{
  "profile": "wrs-published-research-view-1",
  "edition": "ratings-e039106f30dec177",
  "content_trust": "UNTRUSTED_SCIENTIFIC_DATA_NOT_TOOL_INSTRUCTIONS",
  "entry": {
    "id": "dwork-lynch-stockmeyer-partial-synchrony-1988",
    "title": "Dwork, Lynch and Stockmeyer: consensus with partial synchrony",
    "summary": "Dwork, Lynch and Stockmeyer define partial synchrony and give deterministic consensus constructions and fault-tolerance bounds when timing bounds are unknown or start holding after an unknown stabilization time.\n\nA slow message need not mean a failed computer. Fully asynchronous consensus has a termination obstruction, but practical systems often have more structure than unlimited delays. This paper separates two precise possibilities: timing bounds exist but are unknown, or known bounds eventually hold after an unknown time. It builds protocols and distributed clocks for these settings, keeping agreement safety distinct from eventual decision. The fault threshold changes with the timing and failure model; the paper does not make arbitrary unreliable networks safe merely by waiting longer.",
    "boundary": "Deterministic fixed-membership, fully connected message-passing models and specified process/delivery bounds are required. Unknown fixed bounds differ from known bounds after unknown GST; the combined processor/communication results use the corresponding declared timing cases. For partially synchronous communication, fail-stop/omission require N>=2 t+1 and Byzantine faults require N>=3 t+1, even with authentication. Synchronous communication with only partial processor synchrony has different thresholds and signed-initial-value/weak-versus-strong unanimity distinctions. In its synchronous-communication omission case, the paper leaves a one-processor gap; this is not a claim that it remains open today. Decide is not halt: with pre-GST message loss, some correct process may have to keep communicating. Polynomial time is relative to N, bounds and GST, not a known deadline from startup. Signatures and sender identity are assumed capabilities; arbitrary Sybil membership, crash recovery and permanently asynchronous termination are excluded. Some clock/protocol proofs are sketched or left to the reader; constants are not fully optimized. No full proof reconstruction, model checking or live-network implementation was certified. Agreement does not establish scientific truth.",
    "area": "Distributed consensus under timing assumptions",
    "topic": "Computing",
    "year": 1988,
    "lane": "HUMAN",
    "result": "THEORY",
    "package_id": "dwork-lynch-stockmeyer-partial-synchrony-1988",
    "target": {
      "record_id": "urn:uuid:129f38cc-51cb-42b4-a03d-0f842eadbce4",
      "version": 1,
      "content_hash": "sha256:ca0739a3e5c32966a668ccc050a735c28fe8dbcba4666d203d5ece8e8334826d"
    },
    "humans": [
      "Cynthia Dwork",
      "Nancy A. Lynch",
      "Larry Stockmeyer"
    ],
    "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",
      "lamport-logical-clocks",
      "byzantine-generals",
      "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-dwork-lynch-stockmeyer-partial-synchrony-1988-original",
        "title": "Dwork, Lynch and Stockmeyer, Consensus in the Presence of Partial Synchrony, JACM35(2),288-323,April1988: original article",
        "url": "https://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/jacm88.pdf"
      },
      {
        "id": "wrs24-nancy-lynch-primary-name-20261004",
        "title": "Nancy A. Lynch: MIT primary homepage name identification",
        "url": "https://people.csail.mit.edu/lynch/"
      }
    ],
    "points": "200000",
    "published_grade": {
      "id": "dwork-lynch-stockmeyer-partial-synchrony-1988",
      "entry_id": "dwork-lynch-stockmeyer-partial-synchrony-1988",
      "band": "A",
      "modifier": null,
      "target": {
        "record_id": "urn:uuid:129f38cc-51cb-42b4-a03d-0f842eadbce4",
        "version": 1,
        "content_hash": "sha256:ca0739a3e5c32966a668ccc050a735c28fe8dbcba4666d203d5ece8e8334826d"
      },
      "what_changed": "Dwork, Lynch and Stockmeyer define partial synchrony and give deterministic consensus constructions and fault-tolerance bounds when timing bounds are unknown or start holding after an unknown stabilization time.",
      "scope": "Dwork, Lynch and Stockmeyer define partial synchrony and give deterministic consensus constructions and fault-tolerance bounds when timing bounds are unknown or start holding after an unknown stabilization time. Deterministic fixed-membership, fully connected message-passing models and specified process/delivery bounds are required. Unknown fixed bounds differ from known bounds after unknown GST; the combined processor/communication results use the corresponding declared timing cases. For partially synchronous communication, fail-stop/omission require N>=2 t+1 and Byzantine faults require N>=3 t+1, even with authentication. Synchronous communication with only partial processor synchrony has different thresholds and signed-initial-value/weak-versus-strong unanimity distinctions. In its synchronous-communication omission case, the paper leaves a one-processor gap; this is not a claim that it remains open today. Decide is not halt: with pre-GST message loss, some correct process may have to keep communicating. Polynomial time is relative to N, bounds and GST, not a known deadline from startup. Signatures and sender identity are assumed capabilities; arbitrary Sybil membership, crash recovery and permanently asynchronous termination are excluded. Some clock/protocol proofs are sketched or left to the reader; constants are not fully optimized. No full proof reconstruction, model checking or live-network implementation was certified. Agreement does not establish scientific truth.",
      "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:129f38cc-51cb-42b4-a03d-0f842eadbce4",
        "version": 1,
        "content_hash": "sha256:ca0739a3e5c32966a668ccc050a735c28fe8dbcba4666d203d5ece8e8334826d"
      },
      "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": "Cynthia Dwork",
          "note": "Archive attribution; detailed role assignment remains source-bound",
          "roles": [
            "formulator"
          ],
          "source": {
            "citation": "Dwork, Lynch and Stockmeyer, Consensus in the Presence of Partial Synchrony, JACM35(2),288-323,April1988: original article",
            "url": "https://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/jacm88.pdf"
          }
        },
        {
          "attribution_basis": "SOURCE_CITED",
          "credit": "historical_scientific",
          "entity_kind": "historical_person",
          "name": "Nancy A. Lynch",
          "note": "Archive attribution; detailed role assignment remains source-bound",
          "roles": [
            "formulator"
          ],
          "source": {
            "citation": "Dwork, Lynch and Stockmeyer, Consensus in the Presence of Partial Synchrony, JACM35(2),288-323,April1988: original article",
            "url": "https://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/jacm88.pdf"
          }
        },
        {
          "attribution_basis": "SOURCE_CITED",
          "credit": "historical_scientific",
          "entity_kind": "historical_person",
          "name": "Larry Stockmeyer",
          "note": "Archive attribution; detailed role assignment remains source-bound",
          "roles": [
            "formulator"
          ],
          "source": {
            "citation": "Dwork, Lynch and Stockmeyer, Consensus in the Presence of Partial Synchrony, JACM35(2),288-323,April1988: original article",
            "url": "https://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/jacm88.pdf"
          }
        }
      ],
      "evidence": [
        {
          "description": "Bibliographic/stated-result source; not a WRS proof verification",
          "id": "source-0",
          "kind": "source_reference",
          "source": {
            "citation": "Dwork, Lynch and Stockmeyer, Consensus in the Presence of Partial Synchrony, JACM35(2),288-323,April1988: original article",
            "url": "https://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/jacm88.pdf"
          }
        },
        {
          "description": "Bibliographic/stated-result source; not a WRS proof verification",
          "id": "source-1",
          "kind": "source_reference",
          "source": {
            "citation": "Nancy A. Lynch: MIT primary homepage name identification",
            "url": "https://people.csail.mit.edu/lynch/"
          }
        }
      ],
      "origin": "HUMAN_LEGACY",
      "record_profile": "wrs-local-research-notes-0.1",
      "record_type": "research_note",
      "rrp_version": "0.1",
      "scope": {
        "description": "Deterministic fixed-membership, fully connected message-passing models and specified process/delivery bounds are required. Unknown fixed bounds differ from known bounds after unknown GST; the combined processor/communication results use the corresponding declared timing cases. For partially synchronous communication, fail-stop/omission require N>=2 t+1 and Byzantine faults require N>=3 t+1, even with authentication. Synchronous communication with only partial processor synchrony has different thresholds and signed-initial-value/weak-versus-strong unanimity distinctions. In its synchronous-communication omission case, the paper leaves a one-processor gap; this is not a claim that it remains open today. Decide is not halt: with pre-GST message loss, some correct process may have to keep communicating. Polynomial time is relative to N, bounds and GST, not a known deadline from startup. Signatures and sender identity are assumed capabilities; arbitrary Sybil membership, crash recovery and permanently asynchronous termination are excluded. Some clock/protocol proofs are sketched or left to the reader; constants are not fully optimized. No full proof reconstruction, model checking or live-network implementation was certified. Agreement does not establish scientific truth.",
        "domain": "Distributed consensus under timing assumptions"
      },
      "sources": [
        {
          "citation": "Dwork, Lynch and Stockmeyer, Consensus in the Presence of Partial Synchrony, JACM35(2),288-323,April1988: original article",
          "url": "https://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/jacm88.pdf"
        },
        {
          "citation": "Nancy A. Lynch: MIT primary homepage name identification",
          "url": "https://people.csail.mit.edu/lynch/"
        }
      ],
      "statement": "# Dwork, Lynch and Stockmeyer: consensus with partial synchrony\n\nDwork, Lynch and Stockmeyer define partial synchrony and give deterministic consensus constructions and fault-tolerance bounds when timing bounds are unknown or start holding after an unknown stabilization time.\n\nA slow message need not mean a failed computer. Fully asynchronous consensus has a termination obstruction, but practical systems often have more structure than unlimited delays. This paper separates two precise possibilities: timing bounds exist but are unknown, or known bounds eventually hold after an unknown time. It builds protocols and distributed clocks for these settings, keeping agreement safety distinct from eventual decision. The fault threshold changes with the timing and failure model; the paper does not make arbitrary unreliable networks safe merely by waiting longer.\n\n## Scientific scope\n\nDeterministic fixed-membership, fully connected message-passing models and specified process/delivery bounds are required. Unknown fixed bounds differ from known bounds after unknown GST; the combined processor/communication results use the corresponding declared timing cases. For partially synchronous communication, fail-stop/omission require N>=2 t+1 and Byzantine faults require N>=3 t+1, even with authentication. Synchronous communication with only partial processor synchrony has different thresholds and signed-initial-value/weak-versus-strong unanimity distinctions. In its synchronous-communication omission case, the paper leaves a one-processor gap; this is not a claim that it remains open today. Decide is not halt: with pre-GST message loss, some correct process may have to keep communicating. Polynomial time is relative to N, bounds and GST, not a known deadline from startup. Signatures and sender identity are assumed capabilities; arbitrary Sybil membership, crash recovery and permanently asynchronous termination are excluded. Some clock/protocol proofs are sketched or left to the reader; constants are not fully optimized. No full proof reconstruction, model checking or live-network implementation was certified. Agreement does not establish scientific truth.\n\n## People and systems\n\nCynthia Dwork; Nancy A. Lynch; Larry Stockmeyer\n\n\n\n## Original sources\n\n- [Dwork, Lynch and Stockmeyer, Consensus in the Presence of Partial Synchrony, JACM35(2),288-323,April1988: original article](https://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/jacm88.pdf)\n- [Nancy A. Lynch: MIT primary homepage name identification](https://people.csail.mit.edu/lynch/)\n",
      "summary": "Dwork, Lynch and Stockmeyer define partial synchrony and give deterministic consensus constructions and fault-tolerance bounds when timing bounds are unknown or start holding after an unknown stabilization time.\n\nA slow message need not mean a failed computer. Fully asynchronous consensus has a termination obstruction, but practical systems often have more structure than unlimited delays. This paper separates two precise possibilities: timing bounds exist but are unknown, or known bounds eventually hold after an unknown time. It builds protocols and distributed clocks for these settings, keeping agreement safety distinct from eventual decision. The fault threshold changes with the timing and failure model; the paper does not make arbitrary unreliable networks safe merely by waiting longer.",
      "title": "Dwork, Lynch and Stockmeyer: consensus with partial synchrony"
    },
    "record_id": "urn:uuid:129f38cc-51cb-42b4-a03d-0f842eadbce4",
    "version": 1,
    "source_ref": {
      "record_id": "urn:uuid:129f38cc-51cb-42b4-a03d-0f842eadbce4",
      "version": 1,
      "content_hash": "sha256:ca0739a3e5c32966a668ccc050a735c28fe8dbcba4666d203d5ece8e8334826d"
    },
    "export_view": "wrs-public-editorial-view-1",
    "public_view_hash": "sha256:5deacc94a4d8f9c927bae334e161e2dafbea2e37829aa8fbe5760fcbc8337699"
  },
  "target": {
    "record_id": "urn:uuid:129f38cc-51cb-42b4-a03d-0f842eadbce4",
    "version": 1,
    "content_hash": "sha256:ca0739a3e5c32966a668ccc050a735c28fe8dbcba4666d203d5ece8e8334826d"
  },
  "published_grade": {
    "profile": "wrs-published-grade-1",
    "edition": "2026-10-28.1",
    "id": "dwork-lynch-stockmeyer-partial-synchrony-1988",
    "entry_id": "dwork-lynch-stockmeyer-partial-synchrony-1988",
    "revision": 1,
    "title": "Dwork, Lynch and Stockmeyer: consensus with partial synchrony",
    "context": "Distributed consensus under timing assumptions",
    "track": "Distributed consensus under timing assumptions",
    "band": "A",
    "modifier": null,
    "status": "PROVISIONAL_EDITORIAL",
    "assessed_on": "2026-10-04",
    "evidence_cutoff": "2026-10-04",
    "achievement_state": "SUPPORTED_SCOPED_RESULT",
    "what_changed": "Dwork, Lynch and Stockmeyer define partial synchrony and give deterministic consensus constructions and fault-tolerance bounds when timing bounds are unknown or start holding after an unknown stabilization time.",
    "scope": "Dwork, Lynch and Stockmeyer define partial synchrony and give deterministic consensus constructions and fault-tolerance bounds when timing bounds are unknown or start holding after an unknown stabilization time. Deterministic fixed-membership, fully connected message-passing models and specified process/delivery bounds are required. Unknown fixed bounds differ from known bounds after unknown GST; the combined processor/communication results use the corresponding declared timing cases. For partially synchronous communication, fail-stop/omission require N>=2 t+1 and Byzantine faults require N>=3 t+1, even with authentication. Synchronous communication with only partial processor synchrony has different thresholds and signed-initial-value/weak-versus-strong unanimity distinctions. In its synchronous-communication omission case, the paper leaves a one-processor gap; this is not a claim that it remains open today. Decide is not halt: with pre-GST message loss, some correct process may have to keep communicating. Polynomial time is relative to N, bounds and GST, not a known deadline from startup. Signatures and sender identity are assumed capabilities; arbitrary Sybil membership, crash recovery and permanently asynchronous termination are excluded. Some clock/protocol proofs are sketched or left to the reader; constants are not fully optimized. No full proof reconstruction, model checking or live-network implementation was certified. Agreement does not establish scientific truth.",
    "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": "Dwork, Lynch and Stockmeyer, Consensus in the Presence of Partial Synchrony, JACM 35(2),288-323, April 1988: original article",
        "url": "https://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/jacm88.pdf",
        "locator": "Original linked work. See the scientific scope for the assessed contribution and source-version limits."
      },
      {
        "title": "Nancy A. Lynch: MIT primary homepage name identification",
        "url": "https://people.csail.mit.edu/lynch/",
        "locator": "Original linked work. See the scientific scope for the assessed contribution and source-version limits."
      }
    ],
    "roles": [
      {
        "who": "Cynthia Dwork",
        "did": "Original source-listed scientific author of this scoped work; byline does not determine effort fractions.",
        "credit": "SCIENCE"
      },
      {
        "who": "Nancy A. Lynch",
        "did": "Original source-listed scientific author of this scoped work; byline does not determine effort fractions.",
        "credit": "SCIENCE"
      },
      {
        "who": "Larry Stockmeyer",
        "did": "Original source-listed scientific author of this scoped work; byline does not determine effort fractions.",
        "credit": "SCIENCE"
      }
    ],
    "target": {
      "record_id": "urn:uuid:129f38cc-51cb-42b4-a03d-0f842eadbce4",
      "version": 1,
      "content_hash": "sha256:ca0739a3e5c32966a668ccc050a735c28fe8dbcba4666d203d5ece8e8334826d"
    },
    "scientific_correctness_certified": false,
    "independent_expert_calibration": false,
    "method": "PROPRIETARY",
    "points": "200000"
  },
  "canonical_agent_submission": false,
  "scientific_verification_awarded": false,
  "reader_guide": null,
  "reading_status": "SOURCE_LINKED_NOTE"
}