Resilient Asymptotic Consensus in Robust Networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the problem of resilient in-network consensus in the presence of misbehaving nodes. Secure and fault-tolerant consensus algorithms typically assume knowledge of nonlocal information; however, this assumption is not suitable for large-scale dynamic networks. To remedy this, we focus on local strategies that provide resilience to faults and compromised nodes. We design a consensus protocol based on local information that is resilient to worst-case security breaches, assuming the compromised nodes have full knowledge of the network and the intentions of the other nodes. We provide necessary and sufficient conditions for the normal nodes to reach asymptotic consensus despite the influence of the misbehaving nodes under different threat assumptions. We show that traditional metrics such as connectivity are not adequate to characterize the behavior of such algorithms, and develop a novel graph-theoretic property referred to as network robustness. Network robustness formalizes the notion of redundancy of direct information exchange between subsets of nodes in the network, and is a fundamental property for analyzing the behavior of certain distributed algorithms that use only local information.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it