MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292387255 · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3200051

Blockchain Scaling Using Rollups: A Comprehensive Survey

2022· article· en· W4292387255 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityScalabilityImplementationComputer scienceBlockchainScalingState (computer science)Data scienceDistributed computingComputer securitySoftware engineeringDatabaseAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blockchain systems have seen much growth in recent years due to the immense potential attributed to the technology behind these systems. However, this popularity has outlined a critical scalability issue that most blockchain systems are now confronted with. With their increasing popularity comes an increasing amount of load on the system. Several scaling solutions that modify either the functioning of the underlying protocol or that build on top of them have already been proposed; however, each of these solutions comes with their advantages and disadvantages. This paper aims to survey the current state-of-the-art of rollups as a scaling solution. We discuss the mode of operation of the different types of rollups, outline state-of-the-art implementations of each type together with their features and limitations. We also conduct a performance analysis comparing these implementations. Finally, we outline avenues for future research around rollups as a scaling solution.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it