MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297990446 · doi:10.18280/ria.360410

Performance Evaluation of E-Voting Based on Hyperledger Fabric Blockchain Platform

2022· article· en· W4297990446 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shatha H. Saeed, Suha Mohammed Hadi, Ali H. Hamad

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLatency (audio)ThroughputBlock (permutation group theory)Block sizeScalabilityDatabase transactionVotingOperating systemComputer networkDatabaseKey (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Permissioned blockchain platforms have become more prevalent in a wide range of applications. These, such as hyperledger fabric platforms, are sensitive to latency and throughput. In this work, the E-voting case study adopts a hyperledger fabric platform where performance evaluation has been studied in terms of scalability, latency, throughput, CPU usage, and memory allocation. Three scenarios were performed with varying transaction rates, block size, and organizations. Another two scenarios were performed, first with varying block timeout and second, measuring the impact of CPUs and memory allocation on the proposed fabric’s entities (peers, orderer, couchDB, chaincode, etc.). The result shows that an increase in block size will significantly affect metrics such as latency and throughput. Good results were obtained with high transaction send rates on large block size. Similarly, low performance is obtained using a small block size with increased send rates. Also, it was noticed that increasing the number of organizations will increase latency and decrease the throughput. Therefore, in applications with a large number of concurrent transactions, to maintain high throughput, block timeouts and block size should be large. On The other hand, the number of CPUs and amount of memory allocation would impact hyperledger fabric performance.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.002
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 score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicBlockchain Technology Applications and SecurityFrench-language works237,207