Paper detail

Set Consensus: Captured by a Set of Runs with Ramifications

Are (set)-consensus objects necessary? This paper answer is negative. We show that the availability of consensus objects can be replaced by restricting the set of runs we consider. In particular we concentrate of the set of runs of the Immediate-Snapshot-Model (IIS), and given the object we identify this restricted subset of IIS runs. We further show that given an $(m,k)$-set consensus, an object that provides $k$-set consensus among $m$ processors, in a system of $n$, $n>m$ processors, we do not need to use the precise power of the objects but rather their effective cumulative set consensus power. E.g. when $n=3, m=2,$ and $k=1$ and all the 3 processors are active then we only use 2-set consensus among the 3 processors, as if 2-processors consensus is not available. We do this until at least one of the 3 processors obtains an output. We show that this suggests a new direction in the design of algorithms when consensus objects are involved.

preprint2014arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Authors

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.