Understanding Inconsistency in Azure Cosmos DB with TLA+
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beyond implementation correctness of a distributed system, it is equally important to understand exactly what users should expect to see from that system. Even if the system itself works as designed, insufficient understanding of its user-observable semantics can cause bugs in its dependencies. By focusing a formal specification effort on precisely defining the expected user-observable behaviors of the Azure Cosmos DB service at Microsoft, we were able to write a formal specification of the database that was significantly smaller and conceptually simpler than any other specification of Cosmos DB, while representing a wider range of valid user-observable behaviors than existing more detailed specifications. Many of the additional behaviors we documented were previously poorly understood outside of the Cosmos DB development team, even informally, leading to data consistency errors in Microsoft products that depend on it. Using this specification, we were able to raise two key issues in Cosmos DB’s public-facing documentation, which have since been addressed. We were also able to offer a fundamental solution to a previous high-impact outage within another Azure service that depends on Cosmos DB.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".