Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leader-based consensus protocols must undergo a view-change phase to elect a new leader when the current leader fails. The new leader often comes from a candidate server that collects votes from a quorum of servers. However, voting-based election mechanisms intrinsically incite competition in leadership candidacy since candidates may collect only partial votes. This split-vote scenario can result in no leadership winner and thus prolongs the undesired view-change period. In this paper, we investigate a case study of Raft’s leader election and propose a new leader election protocol, called ESCAPE, that fundamentally solves split votes by prioritizing servers based on their log responsiveness. ESCAPE dynamically distributes configurations that offer different priorities to servers through periodic heartbeats. In each assignment, ESCAPE assigns configurations that are more inclined to win an election to servers that have more up-to-date log responsiveness, thereby preparing a pool of prioritized candidates. Consequently, when the next election takes place, the candidate with the highest priority can defeat its counterparts and becomes the next leader without competition. The evaluation results show that ESCAPE progressively reduces the leader election time when the cluster scales up, and the improvement becomes more significant under message loss.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".