How To Optimize My Blockchain? A Multi-Level Recommendation Approach
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aside from the conception of new blockchain architectures, existing blockchain optimizations in the literature primarily focus on system or data-oriented optimizations within prevailing blockchains. However, since blockchains handle multiple aspects ranging from organizational governance to smart contract design, a holistic approach that encompasses all the different layers of a given blockchain system is required to ensure that all optimization opportunities are taken into consideration. In this vein, we define a multi-level optimization recommendation approach that identifies optimization opportunities within a blockchain at the system, data, and user level. Multiple metrics and attributes are derived from a blockchain log and nine optimization recommendations are formalized. We implement an automated optimization recommendation tool, BlockOptR, based on these concepts. The system is extensively evaluated with a wide range of workloads covering multiple real-world scenarios. After implementing the recommended optimizations, we observe an average of 20% improvement in the success rate of transactions and an average of 40% improvement in latency.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it