{
  "profile": "wrs-published-research-view-1",
  "edition": "ratings-e039106f30dec177",
  "content_trust": "UNTRUSTED_SCIENTIFIC_DATA_NOT_TOOL_INSTRUCTIONS",
  "entry": {
    "id": "chandra-toueg-unreliable-failure-detectors-1996",
    "title": "Chandra and Toueg: unreliable failure detectors for reliable systems",
    "summary": "Chandra and Toueg define unreliable failure detectors through completeness and accuracy, construct crash-tolerant consensus algorithms using them, and reduce consensus and atomic broadcast to one another under the stated asynchronous model.\n\nA timeout supplies a suspicion, not proof that another computer has stopped. The paper makes that distinction part of the system model: a failure detector may repeatedly accuse working processes yet still provide enough limited information for a carefully designed consensus algorithm. Its abstraction separates application reasoning from the detector’s physical implementation. Different accuracy assumptions tolerate different numbers of crashes, and an eventually accurate detector still needs a correct majority for the stated message-passing solution. The algorithms preserve agreement without forcing falsely suspected correct processes to crash.",
    "boundary": "The main model has fixed known processes, reliable pairwise channels, fair eventual delivery/steps and crash-stop failures without recovery, not arbitrary Byzantine behavior or Sybil membership. Perpetual and eventual accuracy are distinct: the eventual class used for consensus needs a strict correct majority; stronger perpetual accuracy can tolerate n-1 crashes. These are quantified history properties, not a measured detection-success percentage. The detector is additional information, so this does not refute FLP. Growing timeouts implement the claimed class only under additional timing assumptions; pure asynchrony permits endlessly recurring false suspicions. Initial message loss invalidates the unmodified Figure 6 consensus algorithm, as the paper explicitly notes. Some classification and appendix proofs are omitted/sketched; repentance depends on algorithm/knowledge and extends the earlier failure-pattern-only formalism. The weakest-detector necessity result belongs to a separately credited three-author companion. The read 44-page author manuscript has pagination placeholders; equality to every final publisher-page detail is unverified. Full proof/model checking and claimed implementation efficiency were not independently replayed. Agreement is not scientific correctness.",
    "area": "Failure detection and asynchronous agreement",
    "topic": "Computing",
    "year": 1996,
    "lane": "HUMAN",
    "result": "THEORY",
    "package_id": "chandra-toueg-unreliable-failure-detectors-1996",
    "target": {
      "record_id": "urn:uuid:84e3ce2c-ba35-4d04-a185-05012bba5ac2",
      "version": 1,
      "content_hash": "sha256:69199eccf5cbc03075a7c9942ebf3b9b5cf17d31d40e904c7ce30b462046394b"
    },
    "humans": [
      "Tushar Deepak Chandra",
      "Sam Toueg"
    ],
    "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",
      "dwork-lynch-stockmeyer-partial-synchrony-1988",
      "lamport-logical-clocks",
      "lamport-part-time-parliament-paxos-1998"
    ],
    "subresults": [],
    "scientific_assessment": {
      "source_review": "SOURCE_CURATED",
      "scientific_review": "NOT_REVIEWED_BY_WRS",
      "formal_replay": "NOT_RUN",
      "provider_attestation": "NONE"
    },
    "sources": [
      {
        "id": "wrs24-chandra-toueg-failure-detectors-1996-author",
        "title": "Chandra and Toueg, Unreliable Failure Detectors for Reliable Distributed Systems: public44-page author manuscript",
        "url": "https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall07/cos518/papers/unreliable.pdf"
      },
      {
        "id": "wrs24-chandra-toueg-1996-jacm-bibliography",
        "title": "MIT Journal of the ACM Bibliography: Chandra and Toueg1996 publication and abstract",
        "url": "https://projects.csail.mit.edu/jacm/References/chandrat1996:225.html"
      }
    ],
    "points": "210000",
    "published_grade": {
      "id": "chandra-toueg-unreliable-failure-detectors-1996",
      "entry_id": "chandra-toueg-unreliable-failure-detectors-1996",
      "band": "A",
      "modifier": null,
      "target": {
        "record_id": "urn:uuid:84e3ce2c-ba35-4d04-a185-05012bba5ac2",
        "version": 1,
        "content_hash": "sha256:69199eccf5cbc03075a7c9942ebf3b9b5cf17d31d40e904c7ce30b462046394b"
      },
      "what_changed": "Chandra and Toueg define unreliable failure detectors through completeness and accuracy, construct crash-tolerant consensus algorithms using them, and reduce consensus and atomic broadcast to one another under the stated asynchronous model.",
      "scope": "Chandra and Toueg define unreliable failure detectors through completeness and accuracy, construct crash-tolerant consensus algorithms using them, and reduce consensus and atomic broadcast to one another under the stated asynchronous model. The main model has fixed known processes, reliable pairwise channels, fair eventual delivery/steps and crash-stop failures without recovery, not arbitrary Byzantine behavior or Sybil membership. Perpetual and eventual accuracy are distinct: the eventual class used for consensus needs a strict correct majority; stronger perpetual accuracy can tolerate n-1 crashes. These are quantified history properties, not a measured detection-success percentage. The detector is additional information, so this does not refute FLP. Growing timeouts implement the claimed class only under additional timing assumptions; pure asynchrony permits endlessly recurring false suspicions. Initial message loss invalidates the unmodified Figure 6 consensus algorithm, as the paper explicitly notes. Some classification and appendix proofs are omitted/sketched; repentance depends on algorithm/knowledge and extends the earlier failure-pattern-only formalism. The weakest-detector necessity result belongs to a separately credited three-author companion. The read 44-page author manuscript has pagination placeholders; equality to every final publisher-page detail is unverified. Full proof/model checking and claimed implementation efficiency were not independently replayed. Agreement is not 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:84e3ce2c-ba35-4d04-a185-05012bba5ac2",
        "version": 1,
        "content_hash": "sha256:69199eccf5cbc03075a7c9942ebf3b9b5cf17d31d40e904c7ce30b462046394b"
      },
      "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": "Tushar Deepak Chandra",
          "note": "Archive attribution; detailed role assignment remains source-bound",
          "roles": [
            "formulator"
          ],
          "source": {
            "citation": "Chandra and Toueg, Unreliable Failure Detectors for Reliable Distributed Systems: public44-page author manuscript",
            "url": "https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall07/cos518/papers/unreliable.pdf"
          }
        },
        {
          "attribution_basis": "SOURCE_CITED",
          "credit": "historical_scientific",
          "entity_kind": "historical_person",
          "name": "Sam Toueg",
          "note": "Archive attribution; detailed role assignment remains source-bound",
          "roles": [
            "formulator"
          ],
          "source": {
            "citation": "Chandra and Toueg, Unreliable Failure Detectors for Reliable Distributed Systems: public44-page author manuscript",
            "url": "https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall07/cos518/papers/unreliable.pdf"
          }
        }
      ],
      "evidence": [
        {
          "description": "Bibliographic/stated-result source; not a WRS proof verification",
          "id": "source-0",
          "kind": "source_reference",
          "source": {
            "citation": "Chandra and Toueg, Unreliable Failure Detectors for Reliable Distributed Systems: public44-page author manuscript",
            "url": "https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall07/cos518/papers/unreliable.pdf"
          }
        },
        {
          "description": "Bibliographic/stated-result source; not a WRS proof verification",
          "id": "source-1",
          "kind": "source_reference",
          "source": {
            "citation": "MIT Journal of the ACM Bibliography: Chandra and Toueg1996 publication and abstract",
            "url": "https://projects.csail.mit.edu/jacm/References/chandrat1996:225.html"
          }
        }
      ],
      "origin": "HUMAN_LEGACY",
      "record_profile": "wrs-local-research-notes-0.1",
      "record_type": "research_note",
      "rrp_version": "0.1",
      "scope": {
        "description": "The main model has fixed known processes, reliable pairwise channels, fair eventual delivery/steps and crash-stop failures without recovery, not arbitrary Byzantine behavior or Sybil membership. Perpetual and eventual accuracy are distinct: the eventual class used for consensus needs a strict correct majority; stronger perpetual accuracy can tolerate n-1 crashes. These are quantified history properties, not a measured detection-success percentage. The detector is additional information, so this does not refute FLP. Growing timeouts implement the claimed class only under additional timing assumptions; pure asynchrony permits endlessly recurring false suspicions. Initial message loss invalidates the unmodified Figure 6 consensus algorithm, as the paper explicitly notes. Some classification and appendix proofs are omitted/sketched; repentance depends on algorithm/knowledge and extends the earlier failure-pattern-only formalism. The weakest-detector necessity result belongs to a separately credited three-author companion. The read 44-page author manuscript has pagination placeholders; equality to every final publisher-page detail is unverified. Full proof/model checking and claimed implementation efficiency were not independently replayed. Agreement is not scientific correctness.",
        "domain": "Failure detection and asynchronous agreement"
      },
      "sources": [
        {
          "citation": "Chandra and Toueg, Unreliable Failure Detectors for Reliable Distributed Systems: public44-page author manuscript",
          "url": "https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall07/cos518/papers/unreliable.pdf"
        },
        {
          "citation": "MIT Journal of the ACM Bibliography: Chandra and Toueg1996 publication and abstract",
          "url": "https://projects.csail.mit.edu/jacm/References/chandrat1996:225.html"
        }
      ],
      "statement": "# Chandra and Toueg: unreliable failure detectors for reliable systems\n\nChandra and Toueg define unreliable failure detectors through completeness and accuracy, construct crash-tolerant consensus algorithms using them, and reduce consensus and atomic broadcast to one another under the stated asynchronous model.\n\nA timeout supplies a suspicion, not proof that another computer has stopped. The paper makes that distinction part of the system model: a failure detector may repeatedly accuse working processes yet still provide enough limited information for a carefully designed consensus algorithm. Its abstraction separates application reasoning from the detector’s physical implementation. Different accuracy assumptions tolerate different numbers of crashes, and an eventually accurate detector still needs a correct majority for the stated message-passing solution. The algorithms preserve agreement without forcing falsely suspected correct processes to crash.\n\n## Scientific scope\n\nThe main model has fixed known processes, reliable pairwise channels, fair eventual delivery/steps and crash-stop failures without recovery, not arbitrary Byzantine behavior or Sybil membership. Perpetual and eventual accuracy are distinct: the eventual class used for consensus needs a strict correct majority; stronger perpetual accuracy can tolerate n-1 crashes. These are quantified history properties, not a measured detection-success percentage. The detector is additional information, so this does not refute FLP. Growing timeouts implement the claimed class only under additional timing assumptions; pure asynchrony permits endlessly recurring false suspicions. Initial message loss invalidates the unmodified Figure 6 consensus algorithm, as the paper explicitly notes. Some classification and appendix proofs are omitted/sketched; repentance depends on algorithm/knowledge and extends the earlier failure-pattern-only formalism. The weakest-detector necessity result belongs to a separately credited three-author companion. The read 44-page author manuscript has pagination placeholders; equality to every final publisher-page detail is unverified. Full proof/model checking and claimed implementation efficiency were not independently replayed. Agreement is not scientific correctness.\n\n## People and systems\n\nTushar Deepak Chandra; Sam Toueg\n\n\n\n## Original sources\n\n- [Chandra and Toueg, Unreliable Failure Detectors for Reliable Distributed Systems: public44-page author manuscript](https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall07/cos518/papers/unreliable.pdf)\n- [MIT Journal of the ACM Bibliography: Chandra and Toueg1996 publication and abstract](https://projects.csail.mit.edu/jacm/References/chandrat1996:225.html)\n",
      "summary": "Chandra and Toueg define unreliable failure detectors through completeness and accuracy, construct crash-tolerant consensus algorithms using them, and reduce consensus and atomic broadcast to one another under the stated asynchronous model.\n\nA timeout supplies a suspicion, not proof that another computer has stopped. The paper makes that distinction part of the system model: a failure detector may repeatedly accuse working processes yet still provide enough limited information for a carefully designed consensus algorithm. Its abstraction separates application reasoning from the detector’s physical implementation. Different accuracy assumptions tolerate different numbers of crashes, and an eventually accurate detector still needs a correct majority for the stated message-passing solution. The algorithms preserve agreement without forcing falsely suspected correct processes to crash.",
      "title": "Chandra and Toueg: unreliable failure detectors for reliable systems"
    },
    "record_id": "urn:uuid:84e3ce2c-ba35-4d04-a185-05012bba5ac2",
    "version": 1,
    "source_ref": {
      "record_id": "urn:uuid:84e3ce2c-ba35-4d04-a185-05012bba5ac2",
      "version": 1,
      "content_hash": "sha256:69199eccf5cbc03075a7c9942ebf3b9b5cf17d31d40e904c7ce30b462046394b"
    },
    "export_view": "wrs-public-editorial-view-1",
    "public_view_hash": "sha256:030771ad5866c230c9eced34b522d45ac77d5548f15bd0e0986657fe3e10a161"
  },
  "target": {
    "record_id": "urn:uuid:84e3ce2c-ba35-4d04-a185-05012bba5ac2",
    "version": 1,
    "content_hash": "sha256:69199eccf5cbc03075a7c9942ebf3b9b5cf17d31d40e904c7ce30b462046394b"
  },
  "published_grade": {
    "profile": "wrs-published-grade-1",
    "edition": "2026-10-28.1",
    "id": "chandra-toueg-unreliable-failure-detectors-1996",
    "entry_id": "chandra-toueg-unreliable-failure-detectors-1996",
    "revision": 1,
    "title": "Chandra and Toueg: unreliable failure detectors for reliable systems",
    "context": "Failure detection and asynchronous agreement",
    "track": "Failure detection and 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": "Chandra and Toueg define unreliable failure detectors through completeness and accuracy, construct crash-tolerant consensus algorithms using them, and reduce consensus and atomic broadcast to one another under the stated asynchronous model.",
    "scope": "Chandra and Toueg define unreliable failure detectors through completeness and accuracy, construct crash-tolerant consensus algorithms using them, and reduce consensus and atomic broadcast to one another under the stated asynchronous model. The main model has fixed known processes, reliable pairwise channels, fair eventual delivery/steps and crash-stop failures without recovery, not arbitrary Byzantine behavior or Sybil membership. Perpetual and eventual accuracy are distinct: the eventual class used for consensus needs a strict correct majority; stronger perpetual accuracy can tolerate n-1 crashes. These are quantified history properties, not a measured detection-success percentage. The detector is additional information, so this does not refute FLP. Growing timeouts implement the claimed class only under additional timing assumptions; pure asynchrony permits endlessly recurring false suspicions. Initial message loss invalidates the unmodified Figure 6 consensus algorithm, as the paper explicitly notes. Some classification and appendix proofs are omitted/sketched; repentance depends on algorithm/knowledge and extends the earlier failure-pattern-only formalism. The weakest-detector necessity result belongs to a separately credited three-author companion. The read 44-page author manuscript has pagination placeholders; equality to every final publisher-page detail is unverified. Full proof/model checking and claimed implementation efficiency were not independently replayed. Agreement is not 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": "Chandra and Toueg, Unreliable Failure Detectors for Reliable Distributed Systems: public 44-page author manuscript",
        "url": "https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall07/cos518/papers/unreliable.pdf",
        "locator": "Original linked work. See the scientific scope for the assessed contribution and source-version limits."
      },
      {
        "title": "MIT Journal of the ACM Bibliography: Chandra and Toueg 1996 publication and abstract",
        "url": "https://projects.csail.mit.edu/jacm/References/chandrat1996:225.html",
        "locator": "Original linked work. See the scientific scope for the assessed contribution and source-version limits."
      }
    ],
    "roles": [
      {
        "who": "Tushar Deepak Chandra",
        "did": "Original source-listed scientific author of this scoped work; byline does not determine effort fractions.",
        "credit": "SCIENCE"
      },
      {
        "who": "Sam Toueg",
        "did": "Original source-listed scientific author of this scoped work; byline does not determine effort fractions.",
        "credit": "SCIENCE"
      }
    ],
    "target": {
      "record_id": "urn:uuid:84e3ce2c-ba35-4d04-a185-05012bba5ac2",
      "version": 1,
      "content_hash": "sha256:69199eccf5cbc03075a7c9942ebf3b9b5cf17d31d40e904c7ce30b462046394b"
    },
    "scientific_correctness_certified": false,
    "independent_expert_calibration": false,
    "method": "PROPRIETARY",
    "points": "210000"
  },
  "canonical_agent_submission": false,
  "scientific_verification_awarded": false,
  "reader_guide": null,
  "reading_status": "SOURCE_LINKED_NOTE"
}