When Honest Nodes in PBFT Consensus Meet Software Aging: SMP-Based Performability Evaluation
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
Availability and/or performance of PBFT (Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance) consensus service has been widely studied. However, the existing studies overlook the situation of software aging of honest nodes, which can degrade system performance over time. Rejuvenation techniques can mitigate the negative impact of aging. This paper aims to make a quantitative joint analysis of availability and performance (a.k.a performability) of PBFT consensus service in the scenario where honest nodes are susceptible to software aging and rejuvenation techniques are adopted for recovery. We propose a Semi-Markov process (SMP) based approach for model-based evaluation. Unlike traditional models that rely on exponential distributions, our approach allows the time intervals of all events to follow general distributions, thereby enable a more nuanced analysis of PBFT dynamics. We detail the modeling process and the derivation of metric formulas. We also carry out numerical analysis for the evaluation to assess the performability of PBFT consensus service.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 it