Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Formally verified asymptotic consensus in robust networks

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2202.13833 v3 pith:2U4DNVGJ submitted 2022-02-28 cs.PL math.OC

classification cs.PLmath.OC
keywords consensusalgorithmalgorithmsasymptoticcommunitydistributedproofsystems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Distributed architectures are used to improve performance and reliability of various systems. Examples include drone swarms and load-balancing servers. An important capability of a distributed architecture is the ability to reach consensus among all its nodes. Several consensus algorithms have been proposed, and many of these algorithms come with intricate proofs of correctness, that are not mechanically checked. In the controls community, algorithms often achieve consensus asymptotically, e.g., for problems such as the design of human control systems, or the analysis of natural systems like bird flocking. This is in contrast to exact consensus algorithm such as Paxos, which have received much more recent attention in the formal methods community. This paper presents the first formal proof of an asymptotic consensus algorithm, and addresses various challenges in its formalization. Using the Coq proof assistant, we verify the correctness of a widely used consensus algorithm in the distributed controls community, the Weighted-Mean Subsequence Reduced (W-MSR) algorithm. We formalize the necessary and sufficient conditions required to achieve resilient asymptotic consensus under the assumed attacker model. During the formalization, we clarify several imprecisions in the paper proof, including an imprecision on quantifiers in the main theorem.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools