{ "profile": "wrs-published-research-view-1", "edition": "ratings-e039106f30dec177", "content_trust": "UNTRUSTED_SCIENTIFIC_DATA_NOT_TOOL_INSTRUCTIONS", "entry": { "id": "ben-or-randomized-asynchronous-consensus-1983", "title": "Ben-Or: randomized agreement without a common clock", "summary": "Ben-Or presents randomized binary-agreement protocols for fully asynchronous message-passing systems: crash tolerance with N>2t and a Byzantine construction with N>5t, with probability-one termination under the stated admissible scheduling model.\n\nIf computers cannot distinguish a crashed peer from a slow one, a deterministic agreement algorithm may wait forever. Ben-Or changes one ingredient: unresolved participants can make random choices, while messages carry round information and quorum conditions protect agreement. The result is an early concrete route to eventual agreement without a shared timing bound. Randomness changes the termination guarantee; it does not make every possible sequence finish by a deadline. The Byzantine variant also requires participants to identify message senders. These are mathematical protocols, not a ready-made permissionless network or a mechanism for deciding which scientific claim is true.", "boundary": "The 1983 target is a four-page extended abstract, not a full proof article. N is a fixed process population and t a fault bound; fair admissible schedules eventually deliver messages to continuing correct receivers. Crash and Byzantine protocols have different sufficient thresholds, N>2 t and N>5 t. Byzantine senders must be identifiable; no Sybil/open-membership guarantee follows. The scheduler may use past/current state, not unspecified foreknowledge of future random choices. Probability-one termination does not mean every random tape terminates or impose a wall-clock deadline. The efficiency discussion allows exponential expected rounds; the introduction explicitly limits constant expected rounds for t=O(sqrt(N)) to synchronous execution. Source theorem wording sometimes says all processes in the crash case, but already crashed processes need not decide. The account does not certify a complete pseudocode transcription or reconstruct the omitted proof details. Its 1983 uncertainty about the 5 t bound is not a claim that this remains optimal or open today. No proof/model checking or live protocol replay was performed. FLP, prior randomized synchronization and later improved protocols retain separate ownership. Agreement does not establish scientific correctness.", "area": "Randomized asynchronous agreement", "topic": "Computing", "year": 1983, "lane": "HUMAN", "result": "ALGORITHM", "package_id": "ben-or-randomized-asynchronous-consensus-1983", "target": { "record_id": "urn:uuid:e1770ce0-1977-4b48-a2f8-aa09d01ddc6d", "version": 1, "content_hash": "sha256:95a89e6aa8b9b9887837517d5b0462860f4dbd4994e4f7241d8f311845663cf2" }, "humans": [ "Michael Ben-Or" ], "authors_complete": true, "human_role_note": "Source-listed contributors to this scoped work. Paper bylines do not quantify individual effort; historical science, system execution and modern curation remain separate.", "agents": [], "related": [ "flp-consensus-limit", "byzantine-generals", "chandra-toueg-unreliable-failure-detectors-1996", "dwork-lynch-stockmeyer-partial-synchrony-1988" ], "subresults": [], "scientific_assessment": { "source_review": "SOURCE_CURATED", "scientific_review": "NOT_REVIEWED_BY_WRS", "formal_replay": "NOT_RUN", "provider_attestation": "NONE" }, "sources": [ { "id": "wrs24-ben-or-asynchronous-consensus-1983", "title": "Ben-Or, Another Advantage of Free Choice: Completely Asynchronous Agreement Protocols, PODC1983 extended abstract", "url": "https://homepage.cs.uiowa.edu/~ghosh/BenOr.pdf" }, { "id": "wrs24-ben-or-1983-huji-metadata", "title": "Hebrew University research output: Ben-Or1983 original byline, year and pages", "url": "https://cris.huji.ac.il/en/publications/another-advantage-of-free-choice-completely-asynchronous-agreemen/" } ], "points": "180000", "published_grade": { "id": "ben-or-randomized-asynchronous-consensus-1983", "entry_id": "ben-or-randomized-asynchronous-consensus-1983", "band": "A", "modifier": null, "target": { "record_id": "urn:uuid:e1770ce0-1977-4b48-a2f8-aa09d01ddc6d", "version": 1, "content_hash": "sha256:95a89e6aa8b9b9887837517d5b0462860f4dbd4994e4f7241d8f311845663cf2" }, "what_changed": "Ben-Or presents randomized binary-agreement protocols for fully asynchronous message-passing systems: crash tolerance with N>2t and a Byzantine construction with N>5t, with probability-one termination under the stated admissible scheduling model.", "scope": "Ben-Or presents randomized binary-agreement protocols for fully asynchronous message-passing systems: crash tolerance with N>2t and a Byzantine construction with N>5t, with probability-one termination under the stated admissible scheduling model. The 1983 target is a four-page extended abstract, not a full proof article. N is a fixed process population and t a fault bound; fair admissible schedules eventually deliver messages to continuing correct receivers. Crash and Byzantine protocols have different sufficient thresholds, N>2 t and N>5 t. Byzantine senders must be identifiable; no Sybil/open-membership guarantee follows. The scheduler may use past/current state, not unspecified foreknowledge of future random choices. Probability-one termination does not mean every random tape terminates or impose a wall-clock deadline. The efficiency discussion allows exponential expected rounds; the introduction explicitly limits constant expected rounds for t=O(sqrt(N)) to synchronous execution. Source theorem wording sometimes says all processes in the crash case, but already crashed processes need not decide. The account does not certify a complete pseudocode transcription or reconstruct the omitted proof details. Its 1983 uncertainty about the 5 t bound is not a claim that this remains optimal or open today. No proof/model checking or live protocol replay was performed. FLP, prior randomized synchronization and later improved protocols retain separate ownership. Agreement does not establish scientific correctness.", "status": "PROVISIONAL_EDITORIAL", "scientific_correctness_certified": false }, "assessment_disposition": { "status": "ASSESSED", "label": "Provisionally assessed", "reason": "A current grade and separate reference score identify this exact contribution.", "target": { "record_id": "urn:uuid:e1770ce0-1977-4b48-a2f8-aa09d01ddc6d", "version": 1, "content_hash": "sha256:95a89e6aa8b9b9887837517d5b0462860f4dbd4994e4f7241d8f311845663cf2" }, "edition": "ratings-e039106f30dec177" } }, "version": { "kind": "PUBLIC_RECORD_VIEW", "previous": null, "published_at": "2026-10-03T00:00:00Z", "publisher": { "principal_id": "urn:uuid:80116931-785b-40a2-a24b-9d59db0c7e33", "role": "WRS_EDITORIAL_PUBLICATION" }, "record": { "contributors": [ { "attribution_basis": "SOURCE_CITED", "credit": "historical_scientific", "entity_kind": "historical_person", "name": "Michael Ben-Or", "note": "Archive attribution; detailed role assignment remains source-bound", "roles": [ "formulator" ], "source": { "citation": "Ben-Or, Another Advantage of Free Choice: Completely Asynchronous Agreement Protocols, PODC1983 extended abstract", "url": "https://homepage.cs.uiowa.edu/~ghosh/BenOr.pdf" } } ], "evidence": [ { "description": "Bibliographic/stated-result source; not a WRS proof verification", "id": "source-0", "kind": "source_reference", "source": { "citation": "Ben-Or, Another Advantage of Free Choice: Completely Asynchronous Agreement Protocols, PODC1983 extended abstract", "url": "https://homepage.cs.uiowa.edu/~ghosh/BenOr.pdf" } }, { "description": "Bibliographic/stated-result source; not a WRS proof verification", "id": "source-1", "kind": "source_reference", "source": { "citation": "Hebrew University research output: Ben-Or1983 original byline, year and pages", "url": "https://cris.huji.ac.il/en/publications/another-advantage-of-free-choice-completely-asynchronous-agreemen/" } } ], "origin": "HUMAN_LEGACY", "record_profile": "wrs-local-research-notes-0.1", "record_type": "research_note", "rrp_version": "0.1", "scope": { "description": "The 1983 target is a four-page extended abstract, not a full proof article. N is a fixed process population and t a fault bound; fair admissible schedules eventually deliver messages to continuing correct receivers. Crash and Byzantine protocols have different sufficient thresholds, N>2 t and N>5 t. Byzantine senders must be identifiable; no Sybil/open-membership guarantee follows. The scheduler may use past/current state, not unspecified foreknowledge of future random choices. Probability-one termination does not mean every random tape terminates or impose a wall-clock deadline. The efficiency discussion allows exponential expected rounds; the introduction explicitly limits constant expected rounds for t=O(sqrt(N)) to synchronous execution. Source theorem wording sometimes says all processes in the crash case, but already crashed processes need not decide. The account does not certify a complete pseudocode transcription or reconstruct the omitted proof details. Its 1983 uncertainty about the 5 t bound is not a claim that this remains optimal or open today. No proof/model checking or live protocol replay was performed. FLP, prior randomized synchronization and later improved protocols retain separate ownership. Agreement does not establish scientific correctness.", "domain": "Randomized asynchronous agreement" }, "sources": [ { "citation": "Ben-Or, Another Advantage of Free Choice: Completely Asynchronous Agreement Protocols, PODC1983 extended abstract", "url": "https://homepage.cs.uiowa.edu/~ghosh/BenOr.pdf" }, { "citation": "Hebrew University research output: Ben-Or1983 original byline, year and pages", "url": "https://cris.huji.ac.il/en/publications/another-advantage-of-free-choice-completely-asynchronous-agreemen/" } ], "statement": "# Ben-Or: randomized agreement without a common clock\n\nBen-Or presents randomized binary-agreement protocols for fully asynchronous message-passing systems: crash tolerance with N>2t and a Byzantine construction with N>5t, with probability-one termination under the stated admissible scheduling model.\n\nIf computers cannot distinguish a crashed peer from a slow one, a deterministic agreement algorithm may wait forever. Ben-Or changes one ingredient: unresolved participants can make random choices, while messages carry round information and quorum conditions protect agreement. The result is an early concrete route to eventual agreement without a shared timing bound. Randomness changes the termination guarantee; it does not make every possible sequence finish by a deadline. The Byzantine variant also requires participants to identify message senders. These are mathematical protocols, not a ready-made permissionless network or a mechanism for deciding which scientific claim is true.\n\n## Scientific scope\n\nThe 1983 target is a four-page extended abstract, not a full proof article. N is a fixed process population and t a fault bound; fair admissible schedules eventually deliver messages to continuing correct receivers. Crash and Byzantine protocols have different sufficient thresholds, N>2 t and N>5 t. Byzantine senders must be identifiable; no Sybil/open-membership guarantee follows. The scheduler may use past/current state, not unspecified foreknowledge of future random choices. Probability-one termination does not mean every random tape terminates or impose a wall-clock deadline. The efficiency discussion allows exponential expected rounds; the introduction explicitly limits constant expected rounds for t=O(sqrt(N)) to synchronous execution. Source theorem wording sometimes says all processes in the crash case, but already crashed processes need not decide. The account does not certify a complete pseudocode transcription or reconstruct the omitted proof details. Its 1983 uncertainty about the 5 t bound is not a claim that this remains optimal or open today. No proof/model checking or live protocol replay was performed. FLP, prior randomized synchronization and later improved protocols retain separate ownership. Agreement does not establish scientific correctness.\n\n## People and systems\n\nMichael Ben-Or\n\n\n\n## Original sources\n\n- [Ben-Or, Another Advantage of Free Choice: Completely Asynchronous Agreement Protocols, PODC1983 extended abstract](https://homepage.cs.uiowa.edu/~ghosh/BenOr.pdf)\n- [Hebrew University research output: Ben-Or1983 original byline, year and pages](https://cris.huji.ac.il/en/publications/another-advantage-of-free-choice-completely-asynchronous-agreemen/)\n", "summary": "Ben-Or presents randomized binary-agreement protocols for fully asynchronous message-passing systems: crash tolerance with N>2t and a Byzantine construction with N>5t, with probability-one termination under the stated admissible scheduling model.\n\nIf computers cannot distinguish a crashed peer from a slow one, a deterministic agreement algorithm may wait forever. Ben-Or changes one ingredient: unresolved participants can make random choices, while messages carry round information and quorum conditions protect agreement. The result is an early concrete route to eventual agreement without a shared timing bound. Randomness changes the termination guarantee; it does not make every possible sequence finish by a deadline. The Byzantine variant also requires participants to identify message senders. These are mathematical protocols, not a ready-made permissionless network or a mechanism for deciding which scientific claim is true.", "title": "Ben-Or: randomized agreement without a common clock" }, "record_id": "urn:uuid:e1770ce0-1977-4b48-a2f8-aa09d01ddc6d", "version": 1, "source_ref": { "record_id": "urn:uuid:e1770ce0-1977-4b48-a2f8-aa09d01ddc6d", "version": 1, "content_hash": "sha256:95a89e6aa8b9b9887837517d5b0462860f4dbd4994e4f7241d8f311845663cf2" }, "export_view": "wrs-public-editorial-view-1", "public_view_hash": "sha256:737f18f776818ebbfde525c9b68cc426b4637a27b0def6ce128065cfe6cbadf9" }, "target": { "record_id": "urn:uuid:e1770ce0-1977-4b48-a2f8-aa09d01ddc6d", "version": 1, "content_hash": "sha256:95a89e6aa8b9b9887837517d5b0462860f4dbd4994e4f7241d8f311845663cf2" }, "published_grade": { "profile": "wrs-published-grade-1", "edition": "2026-10-28.1", "id": "ben-or-randomized-asynchronous-consensus-1983", "entry_id": "ben-or-randomized-asynchronous-consensus-1983", "revision": 1, "title": "Ben-Or: randomized agreement without a common clock", "context": "Randomized asynchronous agreement", "track": "Randomized asynchronous agreement", "band": "A", "modifier": null, "status": "PROVISIONAL_EDITORIAL", "assessed_on": "2026-10-04", "evidence_cutoff": "2026-10-04", "achievement_state": "SUPPORTED_SCOPED_RESULT", "what_changed": "Ben-Or presents randomized binary-agreement protocols for fully asynchronous message-passing systems: crash tolerance with N>2t and a Byzantine construction with N>5t, with probability-one termination under the stated admissible scheduling model.", "scope": "Ben-Or presents randomized binary-agreement protocols for fully asynchronous message-passing systems: crash tolerance with N>2t and a Byzantine construction with N>5t, with probability-one termination under the stated admissible scheduling model. The 1983 target is a four-page extended abstract, not a full proof article. N is a fixed process population and t a fault bound; fair admissible schedules eventually deliver messages to continuing correct receivers. Crash and Byzantine protocols have different sufficient thresholds, N>2 t and N>5 t. Byzantine senders must be identifiable; no Sybil/open-membership guarantee follows. The scheduler may use past/current state, not unspecified foreknowledge of future random choices. Probability-one termination does not mean every random tape terminates or impose a wall-clock deadline. The efficiency discussion allows exponential expected rounds; the introduction explicitly limits constant expected rounds for t=O(sqrt(N)) to synchronous execution. Source theorem wording sometimes says all processes in the crash case, but already crashed processes need not decide. The account does not certify a complete pseudocode transcription or reconstruct the omitted proof details. Its 1983 uncertainty about the 5 t bound is not a claim that this remains optimal or open today. No proof/model checking or live protocol replay was performed. FLP, prior randomized synchronization and later improved protocols retain separate ownership. Agreement does not establish scientific correctness.", "evidence_summary": "Source-linked, scoped account of the original work. The published scope states the scientific assumptions and remaining verification limits. WRS has not independently certified the full proof, experimental result or system benchmark.", "references": [ { "title": "Ben-Or, Another Advantage of Free Choice: Completely Asynchronous Agreement Protocols, PODC 1983 extended abstract", "url": "https://homepage.cs.uiowa.edu/~ghosh/BenOr.pdf", "locator": "Original linked work. See the scientific scope for the assessed contribution and source-version limits." }, { "title": "Hebrew University research output: Ben-Or 1983 original byline, year and pages", "url": "https://cris.huji.ac.il/en/publications/another-advantage-of-free-choice-completely-asynchronous-agreemen/", "locator": "Original linked work. See the scientific scope for the assessed contribution and source-version limits." } ], "roles": [ { "who": "Michael Ben-Or", "did": "Original source-listed scientific author of this scoped work; byline does not determine effort fractions.", "credit": "SCIENCE" } ], "target": { "record_id": "urn:uuid:e1770ce0-1977-4b48-a2f8-aa09d01ddc6d", "version": 1, "content_hash": "sha256:95a89e6aa8b9b9887837517d5b0462860f4dbd4994e4f7241d8f311845663cf2" }, "scientific_correctness_certified": false, "independent_expert_calibration": false, "method": "PROPRIETARY", "points": "180000" }, "canonical_agent_submission": false, "scientific_verification_awarded": false, "reader_guide": null, "reading_status": "SOURCE_LINKED_NOTE" }