in Definition 3.1, we have
N\
−1

Ñ
\

(55)
P[

k=0

N
−1
X
k=0

Since the random variables ϕ̂ik , k ∈ {0, . . . , Ñ − 1}, are

12

ϕ̂ik ≥ M ] ≥ 1 −

M−1
X
m=0

N!
(1 − 2q γ )N −m ,
m!(N − m)!
(59)

for all M ∈ {0, 1, . . . , N } and N ∈ N.
Proof. First, we obtain
Figure 4. Communication topology of the multi-agent system.

P[

N
−1
X

ϕ̂ik ≥ M ] = 1 − P[

−1
M−1
[ NX

{

m=0

k=0

≥1−

M−1
X
m=0

P[

N
−1
X

PN −1 i
To this end, first let AN , {ω ∈ Ω :
k=0 ϕ̂k ≥ M },
N ∈ N. Notice that P[AN ] = 0 for N < M . For N ≥ M ,
Proposition 4.6 implies

ϕ̂ik = m}]

k=0

ϕ̂ik = m].

(60)

k=0

P[AN ] ≥ 1 −

m=0

Now, let ΠiN,m , {ϕ ∈ {0, 1}N : ϕT ϕ = m} for m ∈
{0, 1, . . . , M } and N ∈ {M, M + 1, . . .}. Notice that

P[

N
−1
X

X

≤

−1
i
P[∩N
k=0 {ϕ̂k = ϕk+1 }].

(61)

P[

ϕ∈ΠiN,m

N
−1
X

X

ϕ̂ik = m] ≤

N
Y

ϕ∈ΠiN,m j=1

k=0


1 − 2q γ (1 − ϕj ) .

P[

ϕ̂ik = m] ≤

k=0

X

(62)

N →∞

N →∞

Theorem 4.8. Consider the multi-agent system (1), (7) with
i
T i ∈ (0, min{ 2dε i , ∆2 }) where ε > 0. For the attack strategy
described by (32), x(t) converges in finite time to a vector
x∗ ∈ Rn belonging to the set Dε given by (2), almost surely.

(1 − 2q γ )N −m

N!
(1 − 2q γ )N −m .
m!(N − m)!

ϕ̂ik ≥ M ] = P[ lim AN ] = lim P[AN ] = 1. (66)

Theorem 4.7 shows that the agents can communicate with
their neighbors infinitely many times in the long run, even
though the network is attacked by an attacker that follows the
communication-aware attack strategy described in (32). The
next theorem is the main result for the multi-agent system
under communication-aware attacks.

ϕ∈ΠiN,m

=

(65)

P∞
P∞
Finally, since P[ k=0 ϕk ≥ M ] ≥ P[ k=0 ϕ̂k ≥ M ], it
follows from (66) that (12) holds.


Q
γ N −m
γ
Note that N
for ϕ ∈
j=1 1−2q (1−ϕj ) = (1−2q )
N!
i
i
ΠN,m . Furthermore, the set ΠN,m has m!(N −m)! elements.
Therefore, it follows from (62) that
N
−1
X

∞
X

k=0

By using Lemma 4.5 we obtain from (61) that

P[

N!
(1 − 2q γ )N −m .
m!(N − m)!

Since 1−2q γ < 1, it follows from (65) that limN →∞ P[AN ] =
1. The events AN , N ∈ N, satisfy AN ⊆ AN +1 . Hence,
by the monotone-convergence theorem for sets (see Section 1.10 in Williams (1991)),

−1
i
ϕ̂ik = m] = P[∪ϕ∈ΠiN,m ∩N
k=0 {ϕ̂k = ϕk+1 }]

k=0

M−1
X

(63)

Proof. By Theorem 4.7, we have (12). Consequently, the
result follows from Theorem 3.3.

Finally, by using (60) and (63), we arrive at (59).

Theorem 4.7. Consider the attack strategy described by
(32). Under the stochastic communication protocol in Definition 3.1, the equality in (12) holds.

So far we considered the consensus problem under both
deterministic attacks and communication-aware attacks. In
both cases, the randomness in the communication attempt
times is the key property that enables consensus regardless
of the frequency of jamming. A difference is that the attacker following the communication-aware attack strategy
can sense the network activity and switch off the jamming
attack right after blocking a communication attempt. This
allows the attacker to preserve energy. This is further illustrated through numerical examples in the next section.

Proof. Our initial goal is to show

5 Numerical Examples

Proposition 4.6 provides a lower bound of the probability
that agent i can communicate with its neighbors at least
ˆ Notice that as N apM times during the interval [0, N ∆).
proaches ∞, this lower bound approaches 1.

P[

∞
X

ϕ̂ik ≥ M ] = 1,

M ∈ N0 ,

i ∈ V.

In this section, we illustrate our results for the multi-agent
system with n = 6 agents whose topology is shown in
Figure 4.

(64)

k=0

13

Table 1
Mean mC and standard deviation sC of consensus times for different values of ρ and σ in deterministic attacks (67).
σ = 101

σ = 103

σ = 105

ρ

mC

sC

mC

sC

mC

sC

0.2

2.069

0.008

2.063

0.017

2.072

0.017

0.5

3.319

0.007

3.259

0.043

3.279

0.054

0.8

8.290

0.037

8.115

0.133

8.118

0.166

ρ > 0 indicates the ratio of the duration of attacks in each
period. For each ρ ∈ {0.2, 0.5, 0.8} and σ ∈ {101 , 103 , 105 }
we repeat the simulation 50 times. For each simulation j ∈
{1, . . . , 50}, we calculate tC (j) , inf{t : xi (t) ∈ Dε , i ∈
V}, which is the time agents reach consensus. Then we
obtain their mean mC > 0 and standard deviation sC > 0.
Figure 5. Evolution of agent states under deterministic attacks with
low frequency (top) and high frequency (bottom) settings.

Table 1 indicates that increasing the ratio ρ of the attack
duration allows the attacker to delay the consensus. On the
other hand, consensus time is not influenced by how frequent
the attacks are. For each value of ρ, mean consensus time mC
is about the same value under all attack frequency settings
σ = 101 , 103 , 105 . Furthermore, consensus times are finite
in all simulations and they do not show much deviation (i.e.,
sC is small) in all cases. The cases with ρ = 0.8 indicate that
periodic attacks and the attack timings shown in Figure 5
do not differ much in their effects on consensus times.

5.1 Deterministic Attacks
We first consider a deterministic attack scenario where the
strategy of the attacker satisfies Assumptions 2.1 and 4.1
with κ = 0.2, ρ = 0.8. We utilize our proposed stochastic
communication protocol with ∆i = 0.001 + 0.0001(i + 1),
i ∈ V. For the control laws (7), we choose T i = ∆i /2.1,
i
which satisfy T i ∈ (0, min{ 2dε i , ∆2 }) with ε = 0.02. Since
Proposition 4.2 implies (12), it follows from Theorem 3.3
that the multi-agent system achieves consensus.

5.2 Communication-Aware Attacks

In the top part of Figure 5, we show sample paths of agent
states under jamming attacks with low frequency. We see that
consensus is achieved around the time t = 8.2. Each agent
i attempts to communicate once at a random time instant at
every ∆i units of time. The agents keep their states constant
during long jamming intervals.

Next, we consider the scenario where the attacker follows
the communication-aware attack strategy of (32) with the
same parameters κ = 0.2 and ρ = 0.8 as in Section 5.1.
In this scenario, the intervals for the communication are selected as ∆i = ∆ = 0.001, i ∈ V. Similar to the deterministic case discussed above, for the control law (7), we choose
i
T i = ∆/2.1, i ∈ V, which satisfy T i ∈ (0, min{ 2dε i , ∆2 })
with ε = 0.02. Furthermore, Theorem 4.7 implies that (12)
holds. Therefore, it follows from Theorem 3.3 that the multiagent system with the stochastic communication protocol
achieves consensus.

The attack depicted in the top part of Figure 5 is of low
frequency, as the jamming is turned on and off only 14 times
during the interval [0, 10]. We also consider a high frequency
case in the bottom plot of Figure 5, where jamming is turned
on and off 15908 times during the interval [0, 10], but the
agent communication attempt times are the same as those in
the top plot. Also in this case, the agents reach the consensus
set Dε around the time t = 8.1. Both the low and the high
frequency attacks in Figure 5 are generated randomly and
independently of the communication attempt times of the
agents. Through repeated simulations, we also observe that
consensus is reached around the same time.

We show the evolution of the agent states in Figure 6. Notice
that every communication attempt in the interval [0, 3.18]
is blocked by the attacker. However, the attacker’s energy
resources eventually become not sufficient. We observe in
the enlarged plot in the bottom part of Figure 6 that some
of the communication attempts cannot be blocked by the
attacker and the agents eventually achieve consensus.

Next, we consider periodically generated jamming attacks
with
(1 − ρ)
k
,
ak , +
σ
σ

ρ
τk , ,
σ

k ∈ N0 ,

Even though the value of ρ is the same with ρ = 0.8 as
in deterministic attacks case of the previous example, the
communication-aware attacks can be more malicious in the
sense that they can delay consensus (compare Figures 5 and
6). To further investigate how ρ and κ affect the consensus
time, we run simulations with different values of ρ and κ

(67)

where σ > 0 denotes the frequency of attacks (i.e., the
number of attack intervals in 1 unit of time). Moreover,

14

sensus as long as the jamming attacks satisfy a certain condition on the average ratio of their duration. We demonstrated our results both for a deterministic attack strategy
and a communication-aware attack strategy.
The analysis in this paper enables a natural extension to the
case with multiple jamming attackers that can attack different links at different times. In such a problem setting,
if the deterministic or the communication-aware attack for
each communication link satisfies Assumption 2.1, then two
agents can communicate over that link infinitely many times
in the long run. This allows agents to achieve consensus
through a modified control law where each agent can communicate with different neighbors at different times.
References
Awerbuch, B., R. Curtmola, D. Holmer, C. Nita-Rotaru and H. Rubens
(2008). ODSBR: An on-demand secure Byzantine resilient routing
protocol for wireless ad hoc networks. ACM Trans. Inf. and System
Security 10(4), 6.

Figure 6. Evolution of agent states under communication-aware
attacks.

Azadmanesh, M. H. and R. M. Kieckhafer (2002). Asynchronous
approximate agreement in partially connected networks. Int. J.
Parallel Distrib. Syst. Netw. 5(1), 26–34.
Boyd, S., A. Ghosh, B. Prabhakar and D. Shah (2006). Randomized
gossip algorithms. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 14, 2508–2530.
Cetinkaya, A., H. Ishii and T. Hayakawa (2017a). Networked control under
random and malicious packet losses. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control
62(5), 2434–2449.

Figure 7. Effect of the bound ρ of average attack duration ratio to
consensus time tC for different values of κ.

Cetinkaya, A., H. Ishii and T. Hayakawa (2017b). Wireless control under
jamming attacks with bounded average interference power. In: Proc.
IFAC World Congress. Vol. 50. pp. 8405–8410.

but with the same communication attempt times used for
constructing Figure 6. We observe in Figure7 that consensus
time tC increases as ρ increases. The scalar κ ≥ 0 also has
an effect on the consensus time. In particular, increasing
κ delays the consensus, since the duration for continuous
jamming becomes larger.

De Persis, C. and P. Frasca (2013). Robust self-triggered coordination with
ternary controllers. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 58(12), 3024–3038.
De Persis, C. and P. Tesi (2016). Networked control of nonlinear systems
under denial-of-service. Syst. Control Lett. 96, 124–131.
Dibaji, S. M. and H. Ishii (2017). Resilient consensus of second-order
agent networks: Asynchronous update rules with delays. Automatica
81, 123–132.

We remark that in communication-aware attacks, the attacker
turns jamming on and off once in every ∆-length intervals.
Hence, the frequency of attacks is equal to the frequency of
communication attempts. This case is outside the class of
attacks considered previously in Senejohnny et al. (2015).
On the other hand, the class of attacks under which our
communication protocol allows consensus is not restricted
by the frequency of attacks. Specifically, as long as the the
average ratio of the duration of attacks in the long run is
bounded by ρ < 1, consensus can be achieved.

Dibaji, S. M., H. Ishii and R. Tempo (2016). Resilient randomized
quantized consensus with delayed information. In: Proc. IEEE Conf.
Dec. Control pp. 3505-3510. Also, to appear, IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control 2018.
Fawzi, H., P. Tabuada and S. Diggavi (2014). Secure estimation and
control for cyber-physical systems under adversarial attacks. IEEE
Trans. Autom. Control 59(6), 1454–1467.
Feng, Shuai and Pietro Tesi (2017). Resilient control under Denial-ofService: Robust design. Automatica 79, 42–51.
Karr, Alan (1993). Probability. Springer.
Kikuchi, K., A. Cetinkaya, T. Hayakawa and H. Ishii (2017). Stochastic
communication protocols for multi-agent consensus under jamming
attacks. In: Proc. IEEE Conf. Dec. Control. pp. 1657–1662.

6 Conclusion

LeBlanc, H. J., H. Zhang, X. Koutsoukos and S. Sundaram (2013).
Resilient asymptotic consensus in robust networks. IEEE J. Sel.
Areas Commun. 31(4), 766–781.

We proposed a stochastic communication protocol for multiagent consensus under jamming attacks. In this protocol,
agents attempt to exchange information with their neighbors
at uniformly distributed random time instants. We showed
that our proposed communication protocol guarantees con-

Lynch, N. A. (1996). Distributed Algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann.
Mahmoud, M. M. E. A. and X. S. Shen (2014). Security for Multi-hop
Wireless Networks. Springer.

15

the following result, which shows that if T i is sufficiently
small, then two consecutive communication attempt interval
lengths tik+1 − tik and tik+2 − tik+1 cannot be both smaller
than T i .

Mo, Y., W. Garone, A. Casavola and B. Sinopoli (2010). False data
injection attacks against state estimation in wireless sensor networks.
In: Proc. IEEE Conf. Dec. Control. pp. 5967–5972.
Navda, V., A. Bohra, S. Ganguly and D. Rubenstein (2007). Using channel
hopping to increase 802.11 resilience to jamming attacks. In: Proc.
IEEE INFOCOM. pp. 2526–2530.

i

Lemma A.1. If T i ∈ (0, ∆2 ), then for all k ∈ N0 ,

Pelechrinis, K., M. Iliofotou and S. V. Krishnamurty (2011). Denial of
service attacks in wireless networks: The case of jammers. IEEE
Commun. Surveys Tuts. 13(2), 245–257.

1[tik+1 − tik ≤ T i ]1[tik+2 − tik+1 ≤ T i ] = 0.

Pöpper, C., M. Strasser and S. Čapkun (2010). Anti-jamming broadcast
communication using uncoordinated spread spectrum techniques.
IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 28(5), 703–715.

(69)

Proof. If tik+1 − tik > T i or tik+2 − tik+1 > T i , then (69)
holds. In the remainder, we show (69) holds for the case
where tik+1 − tik ≤ T i as well as the case where tik+2 −
tik+1 ≤ T i . In both cases we use the inequality 2T i < ∆i
and the fact that tik+2 − tik ≥ ∆i , k ∈ N0 , which is a
consequence of Definition 3.1. Let ei , ∆i − 2T i .

Sandberg, H., S. Amin and K. H. Johansson (2015). Cyberphysical security
in networked control systems: An introduction to the issue. IEEE
Control Syst. Mag. 35(1), 20–23.
Senejohnny, D., P. Tesi and C. De Persis (2015). Self-triggered
coordination over a shared network under denial-of-service. In: Proc.
IEEE Conf. Dec. Control. pp. 3469–3474.
Senejohnny, D., P. Tesi and C. De Persis (2017). A jamming-resilient
algorithm
for
self-triggered
network coordination. IEEE Trans. Control Netw. Syst., to appear.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TCNS.2017.2668901.

First, for the case where tik+1 − tik ≤ T i , we have
1[tik+2 − tik+1 ≤ T i ] = 1[tik+2 − tik ≤ T i + tik+1 − tik ]

Shisheh-Foroush, H. and S. Martínez (2016). On triggering control of
single-input linear systems under pulse-width modulated DoS signals.
SIAM J. Control Optim. 54(6), 3084–3105.

≤ 1[tik+2 − tik ≤ 2T i ] ≤ 1[tik+2 − tik ≤ ∆i − ei ] = 0,

Tahbaz-Salehi, A. and A. Jadbabaie (2010). Consensus over ergodic
stationary graph processes. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 55(1), 225–
230.

which implies (69). Similarly, for the case where tik+2 −
tik+1 ≤ T i ,

Tseng, L. and N. H. Vaidya (2015). Fault-tolerant consensus in directed
graphs. In: Proc. ACM Symp. Princ. Distrib. Computing. pp. 451–
460.

1[tik+1 − tik ≤ T i ] = 1[tik+2 − tik ≤ T i + tik+2 − tik+1 ]
≤ 1[tik+2 − tik ≤ 2T i ] ≤ 1[tik+2 − tik ≤ ∆i − ei ] = 0,

Williams, D. (1991). Probability with Martingales. Cambridge University
Press.

which implies (69).

Xu, W., W. Trappe, Y. Zhang and T. Wood (2005). The feasibility of
launching and detecting jamming attacks in wireless networks. In:
Proc. ACM Int. Symp. Mobile Ad Hoc Network. Computing. pp. 46–
57.

Now by using (68) and Lemma A.1, we can prove
Lemma 3.2.

You, K., Z. Li and L. Xie (2013). Consensus condition for linear
multi-agent systems over randomly switching topologies. Automatica
49(10), 3125–3132.
Zhang, Y. and Y.-P. Tian (2010). Consensus of data-sampled multi-agent
systems with random communication delay and packet loss. IEEE
Trans. Autom. Control 55(4), 939–943.

Proof of Lemma 3.2. To establish (11), we will first show
that

Appendix: Proof of Lemma 3.2

N
X

k=0

The proof of Lemma 3.2 relies on two key properties of
the communication success/failure indicator ϕik and control
input application duration θki from (8). First of all, we have

+

−

tik )1[tik+1

−

tik

N −1
Ti X i
Ti
ϕk + ϕiN
2
2
k=0

Ti i
1[tN +1 − tiN ≤ T i ]
2
− ϕiN ϕiN +1 T i 1[tiN +1 − tiN ≤ T i ]

+

ϕik θki = ϕik T i − ϕik ϕik+1 T i 1[tik+1 − tik ≤ T i ]
ϕik ϕik+1 (tik+1

ϕik θki ≥

ϕiN

(70)

holds for all N ∈ N. This is done by induction. For the case
of N = 1, we have by (68),

i

≤ T ], k ∈ N0 .

N
X

Now, since ϕik ϕik+1 (tik+1 − tik )1[tik+1 − tik ≤ T i ] ≥ 0, we
obtain

ϕik θki = ϕi0 T i − ϕi0 ϕi1 T i 1[ti1 − ti0 ≤ T i ]

k=0

ϕik θki

≥

ϕik T i

−

ϕik ϕik+1 T i 1[tik+1

−

tik

i

≤ T ],

(68)

for all k ∈ N0 . This inequality is an important consequence of our control approach. Another consequence is

+ ϕi1 T i − ϕi1 ϕi2 T i 1[ti2 − ti1 ≤ T i ].

(71)

Lemma A.1 indicates that at least one of the binary-valued
random variables 1[ti1 − ti0 ≤ T i ] and 1[ti2 − ti1 ≤ T i ] is

16

zero. In the case where 1[ti1 − ti0 ≤ T i ] = 0, by (71), we
have
N
X

from (75) that
Ñ
+1
X

ϕik θki = ϕi0 T i + ϕi1 T i − ϕi1 ϕi2 T i 1[ti2 − ti1 ≤ T i ]

k=0

k=0

≥ ϕi0

Ti
+ ϕi1 T i − ϕi1 ϕi2 T i 1[ti2 − ti1 ≤ T i ].
2

(72)
=

Ti
Ti
Ti
+ ϕi1
+ ϕi1 1[ti2 − ti1 ≤ T i ]
2
2
2
− ϕi1 ϕi2 T i 1[ti2 − ti1 ≤ T i ].

Ñ
+1
X

T
ϕi0

≥

i

2

k=0

−

+

T
ϕi1

i

2

ϕi1 ϕi2 T i 1[ti2

+

T
ϕi1

−

ti1

i

2

1[ti2

−

ti1

ϕik θki

=

Ñ −1
Ti
Ti
Ti X i
+ ϕiÑ
ϕk + ϕiÑ
≥
2
2
2
k=0

k=0

(73)



i
i
Hence, noting that ϕi1 T2 ≥ ϕi1 T2 1 ti2 − ti1 ≤ T i , by (72)
and (73), we obtain
ϕik θki

− ϕiÑ ϕiÑ +1 T i + ϕiÑ +1 T i

Ñ −1
Ti X i
ϕk + ϕiÑ T i − ϕiÑ ϕiÑ +1 T i + ϕiÑ +1 T i .
2
k=0

i
h
Now, noting that 1 tiÑ +2 − tiÑ +1 ≤ T i = 0 and ϕiÑ −

i

≤T ]

i

ϕiÑ ϕiÑ +1 T i + ϕiÑ +1 T i ≥ (ϕiÑ + ϕiÑ +1 ) T2 , we obtain

i

≤ T ],

Ñ
+1
X

which implies (70) for N = 1.

Ñ −1
Ti
Ti
Ti X i
+ ϕiÑ +1
ϕk + ϕiÑ
2
2
2

ϕik θki ≥

k=0

k=0

Next, assume (70) holds for N = Ñ ≥ 2. We must show
that (70) holds for N = Ñ + 1. To this end, first note that
Ñ
+1
X

ϕik θki =

Ñ
X

i
ϕik θki + ϕiÑ +1 θÑ
.
+1

=

(74)

k=0

i

Ti
2

(77)

i

we use (76) and (77) to obtain (70) with N = Ñ + 1.
Finally, to show (11), we consider (70) for two cases.
First, for the case where 1[tiÑ+2 − tiÑ +1 ≤ T i ] = 0, from
P
PN −1 i
Ti
i i
i Ti
(70), we obtain N
k=0 ϕk θk ≥ 2
k=0 ϕk + ϕN 2 ≥
PN −1 i
Ti
k=0 ϕk . On the other hand for the case where
2
i
1[tÑ+2 − tiÑ +1 ≤ T i ] = 1, (70) implies

ϕik θki
Ñ−1
Ti
Ti
Ti X i
+ ϕiÑ 1[tiÑ +1 − tiÑ ≤ T i ]
ϕk + ϕiÑ
2
2
2
k=0

− ϕiÑ ϕiÑ +1 T i 1[tiÑ+1 − tiÑ ≤ T i ] + ϕiÑ +1 T i
− ϕiÑ +1 ϕiÑ +2 T i 1[tiÑ +2 − tiÑ +1 ≤ T i ].

ϕik + ϕiÑ +1

By noting that ϕiÑ +1 T2 ≥ ϕiÑ +1 T2 1[tiÑ +2 − tiÑ+1 ≤ T i ],

k=0

≥

T
2

Ti i
1[tÑ+2 − tiÑ +1 ≤ T i ]
2
− ϕiÑ +1 ϕiÑ +2 T i 1[tiÑ +2 − tiÑ +1 ≤ T i ].

Now, by using (68) (with k = Ñ + 1) and (70) (with N =
Ñ ), it follows from (74) that
Ñ
+1
X

Ñ
i X

+ ϕiÑ +1

k=0

k=0

(76)

Next, in the case where 1[tiÑ +1 − tiÑ ≤ T i ] = 1 and
1[tiÑ+2 − tiÑ +1 ≤ T i ] = 0, we have

= ϕi0

N
X

Ñ
Ti X i
ϕk + ϕiÑ +1 T i
2

− ϕiÑ +1 ϕiÑ +2 T i 1[tiÑ +2 − tiÑ +1 ≤ T i ].

Ti
Ti
ϕik θki = ϕi0 T i − ϕi0 ϕi1 T i + ϕi1 T i ≥ ϕi0
+ ϕi1
2
2

k=0

k=0

− ϕiÑ +1 ϕiÑ +2 T i 1[tiÑ +2 − tiÑ +1 ≤ T i ]

k=0

Furthermore, in the case where 1[ti1 − ti0 ≤ T i ] = 1 and
1[ti2 − ti1 ≤ T i ] = 0, we have
N
X

Ñ −1
Ti X i
Ti
+ ϕiÑ +1 T i
ϕk + ϕiÑ
2
2

ϕik θki ≥

N
X

(75)

k=0

By Lemma A.1, at least one of the binary-valued random
variables 1[tiÑ+1 − tiÑ ≤ T i ] and 1[tiÑ +2 − tiÑ +1 ≤ T i ] is
i
h
zero. In the case where 1 tiÑ +1 − tiÑ ≤ T i = 0, it follows

ϕik θki ≥

N −1
Ti X i
ϕk + ϕiN T i − ϕiN ϕiN +1 T i .
2

(78)

k=0

Since ϕiN T i − ϕiN ϕiN +1 T i = ϕiN T i (1 − ϕiN +1 ) ≥ 0, the
inequality (78) implies (11).

17

