Advertisement

Autonomous Robots

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 743–768 | Cite as

Resilient distributed state estimation with mobile agents: overcoming Byzantine adversaries, communication losses, and intermittent measurements

  • Aritra MitraEmail author
  • John A. Richards
  • Saurabh Bagchi
  • Shreyas Sundaram
Article
  • 182 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Issue: Foundations of Resilience for Networked Robotic Systems

Abstract

Applications in environmental monitoring, surveillance and patrolling typically require a network of mobile agents to collectively gain information regarding the state of a static or dynamical process evolving over a region. However, these networks of mobile agents also introduce various challenges, including intermittent observations of the dynamical process, loss of communication links due to mobility and packet drops, and the potential for malicious or faulty behavior by some of the agents. The main contribution of this paper is the development of resilient, fully-distributed, and provably correct state estimation algorithms that simultaneously account for each of the above considerations, and in turn, offer a general framework for reasoning about state estimation problems in dynamic, failure-prone and adversarial environments. Specifically, we develop a simple switched linear observer for dealing with the issue of time-varying measurement models, and resilient filtering techniques for dealing with worst-case adversarial behavior subject to time-varying communication patterns among the agents. Our approach considers both communication patterns that recur in a deterministic manner, and patterns that are induced by random packet drops. For each scenario, we identify conditions on the dynamical system, the patrols, the nominal communication network topology, and the failure models that guarantee applicability of our proposed techniques. Finally, we complement our theoretical results with detailed simulations that illustrate the efficacy of our algorithms in the presence of the technical challenges described above.

Keywords

Distributed state estimation Byzantine attacks Resilient robotic teams Situational awareness 

Notes

References

  1. Abazeed, M., Faisal, N., Zubair, S., & Ali, A. (2013). Routing protocols for wireless multimedia sensor network: a survey. Journal of Sensors.Google Scholar
  2. Alamdari, S., Fata, E., & Smith, S. L. (2014). Persistent monitoring in discrete environments: Minimizing the maximum weighted latency between observations. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 33(1), 138–154.Google Scholar
  3. Artelli, M. J., & Deckro, R. F. (2008). Modeling the Lanchester laws with system dynamics. The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation, 5(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  4. Asghar, A. B., Jawaid, S. T., & Smith, S. L. (2017). A complete greedy algorithm for infinite-horizon sensor scheduling. Automatica, 81, 335–341.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Atanasov, N., Le Ny, J., Daniilidis, K., & Pappas, G. J. (2014). Information acquisition with sensing robots: Algorithms and error bounds. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) (pp. 6447–6454).Google Scholar
  6. Atanasov, N., Le Ny, J., Daniilidis, K., & Pappas, G. J. (2015). Decentralized active information acquisition: Theory and application to multi-robot SLAM. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) (pp. 4775–4782).Google Scholar
  7. Chakrabarty, A., Ayoub, R., Żak, S. H., & Sundaram, S. (2017). Delayed unknown input observers for discrete-time linear systems with guaranteed performance. Systems & Control Letters, 103, 9–15.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Chakrabarty, A., Fridman, E., Żak, S. H., & Buzzard, G. T. (2018). State and unknown input observers for nonlinear systems with delayed measurements. Automatica, 95, 246–253.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, Y., Kar, S., & Moura, J. M. F. (2018). Resilient distributed estimation through adversary detection. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 66(9), 2455–2469.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, C.-T. (1998). Linear system theory and design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chong, M. S., Wakaiki, M., & Hespanha, J. P. (2015). Observability of linear systems under adversarial attacks. In Proceedings of the American control conference (pp. 2439–2444).Google Scholar
  12. Chung, F. (2007). The heat kernel as the pagerank of a graph. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(50), 19735–19740.Google Scholar
  13. Cressie, N. (1990). The origins of kriging. Mathematical Geology, 22(3), 239–252.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Deghat, M., Ugrinovskii, V., Shames, I., & Langbort, C. (2016). Detection of biasing attacks on distributed estimation networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on decision and control (pp. 2134–2139).Google Scholar
  15. del Nozal, A. R., Orihuela, L., & Milláan, P. (2017). Distributed consensus-based Kalman filtering considering subspace decomposition. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 50(1), 2494–2499.Google Scholar
  16. Dibaji, S. M., & Ishii, H. (2017). Resilient consensus of second-order agent networks: Asynchronous update rules with delays. Automatica, 81, 123–132.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Dolev, D., Lynch, N. A., Pinter, S. S., Stark, E. W., & Weihl, W. E. (1986). Reaching approximate agreement in the presence of faults. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 33(3), 499–516.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Doostmohammadian, M., & Khan, U. A. (2013). On the genericity properties in distributed estimation: Topology design and sensor placement. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 7(2), 195–204.Google Scholar
  19. Dunbabin, M., Roberts, J. M., Usher, K., & Corke, P. (2004). A new robot for environmental monitoring on the Great Barrier Reef. In Proceedings of the 2004 Australasian conference on robotics & automation. Australian Robotics & Automation AssociationGoogle Scholar
  20. Elia, N. (2005). Remote stabilization over fading channels. Systems & Control Letters, 54(3), 237–249.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Fawzi, H., Tabuada, P., & Diggavi, S. (2014). Secure estimation and control for cyber-physical systems under adversarial attacks. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 59(6), 1454–1467.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Gandin, L. S. (1963). Objective analysis of meteorological fields. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, 242.Google Scholar
  23. Goodin, D. (2016). There is a new way to take down drones, and it doesn’t involve shotguns. arsTechnica, October 2016.Google Scholar
  24. Graham, R., & Cortés, J. (2012). Adaptive information collection by robotic sensor networks for spatial estimation. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 57(6), 1404–1419.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Guerrero-Bonilla, L., Prorok, A., & Kumar, V. (2017). Formations for resilient robot teams. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2(2), 841–848.Google Scholar
  26. Gupta, V., Chung, T. H., Hassibi, B., & Murray, R. M. (2006). On a stochastic sensor selection algorithm with applications in sensor scheduling and sensor coverage. Automatica, 42(2), 251–260.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Han, W., Trentelman, H. L., Wang, Z., & Shen, Y. (2018). A simple approach to distributed observer design for linear systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.Google Scholar
  28. Hespanha, J. P., Naghshtabrizi, P., & Yonggang, X. (2007). A survey of recent results in networked control systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 95(1), 138–162.Google Scholar
  29. Higdon, D. (1998). A process-convolution approach to modelling temperatures in the North Atlantic Ocean. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 5(2), 173–190.Google Scholar
  30. Jawaid, S. T., & Smith, S. L. (2015). Submodularity and greedy algorithms in sensor scheduling for linear dynamical systems. Automatica, 61, 282–288.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaur, T., & Kumar, D. (2015). Wireless multifunctional robot for military applications. In Proceedings of the 2015 2nd IEEE international conference on recent advances in engineering & computational sciences (RAECS) (pp. 1–5).Google Scholar
  32. Khan, U., & Stankovic, A. M. (2013). Secure distributed estimation in cyber-physical systems. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (pp. 5209–5213).Google Scholar
  33. Khan, U., Kar, S., Jadbabaie, A., & Moura, J. M. F. (2010). On connectivity, observability, and stability in distributed estimation. In Proceedings of the 49th IEEE conference on decision and control (pp. 6639–6644).Google Scholar
  34. Khan, U. A., & Jadbabaie, A. (2014). Collaborative scalar-gain estimators for potentially unstable social dynamics with limited communication. Automatica, 50(7), 1909–1914.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Khan, U., & Moura, J. M. F. (2008). Distributing the Kalman filter for large-scale systems. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 56(10), 4919–4935.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Kube, C. (2018). Russia has figured out how to jam U.S. drones in Syria, officials say. NBC News, Apr. 2018.Google Scholar
  37. LeBlanc, H. J., Zhang, H., Koutsoukos, X., & Sundaram, S. (2013). Resilient asymptotic consensus in robust networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 31(4), 766–781.Google Scholar
  38. Liu, X., Cheng, S., Liu, H., Sha, H., Zhang, D., & Ning, H. (2012). A survey on gas sensing technology. Sensors, 12(7), 9635–9665.Google Scholar
  39. Lynch, K. M., Schwartz, I. B., Yang, P., & Freeman, R. A. (2008). Decentralized environmental modeling by mobile sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 24(3), 710–724.Google Scholar
  40. Martínez, S. (2010). Distributed interpolation schemes for field estimation by mobile sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 18(2), 491–500.Google Scholar
  41. Matei, I., Baras, J. S., & Srinivasan, V. (2012). Trust-based multi-agent filtering for increased smart grid security. In Proceedings of the Mediterranean conference on control & automation (pp. 716–721).Google Scholar
  42. Matei, I., & Baras, J. S. (2012). Consensus-based linear distributed filtering. Automatica, 48(8), 1776–1782.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. Millán, P., Orihuela, L., Vivas, C., & Rubio, F. R. (2012). Distributed consensus-based estimation considering network induced delays and dropouts. Automatica, 48(10), 2726–2729.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Mitra, A., & Sundaram, S. (2016a). An approach for distributed state estimation of LTI systems. In Proceedings of the 54th annual Allerton conference on communication, control, and computing (pp. 1088–1093).Google Scholar
  45. Mitra, A., & Sundaram, S. (2016b). Secure distributed observers for a class of linear time invariant systems in the presence of Byzantine adversaries. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on decision and control (pp. 2709–2714).Google Scholar
  46. Mitra, A., & Sundaram, S. (2018a). Distributed observers for LTI systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 63(11), 3689–3704.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. Mitra, A., & Sundaram, S. (2018b). A novel switched linear observer for estimating the state of a dynamical process with a mobile agent. In Proceedings of the 57th IEEE conference on decision and control.Google Scholar
  48. Mitra, A., & Sundaram, S. (2018c). Byzantine-resilient distributed observers for LTI systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.09651.
  49. Mitra, A., & Sundaram, S. (2018d). Secure distributed state estimation of an LTI system over time-varying networks and analog erasure channels. In Proceedings of the 2018 American control conference (pp. 6578–6583).Google Scholar
  50. Mo, Y., Ambrosino, R., & Sinopoli, B. (2011). Sensor selection strategies for state estimation in energy constrained wireless sensor networks. Automatica, 47(7), 1330–1338.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. Moore, T. (1985). Robots for nuclear power plants. IAEA Bulletin, 27(3), 31–38.Google Scholar
  52. Ogren, P., Fiorelli, E., & Leonard, N. E. (2004). Cooperative control of mobile sensor networks: Adaptive gradient climbing in a distributed environment. IEEE Transactions on Automatic control, 49(8), 1292–1302.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. Olfati-Saber, R. (2009). Kalman-consensus filter: Optimality, stability, and performance. In Proceedings of the 48th IEEE conference on decision and control held jointly with the 28th Chinese control conference (pp. 7036–7042).Google Scholar
  54. Park, H., & Hutchinson, S. (2018). Robust rendezvous for multi-robot system with random node failures: An optimization approach. Autonomous Robots, 1–12.Google Scholar
  55. Park, H., & Hutchinson, S. A. (2017). Fault-tolerant rendezvous of multirobot systems. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 33(3), 565–582.Google Scholar
  56. Park, S., & Martins, N. C. (2017). Design of distributed LTI observers for state omniscience. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 62(2), 561–576.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. Pasqualetti, F., Bicchi, A., & Bullo, F. (2012). Consensus computation in unreliable networks: A system theoretic approach. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 57(1), 90–104.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. Qian, K., Song, A., Bao, J., & Zhang, H. (2012). Small teleoperated robot for nuclear radiation and chemical leak detection. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 9(3), 70.Google Scholar
  59. Rego, F. F. C., Aguiar, A. P., Pascoal, A. M., & Jones, C. N. (2017). A design method for distributed Luenberger observers. In Proceedings of the 56th IEEE conference on decision and control (pp. 3374–3379).Google Scholar
  60. Roy, S., & Dhal, R. (2015). Situational awareness for dynamical network processes using incidental measurements. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 9(2), 304–316.Google Scholar
  61. Saldana, D., Prorok, A., Sundaram, S., Campos, M. F. M., & Kumar, V. (2017). Resilient consensus for time-varying networks of dynamic agents. In Proceedings of the American control conference (pp. 252–258).Google Scholar
  62. Saulnier, K., Saldana, D., Prorok, A., Pappas, G. J., & Kumar, V. (2017). Resilient flocking for mobile robot teams. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2(2), 1039–1046.Google Scholar
  63. Schlotfeldt, B., Tzoumas, V., Thakur, D., & Pappas, G. J. (2018). Resilient active information gathering with mobile robots. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.09730.
  64. Smith, S. L., Schwager, M., & Rus, D. (2012). Persistent robotic tasks: Monitoring and sweeping in changing environments. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 28(2), 410–426.Google Scholar
  65. Smith, R. N., Schwager, M., Smith, S. L., Jones, B. H., Rus, D., & Sukhatme, G. S. (2011). Persistent ocean monitoring with underwater gliders: Adapting sampling resolution. Journal of Field Robotics, 28(5), 714–741.Google Scholar
  66. Speranzon, A., Fischione, C., & Johansson, K. H. (2006). Distributed and collaborative estimation over wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 45th IEEE conference on decision and control (pp. 1025–1030).Google Scholar
  67. Srinivasan, S., Latchman, H., Shea, J., Wong, T., & McNair, J. (2004). Airborne traffic surveillance systems: Video surveillance of highway traffic. In Proceedings of the ACM 2nd international workshop on video surveillance & sensor networks (pp. 131–135). ACM.Google Scholar
  68. Su, L., & Vaidya, N. H. (2016). Fault-tolerant multi-agent optimization: Optimal iterative distributed algorithms. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM symposium on principles of distributed computing (pp. 425–434). ACM.Google Scholar
  69. Su, L., & Vaidya, N. H. (2016). Non-Bayesian learning in the presence of Byzantine agents. In International symposium on distributed computing (pp. 414–427). Springer.Google Scholar
  70. Sundaram, S., & Gharesifard, B. (2015). Consensus-based distributed optimization with malicious nodes. In Proceedings of the annual Allerton conference on communication, control and computing (pp. 244–249).Google Scholar
  71. Sundaram, S., & Hadjicostis, C. N. (2011). Distributed function calculation via linear iterative strategies in the presence of malicious agents. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 56(7), 1495–1508.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  72. Thanou, D., Dong, X., Kressner, D., & Frossard, P. (2017). Learning heat diffusion graphs. IEEE Transactions on Signal and Information Processing over Networks, 3(3), 484–499.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  73. Tseng, L., Vaidya, N., & Bhandari, V. (2015). Broadcast using certified propagation algorithm in presence of Byzantine faults. Information Processing Letters, 115(4), 512–514.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  74. Ugrinovskii, V. (2013). Distributed robust estimation over randomly switching networks using \({H}_{\infty }\) consensus. Automatica, 49(1), 160–168.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  75. Usevitch, J., & Panagou, D. (2017). \(r\)-robustness and \((r,s)\)-robustness of circulant graphs. In Proceedings of the 56th IEEE conference on decision and control (pp. 4416–4421).Google Scholar
  76. Usevitch, J., & Panagou, D. (2018). Resilient leader-follower consensus to arbitrary reference values. In Proceedings of the 2018 American control conference (pp. 1292–1298).Google Scholar
  77. Vaidya, N. H., Tseng, L., & Liang, G. (2012). Iterative approximate Byzantine consensus in arbitrary directed graphs. In Proceedings of the ACM symposium on principles of distributed computing (pp. 365–374).Google Scholar
  78. Vitus, M. P., Zhang, W., Abate, A., Jianghai, H., & Tomlin, C. J. (2012). On efficient sensor scheduling for linear dynamical systems. Automatica, 48(10), 2482–2493.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  79. Wang, L., & Morse, A. S. (2018). A distributed observer for a time-invariant linear system. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 63(7), 2123–2130.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  80. Wang, L., Morse, A. S., Fullmer, D., & Liu, J. (2017). A hybrid observer for a distributed linear system with a changing neighbor graph. In Proceedings of the 2017 56th IEEE conference on decision and control (pp. 1024–1029).Google Scholar
  81. Xie, L., & Zhang, X. (2013). 3D clustering-based camera wireless sensor networks for maximizing lifespan with minimum coverage rate constraint. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) (pp. 298–303).Google Scholar
  82. Yang, P., Freeman, R. A., & Lynch, K. M. (2008). Multi-agent coordination by decentralized estimation and control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 53(11), 2480–2496.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  83. Yazıcıoğlu, A. Y., Egerstedt, M., & Shamma, J. S. (2015). Formation of robust multi-agent networks through self-organizing random regular graphs. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, 2(4), 139–151.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  84. Zakaria, A. H., Mustafah, Y. M., Abdullah, J., Khair, N., & Abdullah, T. (2017). Development of autonomous radiation mapping robot. Procedia Computer Science, 105, 81–86.Google Scholar
  85. Zhang, H., Fata, E., & Sundaram, S. (2015). A notion of robustness in complex networks. IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, 2(3), 310–320.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Sandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations