SpotLess: Concurrent Rotational Consensus Made Practical Through Rapid View Synchronization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of blockchain technology has renewed the interest in consensus-based data management systems that are resilient to failures. To maximize the throughput of these systems, we have recently seen several prototype consensus solutions that optimize for throughput at the expense of overall implementation complexity, high costs, and reliability. Due to this, it remains unclear how these prototypes will perform in real-world environments. In this paper, we present SpotLess, a novel concurrent rotational consensus protocol made practical. Central to SpotLess is the combination of (1) a chained rotational consensus design for replicating requests with a reduced message cost and low-cost failure recovery that eliminates the traditional complex, error-prone view-change protocol; (2) the novel Rapid View Synchronization protocol that enables SpotLess to work in more general network assumptions, without a need for a Global Synchronization Time to synchronize view, and recover valid earlier views with the aid of non-faulty replicas without the need to rely on the primary; (3) a high-performance concurrent consensus architecture in which independent instances of the chained consensus operate concurrently to process requests with high throughput, thereby avoiding the bottlenecks seen in other rotational protocols. Due to the concurrent consensus architecture, SpotLess greatly outperforms traditional primary-backup consensus protocols such as Pbft (by up to 430%), Narwhal-HS (by up to 137%), and HotStuff (by up to 3803%). Due to its reduced message cost, SpotLess is even able to outperform RCC, a state-of-the-art high-throughput concurrent consensus protocol, by up to 23%. Furthermore, SpotLess is able to maintain a stable and low latency and consistently high throughput even during failures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".