MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116910210 · doi:10.1109/icdcs.2010.31

Practical Robust Communication in DHTs Tolerating a Byzantine Adversary

2010· article· en· W2116910210 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

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

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersMitacs
KeywordsComputer scienceProtocol (science)Binary logarithmCryptographyCommunication complexityBounded functionTheoretical computer scienceQuantum Byzantine agreementByzantine fault toleranceKey (lock)Discrete logarithmDistributed computingAlgorithmComputer networkFault tolerancePublic-key cryptographyComputer securityDiscrete mathematicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are several analytical results on distributed hash tables (DHTs) that can tolerate Byzantine faults. Unfortunately, in such systems, operations such as data retrieval and message sending incur significant communication costs. For example, a simple scheme used in many Byzantine fault-tolerant DHT constructions of n nodes requires O(log <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">3</sup> n) messages, this is likely impractical for real-world applications. The previous best known message complexity is O(log <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> n) in expectation, however, the corresponding protocol suffers from prohibitive costs owing to hidden constants in the asymptotic notation and setup costs. In this paper, we focus on reducing the communication costs against a computationally bounded adversary. We employ threshold cryptography and distributed key generation to define two protocols both of which are more efficient than existing solutions. In comparison, our first protocol is deterministic with O(log <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">3</sup> n) message complexity and our second protocol is randomized with expected O(log n) message complexity. Further, both the hidden constants and setup costs for our protocols are small and no trusted third party is required. Finally, we present results from micro benchmarks conducted over PlanetLab showing that our protocols are practical for deployment under significant levels of churn and adversarial behaviour.

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

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

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

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

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

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

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207