RECORD
Committee Selection is More Similar Than You Think: Evidence from Avalanche and Stellar
Distributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing · Submitted 7 Apr 2019
abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review
The authors' main claim In this paper, we illustrate that, despite these implementation-level differences, there are strong statistical similarities between committee selection mechanisms.
The compiled record
The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.
Open the compiled record
The abstract, sentence by sentence
Increased interest in scalable and high-throughput blockchains has led to an explosion in the number of committee selection methods in the literature. Committee selection mechanisms allow consensus protocols to safely select a committee, or a small subset of validators that is permitted to vote and verify a block of transactions, in a distributed ledger. There are many such mechanisms, each with substantially different methodologies and guarantees on communication complexity, resource usage, and fairness. In this paper, we illustrate that, despite these implementation-level differences, there are strong statistical similarities between committee selection mechanisms. We concretely show this by proving that the committee selection of the Avalanche consensus protocol can be used to choose committees in the Stellar Consensus Protocol that satisfy the necessary and sufficient conditions for Byzantine agreement. We also verify these claims using simulations and numerically observe sharp phase transitions as a function of protocol parameters. Our results suggest the existence of a "statistical taxonomy" of committee selection mechanisms in distributed consensus algorithms.
background contribution method result interpretation main claim
| # | sentence | role | the authors' own work | states the main conclusion | strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s0 | Increased interest in scalable and high-throughput blockchains has led to an explosion in the number of committee selection methods in the literature. | background 1.00 | 0.04 | 0.02 | asserted 1.00 |
| s1 | Committee selection mechanisms allow consensus protocols to safely select a committee, or a small subset of validators that is permitted to vote and verify a block of transactions, in a distributed ledger. | background 1.00 | 0.04 | 0.02 | asserted 1.00 |
| s2 | There are many such mechanisms, each with substantially different methodologies and guarantees on communication complexity, resource usage, and fairness. | background 0.99 | 0.05 | 0.02 | asserted 1.00 |
| s3 | In this paper, we illustrate that, despite these implementation-level differences, there are strong statistical similarities between committee selection mechanisms. | contribution 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.76 | asserted 0.99 |
| s4 | We concretely show this by proving that the committee selection of the Avalanche consensus protocol can be used to choose committees in the Stellar Consensus Protocol that satisfy the necessary and sufficient conditions for Byzantine agreement. | result 0.68 | 0.95 | 0.64 | asserted 1.00 |
| s5 | We also verify these claims using simulations and numerically observe sharp phase transitions as a function of protocol parameters. | method 0.51 | 0.97 | 0.05 | asserted 1.00 |
| s6 | Our results suggest the existence of a "statistical taxonomy" of committee selection mechanisms in distributed consensus algorithms. | interpretation 1.00 | 0.82 | 0.53 | hedged possibility 1.00 |
What was examined, and what was not
- arXiv listing abstract v1
- full text
- figures and tables
- references and citing sentences
- relations to other papers
- P abstract
- S sections
- T body sentences
- C citations
- R cross-paper relations
The paper
Original abstract
Increased interest in scalable and high-throughput blockchains has led to an explosion in the number of committee selection methods in the literature. Committee selection mechanisms allow consensus protocols to safely select a committee, or a small subset of validators that is permitted to vote and verify a block of transactions, in a distributed ledger. There are many such mechanisms, each with substantially different methodologies and guarantees on communication complexity, resource usage, and fairness. In this paper, we illustrate that, despite these implementation-level differences, there are strong statistical similarities between committee selection mechanisms. We concretely show this by proving that the committee selection of the Avalanche consensus protocol can be used to choose committees in the Stellar Consensus Protocol that satisfy the necessary and sufficient conditions for Byzantine agreement. We also verify these claims using simulations and numerically observe sharp phase transitions as a function of protocol parameters. Our results suggest the existence of a "statistical taxonomy" of committee selection mechanisms in distributed consensus algorithms.
Human review
How the literature uses it
2 arXiv papers cite this in 2 sentences
What it cites · 1 sentence without a confident label
Cites as background 2 papers
-
Conversely, protocols such as Algorand [ref] — the first camp of protocols that use a small committee of constant or logarithmic size to perform traditional BFT — rely on public randomness to perform a cryptographic sortition of users.
Algorand · Introduction · 0.89
-
The final camp of committee selection methods are from protocols that have multiple chains or shards that each require their own set of validators [ref] .
DFINITY Technology Overview Series, Consensus System · Introduction · 0.92
Discussion
Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.