MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408867181 · doi:10.1145/3689031.3717457

Achilles: Efficient TEE-Assisted BFT Consensus via Rollback Resilient Recovery

2025· article· en· W4408867181 on OpenAlexaff
Jianyu Niu, Xiaoqing Wen, Guanlong Wu, Jiangshan Yu, Yinqian Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed systems and fault tolerance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRollbackComputer scienceDatabase transactionDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BFT consensus that uses Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) to improve the system tolerance and performance is gaining popularity. However, existing works suffer from TEE rollback issues, resulting in a tolerance-performance tradeoff. In this paper, we propose Achilles, an efficient TEE-assisted BFT protocol that breaks the tradeoff. The key idea behind Achilles is removing the expensive rollback prevention of TEEs from the critical path of committing transactions. To this end, Achilles adopts a rollback resilient recovery mechanism, which allows nodes to assist each other in recovering their states. Besides, Achilles follows the chaining spirit in modern chained BFT protocols and leverages customized chained commit rules to achieve linear message complexity, end-to-end transaction latency of four communication steps, and fault tolerance for the minority of Byzantine nodes. Achilles is the first TEE-assisted BFT protocol in line with CFT protocols in these metrics. We implement a prototype of Achilles based on Intel SGX and evaluate it in both LAN and WAN, showcasing its outperforming performance compared to several state-of-the-art counterparts.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed systems and fault toleranceFrench-language works237,207