An Epistemic Analysis of Random Coordinated Attack

Abstract

The coordinated attack problem models the challenge of coordinating a joint action within a bounded time by communicating over unreliable links. It was the first distributed computing problem proven unsolvable. Its analysis also revealed the importance of common knowledge, a central concept in epistemic logic. However, the randomized version of coordinated attack, which is solvable, has not, to the best of our knowledge, been studied through the lens of probabilistic epistemic logic, where processes generate randomness by flipping coins. We present an epistemic logic framework for studying randomized algorithms that execute for a bounded number of rounds. The framework applies to coordinated attack, approximate agreement, and consensus, and supports dynamic graph models: synchronous systems in which reliable processes execute a bounded number of rounds while an adversary determines which messages are lost. Our approach combines techniques from the logical characterization of dynamic networks and task solvability with ideas from probabilistic dynamic epistemic logic. It is inspired by the operational model of Varghese and Lynch for randomized coordinated attack. More broadly, the resulting notion of probabilistic epistemic task solvability provides a foundation for the epistemic study of randomized distributed computation. Using this framework, we analyze the Varghese-Lynch algorithm from a knowledge-theoretic perspective, providing a formal treatment of the algorithm and its lower bound. As a byproduct, we strengthen the lower bound and show it is tight. The proof relies on indistinguishability arguments, demonstrating that reasoning about knowledge remains essential in the probabilistic setting. We also formalize the notion of information level introduced by Varghese and Lynch, showing that it corresponds to a specific epistemic formula.