WRSWorld Research StateContribute
WORLD RESEARCH STATE

Chandra and Toueg: unreliable failure detectors for reliable systems

Contribution grade

Failure detection and asynchronous agreement · Failure detection and asynchronous agreement

Reference score210,000Provisional editorial estimate of this exact contribution; its grade is assessed separately.

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.

Scientific 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

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.

Contributors

Provisional WRS assessment, edition 2026-10-16.1. Independent expert calibration is pending. This grade does not certify correctness or assign ownership.

Full scientific record · Browse contribution grades · Request a correction