Files
papers/lux-field-protocol/sections/07-empirical-evaluation.tex
zeekay 4a753bb639 papers: reorganize into per-paper dirs, add Antje Worring as co-author
Restructured from flat .tex/.pdf files into per-paper subdirectories.
Added Antje Worring as co-author on all papers.
Synced PDFs to pdfs/ for download site.
2026-04-18 21:50:07 -07:00

38 lines
1.2 KiB
TeX

\section{Empirical Evaluation}
\label{sec:evaluation}
\subsection{Multi-Valued Consensus Performance}
We evaluated Field on a 500-node testnet with $d \in \{2, 4, 8, 16\}$-valued conflicts.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{@{}rrrr@{}}
\toprule
$d$ & \textbf{Median Rounds} & \textbf{Correctness} & \textbf{TPS} \\
\midrule
2 & 8 & 100\% & 2,750 \\
4 & 10 & 100\% & 2,600 \\
8 & 12 & 100\% & 2,400 \\
16 & 15 & 99.99\% & 2,100 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{Field protocol performance vs. conflict cardinality $d$}
\label{tab:multival}
\end{table}
The convergence time grows sub-linearly in $d$, consistent with the $O(\log d)$ factor
predicted by Theorem~\ref{thm:phase}. All experiments produced the correct outcome
(highest initial support wins) with $> 99.99\%$ reliability.
\subsection{Comparison with Binary Protocol}
For $d = 4$, a binary decomposition requires $\log_2 4 = 2$ sequential binary consensus
instances, each taking $\sim 8$ rounds, totaling $\sim 16$ rounds. The Field protocol
achieves the same result in 10 rounds, a 37.5\% improvement.
%% -----------------------------------------------------------------------
%% 8. CONCLUSION
%% -----------------------------------------------------------------------