A Range-Based Sharding (RBS) Protocol for Scalable Enterprise Blockchain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blockchain technology offers decentralization and security but struggles with scalability, particularly in enterprise settings where efficiency and controlled access are paramount. Sharding is a promising solution for private blockchains, yet existing approaches face challenges in coordinating shards, ensuring fault tolerance with limited nodes, and minimizing the high overhead of consensus mechanisms like PBFT. This paper proposes the Range-Based Sharding (RBS) Protocol, a novel sharding mechanism tailored for enterprise blockchains, implemented on Quorum. Unlike traditional sharding models such as OmniLedger and non-sharding Corda framework, RBS employs a commit-reveal scheme for secure and unbiased shard allocation, ensuring fair validator distribution while reducing cross-shard transaction delays. Our approach enhances scalability by balancing computational loads across shards, reducing consensus overhead, and improving parallel transaction execution. Experimental evaluations demonstrate that RBS achieves significantly higher throughput and lower latency compared to existing enterprise sharding frameworks, making it a viable and efficient solution for largescale blockchain deployments.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".