Condorcet Attack Against Fair Transaction Ordering
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
We introduce the Condorcet attack, a new threat to fair transaction ordering. Specifically, the attack undermines batch-order-fairness, the strongest notion of transaction fair ordering proposed to date. The batch-order-fairness guarantees that a transaction tx is ordered before tx' if a majority of nodes in the system receive tx before tx'; the only exception (due to an impossibility result) is when tx and tx' fall into a so-called "Condorcet cycle". When this happens, tx and tx' along with other transactions within the cycle are placed in a batch, and any unfairness inside a batch is ignored. In the Condorcet attack, an adversary attempts to undermine the system’s fairness by imposing Condorcet cycles to the system. In this work, we show that the adversary can indeed impose a Condorcet cycle by submitting as few as two otherwise legitimate transactions to the system. Remarkably, the adversary (e.g., a malicious client) can achieve this even when all the nodes in the system behave honestly. A notable feature of the attack is that it is capable of "trapping" transactions that do not naturally fall inside a cycle, i.e. those that are transmitted at significantly different times (with respect to the network latency). To mitigate the attack, we propose three methods based on three different complementary approaches. We show the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation methods through simulations, and explain their limitations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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