Blockchain PoS and PoW Consensus Algorithms for Airspace Management Application to the UAS-S4 Ehécatl
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
This paper introduces an innovative consensus algorithm for managing Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic (UTM) through blockchain technology, a highly secure consensus protocol, to allocate airspace. A smart contract was developed on the Ethereum blockchain for allocating airspace. This technique enables the division of the swarm flight zone into smaller sectors to decrease the computational complexity of the algorithm. A decentralized voting system was established within these segmented flight zones, utilizing two primary methodologies: Proof of Work (PoW) and Proof of Stake (PoS). By employing 1000 UAS-S4s across various locations and heading angles, a swarm flight zone was generated. The efficiency of the devised decentralized consensus system was assessed based on error rate and validation time. Despite PoS displaying greater efficiency in cumulative probability for block execution, the comparative analysis indicated PoW outperformed PoS concerning the potential for conflicts among UASs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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