Algorithm Description Clause Samples
The Algorithm Description clause defines the specific procedures, steps, or logic that an algorithm follows to achieve its intended outcome. Typically, this clause outlines the sequence of operations, input and output requirements, and any decision-making processes involved in the algorithm's execution. For example, it may detail how data is processed, how results are generated, or how exceptions are handled. Its core practical function is to ensure that all parties have a clear, unambiguous understanding of how the algorithm operates, thereby reducing misunderstandings and facilitating consistent implementation.
Algorithm Description. The pseudocode of GWTS is in Algorithms 3-4. The Generalized Wait Till Safe algorithm is an extension of the WTS algorithm based on the same batching approach proposed in [2]. Input values at proposers are batched until a new decision round starts. Each decision round follows the two-phases approach of WTS. Note that rounds are executed asynchronously at each proposer.2 2The Byzantine reliable broadcast primitive used in [14] is designed to avoid possible confusion of messages in round based algorithms. That is exactly what we need. Algorithm 3 GWTS -Algorithm for proposer process pi 1: proposed value = proi
Algorithm Description. The pseudocode of GWTS is in Algorithms 3-4. Gener- alized Wait Till Safe algorithm is an extension of the WTS algorithm based on the same batching approach proposed in [2]. Input values at proposers are batched until a new decision round starts. Each decision round follows the two- phases approach of WTS. Note that rounds are executed asynchronously at each proposer.2 Compared to WTS, an additional challenge to be faced is to prevent adversarial processes from indefinitely postponing the decision of correct processes. A uncareful design could allow 2The Byzantine reliable broadcast primitive used in [14] is designed to avoid what we need. possible confusion of messages in round based algorithms. That is exactly Byzantine proposers to continuously pretend to have decided, thus jumping to new rounds, and clogging the proposers with a continuous stream of new values. This would make acceptors to continuously nack proposals of correct processes. We solve this problem through the acceptors. Acceptors will hep a new proposal to be decided in round r 1 when, and if, in round (r 1) a proposal has been accepted by at least a (Byzantine) quorum of acceptors (i.e., safe r = r ). In order for this to work we make acceptors to reliably broadcast their ack messages, in this way the acceptance of proposals is made public. Any correct proposer can decide, in a round r, any proposal that has been correctly accepted in round r, even if it was not proposed by itself (provided that such decision preserves the Local Stability).
Algorithm Description. The pseudocode of GWTS is in Algorithms 3-4. The Generalized Wait Till Safe algorithm is an extension of the WTS algorithm based on the same batching approach proposed in [2]. Input values at proposers are batched until a new decision round starts. Each decision round follows the two-phases approach of WTS. Note that rounds are executed asynchronously at each proposer.2 2The Byzantine reliable broadcast primitive used in [14] is designed to avoid possible confusion of messages in round based algorithms. That is exactly what we need. Algorithm 3 GWTS -Algorithm for proposer process pi 1: proposed value = proi − ∀ ∈ ∀ ∈ ∀ ∈ ∅ 2: Batch[ r N] = SvS[ k N] = d Array of value sets, one batch for each round 3: Counter[ r N] = 0 d Array of numbers, one for each round 4: r = 1 5: ts = 0 ∅